Well, first of all, morality is not universal. Morality is a construction. In reality, you can do anything you want. Only you decide to limit yourself for selected reasons.
Secondly, Princeofcups said that the "thieves" were not targeting their own people. They were targeting other rich countries that are "criminally" rich in the opinion of the "thieves". In this scenario, you don't really care about the well being of your enemy because you believe that you deserve it.
Well, at first the idea seems good. However, teachers being already paid by the government, you could say that they are already being paid indirectly by the students. Or at least, the parents of the students.
Also, the whole system of keeping track of who was the student of who would need a lot of bureaucracy. We'd have to check if it's really worth all that money.
Finally, if you suggest students give monetary donations once they succeed, that would be a true honor and compliment for us teachers. The problem is they'd probably only truly remember the more recent teachers that taught them. I don't think that would be fair. Though elementary school teachers don't have to be as specialized in a field as university professors, you do have to compensate by being a generalist that studies everything in your spare time because you are teaching everything by yourself.
So, your idea is good, especially when I start to think about the money I'd make if one of my pupils became the leader of my country, or the leader of a big corporation, but it might be impossible to implement.
Has a teacher myself I have to ask, how would performance be evaluated when the result is long term?
Marks? Then every teacher will give high marks to everyone to get a raise.
Well liked or not? Then every teacher will be the student's best friend and kid around and not discipline anyone. Students wont really be able to learn anything, but boy teachers will be loved and the salaries will go up for everyone!
Objectives to be attained? All right, but classes are not equal. What do you do with a class that ends up having more slow learners? And how unfair for that teacher to get a raise because he stumbled on a class with fast students!
How would you propose we evaluate teachers because that question is being asked everywhere, but we have yet to find a proper answer.
Before the age of 12, during elementary school, I can attest that kids learn a lot and succeed very much. I don't understand why you are saying they are so comparatively unsuccessful at learning. Between the ages of 0 to 4, the only things kids learn is how to speak and the basic laws of the universe and of their surroundings by trial and error. If we compare that to everything kids learn in elementary school and how fast they learn it, they do learn much more in the system.
However, between the ages of 12 to 18, the game is completely different. It is at this stage that they start to get fed up with school and want to work and earn money. It is also to these kids that the author of the book you are recommending was teaching. In the province of Quebec, our dropout rate is 29% if this article is to be believed: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/600889 . Maybe the solution is to give them more freedom and put them in charge of their education. Now, would they be responsible enough to do this? I don't know. They wouldn't be able to blame the system for their failures though.
I stand corrected. Though you must admit that after reading a short excerpt of Mr. Capote, that man was not average. He taught himself to read and write before first grade and was walking with a dictionary in his hands.
We can't build an education system to teach the mass based on a few gifted students. In the same way, we can't build an education system to teach the mass based on a those few that are slow learners.
A teacher will usually give fun extra work for the gifted kids that want to learn more. I did have a few truly interested 5 years old students once and taught them about the rain cycle. They were captivated. Though you have to time your lesson because after 15 minutes they lose interest and want to play. I must reiterate that the vast majority will sadly go straight for the games.
Well, it is true the situation in Canada and the United-States is probably not the same. I'll have to read that book before I can make any conclusive comment and I'll make sure to read it.
I do believe kids are learning much more things while being taught by a "coach" (aka a teacher) though and I am skeptical that kids taught themselves to read. Surely, at least a parent or nanny was involved. I'll have to check the source on that to understand the author's point. He might only be criticizing lectures. And sadly, it is scientifically proven that people don't really learn that much simply by listening to a teacher during one hour. They forget everything after two weeks. That's why we have to make exercises and that's why we have to coach the students during these.
Again, I agree that the current system is not perfect, but it works. The science of education is always trying to find new and better ways to make people learn, but it's not as easy as it seems.
As an elementary school teacher myself, I have to respond.
