this offer is available only to K-12 teachers and accredited Faculty members of post-secondary colleges - surely secondary school teachers are *most* likely to want/need these tools, and are more likely to be getting to students when they're both aware of the tools being used on them but also open to *uhm* suggestion...?
I think maybe you're getting American educational terminology mixed up. In the US, there's elementary education (Kindergarten, or K, for 5-6 year olds, plus grades 1 through 8 for 6 through 14 year olds; most school systems nowadays divide them up into K-4 elementary schools and 5-8 "middle" schools, but there are other variations), high school or secondary education (grades 9 - 12, 14 to 18 year olds), and post-secondary education ("colleges" are either 2-year Junior Colleges or Community Colleges, offerring the Associate's degree, or 4-year institutions offerring Bachelor's degrees; "universities" being institutions that offer graduate and/or professional degrees in addition to "undergraduate" (bachelors) degrees).
Presumably it wouldn't be that difficult to use one of the various packaging tools (Installshield etc) to figure out what changes are made by an IIS installation on an NT/2000 box, and replicate them with some combination of scripting host or resource-kit command line tools.
That's a mighty presumption. Web servers are not completely trivial apps. They might want to consider writing a modified version of Apache that would be user-friendly to IIS users. Would make for a very nice, smooth transition point to *NIX/Apache systems, too.
Pierre Menard, Author of "Enter Sandman". (Another of Borges' stories will illustrate how low the odds of getting a Metallica song out of/dev/urandom are, "Library of Babel").
I parsed it diffferently, as "many are so rare that just 10% of the Chinese population can reproduce them (meaning the set)", while you are parsing it as "many are so rare that for some of them, just 10% of the Chinese population can reproduce them (there are individual characters that only 10% of the population can reproduce). Anyway, it's probably still wrong, as there are many archaic characters that are understood only by scholars of Chinese literature, whom I would beg to suggest do not make up 10% of the population.
The actual number is more on the order of 100,000, the Kanxi is not exhausitive (as you should be able to guess from your link, given the fact that it was published in the early 18th century.
Look at the Unicode FAQ at http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/han_cjk.html . Unicode also is not exhausitive.
But Chinese contains more than 10k characters, many so rare that just 10% of the Chinese population can reproduce them.
You're off by at least one order of magnitude on the first figure, maybe 2, and the second figure (percentage of the Chinese population who can reproduce all valid charactes in the Chinese writing system) is almost by definition 0%. Not that this undercuts your argument.
Actually, the best thing to do would be to create a new unification system for alphabetic scripts, matching the Han unification for Chinese-based scripts, just for use with URLs. That way Cyrillic o, omicron, and Latin o would be the same DNS codepoint. Frankly, if you're going to look at a website with a Chinese URL, you're going to know Chinese anyway.
There is a Soyuz docked at the station at all times. The reason there are only 3 permanent crew of the station is because only 3 persons can safely return in a Soyuz. The press conference is about to begin.
Columbia is I believe the only shuttle that cannot dock with the station. (was, I suppose I ought to say.)
Reread the thread. You were talking about the source code to an app, not about example code. Yes, their documentation sucks.
And let's not be giving credit to Apple for their developer tools being free here, OK? The credit belongs to GNU. Let's at least get that straight.
Last I checked, InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder are not GNU code. I'd be interested in seeing the licenses if they are. And yet they are included in the Developer Tools.
One can use GCC in Windows; but almost noone does. And Windows certainly doesn't provide it, now, does it?
If you want to use C++, use Carbon. No one is stopping you.
You did, by complaining about the number of mouse buttons. Linux users are used to learning different key bindings for different apps anyway; learning to command-click wouldn't phase them.
GNU Chess isn't a Darwin application. It's an OS X application, writting in Cocoa. So what's it doing in the Darwin section of the web site?
Apple calls the "open source" section of their website "Darwin," even though it contains links to more than just the source to Darwin. I don't know why.
