Here is the take from someone familiar with the paper. Quoted without permission, and passed along from hand to hand, so not able to attribute.
It (the paper) ignores the importance of training and skill. The headline misinterprets the original study as the finding concerned a limited number of children.
The usual sort of mainstream media shock-value headline. Unfortunate since it was quoted directly from Eureka Alerts. Sad.
So if you want to claim it applies to your life, go ahead. But don't make claims about general application and for goodness sake, don't use it to justify messing with your own kids lives.
Totally - I are one.;-) I see it all the time. Stories in the news are off-the-wall sorts of things and Rush Limbaugh's wet dreams. Mostly just crap but some real life problems. In general you can get rid of dummies if you want to. You've got to want to.
I suggest you look first at yourself. Are you the kind of person who reacts well to a lower stress environment by becoming more creative and working harder?
Your argument is fine of you are a conservative economist. But this isn't post-hoc story telling. Schools are directly responsive to you. Now if you are talking about charter schools, I might agree with you. They aren't directly responsive.
There you go! The only thing you *didn't* mention was voting for Jim Inhoffe.
All I need say is look at the many survivalists that represent the far right margins of conservatism. The remark about having a gun collection was unfair of course but who hasn't had an issue with the IRS? Honestly, lots of people. Ask a CPA.
Many people have guns, many people hate the IRS. BUT the things they do aren't motivated by paranoia either.
Of course you don't hire PhDs for elementary schools. But many expensive private prep schools hire them. Actually they have a mixture of masters and even some bachelors but the key is subject knowledge in any case.
It didn't occur to me anyone would consider elementary schools. But since you mentioned it, elementary teachers are demonstrably the worst prepared in subject knowledge. Puerto Rico looked at the research quite some time ago and mandated subject knowledge as professional development for all teachers. Strangely, this improved their SAT results after a short time.;-)
Back to the US - hiring people who understand the reasons for learning certain things, not just that they must be learnt, is key.
Of course there is plenty of evidence that you get good employees if you pay them more money. Look around and quit listening to think tank FUD. There is absolutely no way of substantiating the article's panic laden assertions. None. Look at yourself in the mirror for goodness sake.
Every high performing private school hires teachers with doctorates. Universities hire people with doctorates. They get paid a lot and because they have tons of knowledge in their subject area they make pretty good teachers. There is plenty of research that says people who know what they are talking about are good teachers. The news is as usual catching and throwing some crap from yet another attempt to distract people from doing what is right.
OMG the educators have been doing it wrong for the last fifty years! ROFL Peolpe who believe that believe their plumber has been putting their pipes in backwards and their electrician has miswired their houses. They have a profound distrust of institutions that may or may not be well-founded. The result of such thinking is what brought about the rise of home schooling. But you gotta understand the majority of home schooling moms are evangelicals whose husbands have big gun collections and think the IRS is out to get them. They may be right, but they aren't you or me.
Now I'm sure that at this point all the slashdot self-educated whingers will come out of the woodwork, but seriously folks, just think about it. The articles are pretty much crap.
Comic Relief at Apple’s Shareholder Meeting article by Chaffin at Mac Observer Some quotes: "Why are we being inundated with policies that have nothing to do with [Apple as a company]?!?! These people are Socialists and want us to be slaves to the government, GOD DAMNIT!"... I also wonder if he's the same HP shareholder named Shelton Ehrlich who told a reporter that he didn't think HP's Chairman had done anything wrong by hiring private investigators to spy on company employees.
I am yet another computer crap teacher from yet another huge inner-city school. Rather than recount yet another boring and pointless-because-it-is-just-another-personal-experience, I will tell you what a know for certain.
Adoption of computer technology is a personal choice for families because game consoles are now as expensive as cheap computers. Scrounging broken computers and fixing them is not a productive use of your time. They have been commoditized.
Students will have unrestricted Internet access in classrooms whether schools want it or not. Right now, the screens are a bit too small to use for extended periods. But audio and video are pretty much ubiquitous.
