It sounds like you and I share some tastes. I would love Robot Crime and Punishment (and to some extent, as I wrote that, it occurred to me that Transformers 3 almost has some of that... before it dumps all over them in favor of having characters behave in ways contrary to their stated positions and past deeds). I sometimes enjoy watching really stupid movies simply for empty entertainment, but on the whole I would much rather watch something with a genuine message and artistry. Plus, it's kind of fun to pick apart a movie like Transformers 3, where hardly a minute goes by without introducing a new plot hole.
Similarly, there are only so many truly quality games that are worthy of playing through based on their storytelling merits. Sometimes it's fun to just spam bullets in Call of Duty: Modern Shooterfare: Brown Boxes: Terrorist Hunt 9 for a couple of hours. Immediately after which, I can smugly detail all the ways in which it was silly.
My point is that it makes much more sense to criticize a game or movie based on what it sets out to do and claims to be, rather than on expectations nobody ever had. If Doom III failed on the grounds of being a hardcore shooter with a horror edge and an emphasis on gore... then criticize it for failing to deliver on what it promised. If Transformers 3 fails to deliver compelling action sequences and special effects magic (incidentally, it often flopped on that first point... many of the sequences were sadly reliant on shakycam and visual distractions to conceal the action, or rely on cheap deus ex machina for tidy resolutions) then that is where the truly damning criticism lies.
And those guys are right, even if you don't like it. Transformers 3 made more money in a day than most movies will ever make. Nobody on that project was being paid to do anything particularly original or interesting... they were being paid to crank out a movie where robots blow shit up. They did their jobs, they got paid, the execs got precisely what they wanted from their employees... and hopefully a chunk of the money that the genuinely creative people who worked on it were paid for churning out the money-making-sequel de jour will go toward creating new and exciting works of art which will genuinely contribute to our culture.
What he's saying is that anyone who criticizes those games or movies simply on the basis that they have failed to do anything particularly new or groundbreaking or edgy are just being pretentious. Who really thought Doom III should have been chock full of "original" FPS gameplay, anyway? If it had been a stealth-based puzzle game designed to comment Kantian philosophy, that just happened to be an FPS, nobody would have praised it for being "groundbreaking" or thought it was great that id put a new spin on the franchise: they would have called Carmack a goddamn moron for shitting all over what everyone expected with some random bullshit. They would have been right, too.
Maybe you think it was shit, but it was still what you thought it would be, and you still bought the game based on that. If you see Transformers 3, you aren't expecting to have your mind blown by complex writing (it does feature some enjoyable snark, but every time Optimus speaks it makes you long for the depth and wit of a GI Joe PSA) or an intriguing plot (unless your definition of "intriguing" is XBox huge plot holes and characters behaving without any sort of consistency or logic), you're expecting to see giant robots that turn into cars and blow shit up. If, instead, you got Crime And Punishment, you'd probably be more than a little bit pissed off, regardless of how "original" it would be for Transformers to go in that direction.
Half-Life had some jumping puzzles. Indeed, the best parts of the game were the puzzles... a lot of them just happened to involve shooting things or lobbing grenades. The difference, of course, is that they did it right, while DNF did not.
"Nothing stops your local provider from replacing those with local ads to block them"
Except for FCC regulations and contracts, and the inclusion of non-replacement clauses in their network contracts. The system is set up such that national broadcasts leave a chunk of time for local broadcasters, and local broadcasters leave a chunk of time for cable and other companies. Nobody overwrites anyone else's ads, because they actually can't.
Incidentally, the government can and does overwrite those time slots: that's what the EBS is for.
I don't see how your assumption is any more logical. If the test is a fundamentally flawed metric of understanding, which is a fairly popular point of view (yes, I know, that's an appeal to authority, but that's the best either of us can realistically have, so it must suffice), then teaching to it is going to be a fundamentally flawed approach. OP has hinged his argument upon an assumption that the test is generally flawed, and that teachers are generally good. Yours hinges upon an assumption that the test is generally good (or at least neutral), and that teachers are generally bad.
