The digital divide is not really in the schools (nearly all schools in America have high speed Internet and access to computers -- roughly 96% as long ago as 2005, probably closer to 99% now). It's the home where the divide exists. Even if you do get poor kids a computer in the home, chances are the parents can't help.
This is not an education problem, it's an economics/societal problem.
I tried to predict the cause before reading the TFA, and that was pretty much what I guessed. It simply doesn't make sense to say, "if you give a child a tool that (presumably) helps them learn, they will learn less".
I'M NOT FUCKING ARGUING, YOU DUMBASS. I'm telling you that your assumption that speeding is not a valid measurement of recklessness. That's ALL. There's no lying. There's no misattributing what you said, because I QUOTED you.
When I say, let's start from the beginning, that means quit confounding the issue with your personal rants and get back to the source of the problem: you think you can simply measure the subjects driving home by affixing a GPS to their car and then make a faulty causative analysis that, because they played video games, their speed increased, which makes them reckless drivers. All you can prove in that model is that indeed, their speeds increased after playing video games.
It is YOUR responsibility as a researcher to show that this is true, otherwise your study is biased.
They did the study, not me.
NO!!!!! You just said:
Oh, and speeding does indicate reckless driving. Everything else the same, higher speed is less safe. So it's a great measure, better than counting tickets arbitrarily handed out.
YOU said that. That is YOUR quote. It is YOUR responsibility as the researcher to prove this is true, either through empirical evidence and persuasive persentation. You have done neither.
I was proposing adjustments to theirs to make it better
And you made it worse by introducing poor measurements that you refuse to address in the thousands of words you have written so far. You've only posted this so far:
Oh, and speeding does indicate reckless driving. Everything else the same, higher speed is less safe. So it's a great measure, better than counting tickets arbitrarily handed out.
Which is wrong. This is not arguable.
and you defended theirs
Citation please. Their study sucks. The only good think about the article is the last paragraph that says there's not relationship between video games and reckless driving.
that and attacked mine with arguments that are more applicable to the study you defended than mine.
Precisely because the exact parts of your post that I quoted, you dismissed as being part of TFA, when indeed they were your OWN words. Again, I quoted YOU, not the TFA.
You never addressed the point that I was proposing things to improve their study.
I cited your three faulty premises...like 5 times now. Because you can't stop ranting and see that, you are indeed an idiot. You can't claim on one hand that I didn't even read TFA, and then on the other claim I'm supporting or critiquing TFA (the fact that you've accused me of both at the same time is a good demonstration of your ranting.
Do you think you know more what I meant than I did?
Sure don't. That's why I quoted EXACTLY what YOU said and have kept conversation to that. You, on the other hand seem to need your meds to stay on topic.
How can you know what's in my mind and I don't?
That's the problem. You don't know what's in your head.
Why won't you honor your word?
Because I'm a filthy liar who sets out only to deceive...or, I actually teach research design (there, I did it...appeal to authority logical fallacy) and have had lots of fun using your flawed logic as examples of bad design for future classes.
Dude, you are blinded by your fanaticism and general lack of maturity. Nobody is lying and this isn't an argument that is to be won or lost. It's a simple criticism of a glaring flaw in your design. You want to make it an argument that is winnable and I'm just telling you that you need to study research design a little more closely.
You should start with your flawed causative analysis:
Oh, and speeding does indicate reckless driving. Everything else the same, higher speed is less safe. So it's a great measure, better than counting tickets arbitrarily handed out.
It is YOUR responsibility as a researcher to show that this is true, otherwise your study is biased. But thanks for FINALLY addressing one of the specific flaws I have identified.
When you fix that, we can move on to your measurement of outcomes and analysis of results sections. But, like I've said several times now, starting with a flawed causative analysis renders the rest of the design invalid.
And yes, I do call people liars a lot. For one, name a single person you know that has never lied, ever. Don't know one? Me neither. And have no not noticed people who like to engage in rhetorical games? Playing devils advocate is usually done in a lying way because people misrepresent their own opinion in order to deceive others, then say "just kidding" when they are challenged. Or those that engage in hyperbole (white lies) to show their side better.
So there we have it...you simply don't understand critical thinking and like a recalcitrant 6-year old, you revert to name-calling.
But then, it's a side effect of the US justice system (not blaming the justice system just that it's the publicized thing that it seems discussions on the Internet try to be). It's the adversarial system. Where "winning" is more important than the truth. No one cares what the truth is, and no one works toward it. Instead, it's a game of what you can "prove" under the rules allotted. It might make an efficient justice system, but it devolves into people like you who think themselves honorable while lying and selling out their personal ethics to win an argument with some anonymous person. Hypocritical liars out for "wins" rather than actually discussing issues.
