Not everything is about jobs or getting the right answer.
and one only has to change a few things to apply known methods to the 'new' problem.
A grand majority of students produced by the education system will emerge from it and will not have any sort of understanding of any of the material, which is, I think, a problem. As you say, they might be able to get the right answers (but only for a short time, because it's likely that they'll forget all the patterns and facts they memorized), but doing anything innovative will be beyond most of them because they have no grasp on the logic behind any of it.
You need rote memorization to remember previous problems and their associated methods, you need pattern recognition to see that different problems may actually have a similar structure.
The ability to memorize facts and recognize patterns is useful (although, in many cases, memorizing facts seems to be useless), but I don't think those skills are even nearly as important as understanding the material. Besides, I've found that if you have a good understanding of the logic behind what you're working with, you'll be able to retain facts about it in memory more easily simply because it becomes more memorable.
why the resistance of standardized tests? It works well enough.
Because it doesn't work, for exactly the reasons mentioned. If your goal is to create an educated populace, relying so heavily on such tests probably isn't a very good idea.
All that does is test for memorization and the ability to correctly memorize patterns, not understanding; that's largely why people criticize these tests. Not everyone thinks that getting the right answer is all that is important.
I'm not really interested in left or right. I just find it sad that people like you can't distinguish the forest through the trees: ALL our politicians have contributed to this problem.
Just because Bush isn't in power anymore doesn't mean we should all forget about what he's done. Further, the guy never claimed that Obama had no hand in any of this.
If there is no actual proof, or anything even resembling it, then that just means copyright and patent law is unproven; it's pretty easy for me to live with that.
The basis of people standing up for those rights is to frame those rights as axiomatic (innate and inalienable).
No. People stand up for rights because, in their opinions, they believe they should have those rights; it has nothing to do with innateness or any other such thing, or at least it doesn't have to be.
Without that, the people who do stand up eventually do so purely on their own immediate self-interests.
That always happens anyway no matter how people frame their opinions. People act according to their own self-interests to realize their desires.
Morals don't work because people kill.
I meant that claiming that a right is innate has never done anything by itself, but we've since moved on from that.
In short, I think you're missing the point.
If I am, then I don't truly understand why people keep using the words "innate" and "unalienable" when referring to rights; it seems utterly unnecessary to me.
Those who actually care will pass the test and be well-educated, well-rounded people.
That doesn't seem to happen with a grand majority of people. When you give an incentive for people to simply memorize the material, that's what is most likely going to happen in most cases.
People in both groups will at least have learned *something* along the way
People who simply memorize will likely forget the material rather quickly (it's not memorable), and people who actually want to learn will be discouraged due to our pathetic excuse for a school system.
How is teaching to the test not a problem? It encourages rote memorization and not understanding. I firmly believe we need to get rid of standardized tests in their current form.
Even the 'best' students who have great grades (worthless letters) most likely don't understand what they're doing thanks in part to this nonsense.
No, we have rote memorization. As it turns out, it's not much better than memorizing nothing at all because they just forget the material soon enough anyway.
The problem is that one of the rights you do not have is the right to go wherever you please.
I don't remember the constitution saying that the government has the right to harass people merely because they visit certain locations, and in fact, the fourth amendment seems to say otherwise. What location you visit has nothing to do with anything; the constitution applies to US citizens, and perhaps even beyond that.
Because it pretty much is. If your government doesn't recognize a right, there is no indication that you have it. All you can do is try to get the government to recognize your rights.
I do not believe in magical rights fairies or whatever other sort of nonsense any of this entails.
It goes the same with rights - they are immutable and when people recognize it, then the whole community is better off.
I believe the whole community is only better off when people take action, not just sit around and live in a delusion where they have rights that no authority figure recognizes.
The only position one can take to force a government to defend a right is to argue its innateness because clearly ever other method is consistently infringed by government who would like nothing better to infringe them in pursuit of the politics of the day.
Nonsense. Governments infringe upon people's rights no matter how 'innate' people say they are, and if the government does not recognize your rights, that is the same as losing them. The only way to keep governments from infringing upon people's rights (and even this method fails) is for a significant amount of people who believe they should have certain rights to stand up and try to get a government to recognize said rights.
The words "innate" and "inalienable" rights are a rallying cry that we do not step down the dark path we now tread.
It's not working, and it has never worked; any successes have been due to large numbers of individuals who take action, or something such as that.
Shouldn't just about everything they do be a huge constitutional issue? We also have people getting molested at airports by government thugs. Since when does the government care about the constitution?
The label of "trouble-maker" applies to anyone the government, or individuals in the government, feel like targeting. If the government can get away with abusing its powers, and it is beneficial to do so, you'd better count on it happening.
