While I agree it seems AMD's kept this case in their back pocket (and they do have my full support, I just read the entire PDF), it seems the worst of the damages has only occurred in the past 5 years or so, specifically with the introduction of the 1ghz barrier breaking Athlon.
Once Intel was surpassed technologically, it seems to have prompted them to step up their anti-competative behavior on the OEM level, with many of the 120 some odd complaints occurring right around the launch of the AMD64 platform. Prior to AMD's emerging superiority, the bulk of the complaints are about the original IBM PC, and Intel's push to take the spotlight as primary CPU provider, promoting AMD as the "second supplier" when IBM's original intention was to have both on hand as a resource.
Besides which, the length of time they've held on to the allegations can only help their case in that Intel has a track record (even proven in Japan) of anti-competative behavior in the long term. Intel can't possibly claim any of those tactics were only temporary strategies necessary to maintain legitimate business.
Actually, San Diego is the new one, which is what this article is about. San Diego is essentially Venice with more cache slapped on, and with this new FX 57, faster clock speed (and strained silocon).
The article is a bit off though, claiming the only San Diego cored chips are the 4000+ and FX 57. I have an Athlon 64 3700+ in my system now, also based on the San Diego core, and it's at a ver good price point (around $320, great mid-high end processor).
And to answer the grandparent post, it'll cool roughly 4.5 Han Solo's per minute, which is about.00125 Libraries of Congress, which is about.03 Volkswagon Bugs.
Got my 12:01am Thursday tickets...
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: 1
It's going to be a fun day at the office Thursday:-)
That makes sense from a logical standpoint. The problem is, virtually all cores in any given line^1 have the same production cost. The core of an Athlon 64 2800+ cost the same to produce as an Athlon 64 4000+. Essentially, all cores are the same. After fabrication, they are tested at each power level (4000, 3800, 3500, 3200, etc) and typically marked as the highest stable rating. Sometimes if the market demands more mid-low end chips, some of the higher rated cores will be re-marked to lower rated cores, and sold as low end CPUs, which is why some people have great luck overclocking certain CPUs.
The point is, it wouldn't matter if you plant a 2800+ core with a 4000+ core, because as far as AMD is concerned, they cost the same to produce. The bigger question for them is what the market value is for a CPU of any given speed, e.g. how much would a dual core CPU be worth.
^1 For a dual core setup, I'd assume it can really only be done with cores of the same processor line, e.g. Athlon 64 vs. Athlon XP. The 64's have an onboard memory controller and Hypertransport, Athlon XPs require a memory controller in the chipset and don't support Hypertransport. It'd be like trying to mate an orange tree to a potato plant.
It's not so much the phone queue thats a problem. I've had to phone-activate Windows a number of times on customers machines where for one reason or another, Windows demanded activation before logging on. Trouble was, it wouldn't install the network card driver before it logged in, so there was no way for it to get online. But I digress...
The big pain in the ass in activating over the phone is reading the installation ID. It's not an actual person you talk to- you read the number aloud (as opposed to touch tone) to a computer. You have to speak slow and deliberately for it to understand the numbers correctly, and ultimately it will read a confirmation code back to you. The whole process takes about 5-7 minutes, depending on whether the computer understood you correctly the first time. That's the part that pisses me off about this. Whenever we have to reinstall Windows at my shop, it was easy enough to plug in to our router and activate in 2 seconds (all with legitimate keys mind you). If this holds true, it will piss off many many computer shops around the world. Two seconds vs. five minutes is a pretty big deal.
Er, no. A customer of my shop decided his computer was too infected with crap and tried to reformat and reinstall using the convenient recovery CDs he got with his computer. This was an older computer, and the recovery CDs came with basic Windows XP, with no service packs. The recovery was successful, but as soon as he installed his cable modem software, he was infected with Blaster, Sasser, and Nachi worms all before he finished downloading Service Pack 2.
Having a firewall would have most definitely stopped those infections. Granted, most crap beyond self-infecting worms are caused by the user, but don't say such a small amount of users won't get infected by not having a firewall.
Windows XP's SP2 is a step in the right direction. Computers I've loaded that on have yet to return with any more serious infections. Building the OS properly in the first place would have made life easier for us techs, but more difficult for the people who simply "want things to work."
