I honestly can never see teachers becoming redundant. Sure, their usefulness may decline as technology grows; but I highly doubt they will ever become completely redundant. If you've ever had a really good teacher, you should know that there is no real substitute for how well you will learn from them. Even watching a video of a really good teacher explaining something is not going to be nearly as effective as actually being there in person with a very talented teacher and being able to interact with them and ask questions. So no, I do not think teachers will be going the way of whip-crackers at all. I would gladly support teachers, as they really do help build our future.
That sounds like a horribly mindless repetition of a very situational quote. If you put any thought into that post, you might just realise that things can be free without being malicious.
You're completely ignoring the point. This isn't about YOU in particular. This is about the masses, and the masses decide what is popular and what is not. Most people don't care about debian developers (or even know what debian is). Most people don't care about tech journalists. The truth is that most people use Facebook for playing shitty games and keeping in touch with friends. Most peoples' friends will be on Facebook, not Google+. Therefore, most people are going to stay where their friends are. On Facebook.
To be fair, that goes for just about any object in the school. Should they get rid of door-handles too?
No, obviously not. I'm not saying these fingerprint scanners are a good idea, but their value is really not at all related to the possible spread of germs.
Ok, nevermind. I'm an idiot. I should've looked at the Youtube comments (that's probably the first and last time I'm every going to say that). Turns out it was just his recording program locking it at 20, rather than 60.
That really didn't look like 60 fps to me. I don't know if it was just the way it was recorded, or the guy's mouse but that didn't really look like it was achieved 'a solid 60 fps'.
I was completely unaware of that. Wouldn't mind seeing a link to these studies, as I find it quite interesting that I do the complete opposite of what you are saying. Yet I only speak English which has very few glyphs. Sure, if there aren't any icons I can easily look at the text when I'm trying to find stuff, but if given the choice my eyes will naturally look for the logo. In your example with Firefox, I would (and do) look for the logo. I would think more people would do this than you think. Hence why windows 7 just has an icon showing you what your minimised tab is, without the text.
Imagine you are sent and email containing a naked child. You choose to disregard it, as it is quite obviously spam (let's presume you have a terrible spam filter), but do not delete it. This thing sits, rotting away in the depths of your inbox. Seeing as you didn't take any steps to report the image, if the cops found out about this would you be on your way to a felony?
Funny you should mention that. I actually know a guy who couldn't get into the US for years because he was high up in the Communist Party of Australia. That's all changed now though, as terrorism, rather than communism, has become the flavour-of-the-month for politicians.
Wow. I'm really impressed at how you managed to relate reading comprehension and writing skills to socialism. I really can't tell whether you actually believe what you just said or whether you're trolling. If it's the latter, then well done. You succeeded. Now get off slashdot.
This is contentious. Do they mean maths/science smart? Or like art/abstract smart. Because it seems you can have different kinds of intelligence. For instance, someone could be a mathematician and be terrible in other subjects that involve different kinds of thought. I think it would be more useful if they got people who were accomplished writers, artists, musicians etc. and mapped their DNA as well, rather than just focussing on one particular kind of intelligence (scientific/analytical intelligence).
I'm thinking this should be sort of like the spoiler text used on many image boards, where initially all you see is black, but if you scroll over it you can see what it actually is. I think this would work perfectly for Wikipedia; if you didn't want to see it, you didn't have to. This way it means it would be censored for anyone who didn't want to see it, and anyone who does want to see it would just have to hover over it with their mouse and it would become visible.
So do words have to get approval from dictionaries now to become a word? I'm pretty sure words like 'jeggings' and 'mankini' have been commonly known colloquialisms for a while now. '"Woot" becomes a word' is not a very accurate title.
Slashdot Mirror
Maths should not be about memorisation for most of your schooling. If it is, the teacher is doing it wrong.
I honestly can never see teachers becoming redundant. Sure, their usefulness may decline as technology grows; but I highly doubt they will ever become completely redundant. If you've ever had a really good teacher, you should know that there is no real substitute for how well you will learn from them. Even watching a video of a really good teacher explaining something is not going to be nearly as effective as actually being there in person with a very talented teacher and being able to interact with them and ask questions.
So no, I do not think teachers will be going the way of whip-crackers at all. I would gladly support teachers, as they really do help build our future.
