Just a friendly reminder to potential mods out there:
Treatment of the absurd as if it were rational is one of the many devices used by comedic practitioners to create their comedy, particularly that of the self-deprecating variety. Furthermore, regarding a person's sense of humor, Wikipedia has the following to say:
People of all ages and cultures respond to humour. The majority of people are able to experience humour, i.e., to be amused, to laugh or smile at something funny, and thus they are considered to have a sense of humour. The hypothetical person lacking a sense of humour would likely find the behaviour induced by humour to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational, and would probably consider it trolling (I added that part)
In other words, there's no -1 mod for "I don't get the joke". Thanks for your time.
Well, I did the only sensible thing and entered it into WolframAlpha for analysis. So, at this point, I have determined that "fucking" is a very colloquial, informal intensifier with a Scrabble score of 17 that corresponds to the telephone keypad digits, 382-5464. I give up.
Germans are incredibly tolerant about their language; if you try to speak it they will inform you that they actually speak fluent English, and that it would be easiest for the both of you to continue the conversation in your native tounge.
FTFY
I've always wanted to become fluent in German, but decades of compulsory English education at all levels of German secondary school mean that most Germans already speak my language. It's kind of hard to motivate myself to learn their language when I know it would be a mostly academic exercise.:-(
another chunk of us are (contrary to stereotypes) actually female
Umm...citation needed?
Or perhaps just a point of clarification: By making this statement, do you claim that, (a) it is hypothetically possible for a number of/. users to be actually female or, (b) that you, yourself are, in fact, female? I could maybe accept the first assertion on the basis of a logical thought experiment, but the second, I'm afraid, will require empirical evidence to be proven as fact.
Also, if you are implying that you do, in fact, have an idea what this "fucking" thing is all about...please post a link. Thx.
Why do people seem so oblivious to the notion that Google should be held accountable for anti-competetive behavior regardless of how much their customers love these "Value-Added" features, as you call them?
Consider Microsoft or Apple, who have often attempted to block competition under the premise of delivering a consistent "user experience" or some other mumbo jumbo. This isn't about the millions of adoring fans who are already drinking the Kool-Aid, but is rather about protecting the rights of those who choose not to. I often find those "value-added" sections fairly useful, but I also understand the larger implications that come with letting a powerful corporate entity go about unchecked.
Deliberately inserting a self-serving link into a result set where one would not otherwise appear is, in fact, a case of bias. People don't mind it too much because they usually end up with good results in either case. Nor do they mind the fact that those results come directly from Google. In fact, some people may find it preferable to get all their info from and do all their shopping on one site.
However, saying that we should not hold Google accountable because people like the service they provide is like saying that Walmart should not be held accountable for employee abuses just because they have low prices. When a private institution comes to this level of size and power, it must be scrutinized more deeply than simply asking if their customers are satisfied with the service. It has to be made certain that they are not using their power to unfairly stifle competition or harm other groups who may be in the minority.
[...] yes the Google thing appears at the top, but it is fairly obvious it's not a web search result.
Hmmm...a link to a website that that offers an answer to a query you entered into a web search engine? That sounds exactly like a "web search result", which is what it is. Google does not mark these links as advertisements because they correctly assume that they would get fewer clicks if they did.
Also, one of the points the author makes (and backs up with real statistics) is that there is a direct correlation between result ordering and the number of clicks that those results receive. It doesn't matter what the links look like...The only thing that matters is whether they are being used to unfairly divert web traffic away from businesses who are, or could be, in competition with Google or its partners.
Mod parent "woosh" for completely missing the point of the article (which he probably didn't read).
The point is that Google has said many times that it should be immune to anti-trust scrutiny because its search results are unbiased, among other reasons. This article, however, makes a logical, empirically supported argument for why Google *should* be subject to such scrutiny; because it is, in fact, engaging in the sorts of activities that anti-trust laws are meant to regulate. Namely, that it is using using its dominance in the search engine market to stifle competition in other areas.
