Ignoring the unnecessary politics in your post, your concern sounds reasonable but in my experience is unfounded. Kids are far more open to change than adults. If a four year old is using Linux at home and then goes to school and they stick a Mac in front of him, as long as someone is telling him how to accomplish the tasks that he's attempting, he'll be fine. In fact, he'll probably be better able to adjust as an adult than a kid that's only ever been exposed to one type of system.
My kids use Kubuntu on their laptop, Windows XP when they use their mom's, and Mac OS at school. They just accept that they're different, just like cell phones all look different. If we can raise a generation of kids that don't just use Windows because it's all they've ever used, we may be way further ahead technologically 10 or 20 years from now...
I agree with this. Giving a four year old a laptop is dumb if you plan on using it as a babysitter. However, let the kid play games on age-appropriate sites and this would be a great replacement for television time.
In response to the OP, and at the risk of starting a flame war, the first thing that I would do is wipe the thing and put some flavor of Linux on it. Expose them at a very young age to the fact that there is more to the world of technology than Microsoft and Apple. My kids are 8 and 10 and share a laptop with Kubuntu on it, and they love it. I like showing them all of the stuff that they can do it on and the fact that I can load it with software that does everything that they want to do without having to pay for any of it or violate (admittedly dumb) copyright laws.
I think that you realize that this is an oversimplification of what they're really saying. An apt analogy would be a small toy manufacturer waking up one day to realize that their product had been featured on the newest, hottest cartoon and they're suddenly being asked to produce 100,000 units per day as opposed to the 50 that they were producing before. They don't have the infrastructure to meet the demand in the short term. In the case of toys, obviously, it's not the worlds biggest deal because they can just start filling as many orders as they can, maintain a backlog of orders, and upgrade infrastructure as they go.
What we're talking about here is really no different, except that there is not backlog of orders, there is just denial of service when capacity isn't sufficient.
Then you've already indoctorinated your kids to the consumerist side of Christmas. There is plenty to be excited about without expensive presents. Teach your kids to enjoy the finer things in life (like each other's company) more than some toy.
You're right, I'm not a parent, but if I were, I hope my wife and I would be able to celebrate Christmas in some truly meaningful way. (:
Bull. All kids are "consumerists." That's why they get so excited about presents. All kids are selfish, which is why we have to teach them to share. As a parent, nothing gives greater pleasure than seeing your children happy. When they're little, very little makes them as happy as getting presents.
You can try to paint this like some epic failure on my wife and my part as parents, but that's just crap. If you and your wife celebrated Christmas in "some truly meaningful way" that didn't include your kids getting presents, you would just have really unhappy kids. Being a good parent doesn't mean not buying your kids presents. It means being able to buy them presents and teach them that that's not what Christmas is all about.
You obviously don't have kids. There is nothing comparable to the joy that one receives from watching the look on your kid's face(s) on Christmas morning. Anti-consumerism is all fine and good, but on Christmas Eve, I want my kids giggling and shaking with excitement while I try to calm them down enough to fall asleep. On Christmas morning, I want to watch them squealing and opening presents.
Yeah, I have to say that I don't get the point of this, either. What are they trying to learn with images that they can't learn with the raw numerical data?
In any case where you have an oppressive government which is not subject to the will of the people. In a properly functioning democracy it should never be required (unless action has to be taken on a time scale shorter than the election cycle e.g. conflict situations, sudden 40% cuts to the higher education budget etc.).
Wait, wha...?
Are you actually suggesting that government cutting higher ed by 40% is a just cause to rebel??? That if the government budget cuts higher ed, that is an instance where "action has to be taken on a time scale shorter than the election cycle"?
Actually, your analogy is a pretty good one, but let's use a real-world example. If you walk around in front of your window naked with the blinds and curtains open, I can't get in trouble for looking in. That's basically what happened here.
But it doesn't make sense. To the companies I mean.
Mod parent up, please.
I get so sick and tired of people beating up on companies for doing what is in their best financial interest. Businesses do not exist for philanthropic reasons. They exist to do one thing: make money. If they can't make money, they can't exist. Trashing them is not going to change that, it's only going to make you sound like you don't understand basic economics.
This has always been my confusion with the iPad. Why the hell would anyone buy what is essentially a giant smartphone that won't make phone calls? Is it really JUST for the bigger screen?