More likely, some teachers are good while some are bad. In an ideal world, we are able to encourage good teachers to become teachers (in the real world, we tend to pay them uncompetitive salaries), and encourage bad teachers to do something else (in the real world, we've made it nearly impossible to fire ineffective teachers). Obviously, we don't live in an ideal world, but since many of the qualities of a good teacher are self-selecting (mostly the intangibles, really, but we should take whatever good news we can get) the result is that many are quite good.
If we then assume, somewhat reasonably, that a good teacher is a good with or without a test, and a bad teacher is bad with or without a test, then we are left with four likely outcomes: that a good teacher will adequately teach students so they do well on a test, that a good teacher will adequately teach students so they understand a subject, that a poor teacher will inadequately teach students so they do poorly on a test, and that a poor teacher will inadequately teach students so they do not understand a subject. Obviously, treating these values as binary is an oversimplification, but I didn't want to get bogged down in details regarding generalized statements.
If the test is a good indicator of understanding, then the first two options are essentially identical, if it is not a good indicator, then the first two options are profoundly different. For the latter options however, it probably doesn't make much of a difference. In the absence of information indicating that having a test to teach to makes bad teachers better, it doesn't seem that such tests add much to the equation beyond questions regarding the validity of the test.
Full disclosure: I am an academic underachiever from a family of educators and academic overachievers. I generally core in the top quartile or higher on standardized tests, yet have dropped out of college on three separate occasions. My own experience with high test scores is that they mean absolutely nothing, and at best show casual correlation to intellectual and academic potential.
I think that's a bit of an over generalization. Not all professors are primarily researchers, and many actually are focused on teaching first. I have no idea which kind is actually more prevalent across the board, and I suspect getting such information would be difficult. Suffice it to say, I think some institutions are more inclined to hire one or the other type for a variety of reasons.
Ideally, I think a balance would be struck such that the most capable researchers are allowed to perform their research without being required to waste time on being poor educators, and the most capable educators are allowed to educate students without being required to waste time on being poor researchers. I'm sure some professors excel at both; in which case competent administrators should be able to balance the institutions needs by assigning them to do one or the other. Basically, the current system seems to encourage a lot of very capable people to do things they aren't really good at merely to justify doing the things they are good at... this is obviously the inverse of what we want.
Seriously though, introducing competition wouldn't be all that hard: it would just require allowing competition. Towns should be leasing space on utility poles (or in buried ducts, for you Vermonters) to anyone who wants it without worrying about duplicated service or other such strictly business concerns. Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Time Warner etc. would then be in direct competition with one another within individual markets. Companies could elect to lease wire from one another, or to simply put up their own, depending on the actual balance between operating and installation costs and market value. Collusion would become substantially easier to spot and punish, and areas under-served by major players could benefit from smaller local operators, perhaps even non-profits, more interested in helping the community.
Of course, that will never actually happen because people are notoriously stupid when it comes to dealing with the balance between capitalism's need for shared public resources and the capitalist desire for private interests to own such resources and profit from them, so somebody will call it "socialism" and we'll just end up giving everything the telcos don't already control in the equation to them as compensation for holding them down or whatever... So your solution is probably better.
Most research actually does show that the amount of homework assigned has been steadily increasing for the past few decades. It's gotten to the point where doctors have begun observing a trend toward back and joint dysfunctions caused by carrying backpacks that are too heavy... the amount of homework has increased to the point where it can now be meaningfully measured by weight.
To make matters worse, standardized testing has forced many schools to significantly increase the scope of the curriculum and shorten the amount of time to complete it; leading to an increasing reliance on assigned readings rather than lectures.
Perhaps they learn more slowly because they take a great deal more care learning it, and are building a stronger foundation upon which to learn new information, information which might become relevant next week, but might only become relevant in three years.
If anything, I think all students should be taking those classes, even the fast learners who are clearly not going to make a career out of them. They're handy skills to have, and being at least a little bit familiar with them is pretty important to navigating the world once you move away from mom and dad. I've met guys in their 30s who can barely make ramen... I don't care if they're breaking new ground in theoretical physics, that indicates to me a very problematic lack of basic human functionality. Beyond that, maybe those *are* the careers that such students will want to enter. The world actually does need smart people with practical skills, and there is an upper limit to how many pure academics it needs.
He means the stereotypical overachieving Asians you mostly see on TV.
