There's plenty of evidence that reading to kids and kids seeing their parents read leads to kids that read, though. Formal reading instruction is a load of bs, and kills the love of reading. If all you want is a kid that can pass the standardized reading test, then fine, school will teach them to do that (though with quite a bit more work than the kids that are already reading). If you want a kid that loves reading and learning and has many more doors open to them because of that, you should take a look at why your own attitude is what it is.
Where on earth do you get "being helpless" from? Not enjoying reading makes them much more helpless, especially in today's world where nearly everything requires reading.
I don't know, last time I watched the news it was talking about a supposed epidemic of TVs falling on and killing kids. The TVs in my house are literally lighter than a textbook (okay, I guess I should say "than the textbooks I carried when I was in school," because admittedly, most of my kids' textbooks are ebooks), so that didn't seem very real. The news is simply there to keep the public living in fear of everything.
Letting a kid type on the computer is useless unless you are also teaching them to read. But just building with Legos or just painting works if all you ever want them to be able to do is hard labor jobs.
Because it's a great way to spend quality time together, and it usually presents opportunities to learn the meaning of new words (for both of you, maybe, depending on what you're reading) and to discuss what is going on and how they are in line or not in line with your moral values.
Stick with what the kid likes. If you try to push what you like or what is recommended instead onto him, reading will become a chore. So just start with Spiderman, and then go for whatever comic books are tying into Spiderman at the moment. Yes, comic books aren't really focused at 3 year olds, there are going to be several words you will have to explain the meaning of, it's going to be above his reading level, etc. - but that's a GOOD thing, because not only will he have fun, he will be learning, and growing a lifelong love of reading and learning.
There's also the frequent misuse of "bring" (instead of "take"). It's great that you're teaching kids Spanish, Dora, but how about not fucking up their English in the process?
Parents don't trust these teachers to not molest their children through the internet, yet they leave their children in classrooms physically inches away from these teachers for hours 5 days a week. If you do not trust these people completely, why would you leave your child with them?!
Oh yeah, I forgot that they took that out. Nowadys you must install Gnome Classic, which is so simple and an answer I got so quickly that I forgot I had to do it. Not simple for an average user, but simple for a helper familiar with linux. But again, this is purely something that only annoys those of us that have used the older version. For the average user, going from Windows to Unity would be little different than going from Windows XP to Windows Vista.
I've been using it for years and never had that problem. I've had much more problem with Windows updates breaking stuff, and Windows upgrades break so much stuff that it isn't even funny.
Sure, it COULD mean that, but I happen to know that he in fact uses it more - because he can actually use it now instead of waiting around 4 days out the week for me to come fix it. And I know that because we communicate about other things, usually online.
But really, the only way to draw a valid conclusion would be to get lots of average users using it...
I agree with that, but you could simply choose to not use Unity at login and tell the person to not switch back; or allow the person to figure out what each icon does. People that have not used anything else don't usually complain.
Windows comes with pretty every store-bought computer. So for many people, it's all they've ever used. And when any new computer they buy is going to have it too, why bother learning anything else? Schools and workplaces don't want to go through the trouble of teaching people to use something else, so they stick with what everyone already knows.
But, I think this is changing. The other day I was pleasantly surprised to realize the computers at my local library were running Ubuntu. Many kids today are familiar with multiple OSes - they not only use Windows on desktops, but Android or IOS on phones, the DS or PSP interfaces, and play many games with interfaces so complicated they are like learning to use a new OS. Kids today are learning how to actually use computers unlike the last generation which learned how to use Windows. So as these kids grow up and get jobs, there's going to be a lot more workplaces comfortable with using Linux. The issue with using it in schools right now is training the teachers, but that will change as the kids of today become teachers, if not sooner.
This article combines cost to an average user and cost to a company in ways that are misleading. For the average user,: yes, the first savings is only that of $50. But I've never paid for Linux, neither updates nor upgrades to a whole new version. With Windows, you get updates free - though not for an unlimited amount of time - and then eventually you must pay for an upgrade if you want to stay current. Often Windows updates require more and more resources until the computer is not powerful enough to run the OS anymore, and many of the upgrades aren't optional or your software won't work without having the latest Windows update. When an upgrade comes out, you almost always need to upgrade your computer. Oh, and you'll get viruses galore if you don't keep Windows updated. I've never had those problems with Linux. So yes the initial savings is $50... but a couple of years down the line, Linux will really show the savings.
They didn't mention the prices of the alternatives to those open source software: Photoshop will run you $700, Microsoft Office $100 - $200. But you can use OpenOffice and GIMP on Windows too, so that's kind of irrelevant.
As for companies: They probably aren't buying things at that $50 difference, so I don't know how much savings is there. Upgrading Windows is much more work than upgrading Linux in my experience, and with Windows it usually means work has to stop for awhile, while I haven't seen the same thing with Linux. The cost of the extra work of upgrading and the lost production while work is stopped would have to be considered. I understand that Microsoft releases updates mostly at a scheduled time and therefore work stoppage can be scheduled, but I'd guess there is still some effect. I know that companies get discounts for Windows upgrades, but I don't know any specifics about that and how they compare to Linux corporate plans. I do know, however, that there are Linux distros that are completely free even for corporations, and the only cost of upgrading would be to have someone do the upgrade (if it isn't feasible to have the employees do it themselves) - which, again, is easier to do than with Windows.
