Yes, it has been broken for quite some time. It is a hard problem to solve, since the population is roughly "everyone from 6 to 18 years old" regardless of their home environment, socioeconomic status, genetics, and community. There is not one general solution that works for everyone, and what works one place may be a failure elsewhere for a number of reasons. Fixing it will take lots of trial and error.
I'm not sure what your problem is with smaller class sizes. About 3.8 million teachers at $50k average (according to census.gov and the BLS for 2011), with about 6 percent coming back as federal taxes (the lower than average probably don't pay much back at all, or it would be closer to 10). 55.5 million grade school students. That averages 14 kids per teacher (quoted as pupil/teacher ratio, 15.1 for 2013 on http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372) , but only if teachers get no planning periods. A rough estimate of reality would be closer to 19 in each class.
That comes from state money mostly, with a combined state and local budget of $3,233.6 billion, the $211 billion in teacher salary was 6.5% of the spending total. Getting enough teachers for 15 student classrooms would probably need 825 million teachers, adding another 1.625% of spending. This is a problem for you because... teacher's unions? Is 1.6 percent really going to break the bank?
I see people have eviscerated the remainder of your lunacy. New math was tried and then backed off, "smart" classrooms are not mainstream (unless you mean just having computers), and the rest of what you say just makes you sound like an ignorant crazy person.
The "raised some eyebrows" link actually removes suspicion, since Amplify was the lowest bidder and responsive, making that whole phrase completely flamebait. The "partners" link does not show how Amplify is involved, and the "guinea pigs" link shows that Gates, Carnegie, and Amplify funded the inBloom project, which was initiated by the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the National Governors Association. In other words they just provided money, apparently.
I popped in to call you an idiot, but it's actually even more trollish than you made it sound.
I'm personally against these sorts of initiatives, but I suppose that without some guinea pigs we won't know if I'm right.
You're missing the point. Spending taxpayer dollars for a fancy NOC that is not even supposed to exist is just shitting on the citizens. His motto is "Collect it All". He ran an "all-out, barely-legal drive to build the ultimate spy machine" (quotes from the article)
The reflections off the metal would be impractical, based on the pictures. For a room whose "primary function is to enable 24-hour worldwide visualization, planning, and execution of coordinated information operations for the US Army and other federal agencies" it would be better off using a dark matte paint.
I think the article said it best:
Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with little accountability or transparency. But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irrational it becomes.
And yes, I am concerned about all of those other wastes of dollars too. They just don't happen to stem from a clearly illegal surveillance program. That is what puts this in a completely different ballpark of outrage. The glass and openness and conference table make sense. The giant projector makes sense. But having a single chair positioned to look at the 22 foot projector is ridiculous. It seems that there are two seats on either side, but they are behind a completely unnecessary bulky chrome something or other. A simple wall structure on the front side, with table/desk on the back would have been far more functional. And less reflective. And depending on the purpose of those seats you could have room for more people, more equipment, or just more space.
I'm not sure what the crap on the ceiling is - functional or decorative - but from the images the lighting is spotty. I would have preferred either track lighting or something consistent, but this design seems to work against the light rather than with it. The opposite of what you want in a data visualization room. If you make the argument that a projector requires darker conditions, there are a completely new pile of objections to the design, with the metal and parts of the glass reflecting light right back at where the projector is supposed to be.
This is a terrible, purposeless design which just shows off how disconnected the people driving the train really are. Done right, this would have been an expensive but obvious solution to the problem of data visualization. The extra bling, and hollywood set design work, way outstepped any reason.
He seems singularly focused, very into one area at the expense of others. It is likely he is mildly autistic, or Asperger's. Functional, he just doesn't seem to like things outside of facts. No music, apparently isn't a casual reader.
While he is undoubtedly missing out, perhaps a mind uncluttered by fanciful notions and devoted to rooting out more facts is what we need.
So sad to see all of the people here saying he is missing out on parts of life and wanting to "fix" him. He is clearly different, and fixing him may actually break his focus. Until he has problems as a result, best to let him be. He may have no problems at all and be perfectly happy.
and then saying it's only open source software that's crap.
no, I said "open source that *doesn't* work is statistically more prevalent". Which you quoted. I specifically said It's certainly not "better". I in no way even implied that open source as a rule is crap. Your failure to comprehend makes it difficult for you to participate, so I'll spend some time explaining.
You want a reference? Search for *anything* on GitHub or Sourceforge, and count the number of projects that actually do anything, vs. the incomplete, half-assed garbage. That is what I'm talking about - statistics and numbers. One stand-out project in a class doesn't erase the remainder of projects which just don't work.
My perspective is on the Windows platform - I'm sure if you're a Linux user your experience is different. But that is much like a self-selected study sample, and you can't exclude parts of open source. So look for Windows only, and learn something from the experience.
