This is really wierd. This guy is asking about getting his kid into learning with technology, and people on/. are giving him a hard time about turning his kid into a nerd. Are your lives that bad that you're trying to save future generations from a life of being a technophile?
Of course, parents need to teach kids other stuff like social skills, and let them play with other toys like coloring books, blocks, whatever. Duh, the guy isn't asking for parenting advice, he simply wants to know if we have any experience with these devices, and if so, can we help him out? There's really no reason not to supplement the learning experience with the technology, right?
BTW, my nephew has one of the leap variety, and he loves it. I can't testify as to what he's learning from it, but he's definitely having fun with it.
What I would like to know is what does the open source community get out of this? I mean, yeah, it would be cool to have an OSS ipod competitor, but if it still costs me $300 even though I helped write the software, what's the point?
I know a lot of people are going to say that if you want to use a content management tool like Dot Net Nuke, why not just go Linux instead.
That's sometimes easier said than done. I worked for a company that had a huge existing codebase in ASP and C#, and they had already bought the licenses for Windows server. The actual Microsoft Content Management Server was so insanely prohibitively expensive that it wasn't even an option. Dot Net Nuke saved the day.
For the open source model to become what people want it to become, it needs to be not only embraced by the slashdot community of Linux nerds, but by everbody else, as well. Stuff like this is a good start.
I know that right now I use a DVR service so that I can SKIP commercials. I am not going to pay somebody money and switch services so that they can give me the same functionality, plus serve me advertisements. Seriously!!! Even targeted ads! I refuse to pay to be a captive audience for advertisements, no matter how well they fit my profile.
This would be a smart business model if Google were competing against DVR services that forced random advertisements on their customers, but that's not the case at all.
I get all my news from the internet. If I'm looking for news, though, I'm not going to the networks' sites. If I wanted that, I'd just turn on the TV. I already have my sources for internet news, and I'm really not interested in this half-assed attempt to win me over.
People still think they can slap their old way of doing things up on the internet, and it will be magically fresh and innovative. Not so much.
If I were going to take on a project of this magnitude, I would freeze a snapshot of the current Wikipedia so that the version we were editing was not constantly changing, and then I would get some people (either paid or volunteer) to go through and do some fact checking and editing. Sure, that would be costly and time-consuming, but with all the critics WikiPedia has amassed, they really can't afford for something like this to be a half-baked disaster. It's a bad idea to publish print copies of these articles if they haven't been subjected to some kind of critical eye aside from the general internet public.
Also, a disclaimer might be necessesary. People should be fully aware of what Wikipedia is, and where the information came from.
I think this is a great project, and that there's great value in it. Wikipedia is an awesome source of information. However, just like any other single source of information, it cannot be taken as the final authority on any topic. Most of us in the internet community already know this. Still, you cannot completely disregard what a magnificent thing it is to have such a massive collection of information, even if some of it is more like conventional wisdom than pure fact.
Wow. That's a really bad example. Are you trying to say that the crusaders were right to kill all those people? That can't be what you are trying to say, but if that's not what you are trying to say, then you pretty much just argued my point for me. Wierd.
See, your opposition would argue that morality comes before money, no matter the circumstances. I have to agree.
Seriously, though, we're not arguing morality here. I do get your point. I'm just playing devil's advocate. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. We can teach our kids the values of science, but somebody's always going to try to lead them away from it.
People take comfort in seeking out the mystical to answer questions they can't answer themselves. It will always be this way. It's a lot easier to solve life's mysteries with a little magic and hand-waving than to learn the fundamentals of string theory and relativity.
I think the big problem is when people decide they can't reconcile science with religion. I mean, really, there's no reason they can't coexist. I bet you'd agree with me that religion is not the enemy here, it's blind faith without reason.
Hey, man, I'm definitely on the side of science here. You know that the opposition would say exactly the same stuff, though, in support of their views.
"Moral values are ailing in this country. We need to do more to pull people in to Christianity." Sound familiar?
Everybody wants people to believe what they believe, but we can't make people believe stuff. We can educate our kids in the sciences as best we can, but if they grow up and decide that they can't reconcile that with their spiritual beliefs or whatever, then there's really not a whole lot we can do about it.
Have you had a chance to play with C# interfaces? They basicly give you all the functionality of multiple inheritance without a lot of the mess it can cause. Check it out. Java's got 'em too. You can give an implementation of a function from an interfaced class without directly inheriting from it.
I'm really not frustrated with C++ or embedded C++. It's still my favorite language. I just think C# is fun sometimes, too. Especially when I want to sit down and focus on writing an algorithm without having to think about all the other stuff in C++.
