But if you don't put any barriers in how shall they ever learn about proxies, address spoofing, packet sniffers and all the other wonderful things involved in defeating technical parental controls?
Absolutely! I learned more after my highschool outsourced it's computer network to some braindead company which had a preference for locking everything down than I did when it was an open network.
I learned how to use the command line, I learned about proxies, I learned a hell of a lot of basic networking crap etc etc.
Restrict the children but only such that they must learn to break their bonds!
I remember when I was a teenager. My dad added a power on password on the basis that he utterly detested games. The problem was he didn't even give it to my mother.
Of course one day I actually needed to print something in a fucking hurry and he couldn't be contacted so I solved the problem with a screwdriver and the motherboard manual.
Which brings up the problem of physical access. All the software in the world is pointless if the teenager can simply swap some network cables.
It's a little over the top but parents are supposed to keep an eye on what their own kids do. At least that's the reply whenever parents try to foist that particular burden on society rather than do it themselves.
I'd be interested in a source for your figures since they seem extremely low.
In the US for one year I found: approximate cost of accidents:230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed.
Total deaths in a year:2426264
fraction of deaths due to traffic accidents:
1/56.6 approx
which would make it a fairly common way to die and an extremely common way to get injured. I know the US has a somewhat higher than normal number of road deaths but what country has a death rate 100 times lower?
In the UK it seems to be about 1 in 150 but still nothing like your claimed 1 in 5000.
pretty much every advance in technology leads to someone losing their job.
"Computer" used to be a profession. Sitting in a bank, adding up columns of figures all day and doing simple calculations(distinct from an accountant.).
What happened to all those people who were put out of work? knitting and weaving cloth used to be a common profession. Now massive looms create huge volumes of cloth for a fraction of the cost.
every one of these advances has put people out of work but every one has created a handful of other jobs and made society wealthier as a whole.
Sure it sucks for the weaver put out of work but it's great for everyone else who can now buy a pack of 3 shirts for 5 bucks rather than it costing a weeks wages. The computers may be out of a job but the electronics that replaced them make banking far cheaper and allow for far smaller and cheaper transactions.
If cabbies were put out of a job then the cost of hiring a cab could be massively reduced. If hiring a cab cost me cents not euros then why would I even bother buying a car? And so I and the rest of society would be wealthier.
"UPS and FedX drivers Or postmen, bus drivers, cabbies and pizza delivery drivers"
their jobs will be gone but when they get new jobs it will be far cheaper if they want to send a package, catch a bus, take a taxi or order a pizza.
what's with the irrational hatred if autonomous vehicles? It's entirely possible that given a few decades they'll be able to drive better than the average human.
If you could cut that chance down to 1 in 10000 would you choose otherwise for nothing more than your ego?
actually quite the opposite. I read an article a while back where they pointed out that in almost all US states such cars would be perfectly legal, furthermore due to the wording of many traffic laws such vehicles could avoid many laws since they refer to the *driver* of the car and even specifically exclude the owner if he is not the driver. I'll try to find it in a while.
The madness with legislating morality goes far deeper than that.
I've talked to people who honestly believe that it's right that teenage girls should be arrested, sent to prison and put on the sex offenders register for life because they took photos of themselves with their phone cameras. The reason: "What if a pedophile got hold of the images..." "...internet..." "...pedophiles..." "zzzt zt" *brain shorts out* They honestly believe the possibility of a pedo getting hold of a phone cam picture of you is more harmful to you than years in prison and getting classed right alongside rapists.
As for the murder- the whole euthanasia debate is based around that one so I'd class the problem not as legislating morality but rather legislating choice. "no you can't ever choose that no matter what because we think it's bad for you and to make the point we're going to punish you so badly that it ruins your life and the lives of everyone around you" Weather it's applied to sick people who wish to end their own lives or to teenagers who snap photos of themselves.
which is all well and good but many many children don't react well to the current system based on abstract ideas of some possible reward far off in the future. indeed more years away than they've actually lived. If the goal is to get them to learn then whatever which gets them to learn.
we already teach kids that school is work. That's why we call it "schoolwork"
and it is work.
