As an educator from Middle School, High School, and University levels, let me just say, "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
It is seriously sad that people genuinely expect simply dollar bills in relatively small amounts to change the quality of education in America.
Let me break this down to those uninitiated in the workings of ground-level education:
1) Noobie teachers are, for the most part, *crap*. They are given crap training, they have crap experience, they are paid crap, and they have crap for back-up in schools. Most have the right motive, but few have the substance and quality to back up their hearts until they have *at least* 3 solid years under their belts. After those three years, your average noobie teacher becomes a "survivable" teacher.
2)When people talk about educational systems failing, what they intend to say is "Lowest common denominator is still too low." Our brightest students always have, do, and always will get preferential treatment whenever they can be labeled as "Gifted", so that's not an issue. The problem is with the part of our society that perpetuates the creation of "at risk" students (which are predominantly poor, live in poorer sides of town, go to schools with higher student-teacher ratios, and have poorer facilities).
3) The quality of education does not improve with simple access to computers, so save your money. If you give computers to a poorer school, they will either be destroyed by disrespectful/irresponsible students, become a further financial burden on the school (as they require upkeep), or help only to turn the school into a "magnet" school thus making the school exclusive and pushing out the lowest common denominators of students and perpetuating the problem.
4) Remember: Observing or measuring something changes that thing in a fundamental way. In education, a certain amount of measurement is good to check returns on investment. Too much measurement is bad. Over-testing in schools is bad. It takes time away from quality teaching and forces teachers to teach to the test... constantly! To clarify, and contradict a butt-ton (metric) of politicians, constant, standardized testing does not improve education.
So, if you are a multi-billionaire who wants to feel better about himself by throwing money in a particular direction, then throw it in the right direction. Bill Gates could have funded and supported the construction and day-to-day operations of 100 high-tech schools in California and seen the same complete lack of results because most of the students who would have attended those schools would have had access to great education anyway.
Bill, here's where *just* California is hurting:
It's a myth that it's "easy" to become a teacher in California. (For the sake of discussion, "teacher" refers to someone who can make a consistent and significant beneficial impact on the education of younger generations while attempting to do so in a public primary or secondary California school. This does not include people with "emergency credentials" or "substitute teachers".) To become a credentialed teacher in the state of California, you need to earn 4-year college degree, pay for and take the CSET and CBEST (standardized tests), possibly pay for and take the GRE, apply to a credentialing program at a four-year university (which costs money), get accepted into that four-year university's credentialing program, and complete that program (typically one year in duration) with sufficient success.
After that, you have to teach for five years (with little support) and then *go back* to school to receive your "clear credentials" to become a fully credentialed teacher-- "Credentialed" meaning that you've been taught the educational stardards and policies of California, while also getting some great tips on how to survive!
So you pay for (or likely borrow money to go to) college, you pay for two or three standardized tests $50+ each, pay for various applications to get into a credentialing program, pay tuition while in that program, work
How long has it been since a military air craft could detect another nearby aircraft without aid of the pilot? Or even a missle bound for impact moving at 200MPH?
That's Vietnam era tech, no? Word is that the computing power in Vietnam era jets was equivalent to a leprous gerbil on a rusty wheel. Our automotive computer systems have tons more computing power... so why don't we have similar radar systems yet?
Yes, I know the S-Class always have the best toys and we'll likely see similar toys on more cars in the future, but why hasn't it happened yet? Why don't all year 2002+ cars have a general "impact alert" radar?/Danger: approaching mandatory-stop intersection at high speed. Break!/
or/Danger: Destination lane occupied. Cancel merge!/
Why not just have a radar "blip" screen to show where major objects are. This would save many bicyclists, I'm sure, let alone drop the cost of insurance greatly.
Would that be too many pings on the freeway? Is there "radar" pollution I don't know about? How expensive can Vietnam-era radar tech be?
On the economy: People who refuse to learn from the mistakes of others must fail and fall flat on their faces before they change for the better. Our economy is being kept from "failing" by tossing massive amounts of money at people who *will not* use it in the best way possible. Those who are exploiting the system are being rewarded. This can only change with a complete failure of the system and a change in philosophy on how the system needs to work.
On the election: I'm happy if every voter enters it knowing that the last 8 years have been crap in *every* way that a president can influence. Birds of a feather...
With risk of sounding reflexive, you have to treat 4th graders like your grand parents when it comes to computers. Sure, the 4th graders have probably spent more time online (laptop, PC/Mac, cell phone) than your grand parents, but they understand the workings just as well... or just as not.
Now, if you're going to talk to them about IT (not just "Hey, look what a computer can do") you have to first sell to them that they are actually interested about the workings of *anything*. Liken what you do to a doctor working on a patient where instead of dealing with blood, you're dealing with thoughts and communication. In fact, you are the emergency room doctor that's called on when people NEED to communicate but have lost the ability to do so.
