You should check on that again. At least here in Canada, the vast majority of the music in the iTMS is now indeed DRM free. I believe their original target for 100% DRM free Music in iTMS was April 2009, so they still have a few weeks to go.
Who gives a fuck? Japan hates the iPhone, Japan doesn't hate the iPhone; it's a god-damned fucking piece of electronics, not an economic programme or school of politico-philosophical thought. Is it really so important for your sense of self-satisfaction that people you'll never meet in a country you never go to buy the same plastic shit as you do?
No, but it is useful data if you're a software developer who is considering sinking some funds and time into doing a Japanese localization of your iPhone/iPod Touch software.
After all, this is/., right? There are at least a handful of actual software developers who still visit and might care about such technical issues, aren't there? Or is it just a pile of sit-at-home wannabe armchair anthropologists?
* Microsoft Windows Vista® Home Basic, Windows Vista® Starter Edition, and Windows® XP (all editions) are not qualifying products under the program.
...and:
End users must purchase a new PC that is pre-installed with an eligible Windows Vista Operating System (OS), during the program eligibility window.
...and:
Do note that this is an optional program, so not all OEMs may choose to participate. OEMs that choose to participate in this upgrade program will have the freedom to determine how to best provide qualifying end users with the details.
So let's recap: no free upgrades for XP users, you have to have bought a qualifying Vista-based system within an as-yet undetermined qualifying period, and even then you'll only be able to get a free upgrade from your systems OEM if they choose to participate in the program.
This looks like the standard upgrade protection that Apple typically offers to those who buy a new system just prior to the ship date of their latest and greatest OS. So in essence, there is nothing to be seen here. Please move along people.
The DRM serves their profit-driven interests. Bought that song on your computer at work? Want to listen to it on your computer at home? Well guess what, charlie, unless you find some obscure bullshit setting in some hidden window in some far off corner of some far off menu in iTunes, $1 more shall go to the Steve.
What complete and total ass-hattery.
Copying protected iTunes Music from Work to Home only ever required a one-time registration of your home computer, by selecting "Store -> Authorize Computer" from the iTunes menus. iTunes has always allowed you to authorize up to five systems in this way. Once authorized, you can copy the music files between these systems at will. Hardly "obscure" -- it isn't even "buried" in a sub-menu.
So if DRM serves their profit-driven interests, what does the removal of DRM from every song they sell in the iTunes Store serve in your twisted version of reality?
Now please wipe the foam from your mouth. Yes, Apple exists to make a profit. It seems to me that they do so by making products that people want to own for themselves, and by being an advocate for their customers in their dealings with other companies.
BTW, Microsoft's subscription model (which is way heavier on DRM than iTunes ever was) is virtually ignored because most people consider it vastly inferior. Who wants to pay a fee each and every month to listen to music, only to lose all their music should they stop paying? How many times do you feel the need to pay for that copy of Baba O'Riley anyway?
No, docks are so you don't HAVE to waste time plugging and unplugging your monitor, keyboard, mouse, external speakers, USB/Firewire devices, Etc. Just slap down (or slide in) the laptop and fire it up. Business-class laptops have had and still have this feature. For some reason home PC users and Mac users don't get that option.
Use a bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Most LCD displays have their own USB hub built in, and the Apple displays even have their own laptop power lead.
Given this, I fail to see how a dock is in any way superior to popping your MacBook onto a desk, plugging in the display, power, and USB cable (the ports for which are all on the same side of the laptop for the new Mini DisplayPort models, and the leads from the display are all part of a single cable that terminates in the three connectors), and starting to use it. Heck, the MacBooks will even happily run with the lid closed, driving solely the external display. Where is the advantage of a space-wasting dock then the display itself effectively is the dock?
to add to this, I can't seem to find a way to deauthorize a computer remotely. What if I'd given my PowerBook to someone prior to doing this? I just hit one of my DRM limits through ignorance with no wrong doing.
In iTunes:
Select Store -> View My Account
The resulting panel will state the number of systems currently authorized to play music purchased with your account, and you have the option of deauthorizing all of them from there.
I thought at one time you could deauthorize specific system from there -- so right now it is possible, albeit a bit of a PITA to deauthorize everything, and then reauthorize the systems you want available. However, as from the server-side it may require generating a new key for your account (as opposed to just deleting the key from the client if you deauthorize from the Store menu), this may not be technically possible under the current encryption key management system.
A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes. There are no plugins or themes.
