I agree - up to a point. I don't agree that schools are all doing a miserable job. You know the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"? It really does apply to K-12 students.
I've taught 10th-12th grade for 4 years now at an inner-city style school (59% minority rate, 78% free/reduced lunch), over a variety of Math/CS subjects, including Precalculus, AP Calculus, Honors Physics, and AP Computer Science. You'd think I would have the top of the stack, the elite students, if you will. If I do, it demonstrates the problem with some U.S. Science & Math students in the 21st century: the students at some schools (at least mine) have no desire to put in the effort required to master a difficult subject.
Students are looking for classes they can pad their schedule with that look good on college transcripts, but which require very little work. If it's an AP class, they want the AP teacher that gives out extra credit like candy, assigns 3-5 problems a night for homework, and gives "open book" tests.
I came from a tougher school of thought, so in return I expect work from my students; I assign 1-2 hours worth of work every night, every test is "closed book", every quiz is unannounced, and there's no such thing as extra credit. You should hear the crying of unfairness and cruelty. (The funny thing is for the 4 years I've been at my school, my AP class has had the highest passing rate of all AP courses taught at our school.)
My AP Comp. Sci. course, for 3 years in a row, was filled with ambitious MySpace, Facebook, or other "texters" who thought a CS course was going to be something where we sat around all day and wrote the next "How L33T are you?" quiz. Some thought we'd be writing the next Line Rider game the 1st class. When I tried to get them to understand OOP, or to think of what a Model & View architecture really meant, it blew their minds. A simple assignment (almost pointless, but done anyway to try to get something out of them) of picking an everyday real life object and writing down all of the things it's made of and things it can do, netted me about 20 papers all describing a pencil as being made of lead, eraser, and plastic, which can write and erase. Deep stuff.
You should have seen how well they handled writing a simple "Guess a number" game. Basic IF structures (logic) completely eluded them.
It's not their math skills that was hurting them (although you'd be scared to see how many AP Calculus students I routinely teach who can't grasp working with reciprocals or fractions in general work) - it was their inability or lack of desire to employ critical thinking skills. If it wasn't something that could be put on the back of an index card (to cram the night before) or typed into their cell phones (to cheat from the day of the test), they wouldn't do it.
We have to get past that laziness, that lack of work/study ethic, in K-12 education before we tack on anything else. CS, done well, cannot be learned in any meaningful fashion if there's no desire to use reasoning, deductive logic, or problem solving skills.
I pray it's not this bad at other K-12 institutions around the country, but I'm fearful that it's the same everywhere. It's the chief reason I'm pressing onward with my MA or MS to get my foot into the door of college teaching. I know you still get your share of lazy students there as well, but they might just want to work hard and pay attention, and I won't feel like I'm just spinning my wheels every day I try to teach another young mind. And I'm fully aware that I'm not helping the problem, if I'm even able to, by "bailing" on the K-12 arena, but there comes a point when your work begins to feel like an ice-cream salesman standing in Fairbanks, Alaska.....you just have to move your stand to somewhere you can get something done.
P.S. This year the county canceled my AP Comp. Sci. class and rolled my BC Calculus course into my AP Calculus course as an "independent study". Due to budget cuts, having 12 or less students means the class gets folded. So much for even the wannabe texters...
In the same spirit of respect, I have to disagree with what you posted.
If you read the entire opinion, the following was mentioned:
- The government sought permission twice from a magistrate judge to gain access to the guy's email records. (So it's not a warrant, but it WAS an official court order) - The government had to demonstrate to the magistrate that the records they sought contained information "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation" (So it wasn't a blind or frivolous fishing expedition) - The government was ordered by the magistrate to delay giving notice since the judge felt there was a credible chance of the guy tampering with evidence - The judge sealed the court orders related to the searches
My point is, unlike other abuses of government warrantless work, at least this one had some measure of judicial review involved. That makes this case different, IMHO, than other warrantless wiretapping and such, and care should be taken to not draw conclusions about either with a broad stroke here.
The court also felt that not only was the case "not ripe" for ruling (which has a very clear and painstakingly discussed meaning in the opinion), but that the guy partially argued on the wrong grounds. They almost suggest he MIGHT have had a shot of having his case heard if he'd argued 1st Amendment rather than 4th Amendment (since he alluded to the idea of a "chilling effect" when it comes to emails) - but he didn't, he argued 4th Amendment.
In fact, from reading the opinion, it seems as though this guy completely "screwed up" his entire arguments. It sounds as though he sued on the grounds of future, potential searches, rather than on particular admissability of the emails that were gained during the prior 2 searches. It definitely was an issue that the guy sought to overturn ALL of 2703(d), for everyone, rather than just his particular case. The court makes great pains to state how they refuse to make a potential constitutional ruling for a general class situation where each person's particulars may be widely different.
I'd say the court did a reasonable thing with this decision, all things considered. The guy clearly should have known from his Yahoo TOS that his emails weren't going to be fully private in the first case - and in fact it was pointed out in his own TOS that "emails will be provided to the government upon request." (That argues, possibly, that the government may have been able to get the emails from Yahoo without any court involvement at all - depending on how Yahoo wants to proceed)
All in all, seems like nothing more to see here to me. Let's focus on FISA, where the real problems are, not on this non-case.
I am a teacher at a public high school. I teach three Advanced Placement courses: AP Calculus, BC Calculus, and AP Computer Science. I love my job, plain and simple. And, no, I'm not going to rant about the pay for teachers.
I love teaching advanced mathematics, and my ambition would be to some day teach that subject matter in a college atmosphere, whether it is a community college or university. Of course, to be able to do so one must have a Master's degree at a minimum. I've been looking into that for almost 2 years now and every time I reconsider the issue, I give up.
I give up, of course, because of the outrageous cost involved. It will be up to $200 or more per credit hour for me to begin the coursework. I doubt I'd have any problems being accepted, as I had some professors trying to get me into the graduate program at my alma mater. The problem was I was living on my own, my parents had long since lost the ability to assist me with my educational costs, and I had a full-time job at a retail sales outlet. I was already up to almost $30,000 in debt just to get my B.A. The thought of putting myself so far into debt to get a M.A. that I would have to work 40 years to recoup the costs just wasn't appealing.
On top of it, I'm now married with a new home and a baby on the way. My fiscal priorities have become fairly well-set in my mind. Teaching doesn't pay well, but it does pay, and I'm slowly trying to dig myself out from my educational debt. I had the misfortune to have lived in a state as a high schooler that did not offer decent scholarships based upon academic merit at the time I was graduating.
The political candidates want to make big news by trumpeting new programs right before the election. They talk about how our country is losing its edge in the technological world to foreign countries, and they try to come up with ideas on how to regain the edge. Well, how about this: Find a way to help smart, hard-working Americans pay their way through college without losing an arm and a leg. Let me take the GREs, score high enough, and get a full-ride academic scholarship to a state university. Get me in the door, let me prove I can perform at a high enough level, and keep paying for me to go so long as I keep scoring high enough. Maybe then when I get my M.A. I'll contribute more to society and the wheel of life will turn some more.
Speaking as a teacher in Central Florida, let me say this much.
The truth here in Florida is that, yes, students entering high school this fall are being directed towards selecting a "major". The idea is that students will essentially be focusing the wide elective choices into a narrower "funnel" of choices. Students, for example, can opt to take a Math major, which means they'll work down the AP Calculus route. They could choose to take a Fine Arts major, which may mean they'll take ceramics, painting, music, or such.
Now, by no means are students permanently forced into that major from the day they say one in 9th grade. Since all the major program does is focus the electives, they are free at any single time to change their minds. They'll still graduate happily so long as they earn their 24 credits, and adhere to the state required credits in Science, Math, Reading, Fine Arts, PE, etc. If they change their major, the old classes simply are now general elective credit. It's really not that big a deal.
I'll choose to presume your arrogant attitude towards "educator's" (sic ironically, mind you...) is more directed towards policy makers than those of us in the classroom. The reality "in the trenches" is that it's damned hard to get students in high school to work through the teenage apathy that exists in their world. They're so tuned into the YouTube and MySpace experience, coupled with cell phones, that all they want to do is sit around and text each other all day, rather than buckle down and learn something new. We've been hearing for years kids in high school chanting the tired mantra of "when am I going to use this?" whenever something comes up in a math class.
The idea with the majors program is it lets students try something out and see if they like it. What the article doesn't mention is that in Florida there was a significant amount of groundwork done to make appealing choices of majors for students. Yes, there are 400 or so approved major programs. More to the point, 8th graders are asked what kind of things they'd like to study, and that input is considered when designing majors programs. In my city, which is still somewhat rural and agriculturally based, we will be hosting an Agriscience major. We also host a Criminal Justice major program, and will soon be starting an Aerospace major as well. Starting in 2 years will be a Construction major program. Across town there are majors for Engineering, Journalism, Fashion Design, and a Technology/Computer Science major. There truly is a great amount of diversity available. And, despite my credo as an educator to help each student to their best, it's unrealistic to expect every single student to want to take Calculus, or to excel in AP courses. Some of the students at our school are third or fourth generation farmers, and they are really into agriculture. Who am I to tell them what to take?
TFA quotes someone as saying, "I think there's going to be a lot of 'I changed my mind.'" Well, so what? The major program in Florida doesn't punish a student academically at all, and quite frankly as a parent, I'll be happier if my daughter flip-flops in high school as she "finds herself" than if she waits and does it in college when it costs my wife and I $150 per credit hour. I had a more general, Liberal Arts high school education [private] that didn't emphasize any major. When I got to college, I chose a path in Physics, which I later changed my mind on after about 3 years (once I got past the PHY I and PHY II courses and got into Elementary Particle Physics). I realized it wasn't my "thing", but not until I'd spent about $9000 in tuition. Sure, I got to use many of those credits for my final diploma in Mathematics, but might have been much cheaper (and better off) if I'd learned that lesson in high school.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, there is also the "Liberal Arts" major which basically means "take anything you want." (IE, there aren't any requirements for choosing a selection of electives.) That was designed for any parent who doesn't agree with the majors program. Not that TFA deigned to mention that, of course.
Your argument sounds as though you are adopting the "monkeys at typewriters" view. Although I'll grant that some great achievements have been made by combining smaller conclusions together (technically that's almost the definition of science), there have been a number of things that were discovered as the result of dedicated, untiring study and research. Consider the Manhatten Project, the polio vaccine, and the Apollo NASA project. Each relied, in part, on other seemingly random research, but the true nature of the breakthroughs came from the mandate that brought the projects together. (In fact, it's a debatable point that the Apollo project represents the largest, and most expensive, scientific project conceived for a single purpose in recorded history)
The bottom line is there is a clear causal relationship between directed scientific study and scientific results. That's not to say that an AIDS cure, for example, will be guaranteed to be discovered should scientists be thrown at the problem. However, I think it's incorrect to think that breakthroughs can't be found sooner if more research were directed towards their discovery.
Do I think an AIDS cure could be found if we required every person with a scientific background to research it? Absolutely - if one exists, and I believe one does. Science has proven time and again that, when motivated by necessity, it is quite capable. Penicillin, although previously researched, was difficult to mass produce until the mid-40s. It was due, in large part, to the dedicated work of Florey & Chain, that made the necessary breakthroughs leading to expanded use - and that was partly due to the urgent need for the drug during WW2.
The point is there should be some scrutiny involved in academic research. I have a hard time stomaching stories which expand upon seemingly ludicrous scientific research. If it is the result of random ennui being "itched" by a scientist in his free time, that's fantastic. If it's the result of a directed, 6+ figure research grant, I'm more concerned. There are some issues in society that must be solved by applied science, and should be done in an expedient fashion. If that means we need to take scientists and make them research some topics, perhaps we should. If the world is facing a pandemic such as AIDS, SARS, or Avian Influenza, frankly I want there to be an all-out science "assualt" on the problem. Same goes for a potential NEO collision. And if the money for the research programs comes from taxpayers (as it does for some studies), then "laypeople" have every right to scrutinize the process.
