Well... It's taken me this long to realize that I've made a proper idiot out of myself -- TWICE! -- and that I've been thoroughly pwned. This teaches me not to read the comments from the response window, and also to read the other comments in the thread! Thanks, bxwatso.
You gave no indication in your original comment that you even read the article, much less care about good science. If that's not the impression you wanted to give -- let's be certain, I'm not the only one that got this impression -- then be clearer next time.
What a stupid thing to say! When one says "consider the author," what he should mean is, "His ideology may have stood in the way of good science (e.g., scientists trying to accommodate their own religion)." This is a valid suggestion, and worthy of investigation. In this case, it seems it is your own ideology which prevents you from contributing anything of value.
Yes. The "religiosity gene" -- this is a dishonest way of saying "indoctrination of children into their parents' religion," by the way -- will dominate a poverty-ridden and overpopulated society because this irresponsible practice takes no account for the fact that resources are limited. Given three or four generations of exponential growth, what's any person with half a brain to expect? It's outright despicable, in my opinion.
It's entirely possible that the English teacher raised a fuss to the administrators, who caved in like the spineless cowards they are. This is another example of the careerism I talked about, but in a different context. As for the ex lab tech, if she had an accurate understanding of biology to the level being taught, why shouldn't she teach it? Were there better candidates?
An English major with an accurate understanding of the sciences should certainly be allowed to teach to the level of his comprehension, though a science graduate should obviously be preferred. The real reason teachers fail their students is because most of them, 90% or more in my own district, would sooner cheat them out of a proper education than risk their careers to even a minimum extent. They concern themselves only with how they look to their overpaid administrators so that they, themselves, will one day be overpaid administrators. And so on, and on, and on...
Nobody gives a crap about how to navigate the terminal or GUI. These concepts are too abstract to be useful, and too boring to care. People learn by making connections to things that are important to them. You're talking about a group of CS students, so what will a CS student most likely want to do? Off the top of my head: online research and collaboration, writing technical papers, authoring and compiling code... What do these tasks involve? You're the teacher.:)
Hey fishbowl. Are you truly suggesting that a company has no obligation to treat its workers fairly, merely because the chips are in the bosses' favor? That if you're not in a position to be treated fairly, then you don't deserve to be? What a disgraceful thing to say!
Hey shutdown. All of that may very well be true, and I'm not saying anything to the contrary. My point is that the decision was both irrational and unfair. It's fine to be competent and knowledgeable, but it's better to be experienced and loyal to the company. I think it only fair for a company to give a certain amount of priority to the people who have already contributed so much to its success.
"George," the senior developer, did not stubbornly refuse to be trained in the new technology, but was never given the opportunity. He is right to be outraged.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... It's taken me this long to realize that I've made a proper idiot out of myself -- TWICE! -- and that I've been thoroughly pwned. This teaches me not to read the comments from the response window, and also to read the other comments in the thread! Thanks, bxwatso.
You gave no indication in your original comment that you even read the article, much less care about good science. If that's not the impression you wanted to give -- let's be certain, I'm not the only one that got this impression -- then be clearer next time.
What a stupid thing to say! When one says "consider the author," what he should mean is, "His ideology may have stood in the way of good science (e.g., scientists trying to accommodate their own religion)." This is a valid suggestion, and worthy of investigation. In this case, it seems it is your own ideology which prevents you from contributing anything of value.
Yes. The "religiosity gene" -- this is a dishonest way of saying "indoctrination of children into their parents' religion," by the way -- will dominate a poverty-ridden and overpopulated society because this irresponsible practice takes no account for the fact that resources are limited. Given three or four generations of exponential growth, what's any person with half a brain to expect? It's outright despicable, in my opinion.
I care a lot, because "what some other people believe" is not fucking science.
It's entirely possible that the English teacher raised a fuss to the administrators, who caved in like the spineless cowards they are. This is another example of the careerism I talked about, but in a different context. As for the ex lab tech, if she had an accurate understanding of biology to the level being taught, why shouldn't she teach it? Were there better candidates?
An English major with an accurate understanding of the sciences should certainly be allowed to teach to the level of his comprehension, though a science graduate should obviously be preferred. The real reason teachers fail their students is because most of them, 90% or more in my own district, would sooner cheat them out of a proper education than risk their careers to even a minimum extent. They concern themselves only with how they look to their overpaid administrators so that they, themselves, will one day be overpaid administrators. And so on, and on, and on...
Nobody gives a crap about how to navigate the terminal or GUI. These concepts are too abstract to be useful, and too boring to care. People learn by making connections to things that are important to them. You're talking about a group of CS students, so what will a CS student most likely want to do? Off the top of my head: online research and collaboration, writing technical papers, authoring and compiling code... What do these tasks involve? You're the teacher. :)
Hey fishbowl. Are you truly suggesting that a company has no obligation to treat its workers fairly, merely because the chips are in the bosses' favor? That if you're not in a position to be treated fairly, then you don't deserve to be? What a disgraceful thing to say!
Hey shutdown. All of that may very well be true, and I'm not saying anything to the contrary. My point is that the decision was both irrational and unfair. It's fine to be competent and knowledgeable, but it's better to be experienced and loyal to the company. I think it only fair for a company to give a certain amount of priority to the people who have already contributed so much to its success.
"George," the senior developer, did not stubbornly refuse to be trained in the new technology, but was never given the opportunity. He is right to be outraged.