But this? JavaScript requires the teaching of an environment and pre-existing objects like DOM that have nothing to do with the above goals and will certainly diminish the natural intuitive development of the appropriate concepts involved with programming. They are not learning how to translate their imagination into instructions as a general practice; they are learning how to manipulate specific pre-determined objects outside the scope of theoretical concerns. This is bad for them. This will limit them.
As an aside, let's face it, this is motivated by business. 1) JavaScript will be a heavily used language in the immediate future, 2) Khan prepares students to use JavaScript, 3) Khan's students are equipped with business-world skills and succeed, 4) Khan claims statistics reflect it competes well in the education market place, 5) Khan gets money.
Meanwhile Khan's students have to learn the basics of programming the hard way. Like a GED student picking up calculus at age 35 struggles with it, so will those students.
OK first, there are several modalities to learning programming via JavaScript that are console based. Eloquent JavaScript ( collectedcurios.com ) being one example. So if the markup/DOM aspect of things offends you, it can be sidestepped. Would seem to toss a lot of goodness out with the bathwater to me..but hey, if you feel the need for that form of decoupled purity, there it is.
I for one would argue that your "bad" is a fundamental good in the end for those interested in Web programming specifically, allowing for crossover conversations about web related topics. But also, programming is not really an ivory tower activity. There must be some I/O interaction to have some effect on the world.
Also, the whole DOM/Markup aspect can be mostly (or even completely) handed to them. So I don't see this as an issue at all really.
Finally any school that doesn't take into account that their students will want/need/use their skills in the real world is...well...unique. Can't say I see that as much of an indictment.
I taught a class of adults beginning programming through JavaScript and the vast majority did anything but struggle thank you....the only problem I see is that I have yet to find a text that doesn't blow in some major fashion.
Perhaps to you. Also you might wish to investigate who Guy Faulks actually was, who he associated with, what his "ideals" where and what theat whole plan would have resulted in.
I have. But at this point, it doesn't matter. He has become a symbol and his original message has long since become irrelevant.
While I get your point, I would say a symbol based on a very deep fallacy...that's not a good way to start, and I would say that's not at all irrelevant. It might be to the people who worship the caricature (which in and of itself is half the point I'm making), but to me it also shows how myopic and infused with 'form over substance' that particular movement can mostly be.
And there are a hell of a lot more people on the internet working toward change that have absolutely no interest in the methods of anon let alone participate or support them than are just being connected via the web.
Again, you are right but real life is bigger and more complicated.
For the past 20 years or so, those of us who had an interest in civil rights in the Internet sphere had been doing much fighting against windmills. I used to work with the EFF, tried to found a EFF Europe, got into a few lawsuits, even gained a little bit of publicity. I also watched how the lobbyists and corrupt politicians steamrolled over us without a second thought because we were few and couldn't compete in the bribery. I've heard the tales from the other folks about how the EFF once tried to enter the lobby circus in Washington DC and the only thing it got them was burning out their own people.
You can't say I didn't try. And I still believe in the EFF et al. - but I also think they don't have the resources nor abilities to mobilize masses of people and on their own they wouldn't have been able to put a stop on ACTA.
Anonymous - for whatever reasons of coolness and movie cliches - reach people and get newspaper and TV news coverage. When's the last time you've seen the EFF mentioned in the evening news?
We definitely need both. Someone who can mobilize people to go on the street and give the TV news the footage they want to put your issue into the evening news, and someone who fights in the courtrooms and can provide expert talks to the news.
Good for you (heartfelt). Bob knows we need activism and folks working to change the system and try to make this a better place for all concerned.
That said, Paris Hilton got a lot of media coverage too. not sure that's worth anything on it's face without substance. And King got covered by the media plenty. Principled effective action can take place in the public eye, but takes talent and sacrifice most often. Above all it benefits from being couched in authenticity. Not only in the symbology, but in the motivation for the actions. People smell the bullshit. You may be running in circles where anon cache is high, but i can assure you that is limited and I work in deep nerdom.
The vein these guys tweak is mostly an immature one by my way of thinking. I'd prefer a less self centered and self aggrandizing hypocritical vigilante process, sexy or not.