The job is to shape student's usage rather than react to it.
I have moved our class management system (Moodle) to a server outside the school firewall. Now the kids have access from home and everybody is a lot happier.
It may be a waste of time to teach students how to use technology in Math class, but it is essential to understand search technology, critical thinking about content, evaluation of sources, and social behavior as much as which buttons to push.
Any school should be able to afford to put in Internet appliances that are fanless, diskless boxes with wireless cards and external power supplies. Why? Because the cost isn't significantly different from a couple of sets of textbooks. The real problem is not a technology problem, it is a people problem. As Negroponte says, OLPC isn't a technology project. The U.S. school system is only very slightly different from others, but not by much.
On one hand you have parents, on the other, the school personnel to convince.
My solution is to provide something attractive that will attract teacher interest first, student interest second, and administrator interest last.
At this point they are happy to see a little ahead of the CDC reports. The next step will be clustering. But then there are privacy issues that will have to be protected in some way.
I went to a symposium a couple of years ago on the one used for SARS but I was only interested in the network stuff. Input will probably be done by local public health - city or province but as you say, it will be slow for a while. Maybe a long time but it is a start.
It filters out noise. What you are thinking about doesn't happen because they thought of it back when the first one was written in Canada during the SARS respiratory outbreak that started in a hotel in Hong Kong. It scraped specific chinese websites and provided valuable data for the public health docs. They were able to confine it quickly as a result.
It would have been nice for the mods to recognize crap when they see it for once and not publish something from a site related to canada.com that doesn't have an editorial position based on reality.
When you get to training candidates for research, the curriculum is so tight that although the need for programming skills is acknowledged by reasonable department heads, the priorities are for other things, not programming. This is true of all experimental sciences where data are increasingly overwhelming. Greg Wilson did this workshop at the AAAS meeting a couple of years ago: http://www.osl.iu.edu/~lums/swc/ When he had outlined both the need and the solution, he asked for a show of hands for agreement. Almost every hand went up. Then he asked how many would adopt and the number went WAY down.
Imhoffe is the one who should be "decertified" as a rational being and reclassified as a troll. That's what it comes down to. Trolls. Exxon-Mobil and their so-called experts are just trolling and people just can't resist a good troll. Just look at Slashdot. The story is a complete dead end waste of productive time. Has anybody noticed that there are very few references in the dissenting posts? Yet people reply to them rather than letting them get modded down and ignored.
Read the post that points to http://realclimate.org/ the people you've been reading are evidently pointed in a different direction from the rest of humanity. Solar radiation has been modeled and analyzed, so you can see that the SKY IS FALLING really! The data you cite are irrelevant. There are several posts by people on this thread that cite Mars for some reason. Is there something that links Mars, a planet with little or not liquid water, to Earth? Is there some reason the sun's radiation has not been taken into consideration by climatologists who virtually all agree that makind's activity is driving global warming? A statement about a one degree limit to global warming over a 100 year span is indicitave of anything without supporting context.
YOU are pretty sure that if ALL the ice melted there would be negligible rise in sea levels? Good lord, on what do you base this assertion? I live in Florida and would like you to be absolutely sure before you say something like that.
The Union of Concerned Scientists and the fellows of the National Science Foundation as well as the fellows of the Royal Scoiety are now "alarmist anti-capitalist forces attempting to undermine the economy" ????????????? Break out the tinfoil hats.
CO2 is, I believe, not generated in sufficient quantity by anyone or anything other than mankind. So the answer to your query would be that very nearly *every* study shows the hand of mankind. The phrase "nearly every" is spoken advisedly since the theory of global warming is an aggregate of hundreds of people's work. One missing part is irrelevant to the theory just as so-called gaps in the fossil record are irrelevant to the theory of evolution. It is a work of consensus.
The guy at junkscience.com is a voice in the wilderness. He may be right, but every day that passes the possibility is lower.
