Honestly, starting the first lines, I was already planning to "counter" you with the fact that homogenization was the sort of necessary foundation for mass schooling, and while the model may be recognized to be over-simplistic today (what we have today is largely the same as the public school system invented by Fred the Great in the 18th century) it's still sensible to build an educational system primarily for the 95% (or 90%, or even 65%) of the population that it does serve, than the build it for the marginal group that doesn't.
But then you went on in a totally different direction than I'd expected, and made a number of insightful and cogent points. So thanks, good post, and never mind what I was going to say.:\
Perhaps building your career around a model that assumes that someone will simply give you money to do what you want is a foolish choice? Is it unsurprising in a country that is trillions of dollars in debt, that there seems to be less interest in continuing to do that?
There's however a reasonably successful model close to that, where they give you money to do what THEY want - it's called a JOB. Of course, then there are things like expectations and consequences if you don't, usually stopping the flow of money.
"Next up on Slashdot: complaining about the corporatization of science!"
You know, maybe next we should just put them all in camps, concentrate them, so they're away from "decent" people. And then, perhaps, make them wear something so we all know who they are, like a pink triangle or something?
Of course, these are all just temporary measures; I'm sure we'll ultimately come up with a better Final Solution...
Follow the money. Who benefits if we offer free 13-14th grade education to teens? Community colleges, who'll need to expand significantly, hiring more teachers, expanding schools, etc. And ultimately? It means more jobs/$ for teachers....the one demographic that votes more consistently Democrat than even black Americans.
Yes, I'm sure this is all about making sure kids get an education.
...for Whitehouse.gov as a platform to spur/enact popular initiatives? 0 for 15,000?
Do I believe that 5000 internet dorks signing a petition should compel action from the government? Not at all. Do I believe that having such a forum should be useful to a government to see what things are 'catching the public's attention'? Sure. Do I believe that Whitehouse.gov petition site was *mainly* meant as an anodyne to Obama supporters to make them *feel* connected when in effect it is actually meaningless? Absolutely. I believe the actual record of initiatives that came from this proves my point over what, 7 years?
You had me and then you lost me. To talk about the chilling effect of ubiquitous surveillance is one thing. To conflate that with the experience of someone who knowingly, willingly leaked classified military information during a war is entirely another. Traitors should still be shot.
If the "older generation" can fix stuff and the younger one can't, then why am I constantly fixing my parents' computer when it goes wonky?
Oh, wait, you're talking about a world filled with mechanical gadgets where "fixing" is the gross replacement of some broken part. Personally, I live in a world chock-full of pre-assembled crap that's not built to ever BE repaired, just replaced along it's planned obsolescence track.
So (aside from being anonymous, so you don't have to stand by what you say), you must then believe firmly that 'counteractive' discrimination is better than no discrimination?
Please let me know the quantitative metric at which we decide that 'counteractive' discrimination has reached a point of overcorrection at which we can then apply counter-counteractive discrimination? Because discrimination is apparently what we want to keep doing, as long as it's the "right" discrimination?
...that actual astronomers DO constantly use the equipment mounted in the southern hemisphere for observing.
Perhaps the article would have made more sense if instead of astronomers, she'd said 'stargazers' - people who just enjoy looking at stars as opposed to actual astronomers?
Even that I agree with you about what is possible or even likely, doesn't change the fact that the article is patently NOT about "How Target's Mobile App Uses Location Tech To Track You"
1) The/. article is titled: "How Target's Mobile App Uses Location Tech To Track You" (highlight mine). Yet the article and the conclusion is that this app doesn't track you because of hyper sensitivity to privacy, even though their experience and most surveyed users WANT that feature. So, clickbait headline or didn't you even RTFA yourselves?
2) "I have an aversion to shopping in general, and large-format retail in particular. While I think I have a strong sense of direction most of the time, put me inside of a big box store with its scores of aisles and the sometimes impenetrable logic of its layout, and I get turned around and frustrated right quick. I tend to avoid this kind of shopping, opting instead for the convenience of online purchases or smaller bricks-and-mortar stores that Iâ(TM)m familiar with or that offer a more curated experience." OK, we know you're a condescending douche, got it. We understand that you don't go to these sorts of places, probably because you're tragically hip. Editors at Xconomy: asleep at the switch? Maybe cull out this sort of patronizing crap from reviews?
"During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures"
From that, you determine that the title of the article should be that it "reduces police use of force"?
Clearly, the MAIN result is that it reduces BS claims of "police brutality" more than anything.
I'd be curious to understand why the submitter and editor so-titled the article.
Moderator: OK folks, drill is beginning. Breathless Lacky: Attention important people! Deep space radar shows that a major asteroid strike is due in less than a week! It is likely to have global damage potential, scouring the seas and filling the skies with fire. All human life, in fact all life on earth is potentially at risk. VIP1: Thank you. Do we have a spaceship that we can use to get away? VIP2: No, sir.......... VIP1: OK, well then, let's call this one complete. Drill ended after 0 minutes, 28 seconds:, Asteroid 1, Earth 0. Thank you all for your participation. Please join us next year, we're shooting for 30 seconds.
