Actually, I was sort of wondering about the quote from the summary:
Wilson compares the learning curve to texting, calling it 'kind of a slow process at first.' But even practice doesn't bring it quite up to texting speed: 'I've seen people do up to eight characters per minute,' says Wilson.
I don't know if Wilson has seen how fast people really get with texting, but it's fast. This would have to get a lot faster than 8 characters per minute to even be close to texting.
I sort of agree with what the professor is saying. Already, lectures are available online (including the very awesome, Hulu-like site, Academic Earth), and the use of iTunes to distribute lectures is already taking place.
Despite the usefulness of these technologies, I only think these things expand the reach of the classroom, but I definitely don't think that classrooms are going anywhere anytime soon. The use of websites and iTunes to reach people is no real difference than what books have done for a very long time. The people who are going to take time to watch the videos would have read the books.
Additionally, I *highly* disagree with the idea that "today's colleges are typically tethered, isolated, generic, and closed." I went to an engineering university, and the amount of technical stuff going on there was absolutely awesome. All you had to do was attend one of the many seminars, working groups, or even a classroom to see amazing work that students were doing. Being around other students also spurred my own ideas towards various projects.
Last of all, I'd argue that the teaching received in the classrooms really is very little about the college experience. Sure, someone may be able to "learn" a lot about physics from a podcast, but he or she is going to have little real-world experience. This, to me, was the most valuable experience I received from my college career.
Basically, I think these technologies will help reach more people, but they aren't going to make the current world obsolete.
I always thought Perl's philosophy was to make you think of it's creator (Larry Wall). How so, you ask? Well...developing in Perl is like pounding your head against a wall...
and then absolutely nothing tangible will have changed. Except that a few hundred thousand more of my state tax dollars will have been spent on bullshit.
You're spending a few hundred thousand in tax dollars? Dude...what do you do for a job?!
I'm all for new ideas and everything, but I seriously hope you're joking. Having a baby is not just some process you have to get done or something that is "a thing to cross off my TODO list."
If a "hard-working professional" doesn't want to delay her career to have a child, then she should NOT be having a child. If someone is too busy with their work to have a child, then she (or he, as father's lives are going to change as well) is most definitely not going to have time to actually raise a child.
The thing a lot of people seem to forget is that the pregnancy is just 9 months. Raising a child is a lifetime (or at least 18 years...) of commitment, dedication, and of giving up A LOT of your own time.
I wouldn't think a catgut suture makes someone a hybrid. It would be like saying, "Wearing a leather coat makes you part cow." That catgut is no more part of your body than that coat, other than the fact that it's used to hold your skin together (but, it subsequently dissolves, so it's not even permanent).
I just finished reading the patch notes, and i must say it appears that they are making this game easyier and easyier to play, Part of the fun in vanilla wow was how hard it was to level as some characters but was paid off once you got to level 60. Not its just a mass race to 80.
This is *exactly* why I stopped playing. So many people were QQ'ing about things being too hard or too easy or they didn't have enough choices or etc etc etc.
And Blizzard did everything they could to make the game so stinkin' easy that it became boring. I never had to worry that I couldn't complete a quest. I never had to worry that I wouldn't EVENTUALLY get some piece of gear because I just needed to run an instance enough times.
Easy = Boring. Too hard is bad too, but I'd prefer too hard over being so simple, every single character is running around with every single thing accomplished.
I can't believe anyone with any actual, genuine IT knowledge would question otherwise.
This isn't opinion, this is fact, easily backed by a stopwatch or half an ounce of brain.
I don't know specifically between Windows XP and Windows 7 - I'm not even going to argue that point. But, what I do know, is that it's very possible that the code does more AND runs faster.
I recently worked on a software product that, while it ran, it ran tremendously slow due to the sloppy code. (Took approximately 3 hours to finish running a certain task.) My team and I refactored/rearchitected portions of the code, brought in solid libraries, and used smart, well-thought out algorithms. In addition, we added more functionality per our user requirements. Wait...what's this? Our software runs that same task (with the additional functionality) in...what...2 minutes 40 seconds?
Look, I see the point you're trying to make. But, if the code was *really* bad before (as was the case of my project) or if Microsoft made some great optimizations, it is very possible that Windows 7 is faster than Windows XP. (Or, maybe it's not faster...maybe it just FEELS faster. But, that's a whole other argument.)
the people that care are the one using open standards. If you use.xls, you better stay on ms office.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I personally would love to have open formats all the time. Heaven knows that it would make my job easier. But, the fact of the matter is, most companies/people/etc use MS Office. You must have that compatibility. It's nice to hold to ideals, but you can't shoot yourself in the foot while doing so...
