At least not conceptually: you improve the curriculum and the teachers, and then student performance rises. That's what the evidence shows: better instructors using better curricula get better results. That should be pretty intuitive, but better than that it's what the data tells us.
So why don't more places try improving teaching and curricula?
I think it's because people don't want schools to be very different from what they experienced, even when (or *especially* when) they have nothing but contempt for the schools they went to. So instead they tinker with superficial quick fixes. Many of these, like increased student testing, or computer in the classroom, would have value in a school that is already on the right track. In a school that is not making progress betting in a big way on computers alone is like putting a giant wing on your Honda Civic to make it go faster.
What's happened is that Java EE has adopted inversion of control, which was popularized by Spring; it's not the same as being "replaced by" Spring.
The reason you probably don't know anyone using Java EE is that it does something which is quite useful to a very small number of applications: it makes it easy to create operations that are both atomic and distributed. But that means it's not "scaleable" by modern Internet standards of scalability where consistency requirements are typically relaxed to allow gazillions of transactions per hour to take place. Which is smart. You don't want to imagine you have a requirement for perfect distributed consistency everywhere if you don't really have one, because it's hard.
The organization had the expertise to understand reactor poisoning. It just wasn't on duty while the reactor was being operated outside its normal operating envelope.
Journaling isn't the same thing. The previous versions feature is by default disabled and isn't fs-based -- it requires an external disk of some sort. It's pretty amazing that they've added so much BS to the operating system over the years and haven't got this working.
ReFS surely a step ion the right direction, but is currently a work in progress. It also lacks snapshotting capability.
What I can't understand is why Microsoft has never gotten its act together and put out a truly modern filesystem.
Very few people ever come close to using up their disks these days, so why not copy-on-write? Or at least build some kind of versioning into the filesystem.
"Nazi" may be an abbreviation for "National Socialism", but as for what it means... well, remember it was the Nazis themselves who made that term up. You shouldn't take anything they said about themselves at face value because they were history's greatest bullshitters.
Naziism isn't really an ideology -- not like socialism, communism, or capitalism for that matter. It is too profoundly anti-intellectual to be one. Not that this prevented from intellectuals from joining. Goebbels was both an intelligent and educated man; he was in charge of manufacturing bullshit for the masses, but like an addict/drug cooker he was a user of his own junk.
Insofar as Nazis embrace ideology, it is never to the exclusion of any contradictory ideas. If caught in an inconsistency, a Communist will elaborate, a Nazi will simply ignore. That's why Communism as an ideology is so rococo. Nazi ideology is a slovenly, slapdash thing, constructed for the moment and then freely ignored once used.
They were obsessed with joy. And here at least they were honest, because joy differs from ordinary happiness in that it involves letting go of the past and future, of your very self. And that's what they offered their followers: torchlit rallies in which you could lose yourself and in which what happened yesterday and what was going to happen tomorrow might as well not exist -- not coincidentally an extremely useful attitude for a ruthless politician to encourage in his followers.
Naziism promises immediate gratification, regardless of obligations (except to the leader) or consequences (which were entrusted to the leader). Nazis are obsessed with virility and vitality, but what they really mean is the momentary freedom weakness of character can grant.
Now Bannon's followers fit the mold, but as for Bannon himself... well he actually sees himself more in Lenin's mold, he's said so himself. So he fancies himself as an intellectual, and sees the rabble as useful idiots -- a term Lenin actually coined. But Nazi leaders often saw their followers the same way. The question is whether he's a user as well as a dealer.
Let's step away from Chernobyl for a second and get back to the implicit question: is nuclear power "safe"?
I think that is "begging the question". Before we ask whether nuclear technology is safe, we need to know whether its the technology we have to be worrying about or the organizations that are using it that are the problem.
