I still think that "news for nerds" is meaningless with all miscellaneous "news" that gets lumped in under the "because I'm a nerd and I'm interested in this sort of stuff" banner.
Fair enough. I think you're quite right about this latter comment. I only made the original comment (which has now been voted into oblivion) because I hoped some productive conversation could come about. I suppose I could have worded it more diplomatically though.
Re:Before anyone says it...
on
New Pope Selected
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Religious fellows are nerds in their own right too. They are up there with Star * groups, but less fan fiction recently. They do try though.
Sociologically, they operate in similar ways as well. I say this as both a Star * fan and a religious fellow (though not a Catholic). In both groups, identity is tied to adherence ("Are you a Buddhist too?" is not far from "Are you a Trekkie too?"), consumption patterns reflect attachment (one has X-Wing models, the other crucifixes), intense debates occur over canon (the Gnostic gospels and the SW prequels have much in common, except one has better acting), and both groups hold in high regard those who have specialized knowledge about the object of their interest.
Note the claim about "world-wide significance." Things that happen to me, for example, are relatively insignificant. But this website often puts up articles when a new U.S. President is elected, if for no other reason than the fact that it will give different nerds an opportunity to discuss the matter and/or troll about it. As often as we discuss matters of science and religion here, one would think the election of the most influential religious leader in the world would be sufficiently newsworthy. This is particularly true when that leader's views will have direct bearing on how some science is funded and conducted. Lest one might wonder how the pope's views has such direct bearing as I claim, I would point to how strong popular opinions can be about matters such as embryonic stem-cell research. This is worth knowing about and talking about.
Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!!
on
New Pope Selected
·
· Score: 1, Informative
In the ancient conception of the world, North Africa was sometimes reckoned as part of Europe (though Egypt was not). Culturally, during the lives of these popes, it was thoroughly European inasmuch as it was thoroughly Latinized. In one important sense, therefore, one could get away with saying that these popes were as European as any others. Of course, culture isn't the only important sense, but maybe this is how he got it in his head.
There were, in any case, at least five Syrian popes and Syria was reckoned part of Asia even by pre-moderns. Pope Francis remains only the most recent non-European pope.
Before anyone says it...
on
New Pope Selected
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
this is News for Nerds, inasmuch as nerds prefer not to be entirely ignorant of events around them that have world-wide significance.
This question turns on the meaning of trust. As I understand the term trust, I only apply it to sentient beings whom I know have the capacity to harm but who reliably choose not to do so. The real question, then, is whether robots will or even can fit this bill.
Good tip. If you've ever worked in tech support, however, you know that what is trivial for the end user is often surprising. I did tech support as a u-grad, and teaching these courses has brought back less than fond memories. Honestly, half of what I do teaching online courses is tech support. A person can try to preempt some of this by putting instructions for everything on the front page. But what does one do when even pdfs become a problem?
I'm all for education. It is, after all, my vocation. However, nota bene: degrees!=education. What I'm not for is continually raising costs for students while lowering costs for universities. That is what happens with these courses. They often cost quite as much as regular courses and the students most likely to take them (in my experience) are largely non-traditional students: i.e. students who have kids, a full time job, several classes and are trying to better their lot. If they're lucky enough to graduate, they do so with ever greater debt and increasingly worthless degrees.
The savings are not passed on to students. They're pumped either into admin (naturally, for that's where the decisions are made) or into capital projects (building more dorms, etc.) so the admin can increase the student body. What we have here, folks, is a bubble.
I've taught courses online for a regional university in Appalachia and had to design the courses specifically with bandwidth limitations in mind. Of the students who had home internet access, some were limited to dial-up or very slow DSL. Many students rely on internet access at public libraries and thus I had to create materials they could bring home for study. I could never assume constant access on the student's part. I made heavy use of public-domain sources as primary texts (I'm a historian), knowing these could be readily transferred to any machine, even a cell phone if necessary (of course, cell phone access can kind of suck out here too).
