I don't know about your case in particular, but people that seem to defend Apple and "clarify a misleading story" on Slashdot do seem to be overly sensitive to these issues. A lot of commentary about MS or Vista is misleading or wrong, but nobody gets overly indignant about it. Whenever there is a story about Apple that is remotely critical, there is usually a storm of protest to "clarify" the story or to often call it flamebait.
I think the group effect is fanboism even though the individuals may not be guilty.
It is pretty annoying though the way the Apple fanboys mod down any comment remotely critical. Rightly or wrongly, you might be associated with these people. People flame MS all the time and get modded "funny", but the exact same comments directed toward Apple make certain people genuinely upset.
>>Consensus science isn't science, it's politics, and that's exactly what the Global Warming debate is about: politics
The politicians have made Global Warming about politics because that is all they know. Scientific consensus is a perfectly valid means of reaching policy decisions, but when the consensus is against thier agenda, politicians try to undermine the consensus as the author does here.
The science will work itself out with or without any involvment of politicians, but certain policy decisions cannot wait unil something is absolutely proven. Consensus by scientists (not politicians) is a convenient means to establish the state of current knowledge even though it may prove to be completely wrong.
I think the bigger threat to science and democracy is when the government re-writes scientific reports to say whatever they want like the Bush administration has. I think "scientific consensus" is important to policy decisions. The science itself will work itself out in the long run (and maybe the current consensus will be proven wrong), and politicians should stay out of the scientific debate. The only the reason the author is commenting on this is because he has a policy agenda and wants to try and undermine the other side.
I waited a few minutes and tried again. I am now getting an eHarmony advert (You can't buy love on Ebay), and I clicked search 5 or 6 times and got this same advert.
It did make wonder what kind of bill these people would run up if everybody on Slashdot clicked-thru their advert.
Ebay has TV and radio commercials. They were a successful, house-hold name before Google even became popular. It's like saying it would be suicide for Coke to pull advertising from Google.
>>It's like driving lessons. Do they teach you how to drive a Toyota or a Ford, or do they teach you to drive a car?
I'm talking vocational sense - graduating seniors entering the workforce. It's like a job wanting somebody proficient in Oracle, but you know SQL Server. Some jobs might take you, but if they say Oracle then usually they want Oracle. They don't want someone who has been taught databases - they want someone who has been taught Oracle.
Most jobs will specifically say Office. It is used in like 98% of businesses. Look at it from the student's perspective. They are ready to get a job, but now they have to learn a second software package. "Why the fuck did they just not teach me the one used by 98% of businesses to begin with? Now I have to spend my summer learning Office before I can start applying for jobs. I might even have to go out and buy it so that I can learn it."
I agree that younger students could use whatever software, but by the last two years of high school they should be using what business uses. Most students don't go to college.
I have heard that the main business software makers of the time were very interested in the Amiga and were even considering making it their primary development platform for Lotus 123, Dbase, and Wordperfect. Wordperfect was the first port to come out, but the only people who bought it were those who needed to trade files with thier work computer. It very minimally took advantage of the GUI OS, and people instead bought word processors that more lived up to the system's capabilities. Once Wordperfect was a failure, the business software companies abandoned their work on ports and pretty much doomed it to being just an enthusiast's computer.
It was one of those catch 22 situations. The only way businesses would believe it to be more than a game/home computer was if the main business software was available for it, but business software would not be viable without a good base of computers in businesses to begin with. I think it was up to Commodore to solve this dilemma, but it didn't happen. The sad thing is that they couldn't even beat Apple, who wasn't doing that great at the time. The Amiga was a better, cheaper Mac in many ways. The education market saved Apple. The Amiga did make some inroads in the graphics community, but that wasn't enough (I believe I heard that Bablyon 5 used a farm of Amigas for rendering).
>>And if Microsoft thinks Open Office is a pain now, try suing people over it, then see how many people refuse to buy their products.
Statements like that just shout "I am delusional!". The people using Open Office are kinda already refusing to buy Microsoft's products. I don't think Microsoft is shakin' in their boots about pissing off Open Office users.
I think it might have been smart to distance themselves from the gaming industry in the late 80's. I owned an Amiga, which had the same CPU as the Mac, but it had color and sound (which the Mac did not have), and arguably a better GUI operating system for quite a bit less cost. Back then a lot of people were saying only game machines needed color and graphics, definately not machines that were serious for business. Color = game machine, even. I think this contributed to the failure of the Amiga, even though it was very popular with computer enthusiasists of the time.
The Atari ST also had color and sound as well as the same CPU as the Mac, and it failed as well. The Atari brand name probably doomed it to being a "home computer" at best.
