>I work at Home Depot, as a cashier. I can back up all of parent's statements; >people lose about fifty IQ points when faced with the self checkout. That's >why ours have a cashier supervising them.
I always thought the reason you have a cashier supervising them was because the FUCKING SELF CHECKOUT MACHINES DON'T FUCKING WORK.
I've all but given up on "self-check out".
Self check-out means wagging your purchase over the scanner at 15 different angles waiting for the "beep" of success, and then putting the thing in the bag only to have the computer continue to ask me to put it in the bag. Or randomly being told to "please wait for assistance" so the supervising cashier can come blindly type in some code and overwride the error. And all for the joy of then walking out the door and setting off the shoplifting alarm.
Further, if I'm going to do the job that used to get done FOR me, I should get some benefit for it, like a discount.
>Valuable socialization is not just meeting people. It is meeting >diverse kinds of people and specific kinds of people. Knowing teenage >drug dealers and a few drug suppliers and some local gang members and >some organized crime people really changes the way you think about society.
The argument seems to be that homeschooled kids will only socialize with elements of society that the parents approve of, and that kids are somehow better off if they are allowed to socialize with the less savory elements of society.
I don't think I agree.
I would rather my child grow up ignorant of the scum of the earth. Odds are good that if I do a good job educating my child that when they go out into the world they will not have to deal with them anyway. They can always listedn to NPR if they want to hear the sob stories of all of societies failures.
>What part of PUBLICLY FUNDED in PUBLIC school do you not understand? >Schools don't have the resources to fix the problems because the public does not give >them the funding or the authority to do so. It is our own damn fault.
I had an interesting discussion with a high school teacher once. It totally changed my mind about what is wrong with public education. I always assumed that private schools were so much better than public schools because the teachers and the learning environment were better. But as my teacher friend pointed out, you can have the most excellent teacher in the world and the best school environment in the world, but if you have an unmotivated student, they will not learn!
Motivation is they key to learning. Not money. True, a good environment is more/conducive/ to learning, but it is not the deciding factor - motivation is. An unmotivated child will not learn regardless of the quality of the teacher or the environment. And a motivated child will learn in spite of the quality of the teacher or the environment.
Some children are naturally motivated to learn. Others are not and require external motivation. I know I was the latter - without my parents' demands and punishments I would not have been motivated to do well at school. I suspect it is the same for most children - most children lack the discipline for self-motivation and require external motivation to stick with academic work.
Seen in this light, it is easy to understand why home-schooled or privately-schooled children do better in school that publically-schooled children. It's all about motivation. Parents who pay large sums of money to put their children in private schools are obviously interested enough in their child's education to take an active role in it. And of course by having invested money in it they have a financial stake in it as well. Parents who home school are arguably even more interested as they take/personal/ responsibility for their child's education despite the many hardships and compromises this requires. Unfortunately, many many parents now wash their hands of their child's education and view the public school as a place to send their children TO BE EDUCATED as if the entire responsibility lay with the school.
The problem here is that public schools have very, very little they can do to motivate unmotivated children. Only parents have that power. A teacher can try to be supportive and encouraging, but the only people who have real punitive means of motivation are parents. The days of the teacher slapping hands with rulers are gone with these days of litigation. It is far, far easier, and thus far, far more likely that teachers will simply ignore or only go through the motions of teaching with unmotivated children and consequently, they will fail.
In short, most children require a boot in the ass to learn. Because public schools are no longer allowed to wield such boots, the only people left who/can/ put a boot in the child's ass is the parents. When parents unplug themselves from the process, believing it is the school's responsibility to "teach my child", unmotivated children just fail.
Motivation, not funding, is what determines the success of a student in school.
No need to frantically watch your flood of Netflix DVDs as they come in - just rip 'em, drop them back in the mail, and watch them when you feel like it.
>When they come to beat you up, kick one of them in the face. You might *still* get beaten up, but next time they'll pick an easier target.
Sadly, I have to agree this is 100% correct. When i was a kid, I was taught by my parents never to fight. I would get in trouble even if I didn't start it. My parents told me that if I was getting picked on to just ignore the bully, that they would get bored and pick on someone that they got more of a reaction from.
This could not have been worse advise. Ignoring the bully just shows you are weak, which invites more attacks.
My kids will fight. Take your licks, do your detention, but earn the respect.
Instead of "Don't be smart around stupid people - they'll come and beat you up for it.", "If you're smarter than somebody, don't be arrogant about it. Just because you are smart doesn't mean you're always right. And in the end it's not what you can do, it's what you accomplish that matters."
Do you really think the reason smart kids get beat up in school is because they are arrogant? You are absolutely clueless and obviously have never experienced what we are talking about. Smart kids learn REALLY FAST to be INVISIBLE - NOT arrogant. Smart kids get picked on because they are A) different and B) make people feel bad about themselves because they know inside they don't measure up.
Instead of "Avoid gatherings of other people - they'll beat you up because you 'looked funny at them'.", "People are stronger as a group than as individuals. So cultivate your friends so you'll never be isolated and vulnerable."
Because the smart kids have learned it's safer to be invisible (see first point above) it is often very difficult to cultivate friends at all.
Instead of "Don't speak to classmates - they'll chase you around the school yard for using 'funny words'.", "Talking to people is an exchange, not an opportunity to rub their noses in how much smarter you are than them. Learn first to understand the person you're talking to. Then learn to listen to how what you say is going to sound to them before you say it."
