Good thing we all understand 12th century Norman here. My best translation (knowing modern French):
Taillefer, who ??? ??? a horse who ??? before the duke ??? singing of Charlemagne and of Rollant and of Oliver and of the vassals who died in Rencevals
Want to provide a better idea of what the fuck this is saying?
Moi, je ne connais que les systèmes américain et français, donc je ne peux pas juger les autres. Ca me paraît quand même bizarre que les élèves luxembourgeois soient obligés de changer de langue tellement souvent pendant leur scolarité!
J'ai lu que les systèmes nordiques sont les meilleurs, mais je ne peux pas être sur.
Le système français est meilleur que le système américain principalement à cause du baccalauréat: les élèves sont obligés de bien travailler pendant les deux dernières années pour l'avoir. Aux Etats-Unis, il y a soit un test très facile, soit rien à la fin de la scolarité pour avoir le diplôme (ça dépend des états). C'est ridicule parce qu'il y a des cancres qui ne travaillent pas et puis qui sortent de l'école diplomés. Je trouve aussi que le niveau et moins élevé qu'en France.
Mais le système français n'est pas parfait non plus: parfois j'ai l'impression qu'il valorise trop la forme des choses: la belle écriture, les notes très correctes et lisibles, avec des couleurs de souligneurs différentes, etc.
Mais bon, on n'y peut rien, sauf si l'on est ministre de l'éducation ou un truc dans le genre. Et les écoles supérieures américaines et françaises sont très bonnes (quelques-unes, au moins), donc les jeunes ont quand même une chance de ne pas être cons à la fin!
Il paraît que tu es luxembourgeois: désolé d'avoir fait cette erreur!
Mais justement, je pense qu'il y a des problèmes avec tous les systèmes scolaires de tous les pays. Si seulement chaque gouvernement pouvait observer les autres pour voir ce qui marche et ce qui ne marche pas (non seulement au niveau de l'éducation). Comme ça, chaque gouvernement pourrait prendre les meilleurs aspects de chaque système et en faire un pays parfait.
With the help of your parents, scholarships, going in-state, etc., your undergraduate education shouldn't end up in $50-60k in debt. And PhD programs generally fund their students.
Just because your work is important to science doesn't make you a scientist. It makes you an engineer who builds things that scientists use. I'm not saying that that's any less important, just don't call it by a different name than what it is.
That's because it's a news article and not a real scientific source. The real article published in the real scientific journal assumably has real data. (I haven't read it, as IANA Scientist and would understand little)
When someone uses any combination of the terms "m$" and/or, "windoze", or bizarrely insults Windows users, lumping them all together as stupid and ignorant (I use Windows exclusively and I know what the difference is between a shell and an operating system, thank you very much) I automatically have an extremely low opinion of them as an unthinking follower of the Slashdot groupthink (the old Slashdot groupthink -- it seems like nowadays there are more people with my opinion than anything else).
Well, I'm not a lawyer nor am I Canadian, but it doesn't really matter what the situation with trademark infringement was before. That's the point of new laws: they change old laws.
This is the way of thinking of people who were using Eunuchs for too long.
UNIX shell = OS.
Seriously though, UIs are not OSs. The UNIX text-based command interpreters are not operating systems any more than this is, so I don't really see your point. UNIX is an OS. "M$ windoze", or as I prefer to call it, Microsoft Windows, is an OS. I really don't see how using one over the other will magically educate users about computer science vocabulary.
As everyone's already pointed out, this is no more an operating system than it is a flight simulator.
Secondly, what does "XML-based" actually mean in this context? Last I checked, "XML-based" only makes sense when talking about documents or data. What does it mean for an "operating system" (or, more to the point, a web-based application framework) to be "XML-based"?
It's generally agreed that it's impossible to effectively block web sites without taking drastic and draconian measures. No, it's not possible. With proper policies and monitoring it shouldn't be a huge problem.
The discussion isn't about whether severe harrasment should be against the law. In my opinion it should, others may feel differently, but that's not the point here.
The point is that we already have institutions dedicated to enforcing laws, namely the legal system and police force. The school system is dedicated to educating, not protecting, its students. Anything that directly affects or is directly related to this education falls under its authority. Anything else doesn't. If something is truly harmful then it should of course be illegal and should be prosecuted by our legal system. The school system shouldn't be involved.
Why can't they just use whatever standards they've always used, if any, to regulate off-school speech? THe fact that the speech occurs online shouldn't change anything.
The owners of Microsoft are their own customers? Huh?
I suggest you go learn some basic economics. You don't even need to take a class, you can start by looking up "customer" and "shareholder" in a respectable encyclopedic dictionary so that you'll have somewhat more of a semblance of a clue what you're talking about. You're statements sound cool in the context of the OSS religion, or whatever, but they don't actually make sense.