20 years of following open source tells me that when I have a particular use case, I will find endless half-finished projects that do nothing, one that builds on an outdated or specific platform, and if I'm lucky I'll find abandonware that doesn't completely suck. Meanwhile, I'll find both free and paid closed source software that just works.
IrfanView is pretty much the go-to image viewer on Windows, with no real open source alternatives. Playing a DVD from the hard drive, Windows Media Player does a better job up-scaling to a 1080 display, so I use it instead of VLC.
I have written my own software for 35 years for most use cases, because I can't download and run something that works. Why would I spend the time if options were available? Sure the experience is great, but I could write something that doesn't *exist* instead of re-writing something that doesn't *work*.
Here's a stupid bug in Notepad that is still not fixed in Windows 7, meaning I can't just CTRL-S and continue typing It is not important enough to be fixed, which is completely different from the open-source experience of "can't fix" or "won't fix". And, since I know Windows programming and enjoy reverse engineering, I don't mind making a binary patch to an executable - it's generally simpler than finding the source, setting up a build environment, fixing inevitable errors like include paths, debugging, and patching. Most people couldn't do a binary patch. But, most people couldn't patch open source either, because like OP they don't program.
Do I use Notepad++ instead? No, because it sucks. I paid for UltraEdit. For hex editing, UltraEdit sometimes does internal conversions on text, meaning I can't debug UTF-8 issues. So I use XVI32, which is free but closed source.
I use FireFox and Audacity and VLC, and for the rare times I have to use it, Impress is actually better than Powerpoint for presenter view and rehearsing. But on Windows, those are exceptions and I generally can't find open source that beats closed-source freeware. I prefer Media Player, Excel, WinZip, PhotoShop, and countless other paid or free closed source software. Or I write my own, which I don't release because it works for my specific use case and I don't have any desire to fix issues for other people. Which would add to the number of half-assed, unsupported open source projects which is the whole problem.
I have adopted several open source projects. My patches weren't accepted due to 1) "not invented here" syndrome 2) cannot contact the owner to submit patches 3) no idea - never got a response. 3 projects, with submitted patches available, which are still broken. I'm not forking and becoming a maintainer, so the projects remain broken for non-developers.
Most FLOSS projects end up as "works for me, if you want to fix your problem yourself, you have the source". Which is great, if you have the knowledge. As OP demonstrates, once the developer decides to quit, if you don't have the knowledge you're stuck. This is my experience, *on Windows*.
Not like Windows. With Windows, management can prioritize bugs with feedback from the triage team and their budget. And then assign those bugs to people, who get paid to find and fix the bug.
Linux doesn't have this problem, because piles of companies employ people to fix what they want fixed. FireFox is funded, although I'm not sure how forcing people to work on specific things pans out - the "clownshoes" saga was the most ridiculous failure to diagnose a problem that I can remember, so not exactly a success story. Google funds/funded a lot of software develolpers on other projects such as Python, but doesn't seem to be in a position of forcing what to work on routinely. Dual licensing, like Qt and MySQL, means funding is available. The remainder of open source software projects are vulnerable to neglect, developer churn, and related problems due to not having a way to force attention.
With FLOSS, sometimes the barrier is simply not having the hardware to be able to repro the bug, and thus being unable to fix it at all. Someone who has the hardware can fix it you say? Well, that person somehow decided that the software was worth using, wanted to fix it, had the right hardware, and was capable of debugging. All of which is missing in the case of "abandonware". And most of which is missing if the bug even exists at all.
And, one good way to keep or build interest in a project is to introduce the new features. Fixing a bug that isn't critical or affecting most people just means that people who can't use your product, still won't use it. The lure for new is the obvious draw. As it is with Windows, or any software with resource constraints. Is Windows your only counter-example? Because "boring" is completely different from "not financially worth it", which is where your example completely breaks down.
Now, I'm not sure what your point was here:
90 percent of closed-source software is crap too.
90 percent of open source software falls in the categories of: builds on a limited number of distros, won't build on current build environments, isn't finished, works for the case of the author only, or any number of other definitions of "crap". This is not dissing open source in any way, it is simple numerical data. Closed source, by the numbers, is impossible to enumerate. The stuff that doesn't work mostly doesn't ship. The stuff that does ship is mostly functional for the given use case. It's certainly not "better". But, and this I think was the original point, open source that *doesn't* work is statistically more prevalent.
The complication of having an all-volunteer workforce just means you can't sit someone down and force them to work, so you have to appeal to their sense of accomplishment, pride, sometimes ego, or whatever happens to drive them. Unfortunately for "phlawed" I'm not sure that anyone here knows which personality attributes to appeal to for the people who might be interested in maintaining his/her toy.
How about finding an IceWM user's group and drumming up interest there? Because they might have more helpful contributions than a bunch of nerds involved in a dick-waving contest about how their view of the world is the only correct one.