Please reference the graph in my other post. The hockey stick is alive and relatively healthy. Those who continue to refer to its demise are being willfully obtuse. That characterization would apply to the Administration of the U.S. as well when it comes to science. I believe that the judge who ruled against the Intelligent Design folks in PA said it best. He used the word "disingenous" to describe the willful distortion of fact.
I *thought* the original article was about the *funding* of the skeptic community that inveighs against global warming. So it has been proven waaaaaay back at the top of the page by reference to Exxon's annual reports that total sixteen million dollars given to complete brown noses. Or do you now want copies of internal memos outlining specific agreements between Exxon personnel duly authorized to dispense lucre to third parties and said brown noses?
Arrrrrr. What we needs is more pirates! -- self referential to the pastafarian theory that global warming can be reversed if enough people become pirates.
Sorry if this is redundant but I couldn't real ALL the global warming skeptic tripe without barfing.
watch how much money is being spent by and for these false prophets!
They are not "false" nor are they "prophets." I can't believe how often global warming skeptics use religious terminology.
The people to who you refer are scientists who work for various universities and governmental agencies. Their costs are pretty much borne by our taxes.
Do you think that the cost is borne by super-secret enviornmentalists? Hmmm?
How about digging up the reserences to what was wrong with it? I seriously do provide references. I just thought that everybody knew this. (You mean I can't pull it out my ass like the rest of the posters?)
I'll bet if I said there wasn't sufficient weighting for water vapor in global warming proponents calculations you would fall for it and not ask for references.
Number one is a kind of slap shot in parting rather than putting it last, I though you might decide to eschew reading the rest:
[Sir Crispin Tickell, climate change scholar and visionary, delivered the annual Robert C. Barnard Environmental Lecture at AAAS in Washington, D.C., on 18 September 2006.]
We are now better aware of the fluctuations of the past in and out of relative heat and cold, including the brief but relatively rapid cooling (some 12,000 years ago) and the marked warming (the so-called runaway greenhouse effect some 55 million years ago). Nonetheless the human impact is now becoming unmistakably evident, leading to the graph on the charts known as the hockey stick (which, although originally challenged, has been shown to be broadly correct).
Number two: Science and Technology in Congress is a newsletter that provides objective information to Congress on current science and technology issues. This is from July 2006 issue.
Since its use in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the "hockey stick" graph has become a fixture in the public consciousness of global warming. The methods leading to the temperature graph's characteristic shape have come under dispute in recent years, and the latest round of contestation has unfolded in the U.S. Congress. The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held two hearings in July, each lasting more than 4 hours, during which two requests for studies, one each from GAO and NAS, were announced.
The hockey stick discussion refers to 1998 and 1999 studies by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes. Because direct temperature measurements date back only 150 years, the researchers used proxy measurements, including tree ring growth, coral reef growth, and ice core samples, to reconstruct temperatures of the past one thousand years. Due to the sharp upward spike in recent decades, the graphs resemble a hockey stick lying on the ground. The criticisms of the mathematical averaging process suggested that the characteristic shape of the graph could be produced as an artifact of incorrect statistical techniques.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee commissioned its own panel of statisticians to review the pair of papers that generated the graph and the Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations convened on July 19 to examine the reports. The Committee leadership reasoned that the papers' use in important documents such as the 2001 IPCC report justified examination of the details of the statistical methods involved. "A lot of people basically used that report to come to the conclusion that global warming was a fact," said Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX).
During the hearing, Edward Wegman, a statistician at George Mason University, testified on behalf of the mathematicians who reviewed the Mann papers. Wegman stated, "The proxy data exhibiting the hockey stick shape are actually decentered low." Wegman showed that the procedure used by Mann was in principle capable of distorting the shape of a graph, though he did not provide an alternative reconstruction of the original Mann data. Surprisingly, there was no actual dispute over the shape of the famous hockey stick graph after all, since nobody argued that its shape would be altered through the use of different techniques. Wegman additionally advocated that "evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice" in the grant applications of any scientific study with policy implications.
Mann himself was absent, and the studies he published subsequent to the
The religion argument is bizarre. Is it because people feel strongly? Do people think slashdotters are religiously intolerant about our operating systems?
