Many Earth Science types have been using the LDM for quite some time now. The LDM always struck me as the academic's BitTorrent.
Granted, the LDM is geared more towards providing data in "near real-time," as opposed to delivering static content. ..but you can download and upload from/to just about anybody else with the LDM.
Farmers can leave their property to their children; why shouldn't songwriters be able to leave their songs to their children?
Ummmmmm, because songs aren't property, maybe, hmmmm?, maybe?
But let's not go too far into dreamland. Yes, the current system of copyright can be antiquated and user unfriendly, and its enforcement can be discriminatory, but it has created a lot of wealth for individual artists, not just corporations. More important, it has created a vast body of art for the public.
That the public doesn't own(yet, and probably never will), so it's not really for the public. I mean, I really don't get that statement. "It has created a vast body of content for the public to purchase" seems more appropriate.
Deliberate "mistake": When Mary Jane is being pulled toward the tritium when Doc Ock has her, the shot is taken from her feet up to her head. If you look where her dress ends, you can just barely see that instead of having the regular open dress, it is switched with shorts of the same type so you can't see under her dress. Submitted by Guy Strad
I hate it when I can't see up an open dress. ..especially if it's Kirsten's dress.
Radoslaw Sokol is a network administrator in Poland.
I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere, other than the article.
And now, when the time to ressurect the spatial ideas has finally come, people accustomed to the bad interface design try to defend it only because for the past years they have been using it
Obviously, it hasn't occured to Radoslaw that perhaps "the desktop" is a bad metaphor to design around.
For christsakes, I'm not trying to turn my hard drive into a file cabinet like one I may see in "the real world."
This just shows how much people have blindly accepted the view that if you smoke, you're worse than Hitler. People will recklessly modify their immune systems to "vaccinate" themselves from nicotine addiction.
I'd rather die a much more "natural" cancer death, than die from a statistically insignificant reaction to a "vaccine" put out by a company looking to make a quick buck on the misery of others.
BTW, cold turkey 2 years ago after smoking for 11.
Therefore decisions cannot be classified as 'Right' and 'Wrong' in any objective way, but only relative to what goals we set out to achieve.
Exactly.
Normally though, people I have heard using the phrase "situational ethics" have often used it in contrast to another desirable human characteristic, "integrity". So, it's definitely a double edged sword. ..and makes it hard to convince someone that "you are a man of integrity" even though you have "no moral compass." Absolute relativism seems like a much better phrase for keeping integrity, using the words "goal" and "achievements", etc.
Not that I consider this any sort of credible source, but Meriam-Webster Online requires only the denial of the existence of God to qualify as an athiest, rather than someone who treats logical reasoning as the only source of truth.
I also think that "one-time" shifts in a moral compass also happen to those who believe in God. But I would still call that compass fixed, since it's position at any given point in time is known. Living with situational ethics, on the other hand, the moral position at any given point in time is not known. I live with situational ethics, not because of any belief in reasoning as the only source of truth, but because I don't think knowing the relative position of any moral compass at any point in time is necessary to know what action to take at that point in time.
BTW, the fscked comment I made earlier was more of a/. "greeting" rather than an accurate assesment of my feelings towards your beliefs.
See, that's what's wrong with you Mac zealots(that's a joke, calm down before your panties get all bunched up). ..you don't understand how to right click.
Right click My(or Bill's) Computer->Manage
Click on Services and Applications then on Services.
No check boxes, but play and stop buttons.
Personally, I much prefer/etc/init.d/blahblahservice {start|stop|restart}
I wasn't trying to say that everyone is capable of creating excellent code. I also wasn't trying to imply that the ability to code means that person has any understanding of advanced CS ideas.
What I was trying to say was that programming could be as common place as writing. Not everyone is a good or even remotely great writer, but most everyone can communicate their ideas through the written word. Which is why I don't think it's such a stretch of the imagination to think that most people would also be capable of communicating their ideas to a computer. It's just that people don't know how to break down their ideas into ideas that a computer can understand.
