I liked the FireFly series very much. I never even heard of it until I signed it out of our local library. I was instantly hooked, but not because I thought it was an "amazing" sci-fi. I liked it because it was a good show with out all the flash. The language was mostly clean and humorous without being over corny. The set was very good and the country western twist on a space sci-fi was a nice touch. I still laugh when I hear the banjo kick in on the opening music. It just doesn't fit, but it's oh so cool.
Unfortunately, my discovery of a new show was short lived when I discovered that the show was already canceled (yes, I must live in a closet). I bought the series anyway. The one thing I find interesting is that I'm the only one who likes it. My wife just can't get into it. My dad, who likes westerns and some sci-fi didn't care for it, and most other people I show it too just smile and say that's nice. So nearest I can tell, the FireFly fan must be a very select individual. Myself, I like it because it's a clean show. And no, I'm not religious, I just don't like all the trash on TV these days.
I've yet to watch Serenity. I remember it on sale once for $10. I'm waiting to see if I can snag it on sale again. As a stand alone movie, I probably wouldn't buy it, but since I have the series, I feel I need the movie to complete the set. I'm still looking for closure:)
Yeah no kidding. That's my exact impression when using debian and trying to run a minimal system. I'd do a base install, and after a package or two, I'd have the whole gnome tree installing on my system. I don't know if it was a debian thing or just how apt_get is, but I personally hated it.
I didn't think CEO's salary was connected to company performance. I just assumed at that level, every one is on each other's board of directors. And since the board approves their ridiculous salaries, it's just a matter of saying I'll vote for your raise if you vote for mine. It's all very dishonest, but the government won't do anything about it since all politcians are bought and paid for by the very same corrupt individuals. It's a dismal state of affairs.
I agree. The excuse of training individuals on a platform said to be an industry standard is weak. Microsoft has changed their own products so much in the past 5 years alone. Most training on said platform would most likely be obsolete by the time they graduate anyway. Unfortunately, that's the problem with most IT training.
Schools should stick to the basics. Teach students how to use a mouse or pointing device. Educate them on what an operating system is. Show them some basic applications. Show them which applications are used for which jobs. I don't want to see any more stupid databases created in Excell. Show them what a spreadsheet is REALLY used for. Database design should be concidered a basic skill.
None of the above is Microsoft specific, but if a student had a solid understanding of what an operating system is and how to use most common applications, I'm sure they would be just as proficient as any seasoned Microsoft user.
I was thinking of something similar. I was thinking that in unix, the uid=0 account (root), should be an inaccessible account. No one should have root, not even a sysadmin. I was thinking that root (like) privledges should be granted via the gid=0 group only. And even those privledges could be superceeded via the uid=0 account. Let the computer/kernel retain control over that account. Somehow, via kernel/OS design, make it impossible for anything but the machine to control the (uid=0) account.
I'm not just talking about locking the root account. I mean elimination of the root account, however retain the concept of uid=0. So if there was a uid=0 owned file with a-w permissions, there would be no way possible of removing that file, unless the kernel made the call itself. It also means there'd be no way of creating such a file unless done by the kernel. Same goes for processes and the like.
I think the general concept of a sysadmin controling a computer would change. In a way, the computer (ie: kernel/OS) would have the final say on everything. If a computer ever misbehaved (ie: a likely bug in the OS), the only way to fix/patch the system would be to take it off line and patch it from another system (ie: mounting the root disk). This of course would make routine upgrades very difficult. It also mean that if there was a serious problem with a machine (ie: run away kernel process due to an OS bug), it's possible you couldn't fix it unless you took the machine down.
The general concept is, even if you had a rootkit/virus compromised unix system, the worse that could happen would an infected userland space. There should be no way one could infect a kernel or loadible module or anything that's uid=0 owned (unless gid permissions were granted). Essentially, let the computer (ie: OS) have a means to protect itself. This is simply not possible if external forces (ie: sysadmins) have the ability to make modifications to the integrity of the system.
Well, I'm fighting that in my very own home. My 3yr old daughter was reciting the four teletubies at the dinner table the other night. I decided I had to give her a propper education. I pulled out the Yellow Submarine and taught her all about blue meanies. Now she asks to watch it all the time and she correctly names all the Beatles. I'm a proud father indeed.
As for the lawsuit, I normally hate companies trying to ride the success of another company. I think that is the case here as well. When Apple Computers was initially founded, I don't think there was any confusion between Apple the computer company and Apple the record label. I think the former lawsuit was completely bunk. However, now Apple seems to be morphing into this media giant. Now the distinction between Apple the computer company and Apple the record label is less distintive. When you think Apple media, you SHOULD be thinking Apple the record label, because that's the company that has rights to such a presence. They were there first. So yes, I suppose I would agree with the lawsuite this time around providing that Apple the record label is attacking Apple the media presence and not Apple the hardware/OS manufacturer.