The network of organizations has been known for several years. UCS is a pretty stodgy outfit and the fact that they come out at this point means they are ready to put their influence to work. This is no news to anybody as the donations are part of Exxon's annual report and have been available online.
Saying that these organizations don't agree with the vast majority of scientists is a non sequitur because the organizations are not scientific. There are in fact only two semi-respectable scientists in the whole outfit who run from foundation to foundation.
Mars has nothing to do with the earth. It is somewhat distant.
Who cares what Exxon Mobil does? I suppose I do. Allowing Exxon to make a risk/benefit calculation on my behalf would not be in my best interest. I want to make my own decisions. If they are wrong, so be it. George Bush hasn't been up front with me and his friends on those foundations haven't been any better. (Jeb Bush on Heritage Foundation board.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not notable is certainly not right. Deleted because stupid.-- much better
Without a computer you have to learn how to think.
It's sad the community votes this insightful when it is obviously off-topic, not insightful. This kind of thing makes Slashdot no better than Digg.
Here is the take from someone familiar with the paper. Quoted without permission, and passed along from hand to hand, so not able to attribute.
The usual sort of mainstream media shock-value headline. Unfortunate since it was quoted directly from Eureka Alerts. Sad.
So if you want to claim it applies to your life, go ahead. But don't make claims about general application and for goodness sake, don't use it to justify messing with your own kids lives.
Totally - I are one. ;-) I see it all the time. Stories in the news are off-the-wall sorts of things and Rush Limbaugh's wet dreams. Mostly just crap but some real life problems. In general you can get rid of dummies if you want to. You've got to want to.
I suggest you look first at yourself. Are you the kind of person who reacts well to a lower stress environment by becoming more creative and working harder?
Your argument is fine of you are a conservative economist. But this isn't post-hoc story telling. Schools are directly responsive to you. Now if you are talking about charter schools, I might agree with you. They aren't directly responsive.
There you go! The only thing you *didn't* mention was voting for Jim Inhoffe.
All I need say is look at the many survivalists that represent the far right margins of conservatism. The remark about having a gun collection was unfair of course but who hasn't had an issue with the IRS? Honestly, lots of people. Ask a CPA.
Many people have guns, many people hate the IRS. BUT the things they do aren't motivated by paranoia either.
*scream*
Of course you don't hire PhDs for elementary schools. But many expensive private prep schools hire them. Actually they have a mixture of masters and even some bachelors but the key is subject knowledge in any case.
It didn't occur to me anyone would consider elementary schools. But since you mentioned it, elementary teachers are demonstrably the worst prepared in subject knowledge. Puerto Rico looked at the research quite some time ago and mandated subject knowledge as professional development for all teachers. Strangely, this improved their SAT results after a short time. ;-)
Back to the US - hiring people who understand the reasons for learning certain things, not just that they must be learnt, is key.
And who can't do any of those three? Only incompetent managers who can't figure out which end of a pen to use can't hire and fire.
If we posit management as the problem hiring and firing, what are we left with?
Of course there is plenty of evidence that you get good employees if you pay them more money. Look around and quit listening to think tank FUD. There is absolutely no way of substantiating the article's panic laden assertions. None. Look at yourself in the mirror for goodness sake.
Every high performing private school hires teachers with doctorates. Universities hire people with doctorates. They get paid a lot and because they have tons of knowledge in their subject area they make pretty good teachers. There is plenty of research that says people who know what they are talking about are good teachers. The news is as usual catching and throwing some crap from yet another attempt to distract people from doing what is right.
OMG the educators have been doing it wrong for the last fifty years! ROFL Peolpe who believe that believe their plumber has been putting their pipes in backwards and their electrician has miswired their houses. They have a profound distrust of institutions that may or may not be well-founded. The result of such thinking is what brought about the rise of home schooling. But you gotta understand the majority of home schooling moms are evangelicals whose husbands have big gun collections and think the IRS is out to get them. They may be right, but they aren't you or me.