But as computer become more and more ubiquitious, communicating desires to a computer should become more and more common to the common man.
requires the ability to think in the abstract means what, exactly? It means that you need to understand that what you think you're doing is not, from some critical vantage point, exactly what you are doing. In music, that means that you understand that the intervals of the scale are the same, regardless of the key you're playing in, even though the fundamental frequencies of the sound are different. In math, it means that you understand that the addition and multiplication tables are arbitrarily defined, and quantity does not have any direct correlation to numbers. For programming, it means that you have to understand the finite ammount of work you are able to carry out in each step of a program to get any arbitrary ammount of work completed by that program.
I think anyone can understand those concepts, like anyone can understand gravity, and use them to do their bidding. But you're right, not everyone will be EXCELLENT at it. So if you're trying to define programmer to mean an Excellent Coder, well versed in the problems of CS then yes you are right, but I don't think that's what the OP meant when he said that anyone could be a programmer.
I would tend to agree that most people could be able to program a computer.
The long logic chains are a part of programming, but I don't think that's where people have trouble. People don't understand how to break a task down into simple steps in another language because they haven't been taught to think that way because thinking that way makes no practical sense in any other context except programming. Even if one is doing some mathematical proof, they are not thinking in terms of "print "Q"; print "E"; print "D"; print "\n";" when they are finished. There is always some higher level of abstraction people use to operate in reality that you have to be able to lose to program effectively.
Basically, everyone can understand:
for each line in a file, if a line contains the pattern foo, print that line to the screen
Not everyone can take that and turn it into a real program or even a script. Because they don't understand that there are smaller steps to take to perform that task or specify that task to an interpreter. Which has to do with their perception of reality and not their relative logic skills.
The article does not say simply get rid of computers
The article is asking: What the hell is the primary emphasis in education, especially regarding spending, when they are laying off teachers and librarians and closing school libraries, yet spending $1 million on computers?
Just like in IT there isn't much advantage to throwing tons of money at the latest technology. It's not that the current software isn't effective, it's that there is no inherent advantage to relying on technology to teach.
Not having a computer is logically antecedent to inventing one. Thus, the statement, " The people who invented the computer didn't have computers in their classrooms.," is self-evident at best and is quite possibly the mindless uttering of a dumbass.
But that's just my opinion, since I have no MOD points at this time, nor any crack to accompany them.
if you've got a really sweet signal coming out of your vintage amp, and you've got a new computer running a new copy of Nuendo, but you're using a two year old SoundBlaster, that's a blatant misuse of funds.
An excellent point.
can't expect to bring it home from the store and start rocking as soon as you download ProTools from KaZaA
Here's a list of kick ass sofware I've downloaded frm KaZaA that really, in all seriousness, may get you rocking as soon as you download it(assuming you have a decent interface):
School must be in. Some segregated fees issues brewing?
Racism, unlike WMD, is a very specific thing, and it has nothing to do with eliminating relatively unfair discrimination. Racism is about systematic attempts to deprive a particular race of people positions of power in society.
Since you have no idea what racism means, and then redefine racism so that you're not actually a racist, you are ignorant, and so you probably are a racist.
Back when Tetris on the NES was new, I remember hearing my parents say that Tetris was good management training. Quick decision making while keeping a cool head, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Many Earth Science types have been using the LDM for quite some time now. The LDM always struck me as the academic's BitTorrent.
.but you can download and upload from/to just about anybody else with the LDM.
Granted, the LDM is geared more towards providing data in "near real-time," as opposed to delivering static content. .
Farmers can leave their property to their children; why shouldn't songwriters be able to leave their songs to their children?
Ummmmmm, because songs aren't property, maybe, hmmmm?, maybe?
But let's not go too far into dreamland. Yes, the current system of copyright can be antiquated and user unfriendly, and its enforcement can be discriminatory, but it has created a lot of wealth for individual artists, not just corporations. More important, it has created a vast body of art for the public.
