This is the kind of math we have backup up the 50% minimum policy?
We all fail to correctly correct something sometimes, don't we.;) {I do have a math degree - honest:P }
So at 50% you'll get fired and at 0% you'll get fired. Why make the distinction then, is one really that much worse than the other?
We aren't "handing them good grades." A 50% is bad. I think that if they get punished too heavily for extremely bad work they'll all lose hope and won't bother trying to overcome this obstacle. Continually getting 50% will still result in an F, this just provides them the opportunity to, with hard work, get something other than an F in the end.
Graph good-bad vs % and note the sudden drop off, I'm just saying we should smooth out this graph.
As someone who typically earned either As or 0s on assignments I can see some advantages in this scheme. The problem is in how we grade.
Because the difference between "good" and "bad" is so small (say 90% vs 60%) does it really make sense to have a range from 60% to 0%? And with it, trash any hope of achieving "average" marks if one bombs (or doesn't do) a few assignments?
Look at it this way:
100% (A) + 0% (F) yields a 45% ave. (F)
but 4.0 (A) + 0.0 (F) yields a 2.0 (C)
Get one 0 and the student needs four 100s just to hit 80%. That seems kind of harsh to me.
w/ the new system the same student would earn a 90% which seems about right to me.
My school did this w/ gym. The resulting structure basically rewards students for not giving it their all early on and conversely punishes students who don't game the system. I'm not saying that improvement based grading is inherently bad. You can add 'effort' to counter this flaw but it can become pretty subjective.
Pending doom and gloom about supply not being able to match demand. There are those who effectively argue that there is no need for concern. Sounds analogous to me...
WTF the only people this flames/incites others to flame are the/. editors and the blogs. This would normally merit the flamebait status, but they deserve it here. As pointed out this is old news.
If the kids are old enough to be earning the money to buy the game (~$50?) they are probably old enough to be playing it. And if the parents give them money and say go get something, the parents must trust their kids decisions enough. If the kids get the games, and the parents who don't want their kids getting these games exercise some responsibility then the kids won't be getting any games in the future!
Mowing lawns, babysitting, and selling lemonade you could earn enough, but still parental authority, rules, and such should be enough The kid spends money without asking parents on something they might embargo, parents confiscate contraband video game then the kids are out 50 bucks and have learned their lesson, simple as that.
Simple concept, I don't think I did a very good job of articulating it.
You used "it turns out" in two sentences which are next to each other. This is an example of redundant data, so I wouldn't go storing your/. posts on rfid's.
Actually it turns out that they were both in the same sentence.
Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity; might the same be true in education?
(or reviewed April...two months from now
depending on implementation date vs announcement date?)
Re:Info on what exactly SHA-1 is ...
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
Well, as per your link, it looks like it was set to be reviewed next October.
Qualifications: While it is the intent of this standard to specify a secure hash algorithm, conformance to this standard does not assure that a particular implementation is secure. The responsible authority in each agency or department shall assure that an overall implementation provides an acceptable level of security. This standard will be reviewed every five years in order to assess its adequacy.
Impressive stuff, still takes a lot to break it, but 1/2048th the time likely marks the beginning of the end. Even if a collision would detected would it be likely the fake messege make sense (ie run or use real words)?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess not really very similar... graphics, vs real life. Real life is much cooler. Oh well.
OK, I have to show off - I did something similar four years ago. :)
Post
Webpage
I'm a much better programmer now, just for the record.
F11
;-)
I also highly recommend the Tiny Menu extension for FF.
Indeed
This is the kind of math we have backup up the 50% minimum policy?
We all fail to correctly correct something sometimes, don't we. ;) {I do have a math degree - honest :P }
So at 50% you'll get fired and at 0% you'll get fired. Why make the distinction then, is one really that much worse than the other?
We aren't "handing them good grades." A 50% is bad. I think that if they get punished too heavily for extremely bad work they'll all lose hope and won't bother trying to overcome this obstacle. Continually getting 50% will still result in an F, this just provides them the opportunity to, with hard work, get something other than an F in the end.
Graph good-bad vs % and note the sudden drop off, I'm just saying we should smooth out this graph.
haha, opps, had 90 earlier, but replaced it. Oh that's embarrassing. sigh.
As someone who typically earned either As or 0s on assignments I can see some advantages in this scheme. The problem is in how we grade.
Because the difference between "good" and "bad" is so small (say 90% vs 60%) does it really make sense to have a range from 60% to 0%? And with it, trash any hope of achieving "average" marks if one bombs (or doesn't do) a few assignments?
Look at it this way:
100% (A) + 0% (F) yields a 45% ave. (F)
but 4.0 (A) + 0.0 (F) yields a 2.0 (C)
Get one 0 and the student needs four 100s just to hit 80%. That seems kind of harsh to me.
w/ the new system the same student would earn a 90% which seems about right to me.
My school did this w/ gym. The resulting structure basically rewards students for not giving it their all early on and conversely punishes students who don't game the system. I'm not saying that improvement based grading is inherently bad. You can add 'effort' to counter this flaw but it can become pretty subjective.
Pending doom and gloom about supply not being able to match demand. There are those who effectively argue that there is no need for concern. Sounds analogous to me...
A bit analogous to peak oil? (except for the whole, not actually deletable thing...)
I suppose I read the parent wrong... but only because of my need to see someone here recognize that this is old news.
WTF the only people this flames/incites others to flame are the /. editors and the blogs. This would normally merit the flamebait status, but they deserve it here. As pointed out this is old news.
It says Nov 2004 at top of article!!! Way to go editors.
FYI, the CPI really includes things like food and the price of gas.... You're thinking of the Core CPI
ROSD??? Loghorn???
Submitter is German?... but as for the editors...
Actually It is more similar to a hunter-gatherer way of life, its just that method cannot support a large population.
If the kids are old enough to be earning the money to buy the game (~$50?) they are probably old enough to be playing it. And if the parents give them money and say go get something, the parents must trust their kids decisions enough. If the kids get the games, and the parents who don't want their kids getting these games exercise some responsibility then the kids won't be getting any games in the future!
Mowing lawns, babysitting, and selling lemonade you could earn enough, but still parental authority, rules, and such should be enough The kid spends money without asking parents on something they might embargo, parents confiscate contraband video game then the kids are out 50 bucks and have learned their lesson, simple as that.
Simple concept, I don't think I did a very good job of articulating it.
You could attach a scanner to your pet dog thus alarming it when the snake gets too close, kind of like the bells around cats' necks wrt birds.
I'll see your there and raise you a needn't, also kill the comma? I would arrange it differently, but that may be just my personal style.
We needn't take out our tinfoil hats this time because there are constructive uses for these tags.
Actually it turns out that they were both in the same sentence.
I think Hemos beat you to it. ;)
If you go here and shrink your font a bit both summaries are readable at the same time.
(or reviewed April ...two months from now
depending on implementation date vs announcement date?)
Qualifications: While it is the intent of this standard to specify a secure hash algorithm, conformance to this standard does not assure that a particular implementation is secure. The responsible authority in each agency or department shall assure that an overall implementation provides an acceptable level of security. This standard will be reviewed every five years in order to assess its adequacy.
Impressive stuff, still takes a lot to break it, but 1/2048th the time likely marks the beginning of the end. Even if a collision would detected would it be likely the fake messege make sense (ie run or use real words)?
I wouldn't be too worried.
Capitalism has checks and balances.