I have a Motorola Droid, and I can't fathom buying an iPad or anything like it. The device would have to actually do something that I can't already do on my phone to justify me spending hundreds of dollars on it. To me, the iPad was the epitome of Apple exploiting their fanboy base and just cramming devices down their throats while they happily swipe mommy and daddy's credit cards to pay for crap they don't need.
My point exactly. Scalping is illegal, but there is no mention of a scalping charge (or whatever the legal terminology is) in the article. Rather, they are being charged with "hacking" and "wire fraud charges."
Automating the purchase of tickets so that you're able to purchase them faster than other people is now illegal hacking and will get one charged with wire fraud? Ludicrous...
Agreed. From where I sit, you have a group of guys that figured out a way to get the tickets first. It's not like they hacked anyone's servers and got tickets that they shouldn't have had access to. They bought them just like everyone else. How is this any different than getting all of your friends and family to hop on Ticketmaster the second tickets become available to increase your chances? Trust me, I know lots of people who do or have done this.
Rightly or wrongly, the difference that Slashdot perceives is that COICA enables the government to censor, whereas net neutrality enables the government to prevent censorship by others.
Yet the most powerful argument against net neutrality is that it could (and likely would) result in government censorship. Net neutrality is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to put the Internet under the purview of the government, packaged such that it sells to geeks.
Can the judge override the jury’s decision? Sometimes. If the jury’s decision is to convict in spite of insufficient evidence, the judge may direct a verdict of acquittal and override the jury. But the reverse is not: if the jury acquits, the judge cannot reverse the acquittal.
I think that it should be the case for all country all the time, all department should have a drill down budget up the spending.
This part of your post, I absolutely agree with. However, legislators find it very difficult to write these kinds of laws in a way that makes the database effective without technical people being involved. Remember that government is very large and complicated, with lots of moving parts. Also, none of the departments want people to know how they're spending money, because it means accountability. Therefore, the legislation has to be very carefully crafted to keep departments from making data available in a large encrypted PDF or something ridiculous, in an intentional effort to keep the data from being usable.
I agree, but career politicians are not in the business of appointing individuals who harbor crazy notions, such as returning power from the state, to the people.
Or that their job is not to make law but, rather, to interpret it.
IANAL, but isn't there some mechanism by which a judge can throw out a jury's ruling if it's outrageous? For example, if they have a robber on tape staring into a camera or something and then he gets acquitted? I thought that for at least a certain kind of case there was something like this.
Slashdot is a Web 2.0 application depressed folks to sit around doing nothing for HOURS each day, in isolation, while getting the emotional feedback of accomplishment.
Google is your friend. Look at my username. We founded a non-profit to teach American heritage and other stuff after the campaign, so the fact that I was her campaign manager is mixed in with some other links.
I was avoiding providing "proof" because I don't really care what trolls on/. think about me, but given that you appear to be a conservative and there are so few of us here, I thought it was warranted. I presume that this suffices as evidence?
I was managing the campaign of a United States Senate candidate that actually read the health care law and was a rabid opponent of it, holding town hall meetings all over the state educating voters about how bad the bill was.
Why, what were you doing, complaining about it on Slashdot?
I have friends on both sides of the political spectrum, far to the left and far to the right. Everyone can (and should) agree that this is a gross violation of privacy and should not be tolerated. The only people that I have heard even come close to defending this procedure are the faux conservatives that put "security" (read: invading the privacy of citizens to expand the power of the state) over liberty.
It's probably a combination of the two. Google search results are definitely becoming more useless, and I think as more and more people become familiar with the Internet, their behavior patterns will evolve to reflect this. I think it's not just more specialized web sites like imdb cropping up, but user familiarity with the existence of these sites. As the Internet becomes more and more a part of our daily lives, web sites advertise on television, etc., it's only natural that average users are becoming more familiar with specific web site offerings and foregoing the extra step of typing a search into Google. The (potential) down side to this is what happens when a new, better web site crops up that may be infinitely better than the one that we're all familiar with. For example, once the world became accustomed to using Microsoft Office exclusively because that is what they were the most familiar with, it has become increasingly difficult (if not damn near impossible) for any other product to break into that space.
Is it possible that we will see similar things happening with web sites, where inferior sites are getting all of the hits simply because they are what people became familiar with early on?
