and that I have far fewer peers on this hunk of rock than I thought I did, and it's deeply depressing.
And comments like that make me feel similarly.
Be aware that you're making a value judgement of another human being. People are the product of their education, upbringing, culture, etc. "Stupidity", in the way you use the term, is not associated with the capabilities of a person's brain, just that they have come to see an issue differently to you. You have 7 billion "peers", it's just that most of them do not have the same upbringing and influences as you do. So... cheer up.
Essentially it makes sense to bring in tech talent with the purpose of filling vacancies that can not otherwise be filled with the domestic talent
Does it? What's wrong with the "old ways", where a company would hire someone with lesser skills and allow them to grow into the role? Or perhaps *gasp* provide training and mentoring? Otherwise how do people get relevant experience on their resume? How do people even know what to study at university - what career to follow - if everything can be outsourced in the future?
Then there's the shameless hypocrisy of the "job creators" argument. In a capitalist society, companies are supposed to compete and innovate, thereby creating jobs and contributing to the economy. But, instead, importing workers does little for the domestic job market or economy (as does off-shoring their tax bills).
The idea of working visas to give some short-term flexibility to employers, where domestic applicants don't exist, is fine. But, as with most things in the U.S., a rational, considered idea has been taken to its extreme by vested interests and turned into a monster.
I[n] REAL capitalism, when you screw over your customers, they leave you and go to the competition.
No, Capitalism - the free market - does NOT LIKE competition. While every *small* company is trying to outdo their competition (which is good and manageable), every *big* company is trying to *kill* their competition (which is very very bad).
You seem to ignore the fact that nothing can work without rules. Capitalism is not - and has never, ever been - about letting companies off their leash and go crashing about like bulls in China shops. When there is less regulation, things like the GFC happens, as well as people dying from smoking, asbestos, pollution, etc.
Without government regulation of the market, you would not currently have cheap water, because there would only be 2 major water companies (after they'd killed all the smaller competition) and you'd have a choice between cheap and nasty, or clean and expensive. Give me one example of a deregulated market which has ended up providing consistent quality at affordable prices.
The only time Capitalism works well, is when government regulates to *ensure* quality and competition. Smell the air in Beijing. That's the smell of lack of regulation. The GFC - lack of regulation. Yes, *too much* regulation is bad, and *not enough* (or inappropriate) regulation is also bad. It's not a zero-sum game, it's about getting the balance right.
> You have no rights of speech with a privately owned business.
What an odd attitude for someone to have these days.
So we don't have a right to expose companies using slave-wage labour in bad conditions in other countries? We don't have a right to protest having our personal data sold, or given away to government agencies? Or about mining companies messing up our environment? Or to form unions to protect workers' rights?
The fire "risk" is natures form of healing. By re-distributing the radiation the area can heal. We humans take issue with the idea of the radiation spreading outside "the zone" but nature doesn't.
We humans also like attributing "intent" to natural systems - like "balance" and "healing" - but nature doesn't.
Nature doesn't "heal", in the same way that it doesn't "hurt". Organisms just do what they do. Their interaction and interrelation - the patterns our human brains identify are just temporary states. Thing are always changing, but they usually change so slowly (ie. we live so briefly), we think we perceive a "system" and call it "nature" and think it somehow cares what happens.
There is no intent in nature. There is no "healing". Nature is neither benign nor belligerent. In fact, "nature" doesn't exist. There's no such thing, except as a concept in our human minds.
True, but the fact is there is more than one type of "hero". It doesn't have a simplistic definition.
Snoden is a hero, in one definition, because anyone who risks their personal wellbeing to help others is a hero.
Gates is a hero also, as his efforts have saved lives; albeit via money, without personal risk.
Of course, one can be a hero for a period of time, then go and do something stupid and not be a hero anymore. It's just a word, not a permanent tattoo on one's forehead.
I write into this moshpit of hate for anyone here who might struggle with depression.
Writing from the moshpit of judgementalism, are we?
I've suffered from anxiety and depression all my life. You don't speak for me, and nothing you said makes sense to me. Believe it or not, we're not one single, like-minded, mono-cultural mass.
Your body makes you depressed to solve a stress problem.
Is that right? And what research supports this ridiculously simplistic viewpoint?
