Well, *their* version is a walled garden. How soon will Mozilla pick this up and makes it open (and useful)? Like tabs...
(and yes, I know that tabs was implemented elsewhere before Opera did it, but you get the point)
(note: I double-posted this link in this thread, I know... But I didn't see this comment until I submitted the previous one. Have mercy! Don't mod me redundant!)
I wasn't aware of this (though it makes sense). I do, however, know that there was a trial to place megaphone-like cones which are pulsed to create shockwaves near runways. Last I heard this was an expensive setup though, and I don't know how effective the trial was.
It's enough to stretch wire from high poles to deter birds from flying under them, and this is often used around construction sites.
However the problem here is height, and the fact the aircraft might "mind" objects being in their flight path...
From what I can recall from a documentary I saw on this topic, different breeds of cats (wild cats) are allowed around some airports to hunt birds. I can't find any link relating to this though...
I did, however, manage to find at least one mention of "mock hunters", like this one, which are flown around an airport to make real birds think that the place is full of predatory birds.
The interesting thing about the movies is that if they were vetted by a good editor, they could have clipped them into a very good half-length features. Bender's Big Score could have been great if they shaved off around 30 minutes of "filler". Unfortunately, as you said, Bender's Game was really weak, it barely had enough good material for a ~40 minute feature.
That would be very interesting, and challenging. Futurama has created an entire world of content that keeps re-appearing, so that veteran viewers get a lot more out of watching an episode in season 4 than a new viewer. It relies, heavily, on in-jokes and references (and they do it well, IMO). If they now have to send the cast of characters somewhere completely new, will we have a show without Morbo and Nixon?... At least Kif managed to jump onboard right at the end.
What I meant was the *purely* artificial, mechanical systems don't exist. It's the exact opposite -- real life is chaotic and unfair, and the type of "gaming" we're talking about is different. The difference between cheating in a game with strict, defined rules and "cheating in life", where there are no real boundaries.
Look at the comments I posted along this thread, you'll see that in this respect we have the same perspective.
That's a bit cynical. I personally *really* didn't like school, but I can't say I didn't learn anything. Yes, I learned more on my own, but many people don't, they require structure for their education.
Children don't know what's good for them. Of course, most adults don't either... (I think I said something about cynicism earlier in the post... I don't remember...)
I suppose that the real answer is along the lines of: How do you define "better" and "worse"? (I know, this sounds like a cheap answer, I'll try to elaborate) If you instill patriotism in children, do you consider that "better" than educating them about equality? The diplomatic answer is "you can educate both", but that's easily proven fallacious. Patriotism will push a child to believe that their nation, and the people of their nation, are "more equal than others", to quote Orwell. The same goes for capital/social poles.
There are patterns that are ingrained in us already. The question of whether or not this particular additional pattern will be "better" than the current state of things is up for debate, but one thing is certain: the change will be disruptive. I mean "disruptive" in the sense that society will gradually divide between those who were paid for their grades, and those who were not. The two mentalities will clash in some way.
Personally, and this is just my opinion at this point, this particular pattern is harmful from a cultural perspective. One should seek knowledge to better one's self -- not in exchange for material gain, or as competition (although competition is generally considered a positive driving force, it's not the *goal* of education to "beat out" the rest -- it's a means, not an end). This probably sounds like hippie-talk to some, but it's what I believe.
Placing the equation "earn grades = earn money" may sound like a good analogy for life, but in order to get these grades you're going to have to educate yourself. And again, once the motivation is removed, these children will find it comparatively unrewarding to seek knowledge, for knowledge sake. At this point, if you read along this thread, I'm sure you'll find many who will say "I only learn when there's something else to gain besides knowledge". I have to say, I find this surprising, seeing how this is slashdot.
It seems to me that it depends on what your fundamental personal views are. I tend to think that the progress of humans as a species is a priority, and that this progress isn't found in hedonism (hyperbole, I know, but you get the idea). Others may say that life is short, and you should seek pleasure where you can find it. I can't, in any specific way, refute that.
As for the child labor scenario, I suppose you could always find *some* upside. Just a century ago couples had more children so those the children can go to work and provide for the rest of the family. This is still true in the developing world. But should it be encouraged in a modern world?
