Ah, so when feminists talk about 'equality' what they really mean is, "we want special treatment so that we get equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity based on the same starting point". Silly me, and to think that I thought feminism was all about equality with males in regards to the same starting point and a meritocratic system where skills and knowledge are the basis of advancement forward rather than the old boys network.
Ok. Do you disagree with the idea that women are as capable as men? Or do you disagree that women face a natural handicap in merit-based careers because they are forced to lose a year of their working life for every child they have?
Feminism is about male-female equality. Women deserve an equal chance to succeed, and if that means preferential treatment to overcome the handicap of pregnancy and nursing, that's fine by this guy.
To suggest a parallel, not all kids excel at school, but teachers give the struggling students extra help. Is this equal treatment for all? No, the smart kids get less one-on-one time. Is this fair treatment for all? Yes, because the smart kids are already ahead and do not need as much support in order to be successful. Women are disadvantaged by men not being able to produce and nurse the next generation -- so you need a way to make sure men don't capitalize on the advantage.
It was, but it's following a common pattern of reform movements. Back when the movement started, the issue was obtaining equality before the law. That's been achieved, so the reasonable people have moved on to other pursuits, leaving the dregs behind.
In the US and UK, the First Wave of feminism was had civil rights as its goal -- that was achieved and the activists moved on. Many men and women opposed this fight, because it challenged their world-view, but today most people agree that women are "people" and should vote.
The second wave saw that civil rights were not enough, and so women fought for sexual and reproductive rights, among others -- these rights were achieved (with questionable success) and the activists moved on. Again, people thought this was immoral, and fought back.
Some are now questioning again if employment rights now need to be fought for. Is this part of a Third Wave? Who knows? In any case, I don't think we're dealing with the dregs -- I think we're seeing a new generation with new goals, and those who are opposed are often conservatives afraid to see their world-view challenged.
True! I completely agree. And there are other great authors, of course, but where does one find out about others like Vonnegut? Beyond asking slashdot...
I wanted to agree with you, but after checking their list of winners I found they completely missed some of the best books from the last five years: Oryx and Crake, by M Atwood; Never Let Me Go, by K Ishiguro; The Time Traveler's Wife, A Niffenegger; The Book of Dave, by W Self. The Book of Dave is only tangentially sci-fi, I admit.
The Nebula Awards overlooked these, too.
I recognize that these are not hard sci-fi/tech driven stories, of course, so I think I want to restate the question: Where do you find good sci-fi that's also a good book?
I'm a high school teacher in Canada. My last day of teachers college was not long ago, so I still remember that the last day at the college was Law Day, where we were introduced to the legal rights and responsibilities of teachers.
The important point was this: teachers act "in loco parentis" to their under-age students. We are their legal guardians when they are at school, and that responsibility does not evaporate off school grounds.
It was specifically mentioned by my prof that if I'm in a bar, and I see alcohol served to one of my under-age students (drinking age is 19 here), then I'm legally responsible for anything that happens to that child while he or she is drunk. If the students drink and drive, and get in an accident, and it's discovered that I saw them drinking but didn't stop them -- then it all falls on my head. I should have told the bartender they're underage, and that they should not be served.
So, I suspect, although different jurisdictions will treat this differently, that the administration may have had no choice in the matter. If they overheard one student mention the photos to another student (students are surprisingly careless), then the admins would have been legally compelled to act on it. I don't think they need to report it to the police, but they need to prevent it from happening in any way they see fit.... oh, and about teachers being on Facebook: having students as Friends (TM) is strongly discouraged by the school board and the union, but many teachers do it anyway. But not me of course!
I agree, but I'll say disillusioned, rather than bitter.
Last year was my first as a teacher/mentor for a Canadian team. It was a real wake-up call to go to last year's competition and see the team beside with GM logos on everything. How should high school kids be expected to compete against a team of GM-trained P.Eng mentors?
