That could be, and if so it would be significant, but the benefit might simply come from the server being in pretty much *any* other country. I imagine it's a lot more footwork for a police department to get information from foreign servers versus domestic ones. It's one more barrier in front of your privacy. No barrier is perfect, but any barrier is better than none (if privacy is your goal).
I don't know if you are the kind of person who is swayed by science, but my understanding is that people who keep messy homes and desks and computers are (on average) smarter, faster workers, and can find things faster than tidy people.
Nevertheless, I myself am a tidy person, and I sure don't apologize for it. It's how I like to be; it's the behavior that comes out of my brain without me thinking about it.
Anyway, my closing anecdotes are: 1.) my sysadmin, who is exactly the kind of person who keeps dozens (not hundreds, that would be crazy) of tabs open all at once, monitoring all sorts of things on the network; and 2.) it seems the best programmers I know, who write complicated bug-free software faster than I ever could, produce code which to me looks like an electronic cat vomited into a computerized litter box. But hell, you run it and it works like a charm.
So for me, I don't judge the messy the same way you do.
Hmmm. I sort of agree. I'd say that the only thing worse than a progress bar that doesn't show actual algorithmic progress, is a UI which executes a lengthy algorithm with no feedback at all. I'd rather know that the computer is at work, than wondering whether it is hung. But of course, better than either of those options is to have meaningful progress bars.
I don't want to wade into a big argument, but I am absolutely confident that you are wrong. I am sure that you would rather it seem faster than be faster, if those are the only two choices.
Now, typically we assume that things that seem fast really ARE fast, but in our hypothetical here we are saying that for some reason that is not the case. So, if you use two browsers, and one seems faster, and fastness makes you happy, then you are happier with your perception of the seemingly faster browser. It would be nonsensical for you to then go on to do deep testing in order to verify the validity of your feelings.
Let me phrase it backwards. Assume for the argument that you are using a browser, and it seems really fricking slow. You aren't happy. It drags on and on, and you keep wondering what's taking so long.
Do you then look at a table of data showing that your perceptions are wrong, and that the browser is actually really fast, and change your perception about the browser? Of course not, that would be silly. Perhaps you would then pay attention differently, and that would change your perception, but a table of benchmarks isn't going to suffice.
Let's put it yet a different way: perception is reality, to you at least. The only way to convince you to change your mind about a browser is to change your perception, for instance by giving you benchmarks which expand your understanding. Without the benchmarks, how could you possibly know the difference between "fast" and "seems fast"?
Now in conclusion, I also want fast browsers, just like you. Nobody disputes that; we all want fast browsers. But "fast" is tantamount to "seems fast to the user". One way to make it seem fast to the user is to, you know, make it actually fast. You and I and everyone thinks this is a good way to achieve "seems fast". Another way is to show the user benchmarks of fastness. Another way is to, say, tweak the UI to make things "seem" fast.
Still expressing yourself freely, I see? The police must not have gotten to you yet. Enjoy your freedom, even the freedom to disingenuously claim you aren't free./definitely not a teabagger
My criticism of that style is that if justices can adequately decide cases without hearing arguments or asking questions, then why, according to him, do courts have proceedings?
So, okay, it's true I guess I think his style is less good than the normal style. But, I wouldn't say I'm informed enough about it to criticize him strongly -- mildly, perhaps (as I have), but not strongly.
Without at all disagreeing with what you said, is it true that a single ibuprofen can harm a school-age child? (What kind of harm?) If so I need to slide my sliding scale of drug harm a bit more toward the "safe" end, because I didn't realize that.
That's a good story. I like the anecdote about your father offering to assault the misguided administrator, but I bet in reality he got his way by explaining his position and convincing the admin that the rule was a bit too strictly enforced.
I bet it boiled down to "Hey, man, lighten up a little, please?" And the admin, in a brief fit of reason, agreed to do that.