This is not "nitpicking", as the GP suggests. This is about the flow of global commerce (and the billions of real dollars associated) being unfairly diverted by one company through the seemingly innocuous practice of reordering search results. The question is not about whether or not Google is engaging in this behavior, but is instead about the ethical implications of doing so. It's a question of the point at which service to the public interest overrides Google's right to profit from its proprietary technology.
When starting a debate over such an important topic, it's necessary to first perform a thorough investigation to reveal the facts of the case, even if most people would consider the results to be obvious. That's what this article does.
And the nitpicker is, of course, "nitpicking". The parent post doesn't say who is splitting hairs, or who simply can't accept good news when he sees it. Some people must always criticize the situation they're facing, I guess.
It's an open book exam, not an open-Internet open-chat open-Yahoo-Answers exam.
Wow...anyone using Yahoo Answers on a physics exam deserves some kind of academic Darwin award. On second thought, let the girl use her iPod as long as that's the only site she accesses.:-p
let them use basic scientific calculators, the textbook, their notes, and a dictionary;
To take that one step further, publish in the syllabus a list of the exact models of electronic devices and titles of reference texts that they can use during the exam. There's no need for this to be open-ended. In the real world you sometimes have to use equipment and reference materials you don't have at home. I recall once having to buy a TI-85 for a math class even though I already owned a TI-82 which did all the same stuff. It sucked but I got over it and these students will too.
The Swedish police, who have been instrumental in various raids against file-sharing sites, may have a bit of a piracy problem [...] people (and some shoe companies) are pointing out that creating a database isn't about an investigation.
I'd like to see a list of the shoe companies that are objecting to this. I suspect there are none, and that this is simply the futile ranting of an intellectual property professor (RTFA) who is sore over his favorite torrent site getting raided. Nothing to see here...move along. This should not have made it to the front page on/.
California does have e-books and are still creating more. This makes them an alternative going forward for licensing.
I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. No way can a dry, open-courseware eBook written by academic longbeards be considered an alternative to the flashy iPad app that HMH is trying to sell. If this program gets out of the pilot phase and schools really do start providing iPads to their students, they sure as heck won't want to use them solely as expensive PDF viewers. If they don't license their courseware from HMH, they'll get it from another vendor, most likely under similar licensing terms and at a similar price point.
They are trying to prove that a specific an online interactive subscription service developed by a textbook maker and which replaces a traditional static textbook has sufficiently greater educational value that the static textbook to warrant school districts purchasing both the hardware and the subscription service in place of traditional textbooks.
...a task at which they will surely fail (but will probably declare a success after the fact). I guess I should have surrounded the word "proof" with sarcastic double quotes, since my point is that they are speciously using the argument that this is a great social experiment to justify playing with cool gadgets.
I think the only thing we proved in the 80's is how computers can be used to make money from the educational system. I've visited plenty of classrooms with antique computer equipment that was used mostly as a prop to give the appearance of a modern classroom.
That's kinda the point I was trying to make. We've been hearing forever that [insert organization name here] needs to get out of the stone age and embrace technology, but in this case, its all just a lame rationalization for playing with cool gadgets, not true improvement of our educational system.
Here's a novel idea. How about in return for decent wages for teachers, the teachers union abolish the tenure system?
A lot of schools in California fire 100% of their teachers every year and then hire them back the next year for this very reason. I agree that its all pretty silly.
I did as you suggested and came to this page. Though they look promising, you will note that these are not the textbooks that ever have been used or (most likely) ever will be used for classroom instruction.
Try Googling "Houghton Mifflin Harcourt". They are the publisher that, according to TFA, provides content for the iPads. Their website does not list price information, but its not unreasonable to assume that there will be per-iPad licensing fees for their HMH Fuse(tm) Algebra I program. All that flashy multimedia content doesn't pay for itself, you know.
It would be great if classes all over the country used open-source courseware, but that's not what's happening here...not by a long shot.
What exactly would constitute a good educational discount from Apple? 25%? 50%? Even half the $500 cost of their low-end model is $250, which is still greater than the retail price of most eBook readers (Kindle 3G now $189)...and I didn't even need an iPad to figure that out.
