I remember when I had about 8MB's in my harddisk and I was exitedly happy about it, and when we had 16MB's it was the biggest thing I can dream of.
It's funny how these things grow up fast:) faster than we really need them sometimes. I never needed more than 20GB's although I never delete anything from my system.
Well, but still, after some years, I will have 200GB, and they will announce the 2000GB and I'll not imagine it, and will say that 200GB was quite enough..
But ah well, programms started to eat more resources, they just use more resources because they can sometimes, I've been running older programs lately and I found they had quite similar performance with really different size, *wonders*..
I really don't understand why would they think forcing an add to someone could help make them use it. Popups in the internet proved to fail, people don't look at them, they close them, or at least find ways to disallow them from poping up. The best way of advertising is making it viewable and tolerable. Something that doesn't stop you from doing your job. I can see an advertisement in this website for instance, because I didn't pay money, I've nothing against it, but still, it never stopped me from reading what I want to read.
If this fasion of advertisements infects PC's, then people will just find ways to get rid of it, ok, this is usually how I go around normal advertisements in TV. When the program I'm watching stops a while for an ad, all I'd do is go do something I had to do at the time, so I use it as a timeout, without changing the channel, which they want to avoid.
Some commercial people related to the TV stations business said they do consider changing the channel when the advertisement time comes "stealing". This is nonesense, it is totally normal for any of us to do whatever we want whenever we want, the only thing they can require us is to pay money to remove the ads, or keep the ads and use hte service for free. Not force me to click on the link (in the internet), or to watch the ad in TV.
In addition to this, I think that will be regardless of what the person is watching. Well, I won't ever like to use a service where they suddenly stop me from watching the TV program I'm listenning to, and thus lose the content that the TV channel sends me while I'm supposed to be watching the ad.
This doesn't fit, when it fails in the internet, they should look for a better way in TV, not repeat the same mistake..
Well, PHP is a good useful language. It has borrowed many ideas from most programming langauges around.
Being highly usable doesn't mean to blame the language for it. Why do we always blame things that are highly used? The normal way is: successful -> usable. We interpret usable though as stupid or insuccessful, that's wrong.
Afterall, I don't think PHP is behind the lack of usage of Apache2, but rather the fact that people have really stable production systems with the previous versions. There is no point usually to update your server while you don't really need it, and the fact that you'd update it will just get you into waste of time and trouble. That's the way how I look at it.
PHP is really good if you use it properly, and.. please.. don't blame it if others do use it. This feeling of `ah I can do something others can't do, thus I'm superiour!` is not right, not good, not useful, it just draws us back. Developers try building languages that are simple but useful. Have a look at python, it's simplisty and understanding made everybody expect it to make something in scripting languages future. It is not that only nerd experts can use it..
Well, both of us agree that microsoft's products shouldn't be used for all these reasons we keep talking about. Still, there is no system that can be as user friendly as windows for the time being. We love computers, we spend long time with them, and for them, but some people don't really care what the computer can do or how it's built, he just wants his job done, microsoft is the best in doing this for him until today. That's our problem, we know microsoft is bad, we still build our systems for ourselves and not for all computer users, and expect these new computer users to jump into systems hard to use, hard to adjust, and even hard to deal with for normal use. This is the problem..
And then, if I'm going to pay microsoft money for their product, is all what I get a right to USE IT? Well that's another problem, I don't buy a system to use it in one computer, and if I wanted to use it in the other computer at home, I should buy another windows CD.
Usually, the customer puts the rules, and because of the monopoly, now the seller puts the rules, and puts them bad. It's not an issue about open source and closed source mainly, it's about microsoft going into controlling us. NOBODY, newbiews, nerds, and proffecionals, should accept this. Well all should not pay them, and should try our best to find the better alternative.
To be honest, ok, I can use linux, but my family can't, I can't spend all my time answering their small questions about how this or why that, learnning windows was quite enough for them, they don't care about it, they want to edit this document or view this webpage, that's all, and now they know there way around so well. If I get them a *nix system, they'll not understand 1% of what's going on, so I really can't let them use it, I need a simpler version, a user friendly one.
I disagree with this, Sir. Open source will make it easier to find the bug, thus, correct it, and not abuse it. While closed source will just keep the source out from our sight, if we happen to find a bug, it's not likely that somoene else finds this bug, and the abuse starts. When microsoft finally corrects it, or decides to give out some info about it (which is usually impossible), what happens is that they refer to this as a miracle or as magic. Can't this be avoided easily when thousands of developers READ the source, they need not to add to it because it's kinda commercial, but they can see it, notice microsoft, and microsoft corrects, and gives the product owners (info) about what was wrong with *their* product. The problem is that as windows users, nobody really owns anything in the program, all you own is the right to use it, this is a totally wrong commercial style in my opinion.
Well, I really believe the problem is not in simply giving out peices of software with their operating system, it is more deep.
They can give as much programs with their system as they like, but they should build it WELL. Windows lacks all these programers who give there time free to recheck the code and add to it, this is what makes Open source powerful.
