Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,411 - 5,422 of 6,170
Bonjour tout le monde !! y a t 'il quelqu'un svp qui pourrait un peu m'expliquer le fonctionnement de ce site ? je croyais que c'était un site où l'on pouvait créer un avatar animé avec une certaine intelligence artificielle mais je pense que c pas çà .... pffffff
Pouvez vous svp m'aider (en français si possible) d'avance MERCIIIIIII
Posts 5,411 - 5,422 of 6,170
I've never taught high school and have no intention of doing so. In the math classes I teach, I get a lot of nontraditional students. They KNOW that they've spent money on the class, and want to make the most of it. The ones coming straight out of high school are often more problematic.
One thing that really annoyed me was when it was obvious two students were studying for another class (looked like bio) who were whispering back and forth to each other. As I don't take attendance, there was no reason for them to be there. I finally told them to take it out in the hall if they were going to talk. That shut them up for the rest of the class.
One thing that really annoyed me was when it was obvious two students were studying for another class (looked like bio) who were whispering back and forth to each other. As I don't take attendance, there was no reason for them to be there. I finally told them to take it out in the hall if they were going to talk. That shut them up for the rest of the class.
I was at NCSU, an engineering school, so maybe had I been at UNC or Duke, my kids' attitudes and aptitudes would've been different.
And, having given up the job of grammar witch, I rarely feel the urge to correct. I grew up in the mountains of North Carolina, so, although I pretty much KNEW correct grammar, I didn't use it. I always told my kids that this was a writing class, not a speaking class, and so there might be mistakes on either end. Only in formal papers do I turn into a grammar witch.
I was too soft on the kids. I have two much-loved cousins who are now 19 and 21. I always saw Warren and Jenna in the kids, or tried to. I knew that there were more important things in their lives, like babies, mothers in prison, abusive relationships. For some reason, English teachers seem to be the chosen shoulders to cry on.
And, having given up the job of grammar witch, I rarely feel the urge to correct. I grew up in the mountains of North Carolina, so, although I pretty much KNEW correct grammar, I didn't use it. I always told my kids that this was a writing class, not a speaking class, and so there might be mistakes on either end. Only in formal papers do I turn into a grammar witch.
I was too soft on the kids. I have two much-loved cousins who are now 19 and 21. I always saw Warren and Jenna in the kids, or tried to. I knew that there were more important things in their lives, like babies, mothers in prison, abusive relationships. For some reason, English teachers seem to be the chosen shoulders to cry on.
Clerk: funny, I turn into a grammar spelling witch on formal papers too since I reason they have time and can run spellcheck.
Ulrike, isn't it odd that people think they are invisible and no one around them sees (or hears) them if they come to class? If they are there, they get super secret credit while studying bio. Win-win. Some people log into optional seminars and obviously walk away from their computers once their name is in the chat room. They pay the same amount as the students who learned something, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Ulrike, isn't it odd that people think they are invisible and no one around them sees (or hears) them if they come to class? If they are there, they get super secret credit while studying bio. Win-win. Some people log into optional seminars and obviously walk away from their computers once their name is in the chat room. They pay the same amount as the students who learned something, so I guess it doesn't matter.
This is sort of relating back to what the Clerk was saying.
It's been shown that those who are generationally poor (ie have been stuck in poverty all their lives, as were their parents etc) do not view education as a way of breaking out of the cycle, and are more interested in immediate relief of the symptoms of it (ie having fun wherever they can find it, even if that means they stuff up things for others in a class) than in curing the disease, which they tend to believe can't be cured. It can make them near impossible to teach, because what is valued by the middle class (and education is a middle class game) is not likely as valued by the lower.
Not suggesting this is a hundred percent true, and it doesn't apply as much to those that are "situationally" poor (ie made poor by more immediate causes like bankruptcy of the death of the primary breadwinner). I'm just reporting what research has shown. And teaching in a neighbourhood now which has switched over the last fifteen years from being a working class neighbourhood to a welfare class neighbourhood, I've seen enough of it first hand that I think the point is valid. I'll try and dig up the name behind the study if I can.
It's been shown that those who are generationally poor (ie have been stuck in poverty all their lives, as were their parents etc) do not view education as a way of breaking out of the cycle, and are more interested in immediate relief of the symptoms of it (ie having fun wherever they can find it, even if that means they stuff up things for others in a class) than in curing the disease, which they tend to believe can't be cured. It can make them near impossible to teach, because what is valued by the middle class (and education is a middle class game) is not likely as valued by the lower.
Not suggesting this is a hundred percent true, and it doesn't apply as much to those that are "situationally" poor (ie made poor by more immediate causes like bankruptcy of the death of the primary breadwinner). I'm just reporting what research has shown. And teaching in a neighbourhood now which has switched over the last fifteen years from being a working class neighbourhood to a welfare class neighbourhood, I've seen enough of it first hand that I think the point is valid. I'll try and dig up the name behind the study if I can.
Ho ho ho
Even MS can't make a Santa bot that isn't based on a perve bot.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/03/santa_filth_outrage/
They fixed it now (and I do feel bad for the kids that got the cyber Santa); however, I now feel better about Gabi telling some jerk she loves him when he says something inappropriate.
Even MS can't make a Santa bot that isn't based on a perve bot.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/03/santa_filth_outrage/
They fixed it now (and I do feel bad for the kids that got the cyber Santa); however, I now feel better about Gabi telling some jerk she loves him when he says something inappropriate.
Maybe it was a modified Alice clone or something. Not that Alice says things like that, but a clone that was then turned into Santa might.
Yeah, I was thinking the chatter repeated "eat it" to trigger some sort of KP for oral sex that was in the base personality (in the way the PF will give us those odd synonyms or spell check matches ever so often). Also, the insult was clearly repeating back what the chatter said.
Yet another reason to stop bothering my bots for more than stories:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu0TXl15PgU
Don't Date Robots!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu0TXl15PgU
Don't Date Robots!
Pouvez vous svp m'aider (en français si possible) d'avance MERCIIIIIII
Irena if you are out there still (or any physics buff who cares to answer), can you give me a "For Dummies" summary of quantum decoherance and environmental entanglement?
I am having a discussion with someone who is quoting "What the Bleep do we Know" as evidence to assert quantum computers would be able to pick up the user's intention and act on them when processing data. I told him it is amazing enough to get quantum computers to the point where they can process data all (which we admittedly have done) without trying to make crystal balls and magic wands out of them, but I think I should add more science to my argument. Help?
I am having a discussion with someone who is quoting "What the Bleep do we Know" as evidence to assert quantum computers would be able to pick up the user's intention and act on them when processing data. I told him it is amazing enough to get quantum computers to the point where they can process data all (which we admittedly have done) without trying to make crystal balls and magic wands out of them, but I think I should add more science to my argument. Help?
Last I heard, entanglement requires two particles that start out together in the same system. So unless the computer is streaming particles into your brain and back out, that seems extremely unlikely. I suppose you could try to argue that the wavefunctions from the particles in the computer are large enough to overlap with those in your brain, but, again, I've never heard of a system where that was true.
This might be more helpful:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html
This might be more helpful:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar