It's bad enough that high school does not teach you anything about what real mathematics is, but putting all this crap on a website endorses it, and makes people accept the fact that there is no high school which actually teaches you mathematics.
Do you know what this is? It's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you.
If students are motivated enough, they can find plenty of online math resources on their own.
He needn't have said squat about re-distribution rights.
Except that redistribution rights are important today. Why should a company be able to restrict me giving away copies of programs?
Open-source, as defined by OSI, has some of the same issues by insisting on the freedom of re-distribution. Since they are not leftist fanatics like Stallman, one would hope that at least they would see it this way, and allow for a total non-free software to get open source endorsements as long as source code accompanied the binaries. That would achieve all the OSI goals of promoting better software, while also earning it the broad based support of the software industry.
As far as Stallman is concerned, it's the philosophy that comes first, not "industry support" of whatever the current fad is.
Stallman screwed a fantastic opportunity here - maybe deliberately, given his Marxist world views.
Your political dog-whistling really doesn't have any bearing on the merits of Free software.
How many children died last year in car crashes? Will you give up your car for the children?
When a driverless alternative exists, I would gladly give up my "freedom" to drive. We kill the shit out of ourselves with cars, and just about any driverless system would greatly reduce casualties.
this is why we need oversight or regulation or unions (or all 3).
Unfortunately, we'll have to drag the reactionary wingnuts in the U.S. kicking and screaming every step of the way. Unions and labor rights are a part of the constitution of many other first-world nations; that's how far behind the curve the U.S. currently is.
We have too many people in the U.S. that blame the government for things their employers do to them. You would think they'd learn by now...
Don't forget mustaches. World leaders with mustaches commit atrocities in the name of facial hair.
Re:To bad that non college education does not resp
on
MOOC Mania
·
· Score: 1
I've seen too many University grads who assume that a piece of paper means they are more intelligent, wise, and skillful than someone without one even if that person has years of experience; not understanding that such an attitude belies those assumptions.
More specifically, employers think a piece of paper is everything and they have absolute control of decent wages.
In the U.S., experience still seems to mean something.
Unfortunately, with zero experience, there are hardly any employers that will hire you without a degree. Employers need to start taking responsibility for workforce training again.
However, I don't think this is a "solution" to the problem of energy in the future. It will produce some, but not all of our needs, and there will be significant energy inputs required to make it work.
The era of plentiful natural fossil fuel reserves will end. With that in mind, we have to start thinking about liquid fuels like ethanol as energy storage. It will take significant energy input to make any highly-energy-dense substance, but we can use that process to capture vast amounts of energy (solar, nuclear fission, fusion?!?) for use in those internal-combustion clunkers.
That said, we will be far more worried about the abysmal efficiency of internal combustion engines if we think of the fuel as chemical energy storage.
Show me ONE climate model that has accurately predicted anything, ever.
With impossibly high standards like yours, it's a wonder any other physical model still holds up.
QED, for instance, will never accurately predict where a photon is going to land, but it will give you the probability of a photon hitting a specific area. Probability is a huge part of science and no scientist will tell you anything is 100% certain. Very high certainty for a range of conditions is what a model is intended to provide.
Faroe Islands...? Is there a conspiracy between them and Halliburton I'm not in on? I can't keep up with the mentally ill and their wacky conspiracy theories these days.
If you still support the ban on child pornography then why isn't there a ban on obscene "teen erotica" literature? Why not ban text descriptions, or ban stories which encourage child abuse?
No actual people are physically harmed.
It's funny, because the whole premise of shows like Jackass are stupid people harming themselves on video. I don't see that sort of material becoming "illegal to possess" anytime soon.
With the incredibly broad definition of what constitutes "child pornography" in the U.S., photos taken by teenagers of their own bodies are CP. Any possession of this is a thought crime, and material will still be produced as long as kids have cameras. It's completely unenforceable.
Moral absolutism has to deal with the problem of which moral framework is correct. There is no moral authority in nature so, naturally, different individuals come up with different answers.