All too often us "laypeople" are fed stories where a scientist heads up a multimillion research project that studies frivolous things, and the justification is that it could lead to diverse breakthroughs, usually related to a recent event. For example, this article points out how the research could help improve techniques in studying the structural integrity of bridges. I actually had to verify the article date because this seemed like a pandering to the recent bridge collapse, although in reality it's just a grim coincidence. Although it would be hard to quantify, I'm willing to guess that the number of scientific discoveries found by accident would be less than the number of discoveries that came about as the result of directed research. Using the penicillin reference, the original antibacterial nature of penicillin may have been an accidental discovery - but the refinement, production, delivery, and derivation of alternative penicillin treatments are all results of directed study.
For what it's worth, I notice in the article that this "beer study" wasn't the focus of the scientist's work, so I'm not as concerned. (It seems from his own admission that it's more of a related diversion.)
Even beyond college, you often hear of a former individual with a background in sci/eng transitioning into more "soft" areas, such as policy research, K-12 teaching, art, etc.
Obviously you've never taught in a public high school. I'd never call that a "soft" area. I have a BS in Computer Science & a BA in Mathematics, and am currently teaching 3 Advanced Placement courses at a public high school. It's the most demanding employment I've ever had.
I know that there are significantly more difficult employment positions in the world than K-12 teaching, but let me say this much - that sort of elitist view of "soft" education does nothing at all to improve the situation. It's hard enough to find anyone with intelligence in their field to teach K-12 education. Frankly, many people in K-12 shouldn't even be there; either they do not have a degree in the field they are teaching, or they are only there for some oblique reason (such as benefits).
Those of us who actually have a college degree of specialization in our field are lumped into the same category as those I just described. Unfortunatley this sort of impression is not yours alone, but is echoed throughout society. Every time a post is made on Slashdot about the declining might of American technical genuis, I wonder why everyone immediately discusses the university situation and ignores the K-12 segment. If high schools continue to serve substandard education, how long before even the best universities will literally have no one to teach?
I don't know about other states, but I can tell you in Florida that would likely be considered theft. According to the 2007 Florida Statutes, 2007 FS 812.014(1):
A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: (a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property. (b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.
So, basically, if you get an extra $1 (as measly as that seems) and you know that you weren't supposed to, you are appropriating the property of someone else (the store) for your own use.
Now, granted, I would heavily doubt any prosecutor would try to press charges for so little an amount - especially because you could reasonably argue that you didn't "knowingly" obtain the extra $1. (Who does, sometimes?)
Still, if you noticed an ATM pumping out $20s when it shouldn't, that is much different and I think should be prosecuted as theft. You had to know it was wrong, there's no way around it.
I'm a little out of the loop, but I just read through the final [amended] consent decree against Microsoft on the DOJ website. Can someone in the know point out what clause Google is claiming is being violated? I haven't seen it directly mentioned in any story posted yet.
I mean, the main problems addressed in the consent decree were twofold: 1) Microsoft was illegally leveraging OEMs for positioning, and 2) Microsoft was illegally leveraging it's "Middleware" market by including standalone products (such as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, etc) in its Windows OS.
What's Google's ground, legally, for their complaint? According to the consent decree, the term "Middleware" was defined, basically, as either "IE, Java, Media Player, Messenger, Outlook Express" or "browsers, email clients, networked audio/video software, instant messaging software" or "any functionality provided by Microsoft software that is distributed separately within a year preceding a new commercial Windows release which is similar to a non-Microsoft middleware product".
That being the case, did Microsoft ever release the Instant Search option as a separate download from any Windows OS? I can't think of any time they ever did that to my recollection. In fact, as someone else pointed out, searching is not only integral to the file systems of an OS, but it's been included in Windows from quite a ways back (if not as efficiently as it currently is implemented in Vista.)
I'm blowing moderator points to be able to respond to this, but why not?
What I don't understand, and of course IANAL so I shouldn't understand this, is where do we draw the line on the anti-monopoly power plays? Look, I can buy the argument that Microsoft went monopolistic all over the Internet Explorer saga. You are completely and entirely correct. The entire thrust of the case, as I understood it at the time, was that Microsoft was abusing it's basis as an operating system by bundling in software, not required in an operating system, so that it could grow market presence.
So, Microsoft puts IE into Windows, which isn't technically required for an operating system (despite Microsoft's attempts to claim it needed IE for it's Explorer subsystem, which was nicely debunked by experts) in order to snare the entire browser market. I read you on that one. I'll even grant your reasoning regarding Windows Defender, since I again don't think that's a core component of an OS.
But I draw the line with this search functionality. In my mind, being able to search your "desktop" (ie, the entire hard drive) for a file or document is something I expect, if not demand, in an operating system. If the filesystem doesn't support indexing and helping me to find a file based on a variety of criteria, I'm looking elsewhere. I know, technically, that searching is also not required for an OS, but the distinction is getting finer and finer. To me, Google is just being sour-grapes about this one. If they can prove Microsoft stole their code, abused their copyright, etc, I agree with them. If they can somehow prove Microsoft is deliberately sabotaging competing searches in the source code so they run abnormally slower compared to the native search, I would probably still side with Google (but my resolve gets much thinner).
But just because they are trying to provide a product that performs the same task as something which likely should be a part of the OS doesn't give them (in my mind) the license to demand Microsoft make changes. Why should Microsoft be forced to completely expose (or disable) their own, internal search subsystem in the OS? If you would rather use Google's search, download the blasted thing and "Just say no" to Microsoft's box on the Start Menu. (The irony, of course, is I recall tons of complaints/flamewars on/. in the past over how OS X was so superior for Spotlight than Windows, and then complaints of how Microsoft "ripped off" Spotlight, etc.)
I just don't see how this is the same as Microsoft defaulting the email program to Outlook Express, or the browser to Internet Explorer. Those are separate programs that aren't related to the OS itself, and Microsoft pushed it past the limit by bundling that sort of software and promoting it within Windows. Searching for files, though, should be something that is integral to the OS's file system - and competitors should be welcome to compete, but not get special privileges for doing so.
Wouldn't this be similar to someone like Symantec threatening Microsoft with litigation because Symantec provides a file system defragmenter (in SystemWorks), and Microsoft has a button in Explorer that will start Microsoft's own built-in defragmenter? Maybe Symantec is upset that there's no way for the user to disable Microsoft's, or to make Windows use Symantec's as the default. If Google can do it - so can Symantec. And so goes the contrapositive, also.
Speaking of which, when should we be hearing Google going after Apple for Spotlight? Oh wait - Spotlight has an API that allows anyone to write software to interface with the underlying OS searching capabilities. Which brings me to my question: Would that access (as unlikely as it might be in forthcoming) to Vista searching be enough to satsify Google? If it isn't, than Google's motivations are clearly suspect.
Thank you for posting a reasonable and well-thought response to this issue of merit pay systems.
Here in Florida we've fought hard this past year against a number of merit pay based systems that were instituted by our departed past governor, Jeb Bush. Each has had a rather poor design flaw that has made it intolerable to consider.
The biggest headache (and yes, I am a high school educator of AP Calculus and AP Computer Science) we face as teachers in this sort of system is there is no objective criteria to use which fairly evaluates the merit of a teacher. What benchmarks can you use that would adequately measure the relative effectiveness of a teacher? In Jeb Bush's case, he felt that a simple majority of your overall rating should be based upon the state FCAT assessment scores of the students you teach.
Of course, this is wrought with disaster. I had the dubious privilege to sit as a test administrator [proctor] for this year's FCAT testing at my high school. I had the morbid delight to sit and watch as students "Christmas Tree'd" their answer sheets, or stared in space while doodling in their booklets, or even slept during the testing. The reality, of course, is that these same scores will be sent to the capital in Tallahassee where a faceless Department of Education official will see the results and assume they are the resultant of an ineffective teacher.
Worse still, this year students were required to take a state assessment in Science that would be officially used to grade a school's performance (along with each teacher's performance), but which would not, itself, be used in any official capacity for the students themselves. In other words, students must currently pass the state assessment in Math and Reading to be given a high school diploma. Science, however, is not yet a graduation requirement. Thus, as students tend to be astute when it suits their needs, students were able to deduce that the Science assessment held no sway over their futures, and so they almost uniformly "phoned it in" -- despite the fact that, in so doing, they essentially sabotaged the ranking, reputation, and recognition of their school and their teachers. Imagine that your paycheck, that you use to feed your family, was based in majority upon how your students did on a test they know for a fact they need not even really take?
There are comments on here from those who don't believe a step or tier system of pay is fair either. I'll grant their arguments, but I would counter with this: would you wish to continue working at an employment where you didn't have an opportunity for pay raises on a regular basis? I used to work in retail for a major toy retailer (take a guess, it's not W----rt), and I was a non-salaried sales manager. I had a 25 cent raise opportunity every year. That was it. Naturally, it wasn't feasible to consider raising a family on such a pay system, so I went into teaching. I know as a teacher that I can look forward to a union-negotiated x% raise each year that I continue employment. The way prices of consumables keeps increasing (gasoline, food, etc) my annual raises are nearly annhilated by the cost of living increases. Still - I'm pleased to know that my continued employment will be rewarded with increased salary.
Now, you'll say that it isn't appropriate for someone to get a raise merely for still working at a place. I'll agree with you, but I think you misdirect the criticism. It's not the fault of the tier system, it's the fault of administrators who don't fairly observe, critique, and hold teachers to a high level of expectation. Not considering the impediments put into place by collective bargaining agreements, the reality is that a poor teacher could, would, and should be flagged by an administrator as such, and through progressive discipline could, would, and should be counseled until termination. That would prevent a poor teacher from operating at the lowest common denominator and reaping the guaranteed annual raises in a tier system.
As the original poster, I can tell you the following.
After sniffing around a little and making some inquiries of people who are in a higher position within the county, I think I've finally found out the "true" reason for this. I was told that, since our school board has paid a hefty access rights cost to World Book Online, it was decided to remove access to Wikipedia. It seems that some higher-ups were upset that they've shelled out the money for students to use an online encyclopedia, and that practically no one was using it! So, rather than investigate why people wanted to use Wikipedia so much more than World Book Online, they decide to remedy the situation by taking away Wikipedia.
Frankly, I believe that entirely. When I emailed the IT rep at the county level, and gave her a list of about 10 or so legitimate mathematical processes (such as the Rational Root Theorem, Synthetic Division, Euler's Method, etc), none of which is available on World Book but which is easily readable on Wikipedia, I got a staid and trite reply that basically repeated the "not credible like an encyclopedia" mantra and didn't address my particular points.
Oh well, we've managed since two months ago when I submitted this story. Some of us, being more knowledgable about computers and the internet than the usual lemming teachers around us, have found creative methods of still retrieving the information from Wikipedia we need to be effective teachers. (For example, I saw a handy way of processing a cubic spline based upon a Wikipedia article, which I proved by hand myself during my lunch break to make sure it worked, and then taught it to my students.)
I wonder if World Book has an article on proxies....
Londovir
Does reviewer remember high school math?
on
Divine Proportions
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I'm just a "mere" high school math teacher with a bachelor's in math. And I'm certain that I'm not as "genius" a mathematician as the reviewer was.
Still, I can't believe the reviewer took 4 lines to find the length of 'd' in his example. He points out how the author used 7 or 8 lines to do it. That's what makes this ironic to me.