The first lesson I teach is: "Stay in the class where you belong."
True, but I could also say the first lesson is "You have to learn and not only play. Let's face it, they are kids and they want to play. They don't care about maths, science, politics, music, etc. They want to play. Ask any kid what they'd rather do between learning and playing, and they'll want to play. As a teacher, I have to make sure I teach in a fun and playful way so that it becomes almost like a game, if not a game itself, but it's a hell of a challenge.
The second lesson I teach kids is to turn on and off like a light switch.
True and false. In the morning we might do maths, then in the afternoon we might do grammar. It's still too long for the kids, yet too short for the teacher. So, I understand that as adults we might perceive this has forcing them to turn on and off as required, but the kids need variety. They don't have the attention and patience adults have. I say, let's finish the cool project tomorrow instead of doing everything the same day and being bored with it at the end of the day.
The third lesson I teach you is to surrender your will to a predestined chain of command.
Parents already do this before elementary school. It's part of learning how to behave. It's not my place to say if it is good or bad, but we are not living in an anarchist's society. We have a hierarchy in the real world. If kids can't listen to the teacher, will they even bother to willfully follow the laws of society? And would that be good or bad? That's an unfinished debate.
The fourth lesson I teach is that only I determine what curriculum you will study.
Well, yes. Anyway, kids that age are not ready to teach themselves. They only want to play after all. So, at that age you have to enforce it and explain to them that knowing many things is important. A minority of kids are different. It is true that those truly gifted are stuck in the system. I'd prefer it if kids wanted to learn by themselves, but almost every kid don't. The result is that the current system is excellent for almost everyone, except for kids that are slow and for kids that are too fast. You give interesting extra work for the fast ones and try to mentor the slow ones, but it's a heck of a job. Right now, this might not be perfect, but it's a good way to do things.
In lesson five I teach that your self-respect should depend on an observer's measure of your worth.
In a way, this is becoming false. If your job is to teach someone to make coffee, there will be many objective criteria that will tell you if the endeavor is a success or a failure. So, what's the problem? On the other hand, if he's criticizing the fact that he's being compared to others to know if he is worth something or not, this is not the case anymore. (At least, not in Quebec). This self-worth problem happens when kids want good marks to impress others, and not when they are intrinsically motivated to master the task at hand. I'm not fond of means and medians and telling kids how successful they are compared to others. This is a private thing. They should try to master the tasks and be motivated to be the best they can. On the other hand, this is completely destroyed when they want to go to university where marks are extremely important. You might say, elementary schools are "ahead" of the rest since it's easier to change how we do things. Try to tell the medical department of your university to not look at marks, but to instead compare the motivations, projects, extra work and personal home researches the students have done. It's too much work for them. It's much more easy to scan a list of students and call those above a certain mark.
In lesson six I teach children that they are being watched.
And this is bad because? If you don't remind kids they are at school, that bathroom break takes an hour. Give me a break...
I'm a Canadian teacher and mostly teach in elementary school right now. I'm considering getting my license to teach kids since they are a lot of fun.
That doesn't mean I'm brainwashed by the government to sell its ideology. Even in elementary schools, you have teachers arguing about army vs no army, weapons, religion, welfare and all that. We are intellectuals that happen to teach kids instead of university students. Also, we are all incited to study and get diplomas in as many subjects as possible.
Don't think every elementary school teacher has the exact same values. We (almost?) all do believe in the scientific method though. That might be a problem for a couple of individuals.
Well then, feel free to go meet them and offer to certify them. The more the better.
Even if everything was legit (like I think it is), they could all be Chinese spies or something like that so even Google and Microsoft could be infiltrated.
Anyway, I still feel that if more people were using ixquick, Google, Microsoft and the rest would need to offer as much, if not better security to compete. This is what I want.
Fair comment. All the employees could even be spies from China for all we know. Though, if everyone would jump to ixquick, the other major players would need to offer equal or better security claims to be competitive.
