I can't understand why anyone would pay $179 for BBEdit. I have always liked its free version, and at one time was thinking of buying it, but I was poor at the time. Now that I *could* afford it, I can't see why I'd want to shell out that much for a text editor that doesn't offer any more than emacs, or vim, or a lot of others.
> 'Oh, about the gift of life I gave you - you're welcome.'
No thanks. Why is it that parents believe that because they figured out how to fuck without a condom, you owe them something?
I'm a parent, and I don't think my kid owes me for his life. My parents don't think I owe them, either. My sisters are parents, and they don't think this (I just called them and asked). So "parents," sans modifier, don't believe this. My mom does joke with me like this now and then, though. Which brings me to my point:
You are the 1 BILLIONTH purveyor of the above joke. And, as a bonus, you got both the "Most Predictable" and "Most Inevitable" endorsements to your Lifetime Acheivment Award from the Humor Academy of Soviet Russia, where the award awards YOU! Join me, as I, for one, welcome our new Soviet Humor Masters. All that is left is for you to:
Come on - MusicMatch knew damn well they were just a stopgap solution. This isn't a loyalty thing. These kinds of deals are made all the time. I've worked at companies where we signed a short term agreement to cooperate with a competitor and use their software while we developed our own to do the same job. Both sides went in with eyes wide open, and the competitor profited during that time.
If MusicMatch thought they were going to be a permanent partner with Apple, they're idiots. And I don't think they are.
Panther, Apple's latest operating system, was not affected by the security issues outlined by @Stake -- the flaws only affect Mac OS X 10.2.8 and lower.
This PROVES it! Apple has NO INTENTION of fixing these egregious bugs in Panther! How is Apple ever going to be taken seriously in [echo]THE ENTERPRISE[/echo] when all they care about are legacy customers?!?!?!?!
Usually, I see this happen in the other direction, where price seems not to be an object for the reviewer. That's because, well, it isn't. In this case, I feel like Mr. Pogue is making a mountain out of a molehill. He talks about how great a number of features are, but then turns around and complains about a measley $129. Okay, I know $129 is a lot of dough for some of us, but it's only $30 more than the upgrade price for MS Word, and fully $100 less than Word's purchase price.
I agree that getting things for free can skew your perceptions, but I also think you're using one explanation for two opposite behaviors and that undercuts your point. If some reviewer writes that $130 is chump change, you can attribute that cavalier attitude to being spoiled by freebies, but when the exact opposite occurs, you invoke the same theory to explain it. I'm suspicious of any theory that can be bent to account for any result.
There are extreme cases, I'm sure, but I think a reviewer is as capable of estimating what's too much or too little as anyone else. Even here, among people who will pay for it, there's disagreement as to whether that's cheap or expensive. I've read a lot of posts here complaining about the outrageous price, and others like you (whom I agree with, BTW) who say it's not such a big deal.
I don't have a problem with reviewers getting free stuff, though it'd be nice if they were a little more up front about it.
Hmm...I guess I always took some of that as a given. Then again, we've heard about the dog-and-pony shows and junkets video game companies throw for reviewers, which they aren't good about disclosing.
Really, the only objection I had was to the original comment to the effect that you can pretty much ignore what reviewers say about money. I'd say rather that it's good to bear that in mind, but that on the whole, reviewers probably have the same spectrum of opinions on this as everyone else. Like everything in reviews, take them with a moderately suspicious eye, but don't dismiss them out of hand.
Anyway, the upshot is that you should pretty much ignore anything that any hardware or software reviewer says about money, because they likely haven't spent any of theirs on hardware or software in quite a while.
This makes no sense. They can read what the asking price is, whether they personally paid it or not. They can also make a judgment as to how reasonable that price is. That's the reviewer's job. It isn't necessary for them to pay the money out of pocket so they can experience the same pain as the average joe. By your logic, it wouldn't be possible to say, "I didn't by x because it was too expensive" - Not having paid the money myself, I would have NO IDEA if it were or were not actually too expensive.
Uh, 15 and 16 year-olds don't exactly get asked to do proofs, do they?
I was at that age. And I wasn't a math virtuoso, or taking honors classes. The year of geometry I took at 15 was pretty much nothing but proofs, and there were plenty of them in following years as well.
True, but in the past at least, HP calcs were incredibly tough. I used more than one, but only because I wanted to have one at home and one to carry around, and I once sold one to buy a fancier model. I dropped them, stepped on them, crushed them under piles of chemistry texts in a backpack - all this abuse for years, and I never had a problem with any of them.
