[edit: The US] will have huge and increasing energy and CO2 numbers, because we have growing economies and huge heavy industry.
Not for much longer, methinks.
On either count.
inflation adjusted figures say that, while the US economy somehow managed to (allegedly) grow 3% in 2010. It shrank in 2008, and 2009.
Supposedly, estimated 2011 growth was 1.7%, but thats not official.
in comparison, china's economy(measured by pure GDP) has an average 10% growth rate, year after year, since....well, quite a few decades now.
FYI, the sources for this data come from "The CIA world factbook".
99% sounds suspicious to me, too. But it's definitely true that a LOT of oil is refiend in the US.
again, from the wikipedia page I quoted;
Oil refineries in the US, don't even make it into ONE of the top 5(by volume) refineries in the world.
Only 3 out of the top 10, are in the US.
(I was surprised to see that Korea is a major refiner. interesting)
Now, mind you, the US has a lot of horizontal scaling going on. There are around 30 refineries in texas alone, and it looks like 20 in california. most countries have only a handful of refineries, if they even have more than 1 major one.
But then again, most countries only have a fraction of the population of the US, too.
The parent post I was replying to, made a blanket statement, "Standardized tests are worthless for rating teachers. "
This should be obviously false.
I can believe there are bad tests out there. That does not mean, however, that the concept of using standardized tests to rate teachers, is bad.
Perhaps what is needed, is to stop attempting to "rate teachers", and instead focus 100% on "rate the student's educational progress".
That is the real thing that matters.
Basic principles of business, and similar: reward based on the factors that actually matter, rather than side issues.
"Alleviate pain" is a whoole lot different from "take my life away" !!
Why is there no research into simply turning off pain receptors or some such? ! With all the disgusting surgeries out there, i figure there has to be some sugery for "turn me into someone with non-functional nerve endings"??
Or most likely.. there IS.. but the problem with that, is that there is a not-quite-zero chance of some of these patients NOT dying after all. SO, risk analysis by businesses done:
a)provide guaranteed effective death pill on demand. No lawsuits. WIN!!
b) provide something that would actually "alleviate pain" literally... but since it's permenant, will result in some percentage of lawsuits. Nope, go with option a.
I'd rather have her in a classroom with other kids where she can learn to make friends
[/parental fail]
A kid isnt in a classroom "to make friends". A kid is supposed to be in a classroom *to learn*.
Being "in school" to make friends, is a different matter, however.
I think [being social is] more important than learning to read and do math.
Wow. And there we have it, folks; Why most american children are idiots. Because their parents think it is more important to be social, than to "read and do math".
A business executive was once asked what is the best word processing program and responded by saying a good secretary.
Very apropos quote. Because while "no program is as good as a good secretary", time has shown that "a good word processing program, and a modicum of user training" is *good enough*. To the point where only rich executives have a secretary. Yet 60 years ago, practically every manager had one.
As you say, good luck with a video (or even a reasonably sophisticated computer program) doing either of those things.
it's pretty trivial, actually.
1. If its all 1-to-1 computer/student interaction, there is no "classroom".
2. Just videotape the "good teacher". These teachers who engage the student, are still pretty much in lecture mode, after elementary school. There is not much difference between "teacher delivering a lecture in real live". vs "watching same teacher on a screen".
It's not the 3d-ness of the teacher that captures the attention of the child; its the performing skills of the teacher. That comes through either way.
Not all teachers resonate with all students. Which is why the pre-recorded approach is PERFECT.
Some students have a "bad year" in a subject because the teacher doesnt resonate with them in the subject that year.
But what if they had the ability to change the teacher in that subject at will, to the one that *they* picked for themselves? !
Far superior to the "well cross your fingers and hope you get a teacher you like next year" approach .
He will ask a normally happy kid that all of sudden is all down, what's wrong. So no, you can not replace a good teacher. A good teacher is a source of inspiration and a safe haven.
Yes you can. In case you're wondering with what, they're called "good parents".
The main problems with US society was when teachers started to be viewed as a substitute for good parents.
Fix the problems with the parents (for example, so that the kids parents dont get that divorce you reference earlier), and suddenly, the kid does a whole lot better in school. Strange but true.
"I can't stop the Khan Academy video and ask it..."
You have just described why replacing teachers with static video, is lacking. You have not described why replacing teachers with a comprehensive, dynamic cross-linked teaching engine, is lacking.
In reality, the computer driven model is MUCH MUCH better, because it would allow even timid students to delve into side questions far more deeply than in a regular classroom. In fact, sometimes, seeing the available side questions can spark more knowlege in the learner than they might otherwise get in just sitting in a room listening to a lecture from a teacher.
It approaches the effectiveness of the old "personal tutor" over a "classroom", which only the rich could afford in the past.
"Yes, you can read a book. Yes, you can self learn. Yes, you can do it yourself. But when it comes down to 'how do I...?' google is an awesome way to learn something quickly "
There, I Fixed It For You.
You know some terrible teachers. First of all, teachers are required by law to engage in professional development.
blah blah blah...
For most teachers: that is to say, elementary and middle school teachers, who are the majority in question here... professional development is about as useful as the "breadth requirements" in the average 4 year college degree.
Possibly useful for people who still have no idea what their degree is going to be after 3 years.. but for people who know what they are going to be doing as a job, they are a total waste of time and money.
Elementary and middle school teachers are not teaching modern electronics. Nor are they teaching modern history. They teach subjects that have not changed in decades.
. Among the many idiocies of standardized tests is that poor kids require a ton of effort just to get them to focus on being in school. You can't even start educating them until you've mitigated the worst of their circumstances somehow.
That in no way renders standardized tests as "idiocy". that merely points out that poor kids have a terrible time being able to learn in school. The standardized tests are *accurately showing* that the poor children are learning less.
You can't even start on test scores until you've solved basic social issues with poverty that are far out of your scope as a teacher--and in Chicago's public school system, that's a majority of the kids.
Properly speaking, your argument should then be, "inner city schools should be held to lower standards of achievement".
If you want to make actual change happen, you should be validating the test scores, and pointing out, "here is WHY the students are scoring lower", not trying to get rid of a valuable tool that proves the children there need more help.
Just because success on standardized tests strongly correlates with family income, doesnt mean it is NOT a valid test. Just because something turns up data that is non-PeeCee, doesnt mean it is WRONG.
Common sense check: People who come from wealthier homes, tend to do better in school, and be better educated.
Well, DUH! This is because the schools they go to are better, and the parents are more involved, leading to better achievement.
If this fact bothers you, and you want to do something about it, then the first step to correct it, is to measure the difference in achievement . The next step is to then take new measures to improve achievement in lower-income areas.
You MUST HAVE proper measurement of results, if you wish to determine methods of meaningful, effective change! This is basic science!
If instead, you throw out tests results that you dont like, because they somehow don't sit well with your politically biased beliefs... then you are a zealot on a mission. A mission whose core goal is "pretend everyone is the same", rather than *ACTUALLY HELP CHILDREN*.
PS: the claims of "randomness" are completely bogus. What they might mean is, "they dont match up with the criteria that we, the school board, decide to claim as being 'the best teachers'".
As a parent, however, the material on the tests, exactly corresponds to my definition of what my child should be learning. Math skills. Reading comprehension. If the teachers are "teaching to the test".. well, good! they are then teaching my child useful skills, rather than most of the utter garbage in the current curriculum. Does my child need to learn how to make cute little paper-mache buildings? NO, TEACH THEM HOW TO DO MATH AND READ, for #$#@ SAKE! Not to mention logic!
And yes, I am a real parent, with 3 children, this is not some "hypothetical child" argument.
It's because they don't teach children proper math and comprehension skills, that the majority of voters are a bunch of idiot sheep who are easily lead into voting for dumb and dumber.
They took it well and from that point on he was able to go to the crazy parties and do the things our parents never wanted us to do... He never got arrested either.
Oh, well then.. mission accomplished! Because that's all any good parents want to achieve: that their child "doesnt get arrested"
The appropriate, time-honored solution to your problem is: stop asking permission to do so. Just write the script (very, VERY carefully, making sure it has an insane amount of safety checks), then give it a limited test run... then if it works out okay, start using it fully.
Even a cautious manager will usually be impressed once they find out you've been using some script you wrote, in production, for a year, and they havent heard of any problems with the system.
Depends what they're administering. There are plenty of systems that are more closed, and the sysadmin should be spending their time living in the pre-provided frameworks, rather than coding their own.
Many times, it's a matter of learning what is already available for the system, rather than coding your own, lesser quality replacement.
The irony in the article, is that the link for "high quality, not 'good enough' quality", leads to a page where the first image has around 20% of the data, missing/blacked out.
First time I've seen a definition of "high quality" that means "20% data loss"
Slashdot Mirror
And that might ruin him, yes. Depending on how much sleep his particular organism needs and how intense his workplace environment is.
What, he works *7 days a week* ??
Well, using hex can be a huge mental barrier for some.
But more importantly... only a teenie tiny fraction of modern programming needs it. So its in the same category of "advanced math"
[edit: The US] will have huge and increasing energy and CO2 numbers, because we have growing economies and huge heavy industry.