I think the major problem here is you are comparing humans to machines.
Seriously, you should probably see someone about that.
That sounds like a horribly mindless repetition of a very situational quote. If you put any thought into that post, you might just realise that things can be free without being malicious.
Our society is sick because they value freedom of speech higher than internet pornography. That's quite an interesting ideology you have there.
You're completely ignoring the point. This isn't about YOU in particular. This is about the masses, and the masses decide what is popular and what is not.
Most people don't care about debian developers (or even know what debian is). Most people don't care about tech journalists. The truth is that most people use Facebook for playing shitty games and keeping in touch with friends. Most peoples' friends will be on Facebook, not Google+.
Therefore, most people are going to stay where their friends are. On Facebook.
To be fair, that goes for just about any object in the school. Should they get rid of door-handles too?
No, obviously not. I'm not saying these fingerprint scanners are a good idea, but their value is really not at all related to the possible spread of germs.
Not to get in the way of your rant, but I wouldn't mind seeing a reliable source to back up those claims.
It feels like I'm downloading nothing at all.
Nothing at all.
Nothing at all.
The Wikipedia article on him doesn't seem to have a picture of him. They must not have been able to find a picture of him without that ridiculous hat.
Ok, nevermind. I'm an idiot. I should've looked at the Youtube comments (that's probably the first and last time I'm every going to say that). Turns out it was just his recording program locking it at 20, rather than 60.
That really didn't look like 60 fps to me. I don't know if it was just the way it was recorded, or the guy's mouse but that didn't really look like it was achieved 'a solid 60 fps'.
I was completely unaware of that. Wouldn't mind seeing a link to these studies, as I find it quite interesting that I do the complete opposite of what you are saying. Yet I only speak English which has very few glyphs.
Sure, if there aren't any icons I can easily look at the text when I'm trying to find stuff, but if given the choice my eyes will naturally look for the logo.
In your example with Firefox, I would (and do) look for the logo. I would think more people would do this than you think. Hence why windows 7 just has an icon showing you what your minimised tab is, without the text.
I recall trying to become a member of Pirate Party Australia, then realising they wanted me to send them a $10 joining fee.
I decided I'd much rather set up my own party with the same name and same logo just to fuck with them.
Imagine you are sent and email containing a naked child. You choose to disregard it, as it is quite obviously spam (let's presume you have a terrible spam filter), but do not delete it. This thing sits, rotting away in the depths of your inbox. Seeing as you didn't take any steps to report the image, if the cops found out about this would you be on your way to a felony?
Funny you should mention that. I actually know a guy who couldn't get into the US for years because he was high up in the Communist Party of Australia. That's all changed now though, as terrorism, rather than communism, has become the flavour-of-the-month for politicians.
Holy crap, THAT was the most neutral example you could find?
I'm not too savvy with US news, as I'm from Australia, but is that normal?
>conservatives don't fix problems, at best they don't create new ones.
You haven't been in Victoria during a state-Liberal government have you?
Fingering your vagina and ass
Am I still on slashdot?
I think it means most of his work revolves around him.
Cowabunga dude!
Live life on the edge man!
Sorry I couldn't resist.
Wow. I'm really impressed at how you managed to relate reading comprehension and writing skills to socialism.
I really can't tell whether you actually believe what you just said or whether you're trolling.
If it's the latter, then well done. You succeeded. Now get off slashdot.
This is contentious. Do they mean maths/science smart? Or like art/abstract smart. Because it seems you can have different kinds of intelligence. For instance, someone could be a mathematician and be terrible in other subjects that involve different kinds of thought. I think it would be more useful if they got people who were accomplished writers, artists, musicians etc. and mapped their DNA as well, rather than just focussing on one particular kind of intelligence (scientific/analytical intelligence).
I'm thinking this should be sort of like the spoiler text used on many image boards, where initially all you see is black, but if you scroll over it you can see what it actually is. I think this would work perfectly for Wikipedia; if you didn't want to see it, you didn't have to. This way it means it would be censored for anyone who didn't want to see it, and anyone who does want to see it would just have to hover over it with their mouse and it would become visible.
So do words have to get approval from dictionaries now to become a word? I'm pretty sure words like 'jeggings' and 'mankini' have been commonly known colloquialisms for a while now. '"Woot" becomes a word' is not a very accurate title.