I'm all for 'technology in the class room' but I'm not sure if this is a good use of a federal grant.
I know you can get a keyboard for them but all things considered I think a netbook would be more suited to classwork and homework. You can do an essay on an iPad but I don't think they are optimal for that.
Completely unrelated to the question of which technology should/does support education is the proximity of Minnesota to Wisconsin.
Installing a document viewer is not necessarily an administrative task. You can install Firefox (Windows XP) without admin privileges. As long as you have write access somewhere.
I have to admit I didn't check those results well. I looked at the first one, saw the headline and went with it. Sloppy on my part and defeats the whole reason I love debating.
I'm not sure exactly where I picked up the idea. Well, probably Food Inc. I remember thinking at the time that whether any of their facts were right or not that the presentation was biased. Without ever verifying it it must of slipped into my head unchallenged. This debate has made me research things more (why I love debating:) ).
Anyway, it would appear that most concerns are not well documented. I read one yesterday (that I can't find now, but doesn't really matter) that denounced IMF loans for GM cotton to Ethiopia when they face starvation.
The article also tied the loan to a condition that the cotton had to be exported unprocessed which has a much lower value. As I've taken the time to look more in depth today I could see that while many of the statements in the article were true they were not necessarily linked. It is true they could export textiles at a higher value than raw cotton. But it is also true that cotton producers can export raw cotton for more than what they would get selling it to their domestic textile Industry. Also, I know a loan for cotton does not necessarily negate or have anything to do with a loan for food.
Without knowing more about the specifics of the loans, the negotiations and who requested what it's hard to verify any of the claims I put forth. So, unless I happen to find something more substantive, I will concede.;)
Re:Organic vs processed (toxic) sugar.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
So then I did this and you are correct there is little research in humans but of those few studies there are some that show more negative side effects than 'table sugar' and some that show the same effects as 'table sugar'. I did not see one that showed less negative side effects.
Tests with rats may not be proof but they can be an indicator and are not 'unrelated'. Almost all research agrees that different sugars are different even if it's just that they are sweeter. More sweet per calorie may lead to a slower metabolic response to sweets as well as gorging on sweets according to some indicators (animal testing):)
I know this is not the cause and effect proof you are looking for. So far there doesn't appear to be a large well controlled study involving humans. However, for me there are indications that HFCS may have more negative side effects than 'table sugar' and little in the way that it has less negative side effects.
Hopefully, you're free to consume whatever you want.
Re:Organic vs processed (toxic) sugar.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 2
You're correct, it wasn't the WTO I was thinking of it was the IMF. I do not know what the absolute policy is and I'm sure it changes with respect to each nation involved but there does seem to be some evidence that the IMF has tied loans to GMO crops. Not always for the benefit of the debtor.
I understand that there are circumstances where the benefit of GMO helps justify and return the loan (once preferably) but if it's done just to benefit the patent holders of that crop, the importers of that crop, and the creditors it's not being used to it's true potential. As to the IMF loan to Ethiopia they banned GMO in 2009 so I'm not sure which came first (or whether it was an agricultural loan), but I concede that most likely not every IMF agricultural loan is tied to GMO.
There is however some truth underlying what I said. Terminator genes are used in many GMO crops and as such require that they be purchased yearly. When the money to purchase seed depends on a loan you're putting third world countries into perpetual debt. It is good that there are projects to use reproducing seeds but I do not think that is the majority.
Monsanto's rice is best grown on dry level land and harvested by tractors. I suppose that may or may not be considered modern farming techniques. The use of herbicide resistant genes can also lead to the overuse of herbicides particularly in countries where regulations are weak (not to the fault of the gene but these things happen).
I think GMO can and will help a lot of starving people. As always though we should be careful that for profit motives don't override everything else. Again, forgive me for my OP it was a bit silly and the modern farming was really a non sequitur to my point.
I believe many WTO loans require the use of GM seeds. I'm not denying there aren't benefits to GM seed (I don't have a problem with GMO in general). However, many GM seeds have terminator genes requiring that they purchased yearly. The WTO will only (mostly?) give you a loan if you buy GM seeds so it 'pushes' third world countries into perpetual debt to first world countries.
Finances (and politics) play as big a part in Ethiopia and South Africa as the best GM seed vs the best 'natural' reproducing seed. If a big factor in agriculture is loans for seed and supply and that loan requires GMO, then banning GMO will definitely hurt you.
What if the President 'admitted' he didn't have a birth certificate and that he had in fact been born in a house in Hawaii. As you have said, he has met the minimum legal standard and that wouldn't change. At that point I'm sure there would an investigation into whether he had said he was born specifically in a hospital, while under oath, thus perjuring himself. Then there could be an impeachment for the perjury. Then probably nothing.
