That they're teaching the issue like there IS evidence supporting creationism when there isn't. Right along side evolution, which DOES have evidence supporting it. And pretending that they are scientifically comparable.
People need to be encouraged to reason not just memorize whichever view we decide is "right" and cram down their throats.
Reasoning is good. But the kids better know that 1+1=2. It's true. Trust me. Later on we might teach you about the null set axiom or the axiom of choice, but only if you're really interested in math. So for now, I'm totally going to cram it down your throat that 1+1=2.
Likewise, evolution is true. It's happening and observable. If you're interested, and you go into biology, we might show you about gene recombination, natural selection, genetic drift, phenotypes, recessive/dominate genes, and all sorts of other stuff, but for now you can trust us that evolution is true.
the west forgetting that the world is round
Wut? That never actually happened. It's part of the Columbus myth that nationalistic americans built up. There have been idiots throughout the ages, but a spherical earth has been the standard since the greeks figured it out.
Ignoring something with such a huge impact on society, and the tempo of science is crazy IMHO.
Indeed. Which is why we learn about such things OUTSIDE the science classroom. (Possibly aspects of it in sociology).
we "do not observe evolution on the scale that is relevant to the discussion".
And that is balls to the walls wrong. "Evolutionary aspects" happening to "some insects" is entirely relevant to the discussion of whether or not evolution is fact. Deal with it.
Evolution (specifically as it pertains to the origin of Man)
The origins of man is only a subset of evolution (and a ground shattering book). Something that can be derived from larger over-arcing subject knowledge. The fact of evolution is observable in complex lifeforms. Furthermore, there's no good reason to believe that it isn't applicable to the animals we call human. That part is a theory. It's a good theory, but it won't ever be able to be a fact since it's a historical event. It could very well be that aliens copied some primates, tweaked them, and plopped us down into a wondrous garden. That's a theory too, and a shitty one.
Calling something a theory is not an insult, so there's no reason to get up in arms about it.
Correct, calling it a theory is not an insult. I am not up in arms about that statement. I am absolutely ragingly all-up-in-your-stuff-with-arms insulted that you claim that evolution is not a fact. It is. You're wrong. Provably wrong. So wrong that I don't want you anywhere near my children sort of wrong. So twistedly wrong in such a way where you make a serious effort to drive any wedge you can between the truth and anyone who will listen that I don't think I'm too far out of line in calling you evil.
Well, actually, the other way to explore Mars is to send drones which carry all the tools which men would be holding. They're still piloted by men back on Earth. (or if the she beats the odds, a chick)
We can, and have, observed evolution in action. It is both an observable fact and a theory. The fact is that it's happening, the theory is how it's happening. The theory has a lot of different mechanisms for explaining how it happens. Natural selection, genetic drift, inbreeding, outbreeding, and all sorts of other fun stuff. Currently the Out-of-Africa is the popular view for humanities spread.
If you weren't so indoctrinated, you'd probably have known all this.
AWWW Damnit! Honey, I'm getting shanghaied into congress again.
A romantic idea about democracy, but it means half of our reps would have less than average IQ. Have you tried to explain a complex issue to someone with an IQ of 100 recently? They'll be less corrupt, but entirely in the palm of whoever is there coaching them. So, it'll still be lobbyists pulling the strings.
This is the sort of thing makes me fear juries. If I can demand a jury of my peers, I want them all to have ascended in Nethack.
who should be treated like they're at least 3 years behind everyone else.
I think you mean at most 3 years.
Uh... no?
If the book was labeled as safe for 12 and older, and the students are 14, but this parent complained that he's showing them inappropriate material, that means that the teacher needed to treat her children as if they were 11 or younger.
That's 3 or more years behind everyone else.
If the teacher treated the conservative's kid at one grade level lower then the rest, he'd still be able to read Ender's Game to him, since he'd be treated as a 13 year old.
And just so you know, I'm doing my very damned best not to make a snarky joke about conservatives and math.
