That frankly was always the best argument I'd heard against Pluto as a planet. All the other planets orbit in the same plane with each other. Not Pluto. All the other planets have nearly circular orbits. Not Pluto. Clearly whatever caused the other planets to form, Pluto was something different.
Turns out there are lots of other objects out there with highly eliptical orbits and compositions similar to Pluto. We call them Kupier Belt objects, or sometimes comets.
Wow. Nice of you to give us so much credit, but...
To be honest, I seriously doubt most Americans had any clue whatsoever who discovered Pluto. We just like Mickey's dog, and don't want you to take him from us.:-)
Don't most organizations have some kind of quorum requirement?
What's stopping somebody from secretly organizing a few hundred qualified buddies to sneak into this vote almost nobody shows up for and redesignate the Earth as flat or something?
Perhaps because I read an article propounding this same three-wave theory (based mostly on linguistic studies) in Scientific American back in about 1993?
But then I'm not a Science Reporter, so what do I know about news?
Of course all 6,000 extra comments HuffPro got for their more creatively-titled version were along the lines of "this article's title is misleading..."
Which in a rational world should not have surprised me or anyone else. Why should you, unless there is some good reason to? It's not like we Okies sit around thinking about Philadelphia, unless they are playing the Thunder or something.:-)
Its sad how much this stuff looks like the crazy crap you see coming out of foriegn despotisims, where the leaders would have you believe we Americans sit around all day plotting against them, when in fact if they disappeared off the face of the earth most of us, from plummers up to the POTUS, would never know. Its just a story perpetuated by their own media to keep the people from turning on the power structure, which is the real source of their problems.
Sad that so many here fall for the same crap that the masses in Banannastan fall for.
If you're interested, I do have an anecdote about the term "Political Correctness". In 1989 (perhaps 90?) I had a (self-identified) right winger walk into my cubicle and demand to know what I thought about it, like I'd heard the term before. Once we'd ascertained that I hadn't, he came back a bit later with his copy of National Review containing an article about it (which I dutifully read). When he found out that I only about 70% agreed with the article, rather than 100%, he walked away from me in mid-sentence. Apparently he wasn't interested in hearing the details of any other opinion.
So the first place I ever heard the term was in 1989 in an influential right-wing magazine article. I do have to wonder if his apparent belief that I'd heard the term before has any relationship to the confusion among some about who came up with it first. If you never actually listen to people you disagree with, instead gathering all that information from people who don't want you to like them, you can get some pretty wacked-out ideas about what they actually think.
You know, I grew up in Oklahoma, and always heard that folks on the coasts thought of us as "fly-over" territory. However, as an adult I spent a decade living in various places on the eastern seaboard, and never once heard anyone use that term.
Now I'm back in Oklahoma, and suddenly I hear it again. With some perspective, its pretty clear this is some kind of weird persecution complex. The sad part is I can now also pretty cearly see how rich folks (who of course do live on the coasts and wouldn't be caught dead here) merrily promote and use this complex for their own personal gain.
I think he meant to say "horde of problems" (meaning a great amount of them). However, perhaps under the circumstances, "hoard" (meaning a stash that is being purposely hidden away) is just as appropriate.:-(
That is true. However, it is exactly the Court's job to decide what the law actually says when there is a disagreement about same. Somebody has to be the ultimate authority on that, and this is their job.
Also, the Constitution does not give the Government the power to issue patents for just anything the government feel like issuing them for. In particular, it has to be an inventor's discovery. Can things like "business methods" or algorithms be considered "inventions"? You and I have an opinion. However, telling us all where exactly the Constitutonal line is draw is the court's job, and they have never definitively done so for software (or for that matter "business method") patents.
They have done so for pure math (eg: formulas) and they are not patentable. Are algorithms fundamentally different from math? I suspect most of my CS teachers would say no. I suspect Apple would say yes. We need the court to say.
Personally, I think it would be best for both sides if someone took this issue to the Supreme court and got it decided. I have my own opinion of what they should decide, but either way everyone would be better off without the uncertainty.
The biggest is the fragmentation, of well, everything. The UI is different for every distro, every version, and every update
Only someone who hasn't done years of work on Microsoft systems could seriously claim this as a drawback for Linux. How many different GUI toolkits in its various OS versions is Microsoft up to now? 4? 5? It probably depends on how you count...
Just about any country you outsource a job to will have some kind of socialized medicine (assuming its developed enough to have roads and an electrical grid). So if anything, your complaint seems to be that this law is far too "conservative".
