Even Teletubbies isn't safe. One time they tried to teach the concepts of 'big' and 'small' by moving closer to and further away from the screen. Ouch. And then there's the repressed-memory-trauma-inducing 'lion' and 'bear' segments.
Once I met someone who claimed to have never watched TV, but instead read novels extensively. I thought that was fascinating, like meeting an alien or a ferral human. As a test I asked her about Scooby Doo, and she had *no clue* what I was talking about. Bonus IQ points right there.
As reading recommendations she suggested 'Dune' by Frank Herbert, and 'The Bone People' by Keri Hulme.
Agreed, of course tablets can help kids learn, potentially much better than with traditional means. Spend five minutes with a kid and a tablet and try not to be overwhelmed by the possibilities.
So here's an anecdote: recently got an iPad 3, put Scribblenauts on it. Now my four-year-old can spell all of the following:
Reading your insightful and articulate post about your own 'autism-spectrum' disorder really underscores to me how much of this issue boils down to a problem with semantics.
I've met someone with autism. Requires constant care. Blank face. Mute and illiterate. Likes to bang head repeatedly against solid objects for comfort.
I've met someone with Asperger's syndrome (my informal diagnosis, but not in dispute). Worked for the same company as me. Independent to a fault. Blank face. Slow but precise and articulate communicator. Calm, personable and helpful. Admirable intellect.
Clearly we are conflating things that do not deserve to be conflated.
For the record, I'm against stupid patents, not least stupid software patents. And there are plenty of those.
But I do think that a patent system is a good idea, if done well. And I don't think it should have arbitrary exclusions like 'you can't patent a mathematical formula', or 'you can't patent a gene'.
Note that my examples of 'good' software patents all have a mathematical bent to them. There's a reason for that - the more mathematically sophisticated an invention is, the less trivial it is, and so (in my view) the more suitable for patent protection it becomes.
Consider also that these days it's not uncommon normal for engineering of real-world designs to go through a protracted virtual phase - that is, they exist only as software*. I see no good reason why the design should be irrelevant to the patent system prior to physical prototyping. After all, the patent itself is ultimately just a paper document, yet another abstract representation of a physical (or non-physical) artifact.
On the gene patenting front, I'd say it's fine to patent a gene if it's really an invention and meets appropriate standards of usefulness and originality. Existing genes identified by studying nature (or close derivatives thereof) should not be patentable - just look at the prior art!
Same goes for drugs - the plant kingdom is full of useful substances, none of which should be patentable. (But on second thought, it may depend on how the drug is intended to be used, and how innovative that use is - like, if a plant produces a neurotoxin for defense, that shouldn't be patentable for its neurotoxicity. If the drug is found to cure cancer, patent away!)
* Granted, you could argue that virtual engineering models are 'just data' and not strictly software, but the lines between software and the data it operates on are so blurry that (for current purposes) it's futile to try to make a distinction.
Can we not just say that software should be as patentable as anything else? Why is software so special?
I'm sure there are plenty of great patents out there, both for software and otherwise.
On the software side, major advances in cryptography and media compression have in my opinion been rightfully subject to patent protection.
These are mechanisms that are non-trivial, require significant R&D investment, yet are easy to rip off, and they provide crucial mechanisms for salable products. These patents also don't stifle competition, on the basis that there are other (similarly non-trivial) ways of getting similar results, which competitors are free to invent.
Hospital Administrator: Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account. [Everyone in the room applauds] Hospital Administrator: Thank you, thank you.
Lovely... post a constructive suggestion, get downmodded and no constructive replies.
Commenting further, by 'students' here we're talking about children and teenagers. I'm mostly focussed on the latter here, for the former I'd suggest bribing directly with small quantities of candy rather than money, as it's less abstract.
Teenagers are notoriously bad at thinking through the long-term consequences of their immediate actions. And yet we somehow expect them to be self-motivated to stay in school and prioritize study over the various things they'd really rather be doing.
Essentially, we're holding teenagers to a higher standard of self-motivation than adults, since adults generally get paid to get up, go to work, and make an honest effort.
If there's no interest in experimenting with paying students to go to school, how about we try the reverse experiment, where we stop paying adults to go to work, and see what that does to their productivity.
(But wait, we've already done that experiment in various guises, and the results were...)
I reckons education can be fixed, simply by throwing money at it.
