Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: We 'must' compete (Score 1) 115

You're taking it as a given that non-competitive cooperation requires a central coordinating force. This is not true. Hive behaviours (ants, bees etc) are emergent phenomena created by thousands of peer-to-peer communications, and in any education system with high freedom in syllabus and methods, you can see the same sort of emergent behaviour in knowledge (and resource) sharing between peers. If you see competition as the only alternative to centralism, you're wide of the mark. Individual entities in a competitive environment start to focus down narrowly -- competition may drive innovation in some senses, but it also puts the blinkers on as you can't afford to be distracted. This leads to a situation where the "consumer" is left with a choice of which centralism to subscribe to -- a "choose your own dictatorship", if you will...

Comment: Re:Some will be troubled (Score 1) 115

This actually plays into my fears about the gamification of education. A lot of game-games use achievements as a "Skinner box" (as Extra Credits terms it) to encourage mindless return business, rather than simply employing good game mechanics. If your achievement or "challenge" is to play 20 times, that doesn't encourage the player to improve their technique -- it's just grinding. Is "grit" not what you get left with after grinding? Rewarding grinding in education or the workplace is little more than institutionalised presenteeism.

Comment: Re:We 'must' compete (Score 2) 115

"Everyone's a winner" was a lazy philosophy resulting from Chinese whispers in the teaching profession. The educational psychologists asked teachers to be more mindful of what they say, because they noticing that across the board, underperforming students got more negative reinforcement for mistakes than positive feednack when they got something right. Teachers weren't supposed to start giving uncritical praise, but just to smile more when kids get things right. It's not that hard to do, and everyone benefits, but it wasn't simple enough for the crappy resource packs and brain-dead seminars that much in-service training is built around.

Comment: Re:New markets (Score 2) 115

Their agenda is to foster a market and transition education into an industry from which great profits can be had for training worker drones who are specifically tailored to the job market.

Don't be so quick to judge people's intentions so harshly. Many people genuinely believe that what they're doing is for the best, and attacking their intentions rather than criticising their methods won't get us anywhere. The Tories cling to the belief that publuc services are intrinsically inefficient, and when they privatise contracts to their friends, it's because they know that they friends have good intentions too. And when they leave politics and take up directorships, it's because they've proven that they're good guys. The oroblem isn't intentions, but the unwavering belief that market economics are good for everyone, and an ideological inability to recognise that the inevitable result of competition is corner-cutting.

As long as we allow ourselves to misrepresent their intentions and define them as inhuman monsters, we tacitly encourage them to do the same to us.

Comment: Re: We 'must' compete (Score 2) 115

Take a closer look at nature. Competition occurs when resources are limited. Wolves compete against other predators and their prey, but cooperation is what wins them the race. Humans compete with other animals, but farming is inherently cooperative and increases the availability of food for everyone. The only place where we really need to compete is in the reproductive stakes.

Comment: Re:Butt hurt... (Score 1) 120

by Half-pint HAL (#49763753) Attached to: Oculus Founder Hit With Lawsuit

A confidentiality agreement is NOT a non-compete agreement which I doubt they could really enforce anyway since a lot of states refuse to recognize them.

Non-competes are legally unenforceable when they stop you realistically changing jobs within your field. Things get murkier when your new employer isn't in that field already, and you're the one that brings the into it. It's murkier still when your new employer is YOU. This isn't a question of non-compete, it's a question of trade secrets, because when the employee is working from the ground up, his prior knowledge is based entirely on the previous employer's project, whereas when there's a partly-built product to work on, there's already a seed that will take the development of the product away from the old employers device.

Comment: Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score 1) 244

Go back to making horses and buggies, if they can't even spend 30 minutes on the fucking Internet using teh Google? Then they ARE FUCKING LAZY and they don't deserve to make shit, much less sit on their ever widening asses because they wrote a little 3 minute song a decade ago.

Lazy? A woma who spends all year teaching, composing, recording, touring and playing weddings, and whose holidays are almost always combined with work? A guy who plays and records with multiple bands and works as a theatre janitor because the theatre management understand his need for flexible work so he can go on tour? A guy who spent years on the breadline trying to get his break as a session musician in London, and now spends most nights in pubs singing other people's songs? Etc

Lazy people don't survive in music, and my friends all manage to make a living doing what they love. They don't do that by selling T-shirts.

Comment: Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score 1) 244

its really easy to have those made you just have to get off your ass and get 'er done.

Fuck off. Does that seem rude to you? To me, it's less rude than "get off your ass", because I'm not assuming anything about you when I tell you to fuck off. None of my friends who perform professionally or semi-professionally are lazy, but your statement assumes they are. They are hard-working and dedicated, but none of them sell mugs, T-shirts or keyrings because their audiences just aren't interested in tat like that. I don't buy band T-shirts, mugs or keyrings, and I'm not going to feel guilty for that. Do you know what I'm happy to pay for from musicians? I'll give you a clue: for doing their job; for making music. Should a baker have to sell T-shirts to his customers to make a living? Should I reward my taxi driver by buying a wallet with his face on it? No.

Comment: Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score 1) 244

Most people are annoyed about how the publishing business is working hard to undermine better ways of obtaining music because they want to set up their tollbooths to not just monetize, but to monetize in a manner that least upsets their current business model. That means they work to kill anything that they can't figure out how to make money off of.

If that "better way" doesn't make profit for the labels or the artists, then why exactly should they support it? Spotify themselves bleat about making a "loss" on the free end of freemium whenever the labels and/or artists complain about low profits. But Spotify make money on every single advert for a free user, and the "losses" on free users all are just shuffling of moneys from premium users' plays to free users' plays, and they profit from both types of user. In the end, users get a cheap service not because of efficiencies or innovation at Spotify, but because Spotifypays its suppliers as unsustainable low rate.

The only way they are actually hurting is that they still want to be selling people CDs for $20+ per disc with one song that people want to hear.

That's a strawman. We're not talking about track-bundling here, we're talking about freemium services that are little more than leeches.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie