By “environment” I meant the domestic situation and neighbourhoods these kids are in, rather than the stuff they have at their disposal in the classroom. The kind of factors that make them “at-risk”. These are also factors that are hard to solve just by throwing money at the problem.
Perhaps the extra resources will ensure that those who are underachieving (because of environment rather than a lack of smarts) grow up to be productive members of society rather than burdens. And help their future children to a better future as well. That may be a better way to spend money than focusing on a few gifted kids who will probably do well anyway. I dunno. Maybe we ought to do both. Good education means paying attention to each particular student’s needs and adapting accordingly.
It’s not easy, though. A lot of the programs for troubled kids were successful because of the unwavering dedication of a few individuals, but turned out to be hard to replicate well or scale up successfully.
I feel the same about Hollywood, the last few years have seen a pretty disappointing crop of movies. Even the pointless blockbuster action movies that I used to enjoy are just so much meh these days.It's all reboots, remakes (did we really need a remake of "Overboard"?), superheroes getting ever more creative at smashing each other into buildings, ex-con-forced-to-do-one-last-job, Fast and Furious 163 (they probably made 2 more while I was typing this), and the small number of movies that actually have an interesting and original plot but get butchered by a director who thinks he needs to be extra creative.
I dunno, maybe we're just getting older and these movies are being made for a younger crowd. Or for the growing Asian market.
Books and scrolls were seriously costly back then, you wouldn’t want just anyone to walz in and start pawing them. Especially if they couldn’t.read anyway.
Same as Squeezebox. Good products, killed by Logitech. Not sure why... I am pretty happy with the other products (mice and keyboards) from Logitech, but they seem to have some trouble running more "premium" product lines.
Something like this, in my case. The company's management was constantly aiming to position their consulting business "higher up the food chain" and constantly complaining about their failure to accomplish this. One of the main reasons for that, in my opinion, was that they did nothing to nurture and grow talent. Oh, they sent everybody on the obligatory teamworking courses, and consultants got pushed into technical certification tracks, but nothing was done to make them better at consulting in general, which requires coaching by seniors rather than going on a course. Nothing was done to spot potential talent, and fast-track those who have it in them to become a principal engineer or consultant. Most senior managers were not appointed from within either, even though most organisation find that the easiest "high flyer" category to implement a fast track for, and it's usually the first one they actually make happen.
In other words: the company was doomed to remain a peddler of warm bodies, never to be involved into anything major or strategic. That's why I left. Even though I loved the work. So I simply became a freelancer and remained in the exact same job I held at the client while working for that firm.
What's the big deal? If - and admittedly that is a big "if" - there is a good reason to suspect at least some of these travellers, isn't this exactly what you'd expect the TSA to be doing? As long as that cold stare doesn't land you in a cold cell and makes you miss your flight, covert surveillance of suspect travellers sounds reasonable. And much less of an invasion of privacy than, say, pulling all data from someone's phone or nosing through their social media accounts.
It's no coincidence that they showed Farage a lot. That's the tactic we see on our "unbiased" state sponsored TV as well: where they disagree, they tend to give most airtime to loudmouth populists like Farage and Wilders as opposed to more reasonable people in the same camp, who can actually argue their point politely and eloquently. Same with the "man in the street" interviews, the difference between people with left and right viewpoints shown is striking, and that has everything to do with selection in the editing room.
For the record I think that Brexit is a big mistake. But perhaps not as big as the Remainers make it out to be. And why are only pro-Brexit ads being reported on, surely there have been equally inane Remain ads? I remember when we got to vote in a referendum on the EU constitution. When the vote went against, the pro-EU camp decried false ads as well, and claimed those voting against did so out of "emotional considerations" rather than rational ones, while they themselves put out ads equally designed to play on our emotions. We even had our own prime minister appear on TV and state: "If you vote against, the lights will go out and we will have war". In issues like these it would be nice to see some more nuanced argument in the press, on both sides.
And the funny thing? Between politicians slinging mud at each other and trying to appeal to our baser insincts, a great many people actually stopped to take the time and trouble to educate themselves on the issue at hand. Maybe people aren't as dumb as they're made out to be sometimes.
It's like those progressive European politicians who decry a system where only the rich have access to politicians are only corporations can pay for lobbyists... then go and have lunch with Soros.
Wow, so: if people do not vote progressive, they are being idiots, or the system is rigged. There are no other possibilities. Because you progressives could not possible be wrong... Hence your frustration with a system that allows those people to make the "wrong" choices. No, I think you just confirmed cascadingstylesheet's point very nicely.
Which, how long? Investigate. Was this done through carelessness or (as their subsequent actions seem to indicate) did they attempt to cover up their snafu? They discovered the breach but sat on it. Who signed off on that? And if you can't find those directly responsible, then jail or at least fine (out of their own personal fortunes) the nominally responsible persons in the boardroom. That's what "accountable" means.
The penalty for Equifax's recklessness should have been the corporate death penalty: charter revoked, company shut down, assets sold to competitors
If this is truly a case of recklessness, lying and stalling, then it sounds like their reaction to the breach was a matter of policy or strategy set by upper management. So how come none of these guys are rotting in gaol?
