Step 2 is a problem. My mother's time as a biology teacher ended when the school refused to discipline the students.
I think the real problem is the goal that every child should be forced to learn some amount of information. Without near-term consequences, a small percentage of the students are perfectly capable of ruining the education of the rest of the students.
Because power lines are extremely leaky. You'll have massive amounts of interference from all the high-frequency data going over essentially unshielded cable.
For the same reason that all life is sacred, but killing abortion doctors is a ok.
I'm not going to argue against abortion or defend fringe groups, but your logic does not follow.
If there was a serial killer who had escaped from maximum security prison several times to continue killing, then by killing him, it would preserve more lives. Therefore, killing someone is in line with protecting all life, because all alternatives lead to more lives lost.
Because it's free? And runs well on older hardware?
When netbooks are $200, things like this start to matter, especially to manufacturers. It doesn't have to be better or unique, it just has to be a good enough substitute and substantially enough cheaper.
If Connect() is so great, then why does the wxwidgets events doc hide it and practically discourage its use by stating that everything happens at run time with Connect()? Why do introductory tutorials rely on event tables rather than Connect()? In short, why does wxwidgets force developers to slog through event tables if you have Connect()?
It's easy to say that, but when you take Apples "Less functional" product and set it next to a "More functional" product you can really see a difference.
No, you really can't. For example, the iPod, which you mentioned, isn't anything particularly special (for the vast majority of models).
See, you completely miss the point. The innovation with the iPod wasn't the iPod, but iTunes. 99-cents a song for a very large selection, just plug in your iPod and the friendly interface guides people to put music on it. Other companies made you purchase music elsewhere and import it into their syncing software. What Apple saw was a gap--not one in the mp3 player technology, but in the hurdles people had to jump over to get music on them.
There is something to say about the advantages of HTML (or any markup language) grafted onto a programming language. Of course in most GUI programming, you have resource files, but for most languages it's an afterthought, or introduced late in the game. The HTML-javascript combo means that the person who is familiar with HTML can then access the familiar through the language. The problem is, though, that HTML is fairly restrictive, the accessors are not consistent, and the DOM varies between browsers. It's safe to say that there is plenty of room for improvement.
One thing that would be nice though, is a step-by-step introduction to Javascript in a way that doesn't mean generally copy and pasting someone else's code.
I know this article is old, but I just wanted to respond to you. I remember learning C in a community college at age 11, and seeing even the adults in the class get confused about the math to generate an ASCII-art diamond. Even loop constructs are not easy when you can't write "loop 5" or something similar to loop 5 times.
I think the language is partially at fault here though. In my opinion, almost all programming languages are created without the idea that concepts should be introduced one at a time. In C you have to write a function before you can do anything, in Java, you have to write an object. Also, in C even if you want to simply get some text from the user, you have to use a little pointer syntax to get the address of the variable that will store the data. And without built-in strings, you have to deal very early on with arrays. Even python forces functions before loops by demanding the range() function on simple for loops. And don't get me started with Lisp and Scheme forcing prefix notation on students who have grown up learning all math with infix notation.
Language designers really need to think about what they force people to learn simultaneously and ensure that constructs in the language are not so interdependent that they force programmers to create extraneous structures when they are not needed. I think that is a good practice for an expert language as well.
Unless you think about sex in words, this won't pick it up. If you spend your time imagining a woman naked, no need to worry, but if you think "I want to see her naked", then you'll broadcast that to the world.
It's not subvocalization. It doesn't require someone to move. It just requires you to think. Did you move your jaw or tongue or lips to the words when reading this or writing your post? No? This machine picks that up.
>> It's called subvocalization, and the muscle movements are similar to, but not the same as, speech.
There is NO MUSCLE MOVEMENT. I repeat, this technology uses NO MUSCLE MOVEMENT. This is not "subvocalization" where you can see someones neck and jaw moving. This is picking up word-thoughts like you have right now when reading this post. Thinking about words sends tiny signals that are not nearly strong enough to move a muscle to your vocal cords. This thing picks that up and translates the nerve impulses into speech. This may not be telepathy in the form of reading someone's memories, or pictures out of someone's mind, but this can pick up word thoughts without the person moving a muscle. I think that's within the definition of telepathy.