. "A typical thing in a Windows setting is to establish some usage policies, and set up some limitations on the systems to keep them stable. Linux doesn't have those types of standards out of the box." That's bullshit. Linux has much more efficient ways to set limitations than Windows. With Windows it's everything or nothing, with Linux I can set each specific user to have access only to certain parts of something, and can change it much more easily than I can on Windows.
Commercial software that is only available for Windows is really the only valid point in this article, but really, how many people at the company need to use that specific software? And how many people that don't need the special software end up getting viruses and etc. and taking up time and money when IT has to fix their computer?
Simple: "Use ubuntu." The average user isn't deciding what they will use at work. And who cares about what the Linux fans say? Do you want the average user to be able to use their computer, or do you want to appease the Linux fans? The average user isn't going to hear the arguments. Ubuntu is simple to set up, simple for the average user to keep up to date, they can browse the web and make word-compatible documents and, basically all the things the average user wants to do except watch netflix. They won't NEED to call you for support. When my mentally disabled brother was on Windows, I got a call a week where he had some virus or something he couldn't figure out. I switched him to Ubuntu and he now calls me for help about once every 6 months. If a mentally disabled person can use it, the average user can.
so there are other options to get the illegal stuff on The Pirate Bay... but what about the stuff that is on there legally, where TPB is the only place to get it?
The child in Uganda actually has the symptoms of Monkeypox, right? How do we know the mother doesn't have it and just isn't showing it yet? How is this child not going to infect others when he is bought over to America?
Food: grow the seeds, compost the peels and etc. I don't see why used housing confuses you; unless you built your house yourself, odds are it was used when you got it.
Amazon already does not enforce DRM. Publishers decide to put on DRM or not - there are many books in the Kindle store without DRM. With the ability to "lend" Kindle books to others, the library lending, etc. the "redistribution" of Kindle books is actually pretty high.
Music stopped selling because most music got shitty. Sales were already going down before music piracy became mainstream. I think there is a large percentage that "will pay to support things they consider good, but won't pay for shitty stuff unless you make them."
Slashdot Mirror
There's plenty of evidence that reading to kids and kids seeing their parents read leads to kids that read, though. Formal reading instruction is a load of bs, and kills the love of reading. If all you want is a kid that can pass the standardized reading test, then fine, school will teach them to do that (though with quite a bit more work than the kids that are already reading). If you want a kid that loves reading and learning and has many more doors open to them because of that, you should take a look at why your own attitude is what it is.
Where on earth do you get "being helpless" from? Not enjoying reading makes them much more helpless, especially in today's world where nearly everything requires reading.
Clara's kids are great role models! "Don't bother mommy while she's gaming" is something all kids should know!
Where did the OP imply he is only interested in superhero comics?
I don't know, last time I watched the news it was talking about a supposed epidemic of TVs falling on and killing kids. The TVs in my house are literally lighter than a textbook (okay, I guess I should say "than the textbooks I carried when I was in school," because admittedly, most of my kids' textbooks are ebooks), so that didn't seem very real. The news is simply there to keep the public living in fear of everything.
Letting a kid type on the computer is useless unless you are also teaching them to read. But just building with Legos or just painting works if all you ever want them to be able to do is hard labor jobs.
Because it's a great way to spend quality time together, and it usually presents opportunities to learn the meaning of new words (for both of you, maybe, depending on what you're reading) and to discuss what is going on and how they are in line or not in line with your moral values.
Stick with what the kid likes. If you try to push what you like or what is recommended instead onto him, reading will become a chore. So just start with Spiderman, and then go for whatever comic books are tying into Spiderman at the moment. Yes, comic books aren't really focused at 3 year olds, there are going to be several words you will have to explain the meaning of, it's going to be above his reading level, etc. - but that's a GOOD thing, because not only will he have fun, he will be learning, and growing a lifelong love of reading and learning.
There's also the frequent misuse of "bring" (instead of "take"). It's great that you're teaching kids Spanish, Dora, but how about not fucking up their English in the process?
Parents don't trust these teachers to not molest their children through the internet, yet they leave their children in classrooms physically inches away from these teachers for hours 5 days a week. If you do not trust these people completely, why would you leave your child with them?!
Oh yeah, I forgot that they took that out. Nowadys you must install Gnome Classic, which is so simple and an answer I got so quickly that I forgot I had to do it. Not simple for an average user, but simple for a helper familiar with linux. But again, this is purely something that only annoys those of us that have used the older version. For the average user, going from Windows to Unity would be little different than going from Windows XP to Windows Vista.
I've been using it for years and never had that problem. I've had much more problem with Windows updates breaking stuff, and Windows upgrades break so much stuff that it isn't even funny.
Sure, it COULD mean that, but I happen to know that he in fact uses it more - because he can actually use it now instead of waiting around 4 days out the week for me to come fix it. And I know that because we communicate about other things, usually online.
But really, the only way to draw a valid conclusion would be to get lots of average users using it...
