Now, it may depend on which server you encounter (that would not surprise me), but at least for me:
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Please try the following:
* Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
* If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
* Click the Back button to try another link.
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
Internet Information Services (IIS)
Technical Information (for support personnel)
* Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 404.
* Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, and About Custom Error Messages.
As the other post points out - flame-bait. That said, some corrections:
The conservative agenda (e.g. Republican) is against government control - e.g. it is for privacy and such - and it is the liberal/democrat agenda that is for lack of privacy and government control. This is a time honorred tradition and goes back to origins of the US. Sure, things lean back and fortha little, but in the end, it is still drawn along the same party lines among the people in the parties. (Even if the elected sometimes forget this.)
Oh - and (if memory recalls correctly) things like National IDs started under Clinton & Democratic control in the 1990s, and were furthered (against common sense) due to 9/11. So too was the Executive Order allowing government agencies to utilize peoples SSN for government wide identification.
I would say that this comes under uneducated users again. You can do exactly as you said in windows. I run as a limited user, and everything works fine. Sure, sometimes I need to login as admin to install something.
Then obviously you dont run Office Professional, or many other Windows products. While Microsoft has said for years that programmers need to develop as non-admin users, developers dont - and not always by choice. You cant run Office Professional 2000 or later as a non-admin and expect to be able to use it - it does some extra stuff the first time a user uses it after every install/upgrade; and you have to be admin to do it. (Why, who knows.) This is not an issue under *nix.
So, yeah - they have a lot to do (and hopefully they did it in Vista, which so far as what I have read about it they have) to get this right - but theres going to be a lot of third party and even Microsoft applications that are going to break on account of it.
Classical education theory suggests that people can be categorized by visual, aural, touch, smell, etc learning capacities. I found that a careful combination of each of the senses works for me.
Irrespective, I think that interactive learning is better than no learning
As the other poster pointed out, you missed the point of the article (not that I read it myself, but the other posts seem to suggest that as well.) That said, you also seem to misunderstand Classical Education Theory and how it relates to interactive learning - or learning period.
The Classical Education Theory simply puts togethers the different methods in which people learn - no people learn the same way; and learning almost always occurs best through a use of teaching via all the methods. (Otherwise, the teacher is (a) not reaching everyone, and (b) the students are not interacting enough with the subject through the different methods to be able to fully learn it).
Interactive learning on computers deploy a number of the different methods, but are by nature more focused on visual and audible methods, while trying to employ the ergo-method (learn by doing it hands on - whatever it may be called).
Interactive learning is no different from the classical methods employed by teachers and professors - but it lacks the personal touch that a human can give (given best when said human is present in the room with the student).
It does not surprise me the least that interactive learning does not work well - kids take it as entertainment, not learning, so they are not processing it the same way. Some things might be absorbed, but not nearly as much. Additionally, this will also contribute to the issue of ADD/ADHD as students will lack concentration abilities since the computer tools will try to keep attention by constantly offering new methods of attention, which will result in less being stored in the brain. All this so that the parents can take a nap, or do something without little Jimmy and Jane whining about not having anything to do - or as others have put it - Laziness.
The best solution would be for the parents to read the kids a book, play a game with them, and challenge them themselves to read, do math, or otherwise learn. Nothing will be more cherished in the long run (by either parent or child, though especially the parent), and nothing will teach them more or show them that you (as a parent) care about them. And best yet - you can do it with all of your children at the same time.
1.) This guy says he has vision problems.
2.) Then reveals that he only sleeps five hours a day.
3.) Then reveals over 15 hours are spent staring at one single surface.
4.) Then reveals a doctor has already told him what's going on.
5.) Then asks how he can relieve his eyes and regain his concentration.
For starters, how about sleeping more than five hours a day and not spending 15 hours straight staring at a single surface?
Agreed, and try using a lower screen resolution too. Personally I cant figure out why people like such rediculously large screen resolutions unless the monitor is large enough to support it. I used 640x480 for years, and moved up to 800x600 - which is still my standard on a 15 monitor. On a slightly larger 17 or 19 I move up to 1024x768, but anything much larger than that starts to hurt my eyes because the text is so small. (Large fonts, as far as I am concerned, either (a) dont make much difference or (b) devalue the use of a higher resolution.)
So - try using a lower resolution and one that is appropriate for your monitor. (I.e. dont use 1600x1024 on a 19 monitor.)
If you're showing off a new product in CES, don't you make absolute positively sure that the product actually works?
I mean this was a production model, so either all their prodution models are broken, or they got REALLY unlucky and got a bad one..
If it were me though and I was going to showcase a new product, I would make sure that it acutally worked..
May be they did and hit the end-of-life with it just like all those cheap DVD players out there on the market - play it for 1000 hours and it stops working for no reason other than they want you to buy another one.
Fully utilizing dvd quality is probably at the wall for the majority of people already.
Encumber it with draconian DRM and high prices and I don't really think BD/HD is going anywhere.
Long live DVD
Agreed. I have a couple friends who claim they can see the quality difference (they also claim they can see the frames), but most people out there (myself included) wont ever be able to see the slightest difference. DVD is already good enough and it doesnt have the any of the draconian DRM that BD/HD-DVD will have.
That said, I do intend on getting a PS3, but more for use a DVD player - the BD side of it is just a benefit as far as I am concerned (as well as being able to play the couple PS2 games I got - and no, I dont have a PS2).
DVD is going to be very hard to replace.
As a side note, HDTV is pointless IMHO as well for the same reasons. The only real benefit is to the USG/FCC since it uses a smaller spectrum for each channel, so they can sell more channels out. (Which is really why there is such a push to HDTV.)
Basically, all HD-DVD and Blu-Ray offer are higher resolution movies, and I don't think that's enough to convince people to pay probably double the price per disc, and 500 - 1000 bucks for the player.
I think HD-DVD will fail for those reasons; however, since Sony is planning to have Blu-Ray in the PS3 (which is due out soon) and has already said something to the effect (so I heard) that the PS3 will be cheaper than the XBox 360, I dont think Blu-Ray will have the same issues.
