Anyone find it odd that the Phelps family gets away scot-free with desecrating funerals, and yet across the pond this UK man is being jailed for trolling on the internet. Western civilization needs to get on the same page regarding the interpretation of freedom of speech.
And if those interests and hobbies can overlap with an educational game, which doesn't even have to be on the computer, I suggest that kids can be captains of the gravy train. http://www.homestarrunner.com/vcr_homsar.html
I'm glad that you have a personal awareness of individuals with disabilities. Here is some stuff I found looking on the google scholar:
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/11/aa.pdf "Taken together, findings indicate that computers are neither a cure-all for problems facing schools nor mere fads without impact on student learning. When used properly, computers may serve as important tools for improving student proficiency in mathematics and the overall learning environment of the school".
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1235 "A computer-assisted learning program focusing on math increased math scores by 0.47 standard deviation." The paper presents the results of two randomized experiments conducted in schools in urban India.
I never said that computers were a panacea either; they are simply tools, just like a pencil or a piece of paper. There is no reason to call the laptops a failure and end their distribution.
According to the study, which can be found at http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/About/publications/working-papers/pdf/wp_08_12.pdf they used a regression analysis to determine their outcome. This isn't exactly the most powerful form of empirical evidence. In fact, it's smack-dab in the middle of the levels of evidence based practice you can have: "Outcomes" Research or ecological studies. So we're already starting off with a pretty mediocre argument. In addition, the research paper does not identify its limitations and this is an incredibly important part of any and all research; even top-notch randomized controlled trials identify the limitations of their research.
Then there is the argument that laptops are bad for a student's behavioral and academic outcomes. I'd have to strongly disagree. Technology, especially the use of computers, is an incredibly powerful tool for empowering individuals with learning, reading, and writing disabilities. As an occupational therapist who works in public schools and schools for individuals with significant developmental disabilities, cerebral palsy, and severe autism, the use of computers not only motivates many groups of students it does a great job generalizing knowledge learned in the classroom. In some cases, for example, a child with tetraplegic cerebral palsy or blindness, technology like computers with adaptive devices becomes necessary for many daily activities.
I also have a personal argument for the laptops; the quality of my public education, at least for me, was shoddy at best. Teachers at my schools were horrible at what they did; I'd say about 5% of my graduating class from high school were even taught calculus and approximately 75% of all students could barely do algebra I. It's true that a kid probably won't learn much playing Pac-Man or Space Invaders, but imagine what the kid learns when they play King's Quest (and other adventure games with the verbal command prompt), Number Munchers, RPGs that use advanced vocabulary, Balance of Power, and other games that have educational value. I completely credit knowing all of my geography from Balance of Power and Shadow President. If kids have a chance to play games that teach useful information, then it's likely that their academic and behavioral outcomes will improve.
And for the dictatorship stuff, I think that if any person or kid develops any skill using a computer they will find a way of getting around it. That's what happens anyway no matter how many restrictions are put on a computer.
Large amounts of military spending certainly makes any country potentially more dangerous, but honestly the most dangerous prospect is nuclear war. It's unlikely that any nation will attack another nation with nuclear weapons because of mutually assured destruction. If the US did go to war with China, everybody on Earth would be dead and humans would be responsible for their own extinction. Likewise if China just whimsically says, "Hey I'm going to invade Russia" - well, that would end humanity too. The only wars between nations that won't end human existence are wars where the aggressor has nukes and the defender doesn't, or if both nations don't have nukes. If we didn't have international treaties and an understanding of mutually assured destruction, it's clear that homo sapiens would have died out before a lot of us were even born.
It's good to keep an eye on military spending, but I'm getting sick of the baseless hype about a potential "China/whatever nuclear power conflict", because if there was, we'd all be dead.
There are hundreds of free textbooks, but looking through the lists briefly I was unable to find an appropriate book for my profession, which is occupational therapy. Maybe my opinion is based on a limited sample, but, how many books have been published in the last 10 years? For sure it's much, much larger than hundreds of free books that are currently online. If we took a random survey of professors in the world, would more than 5% say they posted their books online for free? In the end, it's not about whether or not the professor posts it up on the internet. The bottom line is that it needs to be accessible, so anybody, anywhere could find the right search engine, just type in the title of their book, and come up with a result that either leads the person in the right direction or supplies the material. Ideally the publisher would, even with an extra fee, allow access to the PDF on their website after verifying the purchase of the book from the consumer.
