The problem with this ideology is that most people aren't tech-savvy enough to learn the principles of a piece of software and adapt to different vendors. They become locked into a platform simply because they know how to find certain functionalities within the environment they're used to. Think about Word for example.. the typical user could find it significantly difficult to find the different way to add a footnote in OO.org if they're only familiar with Word, and vice versa. Additionally, because the Microsoft Office suite is so widespread, there are likely to be more people around to help figure things out on that particular platform than a F/OSS alternative.
Of course, after seeing Word 2007.. I believe they should stick to a legacy Microsoft Office suite, or get OO.org. The interface is absolutely ridiculous.
I think you're way off the mark here. I understand all your points, and I can understand why you have this particular interpretation. You're not wrong about how rights are defined _legally_, but you're missing the point of rights _conceptually_.
"It's _only_ about your relationship to the Congress and laws. It doesn't mean anyone else than Congress should have _any_ obligation to you. Not even public schools or government departments owe you jack shit on their premises or network."
Ok... in retort to this, allow me to construct an analogical argument based on the similarity between state and school. The laws that bind the residents of a state are similar enough to the rules that bind the attendees of a school on a microethical level that the analogy should be valid. It's not, of course, a question of _legality_, but it presumes that there is a definite similarity between the state and the school system. What is put in place by one should be respectfully upheld by the other due to these similarities. The differences that may cause the analogy to fail? Well...
1) The purpose of the school system is to teach, the state is fundamentally dissimilar to the juvenile school system in this way. Fair enough, but we're not arguing someone's right to run through the streets voicing their political opinions. The argument is about the right to allow students to view Wikipedia. As doing this is not fundamentally detrimental to the intents and purposes of the classroom, I'd justifiable to say that there is no particularly compelling reason to block this altogether. It's being done _solely_ at the discretion of the school board, without particular evidence of any harm to educational value cause by students viewing wikipedia.
2) Young children are different from citizens of the state, in that they are young and naive; they need to be protected. Again, I fail to see the relevance of this argument (I'm not saying you attempted to make it, so please don't get defensive.. I'm saying that it's hypothetically an argument that one might suggest). I understand the validity and merits of this distinction, but _not_ in the case of Wikipedia. Should children go to porn sites in school? Of course not, these should be blocked. The detrimental effect, however, of blocking pornographic websites compared analogically to that of blocking Wikipedia is nonsense. Wikipedia is an informational tool, it is not an inappropriate site for a classroom environment.
Another point I'd like to make is that the questionable credibility of Wikipedia as a reason for removal is irresponsible. Should newspapers be banned from schools? Should students be prohibited from talking about or discussing the evening news during class? Nobody would argue that these measures are justifiably sound... but the validity and bias of these mediums are, in fact, _less_ prevalent than those associated with Wikipedia articles. It is well documented and largely understood by the American public that the media at large has a conflict of interest with the corporations which fund its printing... the same goes for local news reports. On the other hand, it's also apparent that these same corporations hire people to edit Wikipedia articles in their favor, right? This is absolutely true, but unlike news print the general public has a say in the validity of the postings of Wikipedia articles. People are free to question the truth and validity of such information.. and they do so all the time! It effects the content of the article! Perhaps (and this will appeal to the philosophers reading this) I am committing an ad populum fallacy but asserting that Wikipedia should be credible based on its everyone-can-validate ideology. I'm willing to accept this as a valid point, but I feel as though the potential effects of tainting information in this way are substantially lower than in the media at large. If you ban Wikipedia, you damn well better ban newspapers!
I agree that students should never use Wikipedia as a source for papers, but I would say the same abou
I'd agree with you, but I find that most of the Monkeyball minigames are virtually unplayable. This seems to be because Sega didn't really have a good grasp on how to utilize the wiimote. Often times the controls are unresponsive, or just outright painful to try and figure out. If you haven't already, try playing disc golf and figure out what you're supposed to do. I will say, however, that Monkey Darts is one of the best minigames I've played on any wii minigame-game. It's definately far superior to Darts in WarioWare because it actually feels a lot more like you're throwing a dart.
I've played WarioWare quite a bit on multiplayer.. and you're definitely right. The problem is made worse because you have to beat the game before you can even unlock multiplayer at all. As a result, the person who owns the game has to have seen most of the microgames before anyone will want to come over and play it with them at all (well, unless you take turns on single player). I've been consistently beating people who are new to the game, and it gets a little boring after a while. Hopefully after some more wii games come out I can put it on the shelf and forget how to play the microgames so that it will be fun all over again.
PC stands for Personal Computer, so we can extend the definition to include Macs, Commodore 64s... and why not toasters (ones that have embedded computers, of course). This misnomer always bothered me.
Slashdot Mirror
Many versions of the EEEPC fail 4 and 5, so I'm struggling to realize how you can criticize the Libretto for failing 4, 5 and 6.
That's what you get for traveling on an unnamed airline.
Yeah... this would only apply to the XKCD comic if the road coloring problem was NP-complete.
