I suppose it would be better if I could actually read what was written in the pictures, but really, I only lost about 38 seconds of productivity. Without a sense of context, the humor in most of those was lost on me.
"They did underhanded deals to foist a sub-optimal solution (Blu-Ray) on everyone."
After putting out a superior product in the days of VCR's and getting owned, they learned their lesson. This is the way business is done. You make the deals that you need to make in order to turn a profit.
Barry Bonds was one of the best players in baseball before he started doping. Then he started doping and became the best player in baseball. What'd he lose? Potentially being a hall of famer? So what. He made his money, and sometimes that's all people care about.
First, note the word "often." I'm definitely not saying that every single student in their senior year is lazy, but there are definitely enough that my statement is still true.
I also took AP classes in high school. The first half of my day I spent in AP US History, AP Calculus, and AP English Lit. Then, after lunch, I skipped the rest of my classes and went home. It was a joke. I'm quite certain that I would have benefited far more from a year in college in which would have gained 25 credits towards graduation instead of a year in high school where I gained 13 college credits and got my seat time in.
While she does suffer from a genetic disease, it's not really genetic discrimination if they have other data that allows them to deny her coverage. As an analogy, I don't care what your genetic code is, if your heart blows up, I've got plenty of reason to believe that it would not be a good investment to provide you coverage.
Honestly, he's got a certain amount of merit behind his arguments. Students in the 12th grade often suffer from senioritis and gain nothing from their experience.
To just make the senior year completely optional, though, is absurd to me. Give them a real reason to be there. Give them classes that will actually help them out. I'd keep arguing that they should invest in their future and reap the rewards, but, unfortunately I think we've reached an age where there's perverse incentive for many states to keep their populace stupid. In my home state, we suffer from an extreme amount of brain drain, and I assume that Utah suffers from a similar problem. If they educate their citizens, they become more likely to leave and the states lose out, not only on their best and brightest, but on the investment that they've placed in them as well.
I've argued for some time that states should offer free schooling in exchange for a contract that stipulates that the student will work in the state for x number of years or else they have to pay back the entire cost of schooling plus interest. If done properly, this could pay for itself over time, given the increase in value of the worker subsequently leading to an increase in tax revenue. Also, if the timeframe is sufficiently long, 5-10 years, many people would stay in the state beyond the required time because they would have started families. There's probably a hole in that somewhere, but it seems like a good place to start the discussion.
I agree to some extent. I think reporters should present their own biases upfront, however they should make every effort to eliminate that bias in their reporting. Unfortunately Fox News, MSNBC, and the blogosphere seem to have grown accustomed to the idea that having a right to your own opinion means that you have a right to your own facts, also. Honestly, it's gotten crazy out there. People need to stop calling these organizations "News" and start calling them by their true name: Political Propaganda.
Everyone knows that all of the programmers over 40 became internet millionaires. That's why they aren't programming anymore. At least I think that's what the brochure said.
Man, I guess I must be new here. Even though I knew that people didn't usually read the articles, and often didn't read the summaries, I thought they would at least read the posts they were responding to. I learn something new every day.
You just wrote:
It should be fairly obvious that we weren't designed to sit in a chair 8 hours a day, nor slouch on a sofa another 6 hours each night, nor repeatedly do any number of things we do as civilized beings. No surprise we get aches and pains, and our skeleton fails so quickly.
This would be an interesting response, except you were responding to a post that said:
In fact, arthritis has been a problem since hominids became bipedal. Scientists have discovered instances of vertebral arthritis in prehistoric hunter-gatherers; arthritis is not merely pathology of modern lifestyles.[5]
And your only excuse is that you were either too lazy/impatient to read the whole post or too stupid to understand what you were reading and responding to. Considering you're on Slashdot in the first place, I'd have to guess it's the former.
I have no love for cheaters, but I think there is entirely too much focus on grades in schooling. Who cares if the cheater got a good grade if he worked with his friend? In a university environment, odds are that students are paying for their education. If they want to waste their money, why not let them? When you catch a cheater, just give him a 0, mark it on his transcript, and move on.
If you are truly focused on helping your students get the most out of their education, what you should be concerned about is whether or not he learned the material. To me, the best solution would be to have a cheater do a unique assignment in a lab with an authority figure present. This way you have an effective method for both punishing him and ensuring that he learns the material.
The way that I define artificial intelligence* is that a computer would have to be able to generate efficient code to solve a problem that it was not programmed to solve. This is a very simple definition, but I think it works well for most purposes.
