Children were (are) tutored 1-on-1 for 12,000 (?) years in all matters of art before some bright 19-th century bulb thought of putting 30 in front of one teacher at the same time.
Well, some children were -- a vanishingly small percentage of them, actually. And even then, a surprisingly high fraction failed to learn anything of worth even then. And what they did learn was, by today's standards, very elementary. And only the best tutors actually cared about instilling creative thinking and adaptive problem solving -- most tutors (and most parents) were concerned more with rote memorization (much like today).
God knows I am no fan of the factory-floor model of education but let's give some credit where credit is due: The industrialized West is the first society, ever, that has set as its goal a 100% education rate. Compared to historical societies, even with our abysmal failures, we're reaching more children than any previous attempt.
Solution, home school. My wife stays at home and raises our two kids.
Well, good luck and God bless. I don't want to wander into the Land of Flames, but I will offer this observation as a high school Physics teacher: The few home school kids who've crossed my path have been uniformly ill-prepared in anything more advanced than what you've mentioned; that is, counting and simple arithmetic. I would be the first to admit it could be a selection effect but it is definitely my experience.
If you really, really push yourself and keep truly focused on bettering your own knowledge as well as your child's, then there's probably a good chance this can work for you. Best of luck.
These "numerous studies" you mention either don't exist or are likely quite biased.
That's the ticket: If someone discovers something that interferes with your preconceived notions, there must be an error, bias, or malice. There's certainly no way that your cherished behavior might actually be dangerous.
Look, I don't know if the studies referenced are in fact valid. Maybe they did have a flaw or a bias. But it's wrong to dismiss them simply because they don't match your narrow, anecdotal evidence. The reason for having science is that narrow, anecdotal experience is often misleading. Especially in the case of driving, it's easy to demonstrate that almost everyone overestimates their own skill and underestimates the role that of distracting or disabiling factors.
As for the assertion:
As for radios - no one "listen[s] to radio only". They often channel surf whenever commericals come on, or they fast forward or skip songs on their radios.
it is patently and provably false, as I am a counterexample.
But in the end, we don't give a shit anymore. We got a decent living in the end, you can call us anything you want. [emphasis added]
And isn't that the difference? Now that being a "WOP" is no longer a source of much discrimination, it makes sense that being called one isn't as offensive. I wonder how many "I-talians" felt as forgiving as you do now, back durng the days "you couldn't get XYZ job if your name ended in a vowel".
I'm third-generation Irish-American. I don't give a plug nickel if someone calls me "mick" -- indeed, I'd probably laugh it off the same way you do. But in my father's day, in working-class Greepoint, Brooklyn, it'd be enough to start a tussle. Why? Because at that point, we hadn't "made it" yet.
It's easy, when you've "made it", to scoff at this sensitivity and say, " Self-esteem folks, Go get some." But that's nothing something you can buy at the corner store... and it isn't gotten by edict.
Tell me this... If you didn't think it offended to call someone "fag" -- if words don't mean anything -- then why was it funny?
It's horrible to read on-screen because it's a serifed font. Even if it is designed with the screen in mind, it's still harder to read than a sans-serif font.
OK, that's reasonable. I disagree -- the sans-serif seem to hurt my eyes after a very short while -- but I'm just a traditionalist at heart.:)
As for the look. It's been used so much that is just boring to a lot of people
This is a less good reason. I like TNR precisely because it is boring. When I surf to a page -- or open one up in dead trees -- I want to focus on the content, not the font. Fnacy fonts tend to distract and make gleaning information a chore... They're fine for headings, etc., as visual hooks but they can't stand the long haul on actual information presentation.
BTW, I don't mean to label all non-TNR fonts as "fancy" and hence useless. A lot of them are fine, too.
Automobiles are not designed to aid in the commission of crimes - that use is ancillary. KaZaA, WinMX, Grokster, et al, exist for the purpose of aiding in the commission of crime, and any other use is ancillary. (From Chasuk's respone to my post, or really, to the.sig in it)
I disagree, but that's OK, because apparently Chasuk disagrees, too:
I agree with you [re: P2P software... simply a program that allows you to copy files to and from other people's computers] (from Chasuk's response to blank_coil)
Then, although blank_coil and I seem to be saying the same thing, and although Chasuk has just agreed with blank_coil about the use of P2P software, Chasuk then says,
but I found his [meaning mine].sig neither insightful nor logical, and it was the logicality of his.sig that I was objecting.
which is where I get lost. At this point I would normally say that Chasuk is spending too much of his life reading other people's.sigs, except that it's even more clear that I spend too much of my life responding to other people's responses.:)
And yet, Slashdot, the site that posted this news, is still using Times New Roman.. ironic
Why? I happen to like Times New Roman. I don't like many of the "hipper" fonts people tout. This isn't meant to be a flame... I seriously want to know why people have moved away from TNR.
