Dang it, I'm just saying that computers are not the thing for every kid.
I agree with you, for goodness sakes. No, classes should not be as easy as possible. But they should be as inviting as possible. Does this mean the class should be easy? No, it means that if it can be structured so that more kids give it a chance, that's a good thing.
There should absolutely be opportunities to learn to program in junior high/high school. There should even be lots of them. And all kids should be comfortable with computers.
But you know, computers are not the only thing to get a kid's brain going. It's not going to work for everyone.
I'm not suggesting that everyone become a career programmer--just that all kinds of people can benefit from knowing how to program.
Yes, but I think people can also benefit from many other things as well, but the important thing is finding what each individual gets the most out of. I don't think that will be programming for everyone.
The computer is THE single most powerful tool that man has ever created. Not since the fence--which allowed the human race to change from wandering predatory animals to stable civilizations--has a tool ever had the potential to change things the way computer have. Sure we (the human race) only use them for email and spreadsheets at the moment.
Yeah, and it's becoming more complicated every year. Maybe learning a programming language like C++ is useful now, and 20 years ago knowing assembly was the most useful.
Learning LISP or Mindstorm or whatever else is a useful thing, not for the language itself, but more for the problem solving and logic. Well, for some kids programming might be the way to develop these skills. For other kids it might be something else. Whether computers are powerful or not, not everyone wants to be a computer programmer.
Who knows what the computer will be in 25 years? Will it even be a computer as we know it?
The thing that is important for teaching kids is finding the things that excite them. For a good number of kids, computer programming will be it. For others, it will be anthropology, or biology, or cooking... or whatever else. There's a lot of different people out there.
You're absolutely right: education should be ``pleasing''. Kids should never be required to learn anything that is difficult.
Why should these two things be mutually exclusive? Why can't a kid enjoy what they are learning even though it is a difficult topic. Or, if something is complicated, why does that mean students should have a hard time with it? Maybe there's a way to teach it so that you have the best of both worlds.
Learning languages and studying programming is different from learning a language. There is a much higher learning curve to programming. Almost any child who starts learning a foreign language will pick it up naturally. Later on in life it becomes much more difficult to learn them. That's great that you took French. I took German, French, and Spanish and I only wish it had been available earlier. But I'm glad that not everyone was forced to study the advanced language classes. See the difference? The thing that really gets me excited to learn might be different from somebody else.
As far as being ``non-intimidating'', who are you talking about, you or your kids? Last time I checked kids weren't intimidated by information, except where it was socially discouraged not to be.
Guess what, some kids will be intimidated. Some kids are intimidated by math, some by reading, etc. I'm not saying that all learning must be watered down... I'm saying that if the environment can be fun and inviting, why the heck not teach in that way? So, if computers can be non-intimidating, a few kids that might have given up might not. If this is at the expense of having actual content to what is being taught, then that's a different story.
As for driving... it's kind of different. Yes, forcing teens in driver's ed to learn more about the car will make them better at car maintenance. But I think learning to program a computer is more like knowing how to do repairs on the car, not just checking the oil and changing the tires.
Computers are used in many areas of life, so people should be comfortable with them, and be able to do simple maintenance.
My point is, learning is good. Challenging yourself is good. But not everyone wants to be challenged by computers, they just want to or have to use them. Yes, the more they know the better... but computers are just one of millions of things that are important in life. We can't be experts at all of them.
Well, I didn't even mean that they had to be Word-specific. That is very true what you said though... Word is the thing now, but in 10 years? Perhaps not.
But I think things along the lines of using a word processor like Word, getting around on the computer, and things like that are what all kids should be learning. Programming just isn't for everyone, IMO.
There is simply no value in a "non-intimidating" anything when it comes to education.
Oh no? I hope you're not a teacher. Yes, let's intimidate the kids. Good idea. That will get lots of students interested. Any kid who finds computer usage to be a daunting task is just not trying.
My point is that if a kid gets to play around on a Mac box, the experience will be much more user friendly. The kid will be able to jump in and figure things out quicker, and perhaps a few people who would have just been frustrated and given up on it won't be.
if id been using linux since 1st grade, in 10th grade computer classes would be more like, "Honors Compiler Design" not WORD!