And while I will certainly wait to see what the PS3 will cost, if it is within reason ($200 to $300 max), then I will likely buy it because (a) it will play my PS2 discs (all 2 of them), (b) it will play the PS3 discs, (c) it will play my DVDs (all 50+ of them), (d) will play Blu-ray, and (e) since they are already losing money on it, they will not sabotage it to die in after so many times of playing a disc or hours of use. (Gamers would rebel too much and simply leave the PS3 behind in the dust if they did.)
Im not going to buy just a blu-ray player like many would a DVD player. The last two I bought for family died because the manufacturer auto-programmed them to die after so many hours of use - Im not stupid, and Im not going to buy into technology that will continue to do that. So instead, I will buy technology that has a purpose beyond simply being a normal player where the manufacturer has no reason to kill it off and has every reason not to.
En reply to: get a group of linux purists together and take over SCO via stock buyout, with no one buying enough to raise the interest of the SEC, but gaining enough ownership overall to
Except that doing so provides a financial incentive for other companies to go after Linux in the hopes that you'll do the same thing yet again.
Unless you keep performing the hostile stock takeovers, and releasing all their IP to F/OSS while shutting down the company. It would send quite a message. Either all or none.
I would imagine there would be quite a nice group who would like to take over Microsoft in such a manner. If it were possible. (Balmer and Gates just hold too many shares.)
But it would certainly get rid of shell companies like SCO that do the legal work for them and make it a lot harder.
get a group of linux purists together and take over SCO via stock buyout, with no one buying enough to raise the interest of the SEC, but gaining enough ownership overall to (a) get rid of McBride, (b) get SCO Group to drop its legal proceedings, and (c) may be dissolve the company. It might be worth it - even if it was a total loss, but then, some of it could be gained back by selling off whatever "assets" SCO Group has (desks, chairs, etc.); but that might be consumed by groups like IBM and Novell that want reimbursement. (Hmm....may be we should get IBM and Novell to help out too...)
Just something I've thought about...may be use the name and get rid of everything else (all employees, all assets, etc.).
And on the flip side, you don't hear a lot of people complaining about what a PITA it was to change the water pump in their car, because they get a mechanic to do that. And yet cars are still around despite the fact that you need to learn how to drive and get a license before you're allowed to use one.
True - but it takes brains to work on a computer (which anyone can at least mimick) but takes muscle to work on a car/truck/etc (which many of us lack).
Possible Solution, but hard to get passed
on
The Patent Epidemic
·
· Score: 1
Admittedly, I have not RTAd, and I am not pro-patents - however, I think it would be hard to get rid of them, so heres a solution that may work - though not all the details are here.
First - change the entire IP law system - get rid of the PTO AND the Copyright office; but in doing so create a new group that controls what was controlled by both.
Second - all IP follows the same rules; this works because...
When filing for IP protection (patent, copyright, etc.), the filing does not simply describe the work being protected (or consist of the work itself), it also consists of a business plan designed to recoup investment costs PLUS a percentage (no greater than 50%, but likely around 15-25%). When the amount is reached (however long or short that may be), the author/creator/owner is released of ownership and any right to profit, i.e. is automatcially becomes public domain.
To keep this in line, the IP would be required to be recorded on the books - an audit trail - that are reported to the SEC and the IRS, either one of which could be the acting auditing agency to very the term proposed and extend/shorten it according the to success of the idea/work. Reviews would be conducted on a regular basis - optimally once a year (IRS), though it could be more often (quarterly - SEC), or less (either one); but any filing should not be left without audit for more than 2 or 3 years maximum.
This would work for any industry dealing with IP since the IP owner-profit life would be relevent for each industry, and according to each technology, and since the PTO and the Copyright Office are eliminated and replaced by a single branch - the total cost should be no more than current costs. (Yes, there would be deluge of issues to start out with as the system works itself out.)
The biggest problem I see is that there are too many people with investments under current law to let this get past - though I think to solve that (at least partially) the current items (patents, etc) could be grandfathered so they last until they were set to expire by current law (i.e. there is no retro-activeness involved). But there may still be too many to let it get past.
So (if this happened) software patents should come within reasonable lifespans, as would business process and all those other pseudo-patents that shouldnt exist; AND copyright would be corrected too.
Just a thought...perhaps someone will know what to do with it, or how to improve it further to actually make it passable.
It's bad science because they are trying to put modern expressions of emotion on an older piece of art from an era that is not necessarily reflective of today. We can't observe what they are trying to observe from the era that it should be observed from. Thus, their conclusions will likely be wrong - at least enough to be outside of the acceptable error rate.
The following post somewhat agrees, though the poster does not seem to agree to the same degree:
Logically - if it is true even between modern cultures, it is also true between cultures of different era's. One may be able (as the above poster says) to show minimal differentiation between co-era cultures, it is likely even greater between non-co-era cultures; especially over as great a difference in time as between Da Vinci's era and our own.
Stop it with the bad science.
Science - it's only as good as what can be observed, and only as unbiased as the observer.
Rather, the culture of the church and of the society has. It is that culture which is placing the model of evolution and natural selection at odds with Genesis now.
True to a degree - it is an issue between culture and the Church. However, I would say that it is culture that is putting evolution before Genesis so that it can do what it wants, and defy (or become) God.
Now I am sure that many scientists would personally love to disprove evolution. Whoever did it would doubtless win the nobel prize, and go down in history as, well, the person who reshaped biology.
Actually, given how attached science is to evolution (now a days), I would expect that they would be thrown out of the scientific community. In essence, your example of the events surrounding helio-centric and geo-centric ideas are turned - with the scientific community being the equivalent of the church at that time. The irony.
In any case, this doesn't mean people can't talk about, say, ID. There is no censorship. Scientists are simply not convinced of the scientific validity of ID, and don't want it replacing high school biology. And in any case, teachers can still teach ID if they want to. Scientists simply don't want it put in the curriculum that they are required to.
