I'm guessing by "identify" they mean something more like counting jeeps vs. trucks vs. tanks.
I think you are correct. The ability to distinguish gross classes of vehicles is much easier than trying to distinguish between models or manufacturers.
Is there any reason to belive that any physical aspect if a single model of car varies enough to be measurable as any sort if identifier?
This research is in a very early stage so this is probably one of the questions they are trying to answer. However, if their system is accurate enough to pick up minute differences in vehicle types like this, it renders them susceptable to mistakes due to slight modifications of the vehicle. A sensor net that is super accurate is likely to not ID a Honda Accord with a big dent in the side as an Accord. And good luck trying to deal with one that has a mountain bike attached to the the roof!
Bottom line is that Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) and Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS) are two technologies which are very much in their early stages. Don't get super worried about the Feds fusing the data from sensors sprinkled all over your hometown to construct a detailed map of your driving habits.
GMD
Nice thought but...
on
Moore's Ants
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
... call me old fashioned but I remembered when the names of species actually meant something (e.g., the Latin word for some unique descriptor of the creature). I guess scientists are free to name new species whatever the hell they want, huh? Are they allowed to name species after their spouses? Pets? Favorite movies? And exactly how much does it cost to "buy" a species name anyhow? Can you get an entire genus named after you if you give enough money to conservation organisations?
EPIC's claim about them damaging "critical thinking" is kind of bogus. The "chilling effect" bit is kind of silly...
I don't think you understand their position. They are claiming that once electronic surveillance measures that "read" the contents of file transfers is installed to thwart trading of copyrighted materials, that same technology could be easily modified in the near future to block the transmission of ny other digital information. Knowing that the university is reading every single thing you send or receive is likely to put a chill into most people, even if what they are "saying" over computer networks is relatively benign.
You're welcome to your opinion, TibbonZero, but I strongly disagree. I am one of those posters that apparently aggrevates you and I plan to continue to post my opinions on these AskSlashdot forums.
This is the worst thing that I can see about Slashdot.
Well, apparently you and I have very different ideas about what this forum is good for. Yes, slashdot is a place where technically competant people hang out. But these people are (for the most part) very thoughtful and intelligent as well. And they have opinions that are worth listening to. Some of them may even have experience with these sorts of problems and would like to share the lessons they learned.
People think that those asking questions want life advice, instead of a simple answer. But really, they just want a simple answer.
Tough bananas. Sometimes these people need to be forced to think about the larger issues. Let's say someone here has already gone this path with their child and found out the hard way that the whole idea is horribly flawed (in their opinion, of course). Are you saying that this person doesn't have a right to share their experiences if they stray away from a simple answer like what software to use?
Slashdot is a forum where highly intelligent and very opinionated people gather to trade points of view with each other. We aren't a friggin' tech support line! ANYONE who posts to AskSlashdot is inviting a critique of their overall approach and philosophy. If they aren't willing to listen to that sort of stuff they can (a) choose to ignore the non-technical comments they get or (b) go ask their questions on a different forum (online or offline) or, god forbid, (c) do a Google search.
If yours doesn't, then might I suggest educating your kids as to why the sexually explicit or violent cartoons are bad
Yeah, and when you're finished, you can explain that to the rest of us who believe that sex isn't necessarily evil and that human beings are able to draw a distinction between animated television programs and real life.
Intel is not the only chip manufacturer out there. AMD with its clawhammer is looking to be a better option anyway. Its just too bad teh general public doesnt know this.
Yeah, if you're AMD you have to envy Intel's marketing campaign. Nothing says "massive computer power" like a bunch of bald idiots covered in blue bodypaint dancing around like jackasses.
I also play with the emulators of legacy classic console systems.
Yeah, I'm more interested in the old classics. Modern games are fairly complicated as compared to, say, Pac Man and the ilk. I mean, I work hard at a computer all day, thinking and thinking. The last thing I want to do is go home and have to think in front of a computer again. Those old games were addictive because of their simplicity -- like Tetris. I know lots of people love the modern games but for me the old, basic games will always be a much better way for me to unwind at the end of the day.