On the Mac, Automator has an "Import Audio Files" action for importing audio files into iTunes. Automator actions can be set to activate when the folder action "add - new item alert" is activated. All of this is built into OS X, and isn't particularly rocket science.
There are a number of plug-ins available for iTunes. Google for "iTunes Visualizer" for example -- there are a ton of them out there (and as the OS X development tools include Quartz Compositor, a nice GUI tool for creating Core Graphics visualizations and effects via drag and drop, even creating your own isn't all that hard). In addition, there are a wide variety of QuickTime CODECs available to enhance iTunes audio and video playback capabilities.
Okay -- they finally have one here. You can't skin iTunes to any significant degree (you can fiddle with some of the nibs -- but not to the level some people would desire). Then again, this is an Apple application -- I've never seen a skin as nice as what Apple has already designed, and let's face it -- for better or worse, Apple likes to control the visuals for their applications.
So two nice strawmen there. There are other things to pick on iTunes for (like still being a Carbon app.), but outright lying (or making statements when you're completely ignorant of the truth) isn't doing their argument for alternatives much good.
And just so we don't get into some sort of infinite recursion here, no, I don't have any evidence newer than five minutes. I'm sure the instances where Microsoft has been caught have taught them how to be more covert.
And no, I am not an astroturfer for MS. In fact, I'm not sure despite how often that term is thrown around that MS actually hires any astroturfers, or at least I have not seen any direct evidence of this.
Why is it that the unborn are deprived of life without due process?
Because the Amendment in question begins with No person. And a small clump of cells which merely has the potential of eventually becoming human is no more a person than my toenail clippings are.
I think you missed the point -- the backup power should be for the base station itself.
I'm a home VOIP user, and have a UPS solely for powering my cable modem, cordless phone, and routing equipment. Should things be worse than a simple blackout, I also have two portable power packs with DC->AC inverters. If I could (and especially if I lived in an area that is hurricane prone), I'd have a gas powered generator in the mix as well.
My existing setup has been very good so far for moderate power outages (lasting an hour or so). I've been fortunate in that during such episodes, my cable ISP has remained online, allowing us to use both the phone and the internet (as all my systems but one NAS box are laptops these days). Should a big quake eventually hit, I have no illusions that this setup is bulletproof, however I can provide enough power through various storage and generation devices to get by should lack of electricity be my primary concern.
B) Listen to the cassette tapes and purchase a USB floppy drive and look at the data on the floppies.
You're assuming those are 3.5" floppies. At 25 years old, for modern times they would more likely be 5.25" floppies -- and good luck finding a USB drive that can read one of those.
(FWIW, I do still have one of my old 360KB, DSDD 5.25" floppy drives sitting in a box).
I installed it today, and decided to quickly create my own useful plug-in for it: ROT-13 Encoder/Decoder.
One of the nice things about Ubiquity for anyone here who hasn't tried it is that it can modify the content of a website. As such, you can use my ROT-13 plug-in to decode the following text in-place (just as I'm using it to encode it in-place):
Tnqf, qba'g gryy zr lbh npghnyyl vafgnyyrq vg???
It's the ability to actually modify pages which makes this a bit more interesting.
Actually, starting on a PET probably helped you learn other things. For the same reason, starting with linux is a good idea.
True, but then again I had the aptitude for the skill. Not every child will, and I don't think it's advantageous to make every little kid into a computer scientist.
The PET had the added advantage in that it was much more limited as to what you could do with it, and you had to learn how to interact with the system at a relatively low level if you were to do something as simple as load a progam. There were no hard drives, GUIs (or much in the way of graphics at all for that matter), online help, audio, etc. The barriers to entry were higher in some regards, but lower in others (it wasn't that hard to get into writing a game of some sort, for example, as you didn't have to worry about audio or graphics, for example, and the end result could be nearly "state of the art" and impress your friends).
XP may be an adequate OS for the Classmate, depending on what sorts of applications they intend to target it for -- my comments shouldn't be read as being anti-Windows. However, using "it's the OS everyone uses in the working world"[0] as the rationale simply doesn't hold up to any real logic.
The current UIs sticking around is hardly unthinkable: Windows 95 came out 13 years ago, and someone who is used to 95 would find it extremely easy to pick up windows xp or vista.
By 2020, the current Windows UI will be 25 years old. And one of the big complaints you tend to get from people who have moved directly from the Win 9X line to XP or Vista is that many of the default views (particularly the Control Panel's default view) has changed so drastically that it's difficult to figure out where to configure specific settings.
