"I for one know that neither I nor my friends had any sort of patience with those we viewed as "stupid" (because they couldn't learn something totally "obvious" as quickly as we could) and that being expected to put up with them would have driven me into a near homicidal level of frustration. And I didn't know many students who were interested in being "showed up" by some smart kid."
Let me take a guess - only child or only a few sibs?
I think a lot of the smarter kids would like the idea of helping someone else rather than being bored to death. As for whether they have the ability to "teach" or not, give them a game that they like, and watch them take the time to explain the rules so that they'll have someone else to play with.
"neither I nor my friends had any sort of patience with those we viewed as "stupid"
To a genius, an "average" person is as relatively stupid as an average person to a "slow" one. Does that mean that a genius shouldn't learn patience?
Albert Einstein wasn't a slouch; one time he was asked why he spent so much time helping some 8-year-old girl with her homework. His answer "I help her with her math and she shares her jelly beans." I'm sure he didn't *really* do it for the jelly beans.
I have patience for people who want to learn - I'll find 10 different ways to try to get a concept across. For those who don't want to learn, I have a lot less patience. Oddly enough, those who don't want to learn are mostly of average intelligence. They're afraid to show they don't know something; the "slow" group ends up asking more intelligent questions.
So, what are you going to do if the barrier is language, or culture, instead of raw intelligence?
Riiiight - each core only handles 8 bits of data at a time. And it runs at only 100 mhz. an old ighz duron will beat the pants off it. Add in the overhead of breaking data down into 8-bit chunks and reassembling it, and an old Pentium 200 would probably be just as fast.
TFA says its between 175 and 300 milliwatts per core - do the math. 12 to 19 watts. They're targetting the embedded market (and with those low power consumption figures, I think a super laptop would be a no-brainer).
"The specially-designed nanoparticles seek out hydrogen peroxide (thought to be overproduced in trace amounts in the early stages of most diseases that involve some sort of chronic inflammation in the body), and emit light when they encounter it"
Invent beowulf cluster of nanoparticles that glows in presence of disease
Be careful - once a genius decides that its important to have "social skills", they will start studying their fellow human beings (co-workers, etc) and they will learn how to "play the game," to the point where they can not only get away with shit nobody else can, but you'll be convinced its okay.
Its like that old joke - "Sincerity is the most important thing - once you can fake that, you've got it made!" - except that they don't need to "fake it" - just learn how to show it.
Re:It doesn't take a genius to figure it out !!!
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
"If you invest enough resources into cultivating a genius, you'll have someone who contributes 100 times as much to society. If you invest those same resources into trying to fix a retard, you'll have someone who costs 50% less to support. What's the best aggregate benefit in the long run? Don't pull that "which is cheaper in the long run" on this argument."
Not true. There is no evidence that "geniuses contribute 100 times as much to society." The "geniuses" who come up with stuff would be totally worthless without everyone else in the "pyramid" also doing their jobs. Remember - 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.
Just look at the cliches - "Evil Genius". Best example - Hitler. He redefined evil.
You can't pull the "best aggregate benefit in the long run" without being able to dependably predict what the outcome will be in individual cases. We're not at that point yet.
Re:It doesn't take a genius to figure it out !!!
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
"I don't think its quite as obvious as that. If we give a slow learner the resources to reach his full potential, what does he accomplish? He make a good life for himself. That's noble and good. But if we do the same for a genius? He might start a business or make an invention that spurs the entire economy and employs tens or hundreds of thousands."
They did an experiment where they gave the teachers the students IQ scores before the term started. Sure enough, the students achieved in line with their IQ scores. The only problem was, it wasn't really IQ scores, but the kids' locker numbers, that the teacher was given.
Success is heavily dependent upon expectations.
Besides, geniuses have interests that are pretty much the same as everyone else. That's why you'll find them in all walks of life - they don't all belong in think-tanks or labs.
Re:It doesn't take a genius to figure it out !!!
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
"If you think it is cheaper to educate a smart kid to his full potential than it is to teach a dumb kid to his full potential, then you clearly belong in the latter group."
