text:
Summer Help in Math

** Tutoring Program in College, High School Mathematics:
Call Rae Lynn Westby at Do the Math
for a free consultation: 509.325.MATH.

** Do your children need outside help in math?
Have them take a free placement test
to see which skills are missing.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Professional development in math should focus on math, not on pedagogy or materials

By Laurie H. Rogers
 Creativity springs unsolicited from a well prepared mind.”
“Fundamental knowledge is the basis of creativity.”
-- John Saxon, co-author of the Saxon Math textbook series

Recently, I asked Spokane Public Schools about the new professional development (PD) in math for teachers. I was sent a link to a district page where upcoming courses focus on the implementation of a new and unproved math curriculum, not on mathematics.
Chief Academic Officer Steven Gering said the district plans to teach fractions to teachers, and I’m glad to hear it. But those skills should always have been required. Fractions are a small "fraction" of what’s missing in the skill set of many K-8 teachers.

Where else but in our public schools are employees persistently deficient in necessary skills? Where else are they taught that pedagogy is infinitely more important than expertise in the subject? Where else are billions of our dollars used to train employees in skills they should have had before they were hired? Who in the private sector knowingly hires doctors who don’t understand medicine, contractors who don’t know how to build, or rocket scientists who don’t understand rocket science? Who would knowingly hire an endodontist who doesn’t know how to do a root canal?

It’s true that many teachers don’t understand enough math. I don’t blame them. They learned what they were taught.

I’ve been conversing with an assistant professor of education who maintains that constructivism is the best way to teach math. (Professors of education are largely in charge of educating the country's prospective teachers.) This assistant professor said substantial evidence supporting constructivism is easy to find, so I asked him for some. He sent me a few articles containing older, questionable methodology or anecdotal criticisms of a teacher. I pointed out to him the last 30 years of the failure of excessive constructivism. He responded:
I am interested in this country you speak of that has been in the grip of constructivism for 30 years. Most studies indicate that American classrooms incorporate few (if any) constructivist practices espoused by schools and colleges of education. ... What we do have, I would argue, is a fairly widespread attempt at ham-handed implementations of constructivist-oriented reforms. .... The mathematical and pedagogical knowledge needed to run a constructivist mathematics classroom is not possessed by most teachers now, or at any point in the last half-century ... (W)e graduate and hire most anyone with a pulse and a clean-ish criminal record. ... (A)s a whole our system in its current form couldn’t teach constructively if it wanted to. And it doesn’t even want to because it hasn’t seen much (if any) constructivist teaching.
This stance is typical. As our conversation continued, this man refused to acknowledge the problem and ducked most of what I told him. It wasn't long before he began to call me names. He is courteous in the way of many reformers: Ostensibly civil, yet still calling me a conspiracy theorist, "closed" to the conversation, "dogmatic" and even "indulging in intellectual dishonesty." I'm sure he sees himself as polite and restrained. His entire defense boils down to this: Constructivism works; they just aren't doing it right.

Avid proponents of constructivism typically seem certain that they’re correct, that they don’t have to prove anything, and that all problems are due to incompetent implementation. After 30 years and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent pushing fuzzy math and constructivism on public schools, they don’t see today’s nationwide math problem as due to fuzzy math and constructivism.

Many maintain their faith by denying the problem. Obvious academic failure is explained away or deemed to be irrelevant; they focus on an undefined notion of “deeper conceptual understanding.” (They ignore the fact that this “understanding” can’t be achieved without acquisition of skills.) When confronted with irrefutable evidence, they blame it on teachers, parents, students or society.

I don’t blame teachers. Most received garbage for math instruction – in K-12, in college and for years after they were hired. How could they teach math properly? They were taught that math is hard and that they don’t have to know math in order to teach it. (They must be so tired of being lied to.) Their training has intellectually disarmed them, their students and this country. These are unforgiveable sins.

If proponents of fuzzy programs and constructivism had to use math in the “real world,” and were held accountable for the results, they would have to modify their views. In the "real world," math is a tool, used to get a job done. What matters are clarity (understandable by others); efficiency (done relatively quickly); and accuracy (the result is correct). Math is a tool – like a hammer or drill. One doesn't come to consensus on the philosophy of a drill; one learns to use the drill and then one uses it.

We use math to help us cut the wood, build the bridge, fill the ditch, fire the rocket, heal the sick, fire the bullet, cook the food, calculate the pay, run the business, combine the chemicals, fly the plane, build the software, measure the floor, balance the checkbook, project the earnings, and balance the budget.

Math is critically necessary to the functioning of the country. A mathematically illiterate populace puts America’s future in jeopardy. K-12 math is inherently understandable and doable, but proponents of fuzzy math and excessive constructivism have made it incomprehensible.