There is simply no way to do that. We can only judge by the historical evidence.
Okay.
Here, at least, we can approximate.
You can.
By that I mean: look at their performance during the period in which they rejected intellectual ownership, and look at their relative prosperity now, as they have been increasingly embracing it. It is like night and day.
Yes, it is pretty hard to isolate that one variable.
Yes, it's pretty much impossible. Using former Soviet countries and Communist China as examples means using countries and cultures that are vastly different from our own in a number of ways, and they've changed in many ways over the years, so it's not as if only their stances on copyright and patent law changed.
and yet the rejection of private ownership of personal creations was one of their glaringly common traits.
Likely along with a number of other things. Besides, there also could be multiple types of policies that hurt innovation.
Nevertheless, the historical correlations (which I have barely touched on) are pretty damned glaring.
There is LOTS of evidence -- the vast majority of it -- that shows that a reasonable body of patent and copyright laws can and does foster innovation and the arts (including writing).
Where is the evidence that, in this day and age, copyright and patent law foster innovation to any significant degree? How is this judged in an unbiased, objective way, and how is it done without looking into an alternate world where copyright and patent laws simply don't exist (and the cultures and countries are otherwise the same)? I've had people tell me that there is lots of evidence that copyright and patent laws are beneficial (if the laws themselves are 'reasonable'), but then they failed to actually show me the evidence.
Anything can be abused. But it is irresponsible to equate the abuse of something with the worth of that thing.
I'm not talking about abuses, but evidence that these things are effective.
That applies as far back as I can remember, actually. I do believe there are exceptions to this, but real innovation seems to come once in a blue moon when compared to how often people simply use established procedures and facts in their daily lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Because a large part of professional success
Not everything is about jobs or getting the right answer.
and one only has to change a few things to apply known methods to the 'new' problem.
A grand majority of students produced by the education system will emerge from it and will not have any sort of understanding of any of the material, which is, I think, a problem. As you say, they might be able to get the right answers (but only for a short time, because it's likely that they'll forget all the patterns and facts they memorized), but doing anything innovative will be beyond most of them because they have no grasp on the logic behind any of it.
You need rote memorization to remember previous problems and their associated methods, you need pattern recognition to see that different problems may actually have a similar structure.
The ability to memorize facts and recognize patterns is useful (although, in many cases, memorizing facts seems to be useless), but I don't think those skills are even nearly as important as understanding the material. Besides, I've found that if you have a good understanding of the logic behind what you're working with, you'll be able to retain facts about it in memory more easily simply because it becomes more memorable.
why the resistance of standardized tests? It works well enough.
Because it doesn't work, for exactly the reasons mentioned. If your goal is to create an educated populace, relying so heavily on such tests probably isn't a very good idea.
All that does is test for memorization and the ability to correctly memorize patterns, not understanding; that's largely why people criticize these tests. Not everyone thinks that getting the right answer is all that is important.
I'm not really interested in left or right. I just find it sad that people like you can't distinguish the forest through the trees: ALL our politicians have contributed to this problem.
Just because Bush isn't in power anymore doesn't mean we should all forget about what he's done. Further, the guy never claimed that Obama had no hand in any of this.
What happens in that country is their problem, as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe we should try to police the world.
I haven't found it to be true that ignoring bad evidence holds me back.
If there is no actual proof, or anything even resembling it, then that just means copyright and patent law is unproven; it's pretty easy for me to live with that.
And why do people believe they should have those rights?
Since when did this become about why people desire things? It's irrelevant, anyway.
I'd say in large part because without some sort of outside interference a lot of the rights are the sort of things that are innate.
I don't believe they are. Abilities are different from rights.
You skipped over the word "immediate".
No, I didn't.
For the same reason people refer to other things as innate or inalienable.
Well, that explains little.
It almost seems like that's an uncomfortable truth to you.
I don't feel uncomfortable, and if you're trying to spout truths, perhaps you should do a better job of getting to the point.
No need. I'm looking for actual proof, looking to societies and times vastly different from our own doesn't really provide it.
The basis of people standing up for those rights is to frame those rights as axiomatic (innate and inalienable).
No. People stand up for rights because, in their opinions, they believe they should have those rights; it has nothing to do with innateness or any other such thing, or at least it doesn't have to be.
Without that, the people who do stand up eventually do so purely on their own immediate self-interests.
That always happens anyway no matter how people frame their opinions. People act according to their own self-interests to realize their desires.
Morals don't work because people kill.
I meant that claiming that a right is innate has never done anything by itself, but we've since moved on from that.
In short, I think you're missing the point.
If I am, then I don't truly understand why people keep using the words "innate" and "unalienable" when referring to rights; it seems utterly unnecessary to me.
