But yes, I'd agree that the human brain is an amazingly complex piece of machinery, which is impressively adaptive. If that's what he meant, then we are in 100% agreement.
So we are primarily on the same page. I'm going to hold on to that.:)
Even if we ignore the fact that judging masterpieces has nothing to do with resolution
Forgive me, I'm an English teacher, so I take liberties sometimes with language. I was using the broader definition - analysis into clear-cut components.
Show a Picasso to an African tribesman, and he'll probably use it for kindling.
I would argue that the subjectiveness of our evaluation is indicative of the complexity of the human mind. If I were to spend some time in an African tribe, I would be able to eventually adapt my artistic aesthetic to incorporate this new information.
I think the underlying principle the original post was trying to make remains valid. And c6gunner, I think you made the leap in inference when you think he's saying complex things have to come from other complex things. I think he was implying that the human wetworks are pretty impressive to have dreamed up taking ones and zeros and making them into such marvelous things. You have to give him that right.
And to the resolution point. I think you're thinking too literally. Show me a computer that can discern a great masterpiece from a technically proficient work. Show me a computer that can tell what that woman isn't fine, when she says she is. Show me a computer that can identify irony in text. Once I see those things, I will willingly welcome our binary overlords.
I definitely do *not* have the time or inclination to wade through the previous 2,999 iterations of their crap to find something I like. I want someone else to do that for me.
I don't think this is really going to be a problem if the big labels go away. It would have been fifteen years ago, but the internet is set up to take their place as music taste sifters. I'm sure there would be plenty start ups to fill the void. I can imagine a thousand different services that would help filter the crap for you. In fact, since these services won't need to find music for the masses, they will be able to filter for niche markets. This could be a boon for everyone.
I did. He's not. He disagreed with you. I might add at times people have even asked for help finding material to help them understand your point. Your replies tend to be sarcastic and mocking rather than engaging in an attempt to educate. I don't know anything about law and the finer points elude me, but it seems like you truly do, so I would suggest instead of calling people retards and morons, you might respectfully engage with them and try to show them where they are getting something wrong.
I'm always surprised at how quickly people jump to ad hominem attacks. Even if the grandparent to this post was completely wrong, which he isn't, you immediately accuse him of being a moron or a sinister plotter. All he's doing is disagreeing with you. I would hope we could still do that civilly.
I like your comment. It speaks to the heart of this issue. There is certainly a gray area which we need to consider. In fact, I would suggest, that's where the issue is.
Extremes are easy to deal with, since in the real world either extreme is not really practical or something many of us would want. But the original post in this thread was dealing with the idea that Google driving by maybe once in three months at an undetermined time, where you might or might not be visible, and where you might or might not be doing something you don't want posted on the internet is clearly not the scenario Orwell was considering. I think we need to have this conversation and even encourage Google to put its muscles into wiping out non-permanent images from their street pics. But to say that they are equal to Orwell's Big Brother is simplifying the issue also.
Brian, I honestly feel for you. You are going to be stuck in a perpetual state of angst, because you are refusing to even listen to another side of your argument. Which means you will never have any real perspective on the issue, and will be perpetually angry because the rest of us can't see the light.
My serious advice to you is to get out and look around. You're obviously passionate, and with a little perspective you might be able to influence those around you to affect change. The alternative, of course, is to tell me you don't want to, or can't, or that I'm plain dumb, which will be a choice to protect your position at all costs.
I agree with you in principle, - And as a caveat, I'll point out, I'm only trying to learn to code to standards now - but I think the GP is pointing out, that in order to code to standards and then have a page render well in IE6, is more time consuming than coding specifically for IE6.
I think we would all agree that's relatively short sighted, but many people don't look at the big picture when they are up against a hard deadline. One could argue, that looking back, it would make more sense to code to standards, so when the client deploys IE7, the program wouldn't become archaic.
As I'm learning to code to standards...slowly...I have begun to understand the loathing so many coders have for MS. But they are in a tough spot on this one. It's easy for us to say, "Well it's the designers fault if his site doesn't render well in a compliant browser. But as a business, if IE8 doesn't render my mom's favorite knitting site that was created by some knitter in FrontPage, she isn't going to think that the designer was crap...she'll think it's the new fangled thingy that her son installed (Of course I would install FF, but just supposing...) that isn't working right, and IE8 loses market share.
