Seriously, I love how this gets a zero. And yes, some might try to do just that. But you know, it's a tad harder. And how much are they going to get for a $5 gift card? $1-$2 bucks. Most won't believe it even has any charge on it. So they'll probably figure they might as well go to the McDs up the road.
But there you have it....proof that most of you on Slashdot suck. Sorry.
So because I've taken the initiative to help my fellow man out of my own pocket, I am worthy of a zero. Can I say this, to all those who lowered the ranking.
But you know what, the cost of sailing to the new world wasn't super-cheap either. The way many did it was to agree to a working contract. Or to pool together, send some family over, who would then finance the journey of others.
Such requires industry, and it's why I very easily see the Moon becoming an industrialized manufacturing zone and environmental pollution standards made increasingly stricter here on Earth. Do I see this in this century, no... maye the next, maybe in 500 years.
But would it be better to have our iPhones and other industrially manufactured, polluting products made in a place with no natural envionment to be harmed. And to have Earth cease being polluted by our industry.
"but most of the world's greatest cities have high population densities"
a) Those high densities are pretty much supported by the low-density farm regions
b) Even those high density areas, the populations tend to have space. Perhaps a mere apartment, not as much as other places, but it's a place. And they can live reasonably well because of the supports that come from the low-density spaces mentioned above, and from the social structure. (ie: you don't need a kitchen if you can make enough money to eat out every night).
c) Without space, life pretty much sucks in those high density areas too. Just happens to be a bit easier to get hand outs, or eat someone else's wasted food.
--
"We can't find many people who want to live in Wyoming or South Dakota, and you think people want to live on the moon?"
Can't find many jobs in Wyoming or South Dakota, that would allow someone to be able to own their own space.
If people were given a double-wide or modular home and allowed to North Dakota, plant a stick and own the 50 acre square. A lot would go.
The problem is that one can't find the means to pay for the "space".
--
Mind you, everyone posting seems to be focused on the moon. And I would agree with most of the criticisms. Outside of being a good industrial zone environment, the Moon does not offer much.
But we're finding new planets. And it is only a matter of decades (or less) before we likely find a habitale world.
That is when it will become a much more intriguing question. Because I bet you nations like China and India, upon said discovery, will put far more effort toward finding a way to reach said worlds.
Well, last week I bought $100 worth of gift cards from McDonald's to give to those homeless I see standing on street corners. I don't like giving money as it so often goes toward drugs/alcohol. I figured, this would allow me to be charitable, while increasing the likelihood that my hard earned cash I am giving to help them actually goes to food.
$5 card = 4 meals (1 McChicken + glass of water)
***
Ironically, all of those lambasting me as a loon for supporting space exploration and likely deriding me as just not caring about the poor have probably done far less to help the poor.
We could always build down...we humans use an extremely small part of the earth as a whole. We're more like mold growing on the surface of a fruit. We have yet to really infect and grow into the fruit of the earth.:-P
PS - As I like to add to people who make comments typical of yours. You have a god given right to reduce that population by one. And perhaps alleviate the problem some.
A much more likely long term strategy would be to land on the moon, construct a nuclear powered manufacturing zone. This region would essentially become the major manufacturing area. All those nasty high-falluting polluting factories poisoning our land and water to build our iPhones would instead destroy the natural environment of the moon. Yes, all those poor lunanimals would go extinct. All the moon rivers would become polluted...but earth would remain pretty.
Then from there, you construct environs that remain in space. Think large flat discs that grow wheat, corn, and other vegetable matter. They float aimed at the sun (heck, they could rotate to provide the plants a night time and to charge solar panels to run the units). These would be the new space homesteaders.
No, but if India were to build a colony on the moon, I'd wager quite a few impoverished Indians would take the gamble of the odds of perhaps owning land and having a better life. Granted, the moon is not very good example, not being very habitable. But given an earth-like world (assuming we find a means of quicker travel to such), yes, I think many Indians would flock to that chance..
Thank you, but I am far more interested in reach Mars than the Moon.
But let's be honest, what are the likelihood that we will 100% eliminate poverty, not very good. In fact, the asteroid impact may be a more likely occurrence.
