"What I'm saying is try to replicate your experiences of the real world as much as possible. Just because IDEs weren't available when a lot of us were being taught doesn't mean we have to perpetuate a crappy situation."
Great advice! But teach them how to program first. Really, most people (and most CS newbies) don't know how a computer works. Some think that it somehow "thinks", other think that it manipulates windows and buttons, most never thought about it.
If you put your students at first behind a IDE, you'll reinforce the idea that computers manipulate windows and buttons. Those people will have a hard time thinking about I/O, sequential reading, pipelines (in general), and lots of other usefull algoritmical constructions because they'll have used message passing events (windows) for their entire life. (You can see that is an argument against GUI in general, your students can meet the CLI anytime, but it normaly only happens with the compiler).
Now, I'd also advice you against teaching C++ and VB for novices. You shouldn't do that. C++ is too hard, you'll take too much time teaching the language and have very little time left to teach programming. VB doesn't enforce good habits, you must always teach good habits to novices. I prefer to teach programming on Pascal, although Java is ok for a start (if you teach C or C++ later).
That is easy to do on any OS I can think of. The problem is that people don't want locked down computers, so even a TC plataform will be suceptible to virus.
It is not better permissions that makes *nix safer for this worm, it is a better UI, that doesn't ask stupid questions to the user all the time. And saner file formats, that doesn't execute stuf on text and image files.
It is unrealistical to expect people to not install dumb programs on any mainstream OS, but you can try to reduce the odds of this happening. Here is where MS failed.
Concern with licenses is not zealotry. If you want to risk legal problems, bills and paying atorneys, go ahead and include all that software on your distro.
And license zealotry is not bad. If you* want to run Windows, just use it. If you want Linux to not be free just to use it, well, I guess we're going on without you.
* Well, not you in particular, but all those average users.
You got the wrong results from your research, what is not hard to happen, since it is very rare to see inforation in english about brazilian ethanol (don't know why). That 3.7 figure is dated, even the 8.1 is old, people are talking about 10 now.
About the other points, 1: That value is true on some regions, but it is still more expensive than using tractors. So, people that use human larbor is normaly too cheap to invest on the refinning process, and ends up with a low EROEI. The highter EROEI farms normaly use tractors.
2: True (land area, isn't it?). But has no relevance for EROEI.
3: Gas also needs sealed tanks. But even if it was completely impossible to transport ethanol without getting it contamined (Bazil already exports a lot of ethanol overseas), you could stil do the third (and cheaper) destilation at the destination. And the bigest problem to ethanol transportation is the fact that it is acid, not hydrophilic.
4: Ethanol cars lose mileage but the power increases. Also, flex cars are able to deal well with ethanol, working the same way is pure ethanol cars. What you don't seem to grasp is that flex cars detect the amount of ethanol and gas on the fuel, and set everyhing according.
Now, a previous poster said that ethanol cars age faster. If that happens, the difference is very small to be detected. Brazilian used cars are priced according to the price of the fuel (and some speculation). When ethanol whas expensiver, ethanol used cars become cheaper, when it was cheaper, the cars become expensiver. I've never heard bout ethanol cars gatting old faster, and could never detect that trend myself.
Being one of the "commies" here at/., that almost always wants more government, and more legislation, I can tell you that it doesn't work. You really doesn't want the government to take care of a fast changing hight tech infrastructure.
Maybe I have read it on a weard way, but that is exactly what I undestand by the headline. Well, the name "Massachusetts" is missing, but it is almost superfulous by now.
All true. But it is also true that everything works on Windows because people chosed what hardware to buy asking what would run with Windows. And that people have no problem installing Windows on their computer just because they don't. They hire someone to do that or buy the computer with the OS already installed.
Yes, it does what it is inteded to do. No, what it is intended to do is not useful. Let's go...
If an attacker is able to intercept and change the messages of any end. Let's say that A wants to talk to B, and S is able to intercept and change the messages (man in the middle). Now, S can autenticate with A and B, and none of them will notice him.
