This is an interesting assumption. In fact, DVDs are limited in resolution to Standard Definition - hence the format war over Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Digital downloads are not limited in the same way. So, it is perfectly possible that you would be getting much higher quality movies, with H.264 compression and whatnot.
In fact, it would be great if downloads subverted the whole "next gen" disc thing and caused them to flop. I'd much rather deal with iTunes-like weak DRM than nasty shit like HDCP making your disc not work with your HDTV, remote disabling of players, and expensive drives. The great thing about downloading is that the format can be updated with technology. With a physical format, the specifications are set in stone, and will inevitably become obsolete. Also, there is no issue of warehouse and shelf space - so a much wider range of obscure titles can be stocked than is feasible with a physical product. Having a physical DVD is not going to help you if you can't actually buy the title because it's not economically viable to stock a disc.
Well, if it's that important to you that it be completely DRM-free in the context of your own entertainment equipment and uses, future applications, etc., then sure - get the DVD and rip the video.
Physical DVDs contain DRM, so you are out of luck there, too. It's funny how many people say they refuse to use any product with DRM, but still buy DVDs.
But that's my entire point -- Sony's fundamental premise for this entire console is that most serious gamers will want/need HDMI and blu-ray support.
Eh? I thought the fundamental premise was to create a game machine that makes money and continues the Playstation franchise. Where does Sony state that their #1 reason for producing the PS3 is HDMI and Blu-Ray?
One constant which has remained throughout the evolution of the notebook computer is the Thinkpad
How is this possible? The Thinkpad was not released until 1992. The Powerbook 100 came out in 1991, and the Mac Portable in 1989. Other companies made predecessors, but were a bit too large to be considered "notebooks" but rather laptops or portable computers.
Take a few gals, put them in a group, isolate them from the males as much as possible and this will eliminate any I-don't-want-to-talk-to-you-for-fear-of-harassment -charges kind of embarrasment.
How does this stop sexual harassment fears? Not everybody is heterosexual, and same-sex harassment does happen.
In fact, the majority of harassment (although non-sexual) does take place by same-sex workers. Guys are notorious for "hazing" and other harassing behavior in the workplace, often leading to injury, death, mental illness or suicide. Actually, it could be considered "sexual" in a certain way - its purpose is usually to reinforce a masculine identity.
I guess I'm just out of the whole cell phone thing so I have to ask... is it even possible to install software on a cell phone that will automatically take pictures and upload to Flick
I'm not sure why you ask about automatically taking pictures with a "cron" function - because that is not part of the story. Apparently the photos were manually snapped by the alleged thief, or someone in possession of the phone. The phone just automatically uploads new images taken by the user. As for the automatic photographing - why not? You can get software to do just about anything with your phone - time-based things like alarms are available. So I don't see why you couldn't do the autmatic picture-taking.
I Can a user upload an arbitrary program to their phone and have it run? I thought your provider pretty much controlled what your phone can do and what programs are on it.
Depends on what phone you have, and who your provider is. My Nokia runs the Symbian OS, and I can write software, or buy/download thousands of different applications for it. Not sure why this seems so far-fetched to you.
On the other hand, if you use profanity (especially in such an idiotic manner as the poster did), you risk having your opinion discarded entirely, even though it may be valid.
Why? Only an idiot would dismiss an argument because it contained profanity. Intelligent people wouldn't care.
Here's another telling piece of evidence from the article, again a quote: "Often, it has something to do with source material. Sometimes the film itself is shot in a way that may emphasize a grainy look as opposed to a sharp picture," he said. This almost outright concedes the new "high resolution" exceeds what most media will be capable of providing... or, it's an excuse...
Sounds like an excuse to me. Real film grain is a very beautiful thing. It requires very high resolution to reproduce properly. So, the higher resolution would be useful in reproducing film grain, even if the HD video exceeds the "resolution" of the original film. It might be possible for HD to exceed the resolution of 16mm film - but I doubt it can exceed the resolution well-shot fine-grained 35mm film. If you are talking about 70mm film, HD video doesn't even have a chance of coming close.
"Spoiled kids"? Are you paying attention to how many of these men have families?
