For the price of two regular laptops, get a Panasonic Toughbook. It will still be useable after exiting the far end of the digestive tract of the alligator that eats you.
Are you kidding? I'm writing this from a Panasonic CF-29...you could close it, beat the alligator to death with it, open it back up, and continue working. They're pricey, but great computers.
And yes, if one has the money for it, I would heartily recommend one of these for such a trip.
The Rino is a great device, but I'd go with a standalone Garmin GPS over it, given the choice now. I've yet to find a way to turn the radio off by default at power-up, and it is annoying having to shut it off every time...and yes, it does burn through batteries MUCH faster with it on.
And a standard GPS will probably be more than accurate enough...mine generally gives a 3D accuracy in the 5 meter range (and I've checked it against a PLGR that has been on averaging mode), without WAAS, which for mapping villages should be more than sufficient. Sattelite acquisition, from powerup, even after dramatic geographic relocation, is still generally in the 2-3 minute range...or less.
And yes, the Rino, along with most outdoor-oriented Garmin GPSs, is more than tough enough for the task.
In addition to a solar-powered battery charger for your GPS, I'd also recommend a power inverter for your computer gear, or anything else that might need 110VAC. Assuming, of course, you are going to have a vehicle handy. Something in the 300W range should do you just fine, and shouldn't be horribly expensive.
And, of course, everything you take you'll want to have extras of...GPS's, chargers, inverters, possibly even a second laptop. Not like you can go to Radio Shack and pick up a replacement, or have one shipped overnight:).
Just thinking, is it really that the Linux OS is more secure or is it that the % of knowledgeable users using windows is lower the % of knowledgeable users using Linux?
The last virus I had on a Microsoft system was in DOS. I was 11 or 12 at the time, and knew no better.
I really think 90% of it is a user issue. Yes, you may have a few spyware issues in IE, but viruses? Generally only if you're stupid.
Then again, I'm the kind of guy that reads all my emails as plain text, doesn't care how funny that powerpoint show you emailed me is, and firmly believes in firewalls.
Of course, my box is sitting at home now, and my wife has had it all to herself, unsupervised, for 13 months. I shudder to think what that thing will look like when I get home. I'll probably just burn it.
Though one can argue that there are more actual exploits in Windows, and you'd be correct. However, in most cases it is a user's behavior that makes them vulnerable to the exploit...sure, it wouldn't be an issue if the exploit didn't exist, but it wouldn't be an issue if the user wasn't an idiot either.
*That* is why Google has to be ambiguous. If they don't, investors will start demanding hard (read: easy to understand) money making products. As long as Google is a black box that grows money, however, the investors are happy.
Except it's unwise to invest in black boxes that grow money, because often they tend to, sometimes without much warning, kick into reverse.
The most important thing though, is that consumers have a choice in what type of gaming philosophy they want to subscribe to. You can buy into the innovation and new style of gaming brought about by the DS, or you can get the mainstream rich-graphic games that the PSP has to offer. No matter what your preference is, consumers have more of a choice now.
It's also coming down to what you expect your system to do...is just playing games good enough, or do you need it to play movies, music, etc.
This was, of course, a consideration with the most recent generation of home consoles, but I think it'll be an even bigger deal with handhelds, since while one is already likely to have a DVD player in their house, most people don't carry a standalone DVD player around in their pocket.
Personally, I'm a one-function guy...I just want my game system to play games, and my music player to just play music. But a lot of people fall into the other camp, and I can see their point.
One of the biggest backlashes was the complaint that "We don't want Linux to be like Windows!"
Why is Windows so popular (other than the fact that it established a monopoly and abused it to push everybody else out of the market)? Because, though many a Linux zealot may try to argue otherwise, it is easy to use. Yeah, spyware and malware have started to tip the balance, but since 3.1 Windows has focused on trying to be easy to use, for everybody from students to home users to businesses.
I think most Linux users LIKE that Linux has a steeper learning curve. Partly because this is a result of having more control over the OS (which is a good thing). But I think part of it is that it makes them feel geekier being able to master it. Knowing the ins and outs of Linux is something to be proud of.
So here's the problem. Many of your Linux zealots cringe at the idea of making Linux as easy to use as Windows (or OSX), even if the advanced options are still available. They don't want their hands held. They don't want a candy-coated OS. This isn't a bad thing, and I see where they're coming from.
But they also want Linux to take over the desktop market.
Microsoft owns the desktop market largely because Windows is easy to use. Linux users don't want Linux to be as easy to use as Windows. Linux users want Linux to take over the desktop market.
Is anybody else seeing why that's not going to work?
(So you know where I'm coming from, I own two computers...a desktop that dual-boots Windows and Linux (Windows mostly for games and the wife, Linux for me), and a PowerBook running OSX)
You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones - compare IE to Firefox or Outlook Express to Evolution), or you pay lots of money to get them.
No you don't. Because there are plenty of apps (such as Firefox, which you mentioned, or gimp, which you did not) that are free, just like on Linux. In fact, a majority of the apps that one would use on Linux have been ported to Windows.
So yeah.
You run as root by default, not for ease of use (how difficult is 'type your passsword to continue' that Fedora and OS X do?) but because Microsoft and Windows developers couldn't be bothered fixing things.
Yeah, now here you have something. And people don't just run as root because it's the default, either...Windows also does not make effective use of a home directory for each user (at least, many Windows applications do not, and Microsoft doesn't really encourage them to). That's why I run Windows as root more often than not.
Those who got 40s on the exams got an A. Nobody pursued another physics class for the rest of their collegiate career.
I hate classes like this...if a 40 on an exam is an A, it proves to me that there is something wrong with the class, or something wrong with the instructor.
And I'm not promoting forcing the grades into a bell curve, as some classes do. But if the average grade in a class of 30 or 40 is a B+ or A-, something is terribly wrong. You can't convince me that there are only two or three C students out of 30, but some classes I took in high school this is what the grades reflected. Grades were posted (with ID numbers rather than names), and you'd see 3 D's, 3 C's, 13 B's and 13 A's. So what's happening is you're calling B students A students, C students B students, and only those who are truly stupid (or truly don't care) ever get C's and D's. Oh, and the ones who WOULD have been A students? They get to get lumped in with the B students, but at least they have HIGHER A's! (Not that this will be reflected on their transcripts). Too bad for them, I guess.
