You summarized my position as "I guess you're entitled if you can't be bothered to watch ads" and followed that immediately with, "That's exactly what I said."
That is what you said, even if that's not what your position is.
There's a sense of entitlement in this country - and getting shit for free on the internet is part of that sense of entitlement.
Well, is that ruir fellow you replied to in the unidentified group of people you're talking about?
Do you want to be an Internet psychologist or some such? It has nothing to do with being a sociopath; it is difficult to agree to something when you don't know what you're agreeing to, when you agree to it, or even why.
If you expect services like YouTube or Pandora for free, you've likely got an entitlement problem.
I think the people who truly have such expectations are few in number, and since the one you replied to didn't say he deserves to access these websites, I'm not exactly sure why you replied to him in such a manner.
I'd like to see that. I really would. Maybe then we'd starve them out enough that they wouldn't have enough money to bribe our 'representatives' so they could get freedom-violating laws passed.
The funny thing with tacit agreements is... you can say they mean whatever you want them to mean, so no one with a brain cares if you believe they exist.
Holding a gun to somebody's head and demanding they stop using advertisements is not the minimum bar for being entitled. Are you serious?
Straw man. That's not what he said. Fact of the matter ism that guy implied that being disgusted by advertisements or not bothering to watch an advertisement makes you entitled, which is absolutely false.
When somebody gives you something on the condition that advertisements play, and you decide you'll just take it but not run the advertisements, that's entitlement.
Incorrect. That's using something because it's there, and then modifying/blocking certain data. That is not the same as feeling that you're entitled to anything, and to say it is is to demonstrate that you're just using the word "entitlement" as a meaningless buzzword.
You don't deserve to get their content anyway -- thinking you do is a sense of entitlement.
You're arguing with people that largely don't exist. No one truly believes that they're entitled to the ability to control what other people do with their own websites, and you probably know it, but you instead choose to argue with straw men.
Try reading the reply the AC replied to: "but that doesn't change the sense of entitlement of people who can't be bothered to watch a 15-second ad before being served endless on demand video streaming by YouTube or mostly-free music by Pandora." I guess you're entitled if you can't be bothered to watch ads. That is exactly what he said; read the comment yourself.
No one is unaware that humans are social animals, but the fact that they are does not justify infringing upon people's individual liberties; we must overcome our weaknesses and recognize that freedom should prevail.
What will you tell these students when their documents created in Open Office don't look the same after being opened on their Teacher's computer.
Why is the teacher using closed-source garbage, and grading their papers based on what they look like in said garbage? That's a problem in and of itself.
In the case of a 4 year old with a 40 year old you'd suggest that the prosecutors need to prove that the 4 year old wasn't mature enough to give consent?
I feel they'd need to prove that rape took place. And really, the age of the adult is completely irrelevant in that case.
The charge of rape isn't necessarily because the victim had something done to them against their will, it is defined as rape because the victim was legally considered to not be able to give consent.
What's your point? These laws are just lazy ways to forgo actual justice. If there was no rape, there is no problem, regardless of the ages of the participants.
I know, I know; this will make it more difficult to forgo justice. But that's fine with me.
Incorrect. Putting a lot of effort into doing something useless will not benefit you. Since most of the work is useless busywork, they do not focus on understanding, and you'll have to spend over 35 hours doing monotonous chores, it is much better to simply forgo the education system and educate yourself, if you're truly determined. After all, you could spend a lot more time learning on your own if you didn't have to spend time at our abysmal schools and doing useless busywork, so no, you will not get out of it what you put into it; that's purely nonsense.
No tinfoil there; the government's sole intention here is to violate people's individual rights, just as it does with the TSA, the NSA, and all of that other garbage.
Why do you hate freedom? No, seriously; you may as well be arguing that the TSA is a good thing. It isn't surprising to see government bootlickers such as yourself advocating that we continue telling people what they can and can't put into their own bodies. You are a naive fool, and you have exactly the government you deserve: One that routinely violates people's rights in many ways. Unfortunately, you people aren't the only ones having your rights violated.
While I agree that going after pot and shroom users is stupid, heroine is illegal for a very real and compelling reason: it kills.
That's not a compelling reason; that's anti-freedom. If people want to kill themselves with heroine, assuming that's even true, then fine. Instead, you foolishly support keeping it illegal, proving that you do not desire a free country.
The point is, we shouldn't be forcing kids to memorize material for the sake of memorizing it, and should instead try to get them to understand why it works. Merely having someone memorize facts practically ensures that it will never become interesting to them, which just means they'll very likely forget it soon after any of these poorly-designed tests, anyway. If you get them to understand why it works and show them how it is useful, they will probably memorize it all on their own even if you don't force them to try to make a specific effort to memorize it.