"Due to the efficiency of Visual Studio 9 over GCC"... I don't want to pick a compiler flamewar here, but I think it is fair to say that making blanket statements about one particular compiler producing faster code than another is pretty ignorant. There are some things VC does that GCC doesn't do, and vice versa, compiler switches can make a big difference, and you really would need to study the most commonly used code in OO under both compilers to see who is, in fact, generating better code, and, incidentally, for which processor.
While you are right, at least in my own experience, when you're on a Windows machine, VS8/9 produces a much better executable (higher performance) than GCC. (And, we did actually perform benchmarks to make sure. It was on a heavy mathematical program.)
Of course, that is my own experience. YMMV, but the differences were large enough that I can't really believe a few compiler flags would make THAT much of a difference.
Psssst. Hey. You...yeah...you. Buddy. You DO realize you just asked that question on Slashdot. Right? You know? The place where a lot of people go who really like technology and the internet and all that?
I'd really like to see Mozilla spend one release where they stop working on new features and focus solely on fixing bugs. The results of such an effort would be more valuable to the end user.
You're absolutely correct. But, while it is a whole lot more valuable to the end user, it's a whole lot less interesting to the developers.
I have a single VMWare VM with side-by-side installations of IE3 through 6, and IE7 in my main OS, along with Opera, Safari and Firefox.
IE3 through 6? Really? I can understand supporting 6, maybe even 5, but if people are still on 4 or 3, they sure as heck don't know what's going on with their computer, and you're creating (what seems to me) a lot of extra work for yourself.
I'm not a web designer, though. Can you explain why you care about IE3/4/5 compatibility? Is it that huge of the marketshare that it even matters?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I was sort of wondering about the quote from the summary:
Wilson compares the learning curve to texting, calling it 'kind of a slow process at first.' But even practice doesn't bring it quite up to texting speed: 'I've seen people do up to eight characters per minute,' says Wilson.
I don't know if Wilson has seen how fast people really get with texting, but it's fast. This would have to get a lot faster than 8 characters per minute to even be close to texting.
And you're really going to believe a guy who can't even create a powerful robot?! Psh.
I sort of agree with what the professor is saying. Already, lectures are available online (including the very awesome, Hulu-like site, Academic Earth), and the use of iTunes to distribute lectures is already taking place.
Despite the usefulness of these technologies, I only think these things expand the reach of the classroom, but I definitely don't think that classrooms are going anywhere anytime soon. The use of websites and iTunes to reach people is no real difference than what books have done for a very long time. The people who are going to take time to watch the videos would have read the books.
Additionally, I *highly* disagree with the idea that "today's colleges are typically tethered, isolated, generic, and closed." I went to an engineering university, and the amount of technical stuff going on there was absolutely awesome. All you had to do was attend one of the many seminars, working groups, or even a classroom to see amazing work that students were doing. Being around other students also spurred my own ideas towards various projects.
Last of all, I'd argue that the teaching received in the classrooms really is very little about the college experience. Sure, someone may be able to "learn" a lot about physics from a podcast, but he or she is going to have little real-world experience. This, to me, was the most valuable experience I received from my college career.
Basically, I think these technologies will help reach more people, but they aren't going to make the current world obsolete.
Should Aussies and Kiwis be eligible for "summer of code"?
Psh. I'm still trying to figure out how a fruit knows how to code in the first place.
It sounds like you may have spent too much time watching Chuck.
Today, she chooses him by the size of his wallet. Evolution 2.0, if you will.
Meh. I'll wait for the expansion pack.
I remember when Windows was laughable.
Well, yeah. I can remember back to yesterday, too. No big feat there...
I always thought Perl's philosophy was to make you think of it's creator (Larry Wall). How so, you ask? Well...developing in Perl is like pounding your head against a wall...
and then absolutely nothing tangible will have changed. Except that a few hundred thousand more of my state tax dollars will have been spent on bullshit.
You're spending a few hundred thousand in tax dollars? Dude...what do you do for a job?!
I'm all for new ideas and everything, but I seriously hope you're joking. Having a baby is not just some process you have to get done or something that is "a thing to cross off my TODO list."
If a "hard-working professional" doesn't want to delay her career to have a child, then she should NOT be having a child. If someone is too busy with their work to have a child, then she (or he, as father's lives are going to change as well) is most definitely not going to have time to actually raise a child.
The thing a lot of people seem to forget is that the pregnancy is just 9 months. Raising a child is a lifetime (or at least 18 years...) of commitment, dedication, and of giving up A LOT of your own time.
I wouldn't think a catgut suture makes someone a hybrid. It would be like saying, "Wearing a leather coat makes you part cow." That catgut is no more part of your body than that coat, other than the fact that it's used to hold your skin together (but, it subsequently dissolves, so it's not even permanent).