I completely agree with you (although it's not often I reply and can say such about an AC) that the platform is not best for the customer. However, my primary customers are laypersons who know only enough about the computer to identify the case/tower as the "modem" and that Windows is "the thing with the start thingey I click." All they know is they need Word to type stuff, AOL is the internet, and they think the flashing banner ads saying "your system clock is not accurate" are legitimate windows messages. Securing the platform is only half the battle though. All the consumer level security we can provide is useless against a kid who does everything in his power to install Kazaa to download the latest pop crap music. All the kid needs to do is click past the numerous "are you sure you want to install this even though it may cause death, temporary blindness, spyware infections, various heart conditions, etc" warnings associated with installing software on a "secure" system. The solution? Give them a limited or locked down account. But wait, now the tax software they purchased from Staples won't install or function properly.
There is no magic bullet to the problems the common user faces these days, other than a mass migration to Mac or Linux. Even that would only pose a temporary solution though. The former doesn't seem likely when our userbase prefers lower price over quality of components, e.g. $399 PC with monitor, kb/mouse/speakers vs. even $499 for the new Mac, without kb/mouse/monitor. Education can help to an extent, but there are only so many users with the will to learn the WHY as opposed to the HOW of the way software operates. Hence the later solution of Linux, or the lack of current viability thereof. People are afraid of what they don't know, and even more afraid of something they don't know when it doesn't work. I'd gladly recommend linux for 80% of the clients I serve, only these clients have the expectation of things just "working" without explanation, rhyme, or reason. They would try to install Windows software on linux, even after multiple explanations of why that wouldn't work.
Along the same lines are the security concepts in OSX. It's all great and fine to use an admin password to control installing software, but what of it when some adware/spyware bundled software package is cobbled together for Mac, installed alongside some Mac Kazaa equivalent. It's not so much a problem now, but if Mac and Linux were both to become totally mainstream and at some point surpass Windows as the dominant operating systems, I have no doubt we will see an increase in the number of malicious programs for both systems. Spammers and phishers will not so easily give up their target audience, and will gladly shift platforms accordingly, using whatever methodologies to ensnare the unsuspecting and ignorant consumer.
That turned into a rant pretty quickly, and for that I apologize. To answer the parent post, yes, perhaps the customers are better off on other platforms, but while a portion of my job is based around cleaning the messes, I do have a conscious, and I don't keep people pinned to any particular platform for my own gain. At this point in time, the needs of my customers are based in a win32 world, and until something more drastic than a $90 repair bill comes their way to convince them otherwise, they will happily sit there and accept whatever crap the internet decides to gargle up.
What's up with all these "reviews" immediately condemning this new tool? As far as I can tell, it's an honest attempt on Microsoft's part to actively aid it's customers in removing crap from their computers. I've used it myself at work, and after running Spybot, Ad-Aware, SpySweeper, and HijackThis, Microsoft Antispyware still manages to flag and remove quite a few leftovers.
Granted, by itself it may not be the most effective thing in the world, but the same can be said for any antispyware/antivirus software. We need to run at least 3 antispyware programs at work, and at least 2 antivirus programs before we feel confident that a computer is clean enough to return to the customer.
Besides the fact that it's just a beta, it's worked out pretty well for what it is. The interface is easy enough to figure out and use, and it identifies software which comes bundled with adware/spyware. When was the last time Spybot or Ad-Aware flagged Kazaa or Imesh as adware bundlers, while the default action is "ignore," but removal and quarantine are obvious choices? I say enough of these reviews. I'll be "reviewing" it myself by using it for what it can do well. If the final version works as well as this does, or better, it'll stay on my list of removal tools for my customers.
Go for it! I got myself a Segway a few weeks ago, and it's been great to get around. It would be especially handy in environments like yours, where work is only 10 blocks away. It's a great way to avoid traffic, parking, and gas prices. Most places I've been to don't mind if you park it in a corner, especially if you are a regular customer. It's quiet, it's cool, and the people you talk to when driving around make it well worth it.
