Hey all, seems that it has been awhile since I've posted anything here.
The Not-quite-as-heartless-as-previously-supposed Siren and I are currently in California looking for a place to live. I've accepted a job with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and will begin in July after we get married. Since I have a Spring term course, this week (between semesters) was really the only chance we'd get to come out and look at places and let TNQAHAPSS see California (she's never been before).
LLNL is providing some nice relocation benefits, including paying for this trip (reimbursed after I start work), unfortunately since we're not married yet only my expenses would be covered. So we drove out rather than flying. They'll pay my mileage for driving here and back, and it really doesn't cost anymore to have a second person in the car. Chloe (my Honda Civic) is holding up well on the trip (though needs the bugs cleaned off the front end). The first tank of gas from Provo to Winnemucca, NV got 39+ mpg, and the second tank, from Winnemucca to Sunnyvale, got 42+ mpg.
We spent Monday looking at the two places that got the best reviews on apartmentratings.com. We got applications from them, filled them out and dropped them off on Tuesday. Neither place knows if they'll actually have any openings in July, but they took the applications, will process them, and put us on the waiting list. When they found out I'd be working for LLNL they were much more eager to accommodate our situation. It would seem that these Managers have understood that if your tenants can pass an FBI background check and are able to obtain a Top Secret level security clearance that they probably won't give you any trouble. So we're hoping that one or the other place will have an opening and let us know toward the end of May.
If neither has any spots, well... it gets trickier. All the other complexes that have reviews do not get great marks from the reviewers. We may end up renting a house or something. Our plan is to rent something for about 6 months, while we search for a house to buy. In those 6 months we'll be able to put together a down payment, research the area, become part of the LLNL credit union, and go through the entire process without getting stressed about needing a place to live quickly. There are quite a few foreclosures in the area which we will be able to pickup for cheap. The area we're looking at is called Mountain House, and has foreclosures listing in the low 200,000's which sold 4 years ago for 600,000+.
Hopefully we'll pick up something for "cheap" now, thing will recover, and in the future when we are re-evaluating our life situation we might be able to sell at a considerable profit if desired.
Oh, the wedding will be June 23. We're getting married in the Boston Temple. YAY!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Thursday, April 02, 2009
That Old Saying...
So, you know that old saying, "The family that prays together, stays together"? There's another, lesser known saying along the lines of, "The family that runs a prostitution ring together, goes to jail together."[ksl.com]
LINDON -- Police have busted a Utah County prostitution ring, complete with the names of more than 1,000 clients. The investigation began last month when a man went to the house for a legitimate massage and was offered much more....
Detectives are reviewing an extensive client list that goes back to 2007. The list details dates, sexual acts performed and fees paid by each client -- some of whom, police say, are prominent people.Note: If you're going to keep a detailed ledger of your illegal activities, at least have the decency to encrypt it, or follow the mafia's example and use code words. Friggin' amateur criminals.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Whoops
I was checking my old hotmail account today and when I log out it takes me to the MSN home page. I found it rather humorous that the main image on the screen was linking to this:
Microsoft prominently running an article about what free software you can use to replace expensive Microsoft software. HA!
Microsoft prominently running an article about what free software you can use to replace expensive Microsoft software. HA!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Getting Married!
This news just in:
Curious Physics Minor and The Heartless Siren to Wed!
Details are sketchy, but this engagement has been confirmed by multiple sources. Here are our exclusive pictures of the ring:
Curious Physics Minor and The Heartless Siren to Wed!
Details are sketchy, but this engagement has been confirmed by multiple sources. Here are our exclusive pictures of the ring:
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Teachers' Unions
In the comments on that previous post about Teachers' Unions, Katya raised a point I'd like to give further justice than just a reply in the comments:
There are, of course, some unique challenges with determining the quality of a teacher. Their success will have some correlation with the success of the students they teach, however exactly what, or how strong, that correlation is would be difficult to determine. What bugs me is the Union's stance against merit based incentives of any kind. Their opinion seems to be "There's no perfect way of doing it, so we won't allow any merit based incentives". If you buy into this type of reasoning, then there's really no reason to ever do anything. You'll rarely, if ever, be able to do something perfectly. This is true of some very important things. Like voting: The Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem (in association with Arrow's Impossibility Theorem) proves that no voting system is fair. So, by the logic of the Union, we shouldn't bother with voting either, because we can't do it perfectly.
Obviously, such an approach to life is rather limiting. In pretty much every aspect of our lives we accept solutions which are less than optimal simply because perfect solutions are either impossible to find or the necessary effort required to find them outweighs the usefulness of having them.