And, as I said, I don't have anything against memorization (you need to be able to retain information in order to work with anything), we need to focus more on understanding, and too much of what kids are forced to memorize in school is utterly worthless.
Not necessarily. While doing "skill based training," you may come to understand the logic behind what you're doing and become able to apply that knowledge elsewhere. Some people can get quite a lot from more hands-on work.
Whereas education, which isn't supposed to be skill-based training, is trying to teach you how to learn.
Then you're better off learning on your own, because you don't need to waste tremendous amounts of money having someone try to teach that nonsense, which should come naturally.
But seriously, I often see people say that education in the US was once great, but when was this? Sure, a few intelligent people made it through (and their intelligence was no thanks to the school system), but that's true even now.
Because I'm pretty sure you have to memorise something to learn it.
I'm talking about understanding why it works.
Now, what's with all those pointless questions? Do you really have something against actually comprehending the material you memorize? Do you really believe that I claimed you should never memorize anything? I did no such thing.
So I take it that, unlike those "rote automatons" the Japanese, you know why 1+1=2, yes?
Your questions show that you're attacking a straw man. I believe you should understand why things work when it is possible, so I don't really know what attacking me is going to do. Again, do you have something against decent educations?
Probably all kinds of things. Japanese high school students must learn quadratic functions, trigonometric ratios, sequences, permutations and combinations, and probability.
By "learn," I'm sure you mean "memorize." America's education system isn't the only one that is abysmal; many countries rely on rote memorization education. Truly intelligent people are few and far between, and chances, most students aren't truly 'learning' a damn thing.
I can't see why that would be part of a dream. As far as I'm concerned, that's like saying that it's your dream to work hard at digging large holes in the ground with spoons; it's a truly useless endeavor. I say this because our education system has been awful for a very long time, and the work students do is 99% useless busywork that has no place in reality and does not facilitate understanding.
Then I guess we're different. When I come to understand why something works (rather than just what it is and how to use it), it becomes meaningful to me, and I almost never forget it. I can remember things that I haven't truly used in over a decade simply because they interested me at one point and I took the time to fully understand them.
Slashdot Mirror
You summarized my position as "I guess you're entitled if you can't be bothered to watch ads" and followed that immediately with, "That's exactly what I said."
That is what you said, even if that's not what your position is.
There's a sense of entitlement in this country - and getting shit for free on the internet is part of that sense of entitlement.
Well, is that ruir fellow you replied to in the unidentified group of people you're talking about?
Do you want to be an Internet psychologist or some such? It has nothing to do with being a sociopath; it is difficult to agree to something when you don't know what you're agreeing to, when you agree to it, or even why.
It's not "exactly what I said."
That was a direct quote.
If you expect services like YouTube or Pandora for free, you've likely got an entitlement problem.
I think the people who truly have such expectations are few in number, and since the one you replied to didn't say he deserves to access these websites, I'm not exactly sure why you replied to him in such a manner.
I'd like to see that. I really would. Maybe then we'd starve them out enough that they wouldn't have enough money to bribe our 'representatives' so they could get freedom-violating laws passed.
The funny thing with tacit agreements is... you can say they mean whatever you want them to mean, so no one with a brain cares if you believe they exist.
Holding a gun to somebody's head and demanding they stop using advertisements is not the minimum bar for being entitled. Are you serious?
Straw man. That's not what he said. Fact of the matter ism that guy implied that being disgusted by advertisements or not bothering to watch an advertisement makes you entitled, which is absolutely false.
When somebody gives you something on the condition that advertisements play, and you decide you'll just take it but not run the advertisements, that's entitlement.
Incorrect. That's using something because it's there, and then modifying/blocking certain data. That is not the same as feeling that you're entitled to anything, and to say it is is to demonstrate that you're just using the word "entitlement" as a meaningless buzzword.
You don't deserve to get their content anyway -- thinking you do is a sense of entitlement.
You're arguing with people that largely don't exist. No one truly believes that they're entitled to the ability to control what other people do with their own websites, and you probably know it, but you instead choose to argue with straw men.
Try reading the reply the AC replied to: "but that doesn't change the sense of entitlement of people who can't be bothered to watch a 15-second ad before being served endless on demand video streaming by YouTube or mostly-free music by Pandora." I guess you're entitled if you can't be bothered to watch ads. That is exactly what he said; read the comment yourself.
No one is unaware that humans are social animals, but the fact that they are does not justify infringing upon people's individual liberties; we must overcome our weaknesses and recognize that freedom should prevail.
What will you tell these students when their documents created in Open Office don't look the same after being opened on their Teacher's computer.
Why is the teacher using closed-source garbage, and grading their papers based on what they look like in said garbage? That's a problem in and of itself.
Then go get molested by the TSA, government bootlicker; you've brought this sort of thing upon yourself with these silly little justifications.
