Creative kids find it easier to be bilingual, therefore more bilingual kids would be found to be more creative than non-bilingual kids. The trap you fall into is believing that making kids bilingual will suddenly make them more creative.
I understand your position, however in this case it's an institutional issue more than a departmental one. This is more like an institution trying to maintain a myth of their being on the bleeding edge by claiming to be an pioneer on a road that's already well traveled.
This is standard MIT behavior. Whenever their student body does something, it must be the first time that was ever done. This is not only true for 3D printing, but also weather balloon flights, and other assorted student engineering tasks.
I don't think it's the student's fault. I blame MIT public relations for always giving this impression to the press.
It was faster to install the upgrade than it was to read that extremely long review.
Re:Here we see the difference between Free and Sla
on
OS X Mountain Lion Review
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm sure you're trying to make a point in there somewhere, but it's pretty evident that you haven't used OS X Lion or the new Mountain Lion. With a few tweaks, my desktop looks the same in Mountain Lion as it does on my older machine running Leopard. I just don't see what you are talking about. A single application named "Launchpad" doesn't mean that OS X has abandoned the desktop and gone tablet crazy.
Congrats on your effort to somehow include Gnome 3 and your free software slogan in your diatribe.
Which shows just how poorly designed it is. Other manufacturers manage to do USB, audio, video, accessories and charging over a standard USB port and headphone socket.
You mean that can be done inexpensively now. The situation was quite a bit different in 2001 when the Apple dock connector was first introduced. Also keep in mind the design was to insure that only Apple products would benefit from the accessories and to make the cost of manufacturing these accessories low by bringing some of the signals directly from the iPod itself.
Judging by the size of the accessory market that sport the iPod connector, I'd have to disagree with your assessment of the design.
I can build a "single board computer" but why? I purchase one ready made and my team can work on the custom accessory boards.
Why should a home computer user be measured by a different standard? They have no need to make a custom motherboard, and all the accessories they need are available off-the-shelf. Picking a chassis, power supply, motherboard, and accessories isn't as hard as it was 20 years ago but it also not so simple a layperson of the street can build one without instructions.
Sounds like a smart move by Apple. Their accessary market adds value to their mobile devices and it would be foolish for them to enhance their competitor's devices. I know it's not what you as an open standard enthusiast desire, but...
Actually "Rent-seekers" ADORE government regulations that they themselves lobbied for which gives them an unfair advantage. "Rent-seekers" ABHOR government regulations that threaten to impede their self-interest. When they proclaim themselves to be libertarians and speak of abolishing government regulations, they are naturally only speaking about those pesky regulations that hurt their bottom line despite of the benefits that they bring to the community.
I place "Rent-seekers" in quotations, since slashdot loves throwing stereotypes around like they are axioms.
The release order changed when Google's need to give certain manufacturers exclusive early access outweighed the community's need to have the SDK prior to the OS release. This isn't that much of an impairment for most developers, and it's a cheap incentive to win over some hardware manufacturers.
However it is funny how the two closed source mobile operating systems give their developer base early access to their upcoming SDKs.
Currently the NoSQL folks seem to have a stronger tendency to do this, but that's a problem with the culture, not the tools.
I think it has more to do with inexperience than culture. The inexperienced tend to gravitate to the shiny hammer and look at all the problems as nails. The experienced have the skill set to pick the right tool for the job.
New tools tend to attract more inexperienced developers since they haven't developed much of a preference and seem to be the most affected by hype. This ultimately leads to the new tool being used in all cases (regardless of suitability) instead of the correct or more appropriate tool.
Notice that I'm not saying that the new tool is inferior, just being misused.
It would be nice if it could be used to link regional airfields to a system of high speed rails. Think of a system of them being trunk lines that transports passengers from one coast to the other.
No, and it never has been. Trying your best isn't economical.
Which brings us to the subject of bankruptcy. It used to be the tool used mainly by entrepreneurs as a safety net when a business idea fails. Now it is used mainly as a safety net for consumerism. While the majority of bankruptcies are done by people who used to afford the loan but lost their job, lately we seen a rise in bankruptcy due to people getting a loan that they never really could afford.
How could you possibly think such a thing? America is fundamentally about classical-mercantile business expansion and profiteering/exploitation. "The business of America is business", etc. It's one in which inequality between winners and losers expands over time. It's a culture based on the lottery.
I disagree. The idea of behind these United States of America is that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed. I've seen many examples of people succeeding that was something other than financial. If you only consider successful people in financial terms then you set up a test condition that assumes that the environment is "fundamentally about classical-mercantile business expansion and profiteering/exploitation". This is a false premise.
You've confused political rhetoric with demonstrated corporate behavior.
Yes both sides of a political debate will try to prove their point with an extreme case. How does this apply to Microsoft's motives? It doesn't. Apples vs Oranges.
We have been hearing about technologies that Microsoft has released that could be used to kill Linux for almost 2 decades now.
Microsoft has been trying to promote their "Trusted Computing" trusted computing consortium since 2003. Microsoft is the only consumer operating system manufacture within the so called "Trusted Computing Group", the other members are AMD, Intel, HP, and IBM. The reason we don't have secure boot as a requirement today is due to the resistance the market has over such a draconian feature being introduced. The amount of time it has taken says more about Microsoft's determination than it does on how much "fear mongering" is being done by the opposition.
Microsoft has been convicted of using its monopolistic powers to thwart competition in the browser market. Under Ballmer, I haven't seen any changes in Microsoft's corporate and competitive culture that indicates that they wouldn't continue to take advantage of any monopolistic power they are able to manufacture. With "Trusted Computing" they are manufacturing a very powerful monopolistic tool.
