Anyone can fall behind. There can be any number of reasons why. The behind student today might be the ahead student tomorrow if there are resources that enable that student to catch up.
But if we devote most of our resources only to the ahead it's like saying "screw" anyone who is unlucky or ever had a bad day. That's what we call... evil.
In elementary school my teacher thought I was terribly behind in reading and should be put in special education. In High School I graduated as valedictorian. Maybe you think they should have taken the resources away from me and given it to the kids who could already read well.
His argument is that the harder the test the less relevant knowledge of the actual answers to the questions posed on the test are to determining your relative score. As a result, on a very hard test, two test takers with vastly different levels of knowledge of the correct answers to the test questions do not on average end up with scores that reflect that difference.
The "educated guess" does not contradict that argument. Again, the harder the test then the smaller the difference between the number of potentially correct answers you can eliminate versus the number that he can eliminate will be. With a sufficiently hard test, "educated guessing" makes no difference whatsoever.
So basically with a multiple choice, count only the correct answers test, increasing the difficulty is not an effective means of increasing the likelihood of the test to accurately filter out candidates with lesser knowledge of the subject matter covered by the test. Increasing the difficulty only increases the degree to which randomness has an impact on the results.
This is true, well known, and not very controversial. However, you would of course need to examine the specific tests in question to determine whether they are effective. They may have other features to help mitigate this effect. Also, his analysis is purely mathematical. It doesn't take into account the likelihood of a challenging test to create social pressure that influences people to self-filter. It could be argued that most of these tests are not testing the takers knowledge of the material so much as they are testing the takers ability to study and react to the pressure that the tests provide.
Two European journalists have independently told us that Google representatives have contacted them with the claim that "Privacy International has a conflict of interest regarding Microsoft".
I would be interested in knowing exactly what the "conflict of interest" they are alleging is and some more conclusive evidence that Google is even really behind the accusation. This is far too little information for us to conclude that a smear campaign is actually happening. If any one has any more neutral information on this, please share it!
The distinction strikes me as a trivial one. The metric under which something should be considered malware should be based upon whether it causes harm or endangers privacy not how or where it happens to be bundled. Microsoft shouldn't get off scott free if they were to bundle a program they wrote into their operating system that collects user data for sale to advertisers any more than google should if they package a similar program in with a software package you and I never heard of.
The fact that both google and various malware producers allow third parties to distribute their software as part of a package doesn't say anything about the validity of the tactic. I honestly can't see anything wrong with bundling software together that just don't happen to be made by the same company as that tactic has been a part of software distribution pretty much from its inception. We shouldn't let malware producers give it a bad name because of they happen to use that tactic toward nefarious ends.
That being said there can be an argument against disingenous software packaging meant to deceive users into installing a program they didn't necessarily want and which has nothing to do with the product that they thought they were getting. That is worthy of our ire. But it is the same if Microsoft bundles something in their OS that isn't something many windows users want or need or were aware that they were getting. But they do that all the time without much complaint. I could do without windows media player, internet explorer, calc, paint, windows movie maker and a number of other programs that I have found software that I prefer to and yet they ended up on my machine. In fact my computer started out with these programs, I was never prompted anywhere if I actually wanted them. In contrast, the last time I installed something with google toolbar there was a clearly a little box on the install that I could uncheck to ensure that I didn't get it at all.
Clearly, if we are to accept any bundling of software we should demand that it meet several simple criteria:
bundled packages should be related generally or it must be clear prior to purchase or download that you will be getting unrelated packages
when you install bundled software it should be easy to know what is being installed and easy to refuse what components you don't want from being installed
if you happen to accidentally install software as part of a package that you don't want it should be trivially easy to remove the part of that bundle that you don't want
software packaged or otherwise shouldn't be doing something you don't want it to without your knowledge like calling how, sharing your personal information, or messing with your computer
If software does that then I don't care at all how it is distributed.
He seems to be saying something somewhat stronger than that in this talk. He is suggesting that Git and decentralized systems in general are much better at solving or preventing most problems related to scm that most developers in the real world have to deal with. He admits that Subversion, CVS, etc. work. So there's nothing "wrong" with them in that loose sense. However, it is clear from this talk that he believes Git is strictly better for most of us. And he's got a lot of very interesting and pretty interesting and convincing arguments for those claims.
