It also questions the wisdom of centuries-old habits, such as reading along with Bible passages, at the same time they are being read aloud in church. More of the passages would be understood and retained, the researchers suggest, if heard or read separately.
Leaving aside for the moment what you personally think of it (please!), in this case what is going on is often an in depth exegesis and analysis of the text itself, often with great emphasis on the words used, conjunctions and so forth. I would think this would fall into a somewhat different category.
>But every time someone even suggests that a choice exists, >people scream.
Hey, I'm not arguing against conservation. I'm just saying packing people into apartments isn't how to do it.
As it happens, I live in a city neighborhood and work about 15 minutes from my house. But I'm not going to judge those who don't.
Anyway, you're probably missing the point of my Al Gore and John Edwards references. The only way to achieve conservation by force is with political power. And those with political power *are* going to live not according to the eco-utopia of apartments. It's not just a handy slam against current politicians; it's an observation of the built in difficulty of achieving conservation by fiat (again, see the Soviets for how eco-friendly they were).
>We commute hours a day to/from work to live in huge cookie >cutter developments that waste heat/cooling/electricity while >letting the urban centers decay.
I take it by "waste" you mean that having your own home uses more energy than living in apartments?
If so, then just forget it. Packing people in like lemmings is not the answer. I suppose if we all slept in Japanese-style coffin hotels right at our place of work, it would be more energy efficient too.
You aren't going to force us all into apartment blocks in cities, so long as we still have democracy. I guess you could do it soviet style, though the party officials still had country estates (like, ah, Al Gore and John Edwards).
If they aren't going to use the software that comes with their camera, they surely aren't going to sign up for a web-based service that does the same but is a lot more hassle.
Hassle test - person wants to shrink photo to put on a website:
Scenario 1: Realize you never installed camera software. Hunt for it. Find it. Install it. Figure out how to use interface. Shrink picture.
Scenario 2: Google "shrink picture". Click #1 result, "http://www.shrinkpictures.com/". Use the tiny, super easy web form to upload your picture and shrink it.
My wife wants to resize a picture to put on her Yahoo group site. So she Googles "shrink picture", and one of the top sites that she finds doesn't just *tell* her how to do it with some software, it *offers* to resize the picture for her, for free.
We probably have five or more programs on our machine that could have done the job. But the above was *way* faster than it would have taken her to find one of them and figure out its interface.
And I have to confess, it may have been faster than it would have taken *me* to do it with a local program. I'm sure it took less clicks/keystrokes.
But if you simply put a video on YouTube, then everyone can simply ignore it. In fact, most politicians are probably unaware of the existence of YouTube. How does that advance your cause?
[Shhhhhhh! Don't tell them that, you fool!]
No, YouTube protests are highly dangerous and effective! We shall be developing technological countermeasures shortly. Curse those techies!
The fact that we have to make up *more* untestable stories ("Uh, they burrowed! Yeah, that explains it...") to make the earlier untestable stories hold together means that *other* people are dumb?;)
December and the first half of January we're warmer than average. The second half of January and February were colder than average, at least in the Midwest.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear they averaged out.
I see the appeal and relative productivity of sitting in a cafe or park and getting work done but to really travel and sight-see?
Well, for one thing, you're already there. So at 4:00 or 5:00 PM you shutdown, put your laptop away, and walk a few feet to do something fun, instead of still having to get on a plane:)
Sheesh, if you're having enough fun on a "real vacation", you probably wouldn't wake up until then anyway;)
To a good scientist, it shouldn't matter what they believe in. You could believe in the FSM. Doesn't matter. Science is about what works, not "truth". I observe something. Is it repeatable? Can I construct a model that predicts other things? Is it the simplest model that predicts the things I want to use?
So, how does any of that relate to the evolution of humans story?
* Did you observe it? * Can you repeat it? * If you constantly adjust your theory for "found" evidence rather than making *experimental* predictions and then refining, is that science, or being an O.J. Simpson defense attorney? * It it really the simplest model to postulate unimaginably long timeframes in order to make extremely unlikely and unobservable things seem possible?