Hopefully over time, the extra tag will become superfluous as really bad websites are deprecated. And IE9 will be perfect. (Giggles at the funny joke.)
I think the point from the GP post is they can't get bogged down in the minutia because it isn't important to their audience.
Their goal is to provide useful reviews for most people. For the/. crowd, if they said x computer is better than y, we might balk, bringing up benchmarks and other tests that don't mean much to the average user. Most users don't care if their data gets processed in one millisecond or two. It generally wouldn't matter in their game of solitaire.
As for Vista, I've had issues when trying to connect and configure the plethora of devices I use, but my mom's printer and digital camera both connected fine, and as far as she knows, those are the only devices you can connect to a computer.
Why not use wheels hooked up to generators in the tunnel walls to stop the train as it approaches each station? Aren't they currently using energy to stop the forward momentum of the train? This would reduce the energy consumption to stop the train and provide power through the generators.
Any of you physicists waiting to pounce on me, be gentle. I'm an English teacher.
Being a monopoly isn't the issue. Leveraging your monopoly status to unfairly mitigate your competition is. If Apple were to do that, then they would have to play by the harsher rules MSFT has to play by.
I agree, but don't most of the other companies keep about the same amount of data - or atleast enough - that could compromise your privacy? Wasn't Google the only one who fought the DoJ when they wanted all their search results? Do we never give them credit for that?
That this is not the common perception points, again, directly to conspiratorial motives in line with fraud, embezzlement, and pyramid schemes.
I love it when people take something that isn't actually true, and even if it is can have multiple causes, and then arbitrarily assign it to conspiracy theories.
Especially when they release photos of people standing outside strip clubs!
How is this an invasion of privacy? If you want to go into a strip club, fine. If you want to do it without anyone seeing or snapping a picture, wear a disguise.
1. Is it possible that there are more technical issues that aren't expressed clearly in the story? I have a hard time believing Google, no matter what your opinion of them, would complain if the fix was as easy as you claim.
2. Why are so many people screaming at Google over their security issues. If you don't like the way they handle their security, avoid using Google or Google products. Some people might be willing to take a chance on Google's data collection in order to have products, ads, search results that they perceive to be more relevant. People scream at Google as if they were invading our living rooms uninvited. It seems to me that a lot of people just want to jump on the hate Google or hate Microsoft bandwagons, so they can have something to scream about. If that's the case, then let me know. There are some serious things going on in the world that need a few more ardent advocates.
The ad has the x factor. It would be difficult to define, but the creator was able to put a piece together that made a statement. I agree it wasn't very deep or telling, but that doesn't matter.
It looks like just a cheap attempt to say, "Hillary bad".
And now millions of people have seen an ad that says "Hillary bad." While you, as a critical observer, might not see the merit and question the content, there are millions of others who aren't as critical and will take the images at face value and see Hillary as a domineering mind controlling woman. It might be true or false, but that isn't important in mass advertising.
The creator put something out that resonated with his audience. I don't understand why, but you can't discount the effect it is having.
Okay, first let me take back the comment about point by point observation. It seemed from the tone of an earlier post you were adamant about your position and I didn't think you were really being circumspect. I think we might be able to get a better understanding of the issues from both the inside of a school, as well as the outside expectations. I would ask though that you admit that to disagree in principle doesn't mean our goals are different. After your response, I think it's clear you are really looking out for the best of the kids, and I hope you'll take me at my word that I am too. So I'm going to take a moment to address some of the concerns. Please hear me out and remember, I'm not arguing that teachers shouldn't be held responsible, nor am I saying that we shouldn't be responsible for teaching every student in our building. I think both of those are important to being successful. So let me explain my position a little better.
I do not think NCLB is a bad thing in and of itself. I think the measures they use are sometimes inappropriate, and I'll give specific examples.
They don't make a law with hidden aspects to it in order to trick people.
