I didn't say schools shouldn't teach myths - just they shouldn't teach that myths are facts.
Schools aren't required to teach children what we need to interact with other people on the street. There's plenty of TV and playground time for that. Teaching how to think, especially about pop culture, is necessary, because school is the only place to learn those skills.
Last time I looked, schools still taught kids how to interact with each other, and there's no shortage of pop culture education.
There's no point arguing metaphyics, science, or the difference, with you when you can't distinguish between unknown and unknowable.
Your invocation of the written word as the only way to know the past is even more discouraging.
But you seal the end of my part in this argument when you get my specious question - the famous trick dependence on a hidden premise - by somehow finding an appeal to faith in it. There is no such element, and you don't know what you're talking about. No more free education for you.
Evolution and speciation are science, as abundantly demonstrated all over the place. Complaints that they're not, from someone called "Marxist Hacker 42", whose logic promotes nonsense like
"If you're losing, you have two options: lose or don't compete. If you're winning, you have only one option."
in every post, are about as useless as your implication that science is a way of being certain.
"This year the government will hand over $867,000 to two fundamentalist Mormon schools -- $363,000 to the new Mormon Hills School and $504,000 to Bountiful Elementary-Secondary School."
I'm sure that more searches would find even more public funding of Mormon schools.
Where "random" means "unexplained due to overwhelming complexity of unknown, unquantified factors", no - it's not unknowable, just unknown.
That is, of course, the definition of "random" taught in science classes. Not the sinister, purely metaphysical definition taught in pseudoscience creationism classes, to which you refer.
I didn't mention evolution. I mentioned only the teaching of Creationism, a religious story, as science in publicly funded schools.
You can play your political games with your "both sides", but they're irrelevant to science. There are many opinions about cosmology, but religious stories are not among the facts.
I'm not so much surprised by how many people believe in literal biblical creation, I'm disgusted by it. That's one reason it has to stop being taught as science, or anything but a metaphysical story, in publicly funded schools. I don't think anyone will be surprised how many people stop believing in literal biblical creation once the free ride in the name of (pseudo)science is over.
ICQ was far from the first IM app. Unix "wall" and "write" have much better claims, by decades. ICQ was an evolution, adaptation to the Web. AFAIK, it was developed originally at MIT, anyway.
RTL is a valid original innovation, though I'm just not certain that Iraelis didn't just evolve to maturity technology invented elsewhere, like X - also at MIT.
If you're looking for real Israeli innovation, the best sector is DSP. Brought to maturity by Israeli air defense in the 1980s, DSP SW has remained a specialty as the HW has become fast, cheap, tiny and ubiquitous.
Mormon schools which don't pay taxes but do get public funding should not be allowed to teach children that a metaphysical spirit created the Universe, unless they teach that such a statement isn't science, isn't a fact, isn't a theory, and that most people don't believe that it is literally true.
Anonymous Coward, you have failed to turn my question into a bragging contest.
The Pentium M isn't an original technology - it's an update by Intel's Israeli lab to Intel's American technology. Firewall advancements are similar evolutions. Those advances are like the "Arab versions" I mentioned in my original post.
Crypto, like RSA, was an original Israeli innovation. I'd like to see some documentation of Israelis inventing "instant messaging".
To be really specific, it seems like Israel happens to be the only Mideastern country you know about. Perhaps because it's the most "Western", having been reinvented by generations of European and American immigrants. Who mostly evolve Western technologies, just like their cousins who stayed home do.
Apart from the possible exception of crypto, how about telling us about some uniquely Israeli tech innovations? Especially some that are being developed for the Israeli market that could go global, like the kind of tech I asked about?
Jericho is a 5,000 year old city, likely built on an even older urban settlement.
Sumerians were writing cuneiform 6000 years ago, while Chinese were writing perhaps only as long ago as 3500 years.
Hebrews used their "alephbet" as numerals interchangeable with letters for symbolic manipulation at least a thousand years before the first Hindu or Arab.
Including the astronomy I mentioned makes 4 technologies, not 3. That makes you even more wrong that I was right. Congratulations!
Since you're wrong, Anonymous ignoramus Coward, you should learn that Greece adopted those techniques from neighbors to the East and South. And that Egypt is certainly in the Middle East. You probably think that Greece was part of "European Civilization", not Mediterranean Civilization.
