I will admit that I did not watch the program you mention. I was, however, a private (parochial) school teacher for two years and a public school teacher for a year after that, so I have actually seen some of these things in different contexts.
we don't want kids to feel bad, so we've got helicopter parents
In my experience, this syndrome was far worse in the private school. Parental interest in the school is natural, given that the parents are directly paying tuition, but it was really out of hand where I was. The school administration just bowed down to whatever demands the parents made, academic integrity be damned. (In retrospect, they probably had little choice, since the board was made up of exactly these types of parents.) If the students did not get something right away, or it was "too hard" (i.e., the student was too lazy), the parent wanted the program changed or to get the kid out of whatever program. I was teaching entirely electives, so this was a major retention issue at first. But, you know what? The students who stuck with it and (oh my...) learned something learned not only the content but the value of actually working at something, and most of the students came to prefer this kind of program, one that actually expected something of them.
In the public school, I found the complete opposite as far as parent involvement. Most parents were apathetic to a fault. I sensed that, because the parents perhaps did not do well in school (but they somehow were getting by as adults), they did not place much value on education for their own children. Not once did I encounter the kind of overzealous parent that I saw so many of at the private school.
Which was better? Believe it or not, the second one. It was frustrating sometimes, sure. Generally, though, those parents did not object if you wanted their kids to do something; they just were not going to require it themselves. Motivating this type of student is harder, but it can be done, and the students seem to do better with less resistance.
teachers don't want to worry about getting fired, so we've got horrible teachers' unions
The private school was not unionized, and the public one was. There are lots of arguments either way, but I would choose the union school any day.
One of the problems that people who have never been associated with a school district do not see is the huge influence that a school administrator, particularly a building-level one, has on the overall operation of the school. Unfortunately, I have found that influence to be much more negative than positive in most schools. A good building principal seems to be a scarce commodity. Keep in mind that it is not particularly difficult to get administrator certification; yes, a master's degree is generally required, but about any master's degree will do. There are online programs that cater to teachers wanting this type of certification. I am not saying they are all bad, but I do not believe they are all that difficult to complete. Administrators are generally in demand, as it is a difficult and demanding job that a lot of teachers do not want. So, schools may hire just about anyone with the proper credentials out of desperation, whether or not that individual would be any good at the job.
So what does this have to do with unions? I have encountered building principals who are downright abusive to teachers, or to some teachers. They may have no respect for the legal rights of the teachers, their employees. It is not sufficient for a teacher simply to have the option to find employment in a better school, because it may not be any better there. What does happen is that the teachers get fed up with the profession and leave. Not everyone does this, of course, but it is a problem. In my field, the average college graduate leaves the profession after just three years.
Further, having a simple button for, say, acceleration or braking would make it impossible for people with certain conditions (focal dystonia comes to mind, if it affects the hands in a particular individual) to operate the vehicle safely. I have never been diagnosed, but I suspect I have focal dystonia with regard to computer use. There are times when I cannot avoid clicking the mouse sporadically unless I remove my hand completely or position my hand in such a way that my index finger cannot click the mouse button. Fortunately, it does not affect my saxophone playing. Here you can find a summary of focal dystonia. One thing not mentioned is that it only affects particular activities for an individual. The affected area functions normally in other activities.
For computer use, this condition is a non-event, but for driving, it could be potentially fatal.
A couple years ago, as a small business owner, I ordered from the IRS a free (as in beer) CD. I think it was entitled "Small Business Essentials" or something like that. The IRS provided Acrobat Approval on that CD so that it was possible to save the fill-in tax forms. It also allowed saving an incomplete form and continuing later, something not easily compatible with various "print to PDF" methods. If they still offer something similar, it can probably be ordered here.
I realize that might not meet all your requirements, but it did work for me at the time, and it has worked for me every year since.
I wonder if the McAfee books show anything about revenue generated from not paying rebates. The parents bought a McAfee AV program for their aging Win98 box. They never got the rebate they were supposed to get for doing so. Plus, it slowed down their computer so much as to make it nearly unusable, plus it tied up their dial-up with endless updates, making it nearly impossible just to check e-mail. And, I just love how the AV software tries to sell you other "security" products.
I uninstalled McAfee and installed NOD32 -- much nicer. No real annoyances and small incremental updates. Now their computer actually functions.
I did try out the ActivePerl/VS.Net 2003 combo. I was not particularly impressed. I was hoping for more integration with the IDE somehow; instead, it felt like I was just using a text editor to write perl code, which kind of defeats the purpose. It's been a while since I tried it, so I don't recall more specifically what was lacking.
I have always kind of wondered if a web portal is really what Google is trying to do, though. OK, yes, they are, but the desire to create a web portal seems to conflict with the desire to keep the main page as simple and small as possible. Though probably not too many people care that the Google home page renders just fine in Lynx, I do like the attempt at not using up so much bandwidth just to present a search box.
