Complaining about spelling/types is the first sign that a person knows they wrong. Yes, I made one spelling error, and two typos.
That being said, I see no where in my post that I said anything about being creative. I just said that you were a thief for stealing other peoples 'property' to create your new 'property'.
I think it is clear who has a comprehension problem.
Every time I hear someone complain that another person doesn't get to copy their work because it is "MY WORK", it is coming from someone who crated that work by extensively using "OTHER PEOPLES WORK" with no compensation, and without their permission. Here is a list of creations that you have "STOLEN".
"Here is where your argument breaks down. Neither you nor the original poster has a "freedom to copy", specifically because it is MY WORK. I have the right to say what is done with my work. You do not have a "freedom to copy" anything other than YOUR OWN WORK.
His copying may very well directly effect my ability to make a living from my own work. That is directly affecting me.
What you fail to see is that his freedom and yours ends where my freedom begins. The right of a person to swing his fist ends at the nose of another person. Your freedom to copy ends where my freedom, backed by legal right, to say how my work is used begins.
And, as you don't seem to understand a good portion of my previous post, let me enlighten you on a particular fact. All rights and freedoms flow from society. If you don't believe that, go debate your "right to life" with a hungry lion."
That's right. Every one of those words was coined by someone else, long before you used them. They created the words, and defined their meaning. When you create something that is not derived from any other persons work, then you can consider it "YOURS". Until then, you are just a theif or a Hypocrate.
All that being true, I went into a RS the other day for a telephone jack splitter, and they actaully had robot kits on promenent display in the center of their store. I was amazed. Not a toy that looks like a robot, but honest to goodness servos, controllers and base platforms.
You are in denial. You see, when the question is asked "Is it genetics or environment?", the answer is obviously "Yes". You obviously know that genetics plays a part in behavior, but you don't want it to apply to humans. Look at different breeds of dogs. They are all obviously a group with similar biology. They are after all one species, and can breed. It is well known that their genetics has a large role in their behavior.
It seems YOU missed the point. You are comparing keeping a $2 light bulb for two years to keeping a $200+ audio player for 2 years. This is a 2 orders of magnatude price difference. Let me state that again. A two orders of magnatude price difference. Amost every person I know considers product that cost $2 and are disposable within a couple of years to be an acceptable value. I know very few people that consider products that cost $200 and are disposable within a couple of years to be acceptable. Very few people I have talked to, even realize that their ipods will 'expire'. Using your car analogy, and the fact that you consider a 2 order of magnatude price difference to be comparable, you should be applauding all those people who still actaully drive their 2004 Toyota Corolla. Given the absurdity of your light bulb ipod analogy, let move on to your car ipod analogy.
You praise people that kept thier '62 Lincoln. Well, the '62 Lincoln didn't have the hood welded shut, and you are talking about keeping an item that take dramatically more physical abuse for 43 years. Yes 43 years! I wouldn't complain if the ipod lasted 43 years. I wouldn't complain if it lasted 10 years. It would not be considered unusal for the ipod to fail in 2 years though. Again, you are using an absurd analogy.
As for the cost of adding the door and battary connector. You are full of it. Trying to imply that a two pin header and a battary door would add even $10 to the cost, or would cause a significant loss of reliablity, you are as far off as you were with comparing a light bulb and car to an ipod. The "it would cost more' excuse is pure fanboyism. The Creative Muvo (free from comcast) that I gave my one year old son last year has a battary door, and after a year in the hands of a one year old, it shows no sign of wear. My guess is that the Apple engineers are at least as competent as the Creative engineers. This means that what Apple has done on purpose is create an intentional design flaw for the purpose of creating premature falure of ipods.
If the only point you take exception with is that the design flaw is hurting ipod sales, then there is no real argument. iPods are selling just fine, and I would guess that even if Apple could increase their customer pool by 25%, they would loose sales because the number of ipods sold to current customers to replace the prematurly failing models will increase their sales by more than 25%. Just because they make more money at it doesn't make it right. You might try to use the "corporations are only hear to make money" argument, but if the offend the public, making faulty products is not good corporate behavior. In time the fanboys will settle down, and those that are unaware of the design flaws will see them.
"On the other hand intelligence is not a physical characteristic, and the role of genetics in behavioral characteristics is not, to my knowledge, established."
