While 500+ lines of bashing "End of Days" is nice, certainly, I find it aggravating that Katz spent only 5 or so lines on description for the movies he actually liked, such as "American Movie" (which I had never even heard of prior to this post). Come on. EOD has all the qualities of a silly action movie. People will see it knowing what to expect. If a good movie comes along I'd much rather have a discussion about the good points of that over the bad points of Schwarzenegger, who will (in my opinion), continue to make 4 bad apocalypse movies for every good one (which is a better ratio than most action actors).
But while we're on the subject, I'd also like to point out that Schwarzenegger doesn't actually write his movies, and thus has very little real control over whether they're good or bad in terms of plot. So attributing the movie's worth to him is really not a great idea.
I have never seen a larger cesspool of discrimination. That woman appears to attribute the title "loser" to anyone with a pocket protector or a bug collection -- read, "interesting". That's nothing abnormal, though. The remarkable thing about the article is the author. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone over the age of 13 could possibly justify that kind of thinking, much less propogate it. That's very sad to me. We live in a nation of children.
Heh heh...I tried that too, to about as little avail. For those of us who don't want to shell out $250 for a switcher, there are $40 dvorak keyboards (not hard-wired, simply re-labelled) available from www.fentek-ind.com. Haven't tried one, though...I'm scared of Windows keys.
That report was mostly blather about history and economics. Statistics are what matter in such a case. Why is it that the only test anyone ever cites about Dvorak vs. QWERTYUIOP is the Navy retraining? It's pretty easy to conduct another, more fair one.
All my friends who switched to Dvorak have increased speed from their QWERTY days. Personally, I learned to touch-type in school in a semester and maxed out at 60/70 wpm after a few years. Later, I taught myself Dvorak. In about two weeks, I had completely forgotten QWERTY and was basic in Dvorak. After not too much longer, I tested at 90 wpm in Dvorak. A significant increase. Because I was taking comp sci classes in school throughout, I was forced to accidentally remember QWERTY (it's not forgotten, just pushed aside). Now I can type at my previous speeds in that as well, with no switching time and only a little annoyance over punctuation, which is typed less frequently. I feel that if I wasn't forced to hold myself back by using QWERTY all the time, I could become even faster in Dvorak.
Anyway, I don't know about all the so-called "tests" that have taken place, but from personal and observed experience, Dvorak is faster and more elegant, and takes very little time to learn. QWERTY just feels jumbled to me. It seems fairly unlikely that a mostly random misplacement of the keys could be more optimal than a statistically developed one.
They can hack out a Linux distro but they put their page on Geocities? I've lost all faith in ZDNet for believing it.
For those of you who think this isn't a hoax, you should check out my new distro, "Geosux". It's basically Linux, but it wants nothing to do with obnoxious pop-up HTML frames.
That's interesting. Personally, I don't seem to have much trouble with information on a screen rather than on paper. As a matter of fact, it's been so long for me that I actually had to borrow real paper from my friend yesterday when my German professor wanted an essay turned in (perish the thought!). The main reason I can see to use printed copies is so you don't have to waste your money on a crummy laptop.
I spent twelve years dealing with the exact same crap these kids are going through now. It takes very little to realise that the system doesn't work.
1. Kids enjoy learning. It's a simple fact that children are curious about the world they live in, and fully willing to go out to experience it. What public education does is take these eager young children; prop them up in a desk; and force them to sit down, shut the hell up, and "learn" exactly what teachers decide they should learn. This stifles the creative process in many obvious ways, in addition to crushing the students' free-will. Students may memorize what they are told, and no more for the duration of the day, and speak only when told.
2. Students are treated like robots. This is easily exemplified in the recent high-school Orwellian incident of bar-coding students with their SSNs. Humans cannot live under such a strictly regimented schedule in which they as individuals are given second priority to the class as a whole. Speak when you're told. Do what you're told. This is when you do this. Don't question your teacher. The 8 good hours of the day wasted, and more at home with homework and studying for 12 years. Who here believes that conditioning a child to meekly accept what he/she is taught without questioning is a good thing? Hell, I'm not even talking about high school. By that time we're completely crushed.
3. Advancement is based on age. This defies common sense. Quick children are forced to idle while slow children hold them back.
4. Class requirements are communist. After an extent, forcing all children to learn the same things (true with very minor exeception through high school) is ridiculous. Some people aren't tooled for math, and some people aren't tooled for english. And there it is. After the basics. It's plain to see that an English major is not going to need trigonometry; regardless, we're all forced to learn it.