So again, this is a completely useless reason for using Windows on systems designed for kids. I doubt the Windows UI is going to last 25 years without change -- and if it does, Microsoft will by then be so unimportant in the computing world that nobody is going to be using their OS anyhow.
I can understand why a Windows environment would be considered desirable in an educational tool, since the children will be learning to use the OS and applications that theyâ(TM)ll be encountering in their adult life.
That's quite the prediction there, predicting what OS is going to be in predominant use when today's 7-year-olds enter the knowledge workforce in 15+ years. And even if the author turns out to be correct, and Windows is still in predominant use beyond 2020, it's highly doubtful that whatever version is in use then is going to come close to resembling Windows XP.
Really, at the age group these systems are targeted towards, the operating system shouldn't matter. The ideal of these systems isn't to teach operating system usage, but to use interactive applications for sharing information and teaching non-computer skills. You could do that with OS/2, and it's not going to impair anyone's ability to learn how to use an OS in the future. Heck, I started back at that age on a Commodore PET, and it certainly hasn't affected my ability to use a modern day OS.
I found the hardest part is that you get to points where mac is "protecting" you from knowing whats going on. Where windows will give you an error code the mac just says "no". I get really frustrated with it's hand holding attitude.
This is something you can change in the system. If you have the OS X developer tools installed, just run/Developer/Applications/Utilities/CrashReporterPrefs.app, and change the setting from "Basic Mode" to "Developer Mode".
Alternately, you can always look up the reason for the crash in the Console application (/Applications/Utilities/Console.app). Or if you prefer to do it the Unix way, grep through/var/log.
Just because you don't know how to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done:).
Oh, and don't claim you hated Microsoft prior to 1995, you know it's a lie.
You, sir, obviously weren't part of the OS/2 scene back in the v2.1 and v3.0 "WARP" days. Whereas everyone now knows about Microsoft's monopolistic practises long after the fact, we knew that it was Microsoft's per-processor licensing fees that prevented vendors from pre-installing our OS of choice, and that those vendors who did pre-install charged us for the copy of MS-DOS and Windows 3.1, even though it wasn't installed, making their OS/2 based systems quite a bit more expensive than they should have been.
It's funny how virtually everyone ignored us back in 1992 when we complained about MS's predatory practises, and how some "Johnny-Come-Lately" Linux users[0] act like they were the ones to discover these abuses in the late 90's. Please don't re-write history; there were many of us who hated MS's business practises well before Windows 95 was thrust upon the world stage.
Yaz.
[0] - Certainly not a put-down to Linux users in general, many of whom were refugees from the OS/2 world.
We could have a pissing contest all damn day, but Computer Science is dictated by the Time-Value of Money more now then ever before and if it means "theoretical research in Computer Science" gets absorbed by traditional engineering, physics and mathematics departments then so be it. If your research doesn't produce valid R&D revenue then scrap it or switch fields.
In which case, I'd simply like to point out that we're more in agreement than disagreement, as I'm positing that what we really need to do is churn out less Computer Science graduates, and more Software Engineers. There will always be a demand for theorists and those who use Computer Science as a science, but that this will always be dwarfed by the commercial need for developers, who are better served with a Software Engineering degree.
I should note as an aside that I got into this same discussion topic in the department at the University a few months back during a taped panel discussion on Computer Science vs. Software Engineering. A faculty member told me later in confidence that while he agreed with me, that he would have to cut it out of the recording as it would be extremely unpopular amongst the Computer Science faculty members, who are afraid that a discussion of this sort may lead to the scaling down of the Computer Science department (which is happening anyway; as with a lot of Universities right now, our Comp.Sci enrolment is steadily decreasing. Newer generations just aren't as interested in pursuing it as a career, and those who are interested in being programmers are leaving the pure Computer Science stream they were once generally forced into, and are going into Software Engineering instead. As such, what I've said isn't just baseless opinion, but is part of a trend which is actually starting to happen).
Good show for working at Apple and NeXT. I'm a fan of Objective-C, and used it to create my latest simulation environment. A significant part of my time at IBM involved working on OS/2 software, and we all know how well IBM put their muscle behind that:P.
It's still too much of an Art and if your curriculum is encumbered by the talent on the staff who aren't current with both Theory and Practical you haven't a chance at working for Apple, Sun, IBM, et.al,, within their Core Engineering groups, unless you naturally have the ability to be both adept at socializing and technically quick on your feet.
