Then why teach it to anyone, including STEM students?
All that seems to matter these days is whether or not you can apply something so that it produces a useful result, not whether you have a deep understanding of what you're doing. In short, it's probably because schools want their products to be able to get jobs, but they don't really care how educated said products actually are.
Every choice, decision, thought must now be supported by a study, a survey, a program.
I wish that were true. If it were, we could get rid of the TSA, copyrights, patents, and numerous other garbage (seeing as how there's no evidence they're effective).
You are blaming the victim by labeling them an idiot.
Yes, I am, and I do believe they're imbeciles. What of it? Saying that I am "blaming the victim" does not automatically win arguments, and in this case, there isn't even a real perpetrator.
There are millions of opportunities to die at any moment
Yes. Accept it.
and one's ignorance of an opportunity doesn't mean that they deserved to die.
I didn't say that they deserved to die, just that people who get themselves killed like that are probably morons.
As for my feelings on their deaths, I don't really care. I do, however, begin to care when imbeciles attempt to ban entire products and tools simply because some people misused them and injured themselves and/or died.
Shame on you and please stop considering yourself a good decent human being.
I would prefer not to consider myself a "good decent human being" if it means joining the ranks of imbeciles.
Remember that Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.
Yet I have trouble regarding them as anything else. How many children are idiotic enough to swallow them and die, and why does the existence of such people mean that products must be banned?
The smart ones tend to have arrived at their belief after intellectual reasoning
What reasoning would that be, I wonder? I hope it isn't, 'Rather than simply admitting that I don't know the answer to something, I'm going to make something up and say it's the answer.'
How many more truly mundane leaks do we need before the tin foil hat wearing crowd says "fuck it" and goes back to UFO sightings?
I do not believe the recent leaks to be mundane, but clear examples of the government's willingness to engage in behaviors that violate fundamental liberties.
we don't trust the exit exam of your school or we think it tests for the wrong things.
They most likely shouldn't trust any exit exams, and it probably does test for the wrong things. What does it fail to test for? Understand of the material. I find it comical that all these universities and schools believe they can truly test your expertise without ever asking questions that cannot be solved by mere rote memorization.
Most of these tests are just garbage anyway. All one needs to do to pass them is memorize the material; you don't need to understand any of it. I find it sad that many people fail at even memorization.
The reason I brought bankers up is because he claimed that people can't circumvent the law by following paths that the law didn't think of, but that does not seem to apply to bankers.
Bringing them up does nothing.
Going by that same logic, posting your comment did nothing. What of it?
I don't regard it as a "hypocritical imaginary right," and I have no idea how it would be hypocritical anyway.
It is by no means imaginary, and in a world where privacy can be violated more than ever thanks to new technologies, more people seem to be realizing that privacy is a necessity.
The government doesn't give two shits about me, or you for that matter.
How do you know this? You're not the one who decides. Furthermore, what of all the people who aren't you or me who attract the government's attention? It doesn't matter if they're abused just because it's not you?
The difference is, I seem to have a vastly superior grasp of history.
If that is so, then why is it that you seemingly haven't realized that every government throughout the course of history has abused its power, and especially so when they had too much of it. Supporting this sort of thing seems extremely foolhardy, and in my opinion, demonstrates ignorance of history.
Justices and judges do NOT get to rule based on their own personal preferences.
But that happens all the time. Judges used ridiculous logic to justify the TSA, for example. I mean, how else would some blatantly unconstitutional practices be considered constitutional? Some of them are even overturned later, indicating that personal preferences are involved.
The problem is that democratically elected lawmakers created those laws that are now being enforced.
The constitution is the highest law of the land, so what lawmakers pass is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why teach it to anyone, including STEM students?
All that seems to matter these days is whether or not you can apply something so that it produces a useful result, not whether you have a deep understanding of what you're doing. In short, it's probably because schools want their products to be able to get jobs, but they don't really care how educated said products actually are.
Every choice, decision, thought must now be supported by a study, a survey, a program.
I wish that were true. If it were, we could get rid of the TSA, copyrights, patents, and numerous other garbage (seeing as how there's no evidence they're effective).
You are blaming the victim by labeling them an idiot.
Yes, I am, and I do believe they're imbeciles. What of it? Saying that I am "blaming the victim" does not automatically win arguments, and in this case, there isn't even a real perpetrator.
There are millions of opportunities to die at any moment
Yes. Accept it.
and one's ignorance of an opportunity doesn't mean that they deserved to die.
I didn't say that they deserved to die, just that people who get themselves killed like that are probably morons.
As for my feelings on their deaths, I don't really care. I do, however, begin to care when imbeciles attempt to ban entire products and tools simply because some people misused them and injured themselves and/or died.
