As far as I can tell, you can give this guy as much or as little as you like, and get the binaries. On his ask page, he allows one to donate at certain monthly thresholds, and provides a link to PayPal for one-time contributions. At any amount, you are entitled to the perks or rewards offered on that page. You make a DONATION, and you get a perk. His usage of the word is entirely consistent with the way that the rest of the English speaking world uses the word. You can argue until you are blue in the face that this does not meet the dictionary definition of "donatation," but it is entirely consistent with the way that NPR, public museums, and many other institutions use the word.
I would also note that this is entirely irrelevant to your example of buying a soda at 7-11. Donations are gifts given to charities. One could argue that lunduke.com is not a charitable organization (in which case I would agree that this is not a donation, but that isn't the argument that you have been making), but you would have to stretch the notion to its breaking point to include 7-11 as a charity.
I can't tell if you are trying to be funny or not, but the US national anthem is the "Star Spangled Banner." The lyrics are from a poem by Francis Scott Key. These lyrics, written during the War of 1812, were eventually matched to the English drinking song "To Anacreon in Heaven."
On the other hand the English (UK) don't have an official national anthem. "God Save the King/Queen" is probably the closest approximation. While the origin of the lyrics and tune are not known, it probably dates back to the 17th century and is likely based on church music of the time. The tune is the same as that used in "America" (i.e. the song beginning "My country, 'tis of thee..."), which may explain your apparent confusion.
A "donation" is a gift given to a charity. There is nothing in the dictionary definition or common usage of the word "donation" that suggests that it cannot be rewarded with some incentive (i.e. a mug or source code). You are free to argue that such a donation is not, in fact, a donation, but you are making a purely semantic argument that has already been lost.
Shit, I know the basics of compiling from source, but have never had any luck compiling Firefox or GIMP. Thank goodness there are installers for me to use.
It isn't a mandatory payment. It is a donation that comes with a reward. It is like donating to NPR and getting a mug. If you want a mug from NPR, then you have to give them money (and not just any amount, but some amount exceeding a minimum). You could also choose not to give them any money, and not get a mug. CS Lewis might argue that such a donation (i.e. one motivated by such an incentive) is not really a donation, and somehow diminishes the act of giving, but that is a rather extreme point of view.
Oi! I hadn't even thought about that. That said, the situation is still something like "Where the hell did the user drag-and-drop?" vs "Where the hell did the installer put the damn thing, and how many levels deep is it?" And most Mac apps come in a.dmg that contains (1) the app to be drag-and-dropped, and (2) an alias to the Applications/ directory. Still, your point is well-taken.
Two caveats: (1) I use Mac OS X 10.6, (2) I have not used Windows more than a handful of times since XP. That said, I think that you are largely correct, but that there are some mitigating factors in favor of the "Mac way."
First and foremost, Mac programs tend to come in application bundles. In principal, every Mac program is a single object from the point of view of the average user. Specifically, it is an object with a.app suffix (and even the suffix can be suppressed). This means that the average user's Application/ directory is basically flat: it is a folder containing every program that the user might want to use, with no subfolders to navigate. Contrast to Windows, where you might have to navigate the directory structure several levels deep to get what you want. In short, rarely used programs are (normally) pretty easily accessible.
Additionally, it is fairly easy to create an "Application Launcher" on the dock (and I believe that it is done by default): simply drag the Applications folder to the right (or lower) end of the dock. Finally, if you don't like the flat directory structure, there is nothing preventing the user from creating their own hierarchy.
In short, the Mac app launching process is not perfect, but the need for a dedicated app launcher is somewhat mitigated by a saner directory structure from the start, and there are some simple modifications that can be made to further ease the process.
I really can't stand 3D in general, but it was very well done in Coraline, and I continue to hold that film up as an exemplar of how 3D can be used effectively to create an immersive film.
By many, they are considered the same species. That is why you will see some people refer to modern humans as Homo sapiens sapiens, and Neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
I disagree with your statement that science is the overall method, exclusive of the ideas it generates. Science is both a method and a body of knowledge. At least, that is the definition that I had in mind in my original reply, and is clearly the understanding had by Coolhand2120 in his first comment. Perhaps the issue here is not one of philosophy, but one of ambiguous language.