Again - if you think most nerds are out to rub other people's noses in how much smarter they are, you could not be more wrong. While there may be nerds with strong enough self-esteem and self-confidence to attempt such banter, most have been, or quickly will be, beaten down to where they would never CONSIDER such a confrontation.
Instead of "Hate - it's difficult to learn to love people who chase you all the way home.", "Don't be a passive victim. Use your brain: there is a way to to become the master of your situation. There is no quick fix, but intelligence, determination and effort will succeed in the end."
Most are passive victims, lacking the stamina or confidence to do anything physically to resolve the situation (and would be punished by authorities if they did anyway) and unless you can conform to the tribe and hide what makes you different, you are doomed. Sadly, some kids break under the pressure, and don't become passive victims - they either turn on themselves (suicide) or on others (Columbine).
>object to this in the same way as I object a bit to homeschooling - sure the kid will learn stuff, but >they won't learn to be around other people their own age, how to work with others, or how to be a >member of society in general. Some may consider that a blessing, but I certainly wouldn't. I think >it'll lead to some serious problems when they finally are turned out into the world.
I've never understood why it is perceived to be of such value to have your children exposed to the habits and social mores of other children. When most of them behave as boorish animals, just what "socialization" traits is it you want your children to pick up from the rest of the general population?
I agree with the other poster - I think kids would get far better socialization by being around adults, not kids.
I've known probably 8 homeschooled kids. One just started on Wall Street as an analyist making $160K/year. One "went rebel" and got married young to get out of her parents' control. I've lost track of the rest. All were socially a little "odd" from most kids you'd meet. But, like the previous poster said - once these kids get out of THAT damn social environment get get to places like college, or the workplace, they are as adjusted, or better, than most.
I think the reason that homeschooled kids seem "odd" is because they are. They've been sheltered from anamalistic behavior and they tend to behave in a more mature manner.
I have just embarked on getting my Masters in Mechanical Engineering through distance learning. I already have a BS in Computer Science.
I am required, obviously, to take some undergraduate pre-requisite work before I can start the Masters program.
I am currently taking Thermodynamics through the University of Alabama's distance learning program. I get a DVD of the class in the mail every day. My tests are proctored here at my location, and I have to turn in assignments via email.
While it does require more discipline than an in-class arrangment, the coursework is every bit as vigorous as what the people in-class are getting - it's identical.
In fact, I'd say I have to work harder because I don't have the opportunity to ask questions real-time. I spend more time having to look at the text and figure out how to work the problems than if I could just ask the professor how to work the problems.
So given that you have to work harder, and have more discipline, but get the same educational value, why would you disregard degrees from online universities?
I've got an old CTX700E notebook running Windows 98 SE. It only has a 2GB HD. I maxed out the RAM, but forget what it holds.
I tried at one point to upgrade it to Windows XP Home Edition, but the install filled the HD and it was slow as molasses. So I tried some flavor of *nix (Red Hat?) but it equally filled the HD and was equally slow. I know you can pick and choose what things to install but I don't know what things are good and what things aren't so I just say "install everything".
It could be a fun computer to do a Linux install on - I just use it for Microsoft Office/email/web stuff while on the road. If I had time I'd play and figure out how to do a minimal install with a GUI desktop and get all those kinds of apps running.
>People wanted to pay for programming with no ads... Remember the original setup in the 80's with cable? >There is a market for "good" programming being sold directly to the consumer.
That might have been true in the 80's, but not today. Today, you can have "good" programming (whatever that means to you) for free. Just find yourself a.torrent, newgroup, or P2P network and you can have whatever programming you fancy for free.
The simple fact is, today, the only way people will pay for digital content is if they feel like it. It's completely, utterly voluntary. And most people just choose not to pay. Consequently, the net dollar value of digital content IS trending to ZERO. So instead, content is going to be used as bait, bait to get you to view advertising.
Personally, I think it's a naieve approach. Even without technical aids to eliminate advertising, my eyes are now fully trained to ignore anything on a web page but the content I'm actually reading. They only way online "advertisements" get my attention is when I am purposefully Googling for a product. 99% of all ads imbedded in other digital content I either screen out or ignore.
I found the author to ramble and repeat himself a bit. I kept scrolling back going, "Wait, didn't I just read this?" thinking I had hit the wheel button or something.
The thing I found most interesting out of the whole TFA, though, was this last bit:
"That is, we live in one universe, so we're a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we're lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number's smaller than you'd predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun -- the plane of the earth around the sun -- the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Wow. What if we really/are/ the center of the universe? Sure makes me think twice about the whole God thing...
Now I'm not entirely sure on this, because I never lived in a city that had a local access number for any of the "big guns". But back in the pre-internet days there were these things called "BBSes". They were computers with an (often) dedicated phone line and a modem. You could call them with your computer and leave messages, play games, and download/upload files. At first, most systems could only support one caller at a time. Most were run by hobbiests out of their homes.
Eventually, some of the systems grew to support multiple simultaneous callers, and they networked with other computers so that message forums could span the country, or even globe. One of the big guns at this time was "Compuserve". Another was "Prodigy". I believe, but am not sure, that AOL was also coming around at that time. At this stage of the game, these big players were essentially still BBS systems, they just happened to be massively multi-line, had access numbers in many major cities, and were crudely networked with other systems.
The downfall of these big fish was that they did not own the pipelines they were using to network to other systems. They only owned the modem farms.
