That's a good point. In my opinion, the more telling behavior of a company (or individual) is how they respond to reports of a problem. We all make mistakes, especially when pushing the envelope. It's important that they acknowledge it's existence, importance, and urgency; that they move to a rapid resolution and acknowledge their shortcomings; if possible they should learn from it so as to avoid it; etc.
The absolute worst thing to do is to ignore, deny, or play down the problem, especially by attacking one who raises the complaint. It's also poor in my opinion to attack others for their errors. However, I don't have a problem with criticising their response (or lack of response) to the errors, or an attempt to shift the blame to others.
If Intel tackles the problem in a "mature" manner, good for them, and no shame in having a little trouble now and them. I don't respect their (or their supporters) former attacks on competing companies in similar situations. Such arrogance is not pretty. I think they are likely to be a bit humbled by their competition now, and hopefully will continue putting their efforts into improvement, rather than arrogant marketing, etc. I do wonder if they might have rushed this product simply to promote an image of being "the leader" and gotten a little burned in the process.
Incidentally, my preference is AMD, due to price and less obnoxious advertising.
High School is for teaching "the basics", hopefully in a variety of subjects. Given limited time, attention span, behavioral problems, etc. it is good that a teacher not waste his and the student's time over exactly how many elements there are. Even professionals can't keep up with all the new developments. We are in an era where no individual can be an expert on all things, even within a specific field. This is an unrealistic expectation.
The point of the periodic table is that da elements fall into groups based upon their atomic composition and that these groups share various properties. It might be interesting to note that some scientists have managed to smash some particles together to create a new element that is stable for a billionth of a second or whatever, but this is going to distract from the heart of the matter. It's also more related to Physics than Chemistry.
Should students skip Newtonian physics because it is only an approximation useful in only a subset of physics? Of course not. It's also good to teach things a step at a time. Basic level courses are always going to be full of inaccuracies and approximations. A high school student that has mastered the crude basics should be encouraged to grow through reading other materials, talking to professionals, taking college level courses, etc. This is what I did in the areas that interested me.
As for a solution to "the problem", I would recommend new teaching methodologies. The shortcomings are the compromises of teaching "en mass." This refers to both the development of curricula that are applied rigidly to large populations (such as Federal government educational mandates), as well as the "lecture" methodology of teaching that is predominant today. If you target a "group", you will be teaching the least common denominator, or otherwise missing the potential that each individual has.
Other, more personalized, methodologies are possible (I've worked with one first hand) but it will be many years before "public" schools will make the transition. These can be more effective, economical (thanks to computers), and fulfilling to the individual. Improvements in method, not material is what I would recommend.
To track down lost e-mail, the administrators could have logged only the headers of the targeted messages. By discarding the body, they would have had a much easier time with their claim that they were simply troubleshooting and not evesdropping.
I suppose this would make potential lost messages unrecoverable, but the problem could be identified and solved without loss of privacy.
Anyone know if they were able to demonstrate that there had been a problem somewhere? Perhaps they accidentally interrupted the Amazon e-mail when they installed their sniffer!
G. Gordon Liddey's fictional novel, "The Monkey Handlers", referenced a device to remote view a computer terminal from a distance. I believe the book was printed in 91. Good read. Interesting to see fiction that sounds a little far fetched end up a nearly affordable and otherwise available gadget! I'd like it to be illegal, though I doubt one could have much luck acusing someone of spying on them in this manner. You would likely end up with a prescription for some anti-psycotics or a nice soft room to stay in.
Anybody know of some other sites out there where people can discuss interesting technological issues without wading through so much crap? Maybe someplace where people thought of the value of their post before posting thing like...
"I'm so smart, I knew this years ago..."
Perhaps they could either shut up about how smart they are or since they know it all already, they could add something meaningful to the conversation! Really, I don't think it is that bad an idea to announce a new version of something that is not a total revolution. If it doesn't interest you, skip the topic rather than letting all of us know. If a story comes along with no responses, that will speak for itself. Personally, I'd rather see only 10 posts (on-topic) rather than hundreds of "I knew that" or "this isn't that impressive" or other EGO related posts.
I used to think usenet discussion groups were bad, but it seems that Slashdot has managed to gather more know-it-all-but-contribute-nothing attitudes than one would expect to exist in the wild!
Where else can one go to engage in discussions like this that might have more content?
On the surface (having not read the book in question), I'd guess this is so-called psycho-babble, but perhaps they went into more depth than the article mentions. It's along the lines of blaming genetics or chemistry for peoples' actions and choices. Even those choices we make subconcisously are still our responsibility. Through introspection and feedback from trusted friends we can learn of our traits and make adjustments if necessary. This is part of being good friends, co-workers, citizens, and people in general.
