So, you are saying that it would be much better to teach the kids Linux, to improve their future employability?
There definately should be Linux classes, however, most kids (the ones not destined to be CS/CompE) would be better served by learning standard Windows applications.
You see open source is the great equalizer all it takes is one man with a mission and the software
that you currently produce can be obsoleted nearly over night.
Unfortunately, most guys with a mission programming will run headlong into the wall of school board politics.
Man: I rewrote all our school districts programs over summer vacation Board: But we've already budgeted the purchase of software Man: You don't understand, with this you don't need to buy the software Board: No you don't understand, it was budgeted Man: But... Board: Yeah.
When you start having driving lessons, your instructor will be teaching you how to drive a car. Not how to drive a Ford. Education in any other subject, including computers, should be the same.
But you still need to have a platform - driving classes may choose a Ford to teach on. Most of your lessons in the Ford can be transferred, but each vehicle has it's quirks, different locations of dials, emergency brake, etc. Just like a word processing class may choose MS Word to learn on. Most of what you learn in Word can be transferred to other word processing apps, since for the most part they have the same controls, with a few different quirks.
Due to the unique nature of copylefted software (ie: nobody truly owns it and everyone's free to fiddle with it), there are no worries about perpetuating a monopoly. After all, if you think you can make a better Linux, you're quite free to do so. Try that with Windows.
99% of students aren't going to actively be trying to tinker with their software or have the desire to learn different platforms on their own. Is it in the best interest of the student to endanger their employability by choosing software that doesn't give them the opportunitiy to learn the specific skills demanded by business?
To make a computer analogy, should students be introduced to programming using Lisp? For the sake of learning programming it is applicable, however, for the sake of portability of knowledge, most likely they would have to learn something more popular. So why not just start off with what is more popular?
Even if your $3000 retail package is available for a low low $120 under educational pricing, it's $120, and if you need several, it adds up.
And what about the cost for people who maintain and train? In terms of training, most colleges that churn out teachers have classes covering use of Windows and Office software. Further, MS and other closed source software vendors typically provide classes to make locking in schools more attractive. There also is a higher cost in terms of maintaining systems. Linux administrators can demand higher salaries than the huge numbers of unemployed Dotcom Era Windows certified admins. I'm not saying that closed source is right for public education, just that cost isn't clearly in favor of "free" software
appears you don't know the definition of the word "know":-P Maybe you should familiarize yourself a bit with epistemology before proceeding with this discussion.
There are many definitions of "knowledge," hence the existence of epistemology. As in all philosophical debates, this could go on for awhile.:-P
You're right that "knowing" is a conclusion but it implies truth (i.e. factuality).
Your mistake is that "Know" does not require truth, it is a state of mind for an individual where they have a level of certainty that does not allow doubt.
For instance, if you jump out of an airplane thinking you have a parachute on but then it turns out you don't, well folks can say you "believed" you had a parachute. But they can NOT say you "knew" you had a parachute.
You could still "know" that you had a parachute, you would be wrong, but your mind had a level of certainty that you did not doubt the existance of the parachute; otherwise you probably would not have jumped.
But that's a non-issue, because there *are* definitions (for all intents and purposes) of "truth" in various contexts, and they don't always require 100% certainty.
And the defintion of belief and "know," are centered upon the state of mind of the individual, not an external viewer. So a person can "know" something that is false, unproven, or doubted by others.
Truth & Knowldege are not the same and in fact they don't necessarily always intersect.
In the 1830's land sales accounted for 40% of federal revenue. The Homestead Act applied only to individual heads of households, so business interests or other land speculators still had to purchase land. Of course another nice thing about moving people out west, is those most likely to go are the poor so you don't have to provide them with social services.
This country operated without an income tax for many years. actually that sounds pretty good to me...
There of course was plenty of land to sell (as we moved those pesky Injun's out of the way). Unfortunately, invasion and genocide are frowned upon these days, well if it takes longer than 3 years.
Of course, there was no social security, no giant military-industrial complex, and no "wars" on drugs or terror.
Manifest Destiny fueled the war spirit - once that ran out we went towards imperialistic wars in the Pacific and Carribean. And the eqivalent of terrorists changed over time - loyalists to copperheads to unionists. So things really aren't all that different. Of course there also were no workers rights, anti-trust laws, highway system, or internet. Though I would enjoy bringing back dueling as a means of justice... we can all take our shot (literally) at the RIAA execs.
Seeing as what we are dealing with is an extraordinary claim ("god exists" is an extraordinary claim), such a claim requires extraordinary evidence - so in this case lack of evidence is evidence of lack (not proof, but certainly evidence).
The failure in your logic is that the requirement for me to know is that I prove it to you.
so when the religious books tell you to go out and subjugate others, commit genocide, perform mutilations on your children that cannot be reversed, etc - we should just all think that it's not caused by religion.
You have to seperate the underlying philosophies of religion from the control schemes.
