If you add the fact that the MySpace page could be, and probably was, accessed from within the school, then you've got a case of technology blurring locality. Was it inside the school if the student wrote it at home and then showed it to her friends in class?
There's some precedent for this. The "Bong Hits for Jesus" case (aka Morse v. Frederick) ruled that the school could curtail a student's right to free speech outside of school, at events where the school was present. The problem is not that Bong Hits for Jesus limited free speech in any way that hadn't already existed in schools, it's that it started to expand the realm into which schools could impose that limitation.
It's uncertain whether the SCOTUS would rule the same way on this case---a MySpace pace might be a step too far for some of the old justices, if they understand what a MySpace page is. But it's not totally out of line for the district judge to interpret the precedent that way.
I have zero knowledge of how chip manufacturing works, but my armchair paranoia tells me that Moore's Law is just a way to wring the maximum profit out of hardware.
It doesn't seem so. But maybe you should start out with something a little more basic - like the difference between your and you're.
I often wonder if people who correct other peoples' grammar on the Internet are just bitchy, or if they're really linguistic idealists, aching to spread perfect grammatical perfection to the masses.
Ditto. The best part about math is that there's always a reason why. You *have* to justify it.
That was basically my problem with social science, and why I switched to a CS major. The logic was too fuzzy---even empirical models, as often as not, are based on some sort of unquantifiable assumption. Too much of it made my brain go into an infinite loop; it was like staring into a bottomless pit.
Thanks for linking that. This puts the whole debacle in perspective.
I don't really agree with him anyway---not because I think he's wrong, but because I think he's naive. Perhaps his statements are in the context of a more laid-back British attitude toward religion. I don't know how it is over there. What I do know is how things work over here in the States, and I am quite certain that any loophole that can be exploited in order to teach creationism in schools over here, will be. If you can talk about it, you can critique it, if you can critique it, you can advocate it, if you advocate it, that's effectively the lesson plan. It's a poor choice to make.
So true.
I remember when I first started Ubuntu, I didn't know what to expect, but when I saw that Firefox icon at the top of my screen, I knew everything was going to be alright.
Re:IT boss=human filter for stupidity @ higher lev
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
The word for religious people isn't really "stupid," although that's a good shorthand. The word is "incurious." As in, someone who cups their hands over their ears and shouts, "LALALALALA!" whenever presented with anything resembling "evidence," because they already have all the answers and don't want to fuck up their perfect vision of the universe.
Race and ethnicity really have nothing to do with it, since this is an attitude, not something you're born with. So that's a pretty misdirected statement. Besides which, we all know that Asians are the smartest.;-)
You're accusing me of trolling, which is fine. However, I'm more concerned with the fact that this information you present means that I'm hopelessly unoriginal, which does concern me. I will have to be snarky in more creative ways, it seems.
Correcting myself on number three. I didn't read the footnotes.
"An additional 22 participants in the FITD condition (surprisingly) declined the small
request and an additional 21 participants in the DITF condition (surprisingly) agreed to the
large request. Also, 18 participants in the DITF condition declined the large request but
teleported or exited before the experimenter could make the moderate request. These
participants were not included in the total N reported above."
1. There were 416 participants, which the study claims were interviewed at different times of day. About half of these were control, with about 100 participants for each of the techniques.
2. They do not have data on that. They did not collect demographic data on the individuals who participated, and in the article only note the average ages and gender-balance in the game overall. Nothing surprising there.
3. They didn't publish data on that, either. They did say that the compliance rate for the final request was about 55% for the control group, 75% for FITD, 80% for DITF for the white avatar, and 60% for DITF for the black avatar.
The only thing I found interesting is that they named the black guy Mike1111, which just looks like a lot of exclamation points without shift put down. I'd get annoyed at anyone with a name like that making requests at me. Josh7899 (the white guy) is a much more appealing name to me.
I would have thought it was a product of our society being unable to adequately explain (either through their ignorance or just a lack of language) why things were dangerous. Where does evolution come into it? Is the article saying that knocking on wood is hard wired into our brains? Being worried about rustling grass isn't a hard wired phenomena, it isn't even a superstition. It's the result of being told about bloody lions eating people. Fear is an evolutionary advantage. Superstition isn't.
I don't have a link, but at one point I heard of a study that tried to link dietary restrictions present in various religions with geography. For some reason (and again, I don't recall the details) not eating beef, in, say, India, actually turned out to be a more efficient way to produce calories for the entire society. (Something to do with fertilization from the dung, fats in the milk, and the use of otherwise un-arable land) And pigs were inefficient in the Middle East. Dietary restrictions have been enforced by superstitions (e.g., cows are sacred, pigs are unclean) rather than fear or anything else, and have proved to be useful in maintaining a population.
Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul!
Much as I like Douglas Adams, really, he's just paraphrasing Plato. Give credit where credit's due.
And politically correct! Fanperson would also be good.
PayPal should be making subprime loans?
If you add the fact that the MySpace page could be, and probably was, accessed from within the school, then you've got a case of technology blurring locality. Was it inside the school if the student wrote it at home and then showed it to her friends in class?
There's some precedent for this. The "Bong Hits for Jesus" case (aka Morse v. Frederick) ruled that the school could curtail a student's right to free speech outside of school, at events where the school was present. The problem is not that Bong Hits for Jesus limited free speech in any way that hadn't already existed in schools, it's that it started to expand the realm into which schools could impose that limitation.
