51–60 of 174 posts
If there was a chromebook that came with a SIM card and an unlimited data plan, worldwide, I would buy it in a heartbeat and replace my Macbook. I like the idea of cloud storage, the ability to instantly log onto a new machine and have everything there. This critically depends on 100% connectivity though.
Happy to answer any questions.
> I cannot answer for them what they are going to do with the quadratic equation. I don’t know why they are learning it This sounds disingenuous to me. There are lots of things kids and college students and adults learn that have no immediately foreseeable application. I'm sure most people on HN have thought about it. I wonder what the consensus is. My take is that learning how to use technology should not be a class…
This is probably taking his off-hand remarks too seriously, but I don't think anyone really uses the quadratic equation for anything. Quadratic functions definitely come up, and the derivation of the quadratic formula is definitely useful to learn, but the formula itself seems like a mathematical dead end. In general I think being forced to learn things with no clear application is part of why the school system fails…
I have mixed feelings about this. Personally, working as a contractor at Google was one of the interesting jobs I have had and I generally like Google. That said, after reading Dave Eggers' excellent book "The Circle" last year and having watched the movie yesterday, I was reminded of the dangers (even if fictional in the case of the book) of a monopoly controlling knowledge. The book/movie is obviously about Google…
Did the invention of printing press made them a monopoly? Google does not generate information; they facilitate it. The more the information is free, the more it will be converted to knowledge by these same schools and students. Your comparison of it to your values of buying things for yourself, is misleading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the invention of printing press made them a monopoly? Google does not generate information; they facilitate it. The more the information is free, the more it will be converted to knowledge by these same schools and students. Your comparison of it to your values of buying things for yourself, is misleading.
I'm glad you're questioning that assertion, but I don't think your counter-argument is very convincing. The economics of the printing press were different than the economics facing Google. For example: Google search benefits from network effects (clicks are used to improve future search results). Google mostly provides information goods (zero marginal cost of production), but books aren't really a perfect information…
I like Google since they're one of the few companies that has a 20+ year record of being careful with user data, but how much they control (or at least facilitate) is pretty scary from an objective viewpoint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the invention of printing press made them a monopoly? Google does not generate information; they facilitate it. The more the information is free, the more it will be converted to knowledge by these same schools and students. Your comparison of it to your values of buying things for yourself, is misleading.
The comparison with press does not fully stand. After the invention of printing lots of different publishers were born, while we still have essentially just one Google. So they actually have quite a strong monopoly and quite some power with it. If they decide to not "facilitate" you, you become invisible.
Google's core technology is search facility. If someone does this better than them, then there will be no monopoly. The core feature of printing press stood as is for longest period of time (even Xerox did not bring anything "new" to the table). That's, until the Internet in fact, was able to put a dent on the core invention of printing press. People are now reading on their screens, where as previously, they used to read only on the paper.
You are stuck with the short-term view of monopolies and privacy issues. We wouldn't be surprised if there was a big brouhaha over privacy during the time of the invention of printing press (ask any religious scholar what they have to say about the history of churches against the advancement of technology and knowledge).
“I cannot answer for them what they are going to do with the quadratic equation. I don’t know why they are learning it.” If Mr Rochelle cannot answer this question, and recommends just googling it, he might not be a good person to be anywhere near STEM eduction.
Also, the most literal answer "solve quadratic equations" is kind of the most meaningless, what a physicist does with it is different than what a graphic designer does with it. The teacher might be saying they don't know in that context and would rather not lie to individual students that it's super important for them in particular way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the invention of printing press made them a monopoly? Google does not generate information; they facilitate it. The more the information is free, the more it will be converted to knowledge by these same schools and students. Your comparison of it to your values of buying things for yourself, is misleading.
If Guthenberg had invented the printing press in the current legislative framework, he would have enjoyed a monopoly for decades.