No business is 100% perfect, but they're a heck of a lot closer to it than the typical public school.
Here's a gentle clue to get you started: the school system I know of straddles a sharp socio-economic divide, getting sharper. The side that borders a famous rich-people place is very well off. The schools on the poor side of the district aren't "good", and some are getting "worse". The teachers there are just as good. The administration there is just as good.
Here's another: businesses are run for profit. Competence at making a profit is not competence at teaching people to think, or even at thinking. A very successful strategy in business is to think just enough to reach a course of action that produces more money for you, then to stop thinking. After a certain point, thought is an impediment to profit.
It doesn't take much if any thought to keep doing what worked well before, and thoughtless twiddling will keep an initially sterling but increasingly misfit business on an apparently even keel, and the twiddler looking good, until the situation is hopeless. Skill at thinking isn't necessary for success as businesses measure it, and it isn't sufficient. BTW, observations that cut both ways, like that one, are like snow poles: they help you find the road.
[...]those lies[...]
Or perhaps they just don't live in CA?
Not having lived there I can't vouch for the quality of the schools
You haven't got enough practice thinking to see the multiple gaping idiocies in that sequence even when I highlight it for you, have you? You're being used and lied to by and through people you trust: the ones you personally trust are almost certainly being duped exactly the same way.
For lots of good people, trust and loyalty trumps thought even outside family and close friends. These people don't have a lot of practice thinking. They're a good living for the dishonorable.
Here's the tactic: gain their trust. Get them to repeat one falsehood on trust. Now they're hooked: they can't admit the falsehood without both admitting they were duped, which alone is s far harder than thinking by all the evidence, and, worse, breaking a loyalty bind. The more you repeat this trick, the deeper the set.
Since they're good people who just don't have any practice thinking or time to do it, and what you're doing is getting you lots of money, this works miracles: they'll defend almost anything you say to avoid actually thinking about what they see, because now thinking isn't just hard, it's embarrassing. Most don't even get close; you're successful (i.e. you're making lots of money and lots of good people trust you), your opponents are appallingly rude, so why should they think? It's hard enough making a living and loving your family and friends.
It's a gravy train.
However, the fact that nothing on earth is perfect doesn't mean that you can't correct massive problems when you see them.
I repeat: the objection isn't that there is no problem. The objection is you've misidentified it. Fixing what you say is the problem won't cure the symptoms I'm fairly sure we agree are Not Good.
Perhaps in some states the teacher's union is not nearly as entrenched, but in many states it is established as a matter of law - schools are not permitted by law to hire non-union teachers.
I live in such a state (CA). It's not impossible to fire a bad teacher. It's not even particularly hard. It gets done every year, often enough several times, in the small district I know of personally. Firing standards and procedures for teachers are in the state educational code. Yes, there's work involved, but nobody who's actually seen a competent administrator try to fire a bad teacher thinks it's too hard.
Parents tend to get a little emotional about their children's teachers. It takes time, and one of the reasons is it's a built-in delay to prevent Salem-style hysteria running the show. There are other reasons that occur to most people who watch the actual system operate. Not all of them good. Nothing's perfect.
The people repeating those lies either know this and don't care, don't know this and don't care, or have trusted one of the first two.
These issues were uncorrectable because teachers hold tremendous power over students and are almost impossible to discipline in any way. Parents avoid getting involved as their children will just be penalized, and even school administrators feel helpless to do anything.
Know any incompentent assholes in business? Politics? Academia? The military? Church? Why aren't they gone?
Administrators don't do the work to fire bad xyz's for any number of reasons. Yours could be simply a lazy principal, hollering "union!" just because it fits people's prejudices and gets him left alone. Or he could think "this guy's demonstrably energizing his intelligent students to think. I should fire him why, again?" Or he was hostile to science like the teacher. Or it could even be the union rep was a contentious asshole who cared more about starting and winning fights than educating students, and the administrator just gave up on any but criminal cases because he had to pick his battles like everyone. That happens too. So... so what?
I had teachers like yours, too. I went to a really, really good private school for about half my primary education, and that school wasn't immune either. I regard bad teachers (after second, maybe third grade) as something like the town drunk: useful examples so long as they don't get like tribbles. There Is No Escaping The Stupids. Be Nice To Them, Or They'll Try To Hurt You. Old advice, still dead on the mark. I have a really hard time with the "be nice to them" part. It's starting to really bother me.
Yah, but I don't think it's on as conscious a level as "trying". I think the "to" part doesn't matter to them.