After you relate yourself to something they WILL know, then talk about easy to swallow details. If you're helping rocket scientists get things into space, bring a large stack of dot matrix printer paper full of data and explain to them that it's your job to make sure all that information is squeezed through a tiny cable (this is where you hold up some wire or cat5). That's your blood vessel, that data is the blood, the computer is the heart... and you fight the disease of viruses, bugs, errors, and injury!
1) User pays for their own broadband access (cost of bandwidth). $$ 2) User pay for Netflix a service contract (which includes more bandwidth costs). $$ 3) User uses the bandwidth for which he paid by watching streaming movies and suddenly the movies don't load anymore... because it takes a bit of bandwidth to download movies. 4) User buys digital movies from Amazon et al? $$ 5) User gets kicked from ISP because he paid enough to use what bandwidth he used.
Sounds like a scam to me!
Why offer high speed internet if you're not going to provide high speed internet?
At my university, albeit public and large, there's no time "vet" people via online profiles. Going through the application process on the administrative side is entirely too time consuming.
Maybe they're talking about smaller universities or just very visible graduate programs?
This PR release (which it really seems to be) sounds a great deal like Bobbitt's "Market State" where the battle cry is "Maximize Opportunity!"-- or in other words: "It's really, really fast... so long as you don't use the 'really really fast-ness' too much."
There's no use on having a formula 1 race car if you're only allowed to do 10 laps a month. On a track filled with mandatory diversions.
Well, Lou, first that thing fell off. And then that thing fell off. And then that thing fell off. And before all those things fell off, they didn't slow the damn thing down enough to keep the brains of the passengers from splattering through their Dr. Scholl's on that otherwise gentle landing.
I've always wondered what it would be like to be admitted as an undercover "patient" in such an institution with the ability to scream a safe word and quickly be whisked away back to safety.
Although I find your delivery crude, I agree with your message.
I would not be surprised in even the slightest if the now-branded "paranoid" admin is hailed as a hero in the future for exposing precisely what he has set out to expose.
200 people in eight years? Enough security risks to compel him to likely ruin his life for what he believes is a good cause?
Why is it so silly to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who, up until his last action, has been trusted with some of the most valuable information the city has to offer?
Hehehe, if your interpretation were correct, we'd all be locked in perpetual legal battles with the only rich people being LAWYERS! =P
Unfortunately, despite logical definitions, the precedences isn't so definite. The courts have been allowing the prosecution to define what they *feel* has been the loss due to the acquisition of unlicensed copies. This includes the one copy AND all the potential copies allowed to be distributed. That's right. Potential of potential profits. If this were physics, we would have been destroyed by blacks holes.
And you're completely correct in your final paragraph. The idea of being sued for potential profit is silly. That's why, if someone is sued, they *should* be sued of the cost of the licensing of the game. (Cost of game minus cost of packaging and distribution.) Any other potential damages cannot be proven and thus should not be admissible in court.
Ah! It deprives them of speculated or potential profit. The potential profits lost by someone simply copying, say, a game for personal use is the profit that would have been earned had the person *purchased* the game instead of acquiring an unlicensed copy.
Of course, the person could (likelihood arguable) have decided that the only way he would play the game is if it were free thus no potential profit was lost at all.
That's why it's only potential and speculated loss and why, furthermore, acquiring unlicensed software is inherently less damaging than actual theft.
Well, to use your examples, yes if we converted to Muslim culture and religion, they would no longer hate Americans-- by definition.
Of course, I in no way suggested we do that so you're either over-emotional in a logical discussion, can't read critically, or are just trolling.
If you're willing to inquire further about my statements, please do so, but it's of no use to you nor your views jump to accusations to attempt to paint me as some sort of irrational villain.
Slashdot Mirror
As an educator from Middle School, High School, and University levels, let me just say, "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
It is seriously sad that people genuinely expect simply dollar bills in relatively small amounts to change the quality of education in America.
Let me break this down to those uninitiated in the workings of ground-level education:
1) Noobie teachers are, for the most part, *crap*. They are given crap training, they have crap experience, they are paid crap, and they have crap for back-up in schools. Most have the right motive, but few have the substance and quality to back up their hearts until they have *at least* 3 solid years under their belts. After those three years, your average noobie teacher becomes a "survivable" teacher.
2)When people talk about educational systems failing, what they intend to say is "Lowest common denominator is still too low." Our brightest students always have, do, and always will get preferential treatment whenever they can be labeled as "Gifted", so that's not an issue. The problem is with the part of our society that perpetuates the creation of "at risk" students (which are predominantly poor, live in poorer sides of town, go to schools with higher student-teacher ratios, and have poorer facilities).
