The job of schools is to teach, or to provide a starting point in this world.
Eh. Sometimes. Kinda. Sorta.
In the developed world, school systems are often (usually?) elaborate day care centers. Schools keep kids off the street, out of trouble (for the most part), and -- perhaps most importantly -- out of the workforce.
I've read a number of times that the US school system was modeled, in part, on Prussian schools which emphasized an instillment of discipline and obedience. It was adopted deliberately to handle the large influx of uneducated immigrants in order to mold them into compliant citizens with sufficient skills to become productive members of the work force.
Whether true or not, it effectively describes the results of the US primary school system.
Unfortunately, the model remains largely intact even though the environment graduates face are quite different. Stated goals of "modern" education are largely rhetorical. Many methods are adopted and discarded so rapidly that virtually none have a chance to succeed or fail in any enlightening way.
As I don't see technology becoming any less a part of this world, I'd argue that it's entirely relevent to use it in schools.
True, but it missing the point. Schools -- or more precisely, teachers -- are neither equiped to teach about technology any more than effectively use it. This is a failure on the part of our system, not our teachers.
Just as long as it only remains a part of schools, rather than becoming the schools themselves.
Eh. Superficially true. "Technology" won't realistically be in a a position of "becoming" a school until we can produce beings like R. Daneel Olivaw or Commander Data.
We have a long way to go to properly exploit even current computer technology. One example: text books. Dead wood textbooks are a multi billion dollar black pit that do nothing to advance the state of the art of effective teaching tools. Imagine if that money were invested in creating hyper-text pads, perhaps using something like electronic ink and perhaps handwriting and speech recognition as well.
In brief, "technology" cannot be simply bolted on to our existing model of education and its current structure and teaching practices. In fact, it is quite apparent that our existing model is ineffective even if technology wasn't an issue. The suggestion in TFA that technology in schools is in any way a "fad" is yet another example of our educational system's myopia.
But that's another post entirely... make that an entire thesis.
[neXt86]
Wrong capitalization. Should be NeXT86... no?
No. But I see what you're getting at.;-j
Using empirical analysis, I wrote "x86", "NEXT", and "next" separately on three pieces of paper. I then placed the pieces of paper into a blender, spilled the shredded remains, and that's what came out.:-j
Since the MacIntel is technically the next NeXT, and NeXT Step already used x86, this would be the next next NeXT; much too messy for me.
If you're willing to live with just combining "next" and "x86" while preserving the lower case "x" of x86 while still making it stand out, it would be... NExT86... but that just gives me the collywobbles.
I'd be interested to hear if you could come up with even a hypotehtical way [that Apple may be able to exploit the new processor's features in a way that Windows developers can't].
Entrenchment of existing code base. Windows and Windows apps already have sections of code written towards existing x86 features. The payoff for using new features must be large enough to make overhauling such code worthwhile.
Alternatively, Apple will be targeting some solutions with x86 code for the first time. Obviously Apple already has some x86 code written since Jobs announced that OS X has been running on x86 for five years. However, it's never been released so presumably it's still malleable and a certain amount hasn't been optimized yet.
It's clearly not an issue that Windows developers wouldn't ever use new processor features, it's just a matter of how soon and extensively they will do so. Assuming there even are new features to be exploited, it seems reasonable that Apple may been in a better position to utilize them immediately.
... what are the chances that [Intel's new processor] will be available and running well in time for Apple's announced timeline for desktops?
I'd say slim to none, leaning heavily towards none. But I think that's a lot less important than your next question...
Or is Apple going to sell a lesser version first, in which case why haven't they already switched over to selling it to early adopters already. Yes there really are people who buy systems and wait for the applications to arrive later.
Apple hasn't switched over because consumers won't buy any box that doesn't run OS X apps, Macintel or not. Developers need the head start.
However, Apple and Mac developers don't have backward compatibility issues; whatever processor Intel serves up can't break code that doesn't exist. All Apple needs to do is make sure that the Xcode compilers are ready for the neXt86 processor such that what developers are compiling now will run on the new processor.
It's highly unlikely that the neXt86 will be that different, but the fact that the Mac is a clean slate means it's impossible to rule out. This is wild speculation, but Apple may be able to use this advantage to exploit the new processor's features in a way that Windows developer can't. Think of the marketing coup for Apple and Intel.
Intel may even use Apple to compel Windows developers to adopt new processor features much the way Apple spurred the USB device market.
On the other hand, the neXt86 may only sport fins and a racing stripe.:-j
LOL yesterday I saw this [Yahoo] article. Lions and People Killing Each Other in Tanzania.
Funny how you failed to point out the reason:
Researchers conclude that bush pigs, an agricultural pest that drives out zebra, impala and other natural lion prey, are to blame.
The lions enter villages searching for pigs and end up attacking people.
As is often the case, the problem is simple -- though by no means necessarily easy to solve: control the pigs. What's really "funny" is that as the supposedly most intelligent species on the planet, humans actually create a problem (indirectly or not) then fail to address it. Let's hope that they can control pigs.
Sorry but I got to say it: the Tanzanians have made their beds, now they have to lion them.
Why are you expecting "your leaders" to provide you with Internet access? Is there anything wrong with you, that you must depend on the government?
Whether there's anything wrong with me is strictly between myself and the voices in my head, thank you very much.
As for relying on the government ("of the people, by the people, for the people"... hey, maybe that's where the voices in my head come from...), yes, I do expect that. Our government -- local state and federal -- set policies that dictate how companies provide internet service to our homes.
The state I live in has a Public Service Commission that represents the interests of consumers with regards to utilities including telecommunications and cable. I don't have exact figures but out local phone company petitions the for rate increases three or seven times a year. They argue that each of them are necessary, yet, they somehow manage to remain profitable even though only one out of seven or nine actually get approved.
Everybody knows it's a game. But, who should we depend on if not the government to protect us from companies that will gleefully take the shirts off our backs if they thought we're willing (to extend the metaphor) procure an new shirt every month?
So let's say I abandon my commie pinko ways and join the rugged individualist Libertarians and do it without no stinkin' lousy guvmint...