The average lifespan of a textbook in California is 6 years. How does the iPad stack up? There's no way to tell since it's been out for less than a year! Plus, textbooks can be kicked around, stepped on, dropped etc. This is a clear case of using unproven technology in a capacity for which it was not designed.
After some Googling, I found an interesting proposal for an eBook reader specifically designed to be used in the classroom. A well-thought and researched idea like this deserves serious consideration, however, we are not dealing with a genuine movement toward improving education, but rather the "I want cool gadgets and I want them now!" mentality.
The key word here is "supplement". I can't count the number of times I've been frustrated by being made to watch a video after Googling around for a tutorial on something or a solution to some technical problem. Reading is simply faster and more efficient than watching videos (unless of course you're dyslexic), yet, "instant access to more than 400 videos" is the major selling point of this program.
I could maybe see the value of providing iPads to kids with learning disabilities...that is, if such a program weren't so obviously prone to abuse (kids pretending to be disabled) and the whole "me too" mentality. Reading used to be fundamental...Why is this no longer the case?
A pilot project in four California school districts will replace 400 students' eighth-grade algebra textbooks with Apple iPads in an attempt to prove the advantages of interactive digital technologies over traditional teaching methods.
Didn't we prove that computers have educational value back in the 80's? Then, wasn't it proved a hundred more times throughout the 90's? I guess sometimes you can never have quite enough proof.
Isn't it obvious? The money will come from the parents who have so much spare cash to throw around. Supporting a family in this economy practically pays for itself, right?
Good point but the terminology is kind of debatable. After all, the camera is digital and does technically use a single lens rather than separate lenses for the viewfinder and image sensor. So the best term would be "DSL Camera" (dropping the 'R').
All hair-splitting aside, your post is much appreciated, and your mod points well-deserved. The reason I (and I'm sure others) read discussions is to filter out the truth from the BS, so thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a friendly reminder to potential mods out there:
Treatment of the absurd as if it were rational is one of the many devices used by comedic practitioners to create their comedy, particularly that of the self-deprecating variety. Furthermore, regarding a person's sense of humor, Wikipedia has the following to say:
People of all ages and cultures respond to humour. The majority of people are able to experience humour, i.e., to be amused, to laugh or smile at something funny, and thus they are considered to have a sense of humour. The hypothetical person lacking a sense of humour would likely find the behaviour induced by humour to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational, and would probably consider it trolling (I added that part)
In other words, there's no -1 mod for "I don't get the joke". Thanks for your time.
Well, I did the only sensible thing and entered it into WolframAlpha for analysis. So, at this point, I have determined that "fucking" is a very colloquial, informal intensifier with a Scrabble score of 17 that corresponds to the telephone keypad digits, 382-5464. I give up.
Germans are incredibly tolerant about their language; if you try to speak it they will inform you that they actually speak fluent English, and that it would be easiest for the both of you to continue the conversation in your native tounge.
FTFY
I've always wanted to become fluent in German, but decades of compulsory English education at all levels of German secondary school mean that most Germans already speak my language. It's kind of hard to motivate myself to learn their language when I know it would be a mostly academic exercise. :-(
No, that's clearly not right, see:
I just fucked a girl in her pussy! more than you loser-ass fuckBERLINckbeards will ever do.
get some sunlight you stupid fuckers!! hahahaha
Go back to cryptanalysis school, n00b.
another chunk of us are (contrary to stereotypes) actually female
Umm...citation needed?
Or perhaps just a point of clarification: By making this statement, do you claim that, (a) it is hypothetically possible for a number of /. users to be actually female or, (b) that you, yourself are, in fact, female? I could maybe accept the first assertion on the basis of a logical thought experiment, but the second, I'm afraid, will require empirical evidence to be proven as fact.
Also, if you are implying that you do, in fact, have an idea what this "fucking" thing is all about...please post a link. Thx.
Buy them porn...When I was a kid, I found it to be remarkably educational.
Why do people seem so oblivious to the notion that Google should be held accountable for anti-competetive behavior regardless of how much their customers love these "Value-Added" features, as you call them?