Sure this is a nice service, but it is dependent upon instructors/authors to upload books to Flat World Knowledge. Most professors, in my experience, like money more than spreading knowledge and competence. They will likely choose not to participate unless there is some incentive for them to actually upload the book PDF.
This gets back to the whole reason why some need the services Flat World Knowledge in the first place: avarice.
Publishing companies and authors could easily make their materials more accessible to professionals and students. However, they choose to use the most costly, self-enriching, wasteful, and inaccessible medium possible. Imagine how much better life would be for a person who is blind to use voice-recognition software on his or her computer to listen to his or her SAT, GRE, or national certification exam book. Why limit it just to people with blindness? What about the college student with cerebral palsy (yes, they do exist) that doesn't have the motor control to turn the pages of a book, but with a PDF and the right software, can read the text just as effectively.
I could go on forever with examples. Here's the bottom line: there is absolutely no reason for publishing companies and authors to limit their books to paper format in the first place. They can even make a profit off of this new technology. But I guess they would rather continue with current practice, which only serves to truncate innovation and progress.
Let's review the levels of evidence based practice - it's an important, new concept that is used in medical fields (taken from http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 Center for Evidence-Based Medicine) 1 = best quality 5 = worst quality
1a: Systematic reviews (with homogeneity ) of randomized controlled trials 1a-: Systematic review of randomized trials displaying worrisome heterogeneity 1b: Individual randomized controlled trials (with narrow confidence interval) 1b-: Individual randomized controlled trials (with a wide confidence interval) 1c: All or none randomized controlled trials 2a: Systematic reviews (with homogeneity) of cohort studies 2a-: Systematic reviews of cohort studies displaying worrisome heterogeneity 2b: Individual cohort study or low quality randomized controlled trials (80% follow-up) 2b-: Individual cohort study or low quality randomized controlled trials (80% follow-up / wide confidence interval) 2c: 'Outcomes' Research; ecological studies 3a: Systematic review (with homogeneity) of case-control studies 3a-: Systematic review of case-control studies with worrisome heterogeneity 3b: Individual case-control study 4: Case-series (and poor quality cohort and case-control studies) 5: Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or 'first principles'
Sharman Lichtenstein needs to rethink her question. Would you rather have an "expert" do the medical operation or would you rather have the most effective techniques that have been affirmed by evidence-based practice guide the practitioner during the operation?
The bottom line is, learning from expert opinion is just as effective (or if you want to be pessimistic, unhelpful) as learning anything from Wikipedia. As long as Wikipedia uses credible sources when a user makes an article, I don't see how Wikipedia's credibility is diminished. I feel that Wikipedia is a good place to find general information. From the Wikipedia article you find more references, and through those references an individual will likely find what he or she is looking for. If Wikipedia wants to improve its image perhaps it should require users to provide more references when writing articles, and also provide a scale like the one posted in this message, which indicates the relative strength of the reference cited in the article. But hey, I guess that would be common sense.
Only if you already know people who work for Google and/or RedHat (and who have the ability to request or transfer the money in the first place). This is pretty much true of any organization. If there's one thing I've learned from school, college, and jobs - for the most part, everyone is completely paranoid of new ideas, new people, new standards, and just about anything novel. Also, people care about the bottom line, no matter what the subject is - the bottom line is ultimately something tangible/observable, public, and measurable. My advice is to get documentation on all of the community service that you're doing. Go the extra length to get credit for the programs you are creating. Explain in one very simple sentence what your program does. Make things easy for other people - make it easy for them to comment on your work, limit your resume to a page, and find ways of collecting data on your programs for yourself, to prove that your program gets specific results consistently.
Whatever propaganda is being fed to you at high school, that college is a place where people share ideas, where people generally work together, and so forth... The reality is that colleges are oppressive places, where the only rule is work as hard as possible for as long as possible, and then use this inertia to carry you through uncertain and challenging situations. This is just my experience, but college is a place where there is rampant classism, racial discrimination, and sexual discrimination. In addition, faculty members are one of the most petty and vile people you'll ever meet, who are completely bereft of common sense. The most important thing though, is to make sure that you never, ever, under any circumstance, reveal this reality to the faculty, supervisor, or whatever totalitarian figure you come across. Figure out what they like, and then go through the motions and make them feel good, and make it seem like they are the reason you are "learning" and "changing". This is generally a good tactic to use; only answer a question if you're sure of yourself, but also allow people to correct you even if you know that you're right. Use these comments when necessary: "I totally understand", "OK", "Sounds good". Figure out what unfounded and preconceived notions they have about professionalism; emulate this, even if your superiors hypocritically say repeatedly "I can't teach people to be professional". I could probably keep going with this, but the bottom line is to keep things as simple and accessible for others as possible, and to also find ways of getting reliable information (data must be measurable and observable) reliably, in a consistent way.