Now I'm sure that at this point all the slashdot self-educated whingers will come out of the woodwork, but seriously folks, just think about it. The articles are pretty much crap.
Comic Relief at Apple’s Shareholder Meeting article by Chaffin at Mac Observer ... I also wonder if he's the same HP shareholder named Shelton Ehrlich who told a reporter that he didn't think HP's Chairman had done anything wrong by hiring private investigators to spy on company employees.
Some quotes: "Why are we being inundated with policies that have nothing to do with [Apple as a company]?!?! These people are Socialists and want us to be slaves to the government, GOD DAMNIT!"
What idiot reads ZD FUD and thinks it's real? You may as well believe Fox News.
I am yet another computer crap teacher from yet another huge inner-city school. Rather than recount yet another boring and pointless-because-it-is-just-another-personal-experience, I will tell you what a know for certain.
Adoption of computer technology is a personal choice for families because game consoles are now as expensive as cheap computers. Scrounging broken computers and fixing them is not a productive use of your time. They have been commoditized.
Students will have unrestricted Internet access in classrooms whether schools want it or not. Right now, the screens are a bit too small to use for extended periods. But audio and video are pretty much ubiquitous.
The job is to shape student's usage rather than react to it.
I have moved our class management system (Moodle) to a server outside the school firewall. Now the kids have access from home and everybody is a lot happier.
It may be a waste of time to teach students how to use technology in Math class, but it is essential to understand search technology, critical thinking about content, evaluation of sources, and social behavior as much as which buttons to push.
Any school should be able to afford to put in Internet appliances that are fanless, diskless boxes with wireless cards and external power supplies. Why? Because the cost isn't significantly different from a couple of sets of textbooks. The real problem is not a technology problem, it is a people problem. As Negroponte says, OLPC isn't a technology project. The U.S. school system is only very slightly different from others, but not by much.
On one hand you have parents, on the other, the school personnel to convince.
My solution is to provide something attractive that will attract teacher interest first, student interest second, and administrator interest last.
At this point they are happy to see a little ahead of the CDC reports. The next step will be clustering. But then there are privacy issues that will have to be protected in some way.
I went to a symposium a couple of years ago on the one used for SARS but I was only interested in the network stuff. Input will probably be done by local public health - city or province but as you say, it will be slow for a while. Maybe a long time but it is a start.
It filters out noise. What you are thinking about doesn't happen because they thought of it back when the first one was written in Canada during the SARS respiratory outbreak that started in a hotel in Hong Kong. It scraped specific chinese websites and provided valuable data for the public health docs. They were able to confine it quickly as a result.
Original PLOS article.
Sicence Daily article that doesn't totally suck.
It would have been nice for the mods to recognize crap when they see it for once and not publish something from a site related to canada.com that doesn't have an editorial position based on reality.
When you get to training candidates for research, the curriculum is so tight that although the need for programming skills is acknowledged by reasonable department heads, the priorities are for other things, not programming. This is true of all experimental sciences where data are increasingly overwhelming. Greg Wilson did this workshop at the AAAS meeting a couple of years ago:
http://www.osl.iu.edu/~lums/swc/
When he had outlined both the need and the solution, he asked for a show of hands for agreement. Almost every hand went up. Then he asked how many would adopt and the number went WAY down.
Imhoffe is the one who should be "decertified" as a rational being and reclassified as a troll. That's what it comes down to. Trolls. Exxon-Mobil and their so-called experts are just trolling and people just can't resist a good troll. Just look at Slashdot. The story is a complete dead end waste of productive time. Has anybody noticed that there are very few references in the dissenting posts? Yet people reply to them rather than letting them get modded down and ignored.
Read the post that points to http://realclimate.org/ the people you've been reading are evidently pointed in a different direction from the rest of humanity. Solar radiation has been modeled and analyzed, so you can see that the SKY IS FALLING really!
