Printable View
I read recently that cycle lanes on roads cause motorists to drive too close to cyclists and cause accidents. The reason given was that the motorist starts to note the lane and not the cyclist. We don't have many here in Coventry, so it's not too much of a problem. I still tend to use the backstreets when I'm off across town.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I think you need to think about it the other way around - motorists are more likely to give someone who appears to be an inexperienced cyclist a wider berth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Oh I agree about traffic and the city. If I cycled through a city I'd definitely wear a helmet, though the likelihood is I wouldn't choose to cycle at all. Too dangerous. It's very quiet and very sedate where I live :)
What? Are you trying to bump me off ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Just the other day we had in the news how New York City has the most pedestrian deaths in the US. I'm not sure if that was based on shear quantity of deaths or as a percentage of the population. We probably have three times the population of any other city, so just going by total is not a correct measurement. But it can be hectic. It doesn't seem like it's any different to me than any other city, except perhaps the number of high traffic streets might be more than others. The traffic in London seemed about the same as New York. The traffic in Rome seemed worst!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Makes sense on the wider berth.
No, I only wish the best for people. :)Quote:
What? Are you trying to bump me off ;)
Winston Churchill's iconic "fight them on the beaches" speech did not make the grade when it was marked by a computer system, exam experts have said.
And extracts from modern classics such as Lord of the Flies by William Golding and a novel by Ernest Hemingway also failed to impress the computer.
All were marked down by a US program designed to assess students' essays.
UK exam boards and the qualifications development agency are experimenting with similar procedures.
At the moment, in the UK, computers are used only to mark some GCSE multiple-choice exam papers, in which there are right and wrong answers.
But exam boards are working on systems which would allow pupils to sit their exams online and for them to be marked by computer.
The agency responsible for developing such things - QCDA - has also run trials.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8356572.stm
So much for valuing the judgemental abilities of computers. I think spell-check also should go the way of the dodo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
And in news of the completely bizarre kind, corpses are to be caned before burial as a warning to the living.
It's not the computer, it's the programming. perhaps there's an interesting correllation between the attitude to literature of computer scientists, and the judgements of the computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Computers marking literature exams are less sophisticated than chess-playing computers a decade before Big Blue beat Garry Kasparov.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Assessing writing is so subjective, which might also be a plus in some respects for computer marking. It's certainly time consuming. I suppose a human would be better at assessing more experimental pieces, and probably humourous content too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
I suspect that the reason that the ability to write good prose and good dialogue go hand in hand is simply that a good writer knows how to listen. Qualities that a computer does not have.
How would the computer gauge the emotion within the writing? It's not just writing but context, cultural context. A human being from a different culture may not even see the impact of Churchill's fight them on the beaches speach. I suspect a comnputer cannot capture and quantify the emotion and context within the writing.
By the way, that's such a great speech it deserves quoting:
http://www.putlearningfirst.com/lang...het/chill.htmlQuote:
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Virgil. Another of my favourites was:
"After the end of the First World War, there opened up in the life of the German people a tremendous void. And after a pause, there strode into that void a maniac of ferocious genius, the repository & self-expression of the most virulent hatred that has ever corroded the human breast. Corporal Hitler!"
I wonder if that computer would give Pygmalion an F. :p
Oh one could have an endless list of great Churchill quotes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN
I have this one committed to memory:
Quote:
Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never in nothing great or small, large or petty never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.
Virgil. Do you know the one when he addressed the troops in North Africa?
" I speak to you today from this famous ampitheatre in Carthage, where once the air was rent by the screams of Christian virgins as they were devoured by the Roman lions"
" Upon reflection, I may not be a lion. But then I am certainly not a virgin!"
Can you even imagine any of our current day politicians coming out with that?
Similarly, when he crossed the Rhine during the last big do, he had all the Chiefs of Staff line up and pee in that great river. He turned to Field Marshall Allenbrooke and said: " I've been meaning to do that for a long time!'