I also grew to love RPN so much I couldn't use a TI. I mean I could, but I didn't want to. The thing people fail to appreciate about RPN until they get some experience using it, is that it is actually more natural. You do complex calculations more like the way you'd do them if you were using a pencil. The parentheses in algebraic entry are initially more intuitive, but they're ultimately kind of clunky.
Given my interest in grammar, you will almost certainly have to go beyond the conjugation of common verbs in order to catch me out, I'm afraid.
Try not to sprain your elbow patting yourself on the back there, matey (you aren't the only one who reads James Kilpatrick), but I wasn't arguing with the "it is I who is" conjugation, but rather the "you who is" part. I understand the former, but not the latter. I suppose you could say a second "it" is implied, but I think it makes more sense to say:
"Perhaps it is not I who is desensitised, but you who are hypersensitive to something as trivial as this."
The problem stems from the fact that when you use "it is I," you are using "it" in an odd idiom in which it (it) serves only as a placeholder for the actual subject, "I", until it (I) is (rather quickly) identified. For that reason, I favor using "It is I who am," although I wouldn't argue with the way you used it as an idiom. But once the "it" is gone, its "t" having been burned to ashes in the crucible of "is," (and the "i" having been stretched on the rack of... aw crap, I think my metaphor's getting away from me) I see no sense in invoking it again in the second clause. Its purpose has been served and it has vanished. Therefore, I advocate using a conjugation appropriate to "you" in that instance.
Happily, since English has no official arbiter, my opinion carries as much authority as James Kilpatrick's. Then again, so does yours. We seem to have a draw. As the only people on the planet willing to discuss this, I suggest we each walk away muttering to ourselves.
If the article had said iTunes is the best free choice, fair enough. But it said "the best choice," which isn't true.
I really don't mean anything personal, but with all due respect, you've pretty much flogged all the skin off this dead horse. When someone says "the best choice" they:
1 - Are offering an opinion. You've given yours now at least 8 separate times. We get it already. Draw.
2 - Are likely taking all factors into account, and price is one of those factors.
3 - Are also making a generalization that obviously can't apply to every single individual.
$40 is worth less to me than the time it would constantly take me to work around iTunes' limitations -- money isn't the only resource that a piece of software can cost.
OK, but if you need to "constantly" waste time working around iTunes' limitations - yeah, it's probably not the best for you. But your stated needs are really hard core and way more than most people want or need. iTunes probably isn't right for DJs or people who have really nit-picky playlist needs. Most of us aren't like that, and sometimes simple *is* better - at least for the ones who don't need the ultra-advanced features.
I just think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
The G5 got beat in Quake3 because macs suck at games.
I'm one of those "Mac guys" and if someone came to me and said they wanted a computer for playing games I'd tell them NOT to buy a Mac. They're fine for casual games, but if that's your main purpose, a Mac just isn't the right tool for the job.
I use my Mac for "computer stuff" and got a PS2 for playing games. I don't see any need for games on the Mac, beyond playing on chess servers or Yahoo games and whatnot.
I really don't understand why people want to use PCs as primary game machines, myself. A console and games for a few hundred seems to beat keeping up with the latest CPUs and video hardware ($$$) to play the latest PC games. OK, I know why people do it, I'm aware of the advantages - I just don't relate.
Every single one of my jobs jas been better paid and more enjoyable than the last.
You're right - The mentality that you're stuck forever in crap is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That said, you're fortunate to have had this happen. I know in my case, the general trend has been up, but life deals its setbacks, and sometimes you have to take a few steps back to take even more forward. Or you need to bide some time to make that step up. In between moving from decent jobs to better ones, a couple of times I took crap jobs for short times to make ends meet. But it didn't kill me, so, you know the rest...
Yeah, I have no social skills. I'm what you would call a dork or a nerd. But thats ok, because am not here to be please everybody.
If you're IT, you are doing a service job, and that means social skills DO matter, at least if you want to do your job well.
I used to do IT at a university where we were hired by different departments to handle day-to-day problems, design and build networks, instruct users, and so on. Some departments weren't allowed to use us because they had internal IT departments, and those people used to sneak us in because those internal departments were full of insufferable and condescending hypergeeks. They would waltz into an office or lab, unannounced, and upgrade software without telling the user. They'd break things and blame the users. And when one of the despised end-users sent email, they'd get ultra-literal, one-sentence answers, and trying to get help meant playing an infuriating game of "phrase the question exactly right" with the people who are supposed to be paid to help. They came to us because we showed them some basic respect. That trait earned us money, and made our jobs a lot more pleasant.