Many actions limit the freedoms of legally operating web presences. Yet they espouse freedom of speech. That's hypocrisy to my mind.
And I can't tell you how often I've read someone claiming that anon gets the credit for the occupy movement. How many ways is a statement like that telling?
I have no doubt there are good people involved but they sure must be the minority, because the actions and statements are often more akin to a child with a gun, or action bend on proving they have an enormous e-penis than mature action to make a better world. The later seems more like cover to fuck with people who have offended them or behaved contrary to their dictates or to moon authority (not that mooning authority every now and again isn't a good move mind you, just don't sell it to me as mythica
Compare the character from V with a random street punk. Neither are exactly the good guy in the white vest, but V is a lot more likeable.
Perhaps to you. Also you might wish to investigate who Guy Faulks actually was, who he associated with, what his "ideals" where and what theat whole plan would have resulted in.
So while there is some discrediting involved, there is also a lot of mobilizing. Many people are now protesting, who would not have protested at all otherwise.
The people I saw on the street in occupy had little interest in anon. And there are a hell of a lot more people on the internet working toward change that have absolutely no interest in the methods of anon let alone participate or support them than are just being connected via the web. There's a crapload of revisionism that seems to go on from people who think the point is to rebel and be and look counter-culture rather than to actually work toward real and productive change.
problems seemingly inherent in vigilantism.
Also, anarchy makes for a nice T-shirt, but in reality it ends up with bullies, thieves and fools loose in the works.....of course that also seems to be the result of organized politics, so not sure what that adds up to in the end. People are often borked and the collective efforts of said people reflects that.
the antidote mostly seems to be education and inclusion in the uber-system dejour
good christ....so, _some_ of the things we've had to fight tooth and nail to get done, many over spew of the same type of 2d talking points I might add, are actually working,....soooo......that means we should ignore the really big issue somehow....??? because actually trying to address it will lead to "chaos"
Explain that logic again please?
only if you are interested in creating a strawman...."Saying that all wealthy people are evil" is something I don't seeing anyone but you saying. Perhaps I missed it down stream from the initial comments of course...if so, my apologies.
What is interesting is investigating how wealth effects peoples behavior towards others, which I believe is the point of the OP, then trying to tease out what leads folks to any different behaviors.
I would be interested to see some kind of data showing that a) the top 1% of wealth holders in America where by-and-large born into lower/middle-class financial stations, and b) somehow quantifies your assertion that those folks grew up in a culture encouraging risk-taking.
So we have to assume if a teacher or football coach or principal leads a class, football team or entire school in prayer that person would be similarly entitled to immunity?
We most certainly do not.
An implicit or explicit requirement to take an action or stand out....to physically pray,... to either capitulate to putting on a false show or _physically_ deviate from the religious norm, thereby reinforcing their subclass status, (and make no mistake, that is how folks are viewed who _don't_ pray in such circumstances) is _quite_ different from being present in a room while the teacher discusses a clearly valid (and I would say entirely acurate and factually and logically supportable) description of the differentiation between religious faith and the scientific method (in which no one is required to _do_ ANYthing but listen and hold or share their own opinion). In short you can't logically or honestly argue with the speakers facts. But that part is actually a different matter and not the point I'm responding to......they din't have to DO on NOT do ANYTHING. where-as your students DO. That is clearly a very different situation.
But of course folks seem to only see their own perspective, as in "my" (righteous) side and "their" (evil) side. And if their side gets to do SOMETHING, my side should get to do ANYTHING. Incorrect me thinks.
And the thing that seems to be missed with regularity is that everything the guy said was not only opinion, but demonstrable fact which was germane to the subject being taught. Especially reasonable in an AP course. As in, supportable with repeatable sub-facts and irrefutable logic. He wasn't claiming there was not god, or even claiming there _was_ a spegetti monster,...rather that NO one can prove there is....and really, no one has yet. they have at best circumstantial evidence, and at worst, a book that sayz god did it, which it's self is hotly debated for it's meaning between opposing faiths.
I personally would like to see a system where the voter is presented a set of candidates, each with five stars next to their name, much like rating a netflix movie.