It's already an old buzzword, and it's not even the right one. Gamification means adding gaming elements such as badges and achievements to an otherwise unchanged mundane activity like working, learning or doing chores. The buzzword you're looking for is Serious Gaming: turning the learning or promotion activity itself into a game.
IoT should stand for Intranet of Things. A separate intranet for IoT, with no access to the Internet and very limited access to the LAN (to connect to an IoT hub for instance, or a smart phone). And do not buy devices that “require” internet in order to function.
If you can come up with a cheap and effective EMP cannon, I'm sure you'll make a bundle selling the design. The military, law enforcement and airports are very interested in something to knock out drones at range.
IANAL and I'm certainly not familiar with the details of US law, but it seems weird that this sort of thing is legal under the "one party consent" rule. That rule is different for businesses: if you have a chat with your banker, you can record the conversation, but he (representing a business) can't, not without telling you. The same way that shops are required to put up signs if CCTV cameras are in operation. And I'd think any judge would rule that in this case, the Uber driver is representing a business (Uber's or his own).
In addition, we have laws governing what you can do with those recordings. One part consent means such recordings are allowed and admissible as evidence in court, but it most certainly doesn't give you permission to publish the material without permission or blocking out faces and street names and such. Does the US not have such laws?
Word against word is a shitty position for the accused as well, if he is actually innocent. A rape charge is no joke. By the way, doesn’t the consent law aim to reverse the burden of proof? Instead of the accuser having to prove rape, the accused now has to prove consent or be deemed guilty, and of course proving that will be very hard (no one is going to stop in the middle of a passionate gropy kissy session on the couch to ask: “before we go any further, would you mind signing this?”).
I wouldn't hold to that as a hard and fast rule, but I agree in part: if you have a strong (general) C-Level strategist and manager/leader who can rely on (and listen to!) senior techs, then you probably don't need a CTO. But the same goes for CFOs and the like as well. The executive team is much like any other team in that its structure could (but sadly often doesn't) vary as a result of the strengths and weaknesses of the individual members.
In any case, before anything else, for the love of god, get rid of anything that smells like "enterprise architecture". Unless you need a place to park useless but opinionated staff.
Slashdot Mirror
By “environment” I meant the domestic situation and neighbourhoods these kids are in, rather than the stuff they have at their disposal in the classroom. The kind of factors that make them “at-risk”. These are also factors that are hard to solve just by throwing money at the problem.
Perhaps the extra resources will ensure that those who are underachieving (because of environment rather than a lack of smarts) grow up to be productive members of society rather than burdens. And help their future children to a better future as well. That may be a better way to spend money than focusing on a few gifted kids who will probably do well anyway. I dunno. Maybe we ought to do both. Good education means paying attention to each particular student’s needs and adapting accordingly.
It’s not easy, though. A lot of the programs for troubled kids were successful because of the unwavering dedication of a few individuals, but turned out to be hard to replicate well or scale up successfully.
I feel the same about Hollywood, the last few years have seen a pretty disappointing crop of movies. Even the pointless blockbuster action movies that I used to enjoy are just so much meh these days.It's all reboots, remakes (did we really need a remake of "Overboard"?), superheroes getting ever more creative at smashing each other into buildings, ex-con-forced-to-do-one-last-job, Fast and Furious 163 (they probably made 2 more while I was typing this), and the small number of movies that actually have an interesting and original plot but get butchered by a director who thinks he needs to be extra creative.
I dunno, maybe we're just getting older and these movies are being made for a younger crowd. Or for the growing Asian market.
Books and scrolls were seriously costly back then, you wouldn’t want just anyone to walz in and start pawing them. Especially if they couldn’t.read anyway.
Also, unlike human or dog feces, horse poop washes right off your shoes. No need to pick out the waffle with a stick and some tissue.
Same as Squeezebox. Good products, killed by Logitech. Not sure why... I am pretty happy with the other products (mice and keyboards) from Logitech, but they seem to have some trouble running more "premium" product lines.
Why not just run a hose from Earth to Mars and pump out our excess CO2? Win-win!
Something like this, in my case. The company's management was constantly aiming to position their consulting business "higher up the food chain" and constantly complaining about their failure to accomplish this. One of the main reasons for that, in my opinion, was that they did nothing to nurture and grow talent. Oh, they sent everybody on the obligatory teamworking courses, and consultants got pushed into technical certification tracks, but nothing was done to make them better at consulting in general, which requires coaching by seniors rather than going on a course. Nothing was done to spot potential talent, and fast-track those who have it in them to become a principal engineer or consultant. Most senior managers were not appointed from within either, even though most organisation find that the easiest "high flyer" category to implement a fast track for, and it's usually the first one they actually make happen.
In other words: the company was doomed to remain a peddler of warm bodies, never to be involved into anything major or strategic. That's why I left. Even though I loved the work. So I simply became a freelancer and remained in the exact same job I held at the client while working for that firm.
None of those warrants the qualification “reality”. Also, “bullshit” is redundant in that list.