Even more so when it's outside the realm of fantasy. But ignoring the probability of his quoted price. Ignoring the difference between putting humans on Mars vs putting robots on Mars. Ignoring the story here and taking a step back:
What do we do once we get there?
There's science to do. I get that. I'm a fan of science. But what exactly? And why do we want to go do it ourselves?
I've seen this boil down to two reasons: 1) Political showmanship. Getting people interested in science. All that fluff which is identical to faking it in a sound stage. Meh. 2) To colonize. To get our ass out of the cradle. May seem crazy, it's certainly the long view, but I'm actually hip with that reason. It's just SO FAR out there that it seems like stabilizing our own planet seems like a more important task to throw our resources behind. Safeguarding our ability to try for colonies is important.
So... he should teach age appropriate material to children... except this lady's children... who should be treated like they're at least 3 years behind everyone else.
Got it.
My memory is only so so, but there's also the bit about Ender complaining about the order not to wear "skins" (ie, run around in the nude) because one of the team members is female. The leader is a traditional Spaniard guy and Ender complains that everyone there isn't sexualized yet so it shouldn't matter.
And remember, ANYTHING can sound dirty with the right inflection. Good luck proving it without a recording though.
I dunno man. If you put down just two lines and have the poor, the middle-class, and the rich, then I totally agree. If you take a center of the road family, it takes some really serious shit for their kids to get to the technical definition of poor or rich. But there is a significant difference between the working class and the upper-middle. All of which are well WELL below your thresh-hold for a University to begging them for money.
My grandparents were farmers and a rail worker, working class. My father was middle class. Technician stuff.
I'm an engineer, married to an engineer, with no kids. We're pretty well off. Not rich, but I'd call us upper-middle. Trips abroad and we paid cash for our cars.
But my brother knocked up the wrong girl, and long story short, he's on food stamps.
So there's mobility here. But you're talking about the mega-rich. The sort they name University buildings after.
I think most children, employees, and elected officials, who do not believe in God hide their views out of fear and shame that they will be judged and ostracized for that belief by their parents, employers, and constituents.
But hey, maybe I'm just egocentric and project my own issues onto the rest of the world.
Listen, academia is full of really bright people and they trend towards the liberal progressive sort of thinking. The rest of the world follows different trends.
And sorry for being snarky, and for other people being downright assholes, but I just got out of a job where my boss was a racist, sexist, asshole who assumed a christian worldview and kind of expected his minions to follow suit. The religious jokes about the muslims got really old really fast. Even had one of those bullshit leadership seminars where "real leaders surround themselves with like-minded leaders". Woo.
It was good to get out.
I understand your complaint about fear of being ostracized, but let me say that you have it MUCH BETTER than the other side of the fence.
The real test is being wiser than the previous generation when we're old geezers.
Unfortunately, then when our kids get to be geezers, they'll never have come into contact with the "back in my day" fallacy and they'll probably fall for it all over again.
people who can't find jobs are not content to just die. They absolutely will turn to crime instead
Wow. Sociological absolutes. Yeah, sure, that seems perfectly reasonable. ~
But no, you're seeing the world in black and white. Automation and economics of scale doesn't mean that everyone effected is out of work, but that some are out of work, some get other work, and the labor market as a whole gets a little more crowded. In towns that were entirely fueled by manufacturing, sure, there are a lot of people out of work. Life sucks for them, and A PORTION of them indeed turn to crime as an alternative income. But the supervisor of a production line can drop down to supervising a McDonalds. And the graduating student who was hoping for a job in manufacturing will have to go get something else. Anything else.
Entire classes of people can be pushed down without going on the dole. The middle class can turn into the low class without being criminals or being put in jail.
you're starting to now have to deal with the entitlement generation,
Bullshit. Life is better for the next generation. That's progress right? There are setbacks, and dips, recessions and even depressions, but making life better for our kids is the primary goal of a lot of parents out there and why they get up in the morning.
