The French have a word for this: it's called a 'congé solidaire' (holiday in solidarity?) which makes it easy to google. I believe the French government actually grants citizens the right to take time off to donate time to support economic development in select countries, so there's an entire mini-industry supporting this in France. If by some chance you speak French, you might try googling congé solidaire and see what comes up. I see Routard has a site about this kind of vacation. I know there are also Swedish companies that specialize in volunteer holidays abroad.
English-language companies also exist that do this kind of thing. VSO in England is a large organization that arranges volunteer work abroad for non-experts (I mean people who don't have local knowledge or an expertise in charitable work). Instead of looking for someone who specializes in working holidays, which may in some cases be more good intention than good works, try talking to a volunteer abroad organization. You will be far from the only ones asking about short stints. Maybe you can negotiate something with them. You might be able to use your skills or you might not, only someone who has more specific knowledge about volunteer abroad programs will be able to tell you. Keep in mind that there's often a sunk cost for sending out volunteers, which is why there's more demand for people willing to make longer-term commitments.
I haven't heard of any companies that specifically cater to the technically inclined.
Right, so however good it is to see Google taking a stand on filtering search results, China is the real subject of the story. The Chinese government, or someone connected to it, is starting to act like an internet bully and take its internal politics to American servers. That's not good news and the fallout from this could hurt a lot of people. China getting caught doing something that embarrasses it internationally could have even larger repercussions.
I'm just saying take a look at the larger picture. It's really not such a good day.
I can see how Google seems a little less threatening in the United States and Europe right now. On the other hand, it isn't good news that the Chinese government is engaging in cyber attacks against American companies. Also not a good day for Chinese democracy activists, who may have to stop using Google for fear of persecution, or for Google.cn employees and users.
Do we have more to fear from an unscrupulous search giant or a mammoth authoritarian state?
Who is this "them" that you hate? The country as a whole? The internet users? China's government? There are more than a billion people in China, do you hate all of them individually? Does your hate include children, open source programmers, priests, movie makers, democracy activists, camel drivers, nurses, day care workers, bicycle repairmen, and secretaries for local government?
Do you hate the Chinese language? I hear it's hard to learn. How about Chinese culture? China has a rich tradition in the visual arts and one of the world's great literatures extending back more than 2000 years. Do you hate Chinese sports? Did Ding Junhui beat one of your favorite snooker players this season?
Perhaps you hate the Chinese government including the party old guard and reformers. You must really despise those who wish they were serving their fellow citizens with a transparent, accountable, representative government.
The NY Times cites James Malvenon as saying this is a new development in the practice of cyber warfare. Your jingoistic response suits the context of war perfectly. This was a bad move by someone in China and could hurt everyone involved. To paraphrase Ken Waltz, there's no victory in war, just degrees of defeat.
China will gradually become a fully participating member of the international community. Who that will benefit remains to be seen, but one way or another it's going to happen. It is bad news that as the Chinese government stretches its muscles and experiments with its growing power that it engages in this kind of aggression against private foreign companies. However, something to notice: this story is about China's domestic politics and controlling internal dissent, not about any international conflict. This is why everyone outside China has a stake in the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Chinese citizens and the Chinese state's strict limits on those freedoms. The importance of a country's internal affairs to the world as a whole might remind you of global attitudes toward another economic powerhouse on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
If you are studying evolution, you are not supposed to 'adjust' environmental factors. Environmental factors are driving evolution. If you eliminate them you are studying genetic drift.
The researchers are trying to draw a conclusion about the genetics of the women in the study by comparing their physical characteristics and their fertility, so they tried to control for all factors and assumed that anything they hadn't controlled for was down to genes. It's not genetic drift because they're suggesting that there's a differential in reproductive success in the simple fact that a woman is shorter, heavier, and has a longer reproductive period in her life. It's proposed as a selective pressure, not the result of random chance. Since other reproductive factors like, for instance, anything that makes it more likely a woman will survive to child bearing age in non-industrialized society, aren't being selected for, the researchers hypothesize that having more kids will be the main selective mechanism.
The reason is that the poor breed like cockroaches. They're more likely to be short and fat. We're effectively stalling evolution and will take a step back thanks to protecting the ignorant and lazy. Time to start making people jog on the tread mill to earn those welfare checks.
First of all, most of the poor of the world (in China, India, and Africa) are short and thin because they don't get enough to eat.
Second, you seem to be confusing phenotype with genotype. How much jogging anyone does probably isn't going to change the genes they pass on and the study covered in TFA tried to control for those kinds of factors. However, from the articles, the study seems to be infering genetic continuity by correlating three traits over succeeding generations: how many children they had, how tall they were, and how heavy they were (apparently weight on a scale, not BMI). Obviously, if the study doesn't identify an inheritance vector, there's room for uncontrolled environmental factors to be skewing the results, or for the inheritance of characteristics not to be functioning they way the researchers assume they function. As a possibly silly example: perhaps something in the Framingham environment is turning on a gene or a protein in women who have it that makes them heavier, shorter, and more fertile.