Here's how: Pay the students a 'retainer' for attendance. Pay the students a 'bonus' for grades.
I'm not just talking an allowance here, I mean real money, at least competitive with what they'd get from quitting school and going to work in the fast food industry.
Students need incentives, not everyone turns up for fun or with a rational long-term view to their future. School needs to be better aligned with the 'real world', rather than set adrift as a microcosm of society (on a bad day, I'd say 'zoo'... yes, I'm bitter). And how do we incentivize in the 'real world'?
Just to be pedantic, it's not quite right to refer to 'objects' calling/invoking methods on other objects. Granted, typically the caller will be an object, but that's not required. Any two callers (objects or otherwise) making the same method call can expect to get the same result.
For calls to 'main' methods and (other) calls from native interfaces, it's common for the caller to not be an object.
However, Java for one can impose security restrictions based on the calling object, but this is a language feature and not OOP per se.
Now that you mention it, wouldn't mirrored surfaces actually be a useful form of camouflage? Try finding a mirror in the jungle.
(Specular reflections from the sun and other bright light sources would be a problem, but could be mitigated somewhat by tint or anti-glare coatings. Maybe contour surfaces to favour surface normals pointing below the horizon, and not mirroring where the normals need to point above the horizon (perhaps use half-silvering and refraction, or just regular camouflage there)).
Part of the problem there is that some of the 'benefits' are really unfairly-externalized costs to begin with. As a salaried employee, you can expect to cover all of your commuting costs out of your own pocket - be it public transport charges, or car ownership, maintenance, licensing, insurance, fuel, parking, and taxes on all of the above.
Why the schmuck isn't that taken from your employer's balance sheet, or at the very least tax-deductible against your salary?
I'm going to make a sweeping generalization and say that in an office environment, people only talk when they're on the phone, in a meeting, or goofing off. So I don't really think communications is the biggest problem with WFH.
Ironically the best reason I have for being in an office is to be free from the distractions of home. Also, having other people working around me helps me focus and maybe keeps me sane. People pace each other through the day; you can witness this collapsing on a hot Friday afternoon.
But... offer me a well-paying job where I can work remotely from an affordable house in a beautiful environment, with a sound-insulated home office and a lock on the door, and I'm there in a flash.
I loaded sixteen tons, I tried to get ahead, Got deeper and deeper in debt instead. Well they got what I made, and they wanted some more, And now I owe my soul at the company store.
Which mammals would those be? Anything even remotely similar to humans?
And are there any examples of mammals where the 'men have become extinct'? Any non-mammals?
If not, how anyone can seriously claim (as per original post) that this will happen for humans, is just beyond me.
Especially since we'd have to have retained our 'human-ness' throughout that process for the claim to hold. E.g., futuristic hermaphroditic X0 bat-manatee creatures that just happen to be descended from humans don't count.
IIRC, Apple recommends for iOS that the splash screen be indicative of the app's initial view, or something along those lines.
Of course, the interface isn't functional until the app finishes loading, but by giving the user a chance to orient themselves to the app, it actually can lead to time savings for the user.
They apparently don't reject apps for not following this recommendation, as it's very common to have a 'title' splash screen instead.
But seriously, for the math curriculum I'd either already picked it up before they taught it, or I relearned it better later at University. (That's with the exception of statistics, which I regret never taking a tertiary-level course in).
For languages, I learned waaay more German in a six-week intensive summer school course than I did French in three years at high school. Je suis une petite grenouille.
Then there was gym classes, where I learned that it's *extremely* important to hold each stretch for 20 seconds.
About the only thing high school succeeded in was chopping the day up into little pieces, just the right size so that everyone could look busy without ever having to really engage.
Slashdot Mirror
Toy Story had that gag where young Andy gets excited about having a whole five minutes to play, and embarks on an epic campaign with his toys.
That said, I agree with you entirely, AC, reason being that having a long attention span is said to correlate highly with success in life.
As parents we owe it to our kids to help them extend their attention span, and limiting activities to small stretches is going in the wrong direction.
GAH, I had *no clue* what it meant to not have a Scooby. Now look who's living in a bubble!
Even Teletubbies isn't safe. One time they tried to teach the concepts of 'big' and 'small' by moving closer to and further away from the screen. Ouch. And then there's the repressed-memory-trauma-inducing 'lion' and 'bear' segments.