Please note, that doesn't mean we DON'T endeavor to eliminate poverty, and to at least reduce it. I think a better argument is to quit spending a trillion dollars on war than several billion on space.
Actually, the university I was thinking of was Yale. No, didn't really go there. I went to smaller schools, with smaller class sizes for most courses. But evne in small schools, major freshman/sophomore courses were often fairly large 20-40 folk.
And if you don't think the over-priced, under-value, present college system is in significant risk of a shake up that will likely put half the schools in existence today out of business. Than you're not very good at seeing the future.
But hey, lots of people didn't pull out of the dot com bust, the housing bust, or 2008 market crash, nor did they buy Netflix at $10-$15. I did all those things. So I when my brain sees a likely future outcome, I usually give it the benefit of the doubt.
Because, the mantra of the article, and why an article like this even exists, is as an argument about the inability of "online" education to provide satisfactory results like an in classroom experience.
But the truth is, it can...in many situations, offer an equivalent experience.
(Seriously, and anyone failing to realize that was the point of the author's article is in denial. Because you won't find an article written on Southern Connecticut State University's statistics course's poor teaching quality.
This university offered CS & IT degrees. All were required to take microbiology. It was a standard requirement for ALL students. Be your a police sci, lit major, or what not.
In fact, I was looking to transfer to a university. And although I had three biology courses under my belt. They required ALL incoming students to take microbiology. Really, WTF does a computer science major need a "4th" biology course for?
Really, have you seen most undergrad courses that are filled with dozens, even hundreds of students. There is pretty much nothing beyond a token level of 2-way communication.
Okay, pronounced bias as his job and livelihood are on the line.
" It is poorly structured; it evidences an almost complete lack of planning for the lectures; it routinely fails to properly define or use standard terms or notation; it necessitates occasional massive gaps where “magic” happens;"
So he is pronouncing it as a typical course offering of a tenured professor. Seriously, that's about the most apt description of most courses I took with tenured professors.
"best example of the lack of planning is how radically off-syllabus the course went from its initial advertising"
Once again, can we say typical of many college courses, especially those taught by tenured professors.
"neither Thrun nor the system is really “listening” to take note of when a presentation has misfired and needs clarification"
Once again, an apt description of most classes taught by tenured professors. See a trend here?
"half the time a question is actually asked before students have been given the tools to answer it"
Wait, isn't that when the tenured professor retorted "Well it's in your book, you should have known it", to which the student replied, but it's in an upcoming chapter we haven't been assigned to read yet. To which the professor retorts "Well a good student should be reading ahead" rather than admitting any failure.
1) Humanity eliminates all poverty, is subsequently wiped out by asteroid....CONGRATULATIONS!!!
2) Poverty, one aspect is that it's strongly tied to a lack of space. If we develop the means to expand our habitable environments. Poverty can be greatly reduced. We see this, with the discovery and colonization of America's, which in fact improved Europe by allowing many of the impoverished to migrate and become land owners.
Did you read what I said. ITUs standard is meaningless. Theoretical peak is meaningless. ITU decided on a whim to make 4G = 1gps. But if you look at the history, in context to the data rate from 1x on word. The base speed was usually around 10x the old generation.
Thus 4G should be 10mbs, and 5G will be 100mbs. The fact that LTE technology could theoretically hit 300mbs is irrelevant. The role out of a 5th generation data service should be 100mbs. And 6th generation should be 1000mbs (or 1gbs).
Comcast told me for about 7 years that broadband was coming to my area (one of the three biggest cities in Connecticut). It finally came, the year I left the state.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, I love how this gets a zero. And yes, some might try to do just that. But you know, it's a tad harder. And how much are they going to get for a $5 gift card? $1-$2 bucks. Most won't believe it even has any charge on it. So they'll probably figure they might as well go to the McDs up the road.
But there you have it....proof that most of you on Slashdot suck. Sorry.
So because I've taken the initiative to help my fellow man out of my own pocket, I am worthy of a zero. Can I say this, to all those who lowered the ranking.
Kiss my ASS!!!!!