I do agree that analog will always be one method of circumventing any sort of digital protection, but there are still ways of tainting recordings that way. The average digital camcorder and VHS camcorder record at 29.97 and 30 frames per second respectively. All it would take is the movie industry encoding DVDs at some obscure framerate like 32.52 or 25.93 frames per second to generate enough out of sync frames to equate watching a camcorded-from-tv movie with a camcorded-from-theater movie. With theaters running at 24 frames per second, there is usually noticeable flicker on cam recordings. Of course, it wouldn't prevent the recording from being made, but it would deter anyone looking for a "quality" copy.
I didn't see mentioned anywhere in the article what types of software these kids were running. If they spend all their time playing "educational" software (by which I mean those counting programs/nick jr. type games which serve more to keep the kids out of parents hair than teach the kids anything useful)in place of learning from a teacher, of course grades will decline. All a computer can do is teach a kid basic functions related to specific areas of study. It can't answer questions or provide more insight into "why" rather than "how."
The flip side would be what they actually get to do on the computer. If the parents limit them to games and programs they set up for the kids, that's almost as bad as spoonfeeding an 8 year old. The technically oriented/geek parents (or, were I one, this is what I would do), make a ghost/dd/carbon copy/backup of your hard drive, and let the kid loose for a few hours to do whatever he wants. If you're a true geek, the kid would have his/her own dedicated computer to play with, to let him find his own way around. Show the kid how to use the mouse, and how to click. Teach them the basics of how to use the computer, and let them learn their own way. That's how I was brought up, and I'm more capable of using/building/working on/maintaining computers than 99.9999% of all the people I know. Plop me in front of a foreign interface I've never seen before and I'll figure out the basics of how to use it within a few minutes (or if in another language, hours).
Computers can be extremely powerful tools for learning, but only if used in proper context. Parents who use the computer as an electronic baby-sitter will find their kid's grades slumping, while a kid who figures out the basics of the bash shell by the age of 5 could probably graduate high school at the age of 10. Give kids the tools to foster deductive reasoning, and they'll blossom into students with an insatiable appetite to learn and figure stuff out.
The United States government is divided into three branches in a system known as checks and balances. It most definitely IS the job of the courts to keep Congress in line. The courts are the only way to declare any legislation unconstitutional, and get bills/laws overturned, provided enough proof is presented. Googling for "US government checks and balances" produced a site featuring a lesson plan describing the system, and how it should work. The section labeled "The Judicial Branch" describes what the main function of the courts actually is (in a hypothetical situation, but insert any bill and it still works), outside of settling various corporate disputes and injury lawsuits.
From the site: The Judicial Branch
The Congress is considering a bill that will make criticism of the President on the Internet's World Wide Web illegal. If the bill is approved by Congress and approved by the President, the Supreme Court must be ready to hear arguments in favor and against the bill. The Supreme Court must be ready to ask the Congress questions about the bill in order to learn facts that will lead to a decision in a lawsuit brought by the Press against the bill. The Supreme Court must develop five to seven questions it can ask lawyers on both sides. The Supreme Court will also have to vote on the constitutionality of the bill. Those in favor (there must be a minority of students taking this position even if they disagree with it) and those opposed to the bill must write a "majority" and "minority" opinion in the case.
This is a lesson plan aimed at students, so the five to seven questions thing can be ommitted, but the idea is clear- the supreme court IS HOW TO REGULATE CONGRESS. It's how the government was designed, and the most effective way to combat purchased politicians. I'd hope it's more difficult to lobby a judge (who would be appointed- no need for campaign money), than the local congressbeing (who IS elected, and has massive financial support for campaigning).
I'd argue an embryo becomes a human when a recognizable brain forms, and detectable brain activity occurs. Prior to that point, the embryo is a clump of cells indistinguishable from any other mamal's embryo. Humans are still animals- the only thing separating us is brain functionality/capability. It's alright to kill off frogs, or sheep, or cattle at any point to disect and use for research, so what is the difference from a human embryo, provided it hasn't developed a brain yet?
The big issue is not whether killing a fetus is morally right or wrong (I myself am pro-choice, but only up to a certain point of development. I do think killing off a fetus is wrong, but ejecting an embryo is fine), but at what point the embryos become a Human fetus. I've heard every argument from conception, to the development of a heart, to the development of a brain/brain activity. The later makes the most sense to me.
Parents eject less viable offspring, enhancing the food and other resources devoted to the more viable offspring, and thus enhancing their chances of survival.