True, but these are men with options. They aren't uneducated. There are plenty of jobs. How about just working for a reasonable company. I've never worked in any place that has the kind of insane climate of male guilt that is described here. It just doesn't sound very widespread.
It's one thing to stage a protest against taxation without representation, Jim Crow, or heck, not being able to work certain jobs or go certain places. But how can you start a mass movement opposing current sexual harrasment law, simply because parts of it go way overboard?
I thought this was about the policies imposed by companies. I don't see the more ridiculous aspects of it laid out in law, just company policy. And how can you start a mass movement for reasonable laws and policies? Well, the same way every other mass movement starts. But if you can't demonstrate there is a real, widespread problem, then you won't gain much traction.
In any case, it doesn't need to be a huge movement. You can just target those companies which are the worst violators.
Not only would you look like a misogynistic bad guy, but would your family put up with it?
Why would you look misogynistic for protesting things which have such a crippling effect on the workplace atmosphere, if the stories posted here are to be believed? Why would your family shun you, if you were protesting something that makes it harder for you to provide for your family, and increases your chance of being fired?
Far as it goes, I was the victim of a false complaint and lost a job because of it.
So, what did you do about it? Did you take legal action? There's an idea for the start of a movement/organization. Have all these rich nerds start an organization that helps with legal fees and representation for unfair dismissals based on these policies. You might not even need that. If you had a good case, the ACLU would probably represent you, and they have some amazing lawyers.
Companies will throw you to the dogs to protect themselves, you better believe it, and justice be dammned.
So, turn the tables, so that firing you or enforcing ridiculous rules puts them more at risk of a backlash.
Anyway, in order to succeed we white males would need the support of women and minorities.
Why wouldn't you get that support? Minority races are just as likely to be accused of sexual harassment as whites, if not moreso. There's still a large undercurrent of racism in this, where a black guy is more likely to be assumed guilty of sexual misconduct or violence than a white guy.
Most of the women I know don't want over-the-top sexual harassment laws, and like socialising with men in the workplace. They want equality, not for women to be placed on a special pedestal. Why wouldn't women be equally as disgusted by wrongful termination due to a false accusation? After all, women have husbands and partners, too. To generalize, women also strongly dislike it when other women have sex just to advance their career, rather than being advanced on merit. Why wouldn't they also be similarly disgusted if the inverse happened, and false sexual harassment was used to unfairly maintain status? It's really a variation of the same phenomenon.
Really, the type of woman who makes false accusations, or supports "presumption of guilt" sexual harassment laws, or wants a sterile workplace with gender segregation - is extremely rare, so much so as to be a statistically irrelevant. So, if the accounts of ridiculous firings are true, then why wouldn't you have a broad base of support. I think some people here are just imagining what women think, and their imagination is creating this "presumption of guilt" feeling. Perhaps this is because we are on slashdot, where many guys are distanced from women or afraid of them, and have not yet learned how to communicate outside of the geeky world.
What they do have is the presumption of guilt if they should get involved in any of the current victimization fads.
What evidence do you have of this, and what "victimization fads" are you talking about?
With no recourse to counter claims of favoritism, discrimination, harassement, whatever,
What do you mean by "no recourse" this group of people is very privileged, and definitely has access to means of recourse. Whereas, say, a homeless person has very little recourse against things such as police brutality, discrimination, or any other harm
The meetings, the "counseling", evaluations, all the assorted crap that goes into dealing with an accusation that, had it been made against any one other than a WMcG, would have been immediately discarded,
So black people are assumed innocent, and never face investigation? Working class/blue collar guys are never seen as guilty? Immigrant maids and nannies are presumed innocent of wrongdoing?
would have been immediately discarded, is just to much of a pain in the ass to deal with for anything short of something that really matters.
But wait, the other posts have been equating this to things like women suffering under sexual discrimination. Now you;re saying it's not important? The posts I was responding to do paint it as something very important.
Contrary to being "a bunch of spolied[sic] kids who know nothing but whining", your WMcG sucks it up and gets on with it.
But that's obviously not true from all the whining here. If they were truly "sucking it up" then why this pathetic display?
I'd say the truth is that this mostly made-up or exagerrated. Otherwise, why would they keep working such employees? Why don't they just pull a Rosa Parks and ignore the petty rules? Where the fuck is the dignity of these people, that they bitch and whine, and say how unfair it is - when you can easily leave the situation?