You've been watching too many Disney movies with talking dogs and ducks. To prove that genetics has a roll on behavior, step outside, and watch for the first animal that is dramatically different than you genetically. Dog, cat, bird, whatever. If if behaves just like a human, ignore me. If it doesn't, then accept that genetics plays a role in behavior. You can argue whether the small differences between one human and the next is enough of a difference to be noticiable, but to say it doesn't affect behavior is just silly.
"Wow, that got ranty, but in short intelligence is at best loosely tied to genetics, and arguments of intelligence and evolution, if followed to their logical conclusion, lead directly to eugenics and racism"
The family dog proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that eugenics works...And that it should not be performed on humans.
I very intentionally used the word "portion" as opposed to "percent". I don't think that a very large percentage of the population are even aware of the problem. Most people think the battary will last forever, or don't think about the battary at all. Of the people that understand the problem, you will find a much higher 'percentage' of people that consider it a design flaw. You are clearly not one of the people that understands the problem. This is shown by:
"Would we all give up cheap cars and cheap light-bulbs just so they would last forever? No. Any other answer is bullshit. Non-replaceable batteries lowers cost."
We would not give up cheap cars or light bulbs just so they would last forever, BUT I have yet to find a car that you cannot change virtually any part. In fact every car I ever drove has had a lever that was specifically designed to give you easy access to the battary. As for lightbulbs, you are talking about something that a device that can last just as long as an ipod, but costs $2 instead of $200. We are talking about a 2 orders of magnatude price difference. I expect a $2 item to be desposable. I expect a $200 item that has a time limited part to be repairable.
Add to this, just how trivial it would be to have put in a battary door, and 2 pins for the battary wire, we have a problem. Maybe I have more faith in Apples engineers, and less in their ethics than you. The non-replacable battery can not have lowered the manufacturing price by more than $0.05-$0.10. We are not talking about changing the battary. We are talking about putting a latch on the case so that it can open, and a pin header on the two wires comming out of the ipod. The best excuse (and I use excuse instead of reason) is that they didn't want the look of a battary door. Given that a paperclip sized hole in the bottom could allow the case to open without any visable battary door, I don't believe the 'expire' feature of the ipod is an accident.
So, I catagorize peoples attitude about it like this:
Don't realize that the ipod will just fail in a couple of years.
Are Fanboys.
Have so much money that they don't care if they waste it.
Are so into their 'tech' that they expect to replace their ipod before it fails
Given that we see devices that cost less than $10 on a regular bases that can somehow afford to put in a replacable battary AND sell with a margin that is obviously less than $10, we can conclude that Apple did this on purpose.
"The batteries can last for years, it's hardly something that fails quickly in most cases. If it fails under warranty, it gets replaced for free."
That's right, you agree that they fail, and that will usually fail outside of warranty. Given how trivial it would be to make a battery door, and thus make the battary replaceable, there can be no question that the unit was designed to fail. I never said that it an ipod would 'expire' while it was still in warranty. I just said that it was designed to 'expire'.
Funny you mention Waco. Just last weekend I was talking to one of the neighbors of the Dividian compound. Not members. Neighbors. Their telling of the story is that other than some target practice, which is a common activity in the area, the Dividians were a quite group that didn't bother anyone. Per their telling, some neighbors go annoid with the noise from target practice, and called the cops. The Sherrifs went out, and had the whole thing sorted out well before the Feds showed up. The guns they had were legally purchased and delivered via FedEx.
Based on this, and what I saw on the news, sometimes when you are not doing anything wrong, you DO have something to worry about.
The ipod is designed to not allow replacement. Yes, this can be circumvented, just as you can refill inkjet cartridges. This does not change the fact that the product was specifically designed to fail, and that many people will be unable to replace their battery. I consider the fact that I would have to 'hack' my equipment to replace the battery to be an intentionally created design flaw. Not the size of the battery, but the fact that there is no battery door. In fact the very link you gave has 'Professional Installation Services' for battery replacement. This shows that the design is flawed. Consumers should not require professional help to change the battery on their portable audio player.
To state that this design choice is not an issue at all, show a distinct fanboy attitude. You may feel that it wouldn't stop YOU from buying one, but it is certainly a problem for a very large portion of the population.
I'm not a fan of iPods because I consider their lack of a removable battary to be an intentional design flaw for the express purpose of making the ipods 'expire'.
That being said. One best features of the ipod is the external interface. Yes, the UI is good, and the case looks cool, but I can't think of any other digital audio players that offer complete access to the unit to external components. This is a crucial feature.
