I still haven't figured out exactly how you can bias a standardized test. Nobody has offered an actual example yet. I've heard this claim many times in articles or on the radio, but have never heard of even a single example.
Aren't the tests based on what the students are supposed to be taught in school? If they are being taught these things in school, then shouldn't they be able to pass the tests?
Everything you do, everything you think, every action you perform is done with some sort of bias. Somebody had to pick the school curriculum; that person was biased because of his environment. You learn what has been biased-ly (can you say that?) chosen; you have just been influenced by someone else's biases; you are now biased.
There is no way to avoid outside influences, and if you're influences don't happen to be similar to the influences of the people writing the tests, you are automatically placed at some disadvantage.
There MUST be other people that actually read the article... So far, I've read at least two dozen posts complaining that "Legos can't replace SATs!!", posts by people who obviously haven't even read the whole blurb, let alone the article.
I thought it was just funny to see posts accusing others of not reading; turns out, it's just the sad truth... Jeezly crow, folks!! You might as well stick your feet in your mouth from an educated viewpoint, instead of posting without reading and looking like an idiot!!
While women are not the primary money makers it does not mean they are not the ones spending it.
I don't think the original post was talking about which gender makes more, only which gender offers the game companies higher returns. Even if my S.O. buys me a game, she's going to go with the games that I've expressed interest in, not games that she would find interesting.
>...she has is heading to med school within the year so any type of romance wouldn't be practical at point in our lives.
I know this is marginally offtopic, but seeing comments like this (and I've heard plenty) really blows my mind. Since when is love supposed to be pratical? I realize that it's nice to have things laid out nicely, but the best laid plans... My current SO and I had been sort of casual for a couple of months when I went away to university. I thought that we shouldn't commit to anything because it wasn't "pratical". She bullied me into choosing otherwise (<g>), and we spent the next two years being at least an hour apart. We're engaged now...
All I mean is that there's no point in purposely avoiding a relationship because of praticality. Carpe diem, and all that.
Another book one might want to peruse is called "Aristos" (author forgotten; Jon Williams something, IIRC). Takes place in the future where man has developed gene tech and nanotech and cybernetic implants (basically all the really provocative rant topics on/.) . Good read, and raises some interesting questions on subject.
QUOTE agenda (-jnd) n., pl. agendas. 1.A list or program of things to be done or considered: "They share with them an agenda beyond the immediate goal of democratization of the electoral process" (Daniel Sneider). 2.A plural of agendum. [Latin, pl. of agendum, agendum; see agendum.]
Usage Note: It is true that Cicero would have used agendum to refer to a single item of business before the Roman Senate, with agenda as its plural. But in Modern English a phrase such as item on the agenda expresses the sense of agendum, and agenda is used as a singular noun to denote the set or list of such items, as in The agenda for the meeting has not yet been set. If a plural of agenda is required, the form should be agendas: The agendas of both meetings are exceptionally varied." ENDQUOTE -from dictionary.com (The American Heritage Dictionary)
Companies whose names are somehow witty, but only if you have prior knowledge (like "Twisted Pair", which is really only entertaining if you know anything about the telecom system; otherwise it sounds like bad pr0n...).
And now for something different; did that article actually say that "Nortel" was the product of one of the naming companies? Before "Nortel", it was "Northern Telecom" - how much mind-power would it have taken to figure that one out?
Since the merger with Bay Networks, it's now "Nortel Networks"; d'ya figure they hired someone to do that, too? Yeesh...
I think that one of the advantages on being online is anonymity and the potential freedom it allows. We can't be anonymous in RL (at least, not without a lot more work); so what? Think of all the stories about people who are timid shells (no offense meant) off line, yet vibrant, outspoken online individuals. Accountability, yes, but not through loss of anonymity. (Don't ask me how; I don't know. I just don't think it's the answer.)
Probably something to do with the fact that if your comp information is six months old, you're badly outdated; a year makes you obsolete. I don't think that the details of the Battle of Hastings will be completely different in 10 years, let alone two... The pace of the industry dictates that those in it keep up to date if they want to/stay/ in the industry.
Slashdot Mirror
I still haven't figured out exactly how you can bias a standardized test. Nobody has offered an actual example yet. I've heard this claim many times in articles or on the radio, but have never heard of even a single example.
Aren't the tests based on what the students are supposed to be taught in school? If they are being taught these things in school, then shouldn't they be able to pass the tests?
Everything you do, everything you think, every action you perform is done with some sort of bias. Somebody had to pick the school curriculum; that person was biased because of his environment. You learn what has been biased-ly (can you say that?) chosen; you have just been influenced by someone else's biases; you are now biased.
