Damnit, it sounds like you are saying that software development is hard. And required diligence. And time.
That is NOT what my pointy-haired boss wants to hear.
He wants to hear that we can whip out software using cheap graduates of questionable schools, while distracting these developers with inane meetings, stupid corporate requirements (have you filled out you quarterly performance objectives?), and also making them the first-line software helpdesk and general IT support.
And he wants it all yesterday.
Diligence, motivation and qualification? That's crazy talk!
Is it just me, or is the education system getting far too concerned with "keeping children engaged" and "making learning fun", than actually teaching concepts.
You don't only teach memorization of addition/multiplication tables in order for the child to know their multiplication tables. You do it because that sort of rote memorization (especially of abstract items) is good for the brain. Children also need to learn that a lot of work is actual work, and some of it involves fairly boring mental drudgery. Is it fun memorizing the difference between (?!) and (?=) in regular expressions? No, but it can be helpful.
This article seems the equivalent of "Little Johnny doesn't like doing push-ups. Can't we just have him play Wii instead? He enjoys playing Wii, and it keeps him totally engaged. And if he plays Guitar Hero, he's learning music at the same time!". Imagine the physically fit musical geniuses we will create if we can get them all to enjoy and appreciate exercise!
Math has been replaced by puzzles. English has been replaced by "multimedia presentations (computer play time)". Phys-ed is now free play. Social studies is "social skills 101 (bullying, including others, fairness, etc)".
I greatly fear we are raising a society of salespeople and telephone sanitizers.
I support many of the activities such as what Khan academy has done to "make math fun". But much of this needs to be an addendum to solid foundational work, not a replacement. The program the article describes seems to replace any rigor with fun, and hopefully children will learn the tough stuff by osmosis or something (or it will be the next school's problem).
Is it really so hard to just grind the beans and brew it yourself?
It's obviously harder (more steps), so why not use a Keurig?
I use a Keurig with a third-party reusable filter pod. This way I get the following benefits: 1) I can use my own grinds. 2) Less waste. I can easily brew exactly 10 oz 3) Less cleaning as there is no coffee pot. Just cup & filter. 4) Less counter space (than a press). No need for a separate kettle and press. 5) Less energy as the Keurig keeps water insulated. If we make two cups of coffee within half an hour of each other, often there is little or no re-heating required. 6) Built in water supply
That being said, if Keurig goes down this path for all their machines, then when it breaks I'll likely just replace it with a press.
Of course! That's must be why mirrors don't reverse anything if you close one eye (or are a cyclops).
What's really weird is what happens if you have 2 people in the room with a mirror, one with their head tilted and one vertical. If you hold up a piece of paper with letters on it, one sees the letters reversed, and the other not!
(for our humor-impaired mods, the above is sarcasm).
two-parent households. That made me laugh. In the US the highest divorce rates are in the conservative "Christian" communities.
You know, the same group of people that's supposedly all about "traditional" families and marriages.
What has Christianity to do with anything? I'm opposed to many of the principles of conservative Christians (abortion, pre-marital sex, homophobia, etc)....that doesn't mean they are wrong on everything. They are also against murder....does that mean murder is good?
Studies have shown that children of stable two-parent households do better than otherwise e.g. see here.
That being said, perhaps the best solution is work on stable households without concentrating specifically on one parent or two. I agree there are many circumstances where children is much better off with one parent than two (alcoholism, abuse, etc...)
This is one reason the prisons are full of blacks and people from underprivileged backgrounds: they cannot afford a real defense even if they are innocent.
What a strange assertion to make. The assertion itself basically says there is no (non-anecdotal) evidence supporting the assertion.
[1] I googled it. The first few links showed the opposite. e.g. here
[2] Wow, I'm glad you told me about this google thing...you should really try it: Boston Reentry Initiative
For those interested in constructive comments, the fix is obvious and simple; spend that money on fixing those parts of society that give rise to crime. Focus on education, focus on a two-parent household, focus on employable skills, and so on
I almost agree with you here, but I disagree that (as per most problems) the fix is either obvious or simple. Many problems require a variety of fixes to be tried, evaluated, and modified in order to come up with the most effective set of solutions.
Should we focus on education: Yes Two-parent household: In some circumstances. What about the case of an alcoholic, abusive spouse? Single mothers? Dad who just takes off? Widows/widowers? Employable skills: Yes. I strongly believe that universities should be subsidized for degree programs that are determined to be "employable" and no subsidies or loans allowed for degree programs that are not. We have enough art history majors right now, thank you very much.
