Saying JS is an awesome language isn't a good enough reason to switch. Next year are they going to switch to Python coz like thats awesome too? Or Dart?
They didn't say JS is an awesome language, exactly. They said a lot of new developers coming to gnome already know JS. In addition gnome-shell and a number of components are written in JS. Therefore it makes sense to write some tutorials and recommend to new developers to build on what they already know from their work with other operating systems, which is -- JS.
They are not telling existing developers to change to JS. They are not telling new developers not to develop in something else. They are only saying that if you are a new developer they will have tutorials and sample code written in JS.
Is JS the best solution? I don't know. Personally, I would have chosen python, but if you are coming from other operating systems, then python probably isn't as wide spread as JS. Besides, it is my understanding the they already had much of the tutorial work completed as it was a project somebody had done earlier, before this decision was made.
Face it, no matter what language gnome decided to standardize on for recommending to n00b gnome developers, people would be upset.
Re:They should have gone with Python
on
Gnome Goes JavaScript
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Python is a language which makes app writing very easy. It's very easy to write, read, debug. It's also very fast when used right or modified.
This decision in my opinion is one of the boneheaded decisions which will be Gnomes final nail on the coffin. They had a chance to rule the Linux desktop with Ubuntu and since Gnome 3.0 have threw it all away. Everything that made Gnome great with the 2x series seems to have been lost at 3x and their release schedule is so slow that we are probably going to be stuck on 3x for 10 years. Goodbye Gnome and welcome back KDE.
You are welcome to your opinion, but since gnome-shell is written in JS and most new developers want to work on things that tie into gnome-shell, it seems to make a lot of sense to steer them to JS. If you took the time to actually read what the gnome developers are putting forward, you would find that they are officially recommending JS for new developers who are looking how to quickly become productive in developing for gnome. They are still fully supporting c (libraries still are in c) python, vala and any other language that has bindings to the gnome libraries.
Obviously, if you are a C programmer, you will probably continue to program in C, even in gnome. That is, unless you want to write extensions for gnome-shell, in which case, you will program in JS as that is the language gnome-shell is written in. The same is true for C++, python or any other language.
Once people get past the knee-jerk reaction to the work "javascript" and look at what gnome developers are proposing, it makes a lot of sense. Basically, they realize the entry bar to developing in gnome is quite high, so since so much of gnome already uses JS they are going to make tutorials for beginning developers on how to use JS to develop for gnome and recommend new developers use JS to develop for gnome. Experienced developers, or any developer for that matter, are still free to use any language they want.
Python has also made some good advances for those criteria, esp if you couple it with something like wxPython.
The developers talked about python quite a bit, but what caused them to go javascript as the recommendation for n00b gnome developers is that is (javascript) is so pervasive in other systems that it is likely they will already be exposed to it and can build upon that. If you are doing web, iOS or Android programming, chances are you are or have used javascript. That plus all of the gnome-shell stuff being done in it makes it kind of a no-brainer as that is what a lot of new developers are interested in extending.
The gnome developers went out of their way to explain that python, c and are all still fully supported and that javascript is just what they are steering new developers to when asked the question about what language.
This means that Richard III, Edward IV and Anne of York all had the same mtDNA – from their mother, Cecily Neville – and as long as Anne’s daughters continued to produce daughters of their own (highly likely in an age when eight to ten children was common!), the mtDNA will have been passed down those lines of descent.
Another advantage of mtDNA is that there are many mitochondria within each cell. DNA starts to degrade after death but with so many copies of the mtDNA, there is a good chance of being able to sequence it – even after 527 years.
Consequently, if the remains found at Greyfriars are indeed Cecily Neville’s son Richard III, the mtDNA present should match that of her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson Michael Ibsen – because there are no males in the line of descent from Cecily to Michael.
I understand the science very well, I am not questioning it. But, if you notice in the last sentence, the one beginning with "Consequently..." the proof relies on their not being any males in the line of descent from Cecily to Michael. I don't have a problem with that since we know that there were such accurate records kept for children born out of wedlock and illicit unions back in those times As such, even though there are no males between Richard III and Michael Ibsen, is it not possible that Cecily Neville had another male offspring? If so, would not the mtDNA also match? I know that this is unlikely, but it is not outside the realm of possibility, history is filled with such stories.
What the science actually shows is that whomever was buried there is a descendent of Cecily Neville. No more or no less. That piece of information taken together with all the other information such as the location of the burial and the former church site, the wounds, etc. gives the probability that this skeleton is indeed Richard III, but it is only when taken together as a whole. The mtDNA, by itself does not prove that, nor does the other evidence, by itself.