NEWSFLASH! Baby boomers were the "entitlement" generation when they were kids. "Back in my day we ate leather and LIKED IT you dang whippersnappers" was what their parents said because they grew up during THE DEPRESSION and their kids had no idea how good they have it. Hell, they're still the entitlement generation because they think they're entitled to a social security check past 65. (Because they really are entitled to it.)
The entire sentiment is one giant "back in my day..." rant. Get over yourself old man, the next generation will always expect things to be better, because things ARE better. Hopefully at least.
Holy BALLS! That has some ludicrously deep ramifications, what the hell are they... oh wait, timothy submitted this from "anonymous"?
Alllright, lemme just wait for the +5 insightful comments to clear this up before I get my rage on.
I agree. The web has simply gotten better. More consolidated, and that has it's own issues, a LOT more advertising, and much larger sites, but better overall.
But "podcasts"? I'm sorry, it's an mp3 on the internet. There's some conventions that they are part of a regular series of people talking to you that gets released periodically, but the term "podcast" is one of those bullshit terms that was trying to ride the coat-tails of the ipod. Oh, and people were using the term a decade ago. I remember thinking it was a bullshit buzzword back then, and it's still one today.
Offshore? Hell, let's inshore it to people that are actually trained for it. Most of my bosses have been people that migrated from the real workforce to having a few underlings to boss around. A sum total of one has used a gant chart. One asked me for estimates. I've had the cowboy IT guy who just wants me to get it done. The coward who doesn't want to make any enemies ("Sure, we can do that salesguy"). The MIA boss who just stays in his office.
Now, don't get me wrong. It's FANTASTIC to have a boss in the field that you can go to for help. Debugging, best practices, architectural decisions. A senior engineer is worth their weight in gold. But let them be engineers, don't cut off their head and hands and stick them in management.
There are times I just want to go hire a babysitter, take day to explain the process, show her a gant chart, and tell her to ask the following questions repeatedly:
To customer: What do you want it to do?
To engineer: How long will it take to do this? (and how sure are you?)
There's some basic basic things like the mythical man month, technical debt and when to use it. But all in all the actual job that mid-bosses perform isn't all that taxing. Mostly it's just shmoozing with other bosses.
No. Too far. Telling him to go fuck himself is perfectly fine, but inciting people to go kill him is clearly over the line.
Come on slashdot, self-police our nutjobs.
Anyway, this may seem ludicrously simple, but since our fate is tied to our neighbors, (ie if we let the financial sector implode, everyone would suffer for it), then how about we demand that our neighbors act responsibly. It comes with a guarentee that we'll help out if they ever trip again (ie we'll bail you out if you're too big to fail).
Gee. That sounds a lot like socialism.
And we didn't go down the pure capitalism path. We bailed out the banks. We choose to NOT have another great depression. Good choice. But now since we've admitted that this game isn't really capitalistic, how about we start getting them to act responsibly?
Did forget that part? We wouldn't "all be fine" if we're all in this together. Since I sell to, work with, and/or buy from my neighbor my economic outlook is tied to his. At least in part. And since everyone was tied together in that financial meltdown, there essentially were no competitors to run in and scoop up the business. None in my own society anyway.
So, if we were truly a capitalistic society, and we had let the banks fail, then they would have sucked us all down into a dark well of despair so grim that it would have disrupted the global power balance. It would have hurt everyone in the process, and no one can know who would come out on top afterwards.
Man, I really hope I'm chatting with different cowards here, otherwise someone is SERIOUSLY off their meds. I don't mean to be so down on capitalism. It works fantastically well when there's competition and a free market, or at least something close. But it has it's issues and simply fails at some points. It's not magic, you can't simply throw it at problems and expect it all to work out. You still have to understand what's going on.
But no sane person with a clue about how the economy works wanted our financial sector to implode.
Slashdot Mirror
So if there is no evidence what is the problem?
That they're teaching the issue like there IS evidence supporting creationism when there isn't. Right along side evolution, which DOES have evidence supporting it. And pretending that they are scientifically comparable.