Smart kids can, by and large teach themselves... in many cases the classroom environment and the teacher are the handicaps.
"
> > So why not let the brightest teach the "special-needs"?
> Because they're just kids supposed to be getting an education? Pulling a Jedi mind trick is not going to accomplish anything.
> "No Timmy, I know you're interested in Algebra and want to discuss the implications of the Enlightenment era on modern politics, but what would REALLY be fun is for you to spend the next seven weeks trying to teach Billy how to do long division!"
These kids who are "just kids suppoed to be getting an education" get it after 5 minutes, and would probably have a lot more fun trying to teach another kid rather than getting bored out of their skulls. Don't sell them short.
"Well, for one, because it takes skills that even most qualified "regular" teachers don't have"
The problem with many teachers is that after a few years, its just a job. Give a kid something she's really enthusiastic about, and she'll get the message across to another kid. Kids know how to teach - but they call it "play".
So why not let the brightest teach the "special-needs"? Everyone benefits. After all, for a genius, the "average kid" is also a bit "slow".
The smarter kids learn to communicate with those who don't pick things up as quickly as they do, and the kids they'd be helping would probably learn quicker than being taught by a "normal adult." And since the population is about equal (both ends of the bell curve), it should be easy to match everyone up, freeing up resources.
"The public education system has been failing gifted students since long before No Child Left Behind."
The education system can best encourage gifted students by leaving them alone to pursue what they're interested in, instead of sitting in classes getting bored to death. Of course, that would mean taking less credit for their achievements, something that no self-respecting dickhead would agree to.
Smart kids learn despite the roadblocks thrown in their way.
It doesn't take a genius to figure it out !!!
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"For example, up to ten times as much money is spent nationwide on educating 'developmentally disabled' students as gifted ones."
Duh! Smart kids learn faster than 'tards. Whodathunkit? Was this article written by Captain Obvious? So you've got a choice - either invest more in educating those who are slower learners, or pay to support them. Which is cheaper in the long run (hint - you don't have to be a genius to figure that one out either).
What's really ironic is that their own claims indicate that people who use firefox are more "net savvy", and that, conversely, people who don't are suckerbait for advertisers.
Shouldn't they only be charging a dime per download, instead of a buck?
... and shouldn't any copyright violations be for a lot less, since only 10% was copied?
Re:They're effectively bankrupt
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
Sometimes I put NSA (Not Safe Anywhere), but conspiracy theorists start bugging out. BTW there are 16 new entries in the contest. They're clickable thumbnails, so you have the chance to skip over anything really vile.
Far be it from me to puncture Stevie's dreams... he enjoys conspiracy theories, so hopefuly this will help.
They're effectively bankrupt
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 0
They warned in their SEC filings that a loss in this litigation would harm their ability to operate as a "going concern."
The judge ruled that
both the Microsoft and Sun licenses were covered by the APA (That's 16 million)
that SCO was supposed to pass on 100% of the revenues, and receive a fee back of 5%
that SCO has breeched its fudiciary duty to Novell
SCO doesn't have $16 million on hand, doesn't have equity worth $16 million (with this judgment, their net worth is negative), and there is no way that the PIPE Fairy will be paying another call.
They were big talkers, but now they're just dickheads.
Why not come up with an argument against what I proposed in my original post (that in may cases users would best be supported by switching to other browsers)? Because you can't - even the market (via market share figures of IE vs other browsers) is saying as much.
As for the "ABM" (Anybody But Microsoft) license, it makes sense for some projects; how many times has a project gotten flack because it runs poorly under Windows, but fine under the *nixes? This way, a dev can say "Sorry, we don't support Windows. Please read the license." rather than listen to foolish arguments about the "need" to support Windows, and the "need" to make things Microsoft-compatible. Microsoft needs to stop making itself incompatible with the "embrace - extend - extinguish" crap.