Once I met someone who claimed to have never watched TV, but instead read novels extensively. I thought that was fascinating, like meeting an alien or a ferral human. As a test I asked her about Scooby Doo, and she had *no clue* what I was talking about. Bonus IQ points right there.
As reading recommendations she suggested 'Dune' by Frank Herbert, and 'The Bone People' by Keri Hulme.
Agreed, of course tablets can help kids learn, potentially much better than with traditional means. Spend five minutes with a kid and a tablet and try not to be overwhelmed by the possibilities.
So here's an anecdote: recently got an iPad 3, put Scribblenauts on it. Now my four-year-old can spell all of the following:
jetpack
gun
yak
hungry baby
Another good French band:
Air (French band)
Reading your insightful and articulate post about your own 'autism-spectrum' disorder really underscores to me how much of this issue boils down to a problem with semantics.
I've met someone with autism. Requires constant care. Blank face. Mute and illiterate. Likes to bang head repeatedly against solid objects for comfort.
I've met someone with Asperger's syndrome (my informal diagnosis, but not in dispute). Worked for the same company as me. Independent to a fault. Blank face. Slow but precise and articulate communicator. Calm, personable and helpful. Admirable intellect.
Clearly we are conflating things that do not deserve to be conflated.
For the record, I'm against stupid patents, not least stupid software patents. And there are plenty of those.
But I do think that a patent system is a good idea, if done well. And I don't think it should have arbitrary exclusions like 'you can't patent a mathematical formula', or 'you can't patent a gene'.
Note that my examples of 'good' software patents all have a mathematical bent to them. There's a reason for that - the more mathematically sophisticated an invention is, the less trivial it is, and so (in my view) the more suitable for patent protection it becomes.
Consider also that these days it's not uncommon normal for engineering of real-world designs to go through a protracted virtual phase - that is, they exist only as software*. I see no good reason why the design should be irrelevant to the patent system prior to physical prototyping. After all, the patent itself is ultimately just a paper document, yet another abstract representation of a physical (or non-physical) artifact.
On the gene patenting front, I'd say it's fine to patent a gene if it's really an invention and meets appropriate standards of usefulness and originality. Existing genes identified by studying nature (or close derivatives thereof) should not be patentable - just look at the prior art!
Same goes for drugs - the plant kingdom is full of useful substances, none of which should be patentable. (But on second thought, it may depend on how the drug is intended to be used, and how innovative that use is - like, if a plant produces a neurotoxin for defense, that shouldn't be patentable for its neurotoxicity. If the drug is found to cure cancer, patent away!)
* Granted, you could argue that virtual engineering models are 'just data' and not strictly software, but the lines between software and the data it operates on are so blurry that (for current purposes) it's futile to try to make a distinction.
Can we not just say that software should be as patentable as anything else? Why is software so special?
I'm sure there are plenty of great patents out there, both for software and otherwise.
On the software side, major advances in cryptography and media compression have in my opinion been rightfully subject to patent protection.
These are mechanisms that are non-trivial, require significant R&D investment, yet are easy to rip off, and they provide crucial mechanisms for salable products. These patents also don't stifle competition, on the basis that there are other (similarly non-trivial) ways of getting similar results, which competitors are free to invent.
Always reminds me of 'The Meaning of Life':
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085959/quotes?qt0256725
I guess that'd be moving CAPEX to OPEX, but with the same confounding result of costing more money.
twat about them on twitter
Oh dear... so I guess it's OK if you drug your mother through town and then twat about it for the whole world to hear.
US English is a strange beast.
Regarding Sharepoint, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that you need Internet Explorer for full functionality.
God knows we can't handle the truth.
Lovely... post a constructive suggestion, get downmodded and no constructive replies.
Commenting further, by 'students' here we're talking about children and teenagers. I'm mostly focussed on the latter here, for the former I'd suggest bribing directly with small quantities of candy rather than money, as it's less abstract.
Teenagers are notoriously bad at thinking through the long-term consequences of their immediate actions. And yet we somehow expect them to be self-motivated to stay in school and prioritize study over the various things they'd really rather be doing.
Essentially, we're holding teenagers to a higher standard of self-motivation than adults, since adults generally get paid to get up, go to work, and make an honest effort.
If there's no interest in experimenting with paying students to go to school, how about we try the reverse experiment, where we stop paying adults to go to work, and see what that does to their productivity.
(But wait, we've already done that experiment in various guises, and the results were...)
I reckons education can be fixed, simply by throwing money at it.
Here's how:
Pay the students a 'retainer' for attendance.
Pay the students a 'bonus' for grades.
I'm not just talking an allowance here, I mean real money, at least competitive with what they'd get from quitting school and going to work in the fast food industry.
Students need incentives, not everyone turns up for fun or with a rational long-term view to their future. School needs to be better aligned with the 'real world', rather than set adrift as a microcosm of society (on a bad day, I'd say 'zoo'... yes, I'm bitter). And how do we incentivize in the 'real world'?
Just to be pedantic, it's not quite right to refer to 'objects' calling/invoking methods on other objects. Granted, typically the caller will be an object, but that's not required. Any two callers (objects or otherwise) making the same method call can expect to get the same result.
For calls to 'main' methods and (other) calls from native interfaces, it's common for the caller to not be an object.
However, Java for one can impose security restrictions based on the calling object, but this is a language feature and not OOP per se.
Now that you mention it, wouldn't mirrored surfaces actually be a useful form of camouflage? Try finding a mirror in the jungle.
(Specular reflections from the sun and other bright light sources would be a problem, but could be mitigated somewhat by tint or anti-glare coatings. Maybe contour surfaces to favour surface normals pointing below the horizon, and not mirroring where the normals need to point above the horizon (perhaps use half-silvering and refraction, or just regular camouflage there)).
It gets worse... all birds are completely are completely resistant to you. And reptiles.
Part of the problem there is that some of the 'benefits' are really unfairly-externalized costs to begin with. As a salaried employee, you can expect to cover all of your commuting costs out of your own pocket - be it public transport charges, or car ownership, maintenance, licensing, insurance, fuel, parking, and taxes on all of the above.
Why the schmuck isn't that taken from your employer's balance sheet, or at the very least tax-deductible against your salary?
Also, can I add getting some physical exercise before sitting down to work. Even just a 10-minute walk outside.
Gets the blood flowing or something.
I'm going to make a sweeping generalization and say that in an office environment, people only talk when they're on the phone, in a meeting, or goofing off. So I don't really think communications is the biggest problem with WFH.
Ironically the best reason I have for being in an office is to be free from the distractions of home. Also, having other people working around me helps me focus and maybe keeps me sane. People pace each other through the day; you can witness this collapsing on a hot Friday afternoon.
But... offer me a well-paying job where I can work remotely from an affordable house in a beautiful environment, with a sound-insulated home office and a lock on the door, and I'm there in a flash.
It's a good outcome for students to know how to solve the problem armed just with pencil and paper.
It's a bad outcome for students to think they should solve the problem armed just with pencil and paper.
'Theory' and 'practice' should always be taught together.
Musical interlude: Sixteen Tons
I loaded sixteen tons, I tried to get ahead,
Got deeper and deeper in debt instead.
Well they got what I made, and they wanted some more,
And now I owe my soul at the company store.
Which mammals would those be? Anything even remotely similar to humans?
And are there any examples of mammals where the 'men have become extinct'? Any non-mammals?
If not, how anyone can seriously claim (as per original post) that this will happen for humans, is just beyond me.
Especially since we'd have to have retained our 'human-ness' throughout that process for the claim to hold. E.g., futuristic hermaphroditic X0 bat-manatee creatures that just happen to be descended from humans don't count.
IIRC, Apple recommends for iOS that the splash screen be indicative of the app's initial view, or something along those lines.
Of course, the interface isn't functional until the app finishes loading, but by giving the user a chance to orient themselves to the app, it actually can lead to time savings for the user.
They apparently don't reject apps for not following this recommendation, as it's very common to have a 'title' splash screen instead.
Why yes, and it's a real gravy train!
But seriously, for the math curriculum I'd either already picked it up before they taught it, or I relearned it better later at University. (That's with the exception of statistics, which I regret never taking a tertiary-level course in).
For languages, I learned waaay more German in a six-week intensive summer school course than I did French in three years at high school. Je suis une petite grenouille.
Then there was gym classes, where I learned that it's *extremely* important to hold each stretch for 20 seconds.
About the only thing high school succeeded in was chopping the day up into little pieces, just the right size so that everyone could look busy without ever having to really engage.