They're maybe not qualified as math/science teachers. If they want a fat check, they should see about changing subjects.
I'll argue that, given that very shortage of "other things" that humanities teachers can do with their careers, they're usually more qualified than the crap that schools get to fill science/math teacher positions - hence the very need for this plan to pay science teachers more.
The salary issue is one of supply and demand. Quality is another matter.
As for choosing a career that pays better, well, I am a scientist, so I did. But, since I didn't want to work at a job that starts out at $25K a year, I didn't become a teacher either. In any event, I'm not deluded enough to think that stumbling out of college with a minor in math makes you a good teacher or even a decent mathematician. I knew too many of them in my classes who were going that path, and it was kind of frightening.
Well, they're not qualified to teach science (compared to the people that are targetted), and their specialty isn't in as high demand. Welcome to Econ 101.
No shit, but that certainly wouldn't mean that history teachers, for instance, aren't qualified. And they'll certainly "grumble" when their coworkers get a nice raise by virtue of being science teachers.
...simply going to breed discontent among under-qualified teachers?
So, wait...teachers of non-science subjects are inherently underqualified? I'm a scientist and I still find that conclusion a tad objectionable. Or were you limiting the conclusion to science teachers alone?
It can work just the same way in the US. It would be the marketing company cracking down on you for using their layout, their format, their slogan (albeit twisted), not the company you're parodying.
Pretty well established Supreme Court decisions on the matter. Both the copyright and libel angles of parody have been smacked down by the US Supreme Court. So unless they come up with a new angle, it's unlikely this would fly far in the US.
...Carnegie Mellon researchers can't tell a mean from a median. This is inherently a long-tailed distribution in which the mean will be much higher than the median. Imagine a simple situation in which failure rates are 50%/yr, but those that last beyond a year last a long time. Mean time to failure might be 1000 years. You simply can't compare the statistics the way they have without knowing a lot more about the distribution than I saw in the article. Perhaps I missed it while skimming.
If Linux eventually takes over the desktop, it won't be because everyone becomes a Linux geek. Isn't the fact that a significant sampling of people a) want Dell hardware and b)can't or won't install Linux on it themselves a sign of increasing desktop penetration (or at least market demand for it) of Linux?
First, I'd say that it's not a significant sampling, not compared to Dell's overall customer base - it's just vocal. Second, I think - and this is just a guess - that people want Dell to offer Linux because of the symbolic victory. I'd say if you asked many of the people advocating this, "Would you buy Dell if it came with SuSE?" (for example) they'd tell you no. This could be because 1) they make their own machines, 2) they have disdain for Dell, or 3) because the distro Dell would eventually choose isn't the one they choose.
If you are trying to cast Dell as analogous to Burger King then you're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone. You may not like the taste of Dell's "food" but they made of living off of "made to order" configurability. Dell pioneered that.
His analogy's spot on. Burger King's motto, as he put it, is "have it your way." Now they at least assume that what you might want is at least roughly the same as most of their other customers, so if you come in and want anchovies on your burger you're SOL. Same with Dell. Yes, they do configure it for you, but there are limits to it and one of the limits they've chosen to set is they're not dealing with Linux for consumers. Quite frankly, I don't blame them.
So I'd say the original analogy is correct. If the company in question simply doesn't sell what you want, buy from someone else. I really don't get the furor, it's not like Dell is the only computer manufacturer. And any Linux geek worth his/her salt is going to want to install their own thing anyway.
If it's just about not paying the MS "tax," let's make that it's own issue.
Is there really any reason why government-funded research shouldn't be made available to the masses? After all, wasn't it the masses who paid for the research?
Yes, but they don't pay to publish it, which isn't free. Also, many of the non-profit professional societies use subscription money to do rather a lot of good for K-12 and undergraduate education, so there's an effect there too.
I'd like to see an open system too, but it's not as simple as it sounds, which is why it hasn't happened.
Please give me running time in Big O notation [wikipedia.org].
Oh, but he says he didn't want to go into a bunch of theory. In other words, he doesn't understand the theory. In addition to theory, add copyrights and patents to the list of things he doesn't understand:
The algorithm is being released under the GPL ( General Public License ). The algorithm belongs to PhoenixBit and VirusFree but you may use/modify it freely.
1. You release the code under the GPL, not the algorithm. 2. You don't 'own' the algorithm. You might patent it, but you haven't (and obviously won't since it appears to be radix). Additionally, to GPL the code, you'd have to provide an unlimited redistribution license to the patent if it existed.