I agree totally, but the devil is in the details. NCLB is usually the result of one test for the student body of the school. In high school it is usually a graduation test, which asks students to meet basic requirements. The test isn't that hard for a relatively studious person, but it can be a real challenge for students in Special Education or the ELL population. Imagine going to France and being asked to take a competency test, with analytical reading, persuasive writing and the like within two years of arriving in country. I agree that we should work with these students, give them extra resources, help them reach a level of proficiency, but how do you judge proficiency? By their mastery of the English language, which is what ultimately causes many of the failures on the tests.
Now imagine, that you are dealing with a student who has never received a formal day of school training in his or her life. Is it fair to label a school as failing if the student doesn't reach a level of mastery in the first two years of school? I want to reiterate, I'm not suggesting we don't work with the student. We should, and we do. We try very hard to help these students succeed. But NCLB will label a school as failing if a relatively small number of students like this one don't pass the test. If the a school fails for several years, because that area has a large transient population, the school will lose funding to provide basic services to ANY student. So the school triages, so they don't lose their funding, and teaches the student to pass the test. The outcome is the exact opposite of what the spirit of NCLB intends. The students receive less education because they are being pulled out to get training on how to pass the test. I'm sure you'll say that is the fault of the administration, and I don't necessarily disagree, but it is a catch 22. If they don't teach to the test, there is no practical way to get a child to the minimum level in time. If they take the high road and ignore the test and teach the student what he or she needs to know, then the school loses funding, and the ability to teach any child is seriously constricted.
I could give you several similar examples and point out how that one student could cause the school to fail in multiple categories, but I think my position is clear.
So in 2014, If all schools are on par, there won't be a need to renew much of the provisions in it.
The sunset clause assumes that the schools will be at the appropriate level. In 2014 that level is one hundred percent across the board. That means that the student I mentioned above, and many schools have a lot of students like that or in other situations that legitimately make it next to impossible to reach the level of minimum proficiency in a given subject will cause the schools to no
Slashdot Mirror
So we are primarily on the same page. I'm going to hold on to that. :)
Forgive me, I'm an English teacher, so I take liberties sometimes with language. I was using the broader definition - analysis into clear-cut components.
I would argue that the subjectiveness of our evaluation is indicative of the complexity of the human mind. If I were to spend some time in an African tribe, I would be able to eventually adapt my artistic aesthetic to incorporate this new information.
But like you said, I think we agree in principle.
I think the underlying principle the original post was trying to make remains valid. And c6gunner, I think you made the leap in inference when you think he's saying complex things have to come from other complex things. I think he was implying that the human wetworks are pretty impressive to have dreamed up taking ones and zeros and making them into such marvelous things. You have to give him that right.
And to the resolution point. I think you're thinking too literally. Show me a computer that can discern a great masterpiece from a technically proficient work. Show me a computer that can tell what that woman isn't fine, when she says she is. Show me a computer that can identify irony in text. Once I see those things, I will willingly welcome our binary overlords.
I don't think this is really going to be a problem if the big labels go away. It would have been fifteen years ago, but the internet is set up to take their place as music taste sifters. I'm sure there would be plenty start ups to fill the void. I can imagine a thousand different services that would help filter the crap for you. In fact, since these services won't need to find music for the masses, they will be able to filter for niche markets. This could be a boon for everyone.
As just a dumb (English) school teacher, I rarely have any idea what you guys are talking about, but it's funny none the less.
I did. He's not. He disagreed with you. I might add at times people have even asked for help finding material to help them understand your point. Your replies tend to be sarcastic and mocking rather than engaging in an attempt to educate. I don't know anything about law and the finer points elude me, but it seems like you truly do, so I would suggest instead of calling people retards and morons, you might respectfully engage with them and try to show them where they are getting something wrong.
Just a thought.
I'm always surprised at how quickly people jump to ad hominem attacks. Even if the grandparent to this post was completely wrong, which he isn't, you immediately accuse him of being a moron or a sinister plotter. All he's doing is disagreeing with you. I would hope we could still do that civilly.
