For what it's worth I'm totally comfortable with my use of the word martyr. People killed for religious beliefs is one sense of the word; it is the historical basis of the word; but today the word is widely used the way I used it, widely accepted that way by native speakers.
I studied computer science in college but I didn't learn to code until I worked in private practice. This is similar to learning legal theory in law school but learning how to practice law in private practice.
That's right. People risk their lives to do adventures like this because it's worth it. Some of them become martyrs for the knowledge needed to achieve the goal. It's still sad and we are still right to ask if we could have done better, and how we can do better now.
To me it seems that they are doing what the law intends. And what the law intends is bad, yeah totally agreed, but then you should "blame the law" by which I mean the people who made the law. I don't want (for example) police officers deciding what to enforce; good or bad, I want them to enforce the law, and I'll take up my beefs with the law with my representative. That's all I'm saying.
"merely because there is a law that lets them do it"
If the action is approved by statute then that is good reason for them to take it. They should follow statute.
If a statute is unconstitutional then it is up to courts to decide that. We don't want middle managers deciding what the Constitution says. They should obey Congress, and Congress should be chosen by the voters. And they do, and it is. So either blame nobody or blame voters or maybe blame Congress, but don't blame the IRS.
I don't agree. If you called such a program "Protecting Kittens" then the other party would say "we are against dumping raw sewage into the reservoir".
A group of human being got together, drafted a statement, voted on it and APPROVED it containing these words:
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs"
If what they meant was something different then they would have said that. If "Critical Thinking Skills" was the name of a program where they taught people to assassinate foreign leaders when a certain song plays, then the Republicans would have said that they opposed that. Texas Republicans oppose critical thinking. They said so.
That statement could never, ever be approved by a group of people who don't specifically reject critical thinking skills. Never. Even if you were to equate HOTS with critical thinking -- a conclusion which is not supported by the grammar of the statement -- then you still have people stating in black and white that they disapprove of critical thinking skills. It is not a straw man. They said it, they meant it, and they deserve the ridicule they've received for it.
I think you mistakenly replied to the wrong comment; it doesn't seem to be related to what I said. For instance, I never used the word "right", so any discussion of rightness and wrongness isn't related to my comment.
Here, though, I'll reply to you: in a democracy legal action is legitimized by consensus. We can judge the consensus as good or bad, but sufficient consensus is what we require to take action. In America and many places we require a majority for most things and supermajorities of different sizes for some rare things. If a sufficient consensus wanted to return to slavery then you and I might agree that isn't "right" but that would be a legitimate democratic action.
Luckily we don't need to equate every single law with "a return to slavery". A regulation which keeps prices consistent between customers might be good or bad but we can safely say that only a fucking moron would equate it to slavery.
"After all, if "most people" want to discriminate against a minority group, that should be ok, right?"
Every law discriminates against minority groups, so you'll need to be specific. For instance, laws against murder discriminate against the minority of people who ever murder.
Anyway, whether a certain form of discrimination is "ok" is a value judgement. What I'm saying is that if most people want a law, then that's a good enough reason to have it. In America, we have different levels of what "most" means in different circumstances, but there is no law that can't be passed if enough-most people want it. And that is as it should be.
You can absolutely teach critical thinking -- reason, logic, logical fallacies, historical examples, its centrality in science. I was taught critical thinking in public school in the 1990s.
I wish I had a recording of that exchange. My guess, which is nothing but a presumption, is that it occurred nothing like what you describe. But, hey, you were there and I wasn't.
My public high school teachers not only taught us critical thinking, but called it critical thinking and explained why it was important. I graduated from high school in 1998.
One teacher even taught us about the "authorial fallacy", which you might have pointed out to your teacher makes even the author's own statements irrelevant to interpretation. The only thing that matters in literary criticism is how well you can support your interpretation, which perhaps you didn't do well enough for your teacher to give much credit. Or perhaps she was just a dumb meanie.
Well, whatever it is, if you want critical thinkers then you definitely don't want Texas Republicans. Or, at the very least, if you are considering hiring a Texas Republican you should ask them if they refudiate their party platform.
I've been in similar situations. Legality aside, I don't like that practice and a handful of times I've taken the time to email the company and tell them why I decided to use their competitor. Sometimes it has cost me a small or medium amount of money, but I wouldn't let my feelings cost me a large amount of money.
The question I leave you with is, why don't you think you'd get an even better price by going through Lycos or HotBot? Personally I feel like a chump when I realize I'm being charged more for the same product, and I try not to transact with people who make me feel like a chump.
