Really? That's a great number. People aren't putting screens side-by-side and comparing, they are simply assuming it "must be HD".
What is amazing is that if 18 don't notice that it isn't... then a whopping 82% notice! Even with little experience and no side-by-side. This is a large number!
Linden Lab should simply respond like any ISP. That is, anyone claiming having been defrauded should go to relevant legal authorities and say so. And Linden Lab should simply present authorities (upon being intimated to do so) with the identification data of the avatar who was behind the activities.
That avatar will at least have an e-mail account, plus a log of recent IP numbers. From those data, any legal authority can proceed to identify most users and act as they would normally.
I've worked with 3-years olds using ToonTalk, which in spite of looking cartoonish is actually a full-fledged programming language. They have managed to create a few simple programs, like "play ball with a robot" and the like. Take a look at the demo videos with commentaries included in the installation. My own daughter started using it at 2, albeit only for building stuff.
(Shameless plug: you can read all details on my PhD thesis.)
Unfortunately for this view, technology serves not only to improve what you do, but to change what you do.
This advice is like saying "use your cell phone like you'd use a fixed phone". But cell phones are not traditional phones without a wire. They are "person-direct" phones instead of "location-direct" phones. You call the person, not the phone. People cannot simply evade contact by saying that they are not near a phone.
Technology changes things. It's likely that you will change your lectures by considering how to use your new tools - and that's a good thing.
The sensible part of the previous advice is that you don't have to use the tools! Use them when they improve things. But use them to inspire you to innovate, not just as a better fixed phone.
Living in Portugal, and thus unable to participate, I would like to ask: when will users from other European countries besides the current ones be able to participate? I see no reason for being excluded from LOTRO...
As for the students and the RFID simulation, there are two great pluses:
the products look like products and the clients look like clients and are really close by or clicking on product, it's not a Web page equivalent or a "let's all pretend that this text is instead...";
The students will develop a Windows application for managing data arriving from sensors. That the sensors are virtual has little to do with the top layer of the application, changing it to real sensors has major impact only on the bottom layer of logic.
Regarding the why Second Life and "nothing new", I agree: in technology terms, there's little new. Just like in technology terms there's "little new" to blogs or podcasts or many other things.:-))
But there is a fundamental difference: before, a couple of people with no CS background could not dream of "hey, let's meet in 3D on-line, make a 3D model together and even invite others to cooperate or comment on it". Before SL, ActiveWorlds, and other systems, it would simply be too much to learn for anyone outside CS. Now, it's like a blog: simple, quick, doable. That's why so many users use it.
Look beyond the hype and anti-hype. Second Life is a great platform for cooperation, and it is not just about chat. People can build things together without having to know 3-D instructions of 3-D software. People can program in a C-like syntax, event-driven.
It has produced a great result in beginning programming classes, since students have been able to produce enticing results from their first 'for','while', or if... And they find an immediate use for maths (3-D movement) and for lots of algorithms.
For instance, my undergraduate students are producing in Second Life "products" that behave as if they had RFID tags and are now developing a traditional Windows application for managing e-mails sent by those "products" - without actually having to acquire RFID tags. And they are just beginning their programming.
On the other hand, one of my PhD students is trying to integrate Second Life with teaching management software like Moodle or like our in-house system. There is an open source platform for accessing Moodle content from Second Life (Sloodle), but not the opposite.
I think you two could exchange interesting view. Get in touch.
It's ironic that people can mention Froebel and Montessori and disregard technology, when both of them devised and introduced technology (props) in their practice. Not modern technology, sure, but what was available at their time - Froebel's "gifts" and Montessori's devices like buttoned panels.
What we lacked until recently was adequate computational toys to introduce computers to kindergartners. But ingenious use of what existed was always possible.
One obvious choice would be a ground "turtle" robot like Valiant's Roamer. I, my wife, and several preschool teachers have employed it extensively, with great results and to children's enjoyment (see a brief paper here). You can command it with command keys for "forward", "back", "turn left", "turn right", and can even program a sequence of these orders, like in Logo.