Mathematical cryptography avoids this problem by A knowing how to validade a message that only B can generate, and B knowing how to validate a message that only A can generate. That is previous knowledge, that only needs to be exchanged once, maybe even physicaly.
Quantum cryptography tries to avoid the problem by relying on another channel, where A and B can talk to each other, and both can validate the messages. But QC doesn't tell you how to secure the other channel, and you obviously can't use QC to do that... So, QC can theoreticaly do key exchange, given that you already have an autenticated chanel somehow. Notice that now you need a channel, because you'll need to exchange validated information on every key exchange, instead of only once.
That means that to break a QC key exchange, S will need only to cut the fiber and link both ends to his computer. But, QC garantees* that if S doesn't cut the fiber and only try to look at the message, he won't be sucessfull.
Now, it seems that I will have to write a paper to convince anyone.
* "Garantees" is a very strong word. QC may garantee that if you can communicate with single photons (and on perfect fiber). But if you need groups of photons, there is an arms race situation where the attacker can see what is on the fiber if he has some sensible enough equipment.
Well, on this case, they won't be able to sell to people that want a "ISO xxxxx" compilant office. We can just hope that those people will be numerous enough.
The fact that none of them on those 20 years were able to create a (theoretical) key exchange algorithm that survived a men in the middle attack without using another (known to be safe) channel should also tell you something.
It can run outside KDE. I never tested it on a Mac, but there is no reason for it not to run on OS-X too.
It doesn't run on Windows yet. But QT is being ported, and it seems that the next version of it will already run.
Oh, and I have just flawlessly oppened three.doc files on KOffice today. I could never do that before my last upgrade,.doc support is getting much better.
I guess you can't be "almost" compilant with an ISO standard (formal stantards are exactly for that). Either you implement it (and can use the name), or you don't.
The only problem I ever saw people having with MikTex is that it tries to abtract files location and package management, but those are very important for LaTeX. Then, people get confused.
And, normaly, people that are used to other LaTeXes don't have problems with MikTex.
I'll say that again and again, until people listen:
Quantum criptography doesn't work!
Well, it does work on the sense that if you have a secure channel, you can use it to validate another channel. It doesn't work on the "do something usefull" sense of the word.
Now, growing diamonds are interesting, and may be usefull for lots of things. But not for quantum criptography, because QC is not usefull.
You simply don't compare anything with Windows, the results of doing so are always meaningless.
Yes, Linux is accumulating bugs. Does that means that Linux will reach the quality of Windows? Hell no. It is so far away that it is not even remotely likely.
You compare Linux with *BSD, or with Solaris, or with any other OS you find out there. But please, don't compare it with Windows. (And by the same reasons, don't compare browsers with IE.)
"Are people really clamoring for an update over sarge?"
Well, I know that I am. Sarge is almost useless on desktops nowadays*, and Etch has a lot of nice tools for servers. The upgrade will be very welcome.
Now, don't take the above points (mainly the first one) as a critic. Debian is awesome.
* How do Windows users deal with a 5 years upgrade cycle? Worse yet, how do Windows users deal with a 5 years upgrade cycle that won't even add any usefull feature when complete?
You'd better dealing with light absorbtion than with eletrical ionization. The point is that the voltage generated by the laser depends on the frequency of the light, not on the intensity. And it is normaly too low to lead to any ionization (unless you are dealing with gamma radiation or the medium is a metal).
Now, the molecules on air absorb low frequency light, changing it into heat. I don't know how well, and don't know how intense the bean must be to disable (or destroy?) the satelite. But you are dealing with the wrong problem.
And your solution of using several lasers wouldn't work because they are not coherent.
Slashdot Mirror
Great advice! But teach them how to program first. Really, most people (and most CS newbies) don't know how a computer works. Some think that it somehow "thinks", other think that it manipulates windows and buttons, most never thought about it.