Sooner or later, Google is going to have to make a move one direction or the other, or figure out some esoteric way to have both.
perhaps the intefaces arn't as simple as we believe?
Agreed. But who exactly is designing these voting machines? User interface geniuses? Maybe, but I have my doubts. The designers have to come up with something that any eligible voter can use effectively, a difficult task, to say the least.
Just becasue we can use them only means we've been trained, not that they are simple.
Again, agreed. Who is going to teach the public how to use these machines, though? Poll workers around here are volunteers who may or may not have much training in anything, so I don't know if it is a good idea to rely on their assistance. Besides, "assistance" could easily turn into "interference."
Many of us know from experience that lots of users cannot figure out what seem to us to be rather simple computer interfaces. And, we've probably all encountered people who will not use a computer. Many of these folks tend to be older; I know several of them.
Now, if people in Florida in 2000 couldn't figure out the "butterfly ballot" (yes, a needlessly convoluted "interface" if you will, but not really all that tough), how do you think people are going to figure out a voting machine? Am I making too much of a leap in guessing that the same demographic (who I described above) that would have trouble with the butterfly ballot would have trouble with this too?
I have voted on rudimentary machines a long time ago (probably 1996-ish), and it wasn't exactly rocket science. But, isn't another election debacle being set up here with a move to voting machines?
If I were Google, I would think about partnering with Amazon, or trying to buy them, I'm sure the idea would strike fear in the heart of many.
That certainly would give the Google Books project a different twist... It might
go away entirely, given that Google would be in essence competing with itself then,
giving users a reason not to buy books.
The most obvious difference between the price of the Alexa beta and the Google Web API beta is, well, Google's is free as in beer, to a certain point (1000 queries per day).
Does anyone have any reasons that Alexa's API is better than, say, Google's?
But... why not go one step further and make peanut butter and jelly cups?
I smell a patent!
Let's see, how to word this one... A patent for the "infusion of processed fruit and plant root material into an edible item shaped similarly to a common household object."
If you have an AdWords maximum cost per day, it shouldn't be too difficult to put a lid on the cost damages from a competitor. What I have been more concerned about with the AdWords campaign for my business is a competitor repeatedly clicking my ad to get it off the web. When the maximum cost per day is reached, the ad is no longer shown. It would be ridiculously easy for a competitor to do different searches and click the ad repeatedly, or get a bot to do the same thing.
It hasn't happened to me yet, fortunately, and I have received some interest in my business from AdWords (although nowhere near what the plain old yellow pages have brought in). It has been very cost effective, but I can see how it could instantly not be.
Yes, exactly. To do client-side validation with Web Forms 2.0, one also has to code the validation in javascript if it is to be functional for any reasonable number of customers. Or, the developer could skip Web Forms 2.0 altogether and just use the javascript. Server-side validation has to be done either way. So, why bother with Web Forms 2.0 at this point? For something so "stable," it seems to be a long way from general support in browsers, if it ever gets there.
Anyone who has dealt with security in web-based applications knows that server-side validation in some manner is a requirement for anything non-trivial submitted through a web form. So, why does it matter if Web Forms 2.0 is, as the article puts it, "in a mature state?" It is yet another validation technology useless for security. It isn't even that useful for client-side validation, seeing that most web users do not use a browser that supports Web Forms 2.0 natively. So, if a developer wants to use Web Forms, he or she also needs to code in javascript and do server-side validation?
I happen to be developing an automated trip planning application for the transit agency for which I work. I have a pretty good idea of what I want our interface to be and what our public will actually be able to use, or at least I think I do. Google's interface, however, looks rather daunting; that is, the learning curve seems to be longer than a couple minutes. My experience with our transit customers tells me that they wouldn't bother because, on the surface, it doesn't look any easier than just reading the schedule. They would rather just call our office and ask.
The interface I am developing essentially asks for:
The starting location of the trip, from a drop-down menu. This is a university campus where we only service our designated stops, so it is easy to map building names to one or more stop names. In the case of multiple stops near the same location (essentially going in different directions), the graph simply lists the edge between them each way as zero-weight. I realize that this approach is not practical for all transit organizations, but it works well in our situation.
The ending location of the trip, again from a drop-down menu. (Remember, passengers don't care about stop names unless they have a reason, such as a disability that requires them to rely on stop announcements to get where they are going.)
The date of the trip, defaulting to today.
An option (probably a radio group, or maybe another drop-down) for "Start no earlier than" or "End no later than."
A way to enter the time for that option.
My idea for what to return is a printable, easy-to-read sheet detailing the trip. That way, if the passenger has further questions, needs to request a transfer, or needs to cross the street to get to a different stop, that information is clearly on the trip sheet. If the passenger needs to ask the driver for information or to radio another bus to facilitate a transfer, all the information the driver needs is there, too.
