I like Obama and love Mythbusters, though I agree the format of the show can be very frustrating. But what can you do, their job is to sell Tide detergent, etc. etc.
Anyways, the reason they chose this myth, if I remember correctly, is Obama is pushing for increased science education. Thus, you take 500 children, hand them mirrors, and put it on a popular television show with the president and highlight science education. I think they're hoping that involving kids in the process will somehow make the message more palpable to any kids that may be watching the show.
So, yeah, not the greatest myth ever featured, but it has that convenient "lots of kids holding mirrors" factor.
That's one reason I like to eat out at fancier restaurants. Yes it costs more, but the wait service pays a lot more attention to you, the food is generally better, and god forbid if a mistake is made you'll be taken care of.
For instance, in a local chain tex-mex place (and tex-mex is never THAT fancy), my girlfriend and I discovered a rubber band in our salsa. We didn't want to make a big deal out of it, and weren't all that grossed out (hey, I'd rather find that than hair). We just wanted a new bowl of salsa. Anyways, we discreetly motion to the waiter and whisper to him about the rubber band. He takes the evidence away and his manager returns. They went into the kitchen to try to figure out where the item came from, turns out it's the rubber bands that hold the stalks of cilantro together. He comes back, explains this to us, then immediately comps our entire check. We tried to talk him out of it (not that big of deal, we're not super squeamish or anything), but he wouldn't listen.
We walked away very happy customers, and left like a $20 tip for dinner/drinks that would've been $50-$60.
Another instance at an awesome, yet surprisingly cheap, steakhouse in Seattle (USDA Prime corn-fed beef from Nebraska, dry-aged for 28 days), a waitress walked by and dropped a cup of horseradish on the floor. A little bit of it landed on my shoulder but I didn't even notice. At some point later she saw this and offered my girlfriend and I a free round of drinks. It wasn't even that nice of shirt! Again, I told her it wasn't a big deal, but she did it anyways.
I would go out more if my meals were cheaper, but I'd rather go out less and have a better experience.
Dude... I agree with what you're saying. I don't have a wife or kids. Maybe I should put "hypothetically speaking" in big capital letters for you next time. I was just proposing that there's probably people doing that already...
Lighten up... I'm not asking for help in building a "prove my wife is cheating on me" kit...
And for the record, people hire private eyes all the time for this kind of thing and for good reason. Are you proposing that every man that's done that and caught his wife in the act is in fact a dirt bag?
Do you really think such things are so black and white?
Or does anyone else think this would be a great way to spy on your kid, your spouse, etc..
I wonder how many techie nerds bought this out of jealousy or fear...
Why couldn't you program this open-phone to auto pickup from a certain number, disable the speaker, and transmit audio?
All without a single ring, vibration, or visual cue.
My cousin was a college football player and a damn good one. I don't want to name names but he's played in NFL Europa and although his chances of getting in the NFL currently are slim it's not a reflection of his abilities.
He has worked his ASS off all his life to get as far as he has. He's damn good and his records are evident of that. Unfortunately, the pro-team that picked him already has a good player in his position and it looks as though his chances of making it pro are slim. Perhaps he'll get lucky, my thoughts and hopes are certainly with him...
In your message you state that sports pros are thugs (it seems you're especially picking on football)... I'd say you've watched too many movies. You should realize that calling them thugs is in itself a reflection of our cultural understanding of football (or any inherently violent sport) players. Though there may be some bad eggs amongst them, they are not all Michael Vicks...
Sports = entertainment... These people risk their health every time they step onto the field. They turn a simple game into an amazing demonstration of athleticism. You seem to be blaming society itself for elevating such things to a high standing, but I challenge you to sit and watch people playing scrabble, chess, or any other mindgame for hours at a time...
For the record, I don't disagree with your "smart = uncool" argument... I just think calling them thugs is an unfair stereotype, in the same way that it's unfair to assume you're "uncool" just because you're into science or math.
