Or, the story with time viewing, where people are desperate to see past events, even though it turns out that the technology has an inherent limit well within living memory? So you get spies using it (to see the near-present), and people endlessly mourning over lost moments in their own lives. I can't even remember who wrote that...
That sounds like a story by Asimov. I can't remember the title, but the lead character has a fixation on Carthage and has heard about time viewing, but is frustrated that the gov. won't accept his proposals to study Carthage, so he hires a scientist to make a viewer for him on contract. It's only after the viewer is complete that he finds out it loses resolution as it goes farther back in time, so there's a limit to how far back they can see clearly. His wife, who has never let go of the loss of their son in a house fire, gets the device, and keeps replaying his death and gov. agents come knocking on his door. He tells them they've already made sure their results would be published so the gov. can't stop them and destroying their machine won't do any good. The agents point out to him the past that can be viewed includes events as recent as a millisecond ago, and now he's given people a tool to watch suspicious spouses and to look in on anything happening anywhere in the world -- resulting in no views of Carthage that he wanted, but in a world without privacy.
If you're interested in some good background on Hollywood from a writer's perspective, read up on J. Michael Straczynski's posts in r.a.s.t.b5.moderated or any of the other archives. JMS is the brain behind Babylon 5 (for those that don't know). He points out the many ways writers are screwed over, but he also demonstrated, by his own career, how that can be overcome.
Actually, it's not that producers regard the credits lightly, it's that they don't want to give them out. I remember a discussion on the 'net once about how someone said they'd be eager to write something for nothing more than credit. They didn't realize that credit is a big thing to Screenwriters beyond just getting their name on the screen. For example, to get in the Writers Guild of America, you need to have done a certain amount of "professional" work. I forgot the details, but I think it could be 2 scripts of 1 hour TV length, or 1 feature film. Since much of the industry runs on fear (and the need to outdo everyone else), people can be very stingy on letting people get credit. It can be used later in negotiations and to help one advance in a career. If you're a Hollywood producer, you don't want a write to move up, otherwise you'll pay them more the next time, and might have to make other concessions.
All this mess is a big reason why, after Trek shifted, I gave up on trying to write for TV or film out there. While the Trek people were pretty cool and not as weird as others, that was an isolated situation. Instead I busted my butt for years and will soon have my own production company (built on the company I have now). I'll be able to write my scripts and produce and direct them on my own terms. They won't be on the big screen (at least for a while), but they'll be what I want and there won't be a team of writers/producers/directors 2nd guessing everything I write. There'll be no test screenings to force re-editing and the whole cast and crew will focus on nothing but making the best production possible. When it's done, we distribute it on DVD.
It's not the level of fame and money I'd get from a studio, but it means I'll be one of the few writers alive who can write what they want and make sure it gets put on screen the way it was intended, not the way it'll be after a dozen people piss on the script like a dog does on a tree to say, "I'm here, look at me!"
The credits "story by" and "based on" are two entirely DIFFERENT credits, with different meanings. "Based on" means the script (or outline) is based on a story, novel, poem or other work that was pre-existing and (except in a few cases) was written for it's own sake, and not intended to be part of the process of making a movie. If I write a novel, even if I am hoping it will be turned into a movie, and a producer buys rights and someone else does all the writing form then on, I'd get a "based on" credit.
"Story by" means someone wrote the story for the screenplay under contract. I'll use ST: Next Gen as an example (I'd doing this because I came very close to selling to them and had essentially an open door to pitch to them until G.R. died and some things got reshuffled -- it's a TV show, not a movie, but the points are the same). When I pitched a story to Trek, if they bought it, they would likely pay me for the story. I'd write up a story (NOT a screenplay), broken down into acts to give the general outline of the story, along with some sense of the timing of the plot. If I'm lucky, and they think I can do it, THEN they'd offer me the chance to write the script. If you look at the credits on ST:TNG (and many TV shows), often there is a credit "Story by" -- that means that writer wrote the story, but (in most cases) someone else took that story (or outline) and actually wrote the script.
It'd be possible for one person (called Author) write a novel, a producer to buy rights, and assign a writer (called Adaptor) to write a story outline to base a script on, and to pay yet another writer (called ScreenWriter) to write the script. In true Hollywood style, they'd probably hire yet another writer (called Rewriter) to re-write the script (whether it needed or not). The credits would be something like:
Based on the novel by Author.
Story by Adaptor.
Written by ScreenWriter And ReWriter
I can't remember for sure, but I think "&" was used to indicate to writers working together (like "Jane & John Doe") and "and" was used to distingiush between writers that worked on different drafts.
Oh, you're just so clever, intelligent, and witty. You're right, I've lost. There's no way anyone can compete with you're oh-so-subtle and amazing wit.
I just can't wait to see how clever you are after you finish school, grow up, and learn to write.
Maybe the language change would change more, maybe not. It's a short story.
I read it for the first time in 8th grade and hadn't re-read it for decades (not that I avoided it, but I'm not much on re-reading -- except for Shakespeare). It had such a strong impact on me I that I remembered most of it, almost scene-by-scene.
To me that's effective. If it weren't, I'd have forgotten it like I did most of the stories in that anthology, but this story made such a strong impression I remembered many parts of it clearly for decades.
I write myself, and I would feel that any story I wrote that had that strong an impact on a reader was a definite success. Maybe some technical details were wrong (who knows -- we don't have the experiece to be sure), but any story that can leave an impression that lasts for decades is worth recognition.