To look at it from a secular example, the United States was built upon a set of philosophies (freedom, democracy, etc). Now to assemble the masses behind it, various control schemes were established. We have texts such as the Constitution & Declaration of Independence, unifying symbols such as flags, branding (my passport clearly brands me a US citizen), and events such as national holidays and elections. Now if you look through history, subjugation, genocide, and other atrocities have been commited under the banner of the US in the name of ideals of democracy & freedom. Does that make those ideals immoral? or does it just point out how individuals can corrupt beliefs towards their own end. And it's not just the US or religion, the same could be said for any other country or large organization.
Religion thinks it should force everyone to be compliant to it's wishes. By now humanity should have had enough of this shit, but I'm continually depressed by how mindlessly guillable other humans are and they cede their intellectual sovereignty to religion.
There's a reason religion is still around, the issues dealt with by religion can never be solved. Most people don't want to involve themselves in philosophical debate, so they just subscribe to a pre-packaged belief system. All the supression of rights/mutilations/killing/etc, isn't caused by religion, it's caused by people looking for power. Religion just happens to be a nice tool towards that end.
This is why in science we often make multiple tests, so that we can attempt to filter out and even identify additional influences that can invalidate the test.
You cannot invalidate the test, you can gather more information to make different conclusions.
At the moment, I'm not interested in philsophy, and I stated quite early on that I was discussing the scientific ramifications.
Your initial post referred to the social divide caused by the different usage of words by those folowing scientific and those following religious doctrine. Quite clearly the root of the divide is a matter of philosophical interpretations of those words. What constitutes "proof", what does it mean to "know." Science is a subset of philosophy just the same as religion. When you start comparing between the two it is important to realize the philosophical roots, otherwise you end up in an apples and oranges argument.
Why can people not "know" God exists? I'm sure there are some Atheists who claim to "know" God doesn't exist.
One of the reasons there is a disconnect between those focused on science and those express their religious beliefs is because the nature of the discussions are philosophically different. Terms such as "knowing," "proof," and "truth" can in fact mean different things in different contexts. For scientists the terms are most often used in respect to general consensus among the community; for religious people the terms are used in respect to the individual.
The difference between "knowing" and "believing" is the level of certainty in a conclusion. Personally nothing I've seen in the world has provided me enough evidence to know the existence or non-existence of God. I understand there are people who have had experiences and based upon those experience they "know" God exists. Such experience may not constitute proof to a larger community, however, it can on an individual level.
You're entitled to your own BELIEFS, but you're not entitled to your own FACTS. If you say "I know Earth is flat" that has quite a different connotation from "I believe Earth is flat."
"Knowing" God exists is not a fact it is a conclusion. People "knew" the earth was flat, then based on new evidence generally that conclusion has changed.
Americans watch football, and ultimate fighting and Nascar. They don't watch them for incredible skills, they watch for the hits. Unlike football, ultimate fighting and Nascar, hockey has hits AND skill.
I disagree. First, football has plenty of skill, hence there are players who play "skill positions." The NFL has become more popular as the rules have changed to emphasize offensive skills (eg protect the QB).
The problem IMHO is that hockey has lost much of it's skill. It was popular in the 80's, early 90's when offensive skill was emphasized (many 50 goal & 100 point scorers). Now with talent dilution from expansion as you mention - coupled with bigger, stronger, faster players on the same size rink, there isn't enough room for the skill greats to demonstrate their talent on a consistent basis.
But they were giants who, despite their flaws, preserved and protected their nation
Only in the eyes of history, there were plenty of people who opposed FDR & Lincoln and saw them as tyrants at the time.
What has Bush done that's different from the other two? Get involved in war, check. Suspend Habeas Corpus, check. Arrest tens of thousands as potential enemies of the state, check. Violate the Constitution numerous times, check. Rack up enormous debt, check.
To play devils advocate, if by some miracle Iraq becomes a stable functioning nation, and democracy spreads in the Middle East, Bush will be seen in 100 years as the "Great Decider," instead of the bungling idiot we know him to be.
History tends to care more about the ends, than the means.
Means for survival? I think you mispelt enormous high-margin profit.
That's my point. Once you change something from a hobby into trying to make a living, either your own greed or the greed of others will result in corruption. It's human nature, if you've got nothing to lose you take chances; once you have something to lose you become protective. Bands sell out, Apple locks down everything they create, and Google changes to be less evil than anybody else.
Re:What's changed in 30 years?
on
The Apple II At 30
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The face of computer business has changed. It is all about patents and copyright now... not providing a good product to the consumer.
That's what happens when you change something from a hobby to a means for survival.
Slashdot Mirror
Man: I rewrote all our school districts programs over summer vacation
Board: But we've already budgeted the purchase of software
Man: You don't understand, with this you don't need to buy the software
Board: No you don't understand, it was budgeted
Man: But...