I'm not going to say it's going to work for you, because I can't know that, especially because most of you have already insisted that it can't work, and so it's sure to not work for you, because you will see to it that it won't, so that you can be right, and miserable.
Actually, you just said exactly that. You imply that the only way it's not going to work for me is if I sabotage it for myself, so I can be "right and miserable". What a holier-than-thou person you are. Oh right, you're religious. Well, I guess you have a right to think you know what's good for me. I have a right to disagree - which, from your mountain-top, you call "the right to be miserable".
You have your medicine, I have mine. Leave it at that, if you are able.
Once we start to have a lot of semi-dumb semi-autonomous robots in wide use, we may see "common sense" fractured into a lot of small, solveable problems.
This hasn't proven to be the case in politics, even though the existing problems are already solvable.
Also, as any biologist (or intelligent human) is aware, there is NO SUCH THING as a 'forgettable' creature.
Whilst we "intelligent humans" debate invented concepts like "morality", other creatures of nature carry on doing things to each other that we can only begin to have nightmares about. The only reason we worry about hurting other animals is because we are social creatures and therefore wired for empathy - but only for our own survival, not for any other reason. Ethics & morality exist purely for our benefit. Where it happens to benefit other creatures is purely incidental.
dumb enough to value convenience over personal responsibility.
I pay taxes for the convenience of a police force so I don't have to hire personal guards, roads so I don't have to make my own, and the country's economic management so I don't have to trade sheep for beer. Convenience over personal responsibility is what allows you to get on the internet and make wild generalisations.
First comes a technology that NOBODY thinks is dangerous and NOBODY knows is detrimental. We're sold the cool-aid. Cigarettes for instance. That's a technology too. Advertisers told us smoking was healthy back in the day. So do you blame people for demanding the product and helping create a huge industry?
Same with cars. You forget that we only started talking publicly about pollution in the 80's or thereabouts. I don't remember any talk of pollution in the news before then. Cars go WAY back. Do you think the current supply/demand for cars would have emerged if the media had been all over atmospheric pollution back THEN? If we had been told lead in petrol was bad back THEN?
You can even take mobile phones as another example. It was only AFTER the worldwide success of the iPhone that we started hearing about labour issues. It was only AFTER we started buying all our clothes from China etc. that we started hearing about sweat shops. It was only AFTER we all had electricity that we heard about fossil fuel issues.
You cannot seriously say it's OUR problem because "oh supply and demand", that's just being simple-minded. The demand was created in the first place, before we knew there were any problems. We trusted the process, and only NOW do we realise it has fucked us all for the benefit of a few. But only AFTER we are hooked and it's almost impossible to change. Our livelihoods now depend on these things. Many of us do the best we can to reduce our usage, but that's about all we can be reasonably asked to do for now.
It's funny how, when other people created these markets through misinformation and manipulation, it's somehow now up to *us*, the people who were duped into these false economies in the first place, to somehow change the world. "Think globally act locally" only goes so far. Those in power who created all these problem are where the buck stops, nowhere else. They are guilty. They are responsible.
We did not "demand" this. All we demanded was a better life. It was up to those with money and power to think up a workable version of "better" but what we got in the end was entrapment into a lifestyle that is killing us.
Looking on the bright side - thanks to all our wanton climate changing industrial activity and glacial public acceptance of the situation, we are getting our first experiences with terraforming.
You're kidding, right? The only thing we are affecting here is a few degrees of temperature, and you're equating that to "terraforming"? On top of that, it has taken *decades of activity of millions of people and vast industrialisation* to achieve *a few degrees of change*. No, we are not doing terraforming. We are just fucking with the atmosphere a bit. It's not even enough to wipe us out, or make Earth "unliveable". It's just enough to wipe out our food production and cause millions - perhaps billions - of people to starve or be killed in resource wars, etc. until we adjust to the new climate conditions.
That's not terraforming, that's just another day in human civilisation.
And increased heat in the oceans can (and likely will) lead to increased cloud formation, which will alter the planet's albedo in the opposite direction.
If you knew anything about the topic you're commenting on, you'd know that increased cloud cover *prevents* heat leaving the surface. Increased cloud cover is what helps create a greenhouse effect, increasing temperatures. Hard to believe there are people living in the 21st century who don't know these basic things I was taught in high school. Fucking scary.