Those who actually care will pass the test and be well-educated, well-rounded people.
That doesn't seem to happen with a grand majority of people. When you give an incentive for people to simply memorize the material, that's what is most likely going to happen in most cases.
People in both groups will at least have learned *something* along the way
People who simply memorize will likely forget the material rather quickly (it's not memorable), and people who actually want to learn will be discouraged due to our pathetic excuse for a school system.
How is teaching to the test not a problem? It encourages rote memorization and not understanding. I firmly believe we need to get rid of standardized tests in their current form.
Even the 'best' students who have great grades (worthless letters) most likely don't understand what they're doing thanks in part to this nonsense.
Today, we have Zilch.
No, we have rote memorization. As it turns out, it's not much better than memorizing nothing at all because they just forget the material soon enough anyway.
It's all about me. If someone else gets harassed, it doesn't matter.
The problem is that one of the rights you do not have is the right to go wherever you please.
I don't remember the constitution saying that the government has the right to harass people merely because they visit certain locations, and in fact, the fourth amendment seems to say otherwise. What location you visit has nothing to do with anything; the constitution applies to US citizens, and perhaps even beyond that.
Your idea of rights is the complete opposite of the ideas upon which the United States was founded.
And? It's perfectly possible to disagree with some of what these documents claim.
You mistakenly assume its the same thing.
Because it pretty much is. If your government doesn't recognize a right, there is no indication that you have it. All you can do is try to get the government to recognize your rights.
I do not believe in magical rights fairies or whatever other sort of nonsense any of this entails.
It goes the same with rights - they are immutable and when people recognize it, then the whole community is better off.
I believe the whole community is only better off when people take action, not just sit around and live in a delusion where they have rights that no authority figure recognizes.
The only position one can take to force a government to defend a right is to argue its innateness because clearly ever other method is consistently infringed by government who would like nothing better to infringe them in pursuit of the politics of the day.
Nonsense. Governments infringe upon people's rights no matter how 'innate' people say they are, and if the government does not recognize your rights, that is the same as losing them. The only way to keep governments from infringing upon people's rights (and even this method fails) is for a significant amount of people who believe they should have certain rights to stand up and try to get a government to recognize said rights.
The words "innate" and "inalienable" rights are a rallying cry that we do not step down the dark path we now tread.
It's not working, and it has never worked; any successes have been due to large numbers of individuals who take action, or something such as that.
Are you saying this just to inform, or are you trying to justify it by saying it's been happening for a long time? Or perhaps something else?
No, because you're wasting your time. I don't believe for an instant that harassing people is okay if it's in the name of safety.
Shouldn't just about everything they do be a huge constitutional issue? We also have people getting molested at airports by government thugs. Since when does the government care about the constitution?
I sent my kids to public school, they got a great education
I find that unlikely. Granted, we might have different ideas on what qualifies as a "great education."
The label of "trouble-maker" applies to anyone the government, or individuals in the government, feel like targeting. If the government can get away with abusing its powers, and it is beneficial to do so, you'd better count on it happening.
There is simply no way to do that. We can only judge by the historical evidence.
Okay.
Here, at least, we can approximate.
You can.
By that I mean: look at their performance during the period in which they rejected intellectual ownership, and look at their relative prosperity now, as they have been increasingly embracing it. It is like night and day.
Yes, it is pretty hard to isolate that one variable.
Yes, it's pretty much impossible. Using former Soviet countries and Communist China as examples means using countries and cultures that are vastly different from our own in a number of ways, and they've changed in many ways over the years, so it's not as if only their stances on copyright and patent law changed.
and yet the rejection of private ownership of personal creations was one of their glaringly common traits.
Likely along with a number of other things. Besides, there also could be multiple types of policies that hurt innovation.
Nevertheless, the historical correlations (which I have barely touched on) are pretty damned glaring.
Not to me.
There is LOTS of evidence -- the vast majority of it -- that shows that a reasonable body of patent and copyright laws can and does foster innovation and the arts (including writing).
Where is the evidence that, in this day and age, copyright and patent law foster innovation to any significant degree? How is this judged in an unbiased, objective way, and how is it done without looking into an alternate world where copyright and patent laws simply don't exist (and the cultures and countries are otherwise the same)? I've had people tell me that there is lots of evidence that copyright and patent laws are beneficial (if the laws themselves are 'reasonable'), but then they failed to actually show me the evidence.
Anything can be abused. But it is irresponsible to equate the abuse of something with the worth of that thing.
I'm not talking about abuses, but evidence that these things are effective.
All that seems to matter these days
That applies as far back as I can remember, actually. I do believe there are exceptions to this, but real innovation seems to come once in a blue moon when compared to how often people simply use established procedures and facts in their daily lives.