As soon as it became relatively easy for anyone to hook up a modem to "The Internet", Compuserve, AOL, and the like lost their lock on being the only way into the online world. At that point, they had to try and "re-invent" themselves as more than a mere ISP, but, rather, as some kind of "value adder" to the online experience. They only continued to exist as long as they did because they marketed extensively and profited off of ignorant users who didn't know that once you got on the Internet you could get any content you wanted with or without the help of an AOL.
Here's a neat history of AOL etc. that Google turned up:
I'm about a quarter of the way through Rutan's speech. Here are my thoughts so far:
I agree with him in spirit, but I think he's overlooking something. My parents' generation was a generation of dreamers. Those dreams were great - they propelled their generation to do great things concerning flight and space flight.
But I believe they were also much more naieve then than people are today. They didn't/know/ how difficult and expensive space flight would turn out to be. Today, I think most people are far more cynical. I think most who stopped to think about it would probably believe that whatever is going to replace the Shuttle will cost 10 times more than they say it should cost and it probably won't work much better.
Also, I think people of my parents' generation were willing to work harder and sacrifice more than my generation and my children's generation. I think most kids today probably think spaceflight is mildly cool but would never set themselves up on a path to actually try and bring such things to reality - it's too much work, has too much nerd stigma, and is not likely to pay much. We'd rather buy our spaceflight at Walmart.
They were also a generation where a refrigerator was built like a tank - it was engineered around/function/. Today most things are engineered around/cost/.
And finally, when space flight was so intimately intwined with our military capabilities, development flourished. It's not so hard to get congress to spend money on defense issues. But it's hard to buy votes with exploration.
See, all along, I figured Open Source Software was just another word for freeware. People want free software, and some coders were happy to write it.
I never really thought about/why/ people liked to write free software. I figured it was just the geek factor. People wanting to prove they could do it.
But now, it's clear - people write free apps for the satisfaction AND recognition. I'm cool with that.
But it raises an interesting question in my mind. If, in fact, what was written duplicates what someone else has already done, why should you get or want recognition for that? Just because you did it for free? Don't the people who came up with the original idea deserve the recognition? I don't know the answer yet.
I mean, I always thought Open Source was pretty much a setup where someone wrote a program, and then gave away the source code. Then anyone could modify the code, since the code was freely available. Modifications that were popular ended up getting rolled into the base "product".
But since it's all free (isn't it?), and the modifications are done by volunteers (isn't it?), who are you going to sue? What's to stop people from anonymously making and modifying free software in the future?
Even if the free programs DO violate patents or copyrights, if they are published anonymously, who's to stop them?
>I think the important thing here is the possibility that these eyes could be giving the coffee fund a human feature.
I doubt it. I think it's pretty plain that human nature is to do what you want. And most people, if they think they can get away with it, will do just that. Most people probably drive the speed limit not because of the human features of speed limit signs or speedometers, but because they fear the consequences of getting caught. But if they feel that they won't get caught, they'll speed.
Every action humans choose to do is based on weighing the perceived benefits vs. the perceived cost. Whenever the perceived benefit outweighs the perceived cost, most will chose the beneficial action.
In this case, the eyes increase the perception that you will get caught stealing, and the benefit of stealing is not outweight by the perceived cost of getting caught. Thus, more people choose to pay.
>You can walk out of a Best Buy with a 50 inch DLP HD television for only $1300, on sale. >That's pretty damn cheap. On the other hand, you can walk out of K-Mart with a very high-quality >(for CRT) 32" flat-screen for about $300. Which do you honestly think mainstream consumers are going to buy?
If our one 1998 vintage 27" TV died today, I'd be hard pressed to spend $300 to replace it. I can't imagine when the next time will be when I'll have $1300 of disposable income to buy anything, let alone a TV.
>Which would YOU buy? I don't know about you, but I'm in NO HURRY to adopt HD-DVD - >I might end up buying an LCD TV in about a year to replace my aging 19" CRT...
I'm in the same boat. We have an old (circa 1998) 27" TV. It's the only TV in the house. I dont' think it's HD capable.
Even if I wanted an HD-DVD player, I don't have anything to play it on! I guess I could hook it up to my 17" computer monitor, but since it is also old and doesn't support HDCP, it may end up being a waste of time. Besides I want to watch movies in the living room.
So before I will go HD-DVD, I'm going to need to buy a new TV. The next time I'm going to buy a new TV, it's going to be one of those big flat-panel $2000 jobbies I see at Sam's club all the time.
The thing is, I can't imagine the next time I'd have a disposable $2000 available to spend on anything, let alone a _TV_. So unless the old TV breaks, it's going to be YEARS before we buy a new one. Which means anything better than regular old DVDs are lost on me.
>"I suspect" is not adequate basis for law that causes as much interference in the citizen's business as patents.
Are you postulating that in fact simultaneous or near-simultaneous patent applications are commonplace?
>Given that the US is less than 5% of the world's population and the US could copy what the other 95% of the world is inventing you're just fear mongering.
First of all, you are making the assumption that the US does not enjoy a leadership role in innovation, which we do. The other 95% of the world, certainly the third world, has much more to gain by copying our work than we do copying theirs.
Secondly, even if the US did copy what the other 95% of the world is inventing, since most of the rest of the world can manufacture it for far less than we can, what good would it do us if we can't manufacture it for a profit? That's not fearmongering, that's plain fact.
