Who in their right mind provides that information? Seriously, is it just me or is the general public getting stupider? No way am I providing my passwords to anyone, let alone some website.
I typically use the word philosopher for a different meaning, as do most Americans, and I'd dare say Brits as well. The fact that Brits may also use philosopher to mean something other than the currently accepted primary, secondary or tertiary** meaning of the word, gives rise to the fact that language is dynamic. Trying to reach a wider audience by using words familiar to them isn't, in my opinion, a necessity but I wouldn't necessarily calling it "dumbing down" either. How many people from Brittain would use the word fag in a book marketed for US consumers? Is it dumbing the book down because we have a different word for cigarette? I dare say it's not. Sure, it's slang, but effectively it's the same thing.
As for "lol:...t3h smart", believe what you will. I choose to typically believe intelligent people don't use "netspeak" in written argument, but you've proven me wrong there too. Good job.
**Actually it's not the primary definition in the American Heritage Dictionary (or Merriam-Webster) but philosopher as an alchemist isn't listed as any definition. Granted I looked online for these since my office doesn't seem to have an unabridged dictionary anywhere and I actually use mine at home occasionally so I haven't brought it here.
Which of course might be the whole point. I don't consider the dynamic nature of language (like the "change" of the "primary" meaning of philosopher in the US) necessarily "dumbing down" of the language but maybe that's just me.
Excellent point, that I honestly hadn't thought of. I covered alchemy in my studies nearly 30 years ago but that still doesn't negate the fact that in the US we wouldn't have used the word "philosopher" we would have used the word "alchemist" to cover that kind of information.
"How many people would have gone to see a robot shoot-em-up popcorn flick but stayed away because of the poor association with a different great story?"
Honestly, I think you've gotten that backward. Realistically how many people (other than geeks) would have gone to see a movie true to the original work? I personally don't think the percentages of non-geeks going to see a "true" I-Robot would match the percentage of geeks that went and saw the mainstream I-Robot the studios produced. From the studio's perspective, they win. A lot of the geeks went and saw it hoping it would be like the book and everyone else went and saw it to see Wil Smith beating up robots.
Again, you have the problem of marketing that. And of course ticket sales. I think the six month break for the Matrix movies was a pretty good timespan. It gave fans long enough to see the first (or in this case second) installment multiple times (good for complex movies) before feeling like they needed to see the next one. And it also gave people who didn't want to see it more than once, enough time and hype to build up to the next installment. Everyone wins. Especially the studios.
The problem with this concept is that nobody wants to fund it on an "unknown" because budgets are simply getting too large. Especially serial piece budgets that take longer to film, longer to edit, and generally require far more people to produce. Sinking that kind of money into a long-term project before knowing what the outcome will be is tantamount to suicide unless you're a billionaire.
Look at the original Hell's Angels budget and what nearly happened to Howard Hughes for an example of the risks involved. Granted, that may not be the best example due to how the film was shot and Hughes' insistance on perfection in everything, but you still get the point.
I really liked Primer and detested Pi. I think that has more to do with cinematography and directorial style than the subject matter though. I would definitely recommend either one to any slashdotter though because I think typically, both would be well liked by the majority of folks posting here.
I think the concept still holds, though, that you can write something that is intelligent and interesting to more than just geeks. The problem is that, despite what we might like to think, there really isn't that much out there that fits the bill. Yeah there are some great works out there, but they aren't really interesting to mass audiences, and those that are, will be whiddled by studios even further because they are unwilling to take any risks. So we, the people interested in something a little different, have to find it elsewhere while "mainstream consumers" ask for more remakes of "The Shaggy D.A." and "Can't Buy Me Love" (both of which I liked the original versions of).
Your example sucks. The title "sorcerer's stone" versus "philosopher's stone" has nothing to do with intelligence of the audience, but rather language usage. In the USA it was changed to sorcerer because we don't typically use the word philosopher to mean something other than the likes of Kant. The Brits, on the other hand, consider philosopher in both respects. Nothing to do with intelligence.
