The research indicates that students need feedback, not a score or grade, in order to improve. Therefore, an auto-grader is a poor idea because it doesn't provide useful feedback.
Good feedback takes more time than grading or scoring. It is also formative, rather than summative, so a teacher would be unconcerned about the actual score or grade (supposedly the problem these programs are trying to solve). It doesn't do much good to tell students that their essay is good, average, or poor. You need to tell them how to improve. I see no indication that these programs do any of this.
It would be nice if essays could be automatically scored or graded. But that is only a very small part of the learning process.
Driving while impaired is a serious crime and 100% preventable, all you have to do is act like a responsible adult and hand your keys to some who is not impaired.
I take it that you NEVER drive when fatigued or ill or on medications? Because you are the equivalent of a drunk.
Driving while distracted is a serious crime and 100% preventable, all you have to do is act like a responsible adult and hand your keys to some who is not distracted.
You NEVER encounter any distractions in your vehicle? Because that is also a crime.
By definition, virtually everyone on the road is guilty of impaired driving at some point. We mostly seem to manage. Singling out alcohol is absurd. But it sure is easy. And it obviously feels good.
Facts proven in court are not the same as facts in a scientific sense. There is no doubt that the coffee was at an "unsafe" temperature. Anyone who brews coffee or tea knows this. That is precisely why reasonable people don't put hot coffee in flimsy cups near any body part that they value in a moving vehicle.
However, court decisions are not always reasonable. As they are decided by people, they are sometimes wrong. That is hardly ignorance or hyperbole.
This would not be considered best professional practice in all states (friending students). It is strongly suggested in my state that teachers do not have facebook pages. If they should choose to have them, they should be private, and students should never be friended.
Why exactly do you think that being part of the union, having tenure, or being a government employee matters in matters of unprofessional conduct? All those things mean is that you get due process. They do not trump unprofessional conduct based on existing law which certainly covers inappropriate communication between a teacher and a student.
"Other issues with the rotary, they want to be run on the rich side which means they get shitty milage and have increased emissions..."
And this is why rotary engines are not used. Car manufacturers can tolerate low mileage but not poor emissions. If this proposed engine cannot meet emissions over the life of the engine (120K) then it has no future. When they have proven this, get back to me.
"Do you seriously think that nearly doubling Federal spending from 2000 to 2010 has nothing to do with the deficit we're running now?"
You might have a point if this statement were accurate. Adjusted for inflation, spending has increased 29 percent. Only if you ignore inflation can you get your number. Further, as a percentage of GDP, spending didn't increase anywhere near this amount.
And finally, don't forget that those massive tax cuts are part of the massive spending increase.
Another constraint that you don't mention is emissions. Even if it meets all of your other criteria but can't meet air quality requirements it is worthless. I suspect that will be a problem with this proposed engine.
"the problem is, by my determination, legalization will result in a larger number of users. this problem, in my mind, is more potent than all the bad side effects of prohibition. so prohibition should continue, with highly addictive drugs"
Ignorance is not bliss. And willful ignorance spouting off on the internet is painful to watch.
The two most dangerous drugs are currently legal. They are called alcohol and tobacco. Their addictive qualities are the equal of any illegal drug. The death toll due to tobacco is staggering and alcohol does far more damage that any of the pathetic drugs you listed. Yet they are perfectly legal. So if alcohol and tobacco are okay, why restrict the others? That is the fundamental problem with prohibiting some drugs and not others. There is no actual logic behind it.
"There are countries that have legalized drugs. Portugal, for instance, has seen a massive and sustained drop in drug related violence (to be expected) but also (rather unexpectedly) a sharp decline in the number of new users, for all the substances involved."
Portugal has not legalized drugs. They have decriminalized drugs. There is a very large difference. There are still consequences to drug use.
After the success of Portugal, there is no excuse not to implement their policies in the US.
"The issue gets infinitely more complicated when you're talking about far more dangerous drugs."
"tldr; Making a genuinely dangerous drug freely available is a show-stopper... and I don't see that ever changing."
Utter bullshit. I can name two incredibly dangerous drugs that are legal and readily available to (but not for sale to) everyone. They are named alcohol and tobacco. If there is another drug that is currently illegal that gets anywhere near the danger of those two, then maybe we might be able to talk. The argument about safety is a strawman, akin to saying "think about the children". People who resort to this tactic are dishonest.