Wow, that's a doozy of a rant. Well played. Sorry I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have your very undeveloped intellect to think this way.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Honor your word and actually discuss what you said you would. But no, that would be expecting too much. To expect you to un-lie is silly.
Perhaps I could try to un-lie if, in fact, you could point out where I've lied in the first place?
You've already committed to whatever fabricated logic you've picked to justify lying in order to win, and I wouldn't expect someone to actually honor their word once they've already broken it. That would require that they not only admit they were wrong, but wrong twice, and someone who lies to win arguments isn't likely to do the one, let alone do it twice.
Yay! I win by lying! This feels awesome! Wait, what did I win again? I actually feel like I've lost.....a ton of time responding to a ranting idiot.
What denial? We are a country of 300 million. I bet there are more soccer fans in the US than there are in a small population country where 95% of the country are soccer fans.
But United States is less specific than America. I think Mexico calls themselves the United States of Mexico, and I'm sure other countries do the same.
I don't know any North or South American countries that use the term America or American in their title, though (doesn't mean they don't exist, just sayin').
Also, in Arabic, it's Amreeka OR Weelayat alMutahida --which is Estados Unidos and Vereinigte Staaten"-- In any case, I can't think of another "American" country that uses America in their title. I'm open for suggestions, though, because I'm most likely wrong.
Yes, but the A in USA (the official title of our country btw) is America. Does Chile call themselves the Uniformed Alliance of Chilean America? Are you going to get confused if I say America? Does he mean the US, or does he mean Chile?
The rest of the world calls us some form of "Amerika" in their own native languages, so why can't we?
Also, in Europe, you guys consider North and South America to be one continent, but we consider them to be two. So when North America consists of Canada, USA, and Mexico, I don't feel guilty calling ourselves America.
Not to mention that "passes that ultimately lead to a shot" can be upwards of 10-15 passes on a good team. Does everyone in the chain of 15 passes that lead to a goal get a point?
I think the article is trying to put statistics to individuals to evaluate their performance. The statistics you provided in your example are already tracked and reported on.
That's what's great about soccer though. You can dominate all the stats, time-of-possession, corner kicks, chances...but all that matters is goals. It's the ultimate "bottom line" sport, which gives fans lots of time to bitch and complain about "we should have won because...". It's fun.
In American football, we inflate the scores. If you get it across the goal line, you get SIX points. If you can't run/catch it past that line, but decide to kick it in instead, you get THREE points.
If you break down an American football game typical score like 24-17 into 1 point for running/catching ball past the goal line and half a point for kicking it, that would be something like 3.5-2.5, which is roughly equivalent to a 1-nil victory in soccer.
I stand alone against my countrymen in this argument. Bigger is not better, my fellow Americans.
I have to take you on about the long game play though. The reason for the long games (three hours) is television and commercials. That's another reason soccer is not popular in the US, because it would require the TV channels to broadcast two uninterrupted 45 minute halves. Since TV here is dominated by advertisement money, soccer isn't financially viable for the networks because they can't sell commercials during the game.
Yes, you can prove that the ball isn't being kicked "back and forth" by watching 15 minutes of match analysis. The English shows are very good at this (when Rupert Murdoch doesn't have a pay-per-view monopoly) as are the Germans. I imagine the Spanish and Italians are too. American sports tv? Not so much, and and that's why we don't like soccer because all we see is a ball being kicked back and forth. It's just like my English friends who think US Football is just running into a pile then resting for 30 seconds.
I challenge you to put a soccer ball on the ground from thirty yards and kick it into an empty net. "Dumb luck"...not so much.
In other news, NASCAR is nothing but dumb luck and guys endlessly driving in circles.
Drug addicts? Racist much? I think the NFL does a good job at keeping illicit drugs AND performance enhancing drugs out of the league.
And not very many NFL athletes "fail out of high school". As a matter of fact, very few NFL players get into the NFL without going to college. Would you like to tell me about the 16-year old English phenoms, how they go right into EPL feeder leagues, and how THEIR education worked out for them after failing A-levels and finishing school at 16?
I play soccer and not football, but I'm not going to pretend that the reason more people in the world play soccer because it's hard. More people play soccer in the world because it's relatively easy and all you need is a flat space and a round object. Because it is easy (but hard to perfect) is what makes it the beautiful game. NFL football is not subtle but it is not easy. I played in a third-tier professional German soccer league (as an American), but regardless of my skill, I'd never be able to play professional American Football at ANY level.
You are sad. I'm at least the third or fourth person you accuse of lying, just looking at your other posts.