Actually there is a big issue here. Public schools are not allowed to teach ID or Creationism. Teachers are not allowed to broach the subject unless a student brings it up. That doesnt mean a teacher could not phrase a question in such a way that a student wouldnt bring it up, but anything in relation to God" or gods is strictly off limits to be spoken by the teacher unless the student(s) state or ask about it. A teacher can only passively suggest it. (I think you should understand what I am trying to say by now.)
The only way to get around this is to either (a) remove the limitation of separation of church and state from education (a phrase with (i) doesnt appear in the constitution at all, and (ii) whose only mentions of are in writings of disagreement between a couple of the signers; not to mention (iii) that the first Bible printed in the US bears the inscription For use in the [public] schools" and is signed by all the signers of the Constitution.), or (b) require teachers to teach every viewpoint, which unless a is done means that Intelligent Design and Creationism must be explicitly mentioned in whatever law is set forth.
However, that still leaves another issue....
the scientific method can never prove anything true
Please tell this to our dear scientists who want Evolution taught as truth/fact and not a theory. This is really the heart of the debate. Evolution itself is nothing more than a theory created by humans to justify what they see, what they observe. However, it requires that things dont change from how they are to look back and predict what had happened prior to our observations. The scientific community wants Evolution preached as Fact, as Truth, that is undeniable. In their models, it might be. But what if there models are wrong?
As a Christian, I am called to take the Bible as fact since Christianity holds that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, recorded for us through the work of individuals inspired by the Holy Spirit. Per the origins of life, the Bible gives us Genesis 1 to 9, and two very different appearances of the Earth, and three timelines.
First, the timeslines: The first timeline is presented in Genesis 1 and 2. Yes, we are given a 7 day timeline for Creation, but between Genesis 2 and 3 there could be an infinite amount of time. Many take it to be a few days; but it could be years. Those who take it as a short time period usually argue that Adams age (130 when Seth was born) is recorded as all the rest from his birth. Others like myself take it as 130 years from the Fall. Thus, there is no way to truly know how much time passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. God knows, but he didnt necessarily tell u
Per your #2 - Im not going to say that the Church has always been correct in its actions - it certainly has not. However, the debate between Evolution, Creationism, and Theistic-Evolution has become such that regardless of what the data says, scientists will always go with the view that Evolution is correct. If there can be (however minute) a chance that Evolution would occur in the data, the scientists take it, regardless of what the data as a whole says.
Per your #5 - I think that all the views should be taught and discussed and the information made available so that people can decide for themselves. However, the scientific community has rejected that to the point where they find that only Evolutionism should be taught.
Per the other comment (by the other poster) - I believe the Bible not because of what others have told me, but because of having read it, studied it, and devoured it myself. I may not be good with pulling out quotes or references from any text (Bible, or otherwise) but it is my own studies that have guided me. As per the comment about growing up on the other side of the world - if I were born on the otherside of the world, Id be dead. Guaranteed. If evolution were true, Id be dead. Guaranteed. Why? At 13 months I had bacterial spinal menengitus (sp?), the doctors said I wouldnt survive the night, and if I did that I would have massive brain damage - only by a miracle of God did I (a) survive, and (b) come out with no brain damage. A year or so later, I spilled boiling hot water on myself; I also have had a burst appendix. However, all these things having happened, they are only a witness against myself and anyone who hears about them.
And, FYI, I wouldnt be talking such about the Koran, or any of the other religious texts because I would have parted from them long before accepting them as true. And yes - I do believe that those texts were inspired by a being of light, but that being of light was not God. Ill leave you to think about who I believe that being of light truly was - and FYI, that same being of light has founded many different religions, and all for the same purpose.
Creationists believe that the book of Genesis is the truth, but where does it say in the bible that the bible is the only truth? Are creationists also saying that God is not powerful enough to have created the earth and everything in it by usingevolution.
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me - 10 Commandments 2) I am the way, the truth... - Jesus
I know there are other references that are better, I just dont have the ability to look them up at the moment; however...
Evolution is a god as it puts its truth" before that of Gods truth. It says to God you are wrong. I am right - my truth (not yours) is the truth. It is at the heart of the original sin - I am god; I am truth...
Theistic Evolution doesnt work as the timelines are impossible to match up with that given in Genesis 1 & 2. In reading the first few chapters of Genesis (up to just after the flood (Genesis 9)), animals pre-flood were completely vegetarian and so were humans. There was no need for survival of the fittest" as it was plants vs. animals, nothing else. Carnivorism just didnt exist.
Additionally, line up the order of when various species came into existence and compare. Evolution/Theistic-Evolution: Fish-Land-Air Genesis 1: Fish-Air-Land
Evolution is a miracle!
Evolution isnt a miracle. Its a bastard of scientific opinions and mistruths to destroy a need for God so that people can feel good about themselves and go about believing and doing whatever they want.
Every scientist that has written anything in support of evolution, when you look at their biographies and philosophies of life, have been out to prove that God did not exist and had no intent in finding anything in the science that would suggest otherwise. Timelines were divised to not work with the Bible - they had to prove the Bible wrong; they had to support that God doesnt exist. (Its what I find to be the saddest part of 19th, 20th, and 21st century science; there are (of course) a few (however, rare) exceptions.)
If science were done properly and without the bias-ness against things like a god (or the God) creating, then science would get a lot farther.
Sometimes there is no justification but faith.
Personally, this one of the reasons I like the movie Contact where the character at first rejects faith, and by the end of the movie finds herself saying Youll just have to believe me, defending herself by merit of faith instead of science. The irony.
No, specialized bricks are not killing Lego. Personally, I would enjoy getting more of them, but as many others have pointed out - they are just too expensive. I love legos, and would (and am planning on it when I can afford to) buy a ton of them. I plan on having them around for my kids b/c they are great for the imagination, and such - but I'm not going to spend a ton of money on sets that don't have a lot of legos in them.