All of your suppositions rely on the assumption that the AI will seek to preserve itself. For humans and other animals, self-preservation is something that has been ground into us through evolution. My question is, if we do create AI, can we do it so that it has no need for self-preservation?
Secondly, and more importantly, I think you also assume that we would create AI in a form that it can actively control its surroundings. If we created AI that was simply a computer(not a robot, which, I have a feeling, most people assume it would be) with no ability to control the world around it, just learn from it, then it couldn't take over the world (although it might inspire humans to do so).
Although I am not a programmer, I see AI as a computer that could write efficient code to solve problems that it was not originally programmed to solve. If we gave it the ability to implement that code directly into other computers, then we could run into problems, but if we put a human barrier between the code and it's intended target, we could, for the most part, prevent it from turning against us. Though there would be the potential for it fooling us, perhaps by using something similar to the DirecTV "Black Sunday" meta hack, I feel like the biggest threat wouldn't be from the computer, itself, but rather from fanatics who see this supercomputer as some sort of god.
because, you know, small breasted women MIGHT be under 18
It wasn't even that, it was that small breasted women LOOKED like they were under 18. The logic is along the lines of banning cartoons displaying children (even the Simpsons) participating in sex acts. Because they look like they are underage, then it is Kiddy Porn because they are targeting people who want to see young people naked.
I think you're misunderstanding what he was saying. He's not necessarily dissing Apple as a company, he's just saying that the OP's logic was flawed. The OP said that WGA, which is basically a tool to lock down software and prevent piracy, was the reason that he switched from Windows to Mac, which is basically the king of locking down software, to the point that you can only use OSX on their hardware, and only with programs that they want you to use (and they are even much more stringent about this with the iPhone).
Even though Apple really does put out a great product, they are definitely control freaks. To switch to OSX from Windows, with the primary reason being Microsoft's effort to employ a greater level of control over their product, is just messed up.
Should have gotten her the upgraded version: DJ Roomba. Then, not only does it clean your floors, but it cruises around and plays (for V-Day at least) love songs!
Slightly more romantic way of saying "You suck at vacuuming, here's something to do it for you."
He can hardly be blamed for control over what has been sent to him
You're right, he can hardly be blamed for what has been sent to him. However, he can be faulted for continuing to view more images after seeing the first and realizing that it was inappropriate for work.
Type a random sequence of 4 characters.com, and the vast majority of times you will get some fairly innocuous spam site
Man, I sometimes forget that there is a very real possibility of finding some incredibly NSFW stuff by typing in random domain.
The other thing to remember is how many websites there really are that are just trying to capitalize on typos. Type a random variation on google, just changing or omitting one or two letters, and you can almost always get a spam site that's just a placeholder waiting for people who can't type. Like my earlier statement, this has some potential for being NSFW.
Man, I feel like an idiot. I don't know what I was thinking. That's Math 101 and I have a degree in statistics. Pure brain-fart material there. At least I gave you the opportunity to completely own me and feel good about yourself, though. That might help with the depression that you have a higher probability of suffering if you are, like most slashdotters, an "excessive" internet user.;)
"People showing signs of depression are more likely to spend a lot of time surfing the internet" Is simply not the same as "People who spend a lot of time surfing the internet are more likely to show signs of depression."
The first indicates that people with depression are likely to use the internet to a high degree. Since people with depression are found across all socio-economic classes, yet internet access is not, there may be limiting factors that make this sentence simply not true. In fact, depression tends to lead to lower incomes, which may inhibit access to the internet. If you really want to be technical, it is feasible that, although internet addicts are more likely than the general population to be depressed, depressed people could be less likely than the general population to be internet addicts.
What would be an equivalent statement would be "People who show signs of depression and have internet access, but limited outlets otherwise, are more likely to spend a lot of time surfing the internet" but that's rather clunky. The way it was written was fine.
Although I agree with the sentiment, the BSA was likely never a strictly secular program. I can't say for sure about the first few months after its creation, as it was a private organization from February 1910 through April 1910, at which point control was taken over by the YMCA, emphasis on the C for Christian. The Scout Oath includes the line "To do my duty to God," and thousands of packs, with hundreds of thousands of members, are organized by churches.
Again, while I disagree with the anti-gay rhetoric of the BSA, it's important to note that this is a case of secular society attempting to "hijack" a semi-religious program.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose it would be better if I could actually read what was written in the pictures, but really, I only lost about 38 seconds of productivity. Without a sense of context, the humor in most of those was lost on me.
So what you're saying is that it's cool to con people because they're giving their money up willingly?
Well.. have I got a bridge to sell you!