It's more like comparing a family of cars that can drive themselves, run forever on solar power with zero emissions, have a higher top speed, a faster acceleration, and are so safe that they have a near zero chance of injury let alone fatalities, to good old fashioned modern day automobiles.
While it's true that legislation shouldn't directly dictate purchasing decisions as that would provide an unfair disadvantage to certain businesses, it is nevertheless perfectly alright for a government to create legislation in order to protect the public trust. Legislation can't and shouldn't say only buy X from company Y, but it can surely say only buy products which have characteristics A, B, and C which prevent certain detrimental consequences.
The bill actually states:
"This bill would require all state agencies, beginning on or after
January 1, 2008, to create, exchange, and preserve all documents, as
specified, in an open extensible markup language-based, XML-based
file format, and to start to become equipped to receive any document
in an open, XML-based file format, as specified."
And:
"When deciding how to implement this section, the department in its evaluation of
open, XML-based file formats shall consider all of the following
features:
(1) Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms
and applications.
(2) Fully published and available royalty-free.
(3) Implemented by multiple vendors.
(4) Controlled by an open industry organization with a
well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard.
(b) Beginning on or after January 1, 2008, state agencies shall
start to become equipped to accept all documents in an open,
XML-based file format for office applications, and shall not adopt a
file format used by only one entity.
(c) The department shall develop guidelines for state agencies to
follow in determining whether existing electronic documents need to
be converted to an open, XML-based file format. The department shall
consider all of the following:
(1) The cost of converting electronic documents.
(2) The need for the documents to be publicly accessible.
(3) The expected storage life of the documents."
The questions to ask are: Why does Microsoft's file format not meet these criteria? What, if anything, prevents Microsoft from using a format that does meet these conditions? Are these requirements important or relevant enough to the people for governments to mandate their use?
It is important to note that Microsoft does not have to meet these conditions. They can simply sell to others who don't see that fact as a limitation. It's just that they won't be able to sell to the State of CA and any business that follows the state's lead.
Still, I am a little wary of this kind of bill myself though I have little sympathy for Microsoft's position. Most of the conditions seem like reasonable things to ask for to me. But will XML really last forever? Or will there be something better and greater down the line that will require this bill to be rewritten?
Slashdot Mirror
It's obviously true. So what?
Anyone can fall behind. There can be any number of reasons why. The behind student today might be the ahead student tomorrow if there are resources that enable that student to catch up.
But if we devote most of our resources only to the ahead it's like saying "screw" anyone who is unlucky or ever had a bad day. That's what we call... evil.
In elementary school my teacher thought I was terribly behind in reading and should be put in special education. In High School I graduated as valedictorian. Maybe you think they should have taken the resources away from me and given it to the kids who could already read well.
His argument is that the harder the test the less relevant knowledge of the actual answers to the questions posed on the test are to determining your relative score. As a result, on a very hard test, two test takers with vastly different levels of knowledge of the correct answers to the test questions do not on average end up with scores that reflect that difference.
The "educated guess" does not contradict that argument. Again, the harder the test then the smaller the difference between the number of potentially correct answers you can eliminate versus the number that he can eliminate will be. With a sufficiently hard test, "educated guessing" makes no difference whatsoever.
So basically with a multiple choice, count only the correct answers test, increasing the difficulty is not an effective means of increasing the likelihood of the test to accurately filter out candidates with lesser knowledge of the subject matter covered by the test. Increasing the difficulty only increases the degree to which randomness has an impact on the results.
This is true, well known, and not very controversial. However, you would of course need to examine the specific tests in question to determine whether they are effective. They may have other features to help mitigate this effect. Also, his analysis is purely mathematical. It doesn't take into account the likelihood of a challenging test to create social pressure that influences people to self-filter. It could be argued that most of these tests are not testing the takers knowledge of the material so much as they are testing the takers ability to study and react to the pressure that the tests provide.
How is it different? You don't think Microsoft benefited from people unwittingly ending up with internet explorer on their computer?
I would be interested in knowing exactly what the "conflict of interest" they are alleging is and some more conclusive evidence that Google is even really behind the accusation. This is far too little information for us to conclude that a smear campaign is actually happening. If any one has any more neutral information on this, please share it!