Yes, but is this an essential course for everyone to learn? Will most people need to be able to program compilers in their professional lives, or use Word?
I say have the advanced programming classes. Have good teachers to teach them. But I don't see why even most students would want or need to take them.
For kids who want to learn what makes computers tick, sure.
In driver's ed you don't learn to build a car, you learn to drive it. Likewise, in junior high/high school computer class you learn to operate a computer, not program it.
Kids who want to delve into computers further should be able to do so, in specialty courses.
Not to say that the general classes should be Windows. I think you'd have more kids be genuinely excited to use computers if they were Macs, because Mac OS (X) is just such a pleasing, non-intimidating platform.
I always liked how any person that needed to do something sneaky had a perfectly made, totally lifelike mask of whatever other person they needed. It's especially good how at the end, while being shot at and with glass and whatnot flying all over the place, Tom Cruise manages to apply a mask to himself such that it fools the bad guys. I mean, it's not like it's just some halloween mask here.
Unless you mean to imply that you can use the service without signing up for it, logic would seem to be on his side.
I did not say you only have to buy a Mac to sign up. You don't have to.
It's not like you need to prove you own a Mac when you sign up, or give some serial number. You just have to, at some point in your life, have access to a Macintosh with an Internet connection for 5 minutes.
Go to a library or the Apple store or a friend's house, sign up, and there you go.
No you don't. I use my mac.com account on my Windows box at work. Yes, they are paid for by Apple, who makes money from hardware sales among other things. But you don't need a mac to use it, only to sign up. And you can sign up for as many accounts as you want. So in that sense it is pretty free.
There is no centralised free disk service like the iDisk, but on the other hand remember you effectively pay for the "free" mac.com services when you buy a Mac.
Huh? There's never any fees though and you can have as many accounts as you want. Your statement is like saying you effectively pay for "free" Linux when you buy an x86 machine.
I was going to make the same suggestion, but then it occurred to me: This isn't a MacWorld, or even a Seybold. This conference is very specifically targeted to developers.
Good point. I guess if there's any keynote that wouldn't be shown at an Apple Store, it would be the developer one. I feel like Mac fans would go to an Apple Store to see it if it were being shown... but that doesn't mean it _will_ be.
I hear they usually play the keynotes at Apple Stores. I'm not familiar with New York, but there are three Apple Stores in that state: in Buffalo, Albany, and West Nyack.
Maybe these aren't near NYC, but just thought I'd mention them.
That's true. Since we're talking about a hotel, whatever people do is only going to last the during of their stay. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, unless it bogs down the network.
I suppose you could have it allow all DHCP traffic through, which should be easy enough, and then have your DHCP operate on a different subnet than the IPs assigned to the devices themselves. Or would the routing tables be too weird for that?
I don't know. Seems like a good approach, but I really don't know if it's possible.
You'd probably want to limit it to one IP per device . . . Or not. Hm.
Yeah, it's gotta be one IP per device. Because once you have even two people on the same one, you have the chance that they will have the same static IP. Seems like a remote chance, but I could see two people with the IP of, say, 192.168.1.5 or something.
That's what I was thinking too. Those translators have to be able to do DHCP as well though, don't forget.
mark
Re:I know what I would do...
on
Paintable LCDs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, as far as distortion, I don't think this would solve it.
Let's say you have an image on your front and it matches up with what's behind you. I'm looking at you from straight ahead. Now you move your right leg forward towards me. Either that distorts the image on your leg (as it is now angled), or there is some complex mechanism that can account for all body movements and provide the reverse of this distortion in order to cancel it out and make it look normal from head on.
That's kind of tough to explain, did it make sense?
Not to mention the fact that I would have to be looking at you from head on.
mark
Re:Where would you put your apps?
on
Paintable LCDs
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I was just teasing you anyways. I just read it and was like "ugh!!!"
Re:Where would you put your apps?
on
Paintable LCDs
·
· Score: 2
BSOD - Blue Shit Of Death
Sorry couldn't resist...
You should have.
