No it wasn't, because there isn't a representative group of people making that claim. It's just you, and I suspect you're not even making it in good faith.
I think the point is that society judges what is and isn't hate speech via its various governmental processes, not a random poster on Slashdot. It actually makes sense once you get away from the reflexive "all government is bad" position.
Sort of an ironic comment, given that arguably the world's best known expression of an absolutist free speech policy, the USA's 1st Amendment, enshrines it *right alongside* the freedom of religion.
So I guess your position is that you can be as free as you like to say stuff as long as it isn't "Praise Allah".
is that "these tribes (professor and ed-tech vendors) must work together". Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of ed-tech innovations are half-baked me-too schemes with no proven impact on knowledge transfer. The few systems that have serious thought and input from educators behind them can spread by word of mouth.
Teaching is enjoyable but hard work and relatively expensive to provide at a high level of qualilty. Too bad.
If mobile devices had decent terminal emulators, I might still be using local mail on a machine somewhere. As it is, the ability to seamlessly access email across a huge range of devices is more than worth the small tradeoff of having a couple of unobtrusive ads on the page.
I can also compose new mail even if the network goes down. I use a text editor for this task.
Meandering argument, constant repetition and wild swings in tone and style. My favorite:
"The weapons were surprisingly numerous, too. Each one has a different opportunity. No single one of them murdered them, and while there was conspiracy, there was also the accident of bad timing: the right formula at the wrong time."
There's more to it than that, though. The senior developer may be willing to work for less since he may find it less attractive to be shoved out onto the job market. The cost of hiring someone doesn't just depend on their skill set, it also depends on their own price sensitivity.
Which is why unions exist (though not in software development because programmers are so cool and independent and free-thinking).
How about the "fines" you pay for roads/schools/police/fire dept./etc ? Wouldn't you be so much better off if you could just opt out of all of those too?
The vast majority of students are not "paying for their education". Either the state or their parents are. And these paying customers (not the students) generally want value for money, meaning they want to see students come out of the sausage factory with something worthwhile to show for it.
Colleges respond to their customers, by finding ways to make students learn. Hence, banning laptops in class (which based on my experience is eminently sensible and can easily be worked around for those students who genuinely need them).
I don't get it - what would be a "respectable title" in order to comment on the future of instructional technology? Something other than a PhD and tenured position in Instructional Psychology and Technology?
Per-student spending in public schools is almost DOUBLE what it is in private schools!
Private schools typically don't spend much on special education, which has been the main source of the runaway increase in public education spending over the last 20 years. Unless you factor that out of the public education figure, you're comparing apples and oranges.
For whatever reason it's not the 'cool' thing to do.
Right. Those poor people and their insistence on 'cool' non-education-related activities for their kids!
Or maybe it's the fact that holding down three jobs doesn't leave as much time for "pushing education from day 1".
I'm not interested in your anecdotal evidence of a tough start life overcome by family insistence on education. That's nice, but it's not going to work as a solution for the thousands of kids currently getting screwed by the system as it stands.
Who is suggesting a completely government-controlled system? I've seen no suggestion that you wouldn't be free to take on private health insurance if you want to, just as you can send your kids to a private school.
I can't tell from your post whether this is your opinion, but I keep hearing this mantra: "the government wants to regulate things and take away your freedom." (I'm a Brit living in the US.) In this case, it's: "the government wants to prevent you from eating the food you like".
Frankly, this argument is weak. Regulation and freedom are not opposed, nor are they aligned - they are different things. Regulation can sometimes lead to loss of freedom, and can sometimes protect and enshrine freedom.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason that many people like fast food is that fast food corporations are currently free to bombard 4-year olds with the message that if they have a Big Mac, they will be happy?
There are many ways to tackle the obesity/fast food conundrum at the supply side. Now there's an argument that should appeal to Reaganites.
Where do your numbers come from? Last I heard, NiMH is limited chemically to around 75 Wh / kg at the cell level - the Prius module is closer to 45 from what I recall.
State of the art Li-ion modules are getting just over 100 Wh / kg at the moment.
These numbers are from the Prius specifications and battery manufacturers (namely A123). What are your sources?
"Smart" subcompact car with ~600 cc gasoline engine emissions: 120 g / km
Loss of energy "well-to-tank" due to gasoline refinement and distribution: 15%
=> gasoline well-to-wheel emissions = 120 / 85% ~= 140 g / km
"Smart" subcompact car electric energy requirement to drive (at the wheel): 100 Wh / km
Emissions of coal-fired power plant: 1 g / Wh
Efficiency loss "plant-to-wheel" due to grid inefficiency, battery storage...: 60%
=> "pure coal" electric driving emissions = 100 * 1 / 60% ~= 165 g / km
Energy mix in USA is roughly 0.6 g / km => 100 g / km
Energy mix in France / Sweden is roughly 0.06 g / km => 10 g / km
Slashdot Mirror
No it wasn't, because there isn't a representative group of people making that claim. It's just you, and I suspect you're not even making it in good faith.