Talking about programming, there are many things you can do in kindergarten. ToonTalk and Electronic Blocks come to mind.
In general, you'd want children to be able to feel comfortable around a computer, not feel it is a "special" item for adults or special occasions, nor a "treat" for rewarding other behavior. Both of those perspectives would be inadequate for a healthy relationship with technology. Most modern research points towards adequate integration of computers in preschool practice, precisely by avoiding reserving them for special occasions or turning them into treats.
I invariably find the best summary and guideline's to be those compiled by Rachel Bolstad for New Zealand's Ministry of Education, which you can find here (p. 41 - 55 in the PDF). With these in mind, I devised a four-approach guide which I presented two years ago at a conference, but is available on-line.
OK, I'll hand it to you. Let me state your position: computers are just bullshit in education. They're just for drawing nice graphs and powerpoints. There's nothing to be gained in understanding from programming a virtual ant and seeing how the behavior of 100.000 virtual ants compares with the behavior of real ants. You can learn anything just by looking at real ants. You can do the same with real cars, of course, I suppose.
Yes, I'm being ironic. That's because I've nothing against learning with real stuff. And with real teachrs. That's the point: you need real people, stuff, and teachers, and the computers can make that a much richer environment. I don't support computers for feeding you information and losing teachers and interactions.
I don't think you even tried to skim the references I gave you, but I'll try another one, one final time. Give me the benefit of the doubt: if I provide all this links perhaps there could be something interesting in them:
Alan Kay: "Computers, Networks and Education"
http://llk.media.mit.edu/courses/readings/alan-kay .pdf
Which things? Did you really learn how many different objects, following the same rules, produce complex behaviors (cars and jams, or ants following a trail based on simple rules)?
And by learn I don't mean just believing it, I mean really, really understanding it. Look around, think of your colleagues and what they have (and haven't) been able to grasp and how they see the world.
There's not much of a difference between your toys and transformers.
And nothing wrong with using your toys!
Computers are not being proposed by OLPC to replace other toys, just as extra ones that can make a difference.
Check out this:
http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects.php
And if you think that's not for third-world countries, check this out: it is in use in Brazil, Thailand... http://padthai.media.mit.edu:8080/cocoon/gogosite/ home.xsp?lang=en
You're assuming a "as it commonly is used" use of computers in the classroom.
That's not what OLPC is about at all. It's not just about putting laptops in schools, is about changing the teaching methods by using them for what computers were made for: programming simulations, controlling systems, etc.
Check out http://www.squeakersfilm.org/>this movie and especially http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php/Learning_Learning>Papert's section on OLPC website
Dynamic generation also isn't a workaround. The same pr0n site could simply wait until a user comes along and request the user to identify a captcha before proceeding. But then in the background access the original captcha-based site and provide the dynamically-generated captcha for the user of the pr0n site to decode.
More than ever, just not out of need
on
Do Kids Still Program?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There are LOTS of computer-programming languages for kids. And a few don't even lose expressive power in comparison with traditional languages. And lots of kids use them.
It's just that previously (80's) programming a computer was a requirement for using them at all.
Check out ToonTalk (www.toontalk.com). In this animated language, you can program while the program runs, and all your programs are by language design concurrent and distributed - you get a program to run on various computers simply by copying and pasting parts of the code into and from an e-mail.
Also, see the Squeak project (http://www.squeakland.org/) or the WebLabs project (http://www.weblabs.eu.com/).
I live in Portugal. There were ID cards before I was born. Identity thefth is virtually unheard-of. And it's illegal to employ it as a data-crossing number between organizations.
Funny. As far as I recall it, whenever a teacher/professor presented information without actually discussing it with myself or my colleagues, I used my pen&paper to transcribe as closely as possible what s/he was saying, so that I could later study it at my own pace. Most people I knew did the same.