Dealing with other people is a lot more frustrating than working with incredibly precise and predictable technology (Windows excepted). It's tempting to give up on people and avoid improving our own skills in that regard, but this is irresponsible.
I think non-geeks have some very valid criticisms, and that geeks ought to come to terms with these and do something about it. It's usually better to solve a problem than to deny it and blame it on someone else. It's also better not to blame some mysterious genetic or chemical influence. Human will can overcome some incredible obstacles.
Making computers easier to use is very important. It requires us geeks to give up our arrogance and try to understand how other people see the technology that we create. It's not their stupidity that makes something hard to use, it is ours that keeps us from designing better interfaces.
BTW, I wonder if people who write and publish such books might be suffering from a mild form of megalomania?
Slashdot Mirror
Why does everyone seem to assume that water is necessary for life?
Earth : 12:39 p.m. PST on Friday, December 3: OK, we're listening...
Hmm, another conversion error, perhaps? Just kidding...
The absolute worst thing to do is to ignore, deny, or play down the problem, especially by attacking one who raises the complaint. It's also poor in my opinion to attack others for their errors. However, I don't have a problem with criticising their response (or lack of response) to the errors, or an attempt to shift the blame to others.
If Intel tackles the problem in a "mature" manner, good for them, and no shame in having a little trouble now and them. I don't respect their (or their supporters) former attacks on competing companies in similar situations. Such arrogance is not pretty. I think they are likely to be a bit humbled by their competition now, and hopefully will continue putting their efforts into improvement, rather than arrogant marketing, etc. I do wonder if they might have rushed this product simply to promote an image of being "the leader" and gotten a little burned in the process.
Incidentally, my preference is AMD, due to price and less obnoxious advertising.
Spicoli
Woolie Bully, Woolie Bully, Woolie Bully
The point of the periodic table is that da elements fall into groups based upon their atomic composition and that these groups share various properties. It might be interesting to note that some scientists have managed to smash some particles together to create a new element that is stable for a billionth of a second or whatever, but this is going to distract from the heart of the matter. It's also more related to Physics than Chemistry.
Should students skip Newtonian physics because it is only an approximation useful in only a subset of physics? Of course not. It's also good to teach things a step at a time. Basic level courses are always going to be full of inaccuracies and approximations. A high school student that has mastered the crude basics should be encouraged to grow through reading other materials, talking to professionals, taking college level courses, etc. This is what I did in the areas that interested me.
As for a solution to "the problem", I would recommend new teaching methodologies. The shortcomings are the compromises of teaching "en mass." This refers to both the development of curricula that are applied rigidly to large populations (such as Federal government educational mandates), as well as the "lecture" methodology of teaching that is predominant today. If you target a "group", you will be teaching the least common denominator, or otherwise missing the potential that each individual has.
Other, more personalized, methodologies are possible (I've worked with one first hand) but it will be many years before "public" schools will make the transition. These can be more effective, economical (thanks to computers), and fulfilling to the individual. Improvements in method, not material is what I would recommend.
Spicoli
Where's the beef?!?
I suppose this would make potential lost messages unrecoverable, but the problem could be identified and solved without loss of privacy.
Anyone know if they were able to demonstrate that there had been a problem somewhere? Perhaps they accidentally interrupted the Amazon e-mail when they installed their sniffer!
The G-Man's books
Spicoli
"That was my skull!"
"I'm so smart, I knew this years ago..."
Perhaps they could either shut up about how smart they are or since they know it all already, they could add something meaningful to the conversation! Really, I don't think it is that bad an idea to announce a new version of something that is not a total revolution. If it doesn't interest you, skip the topic rather than letting all of us know. If a story comes along with no responses, that will speak for itself. Personally, I'd rather see only 10 posts (on-topic) rather than hundreds of "I knew that" or "this isn't that impressive" or other EGO related posts.
I used to think usenet discussion groups were bad, but it seems that Slashdot has managed to gather more know-it-all-but-contribute-nothing attitudes than one would expect to exist in the wild!
Where else can one go to engage in discussions like this that might have more content?
Spicoli
Dealing with other people is a lot more frustrating than working with incredibly precise and predictable technology (Windows excepted). It's tempting to give up on people and avoid improving our own skills in that regard, but this is irresponsible.
I think non-geeks have some very valid criticisms, and that geeks ought to come to terms with these and do something about it. It's usually better to solve a problem than to deny it and blame it on someone else. It's also better not to blame some mysterious genetic or chemical influence. Human will can overcome some incredible obstacles.
Making computers easier to use is very important. It requires us geeks to give up our arrogance and try to understand how other people see the technology that we create. It's not their stupidity that makes something hard to use, it is ours that keeps us from designing better interfaces.
BTW, I wonder if people who write and publish such books might be suffering from a mild form of megalomania?
Spicoli
Who ordered the double cheese and sausage?