Interestingly, I speak as someone who formerly was a full-time IBM employee, at one of their big R&D labs. I know of what I speak.
Programming is an art, but what I am currently doing is indeed applied science, following the scientific method just like any other science. My current research area has focused on evaluating certain families of algorithms through simulation, based on a variety of well-tested mathematical models. It contains characterizations, a hypothesis, predictions, and experiments, followed by general conclusions, all of which are under peer review.
Thus, I'd suggest that if you feel that Computer Science is more of an Art than a science, that either your program wasn't up-to-snuff, or you just didn't get the point. Sorry.
however, don't you feel that KNOWING the algorithms, such as are taught in coursework like datastructures, helps IMMENSELY, for building "patterns of thought/a mindset", more-or-less (for lack of a better expression)?
For Software Engineers, absolutely, which is why they're generally required to take a certain amount of Computer Science courses. You need to know a certain subset of the theory in order to put it into practise. Being a newer degree-granted area of study, Software Engineering tends to have a better overall focus and design to it, graduating people who, by-and-large, do indeed know how to engineer a piece of software.
Where I think things aren't quite right is in the Computer Science world. Truthfully, not all Computer Scientists need to know things like Software Evolution, or Software Architecture, or tools like UML or Source Code Management systems. They frequently don't need to know how to plan a large, corporate-style software project. That's not to say that these things are inherently bad, or simply not worth knowing, but for the most part they really aren't particularly scientific. Indeed, I'd argue that in many circumstances, having a the kind of rough passing knowledge most Computer Science students are taught in these topics, and then assuming you know these issues well because you have a degree, is frequently detrimental to the process of creating software. How many of us know someone with a valid degree who felt they were an expert in software development, but who misused/abused the basic tools, to the detriment of everyone else? Software Engineers get design and management tools drilled into them over and over and over, and by the time they're finished University, they know how to apply them to projects, and how to drive projects to completion. They may not know all of the fancy algorithms and esoteric theoretical areas that a good Computer Scientist is familiar with, but this is why we (should) have two specialities. They still both go hand-in-hand, particularly for complex projects, and there isn't any real reason to necessitate that any one person is an expert in both roles, because in the end you often wind up with one person who is only moderate in both roles. And that is where the danger lies.
I don't think GP was suggesting that computer scientists needn't know how to make software.
Exactly. Indeed, my commentary is mostly on how the programs are designed at many Universities. Those which have some semblance of a distinction between pure Computer Science and Software Engineering generally allow the students from one to take the classes in the other, if not by design than as electives, and I think this is a good thing. Not everybody needs to be a cookie-cutter duplicate of everyone else, and individual students who want some experience in both fields should be encouraged to plan their timetables accordingly.
Computer Scientists don't always have to be experts at making software; I know my share of theorists in particular who aren't necessarily familiar with software development tools and languages -- many of them are able to get by with pencil, paper, a whiteboard, and a copy of MatLab. However, I don't think that Computer Science would be well served with nothing but theorists, and often for computer scientists who need to do practical experiments in a variety of areas, the only way to do it is to code things up and run them.
I'm currently taking CompSci at Uvic (maybe I'll see you this year Yaz!)
Unfortunately, probably not, as I'm moving on to bigger and better things. I've enjoyed being able to teach both Software Engineering and Computer Science courses, and may be back sometime in the future, but in truth, teaching doesn't pay all that well, and would only be something I might do again as a supplement to other income.
It's been great experience. This week is my last week teaching classes, with just an exam remaining mid-August. However, early September I should be back for one day to finally defend my Masters thesis, entitled "Optimizing Synchronization Cost for Mobile Devices: The Expedient Trickle Sync Algorithm", so if you're interested, just keep tabs on the defence announcements and drop by.
Okay -- here's the deal with Computer Science, coming from someone who is a Computer Scientist (in training if not always in profession, although at the moment I can speak as someone who teaches upper-year undergraduate courses at a moderately sized University).
I'm sure everyone has heard the mantra that University isn't intended to prepare you for the working world. To a certain extent this is true, however in order to build partnerships and gain additional sources of funding in Computer Science, this view is generally skewed in practise, with the end result that Computer Science doesn't always appear to be a scientific field of endeavour.
So here's the issue: if what you're looking to do is get a good paying high-tech programming job, should you study Computer Science?
In my opinion, no.