Has the reviewer ever heard of two delightful little formulas known as the Law of Cosines and the Law of Sines? I got the same answer in just two lines, personally. Perhaps not very elegant in appearance, but certainly effective:
B = arccos( (b^2-a^2-c^2) / (-2*a*c) )
d = 5 * sin(B) / sin(180-45-B)
But then again -- I'm just a simple high school math teacher, so I could be completely wrong.:)
I'll grant you that your point about the comparison being flawed is legitimate. But, I'll also say you're missing the point, perhaps. I worked at Toys "R" Us for almost 10 years, first as a department head in RZone (videogames/electronics), then as a store manager. I was there for everything from the very tail end (IE, it's dead, Jim) of SNES/Genesis up to PS2/XBox/GC.
You know what I noticed in all of those years? The bulk of our shoppers fall into what I'd call the "clueless" demographic. They come to buy a system as a gift, or for their home, and they generally are shopping for some kids, somewhere. They looked at 2 things almost every time: the price tag, and the endcap display unit. That's about it. They didn't look at specs, or feature lists, or future expandability.
A typical shopping experience would be as follows: Shopper comes into the area, strolls around, stands watching the endcap displays (and occassionally plays one), then walks over to the display case to get the skinny on the cost. Usually they'll ask a couple of basic questions (how many controllers in the box, what kind of plug-ins do I need, etc). Now, the thing is, most of these were parents (maybe grandparents) and they wanted to get the most for their money. Plain and simple. They know that the kids/teens are looking to rip that sucker open, chuck in a game (not movie), and get pwning on some n00b.
I think maybe 3 times in 10 years did I run into a shopper who truly knew, or wanted to know, all of the particulars about a system. I would be astounded to be discussing polygon counts, resolutions, DVD/CD speeds, etc, with a shopper. Usually it was the same-old, same-old: I have $400, how can I get a machine with the most games. Or, perhaps, they would ask about backwards compatibility (now that's the one place I'll grant the PS3 will probably be more attractive).
So, here's my take. I think the kind of bundles mentioned in the article are going to be the exact sort of mental processes going on in most shoppers, whether you think it's a fair comparison or not. I know shoppers - I was PAID to know shoppers. People like quantity, especially when they're spending that much money. To spend $600 (or $500 even) and just walk home with a box with a machine and 1 controller, but no game, is going to be a serious case of sticker shock for a lot of "regular" shoppers. Especially when people could likely buy an XB360 (which might be $399 by then, never know) and a game, or a Wii and 2 or 3 games. HDMI? Half the "regular" shoppers won't even be able to use that. A large hard drive? That is relatively meaningless to many shoppers - witness the continued popularity of PS2 without one versus an XBox with one. (That was a major training point by Microsoft for us retailers: hype the hard drive and it's possibilities. It'll make sales. Never did.)
And as for BluRay? Why is that relevant to a majority of shoppers? I can tell you that when PS2 came out, DVD playback was never a major selling point at all. It will generally always be the case that a dedicated machine will be more feature enriched and [once a generation has passed] cost far less than a do-it-all machine. I'll grant you that a PS3 will be cheaper than a standalone BluRay for a relative time, but I will also say it's more than likely that given a year, perhaps, a BluRay player will probably drop down to the same (or less) than a PS3, and will also likely end up with more features. It's just common consumer electronics history. We rarely sold PS2s because they could -also- play DVDs - people wanted a videogame machine, plain and simple. (Ask XBox how that whole DVD Playback kit deal ended up...)
The PS3 is trying to do too much, and stuffing BluRay into it is the one thing which will cause it to lose perhaps 30% of the potential sales it could have had. Sony could have gone with HD-DVD, had the advantage of launching AFTER the XB360, and they would have been able to nearly match the XB360 price. PLUS they would have had better backwards compatibility
As someone else pointed out, the main key to how successful bots will become in poker is the algorithms that conclude if a hand is "bet worthy". Obviously probability is easy for a bot to calculate; my high school students calculate card hand odds in my statistics class for homework. You can go even further by calculating rudimentary risk-reward odds to determine if the potential cash payoff for this current pot, combined with the probability you have for making your hand, combined with the probability the flop gives your opponents better hands than your own, etc.
The key, clearly, is the way your program "behaves" in response to opponent betting. You could code a program that only plays based on the probability of achieving a winning hand in a statistical sense. (IE, if my pocket has a 75% chance of becoming a hand that will beat 65% of all possible hands, then play it regardless) That wouldn't obviously play that well, since the bot won't consider opponent betting. However, if your bot regards opponent betting, it will easily become susceptible to power bluffing if the algorithm doesn't guard against it. (Hence, you have routines like poorly written cell phone games where you just have to come out of the blocks betting like mad and you'll 90% of the time bluff the bot out of the hand)
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more ingenious bots would be a medley of pure probability, observed opponent behavior (for trend matching with a fixed opponent), and a database of "real life" situations. If I were to design a bot for poker, and had the resources, I'd be sorely tempted to first host an online poker website and take a ton of samples from actual, online play. You have the advantage (right now, at least) of being able to record everyone's exact hands (at every stage of the hand) as well as everyone's betting. You could distill that into a form of database where you could try and match a bot's hand to a pre-existing condition case, and determine, along with your other ranking criteria, what a human player once did with that same hand, and whether that player won or not.
Londovir
I could see bots taking over after awhile, but it's going to take some time...and even then, it should be entertaining to watch programmers trying to tweak their bot to beat another bot, sometimes without even knowing they are going up against another bot.
I can certainly read and understand what you're thinking about that, but it does fit in quite a bit with the characterization of Obi-Wan from the novelization.
Yes, I read the novelization before seeing the movie. To me, I didn't feel that I was spoiling anything as another poster upthread said because we all know what happens. Plus, I like going in to the movie ahead of time with a rough outline of the story because I can keep an eye out of the artistic differences between the two versions. (Not to mention that, in the inevitable case of having to relieve myself of the Uber-Big Gulp soda, I know exactly when boring conversation will be onscreen that I can dispense with.)
Anyway, the book goes to great lengths illustrating that Obi-Wan's Jedi training and nature allow him to remain emotionally distant from things that occur around him. There are plenty of cases in the book when a "normal" person would be stricken with grief, despair, terror, surprise, etc, and Obi-Wan takes it in stride, confident in the Force and his ability to serve as a channel for the Force. (Chapter 15 comes to mind, particularly)
Given that, I don't think it's so amazing to see Obi-Wan fail to react to the droids presence in Ep4. Obi-Wan's deep faith in the Force is enough that, as Yoda hints in the novel, the Force will bring them all together when the time is right. He probably looked at both droids and thought, "Welp, it's a sign from the Force, let's roll." I mean, seriously, think about the confluence of coincidence that brought the droids to Tatooine in the first place. Shoot, the droids were with Leia (there's more detail there in the book which has been already mentioned elsewhere on here, but I won't repeat, which explains Threepio's memory loss), on the other side of the galaxy practically, and just happened to be flying over Tatooine when the ship was attacked, just happened to crash on Tatooine, just happened to be collected by the Jawas, just happened to be sold to Luke when the original droid he bought just happened to crap out on delivery, etc. If that's not the Force orchestrating everything (in Obi-Wan's mind) I don't know what is.
And, just so you know, the one time that Obi-Wan did have a major emotional reaction was when he discovered how many and how some of the Jedi were killed. And even then, Yoda bitch-slaps him a bit for his reaction, and he recovers.
It's all good. Admittedly to our common sense it seems like crap, but it's covered with a reasonable backstory once you read the novel.
Best, Londovir
PS All the "This is xxxxx at this moment" in the novel get a little old, though...read it and you'll see what I mean...
What I thought most interesting in the article was the quote from the Morgan Securities analyst. He said, "There's nothing illegal or unethical about what EA is doing....Microsoft did the same kind of things to improve its position."
Isn't it funny how seemingly incompatible those two phrases are? Nearly everyone these days recognizes that Microsoft is a monopoly, including the government. How exactly does one think you get to be a monopoly? It's by doing the sort of things that EA is doing (in the beginning), which may very well be ethical and legal (but which leave a very bad taste in most consumers mouths anyway). You then end up wielding that newfound power in most unethical and illegal manners.
I just think it's quite enlightening to see a market analyst recognize the same initial markers in EA's behaviors. Sure, there's nothing illegal (but I'd argue unethical for awhile) in snagging so many exclusive licenses, but it remains to be seen what EA will do with their newfound implicit power. I somehow have a difficulty in believing that EA is going to "use its power for good, not evil". (I'm sure Digital Illusions, Ubisoft, and the hoards of EA employees would agree...)
Okay, this story has faded enough that this response is going to be lost in the archives of history. Still, I cannot and will not abide such a response without giving an opinion back.
How amazingly narrowsighted your views are. You are one of those wonderful individuals who will sit back and watch grievances take place without speaking out or against it, all under the banner of "rationality". How many things develop to the point where they negatively impact society in one fashion or another simply because, at their onset, people said, "It's a triviality, it's luxury, it has little importance."
Why does the status of a videogame mean less of value than an OS? For that matter, by your own statement, even an OS company couldn't be a monopoly, as using an OS is "a luxury...something that doesn't require loss of life or limb to boycott". Monopolism, in any form, is something that should be aggressively fought against. The ripple ramifications go far beyond your narrowminded ability to see the forest for the trees. If EA is allowed to remain unchecked, as they are going in the present, their negative influences will cascade outward. What starts today to you as a recreational endeavor will begin to become acquisition of competition, closing of studios, terminations of employees, loss of income for those employees, unemployment, stifling of competition, increase of pricing for limited choice products, and so forth. We've already seen many cases where the electronics industry (both videogame and computer) have definite impact on the stock market, thus the economy to a small scale.
You speak so cavalierly in your post it frankly reflects poorly on your view of civilization. When do you draw the line? At what point does your so-called morality dictate that you stand up and take a stance. You speak derogatively of people who rightly speak out against EA's tactics as being "whiny" and "obnoxious". Did you read your own post? It didn't read like an intelligently composed opinion of others, but rather a blasting, ill-thought tirade against other people's opinions, which I'm disappointed to see that the moderators of/. chose to mod all the way up to +4 for being Informative.
The reality is, whether or not a company promotes, produces, or owns something which is not life supporting, it is still morally [and legally] WRONG to own a monopoly of it (in most cases). Your friend's choice to violate her own argument against WalMart by shopping there does not translate to the arguments of those of us who may have little choice but to purchase a game from EA if it's the only choice we have. We are not hypocrites if we choose to do so, for in our case we literally have no alternative. Your friend, however, may very well go shopping at KMart, Target, etc. That's the difference. Perhaps you could argue we shouldn't support EA with our dollars since a football game is not a life necessity, but we also shouldn't have to go without entirely because a company utilizes business practices that are beyond contempt.
No one deserves to have a corporation walk all over them, and I'm disappointed that you believe anyone does. We have laws in this country that are there to protect competition, protect innovation, and to protect the consumer. These laws aren't written to say "so long as the product is vital to life", or "so long as the product is important", or "so long as the product is deemed worthy of protection by Shihar". That's the point. The consumer shouldn't have to vote with their money (if they even can at all) in order to be protected by the laws of the country. That's why people post here, and also write their government representatives (such as I have) to seek their assistance in having the laws applied to corporations.
My point is, I've read of the difficulties that many programmers have faced working at EA. I've read the blogs from some of them about the hours they worked and the lack of pay they encountered. My first reaction was not, "If they didn't like it, they should hav
No, evolution is not fact. This is the common misconception. Evolution, as stated in the sticker, is a theory, albeit a very well satisfied theory in terms of being supported by empirical evidence. The reality, though, is that it isn't completely verifiable, and that's why it isn't a fact.