If anyone wants to make an 'ipod killer', the first thing they need to do is make sure that their player has an external interface. The second thing they need to do is make the specs to that interface open, and encourage their competitors to use the same interface.
It's too late for one company to bring Apple down with this feature, as all the accessories are already being made for ipod. There isn't enough of a market for any one other audio player to encourage third party manufacturers to make the wide range of accessories that ipod has. If four or five of the biggest players banded to gether for a industry standard interface, they could probably get the accessories made, and THAT would give them a reasonable chance in the market.
What are the games on the 2600 that were among the best, and never replicate.
Warlords
Circus Atari
Kaboom
These games were great because largely because of the controller. The joystick/pad has limited us in what we do with games. When Nintendo swapped the buttons from our left hand to our right, we became even more limited in what the games can really do. The Atari paddle was just a pot and a switch, but it allowed a game like Kaboom to be played. There is not a game console out today that can run a decent game of Kaboom.
So, yes. Controls are absoultuly important on game design, and have been terribly neglected.
"There's your research, not refined in any particular sort of way, and perhaps an invasion of privacy in some terms, but I'll leave that issue aside."
Listen to you, my data source is larger and more accurate than yours, and you try to dismiss it because it wasn't some official study? First you use the word "anecdote", which you clearly do not know the definition of, then when you are called on it, you make an implication of invasion of privacy? So, no, don't leave it aside. If you think that there is something unethical about a person reviewing documents that have been sent to them for review by the documents owners, as unethical say it. If you believe that stating "I know for a fact that there is a teacher in the US that makes $X a year" as unethical, say so. I call BS, and say that your behaviour shows a high level of dishonesty.
"Some teachers make a good and living wage. Others do not."
"I maintain that teachers are underpaid. generally, and often you get what you pay for. There are many kinds of teachers, and providing a taxonomy of them doesn't defray the fact that there are those that are paid less for academic reasons, tenure (professional or merely time on the job) and other good reasons. Their roles in education are varied, and so is their pay."
So, your saying that teachers make lots of different amounts, and often the teachers stink, but hey! they are underpaid. Your logic is faulty, and does not help your argument.
"We get shot at, but we're not cops."
Honestly. How many times have you been shot at while at school?
"We put our fires, but we're not firemen."
How many fires have you put out at school?
"We take out garbage, but we're not garbage collectors."
Welcome to the real world.
"We encourage good nutrition, when lunch is a bag of Fritos and a Pepsi."
That's not your job, and whining because your not paid for it is rediculous.
"We're counselors."
We all are.
"We teach skills."
Hello! That by definition is your job. Anything less, and you are stealing.
"We embue character."
That's not your job, and quite frankly, based on what you have written here, I wouldn't want you "Embuing Character" in my child.
"It takes time for academia to move forward. Not Internet time, but regular time."
"Most of my summers were spent teaching, or taking classes to stay up in my profession."
If academia moves so slowely, why did you need to spend so much time staying up on your profession. Are you just flat out lying, or were you unusually slow?
I don't think you know what anecdotal means. You see, YOUR claim that you didn't get paid much, and that the people you worked with didn't get paid much, is an anecdote. Having seen thousands of W-2 from all over the country would not be anecdotal. It may not be highbrow reasearch, but it is certainly not an anectote. Given that you do not understand such a simple concept, perhaps you low pay was not due to an industry standard, but due to your ability.
So that you know, I was specifically talking about K-12. Although, I suspect that your listing of all the different 'classes' of teachers was to confuse the issue.
"The hours in a day are variable. Many spend ten or more if they supervise or sponsor clubs or other extra-curricular activities. They often work weekends doing the same thing, often for additional if low pay."
Listen to you. You are claiming that when you volunteer, it is somehow your job. You know what? Lots of people are volunteer for lost of good causes. That comment is pure whine, and show a compleat lack of honesty in teachers compensations.
"They get a few holidays that the rest of us don't. Most of my summers were spent teaching, or taking classes to stay up in my profession. I didn't get to slack but for a couple of weeks, which is less than my professional peers did. I got a nice holiday break in the winter; that part was good. Others in my profession, do, too."
I call complete BS. The teaching profession does not change THAT much from year to year. If you teach during summer, you get paid more, yet that isn't counted when teachers start complaining about their "yearly salaries". I have known plenty of teachers that simply did not work during the summer. While I will give a brand new teacher the benefit of the doubt that they have to work all summer to prepare for the next year, after a few years, if you have not gotten a general plan down that works with only minor tweaking, then perhaps you are the problem, not the pay.