I feel this alone justifies using ixquick for now.
No, he was answering Arancaytar (966377) by implying that "if I murder Tony Soprano I should be punished less than if I murder your wife" was bad so he did not make a correct statement.
By the way, the fact remains that the motive of the accused is an element that is taken into consideration when deciding of the punishment.
Oh, I don't really care that much for Scientology and I don't think a ddos attack will change anything. I was only debating "So if I murder Tony Soprano I should be punished less than if I murder your wife?".
I felt your way of applying justice was too robotic and jumped in to argue and have some fun.
It's a meta-search engine with no logs. Not only is the privacy much better, you are searching on 11 search engines. 11! Waiting 5 seconds instead of 2 seconds (on my computer) is more than acceptable for that.
European Privacy Seal: On July 14th 2008 Ixquick received the first European Privacy Seal from European Data Protection Supervisor Mr. Peter Hustinx. The Seal officially confirms the privacy promises we make to our users. It makes Ixquick the first and only EU-approved search engine. Both EU Commissioner Viviane Reding and Dr.Thilo Weichert, German Privacy Commissioner complemented Ixquick on its privacy achievements.
Certified Secure, a leading Certification Authority, has certified Ixquick's Privacy procedures. The CS Privacy Certificate has been awarded after an extensive audit.
Ixquick has been registered with the Dutch Data Protection Authority (CBP) under number M 1346973. This Authority supervises the fair and lawful use and security of your personal data, to ensure your privacy today and in the future.
Maybe my example didn't inspire you enough. My other choice was to give the example of someone stealing to feed his family vs someone stealing for greed.
Motive is important when deciding the punishment. At least, it is in my country.
European Privacy Seal:
On July 14th 2008 Ixquick received the first European Privacy Seal from European Data Protection Supervisor Mr. Peter Hustinx. The Seal officially confirms the privacy promises we make to our users. It makes Ixquick the first and only EU-approved search engine. Both EU Commissioner Viviane Reding and Dr.Thilo Weichert, German Privacy Commissioner complemented Ixquick on its privacy achievements.
Certified Secure, a leading Certification Authority, has certified Ixquick's Privacy procedures.
The CS Privacy Certificate has been awarded after an extensive audit.
Ixquick has been registered with the Dutch Data Protection Authority (CBP) under number M 1346973.
This Authority supervises the fair and lawful use and security of your personal data, to ensure your privacy today and in the future.
Simply use https://ixquick.com/ since it searches Yahoo! and many search engines. It has no logs, no IP, nothing! In this way, you can use your precious Yahoo! while truly being protected.
No, I meant the boring parts. Leveling and collecting equipment is repetitive. Then again, I dont' like games like Diablo II where all you do is run around killing the same boss again and again to get a slightly better sword to kill the same boss again slightly faster.
WOW is pretty much like Diablo II. You can do the story and have fun, but the whole game is based around killing the same guys again and again. I can't argue with millions of people liking that, but I prefer less repetitive tasks.
It is true that you can already do all that on a keyboard with a touchpad. The interesting thing though is that the keys aren't placed in the same way on a guitar than they are on a keyboard so you can compose things that sound different.
In other words, you'll be able to compose and play differently since piano tends to make you compose in a linear way, and a guitar forces you to play notes that are all over the keyboard.
It's a bit like the Akai EWI USB which gives you more control over the sound level depending on how hard you blow into it. You'd need a pedal to get the same result with a keyboard, which is a less intuitive setup.
Different tools have different strong points and weaknesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, first of all, morality is not universal. Morality is a construction. In reality, you can do anything you want. Only you decide to limit yourself for selected reasons.
Secondly, Princeofcups said that the "thieves" were not targeting their own people. They were targeting other rich countries that are "criminally" rich in the opinion of the "thieves". In this scenario, you don't really care about the well being of your enemy because you believe that you deserve it.
