Hard decisions and hard work are required to set goals, achieve goals and out compete.
I don't think that "not failing stupidly easy multiple choice tests" is success. I don't think that "not getting fired because your students are not failing stupidly easy multiple choice tests is success." I don't know where you got those ideas -- certainly not from what I posted above.
My question was how specifically the mayor would spend additional money. Paying teachers for performance is a specific program that has been shown to improve student outcomes and would therefore be a good thing to do.
"... Endless wars that divert hundreds of billions a year from schools and job training are also undermining America's competitiveness, Daley added, wondering where the public outrage is."
And exactly how would the good mayor spend the hundreds of billions a year to improve schools? Specifically. No platitudes. Nothing like, "more computers" or "magnet schools" or "more arts programs." To use a sports metaphor, what's needed is "more blocking and tackling." Or, back to education, the three Rs -- Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic. Test the kids and fail the failures. Test the teachers and fire the failures. Success is dependent on hard decisions and hard work, not billions of dollars.
Perhaps a series of simple fact filled statements would have been better. 1. We (MekTek) were required to purchase insurance indemnifying Microsoft before we could release the software. 2. We purchased this insurance on (date). 3. We notified Microsoft of this according to their instructions on (date). 4. Two weeks later we had not heard back from Microsoft. 5. We then contacted (name) at Microsoft on (date).... and so forth.
I've read the post and links three times. There is no statement of fact that makes any sense. At all.
I will now guess at what the problem is. The terms of the license from Microsoft require Studio MekTek to have some level of insurance -- possibly to indemnify Microsoft. MekTek doesn't have enough money to purchase said insurance. So the gating factor isn't Microsoft, it's Studio MekTek's lack of money.
And by the way, Studio MekTek doesn't have enough money to keep their servers running.
I'm glad that Alex Brown talked to the responsible Microsoft Program Manager for comment rather than basing his article solely on a pre-release version of Office that is many months old.
Thanks for the link. Nature's article said nothing about how the survey was conducted. Unless particulars are given I assume the worst -- that it is a self selecting internet survey with no controls and little value.
The original Symantec study listed seven bullet points and staffing was number four.
Staffing and budgets remain tight with half of all enterprises reporting they are somewhat/extremely understaffed. Finding budget and qualified applicants are the biggest recruiting issues. Seventy-six percent of enterprises have the same or more job requisitions open this year. http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=20100111_01
More important and certainly more interesting was the finding: ... the study found that mid-sized enterprises (2,000 to 9,999 employees) are more likely to adopt cutting-edge technologies such as cloud computing, deduplication, replication, storage virtualization, and continuous data protection than small or large enterprises to reduce IT costs and manage increasing complexity.
TechCrunch's value as a source for news and analysis (especially analysis) has fallen as a result of this escapade. How much trust can we place in its stories when the owner, operator and editor in chief fails to cover a business enterprise with a written contract or background check of his business partners?
The lesson for readers is that developing, manufacturing and successfully marketing any product is hard. Creating a browser in a tablet that is a cost effective alternative to existing products is very hard.
The linked article doesn't say that airlines "could easily be replaced by fast trains." It says, "The Amtrak ridership suggests high-speed rail would be viable in out busiest air corridors, the study concluded."
No mention of the cost.
If you believe that it could easily be done, why don't you do it. This weekend maybe.
Boeing and Airbus are the worlds largest suppliers of cloud computing and have proven to be very reliable. Crashes are infrequent and while they can be disasterous for those directly involved they are a very small fraction of all customers. Generally replacements are on line the next day.
If your 12 (?) year old son has an arrythmia he may not live long enough to apply for insurance as an adult -- unless you learn about it now and get treatment. These things don't go away by themselves.
The BBC wants to know what happened to [city wide Wi-Fi]. Shouldn't a news organization like the BBC do some reporting and find out? Certainly more than simply phoning up someone at BT.
When the peers that are doing the reviewing are friends and colleagues of the authors and/or hold the same views and opinions then we cannot expect and do not see rigorous critiques. See for example "Social Network Analysis of Authorships in Temperature Reconstructions" on page 38 of http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
As to the second point, the failure of a scientific theory (as expressed in a published paper) falls only on the shoulders of the author(s). The failure of a large engineering project is costly in big money and many careers so the investigational and planning phases are far more detailed and rigorous than what goes into a scientific paper.
No longer will the proponents be able to hide behind "peer review." It takes more than peer reviewed scientific papers to build something really big and important like an A380 or a $500 million server farm or a Channel Tunnel. Before spending $trillions to prevent computer-model-predicted-CO2-induced-catastrophic-global-warming we should at the very least have a transparent and open examination of the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
And soon it's average depth will be 2.29 miles plus a foot or two, according to the IPCC.
"Test the kids and fail the failures" does not mean "not failing stupidly easy multiple choice tests." You're making things up.
Hard decisions and hard work are required to set goals, achieve goals and out compete.