I must agree. What good are computers in the common classroom? However, base on her reasoning, I think paper and pencils are a distraction as well. All I ever did was doodle with them anyway.
At one time, there was this big motto to "buy American" and support your country. In principle, this is a great idea. However, welcome to the 21st century. Corporate America is NOT serving America's best interest. Corporate America is serving their own personal interest. Why do you think there's such a demand to "outsource"? Buy American so you can support the rich who are putting the poor out of a job? Microsoft is no different. They're investing their future into India, not America. Not saying India is bad, just saying Microsoft's "economic" future is not vested in America. At least I can respect the Japanese and how corporations are run over there. They actually have a cap on CEO salaries compaired to general workers. The American government is not the same government that existed when "buy American" was a slogan. The government today is so heavily influenced by corporations, that it hardly has real power to do what's right for the country.
This is unrelated, but did anyone find the "SUV Tax incentive" the most corrupt thing on taxes this year? It's a tax break targeted specifically at very large SUV's. The ones that sit in the $50k market. It can't even be used by vans and trucks that fit the same weight class. It's only for SUV's and only for the real expensive ones. Now, why on earth is there a "special" tax break incentive for that one specific market and nothing else? It benifits people who really have money and it benifits the auto industry that makes a totally wasteful product. It's a poor example, but it supports my conclusion of a corporate controlled America.
"It is increasingly clear that, when it comes to bridging the 'digital divide' between rich and poor, the mobile phone, not the personal computer, has the most potential."
I absolutely agree!
I concider my wife and I to be a lower to middle income family. Yet I find it odd how everyone on the planet owns a cell phone, but we don't. I see poverty line families walking around with their cell phones gabbing just like the rich. Maybe I'm just too cheap? I can see the value in a cell phone. Being able to call and make plans when you're out on the road. However, is that really worth $40/month? Seems odd how so many people feel it is.
Unfortunately, I can see Microsoft killing just about anything they set their minds to. All they have to do is throw money at it. Just look at the xbox. When I first heard about microsoft breaking into the game console buisness, I laughed and thought they wouldn't stand a chance. Well, sure enough there it is. And they were able to pour so much money into it that they even made good games. On top of all that, people actually went out and bought the product. Now the thought of owning an xbox is like a status symbol in the gaming community. Much like an iPod is a status symbol in the portable music community.
Can Microsoft pull it off? Absolutely! It's unfortunate, but true. Even if they don't pull it off, they have such a fat wad of cash, the they can afford to flop. And their flop will most likely have a devastating effect on the market as well. I absolutely hate buying microsoft stuff, but the truth is they do make some good products. I concider Office to be their flagship. All their hardware ventures are pretty good (mice,keyboards,...). It's just that their OS and their vision of what an OS should be that really sucks (in my opinion).
However, when microsoft tried to take over the PDA market, it's surprizing to see that they were unsuccessful. They made a big dent, but I'm surprized they didn't completely wipe out all competition. PalmOS was really the only contender. And their offering of an OS and device were pretty lacking (still is!). So, given that little history, maybe they won't be successful.
I disagree. I concider public internet access to be a lifestyle evolution that, like may other technologies, will and should take place. Concider TV, phones, electricity, and water. At the time of their conception, it was concidered a privledge to have such things. The people who did obtain such premium lifestyle perks had to pay a premium as well. Eventually, they became so common place that the notion of privledge because a neccessity. Granted, yes we still pay for these things, but the cost is much more reasonible than what it use to be.
Take TV for example. Broadcast has always been free and in doing so has promoted the adoption much faster. My guess is that they were following the example set by radio. Imagine if TV was invented today. With all these service companies out there milking the economy, you would have to pay for the privledge of even getting a signal. Think sattelite radio. The signal is NOT free. It's only availible to those who can afford that lifestyle. Let's hope someday that sattelite radio will be free too. The example I wanted to make was with cable TV. It seems now that cable TV is becoming the new "standard" by which most American live by. Thank god they now have a service plan that most families can afford. In my area, I can get local cable (basic plan) for ~$6/month. So like electricity and water, TV is an expected standard by which we live and now it has an affordible price tag too.
The time is ripe to treat the internet the same way. I personally use the internet all the time. I use it regularly to do shopping, research, and obtaining news. I also rely on it email for personal contact just as much as I do postal mail and phone. The only problem is I find the cost of the internet to still be at a premium. Even dial up service has a hefty price tag and by todays content standard, dial up service is completely useless. Broadband internet access really is an expected standard for the internet. The internet, like TV, electricity, water, phone, radio, roads,... has become a lifestyle neccessity that I rely on. The premiums for such a service should be removed!
