July 2024

S M T W T F S
 12 3456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
ritaxis: (hat)
Thursday, December 12th, 2013 09:58 pm
I do a lot of searches in an ordinary day. So I naturally have a lot of o[pinions about google.

This thing that google does -- where they highjack your search and replace it with something they thing you ought to be searching for instead but you're too stupid to have typed it correctly -- it bugs me no end. I've decided to complain every single time they do it, each time pointing out that I do, in fact, know what I am looking for.

I don't mind the suggestion "did you mean . . .?" it's the outright refusal to search what I asked for that pisses me off.

I've also decided not to take the aggressively misleading keyword practices of websites lying down anymore. Today I complained when a search for "vintage mothers day postcard" turned up an image of a woman crying over the body of a man whose head had been blown off. That is not a vintage mothers day postcard. ("mothers day" merited a mere "did you mean mother's day? rather than a highjack, by the way, while "googie motif" -- as in googie designs -- merited a highjack) And when the first hundred or so images for "Mexican Independence Day" returned mostly images for the fourth of July and a handful of racist jokes from the e-cards people, I sent feedback on that too. It's not that I expect a search engine to return none of those images. I just expect the first hundred images to be more accurate than that. If I say Mexican, I expect the results to be at least remotely exican. And you know? Images of the Alamo are not a good substitute. I understand why they would end up there (if the website has a narrative that includes both the Alamo and the Grito, which would be a reasonable thing to happen). But again, not all up in my first hundred instead of something to do with Sept.16 and the Grito, or May 5 and the mariachis and stuff.
ritaxis: (Default)
Saturday, January 12th, 2008 12:12 am
So my daughter has to take this physics class. She has to buy a two hundred dollar textbook. She can't share, or use a second-hand book, because the class also requires a thirty-dollar clicker ( a thing that you use to answer quizzes in class and to participate in various class exercises), which cannot be registered without the book. And in order to have the homework count, she has to pay another thirty dollars or so to register at the publisher's website.

This is an introductory physics class. It's a crucial class for, I think, most of the science majors.

Her textbooks, all told, come to over six hundred dollars. Did I ever tell you that at UCSC students take only three academic classes a quarter, because the quarters are so short, and the classes theoretically therefore so intense?

The kid has financial aid that covers all this, mainly because she lives at home.

Now imagine you are a young person whose family does not reside in town. Imagine that you are a good student but not the very best and not the cleverest at getting financial aid -- maybe the higher ed tradition is not so strong in your family and you're piecing this together with some financial aid and some low-wage kid jobs and you're living in a room somewhere -- maybe two or three students to a room in a house on the bus line, or maybe in a dorm or the "University Inn." Imagine what it means to you to be told that you have to spend over two hundred and fifty dollars on a single book and a bit of technological gimcrack that probably costs three dollars to assemble?

What do we think the physics department was thinking when they adopted a two-hundred dollar textbook for a class in Newtonian physics? ("ooh, shiny," most likely)

They sure weren't thinking about the much-talked about mandate to recruit and retain more science students from underrepresented groups, like, for example, students from working-class backgrounds.