I don't mind a little casting and wrapping from time to time. Sure, for a lot of programs it can get tedious, but if you're doing something like generating a huge polymorphic tree, C++ will look the same way.
So you have to throw together a simple wrapper class from time to time. Big deal. I still like that I can point to any object and say, "that's an object", even if I don't know what it is.
Blah blah blah. We'll agree to disagree. Hooray for us!!!
First, having everything derived from one base class is not the same thing as throwing out type safety. Java and C# are both typesafe languages, but at the root most objects are derived from the same class. There is a HUGE difference.
Second, as for encouraging bad coding practices, I find it to be the opposite. In C++, you have the option of falling back on the old C-style programming, and it's easy to have a ton of bad global variables floating all over the place. C# and Java both force the object-oriented model, and it doesn't give you that option. I've found that makes my code better and more readable.
Third, C++ is my native tongue. I'm working on a master's degree in CS right now, and I make a living writing embedded C++, so you can't tell me that I only like C# and Java because I don't know true C++. That's bull.
I can see your point that if you let Visual Studio do all the work for you and you rely on drag-and-drop GUI's and auto generated event handling all the time, you may end up with some ugly, repetitive, unreadable code. Believe me, though, I've seen C++ code that's just as bad.
I've seen a lot of people in the tech industry who are incredible C programmers, but who don't really understand object oriented principals and design patterns. Those are usually the people who tend to say that pure OO languages like Java and C# are convoluted, because they don't really understand what's going on.
Mono didn't create the language, they just created another runtime environment for it. They get my props for doing that, too. I'm just trying to give credit where credit is due.
Honestly, the way I feel about it is that if I'm going to write real software, I'm going to write it in C++ and I'm going to write it for Linux. If I'm just dicking around writing some code for Windows, sometimes C# is fun.
I swear, you give a Microsoft product one little backhanded complement on this site, and people are all over you. This isn't a fascist Linux dictatorship, you know. It's a forum for people to express oppinions and share information.
As much as I hate to give MS props, C# is one of my favorite languages to program in. I'm a GNU programmer at heart, but programming C# is like brain candy. I don't have to think about memory allocation or anything even remotely machine-related.
I know, I know, Java's got that stuff, too. I like 'em both. A guy can swing both way, right?
"C'mon, it's just text files with a bunch of angle brackets, when it gets right down to it."
You could also say something similar about all the source code for Linux, or any other program. It's just text files. And programmers, they're just typists, really. I think you're kind of understating things a little.
The beauty of XML is how useful it is in light of it's simplicity. Something doesn't always have to be complicated to be ingenious.
Sweet Mini-ITX mod
on
20 Years of NES
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
NEVER think about destroying a functional NES, because that would be sacrelige. If you happen to have access to a broken NES, check out this awesome mod.
"Microsoft said it would initially focus on works already in the public domain. This opens up a whole new innovation from Microsoft that will allow all users access to otherwise restricted works - if they have a Hotmail account and use MSN messenger on XP sp2"
First, how are works in the public domain "otherwise restricted"? They're in the public domain, right?
Second, Project Gutenberg has already done a pretty darn good job of posting works in the public domain. They have 16,000+ books online already, and they don't require any registration.
That would be a step in the right direction. However, the added costs of buying a hybrid car still don't outweigh the money saved on gas. Not to mention, most employees of Wal-mart and McDonalds probably don't have a lot of money to be throwing around, regardless of their view of the environment.
So, if you could offer an incentive that would be enough to counterbalance those factors, then you might have something. Until then, saving the environment will be left to those of us who have the luxury of spending a little extra. Sad but true.
The only phone service in my house is Vonage. If my ISP were to try to block or restrict that, you'd better believe I wouldn't be switching over to their phone service. I'd be getting a new ISP.
So, if it's an all (buy their phone service AND their internet access) or nothing kind of thing, from me they'll get nothing.
What I mean is, regardless of the culture you were raised in and the social climate of your environment, at some point, wrong is wrong is wrong.
In this category, I would put anything that infringes on the rights of other human beings, including murder, assault, and, yes, simple theft.
Justify it all you want. Yes, the people who fall for it are often greedy and stupid, but that doesn't make the act of the perpitrators any less wrong.
Have you seen how many Microsoft and Windows stories are on the front page this morning? OK, so maybe it's not all positive coverage, but it's still coverage.
Worth mentioning, though, is that any site that attracts tech-savvy people is going to have a disproportionaly high percentage for Firefox. This means that
Slashdot Mirror
This is really wierd. This guy is asking about getting his kid into learning with technology, and people on /. are giving him a hard time about turning his kid into a nerd. Are your lives that bad that you're trying to save future generations from a life of being a technophile?