Well, my main point here is, what kind of people would accept 'hiding' the software as 'not giving out' the software. This is nonesense in my opinion. Well whether they allow you to download it freely, give it to you directly, or hide it doesn't make a difference. Other compitiors should find something better in their services so people usually get to download it, and well, they usually do!
The main problem with this software is that we don't know what's there, we pay the money and we don't get but the surface. Who would accept a house built for him without knowing what substance was used to build it, nobody. We still don't know much about windows source code. We can't find the bugs they produce with their rush in building more.
Another small point I'd like to mention, the best way to fight the Microsoft syndrome isn't law (the way it's going on now), but users. If everybody still buys windows, everybody always usees it, then it's *clearly* gonna have a monopoly, but if we can use, or develop, systems that none-geeks can use, systems directed to the masses, and still NOT monopolized, then we will be able to KILL Microsoft's lust.
Well, so let's all format C: for now;) (if we have one)
hmm well, if you've read my first post in this thread, I'm into into this kind of fun (the MTV clip style education). But school should still be interesting and enjoyable by its 'content' being relevant to the person's interests.
Being something you do, you should at least have an interest in it in order to do it well, if something isn't interesting then all you'll be doing is gulping information from one side, and throwing it away from the other side. This is *not* useful, and it is just *not* what we want.
Are we really studying to simply "suffer"? I guess not, we study and go to school to "learn", so it rather be useful. Not a waste of time with no real value.
Thanks for reading...
Ah well .. Science can be fun when you "like it"
on
Hands on Science Learning
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ok, we all like to have "fun" studying, or find people interested in what we teach as instructors. This is sound and reasonable, but no matter what we do, this mainly would not depend on how the topic is taught, but what is the topic is about.
The new style of teaching started concentrating lately in styles of teaching rather than the content itself, schools started reducing the content while adding things that "try" to develop interest. That's ok, but still I believe we're missing the most important point, the content.
If I don't like physics, no matter what we'd do in class, measuring the size of the moon or the radius of the sun, this might be fun depending on how it was done. However, when we get down to earth and return to the book, and I'd have to "read" and "solve" things related to this topic, my temproary built interest would die, and the size of the moon will end just as being memory.
What I'd personally do would be giving people more choice on what they study, make shorter courses with more specific content for instance, or just give normally courses that are more tailored to your area of interest.
As a computer science student, I had to study chemistry for instance. studying physics or math is quite sound for a computer related topic, although kienimatics for instance would mean nothing. Nevertheless, chemistry means totally nothing to a computer science student, still I had to study a full course that nothing in my university major depends on. Why would I be in any way interested?
We enjoyed some of the lab work, it was nice and expermintal, but...
Well that was just an example, the point is, don't try to force the information into my head, let me choose what to study, and I'm sure, very sure, I will like it..
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the question should rather be: Did 9/11 keep *anything* as is?
Oh my god :)
:) faster than we really need them sometimes. I never needed more than 20GB's although I never delete anything from my system.
..
..
...
I remember when I had about 8MB's in my harddisk and I was exitedly happy about it, and when we had 16MB's it was the biggest thing I can dream of.
It's funny how these things grow up fast
Well, but still, after some years, I will have 200GB, and they will announce the 2000GB and I'll not imagine it, and will say that 200GB was quite enough
But ah well, programms started to eat more resources, they just use more resources because they can sometimes, I've been running older programs lately and I found they had quite similar performance with really different size, *wonders*
Thanks for reading
I really don't understand why would they think forcing an add to someone could help make them use it. Popups in the internet proved to fail, people don't look at them, they close them, or at least find ways to disallow them from poping up. The best way of advertising is making it viewable and tolerable. Something that doesn't stop you from doing your job. I can see an advertisement in this website for instance, because I didn't pay money, I've nothing against it, but still, it never stopped me from reading what I want to read.
..
...
If this fasion of advertisements infects PC's, then people will just find ways to get rid of it, ok, this is usually how I go around normal advertisements in TV. When the program I'm watching stops a while for an ad, all I'd do is go do something I had to do at the time, so I use it as a timeout, without changing the channel, which they want to avoid.
Some commercial people related to the TV stations business said they do consider changing the channel when the advertisement time comes "stealing". This is nonesense, it is totally normal for any of us to do whatever we want whenever we want, the only thing they can require us is to pay money to remove the ads, or keep the ads and use hte service for free. Not force me to click on the link (in the internet), or to watch the ad in TV.
In addition to this, I think that will be regardless of what the person is watching. Well, I won't ever like to use a service where they suddenly stop me from watching the TV program I'm listenning to, and thus lose the content that the TV channel sends me while I'm supposed to be watching the ad.
This doesn't fit, when it fails in the internet, they should look for a better way in TV, not repeat the same mistake
Thanks for reading
Well, PHP is a good useful language. It has borrowed many ideas from most programming langauges around.
Being highly usable doesn't mean to blame the language for it. Why do we always blame things that are highly used? The normal way is: successful -> usable. We interpret usable though as stupid or insuccessful, that's wrong.
Afterall, I don't think PHP is behind the lack of usage of Apache2, but rather the fact that people have really stable production systems with the previous versions. There is no point usually to update your server while you don't really need it, and the fact that you'd update it will just get you into waste of time and trouble. That's the way how I look at it.