You seriously don't understand how this works. When you think about doing something, like riding a bike or throwing a baseball, signals get sent to your muscles that would accomplish the task. Why don't you do everything you think about then? Because these signals are much too weak to actually trigger the muscles.
What is ingenious is applying this to word-thoughts. When you read or write or think about something in words, there are these same signals being sent to your vocal cords. They aren't strong enough to move a muscle, but they can be detected by sensitive enough electrodes. You won't even get the Ender's Game style jaw movement, because there is no movement. Did you move your jaw, tongue, or lips while reading this? Of course not. But this collar can pick up every word.
The difficulty is though, that while there is enough information to make out what a person is saying, it doesn't get every muscle you move, so a neural network has to translate the nerve impulses back into easy to understand speech.
Theoretically, a whole body-suit could be made with these sensors and not just interpret voice thoughts, but action-thoughts as well. You could control a character in a video game just by thinking about what you want it to do, and it could match your every thought-move, muscle by muscle.
The problem for me has always been how Opera handles proxy servers. Firefox pulls pages off the web 5 to 10 times faster than Opera because Opera can't handle our proxy server.
I think the reason why Nintendo was so harsh to third party developers is because they believed (probably rightly) that too much crap games on a system leads to bad sales. Licensing allowed for better quality control. Of course, once developers realized the demand was for good games, and not just any crap you can push on a system, they straightened up, but Nintendo was slow to back down.
"How can you succumb to something and still think its a bad thing?"
Yeah, no one ever eats a piece of chocolate cake while on a diet or has another cigarette while trying to quit smoking. They're just hypocrites who say they're doing one thing but really thinking that they're fooling everyone else. There isn't any temptation once you think something is bad./sarcasm
Have you ever tried to not do something in your life?
There is some research in "powered passive dynamic walking" that is more along the lines of taking into account the body's natural swinging motions. It isn't spongy cartiledge and wrapped muscle tissue, but it's better than this.
You might want to look at passive dynamic walking to see something that walks a little less like a bird on speed. I don't think these researchers are completely out of the "must be in total control of every slight movement" mode.
"Knowledge of good and evil" means something entirely different to you and me than to the original audience. "Knowledge of" something to the ancient Hebrews meant something similar to "authority over". The juxtaposition of the opposites of "good" and "evil" meant everything in that subject. We use something similar to this when we say "from A to Z". Combining the two is where you get the idea of what was going on.
Adam and Eve's morality is under God's authority
Eve and Adam eat the fruit
They gain authority over their own morality
They decide nakedness is wrong and clothe themselves against God's morality
"The Hom Tov process is more environmentally friendly than other methods of converting oil shale into energy. It also allows for more flexibility in the kind of fuel produced, produces less waste and operates at lower temperatures than other methods.
"Because fewer refining processes are necessary with oil shale than with crude oil, the final product is a higher quality fuel at a lower price, Aizenshtat said.
"The company estimates it will consume 6 million tons of oil shale and 2 million tons of refinery waste each year, for an annual production of 3 million tons of product.
"It would cost about $17 to produce a barrel of synthetic oil at the Hom Tov facility, meaning giant profit margins in a world of $45 to $60 per barrel crude. Yearly earnings are forecasted to be between $159 million and $350 million, Shahal said. "
What? You mean "The Hills Have Eyes", "Final Destination 3", "Slither", "Hostel", "Wolf Creek", "Underworld", "The Omen", "Silent Hill", "When A Stranger Calls", "Stay Alive", "Lady in the Water", "Pulse", "The Descent", and "See No Evil" just *may* have been enough to satisfy the horror movie goer's appetite so far for 2006?
