I don't have a huge problem with Windows itself, but in CS curricula it tends to lead into Visual Studio, which further cements a particular proprietary way of doing things, which has the strong downside that it doesn't prepare students for a range of possible jobs, like anything that requires competence in using an actual makefile.
As a more general problem, I think it's best to teach students on tools that they can use in the widest range of circumstances, whether in a future business career, in their free time at home, in a future startup career, etc. There's a worrying trend towards reliance on proprietary, and especially high-cost, software in computing education.
I was similarly confused by a story about $2M in funding. I presume they meant 2 million Hong Kong dollars, as opposed to New Zealand, Australian, Canadian, Zimbabwean, or American dollars.
In novels, there are roughly two main ways time-travel might be used (with a lot of gray area and variations): as a simple plot device that changes the setting, or as a hard-sci-fi thought experiment about how the world might work, or what effects there might be, if time travel were possible, and particular laws governed it. There've been videogames using the first strategy, of course. And some have elements that start going towards the second, but still embedded in the game's plot rather than the actual game mechanics. Interesting to see time-travel and its effects as an actual playable element.
That one I see mainly as a good thing--- smallish levels of inflation are felt mainly on the long term, so mainly serve to erode attempts to maintain long-lived, large fortunes, while helps keep the United States from sprouting a hereditary nobility.
Companies routinely do a lot of other things that couldn't be called racist very easily, in order to match their target audience. For southern European audiences, for example, people with blonde hair are airbrushed or swapped out to avoid making the ad seem too foreign.
There's very few parts of the American political spectrum that haven't contributed significantly to it. The biggest portions of the debt were contributed by Reagan, Bush II, and Obama, under both Republican and Democratic congresses, which adds up to a pretty big portion of the American political spectrum.
I could see that argument if it was a single person who represented a minority of the population--- maybe Chileans would have a good argument for not owing Pinochet's debts. But the American debt was racked up by all major parts of the American political spectrum, with repeated confirmations every 2-4 years by the people voting those same spenders back into both legislative and executive office.
If you add together the parts of the populace who supported Reagan, GWB, and Obama, that covers a good 90%+ of Americans, so I'd say the country as a whole is pretty well responsible for its debt.
The debt is owed by Americans as a people, not some abstract entity that doesn't actually exist. We borrowed money from the Chinese (and others) to fund things that we collectively voted for, and we owe it back at some point. How exactly we want to pay it back, presumably China doesn't care a lot about, but the American people owe it.
According to the FAQ, that's just based on the official, once-a-year budget request. So it doesn't include supplemental or temporary allocations, like the various Iraq War supplemental funding bills, the recent Cash for Clunker supplemental funding bill, the AIG bailout bill, etc. What I'd like to see is a total for, say, fiscal year 2008, of all money spent, both on- and off-budget.
I'd be happy with "down to the nearest $million", myself. With all the special allocations, supplemental funding bills, temporary shifts of funds, etc., it's nearly impossible to figure out what money is going where.
The media companies have a vested interest in getting the best audience data they can, so I'd say the "foxes...henhouse" argument is flawed in this case.
Not entirely true--- the media companies make no actual money from audience figures directly, only from advertising. So their vested interest is in getting the best-looking audience data that still looks plausible to advertisers. That's one reason advertisers want a 3rd party to collect the audience data, not the networks; it's less believable for a network to say, "oh yeah, according to our methodology 30 million people watch this show regularly, that'll be $rate please".
Thatcher liked laissez faire capitalism more than she liked sovereignty, and this is a pro-free-trade directive, intended to ensure that EU member states don't have hidden restrictions on trade that aren't broadcast to their trading partners ahead of time.
My impression is that build quality on 1987 386s was better than on current equipment. In particular, grandparent's comment about electrolytic capacitors points to major quality issues they've been having recently.
I cannot divulge what precisely it means, but I have in my possession a conversation from long ago that sounds as if it bodes ill for this "ALICE powder":
ANNIE. Sure, it's not good for you that you should be goin' out on this night, Miss Alice.
MATILDA. Do you feel worse, Alice?
ALICE. No better. If I go out I shall suffer terribly.
MATILDA. Here. Take one of these powders. (givesALICE powder)
ALICE. I'll take it as soon as I go to my room. Thank you, Auntie. You won't mind if I don't go with you, will you?
MATILDA. Mrs. Terret will be disappointed, it's all I can say. But if you will suffer, of course it's best you remain here. Annie will look after you.
(to ANNIE) Mr. Harold will remain at home to watch the house, Annie. I wish you to watch Mr. Harold.
ANNIE. Yes, Miss Deering.
MATILDA. If you smell cigarette smoke, investigate at once. That's all, Annie.
There's nothing, as far as I know, in any of the existing arrangements stopping Google from co-branding a phone with a manufacturer that's blessed as "the Google [whatever]". A Google-branded phone would probably be a stronger player--- moreso than a T-Mobile-branded phone that in the explanatory text tells you about how it runs Google Android.