Pain is possibly the oldest, most effective stimulus to changing behavior in the history of, well, life. To suggest that human behavior isn't modified by pain is to imply that humans are somehow intrinsically different than every other kind of life on this planet.
I doubt that is true.
Now we can talk all day about the long term effects of pain on spent beings, and the concomitant damage that can be done emotionally, socially, or in terms of relationships. But if I'm going to take you seriously as a real scientist (and not just a flake with an agenda) you need to concede that pain CAN change behavior, and that in some cases the behavior change may conceivably be worth the effects.
Because they're not "just feeding their family and keeping a roof over their heads"?
At least in the US, what we call "poor" are ridiculously well off by current world standards, and even very comfortable compared to relatively recent US norms. US "poor" typically have cell phones multiple tv's, computers, car(s) and a residence larger than middle class Europeans. http://www.heritage.org/resear...
Living a life that would have comfortable in the 1970s - 1 cheap tv, no cable, no computer/internet, one cheapo car, no cell phone, smaller meal sizes, no convenience food - you could have a family of 4 right at the poverty line with out much trouble.
Not at all? Why would it? I think it's great that we work to fix things that we understand and have clear, quantifiable paths forward. My objection to "climate change" isn't what you seem to believe. My objection is that it seems to have sucked all the air out of the room for the public to pursue real, tangible, projects that can materially improve life - mostly for the billions on this planet that live in squalor.
But hey, you keep paying indulgences for your sins, er, I mean 'carbon credits' (and that $ goes where, exactly, once it's done salving your conscience?) to make yourself feel like you're "doing something".
This is the stupidest conclusion I've seen in 2014 and I've had the US government and the WHOLE INTERNET aggressively providing strong candidates all year.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, starting the first lines, I was already planning to "counter" you with the fact that homogenization was the sort of necessary foundation for mass schooling, and while the model may be recognized to be over-simplistic today (what we have today is largely the same as the public school system invented by Fred the Great in the 18th century) it's still sensible to build an educational system primarily for the 95% (or 90%, or even 65%) of the population that it does serve, than the build it for the marginal group that doesn't.
But then you went on in a totally different direction than I'd expected, and made a number of insightful and cogent points. So thanks, good post, and never mind what I was going to say. :\
...perhaps it's more subtle generally than some sort of "pop-psych" binary choice?
Seriously, people, are Slashdot articles really nothing more than clickbait any more?
Perhaps building your career around a model that assumes that someone will simply give you money to do what you want is a foolish choice? Is it unsurprising in a country that is trillions of dollars in debt, that there seems to be less interest in continuing to do that?
There's however a reasonably successful model close to that, where they give you money to do what THEY want - it's called a JOB. Of course, then there are things like expectations and consequences if you don't, usually stopping the flow of money.
"Next up on Slashdot: complaining about the corporatization of science!"
You know, maybe next we should just put them all in camps, concentrate them, so they're away from "decent" people. And then, perhaps, make them wear something so we all know who they are, like a pink triangle or something?
Of course, these are all just temporary measures; I'm sure we'll ultimately come up with a better Final Solution...
Follow the money.
Who benefits if we offer free 13-14th grade education to teens? Community colleges, who'll need to expand significantly, hiring more teachers, expanding schools, etc.
And ultimately? It means more jobs/$ for teachers....the one demographic that votes more consistently Democrat than even black Americans.
Yes, I'm sure this is all about making sure kids get an education.
...for Whitehouse.gov as a platform to spur/enact popular initiatives?
0 for 15,000?
Do I believe that 5000 internet dorks signing a petition should compel action from the government? Not at all.
Do I believe that having such a forum should be useful to a government to see what things are 'catching the public's attention'? Sure.
Do I believe that Whitehouse.gov petition site was *mainly* meant as an anodyne to Obama supporters to make them *feel* connected when in effect it is actually meaningless? Absolutely. I believe the actual record of initiatives that came from this proves my point over what, 7 years?
Nostalgia + Audiophiles = sales.
Both of those groups are notorious for a) having lots of $, and b) spending it stupidly.
You had me and then you lost me.
To talk about the chilling effect of ubiquitous surveillance is one thing.
To conflate that with the experience of someone who knowingly, willingly leaked classified military information during a war is entirely another. Traitors should still be shot.
If the "older generation" can fix stuff and the younger one can't, then why am I constantly fixing my parents' computer when it goes wonky?
Oh, wait, you're talking about a world filled with mechanical gadgets where "fixing" is the gross replacement of some broken part. Personally, I live in a world chock-full of pre-assembled crap that's not built to ever BE repaired, just replaced along it's planned obsolescence track.
Except that allows Congress a quarter of a million years to procrastinate, so that's just about perfect for them.
...the NSA will know the USSC ruling before they announce it.
"Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
I guess my answer would be "all of human history"?
