In my experience, typing up notes is excellent revision, and far more useful than the unfocused "read-the-notes-back-while-listening-to-Pantera: revision methods most students use.
I don't mind if they don't type them up later. It's just as easy to learn from hand written notes as typed: it's the typing process thats actually helpful.
I don't disallow laptops, unless the noise annoys other students.
I've taught a number of classes at university level, and I hate people note taking with laptops, for the following reasons: i) Too few of them are good enough typists to focus on whats being said properly. ii) It's almost impossible for them to copy down diagrams or any complex equations, or make decent marginal notes. iii) It's much noisier than pen and paper, and paper is easier to highlight and annotate. iv) They remember the content better if they make pencil notes, and type them up later.
But one of the problems of a written constitution is that what we thinks make sense, and what may have been meant, are entirely secondary to what was written. You or I might think that the Constitution does not accurately reflect the intentions of the founders, but those intentions count for nothing in law.
The Interstate Commerce clause says that the Federal Govt can pass laws about Interstate Commerce. It doesn't state what purpose those laws must serve, or what kind of items they must govern. Like it or not, it is a carte blanche for the Federsal Govt to legislate on any or all commercial transactions between states.
The interstate commerce clause is very clear when you review what the framers debated -- they wanted freedom in trade within the Republic.
If that's what they'd wanted, then that's what they should have written. As it is, the Constitution that was ratified by the States says that the Federal government does have the power to regulate interstate commerce.
That's what the founders wrote. That's what the states agreed to.
Suggesting otherwise is an exercise in wishful thinking.
Pick one of these methods of classification. i) LoC classification. ii) Dewey-decimal. iii) Alphabetised by author.
I'd recommend (i). Given the small number of fields (Author, Title, Year, Publisher, LoC shelfmark), you can store the information in a flat text file.
Ayn Rand has had a dramatic and positive impact on the world you enjoy today.
That's just nonsense. Rand has had almost no impact on anything, besides her particular coterie of followers. Her prose is dreadful, and her ideas shallow, and her personal behaviour was so enormously out of whack her her professed moral code as to be hilarious.
Now, answer the question : from an Objectivist perspective, is self-sacrifice immoral?
Taking the works of Ayn Rand as a moral philosophy is right up there with treating the works of L. Ron Hubbard as a religion.
Tell me, where do the 9/11 firefighters fit into Ayn's enlightened self-interest. Do you consider their self-sacrifice, and their attempts to save others, to be stupid, or just immoral?
No, hireing a nanny, takeing your child to playschool, calling a babysitter and enroling them in boarding school are all responsable acts taken by the parent to see that their child is safe in a secure and stable environment. Buying them a $1200 computer and paying an isp $30 a month to keep them out of your hair
Well, that's your value judgement. But, restricting our attention to facts, there's no actual reason why that need be the case. A good playgroup is better than a bad cybernanny. A good cybernanny is better than a bad playgroup.
This law is analogous to the government making those decisions instead.
Errr. No. Because you can always say "no". It's analogous to the government providing a free pre-school place for you, that you're allowed to refuse. Which is exactly how governments do provide free pre-school places in many countries (including my own).
Government mandating censorship = bad. Government supplying tools for parental censorship = not bad.
Killer logic there. I suppose you'd consider it a stretch to say religious leaders are rewriting the politics?That was actually my point (sort of. It's hard to make a subtle point in one line). The present Powers-That-Be find it easy to run down science because science is at odds with religion. And that dismissal of evolutionary science on dogmatic grounds makes it easy to dismiss other science, without any consideration for facts or evidence.
The argument goes : Axiom: Creation is true Axiom: Scientists don't believe in Creationism Therefore: Scientists are fools and/or liars Therefore: Global Warming is a myth, and the foolish scientists should stop spreading their lies about it.
I would like to know how they managed to "co-create" the term.
I would like to know why you think trademarks are related to creativity. Patents and copyrights cover creative expression, trademarks are about using extant or new words to brand your product. Ford didn't create the word Mustang, but they have a trademark on automobiles of that name. Apple didn't create the word "Macintosh", but they have a trademark on personal computers of that name. Adobe is a generic word for undried mud bricks, but try and market software under that name.
LOL!!! You do know this film was aimed at the teens right?
Yes (hell, I was ten when it came out, and I saw it at the cinema). But "aimed at" should not necessarily be synonymous with "designed to insult the intelligence of". And besides, thanks to the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome, kids are often the first to point out when something makes no sense, or when the plot has a hole big enough to pass for the goatse.cx guy.
But The Mummy is a clear genre piece. Everyone's tongue is firmly in their cheek.
Tron is... well, no-ones quite sure what Tron is. Viewed from 20+ years hence, it appears deliberately arch and silly, but in 1982 it wasn't. And reading the interview in the article, it's clear that its creators didn't think they were making something that was deliberately kitsch. Similarly, Plan 9 wasn't designed to be a kitsch masterpiece. What those two movies have in common is that they're unintentionally funny.
I'm sorry, but if you don't think physical combat between two human beings is more viscerally exciting (and more easy to empathise with) than a couple of pastel lit loonies in wet suits lobbing frisbees at one another, you're a loony.
There's a reason why Scorcese's "Raging Bull" doesn't center on the world frisbee champion, you know.
Last I checked, that's practically a formula for a successful movie.
The producers of Stealth, I Robot, The Island, Fantastic Four, and Pearl Harbor would like to disagree. Hell, even Kong did disappointing box office compared to how much it cost to make. Almost ever succesful recent blockbusters has had strong characters (or at least franchise characters with whom have a pre-existing relationship: Chronicles of Narnia, Batman Begins, Harry Potter, R-o-t-Sith etc. And, I've spent some of the morning reading the UK press savaging "V for Vendetta", so we may be able to add another to that disastrous list soon.