And Ray Bradbury has always been more interested in the "poetry" of what he writes. It has a wonderful impact and is a good story. Do you want to mess up all that (the timing, the pacing, the setup, theme, and everything else), but insisting he spend more time on making it perfect?
If it was a matter of physics, that's one thing, but when you consider that we don't even know WHAT effects changing a timeline would really have, is it really necessary to pick on details like that?
To me, the original story was a great short. The ending was perfect and there was a great timing to everything.
But to make it movie length, it sounds like the bulk of the plot in the movie takes place after the ending of the story. If you want to make a story about time travel changing the present, why ruin a great short by turning it into a preface to another story? Why not just come up with a simple reason history is changed and THEN tell the story about dealing with the changes?
I love Ray Bradbury's stories. There's a wonderful sense of timing, rhythm, playfulness, poetry, horror, and fun. It sounds like some of the most important elements of what makes a Bradbury story so good are being ignored here.
Maybe, instead of wasting the time and money to see this, I'll find a DVD of Francois Truffaut's adaption of Farheinheit 451 and watch that instead.
I had the same problem -- I had a program that had to be installed by an Administrator, but I had to change the permissions on all the files for certain people and/or groups to use them. My app had to run on Windows XP and 2K.
I Googled and found out about a command named "cacls". It can be used from the command line to change all the permission settings on any files or folders to allow any users or groups to use it.
I'll leave it up to others to post more information on this, since I don't have the info in front of me and since this seems like too easy a question for Ask Slashdot (perhaps another Ask SlashGoogle?) -- unless I completely misunderstand the question.
Re:'I, personally," + yes, you WILL teach special
on
The Flickering Mind
·
· Score: 1
I fail to see any reason why they should be included in normal education
Aren't you glad someone didn't say that those with poor people skills and an inability to relate to other people didnt' say that about you? Gifted in IQ you may be, but in terms or your ability to understand and relate to people, you are working at an elementary school level. Yes, that's a judgemental comment. It's a judgement based on years of experience working with people with emotional and developmental difficulties.
You are so busy judging people that fall short of your standards, you don't realize that in many ways you fall short of quite a few standards yourself. You may have the high IQ, but it is quite clear you do not know how to use it to work with people.
You do not have any sense of balance in life. You demonstrate an inability to understand anything beyond pure intelligence and knowledge. You are lucky you were shunted into the gifted program, since you have shown that you do not understand how to survive in normal social situations. All that intelligence, yet you are unable to see the intrinsic value of each person as an individual, or to understand the value in the wide variety of human experiences.
So basically, you value info and knowledge, but devalue emotions and the human experience.
You've said worlds about yourself that you may not realize. Your focus is on the intellect. If you truly "undervalue things that have only emotive value" (sounds like an uncompassionate Vulcan to me), then forget relationships, romance, family, or anything else. They're all about emotions.
Actually, when you look at humans, we are emotional beings first, and only after that are we intellectual. You might want to explore that side of the human experience when you are willing to take time to explore new territory, instead of staying in the intellectual realm, where it's always safe.
I've worked with students and peers who have a similar attitude -- that the emotional side is not substantial. Very few find real joy because they don't reach out and risk true feelings or passion.
They can take their own notes from the material, or is there going to be a teacher around every time they need to take notes on a text? It is a far more valuable skill to be able to independently learn than to depend forever on some talking head.
The whole point of having students take notes, instead of handing out pre-written notes is so they learn it. Earlier you said it was not necessary for them to take notes. This statement is a great example of why it is necessary for students to take notes. There won't always be a teacher around, so they need to learn that "far more valuable" skill to be able to do it on their own. They won't learn this if the teachers keep handing them the notes. In other words, if you had your way and teachers distributed notes by wi-fi, they wouldn't learn this skill.
Me personally could not care less for them and I treat them indifferently as subhumans sort of like I do dogs and cats.
I'm sorry to hear this. I cannot begin to quantify how much I've learned from my students -- far more than if I had taught in a "regular" classroom.
We can say whatever we want, but our actions show who we are. I can say I'm anything I want to be, or describe myself in any manner I want, but it is ultimately my actions that show who I am. A large amount of my time was spent teaching in residential treatment programs. I learned that how we treat others says a lot about who we are. We cannot denigrate someone without denigrating ourselves. We cannot hold someone down in the gutter without standing on top of them. When we show disrespect for others, we ultimately show that we don't have full respect for ourselves. It is a reaction to compensate for our own fears and insecurities.
It is clear you are more focused and interested in the subject matter than in people and in helping people reach their full potential. That has always been my intent in teaching and I have found that those whom many have ignored often surprise us in what they can do and what they can teach us. After all, wasn't it a student who had trouble in Math who eventually came up with E=MC(squared)?
By writing off a whole group of people as good Wal-Mart greeters, you are saying that as humans, these people do not count. You are creating a yardstick and saying whoever doesn't meet your standards is worthless. Aren't you lucky those in charge haven't done the same thing and created a yardstick which would find you lacking?
One cannot denigrate and disrespect others merely for what they are without first disrespecting himself.
If you cannot use a textbook to read through the examples than do the problems by yourself than you most likely will not grasp the conceptual basis upon which the subject rests.