BTW: I feel the same way about cell phones. Cell phones are everywhere and everyone is using them. There too is a lifestyle service that I feel still carries a premium price tag. Is it a neccessity? Well, when the phone companies start ripping out all the public telephones, then YES! In fact, in my area, if you do find a public telephone, it'll cost you $.75 to make a local call. So there the concept of a phone being a lifestyle neccessity is moving the wrong direction. It's going from a service that use to be very inexpensive and feasible to one of being a premium again.
I still do not own a cell phone, and I'm finding it increasingly difficult to operate in the world today without one. I will continue to do without as long as I can. I think cell service should be $5/month. Call me a dreamer, but phones have made an evolution from lan line to the mobile. Society has an expectation of everyone having a phone. The cost should reflect that expectation. So like the service of electricity and water, we SHOULD expect to have other lifestyle services such as TV, phone, and internet to be similarly priced. And when services like TV and phone change their mediums to a better service and that better service becomes the new "expected" standard. Than that too should reflect a lower cost.
The plain and simple of it is Blizzard is a bunch of pricks. Based on this story, I would have banned the guy anyway. Macro or bot, in the light of fair play, it's an unfair advantage. No matter what the game is, I always hate playing against people who "knowingly" employ an unfair advantage while playing.
I like playing Blizzard games. I personally find them to have the best replay value. However, the corporate image of Blizzard and their iron fist policies on top of a flaky undependible Battlenet environment is quickly killing my enjoyment of all their games. I do not own WoW, but my distaste of playing WC3 on Battlenet has already stopped my efforts to buy the expansion and try out WoW.
Not really true. I think alot of American's know just how (un)free America is. For one, the country has a heavy influence from puritans. We have all these restrictive laws on drinking and censorship. I remember my stay in Germany as a teenager. It completely blew me away to see beer so freely availible. Yet the odd thing is I never saw a drunk teenager. I was told it was an embarrasment to be drunk, so people were generally more mindful of their consumption. Not like America were the goal is to be drunk and stupid. In America, we spend so much time trying to dictate how people should act...I think it just works against us.
Jumping in a freezing river to save someone trapped in a burning house is irrational. The arguments you make just don't seem to fit.
Sure, putting ones life at risk (in a split second) to "increase the odds" of saving someone else may sound irrational. So let's add a little more detail. What if you 3yr son was trapped in a burning house. Running into that house to save your son may surely put your own life at severe risk. Say doing so gives you a 10% survival chance. If you do nothing, your son stands a 0% survival chance. You act of heroism may only increase that chance to a mere 5%. In a split second, you're probably not going through all these probability calculations in your head. All you see is the value on someone's life and any chance you have at saving that life is worth the odds.
Most parents would take a bullet for their kids and I suppose that's irrational too.....or maybe it really is rational, and it's just people who make up bullshit statements about the psychological studies that just don't understand human nature at all.
Based on the stock market?...what's the song?...a decending scale with the bottom note repeating...repeating...repeating until Bush is out of the white house?
It's too bad your views are in the majority. I'm not against the all-in-one technology. In fact, I think combining appliances only makes sense. But what I can't stand is the merging of my personal technology devices being tied to a service related technology like cell phones. My preference is to keep stuff like that totally separate. I switch my services all the time (to save money). I'd rather not have my PDA tied to such things. The only thing I want in a phone is to make a phone call. I think combining a walkie talkie with a cell phone is a great idea....but it stops there. Now just because I like my devices separate, I do wish them all to operate together. So I think all phones, mp3s, cameras, pda...should all have a common communication technology (bluetooth) for easy communication. Just my feelings.
I'm a parent and know that someday my kids will be into video gaming. I personally don't care for all the video game violence, even though I really like to play them. My kids won't be getting any of those kind of games. Since violence is such a major theme in so many games, if I can't find something suitable, then my kids won't be playing any video games. If parents want to change the world, that's all you can do. Don't buy the crap.
The scenario is really quite simple....although I can....would I feel comfortable playing a violent video game next to my dad or sit down and watch some porn with him? I personally wouldn't...and that's my expectation for my kids. They can and most likely will do what they want, but around the family, there's an expectation of how they should act. They will learn their family values from me. Violent video games are not part of them. They can get all that when they grow up and move out.
I absolutely agree with all of your statements. Teachers are very lazy these days. They think they're doing a world of good by standarizing a classroom to a specific product or a specific platform. In realtiy, it's just them being lazy because they don't know how to interpret a students understanding. For example, when I was in school, we had to use a specific C compiler on a specific platform. Why? Because 50% of the grade was to show that our program actually ran. The only way the teacher could easily standarise that test was to force everyone to use the same environment. Another teacher, only required a printed output of the program and the source code. From inspection he could easily tell if a student fudged his project. The first teacher was lazy. The second teacher was doing it right. Teachers are only there to teach a craft. Let the students pick the tools they need/want/desire.