>Perhaps you didn't notice the nice bold Independently that I put in my comment there. Perhaps you deliberately ignored it. >Either way, I don't feel that I have a right to profit from any work other than my own. If they copied my design, then they are >profiting off my work, and I probably deserve a share of the profits. If they independently came up with something similar, they are >not profiting off my efforts, and I don't deserve any of their money.
I didn't address it because it doesn't matter. Our patent system has been set up to reward inventors. In the probably rare case where two people or entities simultaneously invent the same thing, it has been chosen to award the patent to the person who submits first. Other mechanisms could be implemented, I suppose - some kind of joint patent perhaps. The point is, it's going to be very difficult to try and determine on a case-by-case basis who came up with an existing idea independently or who just copied the original. So, we just give protection to whoever submits first. If your solution, instead, is to give protection to no one, so that everyone who independently comes up with ideas can use them, then you have no safegaurd against people who would just copy outright.
>Independent invention occurs all the time. I remember 'inventing' the mergesort algorithm in one of my first C++ classes as a logical modification of >quicksort. Of course, it was discovered and used by people long before I found it, but I never knew that until later. Now suppose that mergesort had >been patented. Should someone be allowed to prevent me from using something I invented just because they thought of it first? It's not like >I was aware that their algorithm even existed.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Likewise, ignorance of intellectual property is no excuse for violating its protections. If you are doing truly innovative work, then you are probably, or should be, aware of prior art.
>To use our original analogy: Suppose you and I each invented lightbulbs that were practically identical- yours may be tube >shaped and mine bulb shaped, but they are similar enough that you infringe my patent for "a device that illuminates by running a >current through a resisting material in a sealed glass container." Now let's say that I make it to the patent office a 5 years before you do, >but never do anything with my patent (so you've never heard of me). Now suppose that you manage to find someone willing to make your >lightbulbs, and start selling them for hefty profits. I sue as soon as I notice what you're doing. Do I deserve any of your profits because >I invented it first?
Yes. And it's shame on me for not having done adequate patent research and getting bitten by using patented prior art in my product.
>What you seem to believe is that whenever someone comes up with an idea, no one else should be allowed to come up with the >same idea later- or at least, not be able to do anything with it.
Only for a fixed amount of time. This is the tradeoff for a patent. In exchange for making the secret of your invention public, you get protection for a certain number of years.
>You may be ignorant of how easy it is to unintentionally duplicate something someone else has done- especially in software, >but it occurs all the time in other industries as well.
As an engineer with patents, I'm well aware of how easy it is, and I have to design around IP all the time. Would it be nice if I didn't have to worry about it? Sure. But then I wouldn't get any protection for my efforts, and the things that I and my employer invent would be manufactured in some third world country without us getting any compensation at all. We'd both soon be out of business. I'll take the protection.
That's because IP protection is a capitalistic construct, not a socialist one.
>The other inventor just put their entire life savings and untold years coming up with ingenious work, and you would have me rob him of the >proceeds of his work, just because I did something similar? Aren't we supposed to live in a free society, where everyone is allowed to apply >their talents to the best of their ability?
While sad, that is the way the system works. I don't think it's particularly fair for two entities who happen to simultaneously do invent the same thing. Fortunately, I suspect this happens very infrequently.
>Why do people do anything in any field, if they don't get monopoly protection for 20 years? Somehow even lawyers can carry out their own >business and develop innovative new ideas for legal arguments, although they don't get monopoly rights to them. The answer of course is >that you try out new ideas to prosper in business. Competition in a free market ensures that the best solutions win out.
No, the answer is that no matter how many legal constructs get created, you still need a lawyer to avail yourself to them, so they are still secure in their livelihood.
Competition in a completely free market without IP protection means that every gizmo invented in the US will be duplicated in some other country for a tenth of the cost. Is that what you want?
Yeah, pretty much. If someone else invented the lightbulb independently of my work, why should I get to make money off their efforts?
Because you invented it first. Without this kind of protection, why bother inventing anything? Just wait for other people to invent it, and then manufacture their invention. No matter that you spent your entire life savings and untold years coming up with the idea.
To put it from the other perspective: So if you invented the lightbulb, but someone else had patented glowing glass bulbs, should he be able to prevent you from selling your idea to others? If you invented it, why shouldn't you get the benefits for your hard work and insight?
This is an oversimplification. If you invent a specific kind of lightbulb, say, an incandescent bulb, this gives you protection over "glowing glass bulbs" that glow by means of a glowing filament. But this leaves the door wide open for other kinds of "glowing glass bulbs" - say LED, or Neon, flourescent, or whatever. It is difficult to patent something as generic as a "glowing glass bulb" - you must demonstrate a specific best embodiment of your invention.
And if I invented some specific rendition of a lightbulb, then I should get the benefits of my hard work and insight that brought that idea to be. It does not provide me any protection, however, against someone inventing a better, significantly different lightbulb.
"If only the people who have the means to build up huge patent libraries have the right to Intellectual Property protection, the little guy with new ideas will perpetually be screwed."
While it is true that in order to for a patent to do you much good you must be able to defend your patent in court, fortunately IP laws protect the big and small fish alike.
Slashdot Mirror
>I work at Home Depot, as a cashier. I can back up all of parent's statements;
>people lose about fifty IQ points when faced with the self checkout. That's
>why ours have a cashier supervising them.
I always thought the reason you have a cashier supervising them was because the FUCKING SELF CHECKOUT MACHINES DON'T FUCKING WORK.
I've all but given up on "self-check out".