Consider Microsoft or Apple, who have often attempted to block competition under the premise of delivering a consistent "user experience" or some other mumbo jumbo. This isn't about the millions of adoring fans who are already drinking the Kool-Aid, but is rather about protecting the rights of those who choose not to. I often find those "value-added" sections fairly useful, but I also understand the larger implications that come with letting a powerful corporate entity go about unchecked.
Deliberately inserting a self-serving link into a result set where one would not otherwise appear is, in fact, a case of bias. People don't mind it too much because they usually end up with good results in either case. Nor do they mind the fact that those results come directly from Google. In fact, some people may find it preferable to get all their info from and do all their shopping on one site.
However, saying that we should not hold Google accountable because people like the service they provide is like saying that Walmart should not be held accountable for employee abuses just because they have low prices. When a private institution comes to this level of size and power, it must be scrutinized more deeply than simply asking if their customers are satisfied with the service. It has to be made certain that they are not using their power to unfairly stifle competition or harm other groups who may be in the minority.
The actual search results are the same!
RTFA...or perhaps just RTFSummary. The search results are not the same as they would otherwise be. That's the whole point.
[...] yes the Google thing appears at the top, but it is fairly obvious it's not a web search result.
Hmmm...a link to a website that that offers an answer to a query you entered into a web search engine? That sounds exactly like a "web search result", which is what it is. Google does not mark these links as advertisements because they correctly assume that they would get fewer clicks if they did.
Also, one of the points the author makes (and backs up with real statistics) is that there is a direct correlation between result ordering and the number of clicks that those results receive. It doesn't matter what the links look like...The only thing that matters is whether they are being used to unfairly divert web traffic away from businesses who are, or could be, in competition with Google or its partners.
Mod parent "woosh" for completely missing the point of the article (which he probably didn't read).
The point is that Google has said many times that it should be immune to anti-trust scrutiny because its search results are unbiased, among other reasons. This article, however, makes a logical, empirically supported argument for why Google *should* be subject to such scrutiny; because it is, in fact, engaging in the sorts of activities that anti-trust laws are meant to regulate. Namely, that it is using using its dominance in the search engine market to stifle competition in other areas.
This is not "nitpicking", as the GP suggests. This is about the flow of global commerce (and the billions of real dollars associated) being unfairly diverted by one company through the seemingly innocuous practice of reordering search results. The question is not about whether or not Google is engaging in this behavior, but is instead about the ethical implications of doing so. It's a question of the point at which service to the public interest overrides Google's right to profit from its proprietary technology.
When starting a debate over such an important topic, it's necessary to first perform a thorough investigation to reveal the facts of the case, even if most people would consider the results to be obvious. That's what this article does.
And the nitpicker is, of course, "nitpicking". The parent post doesn't say who is splitting hairs, or who simply can't accept good news when he sees it. Some people must always criticize the situation they're facing, I guess.
It's an open book exam, not an open-Internet open-chat open-Yahoo-Answers exam.
Wow...anyone using Yahoo Answers on a physics exam deserves some kind of academic Darwin award. On second thought, let the girl use her iPod as long as that's the only site she accesses. :-p
let them use basic scientific calculators, the textbook, their notes, and a dictionary;
To take that one step further, publish in the syllabus a list of the exact models of electronic devices and titles of reference texts that they can use during the exam. There's no need for this to be open-ended. In the real world you sometimes have to use equipment and reference materials you don't have at home. I recall once having to buy a TI-85 for a math class even though I already owned a TI-82 which did all the same stuff. It sucked but I got over it and these students will too.
The Swedish police, who have been instrumental in various raids against file-sharing sites, may have a bit of a piracy problem [...] people (and some shoe companies) are pointing out that creating a database isn't about an investigation.
I'd like to see a list of the shoe companies that are objecting to this. I suspect there are none, and that this is simply the futile ranting of an intellectual property professor (RTFA) who is sore over his favorite torrent site getting raided. Nothing to see here...move along. This should not have made it to the front page on /.
California does have e-books and are still creating more. This makes them an alternative going forward for licensing.