I think it's the organizations that are using the technology that are the danger. That's a bit like the way everyone thinks they're a better than average driver; they are, on their best days. And that's how we judge ourselves, by how we are when we're at our best. But when you're talking about safety, you have to judge yourself by how you are on a bad day.
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were old reactor designs that would be considered unacceptable by modern standards. And yet, in both cases the catastrophic failure can ultimately be traced to failures in organizational decision-making. Chernobyl failed because of a safety test that was compromise by pressure to minimize power delivery disruptions that eventually put a reactor that was outside its normal operating envelope in the hands of an operations shift that didn't have the expertise to handle it. Fukushima's failure can be traced to TEPCO's failure to respond to the information that the tsunami statistics under which the plant was designed grossly underestimated a hundred year tsunami; all they had to do was to stage portable power generation equipment on the high ground surrounding the plant, but instead they raised the on-site backup generators by a few inches -- in effect they made a token response, which showed they got the message but didn't take it seriously.
Look around at the crappy, semi-competent or corrupt companies you have to deal with. In a world with only a few reactors, you have some chance of making sure none of the companies running them would be like those. In a world where nuclear reactors are ubiquitous, you have to design them so you'd be comfortable with companies like Comcast or Wells-Fargo running them.
Well, it's always been possible for someone with physical access to the car to sabotage it. There are hundreds of ways you can make a car inoperable, likely to break down, or downright dangerous.
What's different for most cars is that there are more elaborate ways of doing it now.
But if the car is at all manageable OTA or wirelessly, that's a different story; we're not talking about needing physical access any more. You could hack someone's car while it sat in their locked garage, or while they were driving down the freeway.
So, you're saying having those in the political classes--politicians, bureaucrats, and those people whose jobs are to ensure that their employers get the sort of government corruption that benefits them--getting to regularly stick their dicks in would be an improvement?
Actually, yes. It was a federal task force, and naturally the mandarins (or their policy dicks) needed to be involved.
Here's an interesting exercise. Use Google Street View to compare a virtual walking tour of the residential neighborhoods of Tapei, and compare them to San Francisco. In this case we're looking at two neighborhoods of single family dwellings.
In general single family houses have a smaller footprint in Taipei and are a bit taller, and streets are much narrower. There are also more streets of low rise apartment blocks. There are obviously some high rise apartments, but apparently earthquake regulation discourage them so you see a lot places that have apartments that are just shy of the height where the regulations kick in. Likewise browsing through the satellite view of San Francisco it is striking how rare high rise apartment buildings are, compared to say Manhattan. The vast majority of housing stock is maybe three stories high.
So in a way San Franciso looks more like Taipei than it does New York, probably in part because like Taipei it is shaped by earthquake concerns and have quite a bit of topography to deal with. In fact they have almost the same population density: 7,500/km^2 for Taipei vs vs 7,170/km^2 for San Francisco. Taipei's Da'an district, which I linked to above, has a staggering density of 28,000/km^2. But Taipei's population has spread out into the sprawling, 8000 km^2 New Taipei City (population 3.9 million) that surrounds the capital. San Francisco is constrained by water on three sides, and to the south the available space on the peninsula is reduced by massive conservation areas. Short of replacing a lot of its low-rise housing stock with high-rise, earthquake-proof apartment blocks I don't see how San Francisco can accommodate working class people at all.
FDR took office during a global economic depression of unprecedented scale and depth. A full quarter of US GDP evaporated, 50% of industrial production simply disappeared, and the unemployment rate hit 25%.
Let's be real, Trump is not doing much of anything. The US deep state is doing everything, the people that wanted the Corporate Whore
And yet, that doesn't sound too bad relative to the possibilities.
The only way Trump can save himself by drawing huge unstoppable support from the masses
What masses? He lost the popular vote, and his approval has south since then. To give credit where credit is due, he paid attention to people who'd been ignored, some of whom I've been saying for years need some national attention. But the reason they've been ignored is that they aren't enough to win power by themselves. You need to fit them into a coalition, and in Trump's case that coalition was with traditional Republicans who thought he'd at least be useful. Establishment Republicans don't want to see the apparatus of state blown up, they want to see it used.