Slashdot Mirror
Creative kids find it easier to be bilingual, therefore more bilingual kids would be found to be more creative than non-bilingual kids. The trap you fall into is believing that making kids bilingual will suddenly make them more creative.
You're right. Under president Romney, we would want to be put out of our misery. :P
I understand your position, however in this case it's an institutional issue more than a departmental one. This is more like an institution trying to maintain a myth of their being on the bleeding edge by claiming to be an pioneer on a road that's already well traveled.
This is standard MIT behavior. Whenever their student body does something, it must be the first time that was ever done. This is not only true for 3D printing, but also weather balloon flights, and other assorted student engineering tasks.
I don't think it's the student's fault. I blame MIT public relations for always giving this impression to the press.
The number isn't decimal. It is major-version.minor-version. We can have 4.10 and 4.11.
A change in the major-version number usually means that changes in the API have taken place and things marked deprecated are removed completely.
Since this is Comcast, this just means you'll be able to transfer more data between your sporadic internet connections.
It was faster to install the upgrade than it was to read that extremely long review.
I'm sure you're trying to make a point in there somewhere, but it's pretty evident that you haven't used OS X Lion or the new Mountain Lion. With a few tweaks, my desktop looks the same in Mountain Lion as it does on my older machine running Leopard. I just don't see what you are talking about. A single application named "Launchpad" doesn't mean that OS X has abandoned the desktop and gone tablet crazy.
Congrats on your effort to somehow include Gnome 3 and your free software slogan in your diatribe.
You mean that can be done inexpensively now. The situation was quite a bit different in 2001 when the Apple dock connector was first introduced. Also keep in mind the design was to insure that only Apple products would benefit from the accessories and to make the cost of manufacturing these accessories low by bringing some of the signals directly from the iPod itself.
Judging by the size of the accessory market that sport the iPod connector, I'd have to disagree with your assessment of the design.
I can build a "single board computer" but why? I purchase one ready made and my team can work on the custom accessory boards.
Why should a home computer user be measured by a different standard? They have no need to make a custom motherboard, and all the accessories they need are available off-the-shelf. Picking a chassis, power supply, motherboard, and accessories isn't as hard as it was 20 years ago but it also not so simple a layperson of the street can build one without instructions.
Sounds like a smart move by Apple. Their accessary market adds value to their mobile devices and it would be foolish for them to enhance their competitor's devices. I know it's not what you as an open standard enthusiast desire, but...
Actually they blow.
Actually "Rent-seekers" ADORE government regulations that they themselves lobbied for which gives them an unfair advantage. "Rent-seekers" ABHOR government regulations that threaten to impede their self-interest. When they proclaim themselves to be libertarians and speak of abolishing government regulations, they are naturally only speaking about those pesky regulations that hurt their bottom line despite of the benefits that they bring to the community.
I place "Rent-seekers" in quotations, since slashdot loves throwing stereotypes around like they are axioms.
The release order changed when Google's need to give certain manufacturers exclusive early access outweighed the community's need to have the SDK prior to the OS release. This isn't that much of an impairment for most developers, and it's a cheap incentive to win over some hardware manufacturers.
However it is funny how the two closed source mobile operating systems give their developer base early access to their upcoming SDKs.
So you work at the TSA?
Maybe the question is "How do we make KDE 4.x look better?"
Thank you Dr. Spaceman
...or pop a lot of popcorn.
I think it has more to do with inexperience than culture. The inexperienced tend to gravitate to the shiny hammer and look at all the problems as nails. The experienced have the skill set to pick the right tool for the job.
New tools tend to attract more inexperienced developers since they haven't developed much of a preference and seem to be the most affected by hype. This ultimately leads to the new tool being used in all cases (regardless of suitability) instead of the correct or more appropriate tool.
Notice that I'm not saying that the new tool is inferior, just being misused.
It would be nice if it could be used to link regional airfields to a system of high speed rails. Think of a system of them being trunk lines that transports passengers from one coast to the other.
Which brings us to the subject of bankruptcy. It used to be the tool used mainly by entrepreneurs as a safety net when a business idea fails. Now it is used mainly as a safety net for consumerism. While the majority of bankruptcies are done by people who used to afford the loan but lost their job, lately we seen a rise in bankruptcy due to people getting a loan that they never really could afford.
I disagree. The idea of behind these United States of America is that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed. I've seen many examples of people succeeding that was something other than financial. If you only consider successful people in financial terms then you set up a test condition that assumes that the environment is "fundamentally about classical-mercantile business expansion and profiteering/exploitation". This is a false premise.
My six year old MacBook Pro 15 runs 10.7 (lion).
Does this mean their service is so crappy you have to keep it outside?
You've confused political rhetoric with demonstrated corporate behavior.
Yes both sides of a political debate will try to prove their point with an extreme case. How does this apply to Microsoft's motives? It doesn't. Apples vs Oranges.
Microsoft has been trying to promote their "Trusted Computing" trusted computing consortium since 2003. Microsoft is the only consumer operating system manufacture within the so called "Trusted Computing Group", the other members are AMD, Intel, HP, and IBM. The reason we don't have secure boot as a requirement today is due to the resistance the market has over such a draconian feature being introduced. The amount of time it has taken says more about Microsoft's determination than it does on how much "fear mongering" is being done by the opposition.
Microsoft has been convicted of using its monopolistic powers to thwart competition in the browser market. Under Ballmer, I haven't seen any changes in Microsoft's corporate and competitive culture that indicates that they wouldn't continue to take advantage of any monopolistic power they are able to manufacture. With "Trusted Computing" they are manufacturing a very powerful monopolistic tool.