In fact, a large part of what makes US workers uncompetitive is that companies here are forced to pay to insure their health, and have nobody to pass those costs on to but their customers. My own engineering-based company is forced to compete entirely on quality (not bad in and of itself) because we have no hope to compete on price with our Canadian and French competitors.
No, you can't put it that way at all.Critical thinking is about questioning beliefs, not about unthinkingly substituing one set for another. If anything, a student not taught to question is *more* likely to walk around believing every weird idea their teachers have. After all, they are around teachers more than their own parents, and they are authority figures too.
However, it turns out that lighting is attracted to tall pointy objects. So if your church has pointy steeple or cross on the top, in fact the scientifically sensible thing to do is put a lightning rod above it somewhere.
Getting struck by lighning every now and then may do wonders for putting the fear of God into parishoners, but after a while it can get kinda expensive.
Do we have to conceed that students should be allowed to have fixed beliefs which should go unchallenged by educators?
We should never conceed any such thing. It isn't just educators and students either. As someone who is all of the following, I can tell you that If you aren't constantly questioning your beliefs you will be a crappy engineer, you will be a crappy parent, you will be a crappy Christian, and you will be a crappy member of society.
As long as we are putting contextual information back in:
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
In other words, anything that might not mesh with what the kid believed (for whatever reason) when they walked into the classroom they cannot be taught to question. So yes, they are opposing teaching of all critical thinking.
Because with insurance they will go to doctors when sick, wheras now they just wait until its an emergency and go to the hospital (which we all pay for). The idea is that this way we at least aren't paying as much.
It has been speculated that he suffered from Parkingsons. There's certianly plenty of voice recordings of him, covering many years of activity. This ought to be a great way to test both the software and the theories.
Slashdot Mirror
That frankly was always the best argument I'd heard against Pluto as a planet. All the other planets orbit in the same plane with each other. Not Pluto. All the other planets have nearly circular orbits. Not Pluto. Clearly whatever caused the other planets to form, Pluto was something different.
Turns out there are lots of other objects out there with highly eliptical orbits and compositions similar to Pluto. We call them Kupier Belt objects, or sometimes comets.
Real Genius, on the other hand, is redirecting the aming of a gigahertz laser to fill the bad guy's house with popcorn.
Wow. Nice of you to give us so much credit, but...
To be honest, I seriously doubt most Americans had any clue whatsoever who discovered Pluto. We just like Mickey's dog, and don't want you to take him from us. :-)
Don't most organizations have some kind of quorum requirement?
What's stopping somebody from secretly organizing a few hundred qualified buddies to sneak into this vote almost nobody shows up for and redesignate the Earth as flat or something?
Perhaps because I read an article propounding this same three-wave theory (based mostly on linguistic studies) in Scientific American back in about 1993?
But then I'm not a Science Reporter, so what do I know about news?
I hope you saved that. I'd love to see that up on Youtube or something.
Of course all 6,000 extra comments HuffPro got for their more creatively-titled version were along the lines of "this article's title is misleading..."
...that's pretty much what I found.
Which in a rational world should not have surprised me or anyone else. Why should you, unless there is some good reason to? It's not like we Okies sit around thinking about Philadelphia, unless they are playing the Thunder or something. :-)
Its sad how much this stuff looks like the crazy crap you see coming out of foriegn despotisims, where the leaders would have you believe we Americans sit around all day plotting against them, when in fact if they disappeared off the face of the earth most of us, from plummers up to the POTUS, would never know. Its just a story perpetuated by their own media to keep the people from turning on the power structure, which is the real source of their problems.
Sad that so many here fall for the same crap that the masses in Banannastan fall for.
Interesting.
If you're interested, I do have an anecdote about the term "Political Correctness". In 1989 (perhaps 90?) I had a (self-identified) right winger walk into my cubicle and demand to know what I thought about it, like I'd heard the term before. Once we'd ascertained that I hadn't, he came back a bit later with his copy of National Review containing an article about it (which I dutifully read). When he found out that I only about 70% agreed with the article, rather than 100%, he walked away from me in mid-sentence. Apparently he wasn't interested in hearing the details of any other opinion.
So the first place I ever heard the term was in 1989 in an influential right-wing magazine article. I do have to wonder if his apparent belief that I'd heard the term before has any relationship to the confusion among some about who came up with it first. If you never actually listen to people you disagree with, instead gathering all that information from people who don't want you to like them, you can get some pretty wacked-out ideas about what they actually think.
