My DSLR seems to distort colors a little bit. Exposures tend to come out very much on the warm side. And you know what? I kind of like that look. I use a fast lens (the Canon 50mm f1.4) to shoot a lot of pictures under natural lighting, which often means strange lighting. To go in and play with it too much after the fact seems like it defeats the purpose. I like what I get out of it. The one exception, though, is that my Canon does seem to introduce a lot of chromatic and luminance distortion at high ISOs. Lightroom seems to do a good job of correcting for that.
Replying to my own post, to give an additional, computer-based example: If you successfully log in to Slashdot, you have been authenticated. But all that takes is a username and password; you could be someone entirely different from the person who opened the account and the login credential will still have been authenticated. Authentication will mean you have been authorized to post, and your posts will appear under that login name. But have you been identified? Not in any meaningful sense.
Authenticating is the act of confirming an identity..
I disagree. Authentication is the act of confirming that a token (in this case, the ID card) is authentic. If an official sees that my driver's license is authentic, I may drive. If my driver's license is authentic and it says I am over 21, I may enter a bar to drink. (I believe these latter causes are what you are referring to as authorization.)
Identification, on the other hand, is establishing who I am. The guy at the door of a bar doesn't really do that. He probably checks to see that the photo looks like me, but he doesn't know whether the photo really is me, and legally (in my jurisdiction, at least) he's not held to that standard. If the police suspect I'm showing them a fake ID, on the other hand, they will arrest me, because their purpose is not to check whether my ID is valid, but to actually know who I am.
That's a very narrow definition of the word "censorship." Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to be the all-powerful leader of a totalitarian state to censor things. If you write a nasty letter to the newspaper that's full of four-letter words, and they choose to remove all the four-letter words when they print your letter, you haven't been gagged but you have been censored.
Similarly, if someone published an edition of Huckleberry Finn where all the "objectionable" words had been redacted with black rectangles like a FoIA request, I would consider that a "censored" edition. NewSouth is doing the same thing here, but instead of black rectangles it's replacing the words with other words -- which I believe is worse, because it actively distorts the text. You can no longer tell where and what redactions were made.
One could argue that Huck using the word was the whole point of the book. The boys are essentially innocents; at their age, they know nothing but what's been taught to them. Everything else, once they're out from under the influence of their parents, is learned wisdom -- right or wrong. Throughout the book, Huck not only calls Jim "nigger," but he has the nagging feeling that helping Jim stay free is wrong, because it would be like stealing Miss Watson's property. But however hateful and horrible these espoused beliefs sound -- and I think it's perfectly fine if they seem more hateful and horrible when viewed through a modern lens -- the important thing is that despite those nagging feelings, Huck still acts his conscience and helps Jim. When you actually read the book and don't just quote some passage where a character says "nigger" five times, you see how Twain is trying to illustrate not only how endemic racism was in the South, but how bankrupt it was: Give it to an honest child, make him repeat it over and over until the words are second nature to him, and he still won't be able to act on it.
That was my understanding, too. In fact, I'm signed up for a secondary authentication procedure with BofA, where if they don't recognize my computer, they send me an SMS with a code that I have to enter before I can proceed.
The scary part is, on at least two occasions I've been walking down the street and have received the SMS out of the blue. It's funny... you understand that people try to hack online banking accounts in principle, but it's a weird feeling when you know that someone is actively trying to hack your bank account, right now.
There's nothing novel or technically interesting about Facebook. It is not the be-all and end-all of useful tools. It's a way to build a vanity page for people who are too lazy to learn HTML.
You're thinking of MySpace. Facebook doesn't actually give you much by way of tools to build a vanity Web page (which is probably why it appeals much more to adults; you're not constantly stumbling into pages that look like a teenager's bedroom). In practice, Facebook is pretty similar to Twitter, only catering to a more "social" model rather than a "publishing" or "broadcast" model. Plus it has some games.
Actually, it seems to me that Garfinkel is conflating identification with authentication, when the two are not the same thing.