I've seen several sets recently that I've been tempted to buy, but then I look at the brick count and am like - that much, for that?! no way!. So I put it back.
Until they lower their prices, they'll likely continue to have problems. Of course, TV/movies/video games don't help either since they help kids build the ADD/ADHD tendancies instead of helping them be creative, get physical exercise, and help out in society like they should be doing.
On windows I like Textpad which doesn't do a lot but whatever it does, it does pretty well.
Lol. Though I've taken to using the Win32 builds of GNU software (gnuwin32.sf.net), and have the command-line version and gVim installed under Windows. Outside of a few things, I've almost started replacing my extensive Notepad use with Vi on Windows. (I do like the command-line version of Vi a lot better.)
There's been somethings where searching the source or objects files, or binaries were necessary using grep b/c M$ didn't provide enough documentation. The wonders of what those little tools can do. (For example - try to find out what lib file you have to include for VC++ 7 to be able to find the declaration of IID_IADsGroup.)
Any how...cheers and happy thanksgiving (tomorrow).
I would be happy with being provided something extremely lightweight for starts for which people would develop plugins that I could download install on a need-basis.
So you would be happy with emacs? Me, I'm a Vi person.
I don't find this surprising at all - primarily b/c it is the 64-bit platforms that are using the BIOS's that have the Trusted Computing/Paladium platform that Microsoft has soooo wanted to use for DRM (EFI, and its Phoenix equivalent), and then add the NX bit utilization that's available, and the fact that things like Sony's rootkit won't work unless Microsoft approves of it.
Oh - and don't forget how memory hungry Windows is, nothing like needing to require more than 4GB memory just to run the OS - well...it's not that bad...yet.
The primary point behind an anti-global warming position is that we do not have enough data on record that can be 100% relied upon to say that yes the earth is indeed warming in an out-of-the-ordinary fashion. We may be able to conclude some aspects about tree samples and such (some of the claims I've heard towards the global-warming side), but we can't rely on them as they fall on the assumption that the climate of the earth and other factors hadn't changed. When it comes down to the pure recorded facts that can be 100% relied on, we simply see that we don't know enough about the cyclic patterns of (a) the sun, and (b) the earth. After we've been recording all the information for several thousands years (we have about 100 years), we can start to draw conclusions like what global-warming advocates are trying to draw.
That's not to say that global-warming may or may not be occuring. It's simply recognizing that we don't know and that we can't tell what would be causing it if it was.
Note: I'm not saying that we shouldn't be responsible about what is produced/etc.
The topic is how well people think they do, and while that can be skewed by testing them on a completely broken scale, it's a flaw inherent in the scale, not in trying to test what difference there is between expectations and reality. When testing for that one would hope they looked at situations which were not broken when they reach their conclusion that people cannot accurately judge their own performance.
The problem is that you run into it under both conditions.
Just because one doesn't test well does not mean that they can determine which tests it is that they don't test well on until they get the results back. It is misleading to think that someone will know they don't test well and be able to correct for or expect the failure.
Most people test well under most cases, but not under certain cases. It's not a matter of being prepared, but a matter of matching the mind to the test preparer, which is often out of the test takers control.
I was just trying to point out that I hope the professor took into account exactly what you just pointed out, because otherwise his data would be flawed and worthless.
What about people who recieve performance reviews based on the same standards every quarter, or multiple tests with the same format? What about epople who are told what their tests or reviews will be based on?
As I said, some people just don't test well. It doesn't matter what format the test is in, they just don't test well. Some test formats may be better for them than others, but testing just doesn't work the way its "suppose" to.
I think it's a bit off to say that people have no concept of what they'll be rated on. Anyone working in any profession should have some grasp of what's expected of them by their superiors and if they don't waiting until they get a poor performance review isn't the best idea.
Except when the Boss's idea doesn't get communicated, is communicated poorly, and/or doesn't line up with the industry. The scary thing about Dilbert, at times, is that there is a lot of truth behind it. Certainly if the employee waited until the last minute to figure out what they were going to be reviewed on, then there is some issue on their part; but it's also the supervisor's job to make sure the employee understands their job and how they can do well at it - that simply part of being a supervisor/manager.
There can certainly be flaws in these rating scales, but those exist regardless of the subjects expectations. If Student/Worker thinks that they did well, they should think they did well by the standards they're being judged on.
But the standards have to (a) be communicated to them, (b) be understandable, and (c) be realistic. The problem is often that 'a', 'b', and 'c' aren't.
We've all seen it: the employee who's convinced she's doing a great job and gets a mediocre performance appraisal, or the student who's sure he's aced an exam and winds up with a D
In all reality, that is hardly a way to rate someone. Some people, despite how good they may be at the subject, just don't test well - they student could very well be a genius at the subject and still flunk.
As per performance reviews - you have to have an accurate representation on what you are going to be reviewed on order to be able to achieve the review. This is also flaws as many don't describe or tell how they will actually review someone until after the review has been done, so the person being reviewed has no concept of what they can do to get a good review. As a result, people will think they are going to be rated well, and end up rated poorly because the person rating did not clarify well enough how they were going to do the rating.
As I said, both of those are majorly flawed ways to evaluate someone. Hopefully, the guy from Cornell took that into account, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. And even if he did, he would have to take it into account so many different ways that it would be too hard to really test its accuracy.
I suspect that most server applications/os's will have servere scaleability problems once you go this far SMP though.
Well, if you're running Microsoft OS's yes. If you're running Unix or Linux - that's a different story. I remember seeing results for up to 32-way & 64-way testing by ODSL of the 2.6.0 kernel before it was released. The OSDL site of 2.6 Results doesn't seem to list them any longer - only up to 8 way. The results seemed to show Linux handled 32-way quite well, but were issues going to 64-way at the time. Don't know if they fixed that though - but I would gander so if they were testing for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like they're still at it. http://www.kabewm.com/pages/pages/gallery/hotmail- still-using-unix12.php
That was true of their first attempt, however the same thing today generates the following: guaranteed bad hotmail/msn url
Now, it may depend on which server you encounter (that would not surprise me), but at least for me:
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Please try the following:
* Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
* If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
* Click the Back button to try another link.