You make a good point. The gist of your argument is take the easy solution and run Windows. By the time you through in the learning curve and the hassle factor, Windows probably is the more cost effective solution.
Another perspective is to ask what schools are really trying to teach on these computers. You mention software....what software should school kids NEED to learn? Maybe a word processor, maybe learn how to program, maybe some graphics applications. All fine examples. Now...should those kids be trained on one vendors piece of software, thereby tainting them towards that vendor? Should kids only learn Microsoft Office and AutoCAD? Maybe they're forced to program using a Visual Basic IDE. That's great, now what happened when they want to do something at home? Maybe to the commercial world it makes better sense to train kids on what's the most popular in the commercial world. Thereby making them instantly productive once they enter the work force. I just can't help but think such a tatic unfairly tilts the marketplace. I think education has a moral responsibility and in that sense should not represent any commercial entity in any form (to the best of their ability).
The Windows alternative mentioned was Linux....I'd pick NetBSD. It's very small, very solid, and if kids ever wanted to tear the system apart, NetBSD is the cleanest OS to look at. I use Linux and NetBSD. Linux is more my desktop choice, but if I want to fart around, I really prefer the simplicity of NetBSD. Education is all about farting around and learning cool things....I just thing NetBSD fits that nitch perfectly.
Although I'm not a fanboy of Blizzard, I'd definitely vote for Warcraft2&3 and StarCraft. I personally thought Warcraft1 was pretty sad. At the time, Dune was just a better game. However, those games are only worth revisiting in regards to playing online or with other people. They definitely have replay value.
...since the kernel couldn't exist without the compiler and libraries FSF did...
I'll buy the argument that the usibility of Linux is greatly enhanced by contributions from the FSF, but to say it's existance wouldn't be possible without FSF is just stretching the truth. And if you want to believe that Linux wouldn't have existed without FSF, than maybe someone should start touting that FSF wouldn't have existed without BSD-Light. Let's face it. BSD-Light was around long before FSF and GNU. The FSF tools were most likely built using the commands and utilities from the BSD-Lite distro. I never hear anyone from FSF express gratitude to BSD for starting the whole concept of providing a freely availible tool base to perform work with. No, the Richard Stallman and the FSF are too busy patting themselves on the back claiming to be the father of all and how the world owes them gratitude. They're just a bunch of hypocrits to me.
Unfortunately, I attended a university like that too. I did most of my programming in Fortran and C and this was in 1995. However, I completely disagree with not using Java (or any other high level language) because you want to teach algorithms. With mentality like that, why don't you just teach everything in assembly? I learned C++ and OO programming after college on my own. Then I made the switch to Java and I was much pleased. No more dealing with malloc/free, crappy pointer code and the like. One could say it's nice to know how pointer code works, but then again, it's nice to know how about loading register stacks and ALU components. I say train kids today with the latest tools. If all you use is old languages to program, then all you will know is old algorithms to code. Newer languages make programming easier so hopefully newer algorithms and new ways to solve a problem can be found. I personally hated the University of Buffalo for being so dated in their teachings.
Yeah, if you want to program for one platform and serve code from one platform, then c# may look good. However, one must return to the motto "write once, run anywhere". c# breaks that slogan. Not to say Java is great. Just saying c# is good for a Microsoft world and that alone. As for better IDE, I think the latest offerings of Eclipse and SunOne are pretty damn good.
I doubt it'll even be as popular as dvorak. And dvorak, doesn't seem like that much of an improvement from a standard qwerty. The impression I got from reading the dvorak vs qwerty debate is that dvorak was nothing more than an attempt to patent a keyboard design. And it was the patent rights that killed it's adoption more than any cultural change.
From the picture, I can already tell that I wouldn't like the keyboard:
1) Seems like such a waste to riddle the middle of the keyboard with cursor keys
2) The sales pitch of one handed typing is nothing new. Such features are availble with a standard keyboard (ie: sticky keys).
3) The alphabetic layout would be an improvement. However, I think it would be more logical to learn if the characters were arranged left hand to right hand before dropping to the next row as opposed to first half of alphabet on left hand and last half of alphabet on right hand.
4) Quite frankly, I see no improvement.