Before I answer I have to say that we're getting into specifics which blurs the macro effect: applying these types of mechanical conditions to children, especially small children, will embed patterns into their minds that will be difficult to out-grow. You can grow out of "in bed by 10pm", but giving you material compensation for what you should realize is inherently for your benefit (education), will make you stop want to practice "educating yourself" once that compensation is gone.
To your question: Kids won't get fired from school. They aren't effected by the economy in this program. If a child does well they will continue to get paid, which is a parody compared to the real world. They don't have to seek promotion, they keep traveling though a linear path (think 1950s-style employment). They don't have to "find a job at another school". But most importantly, the environment is artificial. The difference is between real life, and a game.
What happens when that child grows up and the reward system becomes chaotic? You can be a hard, studious worker, and still get laid off. You have to develop communication and social skills to get a job and keep it. In an artificial environment, they just need the grades, and they can completely ignore their surroundings.
And one last "perk": imagine a child from a poor family. Suddenly attention is placed on the child to earn income at an extremely early age in order to provide for their family. When placed in a situation like that, where they might need to get good grades in order to feed and clothe their siblings, what's the difference between that and child labor?
First of all, I can only type so much before I need to get back to work, so referring a reader to an article on Wikipedia will likely cover far more ground.
But sure, I'll bite: If a child receives a reward from a family member, that person will be able to "bend the rules" at any point, because there's no actual contract. They could gradually provide diminishing returns, and/or decide that grades on a certain subject are worth more "starting right now" (because, for example, the student is great in math, but bad in literature, so the priority shifts to increasing the literature grade). On the other hand, an institution is implementing a mechanism. That same institution is providing the behavior pattern that will be reinforced. No matter how many rule subsets that institution applies, it will always have to be uniform, so the children could, in effect, "game the system". For example, if getting your grade from a D to a B provides a higher incentive than increasing a grade from a C to an A, then the kids will do the math. It's an objective mechanism, which, if modified, will be modified uniformly. You won't give different students different rewards for the same exact achievement. This becomes a static, objective reinforcement mechanism which *does not exist in the real world*. When they encounter real-world motivation systems, the rules will suddenly change, and they'll have to battle their now-ingrained expectations.
If you're going to offer the kids money, that's fine.
No, it's not fine, it will have terrible long-term effects. This is called behavioral/operant conditioning, which, in the case of children, will become deeply entrenched into the personality that they will develop as they mature.
Don't confuse this with parents who give their children extra allowance if they get good grades. When the reinforcement comes from the same entity which is providing the challenge (in this case, the schools), it becomes a far more mechanical, "pavlovian" pattern. I seriously hope that some psychologists are monitoring this program.
This isn't just a matter of culture (as others mention on this thread), this could have long-term effects that are completely unpredictable.
Did you read the comment you replied to? I explicitly said: You should've conditioned that statement with something like "at that price point" or "of that size". The comment I replied to stated "no other device can you paint with as well as the iPhone/iPod Touch", which, verbatim, was an obviously false statement. I even gave two example conditions under which he could have made that argument, one of which to latched on to.
Not all of us Mac users are like that, and the iPhone isn't a Mac at all.
I think you've extrapolated a bit too far. Who said anything about the Mac or Mac users? And by "like that" do you mean the example you gave about the "douchebag in Starbucks"?
We could get into a whole debate about Macs, and normally I would, but in this case I really didn't say anything but point out a clear hype-laden story that got on slashdot. It has nothing to do with Macs. It's just of poor quality and I'm surprised that articles relating to the iPhone seem to get a push simply for including the word "iPhone". And no, I don't turn off Apple-related updates because many/most of them do interest me.
But here's what you got right, as far as guessing my opinions:
1) Apples are expensive.
2) I'm not entirely familiar with OSX.
Neither of these opinions have anything to do with my comment.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also a regional issue. In Israel and South Korea you'd better be coding *for* IE. Your fallback should be a standards-compliant browser.
South Korea browser share, September 2008
Well, *their* version is a walled garden. How soon will Mozilla pick this up and makes it open (and useful)? Like tabs... (and yes, I know that tabs was implemented elsewhere before Opera did it, but you get the point)
Well no one said it would be easy.
Also, think of the economy: Can you imagine how many jobs (for snipers) this will create? It is a capital idea!
at 2:1 you have to factor in the weight of a half-flock of rocks added to your cargo.