"But teachers and students are the next generation and embody the hopes of the current ones, and ones past."
And there is the great half truth. If every person who preformed a perticular profession disappeared, public education teachers would be WAY down the list. Just some professions that are more important:
Garbage Collectors
Construction Workers
Farmers
Police
Firemen
Grocery Clerks
Gas Station Attendents
Utility Workers
It amazes me how self rightous teachers can be. They think they are the beginning and the end of civilization. The fact is that most people do not use their public education beyond basic reading, and 4th grade math. Add to that the fact that a huge portion of the population really doesn't get much more of an education than that anyway, irregardless of how many years they actually attend.
To tell you the truth, all the claims about how 'teachers are shaping our youth', so they should be put on a pedestal, comes off more like a threat than anything else.
Funny, my wife works in a title company, and has worked a lot in mortgage companies. This means that she sees a LOT of salaries. Teachers do make a good living, and the $44k in the parent quote is right in line with what she sees on a weekly basis. This is not just for teachers that have been doing it for 15 years.
Teachers do not work 10 months a year, and the teacher that works 10 hours a day is very few and far between. (English teachers that must grade essays is likely the exception). Because of the low hours and short work year, it would be far more fair to look at teachers wages in an hourly sense. When you do that, teachers are paid VERY well.
Virtually every application I write sends and stores encrypted data. Given that storing the data in my environment is a gimmie, why would I store it any other way.
Remember IBM is not being sued by SCO for illegally using OSS. IBM is being sued by SCO for illegally using proprietary code. (whether they did that or not)
SCO has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that starting with proprietary code can be viral and prevent you from having full control of your own "property" in the future. Once that proprietary code touches your, you are no longer the full owner of your software.
I'm not suprised that your son has a problem with the Alpha Smart. Looking at the specs, it is really bad device. You can not work effectively with a 60 by 8 character screen. That kind of space limits you to basically post it notes. I read through their intended audiance, and then read through their specs and pricing. This product was doomed from the start.
They want $500 for thier advanced model. You can buy a full laptop for that. Fry's had one on sale just last week for $500. I can assure you that even the cheap stripped down model that Fry's was selling is far more powerful and usable than these devices. The $250 is definily cheaper than a laptop, but you loose so much functionality that it becomes (as you have seen) a hinderance instead of a help.
Basically, if this is truely the type of device that meets your needs, you would be better off buying a cheap $100 Palm Pilot, and an external keyboard. I say this because the specs show that it is in fact running PalmOS. This means that this is a Palm Pilot with a keyboard built in. By buying the Palm and Keyboard as seperate items, your child would have greater flexability in deciding when he needed a full keyboard, and when he just needed something he could put in his pocket.
I may be wrong, but I believe the reference is to a very old Porky Pig cartoon. The one where he was sent to the store for "a loaf of bread, a container of milk, and a stick of butter.", and then got sidetracked and went to the movies instead.
Bow before my questionable knowledge of useless trivia!!!!!
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
A conspiracy theory is a theory about a conspiracy. That means that if you have one article, or a mound of physical evidence, until the conspiracy is proven, it is a 'conspiracy theory'. If you reread my post, you will see that the problem with your original post(and your follow up post), is that you indicate that a conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theorists are crazy. I point out that you in fact are a conspiracy theorist. You do believe that illegal p2p file sharing happens right? If you do, you are a conspiracy theorist. I have yet to meet a single person over the age of 10 who is not a conspiracy theorist.
The problem is that you are using a term, that accuratly describes virtually 100% of the population, as a label to indicate someone with a dissenting view is crazy.
It amazes me how often the term 'conspiracy theorist' is used to dismiss people. The fact is that conspiracies big and small happen all the time. They are uncovered and proven on a regular basis. Whethter it is Richard Nixon, Enron, Arther Anderson, or p2p copyright violators. To think that having a theory on a conspiracy makes you a nut is silly at best. The question is whether there is enough evidence to warrent the theory, and whether the suspected crime makes any sense to have commited.
By definition, to not believe in conspiracies would mean that you don't believe illegal p2p filesharing takes place. So, lets see who seems more logical.
Person A: Believes that a machine who's design should be extreamly simple consistantly makes errors in favor of the group who is most adament about using them indicates likely fraud.
Person B: Believes that illegal p2p fileshareing does not happen.