I like your comment. It speaks to the heart of this issue. There is certainly a gray area which we need to consider. In fact, I would suggest, that's where the issue is.
Extremes are easy to deal with, since in the real world either extreme is not really practical or something many of us would want. But the original post in this thread was dealing with the idea that Google driving by maybe once in three months at an undetermined time, where you might or might not be visible, and where you might or might not be doing something you don't want posted on the internet is clearly not the scenario Orwell was considering. I think we need to have this conversation and even encourage Google to put its muscles into wiping out non-permanent images from their street pics. But to say that they are equal to Orwell's Big Brother is simplifying the issue also.
Brian, I honestly feel for you. You are going to be stuck in a perpetual state of angst, because you are refusing to even listen to another side of your argument. Which means you will never have any real perspective on the issue, and will be perpetually angry because the rest of us can't see the light.
My serious advice to you is to get out and look around. You're obviously passionate, and with a little perspective you might be able to influence those around you to affect change. The alternative, of course, is to tell me you don't want to, or can't, or that I'm plain dumb, which will be a choice to protect your position at all costs.
I wish you well.
I bet there are some people in Florida who might disagree with you.
Don't bother responding. I know I haven't changed your mind.
I agree with you in principle, - And as a caveat, I'll point out, I'm only trying to learn to code to standards now - but I think the GP is pointing out, that in order to code to standards and then have a page render well in IE6, is more time consuming than coding specifically for IE6.
I think we would all agree that's relatively short sighted, but many people don't look at the big picture when they are up against a hard deadline. One could argue, that looking back, it would make more sense to code to standards, so when the client deploys IE7, the program wouldn't become archaic.
As I'm learning to code to standards...slowly...I have begun to understand the loathing so many coders have for MS. But they are in a tough spot on this one. It's easy for us to say, "Well it's the designers fault if his site doesn't render well in a compliant browser. But as a business, if IE8 doesn't render my mom's favorite knitting site that was created by some knitter in FrontPage, she isn't going to think that the designer was crap...she'll think it's the new fangled thingy that her son installed (Of course I would install FF, but just supposing...) that isn't working right, and IE8 loses market share.
Hopefully over time, the extra tag will become superfluous as really bad websites are deprecated. And IE9 will be perfect. (Giggles at the funny joke.)
Oh God, I wish I had mod points. I'll be laughing about that one for an hour or so.
I think the point from the GP post is they can't get bogged down in the minutia because it isn't important to their audience.
Their goal is to provide useful reviews for most people. For the /. crowd, if they said x computer is better than y, we might balk, bringing up benchmarks and other tests that don't mean much to the average user. Most users don't care if their data gets processed in one millisecond or two. It generally wouldn't matter in their game of solitaire.
As for Vista, I've had issues when trying to connect and configure the plethora of devices I use, but my mom's printer and digital camera both connected fine, and as far as she knows, those are the only devices you can connect to a computer.
Have you ever seen the threads about women around here?
They aren't using triangulation. They are only using the tower that is relaying the signal. From TFA...
The wonderful thing about believing in a government conspiracy is that no one can prove you wrong.
Having no proof of the conspiracy just proves that it's a really good one, and therefore we should be more afraid.
I think we should be vigilant about protecting our rights, but let's be careful about assuming things that are unsubstantiated.
Damn you...you beat me to my line...
Why not use wheels hooked up to generators in the tunnel walls to stop the train as it approaches each station? Aren't they currently using energy to stop the forward momentum of the train? This would reduce the energy consumption to stop the train and provide power through the generators.
Any of you physicists waiting to pounce on me, be gentle. I'm an English teacher.
Being a monopoly isn't the issue. Leveraging your monopoly status to unfairly mitigate your competition is. If Apple were to do that, then they would have to play by the harsher rules MSFT has to play by.
Did you just really use the word rapscallion in a real world sentence?
Awesome.
I agree, but don't most of the other companies keep about the same amount of data - or atleast enough - that could compromise your privacy? Wasn't Google the only one who fought the DoJ when they wanted all their search results? Do we never give them credit for that?
I love it when people take something that isn't actually true, and even if it is can have multiple causes, and then arbitrarily assign it to conspiracy theories.