That the public doesn't own(yet, and probably never will), so it's not really for the public. I mean, I really don't get that statement. "It has created a vast body of content for the public to purchase" seems more appropriate.
there is no such thing as "unfair" competition; there is only competition that your rivals may not be good enough to match.
or OEM licensing agreements that stipulate you must pay M$ for selling a rivals' OS.
Competition, litigation, it's all about process and persuasion isn't it? Competition is hardly so objective.
Deliberate "mistake": When Mary Jane is being pulled toward the tritium when Doc Ock has her, the shot is taken from her feet up to her head. If you look where her dress ends, you can just barely see that instead of having the regular open dress, it is switched with shorts of the same type so you can't see under her dress. Submitted by Guy Strad
.especially if it's Kirsten's dress.
I hate it when I can't see up an open dress. .
Radoslaw Sokol is a network administrator in Poland.
I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere, other than the article.
And now, when the time to ressurect the spatial ideas has finally come, people accustomed to the bad interface design try to defend it only because for the past years they have been using it
Obviously, it hasn't occured to Radoslaw that perhaps "the desktop" is a bad metaphor to design around.
For christsakes, I'm not trying to turn my hard drive into a file cabinet like one I may see in "the real world."
if it's in the rice, that's fine.
Netcraft says: The site www.sco.com is running Apache on Linux
At least they are indemnified.
Good point.
This just shows how much people have blindly accepted the view that if you smoke, you're worse than Hitler. People will recklessly modify their immune systems to "vaccinate" themselves from nicotine addiction.
I'd rather die a much more "natural" cancer death, than die from a statistically insignificant reaction to a "vaccine" put out by a company looking to make a quick buck on the misery of others.
BTW, cold turkey 2 years ago after smoking for 11.
Therefore decisions cannot be classified as 'Right' and 'Wrong' in any objective way, but only relative to what goals we set out to achieve.
.and makes it hard to convince someone that "you are a man of integrity" even though you have "no moral compass." Absolute relativism seems like a much better phrase for keeping integrity, using the words "goal" and "achievements", etc.
Exactly.
Normally though, people I have heard using the phrase "situational ethics" have often used it in contrast to another desirable human characteristic, "integrity". So, it's definitely a double edged sword. .
Not that I consider this any sort of credible source, but Meriam-Webster Online requires only the denial of the existence of God to qualify as an athiest, rather than someone who treats logical reasoning as the only source of truth.
/. "greeting" rather than an accurate assesment of my feelings towards your beliefs.
I also think that "one-time" shifts in a moral compass also happen to those who believe in God. But I would still call that compass fixed, since it's position at any given point in time is known. Living with situational ethics, on the other hand, the moral position at any given point in time is not known. I live with situational ethics, not because of any belief in reasoning as the only source of truth, but because I don't think knowing the relative position of any moral compass at any point in time is necessary to know what action to take at that point in time.
BTW, the fscked comment I made earlier was more of a
From what grounds would an atheist derive his fixed moral compass?
From any grounds he chooses. The only thing necessary for a fixed moral compass is that the morals are fixed. How is this not obvious?
Since I believe in situational ethics, you're both fscked in the head, regardless.
See, that's what's wrong with you Mac zealots(that's a joke, calm down before your panties get all bunched up). . .you don't understand how to right click.
/etc/init.d/blahblahservice {start|stop|restart}
Right click My(or Bill's) Computer->Manage
Click on Services and Applications then on Services.
No check boxes, but play and stop buttons.
Personally, I much prefer
I wasn't trying to say that everyone is capable of creating excellent code. I also wasn't trying to imply that the ability to code means that person has any understanding of advanced CS ideas.
What I was trying to say was that programming could be as common place as writing. Not everyone is a good or even remotely great writer, but most everyone can communicate their ideas through the written word. Which is why I don't think it's such a stretch of the imagination to think that most people would also be capable of communicating their ideas to a computer. It's just that people don't know how to break down their ideas into ideas that a computer can understand.