I believe this is the major difference between birds with natural selection/evolution, and what you procure as human "evolution." The bird has no qualms ejecting less viable offspring, while a human baby born with any defect is treated to the maximum extent of avaliable medical attention, usually regardless of cost. In this sense, rather than eject the less viable offspring, more resources are spent keeping it alive than would otherwise be spent on other healthy offspring. Thus natural selection in it's purest form is circumvented- the weak, unable to care for themselves, or worthy of parental care, die off before they can pass their weakness on to offspring. Modern medicine defeats the process by saving as many lives as possible, regardless of weakness or genetic deficiencies (which I'm not saying is a bad thing at all, just differing from common knowledge of natural selection).
Once in a while, there will be a show on TV I'd like to watch, but am too occupied with other things to pay enough attention. If I know this will happen, I'll pop a trusty old VHS tape into my trusty old VCR, hit record, and forget about it until the end of the show. Later that evening/day/week, I hit rewind, wait a minute or so, and watch what I missed.
I know PVRs are capable of this as well, and yes, I have a computer with an All-in-Wonder 9700 that I use extensively for video capture, but
1) I'm in linux 95% of the time I'm on my computer, and Rage Theater II chips aren't supported yet. (Yes, I can get some decent capture cards supported under linux but at present my VCR just works without tweaking drivers or anything)
2) In Windows, I take a noticeable performance hit capturing video, and if I do anything to put pressure on the CPU, I'll get dropped frames. (When was the last time you got dropped frames on a VCR?)
and 3) I'd have to go through another step in burning the file to DVD/CD to make it portable/archivable. (Just pop the tape out and take it to a friends house right after recording)
While the format of VHS may be phased out in terms of new product releases, the relative quality (with decent quality tapes) and reliability of the machinery has earned a place in my room. I've never had dropped frames, codec/compressor incompatibilities, or my TV lock up while I'm recording with a VCR. Yes, I know I can buy a tivo, but I don't feel like spending that money when I have something that works fine at the moment. I don't plan to buy any new release movies on VHS, but I do occasionally pick up a few blanks in case something comes on I'd like to watch, without buying any new equipment.
It was supposed to be cloudy up here in the Northeastern US, but I was pleasantly surprised to awake around 4:30am to a few breaks in the clouds, just enough to snatch a few pictures.
Here's a few I took through my 8" reflector scope. Not as good as I'd have liked, but for a little crappy point n' shoot 1.3mp camera, it wasn't bad. Funny thin was a real nice 5mp camera I had ordered the previous week came in the day after the eclipse. If I had that, they'd have been much more impressive. (Apologies for the Earthlink'ed space, but my main server has very limited bandwith.. if anyone feels like mirroring please do.)
Re:Trying to answer the question that was asked...
on
How Cheap Can A PC Be?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but it wasn't all that long ago when decent software could be had for much cheaper. I bought my first word processing program new for $10, on 5.25" disks, and it does just as good a job at typing letters as the modern multi-hundred dollar Microsoft package (yes, I know Word can be had by itself, but even according to my neighborhood Staples, even that alone is $219 [yes, I know it can be had other places in other packages for cheaper, but I'm illustrating for the average consumer who walks into retail store X looking for Word]).
Except that the purpose of the hardware is to run the software. It's not "We have the hardware, now what are we going to run on it?", it's more like "What do I have to buy to get NNN?".
I believe this is one of many purposes Free/Open Source software serves- to break that archeotype. For most purposes (and when configured properly), a Linux box running OpenOffice provides the same, if not more levels of functionality as a $100 copy of Windows, and an $80 copy of Works Suite for the average person (average person defined as a user who surfs the net, checks email, types letters, does finances, etc). So if the hardware becomes free (minus any hidden software fee ala cell phone service [free fone with purchase of 2 year plan!]), and the software is free, wouldn't people line up in the streets to recieve their free computers while hardware manufacturers go bankrupt due to lack of money?
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree it seems AMD's kept this case in their back pocket (and they do have my full support, I just read the entire PDF), it seems the worst of the damages has only occurred in the past 5 years or so, specifically with the introduction of the 1ghz barrier breaking Athlon.