"Hey, I don't subscribe to your faulty logic."
The conspiracy has you...
How is this an invasion of privacy? If you want to go into a strip club, fine. If you want to do it without anyone seeing or snapping a picture, wear a disguise.
Two points.
1. Is it possible that there are more technical issues that aren't expressed clearly in the story? I have a hard time believing Google, no matter what your opinion of them, would complain if the fix was as easy as you claim.
2. Why are so many people screaming at Google over their security issues. If you don't like the way they handle their security, avoid using Google or Google products. Some people might be willing to take a chance on Google's data collection in order to have products, ads, search results that they perceive to be more relevant. People scream at Google as if they were invading our living rooms uninvited. It seems to me that a lot of people just want to jump on the hate Google or hate Microsoft bandwagons, so they can have something to scream about. If that's the case, then let me know. There are some serious things going on in the world that need a few more ardent advocates.
The ad has the x factor. It would be difficult to define, but the creator was able to put a piece together that made a statement. I agree it wasn't very deep or telling, but that doesn't matter.
And now millions of people have seen an ad that says "Hillary bad." While you, as a critical observer, might not see the merit and question the content, there are millions of others who aren't as critical and will take the images at face value and see Hillary as a domineering mind controlling woman. It might be true or false, but that isn't important in mass advertising.
The creator put something out that resonated with his audience. I don't understand why, but you can't discount the effect it is having.
Okay, first let me take back the comment about point by point observation. It seemed from the tone of an earlier post you were adamant about your position and I didn't think you were really being circumspect. I think we might be able to get a better understanding of the issues from both the inside of a school, as well as the outside expectations. I would ask though that you admit that to disagree in principle doesn't mean our goals are different. After your response, I think it's clear you are really looking out for the best of the kids, and I hope you'll take me at my word that I am too. So I'm going to take a moment to address some of the concerns. Please hear me out and remember, I'm not arguing that teachers shouldn't be held responsible, nor am I saying that we shouldn't be responsible for teaching every student in our building. I think both of those are important to being successful. So let me explain my position a little better.
I do not think NCLB is a bad thing in and of itself. I think the measures they use are sometimes inappropriate, and I'll give specific examples.
I agree totally, but the devil is in the details. NCLB is usually the result of one test for the student body of the school. In high school it is usually a graduation test, which asks students to meet basic requirements. The test isn't that hard for a relatively studious person, but it can be a real challenge for students in Special Education or the ELL population. Imagine going to France and being asked to take a competency test, with analytical reading, persuasive writing and the like within two years of arriving in country. I agree that we should work with these students, give them extra resources, help them reach a level of proficiency, but how do you judge proficiency? By their mastery of the English language, which is what ultimately causes many of the failures on the tests.
Now imagine, that you are dealing with a student who has never received a formal day of school training in his or her life. Is it fair to label a school as failing if the student doesn't reach a level of mastery in the first two years of school? I want to reiterate, I'm not suggesting we don't work with the student. We should, and we do. We try very hard to help these students succeed. But NCLB will label a school as failing if a relatively small number of students like this one don't pass the test. If the a school fails for several years, because that area has a large transient population, the school will lose funding to provide basic services to ANY student. So the school triages, so they don't lose their funding, and teaches the student to pass the test. The outcome is the exact opposite of what the spirit of NCLB intends. The students receive less education because they are being pulled out to get training on how to pass the test. I'm sure you'll say that is the fault of the administration, and I don't necessarily disagree, but it is a catch 22. If they don't teach to the test, there is no practical way to get a child to the minimum level in time. If they take the high road and ignore the test and teach the student what he or she needs to know, then the school loses funding, and the ability to teach any child is seriously constricted.
I could give you several similar examples and point out how that one student could cause the school to fail in multiple categories, but I think my position is clear.
The sunset clause assumes that the schools will be at the appropriate level. In 2014 that level is one hundred percent across the board. That means that the student I mentioned above, and many schools have a lot of students like that or in other situations that legitimately make it next to impossible to reach the level of minimum proficiency in a given subject will cause the schools to no