As other people have mentioned in this very same thread, it can be very difficult to tell anything about someone based on their Facebook profile. The classic example (with any kind of online forum) is a man masquerading as a woman, to mess with people or for whatever reason. If you can do that -- if it's really easy to do that -- then what you have is not a form of identification. It is a form of authentication -- it gets you logged onto the forum, but it doesn't really say anything about who you really are.
A driver's license is a form of identification. The government makes you show up, in person, get your photo taken, maybe give them your thumbprint (that's two forms of biometrics, right there), maybe link the database with your Social Security number -- whatever the state has decided is necessary. It's a whole lot different than signing up for a Facebook profile.
Where Garfinkel is getting confused is that while you do use a driver's license as a form of authentication, that's a separate thing from how you use it as a form of identification. When you show your driver's license to the guy at the door of a bar, the guy doesn't care who you are so long as the license looks valid and it says you're over 21. He's counting on the fact that the government issued you the ID -- the trust component -- to establish that you're of legal drinking age; nothing more. When you're stopped by the police, on the other hand, you absolutely are using that license as a form of identification, because the police will radio it in to make sure you really are who you say you are, and to find out some other things about you, as well.
Facebook, as it exists today, has an opportunity to provide the authentication feature, but not the identification feature. As such, if your Facebook "ID" is revoked, it doesn't really matter. It's not like getting your passport taken away; you just lose the ability to do that form of authentication. Because nobody wants your use of their site to be governed by Facebook, every site will offer an alternative way to authenticate (username and password, or whatever). If SSO via Facebook seems to be convenient for people, they will offer that, too.
Seems to me like these guys might be exaggerating a bit with the "20 minutes" estimates, but having owned 2-3 BlackBerrys I have to concur that rebooting is something you dread. I doubt there's a single BlackBerry owner who sits there and waits for it to finish. You walk away, make some coffee, go through the mail...
If your story is true, why on Earth wouldn't you call out the mobile carrier and handset manufacturer by name? It's not like you're a radio announcer and you have to say "a major mobile communications company" -- if somebody screwed you, by all means let everybody know about it. Otherwise what do you expect to change?
And if you walk into a store with a gun tucked in your pants, it's possession of a firearm, possibly with intent to commit robbery. If you stand outside your ex-wife's house at three in the morning, staring up at her window, it's harassment. Get my drift? Sometimes it's worth it for law enforcement to be a little, shall we say, preemptive.
Forcing people to be subjected to a needle is not far removed from murder. I'd say it's an egregious affront to civil liberty.
Take it from anybody who's old enough to have lost somebody they loved -- it's a lot fucking removed. Not to take away from your point about civil liberties, but get some perspective.
Precisely. It's kind of like the right to remain silent -- you want to deny the officers any opportunity to collect concrete, measurable evidence against you. You might still get charged with a crime, but it will likely be a crime that's far less severe than what you could have been charged with -- and if that's the case, often the DA might decide it's not worth going ahead with it, if your lawyer can come up with enough nitpicks.
I don't think Nazi Germany was going around giving people cancer, forcing blood tests on the street and installing guard towers in shopping center parking lots.
Sure, we aren't singling out Jews and Gays, but isn't that in a way EVEN WORSE?
And by "singling out," you mean murdering, right? If you seriously think curtailing your ability to drive drunk is in any way comparable to the Nazis dumping bodies into mass graves, you need to switch off talk radio right now, because you are a truly disgusting human being.
Their eventual goal is 0% legal BAC and probably after that, a complete prohibition on alcohol at all. And you know what? I think they'll eventually get it.
You're probably a little too young to remember, but it's been tried.
There's an obvious difference. A mandatory DUI test might be an unreasonable search -- or it might not. A mandatory driving test, on the other hand, is not a search.
The Fourth Amendment says people should be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects." These are all clearly material things, and don't include the contents of your brain. (That would be the Fifth Amendment, and that only applies to "bearing witness against oneself," not to an entirely voluntary test that is not even administered by the justice system). A physical search of your body by police, on the other hand -- such as a breath test -- does seem to fall in this category.
