"oops, sorry, we didn't mean to legislate teaching you what wasn't known for certain yet."
By the problem of induction, nothing in science in certain. Should we teach nothing? We should teach proper, accepted science (facts that have scientific consesus)--evolution is such a fact.
In any case, they aren't forcing science down people's throats, it is for public education.
This is still a leap over the previous possibility, on the "expensive 'dark fibers'"...I think that was tfa's point. And the emphasis might have been the rate, not the specific setup. I don't think they are claiming the prototype is market ready...
I know this is kinda dumb to ask, but there's this awesome article over here and it has less than 20 comments...can we make this a real "News for Nerds" site again and discuss it? I know, I'll make it political a tad...
Ahem... Toshiba Cambridge Research Laboratory has developed this protoype...WHY WASN'T IT DONE IN AMERICA!? There, we can make it a discussion about the role of government in funding research!
One less article about DemocRATS and RepubliCUNTS with a slight tinge of technology (email!) would be refreshing.
You cannot measure a quantum system without noticeably disrupting it. That means that two people can encode an encryption key — for bank transfers, for instance — into a series of photons and share it, safe in the knowledge that any eavesdropper will trip the system’s alarms.
While I think you're right to a degree, I think you need to at least point out that there is a flip side to this too. Although your theory works in theory (interesting phrasing there) at times if the state becomes to powerful, individuals in power can act against the people's good, the very thing they are to be protecting. We have examples of this in the communist and dictator states.
The state of nature isn't that great, and government (and thus taxes) protect us from it. Nonetheless, if the government becomes too powerful and the individual loses power, than people can be become as threatened as they were if there was no government. There lies a balance here between the power and government and the power of the individual, and this is not a result of a philosophy but of practicality so let me explain. Extreme socialism can mostly be done through government power; although socialism in theory is good, the stepping stone to that good, ie., government power, can be misused by those in power who are, again, acting on those individual interest. The opposite is the state of nature, where people simply have power without close connections: you have examples like the prisoner's dilemma where independent entities act in a way that as a whole is not optimal, even though anarchism, ideally like that of socialism, would be the most "free."
See, the issue is both ideas are founded on assumptions that tend to neglect certain things about human nature which happen to be the same thing: selfishness, although in different manifestations. And as a matter of practicality, the actual execution of the governmental system, both can fail because of these missed assumptions.
I think the best solution as we saw in the 90's is the third way, the best of both worlds. The middle here is not only appealing but it brought real prosperity during that time so it has evidence of being good as well. It is where we as a nation (as well as other first world countries, japan, korea, etc) lie and it works for us for the most part...well, we lie closer to that than where the socialists or the anarchists are. We might ned touch-ups, but we have by natural selection it seems chosen the better middle.
“What we’re labeling as ‘distraction,’ some see as a failure of adults to see how these kids process information,” Ms. Purcell said. “They’re not saying distraction is good but that the label of ‘distraction’ is a judgment of this generation.”
also
The surveys include some findings that appear contradictory. In the Common Sense report, for instance, some teachers said that even as they saw attention spans wane, students were improving in subjects like math, science and reading.
I don't usually bag on teachers, but may be this is a sign that your methods are becoming--shock--outdated?
This is pretty good. We have a humongous energy radiating source that sends us rays everyday but we've yet to use it properly. Hopefully, more strides in this area can be made...
-.- On my thread a little down I said it would be good if the author clarified. I assumed they weren't okay with simple donations, hence the whole amazon thing... Then again, I could be wrong.
It would be better if the asker could actually respond here to clarify things. In that case, s/he's probably should follow through with his/er words because again that would ruin the author's rep.
As another commenter said, the author needs to make up their mind. You can't really do both. Donations help, but you aren't in for a killing, tbh.
Putting items on amazon with a price as a way to "donate" doesn't sound like donating and doesn't give customers that impression. Can you buy "donations" on amazon? (I really don't know, I'm not being sarcastic)
Why don't you just sell it? $10 isn't too bad imo (depending on what it actually is) and is almost a steal... And you can still ask for donations after that...
But if you want it to be free, make it free with donations but that's the price you pay for really making it free. Trying to trick people into giving you donations (whether you believe you are doing that or not) is sure to give you a bad rep as an author. Simply making it not free will look less sketchy but will guarantee income for you.
Slashdot Mirror
"oops, sorry, we didn't mean to legislate teaching you what wasn't known for certain yet."
By the problem of induction, nothing in science in certain. Should we teach nothing? We should teach proper, accepted science (facts that have scientific consesus)--evolution is such a fact.
In any case, they aren't forcing science down people's throats, it is for public education.
It doesn't help that their logo is colorful.
Fail bro...fail...
What a damn, insightful comment! Slashdot, there is hope for you yet.
This is still a leap over the previous possibility, on the "expensive 'dark fibers'"...I think that was tfa's point. And the emphasis might have been the rate, not the specific setup. I don't think they are claiming the prototype is market ready...