I think Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" remark was every bit as dumb as the jeerers said it was... but not because she wasn't looking at anything real. It was dumb because people with similar motives and morals will do similar things in similar situations, no conspiracy required.
A favorite quote: "Let us admit the case of the conservative; if we once start thinking no one can guarantee where we shall come out, except that many objects, ends and institutions are surely doomed. Every thinker puts some portion of an apparently stable world in peril and no one can wholly predict what will emerge in its place."
To a lot of people, that's all you need to know about thinking.
p.s. Google Books is sublime. I remembered the thrust of that that quote, and the first few words.
You first have to click the link from the registered email address.
Also in the database. Care to guess how many people have a standard password for low-security use (and don't know better than to use it for their email)?
Not that I'm swinging a bat a Second Life here — shit happens. People screw up. They fixed it.
If schools were run more like businesses, we would get our kids educated better for less money.
Got any evidence better than anecdote to back that? Centuries of practice attemptimt to support demonstrating conclusions like that have shown how to do it. The most basic of way is called a "case series" -- which is little more than a series of anecdotes, but it's a series of anecdotes observed and reported by a professional with his reputation on the line.
we would expect teachers to get results or be fired
We do that now.
it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to fire a bad teacher with tenure
This is false. This is beyond false. This is a vicious lie, repeated by witting or unwitting dupes of men with business plans to make money setting up for-their-personal-profit schools.
BTW, you are not 100% accurate.
Ahh, the kind of idiot statement common on right-wing screedshows: a true and utterly meaningless statement uttered as if to support a conclusion, an argument form which, uttered by a thinking person, would constitute a flat lie. If this assessment seems harsh to you, consider this: that argument form was identified as about as meaningful as the barking of a lonely dog more than two thousand years ago, by one of those other foundations of Western civilization.
Schools aren't businesses. Nations aren't businesses. Churches aren't businesses. This pretense that competence in business translates to competence in other areas is borderline insane.
It almost sounds as if they wanted to dictate to him what the terms should be, and they are unhappy that he is not complying.
The CDDL imposes (what many find quite reasonable) restrictions that the GPL does not. The FSF's discussion is easy to understand: the GPL says you can't distribute GPL'd code under a more-restrictive license. The CDDL is a more-restrictive license. Therefore you can't redistribute integrated GPL/CDDL code.
I doubt the Debian guys want to be in this position. But the GPL is quite clear on the no-additional-restrictions part, and the CDDL is quite clear on the additional-restrictions part, and the Debian guys can either get one of the licenses changed or stop including one or the other parts of their distro. No "should" about it. Them's their choices.
Selectively charging twice for bandwidth is controlling content. Delaying or denying packets on an ampty link based on source is controlling content. Net neutrality is the mandated absence of those.
so many new rules in the industry that any new competitors were locked out
So that's the barrier to entry in railroading! Phew! I thought it was something like capital requirements for equipment and land and track. And what a relief to realize it's government regulations that killed passenger trains, and not good roads and good cars and airline service!
There are plenty of market forces that will put the phone and cable companies out to dry if they try to jerk arround people by throttling some peoples content and not others.
Horse shit. I'm calling "paid shill".
They'll say "we're not throttling, we're just not giving them service they aren't paying for. We should let them steal bandwidth from us?". If they ever get it through people's heads that the bandwidth they're paying for is still the ISP's to sell again, if they ever get it through people's heads that everybody else should subsidize their bandwidth, they'll never, ever let go. Another fucking rice bowl, paying for people to spout lies like yours.
Substitute TV networks for Internet sites, and NTSC/HDTV bandwidth for IP bandwidth, and you get what these guys really want to do: provide the exact same bandwidth (in a different format), over the exact same cable, and charge everybody else on the planet for the privilege of delivering it to you. I'm sure broadcasters would leap at the chance to pay cable companies to carry their shows, and everyone would regard that as fair. I sure wish somebody else would subsidize my cable bill. And my food bill. Shouldn't farmers pay every supermarket for the privilege of selling there?
What's wrong with having Debian be the technology proving ground while Ubuntu builds stable desktop operating systems for average people?
It would be nice if Ubuntu put a splash-screen acknowledgement, say on install or as a deselectable login twinkie. Kinda, "Ubuntu is the best user interface we can build on the Debian core".
Those cable companies are right!! Let's make the whole world work this way! That'll be SOOO cool! I'd like to have the studios pay the theaters for my movie tickets! Publishers pay the book stores for my books! EA pay Fry's for my games! Absolutely *everybody* pay for my bandwidth!
