It's open-source, not Open Source.
Which is a good argument to capitalize it if you want to own a piece of that phase.
-How to make it say hello in Basic once, or use a goto command to make it repeat forever.
-How to hit ctrl+c to make it stop
-How to use basic commands like catalog ("cat", eventually this because "dir"), list, run, save, and print.
-The difference between a KoalaPad and a mouse.
-And eventually how to play Zork and Oregon Trail.
I respect and learn from thoughtful people with opposing opinions. I enjoy debating things to challenge my own ideas as much as others.
However, there are many many people who employ magical thinking, strong emotions, horribly broken logic, and herd mentality to arrive at their opinions. It is scary that these people vote. No matter what their beliefs or opinions are, they are incapable of post-Dark Ages thinking.
And then we pass laws preventing public schools from trying to cure the problem. Here in 2012 it's still "What you can regurgitate" that determines success in public schools. How rational you can think, how abstractly you can think, or how deeply you understand something are all of little consequence.
So lets build that ringworld at the asteroid belt, which starts just past mars. We'll cheat a little and include mars and use it's distance from the sun. Given the circumference around the sun at that distance, if we could build 1 mile of that ringworld every minute of every day without stopping, at the end of each day we will have completed 1440 miles of the ringworld. At that rate the ringworld will be complete in 5, 500 years.
Oh I don't know. The instant commute. The ability to set which hours you lock the door. Meeting up in the kitchen for lunch or a snack. The ability to unlock the door if you're really needed. The ability to break your day up into smaller sections so you can garden with your kids from 3-4 and then work after dinner when it's dark. I could go on. +5 insightful is a bit of stretch for a question that deliberately obtuse.
A close family member of mine worked for AT&T Wireless since it was called Cingular. He would tell you that that business model would fail spectacularly here in the US. People here don't shop for plans, they shop for phones. They especially shop for phones they can't actually afford. Worse, they don't shop with money they've saved up. They shop with whatever flexibility they have in their monthly expenses. "What?! You don't offer a phone with that? See ya!!"
We are a month to month culture. Buying something for 500 bucks is a huge decision for most people. Adding 40 bucks a month (or whatever) is just another bill.
Pay 500 dollars now to save 40 or 60 bucks per month doesn't work for you if you ***don't have 500 dollars***. But your phone is dead and you need a new one. So what do you do? You could buy a super cheap one and get a low end phone plan. If you want that get a disposable or pre-paid phone. Otherwise you're going for the fancy smartphone without the 500 bucks. This is what most people want.
So say you did the math and you have the 500 bucks... Offering you an unsubsidized smart phone is a losing option. They make too much money subsidizing your phone and most of their customers like it that way, so why should they make less while giving away the option for you to change carriers at the drop of a hat? Easier to collude with the other carriers and make sure you can't do that.
It doesn't help the carriers until it helps them compete. There's not enough real demand to give up the lock-ins in favor of attracting a few new customers. It'll take critical mass and a lot more people demanding the unsubsidized option before it makes business sense to offer it. It's a cart and horse thing. So It'll never happen unless it's regulated to happen. Cole Brodman is correct that such regulation would vastly improve the market for consumers.
-...because no-one gives a fuck about those things
"Bjork said to interleave *related* tasks".
your problem is the way you define tasks. Tasks can be as granular as you need them to be. "left half step" is a task if you need it to be. The point is break up "rote learning".
TL/DR version: Shuffle your lesson plan up.
You are correct in that there are many factors different studies have tried to take into account. It depends on place too. Right now you could attack somebody in broad daylight on my street and nobody would see you. It's 20 degrees outside and people don't sit and look out their windows much. The fact remains that it's never been conclusive either way.
We've had a rapist on the prowl in our area recently. He knocks on your door and then forces his way in. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care a whit about street lights.
Rather than getting street lights up it is MUCH more effective to get employment up.
People may say they feel whatever, but there are plenty of studies that show no correlation, or even an increase in crime.
Light can be a great help to criminals. Not least of which they're easier to spot when waving a flashlight. Also, if your under a streetlight, EVERYBODY NOT under a light is automatically hidden from you. But when everyone is in equal lighting and can see equally, it's harder to hide.
It's amazing how many people don't even know their eyes will adjust.
Most probably some types of crime will go up and others will go down. I'll leave it to you type "street lights crime study" into google.
"Always consider the possibility that installing a light may aid criminal activity."
Bad guys who wave flashlights are easier to spot than bad guys who don't need extra lighting.
This is it exactly.
You can't legitimately talk about banning cell phones without proposing we ban the millions of fast food drive-thru windows. Saying you can eat a Big Mac but you can't make a hands-free call is idiotic.
The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.