But, how do you measure the quality of a teacher? Any such measurement will need to include a subjective evaluation from students, other teachers, and administrators. So you'll need a way of dealing with the subjectivity of these evaluations and prevent them from turning into political games and popularity contests. I'm not exactly sure how you go about doing this. I'm sure there are lots of people that work in subjective survey taking that have some good ideas on the matter though. All such evaluations would be anonymous, of course, to prevent retaliation and gaming the system.
Part of this, I think, could be to include "down-the-road" evaluations. Have students fill out a very simple evaluation of how good they think the teacher was a year after having had them. (In very controlled systems like public education I wouldn't think this would be too hard to organize). Then you can get some larger picture perspective from students, who otherwise might be bitter about a final grade or something.
You can't grade performance simply on students' grades. That would further increase the amount of GPA bloat already existing. Creating an outside exam creates the same problem we already have with standardized testing: teaching to the test. But you can include that as some part of the overall metric.
The most important thing, in my opinion, is to be sure that merit based incentives take a longer window than 1 year into account. A teacher may have a bad year, a bad group of students, or some other issue that comes up. However, if you take a 5 year span and see that student/peer/supervisor evaluations are consistently low, and student performance is consistently low, then you can probably start making a pretty good guess about the overall quality of that teacher. During those 5 years they can be encouraged to improve their teaching. If, however, they consistently show, during a 5 year span, that they just aren't cutting it, it's time to cut them loose.
This gives teachers plenty of time to get their act together, have a bad year, deal with a bad group of students, whatever, while still allowing school systems to reward teachers who consistently receive good evaluations.
If we really want to improve public education in this country the best thing we can do is remove the cruft from the teaching staff. I think we can all look back on our public education and remember teachers who were excellent as well as teachers that just sucked. Knowing that those excellent teachers will not be rewarded for their quality is frustrating and saddening.
Do you think there's anything about teachers' unions that makes them particularly bad? Maybe the quality of a teacher is harder to measure . . . or it's easier to blame shortcomings on the students.
There are, of course, some unique challenges with determining the quality of a teacher. Their success will have some correlation with the success of the students they teach, however exactly what, or how strong, that correlation is would be difficult to determine. What bugs me is the Union's stance against merit based incentives of any kind. Their opinion seems to be "There's no perfect way of doing it, so we won't allow any merit based incentives". If you buy into this type of reasoning, then there's really no reason to ever do anything. You'll rarely, if ever, be able to do something perfectly. This is true of some very important things. Like voting: The Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem (in association with Arrow's Impossibility Theorem) proves that no voting system is fair. So, by the logic of the Union, we shouldn't bother with voting either, because we can't do it perfectly.
Obviously, such an approach to life is rather limiting. In pretty much every aspect of our lives we accept solutions which are less than optimal simply because perfect solutions are either impossible to find or the necessary effort required to find them outweighs the usefulness of having them.
But, how do you measure the quality of a teacher? Any such measurement will need to include a subjective evaluation from students, other teachers, and administrators. So you'll need a way of dealing with the subjectivity of these evaluations and prevent them from turning into political games and popularity contests. I'm not exactly sure how you go about doing this. I'm sure there are lots of people that work in subjective survey taking that have some good ideas on the matter though. All such evaluations would be anonymous, of course, to prevent retaliation and gaming the system.
Part of this, I think, could be to include "down-the-road" evaluations. Have students fill out a very simple evaluation of how good they think the teacher was a year after having had them. (In very controlled systems like public education I wouldn't think this would be too hard to organize). Then you can get some larger picture perspective from students, who otherwise might be bitter about a final grade or something.
You can't grade performance simply on students' grades. That would further increase the amount of GPA bloat already existing. Creating an outside exam creates the same problem we already have with standardized testing: teaching to the test. But you can include that as some part of the overall metric.
The most important thing, in my opinion, is to be sure that merit based incentives take a longer window than 1 year into account. A teacher may have a bad year, a bad group of students, or some other issue that comes up. However, if you take a 5 year span and see that student/peer/supervisor evaluations are consistently low, and student performance is consistently low, then you can probably start making a pretty good guess about the overall quality of that teacher. During those 5 years they can be encouraged to improve their teaching. If, however, they consistently show, during a 5 year span, that they just aren't cutting it, it's time to cut them loose.
This gives teachers plenty of time to get their act together, have a bad year, deal with a bad group of students, whatever, while still allowing school systems to reward teachers who consistently receive good evaluations.