Obviously your stones are too big.
And then serve the shot birds as meals in the aircraft. It's like two birds with one, er, shot!
Nah... Just mount some fan grills.
Holland has taken it even further.
(note: I double-posted this link in this thread, I know... But I didn't see this comment until I submitted the previous one. Have mercy! Don't mod me redundant!)
I wasn't aware of this (though it makes sense). I do, however, know that there was a trial to place megaphone-like cones which are pulsed to create shockwaves near runways. Last I heard this was an expensive setup though, and I don't know how effective the trial was.
It's enough to stretch wire from high poles to deter birds from flying under them, and this is often used around construction sites.
However the problem here is height, and the fact the aircraft might "mind" objects being in their flight path...
From what I can recall from a documentary I saw on this topic, different breeds of cats (wild cats) are allowed around some airports to hunt birds. I can't find any link relating to this though...
I did, however, manage to find at least one mention of "mock hunters", like this one, which are flown around an airport to make real birds think that the place is full of predatory birds.
The interesting thing about the movies is that if they were vetted by a good editor, they could have clipped them into a very good half-length features. Bender's Big Score could have been great if they shaved off around 30 minutes of "filler". Unfortunately, as you said, Bender's Game was really weak, it barely had enough good material for a ~40 minute feature.
*warning: spoilers!*
That would be very interesting, and challenging. Futurama has created an entire world of content that keeps re-appearing, so that veteran viewers get a lot more out of watching an episode in season 4 than a new viewer. It relies, heavily, on in-jokes and references (and they do it well, IMO). If they now have to send the cast of characters somewhere completely new, will we have a show without Morbo and Nixon?... At least Kif managed to jump onboard right at the end.
Puny Humans Rejoice!
Brought to you by: Torgo's Executive Powder! "a million and one uses!"
What I meant was the *purely* artificial, mechanical systems don't exist. It's the exact opposite -- real life is chaotic and unfair, and the type of "gaming" we're talking about is different. The difference between cheating in a game with strict, defined rules and "cheating in life", where there are no real boundaries.
Look at the comments I posted along this thread, you'll see that in this respect we have the same perspective.
That's a bit cynical. I personally *really* didn't like school, but I can't say I didn't learn anything. Yes, I learned more on my own, but many people don't, they require structure for their education.
Children don't know what's good for them. Of course, most adults don't either...
(I think I said something about cynicism earlier in the post... I don't remember...)
I suppose that the real answer is along the lines of: How do you define "better" and "worse"? (I know, this sounds like a cheap answer, I'll try to elaborate)
If you instill patriotism in children, do you consider that "better" than educating them about equality? The diplomatic answer is "you can educate both", but that's easily proven fallacious. Patriotism will push a child to believe that their nation, and the people of their nation, are "more equal than others", to quote Orwell. The same goes for capital/social poles.
There are patterns that are ingrained in us already. The question of whether or not this particular additional pattern will be "better" than the current state of things is up for debate, but one thing is certain: the change will be disruptive. I mean "disruptive" in the sense that society will gradually divide between those who were paid for their grades, and those who were not. The two mentalities will clash in some way.
Personally, and this is just my opinion at this point, this particular pattern is harmful from a cultural perspective. One should seek knowledge to better one's self -- not in exchange for material gain, or as competition (although competition is generally considered a positive driving force, it's not the *goal* of education to "beat out" the rest -- it's a means, not an end). This probably sounds like hippie-talk to some, but it's what I believe.
Placing the equation "earn grades = earn money" may sound like a good analogy for life, but in order to get these grades you're going to have to educate yourself. And again, once the motivation is removed, these children will find it comparatively unrewarding to seek knowledge, for knowledge sake. At this point, if you read along this thread, I'm sure you'll find many who will say "I only learn when there's something else to gain besides knowledge". I have to say, I find this surprising, seeing how this is slashdot.
It seems to me that it depends on what your fundamental personal views are. I tend to think that the progress of humans as a species is a priority, and that this progress isn't found in hedonism (hyperbole, I know, but you get the idea). Others may say that life is short, and you should seek pleasure where you can find it. I can't, in any specific way, refute that.