You have solid credits for several "Arab versions" of modern software. The Mideast, was where many technologies, like writing, urban living, astronomy and symbolic math were invented or mastered. What new uses of the Internet and open SW do you see originating in Mideastern hands? Which brand new apps are people in your world using in a way more familiar in the Mideast, which could make the jump to global popularity the way so much Western tech already has?
I wish the Google Maps website query language were as simple and expressive as the wellknown Web search. Instead, I have to use exactly "W 125th St & Broadway", instead of searching for any of "125St at Broadway" or "W125 and Broadway" etc, even though those styles all refer to the same intersection. How about clicking on any point, and getting its "coordinates" in a popup? Clicking a few points to define an itinerary?
I'd like to see their GUI highlight an entire street for its entire length, just by naming it. And exit numbers on highways. And mass transit route layers, or at least just stops identified.
I know it's free, and it's "Beta". I know their standalone Earth app has lots more features. But they pulled it off with text Web searches. I'd like to love their maps as much as their links.
It's now obvious that practically all current Congressmembers are complicit in the vote rigging schemes. Because otherwise these blatant frauds and coverups, which even produce convictions from time to time, from the same few corporations that count practically all the votes, would see Congress act swiftly and strongly. Hearings, corporate liability, exchange delisting, jailtime.
Instead, silence. The silence not of the lambs, but of the Congressional shepherds who run with the voterigging wolves. The American sheep bleat sometimes, but it's lost in the wind of the corporate media paying the shepherds' bar tabs.
I understand how biotransfer feedback can amplify infectious agents, especially such tiny epidemilogical signals as prions. But aren't you just arguing against transfusion/transplants in general? The solution is not to give up on that entire theraputic technique, but rather to break the feedback cycle. Screening and immunology are important research to mitigate that tiny but growing risk. Autology is also clearly a strong mitigator.
I was the premed "lab tech" who understood the computer system and wasn't an alcoholic. That made me "lab master";).
All I meant about "per unit" was the statistical average cost per unit, on a mass scale, of autologous vs anonymous donor blood. Not that single autologous units were used, though they sometimes were. Probably in cases where there was certain to be a little bloodshed, but not enough to justify tapping the pool. Especially during the AIDS blood shortage, or maybe due to AIDS fear by some patients, more easily mitigated with autology than reason.
But in any event, I don't see how anonymous (or even named, but not self) donor blood can possibly cost less than autologous blood. Everything is the same, except the autologous has less chances for complication, and there's a greater supply of it than demand for nonautologous. The (data) processing to ensure it returns to the veins from which it came is a tiny cost, compared to the labor of the phlebotomists, lab techs, med techs, doctors and nurses, and the rest of the system.
As for artificial blood, I expect that within the 5-10+ years to get there, stemcell research will make autologous donation even more potent for the donor/recipient. Stemcells will become an even worse supply/demand for nonautologous donation than is mere blood, because it will require medication to prepare the blood before donation. Perhaps that change will convert the entire industry to my proposed system. So now is a good time to promote it.
The first sentence seems perfectly clear. But some might complain that the pressure would result in donors selling their organs - which some might say is bad. I say that the donor's death would prevent that bad scenario.
I don't know why segregating and targeting autologous units is appreciably more expensive than anonymous donation. Even in the mid-late 1980s our bloodbank's hundreds of inventory units were tracked individually by barcode, for audit in the event of complication. The few autologous units at that early date were processed exactly the same way, except they were stored in their own row of the refrigerator for convenience, and prevention of selection on request by another recipient. If anything, the reduced waste of autologous units which are more likely to be consumed than to expire should make them less expensive than anonymous volunteers, per unit overall.
Even so, the cost is beatable by investing money in research for process optimization. Especially freezing and "lab on a chip" crossmatching. While actual shortages aren't addressable by spending money. The fundamentals are compelling. I'm sure any actual problems are like the other tremendous waste and inefficiencies I watched all day long in the pathology lab. Some research and development of this essential process are worth the investment.
When I ran the bloodbank near NYC for an 800-bed blood/trauma/AIDS center, we discarded any unused (expired) blood for destruction. O- is the most in demand (no type factors) for any patient, including O+ and O- recipients, but O+ is almost as in demand. So I expect there's no chance your blood is going for corporate profit, even if some AB+ might conceivably go that way. I never heard of such a practice, but I've been out of the game for over a decade.