Once Intel was surpassed technologically, it seems to have prompted them to step up their anti-competative behavior on the OEM level, with many of the 120 some odd complaints occurring right around the launch of the AMD64 platform. Prior to AMD's emerging superiority, the bulk of the complaints are about the original IBM PC, and Intel's push to take the spotlight as primary CPU provider, promoting AMD as the "second supplier" when IBM's original intention was to have both on hand as a resource.
Besides which, the length of time they've held on to the allegations can only help their case in that Intel has a track record (even proven in Japan) of anti-competative behavior in the long term. Intel can't possibly claim any of those tactics were only temporary strategies necessary to maintain legitimate business.
Actually, San Diego is the new one, which is what this article is about. San Diego is essentially Venice with more cache slapped on, and with this new FX 57, faster clock speed (and strained silocon).
The article is a bit off though, claiming the only San Diego cored chips are the 4000+ and FX 57. I have an Athlon 64 3700+ in my system now, also based on the San Diego core, and it's at a ver good price point (around $320, great mid-high end processor).
Wow, sounds like Free/Open Source Software!
Actually, it's the other way around-
.00125 Libraries of Congress, which is about .03 Volkswagon Bugs.
"That's no space station... it's a heatsink!"
And to answer the grandparent post, it'll cool roughly 4.5 Han Solo's per minute, which is about
It's going to be a fun day at the office Thursday :-)
That makes sense from a logical standpoint. The problem is, virtually all cores in any given line^1 have the same production cost. The core of an Athlon 64 2800+ cost the same to produce as an Athlon 64 4000+. Essentially, all cores are the same. After fabrication, they are tested at each power level (4000, 3800, 3500, 3200, etc) and typically marked as the highest stable rating. Sometimes if the market demands more mid-low end chips, some of the higher rated cores will be re-marked to lower rated cores, and sold as low end CPUs, which is why some people have great luck overclocking certain CPUs.
The point is, it wouldn't matter if you plant a 2800+ core with a 4000+ core, because as far as AMD is concerned, they cost the same to produce. The bigger question for them is what the market value is for a CPU of any given speed, e.g. how much would a dual core CPU be worth.
^1 For a dual core setup, I'd assume it can really only be done with cores of the same processor line, e.g. Athlon 64 vs. Athlon XP. The 64's have an onboard memory controller and Hypertransport, Athlon XPs require a memory controller in the chipset and don't support Hypertransport. It'd be like trying to mate an orange tree to a potato plant.
So where does Google fit in here?
It's not so much the phone queue thats a problem. I've had to phone-activate Windows a number of times on customers machines where for one reason or another, Windows demanded activation before logging on. Trouble was, it wouldn't install the network card driver before it logged in, so there was no way for it to get online. But I digress...
The big pain in the ass in activating over the phone is reading the installation ID. It's not an actual person you talk to- you read the number aloud (as opposed to touch tone) to a computer. You have to speak slow and deliberately for it to understand the numbers correctly, and ultimately it will read a confirmation code back to you. The whole process takes about 5-7 minutes, depending on whether the computer understood you correctly the first time. That's the part that pisses me off about this. Whenever we have to reinstall Windows at my shop, it was easy enough to plug in to our router and activate in 2 seconds (all with legitimate keys mind you). If this holds true, it will piss off many many computer shops around the world. Two seconds vs. five minutes is a pretty big deal.
Er, no. A customer of my shop decided his computer was too infected with crap and tried to reformat and reinstall using the convenient recovery CDs he got with his computer. This was an older computer, and the recovery CDs came with basic Windows XP, with no service packs. The recovery was successful, but as soon as he installed his cable modem software, he was infected with Blaster, Sasser, and Nachi worms all before he finished downloading Service Pack 2.
Having a firewall would have most definitely stopped those infections. Granted, most crap beyond self-infecting worms are caused by the user, but don't say such a small amount of users won't get infected by not having a firewall.
Windows XP's SP2 is a step in the right direction. Computers I've loaded that on have yet to return with any more serious infections. Building the OS properly in the first place would have made life easier for us techs, but more difficult for the people who simply "want things to work."