I agree with that, but you could simply choose to not use Unity at login and tell the person to not switch back; or allow the person to figure out what each icon does. People that have not used anything else don't usually complain.
Windows comes with pretty every store-bought computer. So for many people, it's all they've ever used. And when any new computer they buy is going to have it too, why bother learning anything else? Schools and workplaces don't want to go through the trouble of teaching people to use something else, so they stick with what everyone already knows.
But, I think this is changing. The other day I was pleasantly surprised to realize the computers at my local library were running Ubuntu. Many kids today are familiar with multiple OSes - they not only use Windows on desktops, but Android or IOS on phones, the DS or PSP interfaces, and play many games with interfaces so complicated they are like learning to use a new OS. Kids today are learning how to actually use computers unlike the last generation which learned how to use Windows. So as these kids grow up and get jobs, there's going to be a lot more workplaces comfortable with using Linux. The issue with using it in schools right now is training the teachers, but that will change as the kids of today become teachers, if not sooner.
This article combines cost to an average user and cost to a company in ways that are misleading. For the average user,: yes, the first savings is only that of $50. But I've never paid for Linux, neither updates nor upgrades to a whole new version. With Windows, you get updates free - though not for an unlimited amount of time - and then eventually you must pay for an upgrade if you want to stay current. Often Windows updates require more and more resources until the computer is not powerful enough to run the OS anymore, and many of the upgrades aren't optional or your software won't work without having the latest Windows update. When an upgrade comes out, you almost always need to upgrade your computer. Oh, and you'll get viruses galore if you don't keep Windows updated. I've never had those problems with Linux. So yes the initial savings is $50... but a couple of years down the line, Linux will really show the savings.
They didn't mention the prices of the alternatives to those open source software: Photoshop will run you $700, Microsoft Office $100 - $200. But you can use OpenOffice and GIMP on Windows too, so that's kind of irrelevant.
As for companies: They probably aren't buying things at that $50 difference, so I don't know how much savings is there. Upgrading Windows is much more work than upgrading Linux in my experience, and with Windows it usually means work has to stop for awhile, while I haven't seen the same thing with Linux. The cost of the extra work of upgrading and the lost production while work is stopped would have to be considered. I understand that Microsoft releases updates mostly at a scheduled time and therefore work stoppage can be scheduled, but I'd guess there is still some effect. I know that companies get discounts for Windows upgrades, but I don't know any specifics about that and how they compare to Linux corporate plans. I do know, however, that there are Linux distros that are completely free even for corporations, and the only cost of upgrading would be to have someone do the upgrade (if it isn't feasible to have the employees do it themselves) - which, again, is easier to do than with Windows.
. "A typical thing in a Windows setting is to establish some usage policies, and set up some limitations on the systems to keep them stable. Linux doesn't have those types of standards out of the box." That's bullshit. Linux has much more efficient ways to set limitations than Windows. With Windows it's everything or nothing, with Linux I can set each specific user to have access only to certain parts of something, and can change it much more easily than I can on Windows.
Commercial software that is only available for Windows is really the only valid point in this article, but really, how many people at the company need to use that specific software? And how many people that don't need the special software end up getting viruses and etc. and taking up time and money when IT has to fix their computer?
Simple: "Use ubuntu." The average user isn't deciding what they will use at work. And who cares about what the Linux fans say? Do you want the average user to be able to use their computer, or do you want to appease the Linux fans? The average user isn't going to hear the arguments. Ubuntu is simple to set up, simple for the average user to keep up to date, they can browse the web and make word-compatible documents and, basically all the things the average user wants to do except watch netflix. They won't NEED to call you for support. When my mentally disabled brother was on Windows, I got a call a week where he had some virus or something he couldn't figure out. I switched him to Ubuntu and he now calls me for help about once every 6 months. If a mentally disabled person can use it, the average user can.
so there are other options to get the illegal stuff on The Pirate Bay... but what about the stuff that is on there legally, where TPB is the only place to get it?
The last line of the article: "Lise Sievers has adopted 10 other children from around the country and has two biological children."
The child in Uganda actually has the symptoms of Monkeypox, right? How do we know the mother doesn't have it and just isn't showing it yet? How is this child not going to infect others when he is bought over to America?
Oh please, take a real look at how kids waiting for adoption in the US live vs kids in Uganda.
Sure it does. paying no sales tax on Amazon means I have more money left over to spend at local businesses.
Food: grow the seeds, compost the peels and etc. I don't see why used housing confuses you; unless you built your house yourself, odds are it was used when you got it.
We'd be able to play minigames during loading if Namco didn't hold the patent...
it was the "stranger danger" bullshit taught at schools.
I know it is hard to believe, but some of us actually like supporting things.
Amazon already does not enforce DRM. Publishers decide to put on DRM or not - there are many books in the Kindle store without DRM. With the ability to "lend" Kindle books to others, the library lending, etc. the "redistribution" of Kindle books is actually pretty high.
Music stopped selling because most music got shitty. Sales were already going down before music piracy became mainstream. I think there is a large percentage that "will pay to support things they consider good, but won't pay for shitty stuff unless you make them."