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
Internet Information Services (IIS)
Technical Information (for support personnel)
* Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 404.
* Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, and About Custom Error Messages.
I dont appologise for being political.
As the other post points out - flame-bait. That said, some corrections:
The conservative agenda (e.g. Republican) is against government control - e.g. it is for privacy and such - and it is the liberal/democrat agenda that is for lack of privacy and government control. This is a time honorred tradition and goes back to origins of the US. Sure, things lean back and fortha little, but in the end, it is still drawn along the same party lines among the people in the parties. (Even if the elected sometimes forget this.)
Oh - and (if memory recalls correctly) things like National IDs started under Clinton & Democratic control in the 1990s, and were furthered (against common sense) due to 9/11. So too was the Executive Order allowing government agencies to utilize peoples SSN for government wide identification.
I would say that this comes under uneducated users again. You can do exactly as you said in windows. I run as a limited user, and everything works fine. Sure, sometimes I need to login as admin to install something.
Then obviously you dont run Office Professional, or many other Windows products. While Microsoft has said for years that programmers need to develop as non-admin users, developers dont - and not always by choice. You cant run Office Professional 2000 or later as a non-admin and expect to be able to use it - it does some extra stuff the first time a user uses it after every install/upgrade; and you have to be admin to do it. (Why, who knows.) This is not an issue under *nix.
So, yeah - they have a lot to do (and hopefully they did it in Vista, which so far as what I have read about it they have) to get this right - but theres going to be a lot of third party and even Microsoft applications that are going to break on account of it.
Classical education theory suggests that people can be categorized by visual, aural, touch, smell, etc learning capacities. I found that a careful combination of each of the senses works for me.
Irrespective, I think that interactive learning is better than no learning
As the other poster pointed out, you missed the point of the article (not that I read it myself, but the other posts seem to suggest that as well.) That said, you also seem to misunderstand Classical Education Theory and how it relates to interactive learning - or learning period.
The Classical Education Theory simply puts togethers the different methods in which people learn - no people learn the same way; and learning almost always occurs best through a use of teaching via all the methods. (Otherwise, the teacher is (a) not reaching everyone, and (b) the students are not interacting enough with the subject through the different methods to be able to fully learn it).
Interactive learning on computers deploy a number of the different methods, but are by nature more focused on visual and audible methods, while trying to employ the ergo-method (learn by doing it hands on - whatever it may be called).
Interactive learning is no different from the classical methods employed by teachers and professors - but it lacks the personal touch that a human can give (given best when said human is present in the room with the student).
It does not surprise me the least that interactive learning does not work well - kids take it as entertainment, not learning, so they are not processing it the same way. Some things might be absorbed, but not nearly as much. Additionally, this will also contribute to the issue of ADD/ADHD as students will lack concentration abilities since the computer tools will try to keep attention by constantly offering new methods of attention, which will result in less being stored in the brain. All this so that the parents can take a nap, or do something without little Jimmy and Jane whining about not having anything to do - or as others have put it - Laziness.
The best solution would be for the parents to read the kids a book, play a game with them, and challenge them themselves to read, do math, or otherwise learn. Nothing will be more cherished in the long run (by either parent or child, though especially the parent), and nothing will teach them more or show them that you (as a parent) care about them. And best yet - you can do it with all of your children at the same time.
1.) This guy says he has vision problems.
2.) Then reveals that he only sleeps five hours a day.
3.) Then reveals over 15 hours are spent staring at one single surface.
4.) Then reveals a doctor has already told him what's going on.
5.) Then asks how he can relieve his eyes and regain his concentration.
For starters, how about sleeping more than five hours a day and not spending 15 hours straight staring at a single surface?
Agreed, and try using a lower screen resolution too. Personally I cant figure out why people like such rediculously large screen resolutions unless the monitor is large enough to support it. I used 640x480 for years, and moved up to 800x600 - which is still my standard on a 15 monitor. On a slightly larger 17 or 19 I move up to 1024x768, but anything much larger than that starts to hurt my eyes because the text is so small. (Large fonts, as far as I am concerned, either (a) dont make much difference or (b) devalue the use of a higher resolution.)
So - try using a lower resolution and one that is appropriate for your monitor. (I.e. dont use 1600x1024 on a 19 monitor.)
Just 2 cents for you.
If you're showing off a new product in CES, don't you make absolute positively sure that the product actually works?
I mean this was a production model, so either all their prodution models are broken, or they got REALLY unlucky and got a bad one..
If it were me though and I was going to showcase a new product, I would make sure that it acutally worked..
May be they did and hit the end-of-life with it just like all those cheap DVD players out there on the market - play it for 1000 hours and it stops working for no reason other than they want you to buy another one.
Fully utilizing dvd quality is probably at the wall for the majority of people already. Encumber it with draconian DRM and high prices and I don't really think BD/HD is going anywhere. Long live DVD
Agreed. I have a couple friends who claim they can see the quality difference (they also claim they can see the frames), but most people out there (myself included) wont ever be able to see the slightest difference. DVD is already good enough and it doesnt have the any of the draconian DRM that BD/HD-DVD will have.
That said, I do intend on getting a PS3, but more for use a DVD player - the BD side of it is just a benefit as far as I am concerned (as well as being able to play the couple PS2 games I got - and no, I dont have a PS2).
DVD is going to be very hard to replace.
As a side note, HDTV is pointless IMHO as well for the same reasons. The only real benefit is to the USG/FCC since it uses a smaller spectrum for each channel, so they can sell more channels out. (Which is really why there is such a push to HDTV.)
Basically, all HD-DVD and Blu-Ray offer are higher resolution movies, and I don't think that's enough to convince people to pay probably double the price per disc, and 500 - 1000 bucks for the player.