Self check-out means wagging your purchase over the scanner at 15 different angles waiting for the "beep" of success, and then putting the thing in the bag only to have the computer continue to ask me to put it in the bag. Or randomly being told to "please wait for assistance" so the supervising cashier can come blindly type in some code and overwride the error. And all for the joy of then walking out the door and setting off the shoplifting alarm.
Further, if I'm going to do the job that used to get done FOR me, I should get some benefit for it, like a discount.
Steve
The thing is, as has been pointed out, the kinds of "sharks" you deal with in secondary education just aren't normally present in "real life".
I don't think you miss anything by missing out on being picked on in school. That kind of behavior just isn't present in college or work force.
Steve
>Valuable socialization is not just meeting people. It is meeting
>diverse kinds of people and specific kinds of people. Knowing teenage
>drug dealers and a few drug suppliers and some local gang members and
>some organized crime people really changes the way you think about society.
The argument seems to be that homeschooled kids will only socialize with elements of society that the parents approve of, and that kids are somehow better off if they are allowed to socialize with the less savory elements of society.
I don't think I agree.
I would rather my child grow up ignorant of the scum of the earth. Odds are good that if I do a good job educating my child that when they go out into the world they will not have to deal with them anyway. They can always listedn to NPR if they want to hear the sob stories of all of societies failures.
Steve
>What part of PUBLICLY FUNDED in PUBLIC school do you not understand?
/conducive/ to learning, but it is not the deciding factor - motivation is. An unmotivated child will not learn regardless of the quality of the teacher or the environment. And a motivated child will learn in spite of the quality of the teacher or the environment.
/personal/ responsibility for their child's education despite the many hardships and compromises this requires. Unfortunately, many many parents now wash their hands of their child's education and view the public school as a place to send their children TO BE EDUCATED as if the entire responsibility lay with the school.
/can/ put a boot in the child's ass is the parents. When parents unplug themselves from the process, believing it is the school's responsibility to "teach my child", unmotivated children just fail.
>Schools don't have the resources to fix the problems because the public does not give
>them the funding or the authority to do so. It is our own damn fault.
I had an interesting discussion with a high school teacher once. It totally changed my mind about what is wrong with public education. I always assumed that private schools were so much better than public schools because the teachers and the learning environment were better. But as my teacher friend pointed out, you can have the most excellent teacher in the world and the best school environment in the world, but if you have an unmotivated student, they will not learn!
Motivation is they key to learning. Not money. True, a good environment is more
Some children are naturally motivated to learn. Others are not and require external motivation. I know I was the latter - without my parents' demands and punishments I would not have been motivated to do well at school. I suspect it is the same for most children - most children lack the discipline for self-motivation and require external motivation to stick with academic work.
Seen in this light, it is easy to understand why home-schooled or privately-schooled children do better in school that publically-schooled children. It's all about motivation. Parents who pay large sums of money to put their children in private schools are obviously interested enough in their child's education to take an active role in it. And of course by having invested money in it they have a financial stake in it as well. Parents who home school are arguably even more interested as they take
The problem here is that public schools have very, very little they can do to motivate unmotivated children. Only parents have that power. A teacher can try to be supportive and encouraging, but the only people who have real punitive means of motivation are parents. The days of the teacher slapping hands with rulers are gone with these days of litigation. It is far, far easier, and thus far, far more likely that teachers will simply ignore or only go through the motions of teaching with unmotivated children and consequently, they will fail.
In short, most children require a boot in the ass to learn. Because public schools are no longer allowed to wield such boots, the only people left who
Motivation, not funding, is what determines the success of a student in school.
Steve
No need to frantically watch your flood of Netflix DVDs as they come in - just rip 'em, drop them back in the mail, and watch them when you feel like it.
Steve
>When they come to beat you up, kick one of them in the face. You might *still* get beaten up, but next time they'll pick an easier target.
Sadly, I have to agree this is 100% correct. When i was a kid, I was taught by my parents never to fight. I would get in trouble even if I didn't start it. My parents told me that if I was getting picked on to just ignore the bully, that they would get bored and pick on someone that they got more of a reaction from.
This could not have been worse advise. Ignoring the bully just shows you are weak, which invites more attacks.
My kids will fight. Take your licks, do your detention, but earn the respect.
Steve
Instead of "Don't be smart around stupid people - they'll come and beat you up for it.", "If you're smarter than somebody, don't be arrogant about it. Just because you are smart doesn't mean you're always right. And in the end it's not what you can do, it's what you accomplish that matters."
Do you really think the reason smart kids get beat up in school is because they are arrogant? You are absolutely clueless and obviously have never experienced what we are talking about. Smart kids learn REALLY FAST to be INVISIBLE - NOT arrogant. Smart kids get picked on because they are A) different and B) make people feel bad about themselves because they know inside they don't measure up.
Instead of "Avoid gatherings of other people - they'll beat you up because you 'looked funny at them'.", "People are stronger as a group than as individuals. So cultivate your friends so you'll never be isolated and vulnerable."
Because the smart kids have learned it's safer to be invisible (see first point above) it is often very difficult to cultivate friends at all.
Instead of "Don't speak to classmates - they'll chase you around the school yard for using 'funny words'.", "Talking to people is an exchange, not an opportunity to rub their noses in how much smarter you are than them. Learn first to understand the person you're talking to. Then learn to listen to how what you say is going to sound to them before you say it."