Luckily, I was taught properly, and I refuse to be “disarmed” now. I’m engaging in some PD of my own. I recently picked up Saxon Algebra I and read it cover to cover. That was instantly helpful. I’m now doing the problems in Saxon Algebra II, chapter by chapter. I wondered if this PD would change my views, but it’s reinforcing everything I’ve been thinking about how math should be taught and learned.

“Deeper conceptual understanding" in K-12 math comes with knowledge and practice to mastery, not with pointless struggle and reinventing of the wheel. Efficiency on paper is critical; the calculator tends to get in the way of learning. Each day, as I work through another chapter, I think, "Oh, yes. Right. I see that now." Proper process is being reinforced for me; each time I cut a corner, I pay for it with an error. As I practice, I’m becoming faster, more efficient and more accurate. Recently I tweaked an algorithm to make it more efficient; this would not have come to me without skills and understanding.

Constructivists claim that the materials don’t matter (as they insist on fuzzy materials), and that it’s the teacher who matters. (This is how they duck criticism of their materials and blame everything on teachers.) But proficiency is gained via solid instruction, such as from textbooks that provide sufficient explanation and practice, examples, structure, and an incremental and logical progression of skills.

Below are some processes that are conducive to the development of solid math skills. (Proponents of fuzzy math and excessive constructivism typically refuse to implement these):
  • Direct instruction of sufficient material, emphasizing the most-efficient, most-effective processes (including long division; vertical multiplication; arithmetic; exponents; negatives; the number line; polynomials; fractions, decimals and percentages; the clock and the calendar; and proficiency with paper and pencil).
  • Practicing concepts to mastery, with constant refreshers of previously learned skills
  • Using good process:
    • Working vertically
    • Writing down the equation, filling in what’s known, solving for the variable, checking the work, making sure the question is answered
    • Writing clearly, separating equations from calculations
  • Going from simple skills to complex, working forward in a logical, linear fashion. (Classes should NOT begin in the middle of a math textbook)
Below are processes that tend to result in increased errors and misunderstandings. (Proponents of fuzzy math and excessive constructivism typically emphasize these):
  • Excessive use of mental math
  • Prioritizing methods and processes that are inefficient, confusing, nonstandard, not useful long-term, and complicated for children
  • Constant distractions through group work, discussion and premature “real-world application”
  • Dependence on calculators, classmates and achieving consensus, rather than emphasizing individual understanding and proficiency
  • Forcing children to “construct” their own methods, manage their own classmates, explain things to themselves, and understand concepts at a level that is wildly inappropriate for their age
  • Dependence on teachers who don’t understand math, refuse to correct or explain work, and don’t provide students with answers so that students can check their own work
  • Dependence on administrators who refuse to give textbooks to children, destroy solid materials by inserting loopy processes and philosophy, and force teachers to begin in the middle
The success and clarity achieved with direct instruction are motivating and empowering. The confusion, struggle and failure found in constructivist classrooms are spirit killers, producing students who hate and fear math. Many develop depression, panic and performance anxiety. Their constant hunt for consensus leads to distraction, dependence, insecurity and groupthink.

I’ve come to see fuzzy math and excessive constructivism as abusive. Indeed, the assistant professor described his own reeducation in math as “painful,” “brutal” and “ego-crushing.” Why would he want that for children? I can’t think of a reason to demand that children suffer. He insists his efforts are to benefit children, but he appears to be too far removed from classrooms, math, children and outcomes to understand how fuzzy math and excessive constructivism destroy skills, self-esteem and futures.

I would never do that to a student. Math should be enjoyable. Individual understanding and proficiency should be the goals. Direct instruction can easily incorporate laughter, play, practice and application. Students can work through the material, eating the elephant one incremental bite at a time. Over and over I see students relax as they realize I'm not going to make them reinvent it. They smile. They gain confidence. They tend to say, "I get it. I can do this." It's the nature of direct instruction.

Doing the math I’ve done has reinforced what I knew. The truth is evident in the children. Thirty years of fuzzy math programs and constructivism have led us here, to a nation that can't do much math.

It's no wonder that Eastern Washington University decided in 2011 to disband its masters in math. After two decades of fuzzy math and excessive constructivism in surrounding school districts, it's likely that few high school graduates were able to get through the EWU program. Sadly, the EWU situation reflects just the tip of the national math iceberg. We are clinging to the edge of a grim precipice that teeters over complete national mathematical illiteracy.

All K-12 teachers and parents should have received at a minimum the instruction I did, but it isn’t too late. Take a placement test so you can assess your level and start teaching yourself. Buy a textbook online or at a secondhand bookstore. You don’t need highlighter pens, sticky notes, butcher paper or group work. All you need is about $15 and some time. (Teachers will have to do it on their own because their district is not likely to give them this PD, nor is Bill Gates, Pearson Education, the Broad Foundation, the Common Core, Texas Instruments, EngageNY, Arne Duncan, or the teachers union).

