Teachers are underpaid because the money goes to big IT companies and others. If just a few schools invested their IT budgets in Free Software development/sponsorship, then every other school would get the features they need for FREE, forever.
Your argument might make some sense if their biggest competitor wasn't also an american company. The problem with Microsoft search is that they don't pick up on new net trends quickly enough, they manipulate search results for their own ends, and they're basically the untrustworthy default that people move away from when they learn what else is out there.
Yes, exactly. Their apology missed the point. What's more: the original show was broadcast to a nation for probably ten or fifteen minutes or so. The apology will be a quick mention at the end of a future show, and a well-hidden online page. It really doesn't make up for the damage they've done.
Actually, satellites (like Hubble at least) use infrared and other cameras probably more than visible light cameras. Indoors isn't that much safer. Neither is underground, unless you go really far down.
Actually, I was going to say that this isn't all that surprising, considering that the US Administration seems to be obsessed with "security", and that NASA is having it's funding cut to the point where they can barely do what they're famous for, let alone all the side projects. It does make some sense for them to start producing surveillance- and detection-related (as opposed to security) technology. Somehow I suspect the pure scientists who admire NASA probably won't be as happy about this as detectives will.
It's because you want to cheat the system and get ranked highly to begin with.
Well said. What most companies don't seem to realise is that they have no right to be the first listing on google. They're just not that special, when everyone is making content.
That's always possible. Even a random memory malfunction (ie, a random mutation) could lead to intelligent computers, given programs that were close enough already. As time goes on there will be more computers, and more artificially intelligent software, so the "breeding ground" for these mututations, and therefore the chances of it happening successfully, will increase.
But actually, it means something cooler than that... if viruses can cause evolution beyond single-celled organisms, then beginning the process of intelligent life on other planets is just a matter of sending a virus there. It's a slow approach, of course...;)
That's a fallacious argument. In other words, it's illogical, and doesn't make sense.
Also, MS does it because they get money FROM the schools as a result. With that money, schools can buy their own educators, whom they've CHOSEN based on merit, rather than monopoly.
Finally, you know nothing about me; I invest plenty of time in helping people to use Free Software.
The peace at the other side of the war is sometimes better and sometimes worse. Very often it is better for some people and worse for others.
Which is precisely why it's better for no one. There will never be lasting peace as long as one side feels they've gotten the raw end of the deal. We have to focus on finding solutions that satisfy everyone equally and fairly.
Interaction creates envy and causes for war.
Only if you interact in a disrespectful and unfair way.
The thing that worries me most here isn't the price being expended by schools. If they want their kids to have good facilities, they should invest in their education.
The problem though, is that schools are teaching ONE company's products. How would you feel if you walked into a school and saw nothing but one company's weird books, so that kids would never know how to read anything else? Or one company's weird style of pen, so that kids would never be able to write without buying from that company? It's sickening.
There are standard, open, free, computing platforms, developed BY academia, and largely FOR academia. They can be taught without favouritism to one proprietary company, and they can be invested in so that ALL schools can gain from that one investment. If you invest those windows license fees in Free Software, you don't just get stuff for YOUR school. Instead, EVERY school benefits! Imagine how great it would be if every school had the wisdom to invest their budgets this way.
It's called conversation. Topics move and change as time goes on. One discussion inspires another, threads of discussion lead to other threads. He spoke of solutions, I took that up as a sub-thread. That's how it works.
Yes, this is precisely what I'm getting at:D The international situation is quite ridiculous really. I'm not saying that the solutions are easy, but I think we should recognise the problem and begin to make a real effort:)
The problem of the defender is that sovereignty is threatened, and when defence is successful that problem is solved. Therefore war did solve something.
Not at all. If one war destablises international relations, then it only increases the need for future fear. On the other hand, if economic ties are forged, and social interaction and cohesion is developed, security is much more tangible.
The problem is also that the causes of the war usually could have been avoided: an important cause of WWII was not WWI but the unjust peace in between. Still many wars do create a better peace.
