"...If you want a programmer to hear you out, don't start by assuming that they'll steal your great idea."
Okay, so I don't assume and I don't have them sign an NDA, and then they DO steal my great idea. Now what?
If everyone were completely trustworthy, then I could see this argument being valid. But the sad truth is that people AREN'T trustworthy. My question to Larson is, "What guarantees can you give me that you WON'T steal my great idea? Because if you can't provide any, I have this legal document here that will."
"Is a math program better than watching and interacting with a teacher?"
It depends on who you are. Learning isn't a one-size-fits-all proposition.
For me it was. Teachers are not the be-all, end-all when it comes to learning. Some (math teachers in particular) do not know how to communicate with students. My higher-level math teachers were constantly perplexed at their students' inability to "get it". They got it, why shouldn't their students do so? (See my comment above about aptitude).
You're postulating all of these nuances with which, to tell the truth, your basic student doesn't need to concern themselves. A 5 year-old isn't going to comprehend texture and pressure. Serious art students are the ones who concern themselves with such things, and I'm going to assume they're already doing such things on their own.
And personally? I HATED finger-painting. HATED it. And don't even talk to me about when they attempted to introduce me to "feet-painting".
First of all, nothing will increase someone's creativity. Your level of creativity is set at birth.
This is one of the problems with Education on a Global scale: we think of children as blank slates, who have the ability to learn ANYTHING, so long as we find the right way to "reach" them. The reality is quite different. Everyone is born with an aptitude and we need to discover said aptitudes and teach within those parameters. I'm not saying that someone who has an aptitude to be an artist can't be an Engineer, but it's going to require a lot more work for them to become an Engineer than if they had the aptitude for Engineering.
Second, not everything in education is about creativity. A lot of it is rewarding specific behavior and learning to adhere to rules and formulas. There's no room for creativity in Mathematics. There's no room for creativity in History. Even the "creative" engineers at Apple who designed the iPad needed to adhere to some basic rules of electrical and software Engineering.
Stop trying to convince people that they're "wrong" or "bad" because they see the value in a Tablet and want to drop some coin on one. If you don't want one, fine, but you have to recognize that the computer (which, essentially, is what a tablet really is) is the greatest boon to education since the classroom.
Re:Simplify the tax code, don't complicate it
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 0
Here's where this whole thing falls apart: 1. The taxes you listed aren't all Federal taxes: the property taxes go to the County, the sales taxes go to the State and the income taxes are split between the Federal and State Governments. If you eliminate all the "secondary taxes" where will the local governments get their money? 2. If you simply tax income, then you're still in the same boat as what the article addresses - most "wealth" isn't liquid, it's in the form of investments which aren't easily accessed and spent. And is an increase in the value of an investment "income"? What happens when the investment loses value, should the Government then pay the investor a "value loss credit"?
I don't agree with the message of the article, but neither do I agree with your solution. The more I look into the tax situation, the more the FairTax makes the most sense. Eliminate ALL taxes (propery, sales, income, etc.) and replace it with a flat sales tax. The Feds get a portion and the local government gets a portion. Everyone pays the amount of tax that they need to pay, everyone gets a household credit for things like groceries and everyone gets to keep 100% of their paycheck. No one can use a loophole to avoid paying taxes (such as offshore accounts) since you pay your taxes at the time of purchase, whether it's a bag of potatoes or a new Lamborghini.
1. "Climate Change", if it truly is a result of our development as a species, is not isolated to "members of a crazed abrahamic cult", but it's a result of the actions of EVERYONE on the planet. Your insistence of ignoring the nations that are not predominantly Judeo-Christian who may contribute to "Climate Change" shows your bigotry. Careful dear, your slip is showing. 2. Those of us who "refuse to acknowledge when a firm scientific consensus has been achieved" do not do so because of the change that might occur to our lifestyle, but rather that the "consensus" actually hasn't been achieved by the scientific community as a whole, at least not the REASONS for the change.