That being said, I see no reason to also simultaneously not work on reforming, re-educating and reintegrating prisoners back into society as productive members. Many prisoners are the result of society dropping the ball on the items above, and are just helping to create the next generation of criminals.
As with most things, it's not an either-or solution. Do both.
Take off the rose-colored glasses and try again. Note, these predictions were for PRIOR to 2010. - Translating telephones allow people to speak to each other in different languages. FAIL. There is no purchasable telephone that allows real-time voice to voice translation
- Machines designed to transcribe speech into computer text allow deaf people to understand spoken words. FAIL. Speech recognition is still not advanced enough to allow general-purpose use. It is useful is specialized circumstances, but not enough to say "deaf people can understand spoken words"
- Exoskeletal, robotic leg prostheses allow the paraplegic to walk. FAIL. Ekso may be purchasable this year. The others are primarily military prototypes.
- Telephone calls are routinely screened by intelligent answering machines that ask questions to determine the call's nature and priority. Check. Widely deployed, virtually any 800 number you call. FAIL. "Determine the call's nature and priority?" And "telephone ca;;s are routinely screened?"
- "Cybernetic chauffeurs" can drive cars for humans and can be retrofitted into existing cars. They work by communicating with other vehicles and with sensors embedded along the roads. Check. DARPA Grand Challenge, Google Chauffeur. The tech is there, but legislation is lagging. FAIL. "Retrofitted into existing cars. again, before 2010"
- The classroom is dominated by computers. Intelligent courseware that can tailor itself to each student by recognizing their strengths and weaknesses. Media technology allows students to manipulate and interact with virtual depictions of the systems and personalities they are studying. Maybe. The classroom is dominated by computers. The tests are [sometimes] intelligent (take the GRE), but not the courseware, usually. Rich media is there, for sure. FAIL. "tailor itself to each students by recognizing their strengths and weaknesses"
- A small number of highly skilled people dominates the entire production sector. Tailoring of products for individuals is common. FAIL. "Production sector" Have you heard of the manufacturing factories in china? This is not a "small number of skilled people"
- Drugs are designed and tested in simulations that mimic the human body. Check. This is how pretty much all new drugs are developed. FAIL. No drugs are "tested" in simulations that mimic the human body.
- Blind people navigate and read text using machines that can visually recognize features of their environment. Check. FAIL "recognize features of their environment" Existing implants give a vague differentiation between light and dark.
If you don't think his predictions are accurate, why don't you try predicting what 2040 will look like.
I'm not saying I can do better, I'm saying his predictions for 2010 were not very accurate, so I doubt his predictions for 2040 will be better. I can tell when someone has missed the bullseye (or even the entire board) even if I'm a terrible dart player myself.
They address micro-meteorites, lightning, induced currents, radiation exposure, and a whole host of other objections. The biggest problem they identify is the obvious one. We don't have any materials to build the tether with yet.
They "project" that such materials will become available in the 2020's, which is good....that's a whole 14 years before nuclear fusion!
If anyone in the residence, say someone you just met and have known for all of 2 minutes, says yes if the cops ask to search while you vehemently deny them entry, they can still search. You don't see a problem with this?
Yes, I see a problem with this. Luckily, that isn't the case here.
Yes, and if you don't use it in the way society prefers then police, the judiciary, and eventually the army will be used to force you to do so, or to punish you for doing otherwise. It's pretty much all wine and roses, as long as you can manage to follow some reasonably sensible rules.
Sending your bitcoin to somebody else to hold for you is not a good idea security wise.
Stuffing your savings into your (digital) pillow case isn't a good idea security wise either. Whatever you do, It's going to boil down to something physical that hopefully doesn't break or get stolen, plus a secret that isn't forgotten or discovered.
The GP is saying instead of stuffing it into a digital pillow case, stuff it into multiple digital pillow cases. That way if one of the pillow cases breaks, you still have backups.
If the pillow cases have decent encryption, you don't care if they are stolen. If you lose one, you have backups. If you forget your password, you're an idiot.
Relying on someone else to hold your bitcoins digitally is as stupid as relying on cloud computing to hold sensitive data (without backups). The company holding it might be sad if they lose it, but you are going to be more sad.
and this is why I have Noscript in Deny All Mode be default. Forget the damn adblocker as blocking scripts is how you do it. I also use a Hosts file * Thanks APK for the reminder * to block most of the god damn advertisers around the world.