Furthermore, for most types of crimes -- even very serious ones -- there are no mandatory checkpoints. Police don't have the right to stop you on the street, for example, and go through your wallet and ask you for a receipt from the bank for any cash you might have, to prove you're not a thief. A married man does not have to pass wife-beating checkpoints, where police demand that his wife wipe off her makeup to prove that her face doesn't have bruises on it. When you take your kids to Disneyland, police can't take your blood to run a curbside paternity test, to prove you're not a kidnapper. And police don't have a right to demand that your girlfriend have sex with them to prove that she likes sex -- because if she doesn't like sex then you must be a rapist. (You think such things have never happened?)
Mandatory DUI tests might be "reasonable" if they help to reduce the amount of injury and death due to traffic accidents. I feel, however, that in this aim they work best as a deterrent, and when police pursue cases with too much vigor it starts to look like a quota game -- a way to make the police department look good by producing trumped-up statistics -- than a real societal benefit.
I look at that the same way I look at the Kai's Power Tools "Drop Shadow" filters that were so popular in the late 90s. You don't see much of that effect anymore. These days it's the "I see a slight mirror image below the object, as if it was sitting on a flawless white counter top" filter. And that one will get old soon, too. In general, automated digital processes do a fundamentally poor job of mimicking processes that are highly "analog" (read: variable and subject to myriad physical conditions) in the real world. Once your eye starts to detect the "I clicked on a menu and made it happen" effect, you start to tire of it. IMHO, of course.
That photo the way you saw it on the cover of National Geographic, and on the link you provided? That's digital.
Pretty sure National Geographic wasn't doing digital publishing in 1984, but I get your point. But so what?
Chances are, you've never seen the "Mona Lisa." I've seen it. But unless you've been to Paris, France and stood in line at the Louvre, you probably haven't. You've only ever seen it in print or in digital, and either way that was probably transferred from a second intermediate step, film.
So could a modern-day Leonardo create the "Mona Lisa" entirely using digital tools? Sure. Didn't I say that in my original post? But I'll wager most artists would still want to and use oil paints to produce an image like that.
Likewise, I don't know many photographers who think it's "trivial" to produce images that look like Kodachrome using a purely digital process. YMMV of course.
Cue some 'romantic' shit about how Kodachrome has some unmeasurable orgasmic quality over anything else...
It doesn't have to be "romantic shit." Kodachrome does have qualities that are different from anything else. Irreplaceable qualities? Unreproducible qualities? Maybe not. But until you've tried to shoot actual creative photographs (as opposed to "I wanna see this later" snapshots), you don't understand what a complex and highly analog process it is -- even for digital cameras.
Between shutter speeds, apertures, film ISO, lenses, flash timings, and just plain holding the camera in the right place at the right time, there are a lot of variables. In film stock there are variables also, much like how two different digital SLR cameras will produce different-looking pictures of the same thing under the same lighting conditions.
Can you fiddle with an exposure in Photoshop until most film snobs would swear it's a Kodachrome image? Sure. Is that a worthwhile way to spend your time? You tell me.
Bottom line: No, if you hand a roll of Kodachrome to an inexperienced photographer, he's not going to be able to take any better pictures than he would with any other film. On the other hand, in the hands of an experience photographer who understands Kodachrome and knows how to get what he wants from it, the film stock can make the difference between an OK photograph and a great one. It's kind of like playing an electric guitar: Whether your amp is tube or solid-state, your guitar and your amp -- in your hands -- is going to sound different from the guy down the street's. You play what works for you.
Kodachrome "worked" for a lot of photographers for many years. That picture from National Geographic of the Afghan girl with the crazy green eyes that you've seen a million times? That's Kodachrome.
Automobile technology isn't going away either, but that doesn't mean obsoleted automobiles aren't "interesting items" for museums. Especially automotive museums. (Car analogy enough for you?)