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring the unnecessary politics in your post, your concern sounds reasonable but in my experience is unfounded. Kids are far more open to change than adults. If a four year old is using Linux at home and then goes to school and they stick a Mac in front of him, as long as someone is telling him how to accomplish the tasks that he's attempting, he'll be fine. In fact, he'll probably be better able to adjust as an adult than a kid that's only ever been exposed to one type of system.
My kids use Kubuntu on their laptop, Windows XP when they use their mom's, and Mac OS at school. They just accept that they're different, just like cell phones all look different. If we can raise a generation of kids that don't just use Windows because it's all they've ever used, we may be way further ahead technologically 10 or 20 years from now...
I agree with this. Giving a four year old a laptop is dumb if you plan on using it as a babysitter. However, let the kid play games on age-appropriate sites and this would be a great replacement for television time.
In response to the OP, and at the risk of starting a flame war, the first thing that I would do is wipe the thing and put some flavor of Linux on it. Expose them at a very young age to the fact that there is more to the world of technology than Microsoft and Apple. My kids are 8 and 10 and share a laptop with Kubuntu on it, and they love it. I like showing them all of the stuff that they can do it on and the fact that I can load it with software that does everything that they want to do without having to pay for any of it or violate (admittedly dumb) copyright laws.
I think that you realize that this is an oversimplification of what they're really saying. An apt analogy would be a small toy manufacturer waking up one day to realize that their product had been featured on the newest, hottest cartoon and they're suddenly being asked to produce 100,000 units per day as opposed to the 50 that they were producing before. They don't have the infrastructure to meet the demand in the short term. In the case of toys, obviously, it's not the worlds biggest deal because they can just start filling as many orders as they can, maintain a backlog of orders, and upgrade infrastructure as they go.
What we're talking about here is really no different, except that there is not backlog of orders, there is just denial of service when capacity isn't sufficient.
Then you've already indoctorinated your kids to the consumerist side of Christmas. There is plenty to be excited about without expensive presents. Teach your kids to enjoy the finer things in life (like each other's company) more than some toy.
You're right, I'm not a parent, but if I were, I hope my wife and I would be able to celebrate Christmas in some truly meaningful way. (:
Bull. All kids are "consumerists." That's why they get so excited about presents. All kids are selfish, which is why we have to teach them to share. As a parent, nothing gives greater pleasure than seeing your children happy. When they're little, very little makes them as happy as getting presents.
You can try to paint this like some epic failure on my wife and my part as parents, but that's just crap. If you and your wife celebrated Christmas in "some truly meaningful way" that didn't include your kids getting presents, you would just have really unhappy kids. Being a good parent doesn't mean not buying your kids presents. It means being able to buy them presents and teach them that that's not what Christmas is all about.
Wow, I feel bad for your kids if you have any...
You obviously don't have kids. There is nothing comparable to the joy that one receives from watching the look on your kid's face(s) on Christmas morning. Anti-consumerism is all fine and good, but on Christmas Eve, I want my kids giggling and shaking with excitement while I try to calm them down enough to fall asleep. On Christmas morning, I want to watch them squealing and opening presents.
So, yeah, I'm a consumer at Christmas time.
Yeah, I have to say that I don't get the point of this, either. What are they trying to learn with images that they can't learn with the raw numerical data?
In any case where you have an oppressive government which is not subject to the will of the people. In a properly functioning democracy it should never be required (unless action has to be taken on a time scale shorter than the election cycle e.g. conflict situations, sudden 40% cuts to the higher education budget etc.).
Wait, wha...?
Are you actually suggesting that government cutting higher ed by 40% is a just cause to rebel??? That if the government budget cuts higher ed, that is an instance where "action has to be taken on a time scale shorter than the election cycle"?
Please tell me that you're joking or misspoke...
ASL?
Actually, your analogy is a pretty good one, but let's use a real-world example. If you walk around in front of your window naked with the blinds and curtains open, I can't get in trouble for looking in. That's basically what happened here.
But it doesn't make sense. To the companies I mean.
Mod parent up, please.
I get so sick and tired of people beating up on companies for doing what is in their best financial interest. Businesses do not exist for philanthropic reasons. They exist to do one thing: make money. If they can't make money, they can't exist. Trashing them is not going to change that, it's only going to make you sound like you don't understand basic economics.
This has always been my confusion with the iPad. Why the hell would anyone buy what is essentially a giant smartphone that won't make phone calls? Is it really JUST for the bigger screen?