Each piece of evidence is used to support the hypothesis that this is Richard III. That is how the scientific method works. If there is overwhelming pieces of evidence so that the probability of the hypothesis being false is so improbable, then we conclude that it is proved. Again, I think that standard has been met, but it is not met solely by the mtDNA because without the supporting evidence, all the mtDNA tells us is that this person is in the family tree (on the other hand, if the mtDNA showed they weren't in the family tree, it could be used to disprove the hypothesis, no matter how overwhelming the other evidence was).
It doesn't, it just says that the corpse was closely related to someone who is known to be a descendant of Richard III.
It's all the other evidence that starts cutting down the odds that it might be somebody else... Obvious injury consistent with accepted cause of death. Evidence that indicates medical conditions consistent with known medical conditions of Richard III. Location consistent with the accepted possible burial locations. And most of all, no other known possible bodies that match DNA and what we know about this guy from history.
Of course, one can always argue the possibility that this is not Richard III, just like they argue other silly stuff...
I don't doubt that it isn't Richard III, I am taking exception with the media saying the DNA proves it is Richard the III. As you point out, the DNA, since it is maternal DNA, is one more piece of evidence, that when taken as a whole show the probability of this being somebody else is unlikely, but it is not proof. As I stated in a different post, science is about facts, then the reporting of science should be factual, too.
My guess would be that anyone in his maternal line or born from either of his sisters have known gravesites. Since his was the only unknown one, a simple process of elimination would prove it's him.
This is merely postulating, but seems reasonable.
I don't doubt that it is probably him. I doubt that they can prove it is him by maternal DNA unless it was a case of we know that he is one of these corpses and only one of them had the maternal DNA. However that is not the case here. What they have is the skeletal remains of a man that is related through a common ancestor (mother). It isn't proof. It less the probability that it is not him. Proof would be if we had a known sample of his DNA, say a lock of hair and the skeletal remains matched the known sample.
You could not prove identity, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law, based on maternal DNA. How can scientists profess to do it in the court of public opinion? If science is supposed to be about facts, then the reporting of science should be factual, too.
With the new evidence, though, researchers were able to find a DNA match between the maternal DNA of the descendants and the remains. It turned out that the skeleton had indeed once been Richard III.
How does the maternal DNA match "prove" it is Richard III versus a relative?
As an educator I feel the Chrome OS has a lot of potential, but in it's current state it's the equivalent of an early palm pilot. Yes, my students could use Google Docs or look around on YouTube using a Chromebook. The issue comes in when Google Drive is underdeveloped (duplicating files with the same name etc) which confuses students and leads to me repeating myself over and over while students relearn software they've gotten used to, most web based suites are still slightly unwieldy compared to their MS Office counterparts (say I want them to create a podcast or moving film), and for what web-based apps there are it's a huge pain getting everyone registered and saving where they can remember to access it later. Much easier just to use office and a network drive.
Basically, I'm annoyed by teachers and educational "visionaries" who just think throwing tablets at students will solve all issues, when they merely can help but not in all circumstances (relative to the cost I can find better solutions at the moment). Sure, having a projector in the class helps me expand on lessons, but I see it used incorrectly more than not (teachers lecturing from powerpoint office style), and old-school teaching methods still make up a good portion of effective teaching. Chromebooks just feel like tablets with keyboards, I'd take an old windows XP laptop cart from the dusty corner of the library over Chromebooks at the moment. It will change within 5 years I'm sure, but at the moment Chromebooks just seem like a waste of limited school funds.
Your comments about it being easier to just use office are exactly why Microsoft basically gave Office away for almost free to schools. The idea was to make it so common that switching was hard to do. Face it, do students really need a word process that was designed for legal offices? Do they need a spreadsheet that was designed for engineers? Most of the components of Office are so overkill for primary and secondary education that one has to wonder why education is so in love with it.
There is an answer for that. Education is no longer about teaching kids math and science and history, but instead preparing them to enter the workforce. Microsoft Office is the dominant office suite in business so by indoctrinating children in how to use it, business doesn't have to expend their resources on training employees. We have accepted that knowing Microsoft Office is needed to succeed in life so now it is taught along with math, science, english and history.
This isn't new, it used to be a lot of people took typing in high school because it would help them in the business world. The difference is that once you learned how to type on a typewriter, you could type on any typewriter. The same is not true for office suites (other than the actual typing part). Excel and Lotus and OpenOffice were quite different except for the most basic of tasks. Same, too, for Word, WordPerfect and OpenOffice.
Apple, pretty much gave away computers to California schools, because they knew that the kids would grow up knowing how to use Apple computers and it would build a loyal customer base for them. Microsoft took it a step further and did it with Windows and Office to not just the West Coast, but the entire country.
And because of that, we have teachers (and school boards) believing it is too difficult to change, because whatever they are changing to is different. But, as a teacher myself, my role is not to indoctrinate students, but to enable them to think for themself. Yes, they use Microsoft products, but they are free to use other software, too. Yes, it does sometimes create more work for me, but in the days before computers, kids with poor penmanship did, too. That didn't mean that I didn't make the effort to teach them or grade their assignments.