Again - if you think most nerds are out to rub other people's noses in how much smarter they are, you could not be more wrong. While there may be nerds with strong enough self-esteem and self-confidence to attempt such banter, most have been, or quickly will be, beaten down to where they would never CONSIDER such a confrontation.
Instead of "Hate - it's difficult to learn to love people who chase you all the way home.", "Don't be a passive victim. Use your brain: there is a way to to become the master of your situation. There is no quick fix, but intelligence, determination and effort will succeed in the end."
Most are passive victims, lacking the stamina or confidence to do anything physically to resolve the situation (and would be punished by authorities if they did anyway) and unless you can conform to the tribe and hide what makes you different, you are doomed. Sadly, some kids break under the pressure, and don't become passive victims - they either turn on themselves (suicide) or on others (Columbine).
Steve
>object to this in the same way as I object a bit to homeschooling - sure the kid will learn stuff, but
>they won't learn to be around other people their own age, how to work with others, or how to be a
>member of society in general. Some may consider that a blessing, but I certainly wouldn't. I think
>it'll lead to some serious problems when they finally are turned out into the world.
I've never understood why it is perceived to be of such value to have your children exposed to the habits and social mores of other children. When most of them behave as boorish animals, just what "socialization" traits is it you want your children to pick up from the rest of the general population?
I agree with the other poster - I think kids would get far better socialization by being around adults, not kids.
I've known probably 8 homeschooled kids. One just started on Wall Street as an analyist making $160K/year. One "went rebel" and got married young to get out of her parents' control. I've lost track of the rest. All were socially a little "odd" from most kids you'd meet. But, like the previous poster said - once these kids get out of THAT damn social environment get get to places like college, or the workplace, they are as adjusted, or better, than most.
I think the reason that homeschooled kids seem "odd" is because they are. They've been sheltered from anamalistic behavior and they tend to behave in a more mature manner.
Steve
I have just embarked on getting my Masters in Mechanical Engineering through distance learning. I already have a BS in Computer Science.
I am required, obviously, to take some undergraduate pre-requisite work before I can start the Masters program.
I am currently taking Thermodynamics through the University of Alabama's distance learning program. I get a DVD of the class in the mail every day. My tests are proctored here at my location, and I have to turn in assignments via email.
While it does require more discipline than an in-class arrangment, the coursework is every bit as vigorous as what the people in-class are getting - it's identical.
In fact, I'd say I have to work harder because I don't have the opportunity to ask questions real-time. I spend more time having to look at the text and figure out how to work the problems than if I could just ask the professor how to work the problems.
So given that you have to work harder, and have more discipline, but get the same educational value, why would you disregard degrees from online universities?
Steve
I've got an old CTX700E notebook running Windows 98 SE. It only has a 2GB HD. I maxed out the RAM, but forget what it holds.
I tried at one point to upgrade it to Windows XP Home Edition, but the install filled the HD and it was slow as molasses. So I tried some flavor of *nix (Red Hat?) but it equally filled the HD and was equally slow. I know you can pick and choose what things to install but I don't know what things are good and what things aren't so I just say "install everything".
It could be a fun computer to do a Linux install on - I just use it for Microsoft Office/email/web stuff while on the road. If I had time I'd play and figure out how to do a minimal install with a GUI desktop and get all those kinds of apps running.
Steve
>People wanted to pay for programming with no ads... Remember the original setup in the 80's with cable?
.torrent, newgroup, or P2P network and you can have whatever programming you fancy for free.
>There is a market for "good" programming being sold directly to the consumer.
That might have been true in the 80's, but not today. Today, you can have "good" programming (whatever that means to you) for free. Just find yourself a
The simple fact is, today, the only way people will pay for digital content is if they feel like it. It's completely, utterly voluntary. And most people just choose not to pay. Consequently, the net dollar value of digital content IS trending to ZERO. So instead, content is going to be used as bait, bait to get you to view advertising.
Personally, I think it's a naieve approach. Even without technical aids to eliminate advertising, my eyes are now fully trained to ignore anything on a web page but the content I'm actually reading. They only way online "advertisements" get my attention is when I am purposefully Googling for a product. 99% of all ads imbedded in other digital content I either screen out or ignore.
Steve
I found the author to ramble and repeat himself a bit. I kept scrolling back going, "Wait, didn't I just read this?" thinking I had hit the wheel button or something.
/are/ the center of the universe? Sure makes me think twice about the whole God thing...
The thing I found most interesting out of the whole TFA, though, was this last bit:
"That is, we live in one universe, so we're a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we're lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number's smaller than you'd predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun -- the plane of the earth around the sun -- the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Wow. What if we really
Steve
Now I'm not entirely sure on this, because I never lived in a city that had a local access number for any of the "big guns". But back in the pre-internet days there were these things called "BBSes". They were computers with an (often) dedicated phone line and a modem. You could call them with your computer and leave messages, play games, and download/upload files. At first, most systems could only support one caller at a time. Most were run by hobbiests out of their homes.
Eventually, some of the systems grew to support multiple simultaneous callers, and they networked with other computers so that message forums could span the country, or even globe. One of the big guns at this time was "Compuserve". Another was "Prodigy". I believe, but am not sure, that AOL was also coming around at that time. At this stage of the game, these big players were essentially still BBS systems, they just happened to be massively multi-line, had access numbers in many major cities, and were crudely networked with other systems.
The downfall of these big fish was that they did not own the pipelines they were using to network to other systems. They only owned the modem farms.