The fallacy of a division is when you mistakenly infer that the parts of something have to have the properties of the whole thing (e.g., the brain is smart, therefore neurons must have intelligence). This fallacy is rife in any kind of public discourse about political things where it (over) simplifies our reasoning about complex topics, e.g., we talk about Trump voters or women engineers as if they were all pressed out of the same mold.
The behavior of a system does not always emerge in a straightforward way from the attitudes of the participants in the system.
Just because some people in Hollywood would like to see more inclusive casting doesn't mean that will happen; that wouldn't even happen if most people felt that way. Of course there's always some hypocrisy present; people aren't very consistent so you can always catch them out if you try hard enough. But I think the best explanation here also explains many other things about Hollywood: Hollywood isn't just a cultural institution; it's an industry.
The value of an investment is dependent up on its expected return relative to risk. This means that as an industry Hollywood is constantly struggling with two contradictory objectives: to score a breakout hit on one hand, and to have their money completely safe on the other.
So Hollywood's standard response is to hire incredibly talented, original people, and then reward them for doing the exactly same stuff everyone else has been doing. Even if everyone in Hollywood wanted to see more big women cast in lead roles because of their acting ability, it wouldn't happen immediately because they'd all be waiting for someone else to go first.
Slashdot Mirror
At least not conceptually: you improve the curriculum and the teachers, and then student performance rises. That's what the evidence shows: better instructors using better curricula get better results. That should be pretty intuitive, but better than that it's what the data tells us.
So why don't more places try improving teaching and curricula?
I think it's because people don't want schools to be very different from what they experienced, even when (or *especially* when) they have nothing but contempt for the schools they went to. So instead they tinker with superficial quick fixes. Many of these, like increased student testing, or computer in the classroom, would have value in a school that is already on the right track. In a school that is not making progress betting in a big way on computers alone is like putting a giant wing on your Honda Civic to make it go faster.
Well...
What's happened is that Java EE has adopted inversion of control, which was popularized by Spring; it's not the same as being "replaced by" Spring.
The reason you probably don't know anyone using Java EE is that it does something which is quite useful to a very small number of applications: it makes it easy to create operations that are both atomic and distributed. But that means it's not "scaleable" by modern Internet standards of scalability where consistency requirements are typically relaxed to allow gazillions of transactions per hour to take place. Which is smart. You don't want to imagine you have a requirement for perfect distributed consistency everywhere if you don't really have one, because it's hard.
As with ideologies, guns are harmless until employed by a human mind.
Sure it can. They aren't preventing people from using the app on their phones, they just aren't carrying it in their store.
It's like saying Barnes and Noble is against free speech because they don't stock every book in print.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. All that ransomware baloney -- if people used XFS their data would all still be there.
Of course there are situations where you do want to be able to lose data.
Not the same thing at all. It's basically for making backups to external drives.
That's a clunky service that barely suffices to back up in-use files. It's not a filesystem feature.
No ideology has ever slaughtered anyone. It's people who do the dirty work.
The organization had the expertise to understand reactor poisoning. It just wasn't on duty while the reactor was being operated outside its normal operating envelope.
Von Braun did not invent "rocket science".
As for "socialism for white people" -- it's trivially easy (in the mathematical sense) to understand.
Journaling isn't the same thing. The previous versions feature is by default disabled and isn't fs-based -- it requires an external disk of some sort. It's pretty amazing that they've added so much BS to the operating system over the years and haven't got this working.
ReFS surely a step ion the right direction, but is currently a work in progress. It also lacks snapshotting capability.
What I can't understand is why Microsoft has never gotten its act together and put out a truly modern filesystem.
Very few people ever come close to using up their disks these days, so why not copy-on-write? Or at least build some kind of versioning into the filesystem.