Re:I know what I would do...
on
Paintable LCDs
·
· Score: 2
Ha, very interesting idea... I think the shape of the suit and just moving around in general would distort the image though.
Except for the fact that there used to be other companies that made macs (radius, umax, etc) before apple nixed 'em and (re)turned the mac market into a monopoly.
But you see, Apple isn't really a monopoly anyway.
Those Mac clone makers were not forced to make a Mac clone because Apple had a monopoly. They chose to make Mac clones. Once Apple nixed the clones, these companies had other places to go if they so chose.
My point is, it is quite odd to say that Apple has a monopoly on its 5% of the market. It doesn't have much meaning at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Dang it, I'm just saying that computers are not the thing for every kid.
I agree with you, for goodness sakes. No, classes should not be as easy as possible. But they should be as inviting as possible. Does this mean the class should be easy? No, it means that if it can be structured so that more kids give it a chance, that's a good thing.
There should absolutely be opportunities to learn to program in junior high/high school. There should even be lots of them. And all kids should be comfortable with computers.
But you know, computers are not the only thing to get a kid's brain going. It's not going to work for everyone.
mark
Yes, but I think people can also benefit from many other things as well, but the important thing is finding what each individual gets the most out of. I don't think that will be programming for everyone.
mark
Yeah, and it's becoming more complicated every year. Maybe learning a programming language like C++ is useful now, and 20 years ago knowing assembly was the most useful.
Learning LISP or Mindstorm or whatever else is a useful thing, not for the language itself, but more for the problem solving and logic. Well, for some kids programming might be the way to develop these skills. For other kids it might be something else. Whether computers are powerful or not, not everyone wants to be a computer programmer.
Who knows what the computer will be in 25 years? Will it even be a computer as we know it?
The thing that is important for teaching kids is finding the things that excite them. For a good number of kids, computer programming will be it. For others, it will be anthropology, or biology, or cooking... or whatever else. There's a lot of different people out there.
mark
Why should these two things be mutually exclusive? Why can't a kid enjoy what they are learning even though it is a difficult topic. Or, if something is complicated, why does that mean students should have a hard time with it? Maybe there's a way to teach it so that you have the best of both worlds.
Learning languages and studying programming is different from learning a language. There is a much higher learning curve to programming. Almost any child who starts learning a foreign language will pick it up naturally. Later on in life it becomes much more difficult to learn them. That's great that you took French. I took German, French, and Spanish and I only wish it had been available earlier. But I'm glad that not everyone was forced to study the advanced language classes. See the difference? The thing that really gets me excited to learn might be different from somebody else.
Guess what, some kids will be intimidated. Some kids are intimidated by math, some by reading, etc. I'm not saying that all learning must be watered down... I'm saying that if the environment can be fun and inviting, why the heck not teach in that way? So, if computers can be non-intimidating, a few kids that might have given up might not. If this is at the expense of having actual content to what is being taught, then that's a different story.
As for driving... it's kind of different. Yes, forcing teens in driver's ed to learn more about the car will make them better at car maintenance. But I think learning to program a computer is more like knowing how to do repairs on the car, not just checking the oil and changing the tires.
Computers are used in many areas of life, so people should be comfortable with them, and be able to do simple maintenance.
My point is, learning is good. Challenging yourself is good. But not everyone wants to be challenged by computers, they just want to or have to use them. Yes, the more they know the better... but computers are just one of millions of things that are important in life. We can't be experts at all of them.
mark
Well, I didn't even mean that they had to be Word-specific. That is very true what you said though... Word is the thing now, but in 10 years? Perhaps not.
But I think things along the lines of using a word processor like Word, getting around on the computer, and things like that are what all kids should be learning. Programming just isn't for everyone, IMO.
mark
Oh no? I hope you're not a teacher. Yes, let's intimidate the kids. Good idea. That will get lots of students interested. Any kid who finds computer usage to be a daunting task is just not trying.
My point is that if a kid gets to play around on a Mac box, the experience will be much more user friendly. The kid will be able to jump in and figure things out quicker, and perhaps a few people who would have just been frustrated and given up on it won't be.
mark
Yes, but is this an essential course for everyone to learn? Will most people need to be able to program compilers in their professional lives, or use Word?
