I'll back up. And I suggest you read this REAL slow.
The original poster, 00squirrel, made the argument that students should be taught on Windows because they will almost certainly use Windows after graduation.
I pointed out that it makes no sense, as Windows itself will change.
I know KDE will change. I know all tools change. Thus, we should teach using the best tools available. And considering that Linux is cheaper, much cheaper. It is not susceptible to spyware and viruses. And can do any thing Windows can do, Linux is the best tool for kids.
Oh yeah, sales figures are THE standard of quality. I guess by your definition the best US-built car of all time was the Ford Escort!
Linux is better because it is cheaper, which is important for our broke and nearly broke school. Anything you can do in Windows you can do in Linux. And schools would not have to worry about viruses and spyware.
You're arguing that schools should stick with Windows so when they graduate they'll be able to use Windows.
BUT, Windows itself changes. Longhorn will have an eniterly different interface than XP. Thus, there is no reason to train kids on XP because Longhorn will be different.
If the kids are going to learn something different anyway after graduation, we might was well teach them on Linux as it is a HECK of a lot cheaper for our broke schools.
Fine, let's buy a copy of XP for each student. Then when they graduate they have to learn Longhorn's entirely new interface. What should those students do then?
I'll recap, 00squirrel's SOLE basis to use Windows versus Linux was because everyone eles uses it. That's NOT a good reason. If everyone one else uses a knife instead of a screw driver, should I stop using a screw driver too?
So these kids learn on XP, then by the time they graduate, Microsoft switches over to the Longhorn interface. Thus, the kids have to learn an entirely new interface.
The intellegent thing to do is to teach kids using the best tools, not awful tools merely because everyone else uses them.
And let's face it, anyone proficient in Linux/KDE would have no difficulty using any version of Windows.
I disagree. Why should kids use an inferior product merely because the rest of the world uses an inferior product?
Maybe after high school students start getting used to using Linux, and public schools start saving money by switching, it'll give universities an incentive switch too.
Fair use would be a defense. That was the defense Sony used against Universal. The US Supreme Court agreed. Now we have a fair use right to record shows off of the air. We didn't have fair use right before the Court made its decision, we only had a fair use defense.
If you are arrested or sued for downloading TV shows, you would use fair use as a defense. Whether it would be accepted as a right would be up for a court to decide.
Right now people are buying Mac Minis in massive quantities at 500 bucks. I would think that IF Apple bought Tivo, Apple would simply turn the Mac Mini into a Tivo device.
So people would have to buy the hardware outright. They'll probably get a one year subscription for free. Then pay monthly after that.
You can't really compare Apple products to mere VCRs and DVD players. Apple does a fantastic job at selling highly priced hardware to people willing to pay. In other words, Apple's version of Tivo would not be built or marketed for every tom, dick, and harry who shops at Wal-Mart.
You're right. Technically it could be illegal as you're making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. But the Supreme Court could always say it's fair use, as they did in Universal v Sony.
I was just using Yosemite and the Grand Canyon as examples. There are PLENTY of beautiful places in the world which are in much higher def than anything on the HD Discovery channel.
I think every state has at least one beautiful place, except for maybe Ohio.
But even ATI admits the extra memory is useless. Higher clock speeds and added memory do not always correspond to better performance. For ignorant fan-boys, most of the time it's only about the stats.
Ever wonder why GPUs are such a big deal and sound cards are such an after thought? It's all about numbers. ATI and nVidia can increase clock speed and double memory and make it look really impressive. Sound cards can't really do that.
If I were Creative I'd start including massive amounts of RAM on my cards. Plus, I'd throw a CPU in there too, if there isn't one already, and start hyping the clock speed. I'd even have a program to overclock both.
That way all the ignorant fanboys would start buying them simply for bragging rights.
It seems that I read that Doom3 has an high-quality option for cards with 512 megs of memory. I could be wrong, though. I can't find any information about it online.
I guess I'm in the minority here. To me crappy prime time shows are as crappy on a $4000 as they are on a $99 TV from wal-mart. And the Godfather 2 is great, even on that $99 TV.
And if HDTV is so great, in and of itself, why aren't people enjoying REAL HD?! I.e., sitting outside and watching the world. You can't get higher def than standing in front of the Grand Canyon or walking through Yosemite yourself.
I guess that makes me an old foggy because I just don't get you youngsters and your crazy ways.
I couldn't understand why people get so excited about these crappy LCD screens. There's burn-in. They look like crap at angles. They can't do real black. They're awful for gaming. They probably have a life about four years tops. They can't do real HD either.
But I finally figured out the appeal: TV content is so fucking boring right now, that people are more excited about having a cool looking TV versus actually watching a cool show on it!