You want to make a distinction between the why and the how in your statement; evolution is a fact, but how evolution works is a theory. You can't do that in science, it's part and parcel the same thing. Evolution wraps itself into that argument quite neatly, and there's the problem with calling it a fact.
If evolution is fact, and only the mechanism of its operation is a theory, how do you attribute the ultimate origin of all species? You clearly feel that evolution (the effect) is unassailable and obvious based on fossil records and other data. Thus one must then ask, in the realm of the evolution field, from what did everything evolve? As you said, unless species happened to spawn from thin air, they all descended from earlier species. What did they all come from? It's a recursive definition, and all recursive definitions should have a terminating point. Evolution's inability to satisfy that terminating point is what makes evolution a theory, and not a fact. As a theory is defined, it is an explanation to describe a set of observable natural occurances, which has been tested and approved. The fossil record helps to test and approve evolution, but it doesn't make it a given fact or truth. (It just makes it the far most likeliest of theories out there...)
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, I do happen to believe in evolution. But, as in everything in science, I reserve the right to change my mind in case someone comes up with a better test that blows a hole in the theory.
Explain to me exactly how the purpose of the sticker was the confuse school children? You seem to think it somehow muddies the difference between "hunch" and "statements devised". What, exactly, is the difference between those two? Isn't the former merely vernacular to describe the latter? I will grant that scientifically speaking a theory is more akin to a hunch that has been [semi]rigorously tested to ensure its accuracy, but when you get down to it, a theory is still a devised explanation for something that may be true or may not be true, but appears to remain unassailable under all current testing.
Then again, it's curious that you chose to quote definition #1 under the link you provided, and skipped over definition #6 listed there:
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Many theories of science (both biology, physics, etc) at one point in their development seemed akin to fact because no test available could disprove the theory. Of course, then again, there were people firmly convinced that light had only wavelike properties, and others convinced that light had only particle properties. It was only until such point as tests were developed that exposed flaws in a particular theory that it was modified and expanded. Relativity is a theory, albeit a strong one, but again, only in the last 50 years or so has science advanced to a stage where methodology and technology have begun to allow us to put stronger tests in place, and find faults in an otherwise excellent theory. Someday soon perhaps something may arise that will find a small fault in evolution theory. The sticker is correct (perhaps not in motive) to point out that evolution is a theory and not fact.
Again, I simply don't see what the sticker says that can confuse students - unless you appear to want current students to accept scientific theories as fact. I agree that singling out evolution was perhaps a bit on-the-nose for the groups' intentions, but again, it doesn't confuse anyone in any way. It merely reminds the readers to not accept the theory as fact, which in this case is a valid point to make.
This sounds like something that, on appeal, may very well get overturned. The Lemon case was originally based on a state reimbursing mostly religious private schools for teacher salaries, textbook costs, and other expenses. It was clearly a case in that sense of establishment of religion, etc, etc. It happens to be one of the most commonly cited court decisions in lawsuits against school vouchers, for that reason. It's interesting that a judge would choose to use that particular precedent in this case, as they aren't really even close.
Even if you choose to use this case, as the judge did, you have to debate whether or not putting the stickers on the books truly violated the intent of the 3 clauses. For it to violate #2, it would mean that placing the stickers would have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. I'd say that is entirely subjective, as the sticker itself makes absolutely no claims with respect to religion. It merely reminds readers that evolution is a theory, and not a fact. The difference between theory and fact (as scientific terms) is drilled into nearly all science majors in college, and I recall (ironically) in Catholic high school being taught how a theory differed from a fact. I see absolutely nothing to suggest that reminding readers something is not hard fact does anything to promote or deter religion.
Now, perhaps the problem is that some people are not looking at the sticker objectively, but imposing religious/nonreligious fervor on the situation. THAT is the problem here. This isn't a direct or even indirect endorsement of a religious belief. And it certainly isn't an "entanglement" of government into religion, which it perhaps would have been if the sticker was being somehow forced onto textbooks in a religious school setting. As I said, this is a clear-cut case of a judge misapplying a SC decision in a situation that doesn't warrant it.
Now, if you ask me if I think the stickers are nutty, I'd agree - frankly they don't bother to say anything that isn't (or shouldn't be) obvious to anyone. I believe in the theory of evolution after having studied the numerous concepts of origin "out there". And, just like many things in science which are thought to be true, but cannot be conclusively [yet] proven, I consider it a theory and not fact. Sure, in my mind it is just about the same, but it's not [yet]. I don't need a sticker to tell me that.
It depends on whether or not they were actually outside the courthouse. It's not clear from the article posted if that's the case or not.
From the article, it says both "The line leading into..." and "...as the queue wound into the court..." I would agree the first makes it seem like they were outside, but the second clouds the issue a little. I know it's semantics, but in the context of the law they were charged under, the semantics (ironically, as we're talking about lawyers here) are vital.
What I find more interesting is what's not mentioned in this version of the article. If you read here, it goes and mentions that one of the guys was going to court to answer a drunken driver charge from his past. As others have mentioned, they often use "confrontational" tactics.
The bottom line is virtually every county/state/federal court has laws on the books to prevent disorderly/loud/disruptive conduct from disturbing the business of the courts. I'd guess that what we don't know is these guys were making more of a ruckus than the articles state (as it's far more newsworthy and entertaining to make it sound like they're getting busted for telling lawyer jokes - makes it more Leno or Letterman worthy of reporting), and they're getting busted for it. If that's the case, there's nothing outrageous about it.
Of course, this version of apparently the same story by Newsday adds a comment from one of the guys that they were standing outside the court. So who knows?:-)
Given that these guys have already picked up a popular talk radio host (Ron Kuby) as their own lawyer, I smell publicity stunt....
I love how people on/. cannot think of ways to say things without resorting to the schoolyard practice of calling people names. If the best argument you can come up with is "you're ignorant", I pray to all above that you are not a lawyer, as I can see how your legal arguments (d)evolve: "In closing your honor, the plaintiff/defendant is ignorant."
In all true seriousness, I wasn't necessarily discussing the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act has been amended numerous times with various acts through the 100 years or more of its existence for the simple reason that it was terribly vague in its terminology. It barely defined the words "monopoly", "restraint of trade", and so forth. By that alone, the Sherman Act is hardly applicable to modern times.
Still, if you discuss the Sherman Act, there is an argument to be made (probably weak, I admit, but one which might be made) that Article I of the Sherman Act may apply. You could argue that the economic repurcussions caused by the exclusive contract with the NFL will impinge on the trade and commerce of the competitors in relation to nationwide commerce. You might argue that the reduced sales of the competitors (due to the lost NFL rights) will cause a trickle effect on lost sales tax revenues (for the states) as well as other monitary repurcussions.
In any case, there's another weak argument to be made that the Lorain Journal v. United States (1951) could also be a precedent for this NFL deal. If you parallel the NFL to the Lorain Journal, there's a slim matching circumstance: The NFL is arguably about 95-99% of the professional football market in the United States (by your logic), just as the Journal was in the 1950s. They are, essentially, refusing to sell their product to consumers (ie, Midway, Sega, etc) and preferring EA. This goes back to Sherman Act again.
I'm not saying these are valid (or winnable) legal prongs of attack, but I am trying to point them out so that, lest you delude yourself into thinking I am a fanboy who trolls on Slashdot. I'm hardly ignorant to the law as you seem to think.
Your points are well reasoned and stated, but there's a minor difference: it's a demonstrable fact that people prefer games with officially licensed teams, players, stadiums, etc. I won't bother quoting stats, but there's been a number of times where a licensed game trounced its competitor (without a license) despite being rated poorly (think QBC for N64). People just like having the real names, and furthermore, like not having to manually edit every roster, player, etc for that level of authenticity. That's even more a given now that you see games with little or no difference from year to year except the updated rosters.
So, it is quite likely that this licensing agreement will cause EA's market share to grow at the expense of their competitors. Although it's a passive action (ie, not something EA is actively out there doing), it still will be harmful to the other competitors.
Your beer analogy is a good one, but it has the same problem. Your argument is one of restricted product placement, such as only being available in a store or place. This isn't the case. This is not being able to use an ingredient in your product. For example, what if Budweiser somehow got the 5 year exclusive right to use yeast or hops in their beer, and no other beer could legally use that ingredient? It's not inconceivable to see that the other beers would suffer in sales, because their product wouldn't be considered as appealing to the consumer with the absence of a vital ingredient. Well, for many, many console and PC gamers, a real team/player/stadium/uniform/logo is a vital ingredient to the "football beer", so to speak.
Re:They should make a law against this.
on
NBA Rejects EA Deal
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Ah, wonderful jump/leap of logic you make there. What exactly is it about me that you apparently know that states I have no understanding of the law? Obviously you must know something about my education that I (nor my college diploma) apparently know. How delightful.
A "legal" definition of monopoly is when a company has achieved the power to fix prices and/or exclude all competition, along with having corporate policies in place that maintain, preserve, and extend or use that power once achieved. Now that EA has the exclusive NFL rights, it can fix prices wherever it wants (since you have no other recourse of product to purchase if you want an officially licensed game). By virtue of the exclusive license they have excluded their competition from having the same license. The only part unknown at this stage is whether they have policies in place to grow and maintain their power. You could argue their attempt to gain a matching exclusivity with the NBA (and who knows about the NHL - they're ripe for the money right now with the lockout) is proof that they are trying to leverage their power with the NFL against the NBA and kill off more competition.
In any case, look at legal precedent as well. The Microsoft case present some interesting parallels, as I alluded to earlier. If EA is not considered to be a monopoly in legal terms (which is ironic, as it generally is the government which decides such matters, as it's usually the government which brings anti-competitive/monopolistic practices to the court system for judicial review), it could arguably be accused of anti-competitive tactics.
This is the core of what builds a monopoly. As I said before, had you read my post closely, you would see that I purported that EA is beginning to become a monopoly - and locking out all competition to a product via exclusivity rights is how it all begins. Haven't we seen Microsoft tweak things in the past so that other people's products wouldn't "work" with their software? Does that stop people from writing their software? No, it certainly does not. But - and this is the key point - when your product already enjoys a market share, doing this helps to guarantee your share tends to 100%. Well, Madden already enjoys a high market share, and by getting the NFL agreement, they help to prevent other competing products from gaining ground, as it will always be the case that people will not buy a game without actual teams and players.
Re:They should make a law against this.
on
NBA Rejects EA Deal
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Gee, I so love it when people think they are holier than thou! It makes it so much more delightful to point out their "inaccuracies".
According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a monopoly is defined as:
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity
Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled
Hrm, let's see: EA controls for the next half-decade the exclusive rights to the NFL teams, players, logo, etc. They were trying to get the exclusive rights to the NBA teams, players, logo, etc. By WHAT stretch of any imagination does this sort of arrangement NOT meet definitions 1 and 3 above, if not 2 as well? If you define the commercial activity or commodity as "officially licensed football or basketball games with real life, actual players and teams", then you just defined a monopoly, whether you like it or not.
And although you contend that other people are free to make football games, lest we remind the world that other people have been free for over 20 years to make other operating systems, yet how many have truly succeeded and excelled against Microsoft? Not many, if any, could truly be said to succeed (in the sense of achieving more than 50% market share). There are few who would deny that Microsoft isn't a monopoly -- and this is the same situation. Sure, you can make another generic football game, but I guarantee you there is enough of a sizable population that enjoys sports games for having their favorite team/player in them that EA's deal will push out the competition slowly but surely. Those of us who appreciate a quality game don't care - but we're not enough of the buying population to make a dent, otherwise the annual Madden shovelware wouldn't succeed as well as it has against the quality offering by Sega.
