Sorry, Inwas talking about direct genetic markers. Twin studies are interesting, but they are hampered by an unusually small sample set. There's also the issue of in utero development that can't be eliminated. The are rules known to pig farmers, for instance, about how feeding a pregnant pig affects the physical characteristics of their piglets. Extra feeding at certain times results in increased brain development, whereas at other times, it results in a larger pig with more meat. Farmers prefer meaty, stupid pigs to skinny, clever ones. We don't have a lot of data on how this pans out for humans (experimental studies would be more than a little unethical), but it's fair to assume it happens to some extent, making twin studies quite unreliable for establishing genetic causality.
Sorry, but infomation is useless if you don't know how to handle it. When we learn something, we build a "schema" to model that information. Any analogous new information can then reuse that schema to retain and manipulate the information. Students must deal with enough material in depth to acquire the schemata needed to manipulate new information. If your entire education is done via websearch, there will be no schemata to work with.
Children that come from more privileged socioeconomic backgrounds tend to be more able than disadvantaged children. Why? One reason is that privileged background afford them better support system and more stimulating environment. Another reason, is that contrary to the prevailing social narrative, not everyone is born equal or could achieve anything. There are very practical limitations imposed by intelligence that cannot be overcome by motivation alone. Intelligence also happen to be highly heritable trait and it is strongly correlated with "privileged socioeconomic background".
Correlation is not causation. You started your post with a possible mechanism not involving genetics, then suggested another hypothesis built on the same data. Tthe last time I saw any data on correlations between genetics and intelligence, the identified genetic markers only accounted for about 2 IQ points between them, which is hardly better than the standard error in the mean. Furthermore, need I point out that rich successful mrn often marry trophy wives? How does that leave us in terms of heredity...?
Edtech needs to focus on giving teachers quality general use tools and class room appropriate hardware on which to run them. It does not need to be trying to create a digital textbook equivalent or play instructor on its own.
Then problem then becomes one of training time. A teacher with a pad of paper and a pen can follow whatever workflow he or she likes, but operating software tools needs an understanding of the program logic. All edtech starts with the right goals, but then responds to operator (ie teacher) difficulties in the wrong way.
Take, for example, question banks. I mentioned them to my dad (a retired chemistry teacher) and he immediately started ranting about how they were useless because if you didn't put the questions in yourself, you weren't going to be able to use them effectively. I responded that the whole point of question banks was precisely that -- for teachers to manage their own questions over their careers. Prepopulated question banks were requested by teachers, because getting questions into them was time-consuming.
Platforms such as Moodle are supposed to by style-agnostic, but doing anything other the basics leads you to have to code up arcane and esoteric dynamic pages, so everyone ends up with static multiple-choice question sheets online.
So OK... both ease-of-use and education are required.
Interesting. Given that the distinction between them is in pitch, it's surprising that a computer program wouldn't reliably be able to disambiguate the two.
A guy with an accent that the software has doubtless had previous exposure to asks questions of a type he knows the software can answer. As far as I'm concerned, that's about as reliable as seeing "real engine footage" on a computer game trailer.
Word lens wasn't translation software -- it was image processing. As image processing, it was absolutely fantastic. The "translation" was tacked on to make it look like a product, rather than a technology seeking practical use.
It would be a better demo with someone who had no experience of the system. If you know which sentences it handles,myou know which sentences it handles.
Sorry, but you're talking about a hunting rifle, which is not what I'm talking about. I never once mentioned round types either. I'm not tlking about models misrepresented in the media. I'm not talking models misrepresented in gun catalogues. I am talking about guns that are specifically designed for combat situations, and whose specifications in terms of low accuracy, high firing rate etc, make them only really suitable for combat. That was my final question: does it have a use outside of a warzone? The answer is, of course, subjective. But it's still a valid question.
They don't number the barrels? Isn't it imperfections in the bore of the barrel that leave a signature on a bullet? Or is that just an issue with short barrels (ie handguns)? Can rifle bullets be matched with the barrel that shot them?
If I choose to call my sofa a "car", it doesn't render the word "car" meaningless. There are plenty of terms in use that have both a narrow legal meaning and a wider common meaning.
What is really funny is that in England, etc. where super strict gun laws exist, suppressors aren't regulated, and they are considered to be "required" to be polite and limit the noise. Here, they are considered "evil" and some states out right ban them and the Feds put a oppressive tax on 'em.
What's funny about that? When you've got strict licensing of guns, people and shooting locations, you've got a lot more trust. The only reason suppresors would be considered bad is because reduced accuracy is dangerous is people are using the weapons in the open, and because it allows the shooter to be slightly less obvious.
How about "is it suitable for a war zone"? If the answer is yes why the hell are you walking about the streets with it?