Unlike the Evolution vs. Creationism debate, the problem that's unique to this debate, is how "scientific findings" are manipulated to support one side or the other of the argument, in one of three ways: a. Research is not conducted to prove something, but rather to disprove the other side. b. Valid research which may acknowledge the existence of "Climate Change", but doesn't put the blame exclusively on Human Beings (aka, doesn't support the Green Industry) is buried, denounced or flat-out ignored. c. Valid research which may demonstrate the role Human Beings play in the existence of "Climate Change", (aka, threatens the Fossil Fuels Industry) is buried, denounced or flat-out ignored.
It's called "getting squeezed by the board of directors and the shareholders to deliver maximum profit, and having to duke it out in the market with several other businesses whose management has the same obligation"
A corporation's moral woes are merely the extension of the greed of dispassionate shareholders that see fit to only care about the almighty dollar while being comfortably insulated from the gory details of how that money is "earned".
And in a dog eat dog world where companies are ready to cut each other's throats to get ahead, anyone who ties to be nice and ethical will simply not survive.
I would opine that vice presidency doesn't so much strip away your moral sense as filter out those who have it.
Just like trying to be a politician will weed out happy horseshit folks who fail to pass the corporate kiss-ass test from special interests.
Finally, someone who understands the actual problem affecting World-Wide Business: it's not the CEOs or VPs or anything like that - it's the Board of Directors (usually made up of people who have no direct ties to the company on who's board they sit) and the shareholders (made up of people who have no direct ties with the company at all) who basically blackmail the CEO and VPs into doing whatever needs to be done to maximize profits. "You like that huge influx of Capital that you've been enjoying for the past few years? Then forget about innovation and just make products that will maximize my dividends or I might just find somewhere else to put my money." Face it, going Public is akin to a deal with the Devil: sure you get the money you need to grow your business into the type of company you want, but then you pay for it for the rest of your life and your company never becomes as great as it could have been.
Ask bands who sign with major record companies about how being indebted to someone can stifle creativity.
How nice it must be to be so perfect a being that you never accidentally delete a file. For the rest of us mere mortals, I think we'd all prefer to keep our options open.
I cannot believe you don't see the actual issue here - sure, ISP's can charge what they want, but that's not what this is about. It's about the NBC-Comcast deal, and the legitimate fear that a company like Comcast will regulate traffic, not for the sake of the children, but rather for the sake of their bottom line. The concept is that Comcast will have the ability to regulate any traffic that is in direct competition to them. Verizon does this already by denying access to content providers who directly compete with Vcast (which is why I'm very interested to see how this whole iPhone on Verizon thing shakes out). If we don't take care of this now, then when? And if we don't regulate the bandwidth and content, and the ISPs are the ones who determine what's on their lines, where does it stop? Will they be able to regulate websites which criticize their service or business practices? What about news articles that don't paint these companies in a favorable light? When Companies control the information, then the only information you get is what the Company decides you need to know. Net Neutrality is about Free Speech, and the free, unfettered access to all forms of it.
-- Oh, and the reason Google can scan unprotected WiFi networks and you can't use sensitive microphones to listen to me in my house is due to a legal expectation of privacy. If I have an open WiFi network, my expectation of privacy is low to non-existent. But I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in my own house.
Love it. They can make all the arguments they want, but they're not interested in teaching "alternative theories", they're only interested in teaching "Christian alternative theory".
I'm really sick of "watchdog" groups. Just like anything else in the U.S., they start out great, and then get too big for their britches and forget the real reasons they exist. And who asked them anyway? But really, the important thing in this particular story isn't about the lawsuit (or the threat of one), but it's about how most of these "watchdog" groups are so shortsighted that they don't pursue the better plan. To many, this seems logical - Oh, McDonald's is offering toys in their Happy Meals and this is causing the children to want to eat McDonald's and they're all getting fat. So if we stop with the toys, kids won't want happy meals and then they won't get fat. Ridiculous. 1. A Happy Meal is nothing more than a collection of the most popular food items among children that McDonald's sells. The toy is a bonus. Kids will still get Happy Meals, toy or not because it's convenient for them and their parents. 2. Happy Meals are also offering fruit and other healthier choices. Should we just offer the toy in those meals? 3. Ultimately it's not about the toys, but about the parents. Last I checked, kids don't have jobs, so someone is buying these Happy Meals for them, toys or not. 4. Why just McDonald's? Burger King has Kids Meals with toys. Subway Kids Meals have games. So does Wendy's. Are we going to sue them too?