I suppose it'd be possible to be more wrong than this, but it'd be hard. I've worked with a wide variety of text books. Some are good for nothing but providing problems to use for homework. Some provide good examples, but poor explainations. As a Special Ed teacher, I've taught many subjects (English, Math, Science, Algebra, Geometry, General Math, plus assisting in many classrooms in other subjects), and I've had to learn more than most teachers about how people learn and how to teach so students learn. In my experience (and I've heard education professors support this), Math texts tend to be the WORST in presenting information so students can actually understand it. Math teachers, in particular, feel that they present their material in an organized and logical manner, but surveys have shown that they tend, as a group, to be the worst in doing this (I think this was in "A Place Called School", but I regret that I can't be positive as to the source).
Students really do NEED the examples in class and a chance to see someone working the problems.
from my students that those who watch TV see "pretty pictures" as entertainment
From a brief overview, you have a very limited exposure to what really happens with large numbers of students. In short, there are a number of different learning styles. Some students are auditory learners. They learn little from reading, but absorb from hearing. Others need to take notes and write down what they're learning, otherwise they won't absorb. Some people (and these often make good athletes) learn by motion. If you want to teach such a student how to solve equations, you can do it by having students representing variables and numbers and move them back and forth from one side of the classroom to another as you work through the equation. They will learn more by moving back and forth than you can teach them in hours of lecturing or days of them reading a text book.
Show you what, I can do step by step presentations with powerpoint and for any questions during class I still use the markerboard.
I am very glad to hear this. This is the first thing in your posts that I've read that shows an awareness of addressing the students needs, instead of soapbox teaching. I'm sorry if I sound cruel, I'm not trying to be, but a lot of what you've said sounds like it goes against everything I've learned in student teaching and 10 years in a classroom. I hope that the impression I have is wrong, and that this comment is more representive of how you teach than some others.
A teacher should stand in front of the class facving them not constantly turning to the markerboard or chalkboard. It wastes time and looks unprofessional
Interesting comment. After thinking about it, I would have LOVED to have whiteboard software, and it would be great to be able to face my students all the time. But that's a side point. The bottom line is that teacher has knowledge and has the responsibility of presenting the material in such a way that the students not only learn the facts, but understand the facts and methods included. A good teacher can do this with very little extra. All the technology in the world won't help a poor teacher excel in doing this.
There are people who like to talk about the course material and get inovolved in every detail. These are the ones who care more about the material than the students. Often they regurgitate and expect the student to take the responsibility to put the information together in whatever way they can.
There are people who go out of their way to find out about the many ways that people learn. They find ways to determine how everyone in the group learns -- which ones are auditory learners, which are tactile or motion learners, which are visual learners. Once they know how all this, they go out of their way to present the information in not just one way, but in a multiplicity of ways, to make sure all students understan and feel comfortable with that information. Such people are teachers.
why would I use a chalkbord or a markerboard to sketch out things when I could of had all of that already prepared and formalized months or years in advance with a flash animation or a simple jpeg?
I never said you shouldn't have those tools available. Only that a good teacher could teach without them. The tools don't make a poor teacher good. If the ability to teach is there, then lack of tools won't get in the way. If someone needs these tools to teach, then they don't understand the art and craft of teaching and only see the idea of transferring data from one point to another.
There's nothing wrong with using animations, but if they're prepared months in advance, there's no interaction. What if yesterday's class included unexpected questions, or there was a recent news article that puts a different perspective on what you were going to cover? The animation helps, but it's only a tool. As conditions change, it is up to the teacher to change with them. This happens every minute of every day. If you depend on prepared animations and presentations, you'll end up with a very mechanical teaching style. In the long run, you'll find fewer and fewer students respecting you.
Why should students have to take notes in the class when I can transfer to them with the IR port on my laptop or through wifi?
I'm so glad this comment/question comes from a "future teacher" and not a teacher. There are many reasons for taking notes in class. Some students need the activity to help them absorb the material (if they're kinetic learners, they need this to learn). Students need to develop the ability to listen to the teacher, select what is important, and include that. This discretion is not easily taught in one or two classes, but is developed over years of taking notes and learning what ends up on the test and what doesn't. It also helps students develop organizational skills as they learn not only what to put in their notes, but how to organize and study them in a way that works best for them. There are a large number of decision making and organizational skills students learn from note taking. By giving students the notes, you help them learn one subject, but short change them on many more. Instead of teaching them to fish so they can feed themselves for a lifetime, you're giving them the fish so they can eat for today. You are making them overly dependent on you.
If students did not take the time to read the material beforehand and write down things they did not understand than screw them.
You've never taught below high school level, have you? This touches on many of the skills mentioned above -- maybe they can read ahead, maybe not, but you have to work with them to help them learn what they need to learn from the textbooks. This statement actually almost contradicts the one before it.
I'm there to take questions and clarify things for the slower folk not rehash, reiterate or regurgitate material
You're there to clarify for EVERYONE, not just "slower folk" (As a former Special Ed teacher, I am offended by this statement, but I'll ignore it on the grounds that so much of this post has shown that you have not had enough training yet to really understand the teaching and learning process). You ARE there to reiterate material, often in different ways, until the students get it. That's part of teaching. If you don't like it, get a job running your mouth as a lecturer in some other career.