Thirty-plus years ago, Computer Science was generally taught as a science. It was generally about algorithms and theory, and in many cases how they can be applied to science. Courses on things like computer simulation certainly weren't unheard of.
Along the way, as corporations picked up the pace at which they adopted computers as general-purpose and problem-solving tools, and as the software industry exploded, Universities in general started getting the message that their graduates weren't well suited to software development tasks, and as such they started requiring more courses on software development methods, and "how to program" and "how to create software" -- which by-and-large, isn't really about science or the scientific method, but a problem of engineering.
Fortunately, as the field continues to mature, some Universities are starting to "see the light", and are offering programs in Software Engineering. Based on my educational and industry experience, software engineers are exactly what most corporations are looking for when it comes to low and intermediate level software developers, and the good programmes emphasize the design of software, while only giving what background is needed into the science behind it all.
This is how things should be. We don't send physicists out to build bridges, but instead use physicists to come up with the core science, and than have engineers apply it to build the bridge. Software should be no different. At the risk of being labelled a heretic, we need a lot less Computer Scientists, and a lot more Software Engineers.
Note that this isn't to say that Computer Scientists don't have a role to play; theoretical Computer Scientists still have a significant role to play in determining what is possible, and in the creation of new algorithms to solve problems in the field, and practical Computer Scientists (of which I count myself a member) are needed to design solutions to complex real-world problems, the designs of which can be passed down to software engineers for actual implementation. Plus, both types of Computer Scientist are needed to train future generations in the field, both at the University level, and as general mentors.
Unfortunately, education hasn't quite caught up with this ideal yet, but it appears to be getting there. Larger schools are starting to provide both types of program, reducing the software development courses in their core Computer Science departments and moving them to Software Engineering departments (with the courses cross-listed between departments, or at the very least allowing students in the one to take courses in the other to supplement their degrees). Smaller schools, however, continue to muddle the two topics into a single programme, which causes the type of confusion often seen here when discussion "Computer Science vs. The Working World".
So there you have it. All the other sciences have a differentiation between the "science" and the "engineering" aspects, and Computer Science is no different. Eventually I predict this separation of concerns will be the norm, and we'll be all the better for it.
The conclusion here is, if you just want to get out int
Slashdot Mirror
You should check on that again. At least here in Canada, the vast majority of the music in the iTMS is now indeed DRM free. I believe their original target for 100% DRM free Music in iTMS was April 2009, so they still have a few weeks to go.
Yaz.
No, but it is useful data if you're a software developer who is considering sinking some funds and time into doing a Japanese localization of your iPhone/iPod Touch software.
After all, this is /., right? There are at least a handful of actual software developers who still visit and might care about such technical issues, aren't there? Or is it just a pile of sit-at-home wannabe armchair anthropologists?
Yaz.
You know, if you RTFA, it does state:
...and:
...and:
So let's recap: no free upgrades for XP users, you have to have bought a qualifying Vista-based system within an as-yet undetermined qualifying period, and even then you'll only be able to get a free upgrade from your systems OEM if they choose to participate in the program.
This looks like the standard upgrade protection that Apple typically offers to those who buy a new system just prior to the ship date of their latest and greatest OS. So in essence, there is nothing to be seen here. Please move along people.
Yaz.
What complete and total ass-hattery.
So if DRM serves their profit-driven interests, what does the removal of DRM from every song they sell in the iTunes Store serve in your twisted version of reality?
Now please wipe the foam from your mouth. Yes, Apple exists to make a profit. It seems to me that they do so by making products that people want to own for themselves, and by being an advocate for their customers in their dealings with other companies.
BTW, Microsoft's subscription model (which is way heavier on DRM than iTunes ever was) is virtually ignored because most people consider it vastly inferior. Who wants to pay a fee each and every month to listen to music, only to lose all their music should they stop paying? How many times do you feel the need to pay for that copy of Baba O'Riley anyway?
Yaz.
Use a bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Most LCD displays have their own USB hub built in, and the Apple displays even have their own laptop power lead.
Given this, I fail to see how a dock is in any way superior to popping your MacBook onto a desk, plugging in the display, power, and USB cable (the ports for which are all on the same side of the laptop for the new Mini DisplayPort models, and the leads from the display are all part of a single cable that terminates in the three connectors), and starting to use it. Heck, the MacBooks will even happily run with the lid closed, driving solely the external display. Where is the advantage of a space-wasting dock then the display itself effectively is the dock?
Yaz.
