So you think that a person in college, not yet educated, going through the process of becoming educated knows the best way to become educated? Maybe there is a reason the professor is lecturing to you as opposed to just telling you to go look stuff up on your own.
Hint: most lectures have the answers to the tests right in the lecture material, so you have no need to be side researching.
As long as colleges are partially publicly funded (via both direct funding of public universities and colleges, and all the various federal grant and loan programs) there is a public interest here in doing everything we can to make sure students are making the most of the opportunity so that the public is getting its money's worth.
Easy. By making admissions policies that ensure only those who can and want to learn get any part of that money and by holding them accountable for succeeding if the do take taxpayer money once they are in. Banning laptops is counter-productive to those who want to use their laptops to help them learn and does nothing to weed those out who shouldn't be there in the first place.
I have taught at the elementary, middle, high school levels, as well as adult and technical training.
In the technical training I've done, it's on them to pay attention. For the kids, it's on me to make them pay attention (and by kids, I mean K-12, not college students).
The only ban I would consider would be if their behavior is distracting the OTHER students, like using their cell phone in class. Other than that, if Mommy and Daddy keep wanting to pay for little Sally to get Cs and Ds in college, then so be it.
I'm 41 and my first computer was a Vic20 followed by a C64. I don't recall any of these flame wars. Perhaps I'm not nerdy enough. The only comparison I had for my C64 was my friend's Atari 400/800? and the C64 was better in all aspects unanimously amongst all my friends.
Now, that last statement could be absolutely 100% wrong, but how were we to know back then, and who actually cared? The C64 was for mainstream interests...I'm sure there were tons of "better" machines.
In the end, nothing has changed. Many people still choose "cheaper" over "better", even when price isn't an issue (not me though). I think it must be part of the nerd persona.
But memory, just like science, seems to work pretty consistently.
...Even if all this was a delusion, science would then be the way to explain the delusion accurately which for all intents and purposes is still very useful.
Budding Cognitive Scientist here (specializing in the role memory plays in language and recall)... Explaining delusions is exactly what we do.
Yes memory works VERY consistently...consistently bad. Especially bad is how long term memory stores these delusions but then fails to recall them exactly the way they were (erroneously) remembered in the first place. The original delusion becomes a fractured delusion of its previously delusional self.
Well, that's not exactly fair to short term memory. It does a great job of transferring its contents, precisely as encoded, to long term memory. But short term memory plays a minimal role in recall (ever wonder why a phone number is limited to 7 numbers? That's all short term can handle), so it pushes off its content to the long term memory, where the info gets raped, pillaged, and corrupted by the imperfect human that it is connected to.
So what if he wants to thank God for his abilities?
Normally I don't care what people believe, but when they publicly undermine their credibility as a scientist by avowing a belief system that runs contrary to being a good chemist, then I have a problem.
God willing this chemical formula will not kill the next patient!
Atheism is not an ideology any more than not believing in Tarot cards is one.
That's about as simple as it can be stated. Atheist is not something I choose to brand myself, rather a word that religious people have assigned to me since I don't believe their fairy tales.
So how is atheism so distinct from other religions that it is rational and obvious when other religions aren't?
Haven't we already covered this? It is distinct in thatAtheism uses all the observation, cognition, and scientific skills required to come to rational conclusions, whereas religion doesn't.
OP heavily implied that religion requires either a lack of reasoning, or an early indoctrination. I want to be clear that that is what he is in fact saying.
But considering how long it took Slartibartfast to create the intricate fjords of Scandinavia, it must take more than 1 day to create the rest of the universe, blueprints ready or not.
And if it took 5 days to create the earth, how come it only took one day to create many billions of stars and planets - when all those stars and planets are at least as complex as the earth is?
This perfectly exemplifies my problem with religious people. A small girl was able to see the glaring logical fallacy of taking 5 days to create Earth and only 1 day to create the exponentially larger rest of the Universe, yet random slashdot religious guy is able to "correct" the little girl's thinking by erroneously pointing to a Bible passage that only proves the point of the little girl further.
