this reminds me of the story about the company that wanted to settle on a single server technology, and left the choice to its IT dept. of course, there were twice as many windows admins for the same number of servers, so guess which "technology" they voted on?
i do alot of LAMP (well, OS X and AMP), mostly php, but some perl. i don't know what is more important, the absolute best technology, or one that a developer can generate a stable, secure, and effective solution, in an acceptable time frame. sure, there are the amazons and ebays, etc., for whome a 5% difference will mean alot, but for most sites, i think there will be little difference. however, alot of sites won't have access to every technology especially if they have shared server hosting. even if they have full root access, they still might prefer to go with a particular technology, no matter its merits. for example, if i said to a client, "hey, i'll do this on ROR, but, you gotta install x, y, and z, on your server..." well than it gets harder. even if working for larger firm, or on a larger site, what is more expensive nowadays? throwing one more server at the problem, or rewriting the entire codebase?
not an argument against learning anything , hell, if had the time, ROR looks cool. but how long until php became acceptable? is it better to be really good at A or able in B, C, and D? specialization vs. generalization? tough call.
one, I hardly consider wikipedia to be an authority on a subject. there is a Liberal party in canada, and other places, though not in the US. and would you call those who promote speech codes on campuses "liberals"? the constitution is more than abortion and gay marriage. what about property rights. what about gun control. what that really is is not liberalism, but libertarianism. an idea i find somewhat attarctive.
i don't "preceive" liberalism as change. if you'd bother to read what i wrote, you;d understand that the liberal view, historically, has been one of change. for instance, liberalism meant more democratic governments, whereas conservativism meant monarchies. however, compare the US revolution with the french civil war (no, it wasn't a revolution). the big difference was the french experieince was wholly secular and more about retribution (modern day marxists, which oddly enough look alot like the french revo civil war), ours was far more faith based, or traditional. thus ours survived 230+ years, their became a terrorist state then dictatorship in a decade. we had a far more rightist outlook on people, more aristotelian, not the leftist platonic view.
i simplified to keep the post within reason. however, the "left vs. right" debate is not only valid, but a wholly substantive one, the notion of determinism in history. it's what's marxism based on. also fascism. but then again, you'd have to do more than quote wikipedia to know that. be concerned, fine. be more concerned that most high school history teachers don't have a clue about history.
actually, there are legitmate liberal and conservative labels. taken in the classical sense, a liberal seeks change, while a conservative seeks the status quo. now, how do you define liberal and conservative. we often make the mistake in America of labeling secularists and traditionalists with the lib/cons labels. and there is a huge difference. in fact, secularists could be quite conservative, and traditionalists quite liberal, as per above definition.
today's lib/cons debate tends to break down along three areas, 1) role of government, 2) property rights, 3) individual liberty
liberals generally want more government (higher taxes, more spending), less property rights (gun control, environmental laws) and more liberty (abortion). conservatives generally want less gov., more prop rights, and less liberty, or at least less nihilism.
now, bush is no conservative. he wants a big government, massive spending, and has a federal solution for everything. his foreign policy (save for all the ignorance around here) is very liberal, in a wilsonian/rooseveltian manner. he has eschewed the republicans favored Realpolitik and stability (so Bismarckian) for a proactive policy of change. (and no the war wasn't about oil, or even wmd's. sorry excuse for what will historically be a great policy.) guys like dean really aren't as liberal as secular. bush's soc sec. plan is actualyl quite liberal, while the opponents are quite conservative.
where does that leave the debate, it's really a left vs. right debate, which ahs nothing to do with lib/cons labels. leftism has a decidely deterministic (marx, hegel) outlook, whereas rightism sees history as mutable and the result of great ideas and people (the classical, aristotelian approach. i.e. thucydides, herodotus). it's really more a way of looking at the world. for example, those who see the iraqi war as for oil, believe in the deterministic view, that external forces (class oppression) thus it's an evil venture. whereas those who see the history as shaped by events (thus democracy can reshape the middle east) are usually in favor of the war.