"It strikes me nearly as tragedy that so many people see email as private and confidential."
And one of the common mistakes that technical people seem to make is that they assume that technical issues have anything to do with the law. Email is private and confidential because the law says it is when it covers certain issues. Not because of the technology. Encrypted data is still subject to FOIA requests and court orders.
In any case, I do not understand why anyone thinks that encryption somehow magically makes email private and/or confidential. Unless you lose the key. Once somebody can read it, all bets are off. The only question is what the penalties are for violating the privacy or confidentiality of the data. That's why the law is far more important than the technology.
"I've been told I would be fired if I engage in politics on the company dime, why should he not feel the same heat?"
Why exactly do you subscribe to the crab bucket theory? How exactly does it benefit you? Or perhaps you come from a long line of assholes? Or maybe you just work really hard at it?
He is a tenured history professor doing his job. There is no indication that he wrote anything inaccurate. Even if he was politically motivated, that does not change the facts of his research. It wouldn't matter. As a result, they are going on a fishing expedition in order to discredit him.
They are in fact going after his peer and student conversations. If you had bothered to read the FOIA request you would understand that. What you would be fired for and what he would be fired for do not matter. Professors are provided great leeway in their jobs. If you don't like that aspect of your job, get a better one or advocate for changes in your current one. Don't try to bring everyone down to your level. In short, don't be an asshole.
"They're plain stupid for expelling a kid for calling a teacher bipolar. The current actions are already on the severe side of the reasonable responses but they're considering doing expulsion or reform school (for an honor student)."
Why? Why is it okay to use bipolar as a slur and not pedophile and rapist? As for the length of suspensions, did you ever consider these honor students may have previous disciplinary problems? Good grades does not mean they are nice people.
Having said that, it would be nice to have a rational discussion about the role of school discipline. Unfortunately everybody seems fine with zero tolerance or invasive restrictions until "good" kids are involved. Perhaps the adults should think about and question these policies before they are put into place. They aren't a secret and they may be applied to your kid.
"In the real world, no one is truly evil. Not even Hitler."
Then the term evil has no meaning. Hitler ordered the execution of about 12 million people because he didn't like them. That isn't history being written by the victors. That's called reality. If that isn't evil, then exactly what is?
"The truth is, gun ownership has a darwinian effect. If you're stupid, you're in jail or dead pretty quick. If you hate, and act on it, same, and/or, you lose the ability to be an owner (legally). You no longer have anything to prove -- "nobody bothers me"."
I think I'm going to need a citation on that.
It's pretty clear based on voting patterns and poll numbers where a large percentage of gun owners stand politically. It's not pretty.
To be fair, they was some blame to go around. I'm not quite sure why nobody thought to press and hold the start button at any time during that entire period.
"It is literally the most important fact about this, and the fact that every single damn newspaper and the entire fucking Congress weren't leaping in and saying 'Hey, wait, why were you allowed to make a car without an actual off switch, and can we change that law by, oh, eight o'clock tonight?' makes me insane with rage. The fact that this place isn't screaming that question makes me insane with rage."
You are insane with rage because the off switches aren't instant? Seriously? And, yes, the cars do have off switches. The same push buttons that start the car also turn them off.
Instant switches are not a certain fix. Audio 5000's had keys and that didn't help in the face of crappy drivers. And you obviously haven't worked around machinery (vehicles and stationary) with disconnects. Because when people panic they routinely fail to use them. And their most common usage is to annoy coworkers. I don't see why cars would be any different.
"The fact this isn't instantly obvious to the editors or the vast majority of posters here rather demonstrates how technically illiterate this place is, how full of wannabes is it."
Did you ever consider that you may be a legend in your own mind?
"I sincerely have a hard time believing that somebody with no history of mental problems, in a car with relatives, in a car with his wife and unborn child, would accelerate down an offramp into another car... on the way home from church."
So it would be easier to believe if he had a mental illness, didn't go to church, was divorcing his wife, etc?
"In order to believe that Toyota has no defects I would have to believe this man just lost it and started screaming "no brakes! no brakes!" to his family while plowing into another car at 70-90mph. He also purportedly had plenty of time to stop starting at the beginning of the offramp, so it would have been a very prolonged panic-stomp-on-gas-instead-of-brake reaction."