For not using git, yes.
And now he will never use source control again....
"Nazi" may be an abbreviation for "National Socialism", but as for what it means... well, remember it was the Nazis themselves who made that term up. You shouldn't take anything they said about themselves at face value because they were history's greatest bullshitters.
Naziism isn't really an ideology -- not like socialism, communism, or capitalism for that matter. It is too profoundly anti-intellectual to be one. Not that this prevented from intellectuals from joining. Goebbels was both an intelligent and educated man; he was in charge of manufacturing bullshit for the masses, but like an addict/drug cooker he was a user of his own junk.
Insofar as Nazis embrace ideology, it is never to the exclusion of any contradictory ideas. If caught in an inconsistency, a Communist will elaborate, a Nazi will simply ignore. That's why Communism as an ideology is so rococo. Nazi ideology is a slovenly, slapdash thing, constructed for the moment and then freely ignored once used.
They were obsessed with joy. And here at least they were honest, because joy differs from ordinary happiness in that it involves letting go of the past and future, of your very self. And that's what they offered their followers: torchlit rallies in which you could lose yourself and in which what happened yesterday and what was going to happen tomorrow might as well not exist -- not coincidentally an extremely useful attitude for a ruthless politician to encourage in his followers.
Naziism promises immediate gratification, regardless of obligations (except to the leader) or consequences (which were entrusted to the leader). Nazis are obsessed with virility and vitality, but what they really mean is the momentary freedom weakness of character can grant.
Now Bannon's followers fit the mold, but as for Bannon himself... well he actually sees himself more in Lenin's mold, he's said so himself. So he fancies himself as an intellectual, and sees the rabble as useful idiots -- a term Lenin actually coined. But Nazi leaders often saw their followers the same way. The question is whether he's a user as well as a dealer.
Let's step away from Chernobyl for a second and get back to the implicit question: is nuclear power "safe"?
I think that is "begging the question". Before we ask whether nuclear technology is safe, we need to know whether its the technology we have to be worrying about or the organizations that are using it that are the problem.
I think it's the organizations that are using the technology that are the danger. That's a bit like the way everyone thinks they're a better than average driver; they are, on their best days. And that's how we judge ourselves, by how we are when we're at our best. But when you're talking about safety, you have to judge yourself by how you are on a bad day.
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were old reactor designs that would be considered unacceptable by modern standards. And yet, in both cases the catastrophic failure can ultimately be traced to failures in organizational decision-making. Chernobyl failed because of a safety test that was compromise by pressure to minimize power delivery disruptions that eventually put a reactor that was outside its normal operating envelope in the hands of an operations shift that didn't have the expertise to handle it. Fukushima's failure can be traced to TEPCO's failure to respond to the information that the tsunami statistics under which the plant was designed grossly underestimated a hundred year tsunami; all they had to do was to stage portable power generation equipment on the high ground surrounding the plant, but instead they raised the on-site backup generators by a few inches -- in effect they made a token response, which showed they got the message but didn't take it seriously.
Look around at the crappy, semi-competent or corrupt companies you have to deal with. In a world with only a few reactors, you have some chance of making sure none of the companies running them would be like those. In a world where nuclear reactors are ubiquitous, you have to design them so you'd be comfortable with companies like Comcast or Wells-Fargo running them.
Of course, for some parties that value is $0.
Well, it's always been possible for someone with physical access to the car to sabotage it. There are hundreds of ways you can make a car inoperable, likely to break down, or downright dangerous.
What's different for most cars is that there are more elaborate ways of doing it now.
But if the car is at all manageable OTA or wirelessly, that's a different story; we're not talking about needing physical access any more. You could hack someone's car while it sat in their locked garage, or while they were driving down the freeway.
So, you're saying having those in the political classes--politicians, bureaucrats, and those people whose jobs are to ensure that their employers get the sort of government corruption that benefits them--getting to regularly stick their dicks in would be an improvement?