Of course, parents need to teach kids other stuff like social skills, and let them play with other toys like coloring books, blocks, whatever. Duh, the guy isn't asking for parenting advice, he simply wants to know if we have any experience with these devices, and if so, can we help him out? There's really no reason not to supplement the learning experience with the technology, right?
BTW, my nephew has one of the leap variety, and he loves it. I can't testify as to what he's learning from it, but he's definitely having fun with it.
What I would like to know is what does the open source community get out of this? I mean, yeah, it would be cool to have an OSS ipod competitor, but if it still costs me $300 even though I helped write the software, what's the point?
I know a lot of people are going to say that if you want to use a content management tool like Dot Net Nuke, why not just go Linux instead.
That's sometimes easier said than done. I worked for a company that had a huge existing codebase in ASP and C#, and they had already bought the licenses for Windows server. The actual Microsoft Content Management Server was so insanely prohibitively expensive that it wasn't even an option. Dot Net Nuke saved the day.
For the open source model to become what people want it to become, it needs to be not only embraced by the slashdot community of Linux nerds, but by everbody else, as well. Stuff like this is a good start.
I know that right now I use a DVR service so that I can SKIP commercials. I am not going to pay somebody money and switch services so that they can give me the same functionality, plus serve me advertisements. Seriously!!! Even targeted ads! I refuse to pay to be a captive audience for advertisements, no matter how well they fit my profile.
This would be a smart business model if Google were competing against DVR services that forced random advertisements on their customers, but that's not the case at all.
I get all my news from the internet. If I'm looking for news, though, I'm not going to the networks' sites. If I wanted that, I'd just turn on the TV. I already have my sources for internet news, and I'm really not interested in this half-assed attempt to win me over. People still think they can slap their old way of doing things up on the internet, and it will be magically fresh and innovative. Not so much.
If I were going to take on a project of this magnitude, I would freeze a snapshot of the current Wikipedia so that the version we were editing was not constantly changing, and then I would get some people (either paid or volunteer) to go through and do some fact checking and editing. Sure, that would be costly and time-consuming, but with all the critics WikiPedia has amassed, they really can't afford for something like this to be a half-baked disaster. It's a bad idea to publish print copies of these articles if they haven't been subjected to some kind of critical eye aside from the general internet public.
Also, a disclaimer might be necessesary. People should be fully aware of what Wikipedia is, and where the information came from.
I think this is a great project, and that there's great value in it. Wikipedia is an awesome source of information. However, just like any other single source of information, it cannot be taken as the final authority on any topic. Most of us in the internet community already know this. Still, you cannot completely disregard what a magnificent thing it is to have such a massive collection of information, even if some of it is more like conventional wisdom than pure fact.
That said,
Wow. That's a really bad example. Are you trying to say that the crusaders were right to kill all those people? That can't be what you are trying to say, but if that's not what you are trying to say, then you pretty much just argued my point for me. Wierd.
See, your opposition would argue that morality comes before money, no matter the circumstances. I have to agree. Seriously, though, we're not arguing morality here. I do get your point. I'm just playing devil's advocate. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. We can teach our kids the values of science, but somebody's always going to try to lead them away from it. People take comfort in seeking out the mystical to answer questions they can't answer themselves. It will always be this way. It's a lot easier to solve life's mysteries with a little magic and hand-waving than to learn the fundamentals of string theory and relativity. I think the big problem is when people decide they can't reconcile science with religion. I mean, really, there's no reason they can't coexist. I bet you'd agree with me that religion is not the enemy here, it's blind faith without reason.
Hey, man, I'm definitely on the side of science here. You know that the opposition would say exactly the same stuff, though, in support of their views.
"Moral values are ailing in this country. We need to do more to pull people in to Christianity." Sound familiar?
Everybody wants people to believe what they believe, but we can't make people believe stuff. We can educate our kids in the sciences as best we can, but if they grow up and decide that they can't reconcile that with their spiritual beliefs or whatever, then there's really not a whole lot we can do about it.
I think it's sad that we only tend to hear the voice of extremism in the media.
I mean, I guess it makes sense, because nobody ever holds an "I'm riding the fence on this one" rally.
Still, this is making us look bad because the ones with the crazy opinions are the ones with the loudest voices sometimes.
OK, one last reply.
Have you had a chance to play with C# interfaces? They basicly give you all the functionality of multiple inheritance without a lot of the mess it can cause. Check it out. Java's got 'em too. You can give an implementation of a function from an interfaced class without directly inheriting from it.