Maybe part of the problem in the business world these days are enough people don't recognize a monopoly as it's forming, but only well late after the fact. This is the beginning of a true monopoly (especially considering the aggressive takeover tactics EA is using, and their labor practices, etc) - and apparently too many people aren't seeing this already.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree - up to a point. I don't agree that schools are all doing a miserable job. You know the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"? It really does apply to K-12 students.
I've taught 10th-12th grade for 4 years now at an inner-city style school (59% minority rate, 78% free/reduced lunch), over a variety of Math/CS subjects, including Precalculus, AP Calculus, Honors Physics, and AP Computer Science. You'd think I would have the top of the stack, the elite students, if you will. If I do, it demonstrates the problem with some U.S. Science & Math students in the 21st century: the students at some schools (at least mine) have no desire to put in the effort required to master a difficult subject.
Students are looking for classes they can pad their schedule with that look good on college transcripts, but which require very little work. If it's an AP class, they want the AP teacher that gives out extra credit like candy, assigns 3-5 problems a night for homework, and gives "open book" tests.
I came from a tougher school of thought, so in return I expect work from my students; I assign 1-2 hours worth of work every night, every test is "closed book", every quiz is unannounced, and there's no such thing as extra credit. You should hear the crying of unfairness and cruelty. (The funny thing is for the 4 years I've been at my school, my AP class has had the highest passing rate of all AP courses taught at our school.)
My AP Comp. Sci. course, for 3 years in a row, was filled with ambitious MySpace, Facebook, or other "texters" who thought a CS course was going to be something where we sat around all day and wrote the next "How L33T are you?" quiz. Some thought we'd be writing the next Line Rider game the 1st class. When I tried to get them to understand OOP, or to think of what a Model & View architecture really meant, it blew their minds. A simple assignment (almost pointless, but done anyway to try to get something out of them) of picking an everyday real life object and writing down all of the things it's made of and things it can do, netted me about 20 papers all describing a pencil as being made of lead, eraser, and plastic, which can write and erase. Deep stuff.
You should have seen how well they handled writing a simple "Guess a number" game. Basic IF structures (logic) completely eluded them.
It's not their math skills that was hurting them (although you'd be scared to see how many AP Calculus students I routinely teach who can't grasp working with reciprocals or fractions in general work) - it was their inability or lack of desire to employ critical thinking skills. If it wasn't something that could be put on the back of an index card (to cram the night before) or typed into their cell phones (to cheat from the day of the test), they wouldn't do it.
We have to get past that laziness, that lack of work/study ethic, in K-12 education before we tack on anything else. CS, done well, cannot be learned in any meaningful fashion if there's no desire to use reasoning, deductive logic, or problem solving skills.
I pray it's not this bad at other K-12 institutions around the country, but I'm fearful that it's the same everywhere. It's the chief reason I'm pressing onward with my MA or MS to get my foot into the door of college teaching. I know you still get your share of lazy students there as well, but they might just want to work hard and pay attention, and I won't feel like I'm just spinning my wheels every day I try to teach another young mind. And I'm fully aware that I'm not helping the problem, if I'm even able to, by "bailing" on the K-12 arena, but there comes a point when your work begins to feel like an ice-cream salesman standing in Fairbanks, Alaska.....you just have to move your stand to somewhere you can get something done.
P.S. This year the county canceled my AP Comp. Sci. class and rolled my BC Calculus course into my AP Calculus course as an "independent study". Due to budget cuts, having 12 or less students means the class gets folded. So much for even the wannabe texters...
In the same spirit of respect, I have to disagree with what you posted.
If you read the entire opinion, the following was mentioned:
- The government sought permission twice from a magistrate judge to gain access to the guy's email records. (So it's not a warrant, but it WAS an official court order)
- The government had to demonstrate to the magistrate that the records they sought contained information "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation" (So it wasn't a blind or frivolous fishing expedition)
- The government was ordered by the magistrate to delay giving notice since the judge felt there was a credible chance of the guy tampering with evidence
- The judge sealed the court orders related to the searches
My point is, unlike other abuses of government warrantless work, at least this one had some measure of judicial review involved. That makes this case different, IMHO, than other warrantless wiretapping and such, and care should be taken to not draw conclusions about either with a broad stroke here.
The court also felt that not only was the case "not ripe" for ruling (which has a very clear and painstakingly discussed meaning in the opinion), but that the guy partially argued on the wrong grounds. They almost suggest he MIGHT have had a shot of having his case heard if he'd argued 1st Amendment rather than 4th Amendment (since he alluded to the idea of a "chilling effect" when it comes to emails) - but he didn't, he argued 4th Amendment.
In fact, from reading the opinion, it seems as though this guy completely "screwed up" his entire arguments. It sounds as though he sued on the grounds of future, potential searches, rather than on particular admissability of the emails that were gained during the prior 2 searches. It definitely was an issue that the guy sought to overturn ALL of 2703(d), for everyone, rather than just his particular case. The court makes great pains to state how they refuse to make a potential constitutional ruling for a general class situation where each person's particulars may be widely different.
I'd say the court did a reasonable thing with this decision, all things considered. The guy clearly should have known from his Yahoo TOS that his emails weren't going to be fully private in the first case - and in fact it was pointed out in his own TOS that "emails will be provided to the government upon request." (That argues, possibly, that the government may have been able to get the emails from Yahoo without any court involvement at all - depending on how Yahoo wants to proceed)
All in all, seems like nothing more to see here to me. Let's focus on FISA, where the real problems are, not on this non-case.
I agree 100% with your opinion!
I am a teacher at a public high school. I teach three Advanced Placement courses: AP Calculus, BC Calculus, and AP Computer Science. I love my job, plain and simple. And, no, I'm not going to rant about the pay for teachers.
I love teaching advanced mathematics, and my ambition would be to some day teach that subject matter in a college atmosphere, whether it is a community college or university. Of course, to be able to do so one must have a Master's degree at a minimum. I've been looking into that for almost 2 years now and every time I reconsider the issue, I give up.
I give up, of course, because of the outrageous cost involved. It will be up to $200 or more per credit hour for me to begin the coursework. I doubt I'd have any problems being accepted, as I had some professors trying to get me into the graduate program at my alma mater. The problem was I was living on my own, my parents had long since lost the ability to assist me with my educational costs, and I had a full-time job at a retail sales outlet. I was already up to almost $30,000 in debt just to get my B.A. The thought of putting myself so far into debt to get a M.A. that I would have to work 40 years to recoup the costs just wasn't appealing.
On top of it, I'm now married with a new home and a baby on the way. My fiscal priorities have become fairly well-set in my mind. Teaching doesn't pay well, but it does pay, and I'm slowly trying to dig myself out from my educational debt. I had the misfortune to have lived in a state as a high schooler that did not offer decent scholarships based upon academic merit at the time I was graduating.
The political candidates want to make big news by trumpeting new programs right before the election. They talk about how our country is losing its edge in the technological world to foreign countries, and they try to come up with ideas on how to regain the edge. Well, how about this: Find a way to help smart, hard-working Americans pay their way through college without losing an arm and a leg. Let me take the GREs, score high enough, and get a full-ride academic scholarship to a state university. Get me in the door, let me prove I can perform at a high enough level, and keep paying for me to go so long as I keep scoring high enough. Maybe then when I get my M.A. I'll contribute more to society and the wheel of life will turn some more.
Speaking as a teacher in Central Florida, let me say this much.
The truth here in Florida is that, yes, students entering high school this fall are being directed towards selecting a "major". The idea is that students will essentially be focusing the wide elective choices into a narrower "funnel" of choices. Students, for example, can opt to take a Math major, which means they'll work down the AP Calculus route. They could choose to take a Fine Arts major, which may mean they'll take ceramics, painting, music, or such.
Now, by no means are students permanently forced into that major from the day they say one in 9th grade. Since all the major program does is focus the electives, they are free at any single time to change their minds. They'll still graduate happily so long as they earn their 24 credits, and adhere to the state required credits in Science, Math, Reading, Fine Arts, PE, etc. If they change their major, the old classes simply are now general elective credit. It's really not that big a deal.
I'll choose to presume your arrogant attitude towards "educator's" (sic ironically, mind you...) is more directed towards policy makers than those of us in the classroom. The reality "in the trenches" is that it's damned hard to get students in high school to work through the teenage apathy that exists in their world. They're so tuned into the YouTube and MySpace experience, coupled with cell phones, that all they want to do is sit around and text each other all day, rather than buckle down and learn something new. We've been hearing for years kids in high school chanting the tired mantra of "when am I going to use this?" whenever something comes up in a math class.
The idea with the majors program is it lets students try something out and see if they like it. What the article doesn't mention is that in Florida there was a significant amount of groundwork done to make appealing choices of majors for students. Yes, there are 400 or so approved major programs. More to the point, 8th graders are asked what kind of things they'd like to study, and that input is considered when designing majors programs. In my city, which is still somewhat rural and agriculturally based, we will be hosting an Agriscience major. We also host a Criminal Justice major program, and will soon be starting an Aerospace major as well. Starting in 2 years will be a Construction major program. Across town there are majors for Engineering, Journalism, Fashion Design, and a Technology/Computer Science major. There truly is a great amount of diversity available. And, despite my credo as an educator to help each student to their best, it's unrealistic to expect every single student to want to take Calculus, or to excel in AP courses. Some of the students at our school are third or fourth generation farmers, and they are really into agriculture. Who am I to tell them what to take?
TFA quotes someone as saying, "I think there's going to be a lot of 'I changed my mind.'" Well, so what? The major program in Florida doesn't punish a student academically at all, and quite frankly as a parent, I'll be happier if my daughter flip-flops in high school as she "finds herself" than if she waits and does it in college when it costs my wife and I $150 per credit hour. I had a more general, Liberal Arts high school education [private] that didn't emphasize any major. When I got to college, I chose a path in Physics, which I later changed my mind on after about 3 years (once I got past the PHY I and PHY II courses and got into Elementary Particle Physics). I realized it wasn't my "thing", but not until I'd spent about $9000 in tuition. Sure, I got to use many of those credits for my final diploma in Mathematics, but might have been much cheaper (and better off) if I'd learned that lesson in high school.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, there is also the "Liberal Arts" major which basically means "take anything you want." (IE, there aren't any requirements for choosing a selection of electives.) That was designed for any parent who doesn't agree with the majors program. Not that TFA deigned to mention that, of course.
Your argument sounds as though you are adopting the "monkeys at typewriters" view. Although I'll grant that some great achievements have been made by combining smaller conclusions together (technically that's almost the definition of science), there have been a number of things that were discovered as the result of dedicated, untiring study and research. Consider the Manhatten Project, the polio vaccine, and the Apollo NASA project. Each relied, in part, on other seemingly random research, but the true nature of the breakthroughs came from the mandate that brought the projects together. (In fact, it's a debatable point that the Apollo project represents the largest, and most expensive, scientific project conceived for a single purpose in recorded history)
The bottom line is there is a clear causal relationship between directed scientific study and scientific results. That's not to say that an AIDS cure, for example, will be guaranteed to be discovered should scientists be thrown at the problem. However, I think it's incorrect to think that breakthroughs can't be found sooner if more research were directed towards their discovery.
Do I think an AIDS cure could be found if we required every person with a scientific background to research it? Absolutely - if one exists, and I believe one does. Science has proven time and again that, when motivated by necessity, it is quite capable. Penicillin, although previously researched, was difficult to mass produce until the mid-40s. It was due, in large part, to the dedicated work of Florey & Chain, that made the necessary breakthroughs leading to expanded use - and that was partly due to the urgent need for the drug during WW2.