The problem with this is that now you only really have two usable grades to distinguish between students, the B and the A, rather than having 3 or 4 (depending on whether you expect kids to get D's).
I've had several classes so far in college that didn't "enforce" a bell curve, but rather seemed to have grades naturally fall into one. Imagine the surprise on a bunch of second-semester freshman faces when the prof, while going over the test, announces that the average grade, both median and mean, was in the C range, and that's just about right so there will be no curve. Everybody just expected their C's to transform into B's, and B's to transform into A's, but this teacher just broke it to them there there is no academic Santa Claus. It was perfect.
Perhaps I'm just an elitist asshole, though. After all, I had the highest grade in the class on that test, a 96%. Which, to me, proves that the information was covered because I went into the class knowing almost nothing about the subject.
Lastly, switching mid-stream becomes a pain: a general college-prep student may have been doing phenomenally in school for the last year because of some drastic change, but if they get bumped up to honors, they may miss a couple necessary classes or be unable to handle it (jump from Geometry to Calculus, Journalism to English Lit., etc.).
This would also hold true for somebody moving into the college prep track. And yes, it -was- a pain...I did it about a quarter of the way through the year (freshman year, high school). I don't really know as much as I could about it, because we moved at the end of that year...I finished at a non-tracked school. And I'm pretty sure almost all schools have moved away from this for the reasons you state, especially the race issue (which wasn't really a big issue at that particular school).
My wife and I have debated the subject before too, and often I think that maybe people smarter than I eliminated tracking for good reason. But at the same time I remember all the classes I attended at my non-tracked high school that catered to the LCD, and I think there has to be a better way.
Perhaps instead of having different "versions" of similar classes, schools would benefit from having entirely different curriculums, much like college. But then you'd need enough students to fill the classes...I imagine only really large schools could pull this one off effectively.
I guess all of this is just stuff to think about...and as I start thinking more about having kids soon, I worry about American schools more than I used to.
Close to a third of American adults are obese (not just overweight). The numbers of diabetes and other weight-related diseases have skyrocketed. This is easily preventable through regular physical exercise and you recommend scaling back?
True, but the relatively small percentage of students in a large urban high school that play competitive sports really aren't helping that fact all that much, but that is time, money, and attention drawn away from academics. And for those who don't go on to play in college or go pro (which is most of them), it isn't exactly helping them go anywhere with their lives.
That, or maybe I had one too many wrestling or football coaches teaching history at my school. Though, to be fair, one of the best teachers I ever had was an assistant football coach...so no stereotypes are true 100% of the time.
Not that homework is necessarily bad, but at my high school it was upwards of 60% of your (pre-final) grade. Basically, homework was the cushion allowed students to recieve B's and A's regardless of whether they actually learned anything.
Homework then becomes like a job. You punch the clock, you do the work, you get the grade. That's a super system...for a factory. But what does this factory produce? End of chapter questions? Book reports? Filled-out worksheets? This certainly doesn't help out our economy any (the prices of these products are pretty low), and I've yet to see proof that it actually helps the students learn anything (other than how to copy a friend's homework, if you didn't have time to do yours)...and that is the purpose of school, right? Or has that changed?
In college nearly all of my classes take a different view...routine, daily homework is practice. It's warm-up. Do it if you need it. If you can step right into the exam, or churn out the paper, without doing the homework, more power to you...you obviously already know what we're trying to teach you. If only they'd return the money you spent on the class. I've had classes where I could skim the textbook and land easy A's all the way through...I've had classes where I actually needed the daily homework to help me figure out what the hell I was doing and squeak by. But the point is, it's my choice. There is no mythical homework store that needs to stock it's homework shelves with my merchandise. If I need to do it, great, if not, also great.
The couple of classes where routine, daily homework WAS graded so far in my college career it still didn't account for 50-60 percent of my grade...it was more like 10-20. It was not a crutch to build an A on, it was the icing on the B cake that would get you an A.
Maybe it was just because I was an underachiever in high school, though. Because I didn't like doing homework. And generally, I didn't. I'll come out with it...I came out of high school with a 1.1 GPA. I generally walked into the final with an F, needing a solid A to pass the class, and scored it...without studying, without reading the text, half the time without attending class regularly. Why? Because when you ace all the tests and quizzes, ace the projects, and ace the final, and don't do the homework, you generally end up with a D. People would be amazed that I could even pass a class with a 10-15% score on my homework average. "But you'd have to get nearly 100% on everything else!" Yeah, I know.
A high score on the SAT got me into college, and now I'm holding a 3.7 in EE. I'm not sure my high school was measuring the right attributes. Though part of it is that getting A's in high school just isn't worth it...unless you're going for scholarships. Since it wouldn't have helped me stand out from the other complete morons who got A's, what's the point. That makes the game pointless when everybody gets to win. And it's not really losing if you don't play, right?
And for those that say the point of it is to teach a strong work ethic, I see where you're coming from. That is somewhat important. But teaching some form of academic content is MORE important, and measuring the success of that is important as well. This is impossible if the "grind" allows kids that take no knowledge away from the class to get an A anyway. We have our entire careers to learn about the importance of work...getting fired once or twice is a good motivator. School is for learning actual...well, stuff.
Start with the return of the "C."
on
Improving Education?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
-Get rid of grade inflation: Bring back the bell curve. I've seen people get A's in high-school level American History who can't tell you who can't name 5 presidents...including recent ones. How can you tell if kids are learning if ALL of them get A's? This is worse than social promotion...at least if you pass the kid with a D he knows he's not performing...if you pass him through with a B he thinks he's "above average" (according to most schools' grade scales).