Well, at first the idea seems good. However, teachers being already paid by the government, you could say that they are already being paid indirectly by the students. Or at least, the parents of the students.
Also, the whole system of keeping track of who was the student of who would need a lot of bureaucracy. We'd have to check if it's really worth all that money.
Finally, if you suggest students give monetary donations once they succeed, that would be a true honor and compliment for us teachers. The problem is they'd probably only truly remember the more recent teachers that taught them. I don't think that would be fair. Though elementary school teachers don't have to be as specialized in a field as university professors, you do have to compensate by being a generalist that studies everything in your spare time because you are teaching everything by yourself.
So, your idea is good, especially when I start to think about the money I'd make if one of my pupils became the leader of my country, or the leader of a big corporation, but it might be impossible to implement.
*Sorry for the "Has" at the beginning. Oh, the shame... :-P
Has a teacher myself I have to ask, how would performance be evaluated when the result is long term?
Marks? Then every teacher will give high marks to everyone to get a raise.
Well liked or not? Then every teacher will be the student's best friend and kid around and not discipline anyone. Students wont really be able to learn anything, but boy teachers will be loved and the salaries will go up for everyone!
Objectives to be attained? All right, but classes are not equal. What do you do with a class that ends up having more slow learners? And how unfair for that teacher to get a raise because he stumbled on a class with fast students!
How would you propose we evaluate teachers because that question is being asked everywhere, but we have yet to find a proper answer.
Before the age of 12, during elementary school, I can attest that kids learn a lot and succeed very much. I don't understand why you are saying they are so comparatively unsuccessful at learning. Between the ages of 0 to 4, the only things kids learn is how to speak and the basic laws of the universe and of their surroundings by trial and error. If we compare that to everything kids learn in elementary school and how fast they learn it, they do learn much more in the system.
However, between the ages of 12 to 18, the game is completely different. It is at this stage that they start to get fed up with school and want to work and earn money. It is also to these kids that the author of the book you are recommending was teaching. In the province of Quebec, our dropout rate is 29% if this article is to be believed: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/600889 . Maybe the solution is to give them more freedom and put them in charge of their education. Now, would they be responsible enough to do this? I don't know. They wouldn't be able to blame the system for their failures though.
I stand corrected. Though you must admit that after reading a short excerpt of Mr. Capote, that man was not average. He taught himself to read and write before first grade and was walking with a dictionary in his hands.
We can't build an education system to teach the mass based on a few gifted students. In the same way, we can't build an education system to teach the mass based on a those few that are slow learners.
A teacher will usually give fun extra work for the gifted kids that want to learn more. I did have a few truly interested 5 years old students once and taught them about the rain cycle. They were captivated. Though you have to time your lesson because after 15 minutes they lose interest and want to play. I must reiterate that the vast majority will sadly go straight for the games.
Well, it is true the situation in Canada and the United-States is probably not the same. I'll have to read that book before I can make any conclusive comment and I'll make sure to read it.
I do believe kids are learning much more things while being taught by a "coach" (aka a teacher) though and I am skeptical that kids taught themselves to read. Surely, at least a parent or nanny was involved. I'll have to check the source on that to understand the author's point. He might only be criticizing lectures. And sadly, it is scientifically proven that people don't really learn that much simply by listening to a teacher during one hour. They forget everything after two weeks. That's why we have to make exercises and that's why we have to coach the students during these.
Again, I agree that the current system is not perfect, but it works. The science of education is always trying to find new and better ways to make people learn, but it's not as easy as it seems.
As an elementary school teacher myself, I have to respond.
The first lesson I teach is: "Stay in the class where you belong."
True, but I could also say the first lesson is "You have to learn and not only play. Let's face it, they are kids and they want to play. They don't care about maths, science, politics, music, etc. They want to play. Ask any kid what they'd rather do between learning and playing, and they'll want to play. As a teacher, I have to make sure I teach in a fun and playful way so that it becomes almost like a game, if not a game itself, but it's a hell of a challenge.
