So you are content living in a delusion where corporeal punishment is never needed.
I'm not living in any delusion; I'm living with principles. The ends don't justify the means. How could I possibly make my position more clear? Stop-and-frisk should not exist. The TSA should not exist. Unfettered border searches should not exist. Even if those things did keep us safe, the ends wouldn't justify the means.
Do you know what is meant by "the ends don't justify the means"?
but it's not some fairy tale where people all do the right things all the time
Again, you keep pretending that I think that people do the right things all the time, but that is just false.
Strong patent protection is a characteristic of the steepest technology jump in human history. The 20th century saw technological innovation increase exponentially, frequently driven by well-funded R&D departments at large corporations. They would not have developed these things without patent protection because it would put them out of business.
Awful logic. Since we didn't live in a world without patents, you can't possibly think that such claims constitute as "proof." I think you'll find that there is no proof. All you're doing is speculating what an alternate world that didn't have patents was like, and that is most certainly not "proof."
removing the argument that implementing them is violative of free speech.
Incorrect. The right known as "free speech" is separate from the first amendment. Copyright violates free speech even if it does not violate the first amendment.
Second of all, the first amendment comes after the copyright clause to begin with.
Knowing what came first is pretty much all that's needed. I barely ever remember random dates, and that's because they're written down somewhere (in books, on the Internet, etc.); I simply have no need to. I might end up memorizing them naturally if I work with the information enough, but it's just a waste of time to make a specific effort to memorize dates.
Just because he doesn't have the result stored in his head for immediate retrieval doesn't mean that he doesn't understand the process of multiplication and can't figure out the answer. I never bothered memorizing multiplication tables and I can easily figure such things out.
I focus far more on understanding than on rote memorization.
Memorizing a multiplication table isn't all that useful. You might be able to figure out the result of some useless calculation more quickly than someone else, but you just wasted your time with rote memorization when you could have been trying to actually understand something. Furthermore, if you see something often enough, I've found that you'll memorize it naturally, anyway. Attempting to understand what you're doing can make the concepts more memorable as well.
The problem with schooling is that it often forces people to make explicit attempts at memorizing random garbage, and it's just a waste of time 99% of the time.
If you want to be a real problem solver, you have to understand what you're doing. Merely memorizing patterns so you can perform pattern recognition is what I call a "rote memorization genius." That's not to say that memorizing patterns isn't useful, but most people don't understand the logic behind what they're doing at all.
I advocate understanding. I do not advocate that people never remember anything. Although, I do assert that schools far too often force people to make an explicit effort at memorizing material (such as memorizing multiplication tables), and that such a thing is almost always useless.
I'm saying that almost always schools do a poor job of educating people because they focus on rote memorization rather than understanding, not that all memorization is bad.
You still have to memorize things in order to receive an education.
Please reread what I said. "This level of memorization is indeed "schooling"; what it isn't, though, is education."
And you could've just left the unnecessary garbage at, "If you had no ability to retain information, you'd have nothing to work with."
School should be a heavy dose of both memorization and other learning techniques (e.g., critical thinking).
There shouldn't be much memorization at all, or rather, forcing people to memorize random garbage is a waste of time 99% of the time. Learning to understand the material will likely mean you'll memorize it, anyway.
What schools do is not education; it is pure rote memorization.
I advise you to be aware that I never claimed that all forms of memorization are bad; that would be silly. If you had no ability to retain information, you'd have nothing to work with.
What I oppose are things like forcing kids to do pointless, tedious problems (such as making them solve 20 meaningless problems involving the Pythagorean theorem) and forcing them to do mindless tasks, such as memorizing multiplication tables. If someone happens to memorize something semi-permanently while doing something meaningful, I have no problem with that.
I didn't ignore anything you said. I made the following clear in my comment: the ends don't justify the means. Unless you're defending yourself, others, or your property from some malicious person, I do not believe in violence.