In other words, TVs are art pieces onto themselves. You don't buy them to actually watch crap. You buy them to make your living room look hip.
Especially for a crappy LCD monitor. Call me crazy, but actually having the color black AND actually being able to view the screen from differnet angles are very important to me.
And what about burn-in. Who wants to spend several thousand on a TV that WILL need replacing in three to four years?!
My parents still use a color TV they bought in the fucking 70s!!!
Heck, I thought of a real world example to back it up. Microsoft gives away its media player free to consumers. By default it infects all ripped files with DRM. The licensing agreement allows Microsoft and "third parties" to delete files and programs on your computer. Microsoft received money from third parties to play DRM infected files. And best of all, it allows third parties to download spyware and viruses onto your computer. Microsoft says that this is not a flaw, which means it must have been done intentionally.
http://www.techspot.com/story16774.html
Like I've said, numerous times before, Microsoft DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR CUSTOMERS. It only cares about keeping its monopolies and making ridiculous profits.
Or, Microsoft could continue giving it away until it becomes ubiquitous. At that time Microsoft becomes a gatekeeper and says to spyware authors, "If you want to get past our anti-spyware, give us some money." Spyware companies start paying Microsoft big bucks to gain access to users' desktops.
Of course Microsoft will have some sort of privacy agreement that those spyware companies will have to agree with, to make users "feel" safe. But it'll actually be about as effective as the security behind "Signed" ActiveX controls.
That's what Microsoft is all about. Creating a system which it monopolies and raking in money from it.
Are you kidding?! Microsoft would work out a deal where it would advertise on the site for free. Microsoft doesn't care about making a great antispyware product. Heck, Microsoft doesn't even care about making one that works. Microsoft only cares about maintaining its monopolies and making ridiculous profits.
We value free speech so much in this country we have specific "free speech zones" to practice it. Is it really surprising that we value profit over speech?!
Slashdot Mirror
I'll back up. And I suggest you read this REAL slow.
The original poster, 00squirrel, made the argument that students should be taught on Windows because they will almost certainly use Windows after graduation.
I pointed out that it makes no sense, as Windows itself will change.
I know KDE will change. I know all tools change. Thus, we should teach using the best tools available. And considering that Linux is cheaper, much cheaper. It is not susceptible to spyware and viruses. And can do any thing Windows can do, Linux is the best tool for kids.
Oh yeah, sales figures are THE standard of quality. I guess by your definition the best US-built car of all time was the Ford Escort!
Linux is better because it is cheaper, which is important for our broke and nearly broke school. Anything you can do in Windows you can do in Linux. And schools would not have to worry about viruses and spyware.
You're arguing that schools should stick with Windows so when they graduate they'll be able to use Windows.
BUT, Windows itself changes. Longhorn will have an eniterly different interface than XP. Thus, there is no reason to train kids on XP because Longhorn will be different.
If the kids are going to learn something different anyway after graduation, we might was well teach them on Linux as it is a HECK of a lot cheaper for our broke schools.
Fine, let's buy a copy of XP for each student. Then when they graduate they have to learn Longhorn's entirely new interface. What should those students do then?
I'll recap, 00squirrel's SOLE basis to use Windows versus Linux was because everyone eles uses it. That's NOT a good reason. If everyone one else uses a knife instead of a screw driver, should I stop using a screw driver too?
So these kids learn on XP, then by the time they graduate, Microsoft switches over to the Longhorn interface. Thus, the kids have to learn an entirely new interface.
The intellegent thing to do is to teach kids using the best tools, not awful tools merely because everyone else uses them.
And let's face it, anyone proficient in Linux/KDE would have no difficulty using any version of Windows.
I disagree. Why should kids use an inferior product merely because the rest of the world uses an inferior product?
Maybe after high school students start getting used to using Linux, and public schools start saving money by switching, it'll give universities an incentive switch too.
Fair use would be a defense. That was the defense Sony used against Universal. The US Supreme Court agreed. Now we have a fair use right to record shows off of the air. We didn't have fair use right before the Court made its decision, we only had a fair use defense.
If you are arrested or sued for downloading TV shows, you would use fair use as a defense. Whether it would be accepted as a right would be up for a court to decide.
Right now people are buying Mac Minis in massive quantities at 500 bucks. I would think that IF Apple bought Tivo, Apple would simply turn the Mac Mini into a Tivo device.
So people would have to buy the hardware outright. They'll probably get a one year subscription for free. Then pay monthly after that.
You can't really compare Apple products to mere VCRs and DVD players. Apple does a fantastic job at selling highly priced hardware to people willing to pay. In other words, Apple's version of Tivo would not be built or marketed for every tom, dick, and harry who shops at Wal-Mart.