Also, moral relativists are huge hypocrites. They claim moral relativism when we are discussing something that they like (such as prostitution), but when we discuss something they do not like (such as deforestation, or nuclear energy), then they are all for absolute morality.
Nice strawman. Pure moral relativism can be demonstrated to be absurd, but it at least shows a willingness to understand other groups -- a concept completely absent in pure moral absolutism. Most individuals do not rigidly adhere to pure moral absolutism or relativism; a few fundamental assumptions shape their worldview (e.g. biblical authority, human rights, or environmental conservation), and they have the mental flexibility to tolerate cultural differences in other groups that do not infringe on those assumptions.
Would you areee that in a million years it is possible, via the mechanism of evolution, that a housecat will teach mathematics at a college level.
I await your response.
Future descendants of cats may or may not teach mathematics; intelligence is not a directed goal of evolution. Nice try, but your oversimplification didn't win me over to the "goddidit" side.
Reducing government regulation only leaves a power vacuum that big players in the private sector (transnational corporations, etc.) would gladly fill. These new overlords would gladly oppress the public if it meant a secured source of profit, and they wouldn't have to worry about the pesky constitutional limitations our government operates under.
Reducing government influence is the same as reducing public influence. I don't want to return to the Gilded Age just for promises of a more efficient capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
It's bad enough that high school does not teach you anything about what real mathematics is, but putting all this crap on a website endorses it, and makes people accept the fact that there is no high school which actually teaches you mathematics.
Do you know what this is? It's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you.
If students are motivated enough, they can find plenty of online math resources on their own.
He needn't have said squat about re-distribution rights.
Except that redistribution rights are important today. Why should a company be able to restrict me giving away copies of programs?
Open-source, as defined by OSI, has some of the same issues by insisting on the freedom of re-distribution. Since they are not leftist fanatics like Stallman, one would hope that at least they would see it this way, and allow for a total non-free software to get open source endorsements as long as source code accompanied the binaries. That would achieve all the OSI goals of promoting better software, while also earning it the broad based support of the software industry.
As far as Stallman is concerned, it's the philosophy that comes first, not "industry support" of whatever the current fad is.
Stallman screwed a fantastic opportunity here - maybe deliberately, given his Marxist world views.
Your political dog-whistling really doesn't have any bearing on the merits of Free software.
If we had the ability to build anything of this scale on the Moon and keep it habitable, sending back 25 PB/year would be trivial in comparison.
How many children died last year in car crashes? Will you give up your car for the children?
When a driverless alternative exists, I would gladly give up my "freedom" to drive. We kill the shit out of ourselves with cars, and just about any driverless system would greatly reduce casualties.
this is why we need oversight or regulation or unions (or all 3).
Unfortunately, we'll have to drag the reactionary wingnuts in the U.S. kicking and screaming every step of the way. Unions and labor rights are a part of the constitution of many other first-world nations; that's how far behind the curve the U.S. currently is.
We have too many people in the U.S. that blame the government for things their employers do to them. You would think they'd learn by now...
Atheist world leaders...
Don't forget mustaches. World leaders with mustaches commit atrocities in the name of facial hair.
I've seen too many University grads who assume that a piece of paper means they are more intelligent, wise, and skillful than someone without one even if that person has years of experience; not understanding that such an attitude belies those assumptions.
More specifically, employers think a piece of paper is everything and they have absolute control of decent wages.
In the U.S., experience still seems to mean something.
Unfortunately, with zero experience, there are hardly any employers that will hire you without a degree. Employers need to start taking responsibility for workforce training again.
Most of the world isn't participating in the U.S. elections*.
*Unless they're trans-national corporations, courtesy of the Citizens United decision.
Yer gonna need a nerd diode for that.
I prefer a passive-aggressive design; it can be arrogant in more extreme conditions.
However, I don't think this is a "solution" to the problem of energy in the future. It will produce some, but not all of our needs, and there will be significant energy inputs required to make it work.
