<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF 
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
>

  <channel rdf:about="http://lwn.net/headlines/198066/">
    <title>LWN: Comments on "Changing the Report, After the Vote (Inside Higher Ed)"</title>
    <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/198066/</link>
    <description>
This is a special feed containing comments posted
to the individual LWN article titled &quot;Changing the Report, After the Vote (Inside Higher Ed)&quot;.

    </description>

    <syn:updatePeriod>hourly</syn:updatePeriod>
    <syn:updateFrequency>2</syn:updateFrequency>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/198151/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/198131/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/198130/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/198100/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/198083/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/198067/rss" />
      
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>

  </channel>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/198151/rss">
      <title>Changing the Report, After the Vote (Inside Higher Ed)</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/198151/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2006-09-04T10:04:18+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>eru</dc:creator>
      <description>
      &lt;i&gt;No amount of convincing on my behalf was sufficient to persuade him that seeing the &quot;real&quot; source is much better than just having short examples and API docs. Go figure...&lt;/i&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
But he was right! After all, we all know that automobile mechanics
are &lt;b&gt;never&lt;/b&gt; let to touch a real engine or gearbox during their
training. Just looking at diagrams, photographs and plastic models is
quite sufficient. Otherwise they might get their hands dirty, or
accidentally cut a finger, or even steal a trade secret or two by handling
a real part. Cannot have that happening...
&lt;p&gt;
( :-) :-), :-), just in case...)

      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/198131/rss">
      <title>Changing the Report, After the Vote (Inside Higher Ed)</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/198131/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2006-09-03T23:11:59+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>bojan</dc:creator>
      <description>
      She did sound really desperate, didn't she? :-)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I now remember a discussion I had with some bloke on one of the forums, where he claimed that there is no big educational benefit to programmers (current and future) in seeing and experimenting with a piece of seasoned, production quality source code. No amount of convincing on my behalf was sufficient to persuade him that seeing the &quot;real&quot; source is much better than just having short examples and API docs. Go figure...&lt;br&gt;
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/198130/rss">
      <title>Changing the Report, After the Vote (Inside Higher Ed)</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/198130/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2006-09-03T23:01:51+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>bojan</dc:creator>
      <description>
      WOW! And I really mean it - it's not just a cheap joke.&lt;br&gt;
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/198100/rss">
      <title>Changing the Report, After the Vote (Inside Higher Ed)</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/198100/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2006-09-03T07:30:56+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>dark</dc:creator>
      <description>
      &quot;its a method of coding software, and one of several available, period.&quot;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Is that going to be Microsoft's new line?&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/198083/rss">
      <title>Changing the Report, After the Vote (Inside Higher Ed)</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/198083/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2006-09-02T20:05:19+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>smitty_one_each</dc:creator>
      <description>
      &lt;font class=&quot;QuotedText&quot;&gt;&amp;gt;[Gerri Elliott] called the original wording of the document parochial and a commercial endorsement of specific products. (In an interview Thursday, Elliott noted that she had never, during the panels year of deliberations, expressed endorsement of one platform over another  that would have been inappropriate. I was not on the commission representing my company, I was there to represent the workforce.&quot;)&lt;/font&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Can I get a &quot;wow&quot;?&lt;br&gt;
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/198067/rss">
      <title>Changing the Report, After the Vote (Inside Higher Ed)</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/198067/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2006-09-02T15:30:50+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>cpm</dc:creator>
      <description>
      &lt;p&gt;
So much for free markets, eh?&lt;br&gt;
      
      </description>
    </item>
</rdf:RDF>