The selective pressure the study identifies is sort of interesting. What allows these researchers to start drawing these kinds of conclusions, however tentatively, is the fact that they've run a 60-year study on a group of women and their descendents. It sounds as if a vast data pool like this allows the researchers to ask certain kinds of questions that wouldn't be possible otherwise. TFA gives us one example of a hypothesis they've been able to draw from their data so far: that they see a trend in human evolution and can make a guess at the selective pressure.
Great solo scenarios are still coming out for AlephOne after all these years. For me this is the best reason to return to the Marathon. RubiconX (released 2006) has a great branching story-line, immersive art design (in an old engine), and some excellent maps. EternalX (2008) has an exceptionally well structured plot with an epic feel.
These scenarios (and others) are true labours of love for small groups who spent years developing them and the care shows.
Absolutely capitalism works. But this is a program run in public schools and is an experiment in state-run social engineering. It's based on monetary incentives, but it's not capitalism.
Any student who fully understands the material taught in a class, at any level of education from K to Masters should receive an A in the class if the purpose of a class is for students to learn the material and the grade is a measure of how well they have learned it.
You're talking about a grade as a measure of knowledge, not a measure of learning. To measure learning, it's not enough to take a snapshot of what a student knows at any one time. Instead, to measure learning you have to keep track of the change in a student's abilities over time.
This experiment isn't about improving test scores, or even about teaching them the material in the 7th grade curriculum, but about turning the children on to learning and demonstrating how hard work can be rewarding. That's why the real results will only come in a few years' time when the researchers have some data about how the students do long term.
I think it's a good ad. To me it's as much about choice as it is about value for money. It ends with shopper girl saying "I'm a PC and I got just what I wanted."
Personally, price and choice are the reasons I'll be getting a PC next time, after 21 years as a mac user. It'll come with windows pre-installed so MS gets some of my money even through the first thing I'll do is install linux.
The tag line of the ad, believe it or not is "life without walls".
And all the security articles online have a dog in the fight, from Semantic's report earlier this year to the January edition of Linux Journal. It's all opinion or studies by partisans.
In debate, the reasons why FOSS projects should be secure -- many eyes, many hands, short development cycle, etc. -- they convincing. Something firmer than theory would be nice, though. More positive data, standards to help analyze and compare, would be good and healthy. We all know that bugs and design flaws can persist in open source.
Maybe the security criticism is an opportunity to examine more closely.
Slashdot Mirror
The French have a word for this: it's called a 'congé solidaire' (holiday in solidarity?) which makes it easy to google. I believe the French government actually grants citizens the right to take time off to donate time to support economic development in select countries, so there's an entire mini-industry supporting this in France. If by some chance you speak French, you might try googling congé solidaire and see what comes up. I see Routard has a site about this kind of vacation. I know there are also Swedish companies that specialize in volunteer holidays abroad.
English-language companies also exist that do this kind of thing. VSO in England is a large organization that arranges volunteer work abroad for non-experts (I mean people who don't have local knowledge or an expertise in charitable work). Instead of looking for someone who specializes in working holidays, which may in some cases be more good intention than good works, try talking to a volunteer abroad organization. You will be far from the only ones asking about short stints. Maybe you can negotiate something with them. You might be able to use your skills or you might not, only someone who has more specific knowledge about volunteer abroad programs will be able to tell you. Keep in mind that there's often a sunk cost for sending out volunteers, which is why there's more demand for people willing to make longer-term commitments.
I haven't heard of any companies that specifically cater to the technically inclined.
Right, so however good it is to see Google taking a stand on filtering search results, China is the real subject of the story. The Chinese government, or someone connected to it, is starting to act like an internet bully and take its internal politics to American servers. That's not good news and the fallout from this could hurt a lot of people. China getting caught doing something that embarrasses it internationally could have even larger repercussions.
I'm just saying take a look at the larger picture. It's really not such a good day.
today is a good day
I can see how Google seems a little less threatening in the United States and Europe right now. On the other hand, it isn't good news that the Chinese government is engaging in cyber attacks against American companies. Also not a good day for Chinese democracy activists, who may have to stop using Google for fear of persecution, or for Google.cn employees and users.
Do we have more to fear from an unscrupulous search giant or a mammoth authoritarian state?
Who is this "them" that you hate? The country as a whole? The internet users? China's government? There are more than a billion people in China, do you hate all of them individually? Does your hate include children, open source programmers, priests, movie makers, democracy activists, camel drivers, nurses, day care workers, bicycle repairmen, and secretaries for local government?
Do you hate the Chinese language? I hear it's hard to learn. How about Chinese culture? China has a rich tradition in the visual arts and one of the world's great literatures extending back more than 2000 years. Do you hate Chinese sports? Did Ding Junhui beat one of your favorite snooker players this season?
Perhaps you hate the Chinese government including the party old guard and reformers. You must really despise those who wish they were serving their fellow citizens with a transparent, accountable, representative government.