Furthermore, I dislike MOST "UG's" because they too closely resemble "church services." I've visited a few LUG meetings and the only thing missing were there random "ahmen brother!" responses from the audience. Slashdot is smelling of the same disease right now.
This is one of those repeated truths that don't stand up under scrutiny. At the time I reached this comment, there were 10 listed before it. (I read +1, highest first -- so these are the things the "slashdot community" rates OK.) Of them, one was just a joke with no editorial spin. Another was a joke about picketing plus a suggestion of counter-freebying. The other eight were all, "There's really nothing wrong with sponsored UGs and get off Microsoft's back".
So much for the vaunted slashdot herd mentality. Or rather, the herd mentality that "Linus is always good. Microsoft is always bad". Indeed, reading this thread, a newcomer might very well wonder if this is a pro-MS group...
Or the buggy makers, not all of whom turned to making "horseless buggies".
Fair enough. I like to use the whip manufacturers because their product is only incidental to the goal. That is, you use the buggy to travel. You just use the whip to motivate the horse. It's necessary for movement if your model is horse-and-buggy. But it's not fundamentally necessary for movement.
Much like all these content providers, who are -- under the current model -- needed for the distribution of music, TV, whatever. Under a new model, they become overpriced unnecessary middlemen... just like the buggy-whip makers. (And I like the connotation that the content providers whip their artists to motivate them...)
He does have a point. What are you going to record on that shiny new PVR when no one is broadcasting any more?
I don't know. Maybe nothing -- but I doubt that, as there is an awful lot of money to be made, if you can figure out how. Maybe the same old crap that's on now -- not everyone will use these things and perhaps the transitional revenue will be sufficient to keep "network TV" in play. And maybe something decent, as TV producers are freed from the limitations imposed by the standard 5-act commercial-driven format.
I don't know. It doesn't matter. I wouldn't want innovation stifled and fair use rights trampled just to preserve the things I watch on TV. There are a few shows I like, but they're just not worth the boot on my neck that Hollywood seems to think they require.
How else are television broadcasters supposed to cover their costs?
Hear, hear! But wait... the invention of TV ended the glory days of radio entertainers! We should ban that, too. Those poor radio stars... And look what the "talkies" did to all those silent movie stars -- they hardly ever land a good part now! Let's ban the movies, at least, the ones with sound...
As has been said before, and will be said again,
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit." -- Robert A. Heinlein
I was under the impression that government agencies had fairly strict rules regarding the acceptance of gifts from companies that they do business with or plan on doing business.
Actually, it's a conceptual loophole. Gifts to individual civil servants are banned. Gifts to the agency as a whole usually are not -- it's considered the act of a public benefactor. Hah!
In the article, it said it was saving us $100 million. Except that New Orleans doesn't have $100 million to spend.
This is almost certainly Bad Politican Math. Who came up with the number? Whom did they consult? I think it is shady, if not illegal, that
Meffert [city tech officer] who has been working for weeks on the Microsoft deal, recommended the contract cancellation after saying the job could be done for less than $100,000 [emphasis added]
Did he get those numbers from Microsoft? Perhaps there was an ulterior motive in them?
We don't really know if this is the best solution, because
Because these services are considered a gift, the city won't have to publicly bid the project, he said. [emphasis added]
I'm reminded of the KIA commercial where one guy is bragging about buying the most expensive car in America and KIA guy comments, "Well, mine is the least expensive... I guess I saved $493,000" at which Obligatory Babe's eyes light up in awe of his fortune.
Whenever anyone advertises using the line "Such a good deal, you can't afford not to buy", you should take a pass.
given the size of the companies named as defendants, they're lawyers will argue first amendment and/or make use of scenarios like those previously mentioned.
They will very likely fall back on their "common carrier" status -- meaning the law demands that they carry anyone who wants it, but then exempts them from exercising content control. It's meant to make sure that, for example, the phone company doesn't discriminate against someone and just stop their phone service.
what legal requirement do all those ISPs have to block those sites to begin with? If there's none, RIAA has no case whatsoever.