Ah! I'll use the free market! I'll take advantage of a competing services! I can use [drum roll] satellite! I'll be free of the stifling oppression of the govmint! OK, so it costs nearly twice as much and has a disastrous latency problems and a pitifully slow upload speed. Hmm, what else can I do?
Get rid of those interferin' guvmint agencies and wait for Private Industry to fight over each other to invest millions of dollars that they can recoup after only eight years... if they charge triple the rate I pay now... hmm.
I got it! I'll set up my own local wireless network! Sure! If Andy Hardy and Judy Garland can do it, so can I! All I need is a few hundred bucks and a land wire connection to the internet. OK, so I'll need to pay commercial rates... but I can share the costs with my neighbors! So, all I need then is a hundred dollars or so from each, just to start out, but we'll pay less in the long run. Yeah!
Of course... I'll have to do some trouble shooting. And make sure everybody pays their share for the service on a timely basis. Upgrade and replace equipment now and then -- everybody would be willing to pony up some extra cash when that happens. And it'll only cost me some of my spare time!
OK... maybe I'll charge everyone a little bit extra each month to compensate me for my time -- it's only fair, right? Sure, I'll have no time to mow the lawn or go see a movie, but at least I'm being compensated; I'll still be making big bucks at my Real Job... at least until it gets shipped overseas.
But, hey, I'll can still collect unemployment!
[I smack my forhead with heal of my hand]
Gee, I guess I really don't need no guvmint! I could have starting do this years ago! Yeah, this rugged individualism is great stuff! Thanks, Mr. Libertarianism!
Now all I gotta do is tackle those potholes in the road. Let's see...
Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?
Short answer: no.
Longer answer: though theoretically possible in the long term (depending on how you define "long term"), it's highly unlikely.
Here's an only slightly more likely alternative: instead of making their software available to generic x86 boxes, Apple could design a not quite generic x86 box specifically meant to support current x86 operating systems (Windows, Linux, etc).
What would an Apple style generic x86 box look like?
No legacy ports, that is, nothing that you wouldn't find on a Mac such as serial & parallel ports.
Common components with Mac boxes; video chips, support chips, etc.
It will not be able to run Mac OS.
It would essentially be a PC mini: no slots that a Mac mini doesn't have.
Assuming they made such a box, Apple will create a niche market machine, most likely the equivelant of the G4 Cube which targeted the executive desktop: a small machine that does everything that 90% of a typical productivity oriented user would need, in a stylish package. It will feature no hassle, "take it out of the box and it works" ease of use. Well, as much as Windows or Linux would allow.
Price difference between a PC mini and a Mac mini? Not much. Why make one? Tap into the market segments of people who absolutely positively must run Windows software, and the Windows Weenie people who would rather drink poison than buy a Mac.
Why won't Apple do this? Most people who would be willing to switch won't. How do we know this? Because people who would have no significant issues at all switching now, are not switching (e.g, running Windows specific software or other specific compatibility issues; think grandmas). There is no certain sign such a Windows to Mac migration is imminent. And if there's no reason for people to change platfor, there's no reason for Apple to change from their current path.
Any other speculative paths run into the same problem: there is no compelling reason for Apple to change what is now a winning -- in the sense of sustainable -- strategy. Whatever would force Apple to change would be forcing the entire PC to change as well. Predictions about the future of the PC industry run 10 cents a million.
While the article states that there is no DRM or TCPA in the dev boxes, there is still proof to the contrary.
All I see is a picture of a chip on a motherboard. What indication is that it's the InteliMac motherboard? Secondly, does the mere presence of the chip guarantee that DRM is functional without enabling software?
Until those questions are answered adequately, I'd say you have evidence, not proof.
n short, I rather like the mouse, although since I was using it in a near-silent house last night, I noticed that it makes a sort of squeaking sound sometimes. I think this is plastic rubbing in it somewhere...
A squeaking noise, eh? Do you by any chance have any cheese in the house?
This sleek eyewear allows users to privately view large-size video or pictures equivalent to a 12-inch screen as seen from three feet away, delivering crisp, full-color video with a 17-degree field of view.
When having sex with your partner, why just imagine the partner you'd rather be having sex with? Though considering the usual slashdot crowd, it makes a great PPDD (portable porn display device).
Somone call John Dvorak...his title as reigning champion of the blithering idiots is being seriously contested.
Just who is this John Tierney [nytimes.com], anyway? Judging from his whining about 'man-years I've spent running virus scans and reformatting hard drives', he doesn't sound like any computer profesional I know...
He's a columnist writing for the editorial section of you newspaper. On a regular basis. That is, he is decidedly not a computer geek.
Intentional or not, the bulk of his piece is largely a setup for the punchline:
The experts weren't sure that any punishment could fit the crime, but
they had several suggestions: Make the hacker spend 16 hours a day
fielding help-desk inquiries in an AOL chat room for computer novices.
Force him to do this with a user name at least as uncool as KoolDude and
to work on a vintage IBM PC with a 2400-baud dial-up connection. Most
painful of all for any geek, make him use Windows 95 for the rest of his life.
It's also possible that it's a veiled argument against the death penalty: there are sentences worse than death.
The thing that made the Mac immortal wasn't necessarily the user interface...
The thing that made the Mac immortal was the fact that anyone could "publish" documents from their desktop without needing complex typesetting systems or knowledge of traditional "publishing" and commercial printing processes.
And what made publishing documents so easy? Yes, the user interface.
Reading various comments on this thread alone, never mind the word that is called slashdot, I'm forced to conclude that many people here don't understand what a user interface really is.
Virtually everything involving computers back then required complex knowledge to perform anything but the simplest tasks. Macintosh brought its capabilities to a level understandable by a four year old. Ask three or four year olds how old they are and they'll hold up fingers and say "this many!"; take them to a buffet table and ask what they want to eat and they'll point at what they want -- even without saying a single word. Macintosh captured this simplicity with point and click ; the most notable difference is that users need to use a mouse instead of just pointing a finger, of course.