I think the best improvement for the standard keyboard and the easiest to impliment as well as obtaining public acceptance would be to just start dropping unneeded keys. All the function keys should be removed from today's "basic" keyboard. With the advent of the common GUI, I see no need for Fn shortcut keys. I view Fn keys as a left over from the days before pointing devices were concidered standard. Cursor keys are still needed, however I think the HOME, END, PAGE_UP, PAGE_DOWN keys should just be incorporated into the standard cursor keys via a MOD key. Things like PRINT_SCREEN, PAUSE(SCROLL_LOCK), INSERT, and DELETE fall into the same catagory as the Fn keys. They were good helpers before the GUI, but now are seldom used. INSERT and DELETE are somewhat still in use, but could easily be replaced with MOD+I and MOD+D. Just like how MOD+X, MOD+C, and MOD+V are generally programmed for cut, copy, and paste, there should just be a common standard for insert and delete. In general, many keys can (and should) be removed and there should just be a common sense replacement for their functionality (for easy adoption). For example: all the Fn keys and easily be replace with a MOD+digit combination that would produce the same keycode. Eventually, programming for those keycodes should be phased out as there are better ways to impliment short cuts in todays applications. And above all, such a concept of "phasing out" the unneeded keys should not be a patent. It's common sense. The fact that these guys pattented this design is somewhat a joke to me. However, they did make a comment on tactical feel (which I feel all keyboards lack today), so such a patent is ok. I think their layout is a bad choice and an unnessary complex answer to a simple problem. As for the arrangement of keys, I think a standard alphabetic layout is the way to go. I have yet to see a report that clearly shows qwerty or dvorak as being a speed improvement over any other layout. I think people generally become fast at typing no matter what the arrangement is. Making it standard alphabetic would just make learning the keyboard for childern easier. A qwerty/dvorak keyboard is just an over complication.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked the FireFly series very much. I never even heard of it until I signed it out of our local library. I was instantly hooked, but not because I thought it was an "amazing" sci-fi. I liked it because it was a good show with out all the flash. The language was mostly clean and humorous without being over corny. The set was very good and the country western twist on a space sci-fi was a nice touch. I still laugh when I hear the banjo kick in on the opening music. It just doesn't fit, but it's oh so cool.
:)
Unfortunately, my discovery of a new show was short lived when I discovered that the show was already canceled (yes, I must live in a closet). I bought the series anyway. The one thing I find interesting is that I'm the only one who likes it. My wife just can't get into it. My dad, who likes westerns and some sci-fi didn't care for it, and most other people I show it too just smile and say that's nice. So nearest I can tell, the FireFly fan must be a very select individual. Myself, I like it because it's a clean show. And no, I'm not religious, I just don't like all the trash on TV these days.
I've yet to watch Serenity. I remember it on sale once for $10. I'm waiting to see if I can snag it on sale again. As a stand alone movie, I probably wouldn't buy it, but since I have the series, I feel I need the movie to complete the set. I'm still looking for closure
Yeah no kidding. That's my exact impression when using debian and trying to run a minimal system. I'd do a base install, and after a package or two, I'd have the whole gnome tree installing on my system. I don't know if it was a debian thing or just how apt_get is, but I personally hated it.
Seriously, not a bad idea! Sure it's a been there, done that, sort of situation, but in the repeat, they might actually learn something new.
I didn't think CEO's salary was connected to company performance. I just assumed at that level, every one is on each other's board of directors. And since the board approves their ridiculous salaries, it's just a matter of saying I'll vote for your raise if you vote for mine. It's all very dishonest, but the government won't do anything about it since all politcians are bought and paid for by the very same corrupt individuals. It's a dismal state of affairs.
I agree. The excuse of training individuals on a platform said to be an industry standard is weak. Microsoft has changed their own products so much in the past 5 years alone. Most training on said platform would most likely be obsolete by the time they graduate anyway. Unfortunately, that's the problem with most IT training. Schools should stick to the basics. Teach students how to use a mouse or pointing device. Educate them on what an operating system is. Show them some basic applications. Show them which applications are used for which jobs. I don't want to see any more stupid databases created in Excell. Show them what a spreadsheet is REALLY used for. Database design should be concidered a basic skill. None of the above is Microsoft specific, but if a student had a solid understanding of what an operating system is and how to use most common applications, I'm sure they would be just as proficient as any seasoned Microsoft user.
I was thinking of something similar. I was thinking that in unix, the uid=0 account (root), should be an inaccessible account. No one should have root, not even a sysadmin. I was thinking that root (like) privledges should be granted via the gid=0 group only. And even those privledges could be superceeded via the uid=0 account. Let the computer/kernel retain control over that account. Somehow, via kernel/OS design, make it impossible for anything but the machine to control the (uid=0) account. I'm not just talking about locking the root account. I mean elimination of the root account, however retain the concept of uid=0. So if there was a uid=0 owned file with a-w permissions, there would be no way possible of removing that file, unless the kernel made the call itself. It also means there'd be no way of creating such a file unless done by the kernel. Same goes for processes and the like. I think the general concept of a sysadmin controling a computer would change. In a way, the computer (ie: kernel/OS) would have the final say on everything. If a computer ever misbehaved (ie: a likely bug in the OS), the only way to fix/patch the system would be to take it off line and patch it from another system (ie: mounting the root disk). This of course would make routine upgrades very difficult. It also mean that if there was a serious problem with a machine (ie: run away kernel process due to an OS bug), it's possible you couldn't fix it unless you took the machine down. The general concept is, even if you had a rootkit/virus compromised unix system, the worse that could happen would an infected userland space. There should be no way one could infect a kernel or loadible module or anything that's uid=0 owned (unless gid permissions were granted). Essentially, let the computer (ie: OS) have a means to protect itself. This is simply not possible if external forces (ie: sysadmins) have the ability to make modifications to the integrity of the system.
