Slashdot Mirror

Cops are more than four times more likely than ordinary citizens to shoot someone who doesn't deserve it in any given armed altercation and kill citizens at 70 times the rate of other first-world nations, but we still let them carry guns. Sadly, most cops don't train nearly enough — many departments literally have a single monthly firearms training day, or less — so the truth is that the average gun-toting citizen is actually better at putting rounds on target than the average cop. The kind of citizens who carry firearms are also the kind of people who take them to the range regularly.

If you don't want bystanders injured by stray gunfire, or for that matter rounds deliberately fired at undeserving targets, then take the guns away from the cops. Taking them away from responsible citizens won't help.

I hate to be so harsh, but the amount of irrational bullshit that people spread deserves harsh responses and heavy criticism. Don't worry, citations are provided at the end of this post.

If this was really and truly "for the children" as you claim I want you to demonstrate that today's kids are smarter than kids 100 years ago. You can't, because facts do not back this at all. On average our IQ is 4-14 points lower today than it was 60 years ago. That is not a small measure, that is a huge measure. This is even though when Radio came out we were told that Radio would make everyone smarter, and when TV came out we were told TV would make everyone smarter, and when home video came out we were told that home video would make everyone smarter, and when computers came out we were told that computers would make everyone smarter. THOSE THINGS NEVER HAPPENED!

Taking your claim at face value, the "coders" have to somehow believe that all of the knowledge they were required to have to become world changing coders is not relevant to who they are or what they do for a living. They must believe that somehow you can circumvent all educational requirements and shit coders right out of high school that can not only understand the world, but extremely complex problems, and further be able to begin mapping out solutions to these complex problems. That is right! Taking you at your word these "coders" must believe that they have no education to back their abilities and _anyone_ can do their job with minimal education and a minimal coding skills.

I am not taking you at your word because history and facts do not back your word. Lets look at reality shall we? You can't teach physics without teaching them math first, and you can't teach someone to write novels without teaching them grammar and composition. You can't teach someone to be a mechanical engineer by simply giving them a drag and drop CAD program, and you can't teach chemistry by giving someone a drag and drop periodical table of elements. These are things we know so well that we don't even question them. We can argue semantics after the fact like what CAD program is better, but we don't expect a kid to be able to find the area of a rectangle without being able to multiply _FIRST_.

Based on what we know, there is a rational conclusion that "You can't make someone a competent programmer by giving them a drag and drop program to "develop code" in either. This is such a basic premise that I'm astounded that people like you will claim "but it's for the children" when all empirical evidence shows that it's NOT for the children. It's to make cheap obedient servants for the masters!

References for IQ here and here. Reference for intentional institutionalized education problems here. The issue of institutional attempts to shortcut education is here.

Well put. TFA has all the hallmarks of made-for-television "science."

Doing just a tiny bit of digging I wonder if Prof. Freund is actually a crackpot, or if he just looks like it by his association with mass-media.

There's a little more information about this show to be found in a Harvard article advertising the screening they had last week. Probably not enough to convince any skeptics, but it is more substantial than just saying he's got an intriguing satellite photo the way TFA does. I don't think those two stone figurines in the photo of him are very impressive, and certainly not indicative of the advanced civilization Atlantis was supposed to be.

He has also been featured on NOVA several years ago in another very unlikely and controversial finding. That one was actually in his field of expertise, Judaic history, but the transcript suggests that very little humility is observed in reaching his conclusions. Now this could all just be due to editing, an unfortunate choices of words captured on film, and the need for ratings. And perhaps he's put himself in a position where he can't say something like "no, that's misleading- don't use that title for the show." At the moment I doubt that all of these are the case.

Until I can watch the show to see more information, I find it concerning how he keeps running into these very improbable "finds" and how this new one isn't even in his primary field. I'll be counting the number of weasel words appearing in the show. How many per minute constitutes pseudoscience? My second question is this- obviously a NatGeo show does nothing to improve the credibility of one's work in professional circles, but is cooperating with mass-media to secure funding (esp. in a day where it's hard to come) for actual archaeology work wrong, and should it hinder one's credibility to use such funding?

Well put. TFA has all the hallmarks of made-for-television "science."

Doing just a tiny bit of digging I wonder if Prof. Freund is actually a crackpot, or if he just looks like it by his association with mass-media.

There's a little more information about this show to be found in a Harvard article advertising the screening they had last week. Probably not enough to convince any skeptics, but it is more substantial than just saying he's got an intriguing satellite photo the way TFA does. I don't think those two stone figurines in the photo of him are very impressive, and certainly not indicative of the advanced civilization Atlantis was supposed to be.