5. The perception that college (and even the latter years of high school) is mandatory. Not everyone should be going to college. In the past, higher learning has been a noble thing, but for scholars. I look around myself at university today and see drugged-out, ignorant jocks attending higher learning only because it's socially required to do so. They don't want to learn. They won't use what little knowledge they accidentally glean from this place. They will pollute the work force. Only bad things can come from socially forcing everyone to attend college.
6. Smart people are discriminated against. Everyone knows this from the Hellmouth incident discussions (not to advocate the Hellmouth incident). Homework is communistically enforced regardless of necessity ("responsibility is part of learning" -- bullshit. "Do what you're damn told so we don't have to evaluate you individually" is more accurate). Students must attend class whether or not they understand the topics. The effect is that an incredible amount of stress is placed on everyone. Nobody accepts orders to this extent without some side-effects. These are, but not limited to: bullying others (the strong-willed), becoming a robot (the weak-willed), and assassinating fellow students (the creatively stifled).
What it all basically boils down to is that it's human to resist orders. A child's parents should provide discipline; it is natural for kids to accept instruction from the ones they love; faceless authority should not. Kids are deprived of freedom, learning ability (and incentive), and crushed spiritually into the droning workforce.
I haven't experienced alternate countries' versions of public education, but I can't imagine they could be much better. I propose a complete overhaul: kids are evaluated based on individual learning progress. Throw them in a room with a teacher, give access to internet boxes, other references and the experimental possibilities and let them go at it. This is intermingled with instruction as to basics, but children should be allowed to pursue more or less of a topic as inclined. Teachers are there to answer questions, help with resources, and provide inspiration. After introductory basics have been provided (with minimal attendance policy, no required homework, and no compulsion to sit down and shut up like a robot -- grading is based on tests), the system becomes entirely a "show that you have learned anything" one instead of a "show that you have memorized and can parrot this" one. Those not inclined to learn further go wherever they want to go.
My changes are radical, but the fact is that children are broken in the US' public education system. This directly leads to the pitiful, uncaring workforce we have today. In drastic cases, it leads to Hellmouth. Humans can't accept two sets of parents.
Thanks for being an outlet.
---
Stephenson as real literature
on
The Diamond Age
·
· Score: 1
After reading a Stephenson book, I always get the sense that this man cares more about the quality of the work than many other cyberpunk authors. For instance, when reading a Gibson book, it is common to come out the other end with a feeling of very cool scenery and some challenging possibility ideas; Stephenson, I find, provides the same with the addition of attempts to introduce correct moral lessons, thoughts about history, definite instructional themes and motifs, et cetera. I feel that I've actually benefited from reading the book rather than just introduced to a few cool ideas. Digital Age cemented this feeling for me (although I'm only 80% finished), proving that Stephenson is capable of more than the usual flashy-cowboy main characters we see in Zodiac (excellent book, by the way) and Snow Crash. He seems like someone who could conceivably be taught in literature courses in the future, which is a refreshing change (not that I would want his work to be perverted by school).
On a side note, those of you who liked Snow Crash may be interested in Jonathon Lethem's Gun With Occasional Music, which I bought for the title and loved.
Ever notice that when throngs of fans scream for blood, Lucas claims that it's a simple line of kids' movies, but when a reporter asks him to explain such and such themes of Empire, he's all too willing to sing his heart out?
The plot could certainly have used work, but that can be overlooked in cases of characters such as were in the trilogy. The movie seemed to be mainly just a rehash, but with some younger, implausible people tossed in to force some differences. It's interesting that the trade federation can't obtain battle droids that are capable of more than simple dialog ("um, er, that doesn't compute."?! WTF is that?), but a 10 year old kid can build a protocol droid and a model of racing pod better by leagues than anyone else's. Geez, I've been alive 18 years and I haven't even programmed HAL yet! And Queen Amidala. How can Lucas expect anyone to believe that a sane body of people could possibly "elect" a 16-year old monarch? Good lord, a child could have thought up a more probable explanation as to why she's ruling, but to try to pass it off as a democracy? It's a kid's movie, sure, but that's not an excuse to pass off implausible crap as realistic. I won't even go into Jar Jar. Yes I will. Jar Jar was a bumbling oaf! The slapstick thing entertains kids to an extent, but literally every single scene in which Jar Jar appeared he had to trip over something or say something inane, with absolutely no consequence! I thoroughly encourage every fan to read Terry Brook's adaptation of the movie, in which at least he attempts to give some much-needed depth to the characters.
