So instead of holding my head straight similar to the natural position of, say, walking, you propose that I should be looking down at the desk all day? Can you say neck and shoulder strain beyond all reason?
Of course you can't get anything done without tactile feedback. Our whole phisiology has been evolved for tactile feedback and our brain has gotten very good at interpreting it over the past few million years. And now these bozos think in a few short decades we can relearn a whole new paradigm to manipulating our surroundings? I don't think so.
Just think how much easier it is to turn a knob to adjust volume. You know exactly how much you've moved it. But with these modern touch screens you have to tap and observe what the software tells you has changed via a visual cue.
Sure when you think about it an equivalent to turning a knob could probably be made with a good touch screen UI, but still, you have to first look to position your finger, then drag it across very empty space and hope it worked.
How about typing, is it even possible to blind type with a touch-screen keyboard? How about detecting when you've mispressed a key without looking at the keyboard? Somehow I doubt that last bit is possible and I know from personal experience I usually detect errors with typing much sooner via my fingers than my eyes because by the time the eyes figure out what I've typed is incorrect I'm already two words ahead.
What I'm wondering with the SSD computer + USB3 + Flash camera combo is... does the computer even have enough processing power to complete the transaction while letting the user multitask somewhat normally?
Or would the whole thing somehow circumvent the need to tell the OS what's going on with the file system?
True, LOGO can be used to do some spunky stuff. But how much of that is available, even graspable, to a completely complete beginner to programming? They have to first go through the senseless shapes.
Personally I think if I hadn't started learning programming at a very early age when I was still easily amused I'd never be able to learn. The drag of getting to somewhere useful... it's just too much.
Maybe I'm just a regular slashdotter, but I remember being fascinated by fibonacci, bubble sort and other similar stuff when I was 12... sure I was working on an "operating system" on the side and made a few games. But you want to know those lovely numbers first.
I still have fond memories of how much love I held for finding prime numbers and just seeing all those digits roll down the screen, knowing they're all primes. It was magnificent!
LOGO is too basic for 11-14, when I first started learning programming it was in LOGO yes, but that was at 9... when we were 11 we were taught a "real" language which was Pascal and that's what I'd suggest.
The main advantage of Pascal is that it's nice and simple while still feeling leet enough the kids aren't getting the feeling they're being taught how to use a toy and I can assure you 11 year olds, let alone 14, will look at you funny when you tell them to move a turtle (that's what I remember it being called) around the screen drawing senseless shapes.
Uhm... not to be a killjoy or anything. But was that perhaps supposed to be MBps? Because we've had commercial 20/20 (Mbps) FTTH in Slovenia for a few years now and it does in fact work at those speeds in real-life examples.
Hell, even the government owned telco began offering 20/20 this year, we've had up to 100/100 available from private companies since about 2005.
I actually know a lot of people who have tried coke once or twice and are not addicts, half of them even said they wouldn't do it again because they didn't enjoy the experience.
And heroine, every time you get seriously injured you're given heroine in the form of morphine in a much much cleaner state than what you get on the streets and most of those people don't go on to become addicts.
As for meth... meth might be instantly addictive since it's a dopamine overdose and it simply destroys your ability to create your own dopamine. But I don't know how quickly, it'd be odd if it was the only drug out there that can instantly addict.
When you think about it the western world already HAS mostly opted out of breeding... or at least postponing it quite a lot and then having troubles because of it and thus not breed.
No, it's simple to solve, people just don't want to. Seriously, a few well placed nukes and voila, problem solved.
But perhaps due to radiation issues a different kind of explosive should be used. Mind you we're already half-intentionally starving out africa to help keep our global numbers at bay. It's a bit subtler than explosives so people tend to swallow it easier.
I'm all for being concerned and taking care of the whole thing, make it better and all. But fact remains it's already taking care of itself.
Rats DO drive each other to starvation when their numbers exceed what the ecosystem can support. Then they reach a balance around the ecosystem's capabilities in that one year there's a lot of them, next year not so many, then a lot again and so forth. The same goes for humans.
After a war you have a baby boom generation, then each subsequent generation is smaller until at some point the generations are so small there is negative population growth. Once the ecosystem can again support population growth, the population grows.
I know this isn't perfect, but it's only imperfect because we're greedy bastards. Even just a hundred years ago it was normal to have 30% of your children die before they reached puberty... now, not so much and that's why we have less offspring.
Stop worrying, nature is taking care of our numbers. We should instead use our time for other things... but I can't think of what just now.
It's not a problem, it's a population control mechanism, much like there are similar processes for rats and such.
We humans keep thinking of ourselves as something other than animals and suddenly what's there to keep our numbers in check is some huge problem... we even dare calling it the world's problem.
Don't know about giving up, been a programmer for more than 10 years now, real-world experience of something like 4 or 5 years and I've developed stuff that made CS phd's jaws drop...