It should be "I couldn't care less". I could care less implies that it is an important issue to you, when what you want to say is that it is an utterly unimportant issue.
Somewhat different, true. I still believe that, while college degrees are overly hyped in the US they definitely can be a help. I think the problem is the emphasis on the degree instead of capability. The degree proves you can learn, that's all. If you've proven that through experience and a resume that got you an interview and you did well on the interview, odds are you'll do fine in the job. Problem is, these days, unless you have a huge amount of experience or know someone inside, most companies won't look at you except for very low level positions at crap wages. We've been trained over the last couple of generations to think we're "above" low level positions and crap wages though, which points at a whole other socio-economic issue, and why jobs are leaving.
That's a fallacy for any trip that is a "normal" commute, at highway speeds anyway. Well, assuming "much longer" is on the order of tens of minutes instead of single minutes. The time difference to go 16 miles (the average commute distance for US drivers) at 55 versus 75 is less than five minutes. I don't know about you but 5 minutes is worth far less to me than the idea of a relaxed drive to work where I can read the paper, or some work-related documents for the whole 17 minutes it takes to get there.
Then again, I think automated cars are a very scary scenario unless everyone is forced to have one. Too many unknowns to account for without a person who can react. Sure, the computer can probably react faster, but only if it has the same prediction capabilities that I have as far as looking at other drivers, not just the action of their vehicles. I've avoided plenty of accidents by paying attention to the driver and reacting before their car started moving "unpredictably". Someone is busy talking to a friend while they're merging, or they're looking in the rear-view mirror checking on the kids or what-have you. That kind of behavior can be seen by a human driver (who makes the effort) but won't be noticed by an AI until after the other driver starts doing something wrong with respect to vehicle movement. That may be a split second, but it's enough for me to not like the idea of automated control over some vehicles and not all of them.
I figured you meant children of a young age, as most people with common sense would mean that. I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just wanted to make the distinction that age limits are arbitrary. The value of innocence in children is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever been asked "why" 10 times in a row by a curious mind, I think.
The world does foist a lot on children at an age younger than I often like, but my point was that if it's dealt with accordingly, the children don't need to be "protected" from it so much as taught how to filter "properly". That's why I answer questions my kids ask. Most children probably don't need to know what an orgasm is, I'll agree. And even if my [young] children did ask I wouldn't explain a specific sexual act, but I'd explain that some people like different things in sex and they give those things names. And I would tell her she'd be welcome to ask again when she's old enough to really want to try sexual things, then we could discuss more specifics. At this point, I'm lucky enough that she's not particularly interested in sex yet (at nearly 12) but I can't see it being too far in the future when she is. I'm just hoping she's honest with me and her mom about it and is comfortable enough with us to ask us questions rather than someone else.
My implication wasn't meant to be that I know more than someone else or the information she would get elsewhere is inaccurate, just that without knowing the source of the information I'd be concerned that it was inaccurate, and I'm not willing to risk that. I'm all for sex-ed in schools, and expanded education elsewhere as well, from experimentation to reading "how to" books, as long as I know she has a strong base of accurate knowledge to start from and can make informed choices, regardless of subject matter, be it sex, violence, drugs, hang-gliding or whatever.
Yes, but never finishing college isn't the same as never attending.
I have yet to finish school, and I've been working in a "degree required" position for 10 years. My current position states "Master's degree required" and pays me well. I got my job based on my experience and my connections, but I never would have gotten started if I hadn't done some college.
You are sadly mistaken. I know of plenty of families with two working parents, some of them working several jobs between them, that don't buy expensive stuff and sure as hell don't live beyond their means. They do it because they can't afford rent and groceries without that. These aren't welfare families, and they aren't drug addicts or anything else like it. They are just poor people who live in a city where every neighborhood is being bought up real estate investors and the people living in those old houses get priced out of the neighborhood through "gentrification".
Just because you aren't exposed to people like that doesn't mean they aren't out there.