Making complex knowledge of computers available to a user is fairly trivial. Adding text menus and function keys, the most common MS-DOS interface at the time, is also trivial; likewise adding a mouse. For many years publishers of DOS and Windows proclaimed their programs were "user friendly" presumably on the basis of their menu based interface in that it simply had one. Whether or not users can make the program do what they want had little or bearing on slapping the "user friendly" label on it. Indeed, the situation hasn't changed all that much.
Until developers (and pundits) realize that not mouses and menus a user friendly interface make, the sooner computers won't be more difficult to use than they need be.
Making a false distinction between interface and the power and functionality underneath is as misleading as making a distinction between the human brain and the mind: the mind is essentially a manifestation of the brain's function; mental illness is a manifestation of a sick or damaged brain. Likewise, the power and usefulness of a computer system (OS, application, etc.) from a user's perspective is inextricably tied to the interface.
This explains a large part of why Windows sucks (again, from a user's perspective) and why Linux is so slow in displacing Windows. One can argue that even though the Mac platform represents the most refined user interface in computing to date, it is Windows' superficial resemblance to the Mac's interface that lulls the typical Windows user into complacency. The oversight -- or downright dismissal -- of the importance of user interfaces by many hardcore Linux geeks (though certainly not all!) is another topic in its own right but ultimately is caused by the perception that interfaces are a distinct entity that cannot possibly be the source of real power of an OS -- or application.
Make glib dismissals of the importance of user interfaces at your own peril.
Wouldn't it be cheaper, easier, and more effective to, I don't know, build energy systems that don't release carbon? Just a thought.
Sure. Solar Power Satellites. Large arrays of solar cells assembled in earth orbit and the energy beamed to earth via microwave. And no, it will not be a "death ray". The beam footprint would be miles across with a power density a mere fraction of sunlight. See Geoffrey Landis papers and The SSP Monitor, or do a google.
Apple stopped using those ROMs several years ago, I believe when they made the transition from m68k to PPC. There's actually a ROM image of the old Mac toolbox ROM on the hard disk (I think Classic MacOS used it).
Yes, there is a ROM image file but it was introduced with the original iMac which from then on are called New World Macs. The previous Mac models, the beige G3s, are called Old Word Macs. That file also contains more than just the contents of the Old World ROMs, I believe.
I learned more than I wanted to about the ROM file when I tried to perform a clean install of OS 9 (or was it 8.5?) on my original Bondi Blue iMac. The ROM file had to reside within the first gig or so on the hard drive and as best as I could determine, the clean install placed the new file past the limit.
That had to be one of the most frustrating day I ever spent with any Mac -- and I've been working with them since 1986 (or 1984 i f you include the Lisa 2). Since then I do not do a clean install unless I have a specific reason to do so. Think about it: Apple engineers put a tremendous amount of effort into making sure that an upgrade will work for the 98% of their users who do an ordinary update, not the rest of us geeks.
It won't work until Apple can get Spotlight to read my mind.
I tried a quick and easy trial and did a search for "Harry Potter". In addition to the expected hits, I got a few hundred crap files that were either unrelated ("corliss lamont philosophy of humanism.pdf") or unwanted (Aspyr newsletters). It missed the few image files that I know I have because, well, they're images without keywords in the file or filenames; the file names are something like "bookmark" because they're (duh!) bookmarks -- the physical kind for paper books -- I downloaded from a Harry Potter site.
In other words, I can't get it to exclude what I want it to exclude and it would require effort on the part of the user to label files. If a savvy user like me will fail to label a file from time to time, imagine what it would be like to get Terry Bottled Water to do it.
And before anyone claims that "things will be different by then" hasn't noticed that our "modern" OSs still rely on (often three letter) dot extensions!
>Home-schooling seems to be a better and better idea all of the time
Perhaps, but like I said, every kid I knew that was homeschooled had a very difficult time adjusting to society as an adult....
That's anecdotal evidence. While it may well be true of the home schooled people you met, we can't trust that it's true of the majority of them or that their social ineptitude is intrinsically due to home schooling. I've seen studies (sorry, no cites) that suggest that there's no correlation.
Personally, I would rather have a child that could function well in our society than have one that is massively intellectually superior.
There's no guarantee that intense academic training can produce a "massive intellect" any more than just anyone can be trained to be socially adroit.
If anything, home schoolers have the opportunity to have more and better social exposure than the denizens of our school systems. How? The vast majority of social exposure of students is among their peers who are hardly socially adept themselves: a case of the blind leading the blind. Home schooled kids potentially have more time to interact with adults who, if nothing else, are more socially experienced that your typical teenager.
Besides, there are arguably better places for kids to socialize than school. How can an environment where teachers spend a large amount of time and energy getting kids to shut up be considered "good" for socialization? Combine lunch time and breaks between classes means kids can "socialize" for, what, 90 minutes? There's plenty of time and plenty of places for kids to socialize regardless of where they go to school.
This also neglects that large number of kids who "socialize" this way at school but are isolated once they get home. And then there's the all too common harassment, bullying, cliques, peer pressure, etc, etc, etc. This is a good environment? Sorry, I don't think so. We as a society too often throw our kids into shark infested waters and hope for the best. Don't seem real smart to me.
Sorry, any problems home schoolers have with socializing has little if anything to with their bypassing the shark pool. There are a lot of parents who home school precisely because of this and academic reasons, not because they're religious fundamentalists.
Well, gee, maybe it's not the homework that's the problem. Maybe what they describe there is a massive cultural failure. It's a culture which basically discourages any attempt at personal responsibility, study, or academic results.
On the contrary, the homework model is a product of cultures that give members of their society every opportunity to falter knowing full well that many will.
Students have been blowing off homework since it was invented. Short of breaking out the racks and thumbscrews, nothing will significantly change: kids will fail to do their homework. End of story.
I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of why homework is a Good Thing(TM). For instance, what is the analog of homework in real life? How many people in the work force have homework? Not a lot. Outside of teachers, business owners, and (presumably) well paid white collar workers, very few.
If homework (as in the task that's supposed to be done, not where it's done) is supremely important, why isn't it done in school where it is more likely to be completed, and even more importantly, noticed when students are having trouble doing so they actually get timely assistance?