Google could do a lot more for the world without hurting themselves at all by instead encouraging the development of self-funding and self-sustaining public transit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most or all public transit systems subsidized, and thus not self-sustaining?
If that's not meeting their needs, Google should be pressing for improvements, not building its own less efficient system instead.
What makes you think their system is less efficient? When you think efficiency, who wins: government, or Google?:)
but the real answer is denser cities and superior public transit.
When they have alternatives, people don't want to live in dense cities and use public transit. So, you want to force them to?
More importantly were the responsibilities Taiwanese students are given. They spend the first half hour, maybe longer, cleaning the school. They actually have them sweeping the floors and cleaning bathrooms. They didn't necessarily do a good job but rest assured that they were much more reluctant to engage in vandalism knowing that they would be cleaning up the mess the following day.
Imagine the uproar if a school tried that sort of thing in the US. I'm sure lawyers would sweep in with their claims child labor laws were violated. But the fact is that this instilled a sense of responsibility in students.
Which is one of the many reasons we homeschool. Dang straight the children are going to help with the chores, and certainly to clean up any mess or damage that they make. It does instill responsibility and discipline.
on monies borrowed to spend in the 2000's (and the Reagan 80's) on tax cuts
Look, I've grown much less libertarian over the years. I'm now OK with money being taken from people (including me) by force and spent on "good things".
However, I'm still not OK with pretending that we're not doing that. The money is ours, the government takes some away by force and spends it. Them's the facts.
There's no such thing as "spending on tax cuts". That would be like my wife wanting to buy something, me objecting, and then her saying "well, you would just 'spend' the money on savings or paying off debt if I don't spend it!". The one thing is spending, and the other isn't.
Great! If we can blame the sun and not human activity then we don't have to do anything about it! Sort of like if a flood is caused by a storm and not by a dam breaking then we don't have to try to swim. Ummm, wait a minute...
But the question is do *what*.
If what you want to "do" is to severely, painfully limit human activity, and, um, the problem isn't caused by human activity and won't be significantly helped by what you want to do, then... yeah, it does matter which is the cause.
Or to use your metaphor: if the flood has nothing to do with the shoddy dam breaking, then maybe applying 99% of GDP to dam inspection and repair might be a hasty course of action...
I guess to look all sophisticated and world-weary, you have to act as though scammers don't matter. After all, smart old *you* wouldn't be taken in by them, or at any rate by anything they say or do, so who cares? Why would you trust a website that anybody could edit anyway?
The problem with that oh-so-hip stance is: scorning him is *precisely* the community process that is supposed to (somewhat) protect things like Wikipedia.
You can't have it both ways. If the magic of community is supposed to somehow overcome the rather obvious problem of letting anybody edit it, then community has to be allowed to work. World-weary cynicism that doesn't care what anybody does is not how (functional) communities work. Communities work (at least in part) by punishing (at least by shunning) lying scammers.
Slashdot Mirror
>I could go on, but that's why you'd be better off going to just
>about any other first-world country besides the U.S.
Then why do so many try to come and stay here?
Leaving aside for the moment what you personally think of it (please!), in this case what is going on is often an in depth exegesis and analysis of the text itself, often with great emphasis on the words used, conjunctions and so forth. I would think this would fall into a somewhat different category.
>But every time someone even suggests that a choice exists,
>people scream.
Hey, I'm not arguing against conservation. I'm just saying
packing people into apartments isn't how to do it.
As it happens, I live in a city neighborhood and work about
15 minutes from my house. But I'm not going to judge those
who don't.
Anyway, you're probably missing the point of my Al Gore and
John Edwards references. The only way to achieve conservation
by force is with political power. And those with political
power *are* going to live not according to the eco-utopia
of apartments. It's not just a handy slam against current
politicians; it's an observation of the built in difficulty
of achieving conservation by fiat (again, see the Soviets for
how eco-friendly they were).