The problem is that that would take in most handguns (used as sidearms in warzones) and any high-precision hunting rifle (a drop-in replacement for a sniper rifle). I don't believe there's much of a difference between urban combat shotguns and ones for duck-hunting either. While the usefulness of handguns as "personal safety devices" is highly debatable, the debate IS still open. The most important characteristic of an assualt rifle is that it is designed purely and solely as a combat weapon. So the question (that gun nuts keep trying to fudge) is whether it has any use whatsoever outside a warzone.
You mean someone uses Windows built-in DVD playback? The first thing I've done on a new computer for the last five or six years is install VLC.
Like others, I used it lots until my laptop blew smoke in my face. In fact, most of what I used Windows for was watching DVDs and online videos as trying to do it under Linux tended to result in jerky pictures, and I didn't see the point in faffing about with trying to configure it when Windows worked fine.
Back in about 2006-8, I was managing desktop apps for a large client company running Windows 2000 (they didn't like spending money, as you can no doubt see!) and we got a hell of a lot of calls saying "DVD won't play". Even now, lots of corporate training materials are issued on DVD, and people see a DVD drive and expect to be able to just insert and go. This will be a support nightmare for anyone who still supplies DVDs....
But anyway... why take it away from people who've already paid for it?
He adds comments below them, and this he claims makes it both transformative and art. The problem I have, though, is this idea that "transformative" somehow means its no longer a derivative work, because the rights of original creators are supposed to be protected in derivative works under the Berne Convention.
Then call them blind, just not evil. What they're guilty if is being trapped in reductionist thinking and failing to see the difference between luxuries and necessities, instead categorisig everything simply as "goods".
And yet you're doing the same thing you accuse me of -- that the elements that I hold important are part of my philosophy are actually part of your philosophy, so your philosophy must be right. You have fallen into the logical trap of assuming all opposing viewpoints are diametrically opposed. Both socialism and capitalism are predicated on appropriate reward for hard work. Both seek to leverage industrial efficiency to the maximum gain. The only difference between the two philosophies is in the apportionment of reward. Capitalism views "funding" as a type of work that deserves the highest reward, therefore the person who invests (the capitalist) receives the highest recompense. Socialism views the worker activity as the only real "work", and capital merely a facilitator, because the capitalist doesn't typically expend any time or energy. In capitalism, it is the capitalists that compete with each other, and that doesn't help the workers, because they are now a "cost" and competitiveness means cutting costs.
"Cooperative" as in less competitive than other forms of value add. Without competition, there would be no reason to work unless you thought work was fun.
Ummm... no. Someone who doesn't pull his weight isn't cooperating. Cooperate -- from "co-" (with, together) and "operate" (perform intelligent work"). Your "commies are lazy" strawman is getting a bit worn looking.
I hadn't noticed that you were the one in the chain who had given a definition. I was just throwing out a quick-fire line about irony. Unfortunately I can't see anything ironic in the subsequent exchange to make a further quip about.
You're taking it as a given that non-competitive cooperation requires a central coordinating force. This is not true. Hive behaviours (ants, bees etc) are emergent phenomena created by thousands of peer-to-peer communications, and in any education system with high freedom in syllabus and methods, you can see the same sort of emergent behaviour in knowledge (and resource) sharing between peers. If you see competition as the only alternative to centralism, you're wide of the mark. Individual entities in a competitive environment start to focus down narrowly -- competition may drive innovation in some senses, but it also puts the blinkers on as you can't afford to be distracted. This leads to a situation where the "consumer" is left with a choice of which centralism to subscribe to -- a "choose your own dictatorship", if you will...
This actually plays into my fears about the gamification of education. A lot of game-games use achievements as a "Skinner box" (as Extra Credits terms it) to encourage mindless return business, rather than simply employing good game mechanics. If your achievement or "challenge" is to play 20 times, that doesn't encourage the player to improve their technique -- it's just grinding. Is "grit" not what you get left with after grinding? Rewarding grinding in education or the workplace is little more than institutionalised presenteeism.
"Everyone's a winner" was a lazy philosophy resulting from Chinese whispers in the teaching profession. The educational psychologists asked teachers to be more mindful of what they say, because they noticing that across the board, underperforming students got more negative reinforcement for mistakes than positive feednack when they got something right. Teachers weren't supposed to start giving uncritical praise, but just to smile more when kids get things right. It's not that hard to do, and everyone benefits, but it wasn't simple enough for the crappy resource packs and brain-dead seminars that much in-service training is built around.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, Inwas talking about direct genetic markers. Twin studies are interesting, but they are hampered by an unusually small sample set. There's also the issue of in utero development that can't be eliminated. The are rules known to pig farmers, for instance, about how feeding a pregnant pig affects the physical characteristics of their piglets. Extra feeding at certain times results in increased brain development, whereas at other times, it results in a larger pig with more meat. Farmers prefer meaty, stupid pigs to skinny, clever ones. We don't have a lot of data on how this pans out for humans (experimental studies would be more than a little unethical), but it's fair to assume it happens to some extent, making twin studies quite unreliable for establishing genetic causality.