The data you cite are irrelevant. There are several posts by people on this thread that cite Mars for some reason. Is there something that links Mars, a planet with little or not liquid water, to Earth? Is there some reason the sun's radiation has not been taken into consideration by climatologists who virtually all agree that makind's activity is driving global warming? A statement about a one degree limit to global warming over a 100 year span is indicitave of anything without supporting context.
YOU are pretty sure that if ALL the ice melted there would be negligible rise in sea levels? Good lord, on what do you base this assertion? I live in Florida and would like you to be absolutely sure before you say something like that.
The Union of Concerned Scientists and the fellows of the National Science Foundation as well as the fellows of the Royal Scoiety are now "alarmist anti-capitalist forces attempting to undermine the economy" ????????????? Break out the tinfoil hats.
CO2 is, I believe, not generated in sufficient quantity by anyone or anything other than mankind. So the answer to your query would be that very nearly *every* study shows the hand of mankind. The phrase "nearly every" is spoken advisedly since the theory of global warming is an aggregate of hundreds of people's work. One missing part is irrelevant to the theory just as so-called gaps in the fossil record are irrelevant to the theory of evolution. It is a work of consensus.
The guy at junkscience.com is a voice in the wilderness. He may be right, but every day that passes the possibility is lower.
Please reference the graph in my other post. The hockey stick is alive and relatively healthy. Those who continue to refer to its demise are being willfully obtuse. That characterization would apply to the Administration of the U.S. as well when it comes to science. I believe that the judge who ruled against the Intelligent Design folks in PA said it best. He used the word "disingenous" to describe the willful distortion of fact.
I *thought* the original article was about the *funding* of the skeptic community that inveighs against global warming. So it has been proven waaaaaay back at the top of the page by reference to Exxon's annual reports that total sixteen million dollars given to complete brown noses. Or do you now want copies of internal memos outlining specific agreements between Exxon personnel duly authorized to dispense lucre to third parties and said brown noses?
Arrrrrr. What we needs is more pirates! -- self referential to the pastafarian theory that global warming can be reversed if enough people become pirates.
Sorry if this is redundant but I couldn't real ALL the global warming skeptic tripe without barfing.
Truly I do love people. For lunch. *burp*
They are not "false" nor are they "prophets." I can't believe how often global warming skeptics use religious terminology.
The people to who you refer are scientists who work for various universities and governmental agencies. Their costs are pretty much borne by our taxes.
Do you think that the cost is borne by super-secret enviornmentalists? Hmmm?
I seriously do provide references. I just thought that everybody knew this.
(You mean I can't pull it out my ass like the rest of the posters?)
I'll bet if I said there wasn't sufficient weighting for water vapor in global warming proponents calculations you would fall for it and not ask for references.
Number one is a kind of slap shot in parting rather than putting it last, I though you might decide to eschew reading the rest:
[Sir Crispin Tickell, climate change scholar and visionary, delivered the annual Robert C. Barnard Environmental Lecture at AAAS in Washington, D.C., on 18 September 2006.]
Number two:
Science and Technology in Congress is a newsletter that provides objective information to Congress on current science and technology issues. This is from July 2006 issue.
The religion argument is bizarre. Is it because people feel strongly? Do people think slashdotters are religiously intolerant about our operating systems?
The network of organizations has been known for several years. UCS is a pretty stodgy outfit and the fact that they come out at this point means they are ready to put their influence to work. This is no news to anybody as the donations are part of Exxon's annual report and have been available online.
Saying that these organizations don't agree with the vast majority of scientists is a non sequitur because the organizations are not scientific. There are in fact only two semi-respectable scientists in the whole outfit who run from foundation to foundation.
Mars has nothing to do with the earth. It is somewhat distant.
Who cares what Exxon Mobil does? I suppose I do. Allowing Exxon to make a risk/benefit calculation on my behalf would not be in my best interest. I want to make my own decisions. If they are wrong, so be it. George Bush hasn't been up front with me and his friends on those foundations haven't been any better. (Jeb Bush on Heritage Foundation board.)
Criticism of the graph was withdrawn a long time ago.