No, I'm not. I'm arguing that not everyone will achieve academically, especially at early ages, and that that is just the way of things and there's nothing wrong with it. Others achieve in different ways or not at all.
Saying that those that don't are 'on the scrapheap' is a prejudice you bring to the table, not me.
I'd agree that entirely separate systems are a little odd, but the fundamental concept of teaching at the pace that children can handle - and for the bright kids that means fast and intensive - is a good thing.
As they seem to be the only place offering decent standards for free, I respectfully disagree.
OTOH I probably should defer to your experience on this one. My experience of the state system in the UK is entirely vicarious, through people that have worked within it. I went to a minor publc school that split classes up into as many as five sets on a per-subject basis, which seemed to work rather well. Though as someone that was always in set 1, I probably would think that.
If you thought that arrogance and entitlement were rife in the grammar system I dread to think what you would have made of us.
No, I'm not advocating putting people on the scarpheap at age 11, that's your thinking, not mine.
I'm advocating teaching kids of different abilities separately, because children learn differently. I don't think the kids that don't get into a grammar school are on the scrapheap. That's a spin put on it bu others.
In the end I don't care that much about a separate school, but separate classes are a must or everyone loses.
The point is a) that nobody taught them it and b) there wasn't anything that we'd recognise as computers at the time they were working. How can be CS be only (or even mainly) about computers, if major figures in the field didn't have one?
They laid down various parts of the theoretical frameworks, that's how. CS is about the theory (and in the case of many degrees in CS the practice) of how computers work and how to program them. Without CS we likely wouldn't have computers, or do you dispute that the design of operating systems and programming languages comes under CS?
Somebody already mentioned telescopes and astronomy.
Yes, and I questioned that, given that CS degrees I know of cover things like data structures, algorithms design and complexity estimation, which are directly applicable to real world programming.
I do have a degree, though not in CS (and not from DeVry), so your snide comment falls at the first hurdle.
Not really, I was just wondering aloud because you (assuming you are the AC) took a snipe at degrees apropos of nothing. I'm not from the US so I have no idea what your snipe about DeVry means.
And FWIW, my room-mate was a CS major, and he spent more time writing what looked like hieroglyphics - on paper - than he did near a keyboard.
Then he was concentrating on the theoretical aspects. Courses vary by insitution and which specialisations the student chooses.
And FWIW, my room-mate was a CS major, and he spent more time writing what looked like hieroglyphics - on paper - than he did near a keyboard.
I'm not really even sure what you mean by this, it's you that seems to have misapprehended almost everything. You seem to discount the usefulness of CS degrees based on the fact that pioneers in the field didn't have them, which is about as faulty as thinking comes - they were breaking the new ground, there was no degree available to them. Then you accuse me of lack of reading comprehension for calling you on it.
I don't have a superiority complex. My degree has been useful to me. Some of the best people I've worked with haven't had them, others have. I have worked with PhDs who have been brilliant and PhDs who have been useless. However I'm still not the one making stupid comments about the pioneers of a subject having or not having degrees in a field that didn't exist at the time.
3d graphics, simple 3d programming, the mathematics of 3d geometry, matrix calculations etc is what I was aiming at, not design. What you taught would be very dependant on what level and age you were teaching.
Not all of what is proposed is compulsory either, beyond the age of 16 everything is optional, and pupils choose a few subjects to follow for two years before university.
And the concept of pointers/references is pretty fundamental, not an optional extra, IMHO.
I was first taught programming in school in mathematics lessons, around the age of 10, as a means to solve simple problems on a graphing calculator (late '80s). I may have been one of about two people who already knew computing, yet no-one else seemed to have any trouble with the concepts of loops, variables and conditions.
And if the average British school taught even this much we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I taught myself because my education failed me, then I went to university and studied them. If I hadn't had a friend who was interested in them and who exposed me to the idea they did more than play games, I probably wouldn't have even known that computer programming was a thing that you could do.
Your own inquisitiveness is good, but you need to at least expose people to the basic concepts to trigger it.
Computers are now ubiquitous. That so many people think of computers as black boxes is a crime.
As is this ludicrous strategy I keep hearing on slashdot that we should just teach 'the basics' to kids. It completely backwards. You should teach kids as wide a range of things as possible in their early years, giving them exposure to as many different subjects and as many different facets of life as we can manage. Later they use that grounding to pick their way to a specialism.
What's destroyed secondary education in the UK is the bizarre insistence that everyone be put in the same class, regardless of ability, so the smart kids get bored, the less academically inclined get frustrated and everyone loses.
Bring back per-subject streaming, expand the network of grammar schools, and watch things pick up.