Is this really even in the top ten things the country should be focusing on? Forty percent of the country usually has a problem with the President. It's not grounds for invalidating a President just because it's the other guy's turn to screw things up.
No no, that won't work. We have to sell them GM seeds, therefore they have to use modern farming techniques. How would local seeds provide us any money? I mean sure you could loan them money once to buy them but then next year they can just use their own seeds. How does your plan help Monsanto's bottom line?
We spend a minuscule amount of human effort on space exploration. I like to think we should go to Mars because we can. To prove to ourselves that we can. NASA's budget is just shy of $20 billion and 'we' spend at least 5 times that much on fast food. Considering what we've accomplished so far with so little effort I fail to understand why so many people fight it. We waste so much on other things is it really that awful if we waste a tiny amount to climb a mountain?
Just about everything that government does could be done via free association of individuals into groups.
I agree, but just about everything does not equal everything.
it could exist if the influence of force could be removed from individuals.
I am open to alternative suggestions. So far no one has provided me with an example of a civilization that either lacked a governing body or had one that didn't require taxing or tithing. Someday things may be different but in reality no civilization that I know of ever lasted without a government. It is required of civilization as much as food by a person. Sure you can last a couple of days but then it's going to go downhill fast.
I find many similarities between extreme privatization and extreme socialism. Both would work in theory if the disproportion influence of some individuals could be removed. In reality, individual influence varies widely with respect to force and assertion. Government becomes the strongest asshole keeping all of the other assholes in line. In this respect I think we can agree if there weren't any assholes we wouldn't need the biggest asshole of them all. I'm starting to wonder if it is just a coincidence that government starts with 'go' like that other infamous asshole.
In this pragmatic view I also do not fight the idea of a one world government. It seems inevitable when I look at history as tribes, became villages, became cities, became city-states, became nations, became unions of nations. I just want to make sure that it is formed to protect the rights of individuals, the only fundamental reason that civilization needs a government. I does not need to protect the rights of corporations (assholes), politicians (assholes), unions (assholes), or any other soulless entity.
Personally I'm also ok with government providing certain other services and recognize that they are debatable but I believe the protection of individuals (rights, personal, and property) is core to it's purpose and to civilization.
Bullshit. Name a single government service that can't be managed by the private market.
Can't and shouldn't are two different things. Changing the word taxes to fees and government to large corporations is just semantics. At that point it comes down to how you want things to operate. Do you want to elect 'leaders' or create them based on market dominance. Worse and what's already happening is you reintroduce a royal class since wealth can be passed from one generation to the next as opposed to 'earning' it each election cycle.
Fundamentalist for the free market need look no further than the black market to see how an unregulated market works. Look at any market with a weak government. I think loose(?) markets are good but there should be some regulation. Now if you want to debate what the minimum quality of drinking water should be that's one thing but if you want to argue that there shouldn't be one at all then I suggest you move to one of those countries that has a weak government.
I would like to know of one civilization in history that did not require taxes. I have two assumptions. One is that civilization depends on agriculture. Two is that taxes are duties paid to any governing body so that tithing to a governing church is essentially taxes.
Let's say.1% of the population if properly educated will help to advance mankind. It may be understanding a disease or how a virus mutates that leads to better treatments. It may be the engineering (math, physics, chemistry) of the next addition to our infrastructure (roads, water, electricity, phone, internet etc.).
Personally, I think teaching millions of children who would rather be ignorant is a fair price to pay for the thousands that advance our civilization. Correlation may not equal causation but a quick look at per capita education spending does not support the view that a wide swath of knowledge has a negligible affect on your life.
The other 1% can jailbreak. And that is in fact better for the technical user than using any other device
I think you're stretching a little too hard on that one.
because of how much easier it is to hack ObjectiveC apps to tweak the system and individual apps instead of having to write whole applications from scratch.
Wait, what are my choices here? Hack ObjectiveC or write whole applications from scratch. I think you might be leaving one or two other choices out.
Leave that paragraph out and your post is stronger. There's no way to legitimately spin the 'advantages' of having to circumvent the design of a device. Just accept that you can't please all of the people all of the time.:)
A larger desktop market share and acceptance by the general population?
Larger desktop share would be nice, but technically I would say Linux (especially the kernel) is accepted by the general population even if they don't know it's Linux running their phone, gps, web page, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Does a company really want someone who works only for the additional benefits of the company, rather than the core business?
Too bad there's no way to have both.
I'll except it :)
I have no idea why people think 'lead' is the past tense of -uh- 'lead'
Probably because 'read' is the past tense of 'read'.