Where do you get the idea that having a searchable list of all applications, not segmented into categories, is a good idea for the novice user?
"This", as they say. If you need to know the name of the application to run it, it's fail. I've been using Windows since 3.1. Got Win7 and wanted the screen shot tool. Typed in "screen", nope. "Clip", nope. "shot", "grab", "snap", etc. all nope. It's called the "snipping tool" for some godforsaken reason. And somehow typing shit is "more intuitive".
Thing is, I have a mental block about it now, and keep forgetting it's called "snipping tool". The number of times I've had to look it up online again is embarrassing.
Windows XP let me easily *categorise* my menu. My Start menu had a few sub-menus, like "media", "utilities", "internet", and each of those contained shortcuts to relevant programs. It took me THREE KEYPRESSES to run ANY program I wanted. Want to run Chrome? Win+I+C. Filezilla? Win+I+F. The folder my music is kept in? Win+G+M ("G" for "goto"). It was a thing of beauty. I can't do that in Windows 7 - everything takes longer now. And don't get me started on that Frankenstein's abortion they call a Control Panel.
If the Earth were the size of a basketball, the asteroid would be 560 feet away
That doesn't mean much to me, as there's no comparison to how far away other things are. Perhaps better to say it will go past at a little over 8 times the distance to the Moon. People are used to seeing pictures of the Earth and Moon.
If you watch them without commercials, the look like they were made by retards for retards!:-/ I will probably give it a change, but I guess I will be disappointment... Currently I'm only watching documentaries made by the BBC...
Aussie here, couldn't agree with you more. I only watch BBC docos, and even then some are dodgy.
I've given National Geographic shows a go, because I like the magazine. But their entertainment division is simply that - entertainment. Special effects and waffle. It's a real shame. Making documentaries on a commercial basis is FAIL from the start. By the time you've made all the compromises necessary, any real value in the enterprise has long since bled out.
Here in Oz we have the ABC, bless its cotton socks. Britain has the BBC. The U.S. has public broadcasters, why was it not made by one of them? It may have actually been something special then.
I'm as patriotic as the next guy - "go team USA" and all that - but I'm sad to hear that your rover is lost.
I wonder why Americans often feel the need to qualify their support for another country by making sure it's known how "patriotic" they are. It sounds very, very weird from the outside (in this case Oz).
Not it isn't. Creationism is a HYPOTHESIS. There's a big difference between theory and hypothesis, which Bill Nye didn't even raise.
Bill Nye didn't even challenge Ham's assertion that "all dating methods are fallible" and there's "nothing in science to contradict a short age Earth". Nye didn't do a very good job at all. Anyway, point is Creationism is FAITH BASED, simple as that. Science is not based on faith, it is based on observation, experiment repeatability and prediction. The Vatican has no problem with evolution (another thing Nye failed to mention).
Evolution is based on many, many observations and reinforcing studies. Creationism is based on faith in words written in a book.
The problem here is the science community has failed to communicate WHAT IS SCIENCE. Even Nye failed to do so, in terms anyone with half a brain can understand. "Teaching controversy" has little place in the science classroom. Teaching "critical thinking", creativity and problem-solving are different things. Every science classroom teaches the difference between hypothesis and theory, and not making too many assumptions - that's controversy enough for kids just trying to pass their exams and have a life for fucks sake.
Creationism belongs in Literature & Religion classes. Kids shouldn't be made the battleground for political ideologies. It's fucking shameful. And Nye failed to mention that as well.
My wife and I are both involved in the school and we both have a teaching background
You had my interest there.
The money that charter schools get from [taxes] is a pittance compared to what the pathetic, failing state run public schools get.
Made me wonder how your mind works.
maybe we should ban teachers unions
Turned me off completely. Any teacher speaking casually about banning things is not one I want teaching MY kids.
The bottom line is the teachers unions exist only to further their own power and enrich the teachers, regardless of how well they teach.
If you're a Republican voter (no prizes there), at least show some balance by also suggesting banning corporate influences on politics, which they do ONLY for their own power and enrichment. If you think corporate lobbies and super PACs are the only allowable influence on policy, again you are no worthy teacher for my kids.
