I miss writing with fountain pens, and use gel rollerballs exclusively now (cheap, waterproof, I don't cry if I lose it, and the office has boxes of them). I like them well enough, and my writing is more legible ... but I really miss the experience of writing w/ a fountain pen. The feel is very different.
If you're curious, one of the cheaper ($3-$4) disposable fountain pens (I think it was Pilot?) were a great introduction. When I first used one (on nice paper that didn't suck up all the ink into ugliness), it was amazing, even though I know there are better ones out there.
I think your analogy is pretty good. I usually have a few loose g2s with me in case I run out of fountain pen ink in class. I find that gel pens sometimes make globs of ink, and that the lines aren't as nice as my FPs, but the writing experience is similar.
I do like the solid weight and feel of my fountain pens though, which is often lacking in rollerballs. The weight of the pen is the only thing that holds it against the paper the way I write, so light pens can be annoying.
Ur right about the weight. And I believe that is what a lot of people complain about in a rollerball. Which is why I use my Parker Sonnet. A good heavier rollerball is the cool looking Retro 51 (which uses Parker refills).
since you went through the research, what do you think of the other "methods". I ask because of this:
The Palmer Method began to fall out of popularity in the 1950s and was eventually supplanted by the Zaner-Bloser method, which sought to teach children manuscript before teaching them cursive, in order to provide them with a means of written expression as soon as possible, and thus develop writing skills. The D'Nealian method, introduced in 1978, sought to address problems raised by the Zaner-Bloser method, returning to a more cursive style. The Palmer company stopped publishing in the 1980s.
Zaner-Bloser, to my knowledge, is not so far off from Palmer except in its prescribed teaching style, as carried out over multiple years in a child's schooling. The final product, that is, looks quite similar, and the techniques are not so far off from one another.
D'Nealian was one of the final blows to nibbed pens in the U.S., even wiping them out of most Catholic schools: it was ballpoint from then on, almost without question. With longhand in the workplace largely supplanted by typewriters (and soon by personal computers), the public at large moved toward writing implements that were "easier to pick up." After all, few people have need for an instrument whose finickiness is made up for only by ease of use in long sittings. Ballpoints are among the easiest writing tools to care for; you basically keep them out of the wash. No ink refilling, no cleaning out converters between colors and brands of ink, no ink drying out after two weeks in the drawer, no worry of the dreaded "baby bottom nib" of new fountain pens. Buy a Bic, get on with life. There's much to recommend them. If your writing is purely utilitarian and miscellaneous—lists, thank-you notes, reminders, memos, etc.—you probably don't want to bother with anything more complicated.
As it was taught to me, D'Nealian seemed to be designed for easy entry, plain and simple. Many other methods tend to concentrate on technique early, quite apart from letter formation. In D'Nealian, students are taught the proper manner in which to hold a pen, but little else. And ballpoint pens don't really allow for the old "proper" grips that are still often taught, as other commenters have touched on. You have to exert force downward onto the page to get a ballpoint to write, while the old, loose tripod grip that is still recommended was designed for nibs that only needed to glance the page. So D'Nealian is associated in the minds of many students with cramping exertion, and forcing the pen into practice.
Anyway, as soon as you can hold a pen, you start tracing and copying letters. You basically "draw" them; the letter is taught, not the movement. That's about all I can remember.
I'm not in education, so my recommendation of one over another shouldn't be sought. But I would easily believe that there were great things to say about a system that gets children writing as soon as possible. This is particularly true if the manner in which we make our letters by hand will have no bearing on our future prospects. Which, of course, it almost certainly won't.
Personally, I think D'Nealian looks childish. And if you aren't writing with a flowing technique, I see little point for joining all letters in a word. Not that cursive has always been written with streamlined, flowing, efficient, "full-arm" movement, as in the Palmer method and some of its relations. But from my point of view, why waste the extra ink or graphite needed to join letters just to encourage cramp?
I don't think D'Nealian killed cursive; Palmer or similar methodologies, which are hellish to learn if you go by the book, would likely have done even worse. More or less everything that we deal with today is in manuscript, unless your apartment complex happens to have cursive lettering on its awning or something, in the hopes of looking nice. Or maybe if you're digging through old relatives' things. So it's natural for children not to care about it, and even resent the drills needed to learn it.
I think the argument that ballpoints killed cursive is naturally overstated. If ballpoints hadn't become popular around the same time that typewriters did, there may well still be need of different writing implements and quick cursive in the workplace. But certainly ballpoints do make cursive much more difficult.
SecureBoot implementations often let a user, via some means, add additional keys that they trust.
Any user can simply create their own key, sign their own firmware, linux, and what have you with it, and then boot away.
Unfortunately, Microsoft mandates secure boot but doesn't require the feature of adding keys to be present... so the reality is a bit more grim.
The reality is that most distros have managed to get a signing key from microsoft (and those that haven't, there's a grub shim signed by such a key) that is included by default in microsoft certified secureboots. This has been working, but is not as ideal.
> Secure Boot basically screws up the ability to boot Linux OSes
Not really. The barrier to obtaining a signed bootloader isn't that large, and if you're unwilling or unable to do that you can use http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20303.html and just oblige your users to jump through an additional (easily documented) hoop. We had legitimate concerns over the impact of Secure Boot on free operating systems, and for the most part we were able to reach some reasonable solutions.
If you want any more information about India - dont hesitate to mail me. It's a great startup ecosystem and great food. Yes, we have our shit - but fairly democratic and good opportunities can be had in general.
Tech work in India can be used as a stepping stone to the middle east, Singapore or the US.
does anyone know which hypervisor do they use ? Can I build a local EC2 GPU instance with these GPUs ? I'm quite amazed that they are able to get the drivers, etc working with these GPUs on top of a hypervisor