It's a popular trope, and one that frequently changes targets depending on which ethnicity the predominant milieu likes at a given time. It is often given in implied comparison to the failings of disfavored ethnic groups. Currently, the positive is primarily assigned to Asians, and the negative primarily to Hispanics. As with most ridiculous stereotypes there is some degree of truth to it (Asians are slightly above-average in most educational achievement metrics, Hispanics slightly below-average), but it's much more a matter of perception than reality. The strongest correlation, not surprisingly, remains between low achievement and poverty.
I can't imagine why anyone would think they are a terrible option. The Democrats obviously suck at everything other than waffling, shuffling their feet, and getting in their own way, so why not vote for a party that routinely blows everything up instead? It may be worse, but at least it isn't boring.
Social Security is very nearly solvent, it has sufficient dedicated revenues to operate at full budget in the near term, and only needs minor adjustment to continue doing so in the foreseeable future. It's a whipping boy, primarily, because there are specific interests that just don't like it. In terms of the deficit, it's basically a non-factor. Of course, those who dislike it will continue to say otherwise, but if you look into their numbers you'll find that their numbers tend to have the flaw of either not actually existing or not actually demonstrating the point they are trying to make: for example, it is often referenced in conjunction with the discretionary budget, implying that the funding for it primarily comes from those funds, when in fact it is primarily funded through it's own tax the numbers for which do not appear in the discretionary budget. This is also somewhat the case for most other entitlements (ie. Medicare), though SS is by far the closest to operating within budget.
Unfunded liabilities should be the first things examined. The military is our largest discretionary budget cost. maybe not (quite) larger than all others combined, but treating pensions, healthcare, education, environmental projection, law enforcement, infrastructure and other expenses as one lump sum doesn't make a whole lot of sense anyway.
I'm not sure your idea is even possible given our current understanding of nuclear fission or fusion. What you propose is a device that fundamentally alters a basic quantum reaction across an arbitrarily broad space... I have to doubt that 300 billion could devise such a thing, especially given that it is apparently impossible to modern science.
A missile shield, however, could be done. Probably for quite a bit less than that, and would minimize the risk from ICBMs. I doubt there's much to be done for ground based devices, however, aside from intelligence operations to track existing warheads and discover new ones.
The Red Sox haven't won the World Series in 2011... they might, but since it hasn't actually been played yet, it's a bit early to start doomsaying based on the outcome.
Beyond that, my Sox hold more WS titles in this century than anyone else. Not sure what would be surprising about them taking another.
Now the White Sox, they're another story entirely.
By uninformed, you mean parents who are unfamiliar with uncircumcised penises? There's a good chance they're also uninformed regarding the ramifications of gluten allergies unless they have them, and uninformed about the care and maintenance for chinchillas unless they keep them. Indeed, most people are uninformed about issues which they have had no reason to inform themselves, especially those which they do not know require information. Why should a foreskin grow shut? How is that an obvious possibility to somebody whose entire experience with penises doesn't include that bit of skin at all?
Marriage can be seen to stabilize the social order, and as such the government has an interest in promoting it as opposed to everyone remaining single. Preferential tax rates are largely an artifact of single-income families, but nonetheless somewhat reduce the cost of tax administration and, again, provide incentive for citizens to do something that the government likes. Judges need to be involved because, ultimately, government views marriage as a contract between 3 parties: the two individuals being married, and the State.
In terms of marriage being a religious rite, and not a legal status... that's pretty much a load of BS. Yes, the Bible covers covers marriage and provides for it as an institution, but it has existed in virtually every human culture, including those which predate the Bible (or Christianity, if you prefer), and in virtually every case it has carried legal, economic and political ramifications in addition to religious ones. What I will grant you is that in a society which strives to separate the apparatus of State from the apparatus of Church and rule of law, it might be wise to use a different term, if only to remove potential religious connotation. I'm a big fan of Civil Unions for all.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to Rod Blagojevich.
Last time I checked Linksys, a division of Cisco, was an enormously successful maker of consumer-grade networking equipment.
Maybe things have changed a large amount in a short period, but I very highly doubt it.