I think HD-DVD will fail for those reasons; however, since Sony is planning to have Blu-Ray in the PS3 (which is due out soon) and has already said something to the effect (so I heard) that the PS3 will be cheaper than the XBox 360, I dont think Blu-Ray will have the same issues.
And while I will certainly wait to see what the PS3 will cost, if it is within reason ($200 to $300 max), then I will likely buy it because (a) it will play my PS2 discs (all 2 of them), (b) it will play the PS3 discs, (c) it will play my DVDs (all 50+ of them), (d) will play Blu-ray, and (e) since they are already losing money on it, they will not sabotage it to die in after so many times of playing a disc or hours of use. (Gamers would rebel too much and simply leave the PS3 behind in the dust if they did.)
Im not going to buy just a blu-ray player like many would a DVD player. The last two I bought for family died because the manufacturer auto-programmed them to die after so many hours of use - Im not stupid, and Im not going to buy into technology that will continue to do that. So instead, I will buy technology that has a purpose beyond simply being a normal player where the manufacturer has no reason to kill it off and has every reason not to.
En reply to: get a group of linux purists together and take over SCO via stock buyout, with no one buying enough to raise the interest of the SEC, but gaining enough ownership overall to
Except that doing so provides a financial incentive for other companies to go after Linux in the hopes that you'll do the same thing yet again.
Unless you keep performing the hostile stock takeovers, and releasing all their IP to F/OSS while shutting down the company. It would send quite a message. Either all or none.
I would imagine there would be quite a nice group who would like to take over Microsoft in such a manner. If it were possible. (Balmer and Gates just hold too many shares.)
But it would certainly get rid of shell companies like SCO that do the legal work for them and make it a lot harder.
Otherwise, agreed.
get a group of linux purists together and take over SCO via stock buyout, with no one buying enough to raise the interest of the SEC, but gaining enough ownership overall to (a) get rid of McBride, (b) get SCO Group to drop its legal proceedings, and (c) may be dissolve the company. It might be worth it - even if it was a total loss, but then, some of it could be gained back by selling off whatever "assets" SCO Group has (desks, chairs, etc.); but that might be consumed by groups like IBM and Novell that want reimbursement. (Hmm....may be we should get IBM and Novell to help out too...)
Just something I've thought about...may be use the name and get rid of everything else (all employees, all assets, etc.).
And on the flip side, you don't hear a lot of people complaining about what a PITA it was to change the water pump in their car, because they get a mechanic to do that. And yet cars are still around despite the fact that you need to learn how to drive and get a license before you're allowed to use one.
True - but it takes brains to work on a computer (which anyone can at least mimick) but takes muscle to work on a car/truck/etc (which many of us lack).
Admittedly, I have not RTAd, and I am not pro-patents - however, I think it would be hard to get rid of them, so heres a solution that may work - though not all the details are here.
First - change the entire IP law system - get rid of the PTO AND the Copyright office; but in doing so create a new group that controls what was controlled by both.
Second - all IP follows the same rules; this works because...
When filing for IP protection (patent, copyright, etc.), the filing does not simply describe the work being protected (or consist of the work itself), it also consists of a business plan designed to recoup investment costs PLUS a percentage (no greater than 50%, but likely around 15-25%). When the amount is reached (however long or short that may be), the author/creator/owner is released of ownership and any right to profit, i.e. is automatcially becomes public domain.
To keep this in line, the IP would be required to be recorded on the books - an audit trail - that are reported to the SEC and the IRS, either one of which could be the acting auditing agency to very the term proposed and extend/shorten it according the to success of the idea/work. Reviews would be conducted on a regular basis - optimally once a year (IRS), though it could be more often (quarterly - SEC), or less (either one); but any filing should not be left without audit for more than 2 or 3 years maximum.
This would work for any industry dealing with IP since the IP owner-profit life would be relevent for each industry, and according to each technology, and since the PTO and the Copyright Office are eliminated and replaced by a single branch - the total cost should be no more than current costs. (Yes, there would be deluge of issues to start out with as the system works itself out.)
The biggest problem I see is that there are too many people with investments under current law to let this get past - though I think to solve that (at least partially) the current items (patents, etc) could be grandfathered so they last until they were set to expire by current law (i.e. there is no retro-activeness involved). But there may still be too many to let it get past.
So (if this happened) software patents should come within reasonable lifespans, as would business process and all those other pseudo-patents that shouldnt exist; AND copyright would be corrected too.
Just a thought...perhaps someone will know what to do with it, or how to improve it further to actually make it passable.
It's bad science because they are trying to put modern expressions of emotion on an older piece of art from an era that is not necessarily reflective of today. We can't observe what they are trying to observe from the era that it should be observed from. Thus, their conclusions will likely be wrong - at least enough to be outside of the acceptable error rate.
The following post somewhat agrees, though the poster does not seem to agree to the same degree:
http://tinyurl.com/bwadb
Logically - if it is true even between modern cultures, it is also true between cultures of different era's. One may be able (as the above poster says) to show minimal differentiation between co-era cultures, it is likely even greater between non-co-era cultures; especially over as great a difference in time as between Da Vinci's era and our own.
Stop it with the bad science.
Science - it's only as good as what can be observed, and only as unbiased as the observer.
Rather, the culture of the church and of the society has. It is that culture which is placing the model of evolution and natural selection at odds with Genesis now.
True to a degree - it is an issue between culture and the Church. However, I would say that it is culture that is putting evolution before Genesis so that it can do what it wants, and defy (or become) God.
Now I am sure that many scientists would personally love to disprove evolution. Whoever did it would doubtless win the nobel prize, and go down in history as, well, the person who reshaped biology.
Actually, given how attached science is to evolution (now a days), I would expect that they would be thrown out of the scientific community. In essence, your example of the events surrounding helio-centric and geo-centric ideas are turned - with the scientific community being the equivalent of the church at that time. The irony.