Totally agree with the parent. Seems like a trojan horse of an example. Looks reasonable, but bares little resemblance to what could crawl out of it after hours.
... respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
The internet its the backbone of the new press, and the new place of public assembly where we meet to discuss ideas and give opinions.
Safe the individual systems that need safing. But keep federal/presidential mits off of the free exchange of speech and press. The Supreme Court should tab any kill switch as unconstitutional in my opinion. And frankly with all the hubbub about reading the constitution on the floor of the house, and the requirement for a constitutional rational included in every proposed piece of legislation, it seems like Mr. Liberman and Ms. Collins shouldhave some explaining to do even if it was introduced before the tea-party fluff. You'd think someone would consider discussing it's constitutionality.
I'd'know... "I'm hopeless and downtrodden, so fuck all of you to death" seems to fit the definition of a world view to me well enough to use the term here.
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.
If you want to have something secure then it's going to be run by a small group.
What about their model appears unsecure to you,..specifically? There are only 12 of em in the office at present. Or do I miss your point?
If you're just taking the information from anonymous sources without any way of knowing who it is that's leaking it you're going to fail miserably.
Agreed. But what leads you to be sure there won't be avenues to verify or that they are accepting sources that they aren't verifying? Perhaps you're right, in which case I agree, it's a fools errand. But everything I read leads me to believe these guys aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are, and that there will be checks both on their end and furthermore at the publishers end where they will still need to do their job and confirm before they run with a story. And if they fail, so what really? I guess time will tell if the model works or not of course.
But the only reason I can see to be rooting against these guys is guy fawkes worship frankly. Everything gets better if it works, and if it's crap, it fails and we're left with one less channel of free information that so many claim is the point....So tell me sir who seems to hope for their failure...is that flavoraid in my hand or perhaps yours?
Not really in this case. This site is more in response to Asanges direction than the governments actions against him or Wikileaks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLeaks
According to Domscheit-Berg's initial statements, he expected OpenLeaks to bypass WikiLeaks problems by serving only as a safe conduit for whistleblowers to leak information, which would then be passed on to the press, instead of acting as a publisher itself. The organization also intends to be democratically governed, rather than being run by one person or a small group!
I know some want to make Asange and wikileaks a paragon and the govt a demon, but it's a troubled god they worship, valuable as parts of the function may indeed be.
Just a few points. First, there can be some discussion on how correctly he predicts the weather. I'll let others debate that.
Secondly, and my main point, predicting the weather is quite different from predicting the state of the global climate. Quite different. He has a degree in Meteorology (not in climate science), which is nothing to sneeze at when predicting the weather situation at particular places on the planet and looking at that in a symbiotic fashion as to how this weather over here will effect that weather over there. It also takes some climatology into account, but it is not itself climatology
It is really very limited in predicting and understanding the condition of the earths climate especially over time. It's one of the reasons that trying to link our struggle to forecast out past 8 days and our endevour to forecast aspects of the state of the climate out over years, is really wrongheaded. It's simply two quite different sciences. As a weather man, his credentials appear better than most actually. There are a lot of people who are not really meteorologists out there predicting the weather, or even there to simply look good reading the weather forecasts. But that hardly qualifies him to speak on the subject of climate science as an expert, especially considering the stakes that most of the actual climatologists generally agree are on the table.
All that said, wager away assuming his definitions within the wage are made more definitive. What exactly will count as "objective satilite data" for instance...However, in 10 years, we'll hardly need it one way or the other I would think. One would expect clarity sooner actually. So it's going to end up moot if you ask me...just don't stop looking at the data we already have and acting appropriately.
Yeah, but the real problem with this kind of mindset is it essentially says, 'hey let's wait and see for 10 years,...THEN come to a conclusion." Which is exactly what many would like to see happen. On it's face I have no problem with the wager or anything down stream of it, as long as no one stops evaluating the data we ALREADY have in order to make informed decisions on a course of action/inaction that best serves all concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
But this? JavaScript requires the teaching of an environment and pre-existing objects like DOM that have nothing to do with the above goals and will certainly diminish the natural intuitive development of the appropriate concepts involved with programming. They are not learning how to translate their imagination into instructions as a general practice; they are learning how to manipulate specific pre-determined objects outside the scope of theoretical concerns. This is bad for them. This will limit them.
