RSS Feed

‘rants’ Category

  1. testing administration

    June 24, 2006 by Saar Drimer

    Exam administration in large is fundamentally flawed because it
    1) tests mostly for memory capability rather than analytical ability, and
    2) tests for performance under extreme pressure.

    Both are very bad metrics for predicting the academic ability of a person because in the real-world these conditions are rarely present, BOCTAOE. And sure, memory is somewhat of an indicator for capability but not without the other (and besides, we now have Google to compensate.) Einstein said that “education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.” In other words, education = understanding, not memory.

    I’m a poor test taker, so you might question my motivation for changing the system although I honestly feel that what I propose is fair for all and a much better indicator for capability than current methods.

    All exams should be
    1) open material (anything paper allowed except for the one in front of the person sitting next to you,) and
    2) loosely bounded by time (say, x3 the present settings.)

    This will allow for
    1) hard questions based on understanding rather than memory, and
    2) elimination of the pressure element that is a differentiation factor that has very little to do with real life requirements.

    The only down side to this is that it requires more work from the people who write the exams, which is the very reason why it will never be implemented. I had two teachers at UC Santa Cruz who implemented the above; they were the best educators I have ever had (if you are curious who they are, email me.)


  2. nuts

    June 8, 2006 by Saar Drimer

    I’m nuts (some say; one did just today!) but not allergic to them. If I was, I’d be confused by the following labeling on this Tesco-generic “full fat soft cheese”:

    nuts

    So, I think they are trying to tell us that there are no nuts in the cheese, but in case you die, they are not liable; so don’t come knocking. Would a person allergic to nuts eat this? I don’t know (I can tell you that if you are contemplating, take it on the safe side because the cheese wasn’t very good anyway and it’s just ain’t worth it.)

    And what the hell does “Ingredients: Cannot guarantee nut free” suppose to mean? I’ve never seen the ingredients list take the negative form.


  3. scientology=hollywood

    March 19, 2006 by Saar Drimer

    It’s all over the place; the aftermath of “Trapped in the closet” South Park episode (view here.) Links to get up-to-date on this incredibly logical and attractive cult: scientology, operation clambake, evil Xenu, costs and illustrated history of scientology [PDF].

    I’ve spent a few hours reading into this bad joke (actually, a joke would be a compliment) and it occurred to me that there are a lot of similarities between its ways and hollywood.

    - Scientology (S): First 6 months free without giving you any of the details… these are only revealed piecemeal as you pay to go through the ranks. Preconditioning.
    - Hollywood (H): The trailer.

    - S: Large sums required to get in the know, only to find out it’s utter crap ($360K, to be exact.)
    - H: The movie.

    - S: The shittiest plot ever. Come on! DC-8′s with jet engines? In space?
    - H: Doesn’t need explanation.

    - S: Congregation of rich people who think that they are the best thing that ever happened to this world/universe/man-kind.
    - H: The Oscars.

    - S: Out of touch with reality.
    - H: Well, hollywood.

    Now, I ask you, is it any surprise that the feeble minded hollywood folk are buying into this? Literally, they are spending their easily earned money on this Xenu story. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, the creator of this establishment said in 1940, “Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.” THEY STILL PAY UP!


  4. I hate Hollywood or “Munich 2″

    February 18, 2006 by Saar Drimer

    No, unlike everything Hollywood, I would be surprised if they come up with a Munich sequel… but, stranger things have happened (did I say Rocky VI?) I’m more referencing to my previous post about Munich.

    I haven’t seen the movie yet and probably never will. I hate Hollywood. If they decide to make a movie about the “New World” or “Kingdom of Heaven” in attempts to popularize (i.e. alter/shape the view of the masses of) history, fine, I’ll be able to stomach it. But, when they aim their grubby paws on something that I care about, it makes me sick. Oh, boy, that rant came out stronger than I expected, but I’m not editing it.