It should be illegal if most people don't like it. That's how laws improve society. Why should it be illegal to play loud music in populated areas during the night? For no other reason than that's what people prefer.
I'm not convinced that this issue meets that threshold, but maybe it does.
"Do you also consider frequent-buyer discounts, loyalty programs, and targeted electronic coupons to be "false advertising"?"
I don't know about false advertising but what I don't like about those programs is that they transfer money from my pocket to the pockets of people who I don't think deserve my money. They are a way for people who don't like to jump through hoops to subsidize the lifestyles of people who do like to jump through hoops.
I try to avoid companies with those types of programs, but of course its hard. My best way is to use the local grocery store that doesn't have a card. Often it's simply impossible to both buy what I want and also not get burned by those programs.
Any company that makes me feel like a chump is on my shit list and I try not to buy from them anymore. Bilking me for more money than your other customers is a top way to make me feel like a chump.
It's a problem of false negatives. I've never been confronted with a UAC warning for which it was appropriate to say no. Never.
When 100% of past warnings were unnecessary people don't pay attention to warnings anymore. This isn't a problem with human behavior, this is a problem with the warnings. Warnings need to have a memorably high rate of indicating actual danger -- five or ten percent is enough. One in a million is not enough.
Windows is like the crazy guy on the corner who says "the end is near!" Yeah, sure, maybe this time he's right, but we've heard that false message too many times to even bother listening to it.
Gosh, finding that substantiation might be really difficult. You know, you might have to click on a damn link and read a damn article, or maybe even glance at the paper that the article is about.
Since I know you won't do that, here's the information that you would have gotten if you'd cared more about educating yourself than burping up your opinion:
When women began entering the general workforce, their participation in college majors increased steadily in all fields including computer science. Then suddenly female participation in CS tanked while the trendlines of all other fields of study continued to increase.
So why was CS different than all the others? That's the question asked and answered by the study.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy shit I just got defended by Bruce Perens.
For what it's worth I'm totally comfortable with my use of the word martyr. People killed for religious beliefs is one sense of the word; it is the historical basis of the word; but today the word is widely used the way I used it, widely accepted that way by native speakers.
"Then how are those involved in this one not counted?"
What's the question exactly?
I studied computer science in college but I didn't learn to code until I worked in private practice. This is similar to learning legal theory in law school but learning how to practice law in private practice.
No offense take at all. We differ on what we think the goal is, that's all.
The goal is "to know everything". The Challenger crew was on a frontier of that goal.
"The goal of low-cost sub-orbital manned flights"
Expand your goals! That one is little. We have a long ways to go.
"The ultimate goal being profit for shareholders and find a new way to waste money"
So, just to be clear, the goal is for humanity to conquer the universe. Rich people riding rockets is a means, and we're playing a long game.
That's right. People risk their lives to do adventures like this because it's worth it. Some of them become martyrs for the knowledge needed to achieve the goal. It's still sad and we are still right to ask if we could have done better, and how we can do better now.
To me it seems that they are doing what the law intends. And what the law intends is bad, yeah totally agreed, but then you should "blame the law" by which I mean the people who made the law. I don't want (for example) police officers deciding what to enforce; good or bad, I want them to enforce the law, and I'll take up my beefs with the law with my representative. That's all I'm saying.
"merely because there is a law that lets them do it"
If the action is approved by statute then that is good reason for them to take it. They should follow statute.
If a statute is unconstitutional then it is up to courts to decide that. We don't want middle managers deciding what the Constitution says. They should obey Congress, and Congress should be chosen by the voters. And they do, and it is. So either blame nobody or blame voters or maybe blame Congress, but don't blame the IRS.
I don't agree. If you called such a program "Protecting Kittens" then the other party would say "we are against dumping raw sewage into the reservoir".
A group of human being got together, drafted a statement, voted on it and APPROVED it containing these words:
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs"
If what they meant was something different then they would have said that. If "Critical Thinking Skills" was the name of a program where they taught people to assassinate foreign leaders when a certain song plays, then the Republicans would have said that they opposed that. Texas Republicans oppose critical thinking. They said so.
That statement could never, ever be approved by a group of people who don't specifically reject critical thinking skills. Never. Even if you were to equate HOTS with critical thinking -- a conclusion which is not supported by the grammar of the statement -- then you still have people stating in black and white that they disapprove of critical thinking skills. It is not a straw man. They said it, they meant it, and they deserve the ridicule they've received for it.
Did you honestly miss the joke or were you yourself joking?
I think you mistakenly replied to the wrong comment; it doesn't seem to be related to what I said. For instance, I never used the word "right", so any discussion of rightness and wrongness isn't related to my comment.