The answer to the right question is "Because they are breaking the deal. The times are quite plainly not limited, and any objection to that is simply, blatantly and utterly dishonest, a flat lie. Turnabout is fair play, and they're stealing every item with a copyright older than twenty years. The people receiving money for those copyrights are thieves. Pretending that because it's legal, and because these are nice about, just trying to support their children, and oh-so-polite-except-for-the-stealing, makes them not thieves, is dishonest. It's Orwellian. We have two words: illegal and criminal. They're legal, but criminal.
A civil society that legalizes theft and enforces that law will soon discover that victims tend to become uncivil. Blaming the victim is despicable, but one can't expect anything better of thieves.
Oh, come off it. 50 per spindle. 20 spindles per thousand. 600 spindles. 20 spindles per shelf. 30 shelves. Three bookcases total. Catalog by spindle number and date added + uniqueifier. Sharpie both on the disc. Done.
They're not crimes. They're illegal, but should not be because they're not crimes. There's a reason we have two words here. We have a word for trying to eliminate distinctions from the language. And we have a word for inability to recognize them.
Is this intentional mockery of a broken patent system? These guys are patenting a system to reward people who tell some tracker they've emailed links and photos to friends? (And no, I'm not making this up. See pp 54,55.) A system that can forbid transfer *based on content or identity* (p 53)?
A system that can optionally run on your computer? (p 43)?
Me, I think there is indeed a way to provide an unbelievable, unending stream, limitless free energy! I can solve the energy crises and Fermi's paradox in it for good measure: when you build one, it gets out of control, and makes a quasar.
A Brief History of Quantum Computing contradicts all your quantum-computing assertions: "In effect, a calculation performed on the register is a calculation performed on every possible value that register can represent." That's in its description of Shor's algorithm, which also contradicts your feedback-driven characterization, saying it produces very-likely factors and succeeds by simply retrying until one of its answers works.
That link also describes Grover's algorithm, cutting brute-force search from O(N) to O(N^0.5). That alone is enough to put AES-128 in range of today's horsepower (but not enough to reach AES-256). Maybe it's provably impossible to reduce symmetric decryption to less than linear search, I don't know.
The number of plausible-but-wrong decryptions of a cipher block you know the plaintext for is zero, so unicity distance is only trivially relevant; if you insist, we can say it's exactly the cipher block size regardless of the plaintext language in this specific case.
If you have any known plaintext, anywhere, your symmetric key is toast: Q will just try every key at once and select what produces that text. AES is a good deal simpler than multiplication (presuming that there's no magical direct method — the hits I get on "quantum multiplication" might as well be encrypted).
Quiet, text-only, to-the-point, factual advertisement is a lot more tolerable.
The companies that market to couch potatoes (e.g. the ones that treat TV, and want to treat the Internet, as a spam-delivery method) hate the notion. Anything that might distract their prey from its fascination with their bait provokes tactics that would make Ebling Mis proud. And the notion that they could be out-competed for eyeball-minutes by relevant and at least marginally interesting ads? It's a no-brainer: they'll buy laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a gentle clue to get you started: the school system I know of straddles a sharp socio-economic divide, getting sharper. The side that borders a famous rich-people place is very well off. The schools on the poor side of the district aren't "good", and some are getting "worse". The teachers there are just as good. The administration there is just as good.
Here's another: businesses are run for profit. Competence at making a profit is not competence at teaching people to think, or even at thinking. A very successful strategy in business is to think just enough to reach a course of action that produces more money for you, then to stop thinking. After a certain point, thought is an impediment to profit.
It doesn't take much if any thought to keep doing what worked well before, and thoughtless twiddling will keep an initially sterling but increasingly misfit business on an apparently even keel, and the twiddler looking good, until the situation is hopeless. Skill at thinking isn't necessary for success as businesses measure it, and it isn't sufficient. BTW, observations that cut both ways, like that one, are like snow poles: they help you find the road.
You haven't got enough practice thinking to see the multiple gaping idiocies in that sequence even when I highlight it for you, have you? You're being used and lied to by and through people you trust: the ones you personally trust are almost certainly being duped exactly the same way.
For lots of good people, trust and loyalty trumps thought even outside family and close friends. These people don't have a lot of practice thinking. They're a good living for the dishonorable.