Slashdot Mirror
You can always run DOS on it - Doom runs nice :-)
"I for one know that neither I nor my friends had any sort of patience with those we viewed as "stupid" (because they couldn't learn something totally "obvious" as quickly as we could) and that being expected to put up with them would have driven me into a near homicidal level of frustration. And I didn't know many students who were interested in being "showed up" by some smart kid."
Let me take a guess - only child or only a few sibs?
I think a lot of the smarter kids would like the idea of helping someone else rather than being bored to death. As for whether they have the ability to "teach" or not, give them a game that they like, and watch them take the time to explain the rules so that they'll have someone else to play with.
"neither I nor my friends had any sort of patience with those we viewed as "stupid"
To a genius, an "average" person is as relatively stupid as an average person to a "slow" one. Does that mean that a genius shouldn't learn patience?
Albert Einstein wasn't a slouch; one time he was asked why he spent so much time helping some 8-year-old girl with her homework. His answer "I help her with her math and she shares her jelly beans." I'm sure he didn't *really* do it for the jelly beans.
I have patience for people who want to learn - I'll find 10 different ways to try to get a concept across. For those who don't want to learn, I have a lot less patience. Oddly enough, those who don't want to learn are mostly of average intelligence. They're afraid to show they don't know something; the "slow" group ends up asking more intelligent questions.
So, what are you going to do if the barrier is language, or culture, instead of raw intelligence?
Riiiight - each core only handles 8 bits of data at a time. And it runs at only 100 mhz. an old ighz duron will beat the pants off it. Add in the overhead of breaking data down into 8-bit chunks and reassembling it, and an old Pentium 200 would probably be just as fast.
The watts isn't missing:
TFA says its between 175 and 300 milliwatts per core - do the math. 12 to 19 watts. They're targetting the embedded market (and with those low power consumption figures, I think a super laptop would be a no-brainer).
"The specially-designed nanoparticles seek out hydrogen peroxide (thought to be overproduced in trace amounts in the early stages of most diseases that involve some sort of chronic inflammation in the body), and emit light when they encounter it"
Be careful - once a genius decides that its important to have "social skills", they will start studying their fellow human beings (co-workers, etc) and they will learn how to "play the game," to the point where they can not only get away with shit nobody else can, but you'll be convinced its okay.
Its like that old joke - "Sincerity is the most important thing - once you can fake that, you've got it made!" - except that they don't need to "fake it" - just learn how to show it.
"If you invest enough resources into cultivating a genius, you'll have someone who contributes 100 times as much to society. If you invest those same resources into trying to fix a retard, you'll have someone who costs 50% less to support. What's the best aggregate benefit in the long run? Don't pull that "which is cheaper in the long run" on this argument."
Not true. There is no evidence that "geniuses contribute 100 times as much to society." The "geniuses" who come up with stuff would be totally worthless without everyone else in the "pyramid" also doing their jobs. Remember - 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.
Just look at the cliches - "Evil Genius". Best example - Hitler. He redefined evil.
You can't pull the "best aggregate benefit in the long run" without being able to dependably predict what the outcome will be in individual cases. We're not at that point yet.
"I don't think its quite as obvious as that. If we give a slow learner the resources to reach his full potential, what does he accomplish? He make a good life for himself. That's noble and good. But if we do the same for a genius? He might start a business or make an invention that spurs the entire economy and employs tens or hundreds of thousands."
They did an experiment where they gave the teachers the students IQ scores before the term started. Sure enough, the students achieved in line with their IQ scores. The only problem was, it wasn't really IQ scores, but the kids' locker numbers, that the teacher was given.
Success is heavily dependent upon expectations.
Besides, geniuses have interests that are pretty much the same as everyone else. That's why you'll find them in all walks of life - they don't all belong in think-tanks or labs.
"If you think it is cheaper to educate a smart kid to his full potential than it is to teach a dumb kid to his full potential, then you clearly belong in the latter group."
Smart kids can, by and large teach themselves ... in many cases the classroom environment and the teacher are the handicaps.
" > > So why not let the brightest teach the "special-needs"?
> Because they're just kids supposed to be getting an education? Pulling a Jedi mind trick is not going to accomplish anything.