When Dean Kamen said today that "every team should have professional engineers", I realized that I didn't know what the competition was actually about. I thought we were here to teach teamwork, planning, design, and show kids their potential. It's good that FIRST wants to provide students with positive role models and a glimpse at what engineering is actually about, but unfortunately, this makes for a very two-tiered competition: some schools have a GM plant in their backyard, or they are given work space at NASA, and they do really well; some schools are lucky to have a few undergrad volunteers, scrape a few dollars together for parts and a power drill, and they get to watch the other teams show up with manicured robots.
I like that the projects are challenging, but that I wish it was assumed the students did the heavy lifting. Is it unreasonable to assume that every team will all have identical opportunities? No, but at least then the competition wouldn't be unfair by design.
Ok, rant over. My students are lucky we can participate in this competition and we're not going to quit just because our major sponsor has never put men on the moon. I wish my school had done something this amazing when I was a student.
Exactly! Reading popular fiction is what did it for me. In high school I started reading Carl Sagan, John Gribbin, Carl Zimmer, Robert Zubrin, Stephen Hawking, and others. I also had a subscription to Scientific American. These authors write at a level that a bright high-schooler can understand, and they showed me how amazing the universe is. It was because of reading this kind of material, not because I had even competent teachers, that I did a BSc.
Now that I teach high school science (Physics), I remember that charismatic teaching did nothing for me. So, I get my students to read popular science books of their own choosing -- a couple students last year read James Watson's "The Double Helix"! This year I'll have them reading New Scientist and Scientific American magazines, which are highly readable, which is very important when you teach so many ESL students, like I do. These magazines are also packed with crazy subjects that slot nicely into the required curriculum.
I also got them to read some a couple chapters of philosophy of science, from a book called "The Golem: What you should know about science". For the students that don't plant to go on to do a BSc, this gives them something to chew on. This book gives examples to show that the scientific method is less important than you might think, and gives examples that show major scientific theories (general relativity) that were accepted because they were well liked, rather than because there was any evidence. Believe me, this is a fun topic for high school kids.
Anyway, reading is what brought me to science. Without those books, I would ended up in engineering -- a fine field, mind you, but I'm much happier to have gone into science. Now that I teach, I use reading as a tool to bring some interest into the curriculum because, sadly, the physics curriculum where I teach doesn't get past 1905, and students want to see what's going on now, what's going to change the world tomorrow, and it's books -- not their parents, in most cases -- that will present these ideas.
I like the idea of reducing the cost of tuition, but why only for science and technology? Why would you exclude the arts, where people are trained to in critical thought? Certainly that's as important sci/tech. Anyway...
I can understand why any student drowning in debt would love this idea, but I think education is the wrong venue for this. As a Canadian, I frequently hear how horribly the US public education system treats both its students and its teachers. This form of national service that's being proposed only seems to exacerbate the problem. Students get a revolving door of untrained teachers who have no intention of continuing in the field, and teachers are reduced from disrespect to disposable. Also, the best teachers are the experienced teachers -- I just finished my first year teaching math and physics, and I can't wait to try it again, and hopefully become better.
No, if you want to help university students, just focus on university students. I thought my Canadian tuition was high until I saw what Americans pay. Reduce tuition, offer more scholarships, offer financial reward to students who graduate (I once heard that Newfoundland does this), and then reduce tuition again. Please, anything but punish the teaching profession for the sins of the universities.
But hey, if you really do want to teach and give back to the community, then get a B.Ed and find a public school. They're desperate for good teachers who can help develop quality schools.
Learning and education should be entertaining. Or at least, you should have the option of having an interesting and educational experience. I know I'm late to the game here, but I have to object to this.
Education should not be entertaining. As a high school teacher, I try very hard to make my subjects (physics and math) interesting, but I object to the idea that I should be a clown as well as an educator. I have seen a lot of teachers who go out of their way to make school "fun", and I worry this can lead to students who balk at difficult or abstract concepts.
I agree that students need to learn to find enjoyment in learning, but I want them to enjoy the actual work, not just remember games from school. Is it not worth showing students how to enjoy something even when it's not explicitly entertaining?