Isn't this essentially what the TV show The Wire was all about? Numbers games don't work.
Statistically, IQ plots as a bell curve. (Forget the controversy about the book of the same name from a few years back -- statistically, most qualities about large random samples, from hair color to ice cream preference, look like bell curves.) What that means is that most people are typical, some people are above average, and some will fall below the average. No-brainer, right? But when you ask teachers to up their statistics -- to report a sample that doesn't look like a bell curve -- you're either expecting to plan your school budget based on a statistical anomaly or, more probably, you're asking the teachers to change nature. And if you peg the teachers' salaries on their ability to change nature, you're basically asking them to lie -- or, to put it another way, to cheat.
So, if I am a professional, and all my peers are professionals, I can't go to school?
Seriously. I went back to school to take some classes at my local community college after spending 10 years as a professional writer and magazine editor. In order to enroll in the school at the course load I wanted, they made me take an English placement exam. I got 100 percent on the test (not surprisingly), which placed me into... English 1A. Yes, that's right, if I wanted my courses to "count" in the way that I did, I needed to enroll in an English 1A class and sit there with a bunch of kids right out of high school.
The really shocking thing, though, was not how poorly prepared these kids were to be in English 1A, but how little they were learning from the class itself. It was the English Department's policy that they would not correct your grammar or suggest specific changes to your papers. The staff felt that was high school's job, and apparently that part of your English education was now over. They would only give you vague hints by offering leading questions and comparisons to other papers. When you turned in a rough draft it would be offered back to you with a grade, maybe a sentence saying "make it more clear," and no other red marks on the entire paper. During discussion periods I was able to talk to a few of the kids one-on-one and offer them some more concrete advice, and on average their scores went up about one full grade when they turned in their final papers. Unfortunately, by talking to them it appears I encouraged them all to cheat.
Slashdot Mirror
My DSLR seems to distort colors a little bit. Exposures tend to come out very much on the warm side. And you know what? I kind of like that look. I use a fast lens (the Canon 50mm f1.4) to shoot a lot of pictures under natural lighting, which often means strange lighting. To go in and play with it too much after the fact seems like it defeats the purpose. I like what I get out of it. The one exception, though, is that my Canon does seem to introduce a lot of chromatic and luminance distortion at high ISOs. Lightroom seems to do a good job of correcting for that.
Replying to my own post, to give an additional, computer-based example: If you successfully log in to Slashdot, you have been authenticated. But all that takes is a username and password; you could be someone entirely different from the person who opened the account and the login credential will still have been authenticated. Authentication will mean you have been authorized to post, and your posts will appear under that login name. But have you been identified? Not in any meaningful sense.
Authenticating is the act of confirming an identity..
I disagree. Authentication is the act of confirming that a token (in this case, the ID card) is authentic. If an official sees that my driver's license is authentic, I may drive. If my driver's license is authentic and it says I am over 21, I may enter a bar to drink. (I believe these latter causes are what you are referring to as authorization.)
Identification, on the other hand, is establishing who I am. The guy at the door of a bar doesn't really do that. He probably checks to see that the photo looks like me, but he doesn't know whether the photo really is me, and legally (in my jurisdiction, at least) he's not held to that standard. If the police suspect I'm showing them a fake ID, on the other hand, they will arrest me, because their purpose is not to check whether my ID is valid, but to actually know who I am.
Can you imagine if every time someone flew a confederate flag, it meant they wanted slavery back?
Uhhhh... yeah, out here in California it pretty much means just that (but probably not so much the slavery at this point, just the lynchings).
That's a very narrow definition of the word "censorship." Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to be the all-powerful leader of a totalitarian state to censor things. If you write a nasty letter to the newspaper that's full of four-letter words, and they choose to remove all the four-letter words when they print your letter, you haven't been gagged but you have been censored.
Similarly, if someone published an edition of Huckleberry Finn where all the "objectionable" words had been redacted with black rectangles like a FoIA request, I would consider that a "censored" edition. NewSouth is doing the same thing here, but instead of black rectangles it's replacing the words with other words -- which I believe is worse, because it actively distorts the text. You can no longer tell where and what redactions were made.