Get yourself some math skills, and pass them on. Watch as the children soar.

(P.S.: You might want to buy a complete set of Saxon Math now, before some well-meaning and ostensibly polite person wants to make them illegal.)

Please note: This information is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (April 2014). "Professional development in math should focus on math, not on pedagogy or materials." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site:

Bruce Price said...

Good news here. Manitoba leads fight against bad math programs. This article discusses most of the same issues as in this blog. What's really surprising is that there's a newspaper up there which reports the whole thing. If the US had newspapers like this, we wouldn't be having all the problems we are having.

Anonymous said...

It's been a while since I've posted here, but I read your writing regularly. For the record I am flat opposed to CCSS and the millions that we unload to standardized testing, I am 100% pro-union because I believe that union membership protects good teachers who piss off incompetent administrators, and I am part of a coalition of teachers that wants local district control of curriculum and materials, as opposed to state and national mandates by the ineffective OSPI and US DoEd.

I teach upper level mathematics (AP Calc, AP Stat, PreCalc, Alg 2) at college/honors levels, and I agree 100% with your article here. (We have met, I came to Olympia to help you lobby against CCSS a couple of years ago.)

Under the new TPEP evaluation, my principal and evaluator ranks me as Distinguished in terms of my content knowledge. He comes to my classroom to get his "math fix" as he is a former math teacher (which is nice, because most admin know jack squat about math either in content or pedagogy.) I say that only to establish myself as a REAL math teacher. I did 2 years in middle school using Connected Math and it was HORRIBLE, I literally left middle school because I refused to use it any more - I started gathering my own materials to teach my Advanced 7th grade classes actual Algebra, and I was castigated by the district office as "not having the right to use materials other than those approved by the school board". And yet, my 7th grade class went on to score some of the highest scores on the 7th grade math MSP that the district has seen (to date, and this was 5 years ago now), even to the extent that the middle school's improvement measurement on the state matrix was a 7, the highest possible, and 95% of those students ended up passing the Algebra 1 EoC in their 8th grade year, a feat that the school or district has not even come close to since I left.

Back to the TPEP evaluation - where I get marked down is "student engagement". Because the preparation in fundamental skills in other lower level classes is so poor (fractions, basic equation solving techniques) and students get socially promoted instead if skills promoted (and truly I blame OSPI for this because their bar for passing the Algebra and Geometry EoC exams is so low), I have lots of students in my classes (Algebra 2 and above) who are simply not equipped to handle the level of math (either in concept or in work ethic), and thus when I am "direct teaching" my students, yes some of them are bored and disengaged. But there isn't anything I could do for them except to go back and teach them Algebra 1 all over again - at which point it is an Algebra 1 class, not an Algebra 2 class. I cannot do justice to the class unless I have students who are prepared for the class (a concept that administrators resist.) I get marked down for not engaging the students enough in the limited amount of time I have them. The engagement needs to come from the student - taking notes, asking questions, paying attention to the teacher/work (as opposed to checking Facebook or Twitter on their phones). Students have been trained poorly as to what their role is in the classroom. If I'm not giving them group project work, if I'm not calling kids up to the board to work out problems, if I'm not giving them an exit task or some other work that I can assess right there on the spot while I am being observed, I get marked down on my student engagement. It really is quite ridiculous, because when students follow the basic plan for being a student (do your homework, pay attention, take notes, ask questions) they are quite successful with me in math, because the focus is on the math and not on some meaningless fluff that doesn't contribute to them improving their skills.

Anonymous said...

Anyway, all of this is to point out that there are some real math teachers out here who are trying to fight the dumbing down of the system by administrators (the US DoEd, OSPI, district admin). But I'd also like to point out that the partners in the dumbing down of the system are those who intend to profit from public education - those who want to privatize and corporatize so they can sell standardized tests and standardized test prep materials and standardized textbooks, they are part of the enemy. If we are really about improving math instruction and math understanding in our students, these profiteers need to go. Education is not somewhere any corporate entity should be seeking to make a buck - the minute that creeps in, the system is corrupted.

mike miller said...