There was still some of that distinction then between a "home computer" and a "work computer", and the home computers ended up failing. I think the price of the Mac also actually helped it avoid the "home computer" label.
>>If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet in the direction I was going, that bullet would break the speed of light!
Or better yet, turn on a flashlight. Light would break the speed of light!
>>Apple makes elegant software that does everything needed and not an ounce more. Its design is to keep things simple, straightforward, and easy for your average user to pick up.
The only experience with Apple software I can think of at the moment is Quicktime. The word "elegant" does not come to mind.
I did not RTFA, but I assume they are talking about K-12. The majority of 12th graders enter into the workforce upon graduation. Most jobs that require computer skills will require Office. Proficiency cannot be obtained by the average non-technical person by taking one half semester class. They need to use it as part of their school work.
I believe the student is being short-changed if they have to go out and learn Office on their own so they can get a job when it would have been just as convenient for the school to teach them that to begin with rather than something like open office. $50 a seat (or whatever they charge) in a lab shared by several students and used over several years is a small price to pay to make sure their education is relevant to thier needs. Vocational needs is important to the majority of students, especially in high school, and vocational needs is one of the prime reasons computer skills are taught in high school to begin with.
Oh, and I would add that in college you should start to some extent focusing on learning stuff that business will require of you. Right now that means learning Office. It's probably not that big of a deal for K-12, but in college the average non-technical person should start focusing on Office because just about any job for a college graduate will require this. Non-technical users take longer to grasp certain concepts, so they should get started in college.
>> Lastly, this isnt just limited to K-12, in college, office software is very important to have, for homework, projects, research etc. so any cost savings is greatly appreciated.
There are deep discounts for college students as well. For example, every student in the University of Texas system can get most MS software for $15-$30 if I remember correctly - Windows, Office, Visual Studio, etc...
Oh, I didn't explicitly state it, but the transmitter guy could not profit, only the receiver. He would be helping out another version of himself in a different universe, but it would not alter his own situation at all.
But maybe if you figured out how to build the transmitter-reciever combo, there would be an even chance another "you" figured it out first and you would end up being the receiver-guy and thus could profit from your invention.
I was talking about its role in time travel. There was an article I read years ago, I think in Scientific American, that discussed how the many worlds interpretation solved the paradox problems in time travel. I think the authors were big supporters of the many worlds interpretation, and they claimed that certain calculations in quantum mechanics required the assumption of many worlds, though others considered it just a mathematical convenience.
Correct, you would have to be careful and hope a lot of info can be transmitted. Info would be most accurate for the near future. If you could only transmit "Buy IBM Stock" back into the first part of the twentieth century, it could pay off big or not at all for the reciever. The reciever could also interpret it as typewriters are the wave of the future.
>>if you do manage to do this, send me a copy of all the sports results for the next 100 years and history of the stocks, etc.
It's been awhile since I have read anything about it so I might not be remembering it correctly, but I think there is an interpretation of the Many Worlds/Parallel Universe view of quantum mechanics that a new instance of reality would be created (a new universe) that would effectively provide a level of separation. The info recieved in the past might not be accurate for this new universe, because in this new universe a different future was possible. Or something like that...It has been awhile. I've seen it used to alleviate the paradox of going back in time and killing your grandfather.
I just re-watched the scene. The last few seconds is of TONY looking up from the table. Our POV is probably Meadow, but definately NOT Tony. I was fairly on board with Tony being whacked, and maybe the audience whacking was just a shared experience, but the fact that it is not Tony's POV kind of kills that reasoning for me. In fact, it was like Chase was taunting us - "see, Tony is still alive," then blackness. He wins, we lose. We just got whacked. The end. Their story goes on, but we won't be apart of it anymore.
I guess it could be argued that the POV is a killer and Tony looks up just as the end comes, but I am not sure I like the idea of switching back to Tony's POV after he is dead.
People had been complaining a lot for last few seasons about not enough whacking, so the creator gave the audience the ultimate whack - he whacked them. He set up a lot of tension and put you in the moment, while distracting you at the same time, and then whack - everything goes black. You never saw it coming.
The 2nd to last episode was a trick to make people think they he had given in to the complaints and was going to have a whack-fest, but it was just a diversion. He was just setting the audience up to make the ultimate whack even sweeter.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the file size of a HD movie, and how long will it take to download at 1.5 mbs?
I don't know about your case in particular, but people that seem to defend Apple and "clarify a misleading story" on Slashdot do seem to be overly sensitive to these issues. A lot of commentary about MS or Vista is misleading or wrong, but nobody gets overly indignant about it. Whenever there is a story about Apple that is remotely critical, there is usually a storm of protest to "clarify" the story or to often call it flamebait.
I think the group effect is fanboism even though the individuals may not be guilty.