Parents haven't stopped being accountable. If anything, parents are more paranoid than ever about educational outcomes. There are many parents who have kids with ADHD, ODD, and other behavioral problems that check the kid's homework, keep an eye on him or her, and promote good routines. School is fundamentally flawed - the individual needs of children will not be met unless parents make a lot of noise and stress the child's right to a free and appropriate public education. That's a huge task that parents often face alone, and it would do a world of good if there was more parent-teacher, teacher-teacher, and teacher-consultant collaboration. Think about the productive things that the kids could be doing with the computer. As long as the kids are occupied in constructive tasks and they actually enjoy what they're doing, then it's very likely that this behavior will stop.
The greatest injustice of all.
How do you rotten-souled, life-hating, whining wimps sleep at night? Disability can strike at YOU any moment. Falling on your head can give you tramautic brain injury. Falling on your back can give you a spinal cord injury that could leave you barely alive on a ventilator. Yes, slashdot morons, even YOU grow old. YOU can develop Parkinsons or Alzheimers. YOU can have a myocardial infarction or a cerebrovascular accident (I'm sure you dead-heads wouldn't know what those terms mean). Disability is going to be a part of YOUR life, whether you like it or not, because YOU are going to live a long, and hopefully, meaningful life.
Wikipedia has the potential to be just as effective, if not more effective, than any other encyclopedia ever made. All a person needs is references to back up their points. It works just the same as any big research paper, thesis, or professional journal article. The more references you have, the more powerful your case is. Especially if your references contain peer reviewed articles, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses. In fact, I can see wikipedia as being a logical extension to the vast number of internet based and electronic full-text journal articles. What can be easier than looking through journals via the internet, citing their points, and putting it on a website without too many restrictions? Others can also change the website if they find new information. One way to improve the credibility of wikipedia is to mandate the use of references before you make a change to a wikipage. References can be pretty much anything, from personal communications, books, journal articles, newspapers, etc. As long as people have an organized way of showing how they came up with information, it makes the whole process more legit.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone find it odd that the Phelps family gets away scot-free with desecrating funerals, and yet across the pond this UK man is being jailed for trolling on the internet. Western civilization needs to get on the same page regarding the interpretation of freedom of speech.
PDD stands for Pervasive Developmental Disorder which is a part of the autism spectrum.
And if those interests and hobbies can overlap with an educational game, which doesn't even have to be on the computer, I suggest that kids can be captains of the gravy train. http://www.homestarrunner.com/vcr_homsar.html
I'm glad that you have a personal awareness of individuals with disabilities. Here is some stuff I found looking on the google scholar:
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/11/aa.pdf
"Taken together, findings indicate that computers are neither a cure-all for problems facing schools nor mere fads without impact on student learning. When used properly, computers may serve as important tools for improving student proficiency in mathematics and the overall learning environment of the school".
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1235
"A computer-assisted learning program focusing on math increased math scores by 0.47 standard deviation." The paper presents the results of two randomized experiments conducted in schools in urban India.
I never said that computers were a panacea either; they are simply tools, just like a pencil or a piece of paper. There is no reason to call the laptops a failure and end their distribution.
According to the study, which can be found at http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/About/publications/working-papers/pdf/wp_08_12.pdf they used a regression analysis to determine their outcome. This isn't exactly the most powerful form of empirical evidence. In fact, it's smack-dab in the middle of the levels of evidence based practice you can have: "Outcomes" Research or ecological studies. So we're already starting off with a pretty mediocre argument. In addition, the research paper does not identify its limitations and this is an incredibly important part of any and all research; even top-notch randomized controlled trials identify the limitations of their research.
Then there is the argument that laptops are bad for a student's behavioral and academic outcomes. I'd have to strongly disagree. Technology, especially the use of computers, is an incredibly powerful tool for empowering individuals with learning, reading, and writing disabilities. As an occupational therapist who works in public schools and schools for individuals with significant developmental disabilities, cerebral palsy, and severe autism, the use of computers not only motivates many groups of students it does a great job generalizing knowledge learned in the classroom. In some cases, for example, a child with tetraplegic cerebral palsy or blindness, technology like computers with adaptive devices becomes necessary for many daily activities.