There's nothing to "win" here, I'm not trying to get you to "admit" anything, and all you are doing is showing the world that you have a maturity and intellect problem.
..there is no objective measure of "reckless driving." So average speed, tickets, fatalities, etc. are all not exact indicators. "Reckless driving" is a subjective measure that can never be fully represented by objective numbers because it isn't objective.
Thanks. You finally get it. That has been my point from my first post. I'm not sure why you've dragged this (and many other discussion threads, apparently,looking at your user info) into an argument, when I'm merely here for a discussion.
Now let me address where you explicitly endorse the article's premise that driving faster equates to reckless driving. In your own words:
You then have them do this over a two year period, and note the crash rate and fatality rate of your subjects, as well as any encounters with the police for driving activities.
have 100 people come in and have 25 play Mario Kart for 2 hours, 25 play GTA, 25 play Tetris, and 25 play Forza and then measure their average speeds on the way home (plant a GPS system without them knowing or something).
A significant result would indicate a causal relationship between gaming and speeding.
Enjoy the rest of your arguments on slashdot. I'm off to other threads that are more productive.
Common sense is over rated. I'm learning that I don't have much in common with people who think common sense is inherently good. It may be common, but it's rarely good.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter because nobody seems to care any more. They're quite happy to put all their private details, thoughts & photos on Facebook, set the profile to public and then set up their status to constantly update with their GPS co-ordinates and even when they *do* know about the potential consequences, they just don't seem at all concerned.
Yes. This is exactly how we non-paranoids on the planet operate.
In some cases, it's the arrogance of youth. In other cases, it persists for most of their life.
Awesome. I'm going to use this.
I've found the most arrogant of youths suffer from this persistence for the rest of their lives. Often when I think a teenager has posted here on slashdot, it turns out to be a 45 year old guy.
I've got a perfect example. I'm pretty intelligent. I work in the software industry and have a graduate degree. I don't, however, have any idea what "OT" means in your post.
Does that make me any less intelligent? For the record, I do understand stfu, so I will do so now.
Slashdot Mirror
Or forwarding the notes to other people. Much faster if you take a little more time to put it in your iPhone and then email it to people.
The digital divide is not really in the schools (nearly all schools in America have high speed Internet and access to computers -- roughly 96% as long ago as 2005, probably closer to 99% now). It's the home where the divide exists. Even if you do get poor kids a computer in the home, chances are the parents can't help.
This is not an education problem, it's an economics/societal problem.
I tried to predict the cause before reading the TFA, and that was pretty much what I guessed. It simply doesn't make sense to say, "if you give a child a tool that (presumably) helps them learn, they will learn less".
Ha! That was actually really funny. Can't believe nobody commended you. Nicely played.
Arguing through deception is lying.
I'M NOT FUCKING ARGUING, YOU DUMBASS. I'm telling you that your assumption that speeding is not a valid measurement of recklessness. That's ALL. There's no lying. There's no misattributing what you said, because I QUOTED you.
When I say, let's start from the beginning, that means quit confounding the issue with your personal rants and get back to the source of the problem: you think you can simply measure the subjects driving home by affixing a GPS to their car and then make a faulty causative analysis that, because they played video games, their speed increased, which makes them reckless drivers. All you can prove in that model is that indeed, their speeds increased after playing video games.
It is YOUR responsibility as a researcher to show that this is true, otherwise your study is biased.
They did the study, not me.
NO!!!!! You just said:
Oh, and speeding does indicate reckless driving. Everything else the same, higher speed is less safe. So it's a great measure, better than counting tickets arbitrarily handed out.
YOU said that. That is YOUR quote. It is YOUR responsibility as the researcher to prove this is true, either through empirical evidence and persuasive persentation. You have done neither.
I was proposing adjustments to theirs to make it better
And you made it worse by introducing poor measurements that you refuse to address in the thousands of words you have written so far. You've only posted this so far:
Oh, and speeding does indicate reckless driving. Everything else the same, higher speed is less safe. So it's a great measure, better than counting tickets arbitrarily handed out.
Which is wrong. This is not arguable.
and you defended theirs
Citation please. Their study sucks. The only good think about the article is the last paragraph that says there's not relationship between video games and reckless driving.
that and attacked mine with arguments that are more applicable to the study you defended than mine.
Precisely because the exact parts of your post that I quoted, you dismissed as being part of TFA, when indeed they were your OWN words. Again, I quoted YOU, not the TFA.
You never addressed the point that I was proposing things to improve their study.
