That's just too rich. The irony of putting the words "real science" in the above post is beautiful.
In my view "real science" is based on hypothesis generation, observation, and hypothesis testing.
What evidence supports the "open northern passage between AD 1000 and AD 1200"? I'd like to see it.
There was never any doubt about you being alive in 1200 AD in my mind. Even more to the point, I think there is not much anyone knows "for certain" about events in 1200 AD.
Why do you assert confidence in the two statements you offer?
Why would I want to assume what you said? It would appear you have asserted a few personal opinions and unfounded assertions.
And now for the "conclusion":
You assert that if a northern passage was open in 1200 AD, then "global warming" (as defined in the current general debate: meaning humans have caused environmental changes leading directly to higher average temperatures), simply doesn't exist. It seems you are asserting that there is some "normal" state of the planet, and if we can match observations now to historical ones, then this match represents the normal state. I think what you mean is that if we can find a historical data point (ice thickness in 1200AD) that looks in some way like the current data point (ice thickness in 2006AD), then the evidence to support why the current data point happened can be discounted or ignored (because of the match) in our investigations.
I cannot imagine that is what you mean. To me, this just doesn't make sense.
Please do explain how you reach the conclusion. The./ commujnity still has you ranked at (+4, Insightful) now, so I must be missing something. Evidence, pointers to other people's discussion, graphics, videos, time series, anything really would be great.
hmmm, there is an intersting thought: what if we unleashes a cascade/chain reaction that dumps a huge amount of methane into the atmosphere? Most would float away eventually, but short term it would make a shitload of CO2 (and water) in the troposphere and potentially slant the atmosphere to a higher CO2 level. More CO2, higher temps, more methane release.
When we have real-time feeds, we'll be able to map geo-relevant information info onto Google Earth:
Like weather, traffic jams, tornado locations, animal migrations, polar ice levels, progress building a dam, maybe even someday jetting between the different football stadiums on Sunday morning to watch the different football games live in 3D VR.
Gotta say, the speed at which we're developing software makes the Debian "notoriously slow release cycle" a non-starter for doing interesting stuff with the latest tools.
With cash to spare, I'd put significant money into support for keeping all the apps in stable updated on weekly and monthly horizons, not bi-annual.
I guess when you control all the world's information you can simply state two completely contradictory things and the whole world just laps it up like children. For-profit subsidiary. PR stunt. Move Along, nothing to see here.
It is more than an oxymoron - it is a complete contradiction. Heads exploding? People should be standing up and clearly stating that this is hype and PR to make google look good as they collect all the really valuble information that we don't really want to give them, but we do because tghey have such nice free online toys.
Google already has significant backlash, this is thinly veiled move to stem the inevitable tide of public opinion against them as they continue to grow and control the world's information.
Those restrictions are there for a reason. I agree they are sometimes onerous. However, they make it so that the organization actually must do charitable things, and they make impossible to do the "screw everyone and take the money" things.
This is NOT a charity and it is NOT philanthropic. This is a for-profit entity, no matter what they say or how they try and spin it. I have founded and run non-profit entities, and guess what - it is hard, even when you have money. Oversight, restrictions, tax headaches, reporting, etc. You have to actually do things that really help the public and not the owners. When you are a for profit you can do whatever you want. Anyone with half a head on their shoulders should be jumping up and argument-slapping the next person who takes the line that this is a charity. This is a PR stunt on steroids if I ever saw it.
This story completely insane: I guess when you control all the world's information you can simply state two completely contradictory things and the whole world just laps it up like children.
"All the Web 2.0 in the world won't invalidate a good teacher, and it won't remove the need for institutes of learning/research."
I agree absolutely. However, how you find your guru to learn from at age 18 won't be "go to college" in 10 years - people will find them other ways.
The current "insitutes of learning" are slow, lumbering, political tangles that will not keep up with the current state of knowledge: structured, propigated, and delivered by the AOIS.
Going down this path is an informatics arms race - which the professor can win, but it takes a lot of work and time to stay ahead of the curve.
A few other suggestions:
Oral exams - on the spot, public verbal explainations. Grade them.
Project-based assignments that leave the university bubble: the "real" world has effective means for dealing with this issue. Design assignments so completion can only occur if the students really understand the material.
