IMO the main point of going to a big-name school is it buys you a good rep, rightfully or not. You get one good glance at your CV if it has a name on it. Also, people simply think that I'm smarter than I really am, because they see where I studied. Working hard at proving them wrong.
This is a wording that I can support. It's not saying that someone should get you a router and a subscription, just that if you have this, you should have unfiltered access.
Now, complex life... no idea. There's no way to know how rare that actually is.
Well, going with the same logic, didn't the cambrian explosion happen about 500Mya? And couldn't you combine that with a model of how long a planet stays habitable for? Still only one somewhat tenuous data point though. Wonder what other approaches one could take.
Some of the best dribblers in football are not very tall. Messi, Maradona, etc. It helps to have a low COG.
You don't see so many of these little magicians though. One reason is that other people can learn to be good at dribbling too (look up TIPS Ajax Amsterdam), and if you're not amazing at it, stronger players will muscle you off the ball.
You're right, of course I'm writing from a certain point of view, not one based in the early years of the computer age. But times have moved on. These days a lot of programmers are merely facilitating some other business, rather than working as a programming specialist in a programming firm. You know, guys doing various websites, apps, that kind of thing. They're "using computers for other reasons than computers being cool". They're also not as involved, or care less, about the hardcore aspects of what they're doing (try looking at an excel sheet written for an option trading outfit if you want to see messy code). Quite a lot useful things can be knocked together with standard parts these days. They may not be optimal, but many are functional.
I actually have a Ted guy in my building. He works by himself, all day, on what I consider to be pretty hardcore engineering. I think he also writes the drivers for the PCB he's building. Interesting fellow, and somehow he does give off the air of "uber-nerd". But I'm thinking these days, you've got a lot of people who've taken tech in many different directions, and those guys aren't so similar to my buddy.
First off - If someone's only interest is programming, why the hell would they care about social skills?
IMO programming is inherently a social activity. Aren't most programmers writing things that other people are meant to interact with? When you code, don't you ask the users what they think of your creation, how to improve it, etc? Don't you also try to influence how they use the program? That's a social thing, surely?
I was agreeing with you. Would be great if people weren't rude, and yes rudeness detracts from the arguments. Just wondering to you (and often myself) whether debating with people online ever changes anything.
1. Politeness on the net would be great. There's no mod for "rude" and people don't use "troll" that much. 2. I don't think anyone ever changes their mind about any discussion on the net. At most, you get an opinion where you were indifferent. So yeah, what does "winning the argument" mean?
Politeness would be good, you're absolutely right. Don't know what it is about the internet that makes people so rude. I've rarely met people IRL who were as rude as some of the politics posts here.
In regard to an issue as important as this (why a certain sector is not reflecting society), it would be a lot easier to accept someone's opinion if they could refer to some kind of research or statistics instead of just offering blunt statements and/or rants.
Why isn't the NBA reflecting society?
Have you got evidence that the NBA in fact doesn't reflect society? Yes, we can all think of why there might be more black 7 foot tall guys in the NBA that in society, but there's no excuse for not having the evidence to hand. The assumption that evidence will turn out as expected, especially for things that seem obvious, will make people not bother to check reality against what they're saying. This goes for all sorts of issues, such as the cause of ulcers, whether lower taxes increase government revenue, whether people act rationally, and so on.
"This is barely defensible, because the next step is to not understand things and have critical thinking done in the same way as looking up a constant in a book."
I'd say that this next step isn't defensible. That fact says nothing about the current step. There was a flaw at your consulting of "non sequitur" on Wikipedia.
About your "why Napoleon invaded Russia", I'm really lost on that one. We can do much better critical thinking when we have easy access to tons of data, so it should be better to learn to work this way. By the other side, we must have a set of stored on our heads, or we'll be unable to link one stuff with another (at least with current technology), so it is important to learn some things the old way. Maybe we should expect children to do both: reduce a bit the amount of data they are expected to learn but conserve a huge part, and teach them how to reach new data and criticize it.
Another way to say the same thing. I think my issue is more that them younguns aren't learning the "old way" rather than that there's something inherently wrong with using IT to learn stuff.
I don't think it's a non sequitur. The next step after farming out reference information could quite logically be farming out critical thinking about said information? I'm not referring to some well-known mechanism, but surely that's the next thought for a lot of people?
One the one hand, having all this IT gives you the ability to find out things that would have taken hours in the past. Just now we've had a discussion in the office about the differences between electrical and IC engines. We couldn't have done that without Google/Wikipedia.
On the other hand, having machines doing things for you can cause complacency. I used to know all the trig relations by heart (sin(A+B) = sinAcosB + cosAsinB? or was it a minus?) but know I rely on having it to hand. This is barely defensible, because the next step is to not understand things and have critical thinking done in the same way as looking up a constant in a book.