Excellent points. See, we atheists really DON'T care about religious people's individual beliefs. It's all that damn mobilization and political power they wield to change our communities and societies to fit a "christian" view that we have a problem with. Leave it in the pews and we don't really care what kind of mumbo jumbo you believe. Bring it to our schools and court rooms, then suddenly we care.
If you turn that around and complain that we atheists try to legislate OUR beliefs, that's because we have the Constitutional authority for doing so. You are free to worship as you please. You are not free to use your worship to influence my community standards and government.
"a means to an end for the established churches and religions around the world to exercise and justify torture, among other things, and complete control over people."
Oh yeah. Like my church, which I came to freely, and could leave any time I wanted to,
Sure modern churches are open and friendly (but still have ulterior motives to control the congregation...cough...money....cough). And history is not on your side. The Catholic church forbids birth control because they needed the church population to remain strong during the plague, for example. Unless, of course, there's a bible passage forbidding birth control I've never been directed to?
Err, not quite. I frankly don't think anything of religious zealots' verve to get to a fake heaven other than they lack the intellectual capacity to understand reality. That doesn't make me superior (well, it makes me better at understanding reality, I suppose, but my other flaws easily outpace many church goers).
This isn't an issue of "superior ways", it's an issue of observable, quantifiable evidence and the human mind's ability (or inability for the zealots) to interpret its meaning without bias. Reality exists irrespective of how people interpret it, and almost by definition, religious people lack the ability to interpret it correctly because of their century-old fairy tale beliefs that are contradictory to science.
Slashdot Mirror
How about some responsibility of attending class for what it is intended for, instead of for what you think you want to do while you are there?
So you think that a person in college, not yet educated, going through the process of becoming educated knows the best way to become educated? Maybe there is a reason the professor is lecturing to you as opposed to just telling you to go look stuff up on your own.
Hint: most lectures have the answers to the tests right in the lecture material, so you have no need to be side researching.
Small note: the SATs abandoned analogies a long time ago. You and I are old.
As long as colleges are partially publicly funded (via both direct funding of public universities and colleges, and all the various federal grant and loan programs) there is a public interest here in doing everything we can to make sure students are making the most of the opportunity so that the public is getting its money's worth.
Easy. By making admissions policies that ensure only those who can and want to learn get any part of that money and by holding them accountable for succeeding if the do take taxpayer money once they are in. Banning laptops is counter-productive to those who want to use their laptops to help them learn and does nothing to weed those out who shouldn't be there in the first place.
I have taught at the elementary, middle, high school levels, as well as adult and technical training.
In the technical training I've done, it's on them to pay attention. For the kids, it's on me to make them pay attention (and by kids, I mean K-12, not college students).
The only ban I would consider would be if their behavior is distracting the OTHER students, like using their cell phone in class. Other than that, if Mommy and Daddy keep wanting to pay for little Sally to get Cs and Ds in college, then so be it.
I'm 41 and my first computer was a Vic20 followed by a C64. I don't recall any of these flame wars. Perhaps I'm not nerdy enough. The only comparison I had for my C64 was my friend's Atari 400/800? and the C64 was better in all aspects unanimously amongst all my friends.
Now, that last statement could be absolutely 100% wrong, but how were we to know back then, and who actually cared? The C64 was for mainstream interests...I'm sure there were tons of "better" machines.
In the end, nothing has changed. Many people still choose "cheaper" over "better", even when price isn't an issue (not me though). I think it must be part of the nerd persona.
GX isn't a model. I think there were the Mac C/S/F lines, with an "i" for something, and an "X" meaning it had a cd-rom player...
Too lazy to look it up, just one old guy's recollection.
But memory, just like science, seems to work pretty consistently.
...Even if all this was a delusion, science would then be the way to explain the delusion accurately which for all intents and purposes is still very useful.
Budding Cognitive Scientist here (specializing in the role memory plays in language and recall)... Explaining delusions is exactly what we do.
Yes memory works VERY consistently...consistently bad. Especially bad is how long term memory stores these delusions but then fails to recall them exactly the way they were (erroneously) remembered in the first place. The original delusion becomes a fractured delusion of its previously delusional self.