One could argue that Huck using the word was the whole point of the book. The boys are essentially innocents; at their age, they know nothing but what's been taught to them. Everything else, once they're out from under the influence of their parents, is learned wisdom -- right or wrong. Throughout the book, Huck not only calls Jim "nigger," but he has the nagging feeling that helping Jim stay free is wrong, because it would be like stealing Miss Watson's property. But however hateful and horrible these espoused beliefs sound -- and I think it's perfectly fine if they seem more hateful and horrible when viewed through a modern lens -- the important thing is that despite those nagging feelings, Huck still acts his conscience and helps Jim. When you actually read the book and don't just quote some passage where a character says "nigger" five times, you see how Twain is trying to illustrate not only how endemic racism was in the South, but how bankrupt it was: Give it to an honest child, make him repeat it over and over until the words are second nature to him, and he still won't be able to act on it.
That was my understanding, too. In fact, I'm signed up for a secondary authentication procedure with BofA, where if they don't recognize my computer, they send me an SMS with a code that I have to enter before I can proceed.
The scary part is, on at least two occasions I've been walking down the street and have received the SMS out of the blue. It's funny... you understand that people try to hack online banking accounts in principle, but it's a weird feeling when you know that someone is actively trying to hack your bank account, right now.
There's nothing novel or technically interesting about Facebook. It is not the be-all and end-all of useful tools. It's a way to build a vanity page for people who are too lazy to learn HTML.
You're thinking of MySpace. Facebook doesn't actually give you much by way of tools to build a vanity Web page (which is probably why it appeals much more to adults; you're not constantly stumbling into pages that look like a teenager's bedroom). In practice, Facebook is pretty similar to Twitter, only catering to a more "social" model rather than a "publishing" or "broadcast" model. Plus it has some games.
Actually, it seems to me that Garfinkel is conflating identification with authentication, when the two are not the same thing.
As other people have mentioned in this very same thread, it can be very difficult to tell anything about someone based on their Facebook profile. The classic example (with any kind of online forum) is a man masquerading as a woman, to mess with people or for whatever reason. If you can do that -- if it's really easy to do that -- then what you have is not a form of identification. It is a form of authentication -- it gets you logged onto the forum, but it doesn't really say anything about who you really are.
A driver's license is a form of identification. The government makes you show up, in person, get your photo taken, maybe give them your thumbprint (that's two forms of biometrics, right there), maybe link the database with your Social Security number -- whatever the state has decided is necessary. It's a whole lot different than signing up for a Facebook profile.
Where Garfinkel is getting confused is that while you do use a driver's license as a form of authentication, that's a separate thing from how you use it as a form of identification. When you show your driver's license to the guy at the door of a bar, the guy doesn't care who you are so long as the license looks valid and it says you're over 21. He's counting on the fact that the government issued you the ID -- the trust component -- to establish that you're of legal drinking age; nothing more. When you're stopped by the police, on the other hand, you absolutely are using that license as a form of identification, because the police will radio it in to make sure you really are who you say you are, and to find out some other things about you, as well.
Facebook, as it exists today, has an opportunity to provide the authentication feature, but not the identification feature. As such, if your Facebook "ID" is revoked, it doesn't really matter. It's not like getting your passport taken away; you just lose the ability to do that form of authentication. Because nobody wants your use of their site to be governed by Facebook, every site will offer an alternative way to authenticate (username and password, or whatever). If SSO via Facebook seems to be convenient for people, they will offer that, too.
Seems to me like these guys might be exaggerating a bit with the "20 minutes" estimates, but having owned 2-3 BlackBerrys I have to concur that rebooting is something you dread. I doubt there's a single BlackBerry owner who sits there and waits for it to finish. You walk away, make some coffee, go through the mail...