It sounds like you and I share some tastes. I would love Robot Crime and Punishment (and to some extent, as I wrote that, it occurred to me that Transformers 3 almost has some of that... before it dumps all over them in favor of having characters behave in ways contrary to their stated positions and past deeds). I sometimes enjoy watching really stupid movies simply for empty entertainment, but on the whole I would much rather watch something with a genuine message and artistry. Plus, it's kind of fun to pick apart a movie like Transformers 3, where hardly a minute goes by without introducing a new plot hole.
Similarly, there are only so many truly quality games that are worthy of playing through based on their storytelling merits. Sometimes it's fun to just spam bullets in Call of Duty: Modern Shooterfare: Brown Boxes: Terrorist Hunt 9 for a couple of hours. Immediately after which, I can smugly detail all the ways in which it was silly.
My point is that it makes much more sense to criticize a game or movie based on what it sets out to do and claims to be, rather than on expectations nobody ever had. If Doom III failed on the grounds of being a hardcore shooter with a horror edge and an emphasis on gore... then criticize it for failing to deliver on what it promised. If Transformers 3 fails to deliver compelling action sequences and special effects magic (incidentally, it often flopped on that first point... many of the sequences were sadly reliant on shakycam and visual distractions to conceal the action, or rely on cheap deus ex machina for tidy resolutions) then that is where the truly damning criticism lies.
And those guys are right, even if you don't like it. Transformers 3 made more money in a day than most movies will ever make. Nobody on that project was being paid to do anything particularly original or interesting... they were being paid to crank out a movie where robots blow shit up. They did their jobs, they got paid, the execs got precisely what they wanted from their employees... and hopefully a chunk of the money that the genuinely creative people who worked on it were paid for churning out the money-making-sequel de jour will go toward creating new and exciting works of art which will genuinely contribute to our culture.
What he's saying is that anyone who criticizes those games or movies simply on the basis that they have failed to do anything particularly new or groundbreaking or edgy are just being pretentious. Who really thought Doom III should have been chock full of "original" FPS gameplay, anyway? If it had been a stealth-based puzzle game designed to comment Kantian philosophy, that just happened to be an FPS, nobody would have praised it for being "groundbreaking" or thought it was great that id put a new spin on the franchise: they would have called Carmack a goddamn moron for shitting all over what everyone expected with some random bullshit. They would have been right, too.
Maybe you think it was shit, but it was still what you thought it would be, and you still bought the game based on that. If you see Transformers 3, you aren't expecting to have your mind blown by complex writing (it does feature some enjoyable snark, but every time Optimus speaks it makes you long for the depth and wit of a GI Joe PSA) or an intriguing plot (unless your definition of "intriguing" is XBox huge plot holes and characters behaving without any sort of consistency or logic), you're expecting to see giant robots that turn into cars and blow shit up. If, instead, you got Crime And Punishment, you'd probably be more than a little bit pissed off, regardless of how "original" it would be for Transformers to go in that direction.
Half-Life had some jumping puzzles. Indeed, the best parts of the game were the puzzles... a lot of them just happened to involve shooting things or lobbing grenades. The difference, of course, is that they did it right, while DNF did not.
google.com
Compared to others with equivalent education, teachers are paid less than private-sector employees.
They are given some nifty benefits to partially make up for the gap, but they are still paid less.
Hence, we tend to pay them uncompetitive salaries.
"Nothing stops your local provider from replacing those with local ads to block them"
Except for FCC regulations and contracts, and the inclusion of non-replacement clauses in their network contracts. The system is set up such that national broadcasts leave a chunk of time for local broadcasters, and local broadcasters leave a chunk of time for cable and other companies. Nobody overwrites anyone else's ads, because they actually can't.
Incidentally, the government can and does overwrite those time slots: that's what the EBS is for.
All those posts, and only one person who gives any indication they know what they're talking about.
Kudos.
I don't see how your assumption is any more logical. If the test is a fundamentally flawed metric of understanding, which is a fairly popular point of view (yes, I know, that's an appeal to authority, but that's the best either of us can realistically have, so it must suffice), then teaching to it is going to be a fundamentally flawed approach. OP has hinged his argument upon an assumption that the test is generally flawed, and that teachers are generally good. Yours hinges upon an assumption that the test is generally good (or at least neutral), and that teachers are generally bad.