I'll agree that far more families are out there living beyond their means, but certainly not all people who have to have two working parents fit that category.
It's only sexist if you apply it only to one sex. Ask the father to quit his job sometime and I doubt you'll find too many people saying that a single income sexist.
That's all well and good. The problem is, happening naturally, doesn't mean "at age 18" when they are no longer a minor. Different people mature at different rates. My daughter asked me what an orgasm was when she was 6. I don't know exactly where she heard it, but we'd already explained sex to her a couple years earlier (in terms she understood) and childbirth because we were going to have another child. She asked obvious questions of where the baby came from and why mommy's tummy was getting bigger etc.
Many of my friends with kids my daughter's age freaked out that I explained an orgasm to her..."a part of sex that feels especially good" is what I told her.. but I think it's more important to answer my child's questions honestly in as simple terms as she can or is willing to accept, rather than let her grow up thinking she can't ask me questions because I'll just lie to her. Or worse asking someone else who doesn't know anything and she ends up in trouble for it, either with the law, or her health.
So I ask, was I wrong to answer her questions? She was obviously capable of formulating thoughts about sex on her own through simple conversations we'd had previous to that and wanted more information. She still has her innocence, and plays with cool toys, makes new friends, and runs around outside.
As for your Santa example, I ask you, what benefit does Santa bring? Modern society treats Santa like a billboard for consumerism. I'd rather not have my kids raised thinking that blind consumerism, and "something for nothing" is a good thing. Maybe it's just me.
Back to my original point, dictating that a child won't understand sex until they're 18 is simply short-sighted. Taking away adult's right to free speech is not only short-sighted, it's dangerous for society as a whole. If you can't be gauaranteed free speech, you can't protest. If you can't protest, you can't make change--for good or bad.
I'll take the chances of a few children being exposed and 1 or 2% of them possibly having a negative effect over losing the rights of a whole society anyday. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few and all that.
I think the point was, why should nudity need any "explaining away". US society (and we're not alone in this but I would say a minority world-wide) treats nudity and sexuality as the worst thing a child can be exposed to, when in reality, it's the most natural state for a living being to exist in.
We've been raised on the duality of selling sex, and the fact that sex is "forbidden" and taboo. Just look at how we treat our "leaders" who have sex "scandals" compared to how people in other countries do. They don't really have "sex scandals" in Europe as far as I'm aware, unless it's particularly kinky or someone was having sex for money.
I think you misread something. The judge didn't strike it down because children are not afforded the same rights as adults, he struck it down because presumably those children would eventually become adults. And adults deserve to keep their right tof free speech.
It certainly sounds to me like a very similar (if not the same) problem and it has a fix. Yes, it's a few mouse clicks, but it's a fix according to at least one of the people in the discussion you linked to. Maybe it is a different problem, I don't know. I have a PowerPC iBook so the problem doesn't affect me anyway.
So what you're saying is you're less capable than the people who did their PhDs just 10 years ago? Or just lazier?
As for "seriously encouraging research", what ever gave you the impression that's what colleges do? Colleges are geared toward "graduating a workforce" just as you suggest, because that's what runs an economy, and that's what runs a country. Research is certainly necessary, but it will happen whether colleges encourage it or not, because companies need to do research to keep profits.
Seriously people, this isn't a tragedy. Sure, it's minorly inconvenient, but these kids will still have access, they'll just have to make some effort to get it, and will be more likely to use it for its intended purpose as a result.
Then again, giving a raise to someone who uses the phrase "much more messier" might not look good on your supervisor's review. It probably evens out in the wash if he/she doesn't give you the raise but replaces the 3 day old pizza with a new one occasionally and gives the raise to someone who can actually communicate effectively./humor
Slashdot Mirror
Who in their right mind provides that information? Seriously, is it just me or is the general public getting stupider? No way am I providing my passwords to anyone, let alone some website.