The Matrix is the exception, but the plot in the Matrix was irrelevant compared to the effect of those incredibly novel visuals. The sequels blew because the novelty wore off enough that we could see the plot creak.
Meanwhile, the producers of Sideways, Napoleon Dynamite, Crash, Walk The Line, Constant Gardener and Brokeback Mountain are smiling to themselves and rolling in the cash generated by their low budget successes moderate gross.
Out of the three, the second one was the best since it had all of the cool action and fight scenes and less of the pointless banter that plagued the original.
Applause. Good troll, sir. You almost had me for a moment.
nor the sub plot of romance between not only the real life characters but between their programs
We'll have to agree to differ on that. Even at age 10, I thought the love affair between avatars was completely laughable, and I haven't revised my opinion in the intervening 20+ years.
And however good the background plot, it becomes irretrievably stupid if the method of resolution is DayGlo Frisbees.
They then explore why the film flopped at the box office.
Same reason many special-effect movies flop at the box office.
They started with a lousy script, and an implausibly silly plot that its very hard to look past. The market for movies that look pretty but don't engage on a human level is very, very small.
"The Master Control Program has chosen you to serve your system on the Game Grid. Those of you who continue to profess a belief in the Users will receive the standard substandard training, which will result in your eventual elimination."
See? That's dialogue bad enough to have come from one of the Matrix sequels.
Slashdot Mirror
In my experience, typing up notes is excellent revision, and far more useful than the unfocused "read-the-notes-back-while-listening-to-Pantera: revision methods most students use.
I don't mind if they don't type them up later.
It's just as easy to learn from hand written notes as typed: it's the typing process thats actually helpful.
I don't disallow laptops, unless the noise annoys other students.
I've taught a number of classes at university level, and I hate people note taking with laptops, for the following reasons:
i) Too few of them are good enough typists to focus on whats being said properly.
ii) It's almost impossible for them to copy down diagrams or any complex equations, or make decent marginal notes.
iii) It's much noisier than pen and paper, and paper is easier to highlight and annotate.
iv) They remember the content better if they make pencil notes, and type them up later.
I don't disagree with you.
But one of the problems of a written constitution is that what we thinks make sense, and what may have been meant, are entirely secondary to what was written. You or I might think that the Constitution does not accurately reflect the intentions of the founders, but those intentions count for nothing in law.
The Interstate Commerce clause says that the Federal Govt can pass laws about Interstate Commerce. It doesn't state what purpose those laws must serve, or what kind of items they must govern. Like it or not, it is a carte blanche for the Federsal Govt to legislate on any or all commercial transactions between states.
That's what the founders wrote.
That's what the states agreed to.
Suggesting otherwise is an exercise in wishful thinking.
Pick one of these methods of classification.
i) LoC classification.
ii) Dewey-decimal.
iii) Alphabetised by author.
I'd recommend (i).
Given the small number of fields (Author, Title, Year, Publisher, LoC shelfmark), you can store the information in a flat text file.
Now, answer the question : from an Objectivist perspective, is self-sacrifice immoral?
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha.
Taking the works of Ayn Rand as a moral philosophy is right up there with treating the works of L. Ron Hubbard as a religion.
Tell me, where do the 9/11 firefighters fit into Ayn's enlightened self-interest. Do you consider their self-sacrifice, and their attempts to save others, to be stupid, or just immoral?
A good playgroup is better than a bad cybernanny.
A good cybernanny is better than a bad playgroup.
Government mandating censorship = bad.
Government supplying tools for parental censorship = not bad.
Capiche?
Nanny's are a sickening trend?
Playschool is a sickening trend?
Babysitters are a sickening trend?
Boarding schools are sickening trends?
You, sir, are easily sickened.
The problem isn't because the politicians are rewriting the science.
It's because the scientists are rewriting the theology.
Well, you get the idea.
But The Mummy is a clear genre piece. Everyone's tongue is firmly in their cheek.
... well, no-ones quite sure what Tron is. Viewed from 20+ years hence, it appears deliberately arch and silly, but in 1982 it wasn't. And reading the interview in the article, it's clear that its creators didn't think they were making something that was deliberately kitsch. Similarly, Plan 9 wasn't designed to be a kitsch masterpiece. What those two movies have in common is that they're unintentionally funny.
Tron is
I'm sorry, but if you don't think physical combat between two human beings is more viscerally exciting (and more easy to empathise with) than a couple of pastel lit loonies in wet suits lobbing frisbees at one another, you're a loony.
There's a reason why Scorcese's "Raging Bull" doesn't center on the world frisbee champion, you know.
The Matrix is the exception, but the plot in the Matrix was irrelevant compared to the effect of those incredibly novel visuals. The sequels blew because the novelty wore off enough that we could see the plot creak.
Meanwhile, the producers of Sideways, Napoleon Dynamite, Crash, Walk The Line, Constant Gardener and Brokeback Mountain are smiling to themselves and rolling in the cash generated by their low budget successes moderate gross.
And however good the background plot, it becomes irretrievably stupid if the method of resolution is DayGlo Frisbees.
There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the plot : Man gets zapped into machine and has to battle his way back out.
It only got silly when they added "... using a dayglo frisbee"
They started with a lousy script, and an implausibly silly plot that its very hard to look past. The market for movies that look pretty but don't engage on a human level is very, very small.See? That's dialogue bad enough to have come from one of the Matrix sequels.