They don't share the technology. They don't give you access. In this regard, they're actually worse than Microsoft.
Really? Could you point out one, just one URL to source code for a Microsoft app that's publicly available on a web site link, regardless of whether or not the search engine can find it?
Look, however annoyed you might be that it took 2 years to get the source code for their version of GNU Chess, it's there now. I don't think you can say the same for MS. Another example: Visual Studio = $1K / Apple Developer Tools = free download; yeah, there are more bells and whistles in VS.NET, but there is NO equivalent for Windows that's free. The cheaper student versions of the Visual Studio apps do not create full distributable binaries, as I understand.
Remember, I'm responding to the "myths", my point being Apple has standardized on a less capable mouse paradigm, namely one-button.
So then the fact that copying from one folder to another on the same volume in Windows with the mouse requires you to hold down the control key, and moving from a folder on one volume to a folder on another volume requires you to hold down the shift key, that's a failure in the capability of the three button mouse, eh?
When I need three button, I hook my MacAlly mouse in, a three button scroll mouse. Presto-chango: three button mouse and scroll wheel functionality.
Now, if I want one-button mouse functionality on a Windows machine, what do I have to do? (I can imagine some disabilities might make a one button mouse more desirable than a three button one, and others make a 3 button mouse more desirable than a one button mouse).
It's pretty simple to find: apple.com, click on OS X, click on Darwin. At the bottom of the page, click on Projects. At the bottom of that page is the link. So it's only three levels below the Apple home page.
It isn't supposed to be this way with GNU code. The instructions for how to obtain the source are supposed to be included with the binaries, are they not?
Are you sure they're not? Did you open the GNU Chess application folder and check (remember, the application icons in OS X are actually representative of folders, not of apps). I don't have my mac here today so I can't check myself, but it might be worth checking yourself.
If you want to run KDE or Gnome, buy a PC instead.
One thing I've discovered: I only want one box, and one laptop. More than that is too much trouble to deal with. And they're both going to be Macs. So if I want to run software that's only available in Gnome (and there's some), I'm glad that I can run it on the Mac.
'idée fixe' (difficult to translate, something like an unchangeable opinion)
The usual "translation" is just to cite the phrase in French; it usually implies more than an unchangeable opinion, rather one that is also almost obsessive.
If I even tried that, my Shakespeare professor would have either laughed or scowled in my face.
I don't want to say what mine would have done. Awful.
Yes, that one is the Tempest.
And the types you're (respondent to my original posting, not parent) talking about: maybe they're more prevalent now than they were in the late 80s and early 90s when I was in u and grad. Back then, they were mostly the rare fools. Yes, they existed. But so did science profs who just gave everyone a 10 year old test noone could possibly pass then fudged the scale to make sure that the correct percentage got the correct grades. There are plenty of ways of inflating grades.
I can't say I heard of anyone getting lower than a C for humantities classes at RPI either.
RPI doesn't, as far as I know, have any higher level humanities programs. Does it? Do you think that if you had taken an upper level research seminar in the humanities in a program that was in the upper echelon of humanities programs, you would have had as easy a time as you did at RPI? Remember, RPI is ranked high for engineering programs; it is nowhere as far as humanities programs (which cannot be said of Stanford and MIT, for instance).
For my part, I took 36 ch of science courses, as a major, i.e., not "rocks for jocks"; switching to a hum major later on. The difficulty was about equal (I never took "Mythology 101" or "Art Appreciation," either). Different kinds of difficulty, but equal.
Now if one simply wants to be honest and says that unlike most knowledge in the humanity the test is manipulating the professor, then that's fine. Call it sophistry 101. Heavens, in a sense that's what classic rhetoric was about - speaking well. In our cynical age perhaps the distinction between sophistry and rhetoric is to be overlooked.