Courses can still be taught under these conditions, but a teacher cannot use multimedia as a crutch and must focus instead on course structure, careful selection of readings, and heavy use of lower bandwidth tools like message boards. I made any multimedia material optional and supplementary.
The question of technology, however, is not the chief problem with online courses in these circumstances. The chief problem is that the courses themselves are being used to advance the notion that education is a series of hoops, the easier to jump through the better. They're an administrator's dream. More degrees generated at lower cost.
What amazes me is that the F-35 program for all the promises hasn't been cut or curtailed.
That's because the F-35 employs the latest in multi-congressional district job program management. It is also far superior to the older F/A-18 E/F because the latter lacks the F-35's advanced lobby-based cash vectoring nozzles.
When I travel, I almost never take pictures. This is probably an over-correction on my part, but I cannot get over the way so many spend so much time taking pictures that they never pay attention to where they are, to what they're doing. If too much effort is given to it, the need to record everything can overcome the very experiences one wishes to record. The best things cannot be captured in stills or in video, but even if one is there it may be missed if one neglects the world for the sake of a 1.5" LCD on the back of a camera.
For the one who wishes to record everything, I would wonder if he has fully considered why. I would be concerned that it derives from an unaddressed discomfort with mortality and this inhibits present unhappiness. The one who records everything is anxious about the future, lest he should then forget or be forgotten in it. When he reviews the past, he forgets the very moment he lives in. Either way, the present, the only thing we can really do anything about and the only moment in which we can find happiness, is neglected.
I can imagine a handsome young man who marries a beautiful girl. He is captivated by her and they take many pictures together. But as he gets older, their youthful beauty fades. The man looks continually at the pictures with a sense of loss, not having learned to love what he has in the moment he's in. The girl he married is in those pictures and has passed away long before either of them die.
We can never find happiness in this life unless we have peace. We can never find peace until we accept our mortality. And once we realize that we will die, and that no amount of recording will change that, then we may understand the importance of the moment we're in. When we've paid attention to the life we're in, however, we have some hope of being ready for death, for we may then know we've lived life for what it was worth.
I agree. This is why when I submitted the article I put the term "intellectual property" in quotes. This did not survive the editorial process but I suppose one can't complain. We are, whether we like it or not, compelled to use this dreadful term if for no other reason than to identify it as a problematic concept. "(Thus the age perfects its clench.)"
My favorite thing about the press release, however, was the name of the caucus. "Creative Rights". Who can argue with creative rights? Rights is a trump card in American rhetoric, a 'God term' as Richard Weaver would have it. To deny rights is to be at once oppressive and regressive. And 'creative' carries with it a long list of positive connotations. I expect we'll see more talk of creative rights as 'intellectual property' is increasingly perceived as negative, stuffy, and oppressive.
[...] Registering as either Ira I. Silverstein, his wife Debra Silverstein or any of their four children that they have is the only way to protect our freedom and comply with the silly proposition.
As Ira, sure. But why would you do that to Ms. Silverstein and those poor kids? Haven't they suffered enough already? They're required to keep a log for every time they go to the fridge, so Ira never has to wonder who drank the last of the milk.
This feeds on itself. No one pays attention for two reasons: 1) we have a national media and its much easier and cheaper to cover stories that affect 314 million people than 13 million; 2) because the former prerogatives of the states have largely been taken over by the federal government, much of what goes on in state level politics is argument over how to deploy resources block-granted (or otherwise passed back to the states) from the federal to the state level. Most other debates cover matters of criminal law and different ways to carve out pork and patronage.
I'm a firm believer in subsidiarity, but even when things are better handled at a more local level, it is hard to convince anyone when a federal program addresses the same or a similar need. And why, I have to remind myself, should they be convinced when their taxes are already paying for the federal program?