I'm no psychologist, but I think the reasons that drew me to math and science were as much creative as they were egotistical. My parents were not mathematicians, scientists, or intellectuals. I started out as a child obsessed by the magic that is electricity; light at the flick of a switch, entertainment at the flick of a remote. The magic of it all, especially in a child's eyes, is obvious.
I still remember sticking my fingers in electrical sockets....crying and running away, and then trying again. I was told by an old family-friend recently that he can still remember me exclaiming "You told me I would die if I stuck my finger in plug-ins.. You lied to me!"
That little anecdote serves as evidence of two points--that I wasn't that bright of a kid and that I was insanely curious.
Later on in life my dad bought an Apple IIe clone and later a Mac for home-office type work...
I learned to love the computer and through the wonderful program "Hypercard" I soon became obsessed again. The ability to make the computer do my bidding was powerful for a kid like myself. I couldn't control my life or anything around me, but I could control the computer. I think I saw this potential in electricity as well.
Even now in the present I'm still pursuing my somewhat egotistical goals of control. I learned C/C++ years ago, have dabbled in digital embedded computers and electronics with the Basic Stamp and the Atmel AVR line of microcontrollers, and am now pursuing a deep mathematical understanding of analog circuitry and hopefully a BSEE degree..
So, in my case, my parents or friends weren't a factor at all, at least not directly. I was the younger of two brothers and smaller than my friends. I sometimes wonder if I was the older brother or more athletic during my childhood if I would have poured my curiosity towards the same goals--no matter though, this is where I've ended up and I still love it.
So, my advice would be to play on children's natural curiosity. They grow up in a world they want to understand. Some of them will see the innate magic of the things that surround them and want to contribute. If you can demonstrate the power of technology to them, some of them will take the bait.
Science fairs are a great example of this....
Anywho, that's just my story, but on a more social level I think a huge problem with mathematics and science are the stigmas surrounding its difficulty and the culture of "nerdism" that surrounds it. Take the movie "revenge of the nerds" for instance, it clearly shows the messages society casts upon these endeavors--noble, but certainly less acceptable than playing football and drinking beer.:)
In the end though, I do think geekiness is becoming cooler, and if that trend continues we should see the fields of science and mathematics growing in the future. It's just culture.
This is a terrible, poorly-conceived analagy. Although you do pay for the electricity to run that uber-powerful lightbulb, the nature of light is to spread in all directions, and although that light may only be used for theft-deterrance, or so you can stare at your $50,000 car under any lighting conditions, you will not win the argument that a small percentage of said-light shedding itself into your neighbors house is theft. It is instead more likely that your neighbor could take you to court for ruining his sleeping-habits.
Wifi costs money, and like light, spreads in all directions from its source. However, under the domicile of a private home, no-one is under the assumption that such a resource is to be used freely. Case in point, unless the name of said access-point was advertised as "Starbucks WiFi," the defendant has no case whatsoever. This whole argument of, "if he doesn't secure it, he shouldn't expect his neighbors not to steal it.." is bogus. It completely ignores the general lack of technical skills and the laziness of big-company broadband technicians that probably set his internet connection up in the first place.
If you put up a light that shines in my room, that is your fault and if I enjoy it so-be-it. If you put up a wifi connection and I use it. I am taking something you pay for and cannot easily shield from my antenna. Also, by my use of your Wifi, I will certainly degrade the performance of said connection, either when I'm actively browsing or not (see RSS, Windows Update, software updates, and regular network traffic).
Neighbors using it is illegal in principle, but also opens up the owner in question to prosecution. This technically skilled neighbor could've been downloading child-porn, illegal software, movies, or even music. How would you like to receive a summons from the RIAA or even worse wake up one morning to FBI agents storming the premisise?
In my opinion, the great threat of the RIAA and the age of digital music is not just downloaders, but also their legal, pay-per-track alternatives...