(Now, if your going to argue that you DO believe that p2p filesharing exists, then you too are a 'conspiracy theorist', and your post becomes totally nonsensical.)
Slashdot Mirror
Complaining about spelling/types is the first sign that a person knows they wrong. Yes, I made one spelling error, and two typos.
That being said, I see no where in my post that I said anything about being creative. I just said that you were a thief for stealing other peoples 'property' to create your new 'property'.
I think it is clear who has a comprehension problem.
Every time I hear someone complain that another person doesn't get to copy their work because it is "MY WORK", it is coming from someone who crated that work by extensively using "OTHER PEOPLES WORK" with no compensation, and without their permission. Here is a list of creations that you have "STOLEN".
"Here is where your argument breaks down. Neither you nor the original poster has a "freedom to copy", specifically because it is MY WORK. I have the right to say what is done with my work. You do not have a "freedom to copy" anything other than YOUR OWN WORK. His copying may very well directly effect my ability to make a living from my own work. That is directly affecting me. What you fail to see is that his freedom and yours ends where my freedom begins. The right of a person to swing his fist ends at the nose of another person. Your freedom to copy ends where my freedom, backed by legal right, to say how my work is used begins. And, as you don't seem to understand a good portion of my previous post, let me enlighten you on a particular fact. All rights and freedoms flow from society. If you don't believe that, go debate your "right to life" with a hungry lion."
That's right. Every one of those words was coined by someone else, long before you used them. They created the words, and defined their meaning. When you create something that is not derived from any other persons work, then you can consider it "YOURS". Until then, you are just a theif or a Hypocrate.
All that being true, I went into a RS the other day for a telephone jack splitter, and they actaully had robot kits on promenent display in the center of their store. I was amazed. Not a toy that looks like a robot, but honest to goodness servos, controllers and base platforms.
You are in denial. You see, when the question is asked "Is it genetics or environment?", the answer is obviously "Yes". You obviously know that genetics plays a part in behavior, but you don't want it to apply to humans. Look at different breeds of dogs. They are all obviously a group with similar biology. They are after all one species, and can breed. It is well known that their genetics has a large role in their behavior.
It seems YOU missed the point. You are comparing keeping a $2 light bulb for two years to keeping a $200+ audio player for 2 years. This is a 2 orders of magnatude price difference. Let me state that again. A two orders of magnatude price difference. Amost every person I know considers product that cost $2 and are disposable within a couple of years to be an acceptable value. I know very few people that consider products that cost $200 and are disposable within a couple of years to be acceptable. Very few people I have talked to, even realize that their ipods will 'expire'. Using your car analogy, and the fact that you consider a 2 order of magnatude price difference to be comparable, you should be applauding all those people who still actaully drive their 2004 Toyota Corolla. Given the absurdity of your light bulb ipod analogy, let move on to your car ipod analogy.
You praise people that kept thier '62 Lincoln. Well, the '62 Lincoln didn't have the hood welded shut, and you are talking about keeping an item that take dramatically more physical abuse for 43 years. Yes 43 years! I wouldn't complain if the ipod lasted 43 years. I wouldn't complain if it lasted 10 years. It would not be considered unusal for the ipod to fail in 2 years though. Again, you are using an absurd analogy.
As for the cost of adding the door and battary connector. You are full of it. Trying to imply that a two pin header and a battary door would add even $10 to the cost, or would cause a significant loss of reliablity, you are as far off as you were with comparing a light bulb and car to an ipod. The "it would cost more' excuse is pure fanboyism. The Creative Muvo (free from comcast) that I gave my one year old son last year has a battary door, and after a year in the hands of a one year old, it shows no sign of wear. My guess is that the Apple engineers are at least as competent as the Creative engineers. This means that what Apple has done on purpose is create an intentional design flaw for the purpose of creating premature falure of ipods.
If the only point you take exception with is that the design flaw is hurting ipod sales, then there is no real argument. iPods are selling just fine, and I would guess that even if Apple could increase their customer pool by 25%, they would loose sales because the number of ipods sold to current customers to replace the prematurly failing models will increase their sales by more than 25%. Just because they make more money at it doesn't make it right. You might try to use the "corporations are only hear to make money" argument, but if the offend the public, making faulty products is not good corporate behavior. In time the fanboys will settle down, and those that are unaware of the design flaws will see them.
"On the other hand intelligence is not a physical characteristic, and the role of genetics in behavioral characteristics is not, to my knowledge, established."