I'd suggest finding a charity that would provide them to schools in Africa.
At this time, yes....
But you know what, the cost of sailing to the new world wasn't super-cheap either. The way many did it was to agree to a working contract. Or to pool together, send some family over, who would then finance the journey of others.
Such requires industry, and it's why I very easily see the Moon becoming an industrialized manufacturing zone and environmental pollution standards made increasingly stricter here on Earth. Do I see this in this century, no... maye the next, maybe in 500 years.
But would it be better to have our iPhones and other industrially manufactured, polluting products made in a place with no natural envionment to be harmed. And to have Earth cease being polluted by our industry.
Just saying...
"but most of the world's greatest cities have high population densities"
a) Those high densities are pretty much supported by the low-density farm regions
b) Even those high density areas, the populations tend to have space. Perhaps a mere apartment, not as much as other places, but it's a place. And they can live reasonably well because of the supports that come from the low-density spaces mentioned above, and from the social structure. (ie: you don't need a kitchen if you can make enough money to eat out every night).
c) Without space, life pretty much sucks in those high density areas too. Just happens to be a bit easier to get hand outs, or eat someone else's wasted food.
--
"We can't find many people who want to live in Wyoming or South Dakota, and you think people want to live on the moon?"
Can't find many jobs in Wyoming or South Dakota, that would allow someone to be able to own their own space.
If people were given a double-wide or modular home and allowed to North Dakota, plant a stick and own the 50 acre square. A lot would go.
The problem is that one can't find the means to pay for the "space".
--
Mind you, everyone posting seems to be focused on the moon. And I would agree with most of the criticisms. Outside of being a good industrial zone environment, the Moon does not offer much.
But we're finding new planets. And it is only a matter of decades (or less) before we likely find a habitale world.
That is when it will become a much more intriguing question. Because I bet you nations like China and India, upon said discovery, will put far more effort toward finding a way to reach said worlds.
Well, last week I bought $100 worth of gift cards from McDonald's to give to those homeless I see standing on street corners. I don't like giving money as it so often goes toward drugs/alcohol. I figured, this would allow me to be charitable, while increasing the likelihood that my hard earned cash I am giving to help them actually goes to food.
$5 card = 4 meals (1 McChicken + glass of water)
***
Ironically, all of those lambasting me as a loon for supporting space exploration and likely deriding me as just not caring about the poor have probably done far less to help the poor.
We could always build down...we humans use an extremely small part of the earth as a whole. We're more like mold growing on the surface of a fruit. We have yet to really infect and grow into the fruit of the earth. :-P
PS - As I like to add to people who make comments typical of yours. You have a god given right to reduce that population by one. And perhaps alleviate the problem some.
Why set it down anywhere?
A much more likely long term strategy would be to land on the moon, construct a nuclear powered manufacturing zone. This region would essentially become the major manufacturing area. All those nasty high-falluting polluting factories poisoning our land and water to build our iPhones would instead destroy the natural environment of the moon. Yes, all those poor lunanimals would go extinct. All the moon rivers would become polluted...but earth would remain pretty.
Then from there, you construct environs that remain in space. Think large flat discs that grow wheat, corn, and other vegetable matter. They float aimed at the sun (heck, they could rotate to provide the plants a night time and to charge solar panels to run the units). These would be the new space homesteaders.
Really, ask ANY poor impoverished person. Would you like a few dozen acres of land.
Most will gladly accept it...
That is until you build from the moon.
Why not, "Chopped, Election Series"...that's right, where the losing politicians serves the winner (on the dinner plate).
Crap, now the above poster is right, I am a loon.
No, but if India were to build a colony on the moon, I'd wager quite a few impoverished Indians would take the gamble of the odds of perhaps owning land and having a better life. Granted, the moon is not very good example, not being very habitable. But given an earth-like world (assuming we find a means of quicker travel to such), yes, I think many Indians would flock to that chance..
Thank you, but I am far more interested in reach Mars than the Moon.
But let's be honest, what are the likelihood that we will 100% eliminate poverty, not very good. In fact, the asteroid impact may be a more likely occurrence.