I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. No way can a dry, open-courseware eBook written by academic longbeards be considered an alternative to the flashy iPad app that HMH is trying to sell. If this program gets out of the pilot phase and schools really do start providing iPads to their students, they sure as heck won't want to use them solely as expensive PDF viewers. If they don't license their courseware from HMH, they'll get it from another vendor, most likely under similar licensing terms and at a similar price point.
They are trying to prove that a specific an online interactive subscription service developed by a textbook maker and which replaces a traditional static textbook has sufficiently greater educational value that the static textbook to warrant school districts purchasing both the hardware and the subscription service in place of traditional textbooks.
...a task at which they will surely fail (but will probably declare a success after the fact). I guess I should have surrounded the word "proof" with sarcastic double quotes, since my point is that they are speciously using the argument that this is a great social experiment to justify playing with cool gadgets.
I think the only thing we proved in the 80's is how computers can be used to make money from the educational system. I've visited plenty of classrooms with antique computer equipment that was used mostly as a prop to give the appearance of a modern classroom.
That's kinda the point I was trying to make. We've been hearing forever that [insert organization name here] needs to get out of the stone age and embrace technology, but in this case, its all just a lame rationalization for playing with cool gadgets, not true improvement of our educational system.
Here's a novel idea. How about in return for decent wages for teachers, the teachers union abolish the tenure system?
A lot of schools in California fire 100% of their teachers every year and then hire them back the next year for this very reason. I agree that its all pretty silly.
I did as you suggested and came to this page. Though they look promising, you will note that these are not the textbooks that ever have been used or (most likely) ever will be used for classroom instruction.
Try Googling "Houghton Mifflin Harcourt". They are the publisher that, according to TFA, provides content for the iPads. Their website does not list price information, but its not unreasonable to assume that there will be per-iPad licensing fees for their HMH Fuse(tm) Algebra I program. All that flashy multimedia content doesn't pay for itself, you know.
It would be great if classes all over the country used open-source courseware, but that's not what's happening here...not by a long shot.
What exactly would constitute a good educational discount from Apple? 25%? 50%? Even half the $500 cost of their low-end model is $250, which is still greater than the retail price of most eBook readers (Kindle 3G now $189)...and I didn't even need an iPad to figure that out.
The average lifespan of a textbook in California is 6 years. How does the iPad stack up? There's no way to tell since it's been out for less than a year! Plus, textbooks can be kicked around, stepped on, dropped etc. This is a clear case of using unproven technology in a capacity for which it was not designed.
After some Googling, I found an interesting proposal for an eBook reader specifically designed to be used in the classroom. A well-thought and researched idea like this deserves serious consideration, however, we are not dealing with a genuine movement toward improving education, but rather the "I want cool gadgets and I want them now!" mentality.
The key word here is "supplement". I can't count the number of times I've been frustrated by being made to watch a video after Googling around for a tutorial on something or a solution to some technical problem. Reading is simply faster and more efficient than watching videos (unless of course you're dyslexic), yet, "instant access to more than 400 videos" is the major selling point of this program.
I could maybe see the value of providing iPads to kids with learning disabilities...that is, if such a program weren't so obviously prone to abuse (kids pretending to be disabled) and the whole "me too" mentality. Reading used to be fundamental...Why is this no longer the case?
The first line FTFA was what got me:
A pilot project in four California school districts will replace 400 students' eighth-grade algebra textbooks with Apple iPads in an attempt to prove the advantages of interactive digital technologies over traditional teaching methods.
Didn't we prove that computers have educational value back in the 80's? Then, wasn't it proved a hundred more times throughout the 90's? I guess sometimes you can never have quite enough proof.
No...Think of the environment!!! No costs must be spared to save the dozen or so trees that would have otherwise be converted into textbooks.
Isn't it obvious? The money will come from the parents who have so much spare cash to throw around. Supporting a family in this economy practically pays for itself, right?
Good point but the terminology is kind of debatable. After all, the camera is digital and does technically use a single lens rather than separate lenses for the viewfinder and image sensor. So the best term would be "DSL Camera" (dropping the 'R').
All hair-splitting aside, your post is much appreciated, and your mod points well-deserved. The reason I (and I'm sure others) read discussions is to filter out the truth from the BS, so thanks.