Most of the country has slow, horrifically overpriced ADSL, which is patchy even in some urban areas. The Telcos were not and are not doing anything about it. The government stepping in is exactly what was needed.
I just ordered Ninja Gaiden 3 (yeah, I know, it's supposed to be bad, but I liked the last two) from amazon US for 56 US bucks. EB wanted 98 AUD.
Steam and some other online game distributors also play this trick, ripping off the Australian market, and it can be harder to work aroud them if you don't have a foreign credit card.
Second hand games offer no revenue to the publisher, true. But stopping them will also affect sales of new games.
People, especially kids, only have so much to spend on games. If they can't sell old games then they won't put that money towards a new purchase. People who were buying second hand will now also be buying new, which will offset that to some extent, but they'll be buying less as well.
The turd in the punchbowl were the likes of Game that gave sellers 5 bucks a game, then turned around and resold for 5 bucks under the new price. If that business model fails then so much the better. However I have a huge, huge moral problem with the game industry's attempt to kill second hand sales.
Why would it obviate the need for chemo? It doesn't say this eliminates all cancers, just that it shrinks them. And he also says that 'real' cancer is a more complex picture than implanted cancer.
It's a great result, but it needs to be replicated and then adapted and tested in humans before we should start to get over-excited about it. Potential cancer cures with promising results crop up frequently. Many lead to useful treatments. It would be flat out wrong to jump around crowing about the cure for all cancer right now.
I fly Singapore whenever I can, because the food is good, the service is good, the in-seat entertainment units are modern and there seems to be a reasonable amount of space.
Yeah, you pay a bit more, but on a 12+ hour trip it's worth it.
1. Food in the business cabins still tastes how it should. 2. Food I've taken on board still tastes good, 3. The food budget per meal, per seat in economy is around $1-$2
1 and 2 put the lie to the premise, 3 is just the reason why. Price competition has driven airlines to cut every last cent they can. Me, I'd rather have an option to pay ten bucks more for my ticket and not get fed recycled rat-shit.
Slashdot Mirror
My N900 has been doing that for some time now, as well as integrating skype messages and calls into the normal call and SMS systems.
You mean other phones can't/don't do this?
Meh, seems like a problem of perception with the parents and the kid.
Wouldn't the precious little darling's feelings be just as hurt by not being in the top set for something? Or are sets also evil?
TV? Pah.
I rely on the voices in my head. Much more trustworthy.
No, I'm not. I'm arguing that not everyone will achieve academically, especially at early ages, and that that is just the way of things and there's nothing wrong with it. Others achieve in different ways or not at all.
Saying that those that don't are 'on the scrapheap' is a prejudice you bring to the table, not me.
I'd agree that entirely separate systems are a little odd, but the fundamental concept of teaching at the pace that children can handle - and for the bright kids that means fast and intensive - is a good thing.
As they seem to be the only place offering decent standards for free, I respectfully disagree.
OTOH I probably should defer to your experience on this one. My experience of the state system in the UK is entirely vicarious, through people that have worked within it. I went to a minor publc school that split classes up into as many as five sets on a per-subject basis, which seemed to work rather well. Though as someone that was always in set 1, I probably would think that.
If you thought that arrogance and entitlement were rife in the grammar system I dread to think what you would have made of us.
And they didn't punish her for talking back to a man?
I have trouble believing this story...
No, I'm not advocating putting people on the scarpheap at age 11, that's your thinking, not mine.
I'm advocating teaching kids of different abilities separately, because children learn differently. I don't think the kids that don't get into a grammar school are on the scrapheap. That's a spin put on it bu others.
In the end I don't care that much about a separate school, but separate classes are a must or everyone loses.
They laid down various parts of the theoretical frameworks, that's how. CS is about the theory (and in the case of many degrees in CS the practice) of how computers work and how to program them. Without CS we likely wouldn't have computers, or do you dispute that the design of operating systems and programming languages comes under CS?
Yes, and I questioned that, given that CS degrees I know of cover things like data structures, algorithms design and complexity estimation, which are directly applicable to real world programming.
Not really, I was just wondering aloud because you (assuming you are the AC) took a snipe at degrees apropos of nothing. I'm not from the US so I have no idea what your snipe about DeVry means.
Then he was concentrating on the theoretical aspects. Courses vary by insitution and which specialisations the student chooses.
I'm not really even sure what you mean by this, it's you that seems to have misapprehended almost everything. You seem to discount the usefulness of CS degrees based on the fact that pioneers in the field didn't have them, which is about as faulty as thinking comes - they were breaking the new ground, there was no degree available to them. Then you accuse me of lack of reading comprehension for calling you on it.