Only the categorically naive wouldn't understand why someone wouldn't research a new, more efficacious weapon.
I guess it's a good sign of how utterly benign our world must be that people can exist with such sentiment.
Name one? Or is that just the giant strawman "racist republicans!!" again?
So (aside from being anonymous, so you don't have to stand by what you say), you must then believe firmly that 'counteractive' discrimination is better than no discrimination?
Please let me know the quantitative metric at which we decide that 'counteractive' discrimination has reached a point of overcorrection at which we can then apply counter-counteractive discrimination? Because discrimination is apparently what we want to keep doing, as long as it's the "right" discrimination?
...that actual astronomers DO constantly use the equipment mounted in the southern hemisphere for observing.
Perhaps the article would have made more sense if instead of astronomers, she'd said 'stargazers' - people who just enjoy looking at stars as opposed to actual astronomers?
Even that I agree with you about what is possible or even likely, doesn't change the fact that the article is patently NOT about "How Target's Mobile App Uses Location Tech To Track You"
...for their terrific job and a wonderful tree display.
And kudos also to the admins with the balls to tell the administration and Google to fuck off with their politically-correct bullshit.
1) The /. article is titled: "How Target's Mobile App Uses Location Tech To Track You" (highlight mine).
Yet the article and the conclusion is that this app doesn't track you because of hyper sensitivity to privacy, even though their experience and most surveyed users WANT that feature. So, clickbait headline or didn't you even RTFA yourselves?
2) "I have an aversion to shopping in general, and large-format retail in particular. While I think I have a strong sense of direction most of the time, put me inside of a big box store with its scores of aisles and the sometimes impenetrable logic of its layout, and I get turned around and frustrated right quick. I tend to avoid this kind of shopping, opting instead for the convenience of online purchases or smaller bricks-and-mortar stores that Iâ(TM)m familiar with or that offer a more curated experience." OK, we know you're a condescending douche, got it. We understand that you don't go to these sorts of places, probably because you're tragically hip. Editors at Xconomy: asleep at the switch? Maybe cull out this sort of patronizing crap from reviews?
"During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures"
From that, you determine that the title of the article should be that it "reduces police use of force"?
Clearly, the MAIN result is that it reduces BS claims of "police brutality" more than anything.
I'd be curious to understand why the submitter and editor so-titled the article.
...in vapid, stupid conclusions based on flawed initial premises.
First I noticed was that "coding" is a superpower.
Second is that tech's gender gap began in 1994? Seriously?
So before 1994, women were nearly equally represented in computing? HAHAHAHA.
It's not even worth refuting, it's such an asinine premise.
Hint to the author: the world began before you.
Moderator: OK folks, drill is beginning. ... ... ...
Breathless Lacky: Attention important people! Deep space radar shows that a major asteroid strike is due in less than a week! It is likely to have global damage potential, scouring the seas and filling the skies with fire. All human life, in fact all life on earth is potentially at risk.
VIP1: Thank you. Do we have a spaceship that we can use to get away?
VIP2: No, sir.
VIP1: OK, well then, let's call this one complete. Drill ended after 0 minutes, 28 seconds:, Asteroid 1, Earth 0. Thank you all for your participation. Please join us next year, we're shooting for 30 seconds.
Pain is possibly the oldest, most effective stimulus to changing behavior in the history of, well, life.
To suggest that human behavior isn't modified by pain is to imply that humans are somehow intrinsically different than every other kind of life on this planet.
I doubt that is true.
Now we can talk all day about the long term effects of pain on spent beings, and the concomitant damage that can be done emotionally, socially, or in terms of relationships. But if I'm going to take you seriously as a real scientist (and not just a flake with an agenda) you need to concede that pain CAN change behavior, and that in some cases the behavior change may conceivably be worth the effects.
Because they're not "just feeding their family and keeping a roof over their heads"?
At least in the US, what we call "poor" are ridiculously well off by current world standards, and even very comfortable compared to relatively recent US norms. US "poor" typically have cell phones multiple tv's, computers, car(s) and a residence larger than middle class Europeans.
http://www.heritage.org/resear...
Living a life that would have comfortable in the 1970s - 1 cheap tv, no cable, no computer/internet, one cheapo car, no cell phone, smaller meal sizes, no convenience food - you could have a family of 4 right at the poverty line with out much trouble.
Not at all? Why would it?
I think it's great that we work to fix things that we understand and have clear, quantifiable paths forward.
My objection to "climate change" isn't what you seem to believe.
My objection is that it seems to have sucked all the air out of the room for the public to pursue real, tangible, projects that can materially improve life - mostly for the billions on this planet that live in squalor.
But hey, you keep paying indulgences for your sins, er, I mean 'carbon credits' (and that $ goes where, exactly, once it's done salving your conscience?) to make yourself feel like you're "doing something".
This is the stupidest conclusion I've seen in 2014 and I've had the US government and the WHOLE INTERNET aggressively providing strong candidates all year.