Yeah, it pisses me off that greedy and selfish people are ripping NASA off, but consider this all important paragraph from the story:
NASA says such problems are taken seriously but that the dollar amounts of fraud represent a small part of the agency's overall budget, which in 2002 was $14.8 billion. A total of the fraudulent amounts was not available.
Until we get some numbers here, I don't see where Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has the right to make statements like ``It is clear that there are some fundamental errors in the NASA system. I would hope that NASA Administrator (Sean) O'Keefe pays attention to these fundamental systemic problems.'' NASA has a lot to deal with already. Every government agency has to deal with waste and fraud. The big question is whether it is any worse at NASA than any other agency and this article does not even begin to answer that question.
Of course, I'm fundamentally against "general" taxation and believe that our tax forms should include an itemized list that we can select to spend our portion of the tax we paid on. That way programs that were universally dislike would disappear quickly, programs that just a few people liked could be supported somewhat, but very popular programs would get even more money. I'm also against Social Security and Medicare. Mostly because I'll never collect SocSec, and even when my wife and I were both unemployed we didn't qualify for Medicare and as a consequence have large amounts of medical bills. So I'm paying all of this money out into services I will never see a return from, and a good 40% of my tax money gets taken to fund a military industrial complex that I don't support!
I can't believe I'm reading this! Suppose 99% of the population decided they don't want their tax money going to support unemployment benefits. Boy, you and the misses would have been SOL then. Then there's your wonderful "I don't want my money going for national defense." I suppose you still expect the evil military to defend you even though you have elected to withold all your tax dollars from them. If you don't want to pay for the military then I don't see why they should provide you, personally, any protection. If Osama appears on Al-Jezzera and states "On October 29, 2002, the holy warriors of Al-Queda will attack and destroy the house of Kintanon, Allah be blessed, Allah be praised. We swear to Allah that no one else will be harmed." then I think the military that you refused to pay (with your taxes) ought to just sit by and let it happen. I'm guessing you probably feel differently...
I'd hate to see exactly how the masses decided to allocate their tax dollars if it was up to them. Especially since very few people have the background in economics to realize the full implication of their choices.
Just don't count the show out. The show uses philosophy by counter-example. Take it as such.
I applaud your attempt at defending Enterprise but I'm going to have to give the nod to Vegan Pagan. The show is borderline offensive because of the brashness of the Enterprise crew. We haven't seen an episode where the crew realizes they have definitely done something wrong. The closest we've gotten was the episode where the crew decides to withold the cure for a disease on another world. I'd be more inclined to agree with your point of view if we had an episode where the meddling of Enterprise clearly caused a serious problem. Off the top of my head I can think of a terrible missed opportunity: the episode where Enterprise exposes the Vulcan spy base to the Andorians. In later episodes, it is commented that that decision greatly increased tensions between the Vulcans and the Andorians, understandably. But the whole thing is played off (in fact I think T'Pol takes the Vulcan command to task on this) as it being the Vulcan's fault! The Enterprise crew feels fully justified in creating a volitle situation. It would have been nice to hear Archer weighing the issues and whether he did the right thing. Even better would be a concrete example of an unfortunate incident between the Vulcans and the Andorians that directly follows from Archer's decision.
I'm starting to ramble here and I'm not even sure I've made my point. What I'm trying to say is that if Enterprise is trying to make a show about how humans are learning from their first few mistakes in space, they aren't doing a very good job. We only see things from their perspective and it's always viewed in the light that Archer is doing the right thing.
And I'm not clear on how racy pictures of Jolene Blalock demonstrate that Enterprise is PC.
Perhaps he's referring to the fact that Braga and Berman had the guts to cast a member of the woefully underpresented and discriminated-against minority of really-good-looking-women-wearing-hot-outfits on their show?
The captain strikes me as whiny... I prayed for the dog to die in one of the more recent episodes. But a lot of the episodes have a cool spooky atmosphere.
Let me get this straight: that episode featured a main plot of the dog getting sick and a subplot of Capt. Archer fantasizing about his super sexy vulcan science officer and you wasted your prayers on the fuckin' dog?!?