I also have a personal argument for the laptops; the quality of my public education, at least for me, was shoddy at best. Teachers at my schools were horrible at what they did; I'd say about 5% of my graduating class from high school were even taught calculus and approximately 75% of all students could barely do algebra I. It's true that a kid probably won't learn much playing Pac-Man or Space Invaders, but imagine what the kid learns when they play King's Quest (and other adventure games with the verbal command prompt), Number Munchers, RPGs that use advanced vocabulary, Balance of Power, and other games that have educational value. I completely credit knowing all of my geography from Balance of Power and Shadow President. If kids have a chance to play games that teach useful information, then it's likely that their academic and behavioral outcomes will improve.
And for the dictatorship stuff, I think that if any person or kid develops any skill using a computer they will find a way of getting around it. That's what happens anyway no matter how many restrictions are put on a computer.
Gee, thanks a lot Nixon.
Large amounts of military spending certainly makes any country potentially more dangerous, but honestly the most dangerous prospect is nuclear war. It's unlikely that any nation will attack another nation with nuclear weapons because of mutually assured destruction. If the US did go to war with China, everybody on Earth would be dead and humans would be responsible for their own extinction. Likewise if China just whimsically says, "Hey I'm going to invade Russia" - well, that would end humanity too. The only wars between nations that won't end human existence are wars where the aggressor has nukes and the defender doesn't, or if both nations don't have nukes. If we didn't have international treaties and an understanding of mutually assured destruction, it's clear that homo sapiens would have died out before a lot of us were even born.
It's good to keep an eye on military spending, but I'm getting sick of the baseless hype about a potential "China/whatever nuclear power conflict", because if there was, we'd all be dead.
There are hundreds of free textbooks, but looking through the lists briefly I was unable to find an appropriate book for my profession, which is occupational therapy. Maybe my opinion is based on a limited sample, but, how many books have been published in the last 10 years? For sure it's much, much larger than hundreds of free books that are currently online. If we took a random survey of professors in the world, would more than 5% say they posted their books online for free? In the end, it's not about whether or not the professor posts it up on the internet. The bottom line is that it needs to be accessible, so anybody, anywhere could find the right search engine, just type in the title of their book, and come up with a result that either leads the person in the right direction or supplies the material. Ideally the publisher would, even with an extra fee, allow access to the PDF on their website after verifying the purchase of the book from the consumer.
Sure this is a nice service, but it is dependent upon instructors/authors to upload books to Flat World Knowledge. Most professors, in my experience, like money more than spreading knowledge and competence. They will likely choose not to participate unless there is some incentive for them to actually upload the book PDF.
This gets back to the whole reason why some need the services Flat World Knowledge in the first place: avarice.
Publishing companies and authors could easily make their materials more accessible to professionals and students. However, they choose to use the most costly, self-enriching, wasteful, and inaccessible medium possible. Imagine how much better life would be for a person who is blind to use voice-recognition software on his or her computer to listen to his or her SAT, GRE, or national certification exam book. Why limit it just to people with blindness? What about the college student with cerebral palsy (yes, they do exist) that doesn't have the motor control to turn the pages of a book, but with a PDF and the right software, can read the text just as effectively.
I could go on forever with examples. Here's the bottom line: there is absolutely no reason for publishing companies and authors to limit their books to paper format in the first place. They can even make a profit off of this new technology. But I guess they would rather continue with current practice, which only serves to truncate innovation and progress.
Let's review the levels of evidence based practice - it's an important, new concept that is used in medical fields (taken from http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 Center for Evidence-Based Medicine) 1 = best quality 5 = worst quality
1a: Systematic reviews (with homogeneity ) of randomized controlled trials
1a-: Systematic review of randomized trials displaying worrisome heterogeneity
1b: Individual randomized controlled trials (with narrow confidence interval)
1b-: Individual randomized controlled trials (with a wide confidence interval)
1c: All or none randomized controlled trials
2a: Systematic reviews (with homogeneity) of cohort studies
2a-: Systematic reviews of cohort studies displaying worrisome heterogeneity
2b: Individual cohort study or low quality randomized controlled trials (80% follow-up)
2b-: Individual cohort study or low quality randomized controlled trials (80% follow-up / wide
confidence interval)
2c: 'Outcomes' Research; ecological studies
3a: Systematic review (with homogeneity) of case-control studies
3a-: Systematic review of case-control studies with worrisome heterogeneity
3b: Individual case-control study
4: Case-series (and poor quality cohort and case-control studies)
5: Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or 'first principles'
Sharman Lichtenstein needs to rethink her question. Would you rather have an "expert" do the medical operation or would you rather have the most effective techniques that have been affirmed by evidence-based practice guide the practitioner during the operation?