3) The quality of education does not improve with simple access to computers, so save your money. If you give computers to a poorer school, they will either be destroyed by disrespectful/irresponsible students, become a further financial burden on the school (as they require upkeep), or help only to turn the school into a "magnet" school thus making the school exclusive and pushing out the lowest common denominators of students and perpetuating the problem.
4) Remember: Observing or measuring something changes that thing in a fundamental way. In education, a certain amount of measurement is good to check returns on investment. Too much measurement is bad. Over-testing in schools is bad. It takes time away from quality teaching and forces teachers to teach to the test... constantly! To clarify, and contradict a butt-ton (metric) of politicians, constant, standardized testing does not improve education.
So, if you are a multi-billionaire who wants to feel better about himself by throwing money in a particular direction, then throw it in the right direction. Bill Gates could have funded and supported the construction and day-to-day operations of 100 high-tech schools in California and seen the same complete lack of results because most of the students who would have attended those schools would have had access to great education anyway.
Bill, here's where *just* California is hurting:
It's a myth that it's "easy" to become a teacher in California. (For the sake of discussion, "teacher" refers to someone who can make a consistent and significant beneficial impact on the education of younger generations while attempting to do so in a public primary or secondary California school. This does not include people with "emergency credentials" or "substitute teachers".) To become a credentialed teacher in the state of California, you need to earn 4-year college degree, pay for and take the CSET and CBEST (standardized tests), possibly pay for and take the GRE, apply to a credentialing program at a four-year university (which costs money), get accepted into that four-year university's credentialing program, and complete that program (typically one year in duration) with sufficient success.
After that, you have to teach for five years (with little support) and then *go back* to school to receive your "clear credentials" to become a fully credentialed teacher-- "Credentialed" meaning that you've been taught the educational stardards and policies of California, while also getting some great tips on how to survive!
So you pay for (or likely borrow money to go to) college, you pay for two or three standardized tests $50+ each, pay for various applications to get into a credentialing program, pay tuition while in that program, work
How long has it been since a military air craft could detect another nearby aircraft without aid of the pilot? Or even a missle bound for impact moving at 200MPH?
That's Vietnam era tech, no? Word is that the computing power in Vietnam era jets was equivalent to a leprous gerbil on a rusty wheel. Our automotive computer systems have tons more computing power... so why don't we have similar radar systems yet?
Yes, I know the S-Class always have the best toys and we'll likely see similar toys on more cars in the future, but why hasn't it happened yet? Why don't all year 2002+ cars have a general "impact alert" radar? /Danger: approaching mandatory-stop intersection at high speed. Break!/
or /Danger: Destination lane occupied. Cancel merge!/
Why not just have a radar "blip" screen to show where major objects are. This would save many bicyclists, I'm sure, let alone drop the cost of insurance greatly.
Would that be too many pings on the freeway? Is there "radar" pollution I don't know about? How expensive can Vietnam-era radar tech be?
Why sue Youtube?
There are the harassers and the video posters who are more directly linked with any harm.
Oh, right. The money.
Disruption in communication can mean only one thing... Invasion
On the economy:
People who refuse to learn from the mistakes of others must fail and fall flat on their faces before they change for the better. Our economy is being kept from "failing" by tossing massive amounts of money at people who *will not* use it in the best way possible. Those who are exploiting the system are being rewarded. This can only change with a complete failure of the system and a change in philosophy on how the system needs to work.
On the election:
I'm happy if every voter enters it knowing that the last 8 years have been crap in *every* way that a president can influence. Birds of a feather...
With risk of sounding reflexive, you have to treat 4th graders like your grand parents when it comes to computers. Sure, the 4th graders have probably spent more time online (laptop, PC/Mac, cell phone) than your grand parents, but they understand the workings just as well... or just as not.
Now, if you're going to talk to them about IT (not just "Hey, look what a computer can do") you have to first sell to them that they are actually interested about the workings of *anything*. Liken what you do to a doctor working on a patient where instead of dealing with blood, you're dealing with thoughts and communication. In fact, you are the emergency room doctor that's called on when people NEED to communicate but have lost the ability to do so.
After you relate yourself to something they WILL know, then talk about easy to swallow details. If you're helping rocket scientists get things into space, bring a large stack of dot matrix printer paper full of data and explain to them that it's your job to make sure all that information is squeezed through a tiny cable (this is where you hold up some wire or cat5). That's your blood vessel, that data is the blood, the computer is the heart... and you fight the disease of viruses, bugs, errors, and injury!
And then you win @ 4th grade. ;)
This is what I want to know. I know I spent a good few hours scanning those fresh satellite photos... I want to know how close I got. =P
1) User pays for their own broadband access (cost of bandwidth). $$
2) User pay for Netflix a service contract (which includes more bandwidth costs). $$
3) User uses the bandwidth for which he paid by watching streaming movies and suddenly the movies don't load anymore... because it takes a bit of bandwidth to download movies.