Man, I was on my hands and knees praying that T'Pol was going to help our dashing captain get "Long And Prosper"!
People keep pointint to the floating point error as the cause for why the Patriot system at that time (the PAC-2) let that scud go through. But as I've already pointed out in an earlier post, the PAC-2 did a crappy job (far worse than is generally known) intercepting scuds not because of coding errors but because the problem of hitting an erratically moving missile was so difficult. I think it's important to get the word out as we approach a new war with Iraq and consider a national missile defense shield. This recent article briefly discusses Israel's own attempts at missile defense because they don't trust the PAC-2 (for good reason) and it's questionable whether the US is going to give them some PAC-3 batteries.
Bottom line: that stuff about the floating point error in the PAC-2 system looks neat on paper but it's not at all clear that the faulty calculation was responsible for the loss of life.
I know you're asking about the computers and not your style of teaching, but I'd like to put my two cents in for what it's worth. I don't know what this school you are going to teach at is like but many institutions are scared of change. By starting off right away and using, as you put it, unconventional teaching methods, you run the risk of irking the powers that be in the school. Since you are new, you haven't given them any reason to trust your instincts or abilities. Perhaps after a few years of proving yourself as a competant, exciting teacher they may be more receptive to your quirky ideas.
I want my students using computers for research, presentations, writing, data collection and analysis, etc.
I'm not sure what you have in mind, but I am wondering how many elementary school students are going to be ability to demonstrate the skills you list above. Again, you run the risk of other, more established teachers telling you to cool off and take a few years to get acquainted with the abilities of a typical elementary school child.
I admire your dedication to your field and, although I am usually a strong opponent of computers in the classroom, your approach sounds interesting (I, too, am against glorified flashcards). I just want you to realize that you are taking a fairly big chance with your career by following unconventional teaching approaches right away. It works out nicely in the movies but the powers that resist change in the real world tend to be much more formidable then their cinematic counterparts.
to go to a university only to face a crowd of filesharing student can either be pictured as stupidity or courage, so let's at least give her that: she was coureagous. She ran into the wolves house!
Disclaimer: because of the poor write-ups posted, I don't have a good idea of what actually happened at this debate and how fair it was. With that in mind, consider the following theory: Hillary figures she can 'win' no matter how the debate turns out. She has a chance to talk to the crowd that are the biggest filesharers. This is her chance to hopefully convince them that what they're doing is wrong. With a little luck, she'll be able to convince someone in the audience who happens to be in a position of power regarding the computer facilities of the school. She figures if the debate is 'fair' that she's got a reasonable chance to getting her message across. She won't be able to convince those whose minds are already made up, but perhaps she can bring a few students back from the Dark Side.
Now consider the case of an 'unfair' debate. If the debate is 'not fair', perhaps some students will realize that and sympathize with her. But even if she isn't able to convince anyone in the crowd that her position is right and the whole debate ends up being a crazy show, she can then take a videotape or transcript of the 'unfair' debate with her to other people (like politicians) and use that to convince swing-voters that the pro-filesharing crowd is just a bunch of hooligans. She willingly goes into the lions' den to gain sympathy from others when she shows them her 'scars'. "I tried to explain my position and look how they treated me? They're animals!"
This is just a theory. But to characterize her action as either courage or stupidity leaves out another very real possibility: calculating.
I call BS on this. What was the "different and confusing" set she asked for? I have a feeling it was the interesting part of this exchange...
Yeah, I agree. I, too, would be very interested in seeing what Rosen's follow-up questions were. Can anyone point us to an unbiased, accurate record of what happened? Maybe even a transcript? It's clear that the articles that were submitted to slashdot aren't trying to evenly present what happened that night.
I agree. It's getting to the point that EVERYONE has chosen sides and the resulting debate has a decidedly religious flavor (ie, no one will ever switch sides from this point on).
Interesting analogy. I have to agree with you: there is so much conflicting data that everyone seems to have made up their minds on the basis of their gut feeling. I imagine there isn't any way of resolving this.
