Well, this is basically all bullshit in the sense of philosopher Harry Frankfurt ("bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences, and in general are unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of their statements"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_bullshit).
(a) Coal does not have dangerous side-effects lasting hundreds of thousands or millions of years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste). (b) Nuclear power operators do not pay decommissioning costs up front ("Approximately 70 percent of licensees are authorized to accumulate decommissioning funds over the operating life of their plants. These owners – generally traditional, rate-regulated electric utilities or indirectly regulated generation companies – are not required today to have all of the funds needed for decommissioning."; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Fact Sheet: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html). (c) Even if "some portion" were paid, it's still a major concern that the remaining costs (in many cases the majority) are indeed "left to taxpayers".
I recommend that you brush up on your English grammar. Not only do you not see any problem with writing sentence fragments, but you're displaying the same thing in your own writing. Because of that, it's quite hard to understand what you're saying. Proper grammar is not the same thing as critical thinking; however, it can stand in the way of expressing your insights to others.
As I said above: You fail to address the grandparent's point about reading/writing comprehension, unstated assumptions, and the need for a subject & verb in a fair test question. I have to razz other math professors about this same issue from time to time.
You fail to address the grandparent's point about reading/writing comprehension, which is a legitimate point. I have to razz other math professors about this same issue from time to time.
"Knowledge isn't worth as much as people seem to think; at its heart, it's just trivia. What matters is the ability to think, and that doesn't change from generation to generation."
Disagree. For example, cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham writes about this a lot -- the evidence is that critical thinking and deep domain knowledge go hand-in-hand. Knowing the details about what you're researching give you more vocabulary, greater context, and more connections to see the "big picture". That is, thinking has to be thinking *about something*, and the more practice in the details of any given problem domain make a big difference.
"There's no such thing as critical thinking 'skills.' There are strategies that aid critical thinking—but these can only take one's thinking to the precipice, no further. Then what? Critical thinking depends on knowing relevant content very well—and thinking about it, repeatedly, in critical ways." -- Intro to "Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard to Teach?" (http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/summer2007/index.cfm)
"So, no copyright infringement (at even the most generous definition of the word) and no plagerism."
(a) You seem to not realize that there's a distinction between "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement". (b) You seem to be unable to even spell "plagiarism".
So I would say that your expertise on the subject is suspect.
"Along the same lines, doing a search for Missy Yates will show you that she normally does cooking articles."
Earlier, I was joking about maybe this was Judith Griggs from last year's (similarly petty, rub-it-in-your-face) copyright infringement case in "Cooks Source" magazine. Hmmmm....
I agree that it's a race; currently the half-million-to-one group would win; and the foreign conflicts are being used as testbeds for many technologies that are then brought back home.
But the relative slope of the lines seems clear; and with growing wealth inequality, the motivation of the upper class seems unavoidable. I think surveillance is probably easier used in the USA due to much deeper data trail from birth; higher embedded technology; more corporatized media; and people being more accustomed to being tracked.
"Shit is getting pretty bad for the working poor folks, and they outnumber the 1%ers by about a half a million to one and growing. What happens when uncle fed can't print them anymore checks?"
This is what you need the drones, robots, surveillance, cameras, etc. for. One thing Marx/Lenin never foresaw was automated security apparatus.
"Has the state of the art in fact advanced more significantly than I thought...?"
Apparently, yes. New Yorker article last week (Mar-21) profiling current chess prodigy Magnus Carlsen (21-years old, ranked #1 in world last year):
"But processors are now so powerful that no human stands a chance of winning a match. I asked Carlsen if he would be interested in a Deep Blue-type contest, and he said no -- it would discourage him. Among the chess elite, the idea of challenging a computer has fallen into the realm of farce and retort. At the London Chess Classic, one commentator quoted the Dutch grandmaster Jan Hein Donner, who, when asked what strategy he would use against a computer, joked, 'I would bring a hammer.'
"Computers have no skills and they have nothing approaching intuition. Carlsen finds their games inelegant, and complains about 'weird computer moves I can't understand', whereas in talking about his own game he speaks of achieving 'harmony' among the pieces on the chessboard, and even of 'poetry'. He told me about watching two advanced computers play one another in a recent match in Norway: 'My conclusions were, one, the best computers are stronger than the best players, and, two, the games are not interesting at all.'"