It's amazing how much better it is when you just help people, and show a little humanity rather than expending energy holding them in contempt.
Judging people just by what they know about computing technology is unfair, and those people you look down on probably have it all over you in some area you haven't checked on. Sure, some people really are hopeless dipshits, but they're a lot rarer than you might think.
If you decide someone's a no good idiot, that's all you see. If you instead put a little effort into finding the good in people, you'll do a better job, you'll find rewarding relationships you wouldn't otherwise, and you'll be happier and more successful.
Judging from your tone, you probably aren't too open to this advice. But I'd prefer to think you'll figure it out some day.
They're saying that if he had read their stupid Whitepaper he would see that the incredibly obvious shift key workaround wouldn't really have been one? What are they smoking?
It's as if someone said you can secure your house by tying the door shut with a piece of twine in a bowknot. When people happen to notice you can bypass this fortification by tugging on the knot, the "knot idea" man tells you you'd see that conclusion is erroneous if you read the knots section of the Boy Scout Handbook.
What really boggles the mind is this:
Concluded Jacobs, "This cat-and-mouse game that hackers and others like to play with owners of digital property is over..."
Holding down SHIFT is HACKING? You can't even point out an obvious flaw anymore? "We want to make lame-ass, shitty software, and don't you DARE point that out!"
The incentive to teachers is therefore to fail at their goal. Increasingly, they are.
The fact that academic achievment is improving be damned! It's interesting that the fact that your premise is wrong doesn't give you a moment's pause.
This is just more of the same tired excuse-making we've all heard 1000 times. It's not persuasive any more.
Ah. So if a problem persists, and people complain while nothing is done, is ceases to be a problem. Thanks for this insight into your reasoning.
I suppose this logic could have prevented the civil war. Lincoln says: "I've heard those black folks complaining about being enslaved thousands of times. It's just not convincing anymore."
Do continue your streak of illogic and accuse me of equating teaching with slavery.
You're welcome to donate money to the school then. Leave the rest of us out of it.
See this is the real whining. Wahh, I have to pay taxes! Talk about a violinist.
I've heard claims that "teachers are underpaid" for 20 years. I've heard "no they're not" for about 2 years.
This goes back to the root problem of your head being up your ass.
It is consistent, however, with your weird idea that a problem that lingers disappears.
We had film strips in the 80s. I'm told media presentations are used more today than they were then. It's not teaching.
I think part of the problem is you're relying an awful lot an anonymous "I'm told"s. Good teachers will use whatever tools aid them in teaching. Used properly (and I am not saying they always are) they augment lessons. Blithely dismissing this as "not teaching" is just ignorant. Are you going to break down a teacher's day and tell us what parts are and aren't teaching? How about tests? The teacher isn't teaching during tests. Classroom study time?
How much of the work week do coders spend coding? In my experience, they spend a lot of time "not coding." Should they be paid less because of that? Or is it possible that some of those "non-coding" tasks are necessary and support their main task?
No one said that.
You very strongly implied it.
But the days are still 6 hours long -- with breaks every hour. (Actually, most of my teachers in high-school only actually taught for 5 hours.) Then they could go home -- at their option. That's a pretty sweet deal.
What's so sweet about it? It might give them flexibility, but the amount of work is just the same. Like I said, I've seen it with my own two eyes - Teachers - good ones, not the kartoon karicature teacher trotted out by those who want to gut public schools - work very long hours. Sure, some don't, and of course, there are some lousy teachers out there. I just don't judge a profession by its worst performers, but that's done all the time with teachers.
Even if the job isn't exactly easy, it's not more difficult than the average job.
Then why did you say it was easy? I don't think you really know how hard teaching is compared to the "average job." I don't know what an average job is. Do you? My impression is that most people have an 8 hour a day job that they leave behind when they go home every night. Teaching's not like that.
All the whining deserves a counterpoint, especially since it's part of a propaganda campaign to get teachers' hands even deeper into taxpayer's pockets.
I hear far, far more whining from the anti-public schools crowd. The idea that teachers are this powerful lobby sucking all the money out of the taxpayer is absurd. Teacher salaries have been too low for a long, long time. If this is a propaganda campaign, it's been a failure as one for decades. Great propaganda.