Yes, and? Are you arguing that plate tectonics was not science until a mechanism was discovered? If so, when did the theory of gravity become science? Or is it yet science, as, to the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus about the mechanism by which gravity operates?
Basically, you make my point for me. Plate tectonics was not accepted before a mechanism was discovered. Experts in geology did not believe the hypothesis because they didn't know about the semi-liquid interior of the Earth. Hence something that we now regard as scientific fact was excluded from the body of knowledge that we might call science on the basis of belief, in the fact of good observations and testable hypotheses (the very elements that most scientists would argue are essential to good science). Science changes all the time on the basis of belief.
Define "science." You say that science is "more than the successes and failings of individual scientists," but that does not mean that it does not include these successes and failures.
The original poster claimed that science is never changed by belief. Coolhand2120 responded by noting what scientists believe is central to science, hence science is always being changed by what people believe. Kenja argued that belief has no place in science, because science is built on observation and experiment. My response is that science includes more than just observation and experiment, but also how those observations and experiments are interpreted, which is a matter of belief. You say
Your argument is really a call to make the "ideal science" more of a reality, not bemoaning the fact that it isn't and therefore, we as individuals are fee to ignore the problem out of convenience.
First, this doesn't address the original poster in the slightest. However, that said, I made no such argument, and no such dichotomy exists. The fact that science (both method and knowledge) is influenced by human belief is relevant to science. This does not mean that we should toss out the baby with the bathwater, throw up our hands, and do whatever we like, but it does mean that when we make decisions, we are relying on scientific belief (i.e. scientific fact), rather than some notion of objective fact. The strength of the consensus should influence the decisions we make on the basis of that consensus.
For it to be science, it has to be based on observable evidence and not belief.
That is the ideal. In reality, scientists are human, are prone to error, and often become attached to bad ideas. For instance, it took decades for plate tectonics to become accepted scientific theory, even among experts, even in the face of solid predictions and observations.
I assume that the grandparent poster was using the term "paradigm shift" in the way that Thomas Kuhn used it in The Structure of Scientific Revolution. While there are many valid critiques of his work, Kuhn was a sociologist, and sought to describe the way that science is actually done, rather than how scientists feel it should be done---that is, the book should be read more as an ethnography of scientists than a manual for doing science. In that context, Kuhn's thesis is that the community of scientists gloms onto a particular paradigm or way of seeing the world. Once such a paradigm becomes entrenched, it is difficult to replace it, and an "old guard" may actively suppress new paradigms through selective publication. Eventually, the evidence becomes overwhelming and the new theory is accepted (or the old guard dies off, and the new theory is accepted).
In this way, the ideal of science (i.e. science based on observation and experimentation) is ultimately born out, but the route is not as direct as many scientists might claim it to be.
I did not mean to say that one simply needs to master the material in order to teach it. One must have a passion for teaching, and the high level of skill required to teach. However, that simply is not enough: one must also be a master of the material that is being taught. In fact, you make my point for me:
The problem is that most teachers do not know anything about how the mind works. I have met scores of ESL/EFL teachers. I can count the number who had ever heard anything about language acquisition theory on one hand.
I would argue that knowledge of language acquisition theory is a huge part of the linguistic mastery required to teach a language. One shouldn't be trying to teach a language until one knows some theory about how languages work, part of which is understanding language acquisition. This represents a high level of specific knowledge about languages, and not a more general ability to teach. For instance, as a math teacher, I don't need to be a linguist, or have a deep knowledge of language acquisition (or, going the other way, understanding the cognitive basis of numbers is important for me to know, but not for you, a language teacher, to know). Moreover, I think that you would agree that one cannot really teach a language that one does not speak, read, or write. Three or four years of high school Russian does not qualify one to teach Russian.
On the other hand, a native Russian speaker is not qualified to teach Russian by default. As you say, he or she would also need extensive knowledge about developmental and cognitive psychology (which, as you say, is lacking in most teachers), as well as some training in classroom management, and other teaching skills.