Hi. In my district we vote for school board members, who are responsible for setting standards and making guidelines, or otherwise delegating those tasks. Is that not how it is done where you are from? I've never heard of a place in America where schools aren't under democratic control, indirectly.
We could have a petty argument about it, but I bet we agree that some overzealous administrators, jealously guarding their meaningless bureaucratic fiefdoms, acted like overbearing jerks in the life of a tender little girl, by "capriciously" and foolishly enforcing a vague rule in an inapplicable circumstance.
Apparently, though, we disagree on the appropriate response. I'm suggesting that people become aware of the problem and vote for new school board members (or otherwise pressure them to change the rule); whereas you seem to suggest adherence to your 'expectations' without mention for the expectations of the rest of the people in your district.
Let me take the blame for a miscommunication if I misinterpreted your comment. You simply stated that you have expectations, as if to imply that your expectations should be followed. If that's not what you meant, then I read you wrong. Perhaps you meant that even though you have expectations, that they should nevertheless be ignored in favor of the voice of the majority.
Right. Yeah, are you saying you disagree with the argument? Okay, me too. But that's not the question I asked. If you want, I'm interested in your answer to my question; if you don't want, that's okay too.
do you think it is true that when a lawyer representing a client makes an argument in court, that the argument necessarily or even probably represents the personal views of the lawyer herself?
Who is keeping you from questioning the rules? Here you are, on Slashdot, biatching about rules that you aren't even subject to. Are the police knocking on your door or something?
You seem really angry for a person who knowingly enrolls his child in a public school, and who willingly continues to live in a democracy where his opinion only counts as one voter of many.
Perhaps what you are looking for is a country that you could personally overthrow and rule as dictator. Then you get to have whatever you want. But until then, if you live in a democracy, you are subject to the vagaries of the majority.
Luckily, because of the democratic process, you can simply convince people to vote the way you want. That might be your best option; good luck. If you and I ever find ourselves living in the same district, I'll help you raise votes to overturn this silly candy rule. But I won't tromp around acting all indignant over something so trivial; I have too much perspective.
My guess is that she only has to serve the detention if she wants to attend that school. The alternative, used by many American parents, is home school (or private school). Parents are always given the utmost prerogative regarding their own children; the prerogative is only reduced when the parent trades it for public education.
But, that's only if the school plays hardball. In this case, they were called out on a stupid application of a bad policy, and I imagine they will rightly back down. But in the general case, schools enjoy the prerogative to assign punishment for misdeeds in their purview.
First of all, "zero tolerance" is a terrible way to phrase things. We specifically teach children that tolerance is good, and that phrase undermines that message.
More importantly, instead of a "zero tolerance for candy" policy, how about a "small amount of tolerance for candy" policy? Just like you said: start by taking away the candy and sending a note home to the parents -- a gentle, kind note. The next time, maybe a stronger note or a phone call. Step things up after that, in proportion to the actual problem represented by the candy.
Save the "zero tolerance" for terrorism or Mariah Carrey and things equally abominable.
You can have expectations until the cows come home, but in a democracy we have a way to decide whose expectations carry the day, and that way is not "whatever joeyblades says", but rather this thing we call "voting".
We also didn't ask you where to put down the roads, we capriciously paved them out according to plans made by elected officials. We also didn't ask you to design next-generation missile defense systems -- we capriciously hired experts to do that instead.
So please forgive us when we run schools based on democratic principles instead of The Dictatorship Of Joeyblades.
As a parting comment, I think this candy thing is ridiculous, and I anticipate the voters will overturn it (indirectly via school board elections). If I were in that constituency, I would vote for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice. How's the weather there? The rest of us are stuck here in the United States of Reality.
That could be, and if so it would be significant, but the benefit might simply come from the server being in pretty much *any* other country. I imagine it's a lot more footwork for a police department to get information from foreign servers versus domestic ones. It's one more barrier in front of your privacy. No barrier is perfect, but any barrier is better than none (if privacy is your goal).
