I would say that 'being human' is about adapting to your situation. That can be overcoming your disadvantages by sheer force, but it can also be finding a different path to where your disadvantages don't matter, or are even an advantage. There is no reason that we should all be striving towards having the same skillset, though.
It's usually considered unethical to raise identical twins separately for the sake of such experiments, although cases where this happened are rich for study.
Learning to learn, is just another expression to say "stay calm, listen and do what you're told in the permitted limits" which is a not so simple part of a kid education.
It sounds more like you are talking about learning to obey, which is pretty much the opposite of learning to learn.
One's ability to learn is generally thought to not be tied to one's specific knowledge. The topic of discussion is one's ability to learn, not what you have learned.
No, it's not just a matter of work ethic. In fact, this often runs contrary to work ethic, as people will learn new skills to avoid or reduce the amount of work they have to do. A similar thing happens at the physical level when you learn. Something incredibly complex such as bipedal locomotion gets to the point where it's handled without any active thought because it's less work to do so.
PS. If genetics played a part, someone good at math is not going to be good at languages There is a reason why they are separate subjects and fields. For starters, one loves ambiguities while the other rejects them outright. It's a completely different mode of thinking.
That there are differences between fields doesn't mean that being good at one would lead to being bad at another. The key factor here may be the capability to shift between paradigms.
Do we have comparisons for their physical state before and after regarding how much sleep deprivation their bodies showed? Perhaps part of the reason that they had trouble sleeping is that it's less tiring to be awake in space or more restful to be asleep in space.
My terms are somewhere along the lines of a serious traffic ticket or a bout of drunken stupidity. I would hold his actions to be about there on the scale of severity, doubly so because it is very much in line with the kind of mischief that MIT's hacker culture has.
I don't think that people are wanting his actions to be totally legal so much as just having reasonable punishment. I think naming it Aaron's law is to demonstrate that it is a means of preventing the abuse of the CFAA in the way it was used against Aaron.
I don't think you are getting the point. These big scary, "fuck due process" laws were sold to the public as a means of toppling crime factories and their complex legal maneuvering to avoid prosecution for anyone important. Basically, for stopping the real world equivalent of supervillains.
It sounds more like being a drug kingpin, and claiming that DPR is one of those is akin to saying that Craig Newmark is the boss of a prostitution ring.
I'm not sure if that would a practical usage of this. With the hardware needed for this, it would probably be cheaper to get a sensitive enough shotgun mic.
How can any animal species survive, if animal parents don't care more about their offsprings' survival more than anything else, and will risk their lives to save them, and work constantly to find food and shelter for them?
I realize that this is likely a rhetorical question, but the answer would be to have a lot of offspring. Typically, the higher the cost to have offspring, the more care will be given to said offspring.
Also, I don't see what the connection is between emotions and eating meat. Sentience doesn't magically make something taste bad. Adult humans allegedly taste more or less like pork.
Actually, Wikipedia tends to be more up to date. Significant recent events will get a page as events unfold, but encyclopedias tend to be limited by their release dates. There are lots of things you can claim about Wikipedia, but being more outdated than an encyclopedia is about the worst claim you can make.
Seriously, did Wikipedia murder your family or something?
The Wikipedia page for wiki clarifies the differences between a wiki and a blog. Wikipedia is without a doubt a wiki, and blogs and wikis are generally considered to be two different things. If you think wikis and/or Wikipedia is horrible quality, just say that. A blog could very well be higher quality than an encyclopedia because those two words only describe the medium, not the content of that medium or its quality. You might have a blog written by a professional in a particular field and an encyclopedia written by someone who is mentally ill and hallucinating.
The word it seems you are really trying to say is 'amateur,' but blogs are not necessarily run by amateurs anymore.
That someone is wanting to get more attention to their writing doesn't make it a blog. The etymology for blog is the combining and abbreviation of 'web log.' While web based, Wikipedia is not in a 'log' format to any meaningful extent.
You are probably correctly assessing the reliability of Wikipedia, but I think you are grossly overestimating the reliability of Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, you apparently have no idea what the hell a blog is..