I know this is kinda dumb to ask, but there's this awesome article over here and it has less than 20 comments...can we make this a real "News for Nerds" site again and discuss it? I know, I'll make it political a tad...
Ahem... Toshiba Cambridge Research Laboratory has developed this protoype...WHY WASN'T IT DONE IN AMERICA!? There, we can make it a discussion about the role of government in funding research!
One less article about DemocRATS and RepubliCUNTS with a slight tinge of technology (email!) would be refreshing.
He didn't.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/268929-leahy-denies-supporting-bill-to-allow-warrantless-email-searches
I use w3m without a framebuffer.
Oh wait, this is a OS X hipster superiority argument, not a linux leetness one, my bad.
From The Fucking Article:
You cannot measure a quantum system without noticeably disrupting it. That means that two people can encode an encryption key — for bank transfers, for instance — into a series of photons and share it, safe in the knowledge that any eavesdropper will trip the system’s alarms.
Why is this shit on my slashdot?
Also notice, 13 comments while the other political junk averages >100.
Someone please mod this up I'm laughing so hard.
It's alright, all the OS X crowd use chrome anyway since it's sleeker and more hip and not as popular.
Paradoxically, because of that, everyone uses it because it's sleeker and more hip and thus is popular.
UGH this is supposed to be a reply mozumder.
While I think you're right to a degree, I think you need to at least point out that there is a flip side to this too. Although your theory works in theory (interesting phrasing there) at times if the state becomes to powerful, individuals in power can act against the people's good, the very thing they are to be protecting. We have examples of this in the communist and dictator states.
The state of nature isn't that great, and government (and thus taxes) protect us from it. Nonetheless, if the government becomes too powerful and the individual loses power, than people can be become as threatened as they were if there was no government. There lies a balance here between the power and government and the power of the individual, and this is not a result of a philosophy but of practicality so let me explain. Extreme socialism can mostly be done through government power; although socialism in theory is good, the stepping stone to that good, ie., government power, can be misused by those in power who are, again, acting on those individual interest. The opposite is the state of nature, where people simply have power without close connections: you have examples like the prisoner's dilemma where independent entities act in a way that as a whole is not optimal, even though anarchism, ideally like that of socialism, would be the most "free."
See, the issue is both ideas are founded on assumptions that tend to neglect certain things about human nature which happen to be the same thing: selfishness, although in different manifestations. And as a matter of practicality, the actual execution of the governmental system, both can fail because of these missed assumptions.
I think the best solution as we saw in the 90's is the third way, the best of both worlds. The middle here is not only appealing but it brought real prosperity during that time so it has evidence of being good as well. It is where we as a nation (as well as other first world countries, japan, korea, etc) lie and it works for us for the most part...well, we lie closer to that than where the socialists or the anarchists are. We might ned touch-ups, but we have by natural selection it seems chosen the better middle.
Your comparing your dope smoking, rebellious music to my taste in jazz that actually has class? Sheesh.
May be it's a hint that you're not enganging them...it's kind of like doodling only now you have a smartphone.
And in the same way, doodling while someone's talking is considered rude too, I guess.
OMFG if you weren't replying to me I'd mod you to high heavens. I even have mod points now...disappointing :(
How can these kids stand that rock n' roll music? Kids these days.
I was just going to say that. From TFA:
“What we’re labeling as ‘distraction,’ some see as a failure of adults to see how these kids process information,” Ms. Purcell said. “They’re not saying distraction is good but that the label of ‘distraction’ is a judgment of this generation.”
also
The surveys include some findings that appear contradictory. In the Common Sense report, for instance, some teachers said that even as they saw attention spans wane, students were improving in subjects like math, science and reading.
I don't usually bag on teachers, but may be this is a sign that your methods are becoming--shock--outdated?
This is pretty good. We have a humongous energy radiating source that sends us rays everyday but we've yet to use it properly. Hopefully, more strides in this area can be made...
Just now openSUSE has arm support? Gentoo has had support for arm since forever, but I guess few people use it so it doesn't matter...
-.- On my thread a little down I said it would be good if the author clarified. I assumed they weren't okay with simple donations, hence the whole amazon thing... Then again, I could be wrong.
I don't think he meant that. Asking for donations is fine, it's just the author shouldn't have been expecting to make a lot of money with it.
It would be better if the asker could actually respond here to clarify things. In that case, s/he's probably should follow through with his/er words because again that would ruin the author's rep.
As another commenter said, the author needs to make up their mind. You can't really do both. Donations help, but you aren't in for a killing, tbh.
Putting items on amazon with a price as a way to "donate" doesn't sound like donating and doesn't give customers that impression. Can you buy "donations" on amazon? (I really don't know, I'm not being sarcastic)
Why don't you just sell it? $10 isn't too bad imo (depending on what it actually is) and is almost a steal... And you can still ask for donations after that...
But if you want it to be free, make it free with donations but that's the price you pay for really making it free. Trying to trick people into giving you donations (whether you believe you are doing that or not) is sure to give you a bad rep as an author. Simply making it not free will look less sketchy but will guarantee income for you.