In iTunes:
I thought at one time you could deauthorize specific system from there -- so right now it is possible, albeit a bit of a PITA to deauthorize everything, and then reauthorize the systems you want available. However, as from the server-side it may require generating a new key for your account (as opposed to just deleting the key from the client if you deauthorize from the Store menu), this may not be technically possible under the current encryption key management system.
Yaz.
So two nice strawmen there. There are other things to pick on iTunes for (like still being a Carbon app.), but outright lying (or making statements when you're completely ignorant of the truth) isn't doing their argument for alternatives much good.
Yaz.
Sure do. How about seven years old?
And just so we don't get into some sort of infinite recursion here, no, I don't have any evidence newer than five minutes. I'm sure the instances where Microsoft has been caught have taught them how to be more covert.
Yaz.
This should do it:
Yaz.
Because the Amendment in question begins with No person . And a small clump of cells which merely has the potential of eventually becoming human is no more a person than my toenail clippings are.
Yaz.
What, you've never heard of a UPS?
Yaz.
I think you missed the point -- the backup power should be for the base station itself.
I'm a home VOIP user, and have a UPS solely for powering my cable modem, cordless phone, and routing equipment. Should things be worse than a simple blackout, I also have two portable power packs with DC->AC inverters. If I could (and especially if I lived in an area that is hurricane prone), I'd have a gas powered generator in the mix as well.
My existing setup has been very good so far for moderate power outages (lasting an hour or so). I've been fortunate in that during such episodes, my cable ISP has remained online, allowing us to use both the phone and the internet (as all my systems but one NAS box are laptops these days). Should a big quake eventually hit, I have no illusions that this setup is bulletproof, however I can provide enough power through various storage and generation devices to get by should lack of electricity be my primary concern.
Yaz.
You're assuming those are 3.5" floppies. At 25 years old, for modern times they would more likely be 5.25" floppies -- and good luck finding a USB drive that can read one of those.
(FWIW, I do still have one of my old 360KB, DSDD 5.25" floppy drives sitting in a box).
Yaz.
I installed it today, and decided to quickly create my own useful plug-in for it: ROT-13 Encoder/Decoder.
One of the nice things about Ubiquity for anyone here who hasn't tried it is that it can modify the content of a website. As such, you can use my ROT-13 plug-in to decode the following text in-place (just as I'm using it to encode it in-place):
It's the ability to actually modify pages which makes this a bit more interesting.
Yaz.
True, but then again I had the aptitude for the skill. Not every child will, and I don't think it's advantageous to make every little kid into a computer scientist.
The PET had the added advantage in that it was much more limited as to what you could do with it, and you had to learn how to interact with the system at a relatively low level if you were to do something as simple as load a progam. There were no hard drives, GUIs (or much in the way of graphics at all for that matter), online help, audio, etc. The barriers to entry were higher in some regards, but lower in others (it wasn't that hard to get into writing a game of some sort, for example, as you didn't have to worry about audio or graphics, for example, and the end result could be nearly "state of the art" and impress your friends).
XP may be an adequate OS for the Classmate, depending on what sorts of applications they intend to target it for -- my comments shouldn't be read as being anti-Windows. However, using "it's the OS everyone uses in the working world"[0] as the rationale simply doesn't hold up to any real logic.
Yaz.
By 2020, the current Windows UI will be 25 years old. And one of the big complaints you tend to get from people who have moved directly from the Win 9X line to XP or Vista is that many of the default views (particularly the Control Panel's default view) has changed so drastically that it's difficult to figure out where to configure specific settings.
So again, this is a completely useless reason for using Windows on systems designed for kids. I doubt the Windows UI is going to last 25 years without change -- and if it does, Microsoft will by then be so unimportant in the computing world that nobody is going to be using their OS anyhow.
Yaz.
From the article:
That's quite the prediction there, predicting what OS is going to be in predominant use when today's 7-year-olds enter the knowledge workforce in 15+ years. And even if the author turns out to be correct, and Windows is still in predominant use beyond 2020, it's highly doubtful that whatever version is in use then is going to come close to resembling Windows XP.
Really, at the age group these systems are targeted towards, the operating system shouldn't matter. The ideal of these systems isn't to teach operating system usage, but to use interactive applications for sharing information and teaching non-computer skills. You could do that with OS/2, and it's not going to impair anyone's ability to learn how to use an OS in the future. Heck, I started back at that age on a Commodore PET, and it certainly hasn't affected my ability to use a modern day OS.