That's not how you decide policy. If you're going to create laws and limit people's freedoms, the least you could do is make sure that your claims are actually valid. I say that giving me a million taxpayer dollars will improve society, and you can't prove that it won't, so why not do it? It doesn't work like that.
If you can't prove that your garbage is beneficial, then don't bother with legislation.
And legally they are enshrined in the Constitution.
The constitution merely gives the government the power to have copyright and patent laws; it doesn't force them to. Giving the government such a power was a mistake on the part of the founding fathers to begin with. Freedom must reign.
Such a thing doesn't exist. Multiple-choice tests just encourage memorization and guessing. Seeing all the answers laid out in front of you also enables you to recall the answer, which again, just encourages memorization. Furthermore, multiple-choice tests often just boil down to answering exactly the way the idiots who designed the test want you to answer, though perhaps you'd claim that that just means the test wasn't "well-designed." That is how it works in practice.
The tests should present open-ended questions and encourage students to explain themselves through words. Even directly asking "Why does this work?" and then letting students put the answer in their own words would be better than what we have now. Putting predetermined choices on tests only hinders creativity.
There is no proof that copyright/patents are beneficial.
And even if they were beneficial, infringing upon people's rights--such as freedom of speech and the right to control one's own real private property--is unacceptable, no matter the gains.
as long as you're ok with no comments, no thumbs up/down and no spam reporting (yes, seriously), you can deattach your account from YT one (at least for the time being).
Well, attacking me won't really debunk anything I've said. The SAT is garbage, too. If you don't see a problem with it (maybe you do), then I do wonder what you think education is.
Well, all I have to do is look at the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, history (I don't think people are any more intelligent), the countless wars we've gotten ourselves into, the reaction of most people to 9/11, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, and the fact that most people can't even begin to understand simple concepts in mathematics, and I'm pretty damn convinced that most people are unprincipled idiots.
I disagree. I can do lots of useful math without a calculator.
In our society that's filled with machines capable of doing these things for us, there is really no reason to have a huge list of results stored in your head.
but the related area in which they fail is not having any idea when answers are wildly wrong. They simply type and trust.
That sounds like they don't understand addition/multiplication; that's pretty much what I've been saying is a problem.
You say "the difference is" but there are multiple differences and some of them are just as important. One significant other difference is in the expected maturity of the person on the receiving end of discipline. You shouldn't marry someone you'd expect to kick puppies and bite other people, but kids will do that.
Maturity is irrelevant and subjective. I do not believe the ends justify the means, no matter what you say.
I wouldn't want you to assume that just because I advocate spanking where appropriate as a part of a system of discipline, that I believe it is the always the solution.
I don't care whether you do or don't; as soon as you go to use violence (or "force," if you prefer) against another person, I think that person has every right to beat the snot out of you. A shame that kids can't often defend themselves.
Rote learning of multiplication tables is still useful for me on a daily basis.
That's nice for you, but I've never cared about quickly doing arbitrary calculations. If I see a result often enough, then I'll memorize it *naturally*, anyway.
If you find it useful, then memorize this nonsense yourself, but don't force it on kids in public schools. You make math look like boring trash.
Of course, rote learning may take time away from other learning
Such as actual understanding. It also creates rote memorization drones out of 99% of the products of the public education system.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are content living in a delusion where corporeal punishment is never needed.
I'm not living in any delusion; I'm living with principles. The ends don't justify the means. How could I possibly make my position more clear? Stop-and-frisk should not exist. The TSA should not exist. Unfettered border searches should not exist. Even if those things did keep us safe, the ends wouldn't justify the means.
Do you know what is meant by "the ends don't justify the means"?
but it's not some fairy tale where people all do the right things all the time
Again, you keep pretending that I think that people do the right things all the time, but that is just false.
Strong patent protection is a characteristic of the steepest technology jump in human history. The 20th century saw technological innovation increase exponentially, frequently driven by well-funded R&D departments at large corporations. They would not have developed these things without patent protection because it would put them out of business.