The distinction strikes me as a trivial one. The metric under which something should be considered malware should be based upon whether it causes harm or endangers privacy not how or where it happens to be bundled. Microsoft shouldn't get off scott free if they were to bundle a program they wrote into their operating system that collects user data for sale to advertisers any more than google should if they package a similar program in with a software package you and I never heard of.
The fact that both google and various malware producers allow third parties to distribute their software as part of a package doesn't say anything about the validity of the tactic. I honestly can't see anything wrong with bundling software together that just don't happen to be made by the same company as that tactic has been a part of software distribution pretty much from its inception. We shouldn't let malware producers give it a bad name because of they happen to use that tactic toward nefarious ends.
That being said there can be an argument against disingenous software packaging meant to deceive users into installing a program they didn't necessarily want and which has nothing to do with the product that they thought they were getting. That is worthy of our ire. But it is the same if Microsoft bundles something in their OS that isn't something many windows users want or need or were aware that they were getting. But they do that all the time without much complaint. I could do without windows media player, internet explorer, calc, paint, windows movie maker and a number of other programs that I have found software that I prefer to and yet they ended up on my machine. In fact my computer started out with these programs, I was never prompted anywhere if I actually wanted them. In contrast, the last time I installed something with google toolbar there was a clearly a little box on the install that I could uncheck to ensure that I didn't get it at all.
Clearly, if we are to accept any bundling of software we should demand that it meet several simple criteria:
If software does that then I don't care at all how it is distributed.
So when Google bundles its software, it is malware but when Microsoft bundles its software, it is their god given right to do so?
He seems to be saying something somewhat stronger than that in this talk. He is suggesting that Git and decentralized systems in general are much better at solving or preventing most problems related to scm that most developers in the real world have to deal with. He admits that Subversion, CVS, etc. work. So there's nothing "wrong" with them in that loose sense. However, it is clear from this talk that he believes Git is strictly better for most of us. And he's got a lot of very interesting and pretty interesting and convincing arguments for those claims.
It's more like comparing a family of cars that can drive themselves, run forever on solar power with zero emissions, have a higher top speed, a faster acceleration, and are so safe that they have a near zero chance of injury let alone fatalities, to good old fashioned modern day automobiles.
While it's true that legislation shouldn't directly dictate purchasing decisions as that would provide an unfair disadvantage to certain businesses, it is nevertheless perfectly alright for a government to create legislation in order to protect the public trust. Legislation can't and shouldn't say only buy X from company Y, but it can surely say only buy products which have characteristics A, B, and C which prevent certain detrimental consequences. The bill actually states: "This bill would require all state agencies, beginning on or after January 1, 2008, to create, exchange, and preserve all documents, as specified, in an open extensible markup language-based, XML-based file format, and to start to become equipped to receive any document in an open, XML-based file format, as specified." And: "When deciding how to implement this section, the department in its evaluation of open, XML-based file formats shall consider all of the following features: (1) Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications. (2) Fully published and available royalty-free. (3) Implemented by multiple vendors. (4) Controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard. (b) Beginning on or after January 1, 2008, state agencies shall start to become equipped to accept all documents in an open, XML-based file format for office applications, and shall not adopt a file format used by only one entity. (c) The department shall develop guidelines for state agencies to follow in determining whether existing electronic documents need to be converted to an open, XML-based file format. The department shall consider all of the following: (1) The cost of converting electronic documents. (2) The need for the documents to be publicly accessible. (3) The expected storage life of the documents." The questions to ask are: Why does Microsoft's file format not meet these criteria? What, if anything, prevents Microsoft from using a format that does meet these conditions? Are these requirements important or relevant enough to the people for governments to mandate their use? It is important to note that Microsoft does not have to meet these conditions. They can simply sell to others who don't see that fact as a limitation. It's just that they won't be able to sell to the State of CA and any business that follows the state's lead. Still, I am a little wary of this kind of bill myself though I have little sympathy for Microsoft's position. Most of the conditions seem like reasonable things to ask for to me. But will XML really last forever? Or will there be something better and greater down the line that will require this bill to be rewritten?