What's the big deal? If - and admittedly that is a big "if" - there is a good reason to suspect at least some of these travellers, isn't this exactly what you'd expect the TSA to be doing? As long as that cold stare doesn't land you in a cold cell and makes you miss your flight, covert surveillance of suspect travellers sounds reasonable. And much less of an invasion of privacy than, say, pulling all data from someone's phone or nosing through their social media accounts.
It's no coincidence that they showed Farage a lot. That's the tactic we see on our "unbiased" state sponsored TV as well: where they disagree, they tend to give most airtime to loudmouth populists like Farage and Wilders as opposed to more reasonable people in the same camp, who can actually argue their point politely and eloquently. Same with the "man in the street" interviews, the difference between people with left and right viewpoints shown is striking, and that has everything to do with selection in the editing room.
For the record I think that Brexit is a big mistake. But perhaps not as big as the Remainers make it out to be. And why are only pro-Brexit ads being reported on, surely there have been equally inane Remain ads? I remember when we got to vote in a referendum on the EU constitution. When the vote went against, the pro-EU camp decried false ads as well, and claimed those voting against did so out of "emotional considerations" rather than rational ones, while they themselves put out ads equally designed to play on our emotions. We even had our own prime minister appear on TV and state: "If you vote against, the lights will go out and we will have war". In issues like these it would be nice to see some more nuanced argument in the press, on both sides.
And the funny thing? Between politicians slinging mud at each other and trying to appeal to our baser insincts, a great many people actually stopped to take the time and trouble to educate themselves on the issue at hand. Maybe people aren't as dumb as they're made out to be sometimes.
It's like those progressive European politicians who decry a system where only the rich have access to politicians are only corporations can pay for lobbyists... then go and have lunch with Soros.
Wow, so: if people do not vote progressive, they are being idiots, or the system is rigged. There are no other possibilities. Because you progressives could not possible be wrong... Hence your frustration with a system that allows those people to make the "wrong" choices. No, I think you just confirmed cascadingstylesheet's point very nicely.
Which, how long? Investigate. Was this done through carelessness or (as their subsequent actions seem to indicate) did they attempt to cover up their snafu? They discovered the breach but sat on it. Who signed off on that? And if you can't find those directly responsible, then jail or at least fine (out of their own personal fortunes) the nominally responsible persons in the boardroom. That's what "accountable" means.
The penalty for Equifax's recklessness should have been the corporate death penalty: charter revoked, company shut down, assets sold to competitors
If this is truly a case of recklessness, lying and stalling, then it sounds like their reaction to the breach was a matter of policy or strategy set by upper management. So how come none of these guys are rotting in gaol?
I had never heard of Octalysis before, thanks for that link.
No one is telling them what to do. What they are saying is that their ownership of a patent is not enough grounds to stop review of said patent.
It's already an old buzzword, and it's not even the right one. Gamification means adding gaming elements such as badges and achievements to an otherwise unchanged mundane activity like working, learning or doing chores. The buzzword you're looking for is Serious Gaming: turning the learning or promotion activity itself into a game.
Still objectively better than flat earther delusions.
IoT should stand for Intranet of Things. A separate intranet for IoT, with no access to the Internet and very limited access to the LAN (to connect to an IoT hub for instance, or a smart phone). And do not buy devices that “require” internet in order to function.
If you can come up with a cheap and effective EMP cannon, I'm sure you'll make a bundle selling the design. The military, law enforcement and airports are very interested in something to knock out drones at range.
IANAL and I'm certainly not familiar with the details of US law, but it seems weird that this sort of thing is legal under the "one party consent" rule. That rule is different for businesses: if you have a chat with your banker, you can record the conversation, but he (representing a business) can't, not without telling you. The same way that shops are required to put up signs if CCTV cameras are in operation. And I'd think any judge would rule that in this case, the Uber driver is representing a business (Uber's or his own).
In addition, we have laws governing what you can do with those recordings. One part consent means such recordings are allowed and admissible as evidence in court, but it most certainly doesn't give you permission to publish the material without permission or blocking out faces and street names and such. Does the US not have such laws?
Word against word is a shitty position for the accused as well, if he is actually innocent. A rape charge is no joke. By the way, doesn’t the consent law aim to reverse the burden of proof? Instead of the accuser having to prove rape, the accused now has to prove consent or be deemed guilty, and of course proving that will be very hard (no one is going to stop in the middle of a passionate gropy kissy session on the couch to ask: “before we go any further, would you mind signing this?”).
I wouldn't hold to that as a hard and fast rule, but I agree in part: if you have a strong (general) C-Level strategist and manager/leader who can rely on (and listen to!) senior techs, then you probably don't need a CTO. But the same goes for CFOs and the like as well. The executive team is much like any other team in that its structure could (but sadly often doesn't) vary as a result of the strengths and weaknesses of the individual members.
In any case, before anything else, for the love of god, get rid of anything that smells like "enterprise architecture". Unless you need a place to park useless but opinionated staff.
a blurry ass 15x20 pixel image of the lander
Blurry ass? Are you saying the lander is mooning us?