"Capitalism simply does not deliver good education."
Where exactly is the capitalism in the current education system? Money flows are so disconnected from the ultimate consumers (students), that there exist hardly any market signals.
Not so. Nowhere in Gleick's admission is he claiming that *all* documents are real. He cannot possibly vouch for the original (controversial/fake?) one he claims to have received anonymously. Phil Plait misunderstood or misrepresented this part.
"I can't help wondering just how could a piece of code, which presumable didn't test its' input data for validity before acting on it, become part of a modern jet's onboard software suit?""
How about reading the darned final report, conveniently linked in your own blurb? There was lots of validity checking. In fact, some of it was relatively recently changed, and that accidentally introduced this failure mode (the 1.2-second data spike holdover). (Also, how about someone spell-checking submissions?)
Judging by the website of this "Personal Democracy Forum", one would not expect an objective assessment of anything having to do with the election. http://personaldemocracy.com/advocacy/advocacy
"paradigm shifts, especially those requiring substantial investment and/or long term incubation are the domain of governments... you cannot provide evidence to contrary"
Your claim is too vague to argue either way. You didn't say "exclusive domain", as of course that would be absurd, considering the countless "substantial investment and/or long term incubation" research projects done by private individuals.
Is there no end to the gimmick of inviting pop vox with a rhetorical question at the end of every posting? Could we ever see questions for which our informed readership could have material answers? Is there any purpose other than habit, or the quest for page views? Well?
"I assume they checked that the increased volume was in these areas"
I didn't see discussion of that in the paper, FWIW. They filled empty skulls with plastic/wax pellets to measure this and that. No brains - no brain studies.
"it certainly demonstrates there was no racist motive on the part of the scientists."
Yeah; it'd be a politically-correct accusation, and it sounds like the BBC and/or the scientists are trying to preempt that.
Slashdot Mirror
A few more years of -5billion net income, and we'll see about that.
"He also says a one-penny tax on attachments would make him as rich as Germany"
Just goes to show that the product of multiplying two meaningless numbers is a meaningless number.
I didn't ask never to pay generally for education. Only not to pay for two separate sinks of education at the same time. You're extrapolating.
"it's just the same I-shouldn't-have-to-pay-taxes fight that the top 0.1% use to get poor-on-poor violence started"
Maybe "extrapolating" is not the right word.
A better analogy would be being forced to pay for your own road, as well as that of your competitor.
That would be a fantastic analogy if people were forced to send their children to private school.
In some cases, that's really it: the public school system can prove inadequate. (Is that even conceivable to you?)
"It might be reasonable to waive ..."
Exactly.
At the very least, don't force parents to pay double: once for their own kids' private education, and once again for the public system they don't use.
And don't make them pay for road maintenance for roads they don't use! It's unconstitutional!!~
A better analogy would be being forced to pay for your own road, as well as that of your competitor.
Or when you say "free market" do you actually mean something like "give all parents a voucher to choose a school"? ...
At the very least, don't force parents to pay double: once for their own kids' private education, and once again for the public system they don't use.
"Capitalism simply does not deliver good education."
Where exactly is the capitalism in the current education system? Money flows are so disconnected from the ultimate consumers (students), that there exist hardly any market signals.
How so? Consistency does not say anything about veracity.
"especially the BA's blog post are accurate"
Not so. Nowhere in Gleick's admission is he claiming that *all* documents are real. He cannot possibly vouch for the original (controversial/fake?) one he claims to have received anonymously. Phil Plait misunderstood or misrepresented this part.
Doesn't mean it's news, or that it matters.
Don't fear, this sort of "nuclear option" only changes the CSS. It's not like google et al. would actually shut down for a while. Whew.
"I can't help wondering just how could a piece of code, which presumable didn't test its' input data for validity before acting on it, become part of a modern jet's onboard software suit?""
How about reading the darned final report, conveniently linked in your own blurb? There was lots of validity checking. In fact, some of it was relatively recently changed, and that accidentally introduced this failure mode (the 1.2-second data spike holdover). (Also, how about someone spell-checking submissions?)
"does Google have all of its IP ducks in a row on this one?"
How on earth should we know this?
And why should a customer care?
But see also:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/
Judging by the website of this "Personal Democracy Forum", one would not expect an objective assessment of anything having to do with the election. http://personaldemocracy.com/advocacy/advocacy
"paradigm shifts, especially those requiring substantial investment and/or long term incubation are the domain of governments ... you cannot provide evidence to contrary"
Your claim is too vague to argue either way. You didn't say "exclusive domain", as of course that would be absurd, considering the countless "substantial investment and/or long term incubation" research projects done by private individuals.
"An experimental business in an emergent technology" .... is an appropriate domain for venture capitalists, not the taxpayer.
Is there no end to the gimmick of inviting pop vox with a rhetorical question at the end of every posting?
Could we ever see questions for which our informed readership could have material answers?
Is there any purpose other than habit, or the quest for page views?
Well?
That's hilarious, thanks for the correction.
Those clever Germans have already mastered solar power without the sun.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/13/its-true.html
"I assume they checked that the increased volume was in these areas"
I didn't see discussion of that in the paper, FWIW. They filled empty skulls with plastic/wax pellets to measure this and that. No brains - no brain studies.
"it certainly demonstrates there was no racist motive on the part of the scientists."
Yeah; it'd be a politically-correct accusation, and it sounds like the BBC and/or the scientists are trying to preempt that.
"I know you in real life"
Heh, I don't even know myself in real life.
No, they are not saying what you say they are saying. As to bigger being smarter, "[not] necessarily" is not the same as "not".
It must be quite a trick, estimating how those larger brains must have been structured, considering they're ... entirely decayed by now. Their paper http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/07/12/rsbl.2011.0570.full doesn't appear to substantiate it either. Where exactly did the BBC get that quote?
No, a "retraction" means taking back, by the original commentators. In this case, some other official merely denied the claims of the whistleblower.