there's of course other factors, as those "conservatives" opposed to the war, i.e. pat buchanan, are influenced by outside forces (anti-semitism, the church, etc.) and thus are more traditionalist leftists. (his opposition to abortion and free trade)
yes, i do teach this stuff. this is a brief summary, but it's more accurate to define left vs. right, which is a substantive debate.
and there's more to it than that. many of the kids that go off to a four year are simply too immature to handle being away from mommy and daddy and their {boy|girl}friend. they eat too much, drink like fish, and don't have anyone to wake them up at 7:30 to get to class. when they fail after the first year, it's like the biggest embarassment of their lives, especially considering these are always the top students, always get A's (forgetting about grade inflation, and teachers too frustrated to deal with nasty parents...), and usually didn't even have to study that hard. hell, most of them don't even konw what they want to, save for getting out on their own. the first 2 years at a juco would give them alot more insight. it's something i tell my students, that the best kept secret in the world is 2 miles away, and like $10 a unit.
that tin foil hat fitting a little too tight? you could go on for hours because some college professor went on for hours. big f-ing deal. we sold weapins to the nazis, let the japnese attack us, then formualted the daves (actually marshall) plan so we could recop our investment. i got a bridge in brooklyn i'm selling. you interested?
dude, put down the gore vidal, howard zinn and noam chomsky books. they are liars.
1) we did save france in ww1. the brits were effectively broken after somme and 2ypres. cambrai offered a respite, and allowed them to remain on the continent, but not as other than a shell of its former self. the french after 2nd aisne. the russians left in 1917, and the germans launched their 1918 spring offensive, got within 30 miles of Paris, only to be stopped in belleau woods. the germnas were on their way to victory. period.
i'd continue except that you displiayed your ignorance, and i shan't be bothered wasting my time ina flame war. oh yeah, by the way, we actually did win vietnam. by 1973, after LB2, we bombed the VC to the bargaining table. they gave in, we got a real south vietnma government up, had less than 30,000 troops in country, and the country was stabilizing. only the traitorous lefties in congress pulled the plug on funding which caused the democratic south government to collapse.
dude, know what you're talking about before you runneth off at the mouth. the original post was half humorous, half truthful. they have never been our allies, only used us like a french whore when it served their purpose. then they fuck us in the ass and tell us how wonderful they are.
you'd be scared to have your children taught by somone who actually knows his discipline and is well read. wow. i'm stupid? neil, i assume that's your name (or is it what you do!!), you haven't any idea. because we share a differing opinion, that frightens you? perhaps you should read a book or two, and maybe you'd feel a bit more secure in YOUR beliefs, well that's the trouble, they're beliefs not knowledge. you can believe anything, hell some idiots make a movie, and people believe it. and it even sells well, and they pimp it to the academy, and in an election year, though it's full of lies and half truths, but correct politically...try responding with intelligence rather than bluster.
if it wasn't their support of terrorists, their ingratiating manner about our saving their asses twice, and the fact that they are as useless as tits on a nun, now i have another reason.
I am a high school history teacher, so I have some insight that others might not have. College is great, but...a few things to consider. One, taking a year or two off, to travel or work, is great. The experiences are invaluable. Don't piss away your youth, because you'll never get these years back, when your young, unencumbered, and healthy. Hell, I'm 36, got a wife, 3 kids, an MA in Education, 10 years teaching, and you know what, other than working for a few years prior to teaching, I did nothing. Boy do I wish I had.
You don't know where your life will lead, what you'll want to do, nor where your experiences will guide you. If you were going to drop out, do drugs, follow the grateful dead ro something, that's another matter. But by broadening your horizons, you'll be better off. Now, what are you going to get out of collge? For the most part, a piece of paper. Employers have caught onto the game, know about grade inflation, and know that most of what goes on in college is about as useful as tits on a nun. In fact, what matters today is graduate school. So, thinking you're going to college and than going to get a good job, well, think again. Unless you get a degree in math or something specific which has direct usefulness in the "real world". Now, I love history and the classics, and spend my free time (away from/.) immersed in history books and classical literature and history and I think that we have debased education today. And I think there is certainly a place for knowledgable people in all aspects of life, it's just that we don't value education. So, either pursue your interests, enjoy life, and don't measure your life by how many numbers precede the decimal. Or, get a useful skill and make good use of the public library.