It is pretty annoying though the way the Apple fanboys mod down any comment remotely critical. Rightly or wrongly, you might be associated with these people. People flame MS all the time and get modded "funny", but the exact same comments directed toward Apple make certain people genuinely upset.
>>Consensus science isn't science, it's politics, and that's exactly what the Global Warming debate is about: politics
The politicians have made Global Warming about politics because that is all they know. Scientific consensus is a perfectly valid means of reaching policy decisions, but when the consensus is against thier agenda, politicians try to undermine the consensus as the author does here.
The science will work itself out with or without any involvment of politicians, but certain policy decisions cannot wait unil something is absolutely proven. Consensus by scientists (not politicians) is a convenient means to establish the state of current knowledge even though it may prove to be completely wrong.
I think the bigger threat to science and democracy is when the government re-writes scientific reports to say whatever they want like the Bush administration has. I think "scientific consensus" is important to policy decisions. The science itself will work itself out in the long run (and maybe the current consensus will be proven wrong), and politicians should stay out of the scientific debate. The only the reason the author is commenting on this is because he has a policy agenda and wants to try and undermine the other side.
I waited a few minutes and tried again. I am now getting an eHarmony advert (You can't buy love on Ebay), and I clicked search 5 or 6 times and got this same advert.
It did make wonder what kind of bill these people would run up if everybody on Slashdot clicked-thru their advert.
I just tried a few times, and I got no adverts at all. The first search result was for ebay.com. (I'm in the US)
Ebay has TV and radio commercials. They were a successful, house-hold name before Google even became popular. It's like saying it would be suicide for Coke to pull advertising from Google.
>>It's like driving lessons. Do they teach you how to drive a Toyota or a Ford, or do they teach you to drive a car?
I'm talking vocational sense - graduating seniors entering the workforce. It's like a job wanting somebody proficient in Oracle, but you know SQL Server. Some jobs might take you, but if they say Oracle then usually they want Oracle. They don't want someone who has been taught databases - they want someone who has been taught Oracle.
Most jobs will specifically say Office. It is used in like 98% of businesses. Look at it from the student's perspective. They are ready to get a job, but now they have to learn a second software package. "Why the fuck did they just not teach me the one used by 98% of businesses to begin with? Now I have to spend my summer learning Office before I can start applying for jobs. I might even have to go out and buy it so that I can learn it."
I agree that younger students could use whatever software, but by the last two years of high school they should be using what business uses. Most students don't go to college.
I have heard that the main business software makers of the time were very interested in the Amiga and were even considering making it their primary development platform for Lotus 123, Dbase, and Wordperfect. Wordperfect was the first port to come out, but the only people who bought it were those who needed to trade files with thier work computer. It very minimally took advantage of the GUI OS, and people instead bought word processors that more lived up to the system's capabilities. Once Wordperfect was a failure, the business software companies abandoned their work on ports and pretty much doomed it to being just an enthusiast's computer.
It was one of those catch 22 situations. The only way businesses would believe it to be more than a game/home computer was if the main business software was available for it, but business software would not be viable without a good base of computers in businesses to begin with. I think it was up to Commodore to solve this dilemma, but it didn't happen. The sad thing is that they couldn't even beat Apple, who wasn't doing that great at the time. The Amiga was a better, cheaper Mac in many ways. The education market saved Apple. The Amiga did make some inroads in the graphics community, but that wasn't enough (I believe I heard that Bablyon 5 used a farm of Amigas for rendering).
>>And if Microsoft thinks Open Office is a pain now, try suing people over it, then see how many people refuse to buy their products.
Statements like that just shout "I am delusional!". The people using Open Office are kinda already refusing to buy Microsoft's products. I don't think Microsoft is shakin' in their boots about pissing off Open Office users.
I think it might have been smart to distance themselves from the gaming industry in the late 80's. I owned an Amiga, which had the same CPU as the Mac, but it had color and sound (which the Mac did not have), and arguably a better GUI operating system for quite a bit less cost. Back then a lot of people were saying only game machines needed color and graphics, definately not machines that were serious for business. Color = game machine, even. I think this contributed to the failure of the Amiga, even though it was very popular with computer enthusiasists of the time.
The Atari ST also had color and sound as well as the same CPU as the Mac, and it failed as well. The Atari brand name probably doomed it to being a "home computer" at best.
There was still some of that distinction then between a "home computer" and a "work computer", and the home computers ended up failing. I think the price of the Mac also actually helped it avoid the "home computer" label.
>>>>>>>>If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet...
>>>>>>I don't believe you will find a gun that shoots a bullet that fast.
>>>>I don't believe you will find that you can stand on this matter flying out of a sun either...
