Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? If you're disagreeing with me, quoting that wasn't a very good idea, since Snowden's actions could easily be interpreted as bringing dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising. Looks like he did a good job to me.
Applying for a job with said shadowy agency, using false credentials and under false pretenses
It's more nuanced than that, but it doesn't matter. The People have a right to know what government thugs are doing, and if lying is what it takes to find out, so be it. Otherwise, there would need to be a revolution.
specifically to steal national secrets far above and beyond the scope of said shadowyness
Copied. Also, spying on innocent people is immoral and very shadowy, regardless of where they live.
That's absolute nonsense. The NSA should definitely not be violating the highest law of the land and people's fundamental liberties; they have no constitutional authority to do so, and by saying they should be doing it, you're saying you want the government to be able to do whatever it wants.
By leaking this, Snowden is not helping his "concerned citizen" image.
That's the dumbest reasoning I've seen someone use when it comes to the topic of the NSA surveillance.
and if he was a true patriot as he claims he'd have faced the music.
Nice No True Scotsman, there. I didn't know the definition of "patriot" required that one be a masochist or a martyr; he gave us the information, and now it's up to all of us to stop the evil organization known as the NSA.
At the very least, they should know not to work for an organization like the NSA that violates the highest law of the land and almost everyone's privacy rights. You should have no problem agreeing with that statement, just like you should have no problem agreeing that murdering innocent people is wrong; there's simply no room for disagreement.
Decriminalization isn't good enough; legalize them.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
An awful amount of successful content creators die young from drugs or suicide
Due to their own choices. We're talking about outright murder here.
The pirate bay case showed that they are willing to go as far as to bribe police officers to get the desired result when going after copyright infringement.
What does this have to do with people dying so that copyrights will expire? It seems like these people *wouldn't* want the copyrights to expire...
You need reinforcement in order to retain stuff long term.
Thinking about something long and hard enough such that you gain a deep, intuitive understanding of it is reinforcement in and of itself.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 0
The best solution would be to abolish copyright completely and provide money for creators in some other way without artificial limits on content distribution.
The best way to do that would be to let the free market decide. Besides that, no one is entitled to an income.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
How do you enforce copyright? Websites are often censored or taken down. That one should've been obvious. Also, I'm not legally able to send or receive certain data released out in the open using my own equipment, and I'm not legally able to use my own resources to perform certain series of steps to get a certain result. An obvious infringement upon *real* property rights.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
I'd say people who want to limit others' free speech and private property rights by having government-enforced monopolies over ideas and methods while not even having scientific proof that they effective are the "extreme" ones. It just goes to show how subjective "extreme" is.
All of this has happened with the patent system in place
Do you think that this is scientific thinking? What if it happened in spite of it? We don't know. How can you support laws that place restrictions upon fundamental rights without at least having rigorous scientific evidence (Not mindless speculation like, "There wouldn't be as much innovation without them!") that they do what they say they will?
Re:will not stop repeating the obvious
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
Everything will become trade secrets making it impossible or extremely difficult for others to build on previous discoveries.
Do you have rigorous scientific evidence to back that up? You shouldn't be able to pass such laws without having at least that.
Though, even if you did (you don't), copyrights and patents infringe upon free speech (copyright enforcement utilizes censorship to enforce copyrights) and/or private property rights (can't pass around data using your own equipment or make something using your own resources), and are therefore 100% intolerable.
Also, your logic of, "X seems successful. Therefore, it's because of the current system, and not in spite of it!" is not scientific at all. Do you honestly think that such mindless speculation would be applauded in real science?
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 2
Revoking the copyright at the death of the author would create a reason to have the author killed.
That's just ridiculous. How often does that actually happen in practice? Or is this just more fearmongering, much like terrorism or child porn?
But there is another way to fix that 'problem': Have copyrights last 0 years.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
For copyrights, the content creator's remaining natural life plus ten years, or 40 years total, which ever is longer.