As for the lawsuit, I normally hate companies trying to ride the success of another company. I think that is the case here as well. When Apple Computers was initially founded, I don't think there was any confusion between Apple the computer company and Apple the record label. I think the former lawsuit was completely bunk. However, now Apple seems to be morphing into this media giant. Now the distinction between Apple the computer company and Apple the record label is less distintive. When you think Apple media, you SHOULD be thinking Apple the record label, because that's the company that has rights to such a presence. They were there first. So yes, I suppose I would agree with the lawsuite this time around providing that Apple the record label is attacking Apple the media presence and not Apple the hardware/OS manufacturer.
I must agree. What good are computers in the common classroom? However, base on her reasoning, I think paper and pencils are a distraction as well. All I ever did was doodle with them anyway.
At one time, there was this big motto to "buy American" and support your country. In principle, this is a great idea. However, welcome to the 21st century. Corporate America is NOT serving America's best interest. Corporate America is serving their own personal interest. Why do you think there's such a demand to "outsource"? Buy American so you can support the rich who are putting the poor out of a job? Microsoft is no different. They're investing their future into India, not America. Not saying India is bad, just saying Microsoft's "economic" future is not vested in America. At least I can respect the Japanese and how corporations are run over there. They actually have a cap on CEO salaries compaired to general workers. The American government is not the same government that existed when "buy American" was a slogan. The government today is so heavily influenced by corporations, that it hardly has real power to do what's right for the country.
This is unrelated, but did anyone find the "SUV Tax incentive" the most corrupt thing on taxes this year? It's a tax break targeted specifically at very large SUV's. The ones that sit in the $50k market. It can't even be used by vans and trucks that fit the same weight class. It's only for SUV's and only for the real expensive ones. Now, why on earth is there a "special" tax break incentive for that one specific market and nothing else? It benifits people who really have money and it benifits the auto industry that makes a totally wasteful product. It's a poor example, but it supports my conclusion of a corporate controlled America.
I concider my wife and I to be a lower to middle income family. Yet I find it odd how everyone on the planet owns a cell phone, but we don't. I see poverty line families walking around with their cell phones gabbing just like the rich. Maybe I'm just too cheap? I can see the value in a cell phone. Being able to call and make plans when you're out on the road. However, is that really worth $40/month? Seems odd how so many people feel it is.
Can Microsoft pull it off? Absolutely! It's unfortunate, but true. Even if they don't pull it off, they have such a fat wad of cash, the they can afford to flop. And their flop will most likely have a devastating effect on the market as well. I absolutely hate buying microsoft stuff, but the truth is they do make some good products. I concider Office to be their flagship. All their hardware ventures are pretty good (mice,keyboards,...). It's just that their OS and their vision of what an OS should be that really sucks (in my opinion).
However, when microsoft tried to take over the PDA market, it's surprizing to see that they were unsuccessful. They made a big dent, but I'm surprized they didn't completely wipe out all competition. PalmOS was really the only contender. And their offering of an OS and device were pretty lacking (still is!). So, given that little history, maybe they won't be successful.
Take TV for example. Broadcast has always been free and in doing so has promoted the adoption much faster. My guess is that they were following the example set by radio. Imagine if TV was invented today. With all these service companies out there milking the economy, you would have to pay for the privledge of even getting a signal. Think sattelite radio. The signal is NOT free. It's only availible to those who can afford that lifestyle. Let's hope someday that sattelite radio will be free too. The example I wanted to make was with cable TV. It seems now that cable TV is becoming the new "standard" by which most American live by. Thank god they now have a service plan that most families can afford. In my area, I can get local cable (basic plan) for ~$6/month. So like electricity and water, TV is an expected standard by which we live and now it has an affordible price tag too.
The time is ripe to treat the internet the same way. I personally use the internet all the time. I use it regularly to do shopping, research, and obtaining news. I also rely on it email for personal contact just as much as I do postal mail and phone. The only problem is I find the cost of the internet to still be at a premium. Even dial up service has a hefty price tag and by todays content standard, dial up service is completely useless. Broadband internet access really is an expected standard for the internet. The internet, like TV, electricity, water, phone, radio, roads, ... has become a lifestyle neccessity that I rely on. The premiums for such a service should be removed!