AP today: "Tap water in several areas of Japan — including Tokyo — also tested with radiation levels considered unsafe for infants, who are particularly vulnerable to cancer-causing radioactive iodine, officials said."
They're trying to use "voice stress" as a proxy for how bad the situation is (for priority queuing purposes), and I would argue that's a fundamental mistake. What if someone is simply cool under pressure (due to training or natural inclination)? Then they'll be doomed by this system. What you need is a human making a decision about how bad the scenario actually is; admittedly that's tough, but just surrendering to a computer doing a totally different job is really tragic. Bad metrics like this can result in a system that kills people.
This occurs to me because I've had numerous doctors/dentists say I have an unusually high pain threshold, and I've had some problems with bad diagnoses due to me not responding to pain signals like they expect.
"Yes, it's true that you won't have many resources for "gold standard" double-blind, same population proof for online education, but being in education, you must certainly know that no such study is even possible. Education research just can't happen that way."
As a statistician who teaches experimental design, I totally don't agree with that. Citation needed (short quote, link/book, page number).
I don't see any experiment, nor demonstrated better outcomes in any of those links. Citation needed (meaning: short quote, link/book, page number).
What I do see is this: "On their own, children can get about 30% of the knowledge required to pass exams." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575645070639938954.html
"I.. have noticed that students are very motivated by anything online."
I call bullshit. You're noticing students motivated by non-school things, that happen to be online. Put school online and they will be equally disinterested as before. (Although you get to be that teacher going "Look! I'm hip! I get online! I'm so cool!").
Or, show me an experiment that an online program has better interest-level and/or student outcomes (from the same population of student).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this is basically all bullshit in the sense of philosopher Harry Frankfurt ("bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences, and in general are unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of their statements"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_bullshit).
(a) Coal does not have dangerous side-effects lasting hundreds of thousands or millions of years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste). (b) Nuclear power operators do not pay decommissioning costs up front ("Approximately 70 percent of licensees are authorized to accumulate decommissioning funds over the operating life of their plants. These owners – generally traditional, rate-regulated electric utilities or indirectly regulated generation companies – are not required today to have all of the funds needed for decommissioning."; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Fact Sheet: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html). (c) Even if "some portion" were paid, it's still a major concern that the remaining costs (in many cases the majority) are indeed "left to taxpayers".
I recommend that you brush up on your English grammar. Not only do you not see any problem with writing sentence fragments, but you're displaying the same thing in your own writing. Because of that, it's quite hard to understand what you're saying. Proper grammar is not the same thing as critical thinking; however, it can stand in the way of expressing your insights to others.
The real economic beauty of nuclear power is in how many ways one has to keep the real expenses off-books for extremely long periods of time.
As I said above: You fail to address the grandparent's point about reading/writing comprehension, unstated assumptions, and the need for a subject & verb in a fair test question. I have to razz other math professors about this same issue from time to time.
You fail to address the grandparent's point about reading/writing comprehension, which is a legitimate point. I have to razz other math professors about this same issue from time to time.
Definitely.
"Knowledge isn't worth as much as people seem to think; at its heart, it's just trivia. What matters is the ability to think, and that doesn't change from generation to generation."
Disagree. For example, cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham writes about this a lot -- the evidence is that critical thinking and deep domain knowledge go hand-in-hand. Knowing the details about what you're researching give you more vocabulary, greater context, and more connections to see the "big picture". That is, thinking has to be thinking *about something*, and the more practice in the details of any given problem domain make a big difference.
"There's no such thing as critical thinking 'skills.' There are strategies that aid critical thinking—but these can only take one's thinking to the precipice, no further. Then what? Critical thinking depends on knowing relevant content very well—and thinking about it, repeatedly, in critical ways." -- Intro to "Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard to Teach?" (http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/summer2007/index.cfm)
"So, no copyright infringement (at even the most generous definition of the word) and no plagerism."
(a) You seem to not realize that there's a distinction between "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement".
(b) You seem to be unable to even spell "plagiarism".
So I would say that your expertise on the subject is suspect.
"Along the same lines, doing a search for Missy Yates will show you that she normally does cooking articles."
Earlier, I was joking about maybe this was Judith Griggs from last year's (similarly petty, rub-it-in-your-face) copyright infringement case in "Cooks Source" magazine. Hmmmm....