You know, I grew up in Oklahoma, and always heard that folks on the coasts thought of us as "fly-over" territory. However, as an adult I spent a decade living in various places on the eastern seaboard, and never once heard anyone use that term.
Now I'm back in Oklahoma, and suddenly I hear it again. With some perspective, its pretty clear this is some kind of weird persecution complex. The sad part is I can now also pretty cearly see how rich folks (who of course do live on the coasts and wouldn't be caught dead here) merrily promote and use this complex for their own personal gain.
Sad, really.
I think he meant to say "horde of problems" (meaning a great amount of them). However, perhaps under the circumstances, "hoard" (meaning a stash that is being purposely hidden away) is just as appropriate. :-(
That is true. However, it is exactly the Court's job to decide what the law actually says when there is a disagreement about same. Somebody has to be the ultimate authority on that, and this is their job.
Also, the Constitution does not give the Government the power to issue patents for just anything the government feel like issuing them for. In particular, it has to be an inventor's discovery. Can things like "business methods" or algorithms be considered "inventions"? You and I have an opinion. However, telling us all where exactly the Constitutonal line is draw is the court's job, and they have never definitively done so for software (or for that matter "business method") patents.
They have done so for pure math (eg: formulas) and they are not patentable. Are algorithms fundamentally different from math? I suspect most of my CS teachers would say no. I suspect Apple would say yes. We need the court to say.
Some of the sitting supreme court justices have implied they aren't sure Software patents are valid either.
Personally, I think it would be best for both sides if someone took this issue to the Supreme court and got it decided. I have my own opinion of what they should decide, but either way everyone would be better off without the uncertainty.
The biggest is the fragmentation, of well, everything. The UI is different for every distro, every version, and every update
Only someone who hasn't done years of work on Microsoft systems could seriously claim this as a drawback for Linux. How many different GUI toolkits in its various OS versions is Microsoft up to now? 4? 5? It probably depends on how you count...
Just about any country you outsource a job to will have some kind of socialized medicine (assuming its developed enough to have roads and an electrical grid). So if anything, your complaint seems to be that this law is far too "conservative".
In fact, a large part of what makes US workers uncompetitive is that companies here are forced to pay to insure their health, and have nobody to pass those costs on to but their customers. My own engineering-based company is forced to compete entirely on quality (not bad in and of itself) because we have no hope to compete on price with our Canadian and French competitors.
Actually, four of them were, which I find kind of sad.
Well, either that, or they had considerations other than the actual law in front of them...
No, you can't put it that way at all.Critical thinking is about questioning beliefs, not about unthinkingly substituing one set for another. If anything, a student not taught to question is *more* likely to walk around believing every weird idea their teachers have. After all, they are around teachers more than their own parents, and they are authority figures too.
Cute saying.
However, it turns out that lighting is attracted to tall pointy objects. So if your church has pointy steeple or cross on the top, in fact the scientifically sensible thing to do is put a lightning rod above it somewhere.
Getting struck by lighning every now and then may do wonders for putting the fear of God into parishoners, but after a while it can get kinda expensive.
Except perhaps for the bit about every single bit of grain farmed in Egypt got shipped to Rome and distributed to the public for free.
Other than that, a paragon of market freedom!
Perhaps it started when folks noticed that such people were teaching kids to question authority and their "fixed beliefs".
Do we have to conceed that students should be allowed to have fixed beliefs which should go unchallenged by educators?
We should never conceed any such thing. It isn't just educators and students either. As someone who is all of the following, I can tell you that If you aren't constantly questioning your beliefs you will be a crappy engineer, you will be a crappy parent, you will be a crappy Christian, and you will be a crappy member of society.
As long as we are putting contextual information back in:
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
In other words, anything that might not mesh with what the kid believed (for whatever reason) when they walked into the classroom they cannot be taught to question. So yes, they are opposing teaching of all critical thinking.
Because with insurance they will go to doctors when sick, wheras now they just wait until its an emergency and go to the hospital (which we all pay for). The idea is that this way we at least aren't paying as much.
They are really that much worse than the fidelity you get from an answering machine off of a telephone line?
It has been speculated that he suffered from Parkingsons. There's certianly plenty of voice recordings of him, covering many years of activity. This ought to be a great way to test both the software and the theories.
ps. Sorry for Godwining the story so early