Well, that's not exactly fair to short term memory. It does a great job of transferring its contents, precisely as encoded, to long term memory. But short term memory plays a minimal role in recall (ever wonder why a phone number is limited to 7 numbers? That's all short term can handle), so it pushes off its content to the long term memory, where the info gets raped, pillaged, and corrupted by the imperfect human that it is connected to.
So what if he wants to thank God for his abilities?
Normally I don't care what people believe, but when they publicly undermine their credibility as a scientist by avowing a belief system that runs contrary to being a good chemist, then I have a problem.
God willing this chemical formula will not kill the next patient!
Atheism is not an ideology any more than not believing in Tarot cards is one.
That's about as simple as it can be stated. Atheist is not something I choose to brand myself, rather a word that religious people have assigned to me since I don't believe their fairy tales.
So how is atheism so distinct from other religions that it is rational and obvious when other religions aren't?
Haven't we already covered this? It is distinct in thatAtheism uses all the observation, cognition, and scientific skills required to come to rational conclusions, whereas religion doesn't.
Seriously, it's really not that hard.
OP heavily implied that religion requires either a lack of reasoning, or an early indoctrination. I want to be clear that that is what he is in fact saying.
Not "or" but "and".
I think the theologians are the ones who need to think a bit harder. Their books tell them NOT to think, just believe and obey.
The rest is outside the scope of that document.
duh
I love engineers.
But considering how long it took Slartibartfast to create the intricate fjords of Scandinavia, it must take more than 1 day to create the rest of the universe, blueprints ready or not.
And if it took 5 days to create the earth, how come it only took one day to create many billions of stars and planets - when all those stars and planets are at least as complex as the earth is?
This perfectly exemplifies my problem with religious people. A small girl was able to see the glaring logical fallacy of taking 5 days to create Earth and only 1 day to create the exponentially larger rest of the Universe, yet random slashdot religious guy is able to "correct" the little girl's thinking by erroneously pointing to a Bible passage that only proves the point of the little girl further.
It took me all the way up to Noah having two of every animal before I started becoming skeptical...that's gotta be a big boat!
This thread makes me think the Bible has more plot holes than an Michael Bay movie.
Excellent points. See, we atheists really DON'T care about religious people's individual beliefs. It's all that damn mobilization and political power they wield to change our communities and societies to fit a "christian" view that we have a problem with. Leave it in the pews and we don't really care what kind of mumbo jumbo you believe. Bring it to our schools and court rooms, then suddenly we care.
If you turn that around and complain that we atheists try to legislate OUR beliefs, that's because we have the Constitutional authority for doing so. You are free to worship as you please. You are not free to use your worship to influence my community standards and government.
The difference, of course, is that I as an atheist know it's a complete waste of time for me to try and "convert" a religious person.
Too bad that doesn't go both ways.
Stereotyping religions based on the actions of a few is not enlightened. You cannot judge a philosphy by its abuse.
You can when it is systemic. You especially can when it's written right in the tome.
"a means to an end for the established churches and religions around the world to exercise and justify torture, among other things, and complete control over people."
Oh yeah. Like my church, which I came to freely, and could leave any time I wanted to,
Sure modern churches are open and friendly (but still have ulterior motives to control the congregation...cough...money....cough). And history is not on your side. The Catholic church forbids birth control because they needed the church population to remain strong during the plague, for example. Unless, of course, there's a bible passage forbidding birth control I've never been directed to?
Err, not quite. I frankly don't think anything of religious zealots' verve to get to a fake heaven other than they lack the intellectual capacity to understand reality. That doesn't make me superior (well, it makes me better at understanding reality, I suppose, but my other flaws easily outpace many church goers).
This isn't an issue of "superior ways", it's an issue of observable, quantifiable evidence and the human mind's ability (or inability for the zealots) to interpret its meaning without bias. Reality exists irrespective of how people interpret it, and almost by definition, religious people lack the ability to interpret it correctly because of their century-old fairy tale beliefs that are contradictory to science.
From me, a grown-up who barely has time to play GT5 and WoW, I rate this +1 Awesome.
what does it mean?
You secretly love Apple.
And in the meantime, the WoW kid is learning essential technology skills.
Anyways, my kids do both. It's not an either/or proposition.