Until we break those unions, our children's education will always be second place on the political landscape.
Outside of teachers & academics, who do you think really cares about quality of education? Politicians? Corporations? Religions? And in what way exactly are those institutions different from unions? They all battle each other for influence, but I'd rather put my hat in with a group of teachers than groups ONLY interested in power and money.
> the worst part is that the comments are in a VERY narrow box, and all the useless framing takes up a significant chunk of space.
Not defending the Beta layout, but why have I not seen any comments posting Stylish modifications for the beta site? We're geeks after all, isn't that better than leaving?
Are over medicated suffering from fake disorders ADHD bipolar and autism from vaccines this is why we should stop putting unnatural things into our bodies that should only be enjoying god's creations
I take it God didn't create punctuation.
Just in case you're not simply a troll... you're a hypocrite as well as ignorant. Do you eat any modern foods - bread, milk, cereal, etc? They're all made with "unnatural" things, like preservatives and have gone through "unnatural" processes in factories.
Truth is, EVERYTHING is natural. What can possibly exist which isn't made from naturally occurring materials? Chemicals exist because your God created them. We are MADE OUT OF chemicals. All science does is examine what is already there, and find solutions to problems using - again - stuff which is already there. Stuff "God made".
God made cyanide too, and bacteria and viruses. You can't have it both ways. That house you live in, to protect you from God's diseases and beasts that would kill you, and God's extreme weather that would also kill you, was made thanks to science.
If you believe God doesn't like science, then that's your right. But don't bitch about it on the internet in your comfortable chair. Go live in a cave, like God intended, and stop bothering us normal, sensible people. Remember to take a few sharp stones, if you can find some. If you get into trouble, just pray and all will be fine, I'm sure.
Slashdot Mirror
and that I have far fewer peers on this hunk of rock than I thought I did, and it's deeply depressing.
And comments like that make me feel similarly.
Be aware that you're making a value judgement of another human being. People are the product of their education, upbringing, culture, etc. "Stupidity", in the way you use the term, is not associated with the capabilities of a person's brain, just that they have come to see an issue differently to you. You have 7 billion "peers", it's just that most of them do not have the same upbringing and influences as you do. So... cheer up.
I prefer to quote by ManBearPig-month.
ST:tNG
It's actually ST:TNG; capital letter follows a colon. Remove the colon and it can be STtNG.
Essentially it makes sense to bring in tech talent with the purpose of filling vacancies that can not otherwise be filled with the domestic talent
Does it? What's wrong with the "old ways", where a company would hire someone with lesser skills and allow them to grow into the role? Or perhaps *gasp* provide training and mentoring? Otherwise how do people get relevant experience on their resume? How do people even know what to study at university - what career to follow - if everything can be outsourced in the future?
Then there's the shameless hypocrisy of the "job creators" argument. In a capitalist society, companies are supposed to compete and innovate, thereby creating jobs and contributing to the economy. But, instead, importing workers does little for the domestic job market or economy (as does off-shoring their tax bills).
The idea of working visas to give some short-term flexibility to employers, where domestic applicants don't exist, is fine. But, as with most things in the U.S., a rational, considered idea has been taken to its extreme by vested interests and turned into a monster.
I[n] REAL capitalism, when you screw over your customers, they leave you and go to the competition.
No, Capitalism - the free market - does NOT LIKE competition. While every *small* company is trying to outdo their competition (which is good and manageable), every *big* company is trying to *kill* their competition (which is very very bad).
You seem to ignore the fact that nothing can work without rules. Capitalism is not - and has never, ever been - about letting companies off their leash and go crashing about like bulls in China shops. When there is less regulation, things like the GFC happens, as well as people dying from smoking, asbestos, pollution, etc.
Without government regulation of the market, you would not currently have cheap water, because there would only be 2 major water companies (after they'd killed all the smaller competition) and you'd have a choice between cheap and nasty, or clean and expensive. Give me one example of a deregulated market which has ended up providing consistent quality at affordable prices.