However, I would think that we (the pro-filesharing crowd) could use this ambiguity to our advantage. The **AA wants to limit a powerful technology and impose some dubious laws. And they don't have any iron-clad statistics to back them up. It seems that the burden of proof should be on the **AA to show that filesharing definitely hurts sales. If they cannot show this -- and I don't think they can -- then all their technology-limiting plans should be rejected by the lawmakers. I'm not so naive that I believe this is going to happen, I'm just stating that in a perfect world this non-provable postulate that filesharing hurts sales should be a victory to us. There will always be people who have a "gut feeling" that this is responsible for the financial woes of the music and movie industries, but that shouldn't be enough to enact laws!
After an hour or so of sitting in the air stream from these units my legs go numb and fall off and I can't type. Now my guess is that it would be fine to set the units to maintain, say, 21-22 deg. C (70-71F) to make it more comfortable for those of us who have to work in there. This argument comes up a lot, and my position is that the room doesn't need to be refrigerated, *per se*...it only needs to be prevented from overheating. Consequently I maintain that a *consistent* temperature of 'pleasant' for the room is almost as good a consistent temperature of 'a bit nippy'."
Perhaps management is a little reluctant to gamble based on the "guess" of someone who makes exaggerations like "my legs go numb and fall off and I can't type".
"This argument comes up a lot, and my position is that the room doesn't need to be refrigerated, *per se*...it only needs to be prevented from overheating. Consequently I maintain that a *consistent* temperature of 'pleasant' for the room is almost as good a consistent temperature of 'a bit nippy'."
You have to realize that management isn't too excited to take chances on ruined server equipment because of your belief. However, if you were to state that you are so confident that a constant temperature of 'pleasant' wouldn't damage the servers that you will offer to pay for any overheating damage done out of your own salary (minus the cost savings realized by using less air conditioning), they might be willing to turn down the AC.
If you're not willing to take chances with your money, how can you expect management to take changes with the company's? Even if some knowledable slashdotter here can direct you towards some written proof of your claims, don't expect management to go "By jove, you've been right all along! Since this paper says so, we'll turn down the AC immediately!"
Otherwise, keep it at 65 degrees, and either learn to deal with it, or learn to bring a sweater with you.
Hey, c'mon now! Give him some advice he can actually use! He specifically said "After an hour or so of sitting in the air stream from these units my legs go numb and fall off and I can't type." You should be advising him to "learn to wear pants" instead!
Well, if you give the proof at a big university chances are you'll totally score with some PhD Math chick.
Before you guys all start dissing math chicks, remember that "mathematicans do it smoothly and continuously". I wanted to put that on a bumper sticker and slap it on my car but I went with "My girlfriend can't wrestle but you should see her box" instead.
Do NOT download or read these books online if you or your system are in the United States or in another country where copyright protections can extend more than 50 years past an author's death.
Why doesn't he institute some way of preventing anyone with a.com,.edu, or.us domain from downloading them? If this is "warning: don't do this" website is intended to make some kind of statement against US copyright law, then he should just come out and say it. This reminds me of the Ren & Stimpy episode (Space Madness) where Ren places Stimpy in charge of guarding the History Eraser Button: "What ever you do, don't touch it!"
Come on, let's face it, even the stupidest 17 year old spending mommy's money on cd's knows that after a while all metallica sounds the same.
Actually, Metallica didn't start to go artistically bankrupt until the infamous Black album. Prior to that, each of their albums sounded quite different from the previous one. I've often wondered if there is any connection between the fact that Metallica started making a lot of anti-Napster noise about the same time as they started watering down their music to appeal to a wider audience. Here's my pet theory: Metallica started to get older, looked back on their work and decided that they had done great stuff. Now, they decided, we can sit back and churn out some genri-rock that will really earn us the bucks. We've already earned our place in metal history. It's kind of like when university profs finally get tenure and then take a breather from working so hard. However, much to Metallica's horror, Napster and p2p services start trading their music. "Good lord", Lars says to himself, "We've sold out for nothing! Those little bastards! I traded in my musical intrigity for more money and now it's not going to work out that way! Well, I'm not going down without a fight!"
