You just answered your own question. However, with wireless networks, some effort must be made to secure it before anybody can start claiming to be harmed, because despite all the property-based analogies people use (such as the popular 'door unlocked' scenario), wireless networks deliver themselves to you. It's like if somebody threw a book through my window and then got upset that I kept it.
It's too bad he doesn't read the Economist. They had a really good article on how modernization has decreased fertility across all cultures and geography. Unfortunately their online copy is behind a paywall.:(
It's not limited to the West, that's just what you, in your ignorance, want to believe. As I said elsewhere, go here click on 'Select pivot column' and then select 'Year'. Look at the results, then shut the hell up.
You back up your claim of bias with no evidence. I didn't say anything about a specific region, there is no proximity. Birth rate is a statistic that only tells you how many people are being born in a given period (usually a year). Fertility rate tells you how many children a woman is likely to have in her life. Fertility rate is a much more important demographic trend modeling tool, and it's going down everywhere, including the third world, even where birth rates are still high. How quickly a generation produces x people is not as important as what the value of x is, and if that value keeps dropping, the speed of going from 0 to x becomes increasingly irrelevant.
More concretely, if a woman has two kids in one year (which although uncomfortable does happen occasionally), you look at that as a birth rate and say 'holy shit! that's TWO KIDS A YEAR!' However, if those are the only two kids she ever has, you look at the fertility rate and say 'wow, that's not even enough for replacement.'
Go here click on 'Select pivot column' and then select 'Year'. Look at the results, then shut the hell up.
Ironic that you should mention gun control, as Seattle is almost identical in population, but has half as many murders. Perhaps because of shall-issue concealed carry vs. arbitrary may-issue in Boston? (Of course if the city government could over-rule the state government, they would turn the tables on that in a heartbeat.)
This is one of the most insightful treatments of this subject I have yet to see, and I wish I could moderate it to the moon. I read this to my wife, and she said you have a sound enough thesis that you should write a book. (That, and she was going to link to it on her facebook.)
Fertility rates have been dropping globally, this is not the same as population growth/birth rate. You need more background in this subject before you try correcting people and arguing things you don't understand.
Japan has one of the highest population densities in the world, 873+ people per square mile (and a whole lot higher in Kobe specifically). Chile has one of the lowest population densities in the world, 58+ people per square mile. That goes a long way in mitigating casualties.
Because as TFA mentions, Google has Scholar, which other search engines lack. There are similar services, but they aren't free. Others have already said this here.
Foreign Google sites are naturally not localized, and depending on how the CCP feels on a given day, might require some somersaults to access.
...nations and fields of research are not yet dependent on them...
So you're willfully ignoring the testimony of Chinese scientists? That's like watching something fall and then saying you don't believe in gravity.
Baidu is a sino-centric search engine, which for the average Chinese is a positive thing as they don't frequently need international results, but for scientists who constantly need international and multi-lingual results, Baidu doesn't hold a candle to Google. That's why Baidu has the majority of marketshare in China nationally, but is a minority among Chinese scientists.
More Chinese users use Baidu than Google. It's not an issue of better or worse, it's an issue of focus. Baidu is sino-centric, which for most Chinese is a positive thing, because most users infrequently need international information. However, Chinese scientists need international information all the time, so for them Google makes more sense.
Australians are a race now? Americans are frequently stereotyped as cowboys, is that 'pseudo-racist' too? Or are you some racial positivist twit that thinks only white American males are capable of 'true racism' and therefore any discrimination against them isn't racist because they 'deserve it'?
You're just a huge douche aren't you? No wonder you're unemployed... 'hur dur intelligent women don't exist!' You might think so I suppose, because when they see you coming they run .
I said nothing more than that it was disingenuous. Of course it's rational for somebody not to discriminate against revenue from customers that one otherwise would not associate with or whatever. It's just that if the customer knew of this hidden negativity, they would would likely not want to provide that revenue. It can be argued that it is unethical to hide this as it prevents customers from choosing according to parameters they consider important.