    Zvi Zamir was the head of the Mossad during the Munich tragedy and the subsequent years. He’s given a first interview (to an Israeli newspaper) and has some interesting things to say and myths to dispel. There is no doubt, this sudden openness was motivated by Spielberg’s fantasies manifested in the “crappy movie.” I’ll believe Zamir before I take the word of someone motivated by the Oscars any day.

    Here’s the thing. I hate Hollywood. Why? Because it all boils down to Cowboys and Indians. The simple recipe of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly mixed with revenge has not evolved from the heyday of the great westerns. Think about it and you’ll notice that most Hollywood movies are dumbed down to fit this scheme.

    Did I say I hate Hollywood?


  5. King Kong of utter boredom

    January 2, 2006 by Saar Drimer

    Since it got some decent reviews, I went and saw King Kong. I expect very little intellectual stimulation from Hollywood; However, I do anticipate some entertainment. This movie provided neither. It’s a 3 hour boring, sleepy experience in 3 acts… 1) get to secret island 2) stun and haul KK to NYC and 3) Kill KK… each phase taking about an hour. Yawn.

    I heard a guy on TV say that “King Kong is the state of the art in special effects at the end of 2005.” And here lies the problem. I first realized it while reading Maddox‘ insight on Star Wars III:

    NEWS FLASH: Episode III had no special effects.

    They’re not “special effects” anymore when they’re found in EVERY SCENE. Lucas has done the seemingly impossible: he has made something that was once so unique that people called it “special” by name, and turned it into something so ordinary that nobody raises an eyebrow during a scene where a guy is having a sword fight on the back of a giant beast.

    Fact is, there is no more “special” in “special effects.” What used to “wow” us and covered up for crap storyline and bad acting is over. King Kong is the ultimate example since the CGI is the story here, not anything else. They had 3 hours of good CGI and they stretched the story thin to accommodate it. The b-level actors didn’t help either. Hollywood is busy blaming everybody else for their losses except themselves for producing crap, but now the “special” well has dried up too.

    I’ve learned another important thing from this movie: people run as fast as giant apes and dinosaurs. The movie accurately shows, in many a scene, that this has to be true. The scientific community is taking note.


  6. microsoft usability rant for the new year

    January 1, 2006 by Saar Drimer

    Looking for a way to encrypt some of my directories and files I remembered that MS offered the Encrypting File System (EFS) in stock Windows. When I got to the “Advanced” dialog the encryption option was greyed out as seen below.

    windows encryption disabled

    Given the way it’s presented, I assumed it needs to be enabled somewhere, or that I, of course, had done something wrong. After much frustration and searching I found that this feature is not available in WinXP Home edition (that’s what I got with my laptop, so don’t tell me I should have chosen a different OS; if Dell had offered Linux/No-OS I would have chosen that.)

    Clearly, Microsoft chose the worst possible way of letting me know this. Given the choice of 1) not showing the option at all, 2) putting a little note saying “not available in this version” or 3) enabling this damn feature… they chose to grey it out. WTF were they thinking? Oh, maybe thinking wasn’t involved here.

    What do you use for directory/file/HDD encryption?


  7. annoying arguing tactics

    December 23, 2005 by Saar Drimer

    In a recent weblog post, Scott Adams wrote:

    …when anyone brings into the debate Hitler, or the slippery slope, or guilt by association arguments, I consider that a victory by knockout too. And if someone ignores a simple and direct question, that’s the cleanest victory there is.

    How true is that? Here’s my commentary:

    Hitler: Godwin’s Law states “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” This is true in real life too. In a (unrelated) debate, when someone brings up the Holocaust, Hitler or the Nazis I end the exchange there and then, usually walking away. People use this tactic when they run out of arguments and resort to the most extreme event in history as a “good example.” It’s not only inappropriate, it can’t lead anywhere.

    Slippery slope: This is a tactic to move away from the topic at hand so that Hitler could be used as a trump. We’re not slippering sloping anywhere. One of the hardest things to do in an argument is to stay on topic and the most frustrating one to people who don’t know what they are talking about.