Educators and education shouldn't be hesitant about investigating new ways of teaching. Giving how locked in most of us are to the established technologies, it is a wonder that we ever gave up the old chalk boards for dry erase and smart boards. That said, technology always needs to be kept in perspective. It is a tool to be used in teaching. It is a means to an end, not the end, itself.
It is not only mentioned its linked to a whole article about it "See also – Google and DonorsChoose.org offer schools Samsung Series 5 Chromebooks for $99 each". I a little confused why you think a high maintenance computers with high maintenance OS would win out in a school environment, and these computers are not just cheap they are $99. The only surprise is the offer was on the atom models, where I think the ARM ones would have been a better fit. Interestingly HP are offering a new Chromebook it says it in the article.
I wonder how Intel's recent announcements regarding current desktop processors and motherboards will impact the future of low end atom models?
Best of luck to Google, but I can't help but think if Apple or Dell or HP had offered a 75% discount they would have found a lot more than 1,000 buyers in three months.
Actually that is exactly the same model that Apple and Dell and HP offered to schools when they were first entering the education market. Microsoft still does with software (most schools get windows and office for pennies on the dollar compared to consumers and business).
Because every initial adoption rate with technology is of course a linear rate that never falls of...
but its not unrealistic for it to have linear growth till saturation. Remember we are only talking a million devices every three months. In reality if Chromebooks are a success which considering the lack of viable alternatives [cost and maintenance] is likely I would expect better than linear growth.
Doubling every x time periods is a geometric progression, not a linear progression. There are also alternatives for Chromebooks, they are basically just netbooks repackage and then there are also tablets which can fill the same niche. What Chromebooks have going for it versus the alternatives is the backing of Google (compared to other netbooks) and price (compared to iPads and most tablets).
You missed the sarcasm. Lead in solder was banned because it is harmful to the human body. I am pretty sure bullets, regardless of what they are made from, are also harmful to the human body. Ergo, like lead, bullets should be banned and replaced with a substitute that is not harmful to the human body.
How about banning lead. If it is unsafe to use lead in solder, then surely the lead in bullets is deadly, too. Let people keep their guns, once they can come up with a bullet that is not a health hazard.
I don't see how this patent is special. Just because it's done on a computer shouldn't change anything. I "Slide to Unlock" my laptop cover. If they want to turn this into a design patent, fine (round edges of button, specific font, etc, etc,) , but the core idea is not new, special, or innovative.
There is not a single software patent that is special or innovative. Why? Because software, all software, is simply mathematical algorithms. You can copyright how you put those algorithms together, just like you can copyright how you arrange notes to make music, but you can't actually patent a musical melody, nor should you be able to patent software. You can patent the various types of devices that produce, play or otherwise use them, but not the algorithm (or in the case of music, the notes or melodies) itself.
Copyright is the proper vehicle to protect your unique expression or arrangement of ideas, whether they be algorithms or words or musical notes. Patents is the vehicle to protect your actual implementation of a process or device. While software deals with implementation and processes, it is not in the same way as a mouse trap or assembly line. What is unique to patents is that they involve tangible things in the real world (assuming they actually are implemented). Copyright, on the other hand, deals more with intangible things, but still in the real world.
You can patent a new way to produce a saxophone, but you can't patent the actual music that comes out of the saxophone. Likewise, you can patent a new design process or device, but you shouldn't be able to patent the software that makes it work. Or since this is/. you can patent a diesel engine, you can patent the production of diesel fuel, but you can't actually patent the diesel fuel that makes the engine go. Software should be thought of like diesel fuel. Without it your device might not work, but that doesn't mean it is patentable (or at least should be patentable).
This is excellent news. Congress is the one that has to change patent law and congress hardly listens to the little guy. But with a patent like this that will impact the finances of the big players (and contributors) like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. Maybe, just maybe, software patents, and the strangle hold they cause with development, will get the attention they deserve.
What makes human being rational creatures is the ability to distinguish what is and is not rational behavior. If we could not make that distinction, then our choices would have to be predicated on something lower than rational though, something like instinct.
A bird flies south, not because it is thinking rationally, but because instinct tells it to do so. If that bird sees another bird not flying south, it doesn't think to itself "What a silly bird," because it is incapable of rational thought that allows it to distinguish what is and is not rational behavior.
However, just because a human being can distinguish what is and is not rational does not mean that the choices that human being makes are rational. Nor does it mean that human beings are the only rational creatures. Pretty much, any species that can demonstrate problem solving has to some degree a capability of distinguishing what is rational behavior or not. Where the line gets drawn to say how capable a creature must be is more involved than a/. conversation can permit.