The main thing is simplicity of interface, which is the only way the online planner will be effective to the public at large. Right now, Google doesn't have that.
Slashdot Mirror
I will admit that I did not watch the program you mention. I was, however, a private (parochial) school teacher for two years and a public school teacher for a year after that, so I have actually seen some of these things in different contexts.
In my experience, this syndrome was far worse in the private school. Parental interest in the school is natural, given that the parents are directly paying tuition, but it was really out of hand where I was. The school administration just bowed down to whatever demands the parents made, academic integrity be damned. (In retrospect, they probably had little choice, since the board was made up of exactly these types of parents.) If the students did not get something right away, or it was "too hard" (i.e., the student was too lazy), the parent wanted the program changed or to get the kid out of whatever program. I was teaching entirely electives, so this was a major retention issue at first. But, you know what? The students who stuck with it and (oh my...) learned something learned not only the content but the value of actually working at something, and most of the students came to prefer this kind of program, one that actually expected something of them.
In the public school, I found the complete opposite as far as parent involvement. Most parents were apathetic to a fault. I sensed that, because the parents perhaps did not do well in school (but they somehow were getting by as adults), they did not place much value on education for their own children. Not once did I encounter the kind of overzealous parent that I saw so many of at the private school.
Which was better? Believe it or not, the second one. It was frustrating sometimes, sure. Generally, though, those parents did not object if you wanted their kids to do something; they just were not going to require it themselves. Motivating this type of student is harder, but it can be done, and the students seem to do better with less resistance.
The private school was not unionized, and the public one was. There are lots of arguments either way, but I would choose the union school any day.
One of the problems that people who have never been associated with a school district do not see is the huge influence that a school administrator, particularly a building-level one, has on the overall operation of the school. Unfortunately, I have found that influence to be much more negative than positive in most schools. A good building principal seems to be a scarce commodity. Keep in mind that it is not particularly difficult to get administrator certification; yes, a master's degree is generally required, but about any master's degree will do. There are online programs that cater to teachers wanting this type of certification. I am not saying they are all bad, but I do not believe they are all that difficult to complete. Administrators are generally in demand, as it is a difficult and demanding job that a lot of teachers do not want. So, schools may hire just about anyone with the proper credentials out of desperation, whether or not that individual would be any good at the job.
So what does this have to do with unions? I have encountered building principals who are downright abusive to teachers, or to some teachers. They may have no respect for the legal rights of the teachers, their employees. It is not sufficient for a teacher simply to have the option to find employment in a better school, because it may not be any better there. What does happen is that the teachers get fed up with the profession and leave. Not everyone does this, of course, but it is a problem. In my field, the average college graduate leaves the profession after just three years.
The union needs to be ther
What's to stop such a site from registering both .com and .xxx? I would guess that most would, to get the "best" of both worlds.
Further, having a simple button for, say, acceleration or braking would make it impossible for people with certain conditions (focal dystonia comes to mind, if it affects the hands in a particular individual) to operate the vehicle safely. I have never been diagnosed, but I suspect I have focal dystonia with regard to computer use. There are times when I cannot avoid clicking the mouse sporadically unless I remove my hand completely or position my hand in such a way that my index finger cannot click the mouse button. Fortunately, it does not affect my saxophone playing. Here you can find a summary of focal dystonia. One thing not mentioned is that it only affects particular activities for an individual. The affected area functions normally in other activities.
For computer use, this condition is a non-event, but for driving, it could be potentially fatal.
A couple years ago, as a small business owner, I ordered from the IRS a free (as in beer) CD. I think it was entitled "Small Business Essentials" or something like that. The IRS provided Acrobat Approval on that CD so that it was possible to save the fill-in tax forms. It also allowed saving an incomplete form and continuing later, something not easily compatible with various "print to PDF" methods. If they still offer something similar, it can probably be ordered here.
I realize that might not meet all your requirements, but it did work for me at the time, and it has worked for me every year since.
So, no one ever got fired for buying Microsoft, huh?
Oh, wait. This is in some sort of mythological universe, where facts and reason trump cliches. Never mind.
Actually, that Microsoft settlement was rejected at least some judges for some states:
At least some judge had some sense.
I wonder if the McAfee books show anything about revenue generated from not paying rebates. The parents bought a McAfee AV program for their aging Win98 box. They never got the rebate they were supposed to get for doing so. Plus, it slowed down their computer so much as to make it nearly unusable, plus it tied up their dial-up with endless updates, making it nearly impossible just to check e-mail. And, I just love how the AV software tries to sell you other "security" products.
I uninstalled McAfee and installed NOD32 -- much nicer. No real annoyances and small incremental updates. Now their computer actually functions.