Finally, you say
Standing up in front of the students and cajoling them through the textbook is *not* "knowing how to teach".
If you have not mastered the material that you are teaching---if you don't have a deep understanding of the knowledge that you are trying to convey---then how are you doing anything but cajoling your students through the textbook?
When you note that there are surprisingly few teachers who are any good, I agree. But this is a result of both a lack of teaching skills and a lack of subject area mastery. One needs both sets of skills in order to teach. Being a great teacher is important, but you could be the greatest teacher in the world and, if you don't know that you are trying to teach, you are sunk.
As others have pointed, one only needs a bachelor's degree to teach at the primary or secondary level (elementary, middle, and high school levels). What has not been pointed out is that the degree need not even be in the field taught. In the year that I got my secondary education credential, there were five or six other people in the math education program. Of those, I was the only one to earn a degree in mathematics---the others earned degrees in math education. They were not required to take any mathematics beyond two semesters of calculus.
This may be particular to Nevada, though I sincerely doubt it. There is a notion among people who train teachers that it is sufficient to know how to teach and have a passion for teaching. The assumption is that if you know how to teach, then you don't really have to have mastery over the material that you are teaching. You need to know it only well enough to follow lesson plans that are available on the internet.
As much as I would like to see the Bush tax cuts sunset, it wouldn't do much for schools. Most school funding comes from local property and sales taxes. What money does come from the feds is now largely tied to NCLB, which is just bad news for everyone.
- Does the average person need composition skills beyond what is taught in Junior High?
- Will the pilot or the farmer or HVAC installer actually need English Comp?
- Would those that do need these skills later in life, be better off learning them later rather than earlier?
Yes. Yes. No, because I don't believe that there is a class of people that doesn't need such rhetorical skills.
Why foist these tools into the school room? Why not sell them on the open market aimed at those who have a need and desire to write? Why not let them become self improvement tools.
The idea that the next great novel will some how be extinguished if little Johnny doesn't take a writing course is about as valid as the idea that if little Susie doesn't start playing her violin at age 5 the next Yo-Yo Ma will be lost to the world.
You seem to be under the impression that education is the same as training. Either that, or you believe that schools are meant to train students, rather than educate them. In either case, I disagree.
The goal of schools is the educate, and education involves helping people learn how to think rationally and critically. Composition (and rhetoric, in general) is an important part of that. It is necessary that people in a civilized society be able to express themselves, and analyze the expressions of others (i.e. that they can think about the arguments made by others in a rational manner, weigh the value of different arguments, etc). Part of learning how to write is learning how to make a good argument, and how to parse to arguments of others. Unless you want a society of automatons, these are skills that everyone should learn.
Great. I take it that you will be voting for the next tax increase? Or will you be writing your local school district a $30-60,000 check to cover the salary of a new teacher? And I assume that you will be able to convince all of your friends to do the same? Or maybe you are planning on donating your time?
It is all well and good to say that we need to hire more teachers. Hell, I agree! We need more teachers. The problem is that teachers are not paid particularly well, and our society seems to feel that spending more money on more teachers is not a priority---in fact, the mathematics department at my institution was very nearly eliminated last year. Until that changes, teachers are required to work long hours for little pay.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day; even a blind squirrel finds an acorn from time to time; etc. People make predictions all the time---the fact that some of them are correct should not be surprising. The fact remains that most probably aren't.
The 20% discount only applies to the first $500,000 lost. After that, there is no discount. Thus, the casino requires him to bank a million, but he won't lose that much, because he will stop when the discount no longer applies.
I'm married. My wife and I have joint checking and savings accounts. Since we have total control over each other's finances, what is the harm in sharing passwords for everything else? Moreover, there is a benefit in knowing each other's passwords, in that we don't need to have separate accounts for single services, and if something happens to one of us, the other has the credentials to deal with the aftermath.
What you are failing to recognize is that Louis CK's work is still explicitly protected by copyright laws. That is, he is still taking advantage of "GOVERNMENT protection" (I like the scare-caps, by the way) to prevent others from profiting from his work without permission. If not for these protections, Amazon, Apple, or anyone else could have legally paid $5 for the video, then sold it themselves. That they did not is almost certainly due to existing copyright law.