You have a point there, but I think you're bending it too much to your own ends. You can say that the war itself was not the issue, but that the conditions imposed by the victors afterwards lead to further war. However, other economic and international issues lead to the first World War, so where does that end? All it proves is that war was a temporary insanity in the midst of trying to find real, lasting social and economic stability. The wars certainly did not CREATE any peace; the peace was there before and after, so they were a distraction from it.
I don't believe in solutions to this problem that require a mentality change with the other side to work. If you don't defend yourselves against aggressors, you will get more misery, not less, because you rewarded aggression.
That assumes that you let it progress to aggression before fixing it.
Sorry, that's not solving something with warfare. That's finding a medical discovery as a by-product of the death and destruction caused by war. As everyone knows, the medical profession's first and foremost rule is, "first do no harm."
What's the "new use"? Oh wait, there isn't one: it's a direct ripoff. Please don't try to sugarcoat at all what is an obvious grab at existing genre money.
I think you're expecting too much from these slashvertisements;)
Not at all. I never said it was easy, or that people don't want to fight. However, children also want to fight, and it's not easy to raise them so that they respect each other. Nonetheless, we take up the challenge, and generally, we prevail.
Umm, in a free country, people can talk about whatever they want, and this site is about news for nerds, not just "technology". Moreover, technology does not exist outside of human cultures and politics, but as part of them, as just about any discussion on/. shows. Take all the discussions on the politics surrounding free software, for instance.
Assuming you meant "fought"... yes, of course that's the norm as children grow up. However, it's also true that most people learn to get along as they mature. There is no reason the relationships between larger organisations of people cannot mature in the same way as interpersonal relationships.
One of the sides in a war usually achieves the main objective the war was fought for (defending one's sovereignty, for instance).
No, that's short-sighted. No one actually fights over concepts like sovereignty. If you look a little deeper, you'll see that human, personal issues like fear and disrespect are at work. THAT is what needs to be solved, and that is precisely what war will not solve.
War never solved anything. Every war has its roots in previous hostility and violence and disrespect for others. World War II for instance, was largely a result of World War 1. Also, it can be argued that it was predicted over a hundred years before, because of other actions at that time (start reading on wikipedia if you want to know more on this).
Slashdot Mirror
Teachers are underpaid because the money goes to big IT companies and others. If just a few schools invested their IT budgets in Free Software development/sponsorship, then every other school would get the features they need for FREE, forever.
Your argument might make some sense if their biggest competitor wasn't also an american company. The problem with Microsoft search is that they don't pick up on new net trends quickly enough, they manipulate search results for their own ends, and they're basically the untrustworthy default that people move away from when they learn what else is out there.
Yes, exactly. Their apology missed the point. What's more: the original show was broadcast to a nation for probably ten or fifteen minutes or so. The apology will be a quick mention at the end of a future show, and a well-hidden online page. It really doesn't make up for the damage they've done.
Actually, satellites (like Hubble at least) use infrared and other cameras probably more than visible light cameras. Indoors isn't that much safer. Neither is underground, unless you go really far down.
Actually, I was going to say that this isn't all that surprising, considering that the US Administration seems to be obsessed with "security", and that NASA is having it's funding cut to the point where they can barely do what they're famous for, let alone all the side projects. It does make some sense for them to start producing surveillance- and detection-related (as opposed to security) technology. Somehow I suspect the pure scientists who admire NASA probably won't be as happy about this as detectives will.
Yes, we're not managing to convince each other, so let's just drop it.
Well said. What most companies don't seem to realise is that they have no right to be the first listing on google. They're just not that special, when everyone is making content.
That's always possible. Even a random memory malfunction (ie, a random mutation) could lead to intelligent computers, given programs that were close enough already. As time goes on there will be more computers, and more artificially intelligent software, so the "breeding ground" for these mututations, and therefore the chances of it happening successfully, will increase.
;)
But actually, it means something cooler than that... if viruses can cause evolution beyond single-celled organisms, then beginning the process of intelligent life on other planets is just a matter of sending a virus there. It's a slow approach, of course...