Again, this is only my little pet theory. But does anyone think that the band that made Kill 'Em All would be rubbing shoulders with politicians to try to squelch the digitial music rebellion?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing by "identify" they mean something more like counting jeeps vs. trucks vs. tanks.
I think you are correct. The ability to distinguish gross classes of vehicles is much easier than trying to distinguish between models or manufacturers.
Is there any reason to belive that any physical aspect if a single model of car varies enough to be measurable as any sort if identifier?
This research is in a very early stage so this is probably one of the questions they are trying to answer. However, if their system is accurate enough to pick up minute differences in vehicle types like this, it renders them susceptable to mistakes due to slight modifications of the vehicle. A sensor net that is super accurate is likely to not ID a Honda Accord with a big dent in the side as an Accord. And good luck trying to deal with one that has a mountain bike attached to the the roof!
Bottom line is that Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) and Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS) are two technologies which are very much in their early stages. Don't get super worried about the Feds fusing the data from sensors sprinkled all over your hometown to construct a detailed map of your driving habits.
GMD
... call me old fashioned but I remembered when the names of species actually meant something (e.g., the Latin word for some unique descriptor of the creature). I guess scientists are free to name new species whatever the hell they want, huh? Are they allowed to name species after their spouses? Pets? Favorite movies? And exactly how much does it cost to "buy" a species name anyhow? Can you get an entire genus named after you if you give enough money to conservation organisations?
GMD
EPIC's claim about them damaging "critical thinking" is kind of bogus. The "chilling effect" bit is kind of silly...
I don't think you understand their position. They are claiming that once electronic surveillance measures that "read" the contents of file transfers is installed to thwart trading of copyrighted materials, that same technology could be easily modified in the near future to block the transmission of ny other digital information. Knowing that the university is reading every single thing you send or receive is likely to put a chill into most people, even if what they are "saying" over computer networks is relatively benign.
GMD
You're welcome to your opinion, TibbonZero, but I strongly disagree. I am one of those posters that apparently aggrevates you and I plan to continue to post my opinions on these AskSlashdot forums.
This is the worst thing that I can see about Slashdot.
Well, apparently you and I have very different ideas about what this forum is good for. Yes, slashdot is a place where technically competant people hang out. But these people are (for the most part) very thoughtful and intelligent as well. And they have opinions that are worth listening to. Some of them may even have experience with these sorts of problems and would like to share the lessons they learned.
People think that those asking questions want life advice, instead of a simple answer. But really, they just want a simple answer.
Tough bananas. Sometimes these people need to be forced to think about the larger issues. Let's say someone here has already gone this path with their child and found out the hard way that the whole idea is horribly flawed (in their opinion, of course). Are you saying that this person doesn't have a right to share their experiences if they stray away from a simple answer like what software to use?
Slashdot is a forum where highly intelligent and very opinionated people gather to trade points of view with each other. We aren't a friggin' tech support line! ANYONE who posts to AskSlashdot is inviting a critique of their overall approach and philosophy. If they aren't willing to listen to that sort of stuff they can (a) choose to ignore the non-technical comments they get or (b) go ask their questions on a different forum (online or offline) or, god forbid, (c) do a Google search.
GMD
If yours doesn't, then might I suggest educating your kids as to why the sexually explicit or violent cartoons are bad
Yeah, and when you're finished, you can explain that to the rest of us who believe that sex isn't necessarily evil and that human beings are able to draw a distinction between animated television programs and real life.
GMD
Intel is not the only chip manufacturer out there. AMD with its clawhammer is looking to be a better option anyway. Its just too bad teh general public doesnt know this.
Yeah, if you're AMD you have to envy Intel's marketing campaign. Nothing says "massive computer power" like a bunch of bald idiots covered in blue bodypaint dancing around like jackasses.
GMD
I also play with the emulators of legacy classic console systems.
Yeah, I'm more interested in the old classics. Modern games are fairly complicated as compared to, say, Pac Man and the ilk. I mean, I work hard at a computer all day, thinking and thinking. The last thing I want to do is go home and have to think in front of a computer again. Those old games were addictive because of their simplicity -- like Tetris. I know lots of people love the modern games but for me the old, basic games will always be a much better way for me to unwind at the end of the day.