Dear Anonymous,
Kudos to you for doing what's necessary to improve the education of your students, consequences be damned. I was right with you, agreeing with you 100%right up to your last paragraph.
The subject matter of this article is important, and I do not wish to commandeer or distract from its message. But I had to comment on your last paragraph which in essence condemns or belittles a, the, or any profit motive.
You should be complimented for "gathering your own materials" to better help your students and improve your instruction. But please tell us sir, which materials did you gather that were not produced and/or marketed by a "for profit" entity? For that matter, look around your classroom. What, if anything, exists that was not produced "for profit?" From the linoleum tiles on the floor to the paint on the walls, and every chair, desk, whiteboard, and even the clock on the wall is a product of a "for profit" entity. Then there's all the technology... from the light-switches on the walls to all the digital tools within those walls. Indeed, in the theoretical absence of "profit", public education could not exist. Where do you think the tax revenue comes from to keep the schoolhouse doors open (which were also made for profit), and to pay your inarguably meager salary?
The freedom of self-interest (which translates into the "profit-motive") is not, to use your words, "the enemy." It's only become problematic in education because those whom are supposed to be representing our (the children's) best interest have paved the way for monopolistic influence. Broad, mandatory standardization serves the interests of both our elected-appointed representatives-leaders and a handful of "corporate interests." This collusion is the problem, and this collusion was/is enabled and facilitated by our government officials, be they bureaucrats or representatives.

Anonymous said...

mike miller -

I understand what you are saying, and I am not fundamentally anti-profit or anti-profit motive. (For what it's worth, I created a lot of my own materials for my 7th graders and could do so for many of my other classes also, but yes I also used published material.)

I'll give you an example of where things go wrong and need regulating. Consider that many colleges and universities use textbooks that are exorbitantly costly (as are HS texts - my PreCalculus texts costs $75, a ridiculous amount, and a cost that is ultimately paid by the taxpaying citizen.) A college may use one edition of a text for Fall Quarter, then an "updated" edition for Winter Quarter. It's essentially the exact same text, whatever the adjustment for the "update" - yet students are then not allowed to work into a buyback program at their local university bookstore and are forced into buying brand new textbooks when essentially an older version would suffice. This is a corrupted relationship between universities and publishers (and for that matter, professors who want to sell more of their texts.)

That's just a small piece of the unnecessarily high cost of higher education.

Standardized tests in their current manifestation are an absolutely useless product. They do not serve to "improve instruction", they exist purely for the profit of publishers (and as a tool to wield against teachers.) And the companies that own the publishing houses are huge conglomerates with lots of "speech" in state and national governments. Have you seen the extent of McGraw-Hill's holdings, for example? Graft, plain and simple.

Again, I am absolutely not anti-profit. However, if an entity is going to profit from supplying materials to the public education system, those materials had better be effective. I also believe that constructivist theorists are complicit in this because they want to sell their "ideas" that are not effective, which is as bad as selling a product that is not effective. And, no doubt, they are getting paid well by Pearson (for example) to keep propping up those faulty ideas.

I have no problem with a construction company being paid market price to build a good school, teachers being paid well to teach a good class, or materials companies being paid to provide good and necessary materials. My point is when the squeeze is put on for the sole purpose of profit.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with the article. I teach high school math in Washington state and I feel that most math professional development I have taken has taught ineffective math teaching strategies and/or content. I also feel pressure to agree with the new ideas rather than criticize them.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Truncated: length

WARC-Type: response

text:
Take the 2-minute tour ×
Bicycles Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who build and repair bicycles, people who train cycling, or commute on bicycles. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I need to take out my rear shock but one of the 2 allen bolts that is holding it (the upper one) has been rounded.

enter image description here

enter image description here

I've been told about various ways that such a bolt can be taken out including:

  • hammer a torx in and unscrew
  • drill a line using a dremel and unscrew with a screwdriver (I don't think the latter will work, the bold is too tight)
  • hammer a larger allen key in and unscrew
  • drill the hell out of the bolt (I don't want this because I'm afraid I'll damage other parts of the link (bushings etc)

What do you propose for this case?

share|improve this question
Yep, screw/bolt extractor. Either that or drill it completely out. You might be able to hammer in a Torx, but there may or may not be a size of Torx that will work. (Note that you need a bolt extractor with good threads near the tip -- some are long and slender and won't get in deep enough to grab.) –  Daniel R Hicks Oct 15 '12 at 15:10
As well as what has been already said, if it has corroded in place, drilling through the middle can loosen it due to the heat generated. It's a good start for using a drill extractor. Also, if you have a screwdriver that fits the mangled hole well enough that can work. –  DanS Oct 16 '12 at 8:06
Another option is a left-handed drill. Drill straight through the bolt with it (the drill set to reverse) and often, after you've gone a half-inch or so, the bolt will begin to unthread. Failing that, use a larger drill bit to drill the head off, then hope you can somehow grasp the body of the bolt once things are disassembled. –  Daniel R Hicks Oct 16 '12 at 11:00

3 Answers 3

up vote 0 down vote accepted

I'll post the results as an answer although I've already accepted a solution.

The bolt extractor did not help me. That's because the bolt was so tight on its nut. I think that the bolt had made a bond with the nut. It was impossible to unscrew it. Initially any attempt to hook the extractor resulted in more alumenium material from the bolt to be extracted. Then I drilled a smaller whole in the center of the bolt and tried with a smaller extractor. It broke.

I also drilled a torx pattern on the bolt's head but the torx also melted the aluminium of the bolt.