Yeah sure, it's a fair question, but the fair answer is "no".
I don't know if you are the kind of person who is swayed by science, but my understanding is that people who keep messy homes and desks and computers are (on average) smarter, faster workers, and can find things faster than tidy people.
Nevertheless, I myself am a tidy person, and I sure don't apologize for it. It's how I like to be; it's the behavior that comes out of my brain without me thinking about it.
Anyway, my closing anecdotes are: 1.) my sysadmin, who is exactly the kind of person who keeps dozens (not hundreds, that would be crazy) of tabs open all at once, monitoring all sorts of things on the network; and 2.) it seems the best programmers I know, who write complicated bug-free software faster than I ever could, produce code which to me looks like an electronic cat vomited into a computerized litter box. But hell, you run it and it works like a charm.
So for me, I don't judge the messy the same way you do.
how sure is damnit?
Hmmm. I sort of agree. I'd say that the only thing worse than a progress bar that doesn't show actual algorithmic progress, is a UI which executes a lengthy algorithm with no feedback at all. I'd rather know that the computer is at work, than wondering whether it is hung. But of course, better than either of those options is to have meaningful progress bars.
I don't want to wade into a big argument, but I am absolutely confident that you are wrong. I am sure that you would rather it seem faster than be faster, if those are the only two choices.
Now, typically we assume that things that seem fast really ARE fast, but in our hypothetical here we are saying that for some reason that is not the case. So, if you use two browsers, and one seems faster, and fastness makes you happy, then you are happier with your perception of the seemingly faster browser. It would be nonsensical for you to then go on to do deep testing in order to verify the validity of your feelings.
Let me phrase it backwards. Assume for the argument that you are using a browser, and it seems really fricking slow. You aren't happy. It drags on and on, and you keep wondering what's taking so long.
Do you then look at a table of data showing that your perceptions are wrong, and that the browser is actually really fast, and change your perception about the browser? Of course not, that would be silly. Perhaps you would then pay attention differently, and that would change your perception, but a table of benchmarks isn't going to suffice.
Let's put it yet a different way: perception is reality, to you at least. The only way to convince you to change your mind about a browser is to change your perception, for instance by giving you benchmarks which expand your understanding. Without the benchmarks, how could you possibly know the difference between "fast" and "seems fast"?
Now in conclusion, I also want fast browsers, just like you. Nobody disputes that; we all want fast browsers. But "fast" is tantamount to "seems fast to the user". One way to make it seem fast to the user is to, you know, make it actually fast. You and I and everyone thinks this is a good way to achieve "seems fast". Another way is to show the user benchmarks of fastness. Another way is to, say, tweak the UI to make things "seem" fast.
Yep. I use Chrome on my netbook even though I think FF is a better browser. On an Acer AspireOne, FF is a drag.
I had never heard of that. I googled it and here's one link.
Still expressing yourself freely, I see? The police must not have gotten to you yet. Enjoy your freedom, even the freedom to disingenuously claim you aren't free. /definitely not a teabagger
Yes, I was mostly being a wag.
My criticism of that style is that if justices can adequately decide cases without hearing arguments or asking questions, then why, according to him, do courts have proceedings?
So, okay, it's true I guess I think his style is less good than the normal style. But, I wouldn't say I'm informed enough about it to criticize him strongly -- mildly, perhaps (as I have), but not strongly.
Without at all disagreeing with what you said, is it true that a single ibuprofen can harm a school-age child? (What kind of harm?) If so I need to slide my sliding scale of drug harm a bit more toward the "safe" end, because I didn't realize that.
That's a good story. I like the anecdote about your father offering to assault the misguided administrator, but I bet in reality he got his way by explaining his position and convincing the admin that the rule was a bit too strictly enforced.
I bet it boiled down to "Hey, man, lighten up a little, please?" And the admin, in a brief fit of reason, agreed to do that.
It's hard to be sure, but I think we were making similarly obscure snarky comments. Let's not argue, let's be friends.