You act as if I want teachers to make a fortune. I don't. But I have seen too many people with a potential talent for being a great teacher (and yes, it does take talent to be good at helping others learn. Not just anyone can do it any more than just anyone can be a good coder) pass up the chance because they don't want to be in a profession that pays little, and where your profession is being used as a scapegoat for all our troubles. When the state mandates that being a teacher requires a Master's degree due to political pressure (driven by popular sentiment that teachers are mostly incompetent), I think they should be paid *on a par with* other professionals who do important work.
You say teachers don't have to put up with bosses like they do in a private-sector job. I've worked all my life in private-sector jobs, and the idea that they are packed with efficient, well-managed professionals the likes of which are never seen in the public sector is hogwash. The private sector is loaded with slackers and deadwood. Public school teachers face pressure from administration all the time, and while they don't have evaluators observing them all the time (they do have such evaluations), they are always under the scrutiny of parents and students. Every biology teacher has to put up with abuse from creationist parents. Every teacher has some asshole parents to deal with.
My point is not that they shouldn't have to face pressures, or that these are worse than what other professionals face. It's that the
The real answer is their job is about as hard as everyone else's job. (In other words, their job is hard. Boo-fricken-hoo, my job's hard too.)
You said they had an EASY job before. That's what I objected to.
They get paid OK, considering benefits, job security, and summer off, 6 hours a day, film strips, cost-of-living raises, and no bosses looking over their shoulder.
Film strips? What decade are you living in? No bosses? No time spent but in class? You *are* trolling.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't understand why anyone would pay $179 for BBEdit. I have always liked its free version, and at one time was thinking of buying it, but I was poor at the time. Now that I *could* afford it, I can't see why I'd want to shell out that much for a text editor that doesn't offer any more than emacs, or vim, or a lot of others.
Can anyone explain how this app is worth $179?
> 'Oh, about the gift of life I gave you - you're welcome.'
No thanks. Why is it that parents believe that because they figured out how to fuck without a condom, you owe them something?
I'm a parent, and I don't think my kid owes me for his life. My parents don't think I owe them, either. My sisters are parents, and they don't think this (I just called them and asked). So "parents," sans modifier, don't believe this. My mom does joke with me like this now and then, though. Which brings me to my point:
It was a joke, man.
I realize that this may be considered heresy on slashdot (hence the fact that I'm posting anonymous), but I honestly HATED...
:-P
[shrug] There's one in every crowd.
All your IP are belong to us.
You are the 1 BILLIONTH purveyor of the above joke. And, as a bonus, you got both the "Most Predictable" and "Most Inevitable" endorsements to your Lifetime Acheivment Award from the Humor Academy of Soviet Russia, where the award awards YOU! Join me, as I, for one, welcome our new Soviet Humor Masters. All that is left is for you to:
1. Accept award
2. ???
3. PROFIT!
(All profits property of SCO, Inc.)
It was also very academic in some respects, which probably explains why general audiences (read "unwashed masses") won't "get" it
Yeesh. Get over yourself.
[...]but it helps having seen the other two movies along with the Animatrix a few times.
People who do this usually don't "get" much sex.
Come on - MusicMatch knew damn well they were just a stopgap solution. This isn't a loyalty thing. These kinds of deals are made all the time. I've worked at companies where we signed a short term agreement to cooperate with a competitor and use their software while we developed our own to do the same job. Both sides went in with eyes wide open, and the competitor profited during that time.
If MusicMatch thought they were going to be a permanent partner with Apple, they're idiots. And I don't think they are.
Panther, Apple's latest operating system, was not affected by the security issues outlined by @Stake -- the flaws only affect Mac OS X 10.2.8 and lower.
This PROVES it! Apple has NO INTENTION of fixing these egregious bugs in Panther! How is Apple ever going to be taken seriously in [echo]THE ENTERPRISE[/echo] when all they care about are legacy customers?!?!?!?!
Usually, I see this happen in the other direction, where price seems not to be an object for the reviewer. That's because, well, it isn't. In this case, I feel like Mr. Pogue is making a mountain out of a molehill. He talks about how great a number of features are, but then turns around and complains about a measley $129. Okay, I know $129 is a lot of dough for some of us, but it's only $30 more than the upgrade price for MS Word, and fully $100 less than Word's purchase price.