If your story is true, why on Earth wouldn't you call out the mobile carrier and handset manufacturer by name? It's not like you're a radio announcer and you have to say "a major mobile communications company" -- if somebody screwed you, by all means let everybody know about it. Otherwise what do you expect to change?
And if you walk into a store with a gun tucked in your pants, it's possession of a firearm, possibly with intent to commit robbery. If you stand outside your ex-wife's house at three in the morning, staring up at her window, it's harassment. Get my drift? Sometimes it's worth it for law enforcement to be a little, shall we say, preemptive.
Forcing people to be subjected to a needle is not far removed from murder. I'd say it's an egregious affront to civil liberty.
Take it from anybody who's old enough to have lost somebody they loved -- it's a lot fucking removed. Not to take away from your point about civil liberties, but get some perspective.
Precisely. It's kind of like the right to remain silent -- you want to deny the officers any opportunity to collect concrete, measurable evidence against you. You might still get charged with a crime, but it will likely be a crime that's far less severe than what you could have been charged with -- and if that's the case, often the DA might decide it's not worth going ahead with it, if your lawyer can come up with enough nitpicks.
I don't think Nazi Germany was going around giving people cancer, forcing blood tests on the street and installing guard towers in shopping center parking lots.
Sure, we aren't singling out Jews and Gays, but isn't that in a way EVEN WORSE?
And by "singling out," you mean murdering, right? If you seriously think curtailing your ability to drive drunk is in any way comparable to the Nazis dumping bodies into mass graves, you need to switch off talk radio right now, because you are a truly disgusting human being.
Their eventual goal is 0% legal BAC and probably after that, a complete prohibition on alcohol at all. And you know what? I think they'll eventually get it.
You're probably a little too young to remember, but it's been tried.
There's an obvious difference. A mandatory DUI test might be an unreasonable search -- or it might not. A mandatory driving test, on the other hand, is not a search.
The Fourth Amendment says people should be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects." These are all clearly material things, and don't include the contents of your brain. (That would be the Fifth Amendment, and that only applies to "bearing witness against oneself," not to an entirely voluntary test that is not even administered by the justice system). A physical search of your body by police, on the other hand -- such as a breath test -- does seem to fall in this category.
Furthermore, for most types of crimes -- even very serious ones -- there are no mandatory checkpoints. Police don't have the right to stop you on the street, for example, and go through your wallet and ask you for a receipt from the bank for any cash you might have, to prove you're not a thief. A married man does not have to pass wife-beating checkpoints, where police demand that his wife wipe off her makeup to prove that her face doesn't have bruises on it. When you take your kids to Disneyland, police can't take your blood to run a curbside paternity test, to prove you're not a kidnapper. And police don't have a right to demand that your girlfriend have sex with them to prove that she likes sex -- because if she doesn't like sex then you must be a rapist. (You think such things have never happened?)
Mandatory DUI tests might be "reasonable" if they help to reduce the amount of injury and death due to traffic accidents. I feel, however, that in this aim they work best as a deterrent, and when police pursue cases with too much vigor it starts to look like a quota game -- a way to make the police department look good by producing trumped-up statistics -- than a real societal benefit.
I look at that the same way I look at the Kai's Power Tools "Drop Shadow" filters that were so popular in the late 90s. You don't see much of that effect anymore. These days it's the "I see a slight mirror image below the object, as if it was sitting on a flawless white counter top" filter. And that one will get old soon, too. In general, automated digital processes do a fundamentally poor job of mimicking processes that are highly "analog" (read: variable and subject to myriad physical conditions) in the real world. Once your eye starts to detect the "I clicked on a menu and made it happen" effect, you start to tire of it. IMHO, of course.
That photo the way you saw it on the cover of National Geographic, and on the link you provided? That's digital.
Pretty sure National Geographic wasn't doing digital publishing in 1984, but I get your point. But so what?
Chances are, you've never seen the "Mona Lisa." I've seen it. But unless you've been to Paris, France and stood in line at the Louvre, you probably haven't. You've only ever seen it in print or in digital, and either way that was probably transferred from a second intermediate step, film.