The point is there should be some scrutiny involved in academic research. I have a hard time stomaching stories which expand upon seemingly ludicrous scientific research. If it is the result of random ennui being "itched" by a scientist in his free time, that's fantastic. If it's the result of a directed, 6+ figure research grant, I'm more concerned. There are some issues in society that must be solved by applied science, and should be done in an expedient fashion. If that means we need to take scientists and make them research some topics, perhaps we should. If the world is facing a pandemic such as AIDS, SARS, or Avian Influenza, frankly I want there to be an all-out science "assualt" on the problem. Same goes for a potential NEO collision. And if the money for the research programs comes from taxpayers (as it does for some studies), then "laypeople" have every right to scrutinize the process.
All too often us "laypeople" are fed stories where a scientist heads up a multimillion research project that studies frivolous things, and the justification is that it could lead to diverse breakthroughs, usually related to a recent event. For example, this article points out how the research could help improve techniques in studying the structural integrity of bridges. I actually had to verify the article date because this seemed like a pandering to the recent bridge collapse, although in reality it's just a grim coincidence. Although it would be hard to quantify, I'm willing to guess that the number of scientific discoveries found by accident would be less than the number of discoveries that came about as the result of directed research. Using the penicillin reference, the original antibacterial nature of penicillin may have been an accidental discovery - but the refinement, production, delivery, and derivation of alternative penicillin treatments are all results of directed study.
For what it's worth, I notice in the article that this "beer study" wasn't the focus of the scientist's work, so I'm not as concerned. (It seems from his own admission that it's more of a related diversion.)
Obviously you've never taught in a public high school. I'd never call that a "soft" area. I have a BS in Computer Science & a BA in Mathematics, and am currently teaching 3 Advanced Placement courses at a public high school. It's the most demanding employment I've ever had.
I know that there are significantly more difficult employment positions in the world than K-12 teaching, but let me say this much - that sort of elitist view of "soft" education does nothing at all to improve the situation. It's hard enough to find anyone with intelligence in their field to teach K-12 education. Frankly, many people in K-12 shouldn't even be there; either they do not have a degree in the field they are teaching, or they are only there for some oblique reason (such as benefits).
Those of us who actually have a college degree of specialization in our field are lumped into the same category as those I just described. Unfortunatley this sort of impression is not yours alone, but is echoed throughout society. Every time a post is made on Slashdot about the declining might of American technical genuis, I wonder why everyone immediately discusses the university situation and ignores the K-12 segment. If high schools continue to serve substandard education, how long before even the best universities will literally have no one to teach?
I don't know about other states, but I can tell you in Florida that would likely be considered theft. According to the 2007 Florida Statutes, 2007 FS 812.014(1):
A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:
(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.
(b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.
So, basically, if you get an extra $1 (as measly as that seems) and you know that you weren't supposed to, you are appropriating the property of someone else (the store) for your own use.
Now, granted, I would heavily doubt any prosecutor would try to press charges for so little an amount - especially because you could reasonably argue that you didn't "knowingly" obtain the extra $1. (Who does, sometimes?)
Still, if you noticed an ATM pumping out $20s when it shouldn't, that is much different and I think should be prosecuted as theft. You had to know it was wrong, there's no way around it.
I'm a little out of the loop, but I just read through the final [amended] consent decree against Microsoft on the DOJ website. Can someone in the know point out what clause Google is claiming is being violated? I haven't seen it directly mentioned in any story posted yet.
I mean, the main problems addressed in the consent decree were twofold: 1) Microsoft was illegally leveraging OEMs for positioning, and 2) Microsoft was illegally leveraging it's "Middleware" market by including standalone products (such as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, etc) in its Windows OS.
What's Google's ground, legally, for their complaint? According to the consent decree, the term "Middleware" was defined, basically, as either "IE, Java, Media Player, Messenger, Outlook Express" or "browsers, email clients, networked audio/video software, instant messaging software" or "any functionality provided by Microsoft software that is distributed separately within a year preceding a new commercial Windows release which is similar to a non-Microsoft middleware product".
That being the case, did Microsoft ever release the Instant Search option as a separate download from any Windows OS? I can't think of any time they ever did that to my recollection. In fact, as someone else pointed out, searching is not only integral to the file systems of an OS, but it's been included in Windows from quite a ways back (if not as efficiently as it currently is implemented in Vista.)
Just curious....
LondovirI'm blowing moderator points to be able to respond to this, but why not?
What I don't understand, and of course IANAL so I shouldn't understand this, is where do we draw the line on the anti-monopoly power plays? Look, I can buy the argument that Microsoft went monopolistic all over the Internet Explorer saga. You are completely and entirely correct. The entire thrust of the case, as I understood it at the time, was that Microsoft was abusing it's basis as an operating system by bundling in software, not required in an operating system, so that it could grow market presence.
So, Microsoft puts IE into Windows, which isn't technically required for an operating system (despite Microsoft's attempts to claim it needed IE for it's Explorer subsystem, which was nicely debunked by experts) in order to snare the entire browser market. I read you on that one. I'll even grant your reasoning regarding Windows Defender, since I again don't think that's a core component of an OS.
But I draw the line with this search functionality. In my mind, being able to search your "desktop" (ie, the entire hard drive) for a file or document is something I expect, if not demand, in an operating system. If the filesystem doesn't support indexing and helping me to find a file based on a variety of criteria, I'm looking elsewhere. I know, technically, that searching is also not required for an OS, but the distinction is getting finer and finer. To me, Google is just being sour-grapes about this one. If they can prove Microsoft stole their code, abused their copyright, etc, I agree with them. If they can somehow prove Microsoft is deliberately sabotaging competing searches in the source code so they run abnormally slower compared to the native search, I would probably still side with Google (but my resolve gets much thinner).
But just because they are trying to provide a product that performs the same task as something which likely should be a part of the OS doesn't give them (in my mind) the license to demand Microsoft make changes. Why should Microsoft be forced to completely expose (or disable) their own, internal search subsystem in the OS? If you would rather use Google's search, download the blasted thing and "Just say no" to Microsoft's box on the Start Menu. (The irony, of course, is I recall tons of complaints/flamewars on /. in the past over how OS X was so superior for Spotlight than Windows, and then complaints of how Microsoft "ripped off" Spotlight, etc.)
I just don't see how this is the same as Microsoft defaulting the email program to Outlook Express, or the browser to Internet Explorer. Those are separate programs that aren't related to the OS itself, and Microsoft pushed it past the limit by bundling that sort of software and promoting it within Windows. Searching for files, though, should be something that is integral to the OS's file system - and competitors should be welcome to compete, but not get special privileges for doing so.
Wouldn't this be similar to someone like Symantec threatening Microsoft with litigation because Symantec provides a file system defragmenter (in SystemWorks), and Microsoft has a button in Explorer that will start Microsoft's own built-in defragmenter? Maybe Symantec is upset that there's no way for the user to disable Microsoft's, or to make Windows use Symantec's as the default. If Google can do it - so can Symantec. And so goes the contrapositive, also.
Speaking of which, when should we be hearing Google going after Apple for Spotlight? Oh wait - Spotlight has an API that allows anyone to write software to interface with the underlying OS searching capabilities. Which brings me to my question: Would that access (as unlikely as it might be in forthcoming) to Vista searching be enough to satsify Google? If it isn't, than Google's motivations are clearly suspect.
LondovirThank you for posting a reasonable and well-thought response to this issue of merit pay systems.
Here in Florida we've fought hard this past year against a number of merit pay based systems that were instituted by our departed past governor, Jeb Bush. Each has had a rather poor design flaw that has made it intolerable to consider.
The biggest headache (and yes, I am a high school educator of AP Calculus and AP Computer Science) we face as teachers in this sort of system is there is no objective criteria to use which fairly evaluates the merit of a teacher. What benchmarks can you use that would adequately measure the relative effectiveness of a teacher? In Jeb Bush's case, he felt that a simple majority of your overall rating should be based upon the state FCAT assessment scores of the students you teach.
Of course, this is wrought with disaster. I had the dubious privilege to sit as a test administrator [proctor] for this year's FCAT testing at my high school. I had the morbid delight to sit and watch as students "Christmas Tree'd" their answer sheets, or stared in space while doodling in their booklets, or even slept during the testing. The reality, of course, is that these same scores will be sent to the capital in Tallahassee where a faceless Department of Education official will see the results and assume they are the resultant of an ineffective teacher.
Worse still, this year students were required to take a state assessment in Science that would be officially used to grade a school's performance (along with each teacher's performance), but which would not, itself, be used in any official capacity for the students themselves. In other words, students must currently pass the state assessment in Math and Reading to be given a high school diploma. Science, however, is not yet a graduation requirement. Thus, as students tend to be astute when it suits their needs, students were able to deduce that the Science assessment held no sway over their futures, and so they almost uniformly "phoned it in" -- despite the fact that, in so doing, they essentially sabotaged the ranking, reputation, and recognition of their school and their teachers. Imagine that your paycheck, that you use to feed your family, was based in majority upon how your students did on a test they know for a fact they need not even really take?
There are comments on here from those who don't believe a step or tier system of pay is fair either. I'll grant their arguments, but I would counter with this: would you wish to continue working at an employment where you didn't have an opportunity for pay raises on a regular basis? I used to work in retail for a major toy retailer (take a guess, it's not W----rt), and I was a non-salaried sales manager. I had a 25 cent raise opportunity every year. That was it. Naturally, it wasn't feasible to consider raising a family on such a pay system, so I went into teaching. I know as a teacher that I can look forward to a union-negotiated x% raise each year that I continue employment. The way prices of consumables keeps increasing (gasoline, food, etc) my annual raises are nearly annhilated by the cost of living increases. Still - I'm pleased to know that my continued employment will be rewarded with increased salary.
Now, you'll say that it isn't appropriate for someone to get a raise merely for still working at a place. I'll agree with you, but I think you misdirect the criticism. It's not the fault of the tier system, it's the fault of administrators who don't fairly observe, critique, and hold teachers to a high level of expectation. Not considering the impediments put into place by collective bargaining agreements, the reality is that a poor teacher could, would, and should be flagged by an administrator as such, and through progressive discipline could, would, and should be counseled until termination. That would prevent a poor teacher from operating at the lowest common denominator and reaping the guaranteed annual raises in a tier system.
Does that happen? Unfor
As the original poster, I can tell you the following.
After sniffing around a little and making some inquiries of people who are in a higher position within the county, I think I've finally found out the "true" reason for this. I was told that, since our school board has paid a hefty access rights cost to World Book Online, it was decided to remove access to Wikipedia. It seems that some higher-ups were upset that they've shelled out the money for students to use an online encyclopedia, and that practically no one was using it! So, rather than investigate why people wanted to use Wikipedia so much more than World Book Online, they decide to remedy the situation by taking away Wikipedia.
Frankly, I believe that entirely. When I emailed the IT rep at the county level, and gave her a list of about 10 or so legitimate mathematical processes (such as the Rational Root Theorem, Synthetic Division, Euler's Method, etc), none of which is available on World Book but which is easily readable on Wikipedia, I got a staid and trite reply that basically repeated the "not credible like an encyclopedia" mantra and didn't address my particular points.
Oh well, we've managed since two months ago when I submitted this story. Some of us, being more knowledgable about computers and the internet than the usual lemming teachers around us, have found creative methods of still retrieving the information from Wikipedia we need to be effective teachers. (For example, I saw a handy way of processing a cubic spline based upon a Wikipedia article, which I proved by hand myself during my lunch break to make sure it worked, and then taught it to my students.)
I wonder if World Book has an article on proxies....