Why have the record companies fought Apple for higher prices? Why have some companies refuted the potential profits of a deal with iTunes?
It is the a la carte concept of iTunes, allofmp3, kazaa, napster, etc... you name it that's the real issue at hand here...
I think the big motivating factor for downloading music is NOT based on an unwillingness to pay a small fee for the songs you want, it's based on an unwillingness to pay $20 for at most 3 songs that you want...
Since the glory days of the music industry, they've primarily sold albums as it was the most convenient and economical form of distribution. This method suited the consumer well as he didn't have to rush out to the store everytime a new song came out, it suited the musician well as it allowed to him to make a good hour or so of music, then go on tour and wow the crowds, and it suited the industry well because even if only 1 or 2 of the songs on the album became hits, people would still shell out the full price of the album for those songs they wanted.
Fast track to the present, and the internet has tipped the economic balance in favor of the consumer. Although the album system is still convenient in the ways listed above and many not-listed...(for instance "branding"), consumers appear no-longer willing to buy full albums for the most part.
So, I find it funny that/. has reported on many occasions about the "falling profit gaps of the recording industry," and how "legal downloads are not filling this gap," as if there was ever any chance of this happening.. This is a question of economics, not piracy...
People are not rushing out to the cd store anymore. Hell, I haven't stepped foot in one in over a year. People are downloading the SONGS they want, and that's it...or they're waiting for their friends to get it and send it to them. In my opinion though, these people are not thieves, just opportunists, responding to a large imbalance in price between the traditional cd, and the legal or not-so legal per-track alternatives.
Why else has it taken so long for legal download services such as iTunes to come about. How many years after Napster's destruction did it take? Why didn't the RIAA look at the story of napster (after they sued the piss out of it) and build their own legal alternative? Because they know what it means...it means they can no-longer fleece the consumer with the album like they've been doing for a loooong time.
So, although the album will likely remain a convenient unit for musicians and for "branding" purposes, I see the concept of consumers purchasing full albums a fast-fading one.
Slashdot Mirror
I like Obama and love Mythbusters, though I agree the format of the show can be very frustrating. But what can you do, their job is to sell Tide detergent, etc. etc. Anyways, the reason they chose this myth, if I remember correctly, is Obama is pushing for increased science education. Thus, you take 500 children, hand them mirrors, and put it on a popular television show with the president and highlight science education. I think they're hoping that involving kids in the process will somehow make the message more palpable to any kids that may be watching the show. So, yeah, not the greatest myth ever featured, but it has that convenient "lots of kids holding mirrors" factor.
That's one reason I like to eat out at fancier restaurants. Yes it costs more, but the wait service pays a lot more attention to you, the food is generally better, and god forbid if a mistake is made you'll be taken care of. For instance, in a local chain tex-mex place (and tex-mex is never THAT fancy), my girlfriend and I discovered a rubber band in our salsa. We didn't want to make a big deal out of it, and weren't all that grossed out (hey, I'd rather find that than hair). We just wanted a new bowl of salsa. Anyways, we discreetly motion to the waiter and whisper to him about the rubber band. He takes the evidence away and his manager returns. They went into the kitchen to try to figure out where the item came from, turns out it's the rubber bands that hold the stalks of cilantro together. He comes back, explains this to us, then immediately comps our entire check. We tried to talk him out of it (not that big of deal, we're not super squeamish or anything), but he wouldn't listen. We walked away very happy customers, and left like a $20 tip for dinner/drinks that would've been $50-$60. Another instance at an awesome, yet surprisingly cheap, steakhouse in Seattle (USDA Prime corn-fed beef from Nebraska, dry-aged for 28 days), a waitress walked by and dropped a cup of horseradish on the floor. A little bit of it landed on my shoulder but I didn't even notice. At some point later she saw this and offered my girlfriend and I a free round of drinks. It wasn't even that nice of shirt! Again, I told her it wasn't a big deal, but she did it anyways. I would go out more if my meals were cheaper, but I'd rather go out less and have a better experience.