Your high school counselors are all going to say go to college, yada yada... It's not always the best option. Explore tham all.
i don't care what their writing looks like, and i am not a penmanship nazi. hell, my penmanship is pathetic. however, what i was referring to is the overall writing process, and yes, handwriting (printing, cursive, whatever) is a vital part. as fo rthe nickname, it's my license plate. i'm a ww2 aviation buff, and love the B17 Flying Fortress. but i did play intellivsion football. in think 9526 was unstopable. or something like that. i remember you roll out and either ran it or threw back across the field.
what i meant by "engaging" is probably differnet than what you interpret. by engaging, i am referring to edu-jargon, as in the students are engaged with the material, i.e. doing soimething meaningful, etc., which is not necessarily doing anything towards their learning. i apologize for not clarifying. as always, the teacher is essential in developing a relationship with the students. yes, parents share much of the blame, as in 10 years of teaching, not once have i ever been asked "what are they learning", only "how're they doing" as in what's the grade. i have never once had a parent ever ask me how they can learn more, only get a better grade. because they are unrelated!!
my gripe with computers is that hthey are a tool, that's all, and not a novel solution. as for not doing the reading/writing, you've no idea the pressure for grades, and as truthfully, students will not do the reading and writing, regardless, (and i teach in an upper middle class district in so cal, not the ghetto), we are asking for alot of headaches as we try to challenge the students and their grades suffer. it's just that we require precious little in the way of reading and writing. schools have succumbed to the masses, not chosen to lead and educate. sad.
1) yes, the computer is a tool. that's it. it has no magical, mytical powers to impart knowledge. Those of you comparing your earlier typed/handwritten papers to more recent computer generated work forget that you learned the writing process first, and are now using the tool. learning to write on a word processor is counter productive. google "writing process" and see what it is. continually hitting backspace and correcting as yuo go is not part of the process.
2) technology is a huge crutch. teachers do send their kids into the lab and say "ah, an easy week". and the computer, and that abortion of powerpoint has dumbed us down. google for edward tuft powerpoint, or space shuttle powerpoint. the results are not pretty.
3) don't confuse teachers using computers in a classroom versus kids using the computer. for example, right now we are studying the rise of communism in the (former!!) Soviet Union. I have my ibook hooked up to a projector. One of the assignments is to evaluate lenin era vs. stalin era propaganda posters. is the computer invaluable? yes. but the kids write in their notebooks. by hand. and that's the difference.
4) yes, kids have always done alot of work to avoid doing any work. no question about that. it's just we (educators, schools, etc.) have fallen prey and now give credence to their avoidance. we now have to make it relevant, exciting, etc. hell, they need to read books. and instead of having them do what we know to be correct, we give in.
i'm unique in that i teach humanities (history) AND technology (AP comp sci). i understand the value of both. it's not that schools can't help prepare kids for the future, and include computer skills, but it should be done in comuter class, not having the history teacher, oh by the way, french revolution and microsoft word.
I am a history teacher, and part fo the problem is that the educational establishment, i.e. teacher colleges, etc., stress all kinds of crap about engaging them, motivating them, etc. We have to de facto compete with the freakin computer, television, ipod, cell phone, etc., while the kids are sold a bill of goods about how learning should be "relevant" and "personal". I want to scream. Kids don't read or write anymore. I did my MA thesis on technology and writing, and guess what, writing suffers immeasurably when using a computer. Hell, I'm a geek like everyone else around/. But, the problem is education is denigrated today. It's all about whether it will earn you a dollar.
.cx. but it got shut down. here's the tribute site.