If we really want to improve public education in this country the best thing we can do is remove the cruft from the teaching staff. I think we can all look back on our public education and remember teachers who were excellent as well as teachers that just sucked. Knowing that those excellent teachers will not be rewarded for their quality is frustrating and saddening.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Stupid People want to Continue to be Stupid
KSL is reporting a blurb entitled: Not everyone happy about no texting-while-driving bill.
It rather boggles my mind that it is even necessary to pass laws prevent typing up text messages while driving. Making phone calls while driving is one thing, if you let the call take precedence over the driving you will probably end up in an accident, however you at least still have your eyes available to watch the road, and hand(s) to do stuff. But texting? You are necessarily removing your eyes from the road and distracting your brain and fine motor skills to type out a stupid message, and using one or both your hands to do it! Getting caught doing this should already cause you to get your license suspended for reckless driving.
And apparently there are people who believe their text message is so important that it absolutely cannot wait until they reach their destination. Who do these people think they are exactly?
Several months ago some friends and I were driving up to Salt Lake City. We were in the car pool lane and came up along a car that was swerving back and forth about half a car's width into the lanes on either side of it. We saw the girl driving it looking down at a cell phone held in her lap, using both hands to mess with it. We laid on the horn which startled her into looking up and correcting her steering into a single lane. Once she noticed we weren't a cop she promptly looked back down and began swerving again. [sigh] Stupid people. We should've called UHP, but didn't have the number. So frakkin' dangerous. GET OFF THE ROAD!
Some say they don't want all their driving time to be a waste. "You know, the text can wait. But it's just like, for me, pulling over would be just ridiculous," one man said.
It rather boggles my mind that it is even necessary to pass laws prevent typing up text messages while driving. Making phone calls while driving is one thing, if you let the call take precedence over the driving you will probably end up in an accident, however you at least still have your eyes available to watch the road, and hand(s) to do stuff. But texting? You are necessarily removing your eyes from the road and distracting your brain and fine motor skills to type out a stupid message, and using one or both your hands to do it! Getting caught doing this should already cause you to get your license suspended for reckless driving.
And apparently there are people who believe their text message is so important that it absolutely cannot wait until they reach their destination. Who do these people think they are exactly?
Several months ago some friends and I were driving up to Salt Lake City. We were in the car pool lane and came up along a car that was swerving back and forth about half a car's width into the lanes on either side of it. We saw the girl driving it looking down at a cell phone held in her lap, using both hands to mess with it. We laid on the horn which startled her into looking up and correcting her steering into a single lane. Once she noticed we weren't a cop she promptly looked back down and began swerving again. [sigh] Stupid people. We should've called UHP, but didn't have the number. So frakkin' dangerous. GET OFF THE ROAD!
Change. A little anyways.
CNN is reporting: U.S. reverses policy, drops 'enemy combatant' term. The big defense of the Bush Administration about indefinite detainment and arbitrary treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay was that the prisoners were "enemy combatants" and therefore not subject to the Geneva Convention nor to U.S. criminal law.
This convenient classification meant (according to the Bush Administration) that the prisoners actually had no rights or privileges of any kind and could be held with or without evidence and didn't have to be allowed to speak to an attorney or allowed a trial. From a country that claims to stand for freedom, justice, and the rule of law, this whole treatment seemed rather hypocritical to me. I wrote about it several times on my blogs.
I'm pleased to see that something is changing. These people should either be tried for their crimes or released. There is no middle ground. If they're prisoners of war, then well, honestly, you have problems with that designation because what war are they prisoners of? Iraq? We've claimed that the war in Iraq was "Mission Accomplished" therefore the prisoners should be released. Is it the "war on terror"? Because that's something that's impossible to end and designating prisoners as a prisoner of war in a war which cannot end (because it's not a real war) is really rather unfair.
So, here's to promoting the rule of law again (at least some parts of it).
This convenient classification meant (according to the Bush Administration) that the prisoners actually had no rights or privileges of any kind and could be held with or without evidence and didn't have to be allowed to speak to an attorney or allowed a trial. From a country that claims to stand for freedom, justice, and the rule of law, this whole treatment seemed rather hypocritical to me. I wrote about it several times on my blogs.
I'm pleased to see that something is changing. These people should either be tried for their crimes or released. There is no middle ground. If they're prisoners of war, then well, honestly, you have problems with that designation because what war are they prisoners of? Iraq? We've claimed that the war in Iraq was "Mission Accomplished" therefore the prisoners should be released. Is it the "war on terror"? Because that's something that's impossible to end and designating prisoners as a prisoner of war in a war which cannot end (because it's not a real war) is really rather unfair.
So, here's to promoting the rule of law again (at least some parts of it).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