Well we can't get into that, that is for later in the semester
You've never had to deal with lesson plans or the pressure of needing to cover a certain amount of material to meet requirements for the Standards of Learning, have you? Or you've never had to deal with questions that lead to answers that depend on material that will be covered over the course of 2-3 days, have you? Such an answer (or "It's in another class") is not selfish. It's just a fact of practical life. Sometimes the answer is best left un
I agree, for the most part. But, remember, to someone who knows almost nothing about computers, anyone who can install programs seems like an uber-geek. When you don't know anything, anyone who knows more can be intimidating.
But, even with that in mind, you're right and it's not good to see teachers who are scared of computers.
As for salaries -- I left teaching in 1996. Just this month I finally got to the point where my personal income is more than what I made as a teacher (my company may have made more, but there are many expenses that come before my check!). Before I started my company, I had a number of jobs. I do not think teacher pay is as bad as some say. It is true, for the amount of responsibility, it should be double, but it's not poverty.
You're right, in part. But if the kid doesn't get an education, s/he'll end up in a low pay job or welfare or prison and be a drain on the system.
I think parents should be held responsible for their kids behavior. Simple exmaple: If the kid trashes a room and won't clean it up, or damages property, the parent is required to come in and clean it up and pay for damages, or face legal action. In my experience many parents don't enforce discipline because they can get away with it and are at about the same maturity level as their kids (often the case when 13 or 14 year olds have babies, which I had to deal with much more than I would have expected).
We have a county nearby (Henrico County, VA), where all the students (or maybe all High School students) have Powerbooks. The school system administration definately believes that computers are an answer.
But, when saying that it is evidence that educators believe this, please remember educators is a wide range. In my experience, these decisions are made by administrators who haven't worked in a classroom in a decade or more and the teachers have little or no input.
I'd paraphrase and say it's evidence education administrators, instead of educators as a whole, that believe it.
I have never found a teacher who gave me any reason to believe they thought computers where an "answer" instead of just another teaching tool.
As a former teacher, I'd have to agree that teaches do NOT believe computers are the solution. Many teachers avoid computers, since their students know so much more about them than they do.
On the other hand, I have seen cases where politicians are more interested in looking good than in fixing the real problems (would you believe that!?), and come up with plans to use computers and claiming they'll fix all the troubles.
The bottom line is the teacher-student relationship. That is one of the most important factors in teaching. A good teacher (as long as they have support in discipline issues), can teach students with nothing but a blackboard and chalk for the teacher and paper and pencils for the students. Any teacher who thinks computers are the solution should find another job! On the other end, a good teacher who learns how to use computers, could find many ways to integrate them into the classroom and assignments.
I mentioned support on discipline. In my experience, if politicians and educators want to focus on one "answer" that will have the greatest effect on improving education, that's the one subject to tackle: making sure teachers get support on enforcing appropriate classroom behavior. (Just one example: I had an obnoxious student. I had worked with him, kept him after school, given him disciplinary assignments, talked on the phone many times with his parents, and nothing worked. I finally wrote up a referral for him to see the assistant principal. 6 weeks later the referal was in my mailbox with a sticky note saying, "Has this been resolved?" without the principal ever seeing the student. The next year this assistant princiapal was promoted to principal of the county's new school. If you want solutions for education, censure administrators like that and focus on discipline, not on adding computers.) (Sorry for the rant, but it's to point out there are many worse problems in education than worrying about using computers.)
Okay, you're right. I'm wrong. Obviously you know every little detail and have much more time on your hands on a Friday night than I do so you can spend your evening disecting this.
But, to someone who knows Java and knows almost nothing about C++ (like me), it's a good start. True, it doesn't tell you EVERYTHING, but it's a start.
On the other hand, as many point out, it really takes at least a year or more to learn C++. Isn't that true with any complex language?
It was probably as easy as typing in "C++ for Java" (since he's looking to learn C++, NOT Java), but taking time to think it through would have taken too much time, wouldn't it?
GUI installers for the brain dead people who just want the look and feel of Windows, without the intelligence to know how to use the OS without a GUI
Or, perhaps, for people that have enough going on that they don't have time to mess around with an install that requires them taking hours or days futzing with things to have them "just perfect."
I've worked with most of the major distros. I use Mandrake, and one big reason is the installer. I am running a business, and I want to be as productive as possible (and I expect the same of my employees). I don't want someone mucking around with Debian, installing it, then having to set up the DVD separately, then adding devices for the USB drives, and going on and on and on.
Just grab Mandrake, click through the install, and go on with your job or life.
I can understand those who think anything with a GUI is for "brain dead" people (for the record, this "brain dead" person qualifies for Mensa membership, so I don't think that argument holds water). They want to make sure they set up everything exactly their way.
I know it's cliche, but for those people, who denigrate all who use GUIs, perhaps if you had other things to do in your job and life, you might understand why many of us have to use the simple version, and get back to what we have to do other than install Linux.
You might not like GUIs, but that doesn't make them evil. You may like feeling superior because you use what most people (even most Linux users) don't use, but that doesn't mean your way is better. It certainly doesn't mean their way is worse.
It just means you have a strong opinion and want to call people who disagree with you nasty names.
Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb.
Must be. On any stupidity scale, I'd rank using an obvious combo for an atmosphere shield that protects the whole planet a lot higher than using the same combon on luggage!
Kind of like setting the password for your atmospheric shield to 1-2-3-4-5, then later finding out it's the same combination President Skroob uses for his luggage.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, the story with time viewing, where people are desperate to see past events, even though it turns out that the technology has an inherent limit well within living memory? So you get spies using it (to see the near-present), and people endlessly mourning over lost moments in their own lives. I can't even remember who wrote that...