I don't think that "not failing stupidly easy multiple choice tests" is success. I don't think that "not getting fired because your students are not failing stupidly easy multiple choice tests is success." I don't know where you got those ideas -- certainly not from what I posted above.
My question was how specifically the mayor would spend additional money. Paying teachers for performance is a specific program that has been shown to improve student outcomes and would therefore be a good thing to do.
" ... Endless wars that divert hundreds of billions a year from schools and job training are also undermining America's competitiveness, Daley added, wondering where the public outrage is."
And exactly how would the good mayor spend the hundreds of billions a year to improve schools? Specifically. No platitudes. Nothing like, "more computers" or "magnet schools" or "more arts programs." To use a sports metaphor, what's needed is "more blocking and tackling." Or, back to education, the three Rs -- Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic. Test the kids and fail the failures. Test the teachers and fire the failures. Success is dependent on hard decisions and hard work, not billions of dollars.
Perhaps a series of simple fact filled statements would have been better. ... and so forth.
1. We (MekTek) were required to purchase insurance indemnifying Microsoft before we could release the software.
2. We purchased this insurance on (date).
3. We notified Microsoft of this according to their instructions on (date).
4. Two weeks later we had not heard back from Microsoft.
5. We then contacted (name) at Microsoft on (date).
I've read the post and links three times. There is no statement of fact that makes any sense. At all.
I will now guess at what the problem is. The terms of the license from Microsoft require Studio MekTek to have some level of insurance -- possibly to indemnify Microsoft. MekTek doesn't have enough money to purchase said insurance. So the gating factor isn't Microsoft, it's Studio MekTek's lack of money.
And by the way, Studio MekTek doesn't have enough money to keep their servers running.
So what we have here is a plea for money.
I'm glad that Alex Brown talked to the responsible Microsoft Program Manager for comment rather than basing his article solely on a pre-release version of Office that is many months old.
I figured that we could easily tap into this data and use it to record earthquakes.
Sounds like someone from marketing. "Oh yeah, that's easy. It's only software."
Thanks for the link. Nature's article said nothing about how the survey was conducted. Unless particulars are given I assume the worst -- that it is a self selecting internet survey with no controls and little value.
Link is to an article that does not name who did the "survey." For all we know the whole thing was made up.
I'll bet they forgot to use the Monster Cables.
The original Symantec study listed seven bullet points and staffing was number four.
Staffing and budgets remain tight with half of all enterprises reporting they are somewhat/extremely understaffed. Finding budget and qualified applicants are the biggest recruiting issues. Seventy-six percent of enterprises have the same or more job requisitions open this year.
http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=20100111_01
More important and certainly more interesting was the finding:
... the study found that mid-sized enterprises (2,000 to 9,999 employees) are more likely to adopt cutting-edge technologies such as cloud computing, deduplication, replication, storage virtualization, and continuous data protection than small or large enterprises to reduce IT costs and manage increasing complexity.
Then don't use it.
TechCrunch's value as a source for news and analysis (especially analysis) has fallen as a result of this escapade. How much trust can we place in its stories when the owner, operator and editor in chief fails to cover a business enterprise with a written contract or background check of his business partners?
The lesson for readers is that developing, manufacturing and successfully marketing any product is hard. Creating a browser in a tablet that is a cost effective alternative to existing products is very hard.
Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $8.1 billion, the commission staff reported.
Imagine how much would be saved if California simply outlawed all TVs.
The linked article doesn't say that airlines "could easily be replaced by fast trains." It says, "The Amtrak ridership suggests high-speed rail would be viable in out busiest air corridors, the study concluded."
No mention of the cost.
If you believe that it could easily be done, why don't you do it. This weekend maybe.
Politicians with too much time and not enough to do.
Better late than wrong. Better never than stupid.
Boeing and Airbus are the worlds largest suppliers of cloud computing and have proven to be very reliable. Crashes are infrequent and while they can be disasterous for those directly involved they are a very small fraction of all customers. Generally replacements are on line the next day.
If your 12 (?) year old son has an arrythmia he may not live long enough to apply for insurance as an adult -- unless you learn about it now and get treatment. These things don't go away by themselves.
The BBC wants to know what happened to [city wide Wi-Fi].
Shouldn't a news organization like the BBC do some reporting and find out? Certainly more than simply phoning up someone at BT.
When the peers that are doing the reviewing are friends and colleagues of the authors and/or hold the same views and opinions then we cannot expect and do not see rigorous critiques. See for example "Social Network Analysis of Authorships in Temperature Reconstructions" on page 38 of http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
As to the second point, the failure of a scientific theory (as expressed in a published paper) falls only on the shoulders of the author(s). The failure of a large engineering project is costly in big money and many careers so the investigational and planning phases are far more detailed and rigorous than what goes into a scientific paper.
No longer will the proponents be able to hide behind "peer review." It takes more than peer reviewed scientific papers to build something really big and important like an A380 or a $500 million server farm or a Channel Tunnel. Before spending $trillions to prevent computer-model-predicted-CO2-induced-catastrophic-global-warming we should at the very least have a transparent and open examination of the facts.