I appreciate your answer to this question. You make a rational argument where so many others that I've talked to jump straight into "the terrorists hate our freedom!" type arguments. I happen to be more cynical and I don't believe that our civilian leaders are simply "acting early," but I respect that you at least supported your position rationally.
What I really take issue with is this:
Don't like it? Look in the mirror and take your elections more seriously.
I do not support what's happening at Guantanamo Bay. I voted for Obama in 2008 largely because he vowed to close it. He won the election, and yet he did not close it. That is the strongest example I have of why you cannot blame the electorate; we simply don't get what we vote for.
Furthermore, those same civilian leaders who tell us that the war on terror is necessary also tell us that marijuana is dangerous and that "legitimate rape" doesn't result in pregnancy. At what point should we start holding people responsible for believing them? Even if the civilian voter does believe them, they aren't the ones pulling the triggers.
To be honest though, I don't come to slashdot for the stories; I don't even RTFA most of the time. I come here for the discussions.
As long as the Slashdot community sticks around, I will stick around as well -- no matter what the editors do. Unfortunately I think this article marks the beginning of the end for the community.
That's what I thought at first too, but maybe they're just getting the benefit of the doubt because the cost of a legal case (regardless of whether they were guilty or innocent) would put them out of business.
Yup...and I can't for the life of me figure out how that jives with the 7 th Amendment:
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
Seems pretty clear to me.
The Constitution is like the Bible. It's supposedly sacred and infallible, but It's not meant to be taken literally and you have to let the courts interpret it for you (in the context of their own personal interests). As time passes, more and more of it gets flat-out ignored, and eventually it will only ever be read as an academic exercise by historians.
FWIW, they were completely sober for the "drunk" test. From your own link:
Both Adam and Kari got their blood alcohol level to just below 0.08 (legal limit)
Keep in mind that the legal limit is already artificially low the same way speed limits are..08 is basically the point at which the worst driver in the world gets distracted by pretending to be drunk and starts driving slightly worse.
I suspect that their conclusion is correct, but they have to actually test it before they call the myth "confirmed"
IF buying an iPad were actually a replacement for buying texbooks, then this really would be a good idea. I would gladly pay out of pocket for an iPad if it allowed me to exclusively use ebook versions of my textbooks. In fact, I would even refrain from pirating those ebooks if they were sold for a reasonable price
In reality though, I doubt it would work that way. Because ebooks are easily pirated, textbook publishers would have a hard time sustaining their racket if universities started switching over. For some reason, universities seem to actually care about what happens to publishers, so I can't imagine that many universities would be willing to require professors to choose only textbooks that have an ebook version available.
Even if it did happen, professors would just say "exams are open-book, but no computers are allowed." This would force students to spend $200+ on a physical copy even though they already paid for iPads with PDFs of the textbooks.
Basically, nothing that makes education cheeper or more convenient for students will ever work. Universities don't care about students.
Yup. It's even worse for those of us that don't have HD TVs. When on-screen instructions appear, the only way I can understand them is from the colors.
I disagree.
A school facility that doesn't feel like a prison can really change a student's attitude, and that's the most important part of education.
I'm not sure about LA, but where I live even homeless people already have easy access to modern computers and the internet. A student who wants to learn will learn, and student who doesn't want to learn won't learn. No ammount of classroom computers or teachers will change that.
If this one-time cost of half a billion dollars can make kids take pride in their education for as long as the school exists, then it's completely worth it.
That might not actually happen, but it's worth a shot.
I've been studying Japanese for years, and flashcard software has really helped me with the Chinese characters. iFlash for OSX is an excellent tool.
As others have said, there's no way around the need for repetition and a lot of practice.
Also, diligence is extremely important. If you're not using them, then you forget the characters very quickly. If you're not careful you might actually find that you're forgetting characters as quickly as you're learning new ones.
I'm sure the loss of his child is punishment enough.
I can't imagine how terrible being in his situation would be, sounds worse than jail.