I ended up drilling the hell out of the bolts back end where it binds to the nut. When I've drilled a complete circle around the threads of the bolt and nut, I could hammer the bolt out.

share|improve this answer
I find it hard to believe that the bolt would have been aluminum. I can't think of a worse material to use to secure a shock. –  Daniel R Hicks Oct 25 '12 at 12:00
I'm not an expert on materials but I feel that the bolt was very soft. No matter what tool I used (high or low quality) it would scrape material out of the bolt's head very easily. The replacement bolt I got from the company looks sharper and of different hardness and colour. –  cherouvim Oct 25 '12 at 12:04
Wow! What a nightmare. Maybe it was a really soft steel that corroded on to the nut? –  lawndartcatcher Oct 30 '12 at 14:42
Yes. It sucked. But now everything works smoothly with the new bolt in place. –  cherouvim Oct 30 '12 at 15:40

There are special screw extrators for this purpose. Every well equipped car or bike repair should have such, maybe you will also find them in a DIY store. The only question is, if it is worth the money to buy an own one if you have only one screw to remove.

Maybe also this link will help.

share|improve this answer
Screw extractors are the type of thing that once you own them you'll wonder how you ever lived without them. Just make sure you invest in a good set; I've broken lots of cheap ones off. –  lawndartcatcher Oct 15 '12 at 13:12
That's as good point ;-) –  Benedikt Bauer Oct 15 '12 at 13:14
Make sure you have a set of good drill bits to make the starter hole for the extractor too. –  Dan Neely Oct 15 '12 at 15:59
Shouldn't need to drill a hole if the extractor fits the hex socket well. –  Daniel R Hicks Oct 15 '12 at 17:49

I'd try a screw remover like these. You'll need to either get a set or bring the bolt in to make sure you get the right size (Sears sells their own version that's supposed to be excellent). The good ones have a left-hand thread and a small cutting head to bite into the bead of the bolt; this looks like a really good candidate for a screw remover since the head is nice and large and has enough material for the remover to be able to grab.

share|improve this answer
Thanks. What if I don't want to purchase a screw remover? (I've already spent 20e on the replacement bolt). What would be the next best option? –  cherouvim Oct 16 '12 at 8:33
@cherouvim -- In the US many hardware stores carry the individual extractors for $3 to $10, depending on size. Take the replacement bolt with you and you can pick the extractor that matches it well, vs having to buy a whole set. –  Daniel R Hicks Oct 16 '12 at 10:57
So I got an extractors kit like the one above. None fits. One doesn't fit in the whole at all and the other is too small. What should I do? For the first I could enlarge the bolt whole a bit so it fits. For the second extractor I could cut it in half so I start using it from it's larger diameter part. What do you suggest? –  cherouvim Oct 17 '12 at 5:26
Are they double-sided? Often one side is used to drill in to the bolt, and the other pulls the bolt out. You may need to drill the hole out slightly for the tip of the extractor to fit in; be careful not to drill too large a hole (start with a hole that the tip barely fits in); remember that the idea is that the left-handed thread cuts into the hole as the extractor spins in. –  lawndartcatcher Oct 17 '12 at 12:29
Thanks. Will slightly drill the hole so the larger extractor fits. –  cherouvim Oct 18 '12 at 7:07

Your Answer

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-236-191-2.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-32
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Take the 2-minute tour ×
Bicycles Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who build and repair bicycles, people who train cycling, or commute on bicycles. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A lot of SPD shoes (not SPD-SL) have the cleat recessed into the shoe so you can walk with it. Has anyone found a way to get Look Keo cleats to be recessed so they are better for walking?

I suspect this is not easy due to the way they clip in and the only improving walking things you can do are grip cleats and the cleat covers.

share|improve this question
SPD-SL cleats are basically the width of the shoe. Looking at the sole of the shoe its difficult to imagine how the cleat could be recessed to allow walking. My "solution" to this one is to have 2 sets –  PeteH Mar 10 '14 at 8:37

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

I doubt you will find a way to do this; it would require a shoe with a pretty deep sole to recess the cleats into (that's what SPDs do).

Note that the SPD-SLs are pretty similar to the Looks but much more walkable.

share|improve this answer
Yeah, I figured as much. I'd probably swap to plain SPD instead, but I'm too cheap to buy new pedals and new shoes. –  Batman Mar 10 '14 at 23:32
Many shoes with a 3-bolt fitting also have a 2-bolt fitting which may be hidden by a 3-bolt cleat. –  Emyr Mar 11 '14 at 13:30

Your Answer

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.


text:
Adrien Robinson

Reese says Giants TE role will be run by committee

John Fennelly, Lead Writer

Since no one player has distinguished himself at TE thus far at the Giants’ workouts, GM Jerry Reese has not named a frontrunner, only stating on WFAN on Monday that the position will be handled “by committee.”