Slashdot Mirror
" Perhaps it was not broken in the first place."
Yes, it has been broken for quite some time. It is a hard problem to solve, since the population is roughly "everyone from 6 to 18 years old" regardless of their home environment, socioeconomic status, genetics, and community. There is not one general solution that works for everyone, and what works one place may be a failure elsewhere for a number of reasons. Fixing it will take lots of trial and error.
I'm not sure what your problem is with smaller class sizes. About 3.8 million teachers at $50k average (according to census.gov and the BLS for 2011), with about 6 percent coming back as federal taxes (the lower than average probably don't pay much back at all, or it would be closer to 10). 55.5 million grade school students. That averages 14 kids per teacher (quoted as pupil/teacher ratio, 15.1 for 2013 on http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372) , but only if teachers get no planning periods. A rough estimate of reality would be closer to 19 in each class.
That comes from state money mostly, with a combined state and local budget of $3,233.6 billion, the $211 billion in teacher salary was 6.5% of the spending total. Getting enough teachers for 15 student classrooms would probably need 825 million teachers, adding another 1.625% of spending. This is a problem for you because... teacher's unions? Is 1.6 percent really going to break the bank?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spend_gdp_population
I see people have eviscerated the remainder of your lunacy. New math was tried and then backed off, "smart" classrooms are not mainstream (unless you mean just having computers), and the rest of what you say just makes you sound like an ignorant crazy person.
The "raised some eyebrows" link actually removes suspicion, since Amplify was the lowest bidder and responsive, making that whole phrase completely flamebait. The "partners" link does not show how Amplify is involved, and the "guinea pigs" link shows that Gates, Carnegie, and Amplify funded the inBloom project, which was initiated by the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the National Governors Association. In other words they just provided money, apparently.
I popped in to call you an idiot, but it's actually even more trollish than you made it sound.
I'm personally against these sorts of initiatives, but I suppose that without some guinea pigs we won't know if I'm right.
You're missing the point. Spending taxpayer dollars for a fancy NOC that is not even supposed to exist is just shitting on the citizens. His motto is "Collect it All". He ran an "all-out, barely-legal drive to build the ultimate spy machine" (quotes from the article)
The reflections off the metal would be impractical, based on the pictures. For a room whose "primary function is to enable 24-hour worldwide visualization, planning, and execution of coordinated information operations for the US Army and other federal agencies" it would be better off using a dark matte paint.
I think the article said it best:
And yes, I am concerned about all of those other wastes of dollars too. They just don't happen to stem from a clearly illegal surveillance program. That is what puts this in a completely different ballpark of outrage. The glass and openness and conference table make sense. The giant projector makes sense. But having a single chair positioned to look at the 22 foot projector is ridiculous. It seems that there are two seats on either side, but they are behind a completely unnecessary bulky chrome something or other. A simple wall structure on the front side, with table/desk on the back would have been far more functional. And less reflective. And depending on the purpose of those seats you could have room for more people, more equipment, or just more space.
I'm not sure what the crap on the ceiling is - functional or decorative - but from the images the lighting is spotty. I would have preferred either track lighting or something consistent, but this design seems to work against the light rather than with it. The opposite of what you want in a data visualization room. If you make the argument that a projector requires darker conditions, there are a completely new pile of objections to the design, with the metal and parts of the glass reflecting light right back at where the projector is supposed to be.
This is a terrible, purposeless design which just shows off how disconnected the people driving the train really are. Done right, this would have been an expensive but obvious solution to the problem of data visualization. The extra bling, and hollywood set design work, way outstepped any reason.
He seems singularly focused, very into one area at the expense of others. It is likely he is mildly autistic, or Asperger's. Functional, he just doesn't seem to like things outside of facts. No music, apparently isn't a casual reader.
While he is undoubtedly missing out, perhaps a mind uncluttered by fanciful notions and devoted to rooting out more facts is what we need.
So sad to see all of the people here saying he is missing out on parts of life and wanting to "fix" him. He is clearly different, and fixing him may actually break his focus. Until he has problems as a result, best to let him be. He may have no problems at all and be perfectly happy.
no, I said "open source that *doesn't* work is statistically more prevalent". Which you quoted. I specifically said It's certainly not "better". I in no way even implied that open source as a rule is crap. Your failure to comprehend makes it difficult for you to participate, so I'll spend some time explaining.
You want a reference? Search for *anything* on GitHub or Sourceforge, and count the number of projects that actually do anything, vs. the incomplete, half-assed garbage. That is what I'm talking about - statistics and numbers. One stand-out project in a class doesn't erase the remainder of projects which just don't work.
My perspective is on the Windows platform - I'm sure if you're a Linux user your experience is different. But that is much like a self-selected study sample, and you can't exclude parts of open source. So look for Windows only, and learn something from the experience.