GMD
Yeah, it pisses me off that greedy and selfish people are ripping NASA off, but consider this all important paragraph from the story:
Until we get some numbers here, I don't see where Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has the right to make statements like ``It is clear that there are some fundamental errors in the NASA system. I would hope that NASA Administrator (Sean) O'Keefe pays attention to these fundamental systemic problems.'' NASA has a lot to deal with already. Every government agency has to deal with waste and fraud. The big question is whether it is any worse at NASA than any other agency and this article does not even begin to answer that question.
GMD
Of course, I'm fundamentally against "general" taxation and believe that our tax forms should include an itemized list that we can select to spend our portion of the tax we paid on. That way programs that were universally dislike would disappear quickly, programs that just a few people liked could be supported somewhat, but very popular programs would get even more money. I'm also against Social Security and Medicare. Mostly because I'll never collect SocSec, and even when my wife and I were both unemployed we didn't qualify for Medicare and as a consequence have large amounts of medical bills. So I'm paying all of this money out into services I will never see a return from, and a good 40% of my tax money gets taken to fund a military industrial complex that I don't support!
I can't believe I'm reading this! Suppose 99% of the population decided they don't want their tax money going to support unemployment benefits. Boy, you and the misses would have been SOL then. Then there's your wonderful "I don't want my money going for national defense." I suppose you still expect the evil military to defend you even though you have elected to withold all your tax dollars from them. If you don't want to pay for the military then I don't see why they should provide you, personally, any protection. If Osama appears on Al-Jezzera and states "On October 29, 2002, the holy warriors of Al-Queda will attack and destroy the house of Kintanon, Allah be blessed, Allah be praised. We swear to Allah that no one else will be harmed." then I think the military that you refused to pay (with your taxes) ought to just sit by and let it happen. I'm guessing you probably feel differently...
I'd hate to see exactly how the masses decided to allocate their tax dollars if it was up to them. Especially since very few people have the background in economics to realize the full implication of their choices.
GMD
Just don't count the show out. The show uses philosophy by counter-example. Take it as such.
I applaud your attempt at defending Enterprise but I'm going to have to give the nod to Vegan Pagan. The show is borderline offensive because of the brashness of the Enterprise crew. We haven't seen an episode where the crew realizes they have definitely done something wrong. The closest we've gotten was the episode where the crew decides to withold the cure for a disease on another world. I'd be more inclined to agree with your point of view if we had an episode where the meddling of Enterprise clearly caused a serious problem. Off the top of my head I can think of a terrible missed opportunity: the episode where Enterprise exposes the Vulcan spy base to the Andorians. In later episodes, it is commented that that decision greatly increased tensions between the Vulcans and the Andorians, understandably. But the whole thing is played off (in fact I think T'Pol takes the Vulcan command to task on this) as it being the Vulcan's fault! The Enterprise crew feels fully justified in creating a volitle situation. It would have been nice to hear Archer weighing the issues and whether he did the right thing. Even better would be a concrete example of an unfortunate incident between the Vulcans and the Andorians that directly follows from Archer's decision.
I'm starting to ramble here and I'm not even sure I've made my point. What I'm trying to say is that if Enterprise is trying to make a show about how humans are learning from their first few mistakes in space, they aren't doing a very good job. We only see things from their perspective and it's always viewed in the light that Archer is doing the right thing.
GMD
And I'm not clear on how racy pictures of Jolene Blalock demonstrate that Enterprise is PC.
Perhaps he's referring to the fact that Braga and Berman had the guts to cast a member of the woefully underpresented and discriminated-against minority of really-good-looking-women-wearing-hot-outfits on their show?
GMD
The captain strikes me as whiny... I prayed for the dog to die in one of the more recent episodes. But a lot of the episodes have a cool spooky atmosphere.
Let me get this straight: that episode featured a main plot of the dog getting sick and a subplot of Capt. Archer fantasizing about his super sexy vulcan science officer and you wasted your prayers on the fuckin' dog?!?
Man, I was on my hands and knees praying that T'Pol was going to help our dashing captain get "Long And Prosper"!