That sounds like a story by Asimov. I can't remember the title, but the lead character has a fixation on Carthage and has heard about time viewing, but is frustrated that the gov. won't accept his proposals to study Carthage, so he hires a scientist to make a viewer for him on contract. It's only after the viewer is complete that he finds out it loses resolution as it goes farther back in time, so there's a limit to how far back they can see clearly. His wife, who has never let go of the loss of their son in a house fire, gets the device, and keeps replaying his death and gov. agents come knocking on his door. He tells them they've already made sure their results would be published so the gov. can't stop them and destroying their machine won't do any good. The agents point out to him the past that can be viewed includes events as recent as a millisecond ago, and now he's given people a tool to watch suspicious spouses and to look in on anything happening anywhere in the world -- resulting in no views of Carthage that he wanted, but in a world without privacy.
If you're interested in some good background on Hollywood from a writer's perspective, read up on J. Michael Straczynski's posts in r.a.s.t.b5.moderated or any of the other archives. JMS is the brain behind Babylon 5 (for those that don't know). He points out the many ways writers are screwed over, but he also demonstrated, by his own career, how that can be overcome.
Actually, it's not that producers regard the credits lightly, it's that they don't want to give them out. I remember a discussion on the 'net once about how someone said they'd be eager to write something for nothing more than credit. They didn't realize that credit is a big thing to Screenwriters beyond just getting their name on the screen. For example, to get in the Writers Guild of America, you need to have done a certain amount of "professional" work. I forgot the details, but I think it could be 2 scripts of 1 hour TV length, or 1 feature film. Since much of the industry runs on fear (and the need to outdo everyone else), people can be very stingy on letting people get credit. It can be used later in negotiations and to help one advance in a career. If you're a Hollywood producer, you don't want a write to move up, otherwise you'll pay them more the next time, and might have to make other concessions.
All this mess is a big reason why, after Trek shifted, I gave up on trying to write for TV or film out there. While the Trek people were pretty cool and not as weird as others, that was an isolated situation. Instead I busted my butt for years and will soon have my own production company (built on the company I have now). I'll be able to write my scripts and produce and direct them on my own terms. They won't be on the big screen (at least for a while), but they'll be what I want and there won't be a team of writers/producers/directors 2nd guessing everything I write. There'll be no test screenings to force re-editing and the whole cast and crew will focus on nothing but making the best production possible. When it's done, we distribute it on DVD.
It's not the level of fame and money I'd get from a studio, but it means I'll be one of the few writers alive who can write what they want and make sure it gets put on screen the way it was intended, not the way it'll be after a dozen people piss on the script like a dog does on a tree to say, "I'm here, look at me!"
Nope.
Decided there was really no need for me to hide behind that.
I'm not ashamed of what I post. If I were, I wouldn't post it. Simple as that.
The credits "story by" and "based on" are two entirely DIFFERENT credits, with different meanings. "Based on" means the script (or outline) is based on a story, novel, poem or other work that was pre-existing and (except in a few cases) was written for it's own sake, and not intended to be part of the process of making a movie. If I write a novel, even if I am hoping it will be turned into a movie, and a producer buys rights and someone else does all the writing form then on, I'd get a "based on" credit.
"Story by" means someone wrote the story for the screenplay under contract. I'll use ST: Next Gen as an example (I'd doing this because I came very close to selling to them and had essentially an open door to pitch to them until G.R. died and some things got reshuffled -- it's a TV show, not a movie, but the points are the same). When I pitched a story to Trek, if they bought it, they would likely pay me for the story. I'd write up a story (NOT a screenplay), broken down into acts to give the general outline of the story, along with some sense of the timing of the plot. If I'm lucky, and they think I can do it, THEN they'd offer me the chance to write the script. If you look at the credits on ST:TNG (and many TV shows), often there is a credit "Story by" -- that means that writer wrote the story, but (in most cases) someone else took that story (or outline) and actually wrote the script.
It'd be possible for one person (called Author) write a novel, a producer to buy rights, and assign a writer (called Adaptor) to write a story outline to base a script on, and to pay yet another writer (called ScreenWriter) to write the script. In true Hollywood style, they'd probably hire yet another writer (called Rewriter) to re-write the script (whether it needed or not). The credits would be something like:
Based on the novel by Author.
Story by Adaptor.
Written by
ScreenWriter
And
ReWriter
I can't remember for sure, but I think "&" was used to indicate to writers working together (like "Jane & John Doe") and "and" was used to distingiush between writers that worked on different drafts.
Oh, you're just so clever, intelligent, and witty. You're right, I've lost. There's no way anyone can compete with you're oh-so-subtle and amazing wit.
I just can't wait to see how clever you are after you finish school, grow up, and learn to write.
Maybe the language change would change more, maybe not. It's a short story.
I read it for the first time in 8th grade and hadn't re-read it for decades (not that I avoided it, but I'm not much on re-reading -- except for Shakespeare). It had such a strong impact on me I that I remembered most of it, almost scene-by-scene.
To me that's effective. If it weren't, I'd have forgotten it like I did most of the stories in that anthology, but this story made such a strong impression I remembered many parts of it clearly for decades.
I write myself, and I would feel that any story I wrote that had that strong an impact on a reader was a definite success. Maybe some technical details were wrong (who knows -- we don't have the experiece to be sure), but any story that can leave an impression that lasts for decades is worth recognition.