I completely agree with you (although it's not often I reply and can say such about an AC) that the platform is not best for the customer. However, my primary customers are laypersons who know only enough about the computer to identify the case/tower as the "modem" and that Windows is "the thing with the start thingey I click." All they know is they need Word to type stuff, AOL is the internet, and they think the flashing banner ads saying "your system clock is not accurate" are legitimate windows messages. Securing the platform is only half the battle though. All the consumer level security we can provide is useless against a kid who does everything in his power to install Kazaa to download the latest pop crap music. All the kid needs to do is click past the numerous "are you sure you want to install this even though it may cause death, temporary blindness, spyware infections, various heart conditions, etc" warnings associated with installing software on a "secure" system. The solution? Give them a limited or locked down account. But wait, now the tax software they purchased from Staples won't install or function properly.
There is no magic bullet to the problems the common user faces these days, other than a mass migration to Mac or Linux. Even that would only pose a temporary solution though. The former doesn't seem likely when our userbase prefers lower price over quality of components, e.g. $399 PC with monitor, kb/mouse/speakers vs. even $499 for the new Mac, without kb/mouse/monitor. Education can help to an extent, but there are only so many users with the will to learn the WHY as opposed to the HOW of the way software operates. Hence the later solution of Linux, or the lack of current viability thereof. People are afraid of what they don't know, and even more afraid of something they don't know when it doesn't work. I'd gladly recommend linux for 80% of the clients I serve, only these clients have the expectation of things just "working" without explanation, rhyme, or reason. They would try to install Windows software on linux, even after multiple explanations of why that wouldn't work.
Along the same lines are the security concepts in OSX. It's all great and fine to use an admin password to control installing software, but what of it when some adware/spyware bundled software package is cobbled together for Mac, installed alongside some Mac Kazaa equivalent. It's not so much a problem now, but if Mac and Linux were both to become totally mainstream and at some point surpass Windows as the dominant operating systems, I have no doubt we will see an increase in the number of malicious programs for both systems. Spammers and phishers will not so easily give up their target audience, and will gladly shift platforms accordingly, using whatever methodologies to ensnare the unsuspecting and ignorant consumer.
That turned into a rant pretty quickly, and for that I apologize. To answer the parent post, yes, perhaps the customers are better off on other platforms, but while a portion of my job is based around cleaning the messes, I do have a conscious, and I don't keep people pinned to any particular platform for my own gain. At this point in time, the needs of my customers are based in a win32 world, and until something more drastic than a $90 repair bill comes their way to convince them otherwise, they will happily sit there and accept whatever crap the internet decides to gargle up.
What's up with all these "reviews" immediately condemning this new tool? As far as I can tell, it's an honest attempt on Microsoft's part to actively aid it's customers in removing crap from their computers. I've used it myself at work, and after running Spybot, Ad-Aware, SpySweeper, and HijackThis, Microsoft Antispyware still manages to flag and remove quite a few leftovers.
Granted, by itself it may not be the most effective thing in the world, but the same can be said for any antispyware/antivirus software. We need to run at least 3 antispyware programs at work, and at least 2 antivirus programs before we feel confident that a computer is clean enough to return to the customer.
Besides the fact that it's just a beta, it's worked out pretty well for what it is. The interface is easy enough to figure out and use, and it identifies software which comes bundled with adware/spyware. When was the last time Spybot or Ad-Aware flagged Kazaa or Imesh as adware bundlers, while the default action is "ignore," but removal and quarantine are obvious choices? I say enough of these reviews. I'll be "reviewing" it myself by using it for what it can do well. If the final version works as well as this does, or better, it'll stay on my list of removal tools for my customers.
Go for it! I got myself a Segway a few weeks ago, and it's been great to get around. It would be especially handy in environments like yours, where work is only 10 blocks away. It's a great way to avoid traffic, parking, and gas prices. Most places I've been to don't mind if you park it in a corner, especially if you are a regular customer. It's quiet, it's cool, and the people you talk to when driving around make it well worth it.
I do agree that analog will always be one method of circumventing any sort of digital protection, but there are still ways of tainting recordings that way. The average digital camcorder and VHS camcorder record at 29.97 and 30 frames per second respectively. All it would take is the movie industry encoding DVDs at some obscure framerate like 32.52 or 25.93 frames per second to generate enough out of sync frames to equate watching a camcorded-from-tv movie with a camcorded-from-theater movie. With theaters running at 24 frames per second, there is usually noticeable flicker on cam recordings. Of course, it wouldn't prevent the recording from being made, but it would deter anyone looking for a "quality" copy.