>We commute hours a day to/from work to live in huge cookie
>cutter developments that waste heat/cooling/electricity while
>letting the urban centers decay.
I take it by "waste" you mean that having your own home
uses more energy than living in apartments?
If so, then just forget it. Packing people in like lemmings
is not the answer. I suppose if we all slept in Japanese-style
coffin hotels right at our place of work, it would be more
energy efficient too.
You aren't going to force us all into apartment blocks in
cities, so long as we still have democracy. I guess you
could do it soviet style, though the party officials still
had country estates (like, ah, Al Gore and John Edwards).
If they aren't going to use the software that comes with their camera, they surely aren't going to sign up for a web-based service that does the same but is a lot more hassle.
Hassle test - person wants to shrink photo to put on a website:
Scenario 1:
Realize you never installed camera software. Hunt for it. Find it. Install it. Figure out how to use interface. Shrink picture.
Scenario 2:
Google "shrink picture". Click #1 result, "http://www.shrinkpictures.com/". Use the tiny, super easy web form to upload your picture and shrink it.
My wife wants to resize a picture to put on her Yahoo group site. So she Googles "shrink picture", and one of the top sites that she finds doesn't just *tell* her how to do it with some software, it *offers* to resize the picture for her, for free.
We probably have five or more programs on our machine that could have done the job. But the above was *way* faster than it would have taken her to find one of them and figure out its interface.
And I have to confess, it may have been faster than it would have taken *me* to do it with a local program. I'm sure it took less clicks/keystrokes.
>They will become K-Mart
:)
...
Excellent! There's a K-Mart near me, and the prices
rock
'course, I don't feel safe going in there unarmed
But if you simply put a video on YouTube, then everyone can simply ignore it. In fact, most politicians are probably unaware of the existence of YouTube. How does that advance your cause?
[Shhhhhhh! Don't tell them that, you fool!]
No, YouTube protests are highly dangerous and effective! We shall be developing technological countermeasures shortly. Curse those techies!
Signed,
The Man
>This all happened sometime last week.
...") to make ;)
Um, what now?
The fact that we have to make up *more* untestable stories
("Uh, they burrowed! Yeah, that explains it
the earlier untestable stories hold together means that
*other* people are dumb?
>Stupid Americans with your self-inflicted workaholicism. Don't
:)
>blame google when its all in your own mind.
Huh?
I think you mean "stupid [whoever actually buys this stuff]".
Me, I'm an American, I work 40 hours a week, *and* I have perks.
Boy, am I stupid
I think it's main selling point is the fact that people don't have to run wires and people are generally cheap and lazy.
Or have other, higher, priorities for their time and money.
... that what we bathe our minds in will affect us.
How and how much it will affect us are debatable, but the standard Slashdot denials seem a bit naive.
Say it with me: Correlation does not imply causation.
Yes, it does!
What it doesn't do is prove causation. Of course it implies causation. Then you investigate that implication.
December and the first half of January we're warmer than average. The second half of January and February were colder than average, at least in the Midwest.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear they averaged out.
I see the appeal and relative productivity of sitting in a cafe or park and getting work done but to really travel and sight-see?
:)
;)
Well, for one thing, you're already there. So at 4:00 or 5:00 PM you shutdown, put your laptop away, and walk a few feet to do something fun, instead of still having to get on a plane
Sheesh, if you're having enough fun on a "real vacation", you probably wouldn't wake up until then anyway
>There's your shadow of a doubt.
Is "shadow of a doubt" a legal standard anywhere
in the world?
AFAIK, in the U.S. it is typically "reasonable doubt".
"Cockamamie story that is just barely theoretically
possible"
!=
"reasonable doubt"
To a good scientist, it shouldn't matter what they believe in. You could believe in the FSM. Doesn't matter. Science is about what works, not "truth". I observe something. Is it repeatable? Can I construct a model that predicts other things? Is it the simplest model that predicts the things I want to use?