There is no way to avoid outside influences, and if you're influences don't happen to be similar to the influences of the people writing the tests, you are automatically placed at some disadvantage.
--
There MUST be other people that actually read the article... So far, I've read at least two dozen posts complaining that "Legos can't replace SATs!!", posts by people who obviously haven't even read the whole blurb, let alone the article.
I thought it was just funny to see posts accusing others of not reading; turns out, it's just the sad truth... Jeezly crow, folks!! You might as well stick your feet in your mouth from an educated viewpoint, instead of posting without reading and looking like an idiot!!
</RANT>
--
While women are not the primary money makers it does not mean they are not the ones spending it.
I don't think the original post was talking about which gender makes more, only which gender offers the game companies higher returns. Even if my S.O. buys me a game, she's going to go with the games that I've expressed interest in, not games that she would find interesting.
--
Can a computer program, if it is aware, believe something that's not true?
Isn't truth based on belief? How can one ascertain truth unless it is based on what one believes?
--
> ...she has is heading to med school within the year so any type of romance wouldn't be practical at point in our lives.
I know this is marginally offtopic, but seeing comments like this (and I've heard plenty) really blows my mind. Since when is love supposed to be pratical? I realize that it's nice to have things laid out nicely, but the best laid plans... My current SO and I had been sort of casual for a couple of months when I went away to university. I thought that we shouldn't commit to anything because it wasn't "pratical". She bullied me into choosing otherwise (<g>), and we spent the next two years being at least an hour apart. We're engaged now...
All I mean is that there's no point in purposely avoiding a relationship because of praticality. Carpe diem, and all that.
--
1. Hasn't most of Freud's work already been discounted?
2. If not, then at least bisexual. So what?
</offtopic rebuttal>
--
Another book one might want to peruse is called "Aristos" (author forgotten; Jon Williams something, IIRC). Takes place in the future where man has developed gene tech and nanotech and cybernetic implants (basically all the really provocative rant topics on /.) . Good read, and raises some interesting questions on subject.
--
QUOTE
agenda (-jnd) n., pl. agendas. 1.A list or program of things to be done or considered: "They share with them an agenda beyond the immediate goal of democratization of the electoral process" (Daniel Sneider).
2.A plural of agendum. [Latin, pl. of agendum, agendum; see agendum.]
Usage Note: It is true that Cicero would have used agendum to refer to a single item of business before the Roman Senate, with agenda as its plural. But in Modern English a phrase such as item on the agenda expresses the sense of agendum, and agenda is used as a singular noun to denote the set or list of such items, as in The agenda for the meeting has not yet been set. If a plural of agenda is required, the form should be agendas: The agendas of both meetings are exceptionally varied."
ENDQUOTE
-from dictionary.com (The American Heritage Dictionary)
For your amusement and edification. =>
--
Is it just me, or wouldn't that be the best of all possible worlds? Nothing but a bunch of techie geeks and supermodel babes... Mmmmm...
Excuse me, I have to go now...
--
Companies whose names are somehow witty, but only if you have prior knowledge (like "Twisted Pair", which is really only entertaining if you know anything about the telecom system; otherwise it sounds like bad pr0n...).
And now for something different; did that article actually say that "Nortel" was the product of one of the naming companies? Before "Nortel", it was "Northern Telecom" - how much mind-power would it have taken to figure that one out?
Since the merger with Bay Networks, it's now "Nortel Networks"; d'ya figure they hired someone to do that, too? Yeesh...
--
I wanna be totally sploogerific, too!! =>
Although that really does sound marginally pornographic... Not that that's a bad thing, mind you...
--
--
Maybe Gossip for Geeks works a little better?
=>
--
I think that one of the advantages on being online is anonymity and the potential freedom it allows. We can't be anonymous in RL (at least, not without a lot more work); so what? Think of all the stories about people who are timid shells (no offense meant) off line, yet vibrant, outspoken online individuals. Accountability, yes, but not through loss of anonymity. (Don't ask me how; I don't know. I just don't think it's the answer.)
--
It was Kurt Vonnegutt's (sp?) _Harrison Bergeron_ (one of the only stories I still remember from HS English...).
--
Probably something to do with the fact that if your comp information is six months old, you're badly outdated; a year makes you obsolete. I don't think that the details of the Battle of Hastings will be completely different in 10 years, let alone two... The pace of the industry dictates that those in it keep up to date if they want to /stay/ in the industry.
--