BTW: I feel the same way about cell phones. Cell phones are everywhere and everyone is using them. There too is a lifestyle service that I feel still carries a premium price tag. Is it a neccessity? Well, when the phone companies start ripping out all the public telephones, then YES! In fact, in my area, if you do find a public telephone, it'll cost you $.75 to make a local call. So there the concept of a phone being a lifestyle neccessity is moving the wrong direction. It's going from a service that use to be very inexpensive and feasible to one of being a premium again.
I still do not own a cell phone, and I'm finding it increasingly difficult to operate in the world today without one. I will continue to do without as long as I can. I think cell service should be $5/month. Call me a dreamer, but phones have made an evolution from lan line to the mobile. Society has an expectation of everyone having a phone. The cost should reflect that expectation. So like the service of electricity and water, we SHOULD expect to have other lifestyle services such as TV, phone, and internet to be similarly priced. And when services like TV and phone change their mediums to a better service and that better service becomes the new "expected" standard. Than that too should reflect a lower cost.
I like playing Blizzard games. I personally find them to have the best replay value. However, the corporate image of Blizzard and their iron fist policies on top of a flaky undependible Battlenet environment is quickly killing my enjoyment of all their games. I do not own WoW, but my distaste of playing WC3 on Battlenet has already stopped my efforts to buy the expansion and try out WoW.
Sure, putting ones life at risk (in a split second) to "increase the odds" of saving someone else may sound irrational. So let's add a little more detail. What if you 3yr son was trapped in a burning house. Running into that house to save your son may surely put your own life at severe risk. Say doing so gives you a 10% survival chance. If you do nothing, your son stands a 0% survival chance. You act of heroism may only increase that chance to a mere 5%. In a split second, you're probably not going through all these probability calculations in your head. All you see is the value on someone's life and any chance you have at saving that life is worth the odds.
Most parents would take a bullet for their kids and I suppose that's irrational too.....or maybe it really is rational, and it's just people who make up bullshit statements about the psychological studies that just don't understand human nature at all.
Based on the stock market?...what's the song?...a decending scale with the bottom note repeating...repeating...repeating until Bush is out of the white house?
It's too bad your views are in the majority. I'm not against the all-in-one technology. In fact, I think combining appliances only makes sense. But what I can't stand is the merging of my personal technology devices being tied to a service related technology like cell phones. My preference is to keep stuff like that totally separate. I switch my services all the time (to save money). I'd rather not have my PDA tied to such things. The only thing I want in a phone is to make a phone call. I think combining a walkie talkie with a cell phone is a great idea....but it stops there. Now just because I like my devices separate, I do wish them all to operate together. So I think all phones, mp3s, cameras, pda...should all have a common communication technology (bluetooth) for easy communication. Just my feelings.
I'm a parent and know that someday my kids will be into video gaming. I personally don't care for all the video game violence, even though I really like to play them. My kids won't be getting any of those kind of games. Since violence is such a major theme in so many games, if I can't find something suitable, then my kids won't be playing any video games. If parents want to change the world, that's all you can do. Don't buy the crap.
The scenario is really quite simple....although I can....would I feel comfortable playing a violent video game next to my dad or sit down and watch some porn with him? I personally wouldn't...and that's my expectation for my kids. They can and most likely will do what they want, but around the family, there's an expectation of how they should act. They will learn their family values from me. Violent video games are not part of them. They can get all that when they grow up and move out.
I absolutely agree with all of your statements. Teachers are very lazy these days. They think they're doing a world of good by standarizing a classroom to a specific product or a specific platform. In realtiy, it's just them being lazy because they don't know how to interpret a students understanding. For example, when I was in school, we had to use a specific C compiler on a specific platform. Why? Because 50% of the grade was to show that our program actually ran. The only way the teacher could easily standarise that test was to force everyone to use the same environment. Another teacher, only required a printed output of the program and the source code. From inspection he could easily tell if a student fudged his project. The first teacher was lazy. The second teacher was doing it right. Teachers are only there to teach a craft. Let the students pick the tools they need/want/desire.
Another perspective is to ask what schools are really trying to teach on these computers. You mention software....what software should school kids NEED to learn? Maybe a word processor, maybe learn how to program, maybe some graphics applications. All fine examples. Now...should those kids be trained on one vendors piece of software, thereby tainting them towards that vendor? Should kids only learn Microsoft Office and AutoCAD? Maybe they're forced to program using a Visual Basic IDE. That's great, now what happened when they want to do something at home? Maybe to the commercial world it makes better sense to train kids on what's the most popular in the commercial world. Thereby making them instantly productive once they enter the work force. I just can't help but think such a tatic unfairly tilts the marketplace. I think education has a moral responsibility and in that sense should not represent any commercial entity in any form (to the best of their ability).
The Windows alternative mentioned was Linux....I'd pick NetBSD. It's very small, very solid, and if kids ever wanted to tear the system apart, NetBSD is the cleanest OS to look at. I use Linux and NetBSD. Linux is more my desktop choice, but if I want to fart around, I really prefer the simplicity of NetBSD. Education is all about farting around and learning cool things....I just thing NetBSD fits that nitch perfectly.