The only time Capitalism works well, is when government regulates to *ensure* quality and competition. Smell the air in Beijing. That's the smell of lack of regulation. The GFC - lack of regulation. Yes, *too much* regulation is bad, and *not enough* (or inappropriate) regulation is also bad. It's not a zero-sum game, it's about getting the balance right.
> You have no rights of speech with a privately owned business.
What an odd attitude for someone to have these days.
So we don't have a right to expose companies using slave-wage labour in bad conditions in other countries? We don't have a right to protest having our personal data sold, or given away to government agencies? Or about mining companies messing up our environment? Or to form unions to protect workers' rights?
The fire "risk" is natures form of healing. By re-distributing the radiation the area can heal. We humans take issue with the idea of the radiation spreading outside "the zone" but nature doesn't.
We humans also like attributing "intent" to natural systems - like "balance" and "healing" - but nature doesn't.
Nature doesn't "heal", in the same way that it doesn't "hurt". Organisms just do what they do. Their interaction and interrelation - the patterns our human brains identify are just temporary states. Thing are always changing, but they usually change so slowly (ie. we live so briefly), we think we perceive a "system" and call it "nature" and think it somehow cares what happens.
There is no intent in nature. There is no "healing". Nature is neither benign nor belligerent. In fact, "nature" doesn't exist. There's no such thing, except as a concept in our human minds.
It's all perspective.
True, but the fact is there is more than one type of "hero". It doesn't have a simplistic definition.
Snoden is a hero, in one definition, because anyone who risks their personal wellbeing to help others is a hero.
Gates is a hero also, as his efforts have saved lives; albeit via money, without personal risk.
Of course, one can be a hero for a period of time, then go and do something stupid and not be a hero anymore. It's just a word, not a permanent tattoo on one's forehead.
I write into this moshpit of hate for anyone here who might struggle with depression.
Writing from the moshpit of judgementalism, are we?
I've suffered from anxiety and depression all my life. You don't speak for me, and nothing you said makes sense to me. Believe it or not, we're not one single, like-minded, mono-cultural mass.
Your body makes you depressed to solve a stress problem.
Is that right? And what research supports this ridiculously simplistic viewpoint?
I'm not going to say it's going to work for you, because I can't know that, especially because most of you have already insisted that it can't work, and so it's sure to not work for you, because you will see to it that it won't, so that you can be right, and miserable.
Actually, you just said exactly that. You imply that the only way it's not going to work for me is if I sabotage it for myself, so I can be "right and miserable". What a holier-than-thou person you are. Oh right, you're religious. Well, I guess you have a right to think you know what's good for me. I have a right to disagree - which, from your mountain-top, you call "the right to be miserable".
You have your medicine, I have mine. Leave it at that, if you are able.
Once we start to have a lot of semi-dumb semi-autonomous robots in wide use, we may see "common sense" fractured into a lot of small, solveable problems.
This hasn't proven to be the case in politics, even though the existing problems are already solvable.
Also, as any biologist (or intelligent human) is aware, there is NO SUCH THING as a 'forgettable' creature.
Whilst we "intelligent humans" debate invented concepts like "morality", other creatures of nature carry on doing things to each other that we can only begin to have nightmares about. The only reason we worry about hurting other animals is because we are social creatures and therefore wired for empathy - but only for our own survival, not for any other reason. Ethics & morality exist purely for our benefit. Where it happens to benefit other creatures is purely incidental.
dumb enough to value convenience over personal responsibility.
I pay taxes for the convenience of a police force so I don't have to hire personal guards, roads so I don't have to make my own, and the country's economic management so I don't have to trade sheep for beer. Convenience over personal responsibility is what allows you to get on the internet and make wild generalisations.
Supply and demand.
No, that's only half the picture.
First comes a technology that NOBODY thinks is dangerous and NOBODY knows is detrimental. We're sold the cool-aid. Cigarettes for instance. That's a technology too. Advertisers told us smoking was healthy back in the day. So do you blame people for demanding the product and helping create a huge industry?
Same with cars. You forget that we only started talking publicly about pollution in the 80's or thereabouts. I don't remember any talk of pollution in the news before then. Cars go WAY back. Do you think the current supply/demand for cars would have emerged if the media had been all over atmospheric pollution back THEN? If we had been told lead in petrol was bad back THEN?