Reese said the following on WFAN on Monday:

“I think the jury is still out on who the No. 1 tight end is, I think it’ll probably be tight end by committee. But there are some really good tight ends, some athletic, big guys who can run and catch the ball.”

“Adrien Robinson and Larry Donnell are a couple of young guys who have been on the squad for a couple of years, but have had some injury stuff going on with them. We expect them to be healthy and to be able to pick up the slack here.”

We commented last week on the competition, lamenting on the fact that Robinson has yet to pull away from a mediocre pack and win the job the Giants had hoped he would already be entrenched in. He has not as of yet, leaving Reese to keep his options open this summer.

Under new OC Ben McAdoo’s system,the TE must be a versatile, athletic player. The Giants don’t have an exact fit right now for what McAdoo needs. Robinson is the closest thing, but he’s still quite green (he has yet to catch a pass in an NFL game).

Jeff Comerford
Jeff Comerford

Since it's a new offense, I'm not concerned if there is no lead te on June 23.

Let's see what it looks like on September 8.....

Brian Webster
Brian Webster

Lets face it the fact that no starter has emerged from this bunch is not because this is such an outstanding group it's hard to narrow it down. It more or less means the Giants don't really have a TE right now because all the options are "eh".


text:
As we eagerly await the Big Brother 14 week 9 Power of Veto Competition results coming up later today, the houseguests continue to busily manipulate to each other, lie through their teeth, and speculate on scenarious about what will happen depending on who wins the challenge.

This post contains Big Brother 14 spoilers from the Big Brother live feeds that have NOT aired on the CBS Big Brother 14 show yet. Please stop reading here if you do not want to know what happened!

In the very early morning hours yesterday, Dan tells Danielle they have to convince Shane to volunteer to go up on the eviction block as a ‘pawn’ against Jenn Arroyo in the nominations. If he then wins Power of Veto, Dan says she needs to convince him not to use it or she will be put on the block. Danielle says Shane would never do that! (More the fool he is if he wouldn’t.)

Around 1:35 AM BBT, Dan tells Ian the nominations need to be Jenn and Shane. Ian says he agrees and that is who he will put up.

A bit later, when they are talking about outside (and Ian is getting in his hammock swinging), they discuss how Frank was not gracious when he left the house — he only hugged Jenn and practically ran out the door. (Missing an awesome opportunity to betray Dan to the whole house about their final 2 deal and how he betrayed the Quack Pack to save himself.)

In the Shoe Room, Danielle snuggles on Shane in bed while he kind of lays there like a limp fish. She says she is afraid that she will be put on the block with him and he’ll win the Big Brother Power of Veto and she’ll end up alone on the block. Shane tells her if he wins PoV, he’ll use it on her because he owes her one. (Well, he does, for letting her think he likes her much more than he’s told other people he does, but I’m not sure I believe him.) Like everyone else, they think it will be the face morph Power of Veto this time.

Danielle talks about Dan getting rough with Ian when she was on the block. She says he grabbed him and told him he would cut him if he voted Danielle out. (I did not see this and can’t find it, but others have blogged that he grabbed Ian quite roughly by the neck.) They discuss how they have to get Ian out before the final HoH questions competition.

When the houseguests all finally wake up after a late night, game talk is pretty slow for a while. The housguests are put on outdoor lock down in the morning while Big Brother 14 sets up a Pandora’s Box for Ian. Ian says he is not opening that s**t! Ian says unless he is going to get Kristen Bitting or a huge chunk of cash, he is not opening that. Well, unless it is a celebrity, then he would open it for the others to get to meet them. He says he doesn’t mind being locked down outside since the houseguests don’t pin him down to game talk and he’s tired of it. One more eviciton, he tells Shane, and Big Brother 14 host Julie Chen can say hello to the Quack Pack!

When they are allowed back in the house, the houseguests find the big kitchen table has been replaced with the small table. Ian is called to the Diary Room and everyone thinks he has a Pandora’s Box when he comes out and then heads up to the Head of Household room. But he tells them not really, he was just fooling.

Around 11:55 PM BBT, Danielle tells Dan that Shane is suddenly smothering her and following her around everywhere. (Of course he is, he is desperate to make sure he has your vote at all times with this few people left.) Dan really hopes they can get him out.

The Big Brother 14 live feeds go dark around 12:35 PM BBT and stay down for quite some time…

When the feeds come back on, we find out that Ian did finally really get a Pandora’s Box. Apparently Ian decided to open it regardless of all that he said earlier about not doing it. As his ‘prize’ he had to listen to a message from Rachel Reilly, while the other houseguests all got messages from their loved ones. Ian says “f**k you Rachel.”

Dan thanks Ian a lot for opening Pandora’s Box so that he got to get a video message from his wife. He said it has never been done before on Big Brother for houseguests to get video messages.