-Scale back athletics and (somewhat) the arts. Sports are great, but gyms are for athletics, schools are for learning. When every teacher is a coach, that's just that much less time being spent making sure kids are learning. Personally, I'd like to see organized sports out of public schools entirely, but I realize that's probably extreme to most people...and that it would never, ever, happen. As for theatre and band, they aren't nearly as bad as athletics, because they have some educational quality...but they still take away a little too much focus from academics, which is bad for the kids who aren't going to go into acting or music.
-Teach the darn teachers: First off, my wife is a teacher, and I respect almost anybody who chooses to go into the profession. That said, the teaching program at her university (and I've heard this is not the exception, but rather the rule) is a -joke-. I've seen the classes she had to take for a primary education degree, and seen some of her fellow students. It frightens me. How can you teach what you don't know? Now I realize why I sometimes felt smarter than my teachers (especially in late elementary/junior high)...I think in some cases I WAS. And high-school teachers should be required to have a major in their field of focus, and a minor in education, not the other way around.
-Tracking: I'm a believer in it...simply having AP classes and normal classes isn't good enough. I went to two high schools, one that did it and one that didn't. Face it, some kids are smarter than others, and when the whole class has to go at the pace of the slowest student, everybody loses. The only requirement, in my mind, is that parents should be able to move their kids to a higher track on request, but perhaps have to sign a waiver saying the school is not responsible if their child fails...since nowadays failing a student can actually bring legal action, or so I hear.
The school I attended that used tracking had 3 different groups for each core class. One for honors, one for general college prep, and one regular (though really it was usually remedial) class. The idea being that not everybody is college material...and this district had a pretty decent vo-tech program to go with it. So you had 3 different American History classes, 3 different algebra classes, etc. Granted, this is only feasible in larger schools.
Bring back the basics: Okay, I love multicultural education. I love finger painting. But the first several years our kids spend in school have one (academic) purpose...teach them to read and do basic math. There's a reason it used to be called grammar school. Most of the problem isn't at the high-school level...you can't build on a crappy foundation. Kids are getting there without basic reading and math skills, partly due to social promotion and partly because they aren't a focus anymore. How can you read your history textbook if you can hardly read? So now you're failing English AND history. Great. By 8th/9th grade it's far too late...might as well just let them drop out.
Focus on Vo-Tech: Not everybody is college material. Especially university material. As soon as we realize this, and as soon as universities stop accepting damn near everybody (ever look at the freshman dropout rate for state universities?), we will be better off. We can start focusing on giving those that aren't going to get a bachelor's some usable job skills, or prepare them for some form of trade school. There is nothing wrong with being a mechanic...we need them, and
Considering the amount of inappropriate content already in the game, is this one thing really enough to warrant changing the rating? Especially considering that the game, as shipped, has this portion locked out? It's like complaining that they used the F-bomb one too many times in Pulp Fiction.
In addition, the M rating already restricts the sale of the game to those 17 and older. The AO rating would make it available to those 18 and older. Seems that one of the other is redundant. The only reason that the MPAA features an R and NC-17 rating (which are considered the equivalent of M and AO) is because in a theater setting, NO minors are allowed to view an NC-17 rating, regardless of parental consent. You cannot even take your own kids in. In a take-home setting (such as video/video games) there is no discernable difference between the two, because either way the parent can just hand it to the kid when they get home.
The only reason the two distinct ratings were created was to allow stores a black-and-white line to filter out which titles they would refuse to carry. God forbid the management make those decisions on their own.
Really, I think it was created less to give stores like Target and Wal-Mart an excuse not to carry AO rated games, and more an excuse for chains to explain why they DO carry certain M-rated titles. "I know it's inappropriate for kids, ma'am...but it is only M rated, and we do carry M rated games." That way they can milk the GTA cash cow (along with other "offensive" content) and still act like a family store.
This is the reason for the 1 year age difference as well...by making it 17 and under, they can claim that since it can be legally sold to minors it's appropriate for a family-oriented store.
Okay, so I'm a Blockbuster apologist (to a point) because I worked there for a while...
If the movie didn't come out in the last year, they probably don't have it. This is odd, since about ten years ago they used to have just about everything.
Ten years ago, they didn't have to try to stock all thier movies in two different formats. I was assistant manager of a store while they went through this transition, and trust me, hard decisions are made. Generally, the only movies we'd get rid of were either titles that haven't rented a single time in a full year, or additional copies of movies that don't rent often (pruning them down to two usually, which is the max that will fit neatly behind a single coverbox).
I actually saved a few non-renters that I knew were out of print and that I considered to be "must-haves," and convinced her to instead get rid of some occasional renters on VHS that we also stocked in DVD...better to have it only one format that neither.
I could go on, but I might get teary-eyed when I talk about how they used to have a copy of "Evil Dead" during the loooooong period of time it was out of print, but then they got rid of it to make room for more copies of the same 5 New Releases. It's too late... I promised myself I wouldn't cry...
Generally New Releases and "Favorites" (the old movies) don't compete for shelf space, though of course sometimes older movies get bumped when movies come down off the New Release wall. Still, are you sure they got rid of it (did you ask?) More likely, it was either stolen or destroyed by other customers...I could list several OOP titles that suffered one fate or the other in my store while I worked there. Yes, if they sold it off that's pretty bad, but it would take a pretty brain-dead manager to let that one happen.
Granted, I worked at a franchise rather than corporate, and in a small town...it's likely myself and the employees there cared a little more than the average BBV.
Blockbuster is a shitty store, I won't argue too much with that one. But it's pretty difficult to make everybody happy in a video store, which is why they focus on new releases...that's a category that's pretty easy to nail (generally).
On a side note, regarding the Police Academy and Cube examples...with Police Academy I wouldn't be surprised to find out the the original was out of print but the sequel wasn't...that does happen every now and then (Cannonball Run sticks out in my mind as an example, but I could be wrong). Though another problem you run into is that at BBV the store manager often has VERY little to do with what movies get ordered/replaced...they can request, if I remember correctly, but the final say comes from outside the store. And unfortunately district managers don't care if an indidual store carries "Police Academy"...especially in a bigger city, where another location is likely to have it anyway.