You've been watching too many Disney movies with talking dogs and ducks. To prove that genetics has a roll on behavior, step outside, and watch for the first animal that is dramatically different than you genetically. Dog, cat, bird, whatever. If if behaves just like a human, ignore me. If it doesn't, then accept that genetics plays a role in behavior. You can argue whether the small differences between one human and the next is enough of a difference to be noticiable, but to say it doesn't affect behavior is just silly.
"Wow, that got ranty, but in short intelligence is at best loosely tied to genetics, and arguments of intelligence and evolution, if followed to their logical conclusion, lead directly to eugenics and racism"
The family dog proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that eugenics works...And that it should not be performed on humans.
Spoken like a true Fanboy.
I very intentionally used the word "portion" as opposed to "percent". I don't think that a very large percentage of the population are even aware of the problem. Most people think the battary will last forever, or don't think about the battary at all. Of the people that understand the problem, you will find a much higher 'percentage' of people that consider it a design flaw. You are clearly not one of the people that understands the problem. This is shown by:
"Would we all give up cheap cars and cheap light-bulbs just so they would last forever? No. Any other answer is bullshit. Non-replaceable batteries lowers cost."
We would not give up cheap cars or light bulbs just so they would last forever, BUT I have yet to find a car that you cannot change virtually any part. In fact every car I ever drove has had a lever that was specifically designed to give you easy access to the battary. As for lightbulbs, you are talking about something that a device that can last just as long as an ipod, but costs $2 instead of $200. We are talking about a 2 orders of magnatude price difference. I expect a $2 item to be desposable. I expect a $200 item that has a time limited part to be repairable.
Add to this, just how trivial it would be to have put in a battary door, and 2 pins for the battary wire, we have a problem. Maybe I have more faith in Apples engineers, and less in their ethics than you. The non-replacable battery can not have lowered the manufacturing price by more than $0.05-$0.10. We are not talking about changing the battary. We are talking about putting a latch on the case so that it can open, and a pin header on the two wires comming out of the ipod. The best excuse (and I use excuse instead of reason) is that they didn't want the look of a battary door. Given that a paperclip sized hole in the bottom could allow the case to open without any visable battary door, I don't believe the 'expire' feature of the ipod is an accident.
So, I catagorize peoples attitude about it like this:
Don't realize that the ipod will just fail in a couple of years.
Are Fanboys.
Have so much money that they don't care if they waste it.
Are so into their 'tech' that they expect to replace their ipod before it fails
Given that we see devices that cost less than $10 on a regular bases that can somehow afford to put in a replacable battary AND sell with a margin that is obviously less than $10, we can conclude that Apple did this on purpose.
"The batteries can last for years, it's hardly something that fails quickly in most cases. If it fails under warranty, it gets replaced for free."
That's right, you agree that they fail, and that will usually fail outside of warranty. Given how trivial it would be to make a battery door, and thus make the battary replaceable, there can be no question that the unit was designed to fail. I never said that it an ipod would 'expire' while it was still in warranty. I just said that it was designed to 'expire'.
Funny you mention Waco. Just last weekend I was talking to one of the neighbors of the Dividian compound. Not members. Neighbors. Their telling of the story is that other than some target practice, which is a common activity in the area, the Dividians were a quite group that didn't bother anyone. Per their telling, some neighbors go annoid with the noise from target practice, and called the cops. The Sherrifs went out, and had the whole thing sorted out well before the Feds showed up. The guns they had were legally purchased and delivered via FedEx.
Based on this, and what I saw on the news, sometimes when you are not doing anything wrong, you DO have something to worry about.
The ipod is designed to not allow replacement. Yes, this can be circumvented, just as you can refill inkjet cartridges. This does not change the fact that the product was specifically designed to fail, and that many people will be unable to replace their battery. I consider the fact that I would have to 'hack' my equipment to replace the battery to be an intentionally created design flaw. Not the size of the battery, but the fact that there is no battery door. In fact the very link you gave has 'Professional Installation Services' for battery replacement. This shows that the design is flawed. Consumers should not require professional help to change the battery on their portable audio player.
To state that this design choice is not an issue at all, show a distinct fanboy attitude. You may feel that it wouldn't stop YOU from buying one, but it is certainly a problem for a very large portion of the population.
I'm not a fan of iPods because I consider their lack of a removable battary to be an intentional design flaw for the express purpose of making the ipods 'expire'.