Actually, yes. It was a federal task force, and naturally the mandarins (or their policy dicks) needed to be involved.
Here's an interesting exercise. Use Google Street View to compare a virtual walking tour of the residential neighborhoods of Tapei, and compare them to San Francisco. In this case we're looking at two neighborhoods of single family dwellings.
In general single family houses have a smaller footprint in Taipei and are a bit taller, and streets are much narrower. There are also more streets of low rise apartment blocks. There are obviously some high rise apartments, but apparently earthquake regulation discourage them so you see a lot places that have apartments that are just shy of the height where the regulations kick in. Likewise browsing through the satellite view of San Francisco it is striking how rare high rise apartment buildings are, compared to say Manhattan. The vast majority of housing stock is maybe three stories high.
So in a way San Franciso looks more like Taipei than it does New York, probably in part because like Taipei it is shaped by earthquake concerns and have quite a bit of topography to deal with. In fact they have almost the same population density: 7,500/km^2 for Taipei vs vs 7,170/km^2 for San Francisco. Taipei's Da'an district, which I linked to above, has a staggering density of 28,000/km^2. But Taipei's population has spread out into the sprawling, 8000 km^2 New Taipei City (population 3.9 million) that surrounds the capital. San Francisco is constrained by water on three sides, and to the south the available space on the peninsula is reduced by massive conservation areas. Short of replacing a lot of its low-rise housing stock with high-rise, earthquake-proof apartment blocks I don't see how San Francisco can accommodate working class people at all.
The initiatives were only announced six months ago. You wouldn't expect them to be effective yet.
The real problem was a lack of direction. In effect this response was to form a committee and leave it to itself to get something done.
FDR took office during a global economic depression of unprecedented scale and depth. A full quarter of US GDP evaporated, 50% of industrial production simply disappeared, and the unemployment rate hit 25%.
In comparison, war would be easy.
Let's be real, Trump is not doing much of anything. The US deep state is doing everything, the people that wanted the Corporate Whore
And yet, that doesn't sound too bad relative to the possibilities.
The only way Trump can save himself by drawing huge unstoppable support from the masses
What masses? He lost the popular vote, and his approval has south since then. To give credit where credit is due, he paid attention to people who'd been ignored, some of whom I've been saying for years need some national attention. But the reason they've been ignored is that they aren't enough to win power by themselves. You need to fit them into a coalition, and in Trump's case that coalition was with traditional Republicans who thought he'd at least be useful. Establishment Republicans don't want to see the apparatus of state blown up, they want to see it used.
Too bad you can't take Mulligans in politics too.
The fallacy of a division is when you mistakenly infer that the parts of something have to have the properties of the whole thing (e.g., the brain is smart, therefore neurons must have intelligence). This fallacy is rife in any kind of public discourse about political things where it (over) simplifies our reasoning about complex topics, e.g., we talk about Trump voters or women engineers as if they were all pressed out of the same mold.
The behavior of a system does not always emerge in a straightforward way from the attitudes of the participants in the system.
Just because some people in Hollywood would like to see more inclusive casting doesn't mean that will happen; that wouldn't even happen if most people felt that way. Of course there's always some hypocrisy present; people aren't very consistent so you can always catch them out if you try hard enough. But I think the best explanation here also explains many other things about Hollywood: Hollywood isn't just a cultural institution; it's an industry.
The value of an investment is dependent up on its expected return relative to risk. This means that as an industry Hollywood is constantly struggling with two contradictory objectives: to score a breakout hit on one hand, and to have their money completely safe on the other.
So Hollywood's standard response is to hire incredibly talented, original people, and then reward them for doing the exactly same stuff everyone else has been doing. Even if everyone in Hollywood wanted to see more big women cast in lead roles because of their acting ability, it wouldn't happen immediately because they'd all be waiting for someone else to go first.