I have a Motorola Droid, and I can't fathom buying an iPad or anything like it. The device would have to actually do something that I can't already do on my phone to justify me spending hundreds of dollars on it. To me, the iPad was the epitome of Apple exploiting their fanboy base and just cramming devices down their throats while they happily swipe mommy and daddy's credit cards to pay for crap they don't need.
My point exactly. Scalping is illegal, but there is no mention of a scalping charge (or whatever the legal terminology is) in the article. Rather, they are being charged with "hacking" and "wire fraud charges."
Automating the purchase of tickets so that you're able to purchase them faster than other people is now illegal hacking and will get one charged with wire fraud? Ludicrous...
Agreed. From where I sit, you have a group of guys that figured out a way to get the tickets first. It's not like they hacked anyone's servers and got tickets that they shouldn't have had access to. They bought them just like everyone else. How is this any different than getting all of your friends and family to hop on Ticketmaster the second tickets become available to increase your chances? Trust me, I know lots of people who do or have done this.
I just don't get what the big deal is here.
Rightly or wrongly, the difference that Slashdot perceives is that COICA enables the government to censor, whereas net neutrality enables the government to prevent censorship by others.
Yet the most powerful argument against net neutrality is that it could (and likely would) result in government censorship. Net neutrality is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to put the Internet under the purview of the government, packaged such that it sells to geeks.
Can the judge override the jury’s decision? Sometimes. If the jury’s decision is to convict in spite of insufficient evidence, the judge may direct a verdict of acquittal and override the jury. But the reverse is not: if the jury acquits, the judge cannot reverse the acquittal.
I think that it should be the case for all country all the time, all department should have a drill down budget up the spending.
This part of your post, I absolutely agree with. However, legislators find it very difficult to write these kinds of laws in a way that makes the database effective without technical people being involved. Remember that government is very large and complicated, with lots of moving parts. Also, none of the departments want people to know how they're spending money, because it means accountability. Therefore, the legislation has to be very carefully crafted to keep departments from making data available in a large encrypted PDF or something ridiculous, in an intentional effort to keep the data from being usable.
I agree, but career politicians are not in the business of appointing individuals who harbor crazy notions, such as returning power from the state, to the people.
Or that their job is not to make law but, rather, to interpret it.
IANAL, but isn't there some mechanism by which a judge can throw out a jury's ruling if it's outrageous? For example, if they have a robber on tape staring into a camera or something and then he gets acquitted? I thought that for at least a certain kind of case there was something like this.
Slashdot is a Web 2.0 application depressed folks to sit around doing nothing for HOURS each day, in isolation, while getting the emotional feedback of accomplishment.
FYP
Google is your friend. Look at my username. We founded a non-profit to teach American heritage and other stuff after the campaign, so the fact that I was her campaign manager is mixed in with some other links.
/. think about me, but given that you appear to be a conservative and there are so few of us here, I thought it was warranted. I presume that this suffices as evidence?
I was avoiding providing "proof" because I don't really care what trolls on
Dude, this is Slashdot. You just sent thousands of geeks to wikipedia to try to find out what a 'g-spot' is...
I was managing the campaign of a United States Senate candidate that actually read the health care law and was a rabid opponent of it, holding town hall meetings all over the state educating voters about how bad the bill was. Why, what were you doing, complaining about it on Slashdot?
I have friends on both sides of the political spectrum, far to the left and far to the right. Everyone can (and should) agree that this is a gross violation of privacy and should not be tolerated. The only people that I have heard even come close to defending this procedure are the faux conservatives that put "security" (read: invading the privacy of citizens to expand the power of the state) over liberty.
It's probably a combination of the two. Google search results are definitely becoming more useless, and I think as more and more people become familiar with the Internet, their behavior patterns will evolve to reflect this. I think it's not just more specialized web sites like imdb cropping up, but user familiarity with the existence of these sites. As the Internet becomes more and more a part of our daily lives, web sites advertise on television, etc., it's only natural that average users are becoming more familiar with specific web site offerings and foregoing the extra step of typing a search into Google. The (potential) down side to this is what happens when a new, better web site crops up that may be infinitely better than the one that we're all familiar with. For example, once the world became accustomed to using Microsoft Office exclusively because that is what they were the most familiar with, it has become increasingly difficult (if not damn near impossible) for any other product to break into that space.
Is it possible that we will see similar things happening with web sites, where inferior sites are getting all of the hits simply because they are what people became familiar with early on?