(there's this web site called google.com. man, i hope word doesn't spread, it like has everything. you type in what you're looking for, and sumbitch, it's there. if too many people find out about it, it'll get slashdotted, and like, won't work or something.)
go fork off. it's open source y'know. seriously though, i'm not too up with debian, but don't they have an unstable tree that keeps things pretty much up to date? and aren't there plenty of packages one can apt-get? and hell, if people want, there's fedora or mandrake for more "current" distros. and nothing stops someone from compiling a new kernel if they should choose. debian tends to be the more linux guru distro anyways, unlike many more user friendly ones. big deal. choice is great. distros like lindows, lycoris, and especailly knoppix use deb as their base. so, big deal if they want to be more methodical.
the difference is that apple actually wants their laptops to look good. the P4 laptops look like somebody stole the dashboard out of a cadilac and glued on an LCD.
i know that. i just can't justfiy a new PB to the wife if it another G4. of course i already have three kids so using it actually on my lap isn't a concern!!
apple would offer the free upgrade if you bought a PB within a month of tiger coming out. they're pretty good about that. though i'm still waiting for the g5 PB's.
part of the problem is that while linux, OO.org, etc., is fine for 95% of the needs of 95% of people, there is always something. and truth be told, most people who want office, get it for free. businesses pony up because they feel they have to and they're all like lemmings. nobody wants to be the first. and they all know that sending somebody a.sxw file is like sending them a chunk of moonrock. it's really cool, but really useless, except that it's really not cool.(unless you're in the spiderman cartoon, where it turns you into werewolf or something.)
hell, i use OO.org too, but people are wed to office, like it can cure the common cold. for example, here's the crap we get at my school. there'll be 9 kids leaving on some choir field trip and we get an email with an excel attachment. WTF!! it's crap like that. now, can most people familiar with office spend 20 minutes and not miss a beat. sure.
Slashdot Mirror
to figure out eh who is a canadian eh? im mean eh, it's aboot national secoority eh. so, if it makes the US safer, eh, then it should be okay eh.
this reminds me of the story about the company that wanted to settle on a single server technology, and left the choice to its IT dept. of course, there were twice as many windows admins for the same number of servers, so guess which "technology" they voted on?
i do alot of LAMP (well, OS X and AMP), mostly php, but some perl. i don't know what is more important, the absolute best technology, or one that a developer can generate a stable, secure, and effective solution, in an acceptable time frame. sure, there are the amazons and ebays, etc., for whome a 5% difference will mean alot, but for most sites, i think there will be little difference. however, alot of sites won't have access to every technology especially if they have shared server hosting. even if they have full root access, they still might prefer to go with a particular technology, no matter its merits. for example, if i said to a client, "hey, i'll do this on ROR, but, you gotta install x, y, and z, on your server..." well than it gets harder. even if working for larger firm, or on a larger site, what is more expensive nowadays? throwing one more server at the problem, or rewriting the entire codebase?
not an argument against learning anything , hell, if had the time, ROR looks cool. but how long until php became acceptable? is it better to be really good at A or able in B, C, and D? specialization vs. generalization? tough call.
one, I hardly consider wikipedia to be an authority on a subject. there is a Liberal party in canada, and other places, though not in the US. and would you call those who promote speech codes on campuses "liberals"? the constitution is more than abortion and gay marriage. what about property rights. what about gun control. what that really is is not liberalism, but libertarianism. an idea i find somewhat attarctive.
i don't "preceive" liberalism as change. if you'd bother to read what i wrote, you;d understand that the liberal view, historically, has been one of change. for instance, liberalism meant more democratic governments, whereas conservativism meant monarchies. however, compare the US revolution with the french civil war (no, it wasn't a revolution). the big difference was the french experieince was wholly secular and more about retribution (modern day marxists, which oddly enough look alot like the french revo civil war), ours was far more faith based, or traditional. thus ours survived 230+ years, their became a terrorist state then dictatorship in a decade. we had a far more rightist outlook on people, more aristotelian, not the leftist platonic view.