Ferrari caters to the uber-wealthy and their products aren't supposed to have high sales volume and mass market appeal. The same cannot be said for Apple.
Well, if we were talking Macs here, he'd actually be right, because that's Apple's exact strategy - high appeal, high margin, low volume. But I think for this phone to be a winner, it needs to have greater market penetration and a lower price point, as they did with the iPod.
Every place I've worked (so far), I have in fact been rewarded for coming up with better alternatives to the boss's suggestions, and I've never once been punished for disagreement. Thing is, you have to earn their respect before you can do that...
Yup. I won't work for a boss who wants to hear "Yes-man" echoing of his own opinions, mainly because I won't do it and we'll end up driving each other crazy. That said, once a decision has been made it's my job to help make it work even if I didn't think it was the best idea originally. That's being a team player.
But I'd counter with a few things: 1) labor savings. I can hire one less IT guy, and that's huge there. 2) productivity: documents are less likely to get lost, and you have access to them anytime you have an internet connection, and internet connections are pretty stable these days. 3) Less crap to buy: no servers needed.
I agree in general that the productivity issue is probably much more relevant than a couple hundred dollars/person/year, but I think Google's a win there too. Admittedly the doc portability is a liability now, but if/when they nail that, I'd do it.
Microsoft isn't certifying the most popular competitors to it's own software. Pardon me if I don't appear shocked. I was a bit suprised to see Google's desktop search made the list though.
I don't think that's it - I think it's just a rubber-stamp list of whoever signed up, paid their fee, and jumped through the hoops. If they were excluding competitors, I really don't think Google Toolbar would have made the list.
They're focusing on the $225 vs $50 per employee per year, but $225 isn't the TCO number. You also have to calculate the salaries of the IT staff who maintain the company email server and such, or the hosting for the same. I expect that pushes the number far higher. I'm assuming that Google will also see better uptime than the typical small-company email server, and it's probably smaller companies who will find this most attractive.
If I were starting my own company, today, I'd go with this. If I started up with 10 people, I'm looking at $500 per year for full mail hosting and document storage as well as infrastructure for collaboration. I also won't have to buy a single server for anything. I don't have to worry about documents getting lost.
For what you get, and for everything that you *don't* have to buy, that's idiotically cheap.
Oh, yeah, people like that I beat in the damned head. I thought from your original post that you might be dealing so gruffly with non-idiots. Sorry for the confusion.
When I ask my local friendly IT guy a question, I've usually researched on my own for quite some time and by that point it's usually obscure enough that he doesn't know either. Oh, and I never ask someone to effectively debug my code (like the guy you mentioned who was failing to trace his file handle errors). I have a coworker who has actually sent me a script he's running and tells me it doesn't run. That's it. No error messages, no nothing. Yeah, if you're talking about people like that, screw 'em.
The issues I have with IT at our corporate headquarters is that they truly don't care. Pretty much about anything. If you ask them a question that makes them think, they don't want to do it. Their default response to pretty much anything is 'no'. And I ask open ended questions too - I don't tell them how I want to do things, I tell them what I need at a high level and I'm willing to compromise. But they're pretty much unwilling to work with anyone. In some cases, I understand that it's too much work to make exceptions for every user, but when the problem is that we're trying to find a way to demo something to potential clients that could bring in a lot of business, it seems inexcusable to me to not be a little flexible.
I'd give you better examples if I didn't think there was a pretty good chance the assholes read this.
Looks like this will also be "Month-of-me-working-harder-to-make-sure-my-site-i s-patched- and-updated-and-not-exploited-by-script-kiddies"
Well, if the article is to be believed and the PHP team hasn't much cared about some of these bugs, patching and updating won't help you. In any event, these bugs won't be fixed live. So they will result in potential compromise you won't be able to stop, likely.
In other words, this will also be "Month-of-you-getting-bent-over-by-open-security-h oles-in-PHP-you-can't-do-anything-about"
The implication is that Apple secretly wants to continue using DRM and is wrongly pointing the finger at the record companies to deflect blame. But the facts don't support that point of view. So, please explain to me why Apple would want to continue utilizing DRM when it of no benefit to them
OK. Here's what I think. The issue isn't about DRM, really. Apple's using this as a red herring because they know damned well there's no way in hell the RIAA accepts a DRM-less world. Not happening soon. So what's the real issue they're fighting?