I could offer some suggestions but I'll leave that as a homework exercise -- which we all know the vast majority of you won't be doing...
If the purpose of homework is to instill discipline in students, wouldn't it make sense to impart it in such a way that isn't doubly disastrous? As it is now, the system allows them fail to learn the material and fail to learn discipline.
Our education system is severely ill-suited to accomplishing what many think it's supposed to do: give everyone some good book learnin' so they can become successful and productive, and what it was actually designed to do: teach the masses enough that they can become productive and indoctrinated members of the working class while floating some of the gifted on through higher education and life in the upper classes.
In other words, our education system was designed to allow students to fail (though preferably not too badly) and homework is a wonderful tool used to accomplish that end.
Apple, now raking in profits from its iPod, should seriously consider lowering their prices on their high-end machines to gain market share. Currently APPL is trading at $36.35...
There's a few problems with your suggestion:
There's no conceivable advantage for Apple -- or most any other company -- to cut prices on their low volume, high margin, professional hardware. It is extremely unlikely that any resulting increase in market share would ever offset the loss in profits, even in the long term.
Based on collective features, Macs are already very competitively priced. This is easily demonstrated by configuring a Mac at the Apple store and try to match the configuration on Dell's site. The price difference is typically small and will favor Macs more than some people may think. A major reason for this is that most Mac model base configurations have more standard features though this too changes over time. For instance, at various times, SCSI, FireWire, Wi-Fi, DVI were were standard on many or all Macs before they were on Wintel boxen.
By themselves, modest price changes for hardware -- which is essentially what you are suggesting -- are fairly irrelevant to much, if any, changes in desktop computer market share. This is because there is no one "desktop computer market", just a multitude of niche markets. Of course some niches are larger than others.
Apple's biggest market share is in publishing, graphics, video, etc. These market segments already use the high-end machines where modest price changes are irrelevant to market share. Much more significant is cost/performance changes which stimulates hardware upgrades.
Again, in the professional machine niche, hardware cost is almost irrelevant; switching software would potentially be much more costly. Considering that the enterprise market is "the big one", the changeover costs for software are likely to be huge, especially when you consider that the most common bundle of software is called Office.
The iPod has already convinced people Apple is a good brand, all they need is a price incentive to switch to Apple PCs.
Apple has already done this. It's called the Mac mini.
What about all the land it takes to grow the grass?
Unused or underutilized crop area. RTFA.
What about all the fresh water it takes to grow the grass? What about all the energy and logistics it takes to put the water on the grass?
It comes from the sky. This is called "rain." The energy that gets it into the sky comes from the sun. This is called "the water cycle."
What about the energy it takes to harvest the grass and turn it into a form that's useful?
What about it? No special equipment is required; just your ordinary tractors and balers. Burn locally. No tankers, mining equipment, or refineries required.
How much grass would one have to grow to actually put a minor dent in the fossil fuel consumption of the world?
Good question. Why don't you look up some figures and do a little arithmetic and give us some answers for a change?
After the dust settles, what would it cost relative to gasoline or oil?
Assuming that the grass doesn't need to be pumped out the ground, loaded onto tankers, shipped thousands of miles to a refinery, refined, loaded onto tanker trucks, driven to your home and pumped into your oil tank? Less.
NASA really knew what they were doing. they spent quite a bit of money, but we did Apollo, we did Skylab, we did Hubble, and they managed to maintain public support. Then they just somehow fucked it up. I get the feeling it had something to do with the ISS...
NASA screwed the pooch long before even Skylab. With the early Apollo landings a done deal, NASA submitted thier plans for the future. Obvious follow ups were a space station, lunar base, and Mars mission. The Battlestar Galactica (i.e., BIG) style programs had matching price tags. Nixon and Congress said no way; not surprising considering that the Vietnam War was still going on.
The first consolation prize was Skylab which used Saturn V hardware from canceled Apollo missions (17 & 18 to be exact) was relatively cheap. Second, was the Shuttle which with 20/20 hindsight, was doomed once the final design was frozen in 1972 (or thereabouts).
Instead of a fully reusable system, compromise and tight budget constraints yielded a disposable fuel tank (200 megabucks or so each), dangerous solid fuel boosters (think Challenger), a standing army required to operate the system, and a system so complicated that the Shuttle never came close to the planned flight rate of 42 (or whatever) flights per year. Current flight rate is closer to 10 per year; the max was something like 16.
And let us not forget porcine politics. A larger upfront investment to create a system with low operating costs would also eliminate juicy contracts that congress-critters could bring back to their districts year after year. Continued shrinking budgets left no resources to make even modest improvements such as liquid fly-back boosters to replace the solids.
And last but by certainly not least, the DoD style R&D and procurement style that NASA inherited from the boom days of the mid 1960s pretty much guaranteed the final result.
To top it all off, NASA has not produced even one new spacecraft or production rocket engine since Shuttle. That's more than 30 years of stagnation.
... previous NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe made the decision "based on what he perceived was the risk". This perceived risk is in performing a manned shuttle mission that is out of range of using the International Space Station as an emergency refuge....
Loose consensus at sci.space.tech is that O'Keefe's decision has virtually nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the extremely tight schedule necessary to complete ISS (International Space Station).
O'Keefe stated that he would abide by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) report. My understanding is that board did not insist that the Shuttle be able to seek refuge at ISS.
It's interesting that the article speaks of "risk" but doesn't explicitly use the term " safety risk" which is assumed. Indeed, the risks of any extra Shuttle flights go beyond the safety of the crew. Consider that the Shutle's only mission is ISS assembly after which the fleet will be retired -- and rightfully so. If a Shuttle were even to be reparably damaged with no injuries to the crew, the ISS program would be seriously threatened.
I would say I read around 25-50% of my Emails. The rest I only give a cursory scan.... He basically says that the time spent reading the emails and responding is a waste. Well, what do you think managers did to communicate with you before email? You had faxes, daily memos, daily reports to file... it is just more streamlined now. It is not like this stuff is new.