From Louis CK's website: Live at the Beacon Theater is available with "No DRM, no regional restrictions, no crap. You can download this file, play it as much as you like, burn it to a DVD, whatever." (source) This implies that the work is free of technological protections, but does not imply that it is free of legal protections. If you think that the performance is being sold without copyright protections, then I invite you to make a few quick bucks by selling it yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I can tell, you can give this guy as much or as little as you like, and get the binaries. On his ask page, he allows one to donate at certain monthly thresholds, and provides a link to PayPal for one-time contributions. At any amount, you are entitled to the perks or rewards offered on that page. You make a DONATION, and you get a perk. His usage of the word is entirely consistent with the way that the rest of the English speaking world uses the word. You can argue until you are blue in the face that this does not meet the dictionary definition of "donatation," but it is entirely consistent with the way that NPR, public museums, and many other institutions use the word.
I would also note that this is entirely irrelevant to your example of buying a soda at 7-11. Donations are gifts given to charities. One could argue that lunduke.com is not a charitable organization (in which case I would agree that this is not a donation, but that isn't the argument that you have been making), but you would have to stretch the notion to its breaking point to include 7-11 as a charity.
I can't tell if you are trying to be funny or not, but the US national anthem is the "Star Spangled Banner." The lyrics are from a poem by Francis Scott Key. These lyrics, written during the War of 1812, were eventually matched to the English drinking song "To Anacreon in Heaven."
On the other hand the English (UK) don't have an official national anthem. "God Save the King/Queen" is probably the closest approximation. While the origin of the lyrics and tune are not known, it probably dates back to the 17th century and is likely based on church music of the time. The tune is the same as that used in "America" (i.e. the song beginning "My country, 'tis of thee..."), which may explain your apparent confusion.
A "donation" is a gift given to a charity. There is nothing in the dictionary definition or common usage of the word "donation" that suggests that it cannot be rewarded with some incentive (i.e. a mug or source code). You are free to argue that such a donation is not, in fact, a donation, but you are making a purely semantic argument that has already been lost.
Shit, I know the basics of compiling from source, but have never had any luck compiling Firefox or GIMP. Thank goodness there are installers for me to use.
It isn't a mandatory payment. It is a donation that comes with a reward. It is like donating to NPR and getting a mug. If you want a mug from NPR, then you have to give them money (and not just any amount, but some amount exceeding a minimum). You could also choose not to give them any money, and not get a mug. CS Lewis might argue that such a donation (i.e. one motivated by such an incentive) is not really a donation, and somehow diminishes the act of giving, but that is a rather extreme point of view.
Oi! I hadn't even thought about that. That said, the situation is still something like "Where the hell did the user drag-and-drop?" vs "Where the hell did the installer put the damn thing, and how many levels deep is it?" And most Mac apps come in a .dmg that contains (1) the app to be drag-and-dropped, and (2) an alias to the Applications/ directory. Still, your point is well-taken.
Two caveats: (1) I use Mac OS X 10.6, (2) I have not used Windows more than a handful of times since XP. That said, I think that you are largely correct, but that there are some mitigating factors in favor of the "Mac way."
First and foremost, Mac programs tend to come in application bundles. In principal, every Mac program is a single object from the point of view of the average user. Specifically, it is an object with a .app suffix (and even the suffix can be suppressed). This means that the average user's Application/ directory is basically flat: it is a folder containing every program that the user might want to use, with no subfolders to navigate. Contrast to Windows, where you might have to navigate the directory structure several levels deep to get what you want. In short, rarely used programs are (normally) pretty easily accessible.
Additionally, it is fairly easy to create an "Application Launcher" on the dock (and I believe that it is done by default): simply drag the Applications folder to the right (or lower) end of the dock. Finally, if you don't like the flat directory structure, there is nothing preventing the user from creating their own hierarchy.
In short, the Mac app launching process is not perfect, but the need for a dedicated app launcher is somewhat mitigated by a saner directory structure from the start, and there are some simple modifications that can be made to further ease the process.