20 years of following open source tells me that when I have a particular use case, I will find endless half-finished projects that do nothing, one that builds on an outdated or specific platform, and if I'm lucky I'll find abandonware that doesn't completely suck. Meanwhile, I'll find both free and paid closed source software that just works.
IrfanView is pretty much the go-to image viewer on Windows, with no real open source alternatives. Playing a DVD from the hard drive, Windows Media Player does a better job up-scaling to a 1080 display, so I use it instead of VLC.
I have written my own software for 35 years for most use cases, because I can't download and run something that works. Why would I spend the time if options were available? Sure the experience is great, but I could write something that doesn't *exist* instead of re-writing something that doesn't *work*.
Here's a stupid bug in Notepad that is still not fixed in Windows 7, meaning I can't just CTRL-S and continue typing It is not important enough to be fixed, which is completely different from the open-source experience of "can't fix" or "won't fix". And, since I know Windows programming and enjoy reverse engineering, I don't mind making a binary patch to an executable - it's generally simpler than finding the source, setting up a build environment, fixing inevitable errors like include paths, debugging, and patching. Most people couldn't do a binary patch. But, most people couldn't patch open source either, because like OP they don't program.
Do I use Notepad++ instead? No, because it sucks. I paid for UltraEdit. For hex editing, UltraEdit sometimes does internal conversions on text, meaning I can't debug UTF-8 issues. So I use XVI32, which is free but closed source.
I use FireFox and Audacity and VLC, and for the rare times I have to use it, Impress is actually better than Powerpoint for presenter view and rehearsing. But on Windows, those are exceptions and I generally can't find open source that beats closed-source freeware. I prefer Media Player, Excel, WinZip, PhotoShop, and countless other paid or free closed source software. Or I write my own, which I don't release because it works for my specific use case and I don't have any desire to fix issues for other people. Which would add to the number of half-assed, unsupported open source projects which is the whole problem.
I have adopted several open source projects. My patches weren't accepted due to 1) "not invented here" syndrome 2) cannot contact the owner to submit patches 3) no idea - never got a response. 3 projects, with submitted patches available, which are still broken. I'm not forking and becoming a maintainer, so the projects remain broken for non-developers.
Most FLOSS projects end up as "works for me, if you want to fix your problem yourself, you have the source". Which is great, if you have the knowledge. As OP demonstrates, once the developer decides to quit, if you don't have the knowledge you're stuck. This is my experience, *on Windows*.
Not like Windows. With Windows, management can prioritize bugs with feedback from the triage team and their budget. And then assign those bugs to people, who get paid to find and fix the bug.
Linux doesn't have this problem, because piles of companies employ people to fix what they want fixed. FireFox is funded, although I'm not sure how forcing people to work on specific things pans out - the "clownshoes" saga was the most ridiculous failure to diagnose a problem that I can remember, so not exactly a success story. Google funds/funded a lot of software develolpers on other projects such as Python, but doesn't seem to be in a position of forcing what to work on routinely. Dual licensing, like Qt and MySQL, means funding is available. The remainder of open source software projects are vulnerable to neglect, developer churn, and related problems due to not having a way to force attention.
With FLOSS, sometimes the barrier is simply not having the hardware to be able to repro the bug, and thus being unable to fix it at all. Someone who has the hardware can fix it you say? Well, that person somehow decided that the software was worth using, wanted to fix it, had the right hardware, and was capable of debugging. All of which is missing in the case of "abandonware". And most of which is missing if the bug even exists at all.
And, one good way to keep or build interest in a project is to introduce the new features. Fixing a bug that isn't critical or affecting most people just means that people who can't use your product, still won't use it. The lure for new is the obvious draw. As it is with Windows, or any software with resource constraints. Is Windows your only counter-example? Because "boring" is completely different from "not financially worth it", which is where your example completely breaks down.
Now, I'm not sure what your point was here:
90 percent of open source software falls in the categories of: builds on a limited number of distros, won't build on current build environments, isn't finished, works for the case of the author only, or any number of other definitions of "crap". This is not dissing open source in any way, it is simple numerical data. Closed source, by the numbers, is impossible to enumerate. The stuff that doesn't work mostly doesn't ship. The stuff that does ship is mostly functional for the given use case. It's certainly not "better". But, and this I think was the original point, open source that *doesn't* work is statistically more prevalent.
The complication of having an all-volunteer workforce just means you can't sit someone down and force them to work, so you have to appeal to their sense of accomplishment, pride, sometimes ego, or whatever happens to drive them. Unfortunately for "phlawed" I'm not sure that anyone here knows which personality attributes to appeal to for the people who might be interested in maintaining his/her toy.
How about finding an IceWM user's group and drumming up interest there? Because they might have more helpful contributions than a bunch of nerds involved in a dick-waving contest about how their view of the world is the only correct one.