Spot on. I love email. I dislike telephone calls, and I hate them when I'm doing work. I followed the Eisenstadt's link where Donald Knuth explains how he opted out of email ages ago. Here's what Knuth had to say:
Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration.... On the other hand, I need to communicate with thousands of people all over the world... So if you want to write to me about any topic, please use good ol' snail mail and send a letter...
I have a wonderful secretary who looks at the incoming mail and separates out anything that she knows I've been looking forward to seeing urgently.
Nothing against the estimable Dr. Knuth, but I don't have a secretary.
Now if there's a medium that'll suck the life out of you it's instant messaging. As demanding as a phone call but now with the tedium of typing. And I'm a really lousy typist. BTW, what's the WPM of speaking vs. typing?
Slashdot Mirror
"Nessecary?" Make that "neccescary." :-j
The job of schools is to teach, or to provide a starting point in this world.Eh. Sometimes. Kinda. Sorta.
In the developed world, school systems are often (usually?) elaborate day care centers. Schools keep kids off the street, out of trouble (for the most part), and -- perhaps most importantly -- out of the workforce.
I've read a number of times that the US school system was modeled, in part, on Prussian schools which emphasized an instillment of discipline and obedience. It was adopted deliberately to handle the large influx of uneducated immigrants in order to mold them into compliant citizens with sufficient skills to become productive members of the work force. Whether true or not, it effectively describes the results of the US primary school system.
Unfortunately, the model remains largely intact even though the environment graduates face are quite different. Stated goals of "modern" education are largely rhetorical. Many methods are adopted and discarded so rapidly that virtually none have a chance to succeed or fail in any enlightening way.
As I don't see technology becoming any less a part of this world, I'd argue that it's entirely relevent to use it in schools.True, but it missing the point. Schools -- or more precisely, teachers -- are neither equiped to teach about technology any more than effectively use it. This is a failure on the part of our system, not our teachers.
Just as long as it only remains a part of schools, rather than becoming the schools themselves.Eh. Superficially true. "Technology" won't realistically be in a a position of "becoming" a school until we can produce beings like R. Daneel Olivaw or Commander Data.
We have a long way to go to properly exploit even current computer technology. One example: text books. Dead wood textbooks are a multi billion dollar black pit that do nothing to advance the state of the art of effective teaching tools. Imagine if that money were invested in creating hyper-text pads, perhaps using something like electronic ink and perhaps handwriting and speech recognition as well.
In brief, "technology" cannot be simply bolted on to our existing model of education and its current structure and teaching practices. In fact, it is quite apparent that our existing model is ineffective even if technology wasn't an issue. The suggestion in TFA that technology in schools is in any way a "fad" is yet another example of our educational system's myopia.
But that's another post entirely ... make that an entire thesis.
Imagine a beowolf cluster of these!
[shudder]
Eerste post! (O.k., zodat de bable vis doen geen Zweeds)
No. But I see what you're getting at. ;-j
Using empirical analysis, I wrote "x86", "NEXT", and "next" separately on three pieces of paper. I then placed the pieces of paper into a blender, spilled the shredded remains, and that's what came out. :-j
Since the MacIntel is technically the next NeXT, and NeXT Step already used x86, this would be the next next NeXT; much too messy for me.
If you're willing to live with just combining "next" and "x86" while preserving the lower case "x" of x86 while still making it stand out, it would be ... NExT86 ... but that just gives me the collywobbles.
So it's neXt86 for me!
Entrenchment of existing code base. Windows and Windows apps already have sections of code written towards existing x86 features. The payoff for using new features must be large enough to make overhauling such code worthwhile.
Alternatively, Apple will be targeting some solutions with x86 code for the first time. Obviously Apple already has some x86 code written since Jobs announced that OS X has been running on x86 for five years. However, it's never been released so presumably it's still malleable and a certain amount hasn't been optimized yet.
It's clearly not an issue that Windows developers wouldn't ever use new processor features, it's just a matter of how soon and extensively they will do so. Assuming there even are new features to be exploited, it seems reasonable that Apple may been in a better position to utilize them immediately.
I'd say slim to none, leaning heavily towards none. But I think that's a lot less important than your next question ...
Or is Apple going to sell a lesser version first, in which case why haven't they already switched over to selling it to early adopters already. Yes there really are people who buy systems and wait for the applications to arrive later.Apple hasn't switched over because consumers won't buy any box that doesn't run OS X apps, Macintel or not. Developers need the head start.
However, Apple and Mac developers don't have backward compatibility issues; whatever processor Intel serves up can't break code that doesn't exist. All Apple needs to do is make sure that the Xcode compilers are ready for the neXt86 processor such that what developers are compiling now will run on the new processor.
It's highly unlikely that the neXt86 will be that different, but the fact that the Mac is a clean slate means it's impossible to rule out. This is wild speculation, but Apple may be able to use this advantage to exploit the new processor's features in a way that Windows developer can't. Think of the marketing coup for Apple and Intel.
Intel may even use Apple to compel Windows developers to adopt new processor features much the way Apple spurred the USB device market.
On the other hand, the neXt86 may only sport fins and a racing stripe. :-j
Funny how you failed to point out the reason:
As is often the case, the problem is simple -- though by no means necessarily easy to solve: control the pigs. What's really "funny" is that as the supposedly most intelligent species on the planet, humans actually create a problem (indirectly or not) then fail to address it. Let's hope that they can control pigs.
Sorry but I got to say it: the Tanzanians have made their beds, now they have to lion them.
Whether there's anything wrong with me is strictly between myself and the voices in my head, thank you very much.
As for relying on the government ("of the people, by the people, for the people" ... hey, maybe that's where the voices in my head come from ...), yes, I do expect that. Our government -- local state and federal -- set policies that dictate how companies provide internet service to our homes.
The state I live in has a Public Service Commission that represents the interests of consumers with regards to utilities including telecommunications and cable. I don't have exact figures but out local phone company petitions the for rate increases three or seven times a year. They argue that each of them are necessary, yet, they somehow manage to remain profitable even though only one out of seven or nine actually get approved.