This is why I enjoyed a smaller video chain I worked at...their store managers were given an allowance monthly to order movies that they felt their store needed...it could be additional copies of something that was renting strongly locally, or some older movie that had been lost or stolen. Ours generally asked for suggestions from all the employees, and more often than not followed them. Good stuff.
Anyway, to make some sort of point, there is a reason that a large, centralized online rental company can carry a MUCH better selection than a chain that is trying to keep thousands of brick-and-mortar stores stocked.
As has been pointed out several times on/., BB doesn't censor movies themselves. Rather, when faced with a choice from the movie distribution house between an unrated or more family-friendly version of a film, they'll go for that. Since few other movie retailers/rental outlets that go for the 'family friendly' versions of films, it often appears as though BB has their own version.
Exactly. Additionally, this "family-friendly" verion of the movie is, in almost every case, just the theatrical version that played in the darn movie theatres...not exactly censorship. They simply, as a policy, try to avoid carrying unrated films and rather carry the original theatrical versions. Until unrated editions of DVD's became popular, you rarely noticed the difference.
Nobody complains that theaters are "censoring" movies by only carrying MPAA rated movies...at least not too many people. BBV makes a pretty good whipping boy...they have plenty of faults. No need to make up new ones.
Re:I agree. The very idea of such a penalty is evi
on
Death Penalty For Hackers?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Should the punishment for releasing a virus be tough? I don't think so. I think that it is a pretty benign "crime". It is crucial that we keep a sense of proportion when discussing the sentencing stage of justice.
Considering both the money lost by business and disruptions to things like air travel, I'd say it's far from "benign," and definitely a crime. Death penalty? Hell yeah. But something harsher than a few months' worth of suspended sentence was in order on this one, IMO.
Kids, creating computer viruses has VERY real consequences, and should most assuredly be a crime, and the kind that involves actual prison sentences...the kind where you really go to prison (the length of these sentences should, of course, be determined largely by both the damage caused and possible damage caused, within reason).
But yeah, this guy is an asshat for even bringing up the idea of the death penalty in this case.
Fit into a niche the big boys don't care about or have trouble attacking.
Except that now Sony is trying to muscle on on a large part of their turf (handhelds). Personally, I'm hoping that Nintendo shows them what kind of mistake it is to attack them on their own turf...and while the DS got of to a weak start in my opinion, it's showing a lot of promise down the road game-wise.
I'm only worried because Nintendo is in a transitional stage right now, which makes them a little more vulnerable than, say, Apple with their iPod. Where Apple seems very sure of what they're doing and how they want to do it, the Nintendo DS seems more like a big question mark. "What do you think, guys? Is this cool? It has a touch-screen...neat-o, huh?" The complete opposite of the GBA, which was a straightforward evolution of a well-established product line.
I'm babbling. Anyway, I hope the DS pans out for them. I'm confident that Revolution will...it will likely do just as well as the GameCube, if not better. I've already started saving my pennies.
Online play varies...getting a game of Wild Chicken (Crimson Skies) game going with 8 or 10 decent players, utilizing the voice comms, it can be a whole lot of fun. The competition can be fun, and lends a lot of replay value where some 1-player offerings are lacking.
That said, listening to a bunch of 13-year-olds either talk audibly about how high they are, or let you know via text that "u r teh suxors" can get old really fast.
Personally, I had a decent friends list going on XBL before I ended up here, and usually if I joined up in a game with most of them I knew it was going to be a good time.
But yes, I also enjoy good 1-player games as well. And good multiplayer same-room games. Hence my love of the GameCube...plenty of both. Whether 1 player or 4 player, there are plenty of great games to choose from on it.
Xbox Live is, I'd argue, the thing that pushed the Xbox past the Gamecube in sales. The top-selling games are consistently online-enabled and it's a real point of differentiation for that console. It's a very well-executed service.
Xbox Live is the only reason I even own an Xbox. In fact, all but two of my Xbox games are online-playable (not aware mind you, but actual XBL multiplayer).
So yes, I'd agree...without XBL Nintendo and MS would be right next to each other, sales wise.
While Nintendo does not see the ridiculous number of console sales at the PS2, it's sales numbers are almost equal to the X-Box.
With how much cheaper GCs are, though, they really should be selling more than Xbox. Personally, I chalk a lot of that up to lack of online support...XBL is the only reason I own an Xbox; I was perfectly happy with my GC+PS2 before that.
Point being, If Sony's really sold 83 million (whatever it is), how many of those are actually still in use today.
Not mine...it barely reads discs anymore, and has started to make funky sounds as well. It had been retired to bedroom DVD duty, but once it was no longer able to reliably read brand-new DVD's straight from the store, into the closet it went. I'd sell it, even cheaply, but I wouldn't wish that POS on anybody else. I've yet to see any games I simply HAD to play that weren't on Xbox or GC.
I do not think the Gamecube is clunky. I think its sleek and functional, but your opinion is your opinion. I think its safe to say that the X-Box is a FUGLY console.
The GameCube was meant to be moved, carried from place to place for portable 4-player goodness. Where I am now I often grab it and head to somebody else's room so we can get our game on. That handle is there for a reason. I'd say the GameCube is physically the best-designed of the 3 consoles...but people think it's clunky just because it deviates from what they expect home electronic devices to look like.
Personally, I'd say the GameCube was the best (if not the best selling) of this generation's consoles. It definitely redeemed Nintendo from the debacle that was N64. Of course, the N64 made them plenty of money too. Even when Nintendo "fails" they always seem to fall bass-ackwards into cash...go figure.
If Nintendo had had the foresight to embrace online, a la Xbox Live, it would probably be the only console I own right now...except the PS2 in the closet, of course. Then again, that's probably just me, because I think I'm the last 18-26 year old male who doesn't care one bit about GTA.
Slashdot Mirror
For the price of two regular laptops, get a Panasonic Toughbook. It will still be useable after exiting the far end of the digestive tract of the alligator that eats you.
Are you kidding? I'm writing this from a Panasonic CF-29...you could close it, beat the alligator to death with it, open it back up, and continue working. They're pricey, but great computers.