No, see, the "watchdog" groups aren't out to protect anyone or anything, they're out for headlines and profit. If they really wanted to make a difference, they'd sue those companies who serve healthier, fast choices (like Sweet Tomatoes) for not having Kids Meals with toys to get kids in THEIR restaurants. They'd sue these establishments for not having competitive prices or convenient locations. But they won't. Because it's not about kids' health. It's about being able to point fingers and make profit.
But, it's cheaper to eat McD's that actual fresh food from a grocery store -- both in terms of $$, and time.
Definately NOT in money. At least not here in Canada.
Spaghetti noodles: $3 Extra Lean Hamburger meat: $5.50 2 Cans of Tomato Paste: $3 Stock of Celery: 89 cents 2L juice: $1.50 Grand Total: about 15 dollars after Tax.
This will easily get you 5 full meals, more than any meal you can buy at McDonalds with any combo.
There are TONS of easy meals you can spend 20 minutes cooking and have microwavable leftovers for the rest of the week. Chicken and Rice with any veggies you want is another great combo.
Just most people would prefer going through a drive thru 5 times a week as opposed to spending 20 minutes cooking 2 nights a week. It baffles me.
1. I'm not sure what this recipe is, but it's not spaghetti with meat sauce. It's spaghetti with meat in tomato paste (I'm not sure what the stalk of celery is for), which, as an Italian, sounds pretty gross. I'm not sure if I'd want to eat that for one night, much less 5. 2. Yes, there are 20 minute meals you can cook and have leftovers that are cheap. They're also pretty flavorless. 3. It baffles you? Perhaps it's not about the food, but more about the effort. If I go through the drive through, I get my food in 10 minutes, tops. So I'm already 10 minutes ahead of you. Also consider, that I don't have to do any dishes or take out any trash. This is the problem - it's not about what they eat or how they eat it, you just want everyone to be just like you. It shouldn't baffle you, simply because everyone is different. Not everyone has to like to cook. Not everyone has to like chicken and rice with veggies. Stop judging others for what they do and just appreciate them for who they are.
This is a prime example of the hypocrisy in our nation. We've all been taught (or should I say shamed) to become more "tolerant" and understanding to the plight of those who are not traditionally considered "the norm" (e.g. the homeless, addicts and those afflicted with mental disorders) - unless those who are telling us to do so find fault with a particular group such as smokers or, as this case, those who are considered obese and heavier. The fact is that the scale has been changed, and obese is a lot lower in BMI than it used to be. Also, most morbidly obese people have a genetic tendency to be so. Eating fast food does not necessarily determine whether or not you'll gain weight (a reporter here in Chicago took Spurlock's "Super Size Me" challenge and actually LOST weight). It's a combination of intake, output and genetics. So, you're right, there is no "excuse" to be 350+ pounds. But there are REASONS. So pick on someone your own size, or better yet, learn some compassion and don't pick on anyone at all. Because who knows, you might be part of the next group that people decide we'd do better without.
...if they promise the moon and continuously put out a faulty product and ignore their user base, as Microsoft does with Windows. The fact is that companies don't fall out of favor with consumers because it's the natural cycle of things. Companies fall out of favor with consumers because the consumer feels they aren't getting what they paid for. It's got nothing to do with price or delivery method, it has to do with low quality products or terrible service. This most recent Safari software push was handled in the correct way, but I admit, it tread the fine line between helpful service and arrogant update. The bottom line is, as long as Apple and Google keep producing quality products (regardless of personal opinions about the product) and providing exemplary service, they will always be loved amongst the consumer.
It's funny that Google Toolbar worked just fine under IE 6. Maybe it's just one of those "enhancements" in IE7 - crash when GT is installed so people have a reason to dump it. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, if you ask me.
Slashdot Mirror
"...If you want a programmer to hear you out, don't start by assuming that they'll steal your great idea."