i simplified to keep the post within reason. however, the "left vs. right" debate is not only valid, but a wholly substantive one, the notion of determinism in history. it's what's marxism based on. also fascism. but then again, you'd have to do more than quote wikipedia to know that. be concerned, fine. be more concerned that most high school history teachers don't have a clue about history.
actually, there are legitmate liberal and conservative labels. taken in the classical sense, a liberal seeks change, while a conservative seeks the status quo. now, how do you define liberal and conservative. we often make the mistake in America of labeling secularists and traditionalists with the lib/cons labels. and there is a huge difference. in fact, secularists could be quite conservative, and traditionalists quite liberal, as per above definition.
today's lib/cons debate tends to break down along three areas, 1) role of government, 2) property rights, 3) individual liberty
liberals generally want more government (higher taxes, more spending), less property rights (gun control, environmental laws) and more liberty (abortion). conservatives generally want less gov., more prop rights, and less liberty, or at least less nihilism.
now, bush is no conservative. he wants a big government, massive spending, and has a federal solution for everything. his foreign policy (save for all the ignorance around here) is very liberal, in a wilsonian/rooseveltian manner. he has eschewed the republicans favored Realpolitik and stability (so Bismarckian) for a proactive policy of change. (and no the war wasn't about oil, or even wmd's. sorry excuse for what will historically be a great policy.) guys like dean really aren't as liberal as secular. bush's soc sec. plan is actualyl quite liberal, while the opponents are quite conservative.
where does that leave the debate, it's really a left vs. right debate, which ahs nothing to do with lib/cons labels. leftism has a decidely deterministic (marx, hegel) outlook, whereas rightism sees history as mutable and the result of great ideas and people (the classical, aristotelian approach. i.e. thucydides, herodotus). it's really more a way of looking at the world. for example, those who see the iraqi war as for oil, believe in the deterministic view, that external forces (class oppression) thus it's an evil venture. whereas those who see the history as shaped by events (thus democracy can reshape the middle east) are usually in favor of the war.
there's of course other factors, as those "conservatives" opposed to the war, i.e. pat buchanan, are influenced by outside forces (anti-semitism, the church, etc.) and thus are more traditionalist leftists. (his opposition to abortion and free trade)
yes, i do teach this stuff. this is a brief summary, but it's more accurate to define left vs. right, which is a substantive debate.
the world's biggest wristwatch
and there's more to it than that. many of the kids that go off to a four year are simply too immature to handle being away from mommy and daddy and their {boy|girl}friend. they eat too much, drink like fish, and don't have anyone to wake them up at 7:30 to get to class. when they fail after the first year, it's like the biggest embarassment of their lives, especially considering these are always the top students, always get A's (forgetting about grade inflation, and teachers too frustrated to deal with nasty parents...), and usually didn't even have to study that hard. hell, most of them don't even konw what they want to, save for getting out on their own. the first 2 years at a juco would give them alot more insight. it's something i tell my students, that the best kept secret in the world is 2 miles away, and like $10 a unit.
that tin foil hat fitting a little too tight? you could go on for hours because some college professor went on for hours. big f-ing deal. we sold weapins to the nazis, let the japnese attack us, then formualted the daves (actually marshall) plan so we could recop our investment. i got a bridge in brooklyn i'm selling. you interested?
dude, put down the gore vidal, howard zinn and noam chomsky books. they are liars.
1) we did save france in ww1. the brits were effectively broken after somme and 2ypres. cambrai offered a respite, and allowed them to remain on the continent, but not as other than a shell of its former self. the french after 2nd aisne. the russians left in 1917, and the germans launched their 1918 spring offensive, got within 30 miles of Paris, only to be stopped in belleau woods. the germnas were on their way to victory. period.
i'd continue except that you displiayed your ignorance, and i shan't be bothered wasting my time ina flame war. oh yeah, by the way, we actually did win vietnam. by 1973, after LB2, we bombed the VC to the bargaining table. they gave in, we got a real south vietnma government up, had less than 30,000 troops in country, and the country was stabilizing. only the traitorous lefties in congress pulled the plug on funding which caused the democratic south government to collapse.