Londovir
Okay, I'm just a "mere" high school math teacher with a bachelor's in math. And I'm certain that I'm not as "genius" a mathematician as the reviewer was.
:)
Still, I can't believe the reviewer took 4 lines to find the length of 'd' in his example. He points out how the author used 7 or 8 lines to do it. That's what makes this ironic to me.
Has the reviewer ever heard of two delightful little formulas known as the Law of Cosines and the Law of Sines? I got the same answer in just two lines, personally. Perhaps not very elegant in appearance, but certainly effective:
B = arccos( (b^2-a^2-c^2) / (-2*a*c) )
d = 5 * sin(B) / sin(180-45-B)
But then again -- I'm just a simple high school math teacher, so I could be completely wrong.
Londovir
I'll grant you that your point about the comparison being flawed is legitimate. But, I'll also say you're missing the point, perhaps. I worked at Toys "R" Us for almost 10 years, first as a department head in RZone (videogames/electronics), then as a store manager. I was there for everything from the very tail end (IE, it's dead, Jim) of SNES/Genesis up to PS2/XBox/GC.
You know what I noticed in all of those years? The bulk of our shoppers fall into what I'd call the "clueless" demographic. They come to buy a system as a gift, or for their home, and they generally are shopping for some kids, somewhere. They looked at 2 things almost every time: the price tag, and the endcap display unit. That's about it. They didn't look at specs, or feature lists, or future expandability.
A typical shopping experience would be as follows: Shopper comes into the area, strolls around, stands watching the endcap displays (and occassionally plays one), then walks over to the display case to get the skinny on the cost. Usually they'll ask a couple of basic questions (how many controllers in the box, what kind of plug-ins do I need, etc). Now, the thing is, most of these were parents (maybe grandparents) and they wanted to get the most for their money. Plain and simple. They know that the kids/teens are looking to rip that sucker open, chuck in a game (not movie), and get pwning on some n00b.
I think maybe 3 times in 10 years did I run into a shopper who truly knew, or wanted to know, all of the particulars about a system. I would be astounded to be discussing polygon counts, resolutions, DVD/CD speeds, etc, with a shopper. Usually it was the same-old, same-old: I have $400, how can I get a machine with the most games. Or, perhaps, they would ask about backwards compatibility (now that's the one place I'll grant the PS3 will probably be more attractive).
So, here's my take. I think the kind of bundles mentioned in the article are going to be the exact sort of mental processes going on in most shoppers, whether you think it's a fair comparison or not. I know shoppers - I was PAID to know shoppers. People like quantity, especially when they're spending that much money. To spend $600 (or $500 even) and just walk home with a box with a machine and 1 controller, but no game, is going to be a serious case of sticker shock for a lot of "regular" shoppers. Especially when people could likely buy an XB360 (which might be $399 by then, never know) and a game, or a Wii and 2 or 3 games. HDMI? Half the "regular" shoppers won't even be able to use that. A large hard drive? That is relatively meaningless to many shoppers - witness the continued popularity of PS2 without one versus an XBox with one. (That was a major training point by Microsoft for us retailers: hype the hard drive and it's possibilities. It'll make sales. Never did.)
And as for BluRay? Why is that relevant to a majority of shoppers? I can tell you that when PS2 came out, DVD playback was never a major selling point at all. It will generally always be the case that a dedicated machine will be more feature enriched and [once a generation has passed] cost far less than a do-it-all machine. I'll grant you that a PS3 will be cheaper than a standalone BluRay for a relative time, but I will also say it's more than likely that given a year, perhaps, a BluRay player will probably drop down to the same (or less) than a PS3, and will also likely end up with more features. It's just common consumer electronics history. We rarely sold PS2s because they could -also- play DVDs - people wanted a videogame machine, plain and simple. (Ask XBox how that whole DVD Playback kit deal ended up...)
The PS3 is trying to do too much, and stuffing BluRay into it is the one thing which will cause it to lose perhaps 30% of the potential sales it could have had. Sony could have gone with HD-DVD, had the advantage of launching AFTER the XB360, and they would have been able to nearly match the XB360 price. PLUS they would have had better backwards compatibility
As someone else pointed out, the main key to how successful bots will become in poker is the algorithms that conclude if a hand is "bet worthy". Obviously probability is easy for a bot to calculate; my high school students calculate card hand odds in my statistics class for homework. You can go even further by calculating rudimentary risk-reward odds to determine if the potential cash payoff for this current pot, combined with the probability you have for making your hand, combined with the probability the flop gives your opponents better hands than your own, etc.
The key, clearly, is the way your program "behaves" in response to opponent betting. You could code a program that only plays based on the probability of achieving a winning hand in a statistical sense. (IE, if my pocket has a 75% chance of becoming a hand that will beat 65% of all possible hands, then play it regardless) That wouldn't obviously play that well, since the bot won't consider opponent betting. However, if your bot regards opponent betting, it will easily become susceptible to power bluffing if the algorithm doesn't guard against it. (Hence, you have routines like poorly written cell phone games where you just have to come out of the blocks betting like mad and you'll 90% of the time bluff the bot out of the hand)
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more ingenious bots would be a medley of pure probability, observed opponent behavior (for trend matching with a fixed opponent), and a database of "real life" situations. If I were to design a bot for poker, and had the resources, I'd be sorely tempted to first host an online poker website and take a ton of samples from actual, online play. You have the advantage (right now, at least) of being able to record everyone's exact hands (at every stage of the hand) as well as everyone's betting. You could distill that into a form of database where you could try and match a bot's hand to a pre-existing condition case, and determine, along with your other ranking criteria, what a human player once did with that same hand, and whether that player won or not.
Londovir I could see bots taking over after awhile, but it's going to take some time...and even then, it should be entertaining to watch programmers trying to tweak their bot to beat another bot, sometimes without even knowing they are going up against another bot.
I can certainly read and understand what you're thinking about that, but it does fit in quite a bit with the characterization of Obi-Wan from the novelization.
Yes, I read the novelization before seeing the movie. To me, I didn't feel that I was spoiling anything as another poster upthread said because we all know what happens. Plus, I like going in to the movie ahead of time with a rough outline of the story because I can keep an eye out of the artistic differences between the two versions. (Not to mention that, in the inevitable case of having to relieve myself of the Uber-Big Gulp soda, I know exactly when boring conversation will be onscreen that I can dispense with.)
Anyway, the book goes to great lengths illustrating that Obi-Wan's Jedi training and nature allow him to remain emotionally distant from things that occur around him. There are plenty of cases in the book when a "normal" person would be stricken with grief, despair, terror, surprise, etc, and Obi-Wan takes it in stride, confident in the Force and his ability to serve as a channel for the Force. (Chapter 15 comes to mind, particularly)
Given that, I don't think it's so amazing to see Obi-Wan fail to react to the droids presence in Ep4. Obi-Wan's deep faith in the Force is enough that, as Yoda hints in the novel, the Force will bring them all together when the time is right. He probably looked at both droids and thought, "Welp, it's a sign from the Force, let's roll." I mean, seriously, think about the confluence of coincidence that brought the droids to Tatooine in the first place. Shoot, the droids were with Leia (there's more detail there in the book which has been already mentioned elsewhere on here, but I won't repeat, which explains Threepio's memory loss), on the other side of the galaxy practically, and just happened to be flying over Tatooine when the ship was attacked, just happened to crash on Tatooine, just happened to be collected by the Jawas, just happened to be sold to Luke when the original droid he bought just happened to crap out on delivery, etc. If that's not the Force orchestrating everything (in Obi-Wan's mind) I don't know what is.
And, just so you know, the one time that Obi-Wan did have a major emotional reaction was when he discovered how many and how some of the Jedi were killed. And even then, Yoda bitch-slaps him a bit for his reaction, and he recovers.
It's all good. Admittedly to our common sense it seems like crap, but it's covered with a reasonable backstory once you read the novel.
Best,
Londovir
PS All the "This is xxxxx at this moment" in the novel get a little old, though...read it and you'll see what I mean...
What I thought most interesting in the article was the quote from the Morgan Securities analyst. He said, "There's nothing illegal or unethical about what EA is doing....Microsoft did the same kind of things to improve its position."
Isn't it funny how seemingly incompatible those two phrases are? Nearly everyone these days recognizes that Microsoft is a monopoly, including the government. How exactly does one think you get to be a monopoly? It's by doing the sort of things that EA is doing (in the beginning), which may very well be ethical and legal (but which leave a very bad taste in most consumers mouths anyway). You then end up wielding that newfound power in most unethical and illegal manners.
I just think it's quite enlightening to see a market analyst recognize the same initial markers in EA's behaviors. Sure, there's nothing illegal (but I'd argue unethical for awhile) in snagging so many exclusive licenses, but it remains to be seen what EA will do with their newfound implicit power. I somehow have a difficulty in believing that EA is going to "use its power for good, not evil". (I'm sure Digital Illusions, Ubisoft, and the hoards of EA employees would agree...)Londovir
Okay, this story has faded enough that this response is going to be lost in the archives of history. Still, I cannot and will not abide such a response without giving an opinion back.
How amazingly narrowsighted your views are. You are one of those wonderful individuals who will sit back and watch grievances take place without speaking out or against it, all under the banner of "rationality". How many things develop to the point where they negatively impact society in one fashion or another simply because, at their onset, people said, "It's a triviality, it's luxury, it has little importance."
Why does the status of a videogame mean less of value than an OS? For that matter, by your own statement, even an OS company couldn't be a monopoly, as using an OS is "a luxury...something that doesn't require loss of life or limb to boycott". Monopolism, in any form, is something that should be aggressively fought against. The ripple ramifications go far beyond your narrowminded ability to see the forest for the trees. If EA is allowed to remain unchecked, as they are going in the present, their negative influences will cascade outward. What starts today to you as a recreational endeavor will begin to become acquisition of competition, closing of studios, terminations of employees, loss of income for those employees, unemployment, stifling of competition, increase of pricing for limited choice products, and so forth. We've already seen many cases where the electronics industry (both videogame and computer) have definite impact on the stock market, thus the economy to a small scale.
You speak so cavalierly in your post it frankly reflects poorly on your view of civilization. When do you draw the line? At what point does your so-called morality dictate that you stand up and take a stance. You speak derogatively of people who rightly speak out against EA's tactics as being "whiny" and "obnoxious". Did you read your own post? It didn't read like an intelligently composed opinion of others, but rather a blasting, ill-thought tirade against other people's opinions, which I'm disappointed to see that the moderators of /. chose to mod all the way up to +4 for being Informative.
The reality is, whether or not a company promotes, produces, or owns something which is not life supporting, it is still morally [and legally] WRONG to own a monopoly of it (in most cases). Your friend's choice to violate her own argument against WalMart by shopping there does not translate to the arguments of those of us who may have little choice but to purchase a game from EA if it's the only choice we have. We are not hypocrites if we choose to do so, for in our case we literally have no alternative. Your friend, however, may very well go shopping at KMart, Target, etc. That's the difference. Perhaps you could argue we shouldn't support EA with our dollars since a football game is not a life necessity, but we also shouldn't have to go without entirely because a company utilizes business practices that are beyond contempt.
No one deserves to have a corporation walk all over them, and I'm disappointed that you believe anyone does. We have laws in this country that are there to protect competition, protect innovation, and to protect the consumer. These laws aren't written to say "so long as the product is vital to life", or "so long as the product is important", or "so long as the product is deemed worthy of protection by Shihar". That's the point. The consumer shouldn't have to vote with their money (if they even can at all) in order to be protected by the laws of the country. That's why people post here, and also write their government representatives (such as I have) to seek their assistance in having the laws applied to corporations.