I don't have a superiority complex. My degree has been useful to me. Some of the best people I've worked with haven't had them, others have. I have worked with PhDs who have been brilliant and PhDs who have been useless. However I'm still not the one making stupid comments about the pioneers of a subject having or not having degrees in a field that didn't exist at the time.
No, but they were pioneers of computer science (as was Ada Lovelace), and what they did certainly falls within that view at the moment.
Do you have a problem with the science behind how computers work being called "Computer Science"?
Or do you just have some weird inferiority complex because you don't have a degree (hint - you're the first one that mentioned degrees)
3d graphics, simple 3d programming, the mathematics of 3d geometry, matrix calculations etc is what I was aiming at, not design. What you taught would be very dependant on what level and age you were teaching.
Not all of what is proposed is compulsory either, beyond the age of 16 everything is optional, and pupils choose a few subjects to follow for two years before university.
And the concept of pointers/references is pretty fundamental, not an optional extra, IMHO.
And if the average British school taught even this much we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Sure, but all those things are applicable to how the tools work, and how best to use the tools.
So completely ignore programming, graphics, problem analysis etc?
I taught myself because my education failed me, then I went to university and studied them. If I hadn't had a friend who was interested in them and who exposed me to the idea they did more than play games, I probably wouldn't have even known that computer programming was a thing that you could do.
Your own inquisitiveness is good, but you need to at least expose people to the basic concepts to trigger it.
Computers are now ubiquitous. That so many people think of computers as black boxes is a crime.
As is this ludicrous strategy I keep hearing on slashdot that we should just teach 'the basics' to kids. It completely backwards. You should teach kids as wide a range of things as possible in their early years, giving them exposure to as many different subjects and as many different facets of life as we can manage. Later they use that grounding to pick their way to a specialism.
What's destroyed secondary education in the UK is the bizarre insistence that everyone be put in the same class, regardless of ability, so the smart kids get bored, the less academically inclined get frustrated and everyone loses.
Bring back per-subject streaming, expand the network of grammar schools, and watch things pick up.
Sorry? WTF?
Can you justify that comment? Because it sounds like nonsense to me.
This is about flights that don't enter US airspace, so we're already there.
No, it doesn't.
Most of the country has slow, horrifically overpriced ADSL, which is patchy even in some urban areas. The Telcos were not and are not doing anything about it. The government stepping in is exactly what was needed.
This is just the latest iteration of the high-tech fart joke, isn't it?
I just ordered Ninja Gaiden 3 (yeah, I know, it's supposed to be bad, but I liked the last two) from amazon US for 56 US bucks. EB wanted 98 AUD.
Steam and some other online game distributors also play this trick, ripping off the Australian market, and it can be harder to work aroud them if you don't have a foreign credit card.
About ten years ago, IIRC!
(/loads head alignment tape into commodore 64 tape drive...)
Second hand games offer no revenue to the publisher, true. But stopping them will also affect sales of new games.
People, especially kids, only have so much to spend on games. If they can't sell old games then they won't put that money towards a new purchase. People who were buying second hand will now also be buying new, which will offset that to some extent, but they'll be buying less as well.
The turd in the punchbowl were the likes of Game that gave sellers 5 bucks a game, then turned around and resold for 5 bucks under the new price. If that business model fails then so much the better. However I have a huge, huge moral problem with the game industry's attempt to kill second hand sales.
Why would it obviate the need for chemo? It doesn't say this eliminates all cancers, just that it shrinks them. And he also says that 'real' cancer is a more complex picture than implanted cancer.
It's a great result, but it needs to be replicated and then adapted and tested in humans before we should start to get over-excited about it. Potential cancer cures with promising results crop up frequently. Many lead to useful treatments. It would be flat out wrong to jump around crowing about the cure for all cancer right now.
I fly Singapore whenever I can, because the food is good, the service is good, the in-seat entertainment units are modern and there seems to be a reasonable amount of space.
Yeah, you pay a bit more, but on a 12+ hour trip it's worth it.
Or perhaps they don't want to commit to a cure for human cancers when they've just found a prelminary positive result in an animal model?
That couldn't be it, possibly?
No, must be a conspiracy. *facepalm*
Yup. It's bullshit.
1. Food in the business cabins still tastes how it should.
2. Food I've taken on board still tastes good,
3. The food budget per meal, per seat in economy is around $1-$2
1 and 2 put the lie to the premise, 3 is just the reason why. Price competition has driven airlines to cut every last cent they can. Me, I'd rather have an option to pay ten bucks more for my ticket and not get fed recycled rat-shit.