As soon as it became relatively easy for anyone to hook up a modem to "The Internet", Compuserve, AOL, and the like lost their lock on being the only way into the online world. At that point, they had to try and "re-invent" themselves as more than a mere ISP, but, rather, as some kind of "value adder" to the online experience. They only continued to exist as long as they did because they marketed extensively and profited off of ignorant users who didn't know that once you got on the Internet you could get any content you wanted with or without the help of an AOL.
Here's a neat history of AOL etc. that Google turned up:
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall2000/McAtee/
Steve
I'm about a quarter of the way through Rutan's speech. Here are my thoughts so far:
/know/ how difficult and expensive space flight would turn out to be. Today, I think most people are far more cynical. I think most who stopped to think about it would probably believe that whatever is going to replace the Shuttle will cost 10 times more than they say it should cost and it probably won't work much better.
/function/. Today most things are engineered around /cost/.
I agree with him in spirit, but I think he's overlooking something. My parents' generation was a generation of dreamers. Those dreams were great - they propelled their generation to do great things concerning flight and space flight.
But I believe they were also much more naieve then than people are today. They didn't
Also, I think people of my parents' generation were willing to work harder and sacrifice more than my generation and my children's generation. I think most kids today probably think spaceflight is mildly cool but would never set themselves up on a path to actually try and bring such things to reality - it's too much work, has too much nerd stigma, and is not likely to pay much. We'd rather buy our spaceflight at Walmart.
They were also a generation where a refrigerator was built like a tank - it was engineered around
And finally, when space flight was so intimately intwined with our military capabilities, development flourished. It's not so hard to get congress to spend money on defense issues. But it's hard to buy votes with exploration.
Steve
I was referring to code that would be considered an infringement on IP.
Steve
You know, I think it's all clear to me now.
/why/ people liked to write free software. I figured it was just the geek factor. People wanting to prove they could do it.
See, all along, I figured Open Source Software was just another word for freeware. People want free software, and some coders were happy to write it.
I never really thought about
But now, it's clear - people write free apps for the satisfaction AND recognition. I'm cool with that.
But it raises an interesting question in my mind. If, in fact, what was written duplicates what someone else has already done, why should you get or want recognition for that? Just because you did it for free? Don't the people who came up with the original idea deserve the recognition? I don't know the answer yet.
Steve
I mean, I always thought Open Source was pretty much a setup where someone wrote a program, and then gave away the source code. Then anyone could modify the code, since the code was freely available. Modifications that were popular ended up getting rolled into the base "product".
But since it's all free (isn't it?), and the modifications are done by volunteers (isn't it?), who are you going to sue? What's to stop people from anonymously making and modifying free software in the future?
Even if the free programs DO violate patents or copyrights, if they are published anonymously, who's to stop them?
What's the big deal?
Steve
>I think the important thing here is the possibility that these eyes could be giving the coffee fund a human feature.
I doubt it. I think it's pretty plain that human nature is to do what you want. And most people, if they think they can get away with it, will do just that. Most people probably drive the speed limit not because of the human features of speed limit signs or speedometers, but because they fear the consequences of getting caught. But if they feel that they won't get caught, they'll speed.
Every action humans choose to do is based on weighing the perceived benefits vs. the perceived cost. Whenever the perceived benefit outweighs the perceived cost, most will chose the beneficial action.
In this case, the eyes increase the perception that you will get caught stealing, and the benefit of stealing is not outweight by the perceived cost of getting caught. Thus, more people choose to pay.
Steve
>You can walk out of a Best Buy with a 50 inch DLP HD television for only $1300, on sale.
>That's pretty damn cheap. On the other hand, you can walk out of K-Mart with a very high-quality
>(for CRT) 32" flat-screen for about $300. Which do you honestly think mainstream consumers are going to buy?
If our one 1998 vintage 27" TV died today, I'd be hard pressed to spend $300 to replace it. I can't imagine when the next time will be when I'll have $1300 of disposable income to buy anything, let alone a TV.
Steve
>Which would YOU buy? I don't know about you, but I'm in NO HURRY to adopt HD-DVD -
>I might end up buying an LCD TV in about a year to replace my aging 19" CRT...
I'm in the same boat. We have an old (circa 1998) 27" TV. It's the only TV in the house. I dont' think it's HD capable.
Even if I wanted an HD-DVD player, I don't have anything to play it on! I guess I could hook it up to my 17" computer monitor, but since it is also old and doesn't support HDCP, it may end up being a waste of time. Besides I want to watch movies in the living room.
So before I will go HD-DVD, I'm going to need to buy a new TV. The next time I'm going to buy a new TV, it's going to be one of those big flat-panel $2000 jobbies I see at Sam's club all the time.
The thing is, I can't imagine the next time I'd have a disposable $2000 available to spend on anything, let alone a _TV_. So unless the old TV breaks, it's going to be YEARS before we buy a new one. Which means anything better than regular old DVDs are lost on me.
Steve
>"I suspect" is not adequate basis for law that causes as much interference in the citizen's business as patents.
Are you postulating that in fact simultaneous or near-simultaneous patent applications are commonplace?
>Given that the US is less than 5% of the world's population and the US could copy what the other 95% of the world is inventing you're just fear mongering.
First of all, you are making the assumption that the US does not enjoy a leadership role in innovation, which we do. The other 95% of the world, certainly the third world, has much more to gain by copying our work than we do copying theirs.