I understand that there's stuff that one has to learn simply to have a job and function on a day to day basis in society... I'm not so pessimistic to think that school is about training people to become good little worker bees. I wish fewer people saw it that way. School is an introduction to the world, and to developing empathy for other people and their ideas. You can use the skills learned there to find a job, but that should not be the primary goal.
This looks a LOT like digital inline holography, but I didn't see in the article what technique they're useing. I did some minor DIH work at Dalhousie University, back in 2004. Last I heard, a couple of the profs there are developing a commercial product.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, so when feminists talk about 'equality' what they really mean is, "we want special treatment so that we get equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity based on the same starting point". Silly me, and to think that I thought feminism was all about equality with males in regards to the same starting point and a meritocratic system where skills and knowledge are the basis of advancement forward rather than the old boys network.
Ok. Do you disagree with the idea that women are as capable as men? Or do you disagree that women face a natural handicap in merit-based careers because they are forced to lose a year of their working life for every child they have?
Feminism is about male-female equality. Women deserve an equal chance to succeed, and if that means preferential treatment to overcome the handicap of pregnancy and nursing, that's fine by this guy.
To suggest a parallel, not all kids excel at school, but teachers give the struggling students extra help. Is this equal treatment for all? No, the smart kids get less one-on-one time. Is this fair treatment for all? Yes, because the smart kids are already ahead and do not need as much support in order to be successful. Women are disadvantaged by men not being able to produce and nurse the next generation -- so you need a way to make sure men don't capitalize on the advantage.
It was, but it's following a common pattern of reform movements. Back when the movement started, the issue was obtaining equality before the law. That's been achieved, so the reasonable people have moved on to other pursuits, leaving the dregs behind.
In the US and UK, the First Wave of feminism was had civil rights as its goal -- that was achieved and the activists moved on. Many men and women opposed this fight, because it challenged their world-view, but today most people agree that women are "people" and should vote.
The second wave saw that civil rights were not enough, and so women fought for sexual and reproductive rights, among others -- these rights were achieved (with questionable success) and the activists moved on. Again, people thought this was immoral, and fought back.
Some are now questioning again if employment rights now need to be fought for. Is this part of a Third Wave? Who knows? In any case, I don't think we're dealing with the dregs -- I think we're seeing a new generation with new goals, and those who are opposed are often conservatives afraid to see their world-view challenged.
True! I completely agree. And there are other great authors, of course, but where does one find out about others like Vonnegut? Beyond asking slashdot...
I recognize that these are not hard sci-fi/tech driven stories, of course, so I think I want to restate the question: Where do you find good sci-fi that's also a good book?
I have to contradict what you've said.
... oh, and about teachers being on Facebook: having students as Friends (TM) is strongly discouraged by the school board and the union, but many teachers do it anyway. But not me of course!
I'm a high school teacher in Canada. My last day of teachers college was not long ago, so I still remember that the last day at the college was Law Day, where we were introduced to the legal rights and responsibilities of teachers.
The important point was this: teachers act "in loco parentis" to their under-age students. We are their legal guardians when they are at school, and that responsibility does not evaporate off school grounds.
It was specifically mentioned by my prof that if I'm in a bar, and I see alcohol served to one of my under-age students (drinking age is 19 here), then I'm legally responsible for anything that happens to that child while he or she is drunk. If the students drink and drive, and get in an accident, and it's discovered that I saw them drinking but didn't stop them -- then it all falls on my head. I should have told the bartender they're underage, and that they should not be served.
So, I suspect, although different jurisdictions will treat this differently, that the administration may have had no choice in the matter. If they overheard one student mention the photos to another student (students are surprisingly careless), then the admins would have been legally compelled to act on it. I don't think they need to report it to the police, but they need to prevent it from happening in any way they see fit.
I agree, but I'll say disillusioned, rather than bitter.