We've never had a perfect system. One of the advantages of our current system is that most of the federal corruption occurs in the open (cf. campaign finance, lobbying, etc.). But something good has been lost since people have forgotten about reserved powers. We once had many states trying different approaches to solving many different problems. We still have many different problems. Only now are states are mainly focused on the problem of how to get and use more money from the federal government.
Notice, however, that it's built on a left/right dichotomy just vague enough to promote argument. I almost suspect this is Slashdot's way of making us all wish we'd spent more time moderating submissions.
To be honest, I'm not much of a fan of Ubuntu anymore and that for many of the standard reasons cited here on Slashdot. That being said, I do not understand the ire which comes out every time anything is posted about Ubuntu. I dislike Shuttleworth as much as the next guy, and I think they deserve criticism for the recent privacy issues, but lately it seems like they receive the sort of comments here that used to include "M$". I keep waiting for someone to start complaining about anonial.* I guess it just doesn't look as cool.
*(Ah. I see. When I clicked preview, I discovered that the cent signs I used for Canonical don't display on Slashdot. Having tried to use other unicode characters, I should have known better. That explains why people who enjoy making a sport of hating Ubuntu haven't used it.)
Not only does this attempt to suppress free speech by means of the court, but it also treats the man like a serf. They sue the university (i.e. the employer or, in their view, the master) knowing that even if their suit isn't successful new policies will arise limiting employees' ability to have personal websites. The Servile State is as relevant as ever.
I view humanity with a rather suspicious eye. Humans are scheming, self-interested, misinformed, ignorant, imprudent, easily frightened, and quick to forget. Unfortunately, these characteristics apply equally to average Joe, Senator Joe, and, if honesty is worth anything, yours truly. Therefore, though occasionally wishing Arthur would return and set things to right, I remain a (small d) democrat. Democracy has at least this to recommend it: if it leads us all into ruin at least the majority of us had a hand in getting there.
True enough. But his acting wasn't the problem with that movie. Karen Allen wasn't bad either. It was, well, parts of the plot, the script, and that weasely little fellow who wore black leather was swinging in the trees with the monkeys. For his part, Harrison Ford made that movie more palatable than any of the prequels since he, at least, was still likable.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. I think you're quite right about this latter comment. I only made the original comment (which has now been voted into oblivion) because I hoped some productive conversation could come about. I suppose I could have worded it more diplomatically though.
Sociologically, they operate in similar ways as well. I say this as both a Star * fan and a religious fellow (though not a Catholic). In both groups, identity is tied to adherence ("Are you a Buddhist too?" is not far from "Are you a Trekkie too?"), consumption patterns reflect attachment (one has X-Wing models, the other crucifixes), intense debates occur over canon (the Gnostic gospels and the SW prequels have much in common, except one has better acting), and both groups hold in high regard those who have specialized knowledge about the object of their interest.
Note the claim about "world-wide significance." Things that happen to me, for example, are relatively insignificant. But this website often puts up articles when a new U.S. President is elected, if for no other reason than the fact that it will give different nerds an opportunity to discuss the matter and/or troll about it. As often as we discuss matters of science and religion here, one would think the election of the most influential religious leader in the world would be sufficiently newsworthy. This is particularly true when that leader's views will have direct bearing on how some science is funded and conducted. Lest one might wonder how the pope's views has such direct bearing as I claim, I would point to how strong popular opinions can be about matters such as embryonic stem-cell research. This is worth knowing about and talking about.
In the ancient conception of the world, North Africa was sometimes reckoned as part of Europe (though Egypt was not). Culturally, during the lives of these popes, it was thoroughly European inasmuch as it was thoroughly Latinized. In one important sense, therefore, one could get away with saying that these popes were as European as any others. Of course, culture isn't the only important sense, but maybe this is how he got it in his head.
There were, in any case, at least five Syrian popes and Syria was reckoned part of Asia even by pre-moderns. Pope Francis remains only the most recent non-European pope.
this is News for Nerds, inasmuch as nerds prefer not to be entirely ignorant of events around them that have world-wide significance.