He still has friends?
I assumed the quote was referring to Saturn or something...
I just finished reading the patch notes, and i must say it appears that they are making this game easyier and easyier to play, Part of the fun in vanilla wow was how hard it was to level as some characters but was paid off once you got to level 60. Not its just a mass race to 80.
This is *exactly* why I stopped playing. So many people were QQ'ing about things being too hard or too easy or they didn't have enough choices or etc etc etc.
And Blizzard did everything they could to make the game so stinkin' easy that it became boring. I never had to worry that I couldn't complete a quest. I never had to worry that I wouldn't EVENTUALLY get some piece of gear because I just needed to run an instance enough times.
Easy = Boring. Too hard is bad too, but I'd prefer too hard over being so simple, every single character is running around with every single thing accomplished.
Ooo...you must work for Microsoft. I see your sneaky subliminal messaging.
PEOPLE! TRY A NEW OPERATING SYSTEM! A. BECAUSE THEY THINK IT WORK.
I'm onto you and your nefarious schemes...
Alright! Who put my stapler in the Jello again!
Let's call them "near" and "far" pointers.
I now have the Titanic love song stuck in my head. Booooo.
Near. Far. Wherever you are...
I can't believe anyone with any actual, genuine IT knowledge would question otherwise.
This isn't opinion, this is fact, easily backed by a stopwatch or half an ounce of brain.
I don't know specifically between Windows XP and Windows 7 - I'm not even going to argue that point. But, what I do know, is that it's very possible that the code does more AND runs faster.
I recently worked on a software product that, while it ran, it ran tremendously slow due to the sloppy code. (Took approximately 3 hours to finish running a certain task.) My team and I refactored/rearchitected portions of the code, brought in solid libraries, and used smart, well-thought out algorithms. In addition, we added more functionality per our user requirements. Wait...what's this? Our software runs that same task (with the additional functionality) in...what...2 minutes 40 seconds?
Look, I see the point you're trying to make. But, if the code was *really* bad before (as was the case of my project) or if Microsoft made some great optimizations, it is very possible that Windows 7 is faster than Windows XP. (Or, maybe it's not faster...maybe it just FEELS faster. But, that's a whole other argument.)
Apr 1 seems to have turned into some kind of trial of trust of the media now, which pisses me off.
Oh yeah. We really need a specific day of the year to not trust the media. /sarcasm
Me too!
the people that care are the one using open standards. If you use .xls, you better stay on ms office.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I personally would love to have open formats all the time. Heaven knows that it would make my job easier. But, the fact of the matter is, most companies/people/etc use MS Office. You must have that compatibility. It's nice to hold to ideals, but you can't shoot yourself in the foot while doing so...
"Due to the efficiency of Visual Studio 9 over GCC"... I don't want to pick a compiler flamewar here, but I think it is fair to say that making blanket statements about one particular compiler producing faster code than another is pretty ignorant. There are some things VC does that GCC doesn't do, and vice versa, compiler switches can make a big difference, and you really would need to study the most commonly used code in OO under both compilers to see who is, in fact, generating better code, and, incidentally, for which processor.
While you are right, at least in my own experience, when you're on a Windows machine, VS8/9 produces a much better executable (higher performance) than GCC. (And, we did actually perform benchmarks to make sure. It was on a heavy mathematical program.)
Of course, that is my own experience. YMMV, but the differences were large enough that I can't really believe a few compiler flags would make THAT much of a difference.
This sounds extremely cool, and very useful.
Some questions I would have is:
1. How much of this 'blood' can a human take before his/her body rejects it (if it ever does)?
2. How quick and expensive is it to create, say, a liter of blood?
3. Is there any reason that this blood wouldn't be able to combine with certain blood-types?
Either way, this is some great research that UPenn is doing. I'm excited to see where this goes.
Psssst. Hey. You...yeah...you. Buddy. You DO realize you just asked that question on Slashdot. Right? You know? The place where a lot of people go who really like technology and the internet and all that?
I'd really like to see Mozilla spend one release where they stop working on new features and focus solely on fixing bugs. The results of such an effort would be more valuable to the end user.
You're absolutely correct. But, while it is a whole lot more valuable to the end user, it's a whole lot less interesting to the developers.
I have a single VMWare VM with side-by-side installations of IE3 through 6, and IE7 in my main OS, along with Opera, Safari and Firefox.
IE3 through 6? Really? I can understand supporting 6, maybe even 5, but if people are still on 4 or 3, they sure as heck don't know what's going on with their computer, and you're creating (what seems to me) a lot of extra work for yourself.
I'm not a web designer, though. Can you explain why you care about IE3/4/5 compatibility? Is it that huge of the marketshare that it even matters?