I typically use the word philosopher for a different meaning, as do most Americans, and I'd dare say Brits as well. The fact that Brits may also use philosopher to mean something other than the currently accepted primary, secondary or tertiary** meaning of the word, gives rise to the fact that language is dynamic. Trying to reach a wider audience by using words familiar to them isn't, in my opinion, a necessity but I wouldn't necessarily calling it "dumbing down" either. How many people from Brittain would use the word fag in a book marketed for US consumers? Is it dumbing the book down because we have a different word for cigarette? I dare say it's not. Sure, it's slang, but effectively it's the same thing.
...t3h smart", believe what you will. I choose to typically believe intelligent people don't use "netspeak" in written argument, but you've proven me wrong there too. Good job.
As for "lol:
**Actually it's not the primary definition in the American Heritage Dictionary (or Merriam-Webster) but philosopher as an alchemist isn't listed as any definition. Granted I looked online for these since my office doesn't seem to have an unabridged dictionary anywhere and I actually use mine at home occasionally so I haven't brought it here.
Which of course might be the whole point. I don't consider the dynamic nature of language (like the "change" of the "primary" meaning of philosopher in the US) necessarily "dumbing down" of the language but maybe that's just me.
Excellent point, that I honestly hadn't thought of. I covered alchemy in my studies nearly 30 years ago but that still doesn't negate the fact that in the US we wouldn't have used the word "philosopher" we would have used the word "alchemist" to cover that kind of information.
"How many people would have gone to see a robot shoot-em-up popcorn flick but stayed away because of the poor association with a different great story?"
Honestly, I think you've gotten that backward. Realistically how many people (other than geeks) would have gone to see a movie true to the original work? I personally don't think the percentages of non-geeks going to see a "true" I-Robot would match the percentage of geeks that went and saw the mainstream I-Robot the studios produced. From the studio's perspective, they win. A lot of the geeks went and saw it hoping it would be like the book and everyone else went and saw it to see Wil Smith beating up robots.
Again, you have the problem of marketing that. And of course ticket sales. I think the six month break for the Matrix movies was a pretty good timespan. It gave fans long enough to see the first (or in this case second) installment multiple times (good for complex movies) before feeling like they needed to see the next one. And it also gave people who didn't want to see it more than once, enough time and hype to build up to the next installment. Everyone wins. Especially the studios.
The problem with this concept is that nobody wants to fund it on an "unknown" because budgets are simply getting too large. Especially serial piece budgets that take longer to film, longer to edit, and generally require far more people to produce. Sinking that kind of money into a long-term project before knowing what the outcome will be is tantamount to suicide unless you're a billionaire.
Look at the original Hell's Angels budget and what nearly happened to Howard Hughes for an example of the risks involved. Granted, that may not be the best example due to how the film was shot and Hughes' insistance on perfection in everything, but you still get the point.
What the hell is a "lady's front bottom"? You mean her "nether regions" (aka vagina)?
I really liked Primer and detested Pi. I think that has more to do with cinematography and directorial style than the subject matter though. I would definitely recommend either one to any slashdotter though because I think typically, both would be well liked by the majority of folks posting here.
I think the concept still holds, though, that you can write something that is intelligent and interesting to more than just geeks. The problem is that, despite what we might like to think, there really isn't that much out there that fits the bill. Yeah there are some great works out there, but they aren't really interesting to mass audiences, and those that are, will be whiddled by studios even further because they are unwilling to take any risks. So we, the people interested in something a little different, have to find it elsewhere while "mainstream consumers" ask for more remakes of "The Shaggy D.A." and "Can't Buy Me Love" (both of which I liked the original versions of).
You mean Star Trek isn't "short form" space opera? I seem to have missed something.
"But then something happened, and I lost interest."
We call that growing up and getting a life.
Your example sucks. The title "sorcerer's stone" versus "philosopher's stone" has nothing to do with intelligence of the audience, but rather language usage. In the USA it was changed to sorcerer because we don't typically use the word philosopher to mean something other than the likes of Kant. The Brits, on the other hand, consider philosopher in both respects. Nothing to do with intelligence.