Awful logic. Since we didn't live in a world without patents, you can't possibly think that such claims constitute as "proof." I think you'll find that there is no proof. All you're doing is speculating what an alternate world that didn't have patents was like, and that is most certainly not "proof."
removing the argument that implementing them is violative of free speech.
Incorrect. The right known as "free speech" is separate from the first amendment. Copyright violates free speech even if it does not violate the first amendment.
Second of all, the first amendment comes after the copyright clause to begin with.
Knowing what came first is pretty much all that's needed. I barely ever remember random dates, and that's because they're written down somewhere (in books, on the Internet, etc.); I simply have no need to. I might end up memorizing them naturally if I work with the information enough, but it's just a waste of time to make a specific effort to memorize dates.
So you don't know what 7*8 is
Just because he doesn't have the result stored in his head for immediate retrieval doesn't mean that he doesn't understand the process of multiplication and can't figure out the answer. I never bothered memorizing multiplication tables and I can easily figure such things out.
I focus far more on understanding than on rote memorization.
Memorizing a multiplication table isn't all that useful. You might be able to figure out the result of some useless calculation more quickly than someone else, but you just wasted your time with rote memorization when you could have been trying to actually understand something. Furthermore, if you see something often enough, I've found that you'll memorize it naturally, anyway. Attempting to understand what you're doing can make the concepts more memorable as well.
The problem with schooling is that it often forces people to make explicit attempts at memorizing random garbage, and it's just a waste of time 99% of the time.
Again.
The same applies to problem solving in general.
If you want to be a real problem solver, you have to understand what you're doing. Merely memorizing patterns so you can perform pattern recognition is what I call a "rote memorization genius." That's not to say that memorizing patterns isn't useful, but most people don't understand the logic behind what they're doing at all.
I advocate understanding. I do not advocate that people never remember anything. Although, I do assert that schools far too often force people to make an explicit effort at memorizing material (such as memorizing multiplication tables), and that such a thing is almost always useless.
Surprise, surprise: memorization (storage, accurate and efficient retrieval) is important for ALL KINDS of learning.
Let me just direct you to my other comment. Pure rote memorization almost never equals education. Understanding is education.
I'm saying that almost always schools do a poor job of educating people because they focus on rote memorization rather than understanding, not that all memorization is bad.
You still have to memorize things in order to receive an education.
Please reread what I said. "This level of memorization is indeed "schooling"; what it isn't, though, is education."
And you could've just left the unnecessary garbage at, "If you had no ability to retain information, you'd have nothing to work with."
School should be a heavy dose of both memorization and other learning techniques (e.g., critical thinking).
There shouldn't be much memorization at all, or rather, forcing people to memorize random garbage is a waste of time 99% of the time. Learning to understand the material will likely mean you'll memorize it, anyway.
What schools do is not education; it is pure rote memorization.
Memorizing stuff is pretty central to schooling
Yep. This level of memorization is indeed "schooling"; what it isn't, though, is education.
I would agree that it's a last resort, and nobody here claims otherwise.
My idea of "last resort" would be what I said above. When I think violence is justified, it doesn't matter to me what the age of the other person is.
but that's a different issue which means you are not qualified to discuss corporeal punishment.
Since it's a subjective issue, I doubt that will be a problem.
I advise you to be aware that I never claimed that all forms of memorization are bad; that would be silly. If you had no ability to retain information, you'd have nothing to work with.
What I oppose are things like forcing kids to do pointless, tedious problems (such as making them solve 20 meaningless problems involving the Pythagorean theorem) and forcing them to do mindless tasks, such as memorizing multiplication tables. If someone happens to memorize something semi-permanently while doing something meaningful, I have no problem with that.
I didn't ignore anything you said. I made the following clear in my comment: the ends don't justify the means. Unless you're defending yourself, others, or your property from some malicious person, I do not believe in violence.