People need to be encouraged to reason not just memorize whichever view we decide is "right" and cram down their throats.
Reasoning is good. But the kids better know that 1+1=2. It's true. Trust me. Later on we might teach you about the null set axiom or the axiom of choice, but only if you're really interested in math. So for now, I'm totally going to cram it down your throat that 1+1=2.
Likewise, evolution is true. It's happening and observable. If you're interested, and you go into biology, we might show you about gene recombination, natural selection, genetic drift, phenotypes, recessive/dominate genes, and all sorts of other stuff, but for now you can trust us that evolution is true.
the west forgetting that the world is round
Wut? That never actually happened. It's part of the Columbus myth that nationalistic americans built up. There have been idiots throughout the ages, but a spherical earth has been the standard since the greeks figured it out.
Ignoring something with such a huge impact on society, and the tempo of science is crazy IMHO.
Indeed. Which is why we learn about such things OUTSIDE the science classroom. (Possibly aspects of it in sociology).
we "do not observe evolution on the scale that is relevant to the discussion".
And that is balls to the walls wrong. "Evolutionary aspects" happening to "some insects" is entirely relevant to the discussion of whether or not evolution is fact. Deal with it.
Evolution (specifically as it pertains to the origin of Man)
The origins of man is only a subset of evolution (and a ground shattering book). Something that can be derived from larger over-arcing subject knowledge. The fact of evolution is observable in complex lifeforms. Furthermore, there's no good reason to believe that it isn't applicable to the animals we call human. That part is a theory. It's a good theory, but it won't ever be able to be a fact since it's a historical event. It could very well be that aliens copied some primates, tweaked them, and plopped us down into a wondrous garden. That's a theory too, and a shitty one.
Calling something a theory is not an insult, so there's no reason to get up in arms about it.
Correct, calling it a theory is not an insult. I am not up in arms about that statement. I am absolutely ragingly all-up-in-your-stuff-with-arms insulted that you claim that evolution is not a fact. It is. You're wrong. Provably wrong. So wrong that I don't want you anywhere near my children sort of wrong. So twistedly wrong in such a way where you make a serious effort to drive any wedge you can between the truth and anyone who will listen that I don't think I'm too far out of line in calling you evil.
Well, actually, the other way to explore Mars is to send drones which carry all the tools which men would be holding. They're still piloted by men back on Earth. (or if the she beats the odds, a chick)
Do yourself a favor, read it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
We can, and have, observed evolution in action. It is both an observable fact and a theory. The fact is that it's happening, the theory is how it's happening. The theory has a lot of different mechanisms for explaining how it happens. Natural selection, genetic drift, inbreeding, outbreeding, and all sorts of other fun stuff. Currently the Out-of-Africa is the popular view for humanities spread.
If you weren't so indoctrinated, you'd probably have known all this.
AWWW Damnit! Honey, I'm getting shanghaied into congress again.
A romantic idea about democracy, but it means half of our reps would have less than average IQ. Have you tried to explain a complex issue to someone with an IQ of 100 recently? They'll be less corrupt, but entirely in the palm of whoever is there coaching them. So, it'll still be lobbyists pulling the strings.
This is the sort of thing makes me fear juries. If I can demand a jury of my peers, I want them all to have ascended in Nethack.
who should be treated like they're at least 3 years behind everyone else.
I think you mean at most 3 years.
Uh... no?
If the book was labeled as safe for 12 and older, and the students are 14, but this parent complained that he's showing them inappropriate material, that means that the teacher needed to treat her children as if they were 11 or younger.
That's 3 or more years behind everyone else.
If the teacher treated the conservative's kid at one grade level lower then the rest, he'd still be able to read Ender's Game to him, since he'd be treated as a 13 year old.
And just so you know, I'm doing my very damned best not to make a snarky joke about conservatives and math.
Even more so when it's outside the realm of fantasy. But ignoring the probability of his quoted price. Ignoring the difference between putting humans on Mars vs putting robots on Mars. Ignoring the story here and taking a step back:
What do we do once we get there?