I remember that my (hard science, like orgo) classes back in the 80s most tests were scaled. The scale was basically a way of making sure that the grades reflected the outcome the department wanted, regardless of whether or not the students lived up to their expectations. I also remember scales that were flattened at both ends, so that those with a 97 raw score were only 10 points above those with an 80 raw score, who were 10 points above those with a 55 raw score.
I also remember manipulation of professors being used to affect whether or not one was allowed to do makeup work, etc. But that is for another day.
The point here is that the system is bad everywhere. Yes, there is a degree to which postmodernist approaches have been misused in the humanities to dumb down the humanities. (Remember, though, that language classes are also part of the humanities. It's pretty hard to manipulate the results on a grammar test in a Sanskrit class.) But the idea that some (inlcuding the original poster of the article) have that humanities is by its very nature intellectually less rigorous than the sciences is indicative of ignorance, not experience. Remember that most of those on/. who are talking about getting As and Bs in hum classes are talking about getting them in introductory hum classes for non-majors. I imagine that in a research proseminar things would look mighty different.
Put it another way. The same semester I got an A in an astronomy class, and a C in a language class. Does that mean that astronomy is easier than the language I was studying? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that the language prof. graded harder than the astronomy prof.? No, it doesn't. Does it mean I should have been an astronomer? No, it doesn't. It means I took an introductory astronomy class with no calculus requirements, and an advanced language class where I had to read hundreds of pages of a text in another language at a high level of comprehension.
Slashdot Mirror
ASTRONOMERS, not astrologists. An "astrologist" is, like an astrologer (the more usual form), someone who believes in horoscopes.
this offer is available only to K-12 teachers and accredited Faculty members of post-secondary colleges - surely secondary school teachers are *most* likely to want/need these tools, and are more likely to be getting to students when they're both aware of the tools being used on them but also open to *uhm* suggestion...?
I think maybe you're getting American educational terminology mixed up. In the US, there's elementary education (Kindergarten, or K, for 5-6 year olds, plus grades 1 through 8 for 6 through 14 year olds; most school systems nowadays divide them up into K-4 elementary schools and 5-8 "middle" schools, but there are other variations), high school or secondary education (grades 9 - 12, 14 to 18 year olds), and post-secondary education ("colleges" are either 2-year Junior Colleges or Community Colleges, offerring the Associate's degree, or 4-year institutions offerring Bachelor's degrees; "universities" being institutions that offer graduate and/or professional degrees in addition to "undergraduate" (bachelors) degrees).
Presumably it wouldn't be that difficult to use one of the various packaging tools (Installshield etc) to figure out what changes are made by an IIS installation on an NT/2000 box, and replicate them with some combination of scripting host or resource-kit command line tools.
That's a mighty presumption. Web servers are not completely trivial apps. They might want to consider writing a modified version of Apache that would be user-friendly to IIS users. Would make for a very nice, smooth transition point to *NIX/Apache systems, too.
Pierre Menard, Author of "Enter Sandman". (Another of Borges' stories will illustrate how low the odds of getting a Metallica song out of /dev/urandom are, "Library of Babel").
A "free" machine that could run IIS would be a killer in some Windows shops.
And how, exactly, would this be possible? IIS is not a separate product from Windows.
I parsed it diffferently, as "many are so rare that just 10% of the Chinese population can reproduce them (meaning the set)", while you are parsing it as "many are so rare that for some of them, just 10% of the Chinese population can reproduce them (there are individual characters that only 10% of the population can reproduce). Anyway, it's probably still wrong, as there are many archaic characters that are understood only by scholars of Chinese literature, whom I would beg to suggest do not make up 10% of the population.
The actual number is more on the order of 100,000, the Kanxi is not exhausitive (as you should be able to guess from your link, given the fact that it was published in the early 18th century. Look at the Unicode FAQ at http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/han_cjk.html . Unicode also is not exhausitive.
But Chinese contains more than 10k characters, many so rare that just 10% of the Chinese population can reproduce them.