It should be "I couldn't care less". I could care less implies that it is an important issue to you, when what you want to say is that it is an utterly unimportant issue.
Somewhat different, true. I still believe that, while college degrees are overly hyped in the US they definitely can be a help. I think the problem is the emphasis on the degree instead of capability. The degree proves you can learn, that's all. If you've proven that through experience and a resume that got you an interview and you did well on the interview, odds are you'll do fine in the job. Problem is, these days, unless you have a huge amount of experience or know someone inside, most companies won't look at you except for very low level positions at crap wages. We've been trained over the last couple of generations to think we're "above" low level positions and crap wages though, which points at a whole other socio-economic issue, and why jobs are leaving.
That's a fallacy for any trip that is a "normal" commute, at highway speeds anyway. Well, assuming "much longer" is on the order of tens of minutes instead of single minutes. The time difference to go 16 miles (the average commute distance for US drivers) at 55 versus 75 is less than five minutes. I don't know about you but 5 minutes is worth far less to me than the idea of a relaxed drive to work where I can read the paper, or some work-related documents for the whole 17 minutes it takes to get there.
Then again, I think automated cars are a very scary scenario unless everyone is forced to have one. Too many unknowns to account for without a person who can react. Sure, the computer can probably react faster, but only if it has the same prediction capabilities that I have as far as looking at other drivers, not just the action of their vehicles. I've avoided plenty of accidents by paying attention to the driver and reacting before their car started moving "unpredictably". Someone is busy talking to a friend while they're merging, or they're looking in the rear-view mirror checking on the kids or what-have you. That kind of behavior can be seen by a human driver (who makes the effort) but won't be noticed by an AI until after the other driver starts doing something wrong with respect to vehicle movement. That may be a split second, but it's enough for me to not like the idea of automated control over some vehicles and not all of them.
And I work with unmanned vehicles for a living.
"Went back to collage under a pseudonym and got his own damned degree."
Yeah, but a degree in Photoshop only takes you so far.
I figured you meant children of a young age, as most people with common sense would mean that. I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just wanted to make the distinction that age limits are arbitrary. The value of innocence in children is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever been asked "why" 10 times in a row by a curious mind, I think.
The world does foist a lot on children at an age younger than I often like, but my point was that if it's dealt with accordingly, the children don't need to be "protected" from it so much as taught how to filter "properly". That's why I answer questions my kids ask. Most children probably don't need to know what an orgasm is, I'll agree. And even if my [young] children did ask I wouldn't explain a specific sexual act, but I'd explain that some people like different things in sex and they give those things names. And I would tell her she'd be welcome to ask again when she's old enough to really want to try sexual things, then we could discuss more specifics. At this point, I'm lucky enough that she's not particularly interested in sex yet (at nearly 12) but I can't see it being too far in the future when she is. I'm just hoping she's honest with me and her mom about it and is comfortable enough with us to ask us questions rather than someone else.
My implication wasn't meant to be that I know more than someone else or the information she would get elsewhere is inaccurate, just that without knowing the source of the information I'd be concerned that it was inaccurate, and I'm not willing to risk that. I'm all for sex-ed in schools, and expanded education elsewhere as well, from experimentation to reading "how to" books, as long as I know she has a strong base of accurate knowledge to start from and can make informed choices, regardless of subject matter, be it sex, violence, drugs, hang-gliding or whatever.
Yes, but never finishing college isn't the same as never attending.
I have yet to finish school, and I've been working in a "degree required" position for 10 years. My current position states "Master's degree required" and pays me well. I got my job based on my experience and my connections, but I never would have gotten started if I hadn't done some college.
You are sadly mistaken. I know of plenty of families with two working parents, some of them working several jobs between them, that don't buy expensive stuff and sure as hell don't live beyond their means. They do it because they can't afford rent and groceries without that. These aren't welfare families, and they aren't drug addicts or anything else like it. They are just poor people who live in a city where every neighborhood is being bought up real estate investors and the people living in those old houses get priced out of the neighborhood through "gentrification".