Yaz.
This is something you can change in the system. If you have the OS X developer tools installed, just run /Developer/Applications/Utilities/CrashReporterPrefs.app, and change the setting from "Basic Mode" to "Developer Mode".
Alternately, you can always look up the reason for the crash in the Console application (/Applications/Utilities/Console.app). Or if you prefer to do it the Unix way, grep through /var/log.
Just because you don't know how to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done :).
Yaz.
You, sir, obviously weren't part of the OS/2 scene back in the v2.1 and v3.0 "WARP" days. Whereas everyone now knows about Microsoft's monopolistic practises long after the fact, we knew that it was Microsoft's per-processor licensing fees that prevented vendors from pre-installing our OS of choice, and that those vendors who did pre-install charged us for the copy of MS-DOS and Windows 3.1, even though it wasn't installed, making their OS/2 based systems quite a bit more expensive than they should have been.
It's funny how virtually everyone ignored us back in 1992 when we complained about MS's predatory practises, and how some "Johnny-Come-Lately" Linux users[0] act like they were the ones to discover these abuses in the late 90's. Please don't re-write history; there were many of us who hated MS's business practises well before Windows 95 was thrust upon the world stage.
Yaz.
[0] - Certainly not a put-down to Linux users in general, many of whom were refugees from the OS/2 world.
In which case, I'd simply like to point out that we're more in agreement than disagreement, as I'm positing that what we really need to do is churn out less Computer Science graduates, and more Software Engineers. There will always be a demand for theorists and those who use Computer Science as a science, but that this will always be dwarfed by the commercial need for developers, who are better served with a Software Engineering degree.
I should note as an aside that I got into this same discussion topic in the department at the University a few months back during a taped panel discussion on Computer Science vs. Software Engineering. A faculty member told me later in confidence that while he agreed with me, that he would have to cut it out of the recording as it would be extremely unpopular amongst the Computer Science faculty members, who are afraid that a discussion of this sort may lead to the scaling down of the Computer Science department (which is happening anyway; as with a lot of Universities right now, our Comp.Sci enrolment is steadily decreasing. Newer generations just aren't as interested in pursuing it as a career, and those who are interested in being programmers are leaving the pure Computer Science stream they were once generally forced into, and are going into Software Engineering instead. As such, what I've said isn't just baseless opinion, but is part of a trend which is actually starting to happen).
Good show for working at Apple and NeXT. I'm a fan of Objective-C, and used it to create my latest simulation environment. A significant part of my time at IBM involved working on OS/2 software, and we all know how well IBM put their muscle behind that :P.
Yaz.
Interestingly, I speak as someone who formerly was a full-time IBM employee, at one of their big R&D labs. I know of what I speak.
Programming is an art, but what I am currently doing is indeed applied science, following the scientific method just like any other science. My current research area has focused on evaluating certain families of algorithms through simulation, based on a variety of well-tested mathematical models. It contains characterizations, a hypothesis, predictions, and experiments, followed by general conclusions, all of which are under peer review.
Thus, I'd suggest that if you feel that Computer Science is more of an Art than a science, that either your program wasn't up-to-snuff, or you just didn't get the point. Sorry.
Yaz.
For Software Engineers, absolutely, which is why they're generally required to take a certain amount of Computer Science courses. You need to know a certain subset of the theory in order to put it into practise. Being a newer degree-granted area of study, Software Engineering tends to have a better overall focus and design to it, graduating people who, by-and-large, do indeed know how to engineer a piece of software.
Where I think things aren't quite right is in the Computer Science world. Truthfully, not all Computer Scientists need to know things like Software Evolution, or Software Architecture, or tools like UML or Source Code Management systems. They frequently don't need to know how to plan a large, corporate-style software project. That's not to say that these things are inherently bad, or simply not worth knowing, but for the most part they really aren't particularly scientific. Indeed, I'd argue that in many circumstances, having a the kind of rough passing knowledge most Computer Science students are taught in these topics, and then assuming you know these issues well because you have a degree, is frequently detrimental to the process of creating software. How many of us know someone with a valid degree who felt they were an expert in software development, but who misused/abused the basic tools, to the detriment of everyone else? Software Engineers get design and management tools drilled into them over and over and over, and by the time they're finished University, they know how to apply them to projects, and how to drive projects to completion. They may not know all of the fancy algorithms and esoteric theoretical areas that a good Computer Scientist is familiar with, but this is why we (should) have two specialities. They still both go hand-in-hand, particularly for complex projects, and there isn't any real reason to necessitate that any one person is an expert in both roles, because in the end you often wind up with one person who is only moderate in both roles. And that is where the danger lies.