Hey, it's just a short story.
And Ray Bradbury has always been more interested in the "poetry" of what he writes. It has a wonderful impact and is a good story. Do you want to mess up all that (the timing, the pacing, the setup, theme, and everything else), but insisting he spend more time on making it perfect?
If it was a matter of physics, that's one thing, but when you consider that we don't even know WHAT effects changing a timeline would really have, is it really necessary to pick on details like that?
Check the date. It's August 29, 2002. I wonder what he thinks about it now -- after seeing all the changes and the last script version.
I just read the synopsis in the link.
To me, the original story was a great short. The ending was perfect and there was a great timing to everything.
But to make it movie length, it sounds like the bulk of the plot in the movie takes place after the ending of the story. If you want to make a story about time travel changing the present, why ruin a great short by turning it into a preface to another story? Why not just come up with a simple reason history is changed and THEN tell the story about dealing with the changes?
I love Ray Bradbury's stories. There's a wonderful sense of timing, rhythm, playfulness, poetry, horror, and fun. It sounds like some of the most important elements of what makes a Bradbury story so good are being ignored here.
Maybe, instead of wasting the time and money to see this, I'll find a DVD of Francois Truffaut's adaption of Farheinheit 451 and watch that instead.
I had the same problem -- I had a program that had to be installed by an Administrator, but I had to change the permissions on all the files for certain people and/or groups to use them. My app had to run on Windows XP and 2K.
I Googled and found out about a command named "cacls". It can be used from the command line to change all the permission settings on any files or folders to allow any users or groups to use it.
I'll leave it up to others to post more information on this, since I don't have the info in front of me and since this seems like too easy a question for Ask Slashdot (perhaps another Ask SlashGoogle?) -- unless I completely misunderstand the question.
I fail to see any reason why they should be included in normal education
Aren't you glad someone didn't say that those with poor people skills and an inability to relate to other people didnt' say that about you? Gifted in IQ you may be, but in terms or your ability to understand and relate to people, you are working at an elementary school level. Yes, that's a judgemental comment. It's a judgement based on years of experience working with people with emotional and developmental difficulties.
You are so busy judging people that fall short of your standards, you don't realize that in many ways you fall short of quite a few standards yourself. You may have the high IQ, but it is quite clear you do not know how to use it to work with people.
You do not have any sense of balance in life. You demonstrate an inability to understand anything beyond pure intelligence and knowledge. You are lucky you were shunted into the gifted program, since you have shown that you do not understand how to survive in normal social situations. All that intelligence, yet you are unable to see the intrinsic value of each person as an individual, or to understand the value in the wide variety of human experiences.
So basically, you value info and knowledge, but devalue emotions and the human experience.
You've said worlds about yourself that you may not realize. Your focus is on the intellect. If you truly "undervalue things that have only emotive value" (sounds like an uncompassionate Vulcan to me), then forget relationships, romance, family, or anything else. They're all about emotions.
Actually, when you look at humans, we are emotional beings first, and only after that are we intellectual. You might want to explore that side of the human experience when you are willing to take time to explore new territory, instead of staying in the intellectual realm, where it's always safe.
I've worked with students and peers who have a similar attitude -- that the emotional side is not substantial. Very few find real joy because they don't reach out and risk true feelings or passion.
I hope this is not the case with you.
They can take their own notes from the material, or is there going to be a teacher around every time they need to take notes on a text? It is a far more valuable skill to be able to independently learn than to depend forever on some talking head.
The whole point of having students take notes, instead of handing out pre-written notes is so they learn it. Earlier you said it was not necessary for them to take notes. This statement is a great example of why it is necessary for students to take notes. There won't always be a teacher around, so they need to learn that "far more valuable" skill to be able to do it on their own. They won't learn this if the teachers keep handing them the notes. In other words, if you had your way and teachers distributed notes by wi-fi, they wouldn't learn this skill.
Me personally could not care less for them and I treat them indifferently as subhumans sort of like I do dogs and cats.
I'm sorry to hear this. I cannot begin to quantify how much I've learned from my students -- far more than if I had taught in a "regular" classroom.
We can say whatever we want, but our actions show who we are. I can say I'm anything I want to be, or describe myself in any manner I want, but it is ultimately my actions that show who I am. A large amount of my time was spent teaching in residential treatment programs. I learned that how we treat others says a lot about who we are. We cannot denigrate someone without denigrating ourselves. We cannot hold someone down in the gutter without standing on top of them. When we show disrespect for others, we ultimately show that we don't have full respect for ourselves. It is a reaction to compensate for our own fears and insecurities.
It is clear you are more focused and interested in the subject matter than in people and in helping people reach their full potential. That has always been my intent in teaching and I have found that those whom many have ignored often surprise us in what they can do and what they can teach us. After all, wasn't it a student who had trouble in Math who eventually came up with E=MC(squared)?
By writing off a whole group of people as good Wal-Mart greeters, you are saying that as humans, these people do not count. You are creating a yardstick and saying whoever doesn't meet your standards is worthless. Aren't you lucky those in charge haven't done the same thing and created a yardstick which would find you lacking?
One cannot denigrate and disrespect others merely for what they are without first disrespecting himself.
If you cannot use a textbook to read through the examples than do the problems by yourself than you most likely will not grasp the conceptual basis upon which the subject rests.