Boring monotonous work presided over by eccentric authority figures that makes even the most painfully dull office staffed with even the most breathtakingly insane co-workers and management look tame by comparison.
And for the kids who simply don't love learning? Do they deserve to fail for the sake of your ideal?
Then I ask her about the psychologists' argument that she should work hard for the love of learning, not for short-term rewards. "Honestly?" she asks. "Yes, honestly," I say. She looks me dead in the eye. "We're kids. Let's be realistic."
They talked about that in TFA: kids want to do well but don't really know how in many cases. Doing that book of math puzzles in your free time and doing well in the end of year math exam are really not that strongly linked in kids minds. Doing well in the end of year math exam and earning a lot of money 15 years later? not even on the same map.
If you penalize people for things which are completely out of their control you don't achieve much.
If you'd read TFA you'd have noticed that the best results weren't from rewarding for end results but rather for activities which lead to better results like reading books.(it also happened to be exceptionally cheap)
A lovely little quote from TFA:
Then I ask her about the psychologists' argument that she should work hard for the love of learning, not for short-term rewards. "Honestly?" she asks. "Yes, honestly," I say. She looks me dead in the eye. "We're kids. Let's be realistic."
A well trained adult working dog will follow it's masters commands without any immediate reward but you still reward them with food and praise at the start.
I never got much of those internal rewards until college when I started making things that did interesting things. Study was a curiosity thing rather than any feeling of reward.
That sounds like an extremely poorly thought out incentive structure.
Kids who are particularly bad at even just one subject become completely unable to ever claim any rewards.
I never got higher than a C in french while getting mostly A's all through highschool in math, physics, chemistry, biology and applied math. No amount of incentive would have made me capable of speaking another language.
and I was one of those self motivated students you seem to think should be the only ones ever to do well.
In any case the study showed that incentive schemes structured like that don't work very well if you'd actually motivated yourself to read TFA. The most effective systems were ones which rewarded students immediately for actions they could directly control in the short term such as reading books, turning up on time, good behavior etc rather than long term outcomes like letter grades at the end of the month.
I'm not sure if many people read TFA but an interesting result:
Schools in Dallas got the simplest scheme and the one targeting the youngest children: every time second-graders read a book and successfully completed a computerized quiz about it, they earned $2. Straightforward -- and cheap. The average earning would turn out to be about $14 (for seven books read) per year.
And in Dallas, the experiment produced the most dramatic gains of all. Paying second-graders to read books significantly boosted their reading-comprehension scores on standardized tests at the end of the year -- and those kids seemed to continue to do better the next year, even after the rewards stopped.
The cheapest program produced the best results.
One clue came out of the interviews Fryer's team conducted with students in New York City. The students were universally excited about the money, and they wanted to earn more. They just didn't seem to know how. When researchers asked them how they could raise their scores, the kids mentioned test-taking strategies like reading the questions more carefully. But they didn't talk about the substantive work that leads to learning. "No one said they were going to stay after class and talk to the teacher," Fryer says. "Not one."
We tend to assume that kids (and adults) know how to achieve success. If they don't get there, it's for lack of effort -- or talent.
And thus the entire problem with trying to inject rational and evidence based thinking into the system is summed up perfectly.
The people who do well are the people who succeed in the current system. The people people who succeeded in the current system no matter how poor the current system is believe that only they and people like them ever *should* succeed or do well.
Slashdot Mirror
Anything like this in europe?
But if you don't put any barriers in how shall they ever learn about proxies, address spoofing, packet sniffers and all the other wonderful things involved in defeating technical parental controls?
Absolutely!
I learned more after my highschool outsourced it's computer network to some braindead company which had a preference for locking everything down than I did when it was an open network.
I learned how to use the command line, I learned about proxies, I learned a hell of a lot of basic networking crap etc etc.