Well, as of late, the RIAA has been pushing the theory of "contributory copyright infringement". In essence, it goes like this: You didn't infringe any copyrights. But you helped someone else infringe them. So you're just as guilty. As the.sig says, it's sort of a dumb logic that undermines any concept of personal responsibility. But the courts have been remarkably well-disposed toward this insanity, so the RIAA might win.
... so being that those properties are a secondary effect compared to temperature, why is "at sea level" stressed more than "at X degrees C", or is that just my perception?
IANAAE, but my assumption is this: Above the troposphere, the temperature is actually pretty close to a function of height. On the other hand, a lot of this data was probably amassed by weather balloon, and there's a good reason -- which I misremember -- as to why the pressure data is used as the yardstick. I think the boundaries between layers varies somewhat with time, but I'm not sure.
Actual answer: It's probably just habit and social inertia.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, some children were -- a vanishingly small percentage of them, actually. And even then, a surprisingly high fraction failed to learn anything of worth even then. And what they did learn was, by today's standards, very elementary. And only the best tutors actually cared about instilling creative thinking and adaptive problem solving -- most tutors (and most parents) were concerned more with rote memorization (much like today).
God knows I am no fan of the factory-floor model of education but let's give some credit where credit is due: The industrialized West is the first society, ever , that has set as its goal a 100% education rate. Compared to historical societies, even with our abysmal failures, we're reaching more children than any previous attempt.
Well, good luck and God bless. I don't want to wander into the Land of Flames, but I will offer this observation as a high school Physics teacher: The few home school kids who've crossed my path have been uniformly ill-prepared in anything more advanced than what you've mentioned; that is, counting and simple arithmetic. I would be the first to admit it could be a selection effect but it is definitely my experience.
If you really, really push yourself and keep truly focused on bettering your own knowledge as well as your child's, then there's probably a good chance this can work for you. Best of luck.
These days, this depends on whose life and which corporation is involved...
Hmmm. Maybe we can consider it "noise pollution" and make it a state issue...
But as for studies and statistics, well, we know one of the greatest thinkers of our time has this to say:
That's the ticket: If someone discovers something that interferes with your preconceived notions, there must be an error, bias, or malice. There's certainly no way that your cherished behavior might actually be dangerous.
Look, I don't know if the studies referenced are in fact valid. Maybe they did have a flaw or a bias. But it's wrong to dismiss them simply because they don't match your narrow, anecdotal evidence. The reason for having science is that narrow, anecdotal experience is often misleading. Especially in the case of driving, it's easy to demonstrate that almost everyone overestimates their own skill and underestimates the role that of distracting or disabiling factors.
As for the assertion:
it is patently and provably false, as I am a counterexample.
And isn't that the difference? Now that being a "WOP" is no longer a source of much discrimination, it makes sense that being called one isn't as offensive. I wonder how many "I-talians" felt as forgiving as you do now, back durng the days "you couldn't get XYZ job if your name ended in a vowel".
I'm third-generation Irish-American. I don't give a plug nickel if someone calls me "mick" -- indeed, I'd probably laugh it off the same way you do. But in my father's day, in working-class Greepoint, Brooklyn, it'd be enough to start a tussle. Why? Because at that point, we hadn't "made it" yet.
It's easy, when you've "made it", to scoff at this sensitivity and say, " Self-esteem folks, Go get some." But that's nothing something you can buy at the corner store... and it isn't gotten by edict.
Tell me this... If you didn't think it offended to call someone "fag" -- if words don't mean anything -- then why was it funny?
OK, that's reasonable. I disagree -- the sans-serif seem to hurt my eyes after a very short while -- but I'm just a traditionalist at heart.
This is a less good reason. I like TNR precisely because it is boring. When I surf to a page -- or open one up in dead trees -- I want to focus on the content, not the font. Fnacy fonts tend to distract and make gleaning information a chore... They're fine for headings, etc., as visual hooks but they can't stand the long haul on actual information presentation.
BTW, I don't mean to label all non-TNR fonts as "fancy" and hence useless. A lot of them are fine, too.
Of course not. A majority still means "more than 50%"
I disagree, but that's OK, because apparently Chasuk disagrees, too:
Then, although blank_coil and I seem to be saying the same thing, and although Chasuk has just agreed with blank_coil about the use of P2P software, Chasuk then says,
which is where I get lost. At this point I would normally say that Chasuk is spending too much of his life reading other people's
Why? I happen to like Times New Roman. I don't like many of the "hipper" fonts people tout. This isn't meant to be a flame... I seriously want to know why people have moved away from TNR.
