What STR did manage to pull off with three textbook publishers was this: STR convinced those publishers that two diagrams in their books -- one about the evolution of horses, and the other about archeopteryx -- and the text accompanying them were scientifically incorrect. Notice the claim here: the claim was not that the diagrams were against creationism. The claim was that the diagrams were _scientifically_ incorrect.
And you know what? Technically, they were right! The diagram above showing the evolution of horses is horribly outdated, and the pictures no longer comport with the current scientific consensus.
Megaupload's mistakes will be used to guide the next round of similar websites. There will be sites that will rise up and fill the hole left in the market, and they wont be so easy to catch next time.
As a college senior, I've taken my share of lectures in various disciplines. One thing I've noticed with lectures, especially math lectures, is that when you are sitting there watching the professor walk you through the problem steps, it is very easy to overestimate your grasp of the subject. You follow all the lectures and do well on the homework, so you figure your good to go for the final. Then there comes the exam, and you find out all you really knew how to do was some textbook assisted string manipulation, and you are screwed on the questions that would be easy if you understood the intuition better.
It's difficult to teach the intuition behind things to a room full of students, because each one will have a different "Ah-Ha!" conceptual explanation. For example Partial Differentiation. I got it when it was explained as a cross section of a higher dimensional shape. My friend, when working with gradients and vector fields in physics. (It boils down to the same thing, but it's the way you start to attack the problem that matters)
There is no way to give a room full of students individual intuitions, so most professors default to proofs. (Which are probably intuitive enough for the professor anyway...) But since you can get the proofs from the book, there is not really a good reason to go to proof lectures, unless you like things read to you. (Which is probably helpful to some, but useless for me)
TFA is not clear if this bans college professors and stud nets from being friends on Facebook et al. There are no high school teachers I am still in contact with, but I do have a few college professors as Facebook friends. And no waiting until after the class either, the law bans friending current and former students.
The largest problem in this debate is that somehow, in the minds of many Christians, believing in Young Earth Creationism has become equivalent to believing in the Bible as the Word of God. It has been pounded into their heads that you reject God if you believe in evolution. Until this changes, you will continue to see stupid stuff like this.
YEC is not only very bad science, but poor biblical scholarship as well. A careful reading of the third chapter of Genesis will reveal that the laws of physics changed due the fall of man (Somewhere between verses 14 and 19. Of course, God being God, he can do this at his pleasure). For example, the fundamental laws regarding increasing entropy could not have existed before the fall (At least, it could not have existed as we know them today). My personal theory is that the change to the natural laws took place gradually, finishing at the Tower of Babel, with time sort-of "collapsing" in both directions. (Fits the gradually decreasing life expectancies up to the flood, and the fact that it is about the period in history when the archeological evidence and the Bible start to match up, though not perfectly I admit)
The biblical bit of this is, of course, mostly useless from a scientific standpoint. But from a religious standpoint, neatly severs, as should be the case, The Science of Really Old Things, and Religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Megaupload's mistakes will be used to guide the next round of similar websites. There will be sites that will rise up and fill the hole left in the market, and they wont be so easy to catch next time.
Getting laid prevents serial killers? Suddenly I feel a lot less safe around here...
As a college senior, I've taken my share of lectures in various disciplines. One thing I've noticed with lectures, especially math lectures, is that when you are sitting there watching the professor walk you through the problem steps, it is very easy to overestimate your grasp of the subject. You follow all the lectures and do well on the homework, so you figure your good to go for the final. Then there comes the exam, and you find out all you really knew how to do was some textbook assisted string manipulation, and you are screwed on the questions that would be easy if you understood the intuition better. It's difficult to teach the intuition behind things to a room full of students, because each one will have a different "Ah-Ha!" conceptual explanation. For example Partial Differentiation. I got it when it was explained as a cross section of a higher dimensional shape. My friend, when working with gradients and vector fields in physics. (It boils down to the same thing, but it's the way you start to attack the problem that matters) There is no way to give a room full of students individual intuitions, so most professors default to proofs. (Which are probably intuitive enough for the professor anyway...) But since you can get the proofs from the book, there is not really a good reason to go to proof lectures, unless you like things read to you. (Which is probably helpful to some, but useless for me)
I first read it as "Feds Arrest Gene Simmons". You can imagine my disappointment.
Slashdoting is one way to solve the problem.
Section by section explanation of the legal speak: http://www.keepthewebopen.com/assets/pdfs/open-act.pdf
Actually, 0% of the USPS funding is through taxes. As an entity, it is entirely self supporting. See: http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm#H12
TFA is not clear if this bans college professors and stud nets from being friends on Facebook et al. There are no high school teachers I am still in contact with, but I do have a few college professors as Facebook friends. And no waiting until after the class either, the law bans friending current and former students.
The largest problem in this debate is that somehow, in the minds of many Christians, believing in Young Earth Creationism has become equivalent to believing in the Bible as the Word of God. It has been pounded into their heads that you reject God if you believe in evolution. Until this changes, you will continue to see stupid stuff like this. YEC is not only very bad science, but poor biblical scholarship as well. A careful reading of the third chapter of Genesis will reveal that the laws of physics changed due the fall of man (Somewhere between verses 14 and 19. Of course, God being God, he can do this at his pleasure). For example, the fundamental laws regarding increasing entropy could not have existed before the fall (At least, it could not have existed as we know them today). My personal theory is that the change to the natural laws took place gradually, finishing at the Tower of Babel, with time sort-of "collapsing" in both directions. (Fits the gradually decreasing life expectancies up to the flood, and the fact that it is about the period in history when the archeological evidence and the Bible start to match up, though not perfectly I admit) The biblical bit of this is, of course, mostly useless from a scientific standpoint. But from a religious standpoint, neatly severs, as should be the case, The Science of Really Old Things, and Religion.
Adding more of something that is not working is bound to fix the problem! Right?