"They did underhanded deals to foist a sub-optimal solution (Blu-Ray) on everyone."
After putting out a superior product in the days of VCR's and getting owned, they learned their lesson. This is the way business is done. You make the deals that you need to make in order to turn a profit.
Barry Bonds was one of the best players in baseball before he started doping. Then he started doping and became the best player in baseball. What'd he lose? Potentially being a hall of famer? So what. He made his money, and sometimes that's all people care about.
First, note the word "often." I'm definitely not saying that every single student in their senior year is lazy, but there are definitely enough that my statement is still true.
I also took AP classes in high school. The first half of my day I spent in AP US History, AP Calculus, and AP English Lit. Then, after lunch, I skipped the rest of my classes and went home. It was a joke. I'm quite certain that I would have benefited far more from a year in college in which would have gained 25 credits towards graduation instead of a year in high school where I gained 13 college credits and got my seat time in.
While she does suffer from a genetic disease, it's not really genetic discrimination if they have other data that allows them to deny her coverage. As an analogy, I don't care what your genetic code is, if your heart blows up, I've got plenty of reason to believe that it would not be a good investment to provide you coverage.
Honestly, he's got a certain amount of merit behind his arguments. Students in the 12th grade often suffer from senioritis and gain nothing from their experience.
To just make the senior year completely optional, though, is absurd to me. Give them a real reason to be there. Give them classes that will actually help them out. I'd keep arguing that they should invest in their future and reap the rewards, but, unfortunately I think we've reached an age where there's perverse incentive for many states to keep their populace stupid. In my home state, we suffer from an extreme amount of brain drain, and I assume that Utah suffers from a similar problem. If they educate their citizens, they become more likely to leave and the states lose out, not only on their best and brightest, but on the investment that they've placed in them as well.
I've argued for some time that states should offer free schooling in exchange for a contract that stipulates that the student will work in the state for x number of years or else they have to pay back the entire cost of schooling plus interest. If done properly, this could pay for itself over time, given the increase in value of the worker subsequently leading to an increase in tax revenue. Also, if the timeframe is sufficiently long, 5-10 years, many people would stay in the state beyond the required time because they would have started families. There's probably a hole in that somewhere, but it seems like a good place to start the discussion.
I agree to some extent. I think reporters should present their own biases upfront, however they should make every effort to eliminate that bias in their reporting. Unfortunately Fox News, MSNBC, and the blogosphere seem to have grown accustomed to the idea that having a right to your own opinion means that you have a right to your own facts, also. Honestly, it's gotten crazy out there. People need to stop calling these organizations "News" and start calling them by their true name: Political Propaganda.
Everyone knows that all of the programmers over 40 became internet millionaires. That's why they aren't programming anymore. At least I think that's what the brochure said.
And that's precisely the problem with including it in textbooks, isn't it?
Man, I guess I must be new here. Even though I knew that people didn't usually read the articles, and often didn't read the summaries, I thought they would at least read the posts they were responding to. I learn something new every day.
You just wrote:
It should be fairly obvious that we weren't designed to sit in a chair 8 hours a day, nor slouch on a sofa another 6 hours each night, nor repeatedly do any number of things we do as civilized beings. No surprise we get aches and pains, and our skeleton fails so quickly.
This would be an interesting response, except you were responding to a post that said:
In fact, arthritis has been a problem since hominids became bipedal. Scientists have discovered instances of vertebral arthritis in prehistoric hunter-gatherers; arthritis is not merely pathology of modern lifestyles.[5]
And your only excuse is that you were either too lazy/impatient to read the whole post or too stupid to understand what you were reading and responding to. Considering you're on Slashdot in the first place, I'd have to guess it's the former.
I have no love for cheaters, but I think there is entirely too much focus on grades in schooling. Who cares if the cheater got a good grade if he worked with his friend? In a university environment, odds are that students are paying for their education. If they want to waste their money, why not let them? When you catch a cheater, just give him a 0, mark it on his transcript, and move on.
If you are truly focused on helping your students get the most out of their education, what you should be concerned about is whether or not he learned the material. To me, the best solution would be to have a cheater do a unique assignment in a lab with an authority figure present. This way you have an effective method for both punishing him and ensuring that he learns the material.
The way that I define artificial intelligence* is that a computer would have to be able to generate efficient code to solve a problem that it was not programmed to solve. This is a very simple definition, but I think it works well for most purposes.
All of your suppositions rely on the assumption that the AI will seek to preserve itself. For humans and other animals, self-preservation is something that has been ground into us through evolution. My question is, if we do create AI, can we do it so that it has no need for self-preservation?