If you put your students at first behind a IDE, you'll reinforce the idea that computers manipulate windows and buttons. Those people will have a hard time thinking about I/O, sequential reading, pipelines (in general), and lots of other usefull algoritmical constructions because they'll have used message passing events (windows) for their entire life. (You can see that is an argument against GUI in general, your students can meet the CLI anytime, but it normaly only happens with the compiler).
Now, I'd also advice you against teaching C++ and VB for novices. You shouldn't do that. C++ is too hard, you'll take too much time teaching the language and have very little time left to teach programming. VB doesn't enforce good habits, you must always teach good habits to novices. I prefer to teach programming on Pascal, although Java is ok for a start (if you teach C or C++ later).
That is easy to do on any OS I can think of. The problem is that people don't want locked down computers, so even a TC plataform will be suceptible to virus.
It is not better permissions that makes *nix safer for this worm, it is a better UI, that doesn't ask stupid questions to the user all the time. And saner file formats, that doesn't execute stuf on text and image files.
It is unrealistical to expect people to not install dumb programs on any mainstream OS, but you can try to reduce the odds of this happening. Here is where MS failed.
We are selecting animals and plants for their appearance for thousands of years, and sucesfuly. It is not hard nor complex, it just takes time.
Concern with licenses is not zealotry. If you want to risk legal problems, bills and paying atorneys, go ahead and include all that software on your distro.
And license zealotry is not bad. If you* want to run Windows, just use it. If you want Linux to not be free just to use it, well, I guess we're going on without you.
* Well, not you in particular, but all those average users.
Let me fix that for you: "Linux distro's don't do all of this right now" at the US.
Don't let your weard laws destroy the reputation of the very multimedia friendly Linux, ok. But for wireless, you had a point.
You got the wrong results from your research, what is not hard to happen, since it is very rare to see inforation in english about brazilian ethanol (don't know why). That 3.7 figure is dated, even the 8.1 is old, people are talking about 10 now.
About the other points, 1: That value is true on some regions, but it is still more expensive than using tractors. So, people that use human larbor is normaly too cheap to invest on the refinning process, and ends up with a low EROEI. The highter EROEI farms normaly use tractors.
2: True (land area, isn't it?). But has no relevance for EROEI.
3: Gas also needs sealed tanks. But even if it was completely impossible to transport ethanol without getting it contamined (Bazil already exports a lot of ethanol overseas), you could stil do the third (and cheaper) destilation at the destination. And the bigest problem to ethanol transportation is the fact that it is acid, not hydrophilic.
4: Ethanol cars lose mileage but the power increases. Also, flex cars are able to deal well with ethanol, working the same way is pure ethanol cars. What you don't seem to grasp is that flex cars detect the amount of ethanol and gas on the fuel, and set everyhing according.
Now, a previous poster said that ethanol cars age faster. If that happens, the difference is very small to be detected. Brazilian used cars are priced according to the price of the fuel (and some speculation). When ethanol whas expensiver, ethanol used cars become cheaper, when it was cheaper, the cars become expensiver. I've never heard bout ethanol cars gatting old faster, and could never detect that trend myself.
Being one of the "commies" here at /., that almost always wants more government, and more legislation, I can tell you that it doesn't work. You really doesn't want the government to take care of a fast changing hight tech infrastructure.
Maybe I have read it on a weard way, but that is exactly what I undestand by the headline. Well, the name "Massachusetts" is missing, but it is almost superfulous by now.
And the news continues being absurd.
All true. But it is also true that everything works on Windows because people chosed what hardware to buy asking what would run with Windows. And that people have no problem installing Windows on their computer just because they don't. They hire someone to do that or buy the computer with the OS already installed.
GNU/HURD is not a kernel. Mach is compartimentized, but I don't know about L4. Both kernels that run HURD.
Nice sig, that one. But, thanks, next time I'll specheck... Or not.
If anything that is optional on Debian received that icon, /. would put the icon on the static template of the page...
Yes, it does what it is inteded to do. No, what it is intended to do is not useful. Let's go...
