Are they being shown the analytical techniques needed to answer these questions, or otherwise being given a frame of reference within which the questions make sense? A colleague's 7-year-old, for example, recently asked him to help the kid with his math homework. When he couldn't make heads or tails of the questions (despite an EE degree), he Googled the context, figured out how the teaching model worked and within 15 minutes, knew how to explain the material.
Here, the author has an agenda and doesn't ask questions that don't support the agenda. It's possible that this article may itself make a good Common Core question, should Analytical Rhetoric be deemed part of the curriculum.
FWIW, having never had kids, I have no friggin' interest in the Common Core debate one way or the other. But looking through the sample test, I found it pretty interesting and definitely capable of being a valid teaching tool. But the bottom line, as usual, is context. The text can only be evaluated in light of the aspects of the instructional method that complement it. The fact that some jerkoff journalist and his wife can't answer a question in a topic in which they haven't received instruction is irrelevant, and the journalist's assumption that the problem lies with the test, and not with his and his wife's ignorance of the subject matter, may be an example of the arrogance of not knowing enough to know what one doesn't know.
.If anyone tries to tell you that this a legally relevant "hidden terms of service," just walk away.
From the article:
"It is unclear why these sentences appear in the code at all since they are not displayed, although the code may simply have been copied from another website that does use the full warning. In this case, the unwanted portion of the warning was rendered inert with HTML coding tags ("") usually used by programmers for inserting comments to explain the purpose of a section of code. However, the code can be rendered "live" again by simply removing those tags, in which case the full text would appear on the screen to users. However, it is unclear why the paragraph containing "no reasonable expectation of privacy" would ever have even been considered appropriate in this context."
It's articles like this one that give Obama-haters a bad name.
So I don't get it. Why is this news??
2. Application publishes and is spotted by I-ANAL geek Web site which, not understanding what it's reading, pumps out a hack piece citing the application as further proof that the patent system (or intellectual property in general) is "broke."
3. Equally ignorant and/or confused I-ANAL Slashdotter posts story on
4. Equally ignorant I-ANAL Slashdotters post comments that comprise: i) a terse pun; ii) "See, I told you the patent system (or IP in general) is broke!"; iii) A detailed, carefully reasoned analysis of an irrelevant detail of the patent; iv) A strange, off-topic, or unintentionally funny authoritative statement. (My favorite: "A design patent is basically a trademark.")
5. In many cases, a few IP or patent attorneys attempt to correct another poster's sillier misconceptions. Generally, the attorney's remark ends the conversation or, worst case, provokes an "anybody who knows what they're talking about is not to be trusted" kick-to-the-curb.
I've seen this episode before.
Given that most people in this country can't divide 100 by 8 in their heads, I mock the thought that anybody would take this story seriously.
At what age should kids be taught to read patent-claim language?
At what age should kids be taught to replace head gaskets?
At what age should kids be taught how to cull facts from political rhetoric, rather than just repeat what they hear on the radio?
I think it would be worth a cheer to see pre-teens get excited about writing little BASIC programs on their iPads, but in the real world, school teachers I know would be happy enough to be able to teach the majority of their grade-schoolers how to balance a checkbook, or how to understand a short piece of classical music.
FWIW, the 1st Am. can become relevant if the government forces an entity to restrict speech, regardless of whether that speech is a term of a K. If I contract w/Facebook to give Facebook the right to publish and republish any text that I post, the 1st is implicated if the Federal govt. attempts to bar Facebook from enforcing that term. The 14th Am. extends this issue to state govt.'s. And then, there's also the contract clause of the Constitution, although freedom of speech generally trumps financial protections.
Who says enabling technology is a good thing?