Okay, so I don't assume and I don't have them sign an NDA, and then they DO steal my great idea. Now what?
If everyone were completely trustworthy, then I could see this argument being valid. But the sad truth is that people AREN'T trustworthy. My question to Larson is, "What guarantees can you give me that you WON'T steal my great idea? Because if you can't provide any, I have this legal document here that will."
Well stated. Good form.
"Is a math program better than watching and interacting with a teacher?"
It depends on who you are. Learning isn't a one-size-fits-all proposition.
For me it was. Teachers are not the be-all, end-all when it comes to learning. Some (math teachers in particular) do not know how to communicate with students. My higher-level math teachers were constantly perplexed at their students' inability to "get it". They got it, why shouldn't their students do so? (See my comment above about aptitude).
You're postulating all of these nuances with which, to tell the truth, your basic student doesn't need to concern themselves. A 5 year-old isn't going to comprehend texture and pressure. Serious art students are the ones who concern themselves with such things, and I'm going to assume they're already doing such things on their own.
And personally? I HATED finger-painting. HATED it. And don't even talk to me about when they attempted to introduce me to "feet-painting".
First of all, nothing will increase someone's creativity. Your level of creativity is set at birth.
This is one of the problems with Education on a Global scale: we think of children as blank slates, who have the ability to learn ANYTHING, so long as we find the right way to "reach" them. The reality is quite different. Everyone is born with an aptitude and we need to discover said aptitudes and teach within those parameters. I'm not saying that someone who has an aptitude to be an artist can't be an Engineer, but it's going to require a lot more work for them to become an Engineer than if they had the aptitude for Engineering.
Second, not everything in education is about creativity. A lot of it is rewarding specific behavior and learning to adhere to rules and formulas. There's no room for creativity in Mathematics. There's no room for creativity in History. Even the "creative" engineers at Apple who designed the iPad needed to adhere to some basic rules of electrical and software Engineering.
Stop trying to convince people that they're "wrong" or "bad" because they see the value in a Tablet and want to drop some coin on one. If you don't want one, fine, but you have to recognize that the computer (which, essentially, is what a tablet really is) is the greatest boon to education since the classroom.
Here's where this whole thing falls apart:
1. The taxes you listed aren't all Federal taxes: the property taxes go to the County, the sales taxes go to the State and the income taxes are split between the Federal and State Governments. If you eliminate all the "secondary taxes" where will the local governments get their money?
2. If you simply tax income, then you're still in the same boat as what the article addresses - most "wealth" isn't liquid, it's in the form of investments which aren't easily accessed and spent. And is an increase in the value of an investment "income"? What happens when the investment loses value, should the Government then pay the investor a "value loss credit"?
I don't agree with the message of the article, but neither do I agree with your solution. The more I look into the tax situation, the more the FairTax makes the most sense. Eliminate ALL taxes (propery, sales, income, etc.) and replace it with a flat sales tax. The Feds get a portion and the local government gets a portion. Everyone pays the amount of tax that they need to pay, everyone gets a household credit for things like groceries and everyone gets to keep 100% of their paycheck. No one can use a loophole to avoid paying taxes (such as offshore accounts) since you pay your taxes at the time of purchase, whether it's a bag of potatoes or a new Lamborghini.
Finally, someone else who gets it. Thanks for the post.
1. "Climate Change", if it truly is a result of our development as a species, is not isolated to "members of a crazed abrahamic cult", but it's a result of the actions of EVERYONE on the planet. Your insistence of ignoring the nations that are not predominantly Judeo-Christian who may contribute to "Climate Change" shows your bigotry. Careful dear, your slip is showing.
2. Those of us who "refuse to acknowledge when a firm scientific consensus has been achieved" do not do so because of the change that might occur to our lifestyle, but rather that the "consensus" actually hasn't been achieved by the scientific community as a whole, at least not the REASONS for the change.