If an attacker is able to intercept and change the messages of any end. Let's say that A wants to talk to B, and S is able to intercept and change the messages (man in the middle). Now, S can autenticate with A and B, and none of them will notice him.
Mathematical cryptography avoids this problem by A knowing how to validade a message that only B can generate, and B knowing how to validate a message that only A can generate. That is previous knowledge, that only needs to be exchanged once, maybe even physicaly.
Quantum cryptography tries to avoid the problem by relying on another channel, where A and B can talk to each other, and both can validate the messages. But QC doesn't tell you how to secure the other channel, and you obviously can't use QC to do that... So, QC can theoreticaly do key exchange, given that you already have an autenticated chanel somehow. Notice that now you need a channel, because you'll need to exchange validated information on every key exchange, instead of only once.
That means that to break a QC key exchange, S will need only to cut the fiber and link both ends to his computer. But, QC garantees* that if S doesn't cut the fiber and only try to look at the message, he won't be sucessfull.
Now, it seems that I will have to write a paper to convince anyone.
* "Garantees" is a very strong word. QC may garantee that if you can communicate with single photons (and on perfect fiber). But if you need groups of photons, there is an arms race situation where the attacker can see what is on the fiber if he has some sensible enough equipment.
Well, on this case, they won't be able to sell to people that want a "ISO xxxxx" compilant office. We can just hope that those people will be numerous enough.
The fact that none of them on those 20 years were able to create a (theoretical) key exchange algorithm that survived a men in the middle attack without using another (known to be safe) channel should also tell you something.
It can run outside KDE. I never tested it on a Mac, but there is no reason for it not to run on OS-X too.
It doesn't run on Windows yet. But QT is being ported, and it seems that the next version of it will already run.
Oh, and I have just flawlessly oppened three .doc files on KOffice today. I could never do that before my last upgrade, .doc support is getting much better.
I guess you can't be "almost" compilant with an ISO standard (formal stantards are exactly for that). Either you implement it (and can use the name), or you don't.
The only problem I ever saw people having with MikTex is that it tries to abtract files location and package management, but those are very important for LaTeX. Then, people get confused.
And, normaly, people that are used to other LaTeXes don't have problems with MikTex.
I'll say that again and again, until people listen:
Quantum criptography doesn't work!
Well, it does work on the sense that if you have a secure channel, you can use it to validate another channel. It doesn't work on the "do something usefull" sense of the word.
Now, growing diamonds are interesting, and may be usefull for lots of things. But not for quantum criptography, because QC is not usefull.
End of Rant (EOR)
So, by the time NetBSD had it, Linux was already finishing to fix its sound system. And had a temporary hacked sound system for a long time.
What is beter? Really depends.
You simply don't compare anything with Windows, the results of doing so are always meaningless.
Yes, Linux is accumulating bugs. Does that means that Linux will reach the quality of Windows? Hell no. It is so far away that it is not even remotely likely.
You compare Linux with *BSD, or with Solaris, or with any other OS you find out there. But please, don't compare it with Windows. (And by the same reasons, don't compare browsers with IE.)
On the "as bad as television" sense of safe. But not worse.
Well, I know that I am. Sarge is almost useless on desktops nowadays*, and Etch has a lot of nice tools for servers. The upgrade will be very welcome.
Now, don't take the above points (mainly the first one) as a critic. Debian is awesome.
* How do Windows users deal with a 5 years upgrade cycle? Worse yet, how do Windows users deal with a 5 years upgrade cycle that won't even add any usefull feature when complete?
You'd better dealing with light absorbtion than with eletrical ionization. The point is that the voltage generated by the laser depends on the frequency of the light, not on the intensity. And it is normaly too low to lead to any ionization (unless you are dealing with gamma radiation or the medium is a metal).
Now, the molecules on air absorb low frequency light, changing it into heat. I don't know how well, and don't know how intense the bean must be to disable (or destroy?) the satelite. But you are dealing with the wrong problem.
And your solution of using several lasers wouldn't work because they are not coherent.