Slashdot Mirror
In modern terms, race would effectively be a haplogroup, or sub- or superset thereof.
I would say that 'being human' is about adapting to your situation. That can be overcoming your disadvantages by sheer force, but it can also be finding a different path to where your disadvantages don't matter, or are even an advantage. There is no reason that we should all be striving towards having the same skillset, though.
It sounds more like you are talking about learning to obey, which is pretty much the opposite of learning to learn.
One's ability to learn is generally thought to not be tied to one's specific knowledge. The topic of discussion is one's ability to learn, not what you have learned.
That there are differences between fields doesn't mean that being good at one would lead to being bad at another. The key factor here may be the capability to shift between paradigms.
Be careful what you wish for, or they'll use internal organs (which are by definition not extremities), and you don't want anybody cutting those out.
Awesome and awkward aren't mutually exclusive, and both could cut into sleep.
I would think that it's the roller coaster effect that turns your stomach.
Do we have comparisons for their physical state before and after regarding how much sleep deprivation their bodies showed? Perhaps part of the reason that they had trouble sleeping is that it's less tiring to be awake in space or more restful to be asleep in space.
My terms are somewhere along the lines of a serious traffic ticket or a bout of drunken stupidity. I would hold his actions to be about there on the scale of severity, doubly so because it is very much in line with the kind of mischief that MIT's hacker culture has.
For the actions committed, I would see reasonable as a fine not exceeding $1000 and/or 40 hours or less of community service.
I don't think that people are wanting his actions to be totally legal so much as just having reasonable punishment. I think naming it Aaron's law is to demonstrate that it is a means of preventing the abuse of the CFAA in the way it was used against Aaron.
I don't think you are getting the point. These big scary, "fuck due process" laws were sold to the public as a means of toppling crime factories and their complex legal maneuvering to avoid prosecution for anyone important. Basically, for stopping the real world equivalent of supervillains.
They consider finding out about a dozen alleged USERS of child porn sites a big win?
As do you.
Never trust.
It sounds more like being a drug kingpin, and claiming that DPR is one of those is akin to saying that Craig Newmark is the boss of a prostitution ring.
I'm not sure if that would a practical usage of this. With the hardware needed for this, it would probably be cheaper to get a sensitive enough shotgun mic.
I realize that this is likely a rhetorical question, but the answer would be to have a lot of offspring. Typically, the higher the cost to have offspring, the more care will be given to said offspring.
Also, I don't see what the connection is between emotions and eating meat. Sentience doesn't magically make something taste bad. Adult humans allegedly taste more or less like pork.
Actually, Wikipedia tends to be more up to date. Significant recent events will get a page as events unfold, but encyclopedias tend to be limited by their release dates. There are lots of things you can claim about Wikipedia, but being more outdated than an encyclopedia is about the worst claim you can make.
Seriously, did Wikipedia murder your family or something?
Actually, it would be inclusive of that, but I'd say that students and interested netizens are some of the heaviest users of wikipedia,
The Wikipedia page for wiki clarifies the differences between a wiki and a blog. Wikipedia is without a doubt a wiki, and blogs and wikis are generally considered to be two different things. If you think wikis and/or Wikipedia is horrible quality, just say that. A blog could very well be higher quality than an encyclopedia because those two words only describe the medium, not the content of that medium or its quality. You might have a blog written by a professional in a particular field and an encyclopedia written by someone who is mentally ill and hallucinating.
The word it seems you are really trying to say is 'amateur,' but blogs are not necessarily run by amateurs anymore.
If the random country is Switzerland, I'd probably go with them. They seem to be quite good at the whole neutrality thing overall.
That someone is wanting to get more attention to their writing doesn't make it a blog. The etymology for blog is the combining and abbreviation of 'web log.' While web based, Wikipedia is not in a 'log' format to any meaningful extent.
That others engage in cronyism doesn't make Jesse Jackson's actions not cronyism.
You are probably correctly assessing the reliability of Wikipedia, but I think you are grossly overestimating the reliability of Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, you apparently have no idea what the hell a blog is..