Let's shuffle the factors a little. Say a company does testing on animals, but the don't want to lose the business of PETA members. Is it ethical for them to hide this? Logical, yes, of course it is logical to make money, but ethical? No.
The absence of obligation does not absolve disingenuity. A lot of businesses used to be able to sell only to those people they liked. They had signs that said 'Whites Only'. Took legislation to change that, so I imagine that the market pressure you think exists is demonstrably mythical. Do not underestimate selective/exclusive and/or niche markets, not to mention the long tail. Not that this applies very much to the issue at hand, but you brought it up.
Technology fetishists do exist, and Apple fetishists as a subset also. They're rare, especially outside of really urban areas, but I think that there are and were metrosexual fops who would cry over something as stupid as the iPad.
Also, my example of Cali businesses willing to take money from a type of person and then stab them in the back proves such small business owners exist in that regard, even if again these are rare.
All of that aside, I don't disagree that the AC post has a high potential to be trollish fiction.
Doesn't hatin' on your own customers kind of put you in a similar moral position as those business owners who catered to the gay community in California but then turned around and voted against their equality? 'We'll take your money, but secretly we think you're pathetic...' No wonder you're posting as AC...;-p
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you completely, it just seems disingenuous.
I don't see paper vs. code as functionally different things. Anything that you can do on paper you can do in code. That might make the code inefficient and relatively bloated because you're inching through steps that could be skipped, but it does allow you to step through things as quickly or slowly as desired, reporting contents of variables at whatever stage at will, all while guaranteeing that any errors are syntactical or typos in value, but never calculatory (insofar as code is written). One lacks such a guarantee with a wholly manual paper process. Does that lead to a difference in understanding? Perhaps. Is that difference significant to most functions a person is likely to perform in life with this knowledge? I would argue it is not.
I hope I have not given the false impression that I harbor much positive feeling for Plato. I have collected and read Plato and his derivatives only as I generally appreciate the humanities. Plato was important as a transitional figure in philosophy, almost messianic in how he and Socrates (from whom he is frequently so hard to distinguish that they are almost one person) became a demarcation in the development of philosophy between those who came before and those who came after. However, I felt his pseudo-mystical approach to knowledge (like the anti-materialist/empiricist notion of innateness) was antithetical to real human progress vis a vis science. (And Neoplatonists tend to be as much or more anti-progressive.) I count myself among the camp of the line of empiricists stretching from Aristotle to Robert Nozick.
It's been almost a decade since I last read The Republic, but I always thought that its socio-political commentary and allusions were an unimportant veneer on the more important abstraction of the organization of the human mind. I'm sure that Plato preferred the semi-meritocratic politics of Sparta to the more populist machinations of Athens, but I think that he would place the development of the personal order of the mind above the development of the political order of the state.
Although John Locke is considered an empiricist, I've thought it interestingly similar how his division of society into essentially 'those who understand natural law' and 'those who do not' with the former over the latter who should be inculcated vs. Plato's philosopher-kings whose understanding entitles them to rule and inculcate all others.
I think freedom and suffrage vs. authority-through-merit is one of the most difficult things to reconcile in attempts to create the best (I do not say perfect) order of society and/or state.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or stupid, so for the sake of argument (literally), I'll assume the latter.
What the hell kind of shoes are these and who is stupid enough to buy them?
Designer shoes bought by the spineless parents of spoiled children who do not know the value of money. Go to the shoe department of a Nordstrom sometime.
Also, since these are macbooks we're talking about, they can't possibly be that cheap, can they?
I said a serviceable laptop, and in the previous paragraph I specified that privately provisioned laptops were the solution, so the established context is outside of the original scope of the specific scenario in Pennsylvania and now covers laptops of all kinds. I don't think that a high school student needs an overly expensive designer technology fetish like a MacBook. A hand-me-down laptop was good enough for me at that age, and should be enough for others within the context of secondary education.
I was doing algebra in grade school, so my point is not negated. At some point being able to program calculations is more important and more useful than being able to write them. For all your sarcastic emotional appeals you have failed so far to prove that point lies beyond and not in high school.