No, what I mean to say is that there's usually a human way to do something and a machine/computer way to do it. Each is optimised for whomever is doing it and I can know the human way of doing it very well and still not be able to create the machine way.
Or I can just look up the principles/rules etc. when I need them and implement the machine way because my mind isn't encumbered by the human way and is thus fresh to think up an inovative and quick way of doing something that is probably infeasible to be done by hand.
"Why is it that for a CS degree I must know how to do complex differentiation by hand? Not like I'm ever going to need it for anything more than passing the exam"
Because you may want to use some of these calculations in the code you write.
I might, but there's usually better(quicker/less complex) ways for a computer to do these things than how a human would go at them.
Especially in the sciences, it disproportionately punishes people who find it hard to do complex error-free calculations against the clock, even if their understanding of the subject in question is just fine.
With you on this one 100%!
I've never understood just why I have to be able to do so much maths in an hour to pass a bloody test when I know full well that there's software out there that can do them for me if I just understand what and why
Why is it that for a CS degree I must know how to do complex differentiation by hand? Not like I'm ever going to need it for anything more than passing the exam
And the really sad thing is that _if_ I don't pass these mathematical exams I might never get to the actual CS classes that might teach me something useful.
Take-off and landing ARE afterall the dangerous parts of every flight. Once you're up there, if nothing else, you at least have time to react when something goes wrong. When landing or taking-off that ground thing that can hurt you is less than a second away.
Dude, nothing so complex is going on. It's pretty much just like a kid playing with LEGO. You see how something behaves, build something as close as possible, tinker until it works.
There's no science behind these robots, it's just trial and error plus some basic logic and dedication. Anybody with any sort of love for mechanics could build something like this. No matter how awesome it is.
Think about it, we've had toys that could walk for at least thirty years now, but robots that can walk walk (dynamic fall control etc.) we still don't have. Because it's one thing to build a mechanism that walks around on a flat surface and a completely other thing to build a robot that walks like a natural organism.
Or maybe they just don't like the movie and get bored? Or even more possibly, they're a part of the internet generation and their attention span is too short to last the length of the movie.
Slashdot Mirror
So instead of holding my head straight similar to the natural position of, say, walking, you propose that I should be looking down at the desk all day? Can you say neck and shoulder strain beyond all reason?
Of course you can't get anything done without tactile feedback. Our whole phisiology has been evolved for tactile feedback and our brain has gotten very good at interpreting it over the past few million years. And now these bozos think in a few short decades we can relearn a whole new paradigm to manipulating our surroundings? I don't think so.
Just think how much easier it is to turn a knob to adjust volume. You know exactly how much you've moved it. But with these modern touch screens you have to tap and observe what the software tells you has changed via a visual cue.
Sure when you think about it an equivalent to turning a knob could probably be made with a good touch screen UI, but still, you have to first look to position your finger, then drag it across very empty space and hope it worked.
How about typing, is it even possible to blind type with a touch-screen keyboard? How about detecting when you've mispressed a key without looking at the keyboard? Somehow I doubt that last bit is possible and I know from personal experience I usually detect errors with typing much sooner via my fingers than my eyes because by the time the eyes figure out what I've typed is incorrect I'm already two words ahead.
50 words per minute!? Isn't that kind of slow far as typing goes?
I wouldn't think of "post-apocalyptic fun fantasy" on my own, but I might mark it up on a survey.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you JUST think of it?
I pay my government $15 for 20/20 (reliable) FTTH. I think you're getting ripped off by those large corporations.
What I'm wondering with the SSD computer + USB3 + Flash camera combo is ... does the computer even have enough processing power to complete the transaction while letting the user multitask somewhat normally?
Or would the whole thing somehow circumvent the need to tell the OS what's going on with the file system?
True, LOGO can be used to do some spunky stuff. But how much of that is available, even graspable, to a completely complete beginner to programming? They have to first go through the senseless shapes.
... it's just too much.
Personally I think if I hadn't started learning programming at a very early age when I was still easily amused I'd never be able to learn. The drag of getting to somewhere useful
Maybe I'm just a regular slashdotter, but I remember being fascinated by fibonacci, bubble sort and other similar stuff when I was 12 ... sure I was working on an "operating system" on the side and made a few games. But you want to know those lovely numbers first.
I still have fond memories of how much love I held for finding prime numbers and just seeing all those digits roll down the screen, knowing they're all primes. It was magnificent!
LOGO is too basic for 11-14, when I first started learning programming it was in LOGO yes, but that was at 9 ... when we were 11 we were taught a "real" language which was Pascal and that's what I'd suggest.
The main advantage of Pascal is that it's nice and simple while still feeling leet enough the kids aren't getting the feeling they're being taught how to use a toy and I can assure you 11 year olds, let alone 14, will look at you funny when you tell them to move a turtle (that's what I remember it being called) around the screen drawing senseless shapes.