I say have the advanced programming classes. Have good teachers to teach them. But I don't see why even most students would want or need to take them.
mark
For kids who want to learn what makes computers tick, sure.
In driver's ed you don't learn to build a car, you learn to drive it. Likewise, in junior high/high school computer class you learn to operate a computer, not program it.
Kids who want to delve into computers further should be able to do so, in specialty courses.
Not to say that the general classes should be Windows. I think you'd have more kids be genuinely excited to use computers if they were Macs, because Mac OS (X) is just such a pleasing, non-intimidating platform.
mark
Doesn't that just mean giving up?
"Well, they can force us to buy licenses of Windows we don't need... we might as well make the best of it and figure out uses for all the extras."
I guess they should also just install Windows on any *nix machines too?
Would be a shame if they got to choose, huh?
mark
I always liked how any person that needed to do something sneaky had a perfectly made, totally lifelike mask of whatever other person they needed. It's especially good how at the end, while being shot at and with glass and whatnot flying all over the place, Tom Cruise manages to apply a mask to himself such that it fools the bad guys. I mean, it's not like it's just some halloween mask here.
I felt like the movie hated me.
mark
It's not the matrix running slow, it just seems that way because you've had too many beers already.
mark
I did not say you only have to buy a Mac to sign up. You don't have to.
It's not like you need to prove you own a Mac when you sign up, or give some serial number. You just have to, at some point in your life, have access to a Macintosh with an Internet connection for 5 minutes.
Go to a library or the Apple store or a friend's house, sign up, and there you go.
mark
No you don't. I use my mac.com account on my Windows box at work. Yes, they are paid for by Apple, who makes money from hardware sales among other things. But you don't need a mac to use it, only to sign up. And you can sign up for as many accounts as you want. So in that sense it is pretty free.
mark
Huh? There's never any fees though and you can have as many accounts as you want. Your statement is like saying you effectively pay for "free" Linux when you buy an x86 machine.
mark
Good point. I guess if there's any keynote that wouldn't be shown at an Apple Store, it would be the developer one. I feel like Mac fans would go to an Apple Store to see it if it were being shown... but that doesn't mean it _will_ be.
mark
I hear they usually play the keynotes at Apple Stores. I'm not familiar with New York, but there are three Apple Stores in that state: in Buffalo, Albany, and West Nyack.
Maybe these aren't near NYC, but just thought I'd mention them.
mark
From what I've heard, Home Movies _is_ animated with Flash this season. And also, Home Movies is a good show.
mark
That's true. Since we're talking about a hotel, whatever people do is only going to last the during of their stay. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, unless it bogs down the network.
mark
I don't know. Seems like a good approach, but I really don't know if it's possible.
Yeah, it's gotta be one IP per device. Because once you have even two people on the same one, you have the chance that they will have the same static IP. Seems like a remote chance, but I could see two people with the IP of, say, 192.168.1.5 or something.
mark
That's what I was thinking too. Those translators have to be able to do DHCP as well though, don't forget.
mark
Well, as far as distortion, I don't think this would solve it.
Let's say you have an image on your front and it matches up with what's behind you. I'm looking at you from straight ahead. Now you move your right leg forward towards me. Either that distorts the image on your leg (as it is now angled), or there is some complex mechanism that can account for all body movements and provide the reverse of this distortion in order to cancel it out and make it look normal from head on.
That's kind of tough to explain, did it make sense?
Not to mention the fact that I would have to be looking at you from head on.
mark
Sorry, I was just teasing you anyways. I just read it and was like "ugh!!!"
You should have.
Ha, very interesting idea... I think the shape of the suit and just moving around in general would distort the image though.
mark
But you see, Apple isn't really a monopoly anyway.
Those Mac clone makers were not forced to make a Mac clone because Apple had a monopoly. They chose to make Mac clones. Once Apple nixed the clones, these companies had other places to go if they so chose.
My point is, it is quite odd to say that Apple has a monopoly on its 5% of the market. It doesn't have much meaning at all.
mark