But as computer become more and more ubiquitious, communicating desires to a computer should become more and more common to the common man.
requires the ability to think in the abstract means what, exactly? It means that you need to understand that what you think you're doing is not, from some critical vantage point, exactly what you are doing. In music, that means that you understand that the intervals of the scale are the same, regardless of the key you're playing in, even though the fundamental frequencies of the sound are different. In math, it means that you understand that the addition and multiplication tables are arbitrarily defined, and quantity does not have any direct correlation to numbers. For programming, it means that you have to understand the finite ammount of work you are able to carry out in each step of a program to get any arbitrary ammount of work completed by that program.
I think anyone can understand those concepts, like anyone can understand gravity, and use them to do their bidding. But you're right, not everyone will be EXCELLENT at it. So if you're trying to define programmer to mean an Excellent Coder, well versed in the problems of CS then yes you are right, but I don't think that's what the OP meant when he said that anyone could be a programmer.
The long logic chains are a part of programming, but I don't think that's where people have trouble. People don't understand how to break a task down into simple steps in another language because they haven't been taught to think that way because thinking that way makes no practical sense in any other context except programming. Even if one is doing some mathematical proof, they are not thinking in terms of "print "Q"; print "E"; print "D"; print "\n";" when they are finished. There is always some higher level of abstraction people use to operate in reality that you have to be able to lose to program effectively.
Basically, everyone can understand:
Not everyone can take that and turn it into a real program or even a script. Because they don't understand that there are smaller steps to take to perform that task or specify that task to an interpreter. Which has to do with their perception of reality and not their relative logic skills.
I thought that EAL4 wasn't very secure at all anyway.
The article does not say simply get rid of computers
The article is asking: What the hell is the primary emphasis in education, especially regarding spending, when they are laying off teachers and librarians and closing school libraries, yet spending $1 million on computers?
Just like in IT there isn't much advantage to throwing tons of money at the latest technology. It's not that the current software isn't effective, it's that there is no inherent advantage to relying on technology to teach.
But I agree, the parent is quite uninsightful.
I think not.
Not having a computer is logically antecedent to inventing one. Thus, the statement, " The people who invented the computer didn't have computers in their classrooms.," is self-evident at best and is quite possibly the mindless uttering of a dumbass.
But that's just my opinion, since I have no MOD points at this time, nor any crack to accompany them.
Anyone else read that as THC??
. . . attributed to Fox News politically right slant
So what your saying is being politically right is now politically correct?
Real-world people don't telepath with computers
and real-world machines are intelligent and will either kill you or turn you into a battery based on their own understanding of will and purpose.
Can someone explain the major differences between:
microsoft patent
and this
weather central patent?
if you've got a really sweet signal coming out of your vintage amp, and you've got a new computer running a new copy of Nuendo, but you're using a two year old SoundBlaster, that's a blatant misuse of funds.
An excellent point.
can't expect to bring it home from the store and start rocking as soon as you download ProTools from KaZaA
Here's a list of kick ass sofware I've downloaded frm KaZaA that really, in all seriousness, may get you rocking as soon as you download it(assuming you have a decent interface):
Cubase VST 5.1
Reason 2.5
ReCycle 2.0
Acid 4.0
Soundforge 6.0
Samplitude 6.0
Waves Gold Bundle 3.5 Native (Direct X)
Waves Masters Bundle 3.5
add up the retail on all that:-)
Cubase + ReWire(built into cubase) + Reason = one kick ass studio.
School must be in. Some segregated fees issues brewing?
Racism, unlike WMD, is a very specific thing, and it has nothing to do with eliminating relatively unfair discrimination. Racism is about systematic attempts to deprive a particular race of people positions of power in society.
Since you have no idea what racism means, and then redefine racism so that you're not actually a racist, you are ignorant, and so you probably are a racist.
programmatically-generated data files
.
You mean pr0n?
Mmmmmm all of the historically significant pr0n. .
Back when Tetris on the NES was new, I remember hearing my parents say that Tetris was good management training. Quick decision making while keeping a cool head, etc.