Why did Napoleon invade Russia? I'll look it up on Wikipedia. But that's not a way to be educated. I'm starting to come to the view that kids should not in fact learn using the new techniques ("everything can be found in Wikipedia/Google") and spend significant time thinking through things themselves, lest their critical skills atrophy. (Having said that, I've even looked up logical fallacies on Wikipedia, in an attempt to make my critical thinking better!) With tech being so easy to use, I'm sure they can find out how to use it once they know how.
People in Britain are not uniformly distributed. Bombing a few important cities would destroy the country "as we know it". I presume the GP doesn't mean "flatten everything to a pancake."
I think a good classics scholar could find something said by a Roman about everything having been discovered. Not me though, I can't remember the quote.
Not trying to make a political point, but the market is an entirely different judge of value from academia. Mostly a useful one, as the case of Google highlights.
But an even bigger problem is the misunderstanding of the role of the teacher. We've got this absurdly naive idea that a teacher learns something and then somehow puts that knowledge into the heads of the students. This is so wrong headed that I barely know where to begin. Education depends on the students discovering information and using it fluently. A teacher's role is not to furnish the information, but to help the student learn how to explore. A teacher provides the context in which the student is able to be fluent.
Someone needs to put this on a plaque in every school.
I get the feeling science is also more institutional than it was 100 years ago. You need to look for grants, and to get funding you probably need credibility. Who's gonna blow a bunch of money on an experiment proposed by a 20 year old genius?
I would however comment that both Warren and Bill are beyond the point where they're sensitive to financial incentives.
I think you underestimate them. At least, in the case of Bill Gates, he would still like to build more pyramids to himself. His pyramids happen to have actual social value, but he still builds them because he finds them "neat."
That's not a financial incentive. I guess a rich guy can still be keen on building up his pyramid, but it ain't money driving it.
I'd characterize Buffets position in the market as a sort of specialized rent-seeking. He could only reach his privileged position through years of dealmaking, taking to businesses, working on financing, that kind of thing. It's not a position you or I could just have, but he's not privileged under law. The market in the wider sense (people who work in the investment industry, his reputation, etc...) makes his position special.
I always wondered who would even read a spam message, let alone respond to it. Has anyone here ever met someone who bought something off a spam email? Someone must be doing it, I just can't imagine who.
Slashdot Mirror
IMO the main point of going to a big-name school is it buys you a good rep, rightfully or not. You get one good glance at your CV if it has a name on it. Also, people simply think that I'm smarter than I really am, because they see where I studied. Working hard at proving them wrong.
This is a wording that I can support. It's not saying that someone should get you a router and a subscription, just that if you have this, you should have unfiltered access.
Now, complex life... no idea. There's no way to know how rare that actually is.
Well, going with the same logic, didn't the cambrian explosion happen about 500Mya? And couldn't you combine that with a model of how long a planet stays habitable for? Still only one somewhat tenuous data point though. Wonder what other approaches one could take.
Some of the best dribblers in football are not very tall. Messi, Maradona, etc. It helps to have a low COG.
You don't see so many of these little magicians though. One reason is that other people can learn to be good at dribbling too (look up TIPS Ajax Amsterdam), and if you're not amazing at it, stronger players will muscle you off the ball.
TFA says they're gonna take the results to Albany. Is the state under any obligation to look at this?
Also, on a somewhat related note, is there any desire amongst Americans to have proportional representation? There's pros and cons of course.
You're right, of course I'm writing from a certain point of view, not one based in the early years of the computer age. But times have moved on. These days a lot of programmers are merely facilitating some other business, rather than working as a programming specialist in a programming firm. You know, guys doing various websites, apps, that kind of thing. They're "using computers for other reasons than computers being cool". They're also not as involved, or care less, about the hardcore aspects of what they're doing (try looking at an excel sheet written for an option trading outfit if you want to see messy code). Quite a lot useful things can be knocked together with standard parts these days. They may not be optimal, but many are functional.
I actually have a Ted guy in my building. He works by himself, all day, on what I consider to be pretty hardcore engineering. I think he also writes the drivers for the PCB he's building. Interesting fellow, and somehow he does give off the air of "uber-nerd". But I'm thinking these days, you've got a lot of people who've taken tech in many different directions, and those guys aren't so similar to my buddy.
First off - If someone's only interest is programming, why the hell would they care about social skills?
IMO programming is inherently a social activity. Aren't most programmers writing things that other people are meant to interact with? When you code, don't you ask the users what they think of your creation, how to improve it, etc? Don't you also try to influence how they use the program? That's a social thing, surely?
I was agreeing with you. Would be great if people weren't rude, and yes rudeness detracts from the arguments. Just wondering to you (and often myself) whether debating with people online ever changes anything.
1. Politeness on the net would be great. There's no mod for "rude" and people don't use "troll" that much.
2. I don't think anyone ever changes their mind about any discussion on the net. At most, you get an opinion where you were indifferent. So yeah, what does "winning the argument" mean?
Politeness would be good, you're absolutely right. Don't know what it is about the internet that makes people so rude. I've rarely met people IRL who were as rude as some of the politics posts here.