I'm beginning to think the X number of words max limit for laws proposed by another slashdotter is a good idea. We have way too many laws, and legislators have no real reason to get rid of any of them. I think at the very least it should be difficult to keep a law around. Something like a 2/3 majority vote on each existing law after a sunset period (2 terms?) to keep each law, and it has to be a vote for each one, one at a time.
The X words idea seems like it would accomplish the same thing, but be overturned almost as soon as it was about to become useful.
I'm not sure about condemning the guy talking to his wife, because the alternative is his wife and screaming toddler fighting each other through the aisles.
Slashdot Mirror
Step 2 is a problem. My mother's time as a biology teacher ended when the school refused to discipline the students. I think the real problem is the goal that every child should be forced to learn some amount of information. Without near-term consequences, a small percentage of the students are perfectly capable of ruining the education of the rest of the students.
Because power lines are extremely leaky. You'll have massive amounts of interference from all the high-frequency data going over essentially unshielded cable.
I'm not going to argue against abortion or defend fringe groups, but your logic does not follow.
If there was a serial killer who had escaped from maximum security prison several times to continue killing, then by killing him, it would preserve more lives. Therefore, killing someone is in line with protecting all life, because all alternatives lead to more lives lost.
*why would i care about ubuntu ?*
Because it's free? And runs well on older hardware?
When netbooks are $200, things like this start to matter, especially to manufacturers. It doesn't have to be better or unique, it just has to be a good enough substitute and substantially enough cheaper.
If Connect() is so great, then why does the wxwidgets events doc hide it and practically discourage its use by stating that everything happens at run time with Connect()? Why do introductory tutorials rely on event tables rather than Connect()? In short, why does wxwidgets force developers to slog through event tables if you have Connect()?
It's easy to say that, but when you take Apples "Less functional" product and set it next to a "More functional" product you can really see a difference.
No, you really can't. For example, the iPod, which you mentioned, isn't anything particularly special (for the vast majority of models).
See, you completely miss the point. The innovation with the iPod wasn't the iPod, but iTunes. 99-cents a song for a very large selection, just plug in your iPod and the friendly interface guides people to put music on it. Other companies made you purchase music elsewhere and import it into their syncing software. What Apple saw was a gap--not one in the mp3 player technology, but in the hurdles people had to jump over to get music on them.
There is something to say about the advantages of HTML (or any markup language) grafted onto a programming language. Of course in most GUI programming, you have resource files, but for most languages it's an afterthought, or introduced late in the game. The HTML-javascript combo means that the person who is familiar with HTML can then access the familiar through the language. The problem is, though, that HTML is fairly restrictive, the accessors are not consistent, and the DOM varies between browsers. It's safe to say that there is plenty of room for improvement.
One thing that would be nice though, is a step-by-step introduction to Javascript in a way that doesn't mean generally copy and pasting someone else's code.
I know this article is old, but I just wanted to respond to you. I remember learning C in a community college at age 11, and seeing even the adults in the class get confused about the math to generate an ASCII-art diamond. Even loop constructs are not easy when you can't write "loop 5" or something similar to loop 5 times.
I think the language is partially at fault here though. In my opinion, almost all programming languages are created without the idea that concepts should be introduced one at a time. In C you have to write a function before you can do anything, in Java, you have to write an object. Also, in C even if you want to simply get some text from the user, you have to use a little pointer syntax to get the address of the variable that will store the data. And without built-in strings, you have to deal very early on with arrays. Even python forces functions before loops by demanding the range() function on simple for loops. And don't get me started with Lisp and Scheme forcing prefix notation on students who have grown up learning all math with infix notation.
Language designers really need to think about what they force people to learn simultaneously and ensure that constructs in the language are not so interdependent that they force programmers to create extraneous structures when they are not needed. I think that is a good practice for an expert language as well.
Unless you think about sex in words, this won't pick it up. If you spend your time imagining a woman naked, no need to worry, but if you think "I want to see her naked", then you'll broadcast that to the world.
It's not subvocalization. It doesn't require someone to move. It just requires you to think. Did you move your jaw or tongue or lips to the words when reading this or writing your post? No? This machine picks that up.