And this is why I browse using Lynx. Forget the damn script blocker as blocking all active content is how you do it. I don't need a hosts file as I literally don't see ads.
Netflix kinda sucks though. Kevin Spacey just isn't the same when rendered in ASCII.
Because that's what America's big problem is right now: "but if we change things, how will the rich get their health care?!?"
Canadians live on average longer than Americans, yet spend substantially less on health care. This is likely indicative of a less-than-optimal health care system in the US.
To take their wealth, you need to take their company.
Congratulations! You've won the "stupidest comment I've seen on slashdot today award!"
This is a disingenuous as "the average person doesn't have their money in cash, they own a house. To take their wealth, you need to take their house".
The wealth of the ultra-rich has increased substantially over the past 50 years, without a corresponding increase in employment. So if increasing the wealth of rich people doesn't have a corresponding increase in employment, why would you believe that decreasing their wealth would have a corresponding decrease? Do you have any evidence for this remark?
Yes, I believe that there are some people, maybe 0.001% of population, some Yogis or true Buddhists, who really consider death a good thing
What about those who believe death is necessary for the simple reason that we need to make room for others? There are a limited number of resources on the planet, hence a limited number of people who can be sustained.
I am content to grow old and die in order to make room for my children, my grandchildren, and further descendants. Believing that my existence is innately more "valuable" than theirs is the ultimate in egotism.
Now of course, if there was an option of everyone surviving, then sure, I'm all for it. Given that this can never be the case limited lifespans are the consequence.
I don't judge death as "good" or "bad", as I don't find this to be rational. It's like passing moral judgement on the color blue or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I see it as necessary and inevitable. Fearing the inevitable makes no sense to me.
I don't regret the time in history prior to my existence. Fearing the future when my existence is no longer is equal nonsense.
- Translating telephones allow people to speak to each other in different languages.
- Machines designed to transcribe speech into computer text allow deaf people to understand spoken words.
- Exoskeletal, robotic leg prostheses allow the paraplegic to walk.
- Telephone calls are routinely screened by intelligent answering machines that ask questions to determine the call's nature and priority.
- "Cybernetic chauffeurs" can drive cars for humans and can be retrofitted into existing cars. They work by communicating with other vehicles and with sensors embedded along the roads.
- The classroom is dominated by computers. Intelligent courseware that can tailor itself to each student by recognizing their strengths and weaknesses. Media technology allows students to manipulate and interact with virtual depictions of the systems and personalities they are studying.
- A small number of highly skilled people dominates the entire production sector. Tailoring of products for individuals is common.
- Drugs are designed and tested in simulations that mimic the human body.
- Blind people navigate and read text using machines that can visually recognize features of their environment.
Although advances have been made in many of these areas, I would not by any means call any of these prediction "accurate".
Slashdot Mirror
Damnit, it sounds like you are saying that software development is hard. And required diligence. And time.
That is NOT what my pointy-haired boss wants to hear.
He wants to hear that we can whip out software using cheap graduates of questionable schools, while distracting these developers with inane meetings, stupid corporate requirements (have you filled out you quarterly performance objectives?), and also making them the first-line software helpdesk and general IT support.
And he wants it all yesterday.
Diligence, motivation and qualification? That's crazy talk!
Is it just me, or is the education system getting far too concerned with "keeping children engaged" and "making learning fun", than actually teaching concepts.
You don't only teach memorization of addition/multiplication tables in order for the child to know their multiplication tables. You do it because that sort of rote memorization (especially of abstract items) is good for the brain. Children also need to learn that a lot of work is actual work, and some of it involves fairly boring mental drudgery. Is it fun memorizing the difference between (?!) and (?=) in regular expressions? No, but it can be helpful.
This article seems the equivalent of "Little Johnny doesn't like doing push-ups. Can't we just have him play Wii instead? He enjoys playing Wii, and it keeps him totally engaged. And if he plays Guitar Hero, he's learning music at the same time!". Imagine the physically fit musical geniuses we will create if we can get them all to enjoy and appreciate exercise!
Math has been replaced by puzzles. English has been replaced by "multimedia presentations (computer play time)". Phys-ed is now free play. Social studies is "social skills 101 (bullying, including others, fairness, etc)".