There's science to do. I get that. I'm a fan of science. But what exactly? And why do we want to go do it ourselves?
I've seen this boil down to two reasons: 1) Political showmanship. Getting people interested in science. All that fluff which is identical to faking it in a sound stage. Meh. 2) To colonize. To get our ass out of the cradle. May seem crazy, it's certainly the long view, but I'm actually hip with that reason. It's just SO FAR out there that it seems like stabilizing our own planet seems like a more important task to throw our resources behind. Safeguarding our ability to try for colonies is important.
So... he should teach age appropriate material to children... except this lady's children... who should be treated like they're at least 3 years behind everyone else.
Got it.
My memory is only so so, but there's also the bit about Ender complaining about the order not to wear "skins" (ie, run around in the nude) because one of the team members is female. The leader is a traditional Spaniard guy and Ender complains that everyone there isn't sexualized yet so it shouldn't matter.
And remember, ANYTHING can sound dirty with the right inflection. Good luck proving it without a recording though.
up to10 years, so more like 5, which means he'll serve 2.
Welcome to a jury of your peers. They're vindictive little shits aren't they?
I dunno man. If you put down just two lines and have the poor, the middle-class, and the rich, then I totally agree. If you take a center of the road family, it takes some really serious shit for their kids to get to the technical definition of poor or rich. But there is a significant difference between the working class and the upper-middle. All of which are well WELL below your thresh-hold for a University to begging them for money.
My grandparents were farmers and a rail worker, working class. My father was middle class. Technician stuff.
I'm an engineer, married to an engineer, with no kids. We're pretty well off. Not rich, but I'd call us upper-middle. Trips abroad and we paid cash for our cars.
But my brother knocked up the wrong girl, and long story short, he's on food stamps.
So there's mobility here. But you're talking about the mega-rich. The sort they name University buildings after.
huh, so your spirit guide has a knack for pointer manipulation?
I think most children, employees, and elected officials, who do not believe in God hide their views out of fear and shame that they will be judged and ostracized for that belief by their parents, employers, and constituents.
But hey, maybe I'm just egocentric and project my own issues onto the rest of the world.
Listen, academia is full of really bright people and they trend towards the liberal progressive sort of thinking. The rest of the world follows different trends.
And sorry for being snarky, and for other people being downright assholes, but I just got out of a job where my boss was a racist, sexist, asshole who assumed a christian worldview and kind of expected his minions to follow suit. The religious jokes about the muslims got really old really fast. Even had one of those bullshit leadership seminars where "real leaders surround themselves with like-minded leaders". Woo.
It was good to get out.
I understand your complaint about fear of being ostracized, but let me say that you have it MUCH BETTER than the other side of the fence.
The real test is being wiser than the previous generation when we're old geezers.
Unfortunately, then when our kids get to be geezers, they'll never have come into contact with the "back in my day" fallacy and they'll probably fall for it all over again.
So how well does the Army define terrorists?
They play with the term "insurgent" kinda loosely, does the same thing happen with terrorism?
people who can't find jobs are not content to just die. They absolutely will turn to crime instead
Wow. Sociological absolutes. Yeah, sure, that seems perfectly reasonable. ~
But no, you're seeing the world in black and white. Automation and economics of scale doesn't mean that everyone effected is out of work, but that some are out of work, some get other work, and the labor market as a whole gets a little more crowded. In towns that were entirely fueled by manufacturing, sure, there are a lot of people out of work. Life sucks for them, and A PORTION of them indeed turn to crime as an alternative income. But the supervisor of a production line can drop down to supervising a McDonalds. And the graduating student who was hoping for a job in manufacturing will have to go get something else. Anything else.
Entire classes of people can be pushed down without going on the dole. The middle class can turn into the low class without being criminals or being put in jail.
you're starting to now have to deal with the entitlement generation,
Bullshit. Life is better for the next generation. That's progress right? There are setbacks, and dips, recessions and even depressions, but making life better for our kids is the primary goal of a lot of parents out there and why they get up in the morning.