Dude... I agree with what you're saying. I don't have a wife or kids. Maybe I should put "hypothetically speaking" in big capital letters for you next time. I was just proposing that there's probably people doing that already... Lighten up... I'm not asking for help in building a "prove my wife is cheating on me" kit... And for the record, people hire private eyes all the time for this kind of thing and for good reason. Are you proposing that every man that's done that and caught his wife in the act is in fact a dirt bag? Do you really think such things are so black and white?
Or does anyone else think this would be a great way to spy on your kid, your spouse, etc.. I wonder how many techie nerds bought this out of jealousy or fear... Why couldn't you program this open-phone to auto pickup from a certain number, disable the speaker, and transmit audio? All without a single ring, vibration, or visual cue.
My cousin was a college football player and a damn good one. I don't want to name names but he's played in NFL Europa and although his chances of getting in the NFL currently are slim it's not a reflection of his abilities.
He has worked his ASS off all his life to get as far as he has. He's damn good and his records are evident of that. Unfortunately, the pro-team that picked him already has a good player in his position and it looks as though his chances of making it pro are slim. Perhaps he'll get lucky, my thoughts and hopes are certainly with him...
In your message you state that sports pros are thugs (it seems you're especially picking on football)... I'd say you've watched too many movies. You should realize that calling them thugs is in itself a reflection of our cultural understanding of football (or any inherently violent sport) players. Though there may be some bad eggs amongst them, they are not all Michael Vicks...
Sports = entertainment... These people risk their health every time they step onto the field. They turn a simple game into an amazing demonstration of athleticism. You seem to be blaming society itself for elevating such things to a high standing, but I challenge you to sit and watch people playing scrabble, chess, or any other mindgame for hours at a time...
For the record, I don't disagree with your "smart = uncool" argument... I just think calling them thugs is an unfair stereotype, in the same way that it's unfair to assume you're "uncool" just because you're into science or math.
I'm no psychologist, but I think the reasons that drew me to math and science were as much creative as they were egotistical. My parents were not mathematicians, scientists, or intellectuals. I started out as a child obsessed by the magic that is electricity; light at the flick of a switch, entertainment at the flick of a remote. The magic of it all, especially in a child's eyes, is obvious. I still remember sticking my fingers in electrical sockets....crying and running away, and then trying again. I was told by an old family-friend recently that he can still remember me exclaiming "You told me I would die if I stuck my finger in plug-ins.. You lied to me!" That little anecdote serves as evidence of two points--that I wasn't that bright of a kid and that I was insanely curious. Later on in life my dad bought an Apple IIe clone and later a Mac for home-office type work... I learned to love the computer and through the wonderful program "Hypercard" I soon became obsessed again. The ability to make the computer do my bidding was powerful for a kid like myself. I couldn't control my life or anything around me, but I could control the computer. I think I saw this potential in electricity as well. Even now in the present I'm still pursuing my somewhat egotistical goals of control. I learned C/C++ years ago, have dabbled in digital embedded computers and electronics with the Basic Stamp and the Atmel AVR line of microcontrollers, and am now pursuing a deep mathematical understanding of analog circuitry and hopefully a BSEE degree.. So, in my case, my parents or friends weren't a factor at all, at least not directly. I was the younger of two brothers and smaller than my friends. I sometimes wonder if I was the older brother or more athletic during my childhood if I would have poured my curiosity towards the same goals--no matter though, this is where I've ended up and I still love it. So, my advice would be to play on children's natural curiosity. They grow up in a world they want to understand. Some of them will see the innate magic of the things that surround them and want to contribute. If you can demonstrate the power of technology to them, some of them will take the bait. Science fairs are a great example of this.... Anywho, that's just my story, but on a more social level I think a huge problem with mathematics and science are the stigmas surrounding its difficulty and the culture of "nerdism" that surrounds it. Take the movie "revenge of the nerds" for instance, it clearly shows the messages society casts upon these endeavors--noble, but certainly less acceptable than playing football and drinking beer. :)
In the end though, I do think geekiness is becoming cooler, and if that trend continues we should see the fields of science and mathematics growing in the future. It's just culture.