You're off by at least one order of magnitude on the first figure, maybe 2, and the second figure (percentage of the Chinese population who can reproduce all valid charactes in the Chinese writing system) is almost by definition 0%. Not that this undercuts your argument.
Actually, the best thing to do would be to create a new unification system for alphabetic scripts, matching the Han unification for Chinese-based scripts, just for use with URLs. That way Cyrillic o, omicron, and Latin o would be the same DNS codepoint. Frankly, if you're going to look at a website with a Chinese URL, you're going to know Chinese anyway.
There is a Soyuz docked at the station at all times. The reason there are only 3 permanent crew of the station is because only 3 persons can safely return in a Soyuz. The press conference is about to begin.
Columbia is I believe the only shuttle that cannot dock with the station. (was, I suppose I ought to say.)
But does it specify how to get the source (what URL)? That's the question corebreech is asking.
Reread the thread. You were talking about the source code to an app, not about example code. Yes, their documentation sucks.
And let's not be giving credit to Apple for their developer tools being free here, OK? The credit belongs to GNU. Let's at least get that straight.
Last I checked, InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder are not GNU code. I'd be interested in seeing the licenses if they are. And yet they are included in the Developer Tools.
One can use GCC in Windows; but almost noone does. And Windows certainly doesn't provide it, now, does it?
If you want to use C++, use Carbon. No one is stopping you.
Who said I use Windows?
You did, by complaining about the number of mouse buttons. Linux users are used to learning different key bindings for different apps anyway; learning to command-click wouldn't phase them.
GNU Chess isn't a Darwin application. It's an OS X application, writting in Cocoa. So what's it doing in the Darwin section of the web site?
Apple calls the "open source" section of their website "Darwin," even though it contains links to more than just the source to Darwin. I don't know why.
They don't share the technology. They don't give you access. In this regard, they're actually worse than Microsoft.
Really? Could you point out one, just one URL to source code for a Microsoft app that's publicly available on a web site link, regardless of whether or not the search engine can find it? Look, however annoyed you might be that it took 2 years to get the source code for their version of GNU Chess, it's there now. I don't think you can say the same for MS. Another example: Visual Studio = $1K / Apple Developer Tools = free download; yeah, there are more bells and whistles in VS.NET, but there is NO equivalent for Windows that's free. The cheaper student versions of the Visual Studio apps do not create full distributable binaries, as I understand.
Remember, I'm responding to the "myths", my point being Apple has standardized on a less capable mouse paradigm, namely one-button.
So then the fact that copying from one folder to another on the same volume in Windows with the mouse requires you to hold down the control key, and moving from a folder on one volume to a folder on another volume requires you to hold down the shift key, that's a failure in the capability of the three button mouse, eh?
When I need three button, I hook my MacAlly mouse in, a three button scroll mouse. Presto-chango: three button mouse and scroll wheel functionality.
Now, if I want one-button mouse functionality on a Windows machine, what do I have to do? (I can imagine some disabilities might make a one button mouse more desirable than a three button one, and others make a 3 button mouse more desirable than a one button mouse).
Negotiations are currently underway for his own PowerBook, so that I might eventually recover mine.
Then you must be losing the negotiations. Better negotiations would have you getting a 17" powerbook and giving him yours as a hand-me-down.
Excuse me for not knowing the secret password.
It's pretty simple to find: apple.com, click on OS X, click on Darwin. At the bottom of the page, click on Projects. At the bottom of that page is the link. So it's only three levels below the Apple home page.
It isn't supposed to be this way with GNU code. The instructions for how to obtain the source are supposed to be included with the binaries, are they not?
Are you sure they're not? Did you open the GNU Chess application folder and check (remember, the application icons in OS X are actually representative of folders, not of apps). I don't have my mac here today so I can't check myself, but it might be worth checking yourself.
If you want to run KDE or Gnome, buy a PC instead.