> "No Timmy, I know you're interested in Algebra and want to discuss the implications of the Enlightenment era on modern politics, but what would REALLY be fun is for you to spend the next seven weeks trying to teach Billy how to do long division!"
These kids who are "just kids suppoed to be getting an education" get it after 5 minutes, and would probably have a lot more fun trying to teach another kid rather than getting bored out of their skulls. Don't sell them short.
"Well, for one, because it takes skills that even most qualified "regular" teachers don't have"
The problem with many teachers is that after a few years, its just a job. Give a kid something she's really enthusiastic about, and she'll get the message across to another kid. Kids know how to teach - but they call it "play".
So why not let the brightest teach the "special-needs"? Everyone benefits. After all, for a genius, the "average kid" is also a bit "slow".
The smarter kids learn to communicate with those who don't pick things up as quickly as they do, and the kids they'd be helping would probably learn quicker than being taught by a "normal adult." And since the population is about equal (both ends of the bell curve), it should be easy to match everyone up, freeing up resources.
"I know being gifted isnt "a handicap"
Its only not a handicap
It's a handicap. In geniuses, it creates an uneven development of social skills, a handicap which often follows them though their later life.
"Yes. "Not leaving a child behind", in educational context means lowering the level of the education for the average and the smart students."
As opposed to the priests' "Not leaving a childs' behind" which means lowering their pants.
"The public education system has been failing gifted students since long before No Child Left Behind."
The education system can best encourage gifted students by leaving them alone to pursue what they're interested in, instead of sitting in classes getting bored to death. Of course, that would mean taking less credit for their achievements, something that no self-respecting dickhead would agree to.
Smart kids learn despite the roadblocks thrown in their way.
"For example, up to ten times as much money is spent nationwide on educating 'developmentally disabled' students as gifted ones."
Duh! Smart kids learn faster than 'tards. Whodathunkit? Was this article written by Captain Obvious? So you've got a choice - either invest more in educating those who are slower learners, or pay to support them. Which is cheaper in the long run (hint - you don't have to be a genius to figure that one out either).
What's really ironic is that their own claims indicate that people who use firefox are more "net savvy", and that, conversely, people who don't are suckerbait for advertisers.
Right now the slashdot effect is more effective than any adblock extension :-)
Just send them the link to google news or whatever ... they've got deeper pockets than you or me ...
Sometimes I put NSA (Not Safe Anywhere), but conspiracy theorists start bugging out. BTW there are 16 new entries in the contest. They're clickable thumbnails, so you have the chance to skip over anything really vile.
Far be it from me to puncture Stevie's dreams ... he enjoys conspiracy theories, so hopefuly this will help.
They warned in their SEC filings that a loss in this litigation would harm their ability to operate as a "going concern."
The judge ruled that
- both the Microsoft and Sun licenses were covered by the APA (That's 16 million)
- that SCO was supposed to pass on 100% of the revenues, and receive a fee back of 5%
- that SCO has breeched its fudiciary duty to Novell
SCO doesn't have $16 million on hand, doesn't have equity worth $16 million (with this judgment, their net worth is negative), and there is no way that the PIPE Fairy will be paying another call.They were big talkers, but now they're just dickheads.
Get ready to see SCO trying to trade as SCO.bk
Why not - and turn them into tourist traps?
If you're into conspiracies, the real reason they're surveying the moon is that they need the space.
Don't be such a dickhead.
Why not come up with an argument against what I proposed in my original post (that in may cases users would best be supported by switching to other browsers)? Because you can't - even the market (via market share figures of IE vs other browsers) is saying as much.
As for the "ABM" (Anybody But Microsoft) license, it makes sense for some projects; how many times has a project gotten flack because it runs poorly under Windows, but fine under the *nixes? This way, a dev can say "Sorry, we don't support Windows. Please read the license." rather than listen to foolish arguments about the "need" to support Windows, and the "need" to make things Microsoft-compatible. Microsoft needs to stop making itself incompatible with the "embrace - extend - extinguish" crap.