This is a terrible, poorly-conceived analagy. Although you do pay for the electricity to run that uber-powerful lightbulb, the nature of light is to spread in all directions, and although that light may only be used for theft-deterrance, or so you can stare at your $50,000 car under any lighting conditions, you will not win the argument that a small percentage of said-light shedding itself into your neighbors house is theft. It is instead more likely that your neighbor could take you to court for ruining his sleeping-habits.
Wifi costs money, and like light, spreads in all directions from its source. However, under the domicile of a private home, no-one is under the assumption that such a resource is to be used freely. Case in point, unless the name of said access-point was advertised as "Starbucks WiFi," the defendant has no case whatsoever. This whole argument of, "if he doesn't secure it, he shouldn't expect his neighbors not to steal it.." is bogus. It completely ignores the general lack of technical skills and the laziness of big-company broadband technicians that probably set his internet connection up in the first place.
If you put up a light that shines in my room, that is your fault and if I enjoy it so-be-it. If you put up a wifi connection and I use it. I am taking something you pay for and cannot easily shield from my antenna. Also, by my use of your Wifi, I will certainly degrade the performance of said connection, either when I'm actively browsing or not (see RSS, Windows Update, software updates, and regular network traffic).
Neighbors using it is illegal in principle, but also opens up the owner in question to prosecution.
This technically skilled neighbor could've been downloading child-porn, illegal software, movies, or even music. How would you like to receive a summons from the RIAA or even worse wake up one morning to FBI agents storming the premisise?
In my opinion, the great threat of the RIAA and the age of digital music is not just downloaders, but also their legal, pay-per-track alternatives...
/. has reported on many occasions about the "falling profit gaps of the recording industry," and how "legal downloads are not filling this gap," as if there was ever any chance of this happening.. This is a question of economics, not piracy...
Why have the record companies fought Apple for higher prices? Why have some companies refuted the potential profits of a deal with iTunes?
It is the a la carte concept of iTunes, allofmp3, kazaa, napster, etc... you name it that's the real issue at hand here...
I think the big motivating factor for downloading music is NOT based on an unwillingness to pay a small fee for the songs you want, it's based on an unwillingness to pay $20 for at most 3 songs that you want...
Since the glory days of the music industry, they've primarily sold albums as it was the most convenient and economical form of distribution. This method suited the consumer well as he didn't have to rush out to the store everytime a new song came out, it suited the musician well as it allowed to him to make a good hour or so of music, then go on tour and wow the crowds, and it suited the industry well because even if only 1 or 2 of the songs on the album became hits, people would still shell out the full price of the album for those songs they wanted.
Fast track to the present, and the internet has tipped the economic balance in favor of the consumer. Although the album system is still convenient in the ways listed above and many not-listed...(for instance "branding"), consumers appear no-longer willing to buy full albums for the most part.
So, I find it funny that
People are not rushing out to the cd store anymore. Hell, I haven't stepped foot in one in over a year. People are downloading the SONGS they want, and that's it...or they're waiting for their friends to get it and send it to them. In my opinion though, these people are not thieves, just opportunists, responding to a large imbalance in price between the traditional cd, and the legal or not-so legal per-track alternatives.
Why else has it taken so long for legal download services such as iTunes to come about. How many years after Napster's destruction did it take? Why didn't the RIAA look at the story of napster (after they sued the piss out of it) and build their own legal alternative? Because they know what it means...it means they can no-longer fleece the consumer with the album like they've been doing for a loooong time.
So, although the album will likely remain a convenient unit for musicians and for "branding" purposes, I see the concept of consumers purchasing full albums a fast-fading one.
The album....is dead