So could a modern-day Leonardo create the "Mona Lisa" entirely using digital tools? Sure. Didn't I say that in my original post? But I'll wager most artists would still want to and use oil paints to produce an image like that.
Likewise, I don't know many photographers who think it's "trivial" to produce images that look like Kodachrome using a purely digital process. YMMV of course.
Cue some 'romantic' shit about how Kodachrome has some unmeasurable orgasmic quality over anything else...
It doesn't have to be "romantic shit." Kodachrome does have qualities that are different from anything else. Irreplaceable qualities? Unreproducible qualities? Maybe not. But until you've tried to shoot actual creative photographs (as opposed to "I wanna see this later" snapshots), you don't understand what a complex and highly analog process it is -- even for digital cameras.
Between shutter speeds, apertures, film ISO, lenses, flash timings, and just plain holding the camera in the right place at the right time, there are a lot of variables. In film stock there are variables also, much like how two different digital SLR cameras will produce different-looking pictures of the same thing under the same lighting conditions.
Can you fiddle with an exposure in Photoshop until most film snobs would swear it's a Kodachrome image? Sure. Is that a worthwhile way to spend your time? You tell me.
Bottom line: No, if you hand a roll of Kodachrome to an inexperienced photographer, he's not going to be able to take any better pictures than he would with any other film. On the other hand, in the hands of an experience photographer who understands Kodachrome and knows how to get what he wants from it, the film stock can make the difference between an OK photograph and a great one. It's kind of like playing an electric guitar: Whether your amp is tube or solid-state, your guitar and your amp -- in your hands -- is going to sound different from the guy down the street's. You play what works for you.
Kodachrome "worked" for a lot of photographers for many years. That picture from National Geographic of the Afghan girl with the crazy green eyes that you've seen a million times? That's Kodachrome.
I don't know. Nothing?
Automobile technology isn't going away either, but that doesn't mean obsoleted automobiles aren't "interesting items" for museums. Especially automotive museums. (Car analogy enough for you?)
Isn't this essentially what the TV show The Wire was all about? Numbers games don't work.
Statistically, IQ plots as a bell curve. (Forget the controversy about the book of the same name from a few years back -- statistically, most qualities about large random samples, from hair color to ice cream preference, look like bell curves.) What that means is that most people are typical, some people are above average, and some will fall below the average. No-brainer, right? But when you ask teachers to up their statistics -- to report a sample that doesn't look like a bell curve -- you're either expecting to plan your school budget based on a statistical anomaly or, more probably, you're asking the teachers to change nature. And if you peg the teachers' salaries on their ability to change nature, you're basically asking them to lie -- or, to put it another way, to cheat.
So, if I am a professional, and all my peers are professionals, I can't go to school?
Seriously. I went back to school to take some classes at my local community college after spending 10 years as a professional writer and magazine editor. In order to enroll in the school at the course load I wanted, they made me take an English placement exam. I got 100 percent on the test (not surprisingly), which placed me into ... English 1A. Yes, that's right, if I wanted my courses to "count" in the way that I did, I needed to enroll in an English 1A class and sit there with a bunch of kids right out of high school.
The really shocking thing, though, was not how poorly prepared these kids were to be in English 1A, but how little they were learning from the class itself. It was the English Department's policy that they would not correct your grammar or suggest specific changes to your papers. The staff felt that was high school's job, and apparently that part of your English education was now over. They would only give you vague hints by offering leading questions and comparisons to other papers. When you turned in a rough draft it would be offered back to you with a grade, maybe a sentence saying "make it more clear," and no other red marks on the entire paper. During discussion periods I was able to talk to a few of the kids one-on-one and offer them some more concrete advice, and on average their scores went up about one full grade when they turned in their final papers. Unfortunately, by talking to them it appears I encouraged them all to cheat.
The real problem is that people are lazy and want to get the best return for the smallest investment.
One man's laziness is another man's efficiency. Take morality and ethics out of the equation and the two are virtually synonymous.