Unlike the Evolution vs. Creationism debate, the problem that's unique to this debate, is how "scientific findings" are manipulated to support one side or the other of the argument, in one of three ways:
a. Research is not conducted to prove something, but rather to disprove the other side.
b. Valid research which may acknowledge the existence of "Climate Change", but doesn't put the blame exclusively on Human Beings (aka, doesn't support the Green Industry) is buried, denounced or flat-out ignored.
c. Valid research which may demonstrate the role Human Beings play in the existence of "Climate Change", (aka, threatens the Fossil Fuels Industry) is buried, denounced or flat-out ignored.
It's called "getting squeezed by the board of directors and the shareholders to deliver maximum profit, and having to duke it out in the market with several other businesses whose management has the same obligation"
A corporation's moral woes are merely the extension of the greed of dispassionate shareholders that see fit to only care about the almighty dollar while being comfortably insulated from the gory details of how that money is "earned".
And in a dog eat dog world where companies are ready to cut each other's throats to get ahead, anyone who ties to be nice and ethical will simply not survive.
I would opine that vice presidency doesn't so much strip away your moral sense as filter out those who have it.
Just like trying to be a politician will weed out happy horseshit folks who fail to pass the corporate kiss-ass test from special interests.
Finally, someone who understands the actual problem affecting World-Wide Business: it's not the CEOs or VPs or anything like that - it's the Board of Directors (usually made up of people who have no direct ties to the company on who's board they sit) and the shareholders (made up of people who have no direct ties with the company at all) who basically blackmail the CEO and VPs into doing whatever needs to be done to maximize profits. "You like that huge influx of Capital that you've been enjoying for the past few years? Then forget about innovation and just make products that will maximize my dividends or I might just find somewhere else to put my money."
Face it, going Public is akin to a deal with the Devil: sure you get the money you need to grow your business into the type of company you want, but then you pay for it for the rest of your life and your company never becomes as great as it could have been.
Ask bands who sign with major record companies about how being indebted to someone can stifle creativity.
How nice it must be to be so perfect a being that you never accidentally delete a file. For the rest of us mere mortals, I think we'd all prefer to keep our options open.
I cannot believe you don't see the actual issue here - sure, ISP's can charge what they want, but that's not what this is about. It's about the NBC-Comcast deal, and the legitimate fear that a company like Comcast will regulate traffic, not for the sake of the children, but rather for the sake of their bottom line. The concept is that Comcast will have the ability to regulate any traffic that is in direct competition to them. Verizon does this already by denying access to content providers who directly compete with Vcast (which is why I'm very interested to see how this whole iPhone on Verizon thing shakes out).
If we don't take care of this now, then when? And if we don't regulate the bandwidth and content, and the ISPs are the ones who determine what's on their lines, where does it stop? Will they be able to regulate websites which criticize their service or business practices? What about news articles that don't paint these companies in a favorable light?
When Companies control the information, then the only information you get is what the Company decides you need to know.
Net Neutrality is about Free Speech, and the free, unfettered access to all forms of it.
--
Oh, and the reason Google can scan unprotected WiFi networks and you can't use sensitive microphones to listen to me in my house is due to a legal expectation of privacy. If I have an open WiFi network, my expectation of privacy is low to non-existent. But I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in my own house.
Love it. They can make all the arguments they want, but they're not interested in teaching "alternative theories", they're only interested in teaching "Christian alternative theory".
I'm really sick of "watchdog" groups. Just like anything else in the U.S., they start out great, and then get too big for their britches and forget the real reasons they exist. And who asked them anyway?
But really, the important thing in this particular story isn't about the lawsuit (or the threat of one), but it's about how most of these "watchdog" groups are so shortsighted that they don't pursue the better plan. To many, this seems logical - Oh, McDonald's is offering toys in their Happy Meals and this is causing the children to want to eat McDonald's and they're all getting fat. So if we stop with the toys, kids won't want happy meals and then they won't get fat.
Ridiculous.
1. A Happy Meal is nothing more than a collection of the most popular food items among children that McDonald's sells. The toy is a bonus. Kids will still get Happy Meals, toy or not because it's convenient for them and their parents.