The NY Times cites James Malvenon as saying this is a new development in the practice of cyber warfare. Your jingoistic response suits the context of war perfectly. This was a bad move by someone in China and could hurt everyone involved. To paraphrase Ken Waltz, there's no victory in war, just degrees of defeat.
China will gradually become a fully participating member of the international community. Who that will benefit remains to be seen, but one way or another it's going to happen. It is bad news that as the Chinese government stretches its muscles and experiments with its growing power that it engages in this kind of aggression against private foreign companies. However, something to notice: this story is about China's domestic politics and controlling internal dissent, not about any international conflict. This is why everyone outside China has a stake in the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Chinese citizens and the Chinese state's strict limits on those freedoms. The importance of a country's internal affairs to the world as a whole might remind you of global attitudes toward another economic powerhouse on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
If you are studying evolution, you are not supposed to 'adjust' environmental factors. Environmental factors are driving evolution. If you eliminate them you are studying genetic drift.
The researchers are trying to draw a conclusion about the genetics of the women in the study by comparing their physical characteristics and their fertility, so they tried to control for all factors and assumed that anything they hadn't controlled for was down to genes. It's not genetic drift because they're suggesting that there's a differential in reproductive success in the simple fact that a woman is shorter, heavier, and has a longer reproductive period in her life. It's proposed as a selective pressure, not the result of random chance. Since other reproductive factors like, for instance, anything that makes it more likely a woman will survive to child bearing age in non-industrialized society, aren't being selected for, the researchers hypothesize that having more kids will be the main selective mechanism.
The reason is that the poor breed like cockroaches. They're more likely to be short and fat. We're effectively stalling evolution and will take a step back thanks to protecting the ignorant and lazy. Time to start making people jog on the tread mill to earn those welfare checks.
First of all, most of the poor of the world (in China, India, and Africa) are short and thin because they don't get enough to eat.
Second, you seem to be confusing phenotype with genotype. How much jogging anyone does probably isn't going to change the genes they pass on and the study covered in TFA tried to control for those kinds of factors. However, from the articles, the study seems to be infering genetic continuity by correlating three traits over succeeding generations: how many children they had, how tall they were, and how heavy they were (apparently weight on a scale, not BMI). Obviously, if the study doesn't identify an inheritance vector, there's room for uncontrolled environmental factors to be skewing the results, or for the inheritance of characteristics not to be functioning they way the researchers assume they function. As a possibly silly example: perhaps something in the Framingham environment is turning on a gene or a protein in women who have it that makes them heavier, shorter, and more fertile.
The selective pressure the study identifies is sort of interesting. What allows these researchers to start drawing these kinds of conclusions, however tentatively, is the fact that they've run a 60-year study on a group of women and their descendents. It sounds as if a vast data pool like this allows the researchers to ask certain kinds of questions that wouldn't be possible otherwise. TFA gives us one example of a hypothesis they've been able to draw from their data so far: that they see a trend in human evolution and can make a guess at the selective pressure.
Great solo scenarios are still coming out for AlephOne after all these years. For me this is the best reason to return to the Marathon. RubiconX (released 2006) has a great branching story-line, immersive art design (in an old engine), and some excellent maps. EternalX (2008) has an exceptionally well structured plot with an epic feel.
These scenarios (and others) are true labours of love for small groups who spent years developing them and the care shows.
Surely a gratuitous Nazi reference only feeds the flame?
Absolutely capitalism works. But this is a program run in public schools and is an experiment in state-run social engineering. It's based on monetary incentives, but it's not capitalism.
Any student who fully understands the material taught in a class, at any level of education from K to Masters should receive an A in the class if the purpose of a class is for students to learn the material and the grade is a measure of how well they have learned it.
You're talking about a grade as a measure of knowledge, not a measure of learning. To measure learning, it's not enough to take a snapshot of what a student knows at any one time. Instead, to measure learning you have to keep track of the change in a student's abilities over time.
This experiment isn't about improving test scores, or even about teaching them the material in the 7th grade curriculum, but about turning the children on to learning and demonstrating how hard work can be rewarding. That's why the real results will only come in a few years' time when the researchers have some data about how the students do long term.
It's on youtube.
I think it's a good ad. To me it's as much about choice as it is about value for money. It ends with shopper girl saying "I'm a PC and I got just what I wanted."
Personally, price and choice are the reasons I'll be getting a PC next time, after 21 years as a mac user. It'll come with windows pre-installed so MS gets some of my money even through the first thing I'll do is install linux.
The tag line of the ad, believe it or not is "life without walls".
It reeks of FUD.
Absolutely.
And all the security articles online have a dog in the fight, from Semantic's report earlier this year to the January edition of Linux Journal. It's all opinion or studies by partisans.
In debate, the reasons why FOSS projects should be secure -- many eyes, many hands, short development cycle, etc. -- they convincing. Something firmer than theory would be nice, though. More positive data, standards to help analyze and compare, would be good and healthy. We all know that bugs and design flaws can persist in open source.
Maybe the security criticism is an opportunity to examine more closely.
-whew first post out of the way-