Yet these people go around blaming everybody else - women, feminists, managers - for a situation they have control over. If you keep submitting to unjust treatment, it's hard to feel a lot of sympathy if it keeps happening, but you do nothing to discourage it.
I was referring to general instruction. (The BASIC programming would be part of the math curriculum).
Why would programming fall under the math curriculum? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
If a student wants to take graphic arts classes, let em. (The topics you listed all fall in that realm)
No, they don't. 3D graphics is very useful in mathematics and visualization. Video production can fall under journalism, social studies, film-making, and even subsets of literature. Desktop publishing is useful in nearly any subject where printed information is to be presented. Graphic design is important in science and math that involves presentation of data. Audio production and engineering certainly doesn't fall under graphic design - maybe music, though.
But you talk about using a word processor. Why is that so essential to teach on a computer? After all, one can write a world-class piece with only a pencil and paper or typewriter. In many ways, not having spellcheckers and other tools, encourages better writing. The human brain can understand and process language much better than a computer can.
On the other hand, most of the topics that I mentioned require fairly advanced technology to achieve. You can't create a video recording without some electronic technology. You can't create a photograph without optical technology and either a digital medium or photosensitive materials. You can't create a sound recording on a piece of paper.
Really, these are the areas where computers are the most useful. So why do so many people encourage using machines for things we we can manage perfectly well without computers, but not for those areas where productivity and potential is MASSIVELY higher on a computer than not?
Furthermore, we live in a world where media literacy and visual culture is extremely important. So, shouldn't media classes be compulsory like English is? After all, modern people spend far more time shaping their world with TV and music than they do by reading books. The lack of teaching in these media makes for a much more gullible society who will not look at media critically - and don't even know how to use tools to create their own - just consume it as a product.
That's because "white middle-class guys" have found that they're usually the losers any time they get pulled into an issue that's had the least bit of victimology attached to it. This means you become "very hesitant to take a stand or accept risk" unless it truely matters, with all the potential for disaster that that implies.
That is such utter crap. Women and blacks and other minorities have historically been the ones most at risk from speaking out. Yet they took the risks, which were FAR greater than any risks middle-aged white guys face. Did you even read my post? A white office worker is NOT going to go to jail or get lynched, or his house burned down for speaking out against sexual harassment policies. The feminists and Civil Rights leaders of previous generations DID face those consequences.
Basically, we have a bunch of spolied kids who know nothing but whining, who have never really experienced true persecution or discrimination. The argument is not persuasive. Humans have faced much worse situations and prevailed. Why are the American office workers so damn weak? Surely, they could cause a major impact if they decided to stop work until the issue is addressed. Of course, it would be good if any evidence or persuasive argument were provided that it was a real issue - instead of paranoid fears that every woman is out to file a bogus lawsuit against them.
Frankly, I don't see the evidence, it sounds more like a bunch of sexist guys looking to play the victim card.
So, what about the ones who make trouble no matter how fascinating the subject and its presentation by the teacher is? Heck, even if we just let them play videogames, many students would still make trouble for the teacher, simply because the person is a teacher.
Right... That's like a white male in an major urban area trying to complain because now he's a "minority". Sorry, it ain't gonna happen...
The reason it's not going to happen is because of the attitude displayed here on slashdot, by mostly white males. Just bitch and moan about how unfair everything is, and not do anything about it. Civil rights for blacks and women did not happen because of bitter bitching. It happened because they took a serious stand about serious issues, and backed up their words with evidence, action and protest.
I don't think this phenomenon is at all limited to gender politics. Guys (and white middle-class guys in particular) seem very hesitant to take a stand or accept risk over anything. They are too afraid to lose their jobs, too afraid to speak their minds. If you want change, you have to accept the risk of being fired or worse. Other social struggles have succeeded, because people have been willing to go to jail, or even be tortured or murdered because they feel strongly about their cause. My advice is to grow a spine and quit the bitching. Seriously, this moaning is pathetic. Most of the guys doing the bitching have quite comfortable lives, but act as if they are being treated inhumanely. Sorry, but others have struggled with much more real persecution, and been strong. If you think you have it bad now, what would you be like if you were black or female in the first half of the 20th Century?