So, how does any of that relate to the evolution of humans story?
* Did you observe it?
* Can you repeat it?
* If you constantly adjust your theory for "found" evidence rather than making *experimental* predictions and then refining, is that science, or being an O.J. Simpson defense attorney?
* It it really the simplest model to postulate unimaginably long timeframes in order to make extremely unlikely and unobservable things seem possible?
Google could do a lot more for the world without hurting themselves at all by instead encouraging the development of self-funding and self-sustaining public transit.
:)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most or all public transit systems subsidized, and thus not self-sustaining?
If that's not meeting their needs, Google should be pressing for improvements, not building its own less efficient system instead.
What makes you think their system is less efficient? When you think efficiency, who wins: government, or Google?
but the real answer is denser cities and superior public transit.
When they have alternatives, people don't want to live in dense cities and use public transit. So, you want to force them to?
There IS NO SAFE LEVEL FOR IONIZING RADIATION.
;)
That's far too blanket of a statement. Studies show that low-level ionizing radiation either has no effect or lowers mortality.
Maybe not pertinent to this article, but I had to respond to that blanket statement WITH ALL THE CAPS
More importantly were the responsibilities Taiwanese students are given. They spend the first half hour, maybe longer, cleaning the school. They actually have them sweeping the floors and cleaning bathrooms. They didn't necessarily do a good job but rest assured that they were much more reluctant to engage in vandalism knowing that they would be cleaning up the mess the following day.
Imagine the uproar if a school tried that sort of thing in the US. I'm sure lawyers would sweep in with their claims child labor laws were violated. But the fact is that this instilled a sense of responsibility in students.
Which is one of the many reasons we homeschool. Dang straight the children are going to help with the chores, and certainly to clean up any mess or damage that they make. It does instill responsibility and discipline.
No one out there really seems to get it. Fosters - goes in the same category with Rolf Harris, Steve Irwin (god bless him) and Crocodile Dundee:
Shit we foist on other people.
You bastards!
on monies borrowed to spend in the 2000's (and the Reagan 80's) on tax cuts
Look, I've grown much less libertarian over the years. I'm now OK with money being taken from people (including me) by force and spent on "good things".
However, I'm still not OK with pretending that we're not doing that. The money is ours, the government takes some away by force and spends it. Them's the facts.
There's no such thing as "spending on tax cuts". That would be like my wife wanting to buy something, me objecting, and then her saying "well, you would just 'spend' the money on savings or paying off debt if I don't spend it!". The one thing is spending, and the other isn't.
Stop tacking these 3rd grade essay questions on the end of each post!
:)
It's not like Slashdot had no discussion happening before you started doing that, you know
Great! If we can blame the sun and not human activity then we don't have to do anything about it! Sort of like if a flood is caused by a storm and not by a dam breaking then we don't have to try to swim. Ummm, wait a minute...
... yeah, it does matter which is the cause.
...
But the question is do *what*.
If what you want to "do" is to severely, painfully limit human activity, and, um, the problem isn't caused by human activity and won't be significantly helped by what you want to do, then
Or to use your metaphor: if the flood has nothing to do with the shoddy dam breaking, then maybe applying 99% of GDP to dam inspection and repair might be a hasty course of action
I guess to look all sophisticated and world-weary, you have to act as though scammers don't matter. After all, smart old *you* wouldn't be taken in by them, or at any rate by anything they say or do, so who cares? Why would you trust a website that anybody could edit anyway?
The problem with that oh-so-hip stance is: scorning him is *precisely* the community process that is supposed to (somewhat) protect things like Wikipedia.
You can't have it both ways. If the magic of community is supposed to somehow overcome the rather obvious problem of letting anybody edit it, then community has to be allowed to work. World-weary cynicism that doesn't care what anybody does is not how (functional) communities work. Communities work (at least in part) by punishing (at least by shunning) lying scammers.