dude, know what you're talking about before you runneth off at the mouth. the original post was half humorous, half truthful. they have never been our allies, only used us like a french whore when it served their purpose. then they fuck us in the ass and tell us how wonderful they are.
you'd be scared to have your children taught by somone who actually knows his discipline and is well read. wow. i'm stupid? neil, i assume that's your name (or is it what you do!!), you haven't any idea. because we share a differing opinion, that frightens you? perhaps you should read a book or two, and maybe you'd feel a bit more secure in YOUR beliefs, well that's the trouble, they're beliefs not knowledge. you can believe anything, hell some idiots make a movie, and people believe it. and it even sells well, and they pimp it to the academy, and in an election year, though it's full of lies and half truths, but correct politically...try responding with intelligence rather than bluster.
as mick foley says, have a nice day.
if it wasn't their support of terrorists, their ingratiating manner about our saving their asses twice, and the fact that they are as useless as tits on a nun, now i have another reason.
I am a high school history teacher, so I have some insight that others might not have. College is great, but...a few things to consider. One, taking a year or two off, to travel or work, is great. The experiences are invaluable. Don't piss away your youth, because you'll never get these years back, when your young, unencumbered, and healthy. Hell, I'm 36, got a wife, 3 kids, an MA in Education, 10 years teaching, and you know what, other than working for a few years prior to teaching, I did nothing. Boy do I wish I had.
/.) immersed in history books and classical literature and history and I think that we have debased education today. And I think there is certainly a place for knowledgable people in all aspects of life, it's just that we don't value education. So, either pursue your interests, enjoy life, and don't measure your life by how many numbers precede the decimal. Or, get a useful skill and make good use of the public library.
You don't know where your life will lead, what you'll want to do, nor where your experiences will guide you. If you were going to drop out, do drugs, follow the grateful dead ro something, that's another matter. But by broadening your horizons, you'll be better off. Now, what are you going to get out of collge? For the most part, a piece of paper. Employers have caught onto the game, know about grade inflation, and know that most of what goes on in college is about as useful as tits on a nun. In fact, what matters today is graduate school. So, thinking you're going to college and than going to get a good job, well, think again. Unless you get a degree in math or something specific which has direct usefulness in the "real world". Now, I love history and the classics, and spend my free time (away from
Your high school counselors are all going to say go to college, yada yada... It's not always the best option. Explore tham all.
i just peed my pants laughing. and by the way, thanks for having a sense of humor.
Unfortunatley, I didn't get the job. :(
/." should not be listed under job skills
maybe "posts regularly on
i don't care what their writing looks like, and i am not a penmanship nazi. hell, my penmanship is pathetic. however, what i was referring to is the overall writing process, and yes, handwriting (printing, cursive, whatever) is a vital part. as fo rthe nickname, it's my license plate. i'm a ww2 aviation buff, and love the B17 Flying Fortress. but i did play intellivsion football. in think 9526 was unstopable. or something like that. i remember you roll out and either ran it or threw back across the field.
what i meant by "engaging" is probably differnet than what you interpret. by engaging, i am referring to edu-jargon, as in the students are engaged with the material, i.e. doing soimething meaningful, etc., which is not necessarily doing anything towards their learning. i apologize for not clarifying. as always, the teacher is essential in developing a relationship with the students. yes, parents share much of the blame, as in 10 years of teaching, not once have i ever been asked "what are they learning", only "how're they doing" as in what's the grade. i have never once had a parent ever ask me how they can learn more, only get a better grade. because they are unrelated!!
my gripe with computers is that hthey are a tool, that's all, and not a novel solution. as for not doing the reading/writing, you've no idea the pressure for grades, and as truthfully, students will not do the reading and writing, regardless, (and i teach in an upper middle class district in so cal, not the ghetto), we are asking for alot of headaches as we try to challenge the students and their grades suffer. it's just that we require precious little in the way of reading and writing. schools have succumbed to the masses, not chosen to lead and educate. sad.
a few comments:
1) yes, the computer is a tool. that's it. it has no magical, mytical powers to impart knowledge. Those of you comparing your earlier typed/handwritten papers to more recent computer generated work forget that you learned the writing process first, and are now using the tool. learning to write on a word processor is counter productive. google "writing process" and see what it is. continually hitting backspace and correcting as yuo go is not part of the process.