I absolutely agree with the Nethack choice.
Although I'm not a fanboy of Blizzard, I'd definitely vote for Warcraft2&3 and StarCraft. I personally thought Warcraft1 was pretty sad. At the time, Dune was just a better game. However, those games are only worth revisiting in regards to playing online or with other people. They definitely have replay value.
I'll buy the argument that the usibility of Linux is greatly enhanced by contributions from the FSF, but to say it's existance wouldn't be possible without FSF is just stretching the truth. And if you want to believe that Linux wouldn't have existed without FSF, than maybe someone should start touting that FSF wouldn't have existed without BSD-Light. Let's face it. BSD-Light was around long before FSF and GNU. The FSF tools were most likely built using the commands and utilities from the BSD-Lite distro. I never hear anyone from FSF express gratitude to BSD for starting the whole concept of providing a freely availible tool base to perform work with. No, the Richard Stallman and the FSF are too busy patting themselves on the back claiming to be the father of all and how the world owes them gratitude. They're just a bunch of hypocrits to me.
Unfortunately, I attended a university like that too. I did most of my programming in Fortran and C and this was in 1995. However, I completely disagree with not using Java (or any other high level language) because you want to teach algorithms. With mentality like that, why don't you just teach everything in assembly? I learned C++ and OO programming after college on my own. Then I made the switch to Java and I was much pleased. No more dealing with malloc/free, crappy pointer code and the like. One could say it's nice to know how pointer code works, but then again, it's nice to know how about loading register stacks and ALU components. I say train kids today with the latest tools. If all you use is old languages to program, then all you will know is old algorithms to code. Newer languages make programming easier so hopefully newer algorithms and new ways to solve a problem can be found. I personally hated the University of Buffalo for being so dated in their teachings.
Yeah, if you want to program for one platform and serve code from one platform, then c# may look good. However, one must return to the motto "write once, run anywhere". c# breaks that slogan. Not to say Java is great. Just saying c# is good for a Microsoft world and that alone. As for better IDE, I think the latest offerings of Eclipse and SunOne are pretty damn good.
I doubt it'll even be as popular as dvorak. And dvorak, doesn't seem like that much of an improvement from a standard qwerty. The impression I got from reading the dvorak vs qwerty debate is that dvorak was nothing more than an attempt to patent a keyboard design. And it was the patent rights that killed it's adoption more than any cultural change.
From the picture, I can already tell that I wouldn't like the keyboard:
1) Seems like such a waste to riddle the middle of the keyboard with cursor keys
2) The sales pitch of one handed typing is nothing new. Such features are availble with a standard keyboard (ie: sticky keys).
3) The alphabetic layout would be an improvement. However, I think it would be more logical to learn if the characters were arranged left hand to right hand before dropping to the next row as opposed to first half of alphabet on left hand and last half of alphabet on right hand.
4) Quite frankly, I see no improvement.
I think the best improvement for the standard keyboard and the easiest to impliment as well as obtaining public acceptance would be to just start dropping unneeded keys. All the function keys should be removed from today's "basic" keyboard. With the advent of the common GUI, I see no need for Fn shortcut keys. I view Fn keys as a left over from the days before pointing devices were concidered standard. Cursor keys are still needed, however I think the HOME, END, PAGE_UP, PAGE_DOWN keys should just be incorporated into the standard cursor keys via a MOD key. Things like PRINT_SCREEN, PAUSE(SCROLL_LOCK), INSERT, and DELETE fall into the same catagory as the Fn keys. They were good helpers before the GUI, but now are seldom used. INSERT and DELETE are somewhat still in use, but could easily be replaced with MOD+I and MOD+D. Just like how MOD+X, MOD+C, and MOD+V are generally programmed for cut, copy, and paste, there should just be a common standard for insert and delete. In general, many keys can (and should) be removed and there should just be a common sense replacement for their functionality (for easy adoption). For example: all the Fn keys and easily be replace with a MOD+digit combination that would produce the same keycode. Eventually, programming for those keycodes should be phased out as there are better ways to impliment short cuts in todays applications. And above all, such a concept of "phasing out" the unneeded keys should not be a patent. It's common sense. The fact that these guys pattented this design is somewhat a joke to me. However, they did make a comment on tactical feel (which I feel all keyboards lack today), so such a patent is ok. I think their layout is a bad choice and an unnessary complex answer to a simple problem. As for the arrangement of keys, I think a standard alphabetic layout is the way to go. I have yet to see a report that clearly shows qwerty or dvorak as being a speed improvement over any other layout. I think people generally become fast at typing no matter what the arrangement is. Making it standard alphabetic would just make learning the keyboard for childern easier. A qwerty/dvorak keyboard is just an over complication.