Secondly, and more importantly, I think you also assume that we would create AI in a form that it can actively control its surroundings. If we created AI that was simply a computer(not a robot, which, I have a feeling, most people assume it would be) with no ability to control the world around it, just learn from it, then it couldn't take over the world (although it might inspire humans to do so).
Although I am not a programmer, I see AI as a computer that could write efficient code to solve problems that it was not originally programmed to solve. If we gave it the ability to implement that code directly into other computers, then we could run into problems, but if we put a human barrier between the code and it's intended target, we could, for the most part, prevent it from turning against us. Though there would be the potential for it fooling us, perhaps by using something similar to the DirecTV "Black Sunday" meta hack, I feel like the biggest threat wouldn't be from the computer, itself, but rather from fanatics who see this supercomputer as some sort of god.
because, you know, small breasted women MIGHT be under 18
It wasn't even that, it was that small breasted women LOOKED like they were under 18. The logic is along the lines of banning cartoons displaying children (even the Simpsons) participating in sex acts. Because they look like they are underage, then it is Kiddy Porn because they are targeting people who want to see young people naked.
I think you're misunderstanding what he was saying. He's not necessarily dissing Apple as a company, he's just saying that the OP's logic was flawed. The OP said that WGA, which is basically a tool to lock down software and prevent piracy, was the reason that he switched from Windows to Mac, which is basically the king of locking down software, to the point that you can only use OSX on their hardware, and only with programs that they want you to use (and they are even much more stringent about this with the iPhone).
Even though Apple really does put out a great product, they are definitely control freaks. To switch to OSX from Windows, with the primary reason being Microsoft's effort to employ a greater level of control over their product, is just messed up.
You can also repair the computers by installing software that's free, technically superior and reasonably more secure than Windows.
And don't forget, doesn't support many of the applications and games that many people enjoy (or at least know how to use).
Should have gotten her the upgraded version: DJ Roomba. Then, not only does it clean your floors, but it cruises around and plays (for V-Day at least) love songs!
Slightly more romantic way of saying "You suck at vacuuming, here's something to do it for you."
I know. It's out there, but, contrary to my expectations, she didn't totally humiliate me in front of everyone in the cafeteria.
He can hardly be blamed for control over what has been sent to him
You're right, he can hardly be blamed for what has been sent to him. However, he can be faulted for continuing to view more images after seeing the first and realizing that it was inappropriate for work.
Type a random sequence of 4 characters .com, and the vast majority of times you will get some fairly innocuous spam site
Man, I sometimes forget that there is a very real possibility of finding some incredibly NSFW stuff by typing in random domain.
The other thing to remember is how many websites there really are that are just trying to capitalize on typos. Type a random variation on google, just changing or omitting one or two letters, and you can almost always get a spam site that's just a placeholder waiting for people who can't type. Like my earlier statement, this has some potential for being NSFW.
Man, I feel like an idiot. I don't know what I was thinking. That's Math 101 and I have a degree in statistics. Pure brain-fart material there. At least I gave you the opportunity to completely own me and feel good about yourself, though. That might help with the depression that you have a higher probability of suffering if you are, like most slashdotters, an "excessive" internet user. ;)
"People showing signs of depression are more likely to spend a lot of time surfing the internet" Is simply not the same as "People who spend a lot of time surfing the internet are more likely to show signs of depression."
The first indicates that people with depression are likely to use the internet to a high degree. Since people with depression are found across all socio-economic classes, yet internet access is not, there may be limiting factors that make this sentence simply not true. In fact, depression tends to lead to lower incomes, which may inhibit access to the internet. If you really want to be technical, it is feasible that, although internet addicts are more likely than the general population to be depressed, depressed people could be less likely than the general population to be internet addicts.
What would be an equivalent statement would be "People who show signs of depression and have internet access, but limited outlets otherwise, are more likely to spend a lot of time surfing the internet" but that's rather clunky. The way it was written was fine.
Is that where you feel compelled to stand on one leg and stick your head in the ground?
Although I agree with the sentiment, the BSA was likely never a strictly secular program. I can't say for sure about the first few months after its creation, as it was a private organization from February 1910 through April 1910, at which point control was taken over by the YMCA, emphasis on the C for Christian. The Scout Oath includes the line "To do my duty to God," and thousands of packs, with hundreds of thousands of members, are organized by churches.
Again, while I disagree with the anti-gay rhetoric of the BSA, it's important to note that this is a case of secular society attempting to "hijack" a semi-religious program.