I do not need to cite sources, this is not formal writing. I expect you're trying to prove some kind of superiority by your recollection, but I am unimpressed. I expect I have more and finer volumes of Plato's works and secondary criticisms than you possess, and so long as I remember roughly where things are within them I can muddle through just fine. (Though more likely I would do such research faster via a search engine, fancy that.)
I should add my memory is considered by most to be superior. I can memorize maps in minutes, I can memorize phone numbers, IP and MAC addresses instantly. I once memorized Sallust's entire rendition of Lucius Sergius Catilina's final speech before he was killed with his co-conspirators on the battlefield. You unfortunately do not realize that you have destroyed your own argument. If books do not destroy memory, if it is truly not an either/or proposition, neither is it reasonable that computers should destroy memory, that the relationship of memory to computers is somehow preclusive. If developing memory before learning to read is sufficient, then at whatever time books are introduced, computers should be equivalently appropriate.
(My memory is strong because my parents forced me to memorize truckloads of the bloody Bible over and over damn near every week of every year for a decade and a half.)
Your pithy line at the end is more an echo of what I have already said than anything else. How do you expect students to master things to which they aren't exposed? I said before and I say again, only through experience can students learn to be productive with technology and productive in spite of technology because they will need both skills for the rest of their lives. That is simple and clear justification for a primary and ubiquitous role of technology at the high school level at the very least.
High school is not grade school. Grade school is where you learn to do things manually.
Also, the role of memory has changed. Don't be yet another luddite trying to cling to old conceptions of memory, just like some ancients decried writing as the death of oral memory (it was, but does that outweigh the value of writing? Scant few think so).
Putting limits on learning for the sake of learning is fundamentally irrational, and one of the great stumbling blocks of almost all public schools and many private ones. This is why I intend to have my daughter's secondary education done in the Harkness method or similar. (Jiddu Krishnamurti had some pretty decent ideas on education, but the Oak Grove School is just a little too hippie-ish for me.)
Slashdot Mirror
You just answered your own question. However, with wireless networks, some effort must be made to secure it before anybody can start claiming to be harmed, because despite all the property-based analogies people use (such as the popular 'door unlocked' scenario), wireless networks deliver themselves to you. It's like if somebody threw a book through my window and then got upset that I kept it.
It's too bad he doesn't read the Economist. They had a really good article on how modernization has decreased fertility across all cultures and geography. Unfortunately their online copy is behind a paywall. :(
It's not limited to the West, that's just what you, in your ignorance, want to believe. As I said elsewhere, go here click on 'Select pivot column' and then select 'Year'. Look at the results, then shut the hell up.
You back up your claim of bias with no evidence. I didn't say anything about a specific region, there is no proximity. Birth rate is a statistic that only tells you how many people are being born in a given period (usually a year). Fertility rate tells you how many children a woman is likely to have in her life. Fertility rate is a much more important demographic trend modeling tool, and it's going down everywhere, including the third world, even where birth rates are still high. How quickly a generation produces x people is not as important as what the value of x is, and if that value keeps dropping, the speed of going from 0 to x becomes increasingly irrelevant.
More concretely, if a woman has two kids in one year (which although uncomfortable does happen occasionally), you look at that as a birth rate and say 'holy shit! that's TWO KIDS A YEAR!' However, if those are the only two kids she ever has, you look at the fertility rate and say 'wow, that's not even enough for replacement.'
Go here click on 'Select pivot column' and then select 'Year'. Look at the results, then shut the hell up.
So which *AA do you work for?
Theft is physical removal and denial of use. Copyright infringement is not. This is recognized by law. No amount of insults will make that go away.
Ironic that you should mention gun control, as Seattle is almost identical in population, but has half as many murders. Perhaps because of shall-issue concealed carry vs. arbitrary may-issue in Boston? (Of course if the city government could over-rule the state government, they would turn the tables on that in a heartbeat.)
This is one of the most insightful treatments of this subject I have yet to see, and I wish I could moderate it to the moon. I read this to my wife, and she said you have a sound enough thesis that you should write a book. (That, and she was going to link to it on her facebook.)