"Plasma volumes will return to normal in around 24 hours, while red blood cells are replaced by bone marrow into the circulatory system within about 3-5 weeks, and lost iron replaced over 6-8 weeks."
My proposal isn't affected by the extra 3-6 weeks I omitted in my rough underapproximation.
The blood shortage is a question of scalability. Both surprise trauma and planned surgery deplete the same blood banks, offset only by voluntary donors. So planned surgery should generate a surplus, as well as eliminate its drain on the supply.
As for the organs, some will be tainted by the therapies required for successful transplants, even of other organs. But every little bit helps. My proposal is really just a way to make transplant recipients "pay their own way", and then some. That "help yourself" approach will probably also encourage other people to donate voluntarily, if promoted right.
The fact is that the population of recipients offers a large enough community to largely sustain itself, certainly vastly more than it currently does. If promoted correctly to recipients friends and family, there would likely be a surplus, which would in turn increase material for research, further improving the situation. Applying self-scalability to the endless shortages mean there really is no excuse for the endless crisis.
Yes, the GPL will likely strongly influence the 21st Century overall with its "viral opt-in community" pattern. I hope it's as powerful a tool in self-organizing mutal development cooperation as was the "corporation" pattern's centralized competition in the 20th Century. Our own bodies are a very strong arena in which to establish the GPL power.
What are you talking about? autologous donations are the preferred method for transfusion, since at latest the 1980s when I ran a major NYC-area hospital's bloodbank through the original AIDS outbreaks.
And the other donations I mentioned follow exactly the same organ paths as the current system, except more "viral" (as in New Media marketing, not actual biological infection) due to the "turnabout" clauses I suggest.
Perhaps you are misreading my post as suggesting the received organs be redonated. I actually explicitly stated otherwise ("all their own organs", though I'm not sure there's any science showing the actual risks of "serial transmission" of those organs. In any case I said they should be donated "if they're [the organs] in acceptable condition". I think you've just got a biofeedback hairtrigger.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say schools shouldn't teach myths - just they shouldn't teach that myths are facts.
Schools aren't required to teach children what we need to interact with other people on the street. There's plenty of TV and playground time for that. Teaching how to think, especially about pop culture, is necessary, because school is the only place to learn those skills.
Last time I looked, schools still taught kids how to interact with each other, and there's no shortage of pop culture education.
There's no point arguing metaphyics, science, or the difference, with you when you can't distinguish between unknown and unknowable.
Your invocation of the written word as the only way to know the past is even more discouraging.
But you seal the end of my part in this argument when you get my specious question - the famous trick dependence on a hidden premise - by somehow finding an appeal to faith in it. There is no such element, and you don't know what you're talking about. No more free education for you.
Evolution and speciation are science, as abundantly demonstrated all over the place. Complaints that they're not, from someone called "Marxist Hacker 42", whose logic promotes nonsense like
"If you're losing, you have two options: lose or don't compete. If you're winning, you have only one option."
in every post, are about as useless as your implication that science is a way of being certain.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
The first result from my search for ("mormon school" public funds) describes public funding for two Mormon schools near Vancouver:
"This year the government will hand over $867,000 to two fundamentalist Mormon schools -- $363,000 to the new Mormon Hills School and $504,000 to Bountiful Elementary-Secondary School."
I'm sure that more searches would find even more public funding of Mormon schools.
Where "random" means "unexplained due to overwhelming complexity of unknown, unquantified factors", no - it's not unknowable, just unknown.
That is, of course, the definition of "random" taught in science classes. Not the sinister, purely metaphysical definition taught in pseudoscience creationism classes, to which you refer.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
I didn't mention evolution. I mentioned only the teaching of Creationism, a religious story, as science in publicly funded schools.
You can play your political games with your "both sides", but they're irrelevant to science. There are many opinions about cosmology, but religious stories are not among the facts.
I'm not so much surprised by how many people believe in literal biblical creation, I'm disgusted by it. That's one reason it has to stop being taught as science, or anything but a metaphysical story, in publicly funded schools. I don't think anyone will be surprised how many people stop believing in literal biblical creation once the free ride in the name of (pseudo)science is over.
ICQ was far from the first IM app. Unix "wall" and "write" have much better claims, by decades. ICQ was an evolution, adaptation to the Web. AFAIK, it was developed originally at MIT, anyway.