Thanks for putting in the work. The point of course is that there are many claims which need to be substantiated, rather than taken for granted.
Getting my faith back in humanity after that first reply... (ie not your one)
Mate, please show this to your mother. Bring towels.
In regard to an issue as important as this (why a certain sector is not reflecting society), it would be a lot easier to accept someone's opinion if they could refer to some kind of research or statistics instead of just offering blunt statements and/or rants.
Why isn't the NBA reflecting society?
Have you got evidence that the NBA in fact doesn't reflect society? Yes, we can all think of why there might be more black 7 foot tall guys in the NBA that in society, but there's no excuse for not having the evidence to hand. The assumption that evidence will turn out as expected, especially for things that seem obvious, will make people not bother to check reality against what they're saying. This goes for all sorts of issues, such as the cause of ulcers, whether lower taxes increase government revenue, whether people act rationally, and so on.
I'd say that this next step isn't defensible. That fact says nothing about the current step. There was a flaw at your consulting of "non sequitur" on Wikipedia.
About your "why Napoleon invaded Russia", I'm really lost on that one. We can do much better critical thinking when we have easy access to tons of data, so it should be better to learn to work this way. By the other side, we must have a set of stored on our heads, or we'll be unable to link one stuff with another (at least with current technology), so it is important to learn some things the old way. Maybe we should expect children to do both: reduce a bit the amount of data they are expected to learn but conserve a huge part, and teach them how to reach new data and criticize it.
Another way to say the same thing. I think my issue is more that them younguns aren't learning the "old way" rather than that there's something inherently wrong with using IT to learn stuff.
I don't think it's a non sequitur. The next step after farming out reference information could quite logically be farming out critical thinking about said information? I'm not referring to some well-known mechanism, but surely that's the next thought for a lot of people?
One the one hand, having all this IT gives you the ability to find out things that would have taken hours in the past. Just now we've had a discussion in the office about the differences between electrical and IC engines. We couldn't have done that without Google/Wikipedia.
On the other hand, having machines doing things for you can cause complacency. I used to know all the trig relations by heart (sin(A+B) = sinAcosB + cosAsinB? or was it a minus?) but know I rely on having it to hand. This is barely defensible, because the next step is to not understand things and have critical thinking done in the same way as looking up a constant in a book.
Why did Napoleon invade Russia? I'll look it up on Wikipedia. But that's not a way to be educated. I'm starting to come to the view that kids should not in fact learn using the new techniques ("everything can be found in Wikipedia/Google") and spend significant time thinking through things themselves, lest their critical skills atrophy. (Having said that, I've even looked up logical fallacies on Wikipedia, in an attempt to make my critical thinking better!) With tech being so easy to use, I'm sure they can find out how to use it once they know how.
People in Britain are not uniformly distributed. Bombing a few important cities would destroy the country "as we know it". I presume the GP doesn't mean "flatten everything to a pancake."
I think a good classics scholar could find something said by a Roman about everything having been discovered. Not me though, I can't remember the quote.
Not trying to make a political point, but the market is an entirely different judge of value from academia. Mostly a useful one, as the case of Google highlights.
But an even bigger problem is the misunderstanding of the role of the teacher. We've got this absurdly naive idea that a teacher learns something and then somehow puts that knowledge into the heads of the students. This is so wrong headed that I barely know where to begin. Education depends on the students discovering information and using it fluently. A teacher's role is not to furnish the information, but to help the student learn how to explore. A teacher provides the context in which the student is able to be fluent.
Someone needs to put this on a plaque in every school.
I get the feeling science is also more institutional than it was 100 years ago. You need to look for grants, and to get funding you probably need credibility. Who's gonna blow a bunch of money on an experiment proposed by a 20 year old genius?
I would however comment that both Warren and Bill are beyond the point where they're sensitive to financial incentives.
I think you underestimate them. At least, in the case of Bill Gates, he would still like to build more pyramids to himself. His pyramids happen to have actual social value, but he still builds them because he finds them "neat."
That's not a financial incentive. I guess a rich guy can still be keen on building up his pyramid, but it ain't money driving it.
I'd characterize Buffets position in the market as a sort of specialized rent-seeking. He could only reach his privileged position through years of dealmaking, taking to businesses, working on financing, that kind of thing. It's not a position you or I could just have, but he's not privileged under law. The market in the wider sense (people who work in the investment industry, his reputation, etc...) makes his position special.
Dude, there's a load of papers on that site.
I always wondered who would even read a spam message, let alone respond to it. Has anyone here ever met someone who bought something off a spam email? Someone must be doing it, I just can't imagine who.
Look at the one called "Computer-Based Trading, Liquidity and Trading Costs".
I'm afraid I don't have too much time to go into details (it's a lot of paperwork), but the evidence is generally that HFT is positive.
Dividends tend be counted as capital gains the the countries I know about, so they are taxed.
And you are also getting that long-term tax break yourself already.