Big Brother is playing random bits of trivia over the speakers. Dan tells Ian that the same thing happened during his season, but it didn’t mean anything. He says they should make sure everyone else thinks it is for a competition.

Danielle cannot stop talking to various people about how Frank Eudy sayd she was his Big Brother crush of the season. She is just glowing that someone may have said she was hot. She talks to Jenn about it, she talks to Ian about it. Yeah. Danielle.

In the late afternoon, the Big Brother 14 live feeds go to trivia gain for the Nominations Ceremony. When they come back on, we learn that Ian has stuck to the plan and nominated Shane and Jenn. Shane thinks Jenn is the target, Jenn thinks she is not the target (but is very worried that is not true).

Dan is still talking with Danielle about how they have to keep Jenn calm and with them to go to the final three. That being the best scenario for him to win, of course. Danielle is mad that Jenn snapped at her after the Nominations Ceremony when Danielle tried to say she was sorry Jenn was on the block.

Shane quite hilariously calls Danielle a “fat bastard” while they are ‘play fighting’ and I just laugh. They get quite rough actually. It’s a bit of domestic violence on Danielle’s part… I don’t blame Shane for pretending to suffocate her with a pillow…

Danielle reassures Jenn again that she has her vote and she will make sure Dan keeps her safe too. (Like she has any control over him.)

In an interesting bit of trivia (because game talk is very slow), Dan asks Shane and Ian in the HoH room around 11:50 PM BBT whether they thought cheated when he allegedly palmed the housguests’ choice chip during a redraw for veto players. Ian says production heard Frank talk about it. Ian says he called Frank an “inbred cow f**ker when he fought with him.” That’s funny.

Later, Danielle complains again to Jenn about how Shane is all over her, but won’t get intimate with her. She says he will only hold hands with her during the live show and won’t kiss her at all. She says (ding, ding, ding) that Shane is just using her and faking a showmance to get ahead in the game. She says she keeps pushing him to kiss her and he won’t. Danielle says she will keep pretending she is naive about him treating her like crap. Dan comes in and says Shane just doesn’t like her that way and is not treating her well. (He’s pushing that wedge.)

Danielle goes to lay on Shane’s bed and he won’t lay in the bed with her. He says he doesn’t want to kick her in his sleep. Danielle bitches. Shane relents and comes to the bed with her. She bitches about how he made comments earlier that made her feel fat. She fishes for compliments and he tells her she is pretty. (Barf.) She continues to bitch.

Finally everyone shuts up and goes to sleep. And more sleep. And more sleep. Pretty much until quite late in the morning. Everyone has been studying the photos on the memory wall in case it is the face morphing Power of Veto Competition. Shane seems to be the only one not studying.

Finally around 1:45 PM BBT, the Big Brother 14 live feeds go to trivia, which means the Power of Veto Competition is on!

Join us here at Sunday night for our next Big Brother 14 recap. Big Brother Access provides you with the latest dish from the show and the Big Brother 14 spoilers, news and gossip via our Twitter feed, Facebook page and on Tumblr. You can also sign up for our daily e-mail updates here.

Don’t want to wait a minute for all the latest Big Brother 14 spoilers? Tune in to the Big Brother 14 live feeds and get in on all the action, all day and all night, via your computer or mobile device!

Get the latest Big Brother news by RSS, Email, Twitter, on Facebook, and Uncensored Online

Recent Big Brother 16 News from Big Brother Access:


text:
User login

Freeman Decorating Sets Up Remote Proofing System

(April 2003) posted on Tue Apr 08, 2003

To help manage expectations for packages of trade-show graphics

The need for color-management first became apparent a couple of years ago when Nuhbegovic noticed variations in Encad output at their Chicago facility: "We have several models of Encad printers, and if you use the same settings for each printer, it's amazing how different they are." Color management has enabled Freeman's graphics technicians to save a significant amount of money, because they are no longer wasting precious time and material trying to get the output to match. By using calibrated monitors to soft-proof during the design stage, Freeman's in-house designers now have a much more realistic view of how their projects will appear when output.

Freeman chose the HP Designjet proofer for its remote-proofing system because the economical, relatively stable inkjet-printing device has a color-gamut wide enough to simulate output from a variety range of other inkjet printers"?even the Encad NovaJets. The Designjet's self-calibration feature enables the printer to adjust to the changes in ambient temperature and humidity that commonly affect the color output of inkjet printers. But because this self-calibration feature works only when used with HP software and media, Freeman's graphic technicians plan to calibrate the inkjet proofers themselves.

Nuhbegovic advises each user of an inkjet printer at Freeman to print out a set of Pantone color patches on the first day the printer is calibrated, and then post the patches next to the printer. Before each major job is run on subsequent days and weeks, technicians are urged to reprint the test patches and visually compare the new patches to those posted next to the printer. When significant differences are apparent, it's time to recalibrate the printer.