Not for much longer, methinks. On either count. inflation adjusted figures say that, while the US economy somehow managed to (allegedly) grow 3% in 2010. It shrank in 2008, and 2009. Supposedly, estimated 2011 growth was 1.7%, but thats not official.
in comparison, china's economy(measured by pure GDP) has an average 10% growth rate, year after year, since....well, quite a few decades now.
FYI, the sources for this data come from "The CIA world factbook".
99% sounds suspicious to me, too. But it's definitely true that a LOT of oil is refiend in the US.
again, from the wikipedia page I quoted;
Oil refineries in the US, don't even make it into ONE of the top 5(by volume) refineries in the world. Only 3 out of the top 10, are in the US.
(I was surprised to see that Korea is a major refiner. interesting)
Now, mind you, the US has a lot of horizontal scaling going on. There are around 30 refineries in texas alone, and it looks like 20 in california. most countries have only a handful of refineries, if they even have more than 1 major one. But then again, most countries only have a fraction of the population of the US, too.
Replace "conservative voters" with just "voters", and you have an even more fully accurate general statement about the electoral landscape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries
would disagree with your "99% percent of oil is refined in the US" claim
Obama. The guy is to the right on Nixon and Reagan on many issues.
Just not on any issues that "conservative" voters actually care about.
The parent post I was replying to, made a blanket statement, "Standardized tests are worthless for rating teachers. " This should be obviously false. I can believe there are bad tests out there. That does not mean, however, that the concept of using standardized tests to rate teachers, is bad. Perhaps what is needed, is to stop attempting to "rate teachers", and instead focus 100% on "rate the student's educational progress". That is the real thing that matters. Basic principles of business, and similar: reward based on the factors that actually matter, rather than side issues.
"Alleviate pain" is a whoole lot different from "take my life away" !!
Why is there no research into simply turning off pain receptors or some such? !
With all the disgusting surgeries out there, i figure there has to be some sugery for "turn me into someone with non-functional nerve endings"??
Or most likely.. there IS.. but the problem with that, is that there is a not-quite-zero chance of some of these patients NOT dying after all. SO, risk analysis by businesses done:
a)provide guaranteed effective death pill on demand.
No lawsuits. WIN!!
b) provide something that would actually "alleviate pain" literally... but since it's permenant, will result in some percentage of lawsuits.
Nope, go with option a.
This is disgusting
I'd rather have her in a classroom with other kids where she can learn to make friends
[/parental fail]
A kid isnt in a classroom "to make friends". A kid is supposed to be in a classroom *to learn*.
Being "in school" to make friends, is a different matter, however.
I think [being social is] more important than learning to read and do math.
Wow. And there we have it, folks; Why most american children are idiots. Because their parents think it is more important to be social, than to "read and do math".
A business executive was once asked what is the best word processing program and responded by saying a good secretary.
Very apropos quote. Because while "no program is as good as a good secretary", time has shown that "a good word processing program, and a modicum of user training" is *good enough*. To the point where only rich executives have a secretary. Yet 60 years ago, practically every manager had one.
As you say, good luck with a video (or even a reasonably sophisticated computer program) doing either of those things.
it's pretty trivial, actually.
1. If its all 1-to-1 computer/student interaction, there is no "classroom".
2. Just videotape the "good teacher". These teachers who engage the student, are still pretty much in lecture mode, after elementary school. There is not much difference between "teacher delivering a lecture in real live". vs "watching same teacher on a screen". It's not the 3d-ness of the teacher that captures the attention of the child; its the performing skills of the teacher. That comes through either way.
Not all teachers resonate with all students. Which is why the pre-recorded approach is PERFECT. Some students have a "bad year" in a subject because the teacher doesnt resonate with them in the subject that year.
But what if they had the ability to change the teacher in that subject at will, to the one that *they* picked for themselves? !
Far superior to the "well cross your fingers and hope you get a teacher you like next year" approach .
He will ask a normally happy kid that all of sudden is all down, what's wrong. So no, you can not replace a good teacher. A good teacher is a source of inspiration and a safe haven.
Yes you can. In case you're wondering with what, they're called "good parents".
The main problems with US society was when teachers started to be viewed as a substitute for good parents.
Fix the problems with the parents (for example, so that the kids parents dont get that divorce you reference earlier), and suddenly, the kid does a whole lot better in school. Strange but true.
"I can't stop the Khan Academy video and ask it ..."
You have just described why replacing teachers with static video, is lacking.
You have not described why replacing teachers with a comprehensive, dynamic cross-linked teaching engine, is lacking.
In reality, the computer driven model is MUCH MUCH better, because it would allow even timid students to delve into side questions far more deeply than in a regular classroom.
In fact, sometimes, seeing the available side questions can spark more knowlege in the learner than they might otherwise get in just sitting in a room listening to a lecture from a teacher.