Why is this so hard for people to believe? We all make mistakes. And having your car accelerate while you think you are pressing on the brakes can be pretty panic inducing. I doubt most people would consider the idea that they might actually be pressing on the accelerator. And that belief can be pretty powerful, especially if it prevents you from being responsible for a fatal accident (legally and/or mentally). It is enough for you to blame a car rather than a person making a mistake.
"For push-start cars, it's just be a switch, with roughly the same amount of force needed as a key, and stays on all the time, and you can utterly ignore it. But when you need to turn the car off, you know where it fucking is."
Last time I checked, the stop button is the same as the start button. If you don't have the time to hold the button down, I really doubt you will be able to stop a real problem. My evidence is the made up scare involving the Audi 5000. They had keys and it sure as hell didn't prevent people from pressing on the gas thinking it was the brake.
It's absurd that people don't apply historical knowledge to proposed solutions. It's absurd that we attempt technical fixes to training issues. It's absurd that people buy and/or operate expensive pieces of deadly machinery and don't have the slightest clue how to operate them in other than the most basic of conditions. Hell, the first time I sat in a car with push button start, I wondered how the fuck to shut it off during motion and at park. Manuals are wonderful things. It's absurd that most people don't consider that.
"This might be a fun way to have an argument but a truly useless way to develop any real "moral compass"."
I don't see why this is any worse than using a book of fairy tales written by bronze age goat herders. Both are merely appeals to authority. At least one deals with a real person that actually exists.
"It is the idea that some things are intrinsically right or wrong whether there is a law against it or not."
And that idea is wrong. Ultimately it is all relative.
"It will disproportionately infect non-vaccinated people, but everyone is at some risk."
But it is likely that the largest number of people who contract the disease will have been vaccinated. A small percentage of a large group is a large number. This is a very important point to remember. It is used to deceive people about the effectiveness of vaccines.
Slashdot Mirror
The research indicates that students need feedback, not a score or grade, in order to improve. Therefore, an auto-grader is a poor idea because it doesn't provide useful feedback.
Good feedback takes more time than grading or scoring. It is also formative, rather than summative, so a teacher would be unconcerned about the actual score or grade (supposedly the problem these programs are trying to solve). It doesn't do much good to tell students that their essay is good, average, or poor. You need to tell them how to improve. I see no indication that these programs do any of this.
It would be nice if essays could be automatically scored or graded. But that is only a very small part of the learning process.
Let's rephrase these a bit:
Driving while impaired is a serious crime and 100% preventable, all you have to do is act like a responsible adult and hand your keys to some who is not impaired.
I take it that you NEVER drive when fatigued or ill or on medications? Because you are the equivalent of a drunk.
Driving while distracted is a serious crime and 100% preventable, all you have to do is act like a responsible adult and hand your keys to some who is not distracted.
You NEVER encounter any distractions in your vehicle? Because that is also a crime.
By definition, virtually everyone on the road is guilty of impaired driving at some point. We mostly seem to manage. Singling out alcohol is absurd. But it sure is easy. And it obviously feels good.
Facts proven in court are not the same as facts in a scientific sense. There is no doubt that the coffee was at an "unsafe" temperature. Anyone who brews coffee or tea knows this. That is precisely why reasonable people don't put hot coffee in flimsy cups near any body part that they value in a moving vehicle.
However, court decisions are not always reasonable. As they are decided by people, they are sometimes wrong. That is hardly ignorance or hyperbole.
This would not be considered best professional practice in all states (friending students). It is strongly suggested in my state that teachers do not have facebook pages. If they should choose to have them, they should be private, and students should never be friended.
It is an excellent way to lose your job.
Why exactly do you think that being part of the union, having tenure, or being a government employee matters in matters of unprofessional conduct? All those things mean is that you get due process. They do not trump unprofessional conduct based on existing law which certainly covers inappropriate communication between a teacher and a student.
"Other issues with the rotary, they want to be run on the rich side which means they get shitty milage and have increased emissions..."
And this is why rotary engines are not used. Car manufacturers can tolerate low mileage but not poor emissions. If this proposed engine cannot meet emissions over the life of the engine (120K) then it has no future. When they have proven this, get back to me.
"Do you seriously think that nearly doubling Federal spending from 2000 to 2010 has nothing to do with the deficit we're running now?"