Board: Yeah.
99% of students aren't going to actively be trying to tinker with their software or have the desire to learn different platforms on their own. Is it in the best interest of the student to endanger their employability by choosing software that doesn't give them the opportunitiy to learn the specific skills demanded by business?
To make a computer analogy, should students be introduced to programming using Lisp? For the sake of learning programming it is applicable, however, for the sake of portability of knowledge, most likely they would have to learn something more popular. So why not just start off with what is more popular?
In terms of training, most colleges that churn out teachers have classes covering use of Windows and Office software. Further, MS and other closed source software vendors typically provide classes to make locking in schools more attractive.
There also is a higher cost in terms of maintaining systems. Linux administrators can demand higher salaries than the huge numbers of unemployed Dotcom Era Windows certified admins.
I'm not saying that closed source is right for public education, just that cost isn't clearly in favor of "free" software
You could still "know" that you had a parachute, you would be wrong, but your mind had a level of certainty that you did not doubt the existance of the parachute; otherwise you probably would not have jumped.And the defintion of belief and "know," are centered upon the state of mind of the individual, not an external viewer. So a person can "know" something that is false, unproven, or doubted by others.
Truth & Knowldege are not the same and in fact they don't necessarily always intersect.
Of course another nice thing about moving people out west, is those most likely to go are the poor so you don't have to provide them with social services.
Manifest Destiny fueled the war spirit - once that ran out we went towards imperialistic wars in the Pacific and Carribean. And the eqivalent of terrorists changed over time - loyalists to copperheads to unionists. So things really aren't all that different.
Of course there also were no workers rights, anti-trust laws, highway system, or internet. Though I would enjoy bringing back dueling as a means of justice... we can all take our shot (literally) at the RIAA execs.
God: *Sigh* Just do whatever you want, I'll send my kid down in a few thousand years to see how you're doing.
To look at it from a secular example, the United States was built upon a set of philosophies (freedom, democracy, etc). Now to assemble the masses behind it, various control schemes were established. We have texts such as the Constitution & Declaration of Independence, unifying symbols such as flags, branding (my passport clearly brands me a US citizen), and events such as national holidays and elections.
Now if you look through history, subjugation, genocide, and other atrocities have been commited under the banner of the US in the name of ideals of democracy & freedom. Does that make those ideals immoral? or does it just point out how individuals can corrupt beliefs towards their own end.
And it's not just the US or religion, the same could be said for any other country or large organization.
All the supression of rights/mutilations/killing/etc, isn't caused by religion, it's caused by people looking for power. Religion just happens to be a nice tool towards that end.
Your initial post referred to the social divide caused by the different usage of words by those folowing scientific and those following religious doctrine. Quite clearly the root of the divide is a matter of philosophical interpretations of those words. What constitutes "proof", what does it mean to "know."
Science is a subset of philosophy just the same as religion. When you start comparing between the two it is important to realize the philosophical roots, otherwise you end up in an apples and oranges argument.
From a philosophical point of view, you cannot necessarily prove anything.
It's apples & oranges.
Why can people not "know" God exists? I'm sure there are some Atheists who claim to "know" God doesn't exist.
One of the reasons there is a disconnect between those focused on science and those express their religious beliefs is because the nature of the discussions are philosophically different.
Terms such as "knowing," "proof," and "truth" can in fact mean different things in different contexts. For scientists the terms are most often used in respect to general consensus among the community; for religious people the terms are used in respect to the individual.
The difference between "knowing" and "believing" is the level of certainty in a conclusion. Personally nothing I've seen in the world has provided me enough evidence to know the existence or non-existence of God. I understand there are people who have had experiences and based upon those experience they "know" God exists. Such experience may not constitute proof to a larger community, however, it can on an individual level.
The problem IMHO is that hockey has lost much of it's skill. It was popular in the 80's, early 90's when offensive skill was emphasized (many 50 goal & 100 point scorers). Now with talent dilution from expansion as you mention - coupled with bigger, stronger, faster players on the same size rink, there isn't enough room for the skill greats to demonstrate their talent on a consistent basis.
What has Bush done that's different from the other two?
Get involved in war, check.
Suspend Habeas Corpus, check.
Arrest tens of thousands as potential enemies of the state, check.
Violate the Constitution numerous times, check.
Rack up enormous debt, check.
To play devils advocate, if by some miracle Iraq becomes a stable functioning nation, and democracy spreads in the Middle East, Bush will be seen in 100 years as the "Great Decider," instead of the bungling idiot we know him to be.
History tends to care more about the ends, than the means.
Oddly enough the same could be said for Lincoln and FDR, who history has looked upon kindly
You seem to be confusing "what you like" with "art". The former is a very small subsection of the latter
It's human nature, if you've got nothing to lose you take chances; once you have something to lose you become protective. Bands sell out, Apple locks down everything they create, and Google changes to be less evil than anybody else.