Here's my take on when computers should be introduced:
7th grade - WordProcessing/typing
8th - Basic (not Visual Basic) programming to prepare kids for algrebra.
9th - a short seminar on software types and when each is appropriate (i.e shreadsheet, database, email, im. etc)
So, when should they learn about Desktop Publishing, graphics, 3D, sound and video? You do realize that computers have many uses beyond word processing and spreadsheets, right?
Then too there are disadvantages when you look at basic things like startup time, shutdown time - all of which is time away from an already compressed class time (around 40 minutes per class here).
Really? I never shut my Powerbook down. Close the lid, and it goes to sleep instantly. Open the lid, it wakes up instantly. I don't know anyone who regularly shuts down a Mac notebook as a matter of course. That's usually just for software updates.
I find it much quicker to open my computer than to fumble for paper and pencil. Are you telling me that people are still using laptops that don't wake/sleep instantly? That should have disappeared years ago.
school is about rigid regementation, partly to get the unfocused kids to focus
Some schools, maybe. However, I attended a school (after leaving a regimented one) that was all about teaching, exploration, creativity, innovation and community. It was much more effective. There were also very few issues with "problem" students, as the students were inspired by the teachers. As there weren't rigid rules to obey, that also meant fewer students rebelling against the "system." This was despite having a large number of students from disadvantaged and "problem" backgrounds.
The result? Many students who went from the lowest rungs of society to success - without all the connections and money of the private schools.
Live with it, and stop sending kids to special ed who have 'behavioral problems' because you keep yelling to 'pay attention' to your dry ass LECTURE that's just regurgitated from the text they have to read anyways,
You are totally full of shit. Behavioural problems are due to boring lectures? Total nonsense. There are students out there who act up, even with the most interesting and supportive classes and teachers. Some are raised that way. Some learn it from their peers. Still other have actual medical or mental problems.
But not in your world, where everybody is born and raised a perfect being, only to be led astray by boring lectures!
Yes I did propose and it has gone nation wide the testing of schools by testing the progression of the students! I am the one everyone likes to hate over this... Lets test the students...
Maybe you should be the first to be tested, in English composition.
Schools are not under funded. They are grossly over funded.
Which schools are you talking about? As a generalization, this cannot be true, as many schools are indeed underfunded. I'm not even sure how it is possible for a school to be overfunded - it's the most important area of spending for society and the economy. "Oh no, kids might have too much opportunity to be educated!" What do you mean by the term?
Typically it is assumed that access to data held on a publicly available website, without notice to the contrary, is authorised. A notice displayed stating that you should not look at the data unless you are me is sufficient to make you aware that you should not access it.
That sounds rather absurd. It's like posting a massive page of text in a busy public location, with a sticky note attached saying "do not read this text."
I would think that in terms of computer networks, "unauthorized access" means breaking into a site that is protected by password or other security measures. The fact that your machine can reach a site and get content without any password or hacking amounts to authorisation in my opinion. If you aren't authorising public access, then why did you post it in public?
In more inflammatory terms - how about a page that was public, but said something like "You are not authorized to read this if you are a Jew. Offenders will be prosecuted." Somehow, I don't think the courts would take a positive view of that.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an interesting assumption. In fact, DVDs are limited in resolution to Standard Definition - hence the format war over Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Digital downloads are not limited in the same way. So, it is perfectly possible that you would be getting much higher quality movies, with H.264 compression and whatnot.
In fact, it would be great if downloads subverted the whole "next gen" disc thing and caused them to flop. I'd much rather deal with iTunes-like weak DRM than nasty shit like HDCP making your disc not work with your HDTV, remote disabling of players, and expensive drives. The great thing about downloading is that the format can be updated with technology. With a physical format, the specifications are set in stone, and will inevitably become obsolete. Also, there is no issue of warehouse and shelf space - so a much wider range of obscure titles can be stocked than is feasible with a physical product. Having a physical DVD is not going to help you if you can't actually buy the title because it's not economically viable to stock a disc.
Why?
Physical DVDs contain DRM, so you are out of luck there, too. It's funny how many people say they refuse to use any product with DRM, but still buy DVDs.