The era of plentiful natural fossil fuel reserves will end. With that in mind, we have to start thinking about liquid fuels like ethanol as energy storage. It will take significant energy input to make any highly-energy-dense substance, but we can use that process to capture vast amounts of energy (solar, nuclear fission, fusion?!?) for use in those internal-combustion clunkers.
That said, we will be far more worried about the abysmal efficiency of internal combustion engines if we think of the fuel as chemical energy storage.
If I had to place my bets on the effectiveness of fighting a pandemic with science or "personal responsibility", I'd choose science.
Show me ONE climate model that has accurately predicted anything, ever.
With impossibly high standards like yours, it's a wonder any other physical model still holds up.
QED, for instance, will never accurately predict where a photon is going to land, but it will give you the probability of a photon hitting a specific area. Probability is a huge part of science and no scientist will tell you anything is 100% certain. Very high certainty for a range of conditions is what a model is intended to provide.
Do the letters FO mean anything to you?
Faroe Islands...? Is there a conspiracy between them and Halliburton I'm not in on? I can't keep up with the mentally ill and their wacky conspiracy theories these days.
So does that mean my Adblock Plus/NoScript combo is killing jobs?
If so, I'm too satisfied with my ad-free internet to really give a damn.
I heard that Stallman once killed a girl in 1990 (He never specifically denied it.) This reflects very poorly on Linus as a FOSS contributor.
If everybody reading this goes in and makes a dislike of that video and others of that so called religion then at least we made a statement.
A statement too easily reversed if the uploader just decides to disable comments and voting.
If you still support the ban on child pornography then why isn't there a ban on obscene "teen erotica" literature? Why not ban text descriptions, or ban stories which encourage child abuse?
No actual people are physically harmed.
It's funny, because the whole premise of shows like Jackass are stupid people harming themselves on video. I don't see that sort of material becoming "illegal to possess" anytime soon.
With the incredibly broad definition of what constitutes "child pornography" in the U.S., photos taken by teenagers of their own bodies are CP. Any possession of this is a thought crime, and material will still be produced as long as kids have cameras. It's completely unenforceable.
Linus gives a quick rundown of kernel version numbering.
The upside is even.x.x means Linus is no longer crazy and he might revert to the slower version rollout.
Lemme guess, this is one of those "there's no right answer except goddidit" bullshit-pseudophilosophical puzzles?
Moral relativism is absurd.
Moral absolutism has to deal with the problem of which moral framework is correct. There is no moral authority in nature so, naturally, different individuals come up with different answers.
Also, moral relativists are huge hypocrites. They claim moral relativism when we are discussing something that they like (such as prostitution), but when we discuss something they do not like (such as deforestation, or nuclear energy), then they are all for absolute morality.
Nice strawman. Pure moral relativism can be demonstrated to be absurd, but it at least shows a willingness to understand other groups -- a concept completely absent in pure moral absolutism. Most individuals do not rigidly adhere to pure moral absolutism or relativism; a few fundamental assumptions shape their worldview (e.g. biblical authority, human rights, or environmental conservation), and they have the mental flexibility to tolerate cultural differences in other groups that do not infringe on those assumptions.
Amperes and volts, surely? Else current and voltage.
Surely you mean current and electromotive force? [/pedantic]
If there are meds that suppress the urge to argue over minutia with faceless individuals online, let me know. Maybe housecats will invent them.
That strawman was expertly dismantled. Good job.
Would you areee that in a million years it is possible, via the mechanism of evolution, that a housecat will teach mathematics at a college level.
I await your response.
Future descendants of cats may or may not teach mathematics; intelligence is not a directed goal of evolution. Nice try, but your oversimplification didn't win me over to the "goddidit" side.
Reducing government regulation only leaves a power vacuum that big players in the private sector (transnational corporations, etc.) would gladly fill. These new overlords would gladly oppress the public if it meant a secured source of profit, and they wouldn't have to worry about the pesky constitutional limitations our government operates under.
Reducing government influence is the same as reducing public influence. I don't want to return to the Gilded Age just for promises of a more efficient capitalism.