I agree that getting things for free can skew your perceptions, but I also think you're using one explanation for two opposite behaviors and that undercuts your point. If some reviewer writes that $130 is chump change, you can attribute that cavalier attitude to being spoiled by freebies, but when the exact opposite occurs, you invoke the same theory to explain it. I'm suspicious of any theory that can be bent to account for any result.
There are extreme cases, I'm sure, but I think a reviewer is as capable of estimating what's too much or too little as anyone else. Even here, among people who will pay for it, there's disagreement as to whether that's cheap or expensive. I've read a lot of posts here complaining about the outrageous price, and others like you (whom I agree with, BTW) who say it's not such a big deal.
I don't have a problem with reviewers getting free stuff, though it'd be nice if they were a little more up front about it.
Hmm...I guess I always took some of that as a given. Then again, we've heard about the dog-and-pony shows and junkets video game companies throw for reviewers, which they aren't good about disclosing.
Really, the only objection I had was to the original comment to the effect that you can pretty much ignore what reviewers say about money. I'd say rather that it's good to bear that in mind, but that on the whole, reviewers probably have the same spectrum of opinions on this as everyone else. Like everything in reviews, take them with a moderately suspicious eye, but don't dismiss them out of hand.
He prolly didn't notice the space and thought it meant 49 people downloadID it.
Anyway, the upshot is that you should pretty much ignore anything that any hardware or software reviewer says about money, because they likely haven't spent any of theirs on hardware or software in quite a while.
This makes no sense. They can read what the asking price is, whether they personally paid it or not. They can also make a judgment as to how reasonable that price is. That's the reviewer's job. It isn't necessary for them to pay the money out of pocket so they can experience the same pain as the average joe. By your logic, it wouldn't be possible to say, "I didn't by x because it was too expensive" - Not having paid the money myself, I would have NO IDEA if it were or were not actually too expensive.
Uh, 15 and 16 year-olds don't exactly get asked to do proofs, do they?
I was at that age. And I wasn't a math virtuoso, or taking honors classes. The year of geometry I took at 15 was pretty much nothing but proofs, and there were plenty of them in following years as well.
I mean, if you break it, it's cost you how much?
True, but in the past at least, HP calcs were incredibly tough. I used more than one, but only because I wanted to have one at home and one to carry around, and I once sold one to buy a fancier model. I dropped them, stepped on them, crushed them under piles of chemistry texts in a backpack - all this abuse for years, and I never had a problem with any of them.
I also grew to love RPN so much I couldn't use a TI. I mean I could, but I didn't want to. The thing people fail to appreciate about RPN until they get some experience using it, is that it is actually more natural. You do complex calculations more like the way you'd do them if you were using a pencil. The parentheses in algebraic entry are initially more intuitive, but they're ultimately kind of clunky.
Are you suggesting that it even takes Microsoft a few tries to break something too?
When they're trying to do it on purpose. They then need a patch to make their bug work, because it's too buggy.
Given my interest in grammar, you will almost certainly have to go beyond the conjugation of common verbs in order to catch me out, I'm afraid.
Try not to sprain your elbow patting yourself on the back there, matey (you aren't the only one who reads James Kilpatrick), but I wasn't arguing with the "it is I who is" conjugation, but rather the "you who is" part. I understand the former, but not the latter. I suppose you could say a second "it" is implied, but I think it makes more sense to say:
"Perhaps it is not I who is desensitised, but you who are hypersensitive to something as trivial as this."
The problem stems from the fact that when you use "it is I," you are using "it" in an odd idiom in which it (it) serves only as a placeholder for the actual subject, "I", until it (I) is (rather quickly) identified. For that reason, I favor using "It is I who am," although I wouldn't argue with the way you used it as an idiom. But once the "it" is gone, its "t" having been burned to ashes in the crucible of "is," (and the "i" having been stretched on the rack of... aw crap, I think my metaphor's getting away from me) I see no sense in invoking it again in the second clause. Its purpose has been served and it has vanished. Therefore, I advocate using a conjugation appropriate to "you" in that instance.
Happily, since English has no official arbiter, my opinion carries as much authority as James Kilpatrick's. Then again, so does yours. We seem to have a draw. As the only people on the planet willing to discuss this, I suggest we each walk away muttering to ourselves.
Perhaps it is not I who is desensitised, but you who is hypersensitive to something as trivial as this.
"you who is"???
I'm hypersensitive to verb conjugation.
If the article had said iTunes is the best free choice, fair enough. But it said "the best choice," which isn't true.