The second lesson I teach kids is to turn on and off like a light switch.
True and false. In the morning we might do maths, then in the afternoon we might do grammar. It's still too long for the kids, yet too short for the teacher. So, I understand that as adults we might perceive this has forcing them to turn on and off as required, but the kids need variety. They don't have the attention and patience adults have. I say, let's finish the cool project tomorrow instead of doing everything the same day and being bored with it at the end of the day.
The third lesson I teach you is to surrender your will to a predestined chain of command.
Parents already do this before elementary school. It's part of learning how to behave. It's not my place to say if it is good or bad, but we are not living in an anarchist's society. We have a hierarchy in the real world. If kids can't listen to the teacher, will they even bother to willfully follow the laws of society? And would that be good or bad? That's an unfinished debate.
The fourth lesson I teach is that only I determine what curriculum you will study.
Well, yes. Anyway, kids that age are not ready to teach themselves. They only want to play after all. So, at that age you have to enforce it and explain to them that knowing many things is important. A minority of kids are different. It is true that those truly gifted are stuck in the system. I'd prefer it if kids wanted to learn by themselves, but almost every kid don't. The result is that the current system is excellent for almost everyone, except for kids that are slow and for kids that are too fast. You give interesting extra work for the fast ones and try to mentor the slow ones, but it's a heck of a job. Right now, this might not be perfect, but it's a good way to do things.
In lesson five I teach that your self-respect should depend on an observer's measure of your worth.
In a way, this is becoming false. If your job is to teach someone to make coffee, there will be many objective criteria that will tell you if the endeavor is a success or a failure. So, what's the problem? On the other hand, if he's criticizing the fact that he's being compared to others to know if he is worth something or not, this is not the case anymore. (At least, not in Quebec). This self-worth problem happens when kids want good marks to impress others, and not when they are intrinsically motivated to master the task at hand. I'm not fond of means and medians and telling kids how successful they are compared to others. This is a private thing. They should try to master the tasks and be motivated to be the best they can. On the other hand, this is completely destroyed when they want to go to university where marks are extremely important. You might say, elementary schools are "ahead" of the rest since it's easier to change how we do things. Try to tell the medical department of your university to not look at marks, but to instead compare the motivations, projects, extra work and personal home researches the students have done. It's too much work for them. It's much more easy to scan a list of students and call those above a certain mark.
In lesson six I teach children that they are being watched.
And this is bad because? If you don't remind kids they are at school, that bathroom break takes an hour. Give me a break...
I'm a Canadian teacher and mostly teach in elementary school right now. I'm considering getting my license to teach kids since they are a lot of fun.
That doesn't mean I'm brainwashed by the government to sell its ideology. Even in elementary schools, you have teachers arguing about army vs no army, weapons, religion, welfare and all that. We are intellectuals that happen to teach kids instead of university students. Also, we are all incited to study and get diplomas in as many subjects as possible.
Don't think every elementary school teacher has the exact same values. We (almost?) all do believe in the scientific method though. That might be a problem for a couple of individuals.
In Quebec at least, judges don't apply the laws in the same way to everyone. Laws are imperfect, judgment is required.
Well then, feel free to go meet them and offer to certify them. The more the better.
Even if everything was legit (like I think it is), they could all be Chinese spies or something like that so even Google and Microsoft could be infiltrated.
Anyway, I still feel that if more people were using ixquick, Google, Microsoft and the rest would need to offer as much, if not better security to compete. This is what I want.
Fair comment. All the employees could even be spies from China for all we know. Though, if everyone would jump to ixquick, the other major players would need to offer equal or better security claims to be competitive.
I feel this alone justifies using ixquick for now.
No, he was answering Arancaytar (966377) by implying that "if I murder Tony Soprano I should be punished less than if I murder your wife" was bad so he did not make a correct statement.