Restrict the children but only such that they must learn to break their bonds!
I remember when I was a teenager.
My dad added a power on password on the basis that he utterly detested games.
The problem was he didn't even give it to my mother.
Of course one day I actually needed to print something in a fucking hurry and he couldn't be contacted so I solved the problem with a screwdriver and the motherboard manual.
Which brings up the problem of physical access.
All the software in the world is pointless if the teenager can simply swap some network cables.
It's a little over the top but parents are supposed to keep an eye on what their own kids do.
At least that's the reply whenever parents try to foist that particular burden on society rather than do it themselves.
in context it implied that the charge of contempt was justified on the basis of emails being sent to the judges home address.
I dream of this day.
I'd be interested in a source for your figures since they seem extremely low.
In the US for one year I found:
approximate cost of accidents:230 Billion dollars.
2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed.
Total deaths in a year:2426264
fraction of deaths due to traffic accidents:
1/56.6 approx
which would make it a fairly common way to die and an extremely common way to get injured.
I know the US has a somewhat higher than normal number of road deaths but what country has a death rate 100 times lower?
In the UK it seems to be about 1 in 150 but still nothing like your claimed 1 in 5000.
pretty much every advance in technology leads to someone losing their job.
"Computer" used to be a profession.
Sitting in a bank, adding up columns of figures all day and doing simple calculations(distinct from an accountant.).
What happened to all those people who were put out of work?
knitting and weaving cloth used to be a common profession.
Now massive looms create huge volumes of cloth for a fraction of the cost.
every one of these advances has put people out of work but every one has created a handful of other jobs and made society wealthier as a whole.
Sure it sucks for the weaver put out of work but it's great for everyone else who can now buy a pack of 3 shirts for 5 bucks rather than it costing a weeks wages.
The computers may be out of a job but the electronics that replaced them make banking far cheaper and allow for far smaller and cheaper transactions.
If cabbies were put out of a job then the cost of hiring a cab could be massively reduced.
If hiring a cab cost me cents not euros then why would I even bother buying a car?
And so I and the rest of society would be wealthier.
"UPS and FedX drivers Or postmen, bus drivers, cabbies and pizza delivery drivers"
their jobs will be gone but when they get new jobs it will be far cheaper if they want to send a package, catch a bus, take a taxi or order a pizza.
what's with the irrational hatred if autonomous vehicles?
It's entirely possible that given a few decades they'll be able to drive better than the average human.
If you could cut that chance down to 1 in 10000 would you choose otherwise for nothing more than your ego?
actually quite the opposite.
I read an article a while back where they pointed out that in almost all US states such cars would be perfectly legal, furthermore due to the wording of many traffic laws such vehicles could avoid many laws since they refer to the *driver* of the car and even specifically exclude the owner if he is not the driver.
I'll try to find it in a while.
parents are part of the current system.
which is failing many kids .
The madness with legislating morality goes far deeper than that.
I've talked to people who honestly believe that it's right that teenage girls should be arrested, sent to prison and put on the sex offenders register for life because they took photos of themselves with their phone cameras.
The reason: "What if a pedophile got hold of the images..." "...internet..." "...pedophiles..." "zzzt zt" *brain shorts out*
They honestly believe the possibility of a pedo getting hold of a phone cam picture of you is more harmful to you than years in prison and getting classed right alongside rapists.
As for the murder- the whole euthanasia debate is based around that one so I'd class the problem not as legislating morality but rather legislating choice. "no you can't ever choose that no matter what because we think it's bad for you and to make the point we're going to punish you so badly that it ruins your life and the lives of everyone around you"
Weather it's applied to sick people who wish to end their own lives or to teenagers who snap photos of themselves.
which is all well and good but many many children don't react well to the current system based on abstract ideas of some possible reward far off in the future. indeed more years away than they've actually lived.
If the goal is to get them to learn then whatever which gets them to learn.
we already teach kids that school is work.
That's why we call it "schoolwork"
and it is work.