And yes, if one has the money for it, I would heartily recommend one of these for such a trip.
But you don't want a power inverter to run a laptop off a car, just a DC adapter. No point converting DC->AC->DC.
Unless you have multiple 110VAC devices, in which case instead of needing multiple DC adapters you can just get an inverter and run them all.
The Rino is a great device, but I'd go with a standalone Garmin GPS over it, given the choice now. I've yet to find a way to turn the radio off by default at power-up, and it is annoying having to shut it off every time...and yes, it does burn through batteries MUCH faster with it on.
And a standard GPS will probably be more than accurate enough...mine generally gives a 3D accuracy in the 5 meter range (and I've checked it against a PLGR that has been on averaging mode), without WAAS, which for mapping villages should be more than sufficient. Sattelite acquisition, from powerup, even after dramatic geographic relocation, is still generally in the 2-3 minute range...or less.
And yes, the Rino, along with most outdoor-oriented Garmin GPSs, is more than tough enough for the task.
In addition to a solar-powered battery charger for your GPS, I'd also recommend a power inverter for your computer gear, or anything else that might need 110VAC. Assuming, of course, you are going to have a vehicle handy. Something in the 300W range should do you just fine, and shouldn't be horribly expensive.
:).
And, of course, everything you take you'll want to have extras of...GPS's, chargers, inverters, possibly even a second laptop. Not like you can go to Radio Shack and pick up a replacement, or have one shipped overnight
Just thinking, is it really that the Linux OS is more secure or is it that the % of knowledgeable users using windows is lower the % of knowledgeable users using Linux?
The last virus I had on a Microsoft system was in DOS. I was 11 or 12 at the time, and knew no better.
I really think 90% of it is a user issue. Yes, you may have a few spyware issues in IE, but viruses? Generally only if you're stupid.
Then again, I'm the kind of guy that reads all my emails as plain text, doesn't care how funny that powerpoint show you emailed me is, and firmly believes in firewalls.
Of course, my box is sitting at home now, and my wife has had it all to herself, unsupervised, for 13 months. I shudder to think what that thing will look like when I get home. I'll probably just burn it.
Though one can argue that there are more actual exploits in Windows, and you'd be correct. However, in most cases it is a user's behavior that makes them vulnerable to the exploit...sure, it wouldn't be an issue if the exploit didn't exist, but it wouldn't be an issue if the user wasn't an idiot either.
...you can't patent saying "Hi." That would be ludicrous.
But I herebye patent saying "Hi" on the internet. Suck on that!
*That* is why Google has to be ambiguous. If they don't, investors will start demanding hard (read: easy to understand) money making products. As long as Google is a black box that grows money, however, the investors are happy.
Except it's unwise to invest in black boxes that grow money, because often they tend to, sometimes without much warning, kick into reverse.
Not quite. Napster actually hosted the files.
Um...no. Napster hosted a directory, which kept track of who hosted which files...and who was online. Individual users hosted the actual files.
No joke. While Netscape came and had the big IPO, Mosaic was the one that set the stage for them.
Back in the day when inline pictures were a big deal.
The most important thing though, is that consumers have a choice in what type of gaming philosophy they want to subscribe to. You can buy into the innovation and new style of gaming brought about by the DS, or you can get the mainstream rich-graphic games that the PSP has to offer. No matter what your preference is, consumers have more of a choice now.
It's also coming down to what you expect your system to do...is just playing games good enough, or do you need it to play movies, music, etc.
This was, of course, a consideration with the most recent generation of home consoles, but I think it'll be an even bigger deal with handhelds, since while one is already likely to have a DVD player in their house, most people don't carry a standalone DVD player around in their pocket.
Personally, I'm a one-function guy...I just want my game system to play games, and my music player to just play music. But a lot of people fall into the other camp, and I can see their point.
One of the biggest backlashes was the complaint that "We don't want Linux to be like Windows!"
Why is Windows so popular (other than the fact that it established a monopoly and abused it to push everybody else out of the market)? Because, though many a Linux zealot may try to argue otherwise, it is easy to use. Yeah, spyware and malware have started to tip the balance, but since 3.1 Windows has focused on trying to be easy to use, for everybody from students to home users to businesses.
I think most Linux users LIKE that Linux has a steeper learning curve. Partly because this is a result of having more control over the OS (which is a good thing). But I think part of it is that it makes them feel geekier being able to master it. Knowing the ins and outs of Linux is something to be proud of.
So here's the problem. Many of your Linux zealots cringe at the idea of making Linux as easy to use as Windows (or OSX), even if the advanced options are still available. They don't want their hands held. They don't want a candy-coated OS. This isn't a bad thing, and I see where they're coming from.
But they also want Linux to take over the desktop market.
Microsoft owns the desktop market largely because Windows is easy to use. Linux users don't want Linux to be as easy to use as Windows. Linux users want Linux to take over the desktop market.
Is anybody else seeing why that's not going to work?
(So you know where I'm coming from, I own two computers...a desktop that dual-boots Windows and Linux (Windows mostly for games and the wife, Linux for me), and a PowerBook running OSX)
You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones - compare IE to Firefox or Outlook Express to Evolution), or you pay lots of money to get them.
:).
No you don't. Because there are plenty of apps (such as Firefox, which you mentioned, or gimp, which you did not) that are free, just like on Linux. In fact, a majority of the apps that one would use on Linux have been ported to Windows.
So yeah. You run as root by default, not for ease of use (how difficult is 'type your passsword to continue' that Fedora and OS X do?) but because Microsoft and Windows developers couldn't be bothered fixing things.
Yeah, now here you have something. And people don't just run as root because it's the default, either...Windows also does not make effective use of a home directory for each user (at least, many Windows applications do not, and Microsoft doesn't really encourage them to). That's why I run Windows as root more often than not.
That's why I recommend OSX
Those who got 40s on the exams got an A. Nobody pursued another physics class for the rest of their collegiate career.
I hate classes like this...if a 40 on an exam is an A, it proves to me that there is something wrong with the class, or something wrong with the instructor.
