Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (Score 1) 205

that's called taxes, moron, which all people are required to pay to society to keep it running

you can disagree with how your money is spent, that's fine. then vote for someone who will spend it in another way. but you don't get to make up on your own how much you owe according to your dimwitted uneducated "ideas"

money doesn't magically get in your bank account, dependent only on you, as if you live in an island. in fact, money is nothing more than an abstract value of human society itself. money only exists in the context of a human society, and is directly valuable in reflection of how well run that society is. money for broken down societies where no one pays taxes is worthless, inflation ridden junk. by your thinking, that's what you want your money to be: junk. can you eat your money in an isolated cabin in the woods where you never go to town? but you want to keep your money for yourself, and not give a portion to keep the society running in which your money actually means anything. this is simply revealing how fucking stupid you are about this topic

luckily, no one sane is going to let a stupid douchebag like yourself or the other puerile crackptos like you prevail on this notion, because we like being rich, and we don't morons like yourself making us poor

again, remedial education: your income depends upon a well functioning society. if no one maintains that society, your income shrinks, along with everyone else's. therefore, you must contribute in order to keep society functioning. understand loser?

and, indeed, if you're too stupid or selfish to understand this basic fact of your existence, then yes, men with guns should be sent to take from you what you owe, you freeloading asshole. and if you shoot back, drop your ignorant useless ass dead, please, and liquidate what you own to pay what you owe, the world a better place with one less stupid freeloading loser

Comment: Re:Educational software (Score 1) 205

the base assumption is that we are dealing with human beings, not factory specifications

there is no civil disagreement between two valid opinions here, there is acceptance of the obvious on my part and a quasireligious blindly exuberant faith in technology on your part that is ruinously insane

let us hope you or anyone who thinks like you never gets near a classroom. those poor kids

everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but no one is entitled to their own facts. you can not educate a human being from an AI which at best is limited to whatever crude specs you fill it in with, in whatever limited timeframe and context, it can never make up for the complex interplay and social feedback of a real human being in the moment

i have no respect for you and your position as a respectful disagreement depends upon both parties acknowledging basic facts and reality beforehand, which you do not

at best, you need a remedial education, ironically, on the basics of human social interaction and information transmission before it can be said you have a respectable, informed opinion on the subject matter

adios, starry eyed cotton candy head futurist

stick to science fiction fantasy please

you're a harmless nutjob at best, and damaging to children's development at worst

Comment: Re:Educational software (Score 1) 205

we should adopt the finnish model, they have one of the best if the not the best education system in the world

and your denigration of the prussian model is correct, but your lesson form that is counterintuitive. i'm certain the zeal for the mass production successes of the 1800s informed its development in ways that should not be celebrated... so your conclusion is we should pursue automation and remove the teacher from decision making even more? i'm not sure you have thought that out completely

we should never depend on algorithms to analyze and proscribe any model of learning for any student. it is absolutely impossible for such an algorithm to do a better job than a moderately involved, competent teacher, who should be the only one involved in any decision making in any capacity for any student. technology is wonderful as a supplementary tool in many ways, but it must be a teacher behind the what, when, where of how that is invoked

i cannot understand someone who thinks an algorithm, any algorithm, can do better than a decent teacher in a classroom. such a belief defies reason and only tells us about your unbridled technophilia. you really need to rethink what avenues of society are and aren't applicable for improvement by automation and technology

i can think of one parallel that is instructive here: compstat form the 1980s and 1990s that saw the USA break the back of an intense crack ridden crime wave

but the technology was only used to improve reporting and tracking

it was more of management philosophy change than a technology overhaul that, in parallel to what you are proposing, moved computers at the heart of decision making in police work

that's kind of insane actually

it was still cop grunts that had to fight crime with blood and sweat, and police brass that made decisions

no one, outside of a dystopian robocop fantasy movie, would have suggested that an actual computer make decisions about crime fighting. in fact, you should watch that movie as a good lesson about blindly optimistic technophilia and how simple human corporate greed and shortsightedness makes a mockery of that

i'm sorry but it really is just plain insane that you assert AI should drive the classroom. it might make a good science fiction premise. a miserable, depressing, maddening science fiction premise

write a dystopian fantasy book. don't fuck with kids heads to prove something to yourself that you need to learn the hard way, not them. please

Comment: Re:Educational software (Score 1) 205

no AI can ever do a better job than a competent teacher. the problem you describe is not some amazing new problem no one ever dealt with before, you only reveal the novelty the idea is to just you. all AI will do is hamstring a teacher's effectiveness by proscribing "solutions" according to an algorithm which cannot possibly see the status quo better than a moderately involved human being. as well as saddling the classroom with unnecessary intrusive and burdensome measurements to justify the inaccurate AI's solution

your words speak of blind technophilia

technology has the power to solve many problems in this world. but other types of problems are still beyond, and maybe forever beyond technology. i am not a luddite, i work in technology. the problem is not fear of technology here, the problem is this quasireligious overly evangelical faith that technology can solve all things, even things it obviously cannot

i think technology has wonderful promise in hobby learning and catch up. but no AI and no delivery method will ever do better than an involved human being, a competent teacher, in a classroom. at best technology is supplementary, probationary tool, with an involved teacher proscribing when and where it is used

education is not a factory floor, and never will be, and trying to force it into that mold will just turn students off and they will hate learning. they will learn how to manipulate the algorithm and make a mockery of the AI solution you think is superior, wrongly

Comment: Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (Score 1) 205

OVERALL Prosperity Index: Besides scores for their economies and entrepreneurship opportunities, countries are rated on factors pertaining to social capital, effective governance, human rights and liberties, health, and security. The U.S. ranks 10th, behind the Scandinavian countries, Austalia/NZ, and Canada.