In short, being classified as a rational creature does not mean one necessarily makes rational decisions or actions. It only means that one has the capability to determine what is and is not rational. One must first posses the quality before one can act upon it.
human beings are by their very nature rational creatures
I'm not sure whether to admire your bright-eyed optimism, or despair at your ignorance of reality.
The fact that you can ask such a question is why human beings are rational creatures. There is a difference between being a rational creature and acting rationally. Lots of creatures act rationally without being rational creatures. Birds fly south for the winter is such an action. However, human beings are capable of knowing that they are acting rationally or not and it is this capability of being able to tell whether an action is rational or not is what makes human being rational creatures.
Put differently, we are rational creatures because we posses the ability to distinguish what is rational or not. It does not mean we always act rationally.
All of that is true, but what is the trade this trademark is applied to? It is not computers and technology. The trade in question is a storefront, so technically, any retail store front that has those features come into conflict with the trademark regardless of whether they sell computers or not.
Retail store services featuring computers, computer software, computer peripherals, mobile phones, consumer electronics and related accessories, and demonstration of products relating thereto
But, you just descirbed Best Buy and almost any electronic boutique. I am prety sure that if somebody opens a juice bar (maybe calling it the Orange Store) and designs it to look like an Apple Store, Apple will enforce there trademark (or try to) even though Orange Julius doesn't sell computers or electronics.
Trademark enforcement goes a lot further than the actual product or trade it was given for. McDonalds agressively went after other businesses named MacDonalds, even though that was the name of the family run business. Mars (M&M) went after plenty of unrelated businesses over the use of their trademark. Trademarks are about protecting corporate identity (such as the apple on Apple computers). It protects the corporation from others using their identity in their own products and services. Trademarking a retail layout in a store goes far beyond what that store may or may not be selling.
Apple copied every other fucking phone maker before that enough with apple fan boy propaganda. The Design is NOT new.
I don't know about their phone, but I know the design of their stores isn't unique. I was eating at lunch counters while sitting on a stool. It even had a multi-media device (you did have to put a nickle in it, though). And they had blinds because the sun would shine through the front glass window. Granted, back then, our "pads" were usually yellow with lines on them but they did have a #2 stylus for work that you wanted to be read-writable or for write-once you had a choice of pen computing in either blue, black or red.
No... no patent was asked for, and none was given. They trademarked (not patented) a particular set of features, which is fairly common. It only prevents people in the same trade from incorporating the same combination of distinctive features and leaves the enforcement up to Apple's expense to detect and pursue.
Car examples: Much like Jeep trademarking vehicle's with a "7 vertical slot grill between a pair of round headlights" or Harley Davidson trademarking the sound of their V-twin motorcycles.
All of that is true, but what is the trade this trademark is applied to? It is not computers and technology. The trade in question is a storefront, so technically, any retail store front that has those features come into conflict with the trademark regardless of whether they sell computers or not.
Don't believe me? Ask those involved in the model train industry what happened when the real railroads started to enforce their trademarks on the toys that were being produced.
Apple was awarded a trademark for a retail store layout that includes a front glass display and counters with stools. Do you really believe they won't enforce their trademark against any and all infringers?
but human beings are by their very nature rational creatures.
Heck no! Human beings will repeatedly make mistakes of logic (e.g. the Sunk Costs fallacy) because the brain is wired by thousands upon thousands of years of evolution to be very good at making snap judgements that are correct most of the time over considering a problem fully to account for edge cases. Unfortunately, things like currency are edge cases in the savannah environment.
Making mistakes does not mean one is not a rational creature. A turtle is not a rational creature. It relies on instinct. A human being can use reason, which is the basis for being a rational creature. That doesn't mean we use reason correctly, but that fact that we can reason mean we have the capability to be rational and the fact that we have the capability to be rational mean we are rational creatures. That is why we are rational by nature, not by choice. You can never be rational by choice, because rationality is an objective trait, either you are or you are not. You can behave rationally or not, that is a choice, but even if you choose to behave irrationally, you are still a rational creature and therefore rational by nature.
Put differently, a computer, programmed correctly, may never make a mistake, but will also never be rational. Human beings, may make mistakes, but will always be rational creatures, because they are capable of rational thought. That does not mean, however, that they will act rationally in all situations, but even if they choose to act irrationally, it does not change their nature and the fact that they chose to act irrationally is a rational choice given their perception of reality at the time the choice is made.
Slashdot Mirror
A switch to python at least would make sense. Python is the best language for apps. Who uses javascripts to write apps?
Says you.
Saying JS is an awesome language isn't a good enough reason to switch. Next year are they going to switch to Python coz like thats awesome too? Or Dart?
They didn't say JS is an awesome language, exactly. They said a lot of new developers coming to gnome already know JS. In addition gnome-shell and a number of components are written in JS. Therefore it makes sense to write some tutorials and recommend to new developers to build on what they already know from their work with other operating systems, which is -- JS.
They are not telling existing developers to change to JS. They are not telling new developers not to develop in something else. They are only saying that if you are a new developer they will have tutorials and sample code written in JS.
Is JS the best solution? I don't know. Personally, I would have chosen python, but if you are coming from other operating systems, then python probably isn't as wide spread as JS. Besides, it is my understanding the they already had much of the tutorial work completed as it was a project somebody had done earlier, before this decision was made.
Face it, no matter what language gnome decided to standardize on for recommending to n00b gnome developers, people would be upset.
Python is a language which makes app writing very easy. It's very easy to write, read, debug. It's also very fast when used right or modified.
This decision in my opinion is one of the boneheaded decisions which will be Gnomes final nail on the coffin. They had a chance to rule the Linux desktop with Ubuntu and since Gnome 3.0 have threw it all away. Everything that made Gnome great with the 2x series seems to have been lost at 3x and their release schedule is so slow that we are probably going to be stuck on 3x for 10 years. Goodbye Gnome and welcome back KDE.
You are welcome to your opinion, but since gnome-shell is written in JS and most new developers want to work on things that tie into gnome-shell, it seems to make a lot of sense to steer them to JS. If you took the time to actually read what the gnome developers are putting forward, you would find that they are officially recommending JS for new developers who are looking how to quickly become productive in developing for gnome. They are still fully supporting c (libraries still are in c) python, vala and any other language that has bindings to the gnome libraries.
Obviously, if you are a C programmer, you will probably continue to program in C, even in gnome. That is, unless you want to write extensions for gnome-shell, in which case, you will program in JS as that is the language gnome-shell is written in. The same is true for C++, python or any other language.
Once people get past the knee-jerk reaction to the work "javascript" and look at what gnome developers are proposing, it makes a lot of sense. Basically, they realize the entry bar to developing in gnome is quite high, so since so much of gnome already uses JS they are going to make tutorials for beginning developers on how to use JS to develop for gnome and recommend new developers use JS to develop for gnome. Experienced developers, or any developer for that matter, are still free to use any language they want.
Python has also made some good advances for those criteria, esp if you couple it with something like wxPython.
The developers talked about python quite a bit, but what caused them to go javascript as the recommendation for n00b gnome developers is that is (javascript) is so pervasive in other systems that it is likely they will already be exposed to it and can build upon that. If you are doing web, iOS or Android programming, chances are you are or have used javascript. That plus all of the gnome-shell stuff being done in it makes it kind of a no-brainer as that is what a lot of new developers are interested in extending.
The gnome developers went out of their way to explain that python, c and are all still fully supported and that javascript is just what they are steering new developers to when asked the question about what language.
Scientific thinking for how the mtDNA proves who the skeleton is can be found on the University of Leicester dedicated website.
From the link you posted:
This means that Richard III, Edward IV and Anne of York all had the same mtDNA – from their mother, Cecily Neville – and as long as Anne’s daughters continued to produce daughters of their own (highly likely in an age when eight to ten children was common!), the mtDNA will have been passed down those lines of descent.
Another advantage of mtDNA is that there are many mitochondria within each cell. DNA starts to degrade after death but with so many copies of the mtDNA, there is a good chance of being able to sequence it – even after 527 years.
Consequently, if the remains found at Greyfriars are indeed Cecily Neville’s son Richard III, the mtDNA present should match that of her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson Michael Ibsen – because there are no males in the line of descent from Cecily to Michael.
I understand the science very well, I am not questioning it. But, if you notice in the last sentence, the one beginning with "Consequently..." the proof relies on their not being any males in the line of descent from Cecily to Michael. I don't have a problem with that since we know that there were such accurate records kept for children born out of wedlock and illicit unions back in those times As such, even though there are no males between Richard III and Michael Ibsen, is it not possible that Cecily Neville had another male offspring? If so, would not the mtDNA also match? I know that this is unlikely, but it is not outside the realm of possibility, history is filled with such stories.
What the science actually shows is that whomever was buried there is a descendent of Cecily Neville. No more or no less. That piece of information taken together with all the other information such as the location of the burial and the former church site, the wounds, etc. gives the probability that this skeleton is indeed Richard III, but it is only when taken together as a whole. The mtDNA, by itself does not prove that, nor does the other evidence, by itself.
Each piece of evidence is used to support the hypothesis that this is Richard III. That is how the scientific method works. If there is overwhelming pieces of evidence so that the probability of the hypothesis being false is so improbable, then we conclude that it is proved. Again, I think that standard has been met, but it is not met solely by the mtDNA because without the supporting evidence, all the mtDNA tells us is that this person is in the family tree (on the other hand, if the mtDNA showed they weren't in the family tree, it could be used to disprove the hypothesis, no matter how overwhelming the other evidence was).