This sentence makes me tense.
Eh? I thought the fundamental premise was to create a game machine that makes money and continues the Playstation franchise. Where does Sony state that their #1 reason for producing the PS3 is HDMI and Blu-Ray?
Isn't Kim Jong-Il kind of old?
How is this possible? The Thinkpad was not released until 1992. The Powerbook 100 came out in 1991, and the Mac Portable in 1989. Other companies made predecessors, but were a bit too large to be considered "notebooks" but rather laptops or portable computers.
But it's not illegal to read a poster someone has placed in a public place. Very different to stealing property.
How does this stop sexual harassment fears? Not everybody is heterosexual, and same-sex harassment does happen.
In fact, the majority of harassment (although non-sexual) does take place by same-sex workers. Guys are notorious for "hazing" and other harassing behavior in the workplace, often leading to injury, death, mental illness or suicide. Actually, it could be considered "sexual" in a certain way - its purpose is usually to reinforce a masculine identity.
I'm not sure why you ask about automatically taking pictures with a "cron" function - because that is not part of the story. Apparently the photos were manually snapped by the alleged thief, or someone in possession of the phone. The phone just automatically uploads new images taken by the user. As for the automatic photographing - why not? You can get software to do just about anything with your phone - time-based things like alarms are available. So I don't see why you couldn't do the autmatic picture-taking.
I Can a user upload an arbitrary program to their phone and have it run? I thought your provider pretty much controlled what your phone can do and what programs are on it.
Depends on what phone you have, and who your provider is. My Nokia runs the Symbian OS, and I can write software, or buy/download thousands of different applications for it. Not sure why this seems so far-fetched to you.
Why? Only an idiot would dismiss an argument because it contained profanity. Intelligent people wouldn't care.
Wonder why your Advanced Prototype Terminator Infiltrator Series 1 Model 1A Type 1000 isn't selling?
Remember Skynet? We do.
Signed,
Sarah Connor
Sounds like an excuse to me. Real film grain is a very beautiful thing. It requires very high resolution to reproduce properly. So, the higher resolution would be useful in reproducing film grain, even if the HD video exceeds the "resolution" of the original film. It might be possible for HD to exceed the resolution of 16mm film - but I doubt it can exceed the resolution well-shot fine-grained 35mm film. If you are talking about 70mm film, HD video doesn't even have a chance of coming close.
True, but these are men with options. They aren't uneducated. There are plenty of jobs. How about just working for a reasonable company. I've never worked in any place that has the kind of insane climate of male guilt that is described here. It just doesn't sound very widespread.
It's one thing to stage a protest against taxation without representation, Jim Crow, or heck, not being able to work certain jobs or go certain places. But how can you start a mass movement opposing current sexual harrasment law, simply because parts of it go way overboard?
I thought this was about the policies imposed by companies. I don't see the more ridiculous aspects of it laid out in law, just company policy. And how can you start a mass movement for reasonable laws and policies? Well, the same way every other mass movement starts. But if you can't demonstrate there is a real, widespread problem, then you won't gain much traction.
In any case, it doesn't need to be a huge movement. You can just target those companies which are the worst violators.
Not only would you look like a misogynistic bad guy, but would your family put up with it?
Why would you look misogynistic for protesting things which have such a crippling effect on the workplace atmosphere, if the stories posted here are to be believed? Why would your family shun you, if you were protesting something that makes it harder for you to provide for your family, and increases your chance of being fired?
Far as it goes, I was the victim of a false complaint and lost a job because of it.
So, what did you do about it? Did you take legal action? There's an idea for the start of a movement/organization. Have all these rich nerds start an organization that helps with legal fees and representation for unfair dismissals based on these policies. You might not even need that. If you had a good case, the ACLU would probably represent you, and they have some amazing lawyers.
Companies will throw you to the dogs to protect themselves, you better believe it, and justice be dammned.
So, turn the tables, so that firing you or enforcing ridiculous rules puts them more at risk of a backlash.
Anyway, in order to succeed we white males would need the support of women and minorities.
Why wouldn't you get that support? Minority races are just as likely to be accused of sexual harassment as whites, if not moreso. There's still a large undercurrent of racism in this, where a black guy is more likely to be assumed guilty of sexual misconduct or violence than a white guy.