More likely, some teachers are good while some are bad. In an ideal world, we are able to encourage good teachers to become teachers (in the real world, we tend to pay them uncompetitive salaries), and encourage bad teachers to do something else (in the real world, we've made it nearly impossible to fire ineffective teachers). Obviously, we don't live in an ideal world, but since many of the qualities of a good teacher are self-selecting (mostly the intangibles, really, but we should take whatever good news we can get) the result is that many are quite good.
If we then assume, somewhat reasonably, that a good teacher is a good with or without a test, and a bad teacher is bad with or without a test, then we are left with four likely outcomes: that a good teacher will adequately teach students so they do well on a test, that a good teacher will adequately teach students so they understand a subject, that a poor teacher will inadequately teach students so they do poorly on a test, and that a poor teacher will inadequately teach students so they do not understand a subject. Obviously, treating these values as binary is an oversimplification, but I didn't want to get bogged down in details regarding generalized statements.
If the test is a good indicator of understanding, then the first two options are essentially identical, if it is not a good indicator, then the first two options are profoundly different. For the latter options however, it probably doesn't make much of a difference. In the absence of information indicating that having a test to teach to makes bad teachers better, it doesn't seem that such tests add much to the equation beyond questions regarding the validity of the test.
Full disclosure: I am an academic underachiever from a family of educators and academic overachievers. I generally core in the top quartile or higher on standardized tests, yet have dropped out of college on three separate occasions. My own experience with high test scores is that they mean absolutely nothing, and at best show casual correlation to intellectual and academic potential.
I think that's a bit of an over generalization. Not all professors are primarily researchers, and many actually are focused on teaching first. I have no idea which kind is actually more prevalent across the board, and I suspect getting such information would be difficult. Suffice it to say, I think some institutions are more inclined to hire one or the other type for a variety of reasons.
Ideally, I think a balance would be struck such that the most capable researchers are allowed to perform their research without being required to waste time on being poor educators, and the most capable educators are allowed to educate students without being required to waste time on being poor researchers. I'm sure some professors excel at both; in which case competent administrators should be able to balance the institutions needs by assigning them to do one or the other. Basically, the current system seems to encourage a lot of very capable people to do things they aren't really good at merely to justify doing the things they are good at... this is obviously the inverse of what we want.
But but but... the Invisible Hand!
Seriously though, introducing competition wouldn't be all that hard: it would just require allowing competition. Towns should be leasing space on utility poles (or in buried ducts, for you Vermonters) to anyone who wants it without worrying about duplicated service or other such strictly business concerns. Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Time Warner etc. would then be in direct competition with one another within individual markets. Companies could elect to lease wire from one another, or to simply put up their own, depending on the actual balance between operating and installation costs and market value. Collusion would become substantially easier to spot and punish, and areas under-served by major players could benefit from smaller local operators, perhaps even non-profits, more interested in helping the community.
Of course, that will never actually happen because people are notoriously stupid when it comes to dealing with the balance between capitalism's need for shared public resources and the capitalist desire for private interests to own such resources and profit from them, so somebody will call it "socialism" and we'll just end up giving everything the telcos don't already control in the equation to them as compensation for holding them down or whatever... So your solution is probably better.
Don't forget about the pervasive fear-culture also at play. I suspect that has at least as much to do with the situation.
Most research actually does show that the amount of homework assigned has been steadily increasing for the past few decades. It's gotten to the point where doctors have begun observing a trend toward back and joint dysfunctions caused by carrying backpacks that are too heavy... the amount of homework has increased to the point where it can now be meaningfully measured by weight.
To make matters worse, standardized testing has forced many schools to significantly increase the scope of the curriculum and shorten the amount of time to complete it; leading to an increasing reliance on assigned readings rather than lectures.
Why?
Perhaps they learn more slowly because they take a great deal more care learning it, and are building a stronger foundation upon which to learn new information, information which might become relevant next week, but might only become relevant in three years.
If anything, I think all students should be taking those classes, even the fast learners who are clearly not going to make a career out of them. They're handy skills to have, and being at least a little bit familiar with them is pretty important to navigating the world once you move away from mom and dad. I've met guys in their 30s who can barely make ramen... I don't care if they're breaking new ground in theoretical physics, that indicates to me a very problematic lack of basic human functionality. Beyond that, maybe those *are* the careers that such students will want to enter. The world actually does need smart people with practical skills, and there is an upper limit to how many pure academics it needs.