Sorry, but infomation is useless if you don't know how to handle it. When we learn something, we build a "schema" to model that information. Any analogous new information can then reuse that schema to retain and manipulate the information. Students must deal with enough material in depth to acquire the schemata needed to manipulate new information. If your entire education is done via websearch, there will be no schemata to work with.
Children that come from more privileged socioeconomic backgrounds tend to be more able than disadvantaged children. Why? One reason is that privileged background afford them better support system and more stimulating environment. Another reason, is that contrary to the prevailing social narrative, not everyone is born equal or could achieve anything. There are very practical limitations imposed by intelligence that cannot be overcome by motivation alone. Intelligence also happen to be highly heritable trait and it is strongly correlated with "privileged socioeconomic background".
Correlation is not causation. You started your post with a possible mechanism not involving genetics, then suggested another hypothesis built on the same data. Tthe last time I saw any data on correlations between genetics and intelligence, the identified genetic markers only accounted for about 2 IQ points between them, which is hardly better than the standard error in the mean. Furthermore, need I point out that rich successful mrn often marry trophy wives? How does that leave us in terms of heredity...?
Edtech needs to focus on giving teachers quality general use tools and class room appropriate hardware on which to run them. It does not need to be trying to create a digital textbook equivalent or play instructor on its own.
Then problem then becomes one of training time. A teacher with a pad of paper and a pen can follow whatever workflow he or she likes, but operating software tools needs an understanding of the program logic. All edtech starts with the right goals, but then responds to operator (ie teacher) difficulties in the wrong way.
Take, for example, question banks. I mentioned them to my dad (a retired chemistry teacher) and he immediately started ranting about how they were useless because if you didn't put the questions in yourself, you weren't going to be able to use them effectively. I responded that the whole point of question banks was precisely that -- for teachers to manage their own questions over their careers. Prepopulated question banks were requested by teachers, because getting questions into them was time-consuming.
Platforms such as Moodle are supposed to by style-agnostic, but doing anything other the basics leads you to have to code up arcane and esoteric dynamic pages, so everyone ends up with static multiple-choice question sheets online.
So OK... both ease-of-use and education are required.
I believe this was a play on words -- note the name of the app.
Uh-huh (Sometimes interpreted as Uh-Uh)
Interesting. Given that the distinction between them is in pitch, it's surprising that a computer program wouldn't reliably be able to disambiguate the two.
A guy with an accent that the software has doubtless had previous exposure to asks questions of a type he knows the software can answer. As far as I'm concerned, that's about as reliable as seeing "real engine footage" on a computer game trailer.
Word lens wasn't translation software -- it was image processing. As image processing, it was absolutely fantastic. The "translation" was tacked on to make it look like a product, rather than a technology seeking practical use.
Great demo though.
It would be a better demo with someone who had no experience of the system. If you know which sentences it handles,myou know which sentences it handles.
Sorry, but you're talking about a hunting rifle, which is not what I'm talking about. I never once mentioned round types either. I'm not tlking about models misrepresented in the media. I'm not talking models misrepresented in gun catalogues. I am talking about guns that are specifically designed for combat situations, and whose specifications in terms of low accuracy, high firing rate etc, make them only really suitable for combat. That was my final question: does it have a use outside of a warzone? The answer is, of course, subjective. But it's still a valid question.
They don't number the barrels? Isn't it imperfections in the bore of the barrel that leave a signature on a bullet? Or is that just an issue with short barrels (ie handguns)? Can rifle bullets be matched with the barrel that shot them?
Heck, even the tip of a liberal's penis would work.
Isn't it a bit of a stereotype for a gun enthusiast to be obsessed with penis size...?
If I choose to call my sofa a "car", it doesn't render the word "car" meaningless. There are plenty of terms in use that have both a narrow legal meaning and a wider common meaning.
What is really funny is that in England, etc. where super strict gun laws exist, suppressors aren't regulated, and they are considered to be "required" to be polite and limit the noise. Here, they are considered "evil" and some states out right ban them and the Feds put a oppressive tax on 'em.
What's funny about that? When you've got strict licensing of guns, people and shooting locations, you've got a lot more trust. The only reason suppresors would be considered bad is because reduced accuracy is dangerous is people are using the weapons in the open, and because it allows the shooter to be slightly less obvious.