Most of the women I know don't want over-the-top sexual harassment laws, and like socialising with men in the workplace. They want equality, not for women to be placed on a special pedestal. Why wouldn't women be equally as disgusted by wrongful termination due to a false accusation? After all, women have husbands and partners, too. To generalize, women also strongly dislike it when other women have sex just to advance their career, rather than being advanced on merit. Why wouldn't they also be similarly disgusted if the inverse happened, and false sexual harassment was used to unfairly maintain status? It's really a variation of the same phenomenon.
Really, the type of woman who makes false accusations, or supports "presumption of guilt" sexual harassment laws, or wants a sterile workplace with gender segregation - is extremely rare, so much so as to be a statistically irrelevant. So, if the accounts of ridiculous firings are true, then why wouldn't you have a broad base of support. I think some people here are just imagining what women think, and their imagination is creating this "presumption of guilt" feeling. Perhaps this is because we are on slashdot, where many guys are distanced from women or afraid of them, and have not yet learned how to communicate outside of the geeky world.
What evidence do you have of this, and what "victimization fads" are you talking about?
With no recourse to counter claims of favoritism, discrimination, harassement, whatever,
What do you mean by "no recourse" this group of people is very privileged, and definitely has access to means of recourse. Whereas, say, a homeless person has very little recourse against things such as police brutality, discrimination, or any other harm
The meetings, the "counseling", evaluations, all the assorted crap that goes into dealing with an accusation that, had it been made against any one other than a WMcG, would have been immediately discarded,
So black people are assumed innocent, and never face investigation? Working class/blue collar guys are never seen as guilty? Immigrant maids and nannies are presumed innocent of wrongdoing?
would have been immediately discarded, is just to much of a pain in the ass to deal with for anything short of something that really matters.
But wait, the other posts have been equating this to things like women suffering under sexual discrimination. Now you;re saying it's not important? The posts I was responding to do paint it as something very important.
Contrary to being "a bunch of spolied[sic] kids who know nothing but whining", your WMcG sucks it up and gets on with it.
But that's obviously not true from all the whining here. If they were truly "sucking it up" then why this pathetic display?
I'd say the truth is that this mostly made-up or exagerrated. Otherwise, why would they keep working such employees? Why don't they just pull a Rosa Parks and ignore the petty rules? Where the fuck is the dignity of these people, that they bitch and whine, and say how unfair it is - when you can easily leave the situation?
Yet these people go around blaming everybody else - women, feminists, managers - for a situation they have control over. If you keep submitting to unjust treatment, it's hard to feel a lot of sympathy if it keeps happening, but you do nothing to discourage it.
Why would programming fall under the math curriculum? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
If a student wants to take graphic arts classes, let em. (The topics you listed all fall in that realm)
No, they don't. 3D graphics is very useful in mathematics and visualization. Video production can fall under journalism, social studies, film-making, and even subsets of literature. Desktop publishing is useful in nearly any subject where printed information is to be presented. Graphic design is important in science and math that involves presentation of data. Audio production and engineering certainly doesn't fall under graphic design - maybe music, though.
But you talk about using a word processor. Why is that so essential to teach on a computer? After all, one can write a world-class piece with only a pencil and paper or typewriter. In many ways, not having spellcheckers and other tools, encourages better writing. The human brain can understand and process language much better than a computer can.
On the other hand, most of the topics that I mentioned require fairly advanced technology to achieve. You can't create a video recording without some electronic technology. You can't create a photograph without optical technology and either a digital medium or photosensitive materials. You can't create a sound recording on a piece of paper.
Really, these are the areas where computers are the most useful. So why do so many people encourage using machines for things we we can manage perfectly well without computers, but not for those areas where productivity and potential is MASSIVELY higher on a computer than not?
Furthermore, we live in a world where media literacy and visual culture is extremely important. So, shouldn't media classes be compulsory like English is? After all, modern people spend far more time shaping their world with TV and music than they do by reading books. The lack of teaching in these media makes for a much more gullible society who will not look at media critically - and don't even know how to use tools to create their own - just consume it as a product.