To simplify the remote-proofing process, technicians in Freeman's Chicago office are currently compiling Onyx "QuickSets" of data that branch sites can use to instruct their HP proofers how to simulate graphic files to be output with the different types of inks and materials typically used on Freeman's Nur, Salsa, Encad, and Mimaki equipment. The QuickSets utilize Freeman's custom color palette, which incorporates data on how the different lighting used in popular convention halls affects the look of commonly used Pantone? colors.

The graphics pros at Freeman Decorating don't view hard-copy remote proofing as a cure-all for all types of printing workflows. As Nuhbegovic points out, "On the production side, we can only do half the job." Profile data sent to designers is meaningless if the designers aren't using calibrated equipment. He believes designers and other creatives need a higher level of color-management training and commitment before remote proofing becomes more widely accepted during the late stages of graphics production.

But at Freeman Decorating, where graphics absolutely, positively must be delivered in time for the opening of each and every trade-show, remote proofing now provides a way to keep a multitude of clients better informed about how graphics produced on different machines and materials will look when printed. (Freeman Decorating:

Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.


text:
The BigScreen Cinema Guide Now Showing The Marquee Gift Shop Search Help
Have an Account? E-Mail Address Passcode
| Register Now

Remove ads with our VIP Service

Theater Managers:
Update Theater Information

Get Facebook Links

Favs Count

Add Theater to Favorites

Share This Page

Joy Cinema & Pub
11959 SW Pacific Hwy
Tigard, OR 97223

Message: 971-245-6467 more »

Movies Playing and Showtimes

View a list of movies playing at this theater and their showtimes on the Showtimes page.

Location Information

City: Tigard, Oregon
County/Region: Washington
Market Area: Portland

Handicapped Accessible? No

Contact Information

By Phone

Recorded Message: 971-245-6467
Voice phone number is not available

Send an Online Comment Card

Fill out an online comment card for this theater

By Mail

11959 SW Pacific Hwy
Tigard, OR 97223

Tickets & Prices

View Ticket Price Information

Reader Comments

Reader Voice
No comments have been left about this theater yet -- be the first!
Add comments about this theater New Feature!

Related News Articles and Web Sites

Please note: VIP Note: Direct links to the theater's web site, Facebook page, and Twitter feed are available only to VIP Members. Subscribe Today!

Looking for More Information?

Search Google for more information about this theater:

The Marquee > By Region > Oregon > Washington > Tigard

Home - About Us - Ad Info - Feedback
Journal/Blog - The Marquee - Movie Links - News and Events - Now Showing - Reader Reviews
Customize - VIP Service

The BigScreen Cinema Guide is a service of SVJ Designs LLC. All graphics, layout, and structure of this service (unless otherwise specified) are Copyright © 1995-2015, SVJ Designs. The BigScreen Cinema Guide is a trademark of SVJ Designs. All rights reserved.

'ACADEMY AWARDS®' and 'OSCAR®' are the registered trademarks and service marks of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Find Us on Facebook


text:
The BigScreen Cinema Guide Now Showing The Marquee Gift Shop Search Help
Have an Account? E-Mail Address Passcode
| Register Now

Remove ads with our VIP Service

Theater Managers:
Update Theater Information

Get Facebook Links

Share This Page

Blue Mouse Theatre
2611 North Proctor Street
Tacoma, WA 98407

Message: 253-752-9500 more »

Add Theater to Favorites

Reader Voice
No comments have been left about this theater yet -- be the first!
Add comments about this theater New Feature!
       Browse Future Date

Showtimes on Wednesday, July 29th

Avengers: Age of Ultron
PG-13Running Time: 2:22Movie Review

The Marquee > By Region > Washington > Pierce > Tacoma

Home - About Us - Ad Info - Feedback
Journal/Blog - The Marquee - Movie Links - News and Events - Now Showing - Reader Reviews
Customize - VIP Service

The BigScreen Cinema Guide is a service of SVJ Designs LLC. All graphics, layout, and structure of this service (unless otherwise specified) are Copyright © 1995-2015, SVJ Designs. The BigScreen Cinema Guide is a trademark of SVJ Designs. All rights reserved.

'ACADEMY AWARDS®' and 'OSCAR®' are the registered trademarks and service marks of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Find Us on Facebook


text:
Jay Parkinson

Physician and Technology Entrepreneur
Co-founder, Hello Health

Jay Parkinson is a pediatrician and preventive medicine specialist with a master's degree in public health. Fast Company called him "The Doctor of the Future" and one of "The Top 10 Most Creative People in Health Care." Esquire Magazine calls him one of "2009's Best and Brightest Radicals & Rebels Who Are Changing the World."

Jay Parkinson's Contributions