Shame on you and please stop considering yourself a good decent human being.
I would prefer not to consider myself a "good decent human being" if it means joining the ranks of imbeciles.
Most of the math you mention can be taught at an advanced high school level, or maybe a college freshman or sophomore level.
But it's not, and likely won't be. At the very least, I doubt anyone will understand it when they're put through such garbage.
Remember that Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.
Yet I have trouble regarding them as anything else. How many children are idiotic enough to swallow them and die, and why does the existence of such people mean that products must be banned?
its not 50% that is too stupid for "complicated" jobs its just 17%
What? I believe it's far larger than that, since I think a grand majority of people are illogical imbeciles.
If we had shows of people regularly fighting to the death with various awesome weapons, nobody would watch bot wars.
Nobody? Nobody at all? What about people with preferences different from what you would expect?
If nobody is around to teach morals, then I believe that games can have a desensitizing effect on more natural morals.
I highly doubt that that happens in more than a minuscule number of cases, if at all.
Why is that not as important? This is a non-problem; only a minuscule amount of people, if anyone, die due to some rabid, crazy video game player.
Some have said the solution is to just ban peanuts and products containing peanuts in certain places altogether. I know some schools have tried this.
and someone will steal you code whatever you do
I doubt anyone will steal anyone's code.
That's all very nice, but I noticed a distinct lack of evidence or anything beyond baseless speculation. I didn't expect anything else, really.
The smart ones tend to have arrived at their belief after intellectual reasoning
What reasoning would that be, I wonder? I hope it isn't, 'Rather than simply admitting that I don't know the answer to something, I'm going to make something up and say it's the answer.'
Probably because he doesn't actually understand anything.
How many more truly mundane leaks do we need before the tin foil hat wearing crowd says "fuck it" and goes back to UFO sightings?
I do not believe the recent leaks to be mundane, but clear examples of the government's willingness to engage in behaviors that violate fundamental liberties.
You of course have intimate knowledge of these deadly secrets which allows you to draw such conclusions ...
How about things like the recent leaks?
Given power, people will abuse it. I believe the default position should be to assume that the government is abusing its power.
That's because you are foolish enough to ingest a substance that is dangerous to you and that we have to intervene for your own good.
Just like the US government has to molest people at airports for their own good.
The other is to make it possible to (roughly!) sort students based on skills for higher education.
I suppose that having a good memory is a skill, but it's sort of sad how that's the only thing schools seem to test for in most cases.
according to a objective, measurable standard
They don't seem to be doing a very good job of measuring understanding.
we don't trust the exit exam of your school or we think it tests for the wrong things.
They most likely shouldn't trust any exit exams, and it probably does test for the wrong things. What does it fail to test for? Understand of the material. I find it comical that all these universities and schools believe they can truly test your expertise without ever asking questions that cannot be solved by mere rote memorization.
Most of these tests are just garbage anyway. All one needs to do to pass them is memorize the material; you don't need to understand any of it. I find it sad that many people fail at even memorization.
You are not a banker.
I never said I was.
Lavabit is not a bank.
I never said it was.
Banks are not involved in this discussion.
Since I brought them up, they are now.
The reason I brought bankers up is because he claimed that people can't circumvent the law by following paths that the law didn't think of, but that does not seem to apply to bankers.
Bringing them up does nothing.
Going by that same logic, posting your comment did nothing. What of it?
I don't regard it as a "hypocritical imaginary right," and I have no idea how it would be hypocritical anyway.
It is by no means imaginary, and in a world where privacy can be violated more than ever thanks to new technologies, more people seem to be realizing that privacy is a necessity.
The government doesn't give two shits about me, or you for that matter.
How do you know this? You're not the one who decides. Furthermore, what of all the people who aren't you or me who attract the government's attention? It doesn't matter if they're abused just because it's not you?
The difference is, I seem to have a vastly superior grasp of history.
If that is so, then why is it that you seemingly haven't realized that every government throughout the course of history has abused its power, and especially so when they had too much of it. Supporting this sort of thing seems extremely foolhardy, and in my opinion, demonstrates ignorance of history.
What? I'm pretty sure both of the 'main' parties are like that.
Justices and judges do NOT get to rule based on their own personal preferences.
But that happens all the time. Judges used ridiculous logic to justify the TSA, for example. I mean, how else would some blatantly unconstitutional practices be considered constitutional? Some of them are even overturned later, indicating that personal preferences are involved.
The problem is that democratically elected lawmakers created those laws that are now being enforced.
The constitution is the highest law of the land, so what lawmakers pass is irrelevant.