Not if he didn't like the kid. You can't really say "the loss of his child is punishment enough," because that would provide an easy way out for anybody who didn't want their kid anymore: Just pretend to like him for a couple years then leave a loaded gun lying around. Way easier than 18 years of child support.
I don't know if there's anything you can do to stop them from tracking you when you're using their browser. If you're using a different browser though, you can avoid having your search queries associated with your gmail account by using a different country's google for the searches. I stay logged into my gmail all the time, and I use google.co.uk for all my searches.
Not everybody is an expert at formulating search engine queries.
That is very true. Search engine queries are a suprisingly subtle exercise in language. I never really appreciated this until I tried searching for something in a different language. I have a reasonably good command of that language, and yet I could not form a decent query to save my life.
I love classes where the professors use power point. Those professors almost always post the presentations online, and that completely eliminates the need to show up for class.
Personally, I have a hard time paying attention to most professors talk for an hour, and I also find it inefficient. It feels like a waste of time to listen to the professor explain something out loud when I can just read it to myself in 1/2 the time. It also seems inefficient to spend time watching the professor write things that are already written in the text book. I appreciate the guidance and motivation that professors provide, but most of my actual learning comes from my textbooks and online resources.
I understand that different people have different styles of learning, and that many (or even most) people value lectures. Using power point and posting the slides online is a way for professors to accomodate both kinds of students. Students like me can still benefit from the knowledge of the professor without having to listen to a lecture, and students who want to listen to a lecture still have that option.
One of the author's main complaints seems to be that power-point lectures move too fast, but I would complain that traditional lectures move too slow. It's just a matter of different learning styles, and not all of your professors' teaching styles will match your particular learning style. That's just part of life.
Now, professors who use power-point badly are, of course, not very helpful, but that has nothing to do with power-point. Some professors just aren't the best teachers.
If that genetic link is legitimate, then shouldn't that get him a longer sentence?
Prison has two purposes: removing dangerous people from society until they are no longer a threat, and deterring future crimes. If this guy really is genetically prone to violence, that would make him more dangerous, and it would presumably take longer to determine that he is not a threat to others. The reduced sentence would also give him less incentive to overcome his aggression the next time he's thinking about committing a crime. It's completely backwards.
Also, reducing the sentence for him might even encourage further crimes by others, whether or not the genetic science is sound. It could give some sense of justification to somebody who's about to commit a crime. For example, just as I'm deciding whether or not to kill somebody, I might think, "It's not my fault I have genes linked to aggression. Hell, they'll even reduce my sentence for it," and then go through with it.
Especially in the case of the Esc key, the size doesn't really matter. My fingers know that Esc is the upper-leftmost button. If my finger feels another button further left or further up, I know there's a problem. The Esc key could be half the size, and it wouldn't make a bit of a difference.
I can understand changing the Delete key though, because it's so close to the enormous Enter key*. Anytime you're trying to press "delete," "enter" is probably the last key in the world that you want to press. I can't count how many times I've been talking to somebody on AIM/MSN, typed something I didn't actually want to say, then accidentally pressed "return" instead of "delete"
why is this tagged !gonnahappen?
The "open source" part is a little silly, but the "anybody can use technology in inovative ways to harm others" part is very reasonable
Seriously. Think about any world leader/other person in the world. If you didn't care about getting caught, don't you think you could engineer something to make them wind up dead?
given the resources available today (especially the internet), it's not that far-fetched
And, from what I have read, it is the people who are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA that are doing questionably legal things.... if you get caught downloading or sharing movies/mp3s, you can and most likely will get sued. (and lose.)
And furthermore, the law does not support the RIAA's methods. They have been specifically ordered to stop abusing the system by grouping all their "John Doe" suits together, yet they blatantly ignore those orders.
That is the problem with the RIAA lawyers being in the DOJ.
Slashdot Mirror
What I really take issue with is this:
Don't like it? Look in the mirror and take your elections more seriously.
I do not support what's happening at Guantanamo Bay. I voted for Obama in 2008 largely because he vowed to close it. He won the election, and yet he did not close it. That is the strongest example I have of why you cannot blame the electorate; we simply don't get what we vote for.