RTL is a valid original innovation, though I'm just not certain that Iraelis didn't just evolve to maturity technology invented elsewhere, like X - also at MIT.
If you're looking for real Israeli innovation, the best sector is DSP. Brought to maturity by Israeli air defense in the 1980s, DSP SW has remained a specialty as the HW has become fast, cheap, tiny and ubiquitous.
Mormon schools which don't pay taxes but do get public funding should not be allowed to teach children that a metaphysical spirit created the Universe, unless they teach that such a statement isn't science, isn't a fact, isn't a theory, and that most people don't believe that it is literally true.
Anonymous Coward, you have failed to turn my question into a bragging contest.
The Pentium M isn't an original technology - it's an update by Intel's Israeli lab to Intel's American technology. Firewall advancements are similar evolutions. Those advances are like the "Arab versions" I mentioned in my original post.
Crypto, like RSA, was an original Israeli innovation. I'd like to see some documentation of Israelis inventing "instant messaging".
To be really specific, it seems like Israel happens to be the only Mideastern country you know about. Perhaps because it's the most "Western", having been reinvented by generations of European and American immigrants. Who mostly evolve Western technologies, just like their cousins who stayed home do.
Apart from the possible exception of crypto, how about telling us about some uniquely Israeli tech innovations? Especially some that are being developed for the Israeli market that could go global, like the kind of tech I asked about?
Jericho is a 5,000 year old city, likely built on an even older urban settlement.
Sumerians were writing cuneiform 6000 years ago, while Chinese were writing perhaps only as long ago as 3500 years.
Hebrews used their "alephbet" as numerals interchangeable with letters for symbolic manipulation at least a thousand years before the first Hindu or Arab.
Including the astronomy I mentioned makes 4 technologies, not 3. That makes you even more wrong that I was right. Congratulations!
Since you're wrong, Anonymous ignoramus Coward, you should learn that Greece adopted those techniques from neighbors to the East and South. And that Egypt is certainly in the Middle East. You probably think that Greece was part of "European Civilization", not Mediterranean Civilization.
You have solid credits for several "Arab versions" of modern software. The Mideast, was where many technologies, like writing, urban living, astronomy and symbolic math were invented or mastered. What new uses of the Internet and open SW do you see originating in Mideastern hands? Which brand new apps are people in your world using in a way more familiar in the Mideast, which could make the jump to global popularity the way so much Western tech already has?
They bought one of their biggest competitors into nonexistence.
And they bought partial IBM ownership of them, which will keep IBM tech flowing into their more competitive operation.
GIVE SWORD TO TROLL
I wish the Google Maps website query language were as simple and expressive as the wellknown Web search. Instead, I have to use exactly "W 125th St & Broadway", instead of searching for any of "125St at Broadway" or "W125 and Broadway" etc, even though those styles all refer to the same intersection. How about clicking on any point, and getting its "coordinates" in a popup? Clicking a few points to define an itinerary?
I'd like to see their GUI highlight an entire street for its entire length, just by naming it. And exit numbers on highways. And mass transit route layers, or at least just stops identified.
I know it's free, and it's "Beta". I know their standalone Earth app has lots more features. But they pulled it off with text Web searches. I'd like to love their maps as much as their links.
It's now obvious that practically all current Congressmembers are complicit in the vote rigging schemes. Because otherwise these blatant frauds and coverups, which even produce convictions from time to time, from the same few corporations that count practically all the votes, would see Congress act swiftly and strongly. Hearings, corporate liability, exchange delisting, jailtime.
Instead, silence. The silence not of the lambs, but of the Congressional shepherds who run with the voterigging wolves. The American sheep bleat sometimes, but it's lost in the wind of the corporate media paying the shepherds' bar tabs.
I understand how biotransfer feedback can amplify infectious agents, especially such tiny epidemilogical signals as prions. But aren't you just arguing against transfusion/transplants in general? The solution is not to give up on that entire theraputic technique, but rather to break the feedback cycle. Screening and immunology are important research to mitigate that tiny but growing risk. Autology is also clearly a strong mitigator.
I was the premed "lab tech" who understood the computer system and wasn't an alcoholic. That made me "lab master" ;).