ECONOMY: Rates countries across 17 factors including gross domestic savings, unemployment, inlfation, non-performing loans, and respondents satisfaction with standard of living and employment opporunities. The U.S. ranks 18th.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP Opportunities: Rates countries across 14 factors including business startup costs, R&D expenditure, and respondents perception that "Working Hard Gets You Ahead". The U.S. ranks 5th, behind Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and the U.K.

of note, the *perception* the usa is the country where you can work hard and get ahead is higher than the *reality*. we can and should close that gap by opposing the rent-seeking corporations and plutocrats that are destroying this country. we need to save this country from their corrupt predations. back to how it used to be

end the legalized corruption that makes the corporations and plutocrats buy our congresscritters and use them to write rent seeking laws that siphon off a couple extra billion for no extra effort, while shafting everyone else. somehow they believe this is better for their bottom line than a growing and healthy middle class that actually buys their fucking products and would make them many many more billions rich than the rent seeking, middle class destroying laws. short sightedly stupid and corrupt

Comment: Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (Score 1) 205

we are approaching that, we aren't completely there yet. we still have some social mobility, although it is shrinking and we are becoming a classist, stratified society

our social mobility is not as good as nordic countries. every country has corruption but we have far worse, legalized corruption, unlike the nordic countries. actual sane laws can be made against the commingling of money and power, as places like canada and europe show. at least laws against the perverse ways money infects and weakens our government, that the usa tolerates for some unnknown reason. corporations and plutocrats buy our congresscritters and use them to write rent seeking laws that siphon off a couple extra billion for no extra effort, while shafting everyone else. somehow they believe this is better for their bottom line than a growing and healthy middle class that actually buys their fucking products, and would make them many many more billions rich than the rent seeking, middle class destroying laws. short sightedly stupid and corrupt

the idea is stop this madness by outlawing such commingling of money and power (i wish we had a supreme court on the people's side) and reclaim the usa's claim as the country where the poor go to work hard and succeed, and increase our social mobility ranking back to where it used to be

Comment: Re:for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (Score 1) 205

You want their money? Gather up 1000 people, walk over to their house, and take it.

that's unjust and immoral

unless we live in a society where the rich are born that way and stay that way even if they are lazy, and the poor are born that way and stay that way even if they are hard working

then, indeed, people will revolt and rich people's houses will be ransacked. not because the people are unjust, but because society is unjust

the point is to AVOID that, because revolutions are horrible for everyone. and we avoid that by having a just society. which was the point of my post. and that's why you *should* care

not that you do care, as your post demonstrates. if you don't think we should live in meritocracy, good for you. but if you think we should just treat everyone like shit, not try to be fair in society, and revolts and mobbing rich people's houses is inevitable and unavoidable and we can't do anything about that, then, objectively speaking and not as a baseless insult, you are stupid and malicious

Comment: for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong here: (Score 5, Insightful) 205

the ideal is a meritocracy- if you work hard, you're rich. if you don't work, you're poor

that's the ideal

of course reality means we have rich kids who don't do shit and can't fail, or whose dad gets them a cushy do nothing job with his friends at the golf club

it also means there are poor people who are busting their asses at two full time jobs who will never get ahead, barely tread water, and are one accident or medical problem away from losing everything, due to depressed wages because of power imbalances, and an insane healthcare system. and poor people on assistance who don't work simply because the financial incentive is to stay not working: it pays more

so we do not live in a meritocracy

we should, of course. and we should try to model our society on that ideal

and one way we do that is we guarantee a baseline of medical care and education to everyone

but if being poor means your education will be pathetic, you'll stay poor. and if you're rich and are a loser flunkie who never tries in school but still gets ahead due to connections

we WANT to subsidize poor people's healthcare and education, so we can actually and honestly say "you're poor because you don't try." we can't say that with honesty today. if we don't actually have everyone STARTING on level ground. the ideal of meritocracy requires everyone to start at roughly the same spot. then, indeed, you can criticize people for being poor, and laud people for being rich. rather than our increasing classist reality in the usa of a shirnking middle class, a rich kid who cannot fail and does nothing, and a poor person who cannot succeed and works his ass off

in fact, the usa is not the world leader in social mobility, the ability of the poor to get ahead by hard work

that title goes to "gasp" nordic countries, evil "socialist" countries, where people are happier and richer than "capitalist" america, which really isn't capitalist in the meritocratic sense, but more like plutocratic rent-seeking, social darwinistic fuck-you-i-got-mine-die-in-the-street america

Comment: Re:Educational software (Score 1) 205

it's overheated technophilia

if their idea is for software to guide children's education rather than, you know, teachers, they are proposing subpar education

just copy finland

finnish education is amongst the best in the world and has a number of novel differences that beg inspection and perhaps adoption

and they don't automate education like a drone flightplan

Comment: Re: i don't understand the premise of the post (Score 1) 250

why are you amazed and dismayed at people reacting to a threat?

why aren't you amazed and dismayed at the loser douchebag making the threat?

who needs to threaten people except a malicious person or a stupid and violent person?

most of it is empty, yes, until one asshole delivers. so you have to take it seriously as no one socially normal or well-intentioned makes violent threats

it is MEANT to cause fear

that's the actual problem genius!

that's how freedom is curtailed: by making you question your safety where you should feel secure

Comment: Re: i don't understand the premise of the post (Score 1) 250

franklin's quote is ridiculously overused because security of course is a necessary thing in this world. it of course can go to far, but what amazes me are internet tough guys who think all prudent responsible reaction to threats is hysterical overreaction. these same internet tough guys will be going "the police heard the threats, why didn't they do anything!" because such losers don't argue form the position of right or wrong or logical coherence, just empty criticism without any intelligence or integrity

The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work. -- Richard Bach, "Illusions"