>>I don't believe I let myself walk right into this conversation! He he...
I don't believe that you would believe that you could avoid walking into a conversation like this on Slashdot...I believe...
>>>>If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet...
>>I don't believe you will find a gun that shoots a bullet that fast.
I don't believe you will find that you can stand on this matter flying out of a sun either...
>>If I stood on some of this matter that was flying out of a sun, and shot a bullet in the direction I was going, that bullet would break the speed of light!
Or better yet, turn on a flashlight. Light would break the speed of light!
>>Apple makes elegant software that does everything needed and not an ounce more. Its design is to keep things simple, straightforward, and easy for your average user to pick up.
The only experience with Apple software I can think of at the moment is Quicktime. The word "elegant" does not come to mind.
I did not RTFA, but I assume they are talking about K-12. The majority of 12th graders enter into the workforce upon graduation. Most jobs that require computer skills will require Office. Proficiency cannot be obtained by the average non-technical person by taking one half semester class. They need to use it as part of their school work.
I believe the student is being short-changed if they have to go out and learn Office on their own so they can get a job when it would have been just as convenient for the school to teach them that to begin with rather than something like open office. $50 a seat (or whatever they charge) in a lab shared by several students and used over several years is a small price to pay to make sure their education is relevant to thier needs. Vocational needs is important to the majority of students, especially in high school, and vocational needs is one of the prime reasons computer skills are taught in high school to begin with.
Oh, and I would add that in college you should start to some extent focusing on learning stuff that business will require of you. Right now that means learning Office. It's probably not that big of a deal for K-12, but in college the average non-technical person should start focusing on Office because just about any job for a college graduate will require this. Non-technical users take longer to grasp certain concepts, so they should get started in college.
>> Lastly, this isnt just limited to K-12, in college, office software is very important to have, for homework, projects, research etc. so any cost savings is greatly appreciated.
There are deep discounts for college students as well. For example, every student in the University of Texas system can get most MS software for $15-$30 if I remember correctly - Windows, Office, Visual Studio, etc...
Oh, I didn't explicitly state it, but the transmitter guy could not profit, only the receiver. He would be helping out another version of himself in a different universe, but it would not alter his own situation at all.
But maybe if you figured out how to build the transmitter-reciever combo, there would be an even chance another "you" figured it out first and you would end up being the receiver-guy and thus could profit from your invention.
Crackpots also often seem envious of other's notoriety ("EINSTIEN WAS WRONG!"), but that webpage has it in spades.
>>What you are citing is, IIRC, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory.
yeah, "Many Worlds/Parallel Universe" = "many worlds"
I was talking about its role in time travel. There was an article I read years ago, I think in Scientific American, that discussed how the many worlds interpretation solved the paradox problems in time travel. I think the authors were big supporters of the many worlds interpretation, and they claimed that certain calculations in quantum mechanics required the assumption of many worlds, though others considered it just a mathematical convenience.
Correct, you would have to be careful and hope a lot of info can be transmitted. Info would be most accurate for the near future. If you could only transmit "Buy IBM Stock" back into the first part of the twentieth century, it could pay off big or not at all for the reciever. The reciever could also interpret it as typewriters are the wave of the future.
>>if you do manage to do this, send me a copy of all the sports results for the next 100 years and history of the stocks, etc.
It's been awhile since I have read anything about it so I might not be remembering it correctly, but I think there is an interpretation of the Many Worlds/Parallel Universe view of quantum mechanics that a new instance of reality would be created (a new universe) that would effectively provide a level of separation. The info recieved in the past might not be accurate for this new universe, because in this new universe a different future was possible. Or something like that...It has been awhile. I've seen it used to alleviate the paradox of going back in time and killing your grandfather.
I just re-watched the scene. The last few seconds is of TONY looking up from the table. Our POV is probably Meadow, but definately NOT Tony. I was fairly on board with Tony being whacked, and maybe the audience whacking was just a shared experience, but the fact that it is not Tony's POV kind of kills that reasoning for me. In fact, it was like Chase was taunting us - "see, Tony is still alive," then blackness. He wins, we lose. We just got whacked. The end. Their story goes on, but we won't be apart of it anymore.
I guess it could be argued that the POV is a killer and Tony looks up just as the end comes, but I am not sure I like the idea of switching back to Tony's POV after he is dead.
People had been complaining a lot for last few seasons about not enough whacking, so the creator gave the audience the ultimate whack - he whacked them. He set up a lot of tension and put you in the moment, while distracting you at the same time, and then whack - everything goes black. You never saw it coming.
The 2nd to last episode was a trick to make people think they he had given in to the complaints and was going to have a whack-fest, but it was just a diversion. He was just setting the audience up to make the ultimate whack even sweeter.