BTW, "TiVo Shuffule" Fucking hilarious!
You're right. Technically it could be illegal as you're making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. But the Supreme Court could always say it's fair use, as they did in Universal v Sony.
I was just using Yosemite and the Grand Canyon as examples. There are PLENTY of beautiful places in the world which are in much higher def than anything on the HD Discovery channel.
I think every state has at least one beautiful place, except for maybe Ohio.
But I wouldn't put memory on a sound card to make it sound better. I'd put it on merely to sell them to ignorant fan-boys.
But even ATI admits the extra memory is useless. Higher clock speeds and added memory do not always correspond to better performance. For ignorant fan-boys, most of the time it's only about the stats.
Ever wonder why GPUs are such a big deal and sound cards are such an after thought? It's all about numbers. ATI and nVidia can increase clock speed and double memory and make it look really impressive. Sound cards can't really do that.
If I were Creative I'd start including massive amounts of RAM on my cards. Plus, I'd throw a CPU in there too, if there isn't one already, and start hyping the clock speed. I'd even have a program to overclock both.
That way all the ignorant fanboys would start buying them simply for bragging rights.
It seems that I read that Doom3 has an high-quality option for cards with 512 megs of memory. I could be wrong, though. I can't find any information about it online.
I guess I'm in the minority here. To me crappy prime time shows are as crappy on a $4000 as they are on a $99 TV from wal-mart. And the Godfather 2 is great, even on that $99 TV.
And if HDTV is so great, in and of itself, why aren't people enjoying REAL HD?! I.e., sitting outside and watching the world. You can't get higher def than standing in front of the Grand Canyon or walking through Yosemite yourself.
I guess that makes me an old foggy because I just don't get you youngsters and your crazy ways.
1. Yeah, I screwed up. Plasma LCD are both over-priced crap as far as I'm concenred.
2. You don't find it odd to pay $3,400 for a TV that does NOT do real HD?!
3. My parents use an old Zenith TV they bought in the 70s. Do you think that any LCD or plasma TV built today will be used in thirty years?
4. I was wrong about that too, thanks.
5. Oh yeah, spending $3,400 every couple of years is a great idea!
6. You can buy smaller CRTs for practically nothing. Exactly how small is your house that you have to spend $3,400 to get a TV into it?
I couldn't understand why people get so excited about these crappy LCD screens. There's burn-in. They look like crap at angles. They can't do real black. They're awful for gaming. They probably have a life about four years tops. They can't do real HD either.
But I finally figured out the appeal: TV content is so fucking boring right now, that people are more excited about having a cool looking TV versus actually watching a cool show on it!
In other words, TVs are art pieces onto themselves. You don't buy them to actually watch crap. You buy them to make your living room look hip.
Especially for a crappy LCD monitor. Call me crazy, but actually having the color black AND actually being able to view the screen from differnet angles are very important to me.
And what about burn-in. Who wants to spend several thousand on a TV that WILL need replacing in three to four years?!
My parents still use a color TV they bought in the fucking 70s!!!
Heck, I thought of a real world example to back it up. Microsoft gives away its media player free to consumers. By default it infects all ripped files with DRM. The licensing agreement allows Microsoft and "third parties" to delete files and programs on your computer. Microsoft received money from third parties to play DRM infected files. And best of all, it allows third parties to download spyware and viruses onto your computer. Microsoft says that this is not a flaw, which means it must have been done intentionally.
http://www.techspot.com/story16774.html
Like I've said, numerous times before, Microsoft DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR CUSTOMERS. It only cares about keeping its monopolies and making ridiculous profits.
Or, Microsoft could continue giving it away until it becomes ubiquitous. At that time Microsoft becomes a gatekeeper and says to spyware authors, "If you want to get past our anti-spyware, give us some money." Spyware companies start paying Microsoft big bucks to gain access to users' desktops.
Of course Microsoft will have some sort of privacy agreement that those spyware companies will have to agree with, to make users "feel" safe. But it'll actually be about as effective as the security behind "Signed" ActiveX controls.
That's what Microsoft is all about. Creating a system which it monopolies and raking in money from it.
When you spout idiotic reason, you get idiotic insults.
Are you kidding?! Microsoft would work out a deal where it would advertise on the site for free. Microsoft doesn't care about making a great antispyware product. Heck, Microsoft doesn't even care about making one that works. Microsoft only cares about maintaining its monopolies and making ridiculous profits.
We value free speech so much in this country we have specific "free speech zones" to practice it. Is it really surprising that we value profit over speech?!
Where primetime TV is actually entertaining?!