That being said. One best features of the ipod is the external interface. Yes, the UI is good, and the case looks cool, but I can't think of any other digital audio players that offer complete access to the unit to external components. This is a crucial feature.
If anyone wants to make an 'ipod killer', the first thing they need to do is make sure that their player has an external interface. The second thing they need to do is make the specs to that interface open, and encourage their competitors to use the same interface.
It's too late for one company to bring Apple down with this feature, as all the accessories are already being made for ipod. There isn't enough of a market for any one other audio player to encourage third party manufacturers to make the wide range of accessories that ipod has. If four or five of the biggest players banded to gether for a industry standard interface, they could probably get the accessories made, and THAT would give them a reasonable chance in the market.
What are the games on the 2600 that were among the best, and never replicate.
Warlords
Circus Atari
Kaboom
These games were great because largely because of the controller. The joystick/pad has limited us in what we do with games. When Nintendo swapped the buttons from our left hand to our right, we became even more limited in what the games can really do. The Atari paddle was just a pot and a switch, but it allowed a game like Kaboom to be played. There is not a game console out today that can run a decent game of Kaboom.
So, yes. Controls are absoultuly important on game design, and have been terribly neglected.
"There's your research, not refined in any particular sort of way, and perhaps an invasion of privacy in some terms, but I'll leave that issue aside."
Listen to you, my data source is larger and more accurate than yours, and you try to dismiss it because it wasn't some official study? First you use the word "anecdote", which you clearly do not know the definition of, then when you are called on it, you make an implication of invasion of privacy? So, no, don't leave it aside. If you think that there is something unethical about a person reviewing documents that have been sent to them for review by the documents owners, as unethical say it. If you believe that stating "I know for a fact that there is a teacher in the US that makes $X a year" as unethical, say so. I call BS, and say that your behaviour shows a high level of dishonesty.
"Some teachers make a good and living wage. Others do not."
"I maintain that teachers are underpaid. generally, and often you get what you pay for. There are many kinds of teachers, and providing a taxonomy of them doesn't defray the fact that there are those that are paid less for academic reasons, tenure (professional or merely time on the job) and other good reasons. Their roles in education are varied, and so is their pay."
So, your saying that teachers make lots of different amounts, and often the teachers stink, but hey! they are underpaid. Your logic is faulty, and does not help your argument.
"We get shot at, but we're not cops."
Honestly. How many times have you been shot at while at school?
"We put our fires, but we're not firemen."
How many fires have you put out at school?
"We take out garbage, but we're not garbage collectors."
Welcome to the real world.
"We encourage good nutrition, when lunch is a bag of Fritos and a Pepsi."
That's not your job, and whining because your not paid for it is rediculous.
"We're counselors."
We all are.
"We teach skills."
Hello! That by definition is your job. Anything less, and you are stealing.
"We embue character."
That's not your job, and quite frankly, based on what you have written here, I wouldn't want you "Embuing Character" in my child.
"It takes time for academia to move forward. Not Internet time, but regular time."
"Most of my summers were spent teaching, or taking classes to stay up in my profession."
If academia moves so slowely, why did you need to spend so much time staying up on your profession. Are you just flat out lying, or were you unusually slow?
So that you know, I was specifically talking about K-12. Although, I suspect that your listing of all the different 'classes' of teachers was to confuse the issue.
"The hours in a day are variable. Many spend ten or more if they supervise or sponsor clubs or other extra-curricular activities. They often work weekends doing the same thing, often for additional if low pay."
Listen to you. You are claiming that when you volunteer, it is somehow your job. You know what? Lots of people are volunteer for lost of good causes. That comment is pure whine, and show a compleat lack of honesty in teachers compensations.
"They get a few holidays that the rest of us don't. Most of my summers were spent teaching, or taking classes to stay up in my profession. I didn't get to slack but for a couple of weeks, which is less than my professional peers did. I got a nice holiday break in the winter; that part was good. Others in my profession, do, too."
I call complete BS. The teaching profession does not change THAT much from year to year. If you teach during summer, you get paid more, yet that isn't counted when teachers start complaining about their "yearly salaries". I have known plenty of teachers that simply did not work during the summer. While I will give a brand new teacher the benefit of the doubt that they have to work all summer to prepare for the next year, after a few years, if you have not gotten a general plan down that works with only minor tweaking, then perhaps you are the problem, not the pay.