Slashdot Mirror
While 500+ lines of bashing "End of Days" is nice, certainly, I find it aggravating that Katz spent only 5 or so lines on description for the movies he actually liked, such as "American Movie" (which I had never even heard of prior to this post). Come on. EOD has all the qualities of a silly action movie. People will see it knowing what to expect. If a good movie comes along I'd much rather have a discussion about the good points of that over the bad points of Schwarzenegger, who will (in my opinion), continue to make 4 bad apocalypse movies for every good one (which is a better ratio than most action actors).
But while we're on the subject, I'd also like to point out that Schwarzenegger doesn't actually write his movies, and thus has very little real control over whether they're good or bad in terms of plot. So attributing the movie's worth to him is really not a great idea.
---
Indeed, I am a moron. Actually, I wasn't. Familiar. sigh...
---
I have never seen a larger cesspool of discrimination. That woman appears to attribute the title "loser" to anyone with a pocket protector or a bug collection -- read, "interesting". That's nothing abnormal, though. The remarkable thing about the article is the author. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone over the age of 13 could possibly justify that kind of thinking, much less propogate it. That's very sad to me. We live in a nation of children.
---
Heh heh...I tried that too, to about as little avail. For those of us who don't want to shell out $250 for a switcher, there are $40 dvorak keyboards (not hard-wired, simply re-labelled) available from www.fentek-ind.com. Haven't tried one, though...I'm scared of Windows keys.
---
That report was mostly blather about history and economics. Statistics are what matter in such a case. Why is it that the only test anyone ever cites about Dvorak vs. QWERTYUIOP is the Navy retraining? It's pretty easy to conduct another, more fair one.
All my friends who switched to Dvorak have increased speed from their QWERTY days. Personally, I learned to touch-type in school in a semester and maxed out at 60/70 wpm after a few years. Later, I taught myself Dvorak. In about two weeks, I had completely forgotten QWERTY and was basic in Dvorak. After not too much longer, I tested at 90 wpm in Dvorak. A significant increase. Because I was taking comp sci classes in school throughout, I was forced to accidentally remember QWERTY (it's not forgotten, just pushed aside). Now I can type at my previous speeds in that as well, with no switching time and only a little annoyance over punctuation, which is typed less frequently. I feel that if I wasn't forced to hold myself back by using QWERTY all the time, I could become even faster in Dvorak.
Anyway, I don't know about all the so-called "tests" that have taken place, but from personal and observed experience, Dvorak is faster and more elegant, and takes very little time to learn. QWERTY just feels jumbled to me. It seems fairly unlikely that a mostly random misplacement of the keys could be more optimal than a statistically developed one.
---
They can hack out a Linux distro but they put their page on Geocities? I've lost all faith in ZDNet for believing it.
For those of you who think this isn't a hoax, you should check out my new distro, "Geosux". It's basically Linux, but it wants nothing to do with obnoxious pop-up HTML frames.
---
That's interesting. Personally, I don't seem to have much trouble with information on a screen rather than on paper. As a matter of fact, it's been so long for me that I actually had to borrow real paper from my friend yesterday when my German professor wanted an essay turned in (perish the thought!). The main reason I can see to use printed copies is so you don't have to waste your money on a crummy laptop.
---
Just like it says.
I spent twelve years dealing with the exact same crap these kids are going through now. It takes very little to realise that the system doesn't work.
1. Kids enjoy learning. It's a simple fact that children are curious about the world they live in, and fully willing to go out to experience it. What public education does is take these eager young children; prop them up in a desk; and force them to sit down, shut the hell up, and "learn" exactly what teachers decide they should learn. This stifles the creative process in many obvious ways, in addition to crushing the students' free-will. Students may memorize what they are told, and no more for the duration of the day, and speak only when told.
2. Students are treated like robots. This is easily exemplified in the recent high-school Orwellian incident of bar-coding students with their SSNs. Humans cannot live under such a strictly regimented schedule in which they as individuals are given second priority to the class as a whole. Speak when you're told. Do what you're told. This is when you do this. Don't question your teacher. The 8 good hours of the day wasted, and more at home with homework and studying for 12 years. Who here believes that conditioning a child to meekly accept what he/she is taught without questioning is a good thing? Hell, I'm not even talking about high school. By that time we're completely crushed.
3. Advancement is based on age. This defies common sense. Quick children are forced to idle while slow children hold them back.
4. Class requirements are communist. After an extent, forcing all children to learn the same things (true with very minor exeception through high school) is ridiculous. Some people aren't tooled for math, and some people aren't tooled for english. And there it is. After the basics. It's plain to see that an English major is not going to need trigonometry; regardless, we're all forced to learn it.