Well, now you're appealing to tradition instead of arguing the case, so I'll leave the discussion here. Thanks for your thoughts though.
That's a fallacious argument. In other words, it's illogical, and doesn't make sense.
Also, MS does it because they get money FROM the schools as a result. With that money, schools can buy their own educators, whom they've CHOSEN based on merit, rather than monopoly.
Finally, you know nothing about me; I invest plenty of time in helping people to use Free Software.
Which is precisely why it's better for no one. There will never be lasting peace as long as one side feels they've gotten the raw end of the deal. We have to focus on finding solutions that satisfy everyone equally and fairly.
Only if you interact in a disrespectful and unfair way.
The only reason Vista will suck that really matters is enough. It undermines the Freedom of software users.
The thing that worries me most here isn't the price being expended by schools. If they want their kids to have good facilities, they should invest in their education.
The problem though, is that schools are teaching ONE company's products. How would you feel if you walked into a school and saw nothing but one company's weird books, so that kids would never know how to read anything else? Or one company's weird style of pen, so that kids would never be able to write without buying from that company? It's sickening.
There are standard, open, free, computing platforms, developed BY academia, and largely FOR academia. They can be taught without favouritism to one proprietary company, and they can be invested in so that ALL schools can gain from that one investment. If you invest those windows license fees in Free Software, you don't just get stuff for YOUR school. Instead, EVERY school benefits! Imagine how great it would be if every school had the wisdom to invest their budgets this way.
It's called conversation. Topics move and change as time goes on. One discussion inspires another, threads of discussion lead to other threads. He spoke of solutions, I took that up as a sub-thread. That's how it works.
Yes, this is precisely what I'm getting at :D The international situation is quite ridiculous really. I'm not saying that the solutions are easy, but I think we should recognise the problem and begin to make a real effort :)
Not at all. If one war destablises international relations, then it only increases the need for future fear. On the other hand, if economic ties are forged, and social interaction and cohesion is developed, security is much more tangible.
You have a point there, but I think you're bending it too much to your own ends. You can say that the war itself was not the issue, but that the conditions imposed by the victors afterwards lead to further war. However, other economic and international issues lead to the first World War, so where does that end? All it proves is that war was a temporary insanity in the midst of trying to find real, lasting social and economic stability. The wars certainly did not CREATE any peace; the peace was there before and after, so they were a distraction from it.
That assumes that you let it progress to aggression before fixing it.
Sorry, that's not solving something with warfare. That's finding a medical discovery as a by-product of the death and destruction caused by war. As everyone knows, the medical profession's first and foremost rule is, "first do no harm."
I think you're expecting too much from these slashvertisements
Not at all. I never said it was easy, or that people don't want to fight. However, children also want to fight, and it's not easy to raise them so that they respect each other. Nonetheless, we take up the challenge, and generally, we prevail.
You quoted that out of context. The song Civil War is AGAINST war, not for it.
Umm, in a free country, people can talk about whatever they want, and this site is about news for nerds, not just "technology". Moreover, technology does not exist outside of human cultures and politics, but as part of them, as just about any discussion on /. shows. Take all the discussions on the politics surrounding free software, for instance.
Assuming you meant "fought"... yes, of course that's the norm as children grow up. However, it's also true that most people learn to get along as they mature. There is no reason the relationships between larger organisations of people cannot mature in the same way as interpersonal relationships.
No, that's short-sighted. No one actually fights over concepts like sovereignty. If you look a little deeper, you'll see that human, personal issues like fear and disrespect are at work. THAT is what needs to be solved, and that is precisely what war will not solve.
If you think it's solved anything, I'd like to hear your reasoning.
War never solved anything. Every war has its roots in previous hostility and violence and disrespect for others. World War II for instance, was largely a result of World War 1. Also, it can be argued that it was predicted over a hundred years before, because of other actions at that time (start reading on wikipedia if you want to know more on this).
It's time we started working towards peace rather than war.