I'm really not frustrated with C++ or embedded C++. It's still my favorite language. I just think C# is fun sometimes, too. Especially when I want to sit down and focus on writing an algorithm without having to think about all the other stuff in C++.
I don't mind a little casting and wrapping from time to time. Sure, for a lot of programs it can get tedious, but if you're doing something like generating a huge polymorphic tree, C++ will look the same way.
So you have to throw together a simple wrapper class from time to time. Big deal. I still like that I can point to any object and say, "that's an object", even if I don't know what it is.
Blah blah blah. We'll agree to disagree. Hooray for us!!!
OK, hold on.
First, having everything derived from one base class is not the same thing as throwing out type safety. Java and C# are both typesafe languages, but at the root most objects are derived from the same class. There is a HUGE difference.
Second, as for encouraging bad coding practices, I find it to be the opposite. In C++, you have the option of falling back on the old C-style programming, and it's easy to have a ton of bad global variables floating all over the place. C# and Java both force the object-oriented model, and it doesn't give you that option. I've found that makes my code better and more readable.
Third, C++ is my native tongue. I'm working on a master's degree in CS right now, and I make a living writing embedded C++, so you can't tell me that I only like C# and Java because I don't know true C++. That's bull.
I can see your point that if you let Visual Studio do all the work for you and you rely on drag-and-drop GUI's and auto generated event handling all the time, you may end up with some ugly, repetitive, unreadable code. Believe me, though, I've seen C++ code that's just as bad.
I've seen a lot of people in the tech industry who are incredible C programmers, but who don't really understand object oriented principals and design patterns. Those are usually the people who tend to say that pure OO languages like Java and C# are convoluted, because they don't really understand what's going on.
Mono didn't create the language, they just created another runtime environment for it. They get my props for doing that, too. I'm just trying to give credit where credit is due.
Honestly, the way I feel about it is that if I'm going to write real software, I'm going to write it in C++ and I'm going to write it for Linux. If I'm just dicking around writing some code for Windows, sometimes C# is fun.
I swear, you give a Microsoft product one little backhanded complement on this site, and people are all over you. This isn't a fascist Linux dictatorship, you know. It's a forum for people to express oppinions and share information.
As much as I hate to give MS props, C# is one of my favorite languages to program in. I'm a GNU programmer at heart, but programming C# is like brain candy. I don't have to think about memory allocation or anything even remotely machine-related.
I know, I know, Java's got that stuff, too. I like 'em both. A guy can swing both way, right?
You could also say something similar about all the source code for Linux, or any other program. It's just text files. And programmers, they're just typists, really. I think you're kind of understating things a little.
The beauty of XML is how useful it is in light of it's simplicity. Something doesn't always have to be complicated to be ingenious.
BTW, my top 5 games:
First, how are works in the public domain "otherwise restricted"? They're in the public domain, right?
Second, Project Gutenberg has already done a pretty darn good job of posting works in the public domain. They have 16,000+ books online already, and they don't require any registration.
That would be a step in the right direction. However, the added costs of buying a hybrid car still don't outweigh the money saved on gas. Not to mention, most employees of Wal-mart and McDonalds probably don't have a lot of money to be throwing around, regardless of their view of the environment.
So, if you could offer an incentive that would be enough to counterbalance those factors, then you might have something. Until then, saving the environment will be left to those of us who have the luxury of spending a little extra. Sad but true.
Something TFA didn't make as clear as they could have-
The article is referring to phone companies that also have an ISP service trying to block voip data from travelling over their internet service.
That's as opposed to not allowing their land-line phone customers to recieve voip calls.
It just seemed like some people were confused.
The only phone service in my house is Vonage. If my ISP were to try to block or restrict that, you'd better believe I wouldn't be switching over to their phone service. I'd be getting a new ISP.
So, if it's an all (buy their phone service AND their internet access) or nothing kind of thing, from me they'll get nothing.
You can only lean on cultural relativism so much.
What I mean is, regardless of the culture you were raised in and the social climate of your environment, at some point, wrong is wrong is wrong.
In this category, I would put anything that infringes on the rights of other human beings, including murder, assault, and, yes, simple theft.
Justify it all you want. Yes, the people who fall for it are often greedy and stupid, but that doesn't make the act of the perpitrators any less wrong.
Have you seen how many Microsoft and Windows stories are on the front page this morning? OK, so maybe it's not all positive coverage, but it's still coverage.
Maybe I should have said, "smart people don't use IE". I bet we can agree on that.
IE: 75.5%
Firefox: 18.0%
Mozilla: 2.5%
Netscape: 0.4%
Opera: 1.2%
Worth mentioning, though, is that any site that attracts tech-savvy people is going to have a disproportionaly high percentage for Firefox. This means that