I dunno. Another company offers ONE version (two if you wanna count OSX Server) that can handle everything most people and businesses need without all the ridiculous marketing schemes (cue the "hardware lock-in" arguments in 3...2...1)
The Apple parallel is a bit off. Had Apple switch to Pentium4s, that would have been pretty hypocritical, but it was pretty universally accepted that the Core2 chip was far better than the Motorola/IBM PowerPC architecture (and the Pentium 4). So, Apple invested in the best technology, AND a much more stable future, given the PowerPC was reaching an end. The benefits of using the leading cpu out there brought down costs, making "Macs are expensive" arguments practically irrelevant, and brought dual-booting to the Mac. I've been using Macs since the 80s and the Intel switch has been the single most compelling reason to "Buy Me" since the introduction of the desktop metaphor.
Microsoft just doesn't get it. How about ONE version of your OS--maybe TWO if you want to sell an expensive, over-engineered version to gullible government agencies and big businesses. Maybe (big maybe) three, if you want to do a bare-bones/student edition.
Look, Microsoft, you have a precedent of needless complexity that is hurting your image. Take a trick from the Apple playbook and try simplifying for once.
Excellent post. That's why I advocate the German style system here in the US. I'd rather leave a few "diamonds-in-the-rough" out if that means the majority of gifted and above-average students aren't held back by a curriculum that's trying to get EVERYBODY into college, instead of just those that are really capable.
Naming machines --especially ones with different form factors-- is an easy way to differentiate them when communicating with other humans. In my house alone we have: Big Mac, Mac Sr., Mac Jr., Grohl, and Shitty_PC. Big is a large iMac, Sr. is a G4 Power Mac, Jr. is a white Macbook, Grohl is our new aluminum Macbook (long live the foo fighters) and Shitty_PC, complete with required underscore, is, well, our shitty Compaq XP machine.
I taught in the German system (granted, at Gymnasium) and think it is the most realistic approach to life, fair or not. I do think they assign them too young however, but I don't think kids in their early teens are mature enough to know/care about which schools they go to. The ones who are mature enough at that age are already going to Gymnasium anyways. The ones who get left out in the German system are the late-bloomers and the "diamonds-in-the-rough". That's why I said the US needs a system like the German one. It'll never fly though, because everybody thinks their little brat is the next Einstein, even if they are just spoiled, undisciplined little punks who run off to the skate park as soon as the first bell rings.
Good for you (seriously). However, you aren't espousing this sort of behavior as the end-all solution to society's problems. You are fortunate enough to enjoy your time the way you please and aren't using it as an excuse for your own educational inadequacies.
But there is a big difference between instilling a sense of self-respect in your kids over their entire lifetimes, and some type of edict that "parents must make their kids go to school."
If you take care of the first, the second takes care of its self, my friend. That's all I'm trying to say. And if it doesn't, than you have a parent have done nothing wrong. You can't control them 100%. You can only do your best and hope they make the right choices. The problem is many parents skip the whole "do your best" part out of self-interest, then blame the system for their own failures.
Awesome post! I wish more educators were as enlightened.
10) Social classes. Some people do not need higher education. Higher education is not for everybody.
We need a tiered education system like they have in Germany. Some kids go to higher-education institutions, some to work/study programs, some go right into apprenticeships. This system assures that the lower-tier skills are HIGHLY trained in the respective fields and that otherwise potential trouble-makers are productive members of society, WITHOUT slowing down the college kids progress at the same time (the US system). But no...in America, EVERYBODY'S child is special and no one child should be more successful than the next. Talk about setting yourself up for failure.
Only in America can an entire population be swindled into thinking their babies have to go to college!
No no no. I'm not defining hard work as anything here, only what those who espouse the culture of hard work are always shoving it in our faces due to their own shortcomings. I didn't get where I am without hard work (6 years of college, 11 years in the military) but to the small-minded person, there's no "hard work" involved in writing technical manuals or creating a training course. You don't get nowhere in life without a little elbow grease, sonny!
There are no silver platters for us non-trustfund babies, and hard work isn't reserved for jackhammer-wielding day-laborers.