Coraline.
I really can't stand 3D in general, but it was very well done in Coraline, and I continue to hold that film up as an exemplar of how 3D can be used effectively to create an immersive film.
By many, they are considered the same species. That is why you will see some people refer to modern humans as Homo sapiens sapiens, and Neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
I disagree with your statement that science is the overall method, exclusive of the ideas it generates. Science is both a method and a body of knowledge. At least, that is the definition that I had in mind in my original reply, and is clearly the understanding had by Coolhand2120 in his first comment. Perhaps the issue here is not one of philosophy, but one of ambiguous language.
I like that. Mind if I steal it?
Yes, and? Are you arguing that plate tectonics was not science until a mechanism was discovered? If so, when did the theory of gravity become science? Or is it yet science, as, to the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus about the mechanism by which gravity operates?
Basically, you make my point for me. Plate tectonics was not accepted before a mechanism was discovered. Experts in geology did not believe the hypothesis because they didn't know about the semi-liquid interior of the Earth. Hence something that we now regard as scientific fact was excluded from the body of knowledge that we might call science on the basis of belief, in the fact of good observations and testable hypotheses (the very elements that most scientists would argue are essential to good science). Science changes all the time on the basis of belief.
Define "science." You say that science is "more than the successes and failings of individual scientists," but that does not mean that it does not include these successes and failures.
The original poster claimed that science is never changed by belief. Coolhand2120 responded by noting what scientists believe is central to science, hence science is always being changed by what people believe. Kenja argued that belief has no place in science, because science is built on observation and experiment. My response is that science includes more than just observation and experiment, but also how those observations and experiments are interpreted, which is a matter of belief. You say
First, this doesn't address the original poster in the slightest. However, that said, I made no such argument, and no such dichotomy exists. The fact that science (both method and knowledge) is influenced by human belief is relevant to science. This does not mean that we should toss out the baby with the bathwater, throw up our hands, and do whatever we like, but it does mean that when we make decisions, we are relying on scientific belief (i.e. scientific fact), rather than some notion of objective fact. The strength of the consensus should influence the decisions we make on the basis of that consensus.
That is the ideal. In reality, scientists are human, are prone to error, and often become attached to bad ideas. For instance, it took decades for plate tectonics to become accepted scientific theory, even among experts, even in the face of solid predictions and observations.
I assume that the grandparent poster was using the term "paradigm shift" in the way that Thomas Kuhn used it in The Structure of Scientific Revolution. While there are many valid critiques of his work, Kuhn was a sociologist, and sought to describe the way that science is actually done, rather than how scientists feel it should be done---that is, the book should be read more as an ethnography of scientists than a manual for doing science. In that context, Kuhn's thesis is that the community of scientists gloms onto a particular paradigm or way of seeing the world. Once such a paradigm becomes entrenched, it is difficult to replace it, and an "old guard" may actively suppress new paradigms through selective publication. Eventually, the evidence becomes overwhelming and the new theory is accepted (or the old guard dies off, and the new theory is accepted).
In this way, the ideal of science (i.e. science based on observation and experimentation) is ultimately born out, but the route is not as direct as many scientists might claim it to be.
I did not mean to say that one simply needs to master the material in order to teach it. One must have a passion for teaching, and the high level of skill required to teach. However, that simply is not enough: one must also be a master of the material that is being taught. In fact, you make my point for me:
I would argue that knowledge of language acquisition theory is a huge part of the linguistic mastery required to teach a language. One shouldn't be trying to teach a language until one knows some theory about how languages work, part of which is understanding language acquisition. This represents a high level of specific knowledge about languages, and not a more general ability to teach. For instance, as a math teacher, I don't need to be a linguist, or have a deep knowledge of language acquisition (or, going the other way, understanding the cognitive basis of numbers is important for me to know, but not for you, a language teacher, to know). Moreover, I think that you would agree that one cannot really teach a language that one does not speak, read, or write. Three or four years of high school Russian does not qualify one to teach Russian.