You can even take mobile phones as another example. It was only AFTER the worldwide success of the iPhone that we started hearing about labour issues. It was only AFTER we started buying all our clothes from China etc. that we started hearing about sweat shops. It was only AFTER we all had electricity that we heard about fossil fuel issues.
You cannot seriously say it's OUR problem because "oh supply and demand", that's just being simple-minded. The demand was created in the first place, before we knew there were any problems. We trusted the process, and only NOW do we realise it has fucked us all for the benefit of a few. But only AFTER we are hooked and it's almost impossible to change. Our livelihoods now depend on these things. Many of us do the best we can to reduce our usage, but that's about all we can be reasonably asked to do for now.
It's funny how, when other people created these markets through misinformation and manipulation, it's somehow now up to *us*, the people who were duped into these false economies in the first place, to somehow change the world. "Think globally act locally" only goes so far. Those in power who created all these problem are where the buck stops, nowhere else. They are guilty. They are responsible.
We did not "demand" this. All we demanded was a better life. It was up to those with money and power to think up a workable version of "better" but what we got in the end was entrapment into a lifestyle that is killing us.
Looking on the bright side - thanks to all our wanton climate changing industrial activity and glacial public acceptance of the situation, we are getting our first experiences with terraforming.
You're kidding, right? The only thing we are affecting here is a few degrees of temperature, and you're equating that to "terraforming"? On top of that, it has taken *decades of activity of millions of people and vast industrialisation* to achieve *a few degrees of change*. No, we are not doing terraforming. We are just fucking with the atmosphere a bit. It's not even enough to wipe us out, or make Earth "unliveable". It's just enough to wipe out our food production and cause millions - perhaps billions - of people to starve or be killed in resource wars, etc. until we adjust to the new climate conditions.
That's not terraforming, that's just another day in human civilisation.
And increased heat in the oceans can (and likely will) lead to increased cloud formation, which will alter the planet's albedo in the opposite direction.
If you knew anything about the topic you're commenting on, you'd know that increased cloud cover *prevents* heat leaving the surface. Increased cloud cover is what helps create a greenhouse effect, increasing temperatures. Hard to believe there are people living in the 21st century who don't know these basic things I was taught in high school. Fucking scary.
Where do you get the idea that having a searchable list of all applications, not segmented into categories, is a good idea for the novice user?
"This", as they say. If you need to know the name of the application to run it, it's fail. I've been using Windows since 3.1. Got Win7 and wanted the screen shot tool. Typed in "screen", nope. "Clip", nope. "shot", "grab", "snap", etc. all nope. It's called the "snipping tool" for some godforsaken reason. And somehow typing shit is "more intuitive".
Thing is, I have a mental block about it now, and keep forgetting it's called "snipping tool". The number of times I've had to look it up online again is embarrassing.
Windows XP let me easily *categorise* my menu. My Start menu had a few sub-menus, like "media", "utilities", "internet", and each of those contained shortcuts to relevant programs. It took me THREE KEYPRESSES to run ANY program I wanted. Want to run Chrome? Win+I+C. Filezilla? Win+I+F. The folder my music is kept in? Win+G+M ("G" for "goto"). It was a thing of beauty. I can't do that in Windows 7 - everything takes longer now. And don't get me started on that Frankenstein's abortion they call a Control Panel.
If the Earth were the size of a basketball, the asteroid would be 560 feet away
That doesn't mean much to me, as there's no comparison to how far away other things are. Perhaps better to say it will go past at a little over 8 times the distance to the Moon. People are used to seeing pictures of the Earth and Moon.
If you watch them without commercials, the look like they were made by retards for retards! :-/ I will probably give it a change, but I guess I will be disappointment... Currently I'm only watching documentaries made by the BBC...
Aussie here, couldn't agree with you more. I only watch BBC docos, and even then some are dodgy.
I've given National Geographic shows a go, because I like the magazine. But their entertainment division is simply that - entertainment. Special effects and waffle. It's a real shame. Making documentaries on a commercial basis is FAIL from the start. By the time you've made all the compromises necessary, any real value in the enterprise has long since bled out.
Here in Oz we have the ABC, bless its cotton socks. Britain has the BBC. The U.S. has public broadcasters, why was it not made by one of them? It may have actually been something special then.