Hard work doesn't necessarily equate to brute physical labor. It might very well mean sitting down and learning the material, even though it's hard, so you can get a job doing what you want to do.
While I agree 100% with what you posted, those people who espouse "hard work" are espousing the virtues of difficult physical labor, because it's what they are forced to fall back on. I live in Texas, and trust me, this backwards-thinking culture is everywhere. It's a badge of honor. If the former President can spend all his free time moving brush around from one pile to another, it must be good, right? Unless you live in Texas, you have NO idea how true that statement rings to many people. Hell, the whole concept of owning a ranch is based on the fact you drive around in your pickup truck, clearing brush. How that makes any money, I'll never understand, but judging by their trophy wives and their giant SUVs, I suppose they are doing all right.
And I'm saying reinforcing the false concept that success requires "hard" work will only net you a kid who works on a construction crew.
Work is not "hard" if it is something you love to do, are motivated to do it, and are good at doing it. Applying oneself is not the same thing as "working hard".
Well it's not always hard work. I teach my kids to work smart, not hard (grammar jokes aside). I never understood the mentality that success requires "hard work". If that were true, why do all the "hard work" jobs pay less than jobs like mine (tech writer, sitting at a desk, typing all day). My kids' step-dad is a subscriber to the "hard work" mentality and my kids spend their Saturdays moving brush from one pile to another (the GW Bush method of relaxation, I suppose).
Well that's an easy one--parent's are ego-maniacs, and the ones with crappy students for kids were probably crappy students themselves. These are the same people that plaster pics of their (mostly ugly) children on their Facebook pages, as if we really care that YOU TOO were able to reproduce. Congratulations. No pay attention to your kid's (mostly bad) school habits, so they don't grow up and produced more (mostly crappy) students themselves.
One of the reasons I despise the status-quo of Microsoft OSes is because people just accept computing has to be difficult, when it obviously doesn't always have to be hyper-complex. I gets so bad, that when people try Linux or OSX, they think it sucks, because it isn't the "Microsoft way".
I think this is also why you get so many MS vs. Mac flame wars going on--just a different approach to computing. What confuses me is why people like my Dad (an ijit with a computer) are so staunchly pro-Microsoft, yet my dad spends half of every conversation complaining about his Microsoft-powered computing experience.
That's interesting, because it reads as if the rich white kids have better schools because they have more money for their schools from the higher tax-base. I agree that property-tax revenues should apply across an entire municipal area, not just for the school in YOUR respective neighborhood, and that will fix a lot of problems. But if you think it's a good idea too, then certainly you must accept that it IS about money, otherwise why would you advocate moving money from well-off districts to low-income schools?
But I do agree with you on one premise; schools are as good or as bad as you make of them.
k, so the guy is so brilliant, why isn't he the one with the multi-million dollar program trying to improve the school system?
Because intellect and income aren't correlated? Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are both pretty rich, but I doubt anybody who isn't a total partisan would argue that either of these men are flag-bearers of educational excellence.
Tada. You've uncovered the secret of life. Poor kids live in poor houses which generate very low levels of property taxes, so the schools in that district have less money. How is that the "rich, suburban, white flight" schools' fault? We should punish the suburban parents for applying themselves, getting good jobs and buying nice houses in areas that have nice schools so their kids can get a good education? How does that help poor schools? That sounds more like dumbing everything down just to bring a few troubled schools up to average. That's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.
I'm not a conservative, but placing the curricular focus on "social justice, equity and community", you have to sacrifice other, more important areas that are founded in fact (like science). Who's idea of justice do you teach? Most schools have adequate emphasis on social justice already. Community is pretty lame, since we've been trying to teach diversity for years (I agree with that approach), but now we are tying to ditch diversity for community homogeneity? Trying to shoe-horn a redneck kid into the community norms of an upscale school district goes against the whole purpose of celebrating diversity.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno. Another company offers ONE version (two if you wanna count OSX Server) that can handle everything most people and businesses need without all the ridiculous marketing schemes (cue the "hardware lock-in" arguments in 3...2...1)
The Apple parallel is a bit off. Had Apple switch to Pentium4s, that would have been pretty hypocritical, but it was pretty universally accepted that the Core2 chip was far better than the Motorola/IBM PowerPC architecture (and the Pentium 4). So, Apple invested in the best technology, AND a much more stable future, given the PowerPC was reaching an end. The benefits of using the leading cpu out there brought down costs, making "Macs are expensive" arguments practically irrelevant, and brought dual-booting to the Mac. I've been using Macs since the 80s and the Intel switch has been the single most compelling reason to "Buy Me" since the introduction of the desktop metaphor.