Utmost respect for the Shellac reference.
That song has been running through my head throughout this whole debacle.
The problem with this ideology is that most people aren't tech-savvy enough to learn the principles of a piece of software and adapt to different vendors. They become locked into a platform simply because they know how to find certain functionalities within the environment they're used to. Think about Word for example.. the typical user could find it significantly difficult to find the different way to add a footnote in OO.org if they're only familiar with Word, and vice versa. Additionally, because the Microsoft Office suite is so widespread, there are likely to be more people around to help figure things out on that particular platform than a F/OSS alternative.
Of course, after seeing Word 2007.. I believe they should stick to a legacy Microsoft Office suite, or get OO.org. The interface is absolutely ridiculous.
I think you're way off the mark here. I understand all your points, and I can understand why you have this particular interpretation. You're not wrong about how rights are defined _legally_, but you're missing the point of rights _conceptually_.
"It's _only_ about your relationship to the Congress and laws. It doesn't mean anyone else than Congress should have _any_ obligation to you. Not even public schools or government departments owe you jack shit on their premises or network."
Ok... in retort to this, allow me to construct an analogical argument based on the similarity between state and school. The laws that bind the residents of a state are similar enough to the rules that bind the attendees of a school on a microethical level that the analogy should be valid. It's not, of course, a question of _legality_, but it presumes that there is a definite similarity between the state and the school system. What is put in place by one should be respectfully upheld by the other due to these similarities. The differences that may cause the analogy to fail? Well...
1) The purpose of the school system is to teach, the state is fundamentally dissimilar to the juvenile school system in this way.
Fair enough, but we're not arguing someone's right to run through the streets voicing their political opinions. The argument is about the right to allow students to view Wikipedia. As doing this is not fundamentally detrimental to the intents and purposes of the classroom, I'd justifiable to say that there is no particularly compelling reason to block this altogether. It's being done _solely_ at the discretion of the school board, without particular evidence of any harm to educational value cause by students viewing wikipedia.
2) Young children are different from citizens of the state, in that they are young and naive; they need to be protected.
Again, I fail to see the relevance of this argument (I'm not saying you attempted to make it, so please don't get defensive.. I'm saying that it's hypothetically an argument that one might suggest). I understand the validity and merits of this distinction, but _not_ in the case of Wikipedia. Should children go to porn sites in school? Of course not, these should be blocked. The detrimental effect, however, of blocking pornographic websites compared analogically to that of blocking Wikipedia is nonsense. Wikipedia is an informational tool, it is not an inappropriate site for a classroom environment.
Another point I'd like to make is that the questionable credibility of Wikipedia as a reason for removal is irresponsible. Should newspapers be banned from schools? Should students be prohibited from talking about or discussing the evening news during class? Nobody would argue that these measures are justifiably sound... but the validity and bias of these mediums are, in fact, _less_ prevalent than those associated with Wikipedia articles. It is well documented and largely understood by the American public that the media at large has a conflict of interest with the corporations which fund its printing... the same goes for local news reports. On the other hand, it's also apparent that these same corporations hire people to edit Wikipedia articles in their favor, right? This is absolutely true, but unlike news print the general public has a say in the validity of the postings of Wikipedia articles. People are free to question the truth and validity of such information.. and they do so all the time! It effects the content of the article! Perhaps (and this will appeal to the philosophers reading this) I am committing an ad populum fallacy but asserting that Wikipedia should be credible based on its everyone-can-validate ideology. I'm willing to accept this as a valid point, but I feel as though the potential effects of tainting information in this way are substantially lower than in the media at large. If you ban Wikipedia, you damn well better ban newspapers!
I agree that students should never use Wikipedia as a source for papers, but I would say the same abou
I'd agree with you, but I find that most of the Monkeyball minigames are virtually unplayable. This seems to be because Sega didn't really have a good grasp on how to utilize the wiimote. Often times the controls are unresponsive, or just outright painful to try and figure out. If you haven't already, try playing disc golf and figure out what you're supposed to do. I will say, however, that Monkey Darts is one of the best minigames I've played on any wii minigame-game. It's definately far superior to Darts in WarioWare because it actually feels a lot more like you're throwing a dart.
I've played WarioWare quite a bit on multiplayer.. and you're definitely right. The problem is made worse because you have to beat the game before you can even unlock multiplayer at all. As a result, the person who owns the game has to have seen most of the microgames before anyone will want to come over and play it with them at all (well, unless you take turns on single player). I've been consistently beating people who are new to the game, and it gets a little boring after a while. Hopefully after some more wii games come out I can put it on the shelf and forget how to play the microgames so that it will be fun all over again.
Actually... the British unit makes more sense. It's consistent with the powers of ten, unlike the American billion.
Just buy a gp2x and be done with it.
PC stands for Personal Computer, so we can extend the definition to include Macs, Commodore 64s... and why not toasters (ones that have embedded computers, of course).
This misnomer always bothered me.