"But teachers and students are the next generation and embody the hopes of the current ones, and ones past."
And there is the great half truth. If every person who preformed a perticular profession disappeared, public education teachers would be WAY down the list. Just some professions that are more important:
It amazes me how self rightous teachers can be. They think they are the beginning and the end of civilization. The fact is that most people do not use their public education beyond basic reading, and 4th grade math. Add to that the fact that a huge portion of the population really doesn't get much more of an education than that anyway, irregardless of how many years they actually attend.
To tell you the truth, all the claims about how 'teachers are shaping our youth', so they should be put on a pedestal, comes off more like a threat than anything else.
Funny, my wife works in a title company, and has worked a lot in mortgage companies. This means that she sees a LOT of salaries. Teachers do make a good living, and the $44k in the parent quote is right in line with what she sees on a weekly basis. This is not just for teachers that have been doing it for 15 years.
Teachers do not work 10 months a year, and the teacher that works 10 hours a day is very few and far between. (English teachers that must grade essays is likely the exception). Because of the low hours and short work year, it would be far more fair to look at teachers wages in an hourly sense. When you do that, teachers are paid VERY well.
I'm with you for almost exactly the same reasons, but I add Veggie Tales to the do not watch list.
Virtually every application I write sends and stores encrypted data. Given that storing the data in my environment is a gimmie, why would I store it any other way.
Remember IBM is not being sued by SCO for illegally using OSS. IBM is being sued by SCO for illegally using proprietary code. (whether they did that or not)
SCO has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that starting with proprietary code can be viral and prevent you from having full control of your own "property" in the future. Once that proprietary code touches your, you are no longer the full owner of your software.
I'm not suprised that your son has a problem with the Alpha Smart. Looking at the specs, it is really bad device. You can not work effectively with a 60 by 8 character screen. That kind of space limits you to basically post it notes. I read through their intended audiance, and then read through their specs and pricing. This product was doomed from the start.
They want $500 for thier advanced model. You can buy a full laptop for that. Fry's had one on sale just last week for $500. I can assure you that even the cheap stripped down model that Fry's was selling is far more powerful and usable than these devices. The $250 is definily cheaper than a laptop, but you loose so much functionality that it becomes (as you have seen) a hinderance instead of a help.
Basically, if this is truely the type of device that meets your needs, you would be better off buying a cheap $100 Palm Pilot, and an external keyboard. I say this because the specs show that it is in fact running PalmOS. This means that this is a Palm Pilot with a keyboard built in. By buying the Palm and Keyboard as seperate items, your child would have greater flexability in deciding when he needed a full keyboard, and when he just needed something he could put in his pocket.
If you can't make out the details, they are all 18.
I may be wrong, but I believe the reference is to a very old Porky Pig cartoon. The one where he was sent to the store for "a loaf of bread, a container of milk, and a stick of butter.", and then got sidetracked and went to the movies instead.
Bow before my questionable knowledge of useless trivia!!!!!
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
A conspiracy theory is a theory about a conspiracy. That means that if you have one article, or a mound of physical evidence, until the conspiracy is proven, it is a 'conspiracy theory'. If you reread my post, you will see that the problem with your original post(and your follow up post), is that you indicate that a conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theorists are crazy. I point out that you in fact are a conspiracy theorist. You do believe that illegal p2p file sharing happens right? If you do, you are a conspiracy theorist. I have yet to meet a single person over the age of 10 who is not a conspiracy theorist.
The problem is that you are using a term, that accuratly describes virtually 100% of the population, as a label to indicate someone with a dissenting view is crazy.
It amazes me how often the term 'conspiracy theorist' is used to dismiss people. The fact is that conspiracies big and small happen all the time. They are uncovered and proven on a regular basis. Whethter it is Richard Nixon, Enron, Arther Anderson, or p2p copyright violators. To think that having a theory on a conspiracy makes you a nut is silly at best. The question is whether there is enough evidence to warrent the theory, and whether the suspected crime makes any sense to have commited.
By definition, to not believe in conspiracies would mean that you don't believe illegal p2p filesharing takes place. So, lets see who seems more logical.
Person A: Believes that a machine who's design should be extreamly simple consistantly makes errors in favor of the group who is most adament about using them indicates likely fraud.
Person B: Believes that illegal p2p fileshareing does not happen.
(Now, if your going to argue that you DO believe that p2p filesharing exists, then you too are a 'conspiracy theorist', and your post becomes totally nonsensical.)