GMD
Bottom line: that stuff about the floating point error in the PAC-2 system looks neat on paper but it's not at all clear that the faulty calculation was responsible for the loss of life.
GMD
I would propose making monsterously huge speakers and blasting this into Iraq, but in my oppinion it would be a violation of the Geneva Convention.
Actually, we've done stuff like that before
GMD
I know you're asking about the computers and not your style of teaching, but I'd like to put my two cents in for what it's worth. I don't know what this school you are going to teach at is like but many institutions are scared of change. By starting off right away and using, as you put it, unconventional teaching methods, you run the risk of irking the powers that be in the school. Since you are new, you haven't given them any reason to trust your instincts or abilities. Perhaps after a few years of proving yourself as a competant, exciting teacher they may be more receptive to your quirky ideas.
I want my students using computers for research, presentations, writing, data collection and analysis, etc.
I'm not sure what you have in mind, but I am wondering how many elementary school students are going to be ability to demonstrate the skills you list above. Again, you run the risk of other, more established teachers telling you to cool off and take a few years to get acquainted with the abilities of a typical elementary school child.
I admire your dedication to your field and, although I am usually a strong opponent of computers in the classroom, your approach sounds interesting (I, too, am against glorified flashcards). I just want you to realize that you are taking a fairly big chance with your career by following unconventional teaching approaches right away. It works out nicely in the movies but the powers that resist change in the real world tend to be much more formidable then their cinematic counterparts.
Good luck,
GMD
to go to a university only to face a crowd of filesharing student can either be pictured as stupidity or courage, so let's at least give her that: she was coureagous. She ran into the wolves house!
Disclaimer: because of the poor write-ups posted, I don't have a good idea of what actually happened at this debate and how fair it was. With that in mind, consider the following theory: Hillary figures she can 'win' no matter how the debate turns out. She has a chance to talk to the crowd that are the biggest filesharers. This is her chance to hopefully convince them that what they're doing is wrong. With a little luck, she'll be able to convince someone in the audience who happens to be in a position of power regarding the computer facilities of the school. She figures if the debate is 'fair' that she's got a reasonable chance to getting her message across. She won't be able to convince those whose minds are already made up, but perhaps she can bring a few students back from the Dark Side.
Now consider the case of an 'unfair' debate. If the debate is 'not fair', perhaps some students will realize that and sympathize with her. But even if she isn't able to convince anyone in the crowd that her position is right and the whole debate ends up being a crazy show, she can then take a videotape or transcript of the 'unfair' debate with her to other people (like politicians) and use that to convince swing-voters that the pro-filesharing crowd is just a bunch of hooligans. She willingly goes into the lions' den to gain sympathy from others when she shows them her 'scars'. "I tried to explain my position and look how they treated me? They're animals!"
This is just a theory. But to characterize her action as either courage or stupidity leaves out another very real possibility: calculating.
GMD
I call BS on this. What was the "different and confusing" set she asked for? I have a feeling it was the interesting part of this exchange...
Yeah, I agree. I, too, would be very interested in seeing what Rosen's follow-up questions were. Can anyone point us to an unbiased, accurate record of what happened? Maybe even a transcript? It's clear that the articles that were submitted to slashdot aren't trying to evenly present what happened that night.
GMD
I agree. It's getting to the point that EVERYONE has chosen sides and the resulting debate has a decidedly religious flavor (ie, no one will ever switch sides from this point on).
Interesting analogy. I have to agree with you: there is so much conflicting data that everyone seems to have made up their minds on the basis of their gut feeling. I imagine there isn't any way of resolving this.
However, I would think that we (the pro-filesharing crowd) could use this ambiguity to our advantage. The **AA wants to limit a powerful technology and impose some dubious laws. And they don't have any iron-clad statistics to back them up. It seems that the burden of proof should be on the **AA to show that filesharing definitely hurts sales. If they cannot show this -- and I don't think they can -- then all their technology-limiting plans should be rejected by the lawmakers. I'm not so naive that I believe this is going to happen, I'm just stating that in a perfect world this non-provable postulate that filesharing hurts sales should be a victory to us. There will always be people who have a "gut feeling" that this is responsible for the financial woes of the music and movie industries, but that shouldn't be enough to enact laws!