Just because you aren't exposed to people like that doesn't mean they aren't out there.
I'll agree that far more families are out there living beyond their means, but certainly not all people who have to have two working parents fit that category.
It's only sexist if you apply it only to one sex. Ask the father to quit his job sometime and I doubt you'll find too many people saying that a single income sexist.
That's all well and good. The problem is, happening naturally, doesn't mean "at age 18" when they are no longer a minor. Different people mature at different rates. My daughter asked me what an orgasm was when she was 6. I don't know exactly where she heard it, but we'd already explained sex to her a couple years earlier (in terms she understood) and childbirth because we were going to have another child. She asked obvious questions of where the baby came from and why mommy's tummy was getting bigger etc.
Many of my friends with kids my daughter's age freaked out that I explained an orgasm to her..."a part of sex that feels especially good" is what I told her.. but I think it's more important to answer my child's questions honestly in as simple terms as she can or is willing to accept, rather than let her grow up thinking she can't ask me questions because I'll just lie to her. Or worse asking someone else who doesn't know anything and she ends up in trouble for it, either with the law, or her health.
So I ask, was I wrong to answer her questions? She was obviously capable of formulating thoughts about sex on her own through simple conversations we'd had previous to that and wanted more information. She still has her innocence, and plays with cool toys, makes new friends, and runs around outside.
As for your Santa example, I ask you, what benefit does Santa bring? Modern society treats Santa like a billboard for consumerism. I'd rather not have my kids raised thinking that blind consumerism, and "something for nothing" is a good thing. Maybe it's just me.
Back to my original point, dictating that a child won't understand sex until they're 18 is simply short-sighted. Taking away adult's right to free speech is not only short-sighted, it's dangerous for society as a whole. If you can't be gauaranteed free speech, you can't protest. If you can't protest, you can't make change--for good or bad.
I'll take the chances of a few children being exposed and 1 or 2% of them possibly having a negative effect over losing the rights of a whole society anyday. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few and all that.
I think the point was, why should nudity need any "explaining away". US society (and we're not alone in this but I would say a minority world-wide) treats nudity and sexuality as the worst thing a child can be exposed to, when in reality, it's the most natural state for a living being to exist in.
We've been raised on the duality of selling sex, and the fact that sex is "forbidden" and taboo. Just look at how we treat our "leaders" who have sex "scandals" compared to how people in other countries do. They don't really have "sex scandals" in Europe as far as I'm aware, unless it's particularly kinky or someone was having sex for money.
I think you misread something. The judge didn't strike it down because children are not afforded the same rights as adults, he struck it down because presumably those children would eventually become adults. And adults deserve to keep their right tof free speech.
This is the link I was referring to. http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304 482
It certainly sounds to me like a very similar (if not the same) problem and it has a fix. Yes, it's a few mouse clicks, but it's a fix according to at least one of the people in the discussion you linked to. Maybe it is a different problem, I don't know. I have a PowerPC iBook so the problem doesn't affect me anyway.
And you obviously didn't read the article, which clearly stated that the internet would be available in the libraries 24/7.
So what you're saying is you're less capable than the people who did their PhDs just 10 years ago? Or just lazier?
As for "seriously encouraging research", what ever gave you the impression that's what colleges do? Colleges are geared toward "graduating a workforce" just as you suggest, because that's what runs an economy, and that's what runs a country. Research is certainly necessary, but it will happen whether colleges encourage it or not, because companies need to do research to keep profits.
Seriously people, this isn't a tragedy. Sure, it's minorly inconvenient, but these kids will still have access, they'll just have to make some effort to get it, and will be more likely to use it for its intended purpose as a result.
Get over yourselves.
Then again, giving a raise to someone who uses the phrase "much more messier" might not look good on your supervisor's review. It probably evens out in the wash if he/she doesn't give you the raise but replaces the 3 day old pizza with a new one occasionally and gives the raise to someone who can actually communicate effectively. /humor