jodoherty

I wouldn't necessarily suggest it, but imagine if this were implemented at the protocol level and handled with native code built into clients.

There could be a new HTTP request method called "SUBMIT" which works like a POST request except with an added step for proof of work. When making a SUBMIT request, the client opens a connection to the server, sends the initial request header with the SUBMIT method, and receives a proof of work challenge as an HTTP field in the server's response. The client then processes the challenge and sends its proof of work to the server which verifies it and sends an OK. Then the client sends its url-encoded data to the server, the server sends its response data, and the connection closes.

Then performance impact and behavior would be fairly uniform for all clients, especially if a standard library of problems and problem solving code were used by them, so you wouldn't have to worry about finding a problem that isn't too hard for poor Javascript implementations to solve while still being too easy for native code implementations in spamming tools to process. There could even be an added field for the server to inform the client what problem type is being used, allowing the addition of new problem types of different difficulty and performance requirements in the future without any more updates to the protocol.

Personally though, I don't like proof of work solutions. Sure, they add some computational cost to spamming, but the mass implementation and use of any proof of work solution would probably just create a new, lucrative market for botnet hackers to sell their services to. Besides that, it just feels like the wrong solution to me.

Good point. Thanks.

Operating an entire school building just to give teachers a continuous workspace and the ability to easily talk to their coworkers would be wastefully expensive anyway.

Do you remember the title or author of that book?

Just to clarify, do you mean that they're given access to school facilities properly compensated in pay during the summer?

I have to ask since I was describing the extra summer work in the context of what they're paid to do, not what they do in their free time.

I expect most good teachers already spend their own time, especially during the summer, planning and preparing things for their students, but I'm arguing that it should be institutionalized and they should be properly recognized and compensated for their work.

If it's already like that then I think my local school district must be different. The high school parking lots are empty whenever I drive by during the summer.

I find the dumbest sounding questions are usually the most important to ask because they often question the fundamental nature of the subject at hand.

In other words, computer programming is the new truck driving.

I actually think teachers shouldn't have entire summers off. That's a great time to review teaching methods and materials, prepare curriculum, hold teaching conferences, and other things that would free them up during the school year to focus more on class time. Trying to do those things after teaching hundreds of students all day long is really difficult. It's amazing to me that teachers even manage to do as well as they do.

Moving to yearlong schooling with a shorter summer break and a longer winter break, plus longer breaks between each quarter would be better though. Students who aren't exposed to reading and writing English at home wouldn't slowly fall behind year after year due to the long summer vacations.

I have to agree with you though. The policy makers do more harm than good, but the truth is that by setting some bureaucratic benchmark, they feel they can wash their hands of any responsibility on the matter without spending more money on education.

The problem with these standardized benchmarks is that they only punish students and schools for cumulative educational deficiencies instead of allowing them to slow down and address them, so as students go from grade to grade, they're gradually robbed of the education they should have had.

I think the current educational goal of having all students meet some standard benchmark of academic achievement is flawed. Instead, we should simply try teaching students as much as they can learn at the pace at which each student learns best, or better yet, teach them a love of learning and the ability to continue learning on their own. If that means slowing down the curriculum for some students, then so be it. It's better that they master what skills they can in the given time they have in school than to force them into more and more difficult material with an ever poorer and poorer foundation to work off of until they give up.

Honestly, we should only provide standard individual benchmarks to assess where an individual student stands in their development so that teachers can adjust the curriculum to match each student regardless of how well they know that student or where they came from. And then we should also give teachers the freedom, time, and flexibility to adapt to their students' individual needs.

The way it is now, we force teachers to treat students like products in an assembly line. The benchmark-based punishment and reward system we have now even incentivizes this treatment of students. It's sad.

Also, I'd suggest letting people set up tag filters without accounts. Even if they don't persist beyond a single visit, it allows users to see just how useful this tag concept is without any commitment, making them more likely to use the site. They'll also be more likely to sign up for an account since they already spent some time making a filter and might want to save it.

Click on Posts. See how it shows "All posts (unfiltered)"? Make that your front page. Put a tag cloud at the top. Change the page title to say "Share programming links and filter them with tags" instead of "your personalized view of the programming world."

It took me 5 minutes to figure out what your site was with all the vague copy writing everywhere, and that's only because I clicked on Posts. If you had simply presented the functionality of your site on the front page, I'd have known what it was right away.

Do you have to take so many courses? If you want to do well in your classes, you should be able to dedicate at least an hour or so outside of class to studying and homework for every hour of lecture time that you have. That gives you time to really get into the material and reinforce it in your own way.

Otherwise, you'd have to make a lot of compromises with things like hobbies, socializing and networking, mastery of the material, and even your personal health.

A good hobby and some socializing will ward off depression and keep you feeling upbeat and motivated. Friends can also support you when you're down. This is key to preventing burn outs.

Networking will give you the contacts you need to find opportunities to apply what you learn in school -- otherwise all you can do is apply to open job offers and try to compete resume to resume against all the other recent graduates many of whom will look exactly like you on paper.

A mastery of the material in earlier courses will make the future coursework and material much easier to grasp and work through. You can't do this if you're juggling too many courses and constantly worrying about grades. Think of it as a feedback loop -- the harder you make it to master the earlier course material, the harder the remaining courses will become. Learn to make the difficulty curve work for you, not against you.

Finally, maintaining your personal health will allow you to live a longer, better life. You'll look better, feel better, and more importantly, think better. You're young, so yes, you can bounce back from a bad year or two, but get into a habit of taking good care of yourself now and never compromise on it. You'll thank yourself later.

Personally, I wouldn't compromise on any of these points for more than a year or two. You may get ahead in one aspect, only to set yourself back in another.

So don't be afraid to slow down. Burning out and getting in over your head will make your life miserable and difficult, but one extra year of school can make the next twenty years of your life that much easier.

Simply not having an interest in science or math already makes you a B student in those areas, since no matter how good you may be at them, eventually you'll hit a breaking point where the material is much harder than you can manage without having already practiced and honed all the previous material to a certain level of mastery.

I think the term "B-student" is just an effective way to identify to the reader students who wouldn't do well in math or science for any reason, whether environmental, motivational, or natural. That is, it brings about a connotation of someone who is smart enough to succeed at most things, but who can't compete head to head with students who specialize in a specific academic field.

It's hard to define, but the term's usefulness comes from its general connotation and the associated imagery, not its definition.

I think the takeaway here is that these individuals, whatever you call them, should focus more on learning skills that will allow them to compete laterally by creating opportunities for themselves and others rather than learning to be superficially cultured or trying compete for existing opportunities head to head with others who are more specialized and talented in their respective field.