Teachers are preventing us from paying computer science teachers competitively, because the union insists in collective bargaining. Sorry, a fifth grade teacher should not get paid as much as a high school CS teacher. Nor do we have to offer them as much pay - there are too many elementary ed graduates for the number of available positions.
My anecdata confirms this. I've supported my wife in leaving public education (though not a teacher per se) and we've seen every one of our friends except one who got an education degree leave the field over the past 10 years.
Right, agreed. So, once upon a time we had typing classes. Would you then expect the typing teacher to take on teaching shop and engineering courses that were about how to build a typewriter? No.
I'm critical of teachers for a lot of things, but not knowing how to teach Towers of Hanoi isn't one of them. Demanding that someone who knows how to teach Towers of Hanoi get paid the same as the social studies or health teacher IS one of them.
VS is NOT. The CLR and the C# compiler are in the process of being open sourced, fully. There is a BIG difference between the compiler and the IDE. The.Net web stack is being open sourced as well, and is now, with OWIN, layered to remove the IIS dependency.
It's one thing for a teacher, like my computer science teacher in high school, to be expected to understand computer SCIENCE. It's another to expect them to know a bunch of software packages. That's one of the big problems with computer education in schools; the idiots putting together the curriculum don't understand the difference between conceptual learning and facility with using systems.
I'm pretty sure you're mistaken there. I've done installers with both RPMs and MSIs. Not my specialty, but I have some experience.
In Windows, you don't need elevated privileges to install an application to a user-specific location. You only need it to install system-wide. The registry keys to track Windows Installer components can be referenced from either location in the registry (the administrative access part, or the user-only part).
It's not all that different from RPM, though really it's a little easier to do user-only installs with Windows Installer. You need administrative privileges to install system wide w/ RPM. You can also do a bunch of RPM hacking to install to a user-only RPM database and installation folder without root, so long as you specify that you're running RPM against a non-default RPM database location, and someone went to a lot of trouble to permit user only installs in your RPM spec file. There's a bit of work to enable this in regular MSIs, too, but it's actually better supported that under RPM.
I've just supported "someone close to me" in her decision to leave the field of education (school psychologist, USA). We know about half a dozen people with teaching degrees who have decided to pursue other careers. One of the interesting things was that while they were still teaching, pretty much any conversation came down to "don't criticize ANYTHING", because it became very personal. Now that they're no longer teaching, there's a lot more room for productive conversation.
Wouldn't this indicate a piss poor offering by the Democrats, too? One doesn't have to be a fan of the GOP to see that there was a real lack of enthusiasm for what the Democrats brought to the table -- that so few Democrat voters bothered to show up.
Kudos for being a teacher who recognizes the difference between criticizing structural problems in the system and being "anti-education". It seems harder and harder to get educators to listen to the kinds of ideas you expressed here, because any criticism of the system is taken as a personal attack on teachers. Do you find other teachers are open to the ideas you're expressing here?
I'm not anti-fracking, and I'm not trying to argue that moderate earthquakes are anything to get up in arms about, but I think you're really reaching here. You're completely ignoring (or simply not considering) potential energy. You can roll a bowling ball off a table with a micro-newton of force, and release a hell of a lot of energy. In any number of cases you'll see the same thing with fracking. There's already a lot of stress on the rock; adding a small fraction of the existing energies held in potential form can certainly cause a giant release.
Howso? What specific policies are in place as a result of Republican votes that caused this? Can you tie any policies to specific acts of Congress and/or specific Governors and their policies? Did Democrats, while they held both houses of Congress and the White House, take action to reverse these policies? Is there a third-party option that you prefer instead, and can you explain how said third-party's platform fixes the problem?
It's really difficult for me to make a connection to a partisan political perspective here. Maybe you have a point, but you certainly didn't make it.
That's a strong claim to make. As strong as that made in TFA. But it's just as possible that the fracking is breaking a strong section of rock, putting more stress on a weaker section of rock. It's conjecture. It can't really be tested in a controlled environment.
It will become so commonplace that things we think are a big deal today will become no big deal because we'll learn just how prevalent they are in society.