Everybody knows it's a game. But, who should we depend on if not the government to protect us from companies that will gleefully take the shirts off our backs if they thought we're willing (to extend the metaphor) procure an new shirt every month?
So let's say I abandon my commie pinko ways and join the rugged individualist Libertarians and do it without no stinkin' lousy guvmint ...
Ah! I'll use the free market! I'll take advantage of a competing services! I can use [drum roll] satellite! I'll be free of the stifling oppression of the govmint! OK, so it costs nearly twice as much and has a disastrous latency problems and a pitifully slow upload speed. Hmm, what else can I do?
Get rid of those interferin' guvmint agencies and wait for Private Industry to fight over each other to invest millions of dollars that they can recoup after only eight years ... if they charge triple the rate I pay now ... hmm.
I got it! I'll set up my own local wireless network! Sure! If Andy Hardy and Judy Garland can do it, so can I! All I need is a few hundred bucks and a land wire connection to the internet. OK, so I'll need to pay commercial rates ... but I can share the costs with my neighbors! So, all I need then is a hundred dollars or so from each, just to start out, but we'll pay less in the long run. Yeah!
Of course ... I'll have to do some trouble shooting. And make sure everybody pays their share for the service on a timely basis. Upgrade and replace equipment now and then -- everybody would be willing to pony up some extra cash when that happens. And it'll only cost me some of my spare time!
OK ... maybe I'll charge everyone a little bit extra each month to compensate me for my time -- it's only fair, right? Sure, I'll have no time to mow the lawn or go see a movie, but at least I'm being compensated; I'll still be making big bucks at my Real Job ... at least until it gets shipped overseas.
But, hey, I'll can still collect unemployment!
[I smack my forhead with heal of my hand]
Gee, I guess I really don't need no guvmint! I could have starting do this years ago! Yeah, this rugged individualism is great stuff! Thanks, Mr. Libertarianism!
Now all I gotta do is tackle those potholes in the road. Let's see ...
Short answer: no.
Longer answer: though theoretically possible in the long term (depending on how you define "long term"), it's highly unlikely.
Here's an only slightly more likely alternative: instead of making their software available to generic x86 boxes, Apple could design a not quite generic x86 box specifically meant to support current x86 operating systems (Windows, Linux, etc).
What would an Apple style generic x86 box look like?
Assuming they made such a box, Apple will create a niche market machine, most likely the equivelant of the G4 Cube which targeted the executive desktop: a small machine that does everything that 90% of a typical productivity oriented user would need, in a stylish package. It will feature no hassle, "take it out of the box and it works" ease of use. Well, as much as Windows or Linux would allow.
Price difference between a PC mini and a Mac mini? Not much. Why make one? Tap into the market segments of people who absolutely positively must run Windows software, and the Windows Weenie people who would rather drink poison than buy a Mac.
Why won't Apple do this? Most people who would be willing to switch won't. How do we know this? Because people who would have no significant issues at all switching now, are not switching (e.g, running Windows specific software or other specific compatibility issues; think grandmas). There is no certain sign such a Windows to Mac migration is imminent. And if there's no reason for people to change platfor, there's no reason for Apple to change from their current path.
Any other speculative paths run into the same problem: there is no compelling reason for Apple to change what is now a winning -- in the sense of sustainable -- strategy. Whatever would force Apple to change would be forcing the entire PC to change as well. Predictions about the future of the PC industry run 10 cents a million.
While the article states that there is no DRM or TCPA in the dev boxes, there is still proof to the contrary.
All I see is a picture of a chip on a motherboard. What indication is that it's the InteliMac motherboard? Secondly, does the mere presence of the chip guarantee that DRM is functional without enabling software?
Until those questions are answered adequately, I'd say you have evidence, not proof.
n short, I rather like the mouse, although since I was using it in a near-silent house last night, I noticed that it makes a sort of squeaking sound sometimes. I think this is plastic rubbing in it somewhere...
A squeaking noise, eh? Do you by any chance have any cheese in the house?
When having sex with your partner, why just imagine the partner you'd rather be having sex with? Though considering the usual slashdot crowd, it makes a great PPDD (portable porn display device).
Somone call John Dvorak...his title as reigning champion of the blithering idiots is being seriously contested.
Just who is this John Tierney [nytimes.com], anyway? Judging from his whining about 'man-years I've spent running virus scans and reformatting hard drives', he doesn't sound like any computer profesional I know ...
He's a columnist writing for the editorial section of you newspaper. On a regular basis. That is, he is decidedly not a computer geek.
Intentional or not, the bulk of his piece is largely a setup for the punchline:
It's also possible that it's a veiled argument against the death penalty: there are sentences worse than death.
The thing that made the Mac immortal wasn't necessarily the user interface ...
The thing that made the Mac immortal was the fact that anyone could "publish" documents from their desktop without needing complex typesetting systems or knowledge of traditional "publishing" and commercial printing processes.
And what made publishing documents so easy? Yes, the user interface.
Reading various comments on this thread alone, never mind the word that is called slashdot, I'm forced to conclude that many people here don't understand what a user interface really is.
Virtually everything involving computers back then required complex knowledge to perform anything but the simplest tasks. Macintosh brought its capabilities to a level understandable by a four year old. Ask three or four year olds how old they are and they'll hold up fingers and say "this many!"; take them to a buffet table and ask what they want to eat and they'll point at what they want -- even without saying a single word. Macintosh captured this simplicity with point and click ; the most notable difference is that users need to use a mouse instead of just pointing a finger, of course.
Making complex knowledge of computers available to a user is fairly trivial. Adding text menus and function keys, the most common MS-DOS interface at the time, is also trivial; likewise adding a mouse. For many years publishers of DOS and Windows proclaimed their programs were "user friendly" presumably on the basis of their menu based interface in that it simply had one. Whether or not users can make the program do what they want had little or bearing on slapping the "user friendly" label on it. Indeed, the situation hasn't changed all that much.
Until developers (and pundits) realize that not mouses and menus a user friendly interface make, the sooner computers won't be more difficult to use than they need be.