2) technology is a huge crutch. teachers do send their kids into the lab and say "ah, an easy week". and the computer, and that abortion of powerpoint has dumbed us down. google for edward tuft powerpoint, or space shuttle powerpoint. the results are not pretty.
3) don't confuse teachers using computers in a classroom versus kids using the computer. for example, right now we are studying the rise of communism in the (former!!) Soviet Union. I have my ibook hooked up to a projector. One of the assignments is to evaluate lenin era vs. stalin era propaganda posters. is the computer invaluable? yes. but the kids write in their notebooks. by hand. and that's the difference.
4) yes, kids have always done alot of work to avoid doing any work. no question about that. it's just we (educators, schools, etc.) have fallen prey and now give credence to their avoidance. we now have to make it relevant, exciting, etc. hell, they need to read books. and instead of having them do what we know to be correct, we give in.
i'm unique in that i teach humanities (history) AND technology (AP comp sci). i understand the value of both. it's not that schools can't help prepare kids for the future, and include computer skills, but it should be done in comuter class, not having the history teacher, oh by the way, french revolution and microsoft word.
I am a history teacher, and part fo the problem is that the educational establishment, i.e. teacher colleges, etc., stress all kinds of crap about engaging them, motivating them, etc. We have to de facto compete with the freakin computer, television, ipod, cell phone, etc., while the kids are sold a bill of goods about how learning should be "relevant" and "personal". I want to scream. Kids don't read or write anymore. I did my MA thesis on technology and writing, and guess what, writing suffers immeasurably when using a computer. Hell, I'm a geek like everyone else around /. But, the problem is education is denigrated today. It's all about whether it will earn you a dollar.
damn, here's the tribute site
.cx. but it got shut down. here's the tribute site.
(there's this web site called google.com. man, i hope word doesn't spread, it like has everything. you type in what you're looking for, and sumbitch, it's there. if too many people find out about it, it'll get slashdotted, and like, won't work or something.)
go fork off. it's open source y'know. seriously though, i'm not too up with debian, but don't they have an unstable tree that keeps things pretty much up to date? and aren't there plenty of packages one can apt-get? and hell, if people want, there's fedora or mandrake for more "current" distros. and nothing stops someone from compiling a new kernel if they should choose. debian tends to be the more linux guru distro anyways, unlike many more user friendly ones. big deal. choice is great. distros like lindows, lycoris, and especailly knoppix use deb as their base. so, big deal if they want to be more methodical.
open source gadfly?
the difference is that apple actually wants their laptops to look good. the P4 laptops look like somebody stole the dashboard out of a cadilac and glued on an LCD.
i know that. i just can't justfiy a new PB to the wife if it another G4. of course i already have three kids so using it actually on my lap isn't a concern!!
apple would offer the free upgrade if you bought a PB within a month of tiger coming out. they're pretty good about that. though i'm still waiting for the g5 PB's.
part of the problem is that while linux, OO.org, etc., is fine for 95% of the needs of 95% of people, there is always something. and truth be told, most people who want office, get it for free. businesses pony up because they feel they have to and they're all like lemmings. nobody wants to be the first. and they all know that sending somebody a .sxw file is like sending them a chunk of moonrock. it's really cool, but really useless, except that it's really not cool.(unless you're in the spiderman cartoon, where it turns you into werewolf or something.)
hell, i use OO.org too, but people are wed to office, like it can cure the common cold. for example, here's the crap we get at my school. there'll be 9 kids leaving on some choir field trip and we get an email with an excel attachment. WTF!! it's crap like that. now, can most people familiar with office spend 20 minutes and not miss a beat. sure.