The bottom line is, learning from expert opinion is just as effective (or if you want to be pessimistic, unhelpful) as learning anything from Wikipedia. As long as Wikipedia uses credible sources when a user makes an article, I don't see how Wikipedia's credibility is diminished. I feel that Wikipedia is a good place to find general information. From the Wikipedia article you find more references, and through those references an individual will likely find what he or she is looking for. If Wikipedia wants to improve its image perhaps it should require users to provide more references when writing articles, and also provide a scale like the one posted in this message, which indicates the relative strength of the reference cited in the article. But hey, I guess that would be common sense.
Only if you already know people who work for Google and/or RedHat (and who have the ability to request or transfer the money in the first place). This is pretty much true of any organization. If there's one thing I've learned from school, college, and jobs - for the most part, everyone is completely paranoid of new ideas, new people, new standards, and just about anything novel. Also, people care about the bottom line, no matter what the subject is - the bottom line is ultimately something tangible/observable, public, and measurable. My advice is to get documentation on all of the community service that you're doing. Go the extra length to get credit for the programs you are creating. Explain in one very simple sentence what your program does. Make things easy for other people - make it easy for them to comment on your work, limit your resume to a page, and find ways of collecting data on your programs for yourself, to prove that your program gets specific results consistently. Whatever propaganda is being fed to you at high school, that college is a place where people share ideas, where people generally work together, and so forth... The reality is that colleges are oppressive places, where the only rule is work as hard as possible for as long as possible, and then use this inertia to carry you through uncertain and challenging situations. This is just my experience, but college is a place where there is rampant classism, racial discrimination, and sexual discrimination. In addition, faculty members are one of the most petty and vile people you'll ever meet, who are completely bereft of common sense. The most important thing though, is to make sure that you never, ever, under any circumstance, reveal this reality to the faculty, supervisor, or whatever totalitarian figure you come across. Figure out what they like, and then go through the motions and make them feel good, and make it seem like they are the reason you are "learning" and "changing". This is generally a good tactic to use; only answer a question if you're sure of yourself, but also allow people to correct you even if you know that you're right. Use these comments when necessary: "I totally understand", "OK", "Sounds good". Figure out what unfounded and preconceived notions they have about professionalism; emulate this, even if your superiors hypocritically say repeatedly "I can't teach people to be professional". I could probably keep going with this, but the bottom line is to keep things as simple and accessible for others as possible, and to also find ways of getting reliable information (data must be measurable and observable) reliably, in a consistent way.
Parents haven't stopped being accountable. If anything, parents are more paranoid than ever about educational outcomes. There are many parents who have kids with ADHD, ODD, and other behavioral problems that check the kid's homework, keep an eye on him or her, and promote good routines. School is fundamentally flawed - the individual needs of children will not be met unless parents make a lot of noise and stress the child's right to a free and appropriate public education. That's a huge task that parents often face alone, and it would do a world of good if there was more parent-teacher, teacher-teacher, and teacher-consultant collaboration. Think about the productive things that the kids could be doing with the computer. As long as the kids are occupied in constructive tasks and they actually enjoy what they're doing, then it's very likely that this behavior will stop.
The greatest injustice of all. How do you rotten-souled, life-hating, whining wimps sleep at night? Disability can strike at YOU any moment. Falling on your head can give you tramautic brain injury. Falling on your back can give you a spinal cord injury that could leave you barely alive on a ventilator. Yes, slashdot morons, even YOU grow old. YOU can develop Parkinsons or Alzheimers. YOU can have a myocardial infarction or a cerebrovascular accident (I'm sure you dead-heads wouldn't know what those terms mean). Disability is going to be a part of YOUR life, whether you like it or not, because YOU are going to live a long, and hopefully, meaningful life.
Wikipedia has the potential to be just as effective, if not more effective, than any other encyclopedia ever made. All a person needs is references to back up their points. It works just the same as any big research paper, thesis, or professional journal article. The more references you have, the more powerful your case is. Especially if your references contain peer reviewed articles, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses. In fact, I can see wikipedia as being a logical extension to the vast number of internet based and electronic full-text journal articles. What can be easier than looking through journals via the internet, citing their points, and putting it on a website without too many restrictions? Others can also change the website if they find new information. One way to improve the credibility of wikipedia is to mandate the use of references before you make a change to a wikipage. References can be pretty much anything, from personal communications, books, journal articles, newspapers, etc. As long as people have an organized way of showing how they came up with information, it makes the whole process more legit.