What matters is how s/he conducts classes. If he acts like a solo singer, students act like bootleggers.
Before anyone considers prohibiting standby mode, consider this: you're watching TV in your bed, about to fall asleep, and NOW you need to get out of bed to turn it off rather than press a standby button on a remote or turn on the clock timer... which will put it on standby.
Consider the same when you wake up and just want to check out the news... and you HAVE to get out of bed to turn it on.
What should really bug us is: why do we have to spend all those watts to light up a LED and have an infrared receiver ready? Why aren't manufacturers forced to have dual power circuits, one for full-operation and a different one for standby mode? Or even use an internal battery for standby?
If you're completing a Master thesis, please be aware that Todd Oppenheimer's piece of propaganda is scientifically unsound and of little use than to present a "witchhunt" mentality that is somewhat widespread in society. It bluntly ignores most research and misrepresents much.
In fact, what most research says is the opposite: there are countless cases of THE USE of computers dramatically improving education - not just computer by themselves, magically, of course. If you are "yet to find a piece of software that is effective and better than a more traditional approach", that's right: you're supposed as a teacher to EMPLOY the software, not just expect it to have an impact by itself.
This document presents a summary of research from various decades:
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2003). Strip mining for gold: Research and policy in educational technology--A response to " Fool's Gold." Educational Technology Review, 11(1), 7-69. Retrieved September 21, 2005
Can be found at: http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/issue4/clements2.pdf
:-)
Great! My fault, it should be "intestine power struggles".
Main Entry: 1intestine
Pronunciation: in-'tes-t&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French intestin, from Latin intestinus, from intus within -- more at ENT-
: INTERNAL; specifically : of or relating to the internal affairs of a state or country
I think you are deliberately trying to disagree with me, rather than trying to understand my point of view. If that's the case, read no further; if that's not the case, I apologize for even having considered it, and here's a possible clarification:
- Linus can and should criticise Gnome or whatever he feels like criticising
- Linus, precisely because he is Linus, should come public with his opinions
- Rather than just tell us his opinions, indeed he should explain them, as he did.
- Seeing GNOME or KDE as "crap" is not a sensible position. It's short-sightedness and lack of respect for what are two well-developed pieces of software, only following different design goals.
So what was wrong with the original post? As you can see, I agree with you on what you're pointing out. None of that was the content of my posts.
I think an influential individual was a social responsibility to act sensibly, to make things move on, rather than to behave as an anonimous Joe-6-pack. And that means presenting his opinions in a polite, responsible way, rather than just blurt out the first words that cross his mind. This creates division, rather than promote efforts.
I believe he is being self-centered by acting as if he was any other guy, rather than a famous, highly-influential person. While this is commendable at the personal, face-to-face or private chat level, it causes tidal waves when done in public. It's reckless.
Linus did a lot more than simply say "I prefer KDE over GNOME". That would be OK. He basically said something to the effect of "you are doing a lousy thing, I'm getting out and telling everyone I know to do the same". This would only be acceptable if the GNOME project was a load of crap, which obviously it isn't. It simply shares different goals. Not acknowledging that is also what I mean by "self-centered".
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-Dece mber/msg00027.html
Just a sample:
We're not aiming for "powerfully extensible". We're aiming for "Just Works". Some people will
hate that. Some will love it. Personally, I'd rather have passionate users, lovers and haters, than be than average and ignored, and I think you'll find most GNOME developers feel the same way.
Personally, I think Linus ought to know better by now than put out a self-centered post like that. There are more users in the world than just geeks. Most aren't geeks, in fact. For Linux on the Desktop to survive beyond the lifespan of its proponents, it needs to acknowledge that, not fall trap of intestinal power struggles.
You obviously never lived in a small neighborhood.
This can happen very, very easily...
Just picture an home for the elder, where a "nice" manager places a computer so that they can vote without having to go all the way to the voting booth. He/she just so happens to be one of the candidates in a municipal election.