And I'm not promoting forcing the grades into a bell curve, as some classes do. But if the average grade in a class of 30 or 40 is a B+ or A-, something is terribly wrong. You can't convince me that there are only two or three C students out of 30, but some classes I took in high school this is what the grades reflected. Grades were posted (with ID numbers rather than names), and you'd see 3 D's, 3 C's, 13 B's and 13 A's. So what's happening is you're calling B students A students, C students B students, and only those who are truly stupid (or truly don't care) ever get C's and D's. Oh, and the ones who WOULD have been A students? They get to get lumped in with the B students, but at least they have HIGHER A's! (Not that this will be reflected on their transcripts). Too bad for them, I guess.
The problem with this is that now you only really have two usable grades to distinguish between students, the B and the A, rather than having 3 or 4 (depending on whether you expect kids to get D's).
I've had several classes so far in college that didn't "enforce" a bell curve, but rather seemed to have grades naturally fall into one. Imagine the surprise on a bunch of second-semester freshman faces when the prof, while going over the test, announces that the average grade, both median and mean, was in the C range, and that's just about right so there will be no curve. Everybody just expected their C's to transform into B's, and B's to transform into A's, but this teacher just broke it to them there there is no academic Santa Claus. It was perfect.
Perhaps I'm just an elitist asshole, though. After all, I had the highest grade in the class on that test, a 96%. Which, to me, proves that the information was covered because I went into the class knowing almost nothing about the subject.
Lastly, switching mid-stream becomes a pain: a general college-prep student may have been doing phenomenally in school for the last year because of some drastic change, but if they get bumped up to honors, they may miss a couple necessary classes or be unable to handle it (jump from Geometry to Calculus, Journalism to English Lit., etc.).
This would also hold true for somebody moving into the college prep track. And yes, it -was- a pain...I did it about a quarter of the way through the year (freshman year, high school). I don't really know as much as I could about it, because we moved at the end of that year...I finished at a non-tracked school. And I'm pretty sure almost all schools have moved away from this for the reasons you state, especially the race issue (which wasn't really a big issue at that particular school).
My wife and I have debated the subject before too, and often I think that maybe people smarter than I eliminated tracking for good reason. But at the same time I remember all the classes I attended at my non-tracked high school that catered to the LCD, and I think there has to be a better way.
Perhaps instead of having different "versions" of similar classes, schools would benefit from having entirely different curriculums, much like college. But then you'd need enough students to fill the classes...I imagine only really large schools could pull this one off effectively.
I guess all of this is just stuff to think about...and as I start thinking more about having kids soon, I worry about American schools more than I used to.
Close to a third of American adults are obese (not just overweight). The numbers of diabetes and other weight-related diseases have skyrocketed. This is easily preventable through regular physical exercise and you recommend scaling back?
True, but the relatively small percentage of students in a large urban high school that play competitive sports really aren't helping that fact all that much, but that is time, money, and attention drawn away from academics. And for those who don't go on to play in college or go pro (which is most of them), it isn't exactly helping them go anywhere with their lives.
That, or maybe I had one too many wrestling or football coaches teaching history at my school. Though, to be fair, one of the best teachers I ever had was an assistant football coach...so no stereotypes are true 100% of the time.
Not that homework is necessarily bad, but at my high school it was upwards of 60% of your (pre-final) grade. Basically, homework was the cushion allowed students to recieve B's and A's regardless of whether they actually learned anything.
Homework then becomes like a job. You punch the clock, you do the work, you get the grade. That's a super system...for a factory. But what does this factory produce? End of chapter questions? Book reports? Filled-out worksheets? This certainly doesn't help out our economy any (the prices of these products are pretty low), and I've yet to see proof that it actually helps the students learn anything (other than how to copy a friend's homework, if you didn't have time to do yours)...and that is the purpose of school, right? Or has that changed?
In college nearly all of my classes take a different view...routine, daily homework is practice. It's warm-up. Do it if you need it. If you can step right into the exam, or churn out the paper, without doing the homework, more power to you...you obviously already know what we're trying to teach you. If only they'd return the money you spent on the class. I've had classes where I could skim the textbook and land easy A's all the way through...I've had classes where I actually needed the daily homework to help me figure out what the hell I was doing and squeak by. But the point is, it's my choice. There is no mythical homework store that needs to stock it's homework shelves with my merchandise. If I need to do it, great, if not, also great.
The couple of classes where routine, daily homework WAS graded so far in my college career it still didn't account for 50-60 percent of my grade...it was more like 10-20. It was not a crutch to build an A on, it was the icing on the B cake that would get you an A.
Maybe it was just because I was an underachiever in high school, though. Because I didn't like doing homework. And generally, I didn't. I'll come out with it...I came out of high school with a 1.1 GPA. I generally walked into the final with an F, needing a solid A to pass the class, and scored it...without studying, without reading the text, half the time without attending class regularly. Why? Because when you ace all the tests and quizzes, ace the projects, and ace the final, and don't do the homework, you generally end up with a D. People would be amazed that I could even pass a class with a 10-15% score on my homework average. "But you'd have to get nearly 100% on everything else!" Yeah, I know.
A high score on the SAT got me into college, and now I'm holding a 3.7 in EE. I'm not sure my high school was measuring the right attributes. Though part of it is that getting A's in high school just isn't worth it...unless you're going for scholarships. Since it wouldn't have helped me stand out from the other complete morons who got A's, what's the point. That makes the game pointless when everybody gets to win. And it's not really losing if you don't play, right?
And for those that say the point of it is to teach a strong work ethic, I see where you're coming from. That is somewhat important. But teaching some form of academic content is MORE important, and measuring the success of that is important as well. This is impossible if the "grind" allows kids that take no knowledge away from the class to get an A anyway. We have our entire careers to learn about the importance of work...getting fired once or twice is a good motivator. School is for learning actual...well, stuff.