Furthermore, those same civilian leaders who tell us that the war on terror is necessary also tell us that marijuana is dangerous and that "legitimate rape" doesn't result in pregnancy. At what point should we start holding people responsible for believing them? Even if the civilian voter does believe them, they aren't the ones pulling the triggers.
This might be it for me too.
To be honest though, I don't come to slashdot for the stories; I don't even RTFA most of the time. I come here for the discussions.
As long as the Slashdot community sticks around, I will stick around as well -- no matter what the editors do. Unfortunately I think this article marks the beginning of the end for the community.
That's what I thought at first too, but maybe they're just getting the benefit of the doubt because the cost of a legal case (regardless of whether they were guilty or innocent) would put them out of business.
Yup...and I can't for the life of me figure out how that jives with the 7 th Amendment: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Seems pretty clear to me.
The Constitution is like the Bible. It's supposedly sacred and infallible, but It's not meant to be taken literally and you have to let the courts interpret it for you (in the context of their own personal interests). As time passes, more and more of it gets flat-out ignored, and eventually it will only ever be read as an academic exercise by historians.
FWIW, Mythbusters tested it.
FWIW, they were completely sober for the "drunk" test. From your own link:
Both Adam and Kari got their blood alcohol level to just below 0.08 (legal limit)
Keep in mind that the legal limit is already artificially low the same way speed limits are. .08 is basically the point at which the worst driver in the world gets distracted by pretending to be drunk and starts driving slightly worse.
I suspect that their conclusion is correct, but they have to actually test it before they call the myth "confirmed"
IF buying an iPad were actually a replacement for buying texbooks, then this really would be a good idea. I would gladly pay out of pocket for an iPad if it allowed me to exclusively use ebook versions of my textbooks. In fact, I would even refrain from pirating those ebooks if they were sold for a reasonable price
In reality though, I doubt it would work that way. Because ebooks are easily pirated, textbook publishers would have a hard time sustaining their racket if universities started switching over. For some reason, universities seem to actually care about what happens to publishers, so I can't imagine that many universities would be willing to require professors to choose only textbooks that have an ebook version available.
Even if it did happen, professors would just say "exams are open-book, but no computers are allowed." This would force students to spend $200+ on a physical copy even though they already paid for iPads with PDFs of the textbooks.
Basically, nothing that makes education cheeper or more convenient for students will ever work. Universities don't care about students.
Getting rid of the colors on the buttons seems baseless. I can't tell you how many times...
Me: "Press A" Her: ::moving thumbs, squinting:: "... huh?"
Me: "Green."
Yup. It's even worse for those of us that don't have HD TVs. When on-screen instructions appear, the only way I can understand them is from the colors.
I disagree.
A school facility that doesn't feel like a prison can really change a student's attitude, and that's the most important part of education.
I'm not sure about LA, but where I live even homeless people already have easy access to modern computers and the internet. A student who wants to learn will learn, and student who doesn't want to learn won't learn. No ammount of classroom computers or teachers will change that.
If this one-time cost of half a billion dollars can make kids take pride in their education for as long as the school exists, then it's completely worth it.
That might not actually happen, but it's worth a shot.
Computers are consistant and predictable. The human brain is not.
We have billions of human brains cheaply available, so let's use those when we want a human brain. And let's use computers when we want computers.
The worst part is that the police will be using it.
Imagine if the courts actually believed that it was tamper proof.
As others have said, there's no way around the need for repetition and a lot of practice.
Also, diligence is extremely important. If you're not using them, then you forget the characters very quickly. If you're not careful you might actually find that you're forgetting characters as quickly as you're learning new ones.
I'm sure the loss of his child is punishment enough.
I can't imagine how terrible being in his situation would be, sounds worse than jail.
Not if he didn't like the kid.
You can't really say "the loss of his child is punishment enough," because that would provide an easy way out for anybody who didn't want their kid anymore: Just pretend to like him for a couple years then leave a loaded gun lying around.
Way easier than 18 years of child support.