No, we shouldn't, but it's your logic that's flawed: This kid is neither a police officer nor a judge, and he had no right to act as one. I think he should go to jail right next to the judge caught with the porn.
Seeing a nude person in school harmful?
on
From Bess to Worse
·
· Score: 1
I think filtering systems are bullshit because they don't work, with plenty of false positives and false negatives. Thus, I take issue with a different part of the article. There are plenty of reasons why seeing a nude person or a person having sex could be harmful in a school environment:
- It distracts from schoolwork, the legitimate purpose of those computers. - Generally, the majority of people who stumble upon porn didn't want to see it. - Pornography is harmful. More specifically, addiction to pornography is definitely considered harmful. Although one look doesn't form an addiction, we still want the availability of pornography to children to be limited as much as possible to protect them from developing or feeding such an addiction, as it is well known that children are more impressionable in basically every way than adults.
Also, "a bunch of other people think so" can in fact be a good reason: - Schools are acting "in loco parentis" to prevent students from seeing, right or wrong, what their parents don't want them to see. As a blocking solution customized to each child would be unfeasible, they block what the majority of parents (a bunch of other people...) wouldn't want their children to see. - Porn viewing in schools is so radically against the norm that nothing more than its bizarreness, noticed by the other students, would undermine the seriousness of the academic setting and the teacher's ability to teach.
It's impossible for RISC instructions to be directly fed from memory to an x86 processor, so your question is meaningless, as "comiling a program directly to RISC" doesn't make sense in this context.
Just out of curiosity, what is the harm in Microsoft "discontinuing" VB? Granted, no new versions of the language will be released, nor patches for compilers, etc., but that doesn't suddenly make current tools stop working. Why is their discontinuation of VB so terrible for companies that use the language?
I'm a high school student who's never actually worken in the real computer industry so forgive my naïveté. This is a real question, not a rhetorical one posed with the objective of starting an argument with you.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing we all understand 12th century Norman here. My best translation (knowing modern French):
Taillefer, who ???
??? a horse who ???
before the duke ??? singing
of Charlemagne and of Rollant
and of Oliver and of the vassals
who died in Rencevals
Want to provide a better idea of what the fuck this is saying?
Moi, je ne connais que les systèmes américain et français, donc je ne peux pas juger les autres. Ca me paraît quand même bizarre que les élèves luxembourgeois soient obligés de changer de langue tellement souvent pendant leur scolarité!
J'ai lu que les systèmes nordiques sont les meilleurs, mais je ne peux pas être sur.
Le système français est meilleur que le système américain principalement à cause du baccalauréat: les élèves sont obligés de bien travailler pendant les deux dernières années pour l'avoir. Aux Etats-Unis, il y a soit un test très facile, soit rien à la fin de la scolarité pour avoir le diplôme (ça dépend des états). C'est ridicule parce qu'il y a des cancres qui ne travaillent pas et puis qui sortent de l'école diplomés. Je trouve aussi que le niveau et moins élevé qu'en France.
Mais le système français n'est pas parfait non plus: parfois j'ai l'impression qu'il valorise trop la forme des choses: la belle écriture, les notes très correctes et lisibles, avec des couleurs de souligneurs différentes, etc.
Mais bon, on n'y peut rien, sauf si l'on est ministre de l'éducation ou un truc dans le genre. Et les écoles supérieures américaines et françaises sont très bonnes (quelques-unes, au moins), donc les jeunes ont quand même une chance de ne pas être cons à la fin!
Il paraît que tu es luxembourgeois: désolé d'avoir fait cette erreur!
Mais justement, je pense qu'il y a des problèmes avec tous les systèmes scolaires de tous les pays. Si seulement chaque gouvernement pouvait observer les autres pour voir ce qui marche et ce qui ne marche pas (non seulement au niveau de l'éducation). Comme ça, chaque gouvernement pourrait prendre les meilleurs aspects de chaque système et en faire un pays parfait.
Bah j'ai le droit de rêver!
C'est la France... votre système scolaire est nul. (T'inquiète pas, c'est nul chez moi aussi)
With the help of your parents, scholarships, going in-state, etc., your undergraduate education shouldn't end up in $50-60k in debt. And PhD programs generally fund their students.
Just because your work is important to science doesn't make you a scientist. It makes you an engineer who builds things that scientists use. I'm not saying that that's any less important, just don't call it by a different name than what it is.
That's because it's a news article and not a real scientific source. The real article published in the real scientific journal assumably has real data. (I haven't read it, as IANA Scientist and would understand little)
Sorry pal but that's how science works. There's no better evidence for a model than the fact that it explains all obtained results.