As for the child labor scenario, I suppose you could always find *some* upside. Just a century ago couples had more children so those the children can go to work and provide for the rest of the family. This is still true in the developing world. But should it be encouraged in a modern world?
Before I answer I have to say that we're getting into specifics which blurs the macro effect: applying these types of mechanical conditions to children, especially small children, will embed patterns into their minds that will be difficult to out-grow. You can grow out of "in bed by 10pm", but giving you material compensation for what you should realize is inherently for your benefit (education), will make you stop want to practice "educating yourself" once that compensation is gone.
To your question: Kids won't get fired from school. They aren't effected by the economy in this program. If a child does well they will continue to get paid, which is a parody compared to the real world. They don't have to seek promotion, they keep traveling though a linear path (think 1950s-style employment). They don't have to "find a job at another school". But most importantly, the environment is artificial. The difference is between real life, and a game.
What happens when that child grows up and the reward system becomes chaotic? You can be a hard, studious worker, and still get laid off. You have to develop communication and social skills to get a job and keep it. In an artificial environment, they just need the grades, and they can completely ignore their surroundings.
And one last "perk": imagine a child from a poor family. Suddenly attention is placed on the child to earn income at an extremely early age in order to provide for their family. When placed in a situation like that, where they might need to get good grades in order to feed and clothe their siblings, what's the difference between that and child labor?
Er, I meant "it would pose a problem"... I usually double check before I post...
Yes, it definitely would. See the reply I just posted above to Joebert's question.
First of all, I can only type so much before I need to get back to work, so referring a reader to an article on Wikipedia will likely cover far more ground.
But sure, I'll bite:
If a child receives a reward from a family member, that person will be able to "bend the rules" at any point, because there's no actual contract. They could gradually provide diminishing returns, and/or decide that grades on a certain subject are worth more "starting right now" (because, for example, the student is great in math, but bad in literature, so the priority shifts to increasing the literature grade).
On the other hand, an institution is implementing a mechanism. That same institution is providing the behavior pattern that will be reinforced. No matter how many rule subsets that institution applies, it will always have to be uniform, so the children could, in effect, "game the system". For example, if getting your grade from a D to a B provides a higher incentive than increasing a grade from a C to an A, then the kids will do the math. It's an objective mechanism, which, if modified, will be modified uniformly. You won't give different students different rewards for the same exact achievement. This becomes a static, objective reinforcement mechanism which *does not exist in the real world*. When they encounter real-world motivation systems, the rules will suddenly change, and they'll have to battle their now-ingrained expectations.
If you're going to offer the kids money, that's fine.
No, it's not fine, it will have terrible long-term effects. This is called behavioral/operant conditioning, which, in the case of children, will become deeply entrenched into the personality that they will develop as they mature.
Don't confuse this with parents who give their children extra allowance if they get good grades. When the reinforcement comes from the same entity which is providing the challenge (in this case, the schools), it becomes a far more mechanical, "pavlovian" pattern. I seriously hope that some psychologists are monitoring this program.
This isn't just a matter of culture (as others mention on this thread), this could have long-term effects that are completely unpredictable.
Program "Kickback for Grades" coming next spring to an elementary near you!
I'm just glad this wasn't instated in my school, my ass couldn't afford it...
You can pocket your tablet PC? Amazing!
Did you read the comment you replied to? I explicitly said: You should've conditioned that statement with something like "at that price point" or "of that size". The comment I replied to stated "no other device can you paint with as well as the iPhone/iPod Touch", which, verbatim, was an obviously false statement. I even gave two example conditions under which he could have made that argument, one of which to latched on to.
Read. Then Reply.
Not all of us Mac users are like that, and the iPhone isn't a Mac at all.
I think you've extrapolated a bit too far. Who said anything about the Mac or Mac users? And by "like that" do you mean the example you gave about the "douchebag in Starbucks"?
We could get into a whole debate about Macs, and normally I would, but in this case I really didn't say anything but point out a clear hype-laden story that got on slashdot. It has nothing to do with Macs. It's just of poor quality and I'm surprised that articles relating to the iPhone seem to get a push simply for including the word "iPhone". And no, I don't turn off Apple-related updates because many/most of them do interest me.
But here's what you got right, as far as guessing my opinions:
1) Apples are expensive.
2) I'm not entirely familiar with OSX.
Neither of these opinions have anything to do with my comment.