He means the stereotypical overachieving Asians you mostly see on TV.
It's a popular trope, and one that frequently changes targets depending on which ethnicity the predominant milieu likes at a given time. It is often given in implied comparison to the failings of disfavored ethnic groups. Currently, the positive is primarily assigned to Asians, and the negative primarily to Hispanics. As with most ridiculous stereotypes there is some degree of truth to it (Asians are slightly above-average in most educational achievement metrics, Hispanics slightly below-average), but it's much more a matter of perception than reality. The strongest correlation, not surprisingly, remains between low achievement and poverty.
Very few things really are, we're just prone to hyperbole regarding the minor hiccups we encounter.
Precisely.
Yeah, they did a real bang up job last time...
And the time before that...
And the time before that...
I can't imagine why anyone would think they are a terrible option. The Democrats obviously suck at everything other than waffling, shuffling their feet, and getting in their own way, so why not vote for a party that routinely blows everything up instead? It may be worse, but at least it isn't boring.
Social Security is very nearly solvent, it has sufficient dedicated revenues to operate at full budget in the near term, and only needs minor adjustment to continue doing so in the foreseeable future. It's a whipping boy, primarily, because there are specific interests that just don't like it. In terms of the deficit, it's basically a non-factor. Of course, those who dislike it will continue to say otherwise, but if you look into their numbers you'll find that their numbers tend to have the flaw of either not actually existing or not actually demonstrating the point they are trying to make: for example, it is often referenced in conjunction with the discretionary budget, implying that the funding for it primarily comes from those funds, when in fact it is primarily funded through it's own tax the numbers for which do not appear in the discretionary budget. This is also somewhat the case for most other entitlements (ie. Medicare), though SS is by far the closest to operating within budget.
Unfunded liabilities should be the first things examined. The military is our largest discretionary budget cost. maybe not (quite) larger than all others combined, but treating pensions, healthcare, education, environmental projection, law enforcement, infrastructure and other expenses as one lump sum doesn't make a whole lot of sense anyway.
I'm not sure your idea is even possible given our current understanding of nuclear fission or fusion. What you propose is a device that fundamentally alters a basic quantum reaction across an arbitrarily broad space... I have to doubt that 300 billion could devise such a thing, especially given that it is apparently impossible to modern science.
A missile shield, however, could be done. Probably for quite a bit less than that, and would minimize the risk from ICBMs. I doubt there's much to be done for ground based devices, however, aside from intelligence operations to track existing warheads and discover new ones.
The Red Sox haven't won the World Series in 2011... they might, but since it hasn't actually been played yet, it's a bit early to start doomsaying based on the outcome.
Beyond that, my Sox hold more WS titles in this century than anyone else. Not sure what would be surprising about them taking another.
Now the White Sox, they're another story entirely.
So the world ends in 2013?
Let me guess, in your ideal world, Slashdot only features un-popular culture references?
By uninformed, you mean parents who are unfamiliar with uncircumcised penises? There's a good chance they're also uninformed regarding the ramifications of gluten allergies unless they have them, and uninformed about the care and maintenance for chinchillas unless they keep them. Indeed, most people are uninformed about issues which they have had no reason to inform themselves, especially those which they do not know require information. Why should a foreskin grow shut? How is that an obvious possibility to somebody whose entire experience with penises doesn't include that bit of skin at all?
Marriage can be seen to stabilize the social order, and as such the government has an interest in promoting it as opposed to everyone remaining single. Preferential tax rates are largely an artifact of single-income families, but nonetheless somewhat reduce the cost of tax administration and, again, provide incentive for citizens to do something that the government likes. Judges need to be involved because, ultimately, government views marriage as a contract between 3 parties: the two individuals being married, and the State.
In terms of marriage being a religious rite, and not a legal status... that's pretty much a load of BS. Yes, the Bible covers covers marriage and provides for it as an institution, but it has existed in virtually every human culture, including those which predate the Bible (or Christianity, if you prefer), and in virtually every case it has carried legal, economic and political ramifications in addition to religious ones. What I will grant you is that in a society which strives to separate the apparatus of State from the apparatus of Church and rule of law, it might be wise to use a different term, if only to remove potential religious connotation. I'm a big fan of Civil Unions for all.