I suppose it'd be possible to be more wrong than this, but it'd be hard. I've worked with a wide variety of text books. Some are good for nothing but providing problems to use for homework. Some provide good examples, but poor explainations. As a Special Ed teacher, I've taught many subjects (English, Math, Science, Algebra, Geometry, General Math, plus assisting in many classrooms in other subjects), and I've had to learn more than most teachers about how people learn and how to teach so students learn. In my experience (and I've heard education professors support this), Math texts tend to be the WORST in presenting information so students can actually understand it. Math teachers, in particular, feel that they present their material in an organized and logical manner, but surveys have shown that they tend, as a group, to be the worst in doing this (I think this was in "A Place Called School", but I regret that I can't be positive as to the source).
Students really do NEED the examples in class and a chance to see someone working the problems.
from my students that those who watch TV see "pretty pictures" as entertainment
From a brief overview, you have a very limited exposure to what really happens with large numbers of students. In short, there are a number of different learning styles. Some students are auditory learners. They learn little from reading, but absorb from hearing. Others need to take notes and write down what they're learning, otherwise they won't absorb. Some people (and these often make good athletes) learn by motion. If you want to teach such a student how to solve equations, you can do it by having students representing variables and numbers and move them back and forth from one side of the classroom to another as you work through the equation. They will learn more by moving back and forth than you can teach them in hours of lecturing or days of them reading a text book.
Show you what, I can do step by step presentations with powerpoint and for any questions during class I still use the markerboard.
I am very glad to hear this. This is the first thing in your posts that I've read that shows an awareness of addressing the students needs, instead of soapbox teaching. I'm sorry if I sound cruel, I'm not trying to be, but a lot of what you've said sounds like it goes against everything I've learned in student teaching and 10 years in a classroom. I hope that the impression I have is wrong, and that this comment is more representive of how you teach than some others.
A teacher should stand in front of the class facving them not constantly turning to the markerboard or chalkboard. It wastes time and looks unprofessional
Interesting comment. After thinking about it, I would have LOVED to have whiteboard software, and it would be great to be able to face my students all the time. But that's a side point. The bottom line is that teacher has knowledge and has the responsibility of presenting the material in such a way that the students not only learn the facts, but understand the facts and methods included. A good teacher can do this with very little extra. All the technology in the world won't help a poor teacher excel in doing this.
There are people who like to talk about the course material and get inovolved in every detail. These are the ones who care more about the material than the students. Often they regurgitate and expect the student to take the responsibility to put the information together in whatever way they can.
There are people who go out of their way to find out about the many ways that people learn. They find ways to determine how everyone in the group learns -- which ones are auditory learners, which are tactile or motion learners, which are visual learners. Once they know how all this, they go out of their way to present the information in not just one way, but in a multiplicity of ways, to make sure all students understan and feel comfortable with that information. Such people are teachers.
why would I use a chalkbord or a markerboard to sketch out things when I could of had all of that already prepared and formalized months or years in advance with a flash animation or a simple jpeg?
I never said you shouldn't have those tools available. Only that a good teacher could teach without them. The tools don't make a poor teacher good. If the ability to teach is there, then lack of tools won't get in the way. If someone needs these tools to teach, then they don't understand the art and craft of teaching and only see the idea of transferring data from one point to another.
There's nothing wrong with using animations, but if they're prepared months in advance, there's no interaction. What if yesterday's class included unexpected questions, or there was a recent news article that puts a different perspective on what you were going to cover? The animation helps, but it's only a tool. As conditions change, it is up to the teacher to change with them. This happens every minute of every day. If you depend on prepared animations and presentations, you'll end up with a very mechanical teaching style. In the long run, you'll find fewer and fewer students respecting you.
Why should students have to take notes in the class when I can transfer to them with the IR port on my laptop or through wifi?
I'm so glad this comment/question comes from a "future teacher" and not a teacher. There are many reasons for taking notes in class. Some students need the activity to help them absorb the material (if they're kinetic learners, they need this to learn). Students need to develop the ability to listen to the teacher, select what is important, and include that. This discretion is not easily taught in one or two classes, but is developed over years of taking notes and learning what ends up on the test and what doesn't. It also helps students develop organizational skills as they learn not only what to put in their notes, but how to organize and study them in a way that works best for them. There are a large number of decision making and organizational skills students learn from note taking. By giving students the notes, you help them learn one subject, but short change them on many more. Instead of teaching them to fish so they can feed themselves for a lifetime, you're giving them the fish so they can eat for today. You are making them overly dependent on you.
If students did not take the time to read the material beforehand and write down things they did not understand than screw them.
You've never taught below high school level, have you? This touches on many of the skills mentioned above -- maybe they can read ahead, maybe not, but you have to work with them to help them learn what they need to learn from the textbooks. This statement actually almost contradicts the one before it.
I'm there to take questions and clarify things for the slower folk not rehash, reiterate or regurgitate material
You're there to clarify for EVERYONE, not just "slower folk" (As a former Special Ed teacher, I am offended by this statement, but I'll ignore it on the grounds that so much of this post has shown that you have not had enough training yet to really understand the teaching and learning process). You ARE there to reiterate material, often in different ways, until the students get it. That's part of teaching. If you don't like it, get a job running your mouth as a lecturer in some other career.