I'm as patriotic as the next guy - "go team USA" and all that - but I'm sad to hear that your rover is lost.
I wonder why Americans often feel the need to qualify their support for another country by making sure it's known how "patriotic" they are. It sounds very, very weird from the outside (in this case Oz).
Sure it is. It just isn't a *scientific* theory.
Not it isn't. Creationism is a HYPOTHESIS. There's a big difference between theory and hypothesis, which Bill Nye didn't even raise.
Bill Nye didn't even challenge Ham's assertion that "all dating methods are fallible" and there's "nothing in science to contradict a short age Earth". Nye didn't do a very good job at all. Anyway, point is Creationism is FAITH BASED, simple as that. Science is not based on faith, it is based on observation, experiment repeatability and prediction. The Vatican has no problem with evolution (another thing Nye failed to mention).
Evolution is based on many, many observations and reinforcing studies. Creationism is based on faith in words written in a book.
The problem here is the science community has failed to communicate WHAT IS SCIENCE. Even Nye failed to do so, in terms anyone with half a brain can understand. "Teaching controversy" has little place in the science classroom. Teaching "critical thinking", creativity and problem-solving are different things. Every science classroom teaches the difference between hypothesis and theory, and not making too many assumptions - that's controversy enough for kids just trying to pass their exams and have a life for fucks sake.
Creationism belongs in Literature & Religion classes. Kids shouldn't be made the battleground for political ideologies. It's fucking shameful. And Nye failed to mention that as well.
My wife and I are both involved in the school and we both have a teaching background
You had my interest there.
The money that charter schools get from [taxes] is a pittance compared to what the pathetic, failing state run public schools get.
Made me wonder how your mind works.
maybe we should ban teachers unions
Turned me off completely. Any teacher speaking casually about banning things is not one I want teaching MY kids.
The bottom line is the teachers unions exist only to further their own power and enrich the teachers, regardless of how well they teach.
If you're a Republican voter (no prizes there), at least show some balance by also suggesting banning corporate influences on politics, which they do ONLY for their own power and enrichment. If you think corporate lobbies and super PACs are the only allowable influence on policy, again you are no worthy teacher for my kids.
Until we break those unions, our children's education will always be second place on the political landscape.
Outside of teachers & academics, who do you think really cares about quality of education? Politicians? Corporations? Religions? And in what way exactly are those institutions different from unions? They all battle each other for influence, but I'd rather put my hat in with a group of teachers than groups ONLY interested in power and money.
This is partly the reason why surviving languages use symbols representing sounds rather than images as the Egyptians used.
Aren't you forgetting the Chinese language, used by a fair number of billions of people?
> the worst part is that the comments are in a VERY narrow box, and all the useless framing takes up a significant chunk of space.
Not defending the Beta layout, but why have I not seen any comments posting Stylish modifications for the beta site? We're geeks after all, isn't that better than leaving?
You're a fucking moron. Suck my cock.
This has a hopeful quality to it, as one who has finally identified the type of person who may be inclined go near their genitals.
Are over medicated suffering from fake disorders ADHD bipolar and autism from vaccines this is why we should stop putting unnatural things into our bodies that should only be enjoying god's creations
I take it God didn't create punctuation.
Just in case you're not simply a troll... you're a hypocrite as well as ignorant. Do you eat any modern foods - bread, milk, cereal, etc? They're all made with "unnatural" things, like preservatives and have gone through "unnatural" processes in factories.
Truth is, EVERYTHING is natural. What can possibly exist which isn't made from naturally occurring materials? Chemicals exist because your God created them. We are MADE OUT OF chemicals. All science does is examine what is already there, and find solutions to problems using - again - stuff which is already there. Stuff "God made".
God made cyanide too, and bacteria and viruses. You can't have it both ways. That house you live in, to protect you from God's diseases and beasts that would kill you, and God's extreme weather that would also kill you, was made thanks to science.
If you believe God doesn't like science, then that's your right. But don't bitch about it on the internet in your comfortable chair. Go live in a cave, like God intended, and stop bothering us normal, sensible people. Remember to take a few sharp stones, if you can find some. If you get into trouble, just pray and all will be fine, I'm sure.