On the other hand, a native Russian speaker is not qualified to teach Russian by default. As you say, he or she would also need extensive knowledge about developmental and cognitive psychology (which, as you say, is lacking in most teachers), as well as some training in classroom management, and other teaching skills.
Finally, you say
If you have not mastered the material that you are teaching---if you don't have a deep understanding of the knowledge that you are trying to convey---then how are you doing anything but cajoling your students through the textbook?
When you note that there are surprisingly few teachers who are any good, I agree. But this is a result of both a lack of teaching skills and a lack of subject area mastery. One needs both sets of skills in order to teach. Being a great teacher is important, but you could be the greatest teacher in the world and, if you don't know that you are trying to teach, you are sunk.
As others have pointed, one only needs a bachelor's degree to teach at the primary or secondary level (elementary, middle, and high school levels). What has not been pointed out is that the degree need not even be in the field taught. In the year that I got my secondary education credential, there were five or six other people in the math education program. Of those, I was the only one to earn a degree in mathematics---the others earned degrees in math education. They were not required to take any mathematics beyond two semesters of calculus.
This may be particular to Nevada, though I sincerely doubt it. There is a notion among people who train teachers that it is sufficient to know how to teach and have a passion for teaching. The assumption is that if you know how to teach, then you don't really have to have mastery over the material that you are teaching. You need to know it only well enough to follow lesson plans that are available on the internet.
As much as I would like to see the Bush tax cuts sunset, it wouldn't do much for schools. Most school funding comes from local property and sales taxes. What money does come from the feds is now largely tied to NCLB, which is just bad news for everyone.
Yes. Yes. No, because I don't believe that there is a class of people that doesn't need such rhetorical skills.
You seem to be under the impression that education is the same as training. Either that, or you believe that schools are meant to train students, rather than educate them. In either case, I disagree.
The goal of schools is the educate, and education involves helping people learn how to think rationally and critically. Composition (and rhetoric, in general) is an important part of that. It is necessary that people in a civilized society be able to express themselves, and analyze the expressions of others (i.e. that they can think about the arguments made by others in a rational manner, weigh the value of different arguments, etc). Part of learning how to write is learning how to make a good argument, and how to parse to arguments of others. Unless you want a society of automatons, these are skills that everyone should learn.
Great. I take it that you will be voting for the next tax increase? Or will you be writing your local school district a $30-60,000 check to cover the salary of a new teacher? And I assume that you will be able to convince all of your friends to do the same? Or maybe you are planning on donating your time?
It is all well and good to say that we need to hire more teachers. Hell, I agree! We need more teachers. The problem is that teachers are not paid particularly well, and our society seems to feel that spending more money on more teachers is not a priority---in fact, the mathematics department at my institution was very nearly eliminated last year. Until that changes, teachers are required to work long hours for little pay.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day; even a blind squirrel finds an acorn from time to time; etc. People make predictions all the time---the fact that some of them are correct should not be surprising. The fact remains that most probably aren't.
The 20% discount only applies to the first $500,000 lost. After that, there is no discount. Thus, the casino requires him to bank a million, but he won't lose that much, because he will stop when the discount no longer applies.
I'm married. My wife and I have joint checking and savings accounts. Since we have total control over each other's finances, what is the harm in sharing passwords for everything else? Moreover, there is a benefit in knowing each other's passwords, in that we don't need to have separate accounts for single services, and if something happens to one of us, the other has the credentials to deal with the aftermath.
What you are failing to recognize is that Louis CK's work is still explicitly protected by copyright laws. That is, he is still taking advantage of "GOVERNMENT protection" (I like the scare-caps, by the way) to prevent others from profiting from his work without permission. If not for these protections, Amazon, Apple, or anyone else could have legally paid $5 for the video, then sold it themselves. That they did not is almost certainly due to existing copyright law.
From Louis CK's website: Live at the Beacon Theater is available with "No DRM, no regional restrictions, no crap. You can download this file, play it as much as you like, burn it to a DVD, whatever." (source) This implies that the work is free of technological protections, but does not imply that it is free of legal protections. If you think that the performance is being sold without copyright protections, then I invite you to make a few quick bucks by selling it yourself.