He has also been featured on NOVA several years ago in another very unlikely and controversial finding. That one was actually in his field of expertise, Judaic history, but the transcript suggests that very little humility is observed in reaching his conclusions. Now this could all just be due to editing, an unfortunate choices of words captured on film, and the need for ratings. And perhaps he's put himself in a position where he can't say something like "no, that's misleading- don't use that title for the show." At the moment I doubt that all of these are the case.

Until I can watch the show to see more information, I find it concerning how he keeps running into these very improbable "finds" and how this new one isn't even in his primary field. I'll be counting the number of weasel words appearing in the show. How many per minute constitutes pseudoscience? My second question is this- obviously a NatGeo show does nothing to improve the credibility of one's work in professional circles, but is cooperating with mass-media to secure funding (esp. in a day where it's hard to come) for actual archaeology work wrong, and should it hinder one's credibility to use such funding?

Is this the band?

To add to what you wrote, here is an excerpt from a Harvard library report regarding journal prices:

1. Journal inflation rates have exceeded ten percent annually for more than a decade

2. No institution can continuously compensate for such increases

3. Electronic versions of journals are more expensive than the print version

4. Publishers often require libraries to maintain the print version in order to access the electronic version, which usually carries an added fee

5. Titles are often bundled by publishers, obliging libraries to purchase a cluster of titles in order to secure the ones really desired

Very interesting.

I myself went to a private "alternative" high school in VA. Not going to post the link here as they have limited bandwidth. Our dresscode was "Under garments may not be showing". I carried around a pocket knife most days, the teachers knew this and sometimes asked to borrow it. We could be in rooms unsupervised, could eat anywhere we wanted to on campus and we had a shuttle where we could go to the local mall to eat without any supervision. We also called our teachers by our first name.

College was up in Connecticut at the University of Hartford A very liberal college where we even had former VP Al Gore there, in 2001/2002. I had one class with a professor that allowed us free reign with what we wrote and how we wrote (he was fairly liberal too). But as for thought and actions? Pretty much the entire school was run by the frats and kept any conservative/religious views to a minimum.

The atmospheres were pretty far apart as they go. I don't think it had anything to do with Liberal vs. Conservative, Republican vs Democrat or Religion vs. Anti-Religion (not aethies, I do know people who dislike organized religion). I think it mainly came to how people thought that things should be taught. Either A) they should have free reign (within reason) to make up their own decisions. or B) We must control everything so that they do not make the wrong decisions. Personally, I'm for (A) and have seen and read much about (B).

there's a really good reference on the human immune system here at http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/BUGL/immune.htm

The two really interesting parts are the adaptive immune system where there are the cell mediated (killer T-cell) and humoral (antibody) immune responses.

Both use the principle of making molecules that will stick to bad molecules, and if they do triggering a cascade of events that eventually winds up destroying the bad molecule and the things affected by it, and leaving healthy tissue behind untouched (we hope).

The really really good part is that you're right, if the viral coat proteins have the same chemical surface at specific regions called epitopes, then the same antibodies will be able to bind all of them, even if they're different in other places.

Most molecules have several epitopes on them, although sometimes you have to bind most or all of these before a response is raised.

Viruses in the wild beat this by mutating every time they reproduce inside a cell by using error prone replication techniques. After all, if you make a billion particles and only 2% work, you can still infect your next host quite smartly.

That means that two individuals with the same disease, one catching it off the other, might have sufficiently different viral particles that an immunisation against one set of epitopes is ineffective. That's what happens with the common cold.

Well the true question is how good do you honestly think you are. Many times going to a small Computer Science Department or Small college is very helpful because you are a big fish in a little pond. And you have the abilities to get involved with research projects and be able to get a college job in IT where you can actually get some experience with networks (although college networks are notoriously bad) You do know what not to do. Also check if there is an Internship program there and see if you can get an internship position in one of your favorite places.
The problem is when you go to a large College or University with a huge CS department, sure you can take the classes but you are fighting among the best and brightest for real experience, sure you can take the classes and learn some stuff but being involved is the best experience.

Original post:

The embedded videos are nifty, and render nicely in Mozilla.

Furthermore, HTML does not render. A browser renders HTML.

The original poster is using the verb render in an unaccusative construction, which is common in English. (For example, The door opened is the unaccusative counterpart to the passive form The door was opened.) I've used render this way myself and it's perfectly grammatical to me. Of course your lect may differ from mine.

playstation file system I do believe


-------------------

http://morpheus.hartford.edu/~joliveir