Heh, I've gotten the actual answers to a test that hadn't happened yet by guessing the URL.
Why should it matter anyway?
I don't know if there's anything you can do to stop them from tracking you when you're using their browser. If you're using a different browser though, you can avoid having your search queries associated with your gmail account by using a different country's google for the searches. I stay logged into my gmail all the time, and I use google.co.uk for all my searches.
Not everybody is an expert at formulating search engine queries.
That is very true. Search engine queries are a suprisingly subtle exercise in language. I never really appreciated this until I tried searching for something in a different language. I have a reasonably good command of that language, and yet I could not form a decent query to save my life.
Personally, I have a hard time paying attention to most professors talk for an hour, and I also find it inefficient. It feels like a waste of time to listen to the professor explain something out loud when I can just read it to myself in 1/2 the time. It also seems inefficient to spend time watching the professor write things that are already written in the text book. I appreciate the guidance and motivation that professors provide, but most of my actual learning comes from my textbooks and online resources.
I understand that different people have different styles of learning, and that many (or even most) people value lectures. Using power point and posting the slides online is a way for professors to accomodate both kinds of students. Students like me can still benefit from the knowledge of the professor without having to listen to a lecture, and students who want to listen to a lecture still have that option.
One of the author's main complaints seems to be that power-point lectures move too fast, but I would complain that traditional lectures move too slow. It's just a matter of different learning styles, and not all of your professors' teaching styles will match your particular learning style. That's just part of life.
Now, professors who use power-point badly are, of course, not very helpful, but that has nothing to do with power-point. Some professors just aren't the best teachers.
Prison has two purposes: removing dangerous people from society until they are no longer a threat, and deterring future crimes. If this guy really is genetically prone to violence, that would make him more dangerous, and it would presumably take longer to determine that he is not a threat to others. The reduced sentence would also give him less incentive to overcome his aggression the next time he's thinking about committing a crime. It's completely backwards.
Also, reducing the sentence for him might even encourage further crimes by others, whether or not the genetic science is sound. It could give some sense of justification to somebody who's about to commit a crime. For example, just as I'm deciding whether or not to kill somebody, I might think, "It's not my fault I have genes linked to aggression. Hell, they'll even reduce my sentence for it," and then go through with it.
Seriously though, this is a good thing. I don't know why the story is tagged "your rights online"
There's no purpose for it.
They should stop teaching cursive in schools, and start teaching typing instead.
This is basically just a useless semantics argument.
Especially in the case of the Esc key, the size doesn't really matter. My fingers know that Esc is the upper-leftmost button. If my finger feels another button further left or further up, I know there's a problem. The Esc key could be half the size, and it wouldn't make a bit of a difference.
I can understand changing the Delete key though, because it's so close to the enormous Enter key*. Anytime you're trying to press "delete," "enter" is probably the last key in the world that you want to press. I can't count how many times I've been talking to somebody on AIM/MSN, typed something I didn't actually want to say, then accidentally pressed "return" instead of "delete"
*I use a Mac
If everyone was smart, who would work at mcdonalds?
Smart people. Wouldn't that be awesome?
The "open source" part is a little silly, but the "anybody can use technology in inovative ways to harm others" part is very reasonable
Seriously. Think about any world leader/other person in the world. If you didn't care about getting caught, don't you think you could engineer something to make them wind up dead?
given the resources available today (especially the internet), it's not that far-fetched
And, from what I have read, it is the people who are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA that are doing questionably legal things.... if you get caught downloading or sharing movies/mp3s, you can and most likely will get sued. (and lose.)
From what I have read, it is just about anybody that is being sued by the RIAA. You don't have to be downloading music, you don't have to own a computer, you don't have to know how to use a computer, and heck... you don't even have to be alive to get sued. (and be forced to settle. Or, in cases where the RIAA has no evidence, at least have your day ruined.)
And furthermore, the law does not support the RIAA's methods. They have been specifically ordered to stop abusing the system by grouping all their "John Doe" suits together, yet they blatantly ignore those orders.
That is the problem with the RIAA lawyers being in the DOJ.