Peer teaching and grading systems - to pass a class, you have to learn it, then teach it effectively. students quiz each other (teacherstudent) randomly on knowledge and assign grades; monitoring assessment consistency between distinct evaluations prevents fraud.
You're underestimating the ingenuity of people to get around systems that keep them down, and the remarkable power of point-to-point global communication. Universities have had a lock on education because they held the means of delivery, and mass content delivery is out of the box and down the hall.
Within 6 years, colleges will be feeling the heat to prove their value; within 10, people will be skipping them entirely for private education collectives with 3D virtual classrooms.
I have direct evidence that some parts of the DOD engine is paying for products with open source compenents. Unfortunately, I can't go into details (yet).
"Cheating is using someone else's work without giving them their due credit"
I disagree.*
*I need to credit Neanderthal 734853 for inventing fire, the guy who first build shelter, the people who made clean water this morning when I got up, and the guy who stopped polio from killing the guy who invented steel. I give many thanks to Edison for the power in my home. Thank you to all the people who made the industrial revolution happen, and the physicist who discovered how to make p-n junctions really cheap. Alonzo Church and Turning for inventing the computer, Vint Cerf and Al Gore for building out the Internet. Some guy named Steve who built the operating system I'm using, some other people who did TCP/IP, and some guys in Norway wrote the software I'm using. Also, some credit goes to Miss Beal who helped me spell in the 3rd grade, and to my other academic advisors over the years that taught we when to reference.
Where do YOU draw the line, and do you think we can ever agree?
Slashdot Mirror
That's just too rich. The irony of putting the words "real science" in the above post is beautiful.
./ commujnity still has you ranked at (+4, Insightful) now, so I must be missing something. Evidence, pointers to other people's discussion, graphics, videos, time series, anything really would be great.
In my view "real science" is based on hypothesis generation, observation, and hypothesis testing.
What evidence supports the "open northern passage between AD 1000 and AD 1200"? I'd like to see it.
There was never any doubt about you being alive in 1200 AD in my mind. Even more to the point, I think there is not much anyone knows "for certain" about events in 1200 AD.
Why do you assert confidence in the two statements you offer?
Why would I want to assume what you said? It would appear you have asserted a few personal opinions and unfounded assertions.
And now for the "conclusion":
You assert that if a northern passage was open in 1200 AD, then "global warming" (as defined in the current general debate: meaning humans have caused environmental changes leading directly to higher average temperatures), simply doesn't exist. It seems you are asserting that there is some "normal" state of the planet, and if we can match observations now to historical ones, then this match represents the normal state. I think what you mean is that if we can find a historical data point (ice thickness in 1200AD) that looks in some way like the current data point (ice thickness in 2006AD), then the evidence to support why the current data point happened can be discounted or ignored (because of the match) in our investigations.
I cannot imagine that is what you mean. To me, this just doesn't make sense.
Please do explain how you reach the conclusion. The
F = the "global warming" stuff.
./ has marked this +4 Informative. *sigh*
U = this was probably an open passage; Vikings may have crossed it.
D = all that is really happening is we are finally
and
real "commun"al living will only work when there is no property, and no money.
hmmm, there is an intersting thought: what if we unleashes a cascade/chain reaction that dumps a huge amount of methane into the atmosphere? Most would float away eventually, but short term it would make a shitload of CO2 (and water) in the troposphere and potentially slant the atmosphere to a higher CO2 level. More CO2, higher temps, more methane release.
Sure would suck to be an oxygen breather then!
We truly have amused ourselves to death.
let me get this straight: we're on a burning, sinking ship and the big boy countries are jockying over who gets to control the hallways?
nice.
We truly have amused ourselves to death.
short.
When we have real-time feeds, we'll be able to map geo-relevant information info onto Google Earth:
Like weather, traffic jams, tornado locations, animal migrations, polar ice levels, progress building a dam, maybe even someday jetting between the different football stadiums on Sunday morning to watch the different football games live in 3D VR.
TED: I need bigger tubes into my home.
more important, when will you need a state issued ID to be able to communicate with them?
Gotta say, the speed at which we're developing software makes the Debian "notoriously slow release cycle" a non-starter for doing interesting stuff with the latest tools.
With cash to spare, I'd put significant money into support for keeping all the apps in stable updated on weekly and monthly horizons, not bi-annual.
By "collective" I meant all the people involved were acting together toward a common goal. More like a mutual benefit organization.