I think a little differently - we'll openly admit how prevalent they are in society. Puritans aren't any better at not sinning, they're just really good at hiding it.
It's because of the following: 1) The economic center of the world moved to New York City after the Pound Sterling failed and Britain was impoverished by WWI and WWII. 2) The US agreed to support the Saudi regime in exchange for the privilege of having OPEC oil priced in dollars even when Nixon cut the dollar's tie to gold for foreign reserves.
Hang on a second there. Improvement most often means moving out of a local maximum on the performance/value function. Rarely is the progress along that function monotonic. If it is a female trait to resist the risk of moving through a rough patch to get to a better place on the curve (i.e. getting out of a local maximum), then they are selecting *themselves* out of the available pool of workers who can improve their organization's position on the performance/value function. Plenty of men also have this resistance. These people tend toward the maintenance programming and incremental feature development roles. These aren't the highest paying or most noteworthy jobs. They're the most easily outsourced, too.
Can you give me an example of a neoliberal who's not a progressive and/or vice-versa? I usually think of a Thomas Paine type person as a "Classical" liberal, or paleoliberal. Seems to me neoliberal, progressive have converged, and neoconservatives overlap with both as a result.
The people who supported freedom AND called themselves liberals died a long time ago. Modern "liberals", i.e. progressives, pretty much want to dictate how people live just as much as modern day neoconservatives. They just want some different behaviors emphasized.
I don't think anyone with any maturity thinks it's all one way or the other. Certain kinds of social problems are tolerated better in IT and software development than, say, sales. That doesn't mean everything is tolerated, or that those problems don't come on a spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
Teachers are preventing us from paying computer science teachers competitively, because the union insists in collective bargaining. Sorry, a fifth grade teacher should not get paid as much as a high school CS teacher. Nor do we have to offer them as much pay - there are too many elementary ed graduates for the number of available positions.
My anecdata confirms this. I've supported my wife in leaving public education (though not a teacher per se) and we've seen every one of our friends except one who got an education degree leave the field over the past 10 years.
Right, agreed. So, once upon a time we had typing classes. Would you then expect the typing teacher to take on teaching shop and engineering courses that were about how to build a typewriter? No.
I'm critical of teachers for a lot of things, but not knowing how to teach Towers of Hanoi isn't one of them. Demanding that someone who knows how to teach Towers of Hanoi get paid the same as the social studies or health teacher IS one of them.
VS is NOT. The CLR and the C# compiler are in the process of being open sourced, fully. There is a BIG difference between the compiler and the IDE. The .Net web stack is being open sourced as well, and is now, with OWIN, layered to remove the IIS dependency.
It's one thing for a teacher, like my computer science teacher in high school, to be expected to understand computer SCIENCE. It's another to expect them to know a bunch of software packages. That's one of the big problems with computer education in schools; the idiots putting together the curriculum don't understand the difference between conceptual learning and facility with using systems.
I'm pretty sure you're mistaken there. I've done installers with both RPMs and MSIs. Not my specialty, but I have some experience.
In Windows, you don't need elevated privileges to install an application to a user-specific location. You only need it to install system-wide. The registry keys to track Windows Installer components can be referenced from either location in the registry (the administrative access part, or the user-only part).
It's not all that different from RPM, though really it's a little easier to do user-only installs with Windows Installer. You need administrative privileges to install system wide w/ RPM. You can also do a bunch of RPM hacking to install to a user-only RPM database and installation folder without root, so long as you specify that you're running RPM against a non-default RPM database location, and someone went to a lot of trouble to permit user only installs in your RPM spec file. There's a bit of work to enable this in regular MSIs, too, but it's actually better supported that under RPM.
I've just supported "someone close to me" in her decision to leave the field of education (school psychologist, USA). We know about half a dozen people with teaching degrees who have decided to pursue other careers. One of the interesting things was that while they were still teaching, pretty much any conversation came down to "don't criticize ANYTHING", because it became very personal. Now that they're no longer teaching, there's a lot more room for productive conversation.
Wouldn't this indicate a piss poor offering by the Democrats, too? One doesn't have to be a fan of the GOP to see that there was a real lack of enthusiasm for what the Democrats brought to the table -- that so few Democrat voters bothered to show up.