Here's the tactic: gain their trust. Get them to repeat one falsehood on trust. Now they're hooked: they can't admit the falsehood without both admitting they were duped, which alone is s far harder than thinking by all the evidence, and, worse, breaking a loyalty bind. The more you repeat this trick, the deeper the set.
Since they're good people who just don't have any practice thinking or time to do it, and what you're doing is getting you lots of money, this works miracles: they'll defend almost anything you say to avoid actually thinking about what they see, because now thinking isn't just hard, it's embarrassing. Most don't even get close; you're successful (i.e. you're making lots of money and lots of good people trust you), your opponents are appallingly rude, so why should they think? It's hard enough making a living and loving your family and friends.
It's a gravy train.
I repeat: the objection isn't that there is no problem. The objection is you've misidentified it. Fixing what you say is the problem won't cure the symptoms I'm fairly sure we agree are Not Good.
I live in such a state (CA). It's not impossible to fire a bad teacher. It's not even particularly hard. It gets done every year, often enough several times, in the small district I know of personally. Firing standards and procedures for teachers are in the state educational code. Yes, there's work involved, but nobody who's actually seen a competent administrator try to fire a bad teacher thinks it's too hard.
Parents tend to get a little emotional about their children's teachers. It takes time, and one of the reasons is it's a built-in delay to prevent Salem-style hysteria running the show. There are other reasons that occur to most people who watch the actual system operate. Not all of them good. Nothing's perfect.
The people repeating those lies either know this and don't care, don't know this and don't care, or have trusted one of the first two.
Know any incompentent assholes in business? Politics? Academia? The military? Church? Why aren't they gone?
Administrators don't do the work to fire bad xyz's for any number of reasons. Yours could be simply a lazy principal, hollering "union!" just because it fits people's prejudices and gets him left alone. Or he could think "this guy's demonstrably energizing his intelligent students to think. I should fire him why, again?" Or he was hostile to science like the teacher. Or it could even be the union rep was a contentious asshole who cared more about starting and winning fights than educating students, and the administrator just gave up on any but criminal cases because he had to pick his battles like everyone. That happens too. So... so what?
I had teachers like yours, too. I went to a really, really good private school for about half my primary education, and that school wasn't immune either. I regard bad teachers (after second, maybe third grade) as something like the town drunk: useful examples so long as they don't get like tribbles. There Is No Escaping The Stupids. Be Nice To Them, Or They'll Try To Hurt You. Old advice, still dead on the mark. I have a really hard time with the "be nice to them" part. It's starting to really bother me.
Yah, but I don't think it's on as conscious a level as "trying". I think the "to" part doesn't matter to them.
I think Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" remark was every bit as dumb as the jeerers said it was... but not because she wasn't looking at anything real. It was dumb because people with similar motives and morals will do similar things in similar situations, no conspiracy required.
A favorite quote: "Let us admit the case of the conservative; if we once start thinking no one can guarantee where we shall come out, except that many objects, ends and institutions are surely doomed. Every thinker puts some portion of an apparently stable world in peril and no one can wholly predict what will emerge in its place."
To a lot of people, that's all you need to know about thinking.
p.s. Google Books is sublime. I remembered the thrust of that that quote, and the first few words.
Also in the database. Care to guess how many people have a standard password for low-security use (and don't know better than to use it for their email)?
Not that I'm swinging a bat a Second Life here — shit happens. People screw up. They fixed it.
Got any evidence better than anecdote to back that? Centuries of practice attemptimt to support demonstrating conclusions like that have shown how to do it. The most basic of way is called a "case series" -- which is little more than a series of anecdotes, but it's a series of anecdotes observed and reported by a professional with his reputation on the line.
We do that now.
This is false. This is beyond false. This is a vicious lie, repeated by witting or unwitting dupes of men with business plans to make money setting up for-their-personal-profit schools.
Ahh, the kind of idiot statement common on right-wing screedshows: a true and utterly meaningless statement uttered as if to support a conclusion, an argument form which, uttered by a thinking person, would constitute a flat lie. If this assessment seems harsh to you, consider this: that argument form was identified as about as meaningful as the barking of a lonely dog more than two thousand years ago, by one of those other foundations of Western civilization.
Schools aren't businesses. Nations aren't businesses. Churches aren't businesses. This pretense that competence in business translates to competence in other areas is borderline insane.
The CDDL imposes (what many find quite reasonable) restrictions that the GPL does not. The FSF's discussion is easy to understand: the GPL says you can't distribute GPL'd code under a more-restrictive license. The CDDL is a more-restrictive license. Therefore you can't redistribute integrated GPL/CDDL code.