2. Happy Meals are also offering fruit and other healthier choices. Should we just offer the toy in those meals?
3. Ultimately it's not about the toys, but about the parents. Last I checked, kids don't have jobs, so someone is buying these Happy Meals for them, toys or not.
4. Why just McDonald's? Burger King has Kids Meals with toys. Subway Kids Meals have games. So does Wendy's. Are we going to sue them too?
No, see, the "watchdog" groups aren't out to protect anyone or anything, they're out for headlines and profit. If they really wanted to make a difference, they'd sue those companies who serve healthier, fast choices (like Sweet Tomatoes) for not having Kids Meals with toys to get kids in THEIR restaurants. They'd sue these establishments for not having competitive prices or convenient locations.
But they won't. Because it's not about kids' health. It's about being able to point fingers and make profit.
But, it's cheaper to eat McD's that actual fresh food from a grocery store -- both in terms of $$, and time.
Definately NOT in money. At least not here in Canada.
Spaghetti noodles: $3
Extra Lean Hamburger meat: $5.50
2 Cans of Tomato Paste: $3
Stock of Celery: 89 cents
2L juice: $1.50
Grand Total: about 15 dollars after Tax.
This will easily get you 5 full meals, more than any meal you can buy at McDonalds with any combo.
There are TONS of easy meals you can spend 20 minutes cooking and have microwavable leftovers for the rest of the week. Chicken and Rice with any veggies you want is another great combo.
Just most people would prefer going through a drive thru 5 times a week as opposed to spending 20 minutes cooking 2 nights a week. It baffles me.
1. I'm not sure what this recipe is, but it's not spaghetti with meat sauce. It's spaghetti with meat in tomato paste (I'm not sure what the stalk of celery is for), which, as an Italian, sounds pretty gross. I'm not sure if I'd want to eat that for one night, much less 5.
2. Yes, there are 20 minute meals you can cook and have leftovers that are cheap. They're also pretty flavorless.
3. It baffles you? Perhaps it's not about the food, but more about the effort. If I go through the drive through, I get my food in 10 minutes, tops. So I'm already 10 minutes ahead of you. Also consider, that I don't have to do any dishes or take out any trash. This is the problem - it's not about what they eat or how they eat it, you just want everyone to be just like you. It shouldn't baffle you, simply because everyone is different. Not everyone has to like to cook. Not everyone has to like chicken and rice with veggies. Stop judging others for what they do and just appreciate them for who they are.
This is a prime example of the hypocrisy in our nation. We've all been taught (or should I say shamed) to become more "tolerant" and understanding to the plight of those who are not traditionally considered "the norm" (e.g. the homeless, addicts and those afflicted with mental disorders) - unless those who are telling us to do so find fault with a particular group such as smokers or, as this case, those who are considered obese and heavier.
The fact is that the scale has been changed, and obese is a lot lower in BMI than it used to be. Also, most morbidly obese people have a genetic tendency to be so. Eating fast food does not necessarily determine whether or not you'll gain weight (a reporter here in Chicago took Spurlock's "Super Size Me" challenge and actually LOST weight). It's a combination of intake, output and genetics.
So, you're right, there is no "excuse" to be 350+ pounds. But there are REASONS.
So pick on someone your own size, or better yet, learn some compassion and don't pick on anyone at all. Because who knows, you might be part of the next group that people decide we'd do better without.
Now let's see if they could put that technology to good use by creating a good film.
...if they promise the moon and continuously put out a faulty product and ignore their user base, as Microsoft does with Windows. The fact is that companies don't fall out of favor with consumers because it's the natural cycle of things. Companies fall out of favor with consumers because the consumer feels they aren't getting what they paid for. It's got nothing to do with price or delivery method, it has to do with low quality products or terrible service. This most recent Safari software push was handled in the correct way, but I admit, it tread the fine line between helpful service and arrogant update. The bottom line is, as long as Apple and Google keep producing quality products (regardless of personal opinions about the product) and providing exemplary service, they will always be loved amongst the consumer.
It's funny that Google Toolbar worked just fine under IE 6. Maybe it's just one of those "enhancements" in IE7 - crash when GT is installed so people have a reason to dump it. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, if you ask me.