Last year was my first as a teacher/mentor for a Canadian team. It was a real wake-up call to go to last year's competition and see the team beside with GM logos on everything. How should high school kids be expected to compete against a team of GM-trained P.Eng mentors?
When Dean Kamen said today that "every team should have professional engineers", I realized that I didn't know what the competition was actually about. I thought we were here to teach teamwork, planning, design, and show kids their potential. It's good that FIRST wants to provide students with positive role models and a glimpse at what engineering is actually about, but unfortunately, this makes for a very two-tiered competition: some schools have a GM plant in their backyard, or they are given work space at NASA, and they do really well; some schools are lucky to have a few undergrad volunteers, scrape a few dollars together for parts and a power drill, and they get to watch the other teams show up with manicured robots.
I like that the projects are challenging, but that I wish it was assumed the students did the heavy lifting. Is it unreasonable to assume that every team will all have identical opportunities? No, but at least then the competition wouldn't be unfair by design.
Ok, rant over. My students are lucky we can participate in this competition and we're not going to quit just because our major sponsor has never put men on the moon. I wish my school had done something this amazing when I was a student.
Now that I teach high school science (Physics), I remember that charismatic teaching did nothing for me. So, I get my students to read popular science books of their own choosing -- a couple students last year read James Watson's "The Double Helix"! This year I'll have them reading New Scientist and Scientific American magazines, which are highly readable, which is very important when you teach so many ESL students, like I do. These magazines are also packed with crazy subjects that slot nicely into the required curriculum.
I also got them to read some a couple chapters of philosophy of science, from a book called "The Golem: What you should know about science". For the students that don't plant to go on to do a BSc, this gives them something to chew on. This book gives examples to show that the scientific method is less important than you might think, and gives examples that show major scientific theories (general relativity) that were accepted because they were well liked, rather than because there was any evidence. Believe me, this is a fun topic for high school kids.
Anyway, reading is what brought me to science. Without those books, I would ended up in engineering -- a fine field, mind you, but I'm much happier to have gone into science. Now that I teach, I use reading as a tool to bring some interest into the curriculum because, sadly, the physics curriculum where I teach doesn't get past 1905, and students want to see what's going on now, what's going to change the world tomorrow, and it's books -- not their parents, in most cases -- that will present these ideas.
I like the idea of reducing the cost of tuition, but why only for science and technology? Why would you exclude the arts, where people are trained to in critical thought? Certainly that's as important sci/tech. Anyway...
I can understand why any student drowning in debt would love this idea, but I think education is the wrong venue for this. As a Canadian, I frequently hear how horribly the US public education system treats both its students and its teachers. This form of national service that's being proposed only seems to exacerbate the problem. Students get a revolving door of untrained teachers who have no intention of continuing in the field, and teachers are reduced from disrespect to disposable. Also, the best teachers are the experienced teachers -- I just finished my first year teaching math and physics, and I can't wait to try it again, and hopefully become better.
No, if you want to help university students, just focus on university students. I thought my Canadian tuition was high until I saw what Americans pay. Reduce tuition, offer more scholarships, offer financial reward to students who graduate (I once heard that Newfoundland does this), and then reduce tuition again. Please, anything but punish the teaching profession for the sins of the universities.
But hey, if you really do want to teach and give back to the community, then get a B.Ed and find a public school. They're desperate for good teachers who can help develop quality schools.
I agree that students need to learn to find enjoyment in learning, but I want them to enjoy the actual work, not just remember games from school. Is it not worth showing students how to enjoy something even when it's not explicitly entertaining?
I understand that there's stuff that one has to learn simply to have a job and function on a day to day basis in society... I'm not so pessimistic to think that school is about training people to become good little worker bees. I wish fewer people saw it that way. School is an introduction to the world, and to developing empathy for other people and their ideas. You can use the skills learned there to find a job, but that should not be the primary goal.This looks a LOT like digital inline holography, but I didn't see in the article what technique they're useing. I did some minor DIH work at Dalhousie University, back in 2004. Last I heard, a couple of the profs there are developing a commercial product.