Maybe this will help curb the number of 13 year olds who think it's cool to be annoying as hell with the voice chat in Counter Strike.
I didn't see mentioned anywhere in the article what types of software these kids were running. If they spend all their time playing "educational" software (by which I mean those counting programs/nick jr. type games which serve more to keep the kids out of parents hair than teach the kids anything useful)in place of learning from a teacher, of course grades will decline. All a computer can do is teach a kid basic functions related to specific areas of study. It can't answer questions or provide more insight into "why" rather than "how."
The flip side would be what they actually get to do on the computer. If the parents limit them to games and programs they set up for the kids, that's almost as bad as spoonfeeding an 8 year old. The technically oriented/geek parents (or, were I one, this is what I would do), make a ghost/dd/carbon copy/backup of your hard drive, and let the kid loose for a few hours to do whatever he wants. If you're a true geek, the kid would have his/her own dedicated computer to play with, to let him find his own way around. Show the kid how to use the mouse, and how to click. Teach them the basics of how to use the computer, and let them learn their own way. That's how I was brought up, and I'm more capable of using/building/working on/maintaining computers than 99.9999% of all the people I know. Plop me in front of a foreign interface I've never seen before and I'll figure out the basics of how to use it within a few minutes (or if in another language, hours).
Computers can be extremely powerful tools for learning, but only if used in proper context. Parents who use the computer as an electronic baby-sitter will find their kid's grades slumping, while a kid who figures out the basics of the bash shell by the age of 5 could probably graduate high school at the age of 10. Give kids the tools to foster deductive reasoning, and they'll blossom into students with an insatiable appetite to learn and figure stuff out.
The United States government is divided into three branches in a system known as checks and balances. It most definitely IS the job of the courts to keep Congress in line. The courts are the only way to declare any legislation unconstitutional, and get bills/laws overturned, provided enough proof is presented. Googling for "US government checks and balances" produced a site featuring a lesson plan describing the system, and how it should work. The section labeled "The Judicial Branch" describes what the main function of the courts actually is (in a hypothetical situation, but insert any bill and it still works), outside of settling various corporate disputes and injury lawsuits.
From the site:
The Judicial Branch
The Congress is considering a bill that will make criticism of the President on the Internet's World Wide Web illegal. If the bill is approved by Congress and approved by the President, the Supreme Court must be ready to hear arguments in favor and against the bill. The Supreme Court must be ready to ask the Congress questions about the bill in order to learn facts that will lead to a decision in a lawsuit brought by the Press against the bill. The Supreme Court must develop five to seven questions it can ask lawyers on both sides. The Supreme Court will also have to vote on the constitutionality of the bill. Those in favor (there must be a minority of students taking this position even if they disagree with it) and those opposed to the bill must write a "majority" and "minority" opinion in the case.
This is a lesson plan aimed at students, so the five to seven questions thing can be ommitted, but the idea is clear- the supreme court IS HOW TO REGULATE CONGRESS. It's how the government was designed, and the most effective way to combat purchased politicians. I'd hope it's more difficult to lobby a judge (who would be appointed- no need for campaign money), than the local congressbeing (who IS elected, and has massive financial support for campaigning).
I'd argue an embryo becomes a human when a recognizable brain forms, and detectable brain activity occurs. Prior to that point, the embryo is a clump of cells indistinguishable from any other mamal's embryo. Humans are still animals- the only thing separating us is brain functionality/capability. It's alright to kill off frogs, or sheep, or cattle at any point to disect and use for research, so what is the difference from a human embryo, provided it hasn't developed a brain yet?
The big issue is not whether killing a fetus is morally right or wrong (I myself am pro-choice, but only up to a certain point of development. I do think killing off a fetus is wrong, but ejecting an embryo is fine), but at what point the embryos become a Human fetus. I've heard every argument from conception, to the development of a heart, to the development of a brain/brain activity. The later makes the most sense to me.
Parents eject less viable offspring, enhancing the food and other resources devoted to the more viable offspring, and thus enhancing their chances of survival.