Just so that you know over 60% of all subcounties in my region have less than 1000 inhabitants, less than 800 voters. Winner/loser is often a matter of a handfull of votes.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? That's a great number. People aren't putting screens side-by-side and comparing, they are simply assuming it "must be HD".
What is amazing is that if 18 don't notice that it isn't... then a whopping 82% notice! Even with little experience and no side-by-side. This is a large number!
Linden Lab should simply respond like any ISP. That is, anyone claiming having been defrauded should go to relevant legal authorities and say so. And Linden Lab should simply present authorities (upon being intimated to do so) with the identification data of the avatar who was behind the activities.
That avatar will at least have an e-mail account, plus a log of recent IP numbers.
From those data, any legal authority can proceed to identify most users and act as they would normally.
I've worked with 3-years olds using ToonTalk, which in spite of looking cartoonish is actually a full-fledged programming language. They have managed to create a few simple programs, like "play ball with a robot" and the like. Take a look at the demo videos with commentaries included in the installation. My own daughter started using it at 2, albeit only for building stuff. (Shameless plug: you can read all details on my PhD thesis.)
Unfortunately for this view, technology serves not only to improve what you do, but to change what you do. This advice is like saying "use your cell phone like you'd use a fixed phone". But cell phones are not traditional phones without a wire. They are "person-direct" phones instead of "location-direct" phones. You call the person, not the phone. People cannot simply evade contact by saying that they are not near a phone.
Technology changes things. It's likely that you will change your lectures by considering how to use your new tools - and that's a good thing. The sensible part of the previous advice is that you don't have to use the tools! Use them when they improve things. But use them to inspire you to innovate, not just as a better fixed phone.
Living in Portugal, and thus unable to participate, I would like to ask: when will users from other European countries besides the current ones be able to participate? I see no reason for being excluded from LOTRO...
Regarding the why Second Life and "nothing new", I agree: in technology terms, there's little new. Just like in technology terms there's "little new" to blogs or podcasts or many other things.:-))
But there is a fundamental difference: before, a couple of people with no CS background could not dream of "hey, let's meet in 3D on-line, make a 3D model together and even invite others to cooperate or comment on it". Before SL, ActiveWorlds, and other systems, it would simply be too much to learn for anyone outside CS. Now, it's like a blog: simple, quick, doable. That's why so many users use it.
Look beyond the hype and anti-hype. Second Life is a great platform for cooperation, and it is not just about chat.
People can build things together without having to know 3-D instructions of 3-D software. People can program in a C-like syntax, event-driven. It has produced a great result in beginning programming classes, since students have been able to produce enticing results from their first 'for','while', or if... And they find an immediate use for maths (3-D movement) and for lots of algorithms.
For instance, my undergraduate students are producing in Second Life "products" that behave as if they had RFID tags and are now developing a traditional Windows application for managing e-mails sent by those "products" - without actually having to acquire RFID tags. And they are just beginning their programming.
On the other hand, one of my PhD students is trying to integrate Second Life with teaching management software like Moodle or like our in-house system. There is an open source platform for accessing Moodle content from Second Life (Sloodle), but not the opposite.
I think you two could exchange interesting view. Get in touch.
It's ironic that people can mention Froebel and Montessori and disregard technology, when both of them devised and introduced technology (props) in their practice. Not modern technology, sure, but what was available at their time - Froebel's "gifts" and Montessori's devices like buttoned panels. What we lacked until recently was adequate computational toys to introduce computers to kindergartners. But ingenious use of what existed was always possible. One obvious choice would be a ground "turtle" robot like Valiant's Roamer. I, my wife, and several preschool teachers have employed it extensively, with great results and to children's enjoyment (see a brief paper here). You can command it with command keys for "forward", "back", "turn left", "turn right", and can even program a sequence of these orders, like in Logo. Talking about programming, there are many things you can do in kindergarten. ToonTalk and Electronic Blocks come to mind. In general, you'd want children to be able to feel comfortable around a computer, not feel it is a "special" item for adults or special occasions, nor a "treat" for rewarding other behavior. Both of those perspectives would be inadequate for a healthy relationship with technology. Most modern research points towards adequate integration of computers in preschool practice, precisely by avoiding reserving them for special occasions or turning them into treats. I invariably find the best summary and guideline's to be those compiled by Rachel Bolstad for New Zealand's Ministry of Education, which you can find here (p. 41 - 55 in the PDF). With these in mind, I devised a four-approach guide which I presented two years ago at a conference, but is available on-line.