It doesn't, it just says that the corpse was closely related to someone who is known to be a descendant of Richard III.
It's all the other evidence that starts cutting down the odds that it might be somebody else... Obvious injury consistent with accepted cause of death. Evidence that indicates medical conditions consistent with known medical conditions of Richard III. Location consistent with the accepted possible burial locations. And most of all, no other known possible bodies that match DNA and what we know about this guy from history.
Of course, one can always argue the possibility that this is not Richard III, just like they argue other silly stuff...
I don't doubt that it isn't Richard III, I am taking exception with the media saying the DNA proves it is Richard the III. As you point out, the DNA, since it is maternal DNA, is one more piece of evidence, that when taken as a whole show the probability of this being somebody else is unlikely, but it is not proof. As I stated in a different post, science is about facts, then the reporting of science should be factual, too.
My guess would be that anyone in his maternal line or born from either of his sisters have known gravesites. Since his was the only unknown one, a simple process of elimination would prove it's him.
This is merely postulating, but seems reasonable.
I don't doubt that it is probably him. I doubt that they can prove it is him by maternal DNA unless it was a case of we know that he is one of these corpses and only one of them had the maternal DNA. However that is not the case here. What they have is the skeletal remains of a man that is related through a common ancestor (mother). It isn't proof. It less the probability that it is not him. Proof would be if we had a known sample of his DNA, say a lock of hair and the skeletal remains matched the known sample.
You could not prove identity, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law, based on maternal DNA. How can scientists profess to do it in the court of public opinion? If science is supposed to be about facts, then the reporting of science should be factual, too.
From the article:
With the new evidence, though, researchers were able to find a DNA match between the maternal DNA of the descendants and the remains. It turned out that the skeleton had indeed once been Richard III.
How does the maternal DNA match "prove" it is Richard III versus a relative?
As an educator I feel the Chrome OS has a lot of potential, but in it's current state it's the equivalent of an early palm pilot. Yes, my students could use Google Docs or look around on YouTube using a Chromebook. The issue comes in when Google Drive is underdeveloped (duplicating files with the same name etc) which confuses students and leads to me repeating myself over and over while students relearn software they've gotten used to, most web based suites are still slightly unwieldy compared to their MS Office counterparts (say I want them to create a podcast or moving film), and for what web-based apps there are it's a huge pain getting everyone registered and saving where they can remember to access it later. Much easier just to use office and a network drive.
Basically, I'm annoyed by teachers and educational "visionaries" who just think throwing tablets at students will solve all issues, when they merely can help but not in all circumstances (relative to the cost I can find better solutions at the moment). Sure, having a projector in the class helps me expand on lessons, but I see it used incorrectly more than not (teachers lecturing from powerpoint office style), and old-school teaching methods still make up a good portion of effective teaching. Chromebooks just feel like tablets with keyboards, I'd take an old windows XP laptop cart from the dusty corner of the library over Chromebooks at the moment. It will change within 5 years I'm sure, but at the moment Chromebooks just seem like a waste of limited school funds.
Your comments about it being easier to just use office are exactly why Microsoft basically gave Office away for almost free to schools. The idea was to make it so common that switching was hard to do. Face it, do students really need a word process that was designed for legal offices? Do they need a spreadsheet that was designed for engineers? Most of the components of Office are so overkill for primary and secondary education that one has to wonder why education is so in love with it.
There is an answer for that. Education is no longer about teaching kids math and science and history, but instead preparing them to enter the workforce. Microsoft Office is the dominant office suite in business so by indoctrinating children in how to use it, business doesn't have to expend their resources on training employees. We have accepted that knowing Microsoft Office is needed to succeed in life so now it is taught along with math, science, english and history.
This isn't new, it used to be a lot of people took typing in high school because it would help them in the business world. The difference is that once you learned how to type on a typewriter, you could type on any typewriter. The same is not true for office suites (other than the actual typing part). Excel and Lotus and OpenOffice were quite different except for the most basic of tasks. Same, too, for Word, WordPerfect and OpenOffice.
Apple, pretty much gave away computers to California schools, because they knew that the kids would grow up knowing how to use Apple computers and it would build a loyal customer base for them. Microsoft took it a step further and did it with Windows and Office to not just the West Coast, but the entire country.
And because of that, we have teachers (and school boards) believing it is too difficult to change, because whatever they are changing to is different. But, as a teacher myself, my role is not to indoctrinate students, but to enable them to think for themself. Yes, they use Microsoft products, but they are free to use other software, too. Yes, it does sometimes create more work for me, but in the days before computers, kids with poor penmanship did, too. That didn't mean that I didn't make the effort to teach them or grade their assignments.