I cited your three faulty premises...like 5 times now. Because you can't stop ranting and see that, you are indeed an idiot. You can't claim on one hand that I didn't even read TFA, and then on the other claim I'm supporting or critiquing TFA (the fact that you've accused me of both at the same time is a good demonstration of your ranting.
Do you think you know more what I meant than I did?
Sure don't. That's why I quoted EXACTLY what YOU said and have kept conversation to that. You, on the other hand seem to need your meds to stay on topic.
How can you know what's in my mind and I don't?
That's the problem. You don't know what's in your head.
Why won't you honor your word?
Because I'm a filthy liar who sets out only to deceive...or, I actually teach research design (there, I did it...appeal to authority logical fallacy) and have had lots of fun using your flawed logic as examples of bad design for future classes.
Dude, you are blinded by your fanaticism and general lack of maturity. Nobody is lying and this isn't an argument that is to be won or lost. It's a simple criticism of a glaring flaw in your design. You want to make it an argument that is winnable and I'm just telling you that you need to study research design a little more closely.
You should start with your flawed causative analysis:
Oh, and speeding does indicate reckless driving. Everything else the same, higher speed is less safe. So it's a great measure, better than counting tickets arbitrarily handed out.
It is YOUR responsibility as a researcher to show that this is true, otherwise your study is biased. But thanks for FINALLY addressing one of the specific flaws I have identified.
When you fix that, we can move on to your measurement of outcomes and analysis of results sections. But, like I've said several times now, starting with a flawed causative analysis renders the rest of the design invalid.
And yes, I do call people liars a lot. For one, name a single person you know that has never lied, ever. Don't know one? Me neither. And have no not noticed people who like to engage in rhetorical games? Playing devils advocate is usually done in a lying way because people misrepresent their own opinion in order to deceive others, then say "just kidding" when they are challenged. Or those that engage in hyperbole (white lies) to show their side better.
So there we have it...you simply don't understand critical thinking and like a recalcitrant 6-year old, you revert to name-calling.
But then, it's a side effect of the US justice system (not blaming the justice system just that it's the publicized thing that it seems discussions on the Internet try to be). It's the adversarial system. Where "winning" is more important than the truth. No one cares what the truth is, and no one works toward it. Instead, it's a game of what you can "prove" under the rules allotted. It might make an efficient justice system, but it devolves into people like you who think themselves honorable while lying and selling out their personal ethics to win an argument with some anonymous person. Hypocritical liars out for "wins" rather than actually discussing issues.
Wow, that's a doozy of a rant. Well played. Sorry I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have your very undeveloped intellect to think this way.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Honor your word and actually discuss what you said you would. But no, that would be expecting too much. To expect you to un-lie is silly.
Perhaps I could try to un-lie if, in fact, you could point out where I've lied in the first place?
You've already committed to whatever fabricated logic you've picked to justify lying in order to win, and I wouldn't expect someone to actually honor their word once they've already broken it. That would require that they not only admit they were wrong, but wrong twice, and someone who lies to win arguments isn't likely to do the one, let alone do it twice.
Yay! I win by lying! This feels awesome! Wait, what did I win again? I actually feel like I've lost.....a ton of time responding to a ranting idiot.
There's also that.
What denial? We are a country of 300 million. I bet there are more soccer fans in the US than there are in a small population country where 95% of the country are soccer fans.
But United States is less specific than America. I think Mexico calls themselves the United States of Mexico, and I'm sure other countries do the same.
I don't know any North or South American countries that use the term America or American in their title, though (doesn't mean they don't exist, just sayin').
Also, in Arabic, it's Amreeka OR Weelayat alMutahida --which is Estados Unidos and Vereinigte Staaten"-- In any case, I can't think of another "American" country that uses America in their title. I'm open for suggestions, though, because I'm most likely wrong.
Yes, but the A in USA (the official title of our country btw) is America. Does Chile call themselves the Uniformed Alliance of Chilean America? Are you going to get confused if I say America? Does he mean the US, or does he mean Chile?
The rest of the world calls us some form of "Amerika" in their own native languages, so why can't we?
Also, in Europe, you guys consider North and South America to be one continent, but we consider them to be two. So when North America consists of Canada, USA, and Mexico, I don't feel guilty calling ourselves America.
If you've watched any English match in the past decade,
I tried to watch EPL when I lived in England from 2005-2008, but Rupert Murdoch made sure that wouldn't happen.
Not to mention that "passes that ultimately lead to a shot" can be upwards of 10-15 passes on a good team. Does everyone in the chain of 15 passes that lead to a goal get a point?
I think the article is trying to put statistics to individuals to evaluate their performance. The statistics you provided in your example are already tracked and reported on.