More to the point, there's no philosophically valid way to "prove" anything conclusively.
That's exactly the point: it's only as accurate (and as complete) as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The Encyclopedia Britannica should never be cited in real research; neither should Wikipedia.
When someone uses any combination of the terms "m$" and/or, "windoze", or bizarrely insults Windows users, lumping them all together as stupid and ignorant (I use Windows exclusively and I know what the difference is between a shell and an operating system, thank you very much) I automatically have an extremely low opinion of them as an unthinking follower of the Slashdot groupthink (the old Slashdot groupthink -- it seems like nowadays there are more people with my opinion than anything else).
What time is this supposed to happen?
Well, I'm not a lawyer nor am I Canadian, but it doesn't really matter what the situation with trademark infringement was before. That's the point of new laws: they change old laws.
This is the way of thinking of people who were using Eunuchs for too long.
UNIX shell = OS.
Seriously though, UIs are not OSs. The UNIX text-based command interpreters are not operating systems any more than this is, so I don't really see your point. UNIX is an OS. "M$ windoze", or as I prefer to call it, Microsoft Windows, is an OS. I really don't see how using one over the other will magically educate users about computer science vocabulary.
As everyone's already pointed out, this is no more an operating system than it is a flight simulator.
Secondly, what does "XML-based" actually mean in this context? Last I checked, "XML-based" only makes sense when talking about documents or data. What does it mean for an "operating system" (or, more to the point, a web-based application framework) to be "XML-based"?
It's generally agreed that it's impossible to effectively block web sites without taking drastic and draconian measures. No, it's not possible. With proper policies and monitoring it shouldn't be a huge problem.
You're splitting hairs, then, both in that post and the one before it. I think it's safe to say that no one except you cares.
Vista over XP ranks somewhere between "huge improvement" and "earth-shattering".
The discussion isn't about whether severe harrasment should be against the law. In my opinion it should, others may feel differently, but that's not the point here.
The point is that we already have institutions dedicated to enforcing laws, namely the legal system and police force. The school system is dedicated to educating, not protecting, its students. Anything that directly affects or is directly related to this education falls under its authority. Anything else doesn't. If something is truly harmful then it should of course be illegal and should be prosecuted by our legal system. The school system shouldn't be involved.
Why can't they just use whatever standards they've always used, if any, to regulate off-school speech? THe fact that the speech occurs online shouldn't change anything.
The owners of Microsoft are their own customers? Huh?
I suggest you go learn some basic economics. You don't even need to take a class, you can start by looking up "customer" and "shareholder" in a respectable encyclopedic dictionary so that you'll have somewhat more of a semblance of a clue what you're talking about.
You're statements sound cool in the context of the OSS religion, or whatever, but they don't actually make sense.
No, we shouldn't, but it's your logic that's flawed: This kid is neither a police officer nor a judge, and he had no right to act as one. I think he should go to jail right next to the judge caught with the porn.
I think filtering systems are bullshit because they don't work, with plenty of false positives and false negatives. Thus, I take issue with a different part of the article. There are plenty of reasons why seeing a nude person or a person having sex could be harmful in a school environment:
- It distracts from schoolwork, the legitimate purpose of those computers.
- Generally, the majority of people who stumble upon porn didn't want to see it.
- Pornography is harmful. More specifically, addiction to pornography is definitely considered harmful. Although one look doesn't form an addiction, we still want the availability of pornography to children to be limited as much as possible to protect them from developing or feeding such an addiction, as it is well known that children are more impressionable in basically every way than adults.
Also, "a bunch of other people think so" can in fact be a good reason:
- Schools are acting "in loco parentis" to prevent students from seeing, right or wrong, what their parents don't want them to see. As a blocking solution customized to each child would be unfeasible, they block what the majority of parents (a bunch of other people...) wouldn't want their children to see.
- Porn viewing in schools is so radically against the norm that nothing more than its bizarreness, noticed by the other students, would undermine the seriousness of the academic setting and the teacher's ability to teach.
It's impossible for RISC instructions to be directly fed from memory to an x86 processor, so your question is meaningless, as "comiling a program directly to RISC" doesn't make sense in this context.
Just out of curiosity, what is the harm in Microsoft "discontinuing" VB? Granted, no new versions of the language will be released, nor patches for compilers, etc., but that doesn't suddenly make current tools stop working. Why is their discontinuation of VB so terrible for companies that use the language?
I'm a high school student who's never actually worken in the real computer industry so forgive my naïveté. This is a real question, not a rhetorical one posed with the objective of starting an argument with you.
Have the media still not figured out that correlation does not necessarily imply causation?