Huh? A bulleted list of release notes with a pot shot at Safari and some mighty large leaps of faith.
"Since most Mac users use Google Chrome as their primary browsers (sic)..." -- Oh really? I'd be surprised by this. Do you have numbers to back it up? I'm guessing most Mac users just use the default browser.
"Safari for Mac is just like IE for Windows, it is only used to access the web for the first time to download Google Chrome." -- I don't even... no.
"While it is a bit better than IE it still sucks and needs to be replaced ASAP." -- News to me. I use Safari every day. I've considered chrome and do tend to use it for development, but Safari is my default. It certainly doesn't suck and doesn't need to be replaced at all.
You need to click on the different days in the calendar to view the "remarks" for that day, and then scroll down past the synopsis of each person's remarks, and the moderator's remarks, to get to the actual arguments.
Until recently the GMail web interface was simply unmatched. When GMail first shipped, their conversation view was so far ahead of what anyone was doing on the web or in a fat client. I don't try out as many email platforms as I used to, but from what I have seen, it's still the best implementation of conversation view available.
Additionally, you hinted at the other main reason I use GMail in your first bullet point: "Control over your own data means you own it, you have it on your hard disk, it is not on somebody else's storage medium."
Sure, this means Google has access. But it also means I don't have to find a way to make that data accessible to me everywhere I want it to be. I don't have to pay for the storage. It's a solved problem... and available at a great price point ($FREE).
I trust google slightly further than I can throw them, so for now this is an okay deal.
Done right? Sorry, you bored me to death as soon as you started blabbering about Pascal's Triangle. I'm sure I learned about that at some point, but I've forgotten it. You asking me that questions would result in:
1) Me feeling stupid because I don't remember what Pascals Triangle is.
2) Me stumbling through some code while I try to understand the explanation you give me.
This seems like it would work in environments that aren't super competitive for top talent or if you are offering a dream job, but in the face of multiple offers this is going to be far less attractive to the candidate.
I've got a family. I need stability... and health insurance. Unless it's my only offer, a substantially better offer, or a dream job, I'm inclined to go elsewhere.
"it's about the fact that kids watching a screen aren't ... learning how to communiate (sic)"
Does sign language count as communication? Because my son learns signs from occasional DVD watching and then applies them in the proper contexts - sometimes without any reinforcement from his parents or anyone else.
Pretty sure that qualifies as learning how to communicate.
Clearly I'm no expert, nor do I know if studies have been done on the effect of TV watching on ASL acquisition.
I'll bet good money, however, that however many signs your <2yo son learns from watching a DVD, he would learn more from signing with you instead of passively watching the device. Which, for verbal speech, is exactly what the studies show.
Maybe, but now you've changed your argument. Previously it was that they weren't learning at all, now they aren't learning as well. Even so, there are points in response:
1. I'm really not equipped to show him the multiple images of a coat or someone putting on a coat, or other children doing signs of coat. The video is. I don't know if this matters or not. It's certainly possible it doesn't.
2. I have to make dinner for us all at some point. As much as I'd love for my 15 month old to patiently engage in conversation with me while remaining a safe distance from the stovetop, it just doesn't happen. There are times when a parent's attention just cannot be 100%, or even 75% on their child. So yes, maybe he would learn EVERYTHING better if I were there to teach it to him, but the fact is that even the best parents can't be.
I've reread my posts, and don't see where I said children weren't learning. The science shows kids who watch TV speak later, period. Anecdotes (your kid learning some signs from a DVD, the earlier poster learning to read from TV) don't change that. Sorry, but they don't.
As for point 2, I don't disagree at all. Everything is a tradeoff, no parent can be perfect. Most kids turn out fine anyway. If you have to give your kids TV (my 3 year old gets about two hours a week, for instance) then do so and don't feel guilty. But don't try to justify it as educational; the science disagrees.
I agree that limiting screen time is important, and my wife and I are careful to limit our son's screen time and not expose him to "second hand TV." That said, I take issue with the following passage from the article:
"Even so-called educational videos do not benefit children under 2 because they are too young to be able to understand the images on the screen, the doctors’ group said."
My son watches a DVD from the "Baby Signing Time" series 2-3 times per week. At 15 months, he sports a 30 to 40 word signing vocabulary. While my wife and I work to reinforce many of the more useful signs (more, milk, eat, etc), there are a number that he has picked up straight from the video (banana, coat, cat, etc). As much as I'd like to believe that he's a genius, I think its much more likely that the doctors' group is just wrong about what children can understand on screen.
In the article one frustrated-sounding doctor says no one is listening to the message. Maybe that's because they're preaching zero tolerance rather than moderation. Perhaps that's because they're worried that parents will take moderation too far and they think zero-tolerance is safer. Either way, to say children under two can't learn from a screen is simply wrong. I see the evidence every singe day and the doctors are welcome to see it for themselves.
My two and a half year old has a number of favorite videos, and when watching them, he will frequently turn to us and tell us to watch and then go on to launch into lengthy verbal explanations of what has happened or what will happen up to about 5 minutes ahead in the video. He's done this for months.
Of course "under two's" versus 30 months is a big gap, but it's not like he just suddenly started telling us these things either - a lot of the words and phrases he's picked up over the last year comes straight from things he's seen on TV or DVD's.