This question turns on the meaning of trust. As I understand the term trust, I only apply it to sentient beings whom I know have the capacity to harm but who reliably choose not to do so. The real question, then, is whether robots will or even can fit this bill.
You're safe for now; Kunity just sounds wrong.
Good tip. If you've ever worked in tech support, however, you know that what is trivial for the end user is often surprising. I did tech support as a u-grad, and teaching these courses has brought back less than fond memories. Honestly, half of what I do teaching online courses is tech support. A person can try to preempt some of this by putting instructions for everything on the front page. But what does one do when even pdfs become a problem?
I'm all for education. It is, after all, my vocation. However, nota bene: degrees!=education. What I'm not for is continually raising costs for students while lowering costs for universities. That is what happens with these courses. They often cost quite as much as regular courses and the students most likely to take them (in my experience) are largely non-traditional students: i.e. students who have kids, a full time job, several classes and are trying to better their lot. If they're lucky enough to graduate, they do so with ever greater debt and increasingly worthless degrees.
The savings are not passed on to students. They're pumped either into admin (naturally, for that's where the decisions are made) or into capital projects (building more dorms, etc.) so the admin can increase the student body. What we have here, folks, is a bubble.
I've taught courses online for a regional university in Appalachia and had to design the courses specifically with bandwidth limitations in mind. Of the students who had home internet access, some were limited to dial-up or very slow DSL. Many students rely on internet access at public libraries and thus I had to create materials they could bring home for study. I could never assume constant access on the student's part. I made heavy use of public-domain sources as primary texts (I'm a historian), knowing these could be readily transferred to any machine, even a cell phone if necessary (of course, cell phone access can kind of suck out here too).
Courses can still be taught under these conditions, but a teacher cannot use multimedia as a crutch and must focus instead on course structure, careful selection of readings, and heavy use of lower bandwidth tools like message boards. I made any multimedia material optional and supplementary.
The question of technology, however, is not the chief problem with online courses in these circumstances. The chief problem is that the courses themselves are being used to advance the notion that education is a series of hoops, the easier to jump through the better. They're an administrator's dream. More degrees generated at lower cost.
It's a warning. Any minute from now Ubuntu may slide into a flaming descent of fragmentation.
But only on Valve Time.
Double plusgood karma!
That's because the F-35 employs the latest in multi-congressional district job program management. It is also far superior to the older F/A-18 E/F because the latter lacks the F-35's advanced lobby-based cash vectoring nozzles.
For everyone here who says he's willing to pay rather than be tracked, the chances rise that someone here will develop that service.
When I travel, I almost never take pictures. This is probably an over-correction on my part, but I cannot get over the way so many spend so much time taking pictures that they never pay attention to where they are, to what they're doing. If too much effort is given to it, the need to record everything can overcome the very experiences one wishes to record. The best things cannot be captured in stills or in video, but even if one is there it may be missed if one neglects the world for the sake of a 1.5" LCD on the back of a camera.
For the one who wishes to record everything, I would wonder if he has fully considered why. I would be concerned that it derives from an unaddressed discomfort with mortality and this inhibits present unhappiness. The one who records everything is anxious about the future, lest he should then forget or be forgotten in it. When he reviews the past, he forgets the very moment he lives in. Either way, the present, the only thing we can really do anything about and the only moment in which we can find happiness, is neglected.
I can imagine a handsome young man who marries a beautiful girl. He is captivated by her and they take many pictures together. But as he gets older, their youthful beauty fades. The man looks continually at the pictures with a sense of loss, not having learned to love what he has in the moment he's in. The girl he married is in those pictures and has passed away long before either of them die.
We can never find happiness in this life unless we have peace. We can never find peace until we accept our mortality. And once we realize that we will die, and that no amount of recording will change that, then we may understand the importance of the moment we're in. When we've paid attention to the life we're in, however, we have some hope of being ready for death, for we may then know we've lived life for what it was worth.