In any case, this doesn't mean people can't talk about, say, ID. There is no censorship. Scientists are simply not convinced of the scientific validity of ID, and don't want it replacing high school biology. And in any case, teachers can still teach ID if they want to. Scientists simply don't want it put in the curriculum that they are required to.
Actually there is a big issue here. Public schools are not allowed to teach ID or Creationism. Teachers are not allowed to broach the subject unless a student brings it up. That doesnt mean a teacher could not phrase a question in such a way that a student wouldnt bring it up, but anything in relation to God" or gods is strictly off limits to be spoken by the teacher unless the student(s) state or ask about it. A teacher can only passively suggest it. (I think you should understand what I am trying to say by now.)
The only way to get around this is to either (a) remove the limitation of separation of church and state from education (a phrase with (i) doesnt appear in the constitution at all, and (ii) whose only mentions of are in writings of disagreement between a couple of the signers; not to mention (iii) that the first Bible printed in the US bears the inscription For use in the [public] schools" and is signed by all the signers of the Constitution.), or (b) require teachers to teach every viewpoint, which unless a is done means that Intelligent Design and Creationism must be explicitly mentioned in whatever law is set forth.
However, that still leaves another issue....
the scientific method can never prove anything true
Please tell this to our dear scientists who want Evolution taught as truth/fact and not a theory. This is really the heart of the debate. Evolution itself is nothing more than a theory created by humans to justify what they see, what they observe. However, it requires that things dont change from how they are to look back and predict what had happened prior to our observations. The scientific community wants Evolution preached as Fact, as Truth, that is undeniable. In their models, it might be. But what if there models are wrong?
As a Christian, I am called to take the Bible as fact since Christianity holds that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, recorded for us through the work of individuals inspired by the Holy Spirit. Per the origins of life, the Bible gives us Genesis 1 to 9, and two very different appearances of the Earth, and three timelines.
First, the timeslines: The first timeline is presented in Genesis 1 and 2. Yes, we are given a 7 day timeline for Creation, but between Genesis 2 and 3 there could be an infinite amount of time. Many take it to be a few days; but it could be years. Those who take it as a short time period usually argue that Adams age (130 when Seth was born) is recorded as all the rest from his birth. Others like myself take it as 130 years from the Fall. Thus, there is no way to truly know how much time passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. God knows, but he didnt necessarily tell u
Per your #2 - Im not going to say that the Church has always been correct in its actions - it certainly has not. However, the debate between Evolution, Creationism, and Theistic-Evolution has become such that regardless of what the data says, scientists will always go with the view that Evolution is correct. If there can be (however minute) a chance that Evolution would occur in the data, the scientists take it, regardless of what the data as a whole says.
Per your #5 - I think that all the views should be taught and discussed and the information made available so that people can decide for themselves. However, the scientific community has rejected that to the point where they find that only Evolutionism should be taught.
Per the other comment (by the other poster) - I believe the Bible not because of what others have told me, but because of having read it, studied it, and devoured it myself. I may not be good with pulling out quotes or references from any text (Bible, or otherwise) but it is my own studies that have guided me. As per the comment about growing up on the other side of the world - if I were born on the otherside of the world, Id be dead. Guaranteed. If evolution were true, Id be dead. Guaranteed. Why? At 13 months I had bacterial spinal menengitus (sp?), the doctors said I wouldnt survive the night, and if I did that I would have massive brain damage - only by a miracle of God did I (a) survive, and (b) come out with no brain damage. A year or so later, I spilled boiling hot water on myself; I also have had a burst appendix. However, all these things having happened, they are only a witness against myself and anyone who hears about them.
And, FYI, I wouldnt be talking such about the Koran, or any of the other religious texts because I would have parted from them long before accepting them as true. And yes - I do believe that those texts were inspired by a being of light, but that being of light was not God. Ill leave you to think about who I believe that being of light truly was - and FYI, that same being of light has founded many different religions, and all for the same purpose.
Creationists believe that the book of Genesis is the truth, but where does it say in the bible that the bible is the only truth? Are creationists also saying that God is not powerful enough to have created the earth and everything in it by usingevolution.
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me - 10 Commandments
2) I am the way, the truth... - Jesus
I know there are other references that are better, I just dont have the ability to look them up at the moment; however...
Evolution is a god as it puts its truth" before that of Gods truth. It says to God you are wrong. I am right - my truth (not yours) is the truth. It is at the heart of the original sin - I am god; I am truth...
Theistic Evolution doesnt work as the timelines are impossible to match up with that
given in Genesis 1 & 2. In reading the first few chapters of Genesis (up to just after the flood (Genesis 9)), animals pre-flood were completely vegetarian and so were humans. There was no need for survival of the fittest" as it was plants vs. animals, nothing else. Carnivorism just didnt exist.
Additionally, line up the order of when various species came into existence and compare.
Evolution/Theistic-Evolution: Fish-Land-Air
Genesis 1: Fish-Air-Land
Evolution is a miracle!
Evolution isnt a miracle. Its a bastard of scientific opinions and mistruths to destroy a need for God so that people can feel good about themselves and go about believing and doing whatever they want.
Every scientist that has written anything in support of evolution, when you look at their biographies and philosophies of life, have been out to prove that God did not exist and had no intent in finding anything in the science that would suggest otherwise. Timelines were divised to not work with the Bible - they had to prove the Bible wrong; they had to support that God doesnt exist. (Its what I find to be the saddest part of 19th, 20th, and 21st century science; there are (of course) a few (however, rare) exceptions.)
If science were done properly and without the bias-ness against things like a god (or the God) creating, then science would get a lot farther.
Sometimes there is no justification but faith.
Personally, this one of the reasons I like the movie Contact where the character at first rejects faith, and by the end of the movie finds herself saying Youll just have to believe me, defending herself by merit of faith instead of science. The irony.
No, specialized bricks are not killing Lego. Personally, I would enjoy getting more of them, but as many others have pointed out - they are just too expensive. I love legos, and would (and am planning on it when I can afford to) buy a ton of them. I plan on having them around for my kids b/c they are great for the imagination, and such - but I'm not going to spend a ton of money on sets that don't have a lot of legos in them.