Making a false distinction between interface and the power and functionality underneath is as misleading as making a distinction between the human brain and the mind: the mind is essentially a manifestation of the brain's function; mental illness is a manifestation of a sick or damaged brain. Likewise, the power and usefulness of a computer system (OS, application, etc.) from a user's perspective is inextricably tied to the interface.
This explains a large part of why Windows sucks (again, from a user's perspective) and why Linux is so slow in displacing Windows. One can argue that even though the Mac platform represents the most refined user interface in computing to date, it is Windows' superficial resemblance to the Mac's interface that lulls the typical Windows user into complacency. The oversight -- or downright dismissal -- of the importance of user interfaces by many hardcore Linux geeks (though certainly not all!) is another topic in its own right but ultimately is caused by the perception that interfaces are a distinct entity that cannot possibly be the source of real power of an OS -- or application.
Make glib dismissals of the importance of user interfaces at your own peril.
It's the interface stupid.
Wouldn't it be cheaper, easier, and more effective to, I don't know, build energy systems that don't release carbon? Just a thought.
Sure. Solar Power Satellites. Large arrays of solar cells assembled in earth orbit and the energy beamed to earth via microwave. And no, it will not be a "death ray". The beam footprint would be miles across with a power density a mere fraction of sunlight. See Geoffrey Landis papers and The SSP Monitor, or do a google.
Apple stopped using those ROMs several years ago, I believe when they made the transition from m68k to PPC. There's actually a ROM image of the old Mac toolbox ROM on the hard disk (I think Classic MacOS used it).
Yes, there is a ROM image file but it was introduced with the original iMac which from then on are called New World Macs. The previous Mac models, the beige G3s, are called Old Word Macs. That file also contains more than just the contents of the Old World ROMs, I believe.
I learned more than I wanted to about the ROM file when I tried to perform a clean install of OS 9 (or was it 8.5?) on my original Bondi Blue iMac. The ROM file had to reside within the first gig or so on the hard drive and as best as I could determine, the clean install placed the new file past the limit.
That had to be one of the most frustrating day I ever spent with any Mac -- and I've been working with them since 1986 (or 1984 i f you include the Lisa 2). Since then I do not do a clean install unless I have a specific reason to do so. Think about it: Apple engineers put a tremendous amount of effort into making sure that an upgrade will work for the 98% of their users who do an ordinary update, not the rest of us geeks.
WHAT'S TAKING SO DAMN LONG?!
It won't work until Apple can get Spotlight to read my mind.
I tried a quick and easy trial and did a search for "Harry Potter". In addition to the expected hits, I got a few hundred crap files that were either unrelated ("corliss lamont philosophy of humanism.pdf") or unwanted (Aspyr newsletters). It missed the few image files that I know I have because, well, they're images without keywords in the file or filenames; the file names are something like "bookmark" because they're (duh!) bookmarks -- the physical kind for paper books -- I downloaded from a Harry Potter site.
In other words, I can't get it to exclude what I want it to exclude and it would require effort on the part of the user to label files. If a savvy user like me will fail to label a file from time to time, imagine what it would be like to get Terry Bottled Water to do it.
And before anyone claims that "things will be different by then" hasn't noticed that our "modern" OSs still rely on (often three letter) dot extensions!
>Home-schooling seems to be a better and better idea all of the time
...
Perhaps, but like I said, every kid I knew that was homeschooled had a very difficult time adjusting to society as an adult.
That's anecdotal evidence. While it may well be true of the home schooled people you met, we can't trust that it's true of the majority of them or that their social ineptitude is intrinsically due to home schooling. I've seen studies (sorry, no cites) that suggest that there's no correlation.
Personally, I would rather have a child that could function well in our society than have one that is massively intellectually superior.
There's no guarantee that intense academic training can produce a "massive intellect" any more than just anyone can be trained to be socially adroit.
If anything, home schoolers have the opportunity to have more and better social exposure than the denizens of our school systems. How? The vast majority of social exposure of students is among their peers who are hardly socially adept themselves: a case of the blind leading the blind. Home schooled kids potentially have more time to interact with adults who, if nothing else, are more socially experienced that your typical teenager.
Besides, there are arguably better places for kids to socialize than school. How can an environment where teachers spend a large amount of time and energy getting kids to shut up be considered "good" for socialization? Combine lunch time and breaks between classes means kids can "socialize" for, what, 90 minutes? There's plenty of time and plenty of places for kids to socialize regardless of where they go to school.
This also neglects that large number of kids who "socialize" this way at school but are isolated once they get home. And then there's the all too common harassment, bullying, cliques, peer pressure, etc, etc, etc. This is a good environment? Sorry, I don't think so. We as a society too often throw our kids into shark infested waters and hope for the best. Don't seem real smart to me.
Sorry, any problems home schoolers have with socializing has little if anything to with their bypassing the shark pool. There are a lot of parents who home school precisely because of this and academic reasons, not because they're religious fundamentalists.
Well, gee, maybe it's not the homework that's the problem. Maybe what they describe there is a massive cultural failure. It's a culture which basically discourages any attempt at personal responsibility, study, or academic results.
On the contrary, the homework model is a product of cultures that give members of their society every opportunity to falter knowing full well that many will.
Students have been blowing off homework since it was invented. Short of breaking out the racks and thumbscrews, nothing will significantly change: kids will fail to do their homework. End of story.
I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of why homework is a Good Thing(TM). For instance, what is the analog of homework in real life? How many people in the work force have homework? Not a lot. Outside of teachers, business owners, and (presumably) well paid white collar workers, very few.
If homework (as in the task that's supposed to be done, not where it's done) is supremely important, why isn't it done in school where it is more likely to be completed, and even more importantly, noticed when students are having trouble doing so they actually get timely assistance?
I could offer some suggestions but I'll leave that as a homework exercise -- which we all know the vast majority of you won't be doing ...
If the purpose of homework is to instill discipline in students, wouldn't it make sense to impart it in such a way that isn't doubly disastrous? As it is now, the system allows them fail to learn the material and fail to learn discipline.