I believe this is the major difference between birds with natural selection/evolution, and what you procure as human "evolution." The bird has no qualms ejecting less viable offspring, while a human baby born with any defect is treated to the maximum extent of avaliable medical attention, usually regardless of cost. In this sense, rather than eject the less viable offspring, more resources are spent keeping it alive than would otherwise be spent on other healthy offspring. Thus natural selection in it's purest form is circumvented- the weak, unable to care for themselves, or worthy of parental care, die off before they can pass their weakness on to offspring. Modern medicine defeats the process by saving as many lives as possible, regardless of weakness or genetic deficiencies (which I'm not saying is a bad thing at all, just differing from common knowledge of natural selection).
Really gives new meaning to the term "Porcelain Throne."
Once in a while, there will be a show on TV I'd like to watch, but am too occupied with other things to pay enough attention. If I know this will happen, I'll pop a trusty old VHS tape into my trusty old VCR, hit record, and forget about it until the end of the show. Later that evening/day/week, I hit rewind, wait a minute or so, and watch what I missed.
I know PVRs are capable of this as well, and yes, I have a computer with an All-in-Wonder 9700 that I use extensively for video capture, but
1) I'm in linux 95% of the time I'm on my computer, and Rage Theater II chips aren't supported yet. (Yes, I can get some decent capture cards supported under linux but at present my VCR just works without tweaking drivers or anything)
2) In Windows, I take a noticeable performance hit capturing video, and if I do anything to put pressure on the CPU, I'll get dropped frames. (When was the last time you got dropped frames on a VCR?)
and 3) I'd have to go through another step in burning the file to DVD/CD to make it portable/archivable. (Just pop the tape out and take it to a friends house right after recording)
While the format of VHS may be phased out in terms of new product releases, the relative quality (with decent quality tapes) and reliability of the machinery has earned a place in my room. I've never had dropped frames, codec/compressor incompatibilities, or my TV lock up while I'm recording with a VCR. Yes, I know I can buy a tivo, but I don't feel like spending that money when I have something that works fine at the moment. I don't plan to buy any new release movies on VHS, but I do occasionally pick up a few blanks in case something comes on I'd like to watch, without buying any new equipment.
Lenny: Hey look, Homer has one of those self driving cars!
(Car crashes)
Carl: Yeah, one of those American self driving cars.
It was supposed to be cloudy up here in the Northeastern US, but I was pleasantly surprised to awake around 4:30am to a few breaks in the clouds, just enough to snatch a few pictures.
Venus & Jupiter 1
Venus & Jupiter 2
Here's a few I took through my 8" reflector scope. Not as good as I'd have liked, but for a little crappy point n' shoot 1.3mp camera, it wasn't bad. Funny thin was a real nice 5mp camera I had ordered the previous week came in the day after the eclipse. If I had that, they'd have been much more impressive. (Apologies for the Earthlink'ed space, but my main server has very limited bandwith.. if anyone feels like mirroring please do.)
Moon 1
Moon 2
Moon 3 (my personal favorite)
Moon 4
Moon 5
Moon 6
Moon 7
Didn't the internet turn 35 a few months ago?
Yes, but it wasn't all that long ago when decent software could be had for much cheaper. I bought my first word processing program new for $10, on 5.25" disks, and it does just as good a job at typing letters as the modern multi-hundred dollar Microsoft package (yes, I know Word can be had by itself, but even according to my neighborhood Staples, even that alone is $219 [yes, I know it can be had other places in other packages for cheaper, but I'm illustrating for the average consumer who walks into retail store X looking for Word]).
Except that the purpose of the hardware is to run the software. It's not "We have the hardware, now what are we going to run on it?", it's more like "What do I have to buy to get NNN?".
I believe this is one of many purposes Free/Open Source software serves- to break that archeotype. For most purposes (and when configured properly), a Linux box running OpenOffice provides the same, if not more levels of functionality as a $100 copy of Windows, and an $80 copy of Works Suite for the average person (average person defined as a user who surfs the net, checks email, types letters, does finances, etc). So if the hardware becomes free (minus any hidden software fee ala cell phone service [free fone with purchase of 2 year plan!]), and the software is free, wouldn't people line up in the streets to recieve their free computers while hardware manufacturers go bankrupt due to lack of money?