One thing I've discovered: I only want one box, and one laptop. More than that is too much trouble to deal with. And they're both going to be Macs. So if I want to run software that's only available in Gnome (and there's some), I'm glad that I can run it on the Mac.
'idée fixe' (difficult to translate, something like an unchangeable opinion)
The usual "translation" is just to cite the phrase in French; it usually implies more than an unchangeable opinion, rather one that is also almost obsessive.
It's a play on the Latin word for our english "Obelisk", just like "Asterix" is a play on "Aster", the star.
More a play on "asterisk," from asteriscus / a)ste/riskos, "little star," referring to the star shaped glyph we all know and love.
Thanks! Thanks a lot for looking that up. That's different from what I had understood.
Lots of very, very good (and thoughtful) responses folks. Thanks!
Anyway, the philosophy majors were always bitching about how hard their classes were, how much work they had. Was cake compared to EE.
It was easy because you were doing it in English. If you had been doing philosophy properly, in Greek and German, it wouldn't have been easy ;-).
If I even tried that, my Shakespeare professor would have either laughed or scowled in my face.
I don't want to say what mine would have done. Awful.
Yes, that one is the Tempest.
And the types you're (respondent to my original posting, not parent) talking about: maybe they're more prevalent now than they were in the late 80s and early 90s when I was in u and grad. Back then, they were mostly the rare fools. Yes, they existed. But so did science profs who just gave everyone a 10 year old test noone could possibly pass then fudged the scale to make sure that the correct percentage got the correct grades. There are plenty of ways of inflating grades.
I can't say I heard of anyone getting lower than a C for humantities classes at RPI either.
RPI doesn't, as far as I know, have any higher level humanities programs. Does it? Do you think that if you had taken an upper level research seminar in the humanities in a program that was in the upper echelon of humanities programs, you would have had as easy a time as you did at RPI? Remember, RPI is ranked high for engineering programs; it is nowhere as far as humanities programs (which cannot be said of Stanford and MIT, for instance).
For my part, I took 36 ch of science courses, as a major, i.e., not "rocks for jocks"; switching to a hum major later on. The difficulty was about equal (I never took "Mythology 101" or "Art Appreciation," either). Different kinds of difficulty, but equal.
Now if one simply wants to be honest and says that unlike most knowledge in the humanity the test is manipulating the professor, then that's fine. Call it sophistry 101. Heavens, in a sense that's what classic rhetoric was about - speaking well. In our cynical age perhaps the distinction between sophistry and rhetoric is to be overlooked.
I remember that my (hard science, like orgo) classes back in the 80s most tests were scaled. The scale was basically a way of making sure that the grades reflected the outcome the department wanted, regardless of whether or not the students lived up to their expectations. I also remember scales that were flattened at both ends, so that those with a 97 raw score were only 10 points above those with an 80 raw score, who were 10 points above those with a 55 raw score.
I also remember manipulation of professors being used to affect whether or not one was allowed to do makeup work, etc. But that is for another day.
The point here is that the system is bad everywhere. Yes, there is a degree to which postmodernist approaches have been misused in the humanities to dumb down the humanities. (Remember, though, that language classes are also part of the humanities. It's pretty hard to manipulate the results on a grammar test in a Sanskrit class.) But the idea that some (inlcuding the original poster of the article) have that humanities is by its very nature intellectually less rigorous than the sciences is indicative of ignorance, not experience. Remember that most of those on /. who are talking about getting As and Bs in hum classes are talking about getting them in introductory hum classes for non-majors. I imagine that in a research proseminar things would look mighty different.
Put it another way. The same semester I got an A in an astronomy class, and a C in a language class. Does that mean that astronomy is easier than the language I was studying? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that the language prof. graded harder than the astronomy prof.? No, it doesn't. Does it mean I should have been an astronomer? No, it doesn't. It means I took an introductory astronomy class with no calculus requirements, and an advanced language class where I had to read hundreds of pages of a text in another language at a high level of comprehension.