Our education system is severely ill-suited to accomplishing what many think it's supposed to do: give everyone some good book learnin' so they can become successful and productive, and what it was actually designed to do: teach the masses enough that they can become productive and indoctrinated members of the working class while floating some of the gifted on through higher education and life in the upper classes.
In other words, our education system was designed to allow students to fail (though preferably not too badly) and homework is a wonderful tool used to accomplish that end.
Apple, now raking in profits from its iPod, should seriously consider lowering their prices on their high-end machines to gain market share. Currently APPL is trading at $36.35 ...
There's a few problems with your suggestion:
Based on collective features, Macs are already very competitively priced. This is easily demonstrated by configuring a Mac at the Apple store and try to match the configuration on Dell's site. The price difference is typically small and will favor Macs more than some people may think. A major reason for this is that most Mac model base configurations have more standard features though this too changes over time. For instance, at various times, SCSI, FireWire, Wi-Fi, DVI were were standard on many or all Macs before they were on Wintel boxen.
By themselves, modest price changes for hardware -- which is essentially what you are suggesting -- are fairly irrelevant to much, if any, changes in desktop computer market share. This is because there is no one "desktop computer market", just a multitude of niche markets. Of course some niches are larger than others.
Apple's biggest market share is in publishing, graphics, video, etc. These market segments already use the high-end machines where modest price changes are irrelevant to market share. Much more significant is cost/performance changes which stimulates hardware upgrades.
Again, in the professional machine niche, hardware cost is almost irrelevant; switching software would potentially be much more costly. Considering that the enterprise market is "the big one", the changeover costs for software are likely to be huge, especially when you consider that the most common bundle of software is called Office.
The iPod has already convinced people Apple is a good brand, all they need is a price incentive to switch to Apple PCs.
Apple has already done this. It's called the Mac mini.
What about all the land it takes to grow the grass?
Unused or underutilized crop area. RTFA.
What about all the fresh water it takes to grow the grass? What about all the energy and logistics it takes to put the water on the grass?
It comes from the sky. This is called "rain." The energy that gets it into the sky comes from the sun. This is called "the water cycle."
What about the energy it takes to harvest the grass and turn it into a form that's useful?
What about it? No special equipment is required; just your ordinary tractors and balers. Burn locally. No tankers, mining equipment, or refineries required.
How much grass would one have to grow to actually put a minor dent in the fossil fuel consumption of the world?Good question. Why don't you look up some figures and do a little arithmetic and give us some answers for a change?
After the dust settles, what would it cost relative to gasoline or oil?
Assuming that the grass doesn't need to be pumped out the ground, loaded onto tankers, shipped thousands of miles to a refinery, refined, loaded onto tanker trucks, driven to your home and pumped into your oil tank? Less.
And yet, the money has to come from somewhere. Any better ideas?
T-shirts.
NASA really knew what they were doing. they spent quite a bit of money, but we did Apollo, we did Skylab, we did Hubble, and they managed to maintain public support. Then they just somehow fucked it up. I get the feeling it had something to do with the ISS ...
NASA screwed the pooch long before even Skylab. With the early Apollo landings a done deal, NASA submitted thier plans for the future. Obvious follow ups were a space station, lunar base, and Mars mission. The Battlestar Galactica (i.e., BIG) style programs had matching price tags. Nixon and Congress said no way; not surprising considering that the Vietnam War was still going on.
The first consolation prize was Skylab which used Saturn V hardware from canceled Apollo missions (17 & 18 to be exact) was relatively cheap. Second, was the Shuttle which with 20/20 hindsight, was doomed once the final design was frozen in 1972 (or thereabouts).
Instead of a fully reusable system, compromise and tight budget constraints yielded a disposable fuel tank (200 megabucks or so each), dangerous solid fuel boosters (think Challenger), a standing army required to operate the system, and a system so complicated that the Shuttle never came close to the planned flight rate of 42 (or whatever) flights per year. Current flight rate is closer to 10 per year; the max was something like 16.
And let us not forget porcine politics. A larger upfront investment to create a system with low operating costs would also eliminate juicy contracts that congress-critters could bring back to their districts year after year. Continued shrinking budgets left no resources to make even modest improvements such as liquid fly-back boosters to replace the solids.
And last but by certainly not least, the DoD style R&D and procurement style that NASA inherited from the boom days of the mid 1960s pretty much guaranteed the final result.
To top it all off, NASA has not produced even one new spacecraft or production rocket engine since Shuttle. That's more than 30 years of stagnation.
Loose consensus at sci.space.tech is that O'Keefe's decision has virtually nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the extremely tight schedule necessary to complete ISS (International Space Station).
O'Keefe stated that he would abide by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) report. My understanding is that board did not insist that the Shuttle be able to seek refuge at ISS.
It's interesting that the article speaks of "risk" but doesn't explicitly use the term " safety risk" which is assumed. Indeed, the risks of any extra Shuttle flights go beyond the safety of the crew. Consider that the Shutle's only mission is ISS assembly after which the fleet will be retired -- and rightfully so. If a Shuttle were even to be reparably damaged with no injuries to the crew, the ISS program would be seriously threatened.
I would say I read around 25-50% of my Emails. The rest I only give a cursory scan. ... He basically says that the time spent reading the emails and responding is a waste. Well, what do you think managers did to communicate with you before email? You had faxes, daily memos, daily reports to file... it is just more streamlined now. It is not like this stuff is new.
Spot on. I love email. I dislike telephone calls, and I hate them when I'm doing work. I followed the Eisenstadt's link where Donald Knuth explains how he opted out of email ages ago. Here's what Knuth had to say:
Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. ... On the other hand, I need to communicate with thousands of people all over the world ... So if you want to write to me about any topic, please use good ol' snail mail and send a letter ...
I have a wonderful secretary who looks at the incoming mail and separates out anything that she knows I've been looking forward to seeing urgently.
Nothing against the estimable Dr. Knuth, but I don't have a secretary.
Now if there's a medium that'll suck the life out of you it's instant messaging. As demanding as a phone call but now with the tedium of typing. And I'm a really lousy typist. BTW, what's the WPM of speaking vs. typing?