I don't have any problem with this information being taught, but is it relevant and necessary to teach it to grade schoolers?
Is it more important to know that the majority of people living in the colonies were loyal to the British crown or that the American War for Independence freed the colonists from British rule?
Is it more important to know that GW was a slave owner or that he was a general in the War for Independence and the first President?
Is it more important to know that AL was a lawyer or that he "freed the slaves"?
Is it possible to understand the controversy surrounding the ratification of a Constitutional amendment without understanding the basics of the process?
The counter examples I used here are jumping off points for further education later. It is better, in my view, to give the children a broad overview of history and fill in the gaps as education progresses. Dumping loads of irrelevant information on students should be saved for high school and beyond. It's enough to give kids a firm grounding in their country's mythology, especially one as rich in the concept of Freedom as the United States.
The USS Arizona is only one of the ships that were sunk at Pearl Harbor. That there is now a tourist attraction above it does little for it as an historical ship.
Now if your sister in law didn't know the significance of Pearl Harbor in regards to America entering WWII, then a case could be made against the educational system. Not knowing about one ship in the attack isn't that big a deal.
It's definitely a current title. I just saw the tail end of the commercial where the kid was opening packs of cards and scanning them in. The graphics looked sort of like Animal Crossing's screenshots.
There's a lot that can't be done about these things because at the very bottom of every system is a human being who will forget to patch the system or stupidly open an executable.
I just saw a commercial for some game where you buy game cards at 7-11 and then scan them into the game using a swipe reader. You can then challenge other players with your upgraded characters.
Is this the same game?
(Also, how many other ways can game companies squeeze every last cent out of gamers? It's pretty amazing what they've come up with so far.)
Microsoft is finding ways to make things better between the company and the states by providing licenses for unlicensed computers as well as vouchers for future software purchases and also paying of the states' attorney fees.
Should the correct attitude to have about this be one of bloodthirst or justice seeking? (If you can't see the difference, just choose bloodthirst).
I have no doubt that KDB is a powerful debugger, but having a GUI would make it even better, IMO.
This probably comes from my own experience with OS debuggers and Application debuggers (windbg, VC++/Borland C++). Being able to get immediate feedback about program state without having to enter arcane commands is a definite boon.
SCO in a surprising move today made it clear that they were intent on pursuing the lawsuit despite IBM's flagrant disregard for SCO's license. Earlier SCO revoked IBM's license effectively prohibiting them from legally distributing SCO's software.
No one remembers why all this started and only a handful of bloggers at Slashdot.org and TheRegister.com are still interested in the story.
At this same time economic indicators are showing a slight turnaround in the economy which has been in the doldrums since late 1999.
Someone who hasn't read the books really has no place offering suggestions to a director about how to adapt a story.
As someone who enjoys movies, I think I can say with confidence that long, repetitive, overly loud, and storyless are things that should be edited out of the movie adaptation of any book.
Go read the books if you don't understand the movie.
If the movie doesn't stand on its own, it is not the fault of the audience.
I watched FOTR on DVD, so I got a chance to get all the commentary about how Tolkein created the entire world of Middle Earth with its many intricacies and it was pretty interesting (and ultimately the reason I went to see TTT). But what I get out of the LOTR movies isn't a story, but rather a lot of pretty scenery and battle scenes.
I really felt that the FOTR and TTT stories were not really worthy stories for such a grand setting. I'm not the only one I know who feels this way about LOTR. Several of my friends who have read The Hobbit describe it as everything that LOTR should have been, funny, exciting, and rich. I don't know one way or the other and wouldn't presume to make judgements about a book I haven't read, but I know that the movies were disappointing and didn't pique my interest in the original sources at all.
Aside from the Hobbit which I've planned on picking up and reading soon, I guess Tolkein's only other Middle Earth work is the Silmarillon (sp?). What is your opinion of it?
The problem I have is that the movies are pretty but not really enjoyable. It may be because I haven't read the books, but I came away from both episodes thinking about how great the CG was and how little the story interested me.
Maybe there's more to the books than can be contained in the movies, but I felt throughout the first two installments that if Jackson had left out a lot of the grand sweeping views of Middle Earth and focused instead on developing the characters and truly adapting the story to the big screen, that it could have been much more enjoyable.
I wish I could say that after watching the movies I want to go off and read the original books, but so far the movies have been about a whole lot of nothing in particular.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any problem with this information being taught, but is it relevant and necessary to teach it to grade schoolers?
Is it more important to know that the majority of people living in the colonies were loyal to the British crown or that the American War for Independence freed the colonists from British rule?
Is it more important to know that GW was a slave owner or that he was a general in the War for Independence and the first President?
Is it more important to know that AL was a lawyer or that he "freed the slaves"?
Is it possible to understand the controversy surrounding the ratification of a Constitutional amendment without understanding the basics of the process?
The counter examples I used here are jumping off points for further education later. It is better, in my view, to give the children a broad overview of history and fill in the gaps as education progresses. Dumping loads of irrelevant information on students should be saved for high school and beyond. It's enough to give kids a firm grounding in their country's mythology, especially one as rich in the concept of Freedom as the United States.