Frankly, the idea of companies being "friends" is a bit weird
It's very weird indeed
I'm all for 'technology in the class room' but I'm not sure if this is a good use of a federal grant.
I know you can get a keyboard for them but all things considered I think a netbook would be more suited to classwork and homework. You can do an essay on an iPad but I don't think they are optimal for that.
Completely unrelated to the question of which technology should/does support education is the proximity of Minnesota to Wisconsin.
I'm sure even my cheap dumb phone has stored my DNA too.
Installing a document viewer is not necessarily an administrative task. You can install Firefox (Windows XP) without admin privileges. As long as you have write access somewhere.
Are there any simple ways to turn it onto C and O2?
I can't resist. Plants. :)
I have to admit I didn't check those results well. I looked at the first one, saw the headline and went with it. Sloppy on my part and defeats the whole reason I love debating.
:) ).
;)
I'm not sure exactly where I picked up the idea. Well, probably Food Inc. I remember thinking at the time that whether any of their facts were right or not that the presentation was biased. Without ever verifying it it must of slipped into my head unchallenged. This debate has made me research things more (why I love debating
Anyway, it would appear that most concerns are not well documented. I read one yesterday (that I can't find now, but doesn't really matter) that denounced IMF loans for GM cotton to Ethiopia when they face starvation.
The article also tied the loan to a condition that the cotton had to be exported unprocessed which has a much lower value. As I've taken the time to look more in depth today I could see that while many of the statements in the article were true they were not necessarily linked. It is true they could export textiles at a higher value than raw cotton. But it is also true that cotton producers can export raw cotton for more than what they would get selling it to their domestic textile Industry. Also, I know a loan for cotton does not necessarily negate or have anything to do with a loan for food.
Without knowing more about the specifics of the loans, the negotiations and who requested what it's hard to verify any of the claims I put forth. So, unless I happen to find something more substantive, I will concede.
So then I did this and you are correct there is little research in humans but of those few studies there are some that show more negative side effects than 'table sugar' and some that show the same effects as 'table sugar'. I did not see one that showed less negative side effects.
:)
Tests with rats may not be proof but they can be an indicator and are not 'unrelated'. Almost all research agrees that different sugars are different even if it's just that they are sweeter. More sweet per calorie may lead to a slower metabolic response to sweets as well as gorging on sweets according to some indicators (animal testing)
I know this is not the cause and effect proof you are looking for. So far there doesn't appear to be a large well controlled study involving humans. However, for me there are indications that HFCS may have more negative side effects than 'table sugar' and little in the way that it has less negative side effects.
Hopefully, you're free to consume whatever you want.
I did this then I clicked on this.
You're correct, it wasn't the WTO I was thinking of it was the IMF. I do not know what the absolute policy is and I'm sure it changes with respect to each nation involved but there does seem to be some evidence that the IMF has tied loans to GMO crops. Not always for the benefit of the debtor.
I understand that there are circumstances where the benefit of GMO helps justify and return the loan (once preferably) but if it's done just to benefit the patent holders of that crop, the importers of that crop, and the creditors it's not being used to it's true potential. As to the IMF loan to Ethiopia they banned GMO in 2009 so I'm not sure which came first (or whether it was an agricultural loan), but I concede that most likely not every IMF agricultural loan is tied to GMO.
My rant was over the top, I was in a mood :)
There is however some truth underlying what I said. Terminator genes are used in many GMO crops and as such require that they be purchased yearly. When the money to purchase seed depends on a loan you're putting third world countries into perpetual debt. It is good that there are projects to use reproducing seeds but I do not think that is the majority.
Monsanto's rice is best grown on dry level land and harvested by tractors. I suppose that may or may not be considered modern farming techniques. The use of herbicide resistant genes can also lead to the overuse of herbicides particularly in countries where regulations are weak (not to the fault of the gene but these things happen).
I think GMO can and will help a lot of starving people. As always though we should be careful that for profit motives don't override everything else. Again, forgive me for my OP it was a bit silly and the modern farming was really a non sequitur to my point.
I believe many WTO loans require the use of GM seeds. I'm not denying there aren't benefits to GM seed (I don't have a problem with GMO in general). However, many GM seeds have terminator genes requiring that they purchased yearly. The WTO will only (mostly?) give you a loan if you buy GM seeds so it 'pushes' third world countries into perpetual debt to first world countries.
Finances (and politics) play as big a part in Ethiopia and South Africa as the best GM seed vs the best 'natural' reproducing seed. If a big factor in agriculture is loans for seed and supply and that loan requires GMO, then banning GMO will definitely hurt you.
What if the President 'admitted' he didn't have a birth certificate and that he had in fact been born in a house in Hawaii. As you have said, he has met the minimum legal standard and that wouldn't change. At that point I'm sure there would an investigation into whether he had said he was born specifically in a hospital, while under oath, thus perjuring himself. Then there could be an impeachment for the perjury. Then probably nothing.