You might have a point if this statement were accurate. Adjusted for inflation, spending has increased 29 percent. Only if you ignore inflation can you get your number. Further, as a percentage of GDP, spending didn't increase anywhere near this amount.
And finally, don't forget that those massive tax cuts are part of the massive spending increase.
Another constraint that you don't mention is emissions. Even if it meets all of your other criteria but can't meet air quality requirements it is worthless. I suspect that will be a problem with this proposed engine.
"As an aspiring pilot, I must say that landing is a bitch. ;)"
Landing is easy. Landing intact is a bit more difficult.
"the problem is, by my determination, legalization will result in a larger number of users. this problem, in my mind, is more potent than all the bad side effects of prohibition. so prohibition should continue, with highly addictive drugs"
Ignorance is not bliss. And willful ignorance spouting off on the internet is painful to watch.
The two most dangerous drugs are currently legal. They are called alcohol and tobacco. Their addictive qualities are the equal of any illegal drug. The death toll due to tobacco is staggering and alcohol does far more damage that any of the pathetic drugs you listed. Yet they are perfectly legal. So if alcohol and tobacco are okay, why restrict the others? That is the fundamental problem with prohibiting some drugs and not others. There is no actual logic behind it.
"There are countries that have legalized drugs. Portugal, for instance, has seen a massive and sustained drop in drug related violence (to be expected) but also (rather unexpectedly) a sharp decline in the number of new users, for all the substances involved."
Portugal has not legalized drugs. They have decriminalized drugs. There is a very large difference. There are still consequences to drug use.
After the success of Portugal, there is no excuse not to implement their policies in the US.
"The issue gets infinitely more complicated when you're talking about far more dangerous drugs."
"tldr; Making a genuinely dangerous drug freely available is a show-stopper... and I don't see that ever changing."
Utter bullshit. I can name two incredibly dangerous drugs that are legal and readily available to (but not for sale to) everyone. They are named alcohol and tobacco. If there is another drug that is currently illegal that gets anywhere near the danger of those two, then maybe we might be able to talk. The argument about safety is a strawman, akin to saying "think about the children". People who resort to this tactic are dishonest.
"It strikes me nearly as tragedy that so many people see email as private and confidential."
And one of the common mistakes that technical people seem to make is that they assume that technical issues have anything to do with the law. Email is private and confidential because the law says it is when it covers certain issues. Not because of the technology. Encrypted data is still subject to FOIA requests and court orders.
In any case, I do not understand why anyone thinks that encryption somehow magically makes email private and/or confidential. Unless you lose the key. Once somebody can read it, all bets are off. The only question is what the penalties are for violating the privacy or confidentiality of the data. That's why the law is far more important than the technology.
"I've been told I would be fired if I engage in politics on the company dime, why should he not feel the same heat?"
Why exactly do you subscribe to the crab bucket theory? How exactly does it benefit you? Or perhaps you come from a long line of assholes? Or maybe you just work really hard at it?
He is a tenured history professor doing his job. There is no indication that he wrote anything inaccurate. Even if he was politically motivated, that does not change the facts of his research. It wouldn't matter. As a result, they are going on a fishing expedition in order to discredit him.
They are in fact going after his peer and student conversations. If you had bothered to read the FOIA request you would understand that. What you would be fired for and what he would be fired for do not matter. Professors are provided great leeway in their jobs. If you don't like that aspect of your job, get a better one or advocate for changes in your current one. Don't try to bring everyone down to your level. In short, don't be an asshole.
"They're plain stupid for expelling a kid for calling a teacher bipolar. The current actions are already on the severe side of the reasonable responses but they're considering doing expulsion or reform school (for an honor student)."
Why? Why is it okay to use bipolar as a slur and not pedophile and rapist? As for the length of suspensions, did you ever consider these honor students may have previous disciplinary problems? Good grades does not mean they are nice people.
Having said that, it would be nice to have a rational discussion about the role of school discipline. Unfortunately everybody seems fine with zero tolerance or invasive restrictions until "good" kids are involved. Perhaps the adults should think about and question these policies before they are put into place. They aren't a secret and they may be applied to your kid.
"...the student who was expelled called him bipolar."
Did you ever consider that this might not have been the first disciplinary offense for that student?
"You're also paying for the ability to sell it for a decent price a couple of years down the road."
And you think this is a good thing? This must be the reality distortion field they talk about.