GMD
After an hour or so of sitting in the air stream from these units my legs go numb and fall off and I can't type. Now my guess is that it would be fine to set the units to maintain, say, 21-22 deg. C (70-71F) to make it more comfortable for those of us who have to work in there. This argument comes up a lot, and my position is that the room doesn't need to be refrigerated, *per se*...it only needs to be prevented from overheating. Consequently I maintain that a *consistent* temperature of 'pleasant' for the room is almost as good a consistent temperature of 'a bit nippy'."
Perhaps management is a little reluctant to gamble based on the "guess" of someone who makes exaggerations like "my legs go numb and fall off and I can't type".
GMD
"This argument comes up a lot, and my position is that the room doesn't need to be refrigerated, *per se*...it only needs to be prevented from overheating. Consequently I maintain that a *consistent* temperature of 'pleasant' for the room is almost as good a consistent temperature of 'a bit nippy'."
You have to realize that management isn't too excited to take chances on ruined server equipment because of your belief. However, if you were to state that you are so confident that a constant temperature of 'pleasant' wouldn't damage the servers that you will offer to pay for any overheating damage done out of your own salary (minus the cost savings realized by using less air conditioning), they might be willing to turn down the AC.
If you're not willing to take chances with your money, how can you expect management to take changes with the company's? Even if some knowledable slashdotter here can direct you towards some written proof of your claims, don't expect management to go "By jove, you've been right all along! Since this paper says so, we'll turn down the AC immediately!"
GMD
Otherwise, keep it at 65 degrees, and either learn to deal with it, or learn to bring a sweater with you.
Hey, c'mon now! Give him some advice he can actually use! He specifically said "After an hour or so of sitting in the air stream from these units my legs go numb and fall off and I can't type." You should be advising him to "learn to wear pants" instead!
GMD
You should take a look at the GNU version of TiVo called GnuVo. It's pretty nice except it won't let you watch any shows about capitalism.
You think that's bad, I've got KatzVo. The damn thing only records shows about 9/11, Columbine and Globalism!
GMD
Well, if you give the proof at a big university chances are you'll totally score with some PhD Math chick.
Before you guys all start dissing math chicks, remember that "mathematicans do it smoothly and continuously". I wanted to put that on a bumper sticker and slap it on my car but I went with "My girlfriend can't wrestle but you should see her box" instead.
GMD
Do NOT download or read these books online if you or your system are in the United States or in another country where copyright protections can extend more than 50 years past an author's death.
Why doesn't he institute some way of preventing anyone with a .com, .edu, or .us domain from downloading them? If this is "warning: don't do this" website is intended to make some kind of statement against US copyright law, then he should just come out and say it. This reminds me of the Ren & Stimpy episode (Space Madness) where Ren places Stimpy in charge of guarding the History Eraser Button: "What ever you do, don't touch it!"
GMD
Come on, let's face it, even the stupidest 17 year old spending mommy's money on cd's knows that after a while all metallica sounds the same.
Actually, Metallica didn't start to go artistically bankrupt until the infamous Black album. Prior to that, each of their albums sounded quite different from the previous one. I've often wondered if there is any connection between the fact that Metallica started making a lot of anti-Napster noise about the same time as they started watering down their music to appeal to a wider audience. Here's my pet theory: Metallica started to get older, looked back on their work and decided that they had done great stuff. Now, they decided, we can sit back and churn out some genri-rock that will really earn us the bucks. We've already earned our place in metal history. It's kind of like when university profs finally get tenure and then take a breather from working so hard. However, much to Metallica's horror, Napster and p2p services start trading their music. "Good lord", Lars says to himself, "We've sold out for nothing! Those little bastards! I traded in my musical intrigity for more money and now it's not going to work out that way! Well, I'm not going down without a fight!"
Again, this is only my little pet theory. But does anyone think that the band that made Kill 'Em All would be rubbing shoulders with politicians to try to squelch the digitial music rebellion?
GMD