And of course, they'll be PUG-ugly!
Sorry.
This is one of those repeated truths that don't stand up under scrutiny. At the time I reached this comment, there were 10 listed before it. (I read +1, highest first -- so these are the things the "slashdot community" rates OK.) Of them, one was just a joke with no editorial spin. Another was a joke about picketing plus a suggestion of counter-freebying. The other eight were all, "There's really nothing wrong with sponsored UGs and get off Microsoft's back".
So much for the vaunted slashdot herd mentality. Or rather, the herd mentality that "Linus is always good. Microsoft is always bad". Indeed, reading this thread, a newcomer might very well wonder if this is a pro-MS group...
Of course not. They make, or used to make, pretty decent joysticks...
In the field of software, they are unequivocably EEEEVIL.
Fair enough. I like to use the whip manufacturers because their product is only incidental to the goal. That is, you use the buggy to travel. You just use the whip to motivate the horse. It's necessary for movement if your model is horse-and-buggy. But it's not fundamentally necessary for movement.
Much like all these content providers, who are -- under the current model -- needed for the distribution of music, TV, whatever. Under a new model, they become overpriced unnecessary middlemen... just like the buggy-whip makers. (And I like the connotation that the content providers whip their artists to motivate them...)
I don't know. Maybe nothing -- but I doubt that, as there is an awful lot of money to be made, if you can figure out how. Maybe the same old crap that's on now -- not everyone will use these things and perhaps the transitional revenue will be sufficient to keep "network TV" in play. And maybe something decent, as TV producers are freed from the limitations imposed by the standard 5-act commercial-driven format.
I don't know. It doesn't matter. I wouldn't want innovation stifled and fair use rights trampled just to preserve the things I watch on TV. There are a few shows I like, but they're just not worth the boot on my neck that Hollywood seems to think they require.
Hear, hear! But wait... the invention of TV ended the glory days of radio entertainers! We should ban that, too. Those poor radio stars... And look what the "talkies" did to all those silent movie stars -- they hardly ever land a good part now! Let's ban the movies, at least, the ones with sound...
As has been said before, and will be said again,
Or, more succinctly,
It's time for them to adapt or die.
Actually, it's a conceptual loophole. Gifts to individual civil servants are banned. Gifts to the agency as a whole usually are not -- it's considered the act of a public benefactor. Hah!
This is almost certainly Bad Politican Math. Who came up with the number? Whom did they consult? I think it is shady, if not illegal, that
Did he get those numbers from Microsoft? Perhaps there was an ulterior motive in them?
We don't really know if this is the best solution, because
I'm reminded of the KIA commercial where one guy is bragging about buying the most expensive car in America and KIA guy comments, "Well, mine is the least expensive... I guess I saved $493,000" at which Obligatory Babe's eyes light up in awe of his fortune.
Whenever anyone advertises using the line "Such a good deal, you can't afford not to buy", you should take a pass.
Maybe, maybe not. But the average slashdot reader is probably way more technically savvy (as well as Microsoft-aware) than the average politician.
Actually, with Microsoft's history, it'd be more like a gun maker:
Offering the army free muskets and musket balls;
later "upgrading" their ammo to rounds for a Springfield rifle and discontinuing musket balls, forcing the army to buy new rifles to fire them; and
using the contract and the "Springfield upgrade path" to prevent the police department from taking the Gatling guns offered for free by the citizenry.
That's just silly
[fade to black screen]
They will very likely fall back on their "common carrier" status -- meaning the law demands that they carry anyone who wants it, but then exempts them from exercising content control. It's meant to make sure that, for example, the phone company doesn't discriminate against someone and just stop their phone service.
Well, as of late, the RIAA has been pushing the theory of "contributory copyright infringement". In essence, it goes like this: You didn't infringe any copyrights. But you helped someone else infringe them. So you're just as guilty. As the
IANAAE, but my assumption is this: Above the troposphere, the temperature is actually pretty close to a function of height. On the other hand, a lot of this data was probably amassed by weather balloon, and there's a good reason -- which I misremember -- as to why the pressure data is used as the yardstick. I think the boundaries between layers varies somewhat with time, but I'm not sure.
Actual answer: It's probably just habit and social inertia.