Fertility rates have been dropping globally, this is not the same as population growth/birth rate. You need more background in this subject before you try correcting people and arguing things you don't understand.
If so, then that god is total dick.
Japan has one of the highest population densities in the world, 873+ people per square mile (and a whole lot higher in Kobe specifically). Chile has one of the lowest population densities in the world, 58+ people per square mile. That goes a long way in mitigating casualties.
Because as TFA mentions, Google has Scholar, which other search engines lack. There are similar services, but they aren't free. Others have already said this here.
Foreign Google sites are naturally not localized, and depending on how the CCP feels on a given day, might require some somersaults to access.
...nations and fields of research are not yet dependent on them...
So you're willfully ignoring the testimony of Chinese scientists? That's like watching something fall and then saying you don't believe in gravity.
Baidu is a sino-centric search engine, which for the average Chinese is a positive thing as they don't frequently need international results, but for scientists who constantly need international and multi-lingual results, Baidu doesn't hold a candle to Google. That's why Baidu has the majority of marketshare in China nationally, but is a minority among Chinese scientists.
More Chinese users use Baidu than Google. It's not an issue of better or worse, it's an issue of focus. Baidu is sino-centric, which for most Chinese is a positive thing, because most users infrequently need international information. However, Chinese scientists need international information all the time, so for them Google makes more sense.
Australians are a race now? Americans are frequently stereotyped as cowboys, is that 'pseudo-racist' too? Or are you some racial positivist twit that thinks only white American males are capable of 'true racism' and therefore any discrimination against them isn't racist because they 'deserve it'?
Kodachrome.
You're just a huge douche aren't you? No wonder you're unemployed... 'hur dur intelligent women don't exist!' You might think so I suppose, because when they see you coming they run .
I said nothing more than that it was disingenuous. Of course it's rational for somebody not to discriminate against revenue from customers that one otherwise would not associate with or whatever. It's just that if the customer knew of this hidden negativity, they would would likely not want to provide that revenue. It can be argued that it is unethical to hide this as it prevents customers from choosing according to parameters they consider important.
Let's shuffle the factors a little. Say a company does testing on animals, but the don't want to lose the business of PETA members. Is it ethical for them to hide this? Logical, yes, of course it is logical to make money, but ethical? No.
The absence of obligation does not absolve disingenuity. A lot of businesses used to be able to sell only to those people they liked. They had signs that said 'Whites Only'. Took legislation to change that, so I imagine that the market pressure you think exists is demonstrably mythical. Do not underestimate selective/exclusive and/or niche markets, not to mention the long tail. Not that this applies very much to the issue at hand, but you brought it up.
Technology fetishists do exist, and Apple fetishists as a subset also. They're rare, especially outside of really urban areas, but I think that there are and were metrosexual fops who would cry over something as stupid as the iPad.
Also, my example of Cali businesses willing to take money from a type of person and then stab them in the back proves such small business owners exist in that regard, even if again these are rare.
All of that aside, I don't disagree that the AC post has a high potential to be trollish fiction.
Doesn't hatin' on your own customers kind of put you in a similar moral position as those business owners who catered to the gay community in California but then turned around and voted against their equality? 'We'll take your money, but secretly we think you're pathetic...' No wonder you're posting as AC... ;-p
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you completely, it just seems disingenuous.
0WN3D! Makes me wish I had mod points.
I don't see paper vs. code as functionally different things. Anything that you can do on paper you can do in code. That might make the code inefficient and relatively bloated because you're inching through steps that could be skipped, but it does allow you to step through things as quickly or slowly as desired, reporting contents of variables at whatever stage at will, all while guaranteeing that any errors are syntactical or typos in value, but never calculatory (insofar as code is written). One lacks such a guarantee with a wholly manual paper process. Does that lead to a difference in understanding? Perhaps. Is that difference significant to most functions a person is likely to perform in life with this knowledge? I would argue it is not.