It approaches the effectiveness of the old "personal tutor" over a "classroom", which only the rich could afford in the past.
"Yes, you can read a book. Yes, you can self learn. Yes, you can do it yourself. But when it comes down to 'how do I...?' google is an awesome way to learn something quickly " There, I Fixed It For You.
You know some terrible teachers. First of all, teachers are required by law to engage in professional development.
blah blah blah...
For most teachers: that is to say, elementary and middle school teachers, who are the majority in question here... professional development is about as useful as the "breadth requirements" in the average 4 year college degree. Possibly useful for people who still have no idea what their degree is going to be after 3 years.. but for people who know what they are going to be doing as a job, they are a total waste of time and money.
Elementary and middle school teachers are not teaching modern electronics. Nor are they teaching modern history. They teach subjects that have not changed in decades.
. Among the many idiocies of standardized tests is that poor kids require a ton of effort just to get them to focus on being in school. You can't even start educating them until you've mitigated the worst of their circumstances somehow.
That in no way renders standardized tests as "idiocy". that merely points out that poor kids have a terrible time being able to learn in school. The standardized tests are *accurately showing* that the poor children are learning less.
You can't even start on test scores until you've solved basic social issues with poverty that are far out of your scope as a teacher--and in Chicago's public school system, that's a majority of the kids.
Properly speaking, your argument should then be, "inner city schools should be held to lower standards of achievement". If you want to make actual change happen, you should be validating the test scores, and pointing out, "here is WHY the students are scoring lower", not trying to get rid of a valuable tool that proves the children there need more help.
Just because success on standardized tests strongly correlates with family income, doesnt mean it is NOT a valid test.
Just because something turns up data that is non-PeeCee, doesnt mean it is WRONG.
Common sense check:
People who come from wealthier homes, tend to do better in school, and be better educated.
Well, DUH! This is because the schools they go to are better, and the parents are more involved, leading to better achievement.
If this fact bothers you, and you want to do something about it, then the first step to correct it, is to measure the difference in achievement . The next step is to then take new measures to improve achievement in lower-income areas.
You MUST HAVE proper measurement of results, if you wish to determine methods of meaningful, effective change! This is basic science!
If instead, you throw out tests results that you dont like, because they somehow don't sit well with your politically biased beliefs... then you are a zealot on a mission. A mission whose core goal is "pretend everyone is the same", rather than *ACTUALLY HELP CHILDREN*.
PS: the claims of "randomness" are completely bogus. What they might mean is, "they dont match up with the criteria that we, the school board, decide to claim as being 'the best teachers'".
As a parent, however, the material on the tests, exactly corresponds to my definition of what my child should be learning.
Math skills. Reading comprehension.
If the teachers are "teaching to the test".. well, good! they are then teaching my child useful skills, rather than most of the utter garbage in the current curriculum.
Does my child need to learn how to make cute little paper-mache buildings? NO, TEACH THEM HOW TO DO MATH AND READ, for #$#@ SAKE! Not to mention logic!
And yes, I am a real parent, with 3 children, this is not some "hypothetical child" argument.
It's because they don't teach children proper math and comprehension skills, that the majority of voters are a bunch of idiot sheep who are easily lead into voting for dumb and dumber.
They took it well and from that point on he was able to go to the crazy parties and do the things our parents never wanted us to do... He never got arrested either.
Oh, well then.. mission accomplished! Because that's all any good parents want to achieve: that their child "doesnt get arrested"
Arrrg.
SO, you cant use a web browser then? what a shame.
(There are web-based irc clients/gateways. all that's required is javascript. cf: http://webchat.freenode.net/ )
Darn, no edit button.
I suppose I should add the disclaimer to the above, that it presumes you are a competent, experienced script coder.
If you are not... then please disreguard my above post.
The appropriate, time-honored solution to your problem is:
stop asking permission to do so.
Just write the script (very, VERY carefully, making sure it has an insane amount of safety checks), then give it a limited test run... then if it works out okay, start using it fully.
Even a cautious manager will usually be impressed once they find out you've been using some script you wrote, in production, for a year, and they havent heard of any problems with the system.
It seems like we have a bunch of "physicists" putting their oar in about windowing systems.
Because writing a new windowing system is easy, right?
http://xkcd.com/793/
Depends what they're administering.
There are plenty of systems that are more closed, and the sysadmin should be spending their time living in the pre-provided frameworks, rather than coding their own.
Many times, it's a matter of learning what is already available for the system, rather than coding your own, lesser quality replacement.
The irony in the article, is that the link for "high quality, not 'good enough' quality", leads to a page where the first image has around 20% of the data, missing/blacked out.
First time I've seen a definition of "high quality" that means "20% data loss"