Microsoft just doesn't get it. How about ONE version of your OS--maybe TWO if you want to sell an expensive, over-engineered version to gullible government agencies and big businesses. Maybe (big maybe) three, if you want to do a bare-bones/student edition.
Look, Microsoft, you have a precedent of needless complexity that is hurting your image. Take a trick from the Apple playbook and try simplifying for once.
Excellent post. That's why I advocate the German style system here in the US. I'd rather leave a few "diamonds-in-the-rough" out if that means the majority of gifted and above-average students aren't held back by a curriculum that's trying to get EVERYBODY into college, instead of just those that are really capable.
Naming machines --especially ones with different form factors-- is an easy way to differentiate them when communicating with other humans. In my house alone we have: Big Mac, Mac Sr., Mac Jr., Grohl, and Shitty_PC. Big is a large iMac, Sr. is a G4 Power Mac, Jr. is a white Macbook, Grohl is our new aluminum Macbook (long live the foo fighters) and Shitty_PC, complete with required underscore, is, well, our shitty Compaq XP machine.
I taught in the German system (granted, at Gymnasium) and think it is the most realistic approach to life, fair or not. I do think they assign them too young however, but I don't think kids in their early teens are mature enough to know/care about which schools they go to. The ones who are mature enough at that age are already going to Gymnasium anyways. The ones who get left out in the German system are the late-bloomers and the "diamonds-in-the-rough". That's why I said the US needs a system like the German one. It'll never fly though, because everybody thinks their little brat is the next Einstein, even if they are just spoiled, undisciplined little punks who run off to the skate park as soon as the first bell rings.
Good for you (seriously). However, you aren't espousing this sort of behavior as the end-all solution to society's problems. You are fortunate enough to enjoy your time the way you please and aren't using it as an excuse for your own educational inadequacies.
But there is a big difference between instilling a sense of self-respect in your kids over their entire lifetimes, and some type of edict that "parents must make their kids go to school."
If you take care of the first, the second takes care of its self, my friend. That's all I'm trying to say. And if it doesn't, than you have a parent have done nothing wrong. You can't control them 100%. You can only do your best and hope they make the right choices. The problem is many parents skip the whole "do your best" part out of self-interest, then blame the system for their own failures.
Your signature makes my point nicely.
Awesome post! I wish more educators were as enlightened.
10) Social classes. Some people do not need higher education. Higher education is not for everybody.
We need a tiered education system like they have in Germany. Some kids go to higher-education institutions, some to work/study programs, some go right into apprenticeships. This system assures that the lower-tier skills are HIGHLY trained in the respective fields and that otherwise potential trouble-makers are productive members of society, WITHOUT slowing down the college kids progress at the same time (the US system). But no...in America, EVERYBODY'S child is special and no one child should be more successful than the next. Talk about setting yourself up for failure.
Only in America can an entire population be swindled into thinking their babies have to go to college!
Also, "mandatory" equals "not fun" to almost every kid I've ever met.
I think that's why the DoE has carefully worded it as "Compulsory" ;-)
No no no. I'm not defining hard work as anything here, only what those who espouse the culture of hard work are always shoving it in our faces due to their own shortcomings. I didn't get where I am without hard work (6 years of college, 11 years in the military) but to the small-minded person, there's no "hard work" involved in writing technical manuals or creating a training course. You don't get nowhere in life without a little elbow grease, sonny!
There are no silver platters for us non-trustfund babies, and hard work isn't reserved for jackhammer-wielding day-laborers.
And just how do parents make kids go to school?
Well if you have to ask that, you've probably gone horribly wrong as a parent years ago.
Hard work doesn't necessarily equate to brute physical labor. It might very well mean sitting down and learning the material, even though it's hard, so you can get a job doing what you want to do.
While I agree 100% with what you posted, those people who espouse "hard work" are espousing the virtues of difficult physical labor, because it's what they are forced to fall back on. I live in Texas, and trust me, this backwards-thinking culture is everywhere. It's a badge of honor. If the former President can spend all his free time moving brush around from one pile to another, it must be good, right? Unless you live in Texas, you have NO idea how true that statement rings to many people. Hell, the whole concept of owning a ranch is based on the fact you drive around in your pickup truck, clearing brush. How that makes any money, I'll never understand, but judging by their trophy wives and their giant SUVs, I suppose they are doing all right.
And I'm saying reinforcing the false concept that success requires "hard" work will only net you a kid who works on a construction crew.
Work is not "hard" if it is something you love to do, are motivated to do it, and are good at doing it. Applying oneself is not the same thing as "working hard".
I have no problem with local police jamming cell signals, as long as they are jamming all the idiots yapping on their phones while driving.
What about the whole part where going to prison means being deprived of things that people NOT in prison get to enjoy? Or is that too inhumane?
You Barney Fifes don't need to violate FCC rules in the name of "the law"!
So change the FCC regulation to allow it? But then again, you'd have nobody to yell FUCK YOU at, I suppose.
Well it's not always hard work. I teach my kids to work smart, not hard (grammar jokes aside). I never understood the mentality that success requires "hard work". If that were true, why do all the "hard work" jobs pay less than jobs like mine (tech writer, sitting at a desk, typing all day). My kids' step-dad is a subscriber to the "hard work" mentality and my kids spend their Saturdays moving brush from one pile to another (the GW Bush method of relaxation, I suppose).
Well that's an easy one--parent's are ego-maniacs, and the ones with crappy students for kids were probably crappy students themselves. These are the same people that plaster pics of their (mostly ugly) children on their Facebook pages, as if we really care that YOU TOO were able to reproduce. Congratulations. No pay attention to your kid's (mostly bad) school habits, so they don't grow up and produced more (mostly crappy) students themselves.
One of the reasons I despise the status-quo of Microsoft OSes is because people just accept computing has to be difficult, when it obviously doesn't always have to be hyper-complex. I gets so bad, that when people try Linux or OSX, they think it sucks, because it isn't the "Microsoft way".
I think this is also why you get so many MS vs. Mac flame wars going on--just a different approach to computing. What confuses me is why people like my Dad (an ijit with a computer) are so staunchly pro-Microsoft, yet my dad spends half of every conversation complaining about his Microsoft-powered computing experience.
That's interesting, because it reads as if the rich white kids have better schools because they have more money for their schools from the higher tax-base. I agree that property-tax revenues should apply across an entire municipal area, not just for the school in YOUR respective neighborhood, and that will fix a lot of problems. But if you think it's a good idea too, then certainly you must accept that it IS about money, otherwise why would you advocate moving money from well-off districts to low-income schools?
But I do agree with you on one premise; schools are as good or as bad as you make of them.
k, so the guy is so brilliant, why isn't he the one with the multi-million dollar program trying to improve the school system?
Because intellect and income aren't correlated? Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are both pretty rich, but I doubt anybody who isn't a total partisan would argue that either of these men are flag-bearers of educational excellence.
Tada. You've uncovered the secret of life. Poor kids live in poor houses which generate very low levels of property taxes, so the schools in that district have less money. How is that the "rich, suburban, white flight" schools' fault? We should punish the suburban parents for applying themselves, getting good jobs and buying nice houses in areas that have nice schools so their kids can get a good education? How does that help poor schools? That sounds more like dumbing everything down just to bring a few troubled schools up to average. That's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.
I'm not a conservative, but placing the curricular focus on "social justice, equity and community", you have to sacrifice other, more important areas that are founded in fact (like science). Who's idea of justice do you teach? Most schools have adequate emphasis on social justice already. Community is pretty lame, since we've been trying to teach diversity for years (I agree with that approach), but now we are tying to ditch diversity for community homogeneity? Trying to shoe-horn a redneck kid into the community norms of an upscale school district goes against the whole purpose of celebrating diversity.