A grand majority of people wouldn't be cut out for the jobs you mentioned, and there wouldn't be nearly enough jobs to begin with.
Yeah, they tried that.
The scenario he described happened, and then they tried that? As far as I know, something that extreme has never happened yet.
There's no proof that they aren't.
That's not how you decide policy. If you're going to create laws and limit people's freedoms, the least you could do is make sure that your claims are actually valid. I say that giving me a million taxpayer dollars will improve society, and you can't prove that it won't, so why not do it? It doesn't work like that.
If you can't prove that your garbage is beneficial, then don't bother with legislation.
And legally they are enshrined in the Constitution.
The constitution merely gives the government the power to have copyright and patent laws; it doesn't force them to. Giving the government such a power was a mistake on the part of the founding fathers to begin with. Freedom must reign.
They say that but we also don't have time to treat each and every one of your spawn as unique and special snowflakes.
This one-size-fits-all education scheme is part of the problem. Thanks to that, we're not even getting what we pay for...
Why can't a well-designed multiple-choice test
Such a thing doesn't exist. Multiple-choice tests just encourage memorization and guessing. Seeing all the answers laid out in front of you also enables you to recall the answer, which again, just encourages memorization. Furthermore, multiple-choice tests often just boil down to answering exactly the way the idiots who designed the test want you to answer, though perhaps you'd claim that that just means the test wasn't "well-designed." That is how it works in practice.
The tests should present open-ended questions and encourage students to explain themselves through words. Even directly asking "Why does this work?" and then letting students put the answer in their own words would be better than what we have now. Putting predetermined choices on tests only hinders creativity.
There is no proof that copyright/patents are beneficial.
And even if they were beneficial, infringing upon people's rights--such as freedom of speech and the right to control one's own real private property--is unacceptable, no matter the gains.
as long as you're ok with no comments, no thumbs up/down and no spam reporting (yes, seriously), you can deattach your account from YT one (at least for the time being).
It sounds like they're forcing the issue to me.
Well, attacking me won't really debunk anything I've said. The SAT is garbage, too. If you don't see a problem with it (maybe you do), then I do wonder what you think education is.
Well, all I have to do is look at the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, history (I don't think people are any more intelligent), the countless wars we've gotten ourselves into, the reaction of most people to 9/11, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, and the fact that most people can't even begin to understand simple concepts in mathematics, and I'm pretty damn convinced that most people are unprincipled idiots.
I disagree. I can do lots of useful math without a calculator.
In our society that's filled with machines capable of doing these things for us, there is really no reason to have a huge list of results stored in your head.
but the related area in which they fail is not having any idea when answers are wildly wrong. They simply type and trust.
That sounds like they don't understand addition/multiplication; that's pretty much what I've been saying is a problem.
You say "the difference is" but there are multiple differences and some of them are just as important. One significant other difference is in the expected maturity of the person on the receiving end of discipline. You shouldn't marry someone you'd expect to kick puppies and bite other people, but kids will do that.
Maturity is irrelevant and subjective. I do not believe the ends justify the means, no matter what you say.
I wouldn't want you to assume that just because I advocate spanking where appropriate as a part of a system of discipline, that I believe it is the always the solution.
I don't care whether you do or don't; as soon as you go to use violence (or "force," if you prefer) against another person, I think that person has every right to beat the snot out of you. A shame that kids can't often defend themselves.
At the very least, I do believe in self-defense.
Rote learning of multiplication tables is still useful for me on a daily basis.
That's nice for you, but I've never cared about quickly doing arbitrary calculations. If I see a result often enough, then I'll memorize it *naturally*, anyway.
If you find it useful, then memorize this nonsense yourself, but don't force it on kids in public schools. You make math look like boring trash.
Of course, rote learning may take time away from other learning
Such as actual understanding. It also creates rote memorization drones out of 99% of the products of the public education system.