Opening of Fairplay. They say they don't want to open it because it would be a security issue, blah blah. I don't believe for a second that's the real reason - and on that basis I think Macrovision is *right*, this is not a technical issue that's insurmountable.
What's the real reason? They've been able to cut out a huge section of the online marketplace for music sales. They also happen to be dealing with a rather difficult organization (RIAA). Their place in the market is dependent upon their ability to make deals with the RIAA. If another company were able to get their hands on fairplay, what's to stop them from licensing it, then negotiating deals with the RIAA that would make life tough for Apple?
I think Apple is scared to death what would happen if they had a competitor/licensee competing against them for the rights to distribute music on iPods. And I don't blame them. But I think the whole "open up the music!" thing against the RIAA is a red herring.
Re:How good is that code?
on
PMD Applied
·
· Score: 1
If it was anything like my senior deign project, he was up late the last week just getting the thing to work right, so making lots of comments and doing lots of extra testing was more than likely not the top priority. Don't forget, you only have about 2 months to design, code, test, and make a presentation and working example of a project.
If you're doing anything like this, you make sure it gives itself an A through the entire development cycle even if it does nothing else. Even if you code the entire thing in a day (and anyone could code up a simple version of a program that does that in a day). Too obvious. Certainly don't create a project whose sole purpose is to return a grade, and then fail itself.
Not to mention which, many students actually manage to do decent work for projects. I'm familiar with the concept, having done many class projects plus graduate theses.
Plus, the professor sounds like a real dick. I would have fucked up his car.
Again, too obvious and uncreative. If I'm the prof, I see it coming and now you have a D *and* you're arrested. If I'm teaching a class in revenge, I'd give you a D for *that*. Don't blame the prof. for your crappy work.
Re:How good is that code?
on
PMD Applied
·
· Score: 1
Our diabolical prof fed this analysis code itself to it as data. It spat out a D. He got a D.
What an idiot! Come on, if it's his freaking *project*, you'd think he'd at least do the vanity/sanity check of running it on itself. Something like that had better damned well produce an 'A' for itself. Did it never occur to him to at least practice the principles of design he's preaching?
I'd have done the same thing if I were the prof, it's just too damned obvious. And incredibly funny. If I was feeling charitable I might give him the opportunity to resubmit.
If I were the student, I'd have had an obfuscated section that ensured it returned an 'A' if it was self-run.
Slashdot Mirror
They're maybe not qualified as math/science teachers. If they want a fat check, they should see about changing subjects.
I'll argue that, given that very shortage of "other things" that humanities teachers can do with their careers, they're usually more qualified than the crap that schools get to fill science/math teacher positions - hence the very need for this plan to pay science teachers more.
The salary issue is one of supply and demand. Quality is another matter.
As for choosing a career that pays better, well, I am a scientist, so I did. But, since I didn't want to work at a job that starts out at $25K a year, I didn't become a teacher either. In any event, I'm not deluded enough to think that stumbling out of college with a minor in math makes you a good teacher or even a decent mathematician. I knew too many of them in my classes who were going that path, and it was kind of frightening.
Well, they're not qualified to teach science (compared to the people that are targetted), and their specialty isn't in as high demand. Welcome to Econ 101.
No shit, but that certainly wouldn't mean that history teachers, for instance, aren't qualified. And they'll certainly "grumble" when their coworkers get a nice raise by virtue of being science teachers.
So, wait...teachers of non-science subjects are inherently underqualified? I'm a scientist and I still find that conclusion a tad objectionable. Or were you limiting the conclusion to science teachers alone?
It can work just the same way in the US. It would be the marketing company cracking down on you for using their layout, their format, their slogan (albeit twisted), not the company you're parodying.
Pretty well established Supreme Court decisions on the matter. Both the copyright and libel angles of parody have been smacked down by the US Supreme Court. So unless they come up with a new angle, it's unlikely this would fly far in the US.
...Etc Text Configuration.
...Carnegie Mellon researchers can't tell a mean from a median. This is inherently a long-tailed distribution in which the mean will be much higher than the median. Imagine a simple situation in which failure rates are 50%/yr, but those that last beyond a year last a long time. Mean time to failure might be 1000 years. You simply can't compare the statistics the way they have without knowing a lot more about the distribution than I saw in the article. Perhaps I missed it while skimming.
If Linux eventually takes over the desktop, it won't be because everyone becomes a Linux geek. Isn't the fact that a significant sampling of people a) want Dell hardware and b)can't or won't install Linux on it themselves a sign of increasing desktop penetration (or at least market demand for it) of Linux?