4) User buys digital movies from Amazon et al? $$
5) User gets kicked from ISP because he paid enough to use what bandwidth he used.
Sounds like a scam to me!
Why offer high speed internet if you're not going to provide high speed internet?
At my university, albeit public and large, there's no time "vet" people via online profiles. Going through the application process on the administrative side is entirely too time consuming.
Maybe they're talking about smaller universities or just very visible graduate programs?
And you guys whine about mods missing SLASHDOT dupes. Wow.
And their commercials suck, too.
Curious, isn't it? They have the money... why can't they afford good commercials. Always wondered why myself.
This PR release (which it really seems to be) sounds a great deal like Bobbitt's "Market State" where the battle cry is "Maximize Opportunity!"-- or in other words: "It's really, really fast... so long as you don't use the 'really really fast-ness' too much."
There's no use on having a formula 1 race car if you're only allowed to do 10 laps a month. On a track filled with mandatory diversions.
Well, Lou, first that thing fell off. And then that thing fell off. And then that thing fell off. And before all those things fell off, they didn't slow the damn thing down enough to keep the brains of the passengers from splattering through their Dr. Scholl's on that otherwise gentle landing.
That, Lou, is what went wrong.
Nice troll. And people wonder why their passive aggression is never taken seriously...
Sounds like Catch-22 and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest as a mashup done by Stephen King.
I've always wondered what it would be like to be admitted as an undercover "patient" in such an institution with the ability to scream a safe word and quickly be whisked away back to safety.
Your description kinda decreases my curiosity.
Kinda.
;)
The crudeness is attacking people and not their words.
"and for any of you young goofballs out there with ass cherry jokes, your pot smoking will more likely get you there"
You had an exacting and valid opinion which I support, but when you stoop too low, your message is unlikely to be heard.
Although I find your delivery crude, I agree with your message.
I would not be surprised in even the slightest if the now-branded "paranoid" admin is hailed as a hero in the future for exposing precisely what he has set out to expose.
200 people in eight years?
Enough security risks to compel him to likely ruin his life for what he believes is a good cause?
Why is it so silly to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who, up until his last action, has been trusted with some of the most valuable information the city has to offer?
Hehehe, if your interpretation were correct, we'd all be locked in perpetual legal battles with the only rich people being LAWYERS! =P
Unfortunately, despite logical definitions, the precedences isn't so definite. The courts have been allowing the prosecution to define what they *feel* has been the loss due to the acquisition of unlicensed copies. This includes the one copy AND all the potential copies allowed to be distributed. That's right. Potential of potential profits. If this were physics, we would have been destroyed by blacks holes.
And you're completely correct in your final paragraph. The idea of being sued for potential profit is silly. That's why, if someone is sued, they *should* be sued of the cost of the licensing of the game. (Cost of game minus cost of packaging and distribution.) Any other potential damages cannot be proven and thus should not be admissible in court.
Thanks for the clarification! =) Now hopefully the poster will respond with his own analysis and how it would counter my definitions. =)
Ah! It deprives them of speculated or potential profit. The potential profits lost by someone simply copying, say, a game for personal use is the profit that would have been earned had the person *purchased* the game instead of acquiring an unlicensed copy.
Of course, the person could (likelihood arguable) have decided that the only way he would play the game is if it were free thus no potential profit was lost at all.
That's why it's only potential and speculated loss and why, furthermore, acquiring unlicensed software is inherently less damaging than actual theft.
Please elaborate. I am not familiar with Titan Quest, nor how it relates to the discussion.
There is inherent difference between an item in my house and an item elsewhere. Mainly, that one item is in my house and the other is elsewhere.
Deprive someone of physical property for the sake of your own use and you have committed theft.
Deprive someone of physical property for the sake of resale, and you've both committed theft and entered the black market.
Copy the property or recipe for the property, you have violated copyright violation because you have an unlicensed copy.
Copy the property or recipe for the property for the sake of sale, and you've both created unlicensed copies and you're bootlegging.
Theft/black market deprives people of ownership/possession, use, and potential profits.
Creating unlicensed copies and/or bootlegging only deprives people of potential profits.
1) We cannot be an Islamic state and keep the same policies.
2) You keep creating non-related imaginary scenarios unrelated to my posts.
Well, to use your examples, yes if we converted to Muslim culture and religion, they would no longer hate Americans-- by definition.
Of course, I in no way suggested we do that so you're either over-emotional in a logical discussion, can't read critically, or are just trolling.
If you're willing to inquire further about my statements, please do so, but it's of no use to you nor your views jump to accusations to attempt to paint me as some sort of irrational villain.