You didn't get it. $300 bought 3 computers, only you got one and the two others would be distributed to kids in the third world.
OK, I'll hand it to you. Let me state your position: computers are just bullshit in education. They're just for drawing nice graphs and powerpoints. There's nothing to be gained in understanding from programming a virtual ant and seeing how the behavior of 100.000 virtual ants compares with the behavior of real ants. You can learn anything just by looking at real ants. You can do the same with real cars, of course, I suppose. Yes, I'm being ironic. That's because I've nothing against learning with real stuff. And with real teachrs. That's the point: you need real people, stuff, and teachers, and the computers can make that a much richer environment. I don't support computers for feeding you information and losing teachers and interactions. I don't think you even tried to skim the references I gave you, but I'll try another one, one final time. Give me the benefit of the doubt: if I provide all this links perhaps there could be something interesting in them: Alan Kay: "Computers, Networks and Education" http://llk.media.mit.edu/courses/readings/alan-kay .pdf
Which things? Did you really learn how many different objects, following the same rules, produce complex behaviors (cars and jams, or ants following a trail based on simple rules)? And by learn I don't mean just believing it, I mean really, really understanding it. Look around, think of your colleagues and what they have (and haven't) been able to grasp and how they see the world.
There's not much of a difference between your toys and transformers. And nothing wrong with using your toys! Computers are not being proposed by OLPC to replace other toys, just as extra ones that can make a difference. Check out this: http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects.php And if you think that's not for third-world countries, check this out: it is in use in Brazil, Thailand... http://padthai.media.mit.edu:8080/cocoon/gogosite/ home.xsp?lang=en
You're assuming a "as it commonly is used" use of computers in the classroom. That's not what OLPC is about at all. It's not just about putting laptops in schools, is about changing the teaching methods by using them for what computers were made for: programming simulations, controlling systems, etc. Check out http://www.squeakersfilm.org/>this movie and especially http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php/Learning_Learning >Papert's section on OLPC website
Dynamic generation also isn't a workaround. The same pr0n site could simply wait until a user comes along and request the user to identify a captcha before proceeding. But then in the background access the original captcha-based site and provide the dynamically-generated captcha for the user of the pr0n site to decode.
There are LOTS of computer-programming languages for kids. And a few don't even lose expressive power in comparison with traditional languages. And lots of kids use them. It's just that previously (80's) programming a computer was a requirement for using them at all. Check out ToonTalk (www.toontalk.com). In this animated language, you can program while the program runs, and all your programs are by language design concurrent and distributed - you get a program to run on various computers simply by copying and pasting parts of the code into and from an e-mail. Also, see the Squeak project (http://www.squeakland.org/) or the WebLabs project (http://www.weblabs.eu.com/).
I live in Portugal. There were ID cards before I was born. Identity thefth is virtually unheard-of. And it's illegal to employ it as a data-crossing number between organizations.
Unless, of course, a meteorite hits them right on as we speak.
Funny. As far as I recall it, whenever a teacher/professor presented information without actually discussing it with myself or my colleagues, I used my pen&paper to transcribe as closely as possible what s/he was saying, so that I could later study it at my own pace. Most people I knew did the same. What matters is how s/he conducts classes. If he acts like a solo singer, students act like bootleggers.