I greatly fear we are raising a society of salespeople and telephone sanitizers.
I support many of the activities such as what Khan academy has done to "make math fun". But much of this needs to be an addendum to solid foundational work, not a replacement. The program the article describes seems to replace any rigor with fun, and hopefully children will learn the tough stuff by osmosis or something (or it will be the next school's problem).
Diamonds are also a limited resource. Just less limited.
FFS, at least RTFS:
It isn't rocket science.
That's just silly. Hemp does a terrible job at keeping in liquids.
It's obviously harder (more steps), so why not use a Keurig?
I use a Keurig with a third-party reusable filter pod. This way I get the following benefits:
1) I can use my own grinds.
2) Less waste. I can easily brew exactly 10 oz
3) Less cleaning as there is no coffee pot. Just cup & filter.
4) Less counter space (than a press). No need for a separate kettle and press.
5) Less energy as the Keurig keeps water insulated. If we make two cups of coffee within half an hour of each other, often there is little or no re-heating required.
6) Built in water supply
That being said, if Keurig goes down this path for all their machines, then when it breaks I'll likely just replace it with a press.
Mathematics says "Hi, how's it going down there?"
Of course! That's must be why mirrors don't reverse anything if you close one eye (or are a cyclops).
What's really weird is what happens if you have 2 people in the room with a mirror, one with their head tilted and one vertical. If you hold up a piece of paper with letters on it, one sees the letters reversed, and the other not!
(for our humor-impaired mods, the above is sarcasm).
What has Christianity to do with anything? I'm opposed to many of the principles of conservative Christians (abortion, pre-marital sex, homophobia, etc)....that doesn't mean they are wrong on everything. They are also against murder....does that mean murder is good?
Studies have shown that children of stable two-parent households do better than otherwise e.g. see here.
That being said, perhaps the best solution is work on stable households without concentrating specifically on one parent or two. I agree there are many circumstances where children is much better off with one parent than two (alcoholism, abuse, etc...)
What a strange assertion to make. The assertion itself basically says there is no (non-anecdotal) evidence supporting the assertion.
How on earth did you come to this conclusion?
[1] I googled it. The first few links showed the opposite.
e.g. here
[2] Wow, I'm glad you told me about this google thing...you should really try it:
Boston Reentry Initiative
I almost agree with you here, but I disagree that (as per most problems) the fix is either obvious or simple. Many problems require a variety of fixes to be tried, evaluated, and modified in order to come up with the most effective set of solutions.
Should we focus on education: Yes
Two-parent household: In some circumstances. What about the case of an alcoholic, abusive spouse? Single mothers? Dad who just takes off? Widows/widowers?
Employable skills: Yes. I strongly believe that universities should be subsidized for degree programs that are determined to be "employable" and no subsidies or loans allowed for degree programs that are not. We have enough art history majors right now, thank you very much.
That being said, I see no reason to also simultaneously not work on reforming, re-educating and reintegrating prisoners back into society as productive members. Many prisoners are the result of society dropping the ball on the items above, and are just helping to create the next generation of criminals.
As with most things, it's not an either-or solution. Do both.
Take off the rose-colored glasses and try again. Note, these predictions were for PRIOR to 2010.
- Translating telephones allow people to speak to each other in different languages.
FAIL. There is no purchasable telephone that allows real-time voice to voice translation
- Machines designed to transcribe speech into computer text allow deaf people to understand spoken words.
FAIL. Speech recognition is still not advanced enough to allow general-purpose use. It is useful is specialized circumstances, but not enough to say "deaf people can understand spoken words"
- Exoskeletal, robotic leg prostheses allow the paraplegic to walk.
FAIL. Ekso may be purchasable this year. The others are primarily military prototypes.
- Telephone calls are routinely screened by intelligent answering machines that ask questions to determine the call's nature and priority. Check. Widely deployed, virtually any 800 number you call.
FAIL. "Determine the call's nature and priority?" And "telephone ca;;s are routinely screened?"
- "Cybernetic chauffeurs" can drive cars for humans and can be retrofitted into existing cars. They work by communicating with other vehicles and with sensors embedded along the roads. Check. DARPA Grand Challenge, Google Chauffeur. The tech is there, but legislation is lagging.
