I doubt very much any of the measures taken will ensure a "quality education." I dont know about the high schools you went to, or if you are too old to know how technology is really being used in schools today.
I was class of 99, and when I was in high school not a single teacher actually knew how to use the technology to provide a better education. In fact I'd say teachers who relied on technology to keep their classes 'interesting' failed to educate at all. Many classes ended up with redundant tutorials on using popular search engines and using MS office. I probably learned each of these things twice a semester in any given set of classes. Ultimately, I ended up learning nothing of new technology and was given long periods of time to finish ridiculously small projects (many students who didn't understand powerpoint for example needed more time to prepare a presentation I guess...).
It seems many people I talk to who have recently graduated high school or are still in high school are experencing the same things. Maybe things are changing, maybe some people have had better experiences (if so please share them), but I dont really think technology these days is actually improving education, its distracting from it.
No amount of computers will replace the education value of a good text book and a good teacher, unless that teacher knows how to use it to actually improve the presentation of the material, or uses it to present material that can't be presented otherwise (and I can't even think of an example of the latter).
And even if someone could run their modems continuously, if you don't have broadband you can go to your local record store and buy 10 or 12 albums (or more) in 20-30 minutes, and each additional album means an extra 2-3 hours by your count if downloaded. Even at 200k/sec a 60 meg album would take 5 minutes to download, so 10-12 albums would take an hour or more. Nevermind the fact most of the time your download speed on a cable modem is more like 100k/sec or less, nearly doubling that time. Now I understand most of you probably don't buy 10 albums at a time but some people do, I used to.:)
The chinese are doing this to promote domestic software efforts. In the united states most of our software already is domestic.
If you are refering to the suit against Microsoft, this was in favor of domestic software here in the United States; we were inspecting a potential monopoly. When a monopoly is present in an industry, there is no competition in that industry, then the product, and the consumer suffers.
You can't use an example of a suit against one (1) OS developing company to say the US government doesn't support local software. There are many companies making operating systems, Microsoft is just one. Investigating a potential monopoly is good for other developers, it means everyone else's efforts won't get drowned out by a monopoly. If anything could be said about microsoft's legal trouble, its that the US government is supporting domestic software development by watching out for all US developers, not just one company.
Because of Mac hardware architecture, the system specs compared to a PC are misleading. It's really not fair to compare based on megahertz alone because there are still things a 733 mac will do better than a 2ghz pentium.
In about 2 minutes of searching on google I was able to find this, which compared a 733 mac to a 1.8ghz PC and the Mac came out on top in a couple of the tests.
http://www.techtv.com/products/hardware/story/0,23 008,3339307,00.html
I don't know a whole lot about Macs but I do know that when you're used to using PCs, Mac system specs can be misleading. So it is very possible that truly comparable macs and PCs differ by about $50 in price.
Well in China's case, this is a little different. The government doesn't respect US copyright laws... it's a widely known fact that there are a few companies in china distributing copies of pirated movies, music, and even software and the government does really nothing to stop it.
It says in the article the government has paid for alot of software, something like 200m in the past year... it would be interesting to compare that to the software expendatures of other countries (Microsoft wanted the city of Munich alone to pay something like $40m for just that one city, and China has a billion people, granted they probably don't use as many computers per person).
I'm not an expert in this area, but theres a difference between a government not respecting copyright (China) and a large group of individuals not respecting copyright (United States). Ultimately, I wonder how much this truly affects Microsoft's profits (obviously it does at least a little) compared to a country that respects our copyright laws switching to open source.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt the chinese government pirate all their versions of microsoft (or any other foreign company's) software?
So if anything this just means less pirated MS stuff in China... Which I'm sure Microsoft would see as a good thing except this now means the Chinese will never pay or want to pay for MS products when they're using better stuff.
I never said anything about not changing the rules...
The starcraft community was quite pro-active in changing rules that screwed the game up, thats part of why starcraft is so great today. I forget not everyone is into multiplayer starcraft sometimes.;)
Anyway, I completely agree with you that the rules need to be changed. The main point of my original post was that the rules are in place, we shouldn't have moral qualms about taking advantage of them for the time being, as long as we also acknowledge their flaws and work for some change.
The fact is patents exist, and if there's an advantage in using them for some good (I'm not sure this is so good, but we can let the bullies fight each other for a few rounds), then it should be done. Yes its a bit of moral greyness if you are so blindly against patents, but those larger companies would use the law against you.
I liken it to playing a game of Tekken, or Starcraft, or whatever your favorite multiplayer game is. You may not like an aspect of the rules and wish them to be changed, but if you're in a tournament theres nothing keeping your opponent from using 'exploits' or 'cheese' or whatever you wanna call it. The point is when you're playing to win, all avenues must be considered and also what your opponent is capable of must be considered as well.
Microsoft would be doing the same thing to much lesser software companies so it only serves them right that it's happening to them. I dont think any business is playing to be fair, but they are playing to win. Moral grey area or not, this could be a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, standard sci-fi talk to your computer in normal english and get results kinda crap :)
I doubt very much any of the measures taken will ensure a "quality education." I dont know about the high schools you went to, or if you are too old to know how technology is really being used in schools today.
I was class of 99, and when I was in high school not a single teacher actually knew how to use the technology to provide a better education. In fact I'd say teachers who relied on technology to keep their classes 'interesting' failed to educate at all. Many classes ended up with redundant tutorials on using popular search engines and using MS office. I probably learned each of these things twice a semester in any given set of classes. Ultimately, I ended up learning nothing of new technology and was given long periods of time to finish ridiculously small projects (many students who didn't understand powerpoint for example needed more time to prepare a presentation I guess...).