Colleges act much more like businesses: they have a product and sell it to those who move through the 4-year track.
sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
just because someone say the word charity does not make it so. This is a for profit. period.
I guess when you control all the world's information you can simply state two completely contradictory things and the whole world just laps it up like children. For-profit subsidiary. PR stunt. Move Along, nothing to see here.
It is more than an oxymoron - it is a complete contradiction. Heads exploding? People should be standing up and clearly stating that this is hype and PR to make google look good as they collect all the really valuble information that we don't really want to give them, but we do because tghey have such nice free online toys.
Google already has significant backlash, this is thinly veiled move to stem the inevitable tide of public opinion against them as they continue to grow and control the world's information.
Those restrictions are there for a reason. I agree they are sometimes onerous. However, they make it so that the organization actually must do charitable things, and they make impossible to do the "screw everyone and take the money" things.
This is NOT a charity and it is NOT philanthropic. This is a for-profit entity, no matter what they say or how they try and spin it. I have founded and run non-profit entities, and guess what - it is hard, even when you have money. Oversight, restrictions, tax headaches, reporting, etc. You have to actually do things that really help the public and not the owners. When you are a for profit you can do whatever you want. Anyone with half a head on their shoulders should be jumping up and argument-slapping the next person who takes the line that this is a charity. This is a PR stunt on steroids if I ever saw it.
s p
Oh yeah, remember that the public chares of Google have restricted voting rights. If even if you are a shareholder, tough shit. see http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1960985,00.a
This story completely insane: I guess when you control all the world's information you can simply state two completely contradictory things and the whole world just laps it up like children.
maybe someday we can get the sail to BE the solar cell
time for what? really expensive toys that take several months to get across the Altantic?
anything but mainstream.
"All the Web 2.0 in the world won't invalidate a good teacher, and it won't remove the need for institutes of learning/research."
I agree absolutely. However, how you find your guru to learn from at age 18 won't be "go to college" in 10 years - people will find them other ways.
The current "insitutes of learning" are slow, lumbering, political tangles that will not keep up with the current state of knowledge: structured, propigated, and delivered by the AOIS.
hilarious
Going down this path is an informatics arms race - which the professor can win, but it takes a lot of work and time to stay ahead of the curve.
A few other suggestions:
Oral exams - on the spot, public verbal explainations. Grade them.
Project-based assignments that leave the university bubble: the "real" world has effective means for dealing with this issue. Design assignments so completion can only occur if the students really understand the material.
Peer teaching and grading systems - to pass a class, you have to learn it, then teach it effectively. students quiz each other (teacherstudent) randomly on knowledge and assign grades; monitoring assessment consistency between distinct evaluations prevents fraud.
probably others...
Yes, 3 actually. I was in school until age 31.
You're underestimating the ingenuity of people to get around systems that keep them down, and the remarkable power of point-to-point global communication. Universities have had a lock on education because they held the means of delivery, and mass content delivery is out of the box and down the hall.
Within 6 years, colleges will be feeling the heat to prove their value; within 10, people will be skipping them entirely for private education collectives with 3D virtual classrooms.
using the word "lazy" is simply the judgmental framing of an individual's lack of motivtion
But as we see from the various anonymous replies to my post, there are plenty of trigger-happy judgemental people in the AOIS
yes, silly spell checkers... (meaning me).
however, the meaning hinted at with the word "undermine" is also interesting - though the sentence doesn't make sense as written.
I have direct evidence that some parts of the DOD engine is paying for products with open source compenents. Unfortunately, I can't go into details (yet).
"Cheating is using someone else's work without giving them their due credit"
I disagree.*
*I need to credit Neanderthal 734853 for inventing fire, the guy who first build shelter, the people who made clean water this morning when I got up, and the guy who stopped polio from killing the guy who invented steel. I give many thanks to Edison for the power in my home. Thank you to all the people who made the industrial revolution happen, and the physicist who discovered how to make p-n junctions really cheap. Alonzo Church and Turning for inventing the computer, Vint Cerf and Al Gore for building out the Internet. Some guy named Steve who built the operating system I'm using, some other people who did TCP/IP, and some guys in Norway wrote the software I'm using. Also, some credit goes to Miss Beal who helped me spell in the 3rd grade, and to my other academic advisors over the years that taught we when to reference.
Where do YOU draw the line, and do you think we can ever agree?