It's uncertain whether the SCOTUS would rule the same way on this case---a MySpace pace might be a step too far for some of the old justices, if they understand what a MySpace page is. But it's not totally out of line for the district judge to interpret the precedent that way.
FYI, GCC's refusing to compile that.
FYI: When he was reprogrammed by John Connor, it was in COBOL.
Nonsense. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is TRUTH, nothing can match its eternal validity.
Operating systems need to stop being argued like a religion, I'm getting tired of it.
If you don't like your OS being like a religion, maybe you should get out of the Cathedral and visit the Bazaar.
The Cathedral is where the priests are, sure, but all the cultists and evangelists hang out in the Bazaar.
I have zero knowledge of how chip manufacturing works, but my armchair paranoia tells me that Moore's Law is just a way to wring the maximum profit out of hardware.
It doesn't seem so. But maybe you should start out with something a little more basic - like the difference between your and you're.
I often wonder if people who correct other peoples' grammar on the Internet are just bitchy, or if they're really linguistic idealists, aching to spread perfect grammatical perfection to the masses.
Ditto. The best part about math is that there's always a reason why. You *have* to justify it.
That was basically my problem with social science, and why I switched to a CS major. The logic was too fuzzy---even empirical models, as often as not, are based on some sort of unquantifiable assumption. Too much of it made my brain go into an infinite loop; it was like staring into a bottomless pit.
As Richard Dawkins suggested, he could have given up his religious position too, that would have been much more convincing.
Yes, but, you have to keep in mind, Richard Dawkins is an asshole.
Thanks for linking that. This puts the whole debacle in perspective.
I don't really agree with him anyway---not because I think he's wrong, but because I think he's naive. Perhaps his statements are in the context of a more laid-back British attitude toward religion. I don't know how it is over there. What I do know is how things work over here in the States, and I am quite certain that any loophole that can be exploited in order to teach creationism in schools over here, will be. If you can talk about it, you can critique it, if you can critique it, you can advocate it, if you advocate it, that's effectively the lesson plan. It's a poor choice to make.
But it's nothing to be forced to resign over.
Where's RMS and Linus? I owe them back taxes....
Why? If I play it without buying it, the effect is the same as if I had simply ignored it.
Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right.
Well, I'll be damned. You've got a point there. In the future, I'll try to make sure that I'm never happy unless I pay someone for it.
So true. I remember when I first started Ubuntu, I didn't know what to expect, but when I saw that Firefox icon at the top of my screen, I knew everything was going to be alright.
Wanna trade? :-D
The word for religious people isn't really "stupid," although that's a good shorthand. The word is "incurious." As in, someone who cups their hands over their ears and shouts, "LALALALALA!" whenever presented with anything resembling "evidence," because they already have all the answers and don't want to fuck up their perfect vision of the universe.
;-)
Race and ethnicity really have nothing to do with it, since this is an attitude, not something you're born with. So that's a pretty misdirected statement. Besides which, we all know that Asians are the smartest.
You're accusing me of trolling, which is fine. However, I'm more concerned with the fact that this information you present means that I'm hopelessly unoriginal, which does concern me. I will have to be snarky in more creative ways, it seems.
Correcting myself on number three. I didn't read the footnotes.
"An additional 22 participants in the FITD condition (surprisingly) declined the small request and an additional 21 participants in the DITF condition (surprisingly) agreed to the large request. Also, 18 participants in the DITF condition declined the large request but teleported or exited before the experimenter could make the moderate request. These participants were not included in the total N reported above."
Trying not to spam...
And by "the article" I mean the journal article published by the study's authors, not the news article that covered it.
The article is posted online here.
To answer your questions:
1. There were 416 participants, which the study claims were interviewed at different times of day. About half of these were control, with about 100 participants for each of the techniques.
2. They do not have data on that. They did not collect demographic data on the individuals who participated, and in the article only note the average ages and gender-balance in the game overall. Nothing surprising there.
3. They didn't publish data on that, either. They did say that the compliance rate for the final request was about 55% for the control group, 75% for FITD, 80% for DITF for the white avatar, and 60% for DITF for the black avatar.
The only thing I found interesting is that they named the black guy Mike1111, which just looks like a lot of exclamation points without shift put down. I'd get annoyed at anyone with a name like that making requests at me. Josh7899 (the white guy) is a much more appealing name to me.
I would have thought it was a product of our society being unable to adequately explain (either through their ignorance or just a lack of language) why things were dangerous. Where does evolution come into it? Is the article saying that knocking on wood is hard wired into our brains? Being worried about rustling grass isn't a hard wired phenomena, it isn't even a superstition. It's the result of being told about bloody lions eating people. Fear is an evolutionary advantage. Superstition isn't.
I don't have a link, but at one point I heard of a study that tried to link dietary restrictions present in various religions with geography. For some reason (and again, I don't recall the details) not eating beef, in, say, India, actually turned out to be a more efficient way to produce calories for the entire society. (Something to do with fertilization from the dung, fats in the milk, and the use of otherwise un-arable land) And pigs were inefficient in the Middle East. Dietary restrictions have been enforced by superstitions (e.g., cows are sacred, pigs are unclean) rather than fear or anything else, and have proved to be useful in maintaining a population.