"Being able to sell it for $1,000 when you're ready to upgrade takes a lot of the sting out of the $2,000 price tag."
No it doesn't. It just makes you bad at math.
"In the real world, no one is truly evil. Not even Hitler."
Then the term evil has no meaning. Hitler ordered the execution of about 12 million people because he didn't like them. That isn't history being written by the victors. That's called reality. If that isn't evil, then exactly what is?
"The truth is, gun ownership has a darwinian effect. If you're stupid, you're in jail or dead pretty quick. If you hate, and act on it, same, and/or, you lose the ability to be an owner (legally). You no longer have anything to prove -- "nobody bothers me"."
I think I'm going to need a citation on that.
It's pretty clear based on voting patterns and poll numbers where a large percentage of gun owners stand politically. It's not pretty.
"He was an idiot."
To be fair, they was some blame to go around. I'm not quite sure why nobody thought to press and hold the start button at any time during that entire period.
"It is literally the most important fact about this, and the fact that every single damn newspaper and the entire fucking Congress weren't leaping in and saying 'Hey, wait, why were you allowed to make a car without an actual off switch, and can we change that law by, oh, eight o'clock tonight?' makes me insane with rage. The fact that this place isn't screaming that question makes me insane with rage."
You are insane with rage because the off switches aren't instant? Seriously? And, yes, the cars do have off switches. The same push buttons that start the car also turn them off.
Instant switches are not a certain fix. Audio 5000's had keys and that didn't help in the face of crappy drivers. And you obviously haven't worked around machinery (vehicles and stationary) with disconnects. Because when people panic they routinely fail to use them. And their most common usage is to annoy coworkers. I don't see why cars would be any different.
"The fact this isn't instantly obvious to the editors or the vast majority of posters here rather demonstrates how technically illiterate this place is, how full of wannabes is it."
Did you ever consider that you may be a legend in your own mind?
"I sincerely have a hard time believing that somebody with no history of mental problems, in a car with relatives, in a car with his wife and unborn child, would accelerate down an offramp into another car... on the way home from church."
So it would be easier to believe if he had a mental illness, didn't go to church, was divorcing his wife, etc?
"In order to believe that Toyota has no defects I would have to believe this man just lost it and started screaming "no brakes! no brakes!" to his family while plowing into another car at 70-90mph. He also purportedly had plenty of time to stop starting at the beginning of the offramp, so it would have been a very prolonged panic-stomp-on-gas-instead-of-brake reaction."
Why is this so hard for people to believe? We all make mistakes. And having your car accelerate while you think you are pressing on the brakes can be pretty panic inducing. I doubt most people would consider the idea that they might actually be pressing on the accelerator. And that belief can be pretty powerful, especially if it prevents you from being responsible for a fatal accident (legally and/or mentally). It is enough for you to blame a car rather than a person making a mistake.
"For push-start cars, it's just be a switch, with roughly the same amount of force needed as a key, and stays on all the time, and you can utterly ignore it. But when you need to turn the car off, you know where it fucking is."
Last time I checked, the stop button is the same as the start button. If you don't have the time to hold the button down, I really doubt you will be able to stop a real problem. My evidence is the made up scare involving the Audi 5000. They had keys and it sure as hell didn't prevent people from pressing on the gas thinking it was the brake.
It's absurd that people don't apply historical knowledge to proposed solutions. It's absurd that we attempt technical fixes to training issues. It's absurd that people buy and/or operate expensive pieces of deadly machinery and don't have the slightest clue how to operate them in other than the most basic of conditions. Hell, the first time I sat in a car with push button start, I wondered how the fuck to shut it off during motion and at park. Manuals are wonderful things. It's absurd that most people don't consider that.
"This might be a fun way to have an argument but a truly useless way to develop any real "moral compass"."
I don't see why this is any worse than using a book of fairy tales written by bronze age goat herders. Both are merely appeals to authority. At least one deals with a real person that actually exists.
"It is the idea that some things are intrinsically right or wrong whether there is a law against it or not."
And that idea is wrong. Ultimately it is all relative.
"It will disproportionately infect non-vaccinated people, but everyone is at some risk."
But it is likely that the largest number of people who contract the disease will have been vaccinated. A small percentage of a large group is a large number. This is a very important point to remember. It is used to deceive people about the effectiveness of vaccines.