5. The perception that college (and even the latter years of high school) is mandatory. Not everyone should be going to college. In the past, higher learning has been a noble thing, but for scholars. I look around myself at university today and see drugged-out, ignorant jocks attending higher learning only because it's socially required to do so. They don't want to learn. They won't use what little knowledge they accidentally glean from this place. They will pollute the work force. Only bad things can come from socially forcing everyone to attend college.
6. Smart people are discriminated against. Everyone knows this from the Hellmouth incident discussions (not to advocate the Hellmouth incident). Homework is communistically enforced regardless of necessity ("responsibility is part of learning" -- bullshit. "Do what you're damn told so we don't have to evaluate you individually" is more accurate). Students must attend class whether or not they understand the topics. The effect is that an incredible amount of stress is placed on everyone. Nobody accepts orders to this extent without some side-effects. These are, but not limited to: bullying others (the strong-willed), becoming a robot (the weak-willed), and assassinating fellow students (the creatively stifled).
What it all basically boils down to is that it's human to resist orders. A child's parents should provide discipline; it is natural for kids to accept instruction from the ones they love; faceless authority should not. Kids are deprived of freedom, learning ability (and incentive), and crushed spiritually into the droning workforce.
I haven't experienced alternate countries' versions of public education, but I can't imagine they could be much better. I propose a complete overhaul: kids are evaluated based on individual learning progress. Throw them in a room with a teacher, give access to internet boxes, other references and the experimental possibilities and let them go at it. This is intermingled with instruction as to basics, but children should be allowed to pursue more or less of a topic as inclined. Teachers are there to answer questions, help with resources, and provide inspiration. After introductory basics have been provided (with minimal attendance policy, no required homework, and no compulsion to sit down and shut up like a robot -- grading is based on tests), the system becomes entirely a "show that you have learned anything" one instead of a "show that you have memorized and can parrot this" one. Those not inclined to learn further go wherever they want to go.
My changes are radical, but the fact is that children are broken in the US' public education system. This directly leads to the pitiful, uncaring workforce we have today. In drastic cases, it leads to Hellmouth. Humans can't accept two sets of parents.
Thanks for being an outlet.
---
After reading a Stephenson book, I always get the sense that this man cares more about the quality of the work than many other cyberpunk authors. For instance, when reading a Gibson book, it is common to come out the other end with a feeling of very cool scenery and some challenging possibility ideas; Stephenson, I find, provides the same with the addition of attempts to introduce correct moral lessons, thoughts about history, definite instructional themes and motifs, et cetera. I feel that I've actually benefited from reading the book rather than just introduced to a few cool ideas. Digital Age cemented this feeling for me (although I'm only 80% finished), proving that Stephenson is capable of more than the usual flashy-cowboy main characters we see in Zodiac (excellent book, by the way) and Snow Crash. He seems like someone who could conceivably be taught in literature courses in the future, which is a refreshing change (not that I would want his work to be perverted by school).
On a side note, those of you who liked Snow Crash may be interested in Jonathon Lethem's Gun With Occasional Music, which I bought for the title and loved.
---
Ever notice that when throngs of fans scream for blood, Lucas claims that it's a simple line of kids' movies, but when a reporter asks him to explain such and such themes of Empire, he's all too willing to sing his heart out?
He is dead, I have it on videotape! It's the one labelled "A New Hope".
The plot could certainly have used work, but that can be overlooked in cases of characters such as were in the trilogy. The movie seemed to be mainly just a rehash, but with some younger, implausible people tossed in to force some differences. It's interesting that the trade federation can't obtain battle droids that are capable of more than simple dialog ("um, er, that doesn't compute."?! WTF is that?), but a 10 year old kid can build a protocol droid and a model of racing pod better by leagues than anyone else's. Geez, I've been alive 18 years and I haven't even programmed HAL yet! And Queen Amidala. How can Lucas expect anyone to believe that a sane body of people could possibly "elect" a 16-year old monarch? Good lord, a child could have thought up a more probable explanation as to why she's ruling, but to try to pass it off as a democracy? It's a kid's movie, sure, but that's not an excuse to pass off implausible crap as realistic. I won't even go into Jar Jar. Yes I will. Jar Jar was a bumbling oaf! The slapstick thing entertains kids to an extent, but literally every single scene in which Jar Jar appeared he had to trip over something or say something inane, with absolutely no consequence! I thoroughly encourage every fan to read Terry Brook's adaptation of the movie, in which at least he attempts to give some much-needed depth to the characters.