I really don't mean anything personal, but with all due respect, you've pretty much flogged all the skin off this dead horse. When someone says "the best choice" they:
1 - Are offering an opinion. You've given yours now at least 8 separate times. We get it already. Draw.
2 - Are likely taking all factors into account, and price is one of those factors.
3 - Are also making a generalization that obviously can't apply to every single individual.
$40 is worth less to me than the time it would constantly take me to work around iTunes' limitations -- money isn't the only resource that a piece of software can cost.
OK, but if you need to "constantly" waste time working around iTunes' limitations - yeah, it's probably not the best for you. But your stated needs are really hard core and way more than most people want or need. iTunes probably isn't right for DJs or people who have really nit-picky playlist needs. Most of us aren't like that, and sometimes simple *is* better - at least for the ones who don't need the ultra-advanced features.
I just think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
The G5 got beat in Quake3 because macs suck at games.
I'm one of those "Mac guys" and if someone came to me and said they wanted a computer for playing games I'd tell them NOT to buy a Mac. They're fine for casual games, but if that's your main purpose, a Mac just isn't the right tool for the job.
I use my Mac for "computer stuff" and got a PS2 for playing games. I don't see any need for games on the Mac, beyond playing on chess servers or Yahoo games and whatnot.
I really don't understand why people want to use PCs as primary game machines, myself. A console and games for a few hundred seems to beat keeping up with the latest CPUs and video hardware ($$$) to play the latest PC games. OK, I know why people do it, I'm aware of the advantages - I just don't relate.
Every single one of my jobs jas been better paid and more enjoyable than the last.
You're right - The mentality that you're stuck forever in crap is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That said, you're fortunate to have had this happen. I know in my case, the general trend has been up, but life deals its setbacks, and sometimes you have to take a few steps back to take even more forward. Or you need to bide some time to make that step up. In between moving from decent jobs to better ones, a couple of times I took crap jobs for short times to make ends meet. But it didn't kill me, so, you know the rest...
Yeah, I have no social skills. I'm what you would call a dork or a nerd. But thats ok, because am not here to be please everybody.
If you're IT, you are doing a service job, and that means social skills DO matter, at least if you want to do your job well.
I used to do IT at a university where we were hired by different departments to handle day-to-day problems, design and build networks, instruct users, and so on. Some departments weren't allowed to use us because they had internal IT departments, and those people used to sneak us in because those internal departments were full of insufferable and condescending hypergeeks. They would waltz into an office or lab, unannounced, and upgrade software without telling the user. They'd break things and blame the users. And when one of the despised end-users sent email, they'd get ultra-literal, one-sentence answers, and trying to get help meant playing an infuriating game of "phrase the question exactly right" with the people who are supposed to be paid to help. They came to us because we showed them some basic respect. That trait earned us money, and made our jobs a lot more pleasant.
It's amazing how much better it is when you just help people, and show a little humanity rather than expending energy holding them in contempt.
Judging people just by what they know about computing technology is unfair, and those people you look down on probably have it all over you in some area you haven't checked on. Sure, some people really are hopeless dipshits, but they're a lot rarer than you might think.
If you decide someone's a no good idiot, that's all you see. If you instead put a little effort into finding the good in people, you'll do a better job, you'll find rewarding relationships you wouldn't otherwise, and you'll be happier and more successful.
Judging from your tone, you probably aren't too open to this advice. But I'd prefer to think you'll figure it out some day.
How many times is MS going to announce a "new focus" on security, or something of the sort?
This is news?
They're saying that if he had read their stupid Whitepaper he would see that the incredibly obvious shift key workaround wouldn't really have been one? What are they smoking?
It's as if someone said you can secure your house by tying the door shut with a piece of twine in a bowknot. When people happen to notice you can bypass this fortification by tugging on the knot, the "knot idea" man tells you you'd see that conclusion is erroneous if you read the knots section of the Boy Scout Handbook.
What really boggles the mind is this:
Concluded Jacobs, "This cat-and-mouse game that hackers and others like to play with owners of digital property is over..."
Holding down SHIFT is HACKING? You can't even point out an obvious flaw anymore? "We want to make lame-ass, shitty software, and don't you DARE point that out!"
The incentive to teachers is therefore to fail at their goal. Increasingly, they are.
The fact that academic achievment is improving be damned! It's interesting that the fact that your premise is wrong doesn't give you a moment's pause.