Boring monotonous work presided over by eccentric authority figures that makes even the most painfully dull office staffed with even the most breathtakingly insane co-workers and management look tame by comparison.
And for the kids who simply don't love learning?
Do they deserve to fail for the sake of your ideal?
Then I ask her about the psychologists' argument that she should work hard for the love of learning, not for short-term rewards. "Honestly?" she asks. "Yes, honestly," I say. She looks me dead in the eye. "We're kids. Let's be realistic."
they've been trying that for decades.
Of course they could keep doing the same thing and hope for a different result.
They talked about that in TFA: kids want to do well but don't really know how in many cases.
Doing that book of math puzzles in your free time and doing well in the end of year math exam are really not that strongly linked in kids minds.
Doing well in the end of year math exam and earning a lot of money 15 years later? not even on the same map.
no.
Just any system which you suggest.
If you penalize people for things which are completely out of their control you don't achieve much.
If you'd read TFA you'd have noticed that the best results weren't from rewarding for end results but rather for activities which lead to better results like reading books.(it also happened to be exceptionally cheap)
A lovely little quote from TFA:
Then I ask her about the psychologists' argument that she should work hard for the love of learning, not for short-term rewards. "Honestly?" she asks. "Yes, honestly," I say. She looks me dead in the eye. "We're kids. Let's be realistic."
A well trained adult working dog will follow it's masters commands without any immediate reward but you still reward them with food and praise at the start.
I never got much of those internal rewards until college when I started making things that did interesting things.
Study was a curiosity thing rather than any feeling of reward.
That sounds like an extremely poorly thought out incentive structure.
Kids who are particularly bad at even just one subject become completely unable to ever claim any rewards.
I never got higher than a C in french while getting mostly A's all through highschool in math, physics, chemistry, biology and applied math.
No amount of incentive would have made me capable of speaking another language.
and I was one of those self motivated students you seem to think should be the only ones ever to do well.
In any case the study showed that incentive schemes structured like that don't work very well if you'd actually motivated yourself to read TFA.
The most effective systems were ones which rewarded students immediately for actions they could directly control in the short term such as reading books, turning up on time, good behavior etc rather than long term outcomes like letter grades at the end of the month.
I'm not sure if many people read TFA but an interesting result:
Schools in Dallas got the simplest scheme and the one targeting the youngest children: every time second-graders read a book and successfully completed a computerized quiz about it, they earned $2. Straightforward -- and cheap. The average earning would turn out to be about $14 (for seven books read) per year.
And in Dallas, the experiment produced the most dramatic gains of all. Paying second-graders to read books significantly boosted their reading-comprehension scores on standardized tests at the end of the year -- and those kids seemed to continue to do better the next year, even after the rewards stopped.
The cheapest program produced the best results.
One clue came out of the interviews Fryer's team conducted with students in New York City. The students were universally excited about the money, and they wanted to earn more. They just didn't seem to know how. When researchers asked them how they could raise their scores, the kids mentioned test-taking strategies like reading the questions more carefully. But they didn't talk about the substantive work that leads to learning. "No one said they were going to stay after class and talk to the teacher," Fryer says. "Not one."
We tend to assume that kids (and adults) know how to achieve success. If they don't get there, it's for lack of effort -- or talent.
what the hell?
This program is an evidence based experiment.
That's not ignorance.
Ignorance is throwing round rhetoric about how you think the world should and shouldn't be based on nothing but your own self importance.
it was for me.
And thus the entire problem with trying to inject rational and evidence based thinking into the system is summed up perfectly.
The people who do well are the people who succeed in the current system.
The people people who succeeded in the current system no matter how poor the current system is believe that only they and people like them ever *should* succeed or do well.
and so we see clouds of vitriol like the above.
It's easy to say "should".
They real question is what gets the best results.
Your argument seems to be based entirely on your own ego.
As the guy in TFA put it.
"Kids should learn for the love of learning,"
"But they're not. So what shall we do?"