Even if you have internet at the LAN party, you may not have fast enough internet to support a large number of computers all going through Battle.net. It's one thing to argue that most people have fast enough internet to play Starcraft II online, but how many have fast enough internet to support 30 computers simultaneously playing Starcraft II online through the same connection?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a huge problem with Windows itself, but in CS curricula it tends to lead into Visual Studio, which further cements a particular proprietary way of doing things, which has the strong downside that it doesn't prepare students for a range of possible jobs, like anything that requires competence in using an actual makefile.
As a more general problem, I think it's best to teach students on tools that they can use in the widest range of circumstances, whether in a future business career, in their free time at home, in a future startup career, etc. There's a worrying trend towards reliance on proprietary, and especially high-cost, software in computing education.
Yeah, I stopped donating to them right at the point where they started filing thousands of baseless lawsuits.
Windows may be guilty of 7 sins, but its main competitor on the desktop is derived from an OS with a daemonic mascot.
I was similarly confused by a story about $2M in funding. I presume they meant 2 million Hong Kong dollars, as opposed to New Zealand, Australian, Canadian, Zimbabwean, or American dollars.
Sounds a bit like parts of the plot of Primer (probably the best film about time-travel there is).
In novels, there are roughly two main ways time-travel might be used (with a lot of gray area and variations): as a simple plot device that changes the setting, or as a hard-sci-fi thought experiment about how the world might work, or what effects there might be, if time travel were possible, and particular laws governed it. There've been videogames using the first strategy, of course. And some have elements that start going towards the second, but still embedded in the game's plot rather than the actual game mechanics. Interesting to see time-travel and its effects as an actual playable element.
That one I see mainly as a good thing--- smallish levels of inflation are felt mainly on the long term, so mainly serve to erode attempts to maintain long-lived, large fortunes, while helps keep the United States from sprouting a hereditary nobility.
Companies routinely do a lot of other things that couldn't be called racist very easily, in order to match their target audience. For southern European audiences, for example, people with blonde hair are airbrushed or swapped out to avoid making the ad seem too foreign.
There's very few parts of the American political spectrum that haven't contributed significantly to it. The biggest portions of the debt were contributed by Reagan, Bush II, and Obama, under both Republican and Democratic congresses, which adds up to a pretty big portion of the American political spectrum.
I could see that argument if it was a single person who represented a minority of the population--- maybe Chileans would have a good argument for not owing Pinochet's debts. But the American debt was racked up by all major parts of the American political spectrum, with repeated confirmations every 2-4 years by the people voting those same spenders back into both legislative and executive office.
If you add together the parts of the populace who supported Reagan, GWB, and Obama, that covers a good 90%+ of Americans, so I'd say the country as a whole is pretty well responsible for its debt.
The debt is owed by Americans as a people, not some abstract entity that doesn't actually exist. We borrowed money from the Chinese (and others) to fund things that we collectively voted for, and we owe it back at some point. How exactly we want to pay it back, presumably China doesn't care a lot about, but the American people owe it.
According to the FAQ, that's just based on the official, once-a-year budget request. So it doesn't include supplemental or temporary allocations, like the various Iraq War supplemental funding bills, the recent Cash for Clunker supplemental funding bill, the AIG bailout bill, etc. What I'd like to see is a total for, say, fiscal year 2008, of all money spent, both on- and off-budget.
I'd be happy with "down to the nearest $million", myself. With all the special allocations, supplemental funding bills, temporary shifts of funds, etc., it's nearly impossible to figure out what money is going where.
Dammit, I lose this one every time. Last time it was a 2-digit guy, though. Haven't seen one of those in a while.
You could've gone simpler, with:
Getting relationship advice from /. is a little like getting dieting advice from /.
Not entirely true--- the media companies make no actual money from audience figures directly, only from advertising. So their vested interest is in getting the best-looking audience data that still looks plausible to advertisers. That's one reason advertisers want a 3rd party to collect the audience data, not the networks; it's less believable for a network to say, "oh yeah, according to our methodology 30 million people watch this show regularly, that'll be $rate please".
Thatcher liked laissez faire capitalism more than she liked sovereignty, and this is a pro-free-trade directive, intended to ensure that EU member states don't have hidden restrictions on trade that aren't broadcast to their trading partners ahead of time.
My impression is that build quality on 1987 386s was better than on current equipment. In particular, grandparent's comment about electrolytic capacitors points to major quality issues they've been having recently.
Damn...
I was confused by that also, but it appears it's the particular variety of display tube that's Russian.
taken several times, for that matter
I cannot divulge what precisely it means, but I have in my possession a conversation from long ago that sounds as if it bodes ill for this "ALICE powder":
This is the flip side of the Slashdot style that fails to explain obscure products and acronyms in the summary.
There's nothing, as far as I know, in any of the existing arrangements stopping Google from co-branding a phone with a manufacturer that's blessed as "the Google [whatever]". A Google-branded phone would probably be a stronger player--- moreso than a T-Mobile-branded phone that in the explanatory text tells you about how it runs Google Android.
Even if you have internet at the LAN party, you may not have fast enough internet to support a large number of computers all going through Battle.net. It's one thing to argue that most people have fast enough internet to play Starcraft II online, but how many have fast enough internet to support 30 computers simultaneously playing Starcraft II online through the same connection?
Plus, if they relieve themselves on your lawn, it'll add an extra thing they have to try to explain in court.