Here, though, I'll reply to you: in a democracy legal action is legitimized by consensus. We can judge the consensus as good or bad, but sufficient consensus is what we require to take action. In America and many places we require a majority for most things and supermajorities of different sizes for some rare things. If a sufficient consensus wanted to return to slavery then you and I might agree that isn't "right" but that would be a legitimate democratic action.
Luckily we don't need to equate every single law with "a return to slavery". A regulation which keeps prices consistent between customers might be good or bad but we can safely say that only a fucking moron would equate it to slavery.
"After all, if "most people" want to discriminate against a minority group, that should be ok, right?"
Every law discriminates against minority groups, so you'll need to be specific. For instance, laws against murder discriminate against the minority of people who ever murder.
Anyway, whether a certain form of discrimination is "ok" is a value judgement. What I'm saying is that if most people want a law, then that's a good enough reason to have it. In America, we have different levels of what "most" means in different circumstances, but there is no law that can't be passed if enough-most people want it. And that is as it should be.
You can absolutely teach critical thinking -- reason, logic, logical fallacies, historical examples, its centrality in science. I was taught critical thinking in public school in the 1990s.
I wish I had a recording of that exchange. My guess, which is nothing but a presumption, is that it occurred nothing like what you describe. But, hey, you were there and I wasn't.
My public high school teachers not only taught us critical thinking, but called it critical thinking and explained why it was important. I graduated from high school in 1998.
One teacher even taught us about the "authorial fallacy", which you might have pointed out to your teacher makes even the author's own statements irrelevant to interpretation. The only thing that matters in literary criticism is how well you can support your interpretation, which perhaps you didn't do well enough for your teacher to give much credit. Or perhaps she was just a dumb meanie.
"Now, they want people who can think critically - meaning someone who wasn't trained in any specific skillset but critically."
I don't agree that that is what 'critical thinking' means. What you describe is what I would call a 'liberal arts education'.
Well, whatever it is, if you want critical thinkers then you definitely don't want Texas Republicans. Or, at the very least, if you are considering hiring a Texas Republican you should ask them if they refudiate their party platform.
I've been in similar situations. Legality aside, I don't like that practice and a handful of times I've taken the time to email the company and tell them why I decided to use their competitor. Sometimes it has cost me a small or medium amount of money, but I wouldn't let my feelings cost me a large amount of money.
The question I leave you with is, why don't you think you'd get an even better price by going through Lycos or HotBot? Personally I feel like a chump when I realize I'm being charged more for the same product, and I try not to transact with people who make me feel like a chump.
Well done. Here's the reference for anyone who doesn't get it.
It should be illegal if most people don't like it. That's how laws improve society. Why should it be illegal to play loud music in populated areas during the night? For no other reason than that's what people prefer.
I'm not convinced that this issue meets that threshold, but maybe it does.
"Do you also consider frequent-buyer discounts, loyalty programs, and targeted electronic coupons to be "false advertising"?"
I don't know about false advertising but what I don't like about those programs is that they transfer money from my pocket to the pockets of people who I don't think deserve my money. They are a way for people who don't like to jump through hoops to subsidize the lifestyles of people who do like to jump through hoops.
I try to avoid companies with those types of programs, but of course its hard. My best way is to use the local grocery store that doesn't have a card. Often it's simply impossible to both buy what I want and also not get burned by those programs.
Any company that makes me feel like a chump is on my shit list and I try not to buy from them anymore. Bilking me for more money than your other customers is a top way to make me feel like a chump.
I didn't say his point was wrong, I said it was wrong according to the paper in this article.
It's a problem of false negatives. I've never been confronted with a UAC warning for which it was appropriate to say no. Never.
When 100% of past warnings were unnecessary people don't pay attention to warnings anymore. This isn't a problem with human behavior, this is a problem with the warnings. Warnings need to have a memorably high rate of indicating actual danger -- five or ten percent is enough. One in a million is not enough.
Windows is like the crazy guy on the corner who says "the end is near!" Yeah, sure, maybe this time he's right, but we've heard that false message too many times to even bother listening to it.
Gosh, finding that substantiation might be really difficult. You know, you might have to click on a damn link and read a damn article, or maybe even glance at the paper that the article is about.
Since I know you won't do that, here's the information that you would have gotten if you'd cared more about educating yourself than burping up your opinion:
When women began entering the general workforce, their participation in college majors increased steadily in all fields including computer science. Then suddenly female participation in CS tanked while the trendlines of all other fields of study continued to increase.
So why was CS different than all the others? That's the question asked and answered by the study.