-Get rid of grade inflation: Bring back the bell curve. I've seen people get A's in high-school level American History who can't tell you who can't name 5 presidents...including recent ones. How can you tell if kids are learning if ALL of them get A's? This is worse than social promotion...at least if you pass the kid with a D he knows he's not performing...if you pass him through with a B he thinks he's "above average" (according to most schools' grade scales).
-Scale back athletics and (somewhat) the arts. Sports are great, but gyms are for athletics, schools are for learning. When every teacher is a coach, that's just that much less time being spent making sure kids are learning. Personally, I'd like to see organized sports out of public schools entirely, but I realize that's probably extreme to most people...and that it would never, ever, happen. As for theatre and band, they aren't nearly as bad as athletics, because they have some educational quality...but they still take away a little too much focus from academics, which is bad for the kids who aren't going to go into acting or music.
-Teach the darn teachers: First off, my wife is a teacher, and I respect almost anybody who chooses to go into the profession. That said, the teaching program at her university (and I've heard this is not the exception, but rather the rule) is a -joke-. I've seen the classes she had to take for a primary education degree, and seen some of her fellow students. It frightens me. How can you teach what you don't know? Now I realize why I sometimes felt smarter than my teachers (especially in late elementary/junior high)...I think in some cases I WAS. And high-school teachers should be required to have a major in their field of focus, and a minor in education, not the other way around.
-Tracking: I'm a believer in it...simply having AP classes and normal classes isn't good enough. I went to two high schools, one that did it and one that didn't. Face it, some kids are smarter than others, and when the whole class has to go at the pace of the slowest student, everybody loses. The only requirement, in my mind, is that parents should be able to move their kids to a higher track on request, but perhaps have to sign a waiver saying the school is not responsible if their child fails...since nowadays failing a student can actually bring legal action, or so I hear.
The school I attended that used tracking had 3 different groups for each core class. One for honors, one for general college prep, and one regular (though really it was usually remedial) class. The idea being that not everybody is college material...and this district had a pretty decent vo-tech program to go with it. So you had 3 different American History classes, 3 different algebra classes, etc. Granted, this is only feasible in larger schools.
Bring back the basics: Okay, I love multicultural education. I love finger painting. But the first several years our kids spend in school have one (academic) purpose...teach them to read and do basic math. There's a reason it used to be called grammar school. Most of the problem isn't at the high-school level...you can't build on a crappy foundation. Kids are getting there without basic reading and math skills, partly due to social promotion and partly because they aren't a focus anymore. How can you read your history textbook if you can hardly read? So now you're failing English AND history. Great. By 8th/9th grade it's far too late...might as well just let them drop out.
Focus on Vo-Tech: Not everybody is college material. Especially university material. As soon as we realize this, and as soon as universities stop accepting damn near everybody (ever look at the freshman dropout rate for state universities?), we will be better off. We can start focusing on giving those that aren't going to get a bachelor's some usable job skills, or prepare them for some form of trade school. There is nothing wrong with being a mechanic...we need them, and
...to me.
Considering the amount of inappropriate content already in the game, is this one thing really enough to warrant changing the rating? Especially considering that the game, as shipped, has this portion locked out? It's like complaining that they used the F-bomb one too many times in Pulp Fiction.
In addition, the M rating already restricts the sale of the game to those 17 and older. The AO rating would make it available to those 18 and older. Seems that one of the other is redundant. The only reason that the MPAA features an R and NC-17 rating (which are considered the equivalent of M and AO) is because in a theater setting, NO minors are allowed to view an NC-17 rating, regardless of parental consent. You cannot even take your own kids in. In a take-home setting (such as video/video games) there is no discernable difference between the two, because either way the parent can just hand it to the kid when they get home.
The only reason the two distinct ratings were created was to allow stores a black-and-white line to filter out which titles they would refuse to carry. God forbid the management make those decisions on their own.
Really, I think it was created less to give stores like Target and Wal-Mart an excuse not to carry AO rated games, and more an excuse for chains to explain why they DO carry certain M-rated titles. "I know it's inappropriate for kids, ma'am...but it is only M rated, and we do carry M rated games." That way they can milk the GTA cash cow (along with other "offensive" content) and still act like a family store.
This is the reason for the 1 year age difference as well...by making it 17 and under, they can claim that since it can be legally sold to minors it's appropriate for a family-oriented store.
Okay, so I'm a Blockbuster apologist (to a point) because I worked there for a while...
If the movie didn't come out in the last year, they probably don't have it. This is odd, since about ten years ago they used to have just about everything.
Ten years ago, they didn't have to try to stock all thier movies in two different formats. I was assistant manager of a store while they went through this transition, and trust me, hard decisions are made. Generally, the only movies we'd get rid of were either titles that haven't rented a single time in a full year, or additional copies of movies that don't rent often (pruning them down to two usually, which is the max that will fit neatly behind a single coverbox).
I actually saved a few non-renters that I knew were out of print and that I considered to be "must-haves," and convinced her to instead get rid of some occasional renters on VHS that we also stocked in DVD...better to have it only one format that neither.
I could go on, but I might get teary-eyed when I talk about how they used to have a copy of "Evil Dead" during the loooooong period of time it was out of print, but then they got rid of it to make room for more copies of the same 5 New Releases. It's too late... I promised myself I wouldn't cry...
Generally New Releases and "Favorites" (the old movies) don't compete for shelf space, though of course sometimes older movies get bumped when movies come down off the New Release wall. Still, are you sure they got rid of it (did you ask?) More likely, it was either stolen or destroyed by other customers...I could list several OOP titles that suffered one fate or the other in my store while I worked there. Yes, if they sold it off that's pretty bad, but it would take a pretty brain-dead manager to let that one happen.
Granted, I worked at a franchise rather than corporate, and in a small town...it's likely myself and the employees there cared a little more than the average BBV.
Blockbuster is a shitty store, I won't argue too much with that one. But it's pretty difficult to make everybody happy in a video store, which is why they focus on new releases...that's a category that's pretty easy to nail (generally).