Damn it! I'm lagging behind because I've done neither. FUCK. *rushes out of the office to go rot at home coding stuff nobody needs*
Uhm ... not to be a killjoy or anything. But was that perhaps supposed to be MBps? Because we've had commercial 20/20 (Mbps) FTTH in Slovenia for a few years now and it does in fact work at those speeds in real-life examples.
Hell, even the government owned telco began offering 20/20 this year, we've had up to 100/100 available from private companies since about 2005.
I actually know a lot of people who have tried coke once or twice and are not addicts, half of them even said they wouldn't do it again because they didn't enjoy the experience.
... meth might be instantly addictive since it's a dopamine overdose and it simply destroys your ability to create your own dopamine. But I don't know how quickly, it'd be odd if it was the only drug out there that can instantly addict.
And heroine, every time you get seriously injured you're given heroine in the form of morphine in a much much cleaner state than what you get on the streets and most of those people don't go on to become addicts.
As for meth
When you think about it the western world already HAS mostly opted out of breeding ... or at least postponing it quite a lot and then having troubles because of it and thus not breed.
No, it's simple to solve, people just don't want to. Seriously, a few well placed nukes and voila, problem solved.
But perhaps due to radiation issues a different kind of explosive should be used. Mind you we're already half-intentionally starving out africa to help keep our global numbers at bay. It's a bit subtler than explosives so people tend to swallow it easier.
I'm all for being concerned and taking care of the whole thing, make it better and all. But fact remains it's already taking care of itself.
... now, not so much and that's why we have less offspring.
... but I can't think of what just now.
Rats DO drive each other to starvation when their numbers exceed what the ecosystem can support. Then they reach a balance around the ecosystem's capabilities in that one year there's a lot of them, next year not so many, then a lot again and so forth. The same goes for humans.
After a war you have a baby boom generation, then each subsequent generation is smaller until at some point the generations are so small there is negative population growth. Once the ecosystem can again support population growth, the population grows.
I know this isn't perfect, but it's only imperfect because we're greedy bastards. Even just a hundred years ago it was normal to have 30% of your children die before they reached puberty
Stop worrying, nature is taking care of our numbers. We should instead use our time for other things
It's not a problem, it's a population control mechanism, much like there are similar processes for rats and such.
... we even dare calling it the world's problem.
We humans keep thinking of ourselves as something other than animals and suddenly what's there to keep our numbers in check is some huge problem
Don't know about giving up, been a programmer for more than 10 years now, real-world experience of something like 4 or 5 years and I've developed stuff that made CS phd's jaws drop ...
*shrug* maybe I'm just a special case.
No, what I mean to say is that there's usually a human way to do something and a machine/computer way to do it. Each is optimised for whomever is doing it and I can know the human way of doing it very well and still not be able to create the machine way.
Or I can just look up the principles/rules etc. when I need them and implement the machine way because my mind isn't encumbered by the human way and is thus fresh to think up an inovative and quick way of doing something that is probably infeasible to be done by hand.
"Why is it that for a CS degree I must know how to do complex differentiation by hand? Not like I'm ever going to need it for anything more than passing the exam"
Because you may want to use some of these calculations in the code you write.
I might, but there's usually better(quicker/less complex) ways for a computer to do these things than how a human would go at them.
Especially in the sciences, it disproportionately punishes people who find it hard to do complex error-free calculations against the clock, even if their understanding of the subject in question is just fine.
With you on this one 100%!
I've never understood just why I have to be able to do so much maths in an hour to pass a bloody test when I know full well that there's software out there that can do them for me if I just understand what and why
Why is it that for a CS degree I must know how to do complex differentiation by hand? Not like I'm ever going to need it for anything more than passing the exam
And the really sad thing is that _if_ I don't pass these mathematical exams I might never get to the actual CS classes that might teach me something useful.
Take-off and landing ARE afterall the dangerous parts of every flight. Once you're up there, if nothing else, you at least have time to react when something goes wrong. When landing or taking-off that ground thing that can hurt you is less than a second away.
Dude, nothing so complex is going on. It's pretty much just like a kid playing with LEGO. You see how something behaves, build something as close as possible, tinker until it works.
There's no science behind these robots, it's just trial and error plus some basic logic and dedication. Anybody with any sort of love for mechanics could build something like this. No matter how awesome it is.
Think about it, we've had toys that could walk for at least thirty years now, but robots that can walk walk (dynamic fall control etc.) we still don't have. Because it's one thing to build a mechanism that walks around on a flat surface and a completely other thing to build a robot that walks like a natural organism.
Or maybe they just don't like the movie and get bored? Or even more possibly, they're a part of the internet generation and their attention span is too short to last the length of the movie.
* Seek rock, but not at the expense of scissors * Seek scissors, but not at the expense of paper * Seek paper, but not at the expense of rock
* Seek lizard, but not at the expense of spock
* Seek spock, but not at the expense of rock
It's true then! Google is really an evil Mafia-type organizations hence the quick rise to popularity and Mozilla is their money laundering machine!
The gig is up guys!