Educators and education shouldn't be hesitant about investigating new ways of teaching. Giving how locked in most of us are to the established technologies, it is a wonder that we ever gave up the old chalk boards for dry erase and smart boards. That said, technology always needs to be kept in perspective. It is a tool to be used in teaching. It is a means to an end, not the end, itself.
It is not only mentioned its linked to a whole article about it "See also – Google and DonorsChoose.org offer schools Samsung Series 5 Chromebooks for $99 each". I a little confused why you think a high maintenance computers with high maintenance OS would win out in a school environment, and these computers are not just cheap they are $99. The only surprise is the offer was on the atom models, where I think the ARM ones would have been a better fit. Interestingly HP are offering a new Chromebook it says it in the article.
I wonder how Intel's recent announcements regarding current desktop processors and motherboards will impact the future of low end atom models?
Best of luck to Google, but I can't help but think if Apple or Dell or HP had offered a 75% discount they would have found a lot more than 1,000 buyers in three months.
Actually that is exactly the same model that Apple and Dell and HP offered to schools when they were first entering the education market. Microsoft still does with software (most schools get windows and office for pennies on the dollar compared to consumers and business).
Because every initial adoption rate with technology is of course a linear rate that never falls of...
but its not unrealistic for it to have linear growth till saturation. Remember we are only talking a million devices every three months. In reality if Chromebooks are a success which considering the lack of viable alternatives [cost and maintenance] is likely I would expect better than linear growth.
Doubling every x time periods is a geometric progression, not a linear progression. There are also alternatives for Chromebooks, they are basically just netbooks repackage and then there are also tablets which can fill the same niche. What Chromebooks have going for it versus the alternatives is the backing of Google (compared to other netbooks) and price (compared to iPads and most tablets).
Because every initial adoption rate with technology is of course a linear rate that never falls of...
Your point is well taken, of course doubling every three months is a geometric progression and not a linear one, but that is besides the point.
You missed the sarcasm. Lead in solder was banned because it is harmful to the human body. I am pretty sure bullets, regardless of what they are made from, are also harmful to the human body. Ergo, like lead, bullets should be banned and replaced with a substitute that is not harmful to the human body.
Be careful what you ask for. There are bullets not made of lead. Such as the famed "cop killer bullets."
That would be true, but they would still be banned because they are a health hazard.
How about banning lead. If it is unsafe to use lead in solder, then surely the lead in bullets is deadly, too. Let people keep their guns, once they can come up with a bullet that is not a health hazard.
I don't see how this patent is special. Just because it's done on a computer shouldn't change anything. I "Slide to Unlock" my laptop cover. If they want to turn this into a design patent, fine (round edges of button, specific font, etc, etc,) , but the core idea is not new, special, or innovative.
There is not a single software patent that is special or innovative. Why? Because software, all software, is simply mathematical algorithms. You can copyright how you put those algorithms together, just like you can copyright how you arrange notes to make music, but you can't actually patent a musical melody, nor should you be able to patent software. You can patent the various types of devices that produce, play or otherwise use them, but not the algorithm (or in the case of music, the notes or melodies) itself.
Copyright is the proper vehicle to protect your unique expression or arrangement of ideas, whether they be algorithms or words or musical notes. Patents is the vehicle to protect your actual implementation of a process or device. While software deals with implementation and processes, it is not in the same way as a mouse trap or assembly line. What is unique to patents is that they involve tangible things in the real world (assuming they actually are implemented). Copyright, on the other hand, deals more with intangible things, but still in the real world.
You can patent a new way to produce a saxophone, but you can't patent the actual music that comes out of the saxophone. Likewise, you can patent a new design process or device, but you shouldn't be able to patent the software that makes it work. Or since this is /. you can patent a diesel engine, you can patent the production of diesel fuel, but you can't actually patent the diesel fuel that makes the engine go. Software should be thought of like diesel fuel. Without it your device might not work, but that doesn't mean it is patentable (or at least should be patentable).
This is excellent news. Congress is the one that has to change patent law and congress hardly listens to the little guy. But with a patent like this that will impact the finances of the big players (and contributors) like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. Maybe, just maybe, software patents, and the strangle hold they cause with development, will get the attention they deserve.
What makes human being rational creatures is the ability to distinguish what is and is not rational behavior. If we could not make that distinction, then our choices would have to be predicated on something lower than rational though, something like instinct.
A bird flies south, not because it is thinking rationally, but because instinct tells it to do so. If that bird sees another bird not flying south, it doesn't think to itself "What a silly bird," because it is incapable of rational thought that allows it to distinguish what is and is not rational behavior.