All I meant about "per unit" was the statistical average cost per unit, on a mass scale, of autologous vs anonymous donor blood. Not that single autologous units were used, though they sometimes were. Probably in cases where there was certain to be a little bloodshed, but not enough to justify tapping the pool. Especially during the AIDS blood shortage, or maybe due to AIDS fear by some patients, more easily mitigated with autology than reason.
But in any event, I don't see how anonymous (or even named, but not self) donor blood can possibly cost less than autologous blood. Everything is the same, except the autologous has less chances for complication, and there's a greater supply of it than demand for nonautologous. The (data) processing to ensure it returns to the veins from which it came is a tiny cost, compared to the labor of the phlebotomists, lab techs, med techs, doctors and nurses, and the rest of the system.
As for artificial blood, I expect that within the 5-10+ years to get there, stemcell research will make autologous donation even more potent for the donor/recipient. Stemcells will become an even worse supply/demand for nonautologous donation than is mere blood, because it will require medication to prepare the blood before donation. Perhaps that change will convert the entire industry to my proposed system. So now is a good time to promote it.
The first sentence seems perfectly clear. But some might complain that the pressure would result in donors selling their organs - which some might say is bad. I say that the donor's death would prevent that bad scenario.
I don't know why segregating and targeting autologous units is appreciably more expensive than anonymous donation. Even in the mid-late 1980s our bloodbank's hundreds of inventory units were tracked individually by barcode, for audit in the event of complication. The few autologous units at that early date were processed exactly the same way, except they were stored in their own row of the refrigerator for convenience, and prevention of selection on request by another recipient. If anything, the reduced waste of autologous units which are more likely to be consumed than to expire should make them less expensive than anonymous volunteers, per unit overall.
Even so, the cost is beatable by investing money in research for process optimization. Especially freezing and "lab on a chip" crossmatching. While actual shortages aren't addressable by spending money. The fundamentals are compelling. I'm sure any actual problems are like the other tremendous waste and inefficiencies I watched all day long in the pathology lab. Some research and development of this essential process are worth the investment.
When I ran the bloodbank near NYC for an 800-bed blood/trauma/AIDS center, we discarded any unused (expired) blood for destruction. O- is the most in demand (no type factors) for any patient, including O+ and O- recipients, but O+ is almost as in demand. So I expect there's no chance your blood is going for corporate profit, even if some AB+ might conceivably go that way. I never heard of such a practice, but I've been out of the game for over a decade.
OK, recovery actually takes 3-5 or 8 weeks:
"Plasma volumes will return to normal in around 24 hours, while red blood cells are replaced by bone marrow into the circulatory system within about 3-5 weeks, and lost iron replaced over 6-8 weeks."
My proposal isn't affected by the extra 3-6 weeks I omitted in my rough underapproximation.
The blood shortage is a question of scalability. Both surprise trauma and planned surgery deplete the same blood banks, offset only by voluntary donors. So planned surgery should generate a surplus, as well as eliminate its drain on the supply.
As for the organs, some will be tainted by the therapies required for successful transplants, even of other organs. But every little bit helps. My proposal is really just a way to make transplant recipients "pay their own way", and then some. That "help yourself" approach will probably also encourage other people to donate voluntarily, if promoted right.
The fact is that the population of recipients offers a large enough community to largely sustain itself, certainly vastly more than it currently does. If promoted correctly to recipients friends and family, there would likely be a surplus, which would in turn increase material for research, further improving the situation. Applying self-scalability to the endless shortages mean there really is no excuse for the endless crisis.
Yes, the GPL will likely strongly influence the 21st Century overall with its "viral opt-in community" pattern. I hope it's as powerful a tool in self-organizing mutal development cooperation as was the "corporation" pattern's centralized competition in the 20th Century. Our own bodies are a very strong arena in which to establish the GPL power.
What are you talking about? autologous donations are the preferred method for transfusion, since at latest the 1980s when I ran a major NYC-area hospital's bloodbank through the original AIDS outbreaks.
And the other donations I mentioned follow exactly the same organ paths as the current system, except more "viral" (as in New Media marketing, not actual biological infection) due to the "turnabout" clauses I suggest.
Perhaps you are misreading my post as suggesting the received organs be redonated. I actually explicitly stated otherwise ("all their own organs", though I'm not sure there's any science showing the actual risks of "serial transmission" of those organs. In any case I said they should be donated "if they're [the organs] in acceptable condition". I think you've just got a biofeedback hairtrigger.