    Guilt by association: Enter stupidity. Is anyone arguing with that?

    Here’s my addition:

    Generalization: “Don’t generalize” is an annoying retort to which I answer “I can’t go check one by one.” Seriously, can any debate be had without generalization? We wouldn’t get anywhere if we needed to ask every living person if tomatoes are red.

    My problem with these argument-unfriendly tactics is not that I can’t answer to them. The problem is that I immediately feel that it’s a complete waste of time. I therefore choose who to argue with very carefully and don’t argue with strangers. I also do my best to argue about things I am knowledgeable about… I wish more people felt that this was a prerequisite too.


  8. why I’m giving up on non-moderated social bookmarking (and most likely going back to slashdot)

    December 20, 2005 by Saar Drimer

    A few weeks ago I’ve written some criticism of reddit.com that got some attention and was moderated up quite a bit over there (it’s at a 105-point standstill and now off the top page.) I was happy to know that people mostly agreed with what I had to say and in general responded in a positive manner. I could write more about the aftermath of that post, but it’s no use… I’m giving it up socially “democratic” bookmarking services. (I know I am using this term loosely, so don’t get all caught up on the definitions.)

    Let me explain…

      1. It doesn’t work. Most of the links are crap not worth the time clicking and reading. Since these services are not moderated, the content quality is poor. “But Saar, that’s why the readers moderate the links — to weed out the bad ones.” Well, that’s the idea, but in practice, we all have different likings and a (social bookmarking) site that is “everything new” (reddit) or even “everything geek” (digg) just doesn’t work. Democracy doesn’t work here, and hey, it shouldn’t…
      2. It doesn’t work 2 (maybe.) I don’t have the statistics to back this up, but the admins of those sites must, so chime in. My intuition tells me that there are many more submissions than eyes looking for good content. Someone can post 15 articles in a row (I’ve seen this happen) and immediately shove everything before it to oblivion. Even the greatest content wouldn’t have a chance to shine. If it was my site, I would limit one submission per 10 minutes or per 10 other submissions. “Whoa? But that’s moderation! Moderation baaaaaad…”
      3. People don’t read the articles. From my experimentation — and from the shaming fact that I do it myself — people mostly moderate based on the title and the domain the link is from rather than content. People flame and demote self-posting while I don’t see anything wrong with that… if something is good, it shouldn’t matter who submitted it. I truly don’t think content is evaluated in a fair manner.
      4. Repeats and similar content. If there is a popular link, many “copycats” appear almost instantly… same item from a different source or a different spin. Some of those don’t get “socially” filtered; no good.
      5. Old news. Yesterday, I had an embarrassing incident. I forwarded a BBCNews link I got from reddit to a fellow blogger to write about. Turns out he already did, 10 months ago! I didn’t even look at the date and assumed it was fresh news (after all, “reddit: what’s new online” says the title.) It wasn’t, and I was left feeling stupid. Lesson learned, but reddit got moderated down a notch in my book although realistically it is not entirely their fault; I should have looked at the date.

    Overall, within the last few weeks I have concluded that non-moderated social bookmarking of the reddit type are a time-wasting hype that will soon (i.e. 9-12 months) make way to some other hype and be forgotten. Bold statement, some may say, based on the fact that Yahoo! just purchased del.icio.us for $25mil… but I’m sticking to it (del.icio.us isn’t the same as reddit/digg, to be fair.) People (with lack of time to spare) will soon want to go back to the good-ol’ days of moderated content providers (i.e. slashdot,) with all their shortcomings of the occasional dupes and some old content. Admit it though, in general it does the job very well. Why? Because it is specialized and moderated! No silly news and content about why Bush burped in China, 10 Mind-Numbing Quotes By Tom Delay, Lindsey Lohan’s constant expression, the next 1.2234GB iPod Nano or why Python eats Lisp for breakfast with AJAX sprinkled on top. I don’t care about that crap. When I do want crap news I visit CNN or BBC.