By the way, the fact remains that the motive of the accused is an element that is taken into consideration when deciding of the punishment.
Oh, I don't really care that much for Scientology and I don't think a ddos attack will change anything. I was only debating "So if I murder Tony Soprano I should be punished less than if I murder your wife?".
I felt your way of applying justice was too robotic and jumped in to argue and have some fun.
It's a meta-search engine with no logs. Not only is the privacy much better, you are searching on 11 search engines. 11! Waiting 5 seconds instead of 2 seconds (on my computer) is more than acceptable for that.
https://ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html
European Privacy Seal: On July 14th 2008 Ixquick received the first European Privacy Seal from European Data Protection Supervisor Mr. Peter Hustinx. The Seal officially confirms the privacy promises we make to our users. It makes Ixquick the first and only EU-approved search engine. Both EU Commissioner Viviane Reding and Dr.Thilo Weichert, German Privacy Commissioner complemented Ixquick on its privacy achievements.
Certified Secure, a leading Certification Authority, has certified Ixquick's Privacy procedures. The CS Privacy Certificate has been awarded after an extensive audit.
Ixquick has been registered with the Dutch Data Protection Authority (CBP) under number M 1346973. This Authority supervises the fair and lawful use and security of your personal data, to ensure your privacy today and in the future.
Maybe my example didn't inspire you enough. My other choice was to give the example of someone stealing to feed his family vs someone stealing for greed.
Motive is important when deciding the punishment. At least, it is in my country.
As of yet, none.
https://ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html
European Privacy Seal: On July 14th 2008 Ixquick received the first European Privacy Seal from European Data Protection Supervisor Mr. Peter Hustinx. The Seal officially confirms the privacy promises we make to our users. It makes Ixquick the first and only EU-approved search engine. Both EU Commissioner Viviane Reding and Dr.Thilo Weichert, German Privacy Commissioner complemented Ixquick on its privacy achievements.
Certified Secure, a leading Certification Authority, has certified Ixquick's Privacy procedures. The CS Privacy Certificate has been awarded after an extensive audit.
Ixquick has been registered with the Dutch Data Protection Authority (CBP) under number M 1346973. This Authority supervises the fair and lawful use and security of your personal data, to ensure your privacy today and in the future.
If you kill Hitler you should be punished as much as if you kill your wife?
See how it goes? That's why we have judges so that they can decide how hard a person should be punished.
Simply use https://ixquick.com/ since it searches Yahoo! and many search engines. It has no logs, no IP, nothing! In this way, you can use your precious Yahoo! while truly being protected.
I disagree.
http://wow.top100arena.com/
WOW custom servers, some with original custom content.
This was happening years ago with Ultima Online too.
It's not because you have faith that something exists that it does exist.
Also, the SETI institute and seti@home are two different things even though they have the same goal.
No, I meant the boring parts. Leveling and collecting equipment is repetitive. Then again, I dont' like games like Diablo II where all you do is run around killing the same boss again and again to get a slightly better sword to kill the same boss again slightly faster.
WOW is pretty much like Diablo II. You can do the story and have fun, but the whole game is based around killing the same guys again and again. I can't argue with millions of people liking that, but I prefer less repetitive tasks.
If instead of a bot, you and your friends used the same account to play 24h a day instead of using a bot. Would that still be cheating?
It is true that you can already do all that on a keyboard with a touchpad. The interesting thing though is that the keys aren't placed in the same way on a guitar than they are on a keyboard so you can compose things that sound different.
In other words, you'll be able to compose and play differently since piano tends to make you compose in a linear way, and a guitar forces you to play notes that are all over the keyboard.
It's a bit like the Akai EWI USB which gives you more control over the sound level depending on how hard you blow into it. You'd need a pedal to get the same result with a keyboard, which is a less intuitive setup.
Different tools have different strong points and weaknesses.