That's what's great about soccer though. You can dominate all the stats, time-of-possession, corner kicks, chances...but all that matters is goals. It's the ultimate "bottom line" sport, which gives fans lots of time to bitch and complain about "we should have won because...". It's fun.
In American football, we inflate the scores. If you get it across the goal line, you get SIX points. If you can't run/catch it past that line, but decide to kick it in instead, you get THREE points.
If you break down an American football game typical score like 24-17 into 1 point for running/catching ball past the goal line and half a point for kicking it, that would be something like 3.5-2.5, which is roughly equivalent to a 1-nil victory in soccer.
I stand alone against my countrymen in this argument. Bigger is not better, my fellow Americans.
I have to take you on about the long game play though. The reason for the long games (three hours) is television and commercials. That's another reason soccer is not popular in the US, because it would require the TV channels to broadcast two uninterrupted 45 minute halves. Since TV here is dominated by advertisement money, soccer isn't financially viable for the networks because they can't sell commercials during the game.
Yes, you can prove that the ball isn't being kicked "back and forth" by watching 15 minutes of match analysis. The English shows are very good at this (when Rupert Murdoch doesn't have a pay-per-view monopoly) as are the Germans. I imagine the Spanish and Italians are too. American sports tv? Not so much, and and that's why we don't like soccer because all we see is a ball being kicked back and forth. It's just like my English friends who think US Football is just running into a pile then resting for 30 seconds.
I challenge you to put a soccer ball on the ground from thirty yards and kick it into an empty net. "Dumb luck"...not so much.
In other news, NASCAR is nothing but dumb luck and guys endlessly driving in circles.
Drug addicts? Racist much? I think the NFL does a good job at keeping illicit drugs AND performance enhancing drugs out of the league.
And not very many NFL athletes "fail out of high school". As a matter of fact, very few NFL players get into the NFL without going to college. Would you like to tell me about the 16-year old English phenoms, how they go right into EPL feeder leagues, and how THEIR education worked out for them after failing A-levels and finishing school at 16?
I play soccer and not football, but I'm not going to pretend that the reason more people in the world play soccer because it's hard. More people play soccer in the world because it's relatively easy and all you need is a flat space and a round object. Because it is easy (but hard to perfect) is what makes it the beautiful game. NFL football is not subtle but it is not easy. I played in a third-tier professional German soccer league (as an American), but regardless of my skill, I'd never be able to play professional American Football at ANY level.
And a lot of us Americans also give a fuck.
Trying to measure a qualitative activity with quantitative tools is meaningless.
You are sad. I'm at least the third or fourth person you accuse of lying, just looking at your other posts.
There's nothing to "win" here, I'm not trying to get you to "admit" anything, and all you are doing is showing the world that you have a maturity and intellect problem.
..there is no objective measure of "reckless driving." So average speed, tickets, fatalities, etc. are all not exact indicators. "Reckless driving" is a subjective measure that can never be fully represented by objective numbers because it isn't objective.
Thanks. You finally get it. That has been my point from my first post. I'm not sure why you've dragged this (and many other discussion threads, apparently,looking at your user info) into an argument, when I'm merely here for a discussion.
Now let me address where you explicitly endorse the article's premise that driving faster equates to reckless driving. In your own words:
You then have them do this over a two year period, and note the crash rate and fatality rate of your subjects, as well as any encounters with the police for driving activities.
have 100 people come in and have 25 play Mario Kart for 2 hours, 25 play GTA, 25 play Tetris, and 25 play Forza and then measure their average speeds on the way home (plant a GPS system without them knowing or something).
A significant result would indicate a causal relationship between gaming and speeding.
Enjoy the rest of your arguments on slashdot. I'm off to other threads that are more productive.
Common sense is over rated. I'm learning that I don't have much in common with people who think common sense is inherently good. It may be common, but it's rarely good.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter because nobody seems to care any more. They're quite happy to put all their private details, thoughts & photos on Facebook, set the profile to public and then set up their status to constantly update with their GPS co-ordinates and even when they *do* know about the potential consequences, they just don't seem at all concerned.
Yes. This is exactly how we non-paranoids on the planet operate.
In some cases, it's the arrogance of youth. In other cases, it persists for most of their life.
Awesome. I'm going to use this.
I've found the most arrogant of youths suffer from this persistence for the rest of their lives. Often when I think a teenager has posted here on slashdot, it turns out to be a 45 year old guy.
I've got a perfect example. I'm pretty intelligent. I work in the software industry and have a graduate degree. I don't, however, have any idea what "OT" means in your post.
Does that make me any less intelligent? For the record, I do understand stfu, so I will do so now.