Well we can't get into that, that is for later in the semester
You've never had to deal with lesson plans or the pressure of needing to cover a certain amount of material to meet requirements for the Standards of Learning, have you? Or you've never had to deal with questions that lead to answers that depend on material that will be covered over the course of 2-3 days, have you? Such an answer (or "It's in another class") is not selfish. It's just a fact of practical life. Sometimes the answer is best left un
I agree, for the most part. But, remember, to someone who knows almost nothing about computers, anyone who can install programs seems like an uber-geek. When you don't know anything, anyone who knows more can be intimidating.
But, even with that in mind, you're right and it's not good to see teachers who are scared of computers.
As for salaries -- I left teaching in 1996. Just this month I finally got to the point where my personal income is more than what I made as a teacher (my company may have made more, but there are many expenses that come before my check!). Before I started my company, I had a number of jobs. I do not think teacher pay is as bad as some say. It is true, for the amount of responsibility, it should be double, but it's not poverty.
You're right, in part. But if the kid doesn't get an education, s/he'll end up in a low pay job or welfare or prison and be a drain on the system.
I think parents should be held responsible for their kids behavior. Simple exmaple: If the kid trashes a room and won't clean it up, or damages property, the parent is required to come in and clean it up and pay for damages, or face legal action. In my experience many parents don't enforce discipline because they can get away with it and are at about the same maturity level as their kids (often the case when 13 or 14 year olds have babies, which I had to deal with much more than I would have expected).
We have a county nearby (Henrico County, VA), where all the students (or maybe all High School students) have Powerbooks. The school system administration definately believes that computers are an answer.
But, when saying that it is evidence that educators believe this, please remember educators is a wide range. In my experience, these decisions are made by administrators who haven't worked in a classroom in a decade or more and the teachers have little or no input.
I'd paraphrase and say it's evidence education administrators, instead of educators as a whole, that believe it.
I have never found a teacher who gave me any reason to believe they thought computers where an "answer" instead of just another teaching tool.
As a former teacher, I'd have to agree that teaches do NOT believe computers are the solution. Many teachers avoid computers, since their students know so much more about them than they do.
On the other hand, I have seen cases where politicians are more interested in looking good than in fixing the real problems (would you believe that!?), and come up with plans to use computers and claiming they'll fix all the troubles.
The bottom line is the teacher-student relationship. That is one of the most important factors in teaching. A good teacher (as long as they have support in discipline issues), can teach students with nothing but a blackboard and chalk for the teacher and paper and pencils for the students. Any teacher who thinks computers are the solution should find another job! On the other end, a good teacher who learns how to use computers, could find many ways to integrate them into the classroom and assignments.
I mentioned support on discipline. In my experience, if politicians and educators want to focus on one "answer" that will have the greatest effect on improving education, that's the one subject to tackle: making sure teachers get support on enforcing appropriate classroom behavior. (Just one example: I had an obnoxious student. I had worked with him, kept him after school, given him disciplinary assignments, talked on the phone many times with his parents, and nothing worked. I finally wrote up a referral for him to see the assistant principal. 6 weeks later the referal was in my mailbox with a sticky note saying, "Has this been resolved?" without the principal ever seeing the student. The next year this assistant princiapal was promoted to principal of the county's new school. If you want solutions for education, censure administrators like that and focus on discipline, not on adding computers.) (Sorry for the rant, but it's to point out there are many worse problems in education than worrying about using computers.)
Okay, you're right. I'm wrong. Obviously you know every little detail and have much more time on your hands on a Friday night than I do so you can spend your evening disecting this.
But, to someone who knows Java and knows almost nothing about C++ (like me), it's a good start. True, it doesn't tell you EVERYTHING, but it's a start.
On the other hand, as many point out, it really takes at least a year or more to learn C++. Isn't that true with any complex language?
It was probably as easy as typing in "C++ for Java" (since he's looking to learn C++, NOT Java), but taking time to think it through would have taken too much time, wouldn't it?
But, if he had typed in "C++ for Java", as I did, here's a useful link.
GUI installers for the brain dead people who just want the look and feel of Windows, without the intelligence to know how to use the OS without a GUI
Or, perhaps, for people that have enough going on that they don't have time to mess around with an install that requires them taking hours or days futzing with things to have them "just perfect."
I've worked with most of the major distros. I use Mandrake, and one big reason is the installer. I am running a business, and I want to be as productive as possible (and I expect the same of my employees). I don't want someone mucking around with Debian, installing it, then having to set up the DVD separately, then adding devices for the USB drives, and going on and on and on.
Just grab Mandrake, click through the install, and go on with your job or life.
I can understand those who think anything with a GUI is for "brain dead" people (for the record, this "brain dead" person qualifies for Mensa membership, so I don't think that argument holds water). They want to make sure they set up everything exactly their way.
I know it's cliche, but for those people, who denigrate all who use GUIs, perhaps if you had other things to do in your job and life, you might understand why many of us have to use the simple version, and get back to what we have to do other than install Linux.
You might not like GUIs, but that doesn't make them evil. You may like feeling superior because you use what most people (even most Linux users) don't use, but that doesn't mean your way is better. It certainly doesn't mean their way is worse.
It just means you have a strong opinion and want to call people who disagree with you nasty names.
Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb.
Must be. On any stupidity scale, I'd rank using an obvious combo for an atmosphere shield that protects the whole planet a lot higher than using the same combon on luggage!
Kind of like setting the password for your atmospheric shield to 1-2-3-4-5, then later finding out it's the same combination President Skroob uses for his luggage.