However, just because a human being can distinguish what is and is not rational does not mean that the choices that human being makes are rational. Nor does it mean that human beings are the only rational creatures. Pretty much, any species that can demonstrate problem solving has to some degree a capability of distinguishing what is rational behavior or not. Where the line gets drawn to say how capable a creature must be is more involved than a /. conversation can permit.
In short, being classified as a rational creature does not mean one necessarily makes rational decisions or actions. It only means that one has the capability to determine what is and is not rational. One must first posses the quality before one can act upon it.
human beings are by their very nature rational creatures
I'm not sure whether to admire your bright-eyed optimism, or despair at your ignorance of reality.
The fact that you can ask such a question is why human beings are rational creatures. There is a difference between being a rational creature and acting rationally. Lots of creatures act rationally without being rational creatures. Birds fly south for the winter is such an action. However, human beings are capable of knowing that they are acting rationally or not and it is this capability of being able to tell whether an action is rational or not is what makes human being rational creatures.
Put differently, we are rational creatures because we posses the ability to distinguish what is rational or not. It does not mean we always act rationally.
All of that is true, but what is the trade this trademark is applied to? It is not computers and technology. The trade in question is a storefront, so technically, any retail store front that has those features come into conflict with the trademark regardless of whether they sell computers or not.
Retail store services featuring computers, computer software, computer peripherals, mobile phones, consumer electronics and related accessories, and demonstration of products relating thereto
But, you just descirbed Best Buy and almost any electronic boutique. I am prety sure that if somebody opens a juice bar (maybe calling it the Orange Store) and designs it to look like an Apple Store, Apple will enforce there trademark (or try to) even though Orange Julius doesn't sell computers or electronics.
Trademark enforcement goes a lot further than the actual product or trade it was given for. McDonalds agressively went after other businesses named MacDonalds, even though that was the name of the family run business. Mars (M&M) went after plenty of unrelated businesses over the use of their trademark. Trademarks are about protecting corporate identity (such as the apple on Apple computers). It protects the corporation from others using their identity in their own products and services. Trademarking a retail layout in a store goes far beyond what that store may or may not be selling.
Question: Will renewable energy ever meet all our energy needs?
Short answer: Yes, because once we exhaust the no-renewable source, all we will have is renewable energy and our energy needs will adjust accordingly.
Apple copied every other fucking phone maker before that enough with apple fan boy propaganda. The Design is NOT new.
I don't know about their phone, but I know the design of their stores isn't unique. I was eating at lunch counters while sitting on a stool. It even had a multi-media device (you did have to put a nickle in it, though). And they had blinds because the sun would shine through the front glass window. Granted, back then, our "pads" were usually yellow with lines on them but they did have a #2 stylus for work that you wanted to be read-writable or for write-once you had a choice of pen computing in either blue, black or red.
No ... no patent was asked for, and none was given.
They trademarked (not patented) a particular set of features, which is fairly common. It only prevents people in the same trade from incorporating the same combination of distinctive features and leaves the enforcement up to Apple's expense to detect and pursue.
Car examples:
Much like Jeep trademarking vehicle's with a "7 vertical slot grill between a pair of round headlights" or Harley Davidson trademarking the sound of their V-twin motorcycles.
All of that is true, but what is the trade this trademark is applied to? It is not computers and technology. The trade in question is a storefront, so technically, any retail store front that has those features come into conflict with the trademark regardless of whether they sell computers or not.
Don't believe me? Ask those involved in the model train industry what happened when the real railroads started to enforce their trademarks on the toys that were being produced.
Apple was awarded a trademark for a retail store layout that includes a front glass display and counters with stools. Do you really believe they won't enforce their trademark against any and all infringers?
but human beings are by their very nature rational creatures.
Heck no! Human beings will repeatedly make mistakes of logic (e.g. the Sunk Costs fallacy) because the brain is wired by thousands upon thousands of years of evolution to be very good at making snap judgements that are correct most of the time over considering a problem fully to account for edge cases. Unfortunately, things like currency are edge cases in the savannah environment.
Making mistakes does not mean one is not a rational creature. A turtle is not a rational creature. It relies on instinct. A human being can use reason, which is the basis for being a rational creature. That doesn't mean we use reason correctly, but that fact that we can reason mean we have the capability to be rational and the fact that we have the capability to be rational mean we are rational creatures. That is why we are rational by nature, not by choice. You can never be rational by choice, because rationality is an objective trait, either you are or you are not. You can behave rationally or not, that is a choice, but even if you choose to behave irrationally, you are still a rational creature and therefore rational by nature.
Put differently, a computer, programmed correctly, may never make a mistake, but will also never be rational. Human beings, may make mistakes, but will always be rational creatures, because they are capable of rational thought. That does not mean, however, that they will act rationally in all situations, but even if they choose to act irrationally, it does not change their nature and the fact that they chose to act irrationally is a rational choice given their perception of reality at the time the choice is made.