    Just to be clear and avoid some flaming from the minions: social bookmarking is a good thing… but not for me, not anymore and I’m willing to wager I am not the only one. At the end of the day, the whole “social” part doesn’t work in sifting through the content to bring out the best. Nonetheless, I will keep self-posting content that I believe is good because it is great for traffic and exposure.

    So, I’m giving up reddit, digg and all the rest and getting my geek news from slashdot with the horrific two day delay after everyone and their grandmother blogged about them in the “blogosphere.” The rest of my info needs I get on demand from Google and from my favorite weblogs.


  9. a bit on cigarette warnings…

    December 16, 2005 by Saar Drimer

    skull cigarette boxI remember hearing an Israeli comedian many years ago say that even if they had cigarettes in a black pack with a skull and cross-bones on it, people would still wait eagerly in line to buy the new cool brand.

    Some warnings are effective and some are not. In a recent trip the following one caught my eye:

    ineffective cigarette warning

    How ineffective is that? Do you know what each of those mean? Let’s see… benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide. If you need to consult an encyclopedia or take a graduate level chemistry class to help you understand a warning label, I call that ineffective. Maybe the idea was to frighten people with scary “book-learnin’” names. “Smoking Kills” has a much greater punch and there’s a less effective version: “Smoking can kill”… wait, what? “Hey guys, the’re ain’t sure ’bout them cigarettes killin’ people… light-em if you got-em!” Another effective suggestion is found here [halfbakery.com] and is along the lines of…

    “i smoke to compensate my tiny todger”, or “i smoke because i have a pathetic lack of will power”…

    Canada introduced more effective picture based warning in 2000 that seem to show results. I think the visuals have a great impact on kids, where it matters the most.

    During my search for info on this topic I found this horrific story from 1999. Anyone willing to guess how many packs a day the kid and wife are smoking today? There are some things I just don’t get… smoking is one of them.


  10. Reddit karma junky? link to Reddit praise, Dilbert, Paul Graham, Lisp…

    December 7, 2005 by Saar Drimer

    I like Reddit; I was skeptical at first, but it won me over. I don’t bother that much with slashdot or digg as much as I used to. The simple interface, no comments and up/down moderation is the right combination.

    Things have changed at Reddit in the last few months due to increase in users, — I’m not talking about the conversion to Python, a fact that I couldn’t care less about, but seemed to rock that little world for odd reasons — you can no longer get karma boosts from random news articles from BBCNEWS or CNN. This is a good thing, because if I want news articles from them I’ll go there directly, I don’t need Reddit as the middlesite.

    The flip side is that these days literally every post from some weblogs are being submitted and moderated up. Examples are Dilbert, Schneier, Paul Graham and freaknomics to name a few. These are the best blogs around, no doubt, and highly popular (yes, I know Graham’s not a proper weblog.) Do we need Reddit to keep linking to them? Once or twice is enough, the rest I can get directly if I like it. It’s clogging the nice interface. When I see articles from popular weblogs (some of which I read,) I moderate the link down regardless of how I liked them (Adams’ and Graham’s posts are consistently awesome, but I still moderate them down.)

    In short, I want Reddit to inform me of original content I wouldn’t otherwise get to. It does. Some of the time. Linking and encouraging links to highly popular weblogs/news outlets is not going in the right direction.

    The other thing that bothers me is the incestuous self feeding at Reddit. Think about slashdot linking to itself, or to an article saying how great it is. Legitimate, but unpleasing. I can’t figure why people moderate these posts skywards. Early on, I submitted “reddit.com” just to see what happens… people moderated me down to oblivion.

    So, are you a karma junky? Why worry about how the algorithm works? Link to Reddit praise, Dilbert, Paul Graham or Bush bashing.

    My current Karma is 230, I’m going to link to this post, I’ll update what that figure looks like after the hoards of Reddit zealots find this offensive or informative. Who knows. Who cares.