As an aside, let's face it, this is motivated by business. 1) JavaScript will be a heavily used language in the immediate future, 2) Khan prepares students to use JavaScript, 3) Khan's students are equipped with business-world skills and succeed, 4) Khan claims statistics reflect it competes well in the education market place, 5) Khan gets money.
Meanwhile Khan's students have to learn the basics of programming the hard way. Like a GED student picking up calculus at age 35 struggles with it, so will those students.
OK first, there are several modalities to learning programming via JavaScript that are console based. Eloquent JavaScript ( collectedcurios.com ) being one example. So if the markup/DOM aspect of things offends you, it can be sidestepped. Would seem to toss a lot of goodness out with the bathwater to me..but hey, if you feel the need for that form of decoupled purity, there it is.
I for one would argue that your "bad" is a fundamental good in the end for those interested in Web programming specifically, allowing for crossover conversations about web related topics. But also, programming is not really an ivory tower activity. There must be some I/O interaction to have some effect on the world.
Also, the whole DOM/Markup aspect can be mostly (or even completely) handed to them. So I don't see this as an issue at all really.
Finally any school that doesn't take into account that their students will want/need/use their skills in the real world is ...well...unique. Can't say I see that as much of an indictment.
I taught a class of adults beginning programming through JavaScript and the vast majority did anything but struggle thank you....the only problem I see is that I have yet to find a text that doesn't blow in some major fashion.
.:stares blankly:.
Perhaps to you. Also you might wish to investigate who Guy Faulks actually was, who he associated with, what his "ideals" where and what theat whole plan would have resulted in.
I have. But at this point, it doesn't matter. He has become a symbol and his original message has long since become irrelevant.
While I get your point, I would say a symbol based on a very deep fallacy...that's not a good way to start, and I would say that's not at all irrelevant. It might be to the people who worship the caricature (which in and of itself is half the point I'm making), but to me it also shows how myopic and infused with 'form over substance' that particular movement can mostly be.
And there are a hell of a lot more people on the internet working toward change that have absolutely no interest in the methods of anon let alone participate or support them than are just being connected via the web.
Again, you are right but real life is bigger and more complicated.
For the past 20 years or so, those of us who had an interest in civil rights in the Internet sphere had been doing much fighting against windmills. I used to work with the EFF, tried to found a EFF Europe, got into a few lawsuits, even gained a little bit of publicity. I also watched how the lobbyists and corrupt politicians steamrolled over us without a second thought because we were few and couldn't compete in the bribery. I've heard the tales from the other folks about how the EFF once tried to enter the lobby circus in Washington DC and the only thing it got them was burning out their own people.
You can't say I didn't try. And I still believe in the EFF et al. - but I also think they don't have the resources nor abilities to mobilize masses of people and on their own they wouldn't have been able to put a stop on ACTA.
Anonymous - for whatever reasons of coolness and movie cliches - reach people and get newspaper and TV news coverage. When's the last time you've seen the EFF mentioned in the evening news?
We definitely need both. Someone who can mobilize people to go on the street and give the TV news the footage they want to put your issue into the evening news, and someone who fights in the courtrooms and can provide expert talks to the news.
Good for you (heartfelt). Bob knows we need activism and folks working to change the system and try to make this a better place for all concerned.
That said, Paris Hilton got a lot of media coverage too. not sure that's worth anything on it's face without substance. And King got covered by the media plenty. Principled effective action can take place in the public eye, but takes talent and sacrifice most often. Above all it benefits from being couched in authenticity. Not only in the symbology, but in the motivation for the actions. People smell the bullshit. You may be running in circles where anon cache is high, but i can assure you that is limited and I work in deep nerdom.
The vein these guys tweak is mostly an immature one by my way of thinking. I'd prefer a less self centered and self aggrandizing hypocritical vigilante process, sexy or not.
Many actions limit the freedoms of legally operating web presences. Yet they espouse freedom of speech. That's hypocrisy to my mind.
And I can't tell you how often I've read someone claiming that anon gets the credit for the occupy movement. How many ways is a statement like that telling?