PHP is really good if you use it properly, and .. please .. don't blame it if others do use it. This feeling of `ah I can do something others can't do, thus I'm superiour!` is not right, not good, not useful, it just draws us back. Developers try building languages that are simple but useful. Have a look at python, it's simplisty and understanding made everybody expect it to make something in scripting languages future. It is not that only nerd experts can use it ..
Thanks for reading ..
And then, if I'm going to pay microsoft money for their product, is all what I get a right to USE IT? Well that's another problem, I don't buy a system to use it in one computer, and if I wanted to use it in the other computer at home, I should buy another windows CD.
Usually, the customer puts the rules, and because of the monopoly, now the seller puts the rules, and puts them bad. It's not an issue about open source and closed source mainly, it's about microsoft going into controlling us. NOBODY, newbiews, nerds, and proffecionals, should accept this. Well all should not pay them, and should try our best to find the better alternative.
To be honest, ok, I can use linux, but my family can't, I can't spend all my time answering their small questions about how this or why that, learnning windows was quite enough for them, they don't care about it, they want to edit this document or view this webpage, that's all, and now they know there way around so well. If I get them a *nix system, they'll not understand 1% of what's going on, so I really can't let them use it, I need a simpler version, a user friendly one.
Thanks for reading...
I disagree with this, Sir. Open source will make it easier to find the bug, thus, correct it, and not abuse it. While closed source will just keep the source out from our sight, if we happen to find a bug, it's not likely that somoene else finds this bug, and the abuse starts. When microsoft finally corrects it, or decides to give out some info about it (which is usually impossible), what happens is that they refer to this as a miracle or as magic. Can't this be avoided easily when thousands of developers READ the source, they need not to add to it because it's kinda commercial, but they can see it, notice microsoft, and microsoft corrects, and gives the product owners (info) about what was wrong with *their* product. The problem is that as windows users, nobody really owns anything in the program, all you own is the right to use it, this is a totally wrong commercial style in my opinion.
Thanks for reading ...
Well, I really believe the problem is not in simply giving out peices of software with their operating system, it is more deep.
They can give as much programs with their system as they like, but they should build it WELL. Windows lacks all these programers who give there time free to recheck the code and add to it, this is what makes Open source powerful.
Well, my main point here is, what kind of people would accept 'hiding' the software as 'not giving out' the software. This is nonesense in my opinion. Well whether they allow you to download it freely, give it to you directly, or hide it doesn't make a difference. Other compitiors should find something better in their services so people usually get to download it, and well, they usually do!
The main problem with this software is that we don't know what's there, we pay the money and we don't get but the surface. Who would accept a house built for him without knowing what substance was used to build it, nobody. We still don't know much about windows source code. We can't find the bugs they produce with their rush in building more.
Another small point I'd like to mention, the best way to fight the Microsoft syndrome isn't law (the way it's going on now), but users. If everybody still buys windows, everybody always usees it, then it's *clearly* gonna have a monopoly, but if we can use, or develop, systems that none-geeks can use, systems directed to the masses, and still NOT monopolized, then we will be able to KILL Microsoft's lust.
Well, so let's all format C: for now ;) (if we have one)
hmm well, if you've read my first post in this thread, I'm into into this kind of fun (the MTV clip style education). But school should still be interesting and enjoyable by its 'content' being relevant to the person's interests.
Thanks for reading ...
Well, I think it should ..
Being something you do, you should at least have an interest in it in order to do it well, if something isn't interesting then all you'll be doing is gulping information from one side, and throwing it away from the other side. This is *not* useful, and it is just *not* what we want.
Are we really studying to simply "suffer"? I guess not, we study and go to school to "learn", so it rather be useful. Not a waste of time with no real value.
Thanks for reading ...
Ok, we all like to have "fun" studying, or find people interested in what we teach as instructors. This is sound and reasonable, but no matter what we do, this mainly would not depend on how the topic is taught, but what is the topic is about.
The new style of teaching started concentrating lately in styles of teaching rather than the content itself, schools started reducing the content while adding things that "try" to develop interest. That's ok, but still I believe we're missing the most important point, the content.
If I don't like physics, no matter what we'd do in class, measuring the size of the moon or the radius of the sun, this might be fun depending on how it was done. However, when we get down to earth and return to the book, and I'd have to "read" and "solve" things related to this topic, my temproary built interest would die, and the size of the moon will end just as being memory.
What I'd personally do would be giving people more choice on what they study, make shorter courses with more specific content for instance, or just give normally courses that are more tailored to your area of interest.
As a computer science student, I had to study chemistry for instance. studying physics or math is quite sound for a computer related topic, although kienimatics for instance would mean nothing. Nevertheless, chemistry means totally nothing to a computer science student, still I had to study a full course that nothing in my university major depends on. Why would I be in any way interested?
We enjoyed some of the lab work, it was nice and expermintal, but ...
Well that was just an example, the point is, don't try to force the information into my head, let me choose what to study, and I'm sure, very sure, I will like it ..
Thanks for reading