My point is, I've read of the difficulties that many programmers have faced working at EA. I've read the blogs from some of them about the hours they worked and the lack of pay they encountered. My first reaction was not, "If they didn't like it, they should hav
No, evolution is not fact. This is the common misconception. Evolution, as stated in the sticker, is a theory, albeit a very well satisfied theory in terms of being supported by empirical evidence. The reality, though, is that it isn't completely verifiable, and that's why it isn't a fact.
You want to make a distinction between the why and the how in your statement; evolution is a fact, but how evolution works is a theory. You can't do that in science, it's part and parcel the same thing. Evolution wraps itself into that argument quite neatly, and there's the problem with calling it a fact.
If evolution is fact, and only the mechanism of its operation is a theory, how do you attribute the ultimate origin of all species? You clearly feel that evolution (the effect) is unassailable and obvious based on fossil records and other data. Thus one must then ask, in the realm of the evolution field, from what did everything evolve? As you said, unless species happened to spawn from thin air, they all descended from earlier species. What did they all come from? It's a recursive definition, and all recursive definitions should have a terminating point. Evolution's inability to satisfy that terminating point is what makes evolution a theory, and not a fact. As a theory is defined, it is an explanation to describe a set of observable natural occurances, which has been tested and approved. The fossil record helps to test and approve evolution, but it doesn't make it a given fact or truth. (It just makes it the far most likeliest of theories out there...)
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, I do happen to believe in evolution. But, as in everything in science, I reserve the right to change my mind in case someone comes up with a better test that blows a hole in the theory.
LondovirThen again, it's curious that you chose to quote definition #1 under the link you provided, and skipped over definition #6 listed there:
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Many theories of science (both biology, physics, etc) at one point in their development seemed akin to fact because no test available could disprove the theory. Of course, then again, there were people firmly convinced that light had only wavelike properties, and others convinced that light had only particle properties. It was only until such point as tests were developed that exposed flaws in a particular theory that it was modified and expanded. Relativity is a theory, albeit a strong one, but again, only in the last 50 years or so has science advanced to a stage where methodology and technology have begun to allow us to put stronger tests in place, and find faults in an otherwise excellent theory. Someday soon perhaps something may arise that will find a small fault in evolution theory. The sticker is correct (perhaps not in motive) to point out that evolution is a theory and not fact.
Again, I simply don't see what the sticker says that can confuse students - unless you appear to want current students to accept scientific theories as fact. I agree that singling out evolution was perhaps a bit on-the-nose for the groups' intentions, but again, it doesn't confuse anyone in any way. It merely reminds the readers to not accept the theory as fact, which in this case is a valid point to make.
LondovirThis sounds like something that, on appeal, may very well get overturned. The Lemon case was originally based on a state reimbursing mostly religious private schools for teacher salaries, textbook costs, and other expenses. It was clearly a case in that sense of establishment of religion, etc, etc. It happens to be one of the most commonly cited court decisions in lawsuits against school vouchers, for that reason. It's interesting that a judge would choose to use that particular precedent in this case, as they aren't really even close.
Even if you choose to use this case, as the judge did, you have to debate whether or not putting the stickers on the books truly violated the intent of the 3 clauses. For it to violate #2, it would mean that placing the stickers would have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. I'd say that is entirely subjective, as the sticker itself makes absolutely no claims with respect to religion. It merely reminds readers that evolution is a theory, and not a fact. The difference between theory and fact (as scientific terms) is drilled into nearly all science majors in college, and I recall (ironically) in Catholic high school being taught how a theory differed from a fact. I see absolutely nothing to suggest that reminding readers something is not hard fact does anything to promote or deter religion.
Now, perhaps the problem is that some people are not looking at the sticker objectively, but imposing religious/nonreligious fervor on the situation. THAT is the problem here. This isn't a direct or even indirect endorsement of a religious belief. And it certainly isn't an "entanglement" of government into religion, which it perhaps would have been if the sticker was being somehow forced onto textbooks in a religious school setting. As I said, this is a clear-cut case of a judge misapplying a SC decision in a situation that doesn't warrant it.
Now, if you ask me if I think the stickers are nutty, I'd agree - frankly they don't bother to say anything that isn't (or shouldn't be) obvious to anyone. I believe in the theory of evolution after having studied the numerous concepts of origin "out there". And, just like many things in science which are thought to be true, but cannot be conclusively [yet] proven, I consider it a theory and not fact. Sure, in my mind it is just about the same, but it's not [yet]. I don't need a sticker to tell me that.
LondovirIt depends on whether or not they were actually outside the courthouse. It's not clear from the article posted if that's the case or not.
From the article, it says both "The line leading into..." and "...as the queue wound into the court..." I would agree the first makes it seem like they were outside, but the second clouds the issue a little. I know it's semantics, but in the context of the law they were charged under, the semantics (ironically, as we're talking about lawyers here) are vital.
What I find more interesting is what's not mentioned in this version of the article. If you read here, it goes and mentions that one of the guys was going to court to answer a drunken driver charge from his past. As others have mentioned, they often use "confrontational" tactics.
The bottom line is virtually every county/state/federal court has laws on the books to prevent disorderly/loud/disruptive conduct from disturbing the business of the courts. I'd guess that what we don't know is these guys were making more of a ruckus than the articles state (as it's far more newsworthy and entertaining to make it sound like they're getting busted for telling lawyer jokes - makes it more Leno or Letterman worthy of reporting), and they're getting busted for it. If that's the case, there's nothing outrageous about it.
Of course, this version of apparently the same story by Newsday adds a comment from one of the guys that they were standing outside the court. So who knows? :-)
Given that these guys have already picked up a popular talk radio host (Ron Kuby) as their own lawyer, I smell publicity stunt....
LondovirI love how people on /. cannot think of ways to say things without resorting to the schoolyard practice of calling people names. If the best argument you can come up with is "you're ignorant", I pray to all above that you are not a lawyer, as I can see how your legal arguments (d)evolve: "In closing your honor, the plaintiff/defendant is ignorant."
In all true seriousness, I wasn't necessarily discussing the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act has been amended numerous times with various acts through the 100 years or more of its existence for the simple reason that it was terribly vague in its terminology. It barely defined the words "monopoly", "restraint of trade", and so forth. By that alone, the Sherman Act is hardly applicable to modern times.
Still, if you discuss the Sherman Act, there is an argument to be made (probably weak, I admit, but one which might be made) that Article I of the Sherman Act may apply. You could argue that the economic repurcussions caused by the exclusive contract with the NFL will impinge on the trade and commerce of the competitors in relation to nationwide commerce. You might argue that the reduced sales of the competitors (due to the lost NFL rights) will cause a trickle effect on lost sales tax revenues (for the states) as well as other monitary repurcussions.
In any case, there's another weak argument to be made that the Lorain Journal v. United States (1951) could also be a precedent for this NFL deal. If you parallel the NFL to the Lorain Journal, there's a slim matching circumstance: The NFL is arguably about 95-99% of the professional football market in the United States (by your logic), just as the Journal was in the 1950s. They are, essentially, refusing to sell their product to consumers (ie, Midway, Sega, etc) and preferring EA. This goes back to Sherman Act again.I'm not saying these are valid (or winnable) legal prongs of attack, but I am trying to point them out so that, lest you delude yourself into thinking I am a fanboy who trolls on Slashdot. I'm hardly ignorant to the law as you seem to think.
Your points are well reasoned and stated, but there's a minor difference: it's a demonstrable fact that people prefer games with officially licensed teams, players, stadiums, etc. I won't bother quoting stats, but there's been a number of times where a licensed game trounced its competitor (without a license) despite being rated poorly (think QBC for N64). People just like having the real names, and furthermore, like not having to manually edit every roster, player, etc for that level of authenticity. That's even more a given now that you see games with little or no difference from year to year except the updated rosters.
So, it is quite likely that this licensing agreement will cause EA's market share to grow at the expense of their competitors. Although it's a passive action (ie, not something EA is actively out there doing), it still will be harmful to the other competitors.Your beer analogy is a good one, but it has the same problem. Your argument is one of restricted product placement, such as only being available in a store or place. This isn't the case. This is not being able to use an ingredient in your product. For example, what if Budweiser somehow got the 5 year exclusive right to use yeast or hops in their beer, and no other beer could legally use that ingredient? It's not inconceivable to see that the other beers would suffer in sales, because their product wouldn't be considered as appealing to the consumer with the absence of a vital ingredient. Well, for many, many console and PC gamers, a real team/player/stadium/uniform/logo is a vital ingredient to the "football beer", so to speak.
Ah, wonderful jump/leap of logic you make there. What exactly is it about me that you apparently know that states I have no understanding of the law? Obviously you must know something about my education that I (nor my college diploma) apparently know. How delightful.
A "legal" definition of monopoly is when a company has achieved the power to fix prices and/or exclude all competition, along with having corporate policies in place that maintain, preserve, and extend or use that power once achieved. Now that EA has the exclusive NFL rights, it can fix prices wherever it wants (since you have no other recourse of product to purchase if you want an officially licensed game). By virtue of the exclusive license they have excluded their competition from having the same license. The only part unknown at this stage is whether they have policies in place to grow and maintain their power. You could argue their attempt to gain a matching exclusivity with the NBA (and who knows about the NHL - they're ripe for the money right now with the lockout) is proof that they are trying to leverage their power with the NFL against the NBA and kill off more competition.
In any case, look at legal precedent as well. The Microsoft case present some interesting parallels, as I alluded to earlier. If EA is not considered to be a monopoly in legal terms (which is ironic, as it generally is the government which decides such matters, as it's usually the government which brings anti-competitive/monopolistic practices to the court system for judicial review), it could arguably be accused of anti-competitive tactics.This is the core of what builds a monopoly. As I said before, had you read my post closely, you would see that I purported that EA is beginning to become a monopoly - and locking out all competition to a product via exclusivity rights is how it all begins. Haven't we seen Microsoft tweak things in the past so that other people's products wouldn't "work" with their software? Does that stop people from writing their software? No, it certainly does not. But - and this is the key point - when your product already enjoys a market share, doing this helps to guarantee your share tends to 100%. Well, Madden already enjoys a high market share, and by getting the NFL agreement, they help to prevent other competing products from gaining ground, as it will always be the case that people will not buy a game without actual teams and players.
Gee, I so love it when people think they are holier than thou! It makes it so much more delightful to point out their "inaccuracies".
According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a monopoly is defined as:
Hrm, let's see: EA controls for the next half-decade the exclusive rights to the NFL teams, players, logo, etc. They were trying to get the exclusive rights to the NBA teams, players, logo, etc. By WHAT stretch of any imagination does this sort of arrangement NOT meet definitions 1 and 3 above, if not 2 as well? If you define the commercial activity or commodity as "officially licensed football or basketball games with real life, actual players and teams", then you just defined a monopoly, whether you like it or not.
And although you contend that other people are free to make football games, lest we remind the world that other people have been free for over 20 years to make other operating systems, yet how many have truly succeeded and excelled against Microsoft? Not many, if any, could truly be said to succeed (in the sense of achieving more than 50% market share). There are few who would deny that Microsoft isn't a monopoly -- and this is the same situation. Sure, you can make another generic football game, but I guarantee you there is enough of a sizable population that enjoys sports games for having their favorite team/player in them that EA's deal will push out the competition slowly but surely. Those of us who appreciate a quality game don't care - but we're not enough of the buying population to make a dent, otherwise the annual Madden shovelware wouldn't succeed as well as it has against the quality offering by Sega.
Maybe part of the problem in the business world these days are enough people don't recognize a monopoly as it's forming, but only well late after the fact. This is the beginning of a true monopoly (especially considering the aggressive takeover tactics EA is using, and their labor practices, etc) - and apparently too many people aren't seeing this already.