Yaz.
Exactly. Indeed, my commentary is mostly on how the programs are designed at many Universities. Those which have some semblance of a distinction between pure Computer Science and Software Engineering generally allow the students from one to take the classes in the other, if not by design than as electives, and I think this is a good thing. Not everybody needs to be a cookie-cutter duplicate of everyone else, and individual students who want some experience in both fields should be encouraged to plan their timetables accordingly.
Computer Scientists don't always have to be experts at making software; I know my share of theorists in particular who aren't necessarily familiar with software development tools and languages -- many of them are able to get by with pencil, paper, a whiteboard, and a copy of MatLab. However, I don't think that Computer Science would be well served with nothing but theorists, and often for computer scientists who need to do practical experiments in a variety of areas, the only way to do it is to code things up and run them.
Yaz.
Unfortunately, probably not, as I'm moving on to bigger and better things. I've enjoyed being able to teach both Software Engineering and Computer Science courses, and may be back sometime in the future, but in truth, teaching doesn't pay all that well, and would only be something I might do again as a supplement to other income.
It's been great experience. This week is my last week teaching classes, with just an exam remaining mid-August. However, early September I should be back for one day to finally defend my Masters thesis, entitled "Optimizing Synchronization Cost for Mobile Devices: The Expedient Trickle Sync Algorithm", so if you're interested, just keep tabs on the defence announcements and drop by.
Yaz.
Okay -- here's the deal with Computer Science, coming from someone who is a Computer Scientist (in training if not always in profession, although at the moment I can speak as someone who teaches upper-year undergraduate courses at a moderately sized University).
I'm sure everyone has heard the mantra that University isn't intended to prepare you for the working world. To a certain extent this is true, however in order to build partnerships and gain additional sources of funding in Computer Science, this view is generally skewed in practise, with the end result that Computer Science doesn't always appear to be a scientific field of endeavour.
So here's the issue: if what you're looking to do is get a good paying high-tech programming job, should you study Computer Science?
In my opinion, no.
Thirty-plus years ago, Computer Science was generally taught as a science. It was generally about algorithms and theory, and in many cases how they can be applied to science. Courses on things like computer simulation certainly weren't unheard of.
Along the way, as corporations picked up the pace at which they adopted computers as general-purpose and problem-solving tools, and as the software industry exploded, Universities in general started getting the message that their graduates weren't well suited to software development tasks, and as such they started requiring more courses on software development methods, and "how to program" and "how to create software" -- which by-and-large, isn't really about science or the scientific method, but a problem of engineering.
Fortunately, as the field continues to mature, some Universities are starting to "see the light", and are offering programs in Software Engineering. Based on my educational and industry experience, software engineers are exactly what most corporations are looking for when it comes to low and intermediate level software developers, and the good programmes emphasize the design of software, while only giving what background is needed into the science behind it all.
This is how things should be. We don't send physicists out to build bridges, but instead use physicists to come up with the core science, and than have engineers apply it to build the bridge. Software should be no different. At the risk of being labelled a heretic, we need a lot less Computer Scientists, and a lot more Software Engineers.
Note that this isn't to say that Computer Scientists don't have a role to play; theoretical Computer Scientists still have a significant role to play in determining what is possible, and in the creation of new algorithms to solve problems in the field, and practical Computer Scientists (of which I count myself a member) are needed to design solutions to complex real-world problems, the designs of which can be passed down to software engineers for actual implementation. Plus, both types of Computer Scientist are needed to train future generations in the field, both at the University level, and as general mentors.
Unfortunately, education hasn't quite caught up with this ideal yet, but it appears to be getting there. Larger schools are starting to provide both types of program, reducing the software development courses in their core Computer Science departments and moving them to Software Engineering departments (with the courses cross-listed between departments, or at the very least allowing students in the one to take courses in the other to supplement their degrees). Smaller schools, however, continue to muddle the two topics into a single programme, which causes the type of confusion often seen here when discussion "Computer Science vs. The Working World".
So there you have it. All the other sciences have a differentiation between the "science" and the "engineering" aspects, and Computer Science is no different. Eventually I predict this separation of concerns will be the norm, and we'll be all the better for it.
The conclusion here is, if you just want to get out int