FAIL. "Retrofitted into existing cars. again, before 2010"
- The classroom is dominated by computers. Intelligent courseware that can tailor itself to each student by recognizing their strengths and weaknesses. Media technology allows students to manipulate and interact with virtual depictions of the systems and personalities they are studying. Maybe. The classroom is dominated by computers. The tests are [sometimes] intelligent (take the GRE), but not the courseware, usually. Rich media is there, for sure.
FAIL. "tailor itself to each students by recognizing their strengths and weaknesses"
- A small number of highly skilled people dominates the entire production sector. Tailoring of products for individuals is common.
FAIL. "Production sector" Have you heard of the manufacturing factories in china? This is not a "small number of skilled people"
- Drugs are designed and tested in simulations that mimic the human body. Check. This is how pretty much all new drugs are developed.
FAIL. No drugs are "tested" in simulations that mimic the human body.
- Blind people navigate and read text using machines that can visually recognize features of their environment. Check.
FAIL "recognize features of their environment" Existing implants give a vague differentiation between light and dark.
If you don't think his predictions are accurate, why don't you try predicting what 2040 will look like.
I'm not saying I can do better, I'm saying his predictions for 2010 were not very accurate, so I doubt his predictions for 2040 will be better. I can tell when someone has missed the bullseye (or even the entire board) even if I'm a terrible dart player myself.
You know...you could actually bother to read the paper where many of your concerns/objections are discussed.
But I guess it's much more satisfying for you to come here and call people wrong and stupid. What a pleasant person you must be IRL.
You should really attempt to learn more about topics you attempt to discuss before mouthing off on them. The GP post is mostly correct.
Then read the study
They address micro-meteorites, lightning, induced currents, radiation exposure, and a whole host of other objections. The biggest problem they identify is the obvious one. We don't have any materials to build the tether with yet.
They "project" that such materials will become available in the 2020's, which is good....that's a whole 14 years before nuclear fusion!
FTFY.
When you can't stop preventing yourself from not using double-negatives, it's confusing.
Yes, I see a problem with this. Luckily, that isn't the case here.
RTFA
Fixed that for you.
The GP is saying instead of stuffing it into a digital pillow case, stuff it into multiple digital pillow cases. That way if one of the pillow cases breaks, you still have backups.
If the pillow cases have decent encryption, you don't care if they are stolen. If you lose one, you have backups. If you forget your password, you're an idiot.
Relying on someone else to hold your bitcoins digitally is as stupid as relying on cloud computing to hold sensitive data (without backups). The company holding it might be sad if they lose it, but you are going to be more sad.
Geez Ballmer, you really haven't found anything to do since retirement, have you?
Why don't you just calm down?
Maybe throw a chair or something....that always seems to help...
And this is why I browse using Lynx. Forget the damn script blocker as blocking all active content is how you do it. I don't need a hosts file as I literally don't see ads.
Netflix kinda sucks though. Kevin Spacey just isn't the same when rendered in ASCII.
Because that's what America's big problem is right now: "but if we change things, how will the rich get their health care?!?"
Canadians live on average longer than Americans, yet spend substantially less on health care. This is likely indicative of a less-than-optimal health care system in the US.
No....ponzi is the guy who jumped the shark....
Congratulations! You've won the "stupidest comment I've seen on slashdot today award!"
This is a disingenuous as "the average person doesn't have their money in cash, they own a house. To take their wealth, you need to take their house".
The wealth of the ultra-rich has increased substantially over the past 50 years, without a corresponding increase in employment. So if increasing the wealth of rich people doesn't have a corresponding increase in employment, why would you believe that decreasing their wealth would have a corresponding decrease? Do you have any evidence for this remark?
What about those who believe death is necessary for the simple reason that we need to make room for others? There are a limited number of resources on the planet, hence a limited number of people who can be sustained.
I am content to grow old and die in order to make room for my children, my grandchildren, and further descendants. Believing that my existence is innately more "valuable" than theirs is the ultimate in egotism.
Now of course, if there was an option of everyone surviving, then sure, I'm all for it. Given that this can never be the case limited lifespans are the consequence.
I don't judge death as "good" or "bad", as I don't find this to be rational. It's like passing moral judgement on the color blue or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I see it as necessary and inevitable. Fearing the inevitable makes no sense to me.
I don't regret the time in history prior to my existence. Fearing the future when my existence is no longer is equal nonsense.
Not so much...from wikipedia, all prior to 2010:
Although advances have been made in many of these areas, I would not by any means call any of these prediction "accurate".