Secondly, even if the US did copy what the other 95% of the world is inventing, since most of the rest of the world can manufacture it for far less than we can, what good would it do us if we can't manufacture it for a profit? That's not fearmongering, that's plain fact.
Steve
>Perhaps you didn't notice the nice bold Independently that I put in my comment there. Perhaps you deliberately ignored it.
>Either way, I don't feel that I have a right to profit from any work other than my own. If they copied my design, then they are
>profiting off my work, and I probably deserve a share of the profits. If they independently came up with something similar, they are
>not profiting off my efforts, and I don't deserve any of their money.
I didn't address it because it doesn't matter. Our patent system has been set up to reward inventors. In the probably rare case where two people or entities simultaneously invent the same thing, it has been chosen to award the patent to the person who submits first. Other mechanisms could be implemented, I suppose - some kind of joint patent perhaps. The point is, it's going to be very difficult to try and determine on a case-by-case basis who came up with an existing idea independently or who just copied the original. So, we just give protection to whoever submits first. If your solution, instead, is to give protection to no one, so that everyone who independently comes up with ideas can use them, then you have no safegaurd against people who would just copy outright.
>Independent invention occurs all the time. I remember 'inventing' the mergesort algorithm in one of my first C++ classes as a logical modification of
>quicksort. Of course, it was discovered and used by people long before I found it, but I never knew that until later. Now suppose that mergesort had
>been patented. Should someone be allowed to prevent me from using something I invented just because they thought of it first? It's not like
>I was aware that their algorithm even existed.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Likewise, ignorance of intellectual property is no excuse for violating its protections. If you are doing truly innovative work, then you are probably, or should be, aware of prior art.
>To use our original analogy: Suppose you and I each invented lightbulbs that were practically identical- yours may be tube
>shaped and mine bulb shaped, but they are similar enough that you infringe my patent for "a device that illuminates by running a
>current through a resisting material in a sealed glass container." Now let's say that I make it to the patent office a 5 years before you do,
>but never do anything with my patent (so you've never heard of me). Now suppose that you manage to find someone willing to make your
>lightbulbs, and start selling them for hefty profits. I sue as soon as I notice what you're doing. Do I deserve any of your profits because
>I invented it first?
Yes. And it's shame on me for not having done adequate patent research and getting bitten by using patented prior art in my product.
>What you seem to believe is that whenever someone comes up with an idea, no one else should be allowed to come up with the
>same idea later- or at least, not be able to do anything with it.
Only for a fixed amount of time. This is the tradeoff for a patent. In exchange for making the secret of your invention public, you get protection for a certain number of years.
>You may be ignorant of how easy it is to unintentionally duplicate something someone else has done- especially in software,
>but it occurs all the time in other industries as well.
As an engineer with patents, I'm well aware of how easy it is, and I have to design around IP all the time. Would it be nice if I didn't have to worry about it? Sure. But then I wouldn't get any protection for my efforts, and the things that I and my employer invent would be manufactured in some third world country without us getting any compensation at all. We'd both soon be out of business. I'll take the protection.
Steve
>That's a completely antisocial attitude.
That's because IP protection is a capitalistic construct, not a socialist one.
>The other inventor just put their entire life savings and untold years coming up with ingenious work, and you would have me rob him of the
>proceeds of his work, just because I did something similar? Aren't we supposed to live in a free society, where everyone is allowed to apply
>their talents to the best of their ability?
While sad, that is the way the system works. I don't think it's particularly fair for two entities who happen to simultaneously do invent the same thing. Fortunately, I suspect this happens very infrequently.
>Why do people do anything in any field, if they don't get monopoly protection for 20 years? Somehow even lawyers can carry out their own
>business and develop innovative new ideas for legal arguments, although they don't get monopoly rights to them. The answer of course is
>that you try out new ideas to prosper in business. Competition in a free market ensures that the best solutions win out.
No, the answer is that no matter how many legal constructs get created, you still need a lawyer to avail yourself to them, so they are still secure in their livelihood.
Competition in a completely free market without IP protection means that every gizmo invented in the US will be duplicated in some other country for a tenth of the cost. Is that what you want?
Steve
Yeah, pretty much. If someone else invented the lightbulb independently of my work, why should I get to make money off their efforts?
Because you invented it first. Without this kind of protection, why bother inventing anything? Just wait for other people to invent it, and then manufacture their invention. No matter that you spent your entire life savings and untold years coming up with the idea.
To put it from the other perspective: So if you invented the lightbulb, but someone else had patented glowing glass bulbs, should he be able to prevent you from selling your idea to others? If you invented it, why shouldn't you get the benefits for your hard work and insight?
This is an oversimplification. If you invent a specific kind of lightbulb, say, an incandescent bulb, this gives you protection over "glowing glass bulbs" that glow by means of a glowing filament. But this leaves the door wide open for other kinds of "glowing glass bulbs" - say LED, or Neon, flourescent, or whatever. It is difficult to patent something as generic as a "glowing glass bulb" - you must demonstrate a specific best embodiment of your invention.
And if I invented some specific rendition of a lightbulb, then I should get the benefits of my hard work and insight that brought that idea to be. It does not provide me any protection, however, against someone inventing a better, significantly different lightbulb.
Steve
"If only the people who have the means to build up huge patent libraries have the right to Intellectual Property protection, the little guy with new ideas will perpetually be screwed."
While it is true that in order to for a patent to do you much good you must be able to defend your patent in court, fortunately IP laws protect the big and small fish alike.
Steve