I think the point is that society judges what is and isn't hate speech via its various governmental processes, not a random poster on Slashdot. It actually makes sense once you get away from the reflexive "all government is bad" position.
Sort of an ironic comment, given that arguably the world's best known expression of an absolutist free speech policy, the USA's 1st Amendment, enshrines it *right alongside* the freedom of religion. So I guess your position is that you can be as free as you like to say stuff as long as it isn't "Praise Allah".
is that "these tribes (professor and ed-tech vendors) must work together". Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of ed-tech innovations are half-baked me-too schemes with no proven impact on knowledge transfer. The few systems that have serious thought and input from educators behind them can spread by word of mouth. Teaching is enjoyable but hard work and relatively expensive to provide at a high level of qualilty. Too bad.
If mobile devices had decent terminal emulators, I might still be using local mail on a machine somewhere. As it is, the ability to seamlessly access email across a huge range of devices is more than worth the small tradeoff of having a couple of unobtrusive ads on the page. I can also compose new mail even if the network goes down. I use a text editor for this task.
So what you're saying is, because the truth is inconvenient, it has to be denied?
Meandering argument, constant repetition and wild swings in tone and style. My favorite:
"The weapons were surprisingly numerous, too. Each one has a different opportunity. No single one of them murdered them, and while there was conspiracy, there was also the accident of bad timing: the right formula at the wrong time."
Back to journo school methinks.
There's more to it than that, though. The senior developer may be willing to work for less since he may find it less attractive to be shoved out onto the job market. The cost of hiring someone doesn't just depend on their skill set, it also depends on their own price sensitivity. Which is why unions exist (though not in software development because programmers are so cool and independent and free-thinking).
How about the "fines" you pay for roads/schools/police/fire dept./etc ? Wouldn't you be so much better off if you could just opt out of all of those too?
Not only that, socialism EATS YOUR BABIES! It's true, I heard it on Fox News.
--
(x ofclass RightWingVoter) => (x ofclass VeryRich || x ofclass VeryNaive)
The vast majority of students are not "paying for their education". Either the state or their parents are. And these paying customers (not the students) generally want value for money, meaning they want to see students come out of the sausage factory with something worthwhile to show for it. Colleges respond to their customers, by finding ways to make students learn. Hence, banning laptops in class (which based on my experience is eminently sensible and can easily be worked around for those students who genuinely need them).
Two words: Military spending.
I don't get it - what would be a "respectable title" in order to comment on the future of instructional technology? Something other than a PhD and tenured position in Instructional Psychology and Technology?
Per-student spending in public schools is almost DOUBLE what it is in private schools!
Private schools typically don't spend much on special education, which has been the main source of the runaway increase in public education spending over the last 20 years. Unless you factor that out of the public education figure, you're comparing apples and oranges.
Education is not valued in lower incomes.
Evidence?
For whatever reason it's not the 'cool' thing to do.
Right. Those poor people and their insistence on 'cool' non-education-related activities for their kids!
Or maybe it's the fact that holding down three jobs doesn't leave as much time for "pushing education from day 1".
I'm not interested in your anecdotal evidence of a tough start life overcome by family insistence on education. That's nice, but it's not going to work as a solution for the thousands of kids currently getting screwed by the system as it stands.
Who is suggesting a completely government-controlled system? I've seen no suggestion that you wouldn't be free to take on private health insurance if you want to, just as you can send your kids to a private school.
I can't tell from your post whether this is your opinion, but I keep hearing this mantra: "the government wants to regulate things and take away your freedom." (I'm a Brit living in the US.) In this case, it's: "the government wants to prevent you from eating the food you like".
Frankly, this argument is weak. Regulation and freedom are not opposed, nor are they aligned - they are different things. Regulation can sometimes lead to loss of freedom, and can sometimes protect and enshrine freedom.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason that many people like fast food is that fast food corporations are currently free to bombard 4-year olds with the message that if they have a Big Mac, they will be happy?
There are many ways to tackle the obesity/fast food conundrum at the supply side. Now there's an argument that should appeal to Reaganites.
Where do your numbers come from? Last I heard, NiMH is limited chemically to around 75 Wh / kg at the cell level - the Prius module is closer to 45 from what I recall.
State of the art Li-ion modules are getting just over 100 Wh / kg at the moment.
These numbers are from the Prius specifications and battery manufacturers (namely A123). What are your sources?
All figures are rounded to keep things simple...
"Smart" subcompact car with ~600 cc gasoline engine emissions: 120 g / km
Loss of energy "well-to-tank" due to gasoline refinement and distribution: 15%
=> gasoline well-to-wheel emissions = 120 / 85% ~= 140 g / km
"Smart" subcompact car electric energy requirement to drive (at the wheel): 100 Wh / km
Emissions of coal-fired power plant: 1 g / Wh
Efficiency loss "plant-to-wheel" due to grid inefficiency, battery storage...: 60%
=> "pure coal" electric driving emissions = 100 * 1 / 60% ~= 165 g / km
Energy mix in USA is roughly 0.6 g / km => 100 g / km
Energy mix in France / Sweden is roughly 0.06 g / km => 10 g / km