I have no doubt there are good people involved but they sure must be the minority, because the actions and statements are often more akin to a child with a gun, or action bend on proving they have an enormous e-penis than mature action to make a better world. The later seems more like cover to fuck with people who have offended them or behaved contrary to their dictates or to moon authority (not that mooning authority every now and again isn't a good move mind you, just don't sell it to me as mythica
Compare the character from V with a random street punk. Neither are exactly the good guy in the white vest, but V is a lot more likeable.
Perhaps to you. Also you might wish to investigate who Guy Faulks actually was, who he associated with, what his "ideals" where and what theat whole plan would have resulted in.
So while there is some discrediting involved, there is also a lot of mobilizing. Many people are now protesting, who would not have protested at all otherwise.
The people I saw on the street in occupy had little interest in anon. And there are a hell of a lot more people on the internet working toward change that have absolutely no interest in the methods of anon let alone participate or support them than are just being connected via the web. There's a crapload of revisionism that seems to go on from people who think the point is to rebel and be and look counter-culture rather than to actually work toward real and productive change.
problems seemingly inherent in vigilantism. Also, anarchy makes for a nice T-shirt, but in reality it ends up with bullies, thieves and fools loose in the works. ....of course that also seems to be the result of organized politics, so not sure what that adds up to in the end. People are often borked and the collective efforts of said people reflects that.
the antidote mostly seems to be education and inclusion in the uber-system dejour
good christ....so, _some_ of the things we've had to fight tooth and nail to get done, many over spew of the same type of 2d talking points I might add, are actually working, ....soooo......that means we should ignore the really big issue somehow....??? because actually trying to address it will lead to "chaos"
Explain that logic again please?
perhaps you don't know the kids in question?
only if you are interested in creating a strawman...."Saying that all wealthy people are evil" is something I don't seeing anyone but you saying. Perhaps I missed it down stream from the initial comments of course...if so, my apologies. What is interesting is investigating how wealth effects peoples behavior towards others, which I believe is the point of the OP, then trying to tease out what leads folks to any different behaviors.
Probably the single most powerful change we can make, right there. Please mode up
I would be interested to see some kind of data showing that a) the top 1% of wealth holders in America where by-and-large born into lower/middle-class financial stations, and b) somehow quantifies your assertion that those folks grew up in a culture encouraging risk-taking.
with stuff.....lots of stuff
So we have to assume if a teacher or football coach or principal leads a class, football team or entire school in prayer that person would be similarly entitled to immunity?
We most certainly do not. An implicit or explicit requirement to take an action or stand out....to physically pray,... to either capitulate to putting on a false show or _physically_ deviate from the religious norm, thereby reinforcing their subclass status, (and make no mistake, that is how folks are viewed who _don't_ pray in such circumstances) is _quite_ different from being present in a room while the teacher discusses a clearly valid (and I would say entirely acurate and factually and logically supportable) description of the differentiation between religious faith and the scientific method (in which no one is required to _do_ ANYthing but listen and hold or share their own opinion). In short you can't logically or honestly argue with the speakers facts. But that part is actually a different matter and not the point I'm responding to......they din't have to DO on NOT do ANYTHING. where-as your students DO. That is clearly a very different situation. But of course folks seem to only see their own perspective, as in "my" (righteous) side and "their" (evil) side. And if their side gets to do SOMETHING, my side should get to do ANYTHING. Incorrect me thinks. And the thing that seems to be missed with regularity is that everything the guy said was not only opinion, but demonstrable fact which was germane to the subject being taught. Especially reasonable in an AP course. As in, supportable with repeatable sub-facts and irrefutable logic. He wasn't claiming there was not god, or even claiming there _was_ a spegetti monster,...rather that NO one can prove there is....and really, no one has yet. they have at best circumstantial evidence, and at worst, a book that sayz god did it, which it's self is hotly debated for it's meaning between opposing faiths.
Exactly....it's probably the most influential change we could make to improve everything effected by politicians,...and that is of course, everything
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
I personally would like to see a system where the voter is presented a set of candidates, each with five stars next to their name, much like rating a netflix movie.
Totally agree with the parent. Seems like a trojan horse of an example. Looks reasonable, but bares little resemblance to what could crawl out of it after hours.
... respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
The internet its the backbone of the new press, and the new place of public assembly where we meet to discuss ideas and give opinions.
Safe the individual systems that need safing. But keep federal/presidential mits off of the free exchange of speech and press. The Supreme Court should tab any kill switch as unconstitutional in my opinion. And frankly with all the hubbub about reading the constitution on the floor of the house, and the requirement for a constitutional rational included in every proposed piece of legislation, it seems like Mr. Liberman and Ms. Collins shouldhave some explaining to do even if it was introduced before the tea-party fluff. You'd think someone would consider discussing it's constitutionality.
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.
::shrug::
Sounds like you're a flavor aid fan.
If by that you mean I'm in favor of a new entity that seems to be thinking about the whole deal more holistically then yes please, pass me some of that. http://www.shirky.com/weblog/transcript-of-openleaks-video/
If you want to have something secure then it's going to be run by a small group.
What about their model appears unsecure to you,..specifically? There are only 12 of em in the office at present. Or do I miss your point?
If you're just taking the information from anonymous sources without any way of knowing who it is that's leaking it you're going to fail miserably.
Agreed. But what leads you to be sure there won't be avenues to verify or that they are accepting sources that they aren't verifying? Perhaps you're right, in which case I agree, it's a fools errand. But everything I read leads me to believe these guys aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are, and that there will be checks both on their end and furthermore at the publishers end where they will still need to do their job and confirm before they run with a story. And if they fail, so what really? I guess time will tell if the model works or not of course.
But the only reason I can see to be rooting against these guys is guy fawkes worship frankly. Everything gets better if it works, and if it's crap, it fails and we're left with one less channel of free information that so many claim is the point. ...So tell me sir who seems to hope for their failure...is that flavoraid in my hand or perhaps yours?
According to Domscheit-Berg's initial statements, he expected OpenLeaks to bypass WikiLeaks problems by serving only as a safe conduit for whistleblowers to leak information, which would then be passed on to the press, instead of acting as a publisher itself. The organization also intends to be democratically governed, rather than being run by one person or a small group!
I know some want to make Asange and wikileaks a paragon and the govt a demon, but it's a troubled god they worship, valuable as parts of the function may indeed be.
or it's a prequel
actually it was open ended. Thank you for clarifying your reasoning.
mod up
and additionally we must do nothing for the next 10 years while we await the results of this science! ...how convenient for some
Just a few points. First, there can be some discussion on how correctly he predicts the weather. I'll let others debate that.
Secondly, and my main point, predicting the weather is quite different from predicting the state of the global climate. Quite different. He has a degree in Meteorology (not in climate science), which is nothing to sneeze at when predicting the weather situation at particular places on the planet and looking at that in a symbiotic fashion as to how this weather over here will effect that weather over there. It also takes some climatology into account, but it is not itself climatology
It is really very limited in predicting and understanding the condition of the earths climate especially over time. It's one of the reasons that trying to link our struggle to forecast out past 8 days and our endevour to forecast aspects of the state of the climate out over years, is really wrongheaded. It's simply two quite different sciences. As a weather man, his credentials appear better than most actually. There are a lot of people who are not really meteorologists out there predicting the weather, or even there to simply look good reading the weather forecasts. But that hardly qualifies him to speak on the subject of climate science as an expert, especially considering the stakes that most of the actual climatologists generally agree are on the table.
All that said, wager away assuming his definitions within the wage are made more definitive. What exactly will count as "objective satilite data" for instance...However, in 10 years, we'll hardly need it one way or the other I would think. One would expect clarity sooner actually. So it's going to end up moot if you ask me...just don't stop looking at the data we already have and acting appropriately.
Yeah, but the real problem with this kind of mindset is it essentially says, 'hey let's wait and see for 10 years,...THEN come to a conclusion." Which is exactly what many would like to see happen. On it's face I have no problem with the wager or anything down stream of it, as long as no one stops evaluating the data we ALREADY have in order to make informed decisions on a course of action/inaction that best serves all concerned.
I wonder how many papers about that have been rejected because they aren't "on message"? Probably quite a few.
Anything to back that up?