How about "is it suitable for a war zone"? If the answer is yes why the hell are you walking about the streets with it?
The problem is that that would take in most handguns (used as sidearms in warzones) and any high-precision hunting rifle (a drop-in replacement for a sniper rifle). I don't believe there's much of a difference between urban combat shotguns and ones for duck-hunting either. While the usefulness of handguns as "personal safety devices" is highly debatable, the debate IS still open. The most important characteristic of an assualt rifle is that it is designed purely and solely as a combat weapon. So the question (that gun nuts keep trying to fudge) is whether it has any use whatsoever outside a warzone.
You mean someone uses Windows built-in DVD playback? The first thing I've done on a new computer for the last five or six years is install VLC.
Like others, I used it lots until my laptop blew smoke in my face. In fact, most of what I used Windows for was watching DVDs and online videos as trying to do it under Linux tended to result in jerky pictures, and I didn't see the point in faffing about with trying to configure it when Windows worked fine.
Back in about 2006-8, I was managing desktop apps for a large client company running Windows 2000 (they didn't like spending money, as you can no doubt see!) and we got a hell of a lot of calls saying "DVD won't play". Even now, lots of corporate training materials are issued on DVD, and people see a DVD drive and expect to be able to just insert and go. This will be a support nightmare for anyone who still supplies DVDs....
But anyway... why take it away from people who've already paid for it?
He adds comments below them, and this he claims makes it both transformative and art. The problem I have, though, is this idea that "transformative" somehow means its no longer a derivative work, because the rights of original creators are supposed to be protected in derivative works under the Berne Convention.
Then call them blind, just not evil. What they're guilty if is being trapped in reductionist thinking and failing to see the difference between luxuries and necessities, instead categorisig everything simply as "goods".
And yet you're doing the same thing you accuse me of -- that the elements that I hold important are part of my philosophy are actually part of your philosophy, so your philosophy must be right. You have fallen into the logical trap of assuming all opposing viewpoints are diametrically opposed. Both socialism and capitalism are predicated on appropriate reward for hard work. Both seek to leverage industrial efficiency to the maximum gain. The only difference between the two philosophies is in the apportionment of reward. Capitalism views "funding" as a type of work that deserves the highest reward, therefore the person who invests (the capitalist) receives the highest recompense. Socialism views the worker activity as the only real "work", and capital merely a facilitator, because the capitalist doesn't typically expend any time or energy. In capitalism, it is the capitalists that compete with each other, and that doesn't help the workers, because they are now a "cost" and competitiveness means cutting costs.
"Cooperative" as in less competitive than other forms of value add. Without competition, there would be no reason to work unless you thought work was fun.
Ummm... no. Someone who doesn't pull his weight isn't cooperating. Cooperate -- from "co-" (with, together) and "operate" (perform intelligent work"). Your "commies are lazy" strawman is getting a bit worn looking.
I hadn't noticed that you were the one in the chain who had given a definition. I was just throwing out a quick-fire line about irony. Unfortunately I can't see anything ironic in the subsequent exchange to make a further quip about.
You're taking it as a given that non-competitive cooperation requires a central coordinating force. This is not true. Hive behaviours (ants, bees etc) are emergent phenomena created by thousands of peer-to-peer communications, and in any education system with high freedom in syllabus and methods, you can see the same sort of emergent behaviour in knowledge (and resource) sharing between peers. If you see competition as the only alternative to centralism, you're wide of the mark. Individual entities in a competitive environment start to focus down narrowly -- competition may drive innovation in some senses, but it also puts the blinkers on as you can't afford to be distracted. This leads to a situation where the "consumer" is left with a choice of which centralism to subscribe to -- a "choose your own dictatorship", if you will...
Should I have hashtagged my last post #joke for you...?
This actually plays into my fears about the gamification of education. A lot of game-games use achievements as a "Skinner box" (as Extra Credits terms it) to encourage mindless return business, rather than simply employing good game mechanics. If your achievement or "challenge" is to play 20 times, that doesn't encourage the player to improve their technique -- it's just grinding. Is "grit" not what you get left with after grinding? Rewarding grinding in education or the workplace is little more than institutionalised presenteeism.
"Everyone's a winner" was a lazy philosophy resulting from Chinese whispers in the teaching profession. The educational psychologists asked teachers to be more mindful of what they say, because they noticing that across the board, underperforming students got more negative reinforcement for mistakes than positive feednack when they got something right. Teachers weren't supposed to start giving uncritical praise, but just to smile more when kids get things right. It's not that hard to do, and everyone benefits, but it wasn't simple enough for the crappy resource packs and brain-dead seminars that much in-service training is built around.