I've seen several sets recently that I've been tempted to buy, but then I look at the brick count and am like - that much, for that?! no way!. So I put it back.
Until they lower their prices, they'll likely continue to have problems. Of course, TV/movies/video games don't help either since they help kids build the ADD/ADHD tendancies instead of helping them be creative, get physical exercise, and help out in society like they should be doing.
On windows I like Textpad which doesn't do a lot but whatever it does, it does pretty well.
Lol. Though I've taken to using the Win32 builds of GNU software (gnuwin32.sf.net), and have the command-line version and gVim installed under Windows. Outside of a few things, I've almost started replacing my extensive Notepad use with Vi on Windows. (I do like the command-line version of Vi a lot better.)
There's been somethings where searching the source or objects files, or binaries were necessary using grep b/c M$ didn't provide enough documentation. The wonders of what those little tools can do. (For example - try to find out what lib file you have to include for VC++ 7 to be able to find the declaration of IID_IADsGroup.)
Any how...cheers and happy thanksgiving (tomorrow).
I would be happy with being provided something extremely lightweight for starts for which people would develop plugins that I could download install on a need-basis.
So you would be happy with emacs? Me, I'm a Vi person.
I don't find this surprising at all - primarily b/c it is the 64-bit platforms that are using the BIOS's that have the Trusted Computing/Paladium platform that Microsoft has soooo wanted to use for DRM (EFI, and its Phoenix equivalent), and then add the NX bit utilization that's available, and the fact that things like Sony's rootkit won't work unless Microsoft approves of it.
Oh - and don't forget how memory hungry Windows is, nothing like needing to require more than 4GB memory just to run the OS - well...it's not that bad...yet.
The primary point behind an anti-global warming position is that we do not have enough data on record that can be 100% relied upon to say that yes the earth is indeed warming in an out-of-the-ordinary fashion. We may be able to conclude some aspects about tree samples and such (some of the claims I've heard towards the global-warming side), but we can't rely on them as they fall on the assumption that the climate of the earth and other factors hadn't changed. When it comes down to the pure recorded facts that can be 100% relied on, we simply see that we don't know enough about the cyclic patterns of (a) the sun, and (b) the earth. After we've been recording all the information for several thousands years (we have about 100 years), we can start to draw conclusions like what global-warming advocates are trying to draw.
That's not to say that global-warming may or may not be occuring. It's simply recognizing that we don't know and that we can't tell what would be causing it if it was.
Note: I'm not saying that we shouldn't be responsible about what is produced/etc.
The topic is how well people think they do, and while that can be skewed by testing them on a completely broken scale, it's a flaw inherent in the scale, not in trying to test what difference there is between expectations and reality. When testing for that one would hope they looked at situations which were not broken when they reach their conclusion that people cannot accurately judge their own performance.
The problem is that you run into it under both conditions.
Just because one doesn't test well does not mean that they can determine which tests it is that they don't test well on until they get the results back. It is misleading to think that someone will know they don't test well and be able to correct for or expect the failure.
Most people test well under most cases, but not under certain cases. It's not a matter of being prepared, but a matter of matching the mind to the test preparer, which is often out of the test takers control.
I was just trying to point out that I hope the professor took into account exactly what you just pointed out, because otherwise his data would be flawed and worthless.
What about people who recieve performance reviews based on the same standards every quarter, or multiple tests with the same format? What about epople who are told what their tests or reviews will be based on?
As I said, some people just don't test well. It doesn't matter what format the test is in, they just don't test well. Some test formats may be better for them than others, but testing just doesn't work the way its "suppose" to.
I think it's a bit off to say that people have no concept of what they'll be rated on. Anyone working in any profession should have some grasp of what's expected of them by their superiors and if they don't waiting until they get a poor performance review isn't the best idea.
Except when the Boss's idea doesn't get communicated, is communicated poorly, and/or doesn't line up with the industry. The scary thing about Dilbert, at times, is that there is a lot of truth behind it. Certainly if the employee waited until the last minute to figure out what they were going to be reviewed on, then there is some issue on their part; but it's also the supervisor's job to make sure the employee understands their job and how they can do well at it - that simply part of being a supervisor/manager.
There can certainly be flaws in these rating scales, but those exist regardless of the subjects expectations. If Student/Worker thinks that they did well, they should think they did well by the standards they're being judged on. But the standards have to (a) be communicated to them, (b) be understandable, and (c) be realistic. The problem is often that 'a', 'b', and 'c' aren't.
We've all seen it: the employee who's convinced she's doing a great job and gets a mediocre performance appraisal, or the student who's sure he's aced an exam and winds up with a D
In all reality, that is hardly a way to rate someone. Some people, despite how good they may be at the subject, just don't test well - they student could very well be a genius at the subject and still flunk.
As per performance reviews - you have to have an accurate representation on what you are going to be reviewed on order to be able to achieve the review. This is also flaws as many don't describe or tell how they will actually review someone until after the review has been done, so the person being reviewed has no concept of what they can do to get a good review. As a result, people will think they are going to be rated well, and end up rated poorly because the person rating did not clarify well enough how they were going to do the rating.
As I said, both of those are majorly flawed ways to evaluate someone. Hopefully, the guy from Cornell took that into account, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. And even if he did, he would have to take it into account so many different ways that it would be too hard to really test its accuracy.
I suspect that most server applications/os's will have servere scaleability problems once you go this far SMP though.
Well, if you're running Microsoft OS's yes. If you're running Unix or Linux - that's a different story. I remember seeing results for up to 32-way & 64-way testing by ODSL of the 2.6.0 kernel before it was released. The OSDL site of 2.6 Results doesn't seem to list them any longer - only up to 8 way. The results seemed to show Linux handled 32-way quite well, but were issues going to 64-way at the time. Don't know if they fixed that though - but I would gander so if they were testing for it.