Not really. Ender had to move to make his speech. This doesn't require movement at all, just thought.
>> It's called subvocalization, and the muscle movements are similar to, but not the same as, speech.
There is NO MUSCLE MOVEMENT. I repeat, this technology uses NO MUSCLE MOVEMENT. This is not "subvocalization" where you can see someones neck and jaw moving. This is picking up word-thoughts like you have right now when reading this post. Thinking about words sends tiny signals that are not nearly strong enough to move a muscle to your vocal cords. This thing picks that up and translates the nerve impulses into speech. This may not be telepathy in the form of reading someone's memories, or pictures out of someone's mind, but this can pick up word thoughts without the person moving a muscle. I think that's within the definition of telepathy.
You seriously don't understand how this works. When you think about doing something, like riding a bike or throwing a baseball, signals get sent to your muscles that would accomplish the task. Why don't you do everything you think about then? Because these signals are much too weak to actually trigger the muscles.
What is ingenious is applying this to word-thoughts. When you read or write or think about something in words, there are these same signals being sent to your vocal cords. They aren't strong enough to move a muscle, but they can be detected by sensitive enough electrodes. You won't even get the Ender's Game style jaw movement, because there is no movement. Did you move your jaw, tongue, or lips while reading this? Of course not. But this collar can pick up every word.
The difficulty is though, that while there is enough information to make out what a person is saying, it doesn't get every muscle you move, so a neural network has to translate the nerve impulses back into easy to understand speech.
Theoretically, a whole body-suit could be made with these sensors and not just interpret voice thoughts, but action-thoughts as well. You could control a character in a video game just by thinking about what you want it to do, and it could match your every thought-move, muscle by muscle.
The problem for me has always been how Opera handles proxy servers. Firefox pulls pages off the web 5 to 10 times faster than Opera because Opera can't handle our proxy server.
I think the reason why Nintendo was so harsh to third party developers is because they believed (probably rightly) that too much crap games on a system leads to bad sales. Licensing allowed for better quality control. Of course, once developers realized the demand was for good games, and not just any crap you can push on a system, they straightened up, but Nintendo was slow to back down.
"How can you succumb to something and still think its a bad thing?"
/sarcasm
Yeah, no one ever eats a piece of chocolate cake while on a diet or has another cigarette while trying to quit smoking. They're just hypocrites who say they're doing one thing but really thinking that they're fooling everyone else. There isn't any temptation once you think something is bad.
Have you ever tried to not do something in your life?
There is some research in "powered passive dynamic walking" that is more along the lines of taking into account the body's natural swinging motions. It isn't spongy cartiledge and wrapped muscle tissue, but it's better than this.
You might want to look at passive dynamic walking to see something that walks a little less like a bird on speed. I don't think these researchers are completely out of the "must be in total control of every slight movement" mode.
Help! Help! I keep moving my mouse to the left but the pointer is stuck on the edge of the screen! I'm so confused.
What? You mean "The Hills Have Eyes", "Final Destination 3", "Slither", "Hostel", "Wolf Creek", "Underworld", "The Omen", "Silent Hill", "When A Stranger Calls", "Stay Alive", "Lady in the Water", "Pulse", "The Descent", and "See No Evil" just *may* have been enough to satisfy the horror movie goer's appetite so far for 2006?
It's also foolish to assume that an unnamed "charitable foundation" only known as being "run by" someone isn't just their own personal piggybank.
I'm beginning to think the X number of words max limit for laws proposed by another slashdotter is a good idea. We have way too many laws, and legislators have no real reason to get rid of any of them. I think at the very least it should be difficult to keep a law around. Something like a 2/3 majority vote on each existing law after a sunset period (2 terms?) to keep each law, and it has to be a vote for each one, one at a time.
The X words idea seems like it would accomplish the same thing, but be overturned almost as soon as it was about to become useful.
I'm not sure about condemning the guy talking to his wife, because the alternative is his wife and screaming toddler fighting each other through the aisles.
I think I would rather hear the guy on the phone.