Thanks for nothing, McAfee.
I did try out the ActivePerl/VS.Net 2003 combo. I was not particularly impressed. I was hoping for more integration with the IDE somehow; instead, it felt like I was just using a text editor to write perl code, which kind of defeats the purpose. It's been a while since I tried it, so I don't recall more specifically what was lacking.
I have always kind of wondered if a web portal is really what Google is trying to do, though. OK, yes, they are, but the desire to create a web portal seems to conflict with the desire to keep the main page as simple and small as possible. Though probably not too many people care that the Google home page renders just fine in Lynx, I do like the attempt at not using up so much bandwidth just to present a search box.
Sooner or later, Google is going to have to make a move one direction or the other, or figure out some esoteric way to have both.
Agreed. But who exactly is designing these voting machines? User interface geniuses? Maybe, but I have my doubts. The designers have to come up with something that any eligible voter can use effectively, a difficult task, to say the least.
Again, agreed. Who is going to teach the public how to use these machines, though? Poll workers around here are volunteers who may or may not have much training in anything, so I don't know if it is a good idea to rely on their assistance. Besides, "assistance" could easily turn into "interference."
Many of us know from experience that lots of users cannot figure out what seem to us to be rather simple computer interfaces. And, we've probably all encountered people who will not use a computer. Many of these folks tend to be older; I know several of them.
Now, if people in Florida in 2000 couldn't figure out the "butterfly ballot" (yes, a needlessly convoluted "interface" if you will, but not really all that tough), how do you think people are going to figure out a voting machine? Am I making too much of a leap in guessing that the same demographic (who I described above) that would have trouble with the butterfly ballot would have trouble with this too?
I have voted on rudimentary machines a long time ago (probably 1996-ish), and it wasn't exactly rocket science. But, isn't another election debacle being set up here with a move to voting machines?
Here's another one, but this time, the fine proposed was the $11,000 per violation maximum.
Makes you wonder why DirecTV is getting off so easy...
That certainly would give the Google Books project a different twist... It might go away entirely, given that Google would be in essence competing with itself then, giving users a reason not to buy books.
Not that any of this would happen, of course.
The most obvious difference between the price of the Alexa beta and the Google Web API beta is, well, Google's is free as in beer, to a certain point (1000 queries per day).
Does anyone have any reasons that Alexa's API is better than, say, Google's?
I smell a patent!
Let's see, how to word this one... A patent for the "infusion of processed fruit and plant root material into an edible item shaped similarly to a common household object."
If you have an AdWords maximum cost per day, it shouldn't be too difficult to put a lid on the cost damages from a competitor. What I have been more concerned about with the AdWords campaign for my business is a competitor repeatedly clicking my ad to get it off the web. When the maximum cost per day is reached, the ad is no longer shown. It would be ridiculously easy for a competitor to do different searches and click the ad repeatedly, or get a bot to do the same thing.
It hasn't happened to me yet, fortunately, and I have received some interest in my business from AdWords (although nowhere near what the plain old yellow pages have brought in). It has been very cost effective, but I can see how it could instantly not be.
Yes, exactly. To do client-side validation with Web Forms 2.0, one also has to code the validation in javascript if it is to be functional for any reasonable number of customers. Or, the developer could skip Web Forms 2.0 altogether and just use the javascript. Server-side validation has to be done either way. So, why bother with Web Forms 2.0 at this point? For something so "stable," it seems to be a long way from general support in browsers, if it ever gets there.
Anyone who has dealt with security in web-based applications knows that server-side validation in some manner is a requirement for anything non-trivial submitted through a web form. So, why does it matter if Web Forms 2.0 is, as the article puts it, "in a mature state?" It is yet another validation technology useless for security. It isn't even that useful for client-side validation, seeing that most web users do not use a browser that supports Web Forms 2.0 natively. So, if a developer wants to use Web Forms, he or she also needs to code in javascript and do server-side validation?
What's the point?
I happen to be developing an automated trip planning application for the transit agency for which I work. I have a pretty good idea of what I want our interface to be and what our public will actually be able to use, or at least I think I do. Google's interface, however, looks rather daunting; that is, the learning curve seems to be longer than a couple minutes. My experience with our transit customers tells me that they wouldn't bother because, on the surface, it doesn't look any easier than just reading the schedule. They would rather just call our office and ask.
The interface I am developing essentially asks for:
My idea for what to return is a printable, easy-to-read sheet detailing the trip. That way, if the passenger has further questions, needs to request a transfer, or needs to cross the street to get to a different stop, that information is clearly on the trip sheet. If the passenger needs to ask the driver for information or to radio another bus to facilitate a transfer, all the information the driver needs is there, too.
The main thing is simplicity of interface, which is the only way the online planner will be effective to the public at large. Right now, Google doesn't have that.