This is just more of the same tired excuse-making we've all heard 1000 times. It's not persuasive any more.
Ah. So if a problem persists, and people complain while nothing is done, is ceases to be a problem. Thanks for this insight into your reasoning.
I suppose this logic could have prevented the civil war. Lincoln says: "I've heard those black folks complaining about being enslaved thousands of times. It's just not convincing anymore."
Do continue your streak of illogic and accuse me of equating teaching with slavery.
You're welcome to donate money to the school then. Leave the rest of us out of it.
See this is the real whining. Wahh, I have to pay taxes! Talk about a violinist.
I've heard claims that "teachers are underpaid" for 20 years. I've heard "no they're not" for about 2 years.
This goes back to the root problem of your head being up your ass.
It is consistent, however, with your weird idea that a problem that lingers disappears.
You can have the last word. I'm done.
OK, you're not trolling.
We had film strips in the 80s. I'm told media presentations are used more today than they were then. It's not teaching.
I think part of the problem is you're relying an awful lot an anonymous "I'm told"s. Good teachers will use whatever tools aid them in teaching. Used properly (and I am not saying they always are) they augment lessons. Blithely dismissing this as "not teaching" is just ignorant. Are you going to break down a teacher's day and tell us what parts are and aren't teaching? How about tests? The teacher isn't teaching during tests. Classroom study time?
How much of the work week do coders spend coding? In my experience, they spend a lot of time "not coding." Should they be paid less because of that? Or is it possible that some of those "non-coding" tasks are necessary and support their main task?
No one said that.
You very strongly implied it.
But the days are still 6 hours long -- with breaks every hour. (Actually, most of my teachers in high-school only actually taught for 5 hours.) Then they could go home -- at their option. That's a pretty sweet deal.
What's so sweet about it? It might give them flexibility, but the amount of work is just the same. Like I said, I've seen it with my own two eyes - Teachers - good ones, not the kartoon karicature teacher trotted out by those who want to gut public schools - work very long hours. Sure, some don't, and of course, there are some lousy teachers out there. I just don't judge a profession by its worst performers, but that's done all the time with teachers.
Even if the job isn't exactly easy, it's not more difficult than the average job.
Then why did you say it was easy? I don't think you really know how hard teaching is compared to the "average job." I don't know what an average job is. Do you? My impression is that most people have an 8 hour a day job that they leave behind when they go home every night. Teaching's not like that.
All the whining deserves a counterpoint, especially since it's part of a propaganda campaign to get teachers' hands even deeper into taxpayer's pockets.
I hear far, far more whining from the anti-public schools crowd. The idea that teachers are this powerful lobby sucking all the money out of the taxpayer is absurd. Teacher salaries have been too low for a long, long time. If this is a propaganda campaign, it's been a failure as one for decades. Great propaganda.
You act as if I want teachers to make a fortune. I don't. But I have seen too many people with a potential talent for being a great teacher (and yes, it does take talent to be good at helping others learn. Not just anyone can do it any more than just anyone can be a good coder) pass up the chance because they don't want to be in a profession that pays little, and where your profession is being used as a scapegoat for all our troubles. When the state mandates that being a teacher requires a Master's degree due to political pressure (driven by popular sentiment that teachers are mostly incompetent), I think they should be paid *on a par with* other professionals who do important work.
You say teachers don't have to put up with bosses like they do in a private-sector job. I've worked all my life in private-sector jobs, and the idea that they are packed with efficient, well-managed professionals the likes of which are never seen in the public sector is hogwash. The private sector is loaded with slackers and deadwood. Public school teachers face pressure from administration all the time, and while they don't have evaluators observing them all the time (they do have such evaluations), they are always under the scrutiny of parents and students. Every biology teacher has to put up with abuse from creationist parents. Every teacher has some asshole parents to deal with.
My point is not that they shouldn't have to face pressures, or that these are worse than what other professionals face. It's that the
I can't believe what a police state we've become in the US. Anything more than 463 years would be a gross miscarriage of justice.
The real answer is their job is about as hard as everyone else's job. (In other words, their job is hard. Boo-fricken-hoo, my job's hard too.)
You said they had an EASY job before. That's what I objected to.
They get paid OK, considering benefits, job security, and summer off, 6 hours a day, film strips, cost-of-living raises, and no bosses looking over their shoulder.
Film strips? What decade are you living in? No bosses? No time spent but in class? You *are* trolling.