I agree. This is why when I submitted the article I put the term "intellectual property" in quotes. This did not survive the editorial process but I suppose one can't complain. We are, whether we like it or not, compelled to use this dreadful term if for no other reason than to identify it as a problematic concept. "(Thus the age perfects its clench.)"
My favorite thing about the press release, however, was the name of the caucus. "Creative Rights". Who can argue with creative rights? Rights is a trump card in American rhetoric, a 'God term' as Richard Weaver would have it. To deny rights is to be at once oppressive and regressive. And 'creative' carries with it a long list of positive connotations. I expect we'll see more talk of creative rights as 'intellectual property' is increasingly perceived as negative, stuffy, and oppressive.
As Ira, sure. But why would you do that to Ms. Silverstein and those poor kids? Haven't they suffered enough already? They're required to keep a log for every time they go to the fridge, so Ira never has to wonder who drank the last of the milk.
This feeds on itself. No one pays attention for two reasons: 1) we have a national media and its much easier and cheaper to cover stories that affect 314 million people than 13 million; 2) because the former prerogatives of the states have largely been taken over by the federal government, much of what goes on in state level politics is argument over how to deploy resources block-granted (or otherwise passed back to the states) from the federal to the state level. Most other debates cover matters of criminal law and different ways to carve out pork and patronage.
I'm a firm believer in subsidiarity, but even when things are better handled at a more local level, it is hard to convince anyone when a federal program addresses the same or a similar need. And why, I have to remind myself, should they be convinced when their taxes are already paying for the federal program?
We've never had a perfect system. One of the advantages of our current system is that most of the federal corruption occurs in the open (cf. campaign finance, lobbying, etc.). But something good has been lost since people have forgotten about reserved powers. We once had many states trying different approaches to solving many different problems. We still have many different problems. Only now are states are mainly focused on the problem of how to get and use more money from the federal government.
Notice, however, that it's built on a left/right dichotomy just vague enough to promote argument. I almost suspect this is Slashdot's way of making us all wish we'd spent more time moderating submissions.
To be honest, I'm not much of a fan of Ubuntu anymore and that for many of the standard reasons cited here on Slashdot. That being said, I do not understand the ire which comes out every time anything is posted about Ubuntu. I dislike Shuttleworth as much as the next guy, and I think they deserve criticism for the recent privacy issues, but lately it seems like they receive the sort of comments here that used to include "M$". I keep waiting for someone to start complaining about anonial.* I guess it just doesn't look as cool.
*(Ah. I see. When I clicked preview, I discovered that the cent signs I used for Canonical don't display on Slashdot. Having tried to use other unicode characters, I should have known better. That explains why people who enjoy making a sport of hating Ubuntu haven't used it.)
Not only does this attempt to suppress free speech by means of the court, but it also treats the man like a serf. They sue the university (i.e. the employer or, in their view, the master) knowing that even if their suit isn't successful new policies will arise limiting employees' ability to have personal websites. The Servile State is as relevant as ever.
I view humanity with a rather suspicious eye. Humans are scheming, self-interested, misinformed, ignorant, imprudent, easily frightened, and quick to forget. Unfortunately, these characteristics apply equally to average Joe, Senator Joe, and, if honesty is worth anything, yours truly. Therefore, though occasionally wishing Arthur would return and set things to right, I remain a (small d) democrat. Democracy has at least this to recommend it: if it leads us all into ruin at least the majority of us had a hand in getting there.
First we had the AT-AT and AT-ST walkers. Now I'm imagining something with tennis balls.
True enough. But his acting wasn't the problem with that movie. Karen Allen wasn't bad either. It was, well, parts of the plot, the script, and that weasely little fellow who wore black leather was swinging in the trees with the monkeys. For his part, Harrison Ford made that movie more palatable than any of the prequels since he, at least, was still likable.