Hi. In my district we vote for school board members, who are responsible for setting standards and making guidelines, or otherwise delegating those tasks. Is that not how it is done where you are from? I've never heard of a place in America where schools aren't under democratic control, indirectly.
We could have a petty argument about it, but I bet we agree that some overzealous administrators, jealously guarding their meaningless bureaucratic fiefdoms, acted like overbearing jerks in the life of a tender little girl, by "capriciously" and foolishly enforcing a vague rule in an inapplicable circumstance.
Apparently, though, we disagree on the appropriate response. I'm suggesting that people become aware of the problem and vote for new school board members (or otherwise pressure them to change the rule); whereas you seem to suggest adherence to your 'expectations' without mention for the expectations of the rest of the people in your district.
Let me take the blame for a miscommunication if I misinterpreted your comment. You simply stated that you have expectations, as if to imply that your expectations should be followed. If that's not what you meant, then I read you wrong. Perhaps you meant that even though you have expectations, that they should nevertheless be ignored in favor of the voice of the majority.
Right. Yeah, are you saying you disagree with the argument? Okay, me too. But that's not the question I asked. If you want, I'm interested in your answer to my question; if you don't want, that's okay too.
do you think it is true that when a lawyer representing a client makes an argument in court, that the argument necessarily or even probably represents the personal views of the lawyer herself?
Who is keeping you from questioning the rules? Here you are, on Slashdot, biatching about rules that you aren't even subject to. Are the police knocking on your door or something?
What's with the false dichotomy? How about both?
You sold candy and assert that it made no mess. Wow, you were both a second grader AND the school janitor?
You seem really angry for a person who knowingly enrolls his child in a public school, and who willingly continues to live in a democracy where his opinion only counts as one voter of many.
Perhaps what you are looking for is a country that you could personally overthrow and rule as dictator. Then you get to have whatever you want. But until then, if you live in a democracy, you are subject to the vagaries of the majority.
Luckily, because of the democratic process, you can simply convince people to vote the way you want. That might be your best option; good luck. If you and I ever find ourselves living in the same district, I'll help you raise votes to overturn this silly candy rule. But I won't tromp around acting all indignant over something so trivial; I have too much perspective.
My guess is that she only has to serve the detention if she wants to attend that school. The alternative, used by many American parents, is home school (or private school). Parents are always given the utmost prerogative regarding their own children; the prerogative is only reduced when the parent trades it for public education.
But, that's only if the school plays hardball. In this case, they were called out on a stupid application of a bad policy, and I imagine they will rightly back down. But in the general case, schools enjoy the prerogative to assign punishment for misdeeds in their purview.
You might focus on that, but I'm pretty sure most people eat them for enjoyment.
I don't know about that kid's mom, but for a lot of American parents I fear the answer would be "Biology class".
Thank you, thank you very much.
First of all, "zero tolerance" is a terrible way to phrase things. We specifically teach children that tolerance is good, and that phrase undermines that message.
More importantly, instead of a "zero tolerance for candy" policy, how about a "small amount of tolerance for candy" policy? Just like you said: start by taking away the candy and sending a note home to the parents -- a gentle, kind note. The next time, maybe a stronger note or a phone call. Step things up after that, in proportion to the actual problem represented by the candy.
Save the "zero tolerance" for terrorism or Mariah Carrey and things equally abominable.
You can have expectations until the cows come home, but in a democracy we have a way to decide whose expectations carry the day, and that way is not "whatever joeyblades says", but rather this thing we call "voting".
We also didn't ask you where to put down the roads, we capriciously paved them out according to plans made by elected officials. We also didn't ask you to design next-generation missile defense systems -- we capriciously hired experts to do that instead.
So please forgive us when we run schools based on democratic principles instead of The Dictatorship Of Joeyblades.
As a parting comment, I think this candy thing is ridiculous, and I anticipate the voters will overturn it (indirectly via school board elections). If I were in that constituency, I would vote for that.