Kudos for being a teacher who recognizes the difference between criticizing structural problems in the system and being "anti-education". It seems harder and harder to get educators to listen to the kinds of ideas you expressed here, because any criticism of the system is taken as a personal attack on teachers. Do you find other teachers are open to the ideas you're expressing here?
I'm not anti-fracking, and I'm not trying to argue that moderate earthquakes are anything to get up in arms about, but I think you're really reaching here. You're completely ignoring (or simply not considering) potential energy. You can roll a bowling ball off a table with a micro-newton of force, and release a hell of a lot of energy. In any number of cases you'll see the same thing with fracking. There's already a lot of stress on the rock; adding a small fraction of the existing energies held in potential form can certainly cause a giant release.
Ok, I'll bite.
Howso? What specific policies are in place as a result of Republican votes that caused this? Can you tie any policies to specific acts of Congress and/or specific Governors and their policies? Did Democrats, while they held both houses of Congress and the White House, take action to reverse these policies? Is there a third-party option that you prefer instead, and can you explain how said third-party's platform fixes the problem?
It's really difficult for me to make a connection to a partisan political perspective here. Maybe you have a point, but you certainly didn't make it.
Can we add economists to the mix? Hayek identified the fatal conceit there long before "climate science" was a thing.
That's a strong claim to make. As strong as that made in TFA. But it's just as possible that the fracking is breaking a strong section of rock, putting more stress on a weaker section of rock. It's conjecture. It can't really be tested in a controlled environment.
It will become so commonplace that things we think are a big deal today will become no big deal because we'll learn just how prevalent they are in society.
I think a little differently - we'll openly admit how prevalent they are in society. Puritans aren't any better at not sinning, they're just really good at hiding it.
It's because of the following: 1) The economic center of the world moved to New York City after the Pound Sterling failed and Britain was impoverished by WWI and WWII. 2) The US agreed to support the Saudi regime in exchange for the privilege of having OPEC oil priced in dollars even when Nixon cut the dollar's tie to gold for foreign reserves.
Hang on a second there. Improvement most often means moving out of a local maximum on the performance/value function. Rarely is the progress along that function monotonic. If it is a female trait to resist the risk of moving through a rough patch to get to a better place on the curve (i.e. getting out of a local maximum), then they are selecting *themselves* out of the available pool of workers who can improve their organization's position on the performance/value function. Plenty of men also have this resistance. These people tend toward the maintenance programming and incremental feature development roles. These aren't the highest paying or most noteworthy jobs. They're the most easily outsourced, too.
WTF is this modded Troll? See my quote from TFA below that DIRECTLY SUPPORTS PARENT'S ASSERTION:
"Dozens of women stayed in safe jobs, in or out of technology, while they watched their spouses or former lab partners take on ambitious quests."
Number one, they're looking at the extreme high end of achievers, who - guess what - aren't representative.
And then the TFA has this gem:
"Dozens of women stayed in safe jobs, in or out of technology, while they watched their spouses or former lab partners take on ambitious quests."
Does anybody see what I see there?
Can you give me an example of a neoliberal who's not a progressive and/or vice-versa? I usually think of a Thomas Paine type person as a "Classical" liberal, or paleoliberal. Seems to me neoliberal, progressive have converged, and neoconservatives overlap with both as a result.
The people who supported freedom AND called themselves liberals died a long time ago. Modern "liberals", i.e. progressives, pretty much want to dictate how people live just as much as modern day neoconservatives. They just want some different behaviors emphasized.
I don't think anyone with any maturity thinks it's all one way or the other. Certain kinds of social problems are tolerated better in IT and software development than, say, sales. That doesn't mean everything is tolerated, or that those problems don't come on a spectrum.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
The only person who can get me to do something I don't want to for free is related to me by marriage.
You live in your stepmom's basement, huh?
No offense meant but I would look at your non-technical skills. Verbal communication, interpersonal skills, etc. ,
Moreso, non-verbal communication. *Something* you're doing is making them uncomfortable.
Argentina has truly earned the title "Banana Republic".