First, I'd say that it's not a significant sampling, not compared to Dell's overall customer base - it's just vocal. Second, I think - and this is just a guess - that people want Dell to offer Linux because of the symbolic victory. I'd say if you asked many of the people advocating this, "Would you buy Dell if it came with SuSE?" (for example) they'd tell you no. This could be because 1) they make their own machines, 2) they have disdain for Dell, or 3) because the distro Dell would eventually choose isn't the one they choose.
It's not blood. It's cellular fluid, the liquid within the muscle cells. It leaks out when the cell walls are ruptured from cooking.
Horseshit. That "red stuff" is present before cooking, and the red color is from hemoglobin.
The red juice from a steak is not blood.
Uh, yeah it is. What the hell do you think it is?
If you are trying to cast Dell as analogous to Burger King then you're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone. You may not like the taste of Dell's "food" but they made of living off of "made to order" configurability. Dell pioneered that.
His analogy's spot on. Burger King's motto, as he put it, is "have it your way." Now they at least assume that what you might want is at least roughly the same as most of their other customers, so if you come in and want anchovies on your burger you're SOL. Same with Dell. Yes, they do configure it for you, but there are limits to it and one of the limits they've chosen to set is they're not dealing with Linux for consumers. Quite frankly, I don't blame them.
So I'd say the original analogy is correct. If the company in question simply doesn't sell what you want, buy from someone else. I really don't get the furor, it's not like Dell is the only computer manufacturer. And any Linux geek worth his/her salt is going to want to install their own thing anyway.
If it's just about not paying the MS "tax," let's make that it's own issue.
Is there really any reason why government-funded research shouldn't be made available to the masses? After all, wasn't it the masses who paid for the research?
Yes, but they don't pay to publish it, which isn't free. Also, many of the non-profit professional societies use subscription money to do rather a lot of good for K-12 and undergraduate education, so there's an effect there too.
I'd like to see an open system too, but it's not as simple as it sounds, which is why it hasn't happened.
Face it. People (in general) are stupid in the USA.
Right, because other nations have had more success with their master race eugenics. Fuck off, asshole.
Please give me running time in Big O notation [wikipedia.org].
Oh, but he says he didn't want to go into a bunch of theory. In other words, he doesn't understand the theory. In addition to theory, add copyrights and patents to the list of things he doesn't understand:
1. You release the code under the GPL, not the algorithm. 2. You don't 'own' the algorithm. You might patent it, but you haven't (and obviously won't since it appears to be radix). Additionally, to GPL the code, you'd have to provide an unlimited redistribution license to the patent if it existed.
I'd hope it is the yes-men who are finally sick of choking on the boss' pole, because all the useful and talented staff left long ago.
Good luck - yes men have an amazing capacity for deep throat.
Ferrari caters to the uber-wealthy and their products aren't supposed to have high sales volume and mass market appeal. The same cannot be said for Apple.
Well, if we were talking Macs here, he'd actually be right, because that's Apple's exact strategy - high appeal, high margin, low volume. But I think for this phone to be a winner, it needs to have greater market penetration and a lower price point, as they did with the iPod.
Every place I've worked (so far), I have in fact been rewarded for coming up with better alternatives to the boss's suggestions, and I've never once been punished for disagreement. Thing is, you have to earn their respect before you can do that...
Yup. I won't work for a boss who wants to hear "Yes-man" echoing of his own opinions, mainly because I won't do it and we'll end up driving each other crazy. That said, once a decision has been made it's my job to help make it work even if I didn't think it was the best idea originally. That's being a team player.
But I'd counter with a few things: 1) labor savings. I can hire one less IT guy, and that's huge there. 2) productivity: documents are less likely to get lost, and you have access to them anytime you have an internet connection, and internet connections are pretty stable these days. 3) Less crap to buy: no servers needed.
I agree in general that the productivity issue is probably much more relevant than a couple hundred dollars/person/year, but I think Google's a win there too. Admittedly the doc portability is a liability now, but if/when they nail that, I'd do it.
Microsoft isn't certifying the most popular competitors to it's own software. Pardon me if I don't appear shocked. I was a bit suprised to see Google's desktop search made the list though.
I don't think that's it - I think it's just a rubber-stamp list of whoever signed up, paid their fee, and jumped through the hoops. If they were excluding competitors, I really don't think Google Toolbar would have made the list.
For what you get, and for everything that you *don't* have to buy, that's idiotically cheap.