Is this really even in the top ten things the country should be focusing on? Forty percent of the country usually has a problem with the President. It's not grounds for invalidating a President just because it's the other guy's turn to screw things up.
No no, that won't work. We have to sell them GM seeds, therefore they have to use modern farming techniques. How would local seeds provide us any money? I mean sure you could loan them money once to buy them but then next year they can just use their own seeds. How does your plan help Monsanto's bottom line?
We spend a minuscule amount of human effort on space exploration. I like to think we should go to Mars because we can. To prove to ourselves that we can. NASA's budget is just shy of $20 billion and 'we' spend at least 5 times that much on fast food. Considering what we've accomplished so far with so little effort I fail to understand why so many people fight it. We waste so much on other things is it really that awful if we waste a tiny amount to climb a mountain?
Just about everything that government does could be done via free association of individuals into groups.
I agree, but just about everything does not equal everything.
it could exist if the influence of force could be removed from individuals.
I am open to alternative suggestions. So far no one has provided me with an example of a civilization that either lacked a governing body or had one that didn't require taxing or tithing. Someday things may be different but in reality no civilization that I know of ever lasted without a government. It is required of civilization as much as food by a person. Sure you can last a couple of days but then it's going to go downhill fast.
I find many similarities between extreme privatization and extreme socialism. Both would work in theory if the disproportion influence of some individuals could be removed. In reality, individual influence varies widely with respect to force and assertion. Government becomes the strongest asshole keeping all of the other assholes in line. In this respect I think we can agree if there weren't any assholes we wouldn't need the biggest asshole of them all. I'm starting to wonder if it is just a coincidence that government starts with 'go' like that other infamous asshole.
In this pragmatic view I also do not fight the idea of a one world government. It seems inevitable when I look at history as tribes, became villages, became cities, became city-states, became nations, became unions of nations. I just want to make sure that it is formed to protect the rights of individuals, the only fundamental reason that civilization needs a government. I does not need to protect the rights of corporations (assholes), politicians (assholes), unions (assholes), or any other soulless entity.
Personally I'm also ok with government providing certain other services and recognize that they are debatable but I believe the protection of individuals (rights, personal, and property) is core to it's purpose and to civilization.
Bullshit. Name a single government service that can't be managed by the private market.
Can't and shouldn't are two different things. Changing the word taxes to fees and government to large corporations is just semantics. At that point it comes down to how you want things to operate. Do you want to elect 'leaders' or create them based on market dominance. Worse and what's already happening is you reintroduce a royal class since wealth can be passed from one generation to the next as opposed to 'earning' it each election cycle.
Fundamentalist for the free market need look no further than the black market to see how an unregulated market works. Look at any market with a weak government. I think loose(?) markets are good but there should be some regulation. Now if you want to debate what the minimum quality of drinking water should be that's one thing but if you want to argue that there shouldn't be one at all then I suggest you move to one of those countries that has a weak government.
Civilization doesn't require taxes
I would like to know of one civilization in history that did not require taxes. I have two assumptions. One is that civilization depends on agriculture. Two is that taxes are duties paid to any governing body so that tithing to a governing church is essentially taxes.
Let's say .1% of the population if properly educated will help to advance mankind. It may be understanding a disease or how a virus mutates that leads to better treatments. It may be the engineering (math, physics, chemistry) of the next addition to our infrastructure (roads, water, electricity, phone, internet etc.).
Personally, I think teaching millions of children who would rather be ignorant is a fair price to pay for the thousands that advance our civilization. Correlation may not equal causation but a quick look at per capita education spending does not support the view that a wide swath of knowledge has a negligible affect on your life.
My research narrows it down to these six uh three women.
The other 1% can jailbreak. And that is in fact better for the technical user than using any other device
I think you're stretching a little too hard on that one.
because of how much easier it is to hack ObjectiveC apps to tweak the system and individual apps instead of having to write whole applications from scratch.
Wait, what are my choices here? Hack ObjectiveC or write whole applications from scratch. I think you might be leaving one or two other choices out.
:)
Leave that paragraph out and your post is stronger. There's no way to legitimately spin the 'advantages' of having to circumvent the design of a device. Just accept that you can't please all of the people all of the time.
they can load their own custom apps into it, which just about any tablet (iPad included) can.
When did the iPad (or any tablet) get IE 6?
A larger desktop market share and acceptance by the general population?
Larger desktop share would be nice, but technically I would say Linux (especially the kernel) is accepted by the general population even if they don't know it's Linux running their phone, gps, web page, etc.