On a side note, regarding the Police Academy and Cube examples...with Police Academy I wouldn't be surprised to find out the the original was out of print but the sequel wasn't...that does happen every now and then (Cannonball Run sticks out in my mind as an example, but I could be wrong). Though another problem you run into is that at BBV the store manager often has VERY little to do with what movies get ordered/replaced...they can request, if I remember correctly, but the final say comes from outside the store. And unfortunately district managers don't care if an indidual store carries "Police Academy"...especially in a bigger city, where another location is likely to have it anyway.
This is why I enjoyed a smaller video chain I worked at...their store managers were given an allowance monthly to order movies that they felt their store needed...it could be additional copies of something that was renting strongly locally, or some older movie that had been lost or stolen. Ours generally asked for suggestions from all the employees, and more often than not followed them. Good stuff.
Anyway, to make some sort of point, there is a reason that a large, centralized online rental company can carry a MUCH better selection than a chain that is trying to keep thousands of brick-and-mortar stores stocked.
As has been pointed out several times on /., BB doesn't censor movies themselves. Rather, when faced with a choice from the movie distribution house between an unrated or more family-friendly version of a film, they'll go for that. Since few other movie retailers/rental outlets that go for the 'family friendly' versions of films, it often appears as though BB has their own version.
Exactly. Additionally, this "family-friendly" verion of the movie is, in almost every case, just the theatrical version that played in the darn movie theatres...not exactly censorship. They simply, as a policy, try to avoid carrying unrated films and rather carry the original theatrical versions. Until unrated editions of DVD's became popular, you rarely noticed the difference.
Nobody complains that theaters are "censoring" movies by only carrying MPAA rated movies...at least not too many people. BBV makes a pretty good whipping boy...they have plenty of faults. No need to make up new ones.
Should the punishment for releasing a virus be tough? I don't think so. I think that it is a pretty benign "crime". It is crucial that we keep a sense of proportion when discussing the sentencing stage of justice.
Considering both the money lost by business and disruptions to things like air travel, I'd say it's far from "benign," and definitely a crime. Death penalty? Hell yeah. But something harsher than a few months' worth of suspended sentence was in order on this one, IMO.
Kids, creating computer viruses has VERY real consequences, and should most assuredly be a crime, and the kind that involves actual prison sentences...the kind where you really go to prison (the length of these sentences should, of course, be determined largely by both the damage caused and possible damage caused, within reason).
But yeah, this guy is an asshat for even bringing up the idea of the death penalty in this case.
Fit into a niche the big boys don't care about or have trouble attacking.
Except that now Sony is trying to muscle on on a large part of their turf (handhelds). Personally, I'm hoping that Nintendo shows them what kind of mistake it is to attack them on their own turf...and while the DS got of to a weak start in my opinion, it's showing a lot of promise down the road game-wise.
I'm only worried because Nintendo is in a transitional stage right now, which makes them a little more vulnerable than, say, Apple with their iPod. Where Apple seems very sure of what they're doing and how they want to do it, the Nintendo DS seems more like a big question mark. "What do you think, guys? Is this cool? It has a touch-screen...neat-o, huh?" The complete opposite of the GBA, which was a straightforward evolution of a well-established product line.
I'm babbling. Anyway, I hope the DS pans out for them. I'm confident that Revolution will...it will likely do just as well as the GameCube, if not better. I've already started saving my pennies.
Online play varies...getting a game of Wild Chicken (Crimson Skies) game going with 8 or 10 decent players, utilizing the voice comms, it can be a whole lot of fun. The competition can be fun, and lends a lot of replay value where some 1-player offerings are lacking.
That said, listening to a bunch of 13-year-olds either talk audibly about how high they are, or let you know via text that "u r teh suxors" can get old really fast.
Personally, I had a decent friends list going on XBL before I ended up here, and usually if I joined up in a game with most of them I knew it was going to be a good time.
But yes, I also enjoy good 1-player games as well. And good multiplayer same-room games. Hence my love of the GameCube...plenty of both. Whether 1 player or 4 player, there are plenty of great games to choose from on it.
Xbox Live is, I'd argue, the thing that pushed the Xbox past the Gamecube in sales. The top-selling games are consistently online-enabled and it's a real point of differentiation for that console. It's a very well-executed service.
Xbox Live is the only reason I even own an Xbox. In fact, all but two of my Xbox games are online-playable (not aware mind you, but actual XBL multiplayer).
So yes, I'd agree...without XBL Nintendo and MS would be right next to each other, sales wise.
While Nintendo does not see the ridiculous number of console sales at the PS2, it's sales numbers are almost equal to the X-Box.
With how much cheaper GCs are, though, they really should be selling more than Xbox. Personally, I chalk a lot of that up to lack of online support...XBL is the only reason I own an Xbox; I was perfectly happy with my GC+PS2 before that.
Point being, If Sony's really sold 83 million (whatever it is), how many of those are actually still in use today.
Not mine...it barely reads discs anymore, and has started to make funky sounds as well. It had been retired to bedroom DVD duty, but once it was no longer able to reliably read brand-new DVD's straight from the store, into the closet it went. I'd sell it, even cheaply, but I wouldn't wish that POS on anybody else. I've yet to see any games I simply HAD to play that weren't on Xbox or GC.
I do not think the Gamecube is clunky. I think its sleek and functional, but your opinion is your opinion. I think its safe to say that the X-Box is a FUGLY console.
The GameCube was meant to be moved, carried from place to place for portable 4-player goodness. Where I am now I often grab it and head to somebody else's room so we can get our game on. That handle is there for a reason. I'd say the GameCube is physically the best-designed of the 3 consoles...but people think it's clunky just because it deviates from what they expect home electronic devices to look like.
Personally, I'd say the GameCube was the best (if not the best selling) of this generation's consoles. It definitely redeemed Nintendo from the debacle that was N64. Of course, the N64 made them plenty of money too. Even when Nintendo "fails" they always seem to fall bass-ackwards into cash...go figure.
If Nintendo had had the foresight to embrace online, a la Xbox Live, it would probably be the only console I own right now...except the PS2 in the closet, of course. Then again, that's probably just me, because I think I'm the last 18-26 year old male who doesn't care one bit about GTA.