Please note, that doesn't mean we DON'T endeavor to eliminate poverty, and to at least reduce it. I think a better argument is to quit spending a trillion dollars on war than several billion on space.
Actually, the university I was thinking of was Yale. No, didn't really go there. I went to smaller schools, with smaller class sizes for most courses. But evne in small schools, major freshman/sophomore courses were often fairly large 20-40 folk.
And if you don't think the over-priced, under-value, present college system is in significant risk of a shake up that will likely put half the schools in existence today out of business. Than you're not very good at seeing the future.
But hey, lots of people didn't pull out of the dot com bust, the housing bust, or 2008 market crash, nor did they buy Netflix at $10-$15. I did all those things. So I when my brain sees a likely future outcome, I usually give it the benefit of the doubt.
Because, the mantra of the article, and why an article like this even exists, is as an argument about the inability of "online" education to provide satisfactory results like an in classroom experience.
But the truth is, it can...in many situations, offer an equivalent experience.
(Seriously, and anyone failing to realize that was the point of the author's article is in denial. Because you won't find an article written on Southern Connecticut State University's statistics course's poor teaching quality.
This university offered CS & IT degrees. All were required to take microbiology. It was a standard requirement for ALL students. Be your a police sci, lit major, or what not.
It's called email/comment postings.
In fact, I was looking to transfer to a university. And although I had three biology courses under my belt. They required ALL incoming students to take microbiology. Really, WTF does a computer science major need a "4th" biology course for?
UNIVERGREEDSITY
Nope, many colleges mandate you take them anyways...fun fun fun.
Really, have you seen most undergrad courses that are filled with dozens, even hundreds of students. There is pretty much nothing beyond a token level of 2-way communication.
"college educator myself"
Okay, pronounced bias as his job and livelihood are on the line.
" It is poorly structured; it evidences an almost complete lack of planning for the lectures; it routinely fails to properly define or use standard terms or notation; it necessitates occasional massive gaps where “magic” happens;"
So he is pronouncing it as a typical course offering of a tenured professor. Seriously, that's about the most apt description of most courses I took with tenured professors.
"best example of the lack of planning is how radically off-syllabus the course went from its initial advertising"
Once again, can we say typical of many college courses, especially those taught by tenured professors.
"neither Thrun nor the system is really “listening” to take note of when a presentation has misfired and needs clarification"
Once again, an apt description of most classes taught by tenured professors. See a trend here?
"half the time a question is actually asked before students have been given the tools to answer it"
Wait, isn't that when the tenured professor retorted "Well it's in your book, you should have known it", to which the student replied, but it's in an upcoming chapter we haven't been assigned to read yet. To which the professor retorts "Well a good student should be reading ahead" rather than admitting any failure.
1) Humanity eliminates all poverty, is subsequently wiped out by asteroid....CONGRATULATIONS!!!
2) Poverty, one aspect is that it's strongly tied to a lack of space. If we develop the means to expand our habitable environments. Poverty can be greatly reduced. We see this, with the discovery and colonization of America's, which in fact improved Europe by allowing many of the impoverished to migrate and become land owners.
Or ISN (Inter-Stellar News Network) - I thinkt hat's what it was called on Babylon 5.
Did you read what I said. ITUs standard is meaningless. Theoretical peak is meaningless. ITU decided on a whim to make 4G = 1gps. But if you look at the history, in context to the data rate from 1x on word. The base speed was usually around 10x the old generation.
Thus 4G should be 10mbs, and 5G will be 100mbs. The fact that LTE technology could theoretically hit 300mbs is irrelevant. The role out of a 5th generation data service should be 100mbs. And 6th generation should be 1000mbs (or 1gbs).
The "As Seen on TV" channel...
Seriously, hasn't this been done by every pan salesmen at a farm faire? Every merchant at a bazar?
***
I am patenting "Expressive Expoundings of Thoughts". I now own EETs. All of your posts violate my EET patent. Please pay me $0.02 per post. Thank you.
Comcast told me for about 7 years that broadband was coming to my area (one of the three biggest cities in Connecticut). It finally came, the year I left the state.