I hope I have not given the false impression that I harbor much positive feeling for Plato. I have collected and read Plato and his derivatives only as I generally appreciate the humanities. Plato was important as a transitional figure in philosophy, almost messianic in how he and Socrates (from whom he is frequently so hard to distinguish that they are almost one person) became a demarcation in the development of philosophy between those who came before and those who came after. However, I felt his pseudo-mystical approach to knowledge (like the anti-materialist/empiricist notion of innateness) was antithetical to real human progress vis a vis science. (And Neoplatonists tend to be as much or more anti-progressive.) I count myself among the camp of the line of empiricists stretching from Aristotle to Robert Nozick.
It's been almost a decade since I last read The Republic, but I always thought that its socio-political commentary and allusions were an unimportant veneer on the more important abstraction of the organization of the human mind. I'm sure that Plato preferred the semi-meritocratic politics of Sparta to the more populist machinations of Athens, but I think that he would place the development of the personal order of the mind above the development of the political order of the state.
Although John Locke is considered an empiricist, I've thought it interestingly similar how his division of society into essentially 'those who understand natural law' and 'those who do not' with the former over the latter who should be inculcated vs. Plato's philosopher-kings whose understanding entitles them to rule and inculcate all others.
I think freedom and suffrage vs. authority-through-merit is one of the most difficult things to reconcile in attempts to create the best (I do not say perfect) order of society and/or state.
What the hell kind of shoes are these and who is stupid enough to buy them?
Designer shoes bought by the spineless parents of spoiled children who do not know the value of money. Go to the shoe department of a Nordstrom sometime.
Also, since these are macbooks we're talking about, they can't possibly be that cheap, can they?
I said a serviceable laptop, and in the previous paragraph I specified that privately provisioned laptops were the solution, so the established context is outside of the original scope of the specific scenario in Pennsylvania and now covers laptops of all kinds. I don't think that a high school student needs an overly expensive designer technology fetish like a MacBook. A hand-me-down laptop was good enough for me at that age, and should be enough for others within the context of secondary education.
I was doing algebra in grade school, so my point is not negated. At some point being able to program calculations is more important and more useful than being able to write them. For all your sarcastic emotional appeals you have failed so far to prove that point lies beyond and not in high school.
I do not need to cite sources, this is not formal writing. I expect you're trying to prove some kind of superiority by your recollection, but I am unimpressed. I expect I have more and finer volumes of Plato's works and secondary criticisms than you possess, and so long as I remember roughly where things are within them I can muddle through just fine. (Though more likely I would do such research faster via a search engine, fancy that.)
I should add my memory is considered by most to be superior. I can memorize maps in minutes, I can memorize phone numbers, IP and MAC addresses instantly. I once memorized Sallust's entire rendition of Lucius Sergius Catilina's final speech before he was killed with his co-conspirators on the battlefield. You unfortunately do not realize that you have destroyed your own argument. If books do not destroy memory, if it is truly not an either/or proposition, neither is it reasonable that computers should destroy memory, that the relationship of memory to computers is somehow preclusive. If developing memory before learning to read is sufficient, then at whatever time books are introduced, computers should be equivalently appropriate.
(My memory is strong because my parents forced me to memorize truckloads of the bloody Bible over and over damn near every week of every year for a decade and a half.)
Your pithy line at the end is more an echo of what I have already said than anything else. How do you expect students to master things to which they aren't exposed? I said before and I say again, only through experience can students learn to be productive with technology and productive in spite of technology because they will need both skills for the rest of their lives. That is simple and clear justification for a primary and ubiquitous role of technology at the high school level at the very least.
High school is not grade school. Grade school is where you learn to do things manually.
Also, the role of memory has changed. Don't be yet another luddite trying to cling to old conceptions of memory, just like some ancients decried writing as the death of oral memory (it was, but does that outweigh the value of writing? Scant few think so).
Putting limits on learning for the sake of learning is fundamentally irrational, and one of the great stumbling blocks of almost all public schools and many private ones. This is why I intend to have my daughter's secondary education done in the Harkness method or similar. (Jiddu Krishnamurti had some pretty decent ideas on education, but the Oak Grove School is just a little too hippie-ish for me.)