Before anyone considers prohibiting standby mode, consider this: you're watching TV in your bed, about to fall asleep, and NOW you need to get out of bed to turn it off rather than press a standby button on a remote or turn on the clock timer... which will put it on standby. Consider the same when you wake up and just want to check out the news... and you HAVE to get out of bed to turn it on. What should really bug us is: why do we have to spend all those watts to light up a LED and have an infrared receiver ready? Why aren't manufacturers forced to have dual power circuits, one for full-operation and a different one for standby mode? Or even use an internal battery for standby?
If you're completing a Master thesis, please be aware that Todd Oppenheimer's piece of propaganda is scientifically unsound and of little use than to present a "witchhunt" mentality that is somewhat widespread in society. It bluntly ignores most research and misrepresents much. In fact, what most research says is the opposite: there are countless cases of THE USE of computers dramatically improving education - not just computer by themselves, magically, of course. If you are "yet to find a piece of software that is effective and better than a more traditional approach", that's right: you're supposed as a teacher to EMPLOY the software, not just expect it to have an impact by itself. This document presents a summary of research from various decades: Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2003). Strip mining for gold: Research and policy in educational technology--A response to " Fool's Gold." Educational Technology Review, 11(1), 7-69. Retrieved September 21, 2005 Can be found at: http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/issue4/clements2.pdf
:-) Great! My fault, it should be "intestine power struggles". Main Entry: 1intestine Pronunciation: in-'tes-t&n Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French intestin, from Latin intestinus, from intus within -- more at ENT- : INTERNAL; specifically : of or relating to the internal affairs of a state or country
I think you are deliberately trying to disagree with me, rather than trying to understand my point of view. If that's the case, read no further; if that's not the case, I apologize for even having considered it, and here's a possible clarification: - Linus can and should criticise Gnome or whatever he feels like criticising - Linus, precisely because he is Linus, should come public with his opinions - Rather than just tell us his opinions, indeed he should explain them, as he did. - Seeing GNOME or KDE as "crap" is not a sensible position. It's short-sightedness and lack of respect for what are two well-developed pieces of software, only following different design goals. So what was wrong with the original post? As you can see, I agree with you on what you're pointing out. None of that was the content of my posts. I think an influential individual was a social responsibility to act sensibly, to make things move on, rather than to behave as an anonimous Joe-6-pack. And that means presenting his opinions in a polite, responsible way, rather than just blurt out the first words that cross his mind. This creates division, rather than promote efforts.
I believe he is being self-centered by acting as if he was any other guy, rather than a famous, highly-influential person. While this is commendable at the personal, face-to-face or private chat level, it causes tidal waves when done in public. It's reckless. Linus did a lot more than simply say "I prefer KDE over GNOME". That would be OK. He basically said something to the effect of "you are doing a lousy thing, I'm getting out and telling everyone I know to do the same". This would only be acceptable if the GNOME project was a load of crap, which obviously it isn't. It simply shares different goals. Not acknowledging that is also what I mean by "self-centered".
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-Dece mber/msg00027.html
Just a sample:
We're not aiming for "powerfully extensible". We're aiming for "Just Works". Some people will
hate that. Some will love it. Personally, I'd rather have passionate users, lovers and haters, than be than average and ignored, and I think you'll find most GNOME developers feel the same way.
Personally, I think Linus ought to know better by now than put out a self-centered post like that. There are more users in the world than just geeks. Most aren't geeks, in fact. For Linux on the Desktop to survive beyond the lifespan of its proponents, it needs to acknowledge that, not fall trap of intestinal power struggles.
You obviously never lived in a small neighborhood. This can happen very, very easily... Just picture an home for the elder, where a "nice" manager places a computer so that they can vote without having to go all the way to the voting booth. He/she just so happens to be one of the candidates in a municipal election. Just so that you know over 60% of all subcounties in my region have less than 1000 inhabitants, less than 800 voters. Winner/loser is often a matter of a handfull of votes.