I doubt the Debian guys want to be in this position. But the GPL is quite clear on the no-additional-restrictions part, and the CDDL is quite clear on the additional-restrictions part, and the Debian guys can either get one of the licenses changed or stop including one or the other parts of their distro. No "should" about it. Them's their choices.
Selectively charging twice for bandwidth is controlling content. Delaying or denying packets on an ampty link based on source is controlling content. Net neutrality is the mandated absence of those.
So that's the barrier to entry in railroading! Phew! I thought it was something like capital requirements for equipment and land and track. And what a relief to realize it's government regulations that killed passenger trains, and not good roads and good cars and airline service!
Horse shit. I'm calling "paid shill".
They'll say "we're not throttling, we're just not giving them service they aren't paying for. We should let them steal bandwidth from us?". If they ever get it through people's heads that the bandwidth they're paying for is still the ISP's to sell again, if they ever get it through people's heads that everybody else should subsidize their bandwidth, they'll never, ever let go. Another fucking rice bowl, paying for people to spout lies like yours.
Substitute TV networks for Internet sites, and NTSC/HDTV bandwidth for IP bandwidth, and you get what these guys really want to do: provide the exact same bandwidth (in a different format), over the exact same cable, and charge everybody else on the planet for the privilege of delivering it to you. I'm sure broadcasters would leap at the chance to pay cable companies to carry their shows, and everyone would regard that as fair. I sure wish somebody else would subsidize my cable bill. And my food bill. Shouldn't farmers pay every supermarket for the privilege of selling there?
Those cable companies are right!! Let's make the whole world work this way! That'll be SOOO cool! I'd like to have the studios pay the theaters for my movie tickets! Publishers pay the book stores for my books! EA pay Fry's for my games! Absolutely *everybody* pay for my bandwidth!
The answer to the right question is "Because they are breaking the deal. The times are quite plainly not limited, and any objection to that is simply, blatantly and utterly dishonest, a flat lie. Turnabout is fair play, and they're stealing every item with a copyright older than twenty years. The people receiving money for those copyrights are thieves. Pretending that because it's legal, and because these are nice about, just trying to support their children, and oh-so-polite-except-for-the-stealing, makes them not thieves, is dishonest. It's Orwellian. We have two words: illegal and criminal. They're legal, but criminal.
A civil society that legalizes theft and enforces that law will soon discover that victims tend to become uncivil. Blaming the victim is despicable, but one can't expect anything better of thieves.
Oh, come off it. 50 per spindle. 20 spindles per thousand. 600 spindles. 20 spindles per shelf. 30 shelves. Three bookcases total. Catalog by spindle number and date added + uniqueifier. Sharpie both on the disc. Done.
They're not crimes. They're illegal, but should not be because they're not crimes. There's a reason we have two words here. We have a word for trying to eliminate distinctions from the language. And we have a word for inability to recognize them.
Is this intentional mockery of a broken patent system? These guys are patenting a system to reward people who tell some tracker they've emailed links and photos to friends? (And no, I'm not making this up. See pp 54,55.) A system that can forbid transfer *based on content or identity* (p 53)?
A system that can optionally run on your computer? (p 43)?
And these are the details?
Another advertisement for home schooling.
Me, I think there is indeed a way to provide an unbelievable, unending stream, limitless free energy! I can solve the energy crises and Fermi's paradox in it for good measure: when you build one, it gets out of control, and makes a quasar.
:-) Heh. An off-by-one error does it again.
It's a better explanation than any I can come up with.
A Brief History of Quantum Computing contradicts all your quantum-computing assertions: "In effect, a calculation performed on the register is a calculation performed on every possible value that register can represent." That's in its description of Shor's algorithm, which also contradicts your feedback-driven characterization, saying it produces very-likely factors and succeeds by simply retrying until one of its answers works.
That link also describes Grover's algorithm, cutting brute-force search from O(N) to O(N^0.5). That alone is enough to put AES-128 in range of today's horsepower (but not enough to reach AES-256). Maybe it's provably impossible to reduce symmetric decryption to less than linear search, I don't know.
The number of plausible-but-wrong decryptions of a cipher block you know the plaintext for is zero, so unicity distance is only trivially relevant; if you insist, we can say it's exactly the cipher block size regardless of the plaintext language in this specific case.
So of course I space on the name. Must... have... coffee.
Strawman. OP didn't say "remove". He said "fuck with".