Oh, yeah, people like that I beat in the damned head. I thought from your original post that you might be dealing so gruffly with non-idiots. Sorry for the confusion.
When I ask my local friendly IT guy a question, I've usually researched on my own for quite some time and by that point it's usually obscure enough that he doesn't know either. Oh, and I never ask someone to effectively debug my code (like the guy you mentioned who was failing to trace his file handle errors). I have a coworker who has actually sent me a script he's running and tells me it doesn't run. That's it. No error messages, no nothing. Yeah, if you're talking about people like that, screw 'em.
The issues I have with IT at our corporate headquarters is that they truly don't care. Pretty much about anything. If you ask them a question that makes them think, they don't want to do it. Their default response to pretty much anything is 'no'. And I ask open ended questions too - I don't tell them how I want to do things, I tell them what I need at a high level and I'm willing to compromise. But they're pretty much unwilling to work with anyone. In some cases, I understand that it's too much work to make exceptions for every user, but when the problem is that we're trying to find a way to demo something to potential clients that could bring in a lot of business, it seems inexcusable to me to not be a little flexible.
I'd give you better examples if I didn't think there was a pretty good chance the assholes read this.
Have you ever tried, you know, actually helping them?
Looks like this will also be "Month-of-me-working-harder-to-make-sure-my-site-i s-patched- and-updated-and-not-exploited-by-script-kiddies"
Well, if the article is to be believed and the PHP team hasn't much cared about some of these bugs, patching and updating won't help you. In any event, these bugs won't be fixed live. So they will result in potential compromise you won't be able to stop, likely.
In other words, this will also be "Month-of-you-getting-bent-over-by-open-security-h oles-in-PHP-you-can't-do-anything-about"
The police are there to do the paperwork after you are unable to protect yourself.
Or to clean up the mess after you're able to successfully protect yourself. ;)
The implication is that Apple secretly wants to continue using DRM and is wrongly pointing the finger at the record companies to deflect blame. But the facts don't support that point of view. So, please explain to me why Apple would want to continue utilizing DRM when it of no benefit to them
OK. Here's what I think. The issue isn't about DRM, really. Apple's using this as a red herring because they know damned well there's no way in hell the RIAA accepts a DRM-less world. Not happening soon. So what's the real issue they're fighting?
Opening of Fairplay. They say they don't want to open it because it would be a security issue, blah blah. I don't believe for a second that's the real reason - and on that basis I think Macrovision is *right*, this is not a technical issue that's insurmountable.
What's the real reason? They've been able to cut out a huge section of the online marketplace for music sales. They also happen to be dealing with a rather difficult organization (RIAA). Their place in the market is dependent upon their ability to make deals with the RIAA. If another company were able to get their hands on fairplay, what's to stop them from licensing it, then negotiating deals with the RIAA that would make life tough for Apple?
I think Apple is scared to death what would happen if they had a competitor/licensee competing against them for the rights to distribute music on iPods. And I don't blame them. But I think the whole "open up the music!" thing against the RIAA is a red herring.
If it was anything like my senior deign project, he was up late the last week just getting the thing to work right, so making lots of comments and doing lots of extra testing was more than likely not the top priority. Don't forget, you only have about 2 months to design, code, test, and make a presentation and working example of a project.
If you're doing anything like this, you make sure it gives itself an A through the entire development cycle even if it does nothing else. Even if you code the entire thing in a day (and anyone could code up a simple version of a program that does that in a day). Too obvious. Certainly don't create a project whose sole purpose is to return a grade, and then fail itself.
Not to mention which, many students actually manage to do decent work for projects. I'm familiar with the concept, having done many class projects plus graduate theses.
Plus, the professor sounds like a real dick. I would have fucked up his car.
Again, too obvious and uncreative. If I'm the prof, I see it coming and now you have a D *and* you're arrested. If I'm teaching a class in revenge, I'd give you a D for *that*. Don't blame the prof. for your crappy work.
Our diabolical prof fed this analysis code itself to it as data. It spat out a D. He got a D.
What an idiot! Come on, if it's his freaking *project*, you'd think he'd at least do the vanity/sanity check of running it on itself. Something like that had better damned well produce an 'A' for itself. Did it never occur to him to at least practice the principles of design he's preaching?
I'd have done the same thing if I were the prof, it's just too damned obvious. And incredibly funny. If I was feeling charitable I might give him the opportunity to resubmit.
If I were the student, I'd have had an obfuscated section that ensured it returned an 'A' if it was self-run.