However if you need to pick and choose, then Open Source may not always be the best option.
Closed-source garbage has no place in an educational environment.
In the case of a 4 year old with a 40 year old you'd suggest that the prosecutors need to prove that the 4 year old wasn't mature enough to give consent?
I feel they'd need to prove that rape took place. And really, the age of the adult is completely irrelevant in that case.
The charge of rape isn't necessarily because the victim had something done to them against their will, it is defined as rape because the victim was legally considered to not be able to give consent.
What's your point? These laws are just lazy ways to forgo actual justice. If there was no rape, there is no problem, regardless of the ages of the participants.
I know, I know; this will make it more difficult to forgo justice. But that's fine with me.
Incorrect. Putting a lot of effort into doing something useless will not benefit you. Since most of the work is useless busywork, they do not focus on understanding, and you'll have to spend over 35 hours doing monotonous chores, it is much better to simply forgo the education system and educate yourself, if you're truly determined. After all, you could spend a lot more time learning on your own if you didn't have to spend time at our abysmal schools and doing useless busywork, so no, you will not get out of it what you put into it; that's purely nonsense.
No tinfoil there; the government's sole intention here is to violate people's individual rights, just as it does with the TSA, the NSA, and all of that other garbage.
Why do you hate freedom? No, seriously; you may as well be arguing that the TSA is a good thing. It isn't surprising to see government bootlickers such as yourself advocating that we continue telling people what they can and can't put into their own bodies. You are a naive fool, and you have exactly the government you deserve: One that routinely violates people's rights in many ways. Unfortunately, you people aren't the only ones having your rights violated.
While I agree that going after pot and shroom users is stupid, heroine is illegal for a very real and compelling reason: it kills.
That's not a compelling reason; that's anti-freedom. If people want to kill themselves with heroine, assuming that's even true, then fine. Instead, you foolishly support keeping it illegal, proving that you do not desire a free country.
The point is, we shouldn't be forcing kids to memorize material for the sake of memorizing it, and should instead try to get them to understand why it works. Merely having someone memorize facts practically ensures that it will never become interesting to them, which just means they'll very likely forget it soon after any of these poorly-designed tests, anyway. If you get them to understand why it works and show them how it is useful, they will probably memorize it all on their own even if you don't force them to try to make a specific effort to memorize it.
And, as I said, I don't have anything against memorization (you need to be able to retain information in order to work with anything), we need to focus more on understanding, and too much of what kids are forced to memorize in school is utterly worthless.
It does if you want skill based training
Not necessarily. While doing "skill based training," you may come to understand the logic behind what you're doing and become able to apply that knowledge elsewhere. Some people can get quite a lot from more hands-on work.
Whereas education, which isn't supposed to be skill-based training, is trying to teach you how to learn.
Then you're better off learning on your own, because you don't need to waste tremendous amounts of money having someone try to teach that nonsense, which should come naturally.
tale*
But seriously, I often see people say that education in the US was once great, but when was this? Sure, a few intelligent people made it through (and their intelligence was no thanks to the school system), but that's true even now.
When was that? In fairy tail land?
Because I'm pretty sure you have to memorise something to learn it.
I'm talking about understanding why it works.
Now, what's with all those pointless questions? Do you really have something against actually comprehending the material you memorize? Do you really believe that I claimed you should never memorize anything? I did no such thing.
So I take it that, unlike those "rote automatons" the Japanese, you know why 1+1=2, yes?
Your questions show that you're attacking a straw man. I believe you should understand why things work when it is possible, so I don't really know what attacking me is going to do. Again, do you have something against decent educations?
Skills based training makes sense in a world where you're guaranteed the same job for life.
Skill-based training does not necessarily mean that you'll only be able to do one thing.
Probably all kinds of things. Japanese high school students must learn quadratic functions, trigonometric ratios, sequences, permutations and combinations, and probability.
By "learn," I'm sure you mean "memorize." America's education system isn't the only one that is abysmal; many countries rely on rote memorization education. Truly intelligent people are few and far between, and chances, most students aren't truly 'learning' a damn thing.
The American dream was to work hard in school
I can't see why that would be part of a dream. As far as I'm concerned, that's like saying that it's your dream to work hard at digging large holes in the ground with spoons; it's a truly useless endeavor. I say this because our education system has been awful for a very long time, and the work students do is 99% useless busywork that has no place in reality and does not facilitate understanding.
I fully understood it.
Then I guess we're different. When I come to understand why something works (rather than just what it is and how to use it), it becomes meaningful to me, and I almost never forget it. I can remember things that I haven't truly used in over a decade simply because they interested me at one point and I took the time to fully understand them.
Sounds like a rote memorization education to me. You never really understood any of it.