It seems many people I talk to who have recently graduated high school or are still in high school are experencing the same things. Maybe things are changing, maybe some people have had better experiences (if so please share them), but I dont really think technology these days is actually improving education, its distracting from it.
No amount of computers will replace the education value of a good text book and a good teacher, unless that teacher knows how to use it to actually improve the presentation of the material, or uses it to present material that can't be presented otherwise (and I can't even think of an example of the latter).
And even if someone could run their modems continuously, if you don't have broadband you can go to your local record store and buy 10 or 12 albums (or more) in 20-30 minutes, and each additional album means an extra 2-3 hours by your count if downloaded. Even at 200k/sec a 60 meg album would take 5 minutes to download, so 10-12 albums would take an hour or more. Nevermind the fact most of the time your download speed on a cable modem is more like 100k/sec or less, nearly doubling that time. :)
Now I understand most of you probably don't buy 10 albums at a time but some people do, I used to.
Obviously, a site expressing an opinion is not objective.
:)
The real question here is, how objective is the parent?
hahahaha
that really made my day, haha
Who needs a girlfriend anyway when you've got all those games?
I mean, lets do the math...
A girlfriend is useful for 10 minutes of the day, maybe 15 if you're in marathon mode.
A PS2 will give you entertainment from the time you wake up until the time you goto bed, and noone even gets tired!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75390&cid=6742 171
Seeing how the parent didn't find it funny probably means hes too young to have seen wargames, hasn't seen wargames, or has a bad taste in movies :)
The chinese are doing this to promote domestic software efforts. In the united states most of our software already is domestic.
If you are refering to the suit against Microsoft, this was in favor of domestic software here in the United States; we were inspecting a potential monopoly. When a monopoly is present in an industry, there is no competition in that industry, then the product, and the consumer suffers.
You can't use an example of a suit against one (1) OS developing company to say the US government doesn't support local software. There are many companies making operating systems, Microsoft is just one. Investigating a potential monopoly is good for other developers, it means everyone else's efforts won't get drowned out by a monopoly. If anything could be said about microsoft's legal trouble, its that the US government is supporting domestic software development by watching out for all US developers, not just one company.
Because of Mac hardware architecture, the system specs compared to a PC are misleading. It's really not fair to compare based on megahertz alone because there are still things a 733 mac will do better than a 2ghz pentium.3 008,3339307,00.html
In about 2 minutes of searching on google I was able to find this, which compared a 733 mac to a 1.8ghz PC and the Mac came out on top in a couple of the tests. http://www.techtv.com/products/hardware/story/0,2
I don't know a whole lot about Macs but I do know that when you're used to using PCs, Mac system specs can be misleading. So it is very possible that truly comparable macs and PCs differ by about $50 in price.
Well in China's case, this is a little different. The government doesn't respect US copyright laws... it's a widely known fact that there are a few companies in china distributing copies of pirated movies, music, and even software and the government does really nothing to stop it.
It says in the article the government has paid for alot of software, something like 200m in the past year... it would be interesting to compare that to the software expendatures of other countries (Microsoft wanted the city of Munich alone to pay something like $40m for just that one city, and China has a billion people, granted they probably don't use as many computers per person).
I'm not an expert in this area, but theres a difference between a government not respecting copyright (China) and a large group of individuals not respecting copyright (United States). Ultimately, I wonder how much this truly affects Microsoft's profits (obviously it does at least a little) compared to a country that respects our copyright laws switching to open source.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt the chinese government pirate all their versions of microsoft (or any other foreign company's) software?
So if anything this just means less pirated MS stuff in China... Which I'm sure Microsoft would see as a good thing except this now means the Chinese will never pay or want to pay for MS products when they're using better stuff.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong...
Microsoft supports patents, if they get bit in the ass by some patent laws why should anyone care? You reap what you sow :)
Hey, writing on drugs helped The Beatles sell merchandise...
I never said anything about not changing the rules... ;)
The starcraft community was quite pro-active in changing rules that screwed the game up, thats part of why starcraft is so great today. I forget not everyone is into multiplayer starcraft sometimes.
Anyway, I completely agree with you that the rules need to be changed. The main point of my original post was that the rules are in place, we shouldn't have moral qualms about taking advantage of them for the time being, as long as we also acknowledge their flaws and work for some change.
...so why should we?
The fact is patents exist, and if there's an advantage in using them for some good (I'm not sure this is so good, but we can let the bullies fight each other for a few rounds), then it should be done. Yes its a bit of moral greyness if you are so blindly against patents, but those larger companies would use the law against you.
I liken it to playing a game of Tekken, or Starcraft, or whatever your favorite multiplayer game is. You may not like an aspect of the rules and wish them to be changed, but if you're in a tournament theres nothing keeping your opponent from using 'exploits' or 'cheese' or whatever you wanna call it. The point is when you're playing to win, all avenues must be considered and also what your opponent is capable of must be considered as well.
Microsoft would be doing the same thing to much lesser software companies so it only serves them right that it's happening to them. I dont think any business is playing to be fair, but they are playing to win. Moral grey area or not, this could be a good thing.
...to see a major media company like CNN over simplifying things?
And I think we all know why they make statements like that (otherwise it wouldn't be an interesting article to people who don't know any better)...
How many fps does that thing get in UT2k3?