So is this where Judith Griggs, formerly of "Cooks Source" magazine, landed?
I agree that it's a race; currently the half-million-to-one group would win; and the foreign conflicts are being used as testbeds for many technologies that are then brought back home.
But the relative slope of the lines seems clear; and with growing wealth inequality, the motivation of the upper class seems unavoidable. I think surveillance is probably easier used in the USA due to much deeper data trail from birth; higher embedded technology; more corporatized media; and people being more accustomed to being tracked.
"How the RNC and big business... have managed to still get support from the very people that they shaft over and over again."
Religion.
"Shit is getting pretty bad for the working poor folks, and they outnumber the 1%ers by about a half a million to one and growing. What happens when uncle fed can't print them anymore checks?"
This is what you need the drones, robots, surveillance, cameras, etc. for. One thing Marx/Lenin never foresaw was automated security apparatus.
"And personally, I won't hire somebody who doesn't bother to read the citation."
Yeah? Oh, yeah!? Well, I wouldn't hire a guy who wouldn't hire a guy who wouldn't hire a guy who wouldn't... wait, where the fuck was I?
I would mod this up if I could. "Insightful" and concise. 5-stars.
New Yorker article Mar-21: "I asked Carlsen if he would be interested in a Deep Blue-type contest, and he said no -- it would discourage him."
Longer quote here.
"Has the state of the art in fact advanced more significantly than I thought...?"
Apparently, yes. New Yorker article last week (Mar-21) profiling current chess prodigy Magnus Carlsen (21-years old, ranked #1 in world last year):
"But processors are now so powerful that no human stands a chance of winning a match. I asked Carlsen if he would be interested in a Deep Blue-type contest, and he said no -- it would discourage him. Among the chess elite, the idea of challenging a computer has fallen into the realm of farce and retort. At the London Chess Classic, one commentator quoted the Dutch grandmaster Jan Hein Donner, who, when asked what strategy he would use against a computer, joked, 'I would bring a hammer.'
"Computers have no skills and they have nothing approaching intuition. Carlsen finds their games inelegant, and complains about 'weird computer moves I can't understand', whereas in talking about his own game he speaks of achieving 'harmony' among the pieces on the chessboard, and even of 'poetry'. He told me about watching two advanced computers play one another in a recent match in Norway: 'My conclusions were, one, the best computers are stronger than the best players, and, two, the games are not interesting at all.'"
Abstract here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/03/21/110321fa_fact_max
"At the tap, it's so diluted, it's not an issue."
AP today: "Tap water in several areas of Japan — including Tokyo — also tested with radiation levels considered unsafe for infants, who are particularly vulnerable to cancer-causing radioactive iodine, officials said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake
"Basically it's Pascal's Wager for the paranoid prankster."
It being patented is just doubly stupid.
They're trying to use "voice stress" as a proxy for how bad the situation is (for priority queuing purposes), and I would argue that's a fundamental mistake. What if someone is simply cool under pressure (due to training or natural inclination)? Then they'll be doomed by this system. What you need is a human making a decision about how bad the scenario actually is; admittedly that's tough, but just surrendering to a computer doing a totally different job is really tragic. Bad metrics like this can result in a system that kills people.
This occurs to me because I've had numerous doctors/dentists say I have an unusually high pain threshold, and I've had some problems with bad diagnoses due to me not responding to pain signals like they expect.
"Yes, it's true that you won't have many resources for "gold standard" double-blind, same population proof for online education, but being in education, you must certainly know that no such study is even possible. Education research just can't happen that way."
As a statistician who teaches experimental design, I totally don't agree with that. Citation needed (short quote, link/book, page number).
I don't see any experiment, nor demonstrated better outcomes in any of those links. Citation needed (meaning: short quote, link/book, page number).
What I do see is this: "On their own, children can get about 30% of the knowledge required to pass exams." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575645070639938954.html
"I.. have noticed that students are very motivated by anything online."
I call bullshit. You're noticing students motivated by non-school things, that happen to be online. Put school online and they will be equally disinterested as before. (Although you get to be that teacher going "Look! I'm hip! I get online! I'm so cool!").
Or, show me an experiment that an online program has better interest-level and/or student outcomes (from the same population of student).
"They will be amazed at how different everyone's mesasurements are."
Really? I recall being the only one in my high school chemistry/physics classes who really cared about that.