NEWSFLASH! Baby boomers were the "entitlement" generation when they were kids. "Back in my day we ate leather and LIKED IT you dang whippersnappers" was what their parents said because they grew up during THE DEPRESSION and their kids had no idea how good they have it. Hell, they're still the entitlement generation because they think they're entitled to a social security check past 65. (Because they really are entitled to it.)
The entire sentiment is one giant "back in my day..." rant. Get over yourself old man, the next generation will always expect things to be better, because things ARE better. Hopefully at least.
Holy BALLS! That has some ludicrously deep ramifications, what the hell are they... oh wait, timothy submitted this from "anonymous"?
Alllright, lemme just wait for the +5 insightful comments to clear this up before I get my rage on.
I agree. The web has simply gotten better. More consolidated, and that has it's own issues, a LOT more advertising, and much larger sites, but better overall.
But "podcasts"? I'm sorry, it's an mp3 on the internet. There's some conventions that they are part of a regular series of people talking to you that gets released periodically, but the term "podcast" is one of those bullshit terms that was trying to ride the coat-tails of the ipod. Oh, and people were using the term a decade ago. I remember thinking it was a bullshit buzzword back then, and it's still one today.
Offshore? Hell, let's inshore it to people that are actually trained for it. Most of my bosses have been people that migrated from the real workforce to having a few underlings to boss around. A sum total of one has used a gant chart. One asked me for estimates. I've had the cowboy IT guy who just wants me to get it done. The coward who doesn't want to make any enemies ("Sure, we can do that salesguy"). The MIA boss who just stays in his office.
Now, don't get me wrong. It's FANTASTIC to have a boss in the field that you can go to for help. Debugging, best practices, architectural decisions. A senior engineer is worth their weight in gold. But let them be engineers, don't cut off their head and hands and stick them in management.
There are times I just want to go hire a babysitter, take day to explain the process, show her a gant chart, and tell her to ask the following questions repeatedly:
To customer: What do you want it to do?
To engineer: How long will it take to do this? (and how sure are you?)
There's some basic basic things like the mythical man month, technical debt and when to use it. But all in all the actual job that mid-bosses perform isn't all that taxing. Mostly it's just shmoozing with other bosses.
No. Too far. Telling him to go fuck himself is perfectly fine, but inciting people to go kill him is clearly over the line.
Come on slashdot, self-police our nutjobs.
Ah, well that makes more sense.
Anyway, this may seem ludicrously simple, but since our fate is tied to our neighbors, (ie if we let the financial sector implode, everyone would suffer for it), then how about we demand that our neighbors act responsibly. It comes with a guarentee that we'll help out if they ever trip again (ie we'll bail you out if you're too big to fail).
Gee. That sounds a lot like socialism.
And we didn't go down the pure capitalism path. We bailed out the banks. We choose to NOT have another great depression. Good choice. But now since we've admitted that this game isn't really capitalistic, how about we start getting them to act responsibly?
and he'd have been dead anyway with out "due process"
Returning gunfire is perfectly valid due process.
and we'd all be fine
Did forget that part? We wouldn't "all be fine" if we're all in this together. Since I sell to, work with, and/or buy from my neighbor my economic outlook is tied to his. At least in part. And since everyone was tied together in that financial meltdown, there essentially were no competitors to run in and scoop up the business. None in my own society anyway.
So, if we were truly a capitalistic society, and we had let the banks fail, then they would have sucked us all down into a dark well of despair so grim that it would have disrupted the global power balance. It would have hurt everyone in the process, and no one can know who would come out on top afterwards.
Man, I really hope I'm chatting with different cowards here, otherwise someone is SERIOUSLY off their meds. I don't mean to be so down on capitalism. It works fantastically well when there's competition and a free market, or at least something close. But it has it's issues and simply fails at some points. It's not magic, you can't simply throw it at problems and expect it all to work out. You still have to understand what's going on.
But no sane person with a clue about how the economy works wanted our financial sector to implode.