That is such utter crap. Women and blacks and other minorities have historically been the ones most at risk from speaking out. Yet they took the risks, which were FAR greater than any risks middle-aged white guys face. Did you even read my post? A white office worker is NOT going to go to jail or get lynched, or his house burned down for speaking out against sexual harassment policies. The feminists and Civil Rights leaders of previous generations DID face those consequences.
Basically, we have a bunch of spolied kids who know nothing but whining, who have never really experienced true persecution or discrimination. The argument is not persuasive. Humans have faced much worse situations and prevailed. Why are the American office workers so damn weak? Surely, they could cause a major impact if they decided to stop work until the issue is addressed. Of course, it would be good if any evidence or persuasive argument were provided that it was a real issue - instead of paranoid fears that every woman is out to file a bogus lawsuit against them.
Frankly, I don't see the evidence, it sounds more like a bunch of sexist guys looking to play the victim card.
So, what about the ones who make trouble no matter how fascinating the subject and its presentation by the teacher is? Heck, even if we just let them play videogames, many students would still make trouble for the teacher, simply because the person is a teacher.
The reason it's not going to happen is because of the attitude displayed here on slashdot, by mostly white males. Just bitch and moan about how unfair everything is, and not do anything about it. Civil rights for blacks and women did not happen because of bitter bitching. It happened because they took a serious stand about serious issues, and backed up their words with evidence, action and protest.
I don't think this phenomenon is at all limited to gender politics. Guys (and white middle-class guys in particular) seem very hesitant to take a stand or accept risk over anything. They are too afraid to lose their jobs, too afraid to speak their minds. If you want change, you have to accept the risk of being fired or worse. Other social struggles have succeeded, because people have been willing to go to jail, or even be tortured or murdered because they feel strongly about their cause. My advice is to grow a spine and quit the bitching. Seriously, this moaning is pathetic. Most of the guys doing the bitching have quite comfortable lives, but act as if they are being treated inhumanely. Sorry, but others have struggled with much more real persecution, and been strong. If you think you have it bad now, what would you be like if you were black or female in the first half of the 20th Century?
So, when should they learn about Desktop Publishing, graphics, 3D, sound and video? You do realize that computers have many uses beyond word processing and spreadsheets, right?
Really? I never shut my Powerbook down. Close the lid, and it goes to sleep instantly. Open the lid, it wakes up instantly. I don't know anyone who regularly shuts down a Mac notebook as a matter of course. That's usually just for software updates.
I find it much quicker to open my computer than to fumble for paper and pencil. Are you telling me that people are still using laptops that don't wake/sleep instantly? That should have disappeared years ago.
Some schools, maybe. However, I attended a school (after leaving a regimented one) that was all about teaching, exploration, creativity, innovation and community. It was much more effective. There were also very few issues with "problem" students, as the students were inspired by the teachers. As there weren't rigid rules to obey, that also meant fewer students rebelling against the "system." This was despite having a large number of students from disadvantaged and "problem" backgrounds.
The result? Many students who went from the lowest rungs of society to success - without all the connections and money of the private schools.
You are totally full of shit. Behavioural problems are due to boring lectures? Total nonsense. There are students out there who act up, even with the most interesting and supportive classes and teachers. Some are raised that way. Some learn it from their peers. Still other have actual medical or mental problems.
But not in your world, where everybody is born and raised a perfect being, only to be led astray by boring lectures!
Maybe you should be the first to be tested, in English composition.
Schools are not under funded. They are grossly over funded.
Which schools are you talking about? As a generalization, this cannot be true, as many schools are indeed underfunded. I'm not even sure how it is possible for a school to be overfunded - it's the most important area of spending for society and the economy. "Oh no, kids might have too much opportunity to be educated!" What do you mean by the term?
That sounds rather absurd. It's like posting a massive page of text in a busy public location, with a sticky note attached saying "do not read this text."
I would think that in terms of computer networks, "unauthorized access" means breaking into a site that is protected by password or other security measures. The fact that your machine can reach a site and get content without any password or hacking amounts to authorisation in my opinion. If you aren't authorising public access, then why did you post it in public?
In more inflammatory terms - how about a page that was public, but said something like "You are not authorized to read this if you are a Jew. Offenders will be prosecuted." Somehow, I don't think the courts would take a positive view of that.