The USS Arizona is only one of the ships that were sunk at Pearl Harbor. That there is now a tourist attraction above it does little for it as an historical ship.
Now if your sister in law didn't know the significance of Pearl Harbor in regards to America entering WWII, then a case could be made against the educational system. Not knowing about one ship in the attack isn't that big a deal.
That's why software should be free?
Someday naming your daughter Hillary will be as favorable as naming your son Adolph.
For some people of a certain political persuasion that someday has already come.
It's like they are TRYING to piss me off.
Except for a very few gems, the current crop of games has been pretty lackluster.
It's like all the ideas for games has dried up and all that's left to do is rehash old tried and true ones.
Played Out.
Perl 6 will do $X.
Why learn any new languages? Why not write everything in assembler? Hell, just write it all in machine code.
It's definitely a current title. I just saw the tail end of the commercial where the kid was opening packs of cards and scanning them in. The graphics looked sort of like Animal Crossing's screenshots.
Shortwave radios... Those are what again?
Has anyone formed a lobbying group specifically to advance the position of us little people?
No.
Well, unless you mean this.
I must have missed the part where Nintedo puts a gun to your face to force you to buy their games.
The gun has a name. It's called Kids.
We need to stop stressing prevention quite so much and start dealing with what happens when a virus does get through.
Harsher punishments for virus writers?
Better system recovery process?
There's a lot that can't be done about these things because at the very bottom of every system is a human being who will forget to patch the system or stupidly open an executable.
There is no patch for human carelessness.
I just saw a commercial for some game where you buy game cards at 7-11 and then scan them into the game using a swipe reader. You can then challenge other players with your upgraded characters.
Is this the same game?
(Also, how many other ways can game companies squeeze every last cent out of gamers? It's pretty amazing what they've come up with so far.)
Microsoft is finding ways to make things better between the company and the states by providing licenses for unlicensed computers as well as vouchers for future software purchases and also paying of the states' attorney fees.
Should the correct attitude to have about this be one of bloodthirst or justice seeking? (If you can't see the difference, just choose bloodthirst).
I have no doubt that KDB is a powerful debugger, but having a GUI would make it even better, IMO.
This probably comes from my own experience with OS debuggers and Application debuggers (windbg, VC++/Borland C++). Being able to get immediate feedback about program state without having to enter arcane commands is a definite boon.
Are there any GUI wrappers available for KDB?
It may be cleaner, but it isn't cheaper than fossil fuels. California's problem isn't that they don't have enough power, it's that it's too expensive.
SCO in a surprising move today made it clear that they were intent on pursuing the lawsuit despite IBM's flagrant disregard for SCO's license. Earlier SCO revoked IBM's license effectively prohibiting them from legally distributing SCO's software.
No one remembers why all this started and only a handful of bloggers at Slashdot.org and TheRegister.com are still interested in the story.
At this same time economic indicators are showing a slight turnaround in the economy which has been in the doldrums since late 1999.
Someone who hasn't read the books really has no place offering suggestions to a director about how to adapt a story.
As someone who enjoys movies, I think I can say with confidence that long, repetitive, overly loud, and storyless are things that should be edited out of the movie adaptation of any book.
Go read the books if you don't understand the movie.
If the movie doesn't stand on its own, it is not the fault of the audience.
I watched FOTR on DVD, so I got a chance to get all the commentary about how Tolkein created the entire world of Middle Earth with its many intricacies and it was pretty interesting (and ultimately the reason I went to see TTT). But what I get out of the LOTR movies isn't a story, but rather a lot of pretty scenery and battle scenes.
I really felt that the FOTR and TTT stories were not really worthy stories for such a grand setting. I'm not the only one I know who feels this way about LOTR. Several of my friends who have read The Hobbit describe it as everything that LOTR should have been, funny, exciting, and rich. I don't know one way or the other and wouldn't presume to make judgements about a book I haven't read, but I know that the movies were disappointing and didn't pique my interest in the original sources at all.
Aside from the Hobbit which I've planned on picking up and reading soon, I guess Tolkein's only other Middle Earth work is the Silmarillon (sp?). What is your opinion of it?
I *liked* Waterworld.
I took the Premsyn and all I got were these lousy breasts.
Nothing happened, the special effects were shite, the acting was unconvincing
Of those three things, two actually were satisfying. Namely, the special effects and the acting.
As for nothing happening, I think I can sum up FOTR in a couple sentences for you.
"Frodo gets a Ring that is really bad and must be destroyed in some special volcano which is really hard to get to. After that, lots of fighting."
I will call a spade a spade and say that yes, nothing happened.
The problem I have is that the movies are pretty but not really enjoyable. It may be because I haven't read the books, but I came away from both episodes thinking about how great the CG was and how little the story interested me.
Maybe there's more to the books than can be contained in the movies, but I felt throughout the first two installments that if Jackson had left out a lot of the grand sweeping views of Middle Earth and focused instead on developing the characters and truly adapting the story to the big screen, that it could have been much more enjoyable.
I wish I could say that after watching the movies I want to go off and read the original books, but so far the movies have been about a whole lot of nothing in particular.
I got my own impersonator. Hooray for our side.