That's way too long, since it's more than zero years. Copyrights infringe upon free speech and private property rights, and patents infringe upon the latter. Also, neither are scientifically proven to be effective at promoting innovation (and no, you can't just arbitrarily assume they are; that's not science). The burden is on those making the laws or - since they were never proven before they were made - defending them.
It's that you need time to get them back into the swing of working on schoolwork
Most of the schoolwork is useless monotonous garbage; that needs to be fixed as well. Rarely does it require any sort of intuitive understanding of the material; it's all about doing the same types of problems over and over again, and in a way that doesn't require any sort of understanding. Another problem is that it's one-size-fits-all. What if I get it after doing only a single problem? What if I already understand it? It's just an eyesore in those cases. Focusing on understanding would help with all this, and such useless memorization would be made obsolete (it already is, since it doesn't work).
Most will forget the "more interesting" things too, or more likely, never learn them since our education system is rather abysmal. Learning by rote is simply not a good method, due to how uninteresting it makes things, and the fact that it wastes time that you could use to actually understand the material and thereby make it more meaningful. I've learned that a lot of trivial and uninteresting facts can just be looked up when needed, and you can use your understanding to get by.
Honestly, some of these problems could be solved by dropping the rote memorization nonsense that has been so prevalent. You could also integrate programming into math classes so that kids aren't left wondering when they're going to use any of it, and have them write programs that test their actual understanding (rather than testing their ability to memorize) of the material.
Bottom line, though, is that handing out tests that can be trivially defeated by opening a book is not a good idea (for subjects like math and some science tests). That just means they're not testing understanding at all.
Ergo, they won't be stuck in a job that doesn't require 'any of it'.
Most will, though. That's just the reality. Even in cases where they'd be more efficient if they had the knowledge, people still get by. Sometimes it's sad to watch.
But word problems are 'hard' when you don't have proper understanding of basic English* either.
I'm not really talking about normal word problems; those usually don't test your understanding, either. Even just asking someone to write out why something works in their own words is superior (though not best) to these types of problems. Can't stick that on a multiple choice test, though.
And frankly, people who actually understand the material don't usually forget things in such a short time frame like 3 months. That has been my experience, and I'm not particularly good at memorizing at all. It's usually just trivial, uninteresting facts (usually learned by rote) that get forgotten. Understanding it makes it more meaningful. That doesn't mean it will be retained forever if you don't use it, but forgetting in a mere 3 months seems improbable.
I've always thought that, after teaching the fundamentals, there should be a trade school route starting at around high school. People who want to go to college or receive a more 'academic' education could still do so, and the other people could have their job training. I don't even feel that it's necessary to teach such general 'job skills'; what public schools do now is so generic and useless that it's just a waste of time. That's why it's just half-assed.
Not entirely sure I believe this. Sure, they might forget information, but they'll forget nearly everything after they leave school anyway; most of it they would simply never use, and that's why they forgot. Some will forget and end up using it. Some. Most will find a job that doesn't require any of it anyway. Besides that, you could reduce the number of people who forget by actually teaching people, and not just shoving rote memorization down their throats; encouraging them to come to an intuitive understanding of the material. Don't just teach the Pythagorean theorem by giving them homework assignments with 25 problems telling them to find the missing side of a triangle; that's monotonous nonsense and will never encourage understanding, which makes everything less meaningful and therefore forgettable.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? If you're disagreeing with me, quoting that wasn't a very good idea, since Snowden's actions could easily be interpreted as bringing dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising. Looks like he did a good job to me.
Applying for a job with said shadowy agency, using false credentials and under false pretenses
It's more nuanced than that, but it doesn't matter. The People have a right to know what government thugs are doing, and if lying is what it takes to find out, so be it. Otherwise, there would need to be a revolution.
specifically to steal national secrets far above and beyond the scope of said shadowyness
Copied. Also, spying on innocent people is immoral and very shadowy, regardless of where they live.
"I was just doing my job" is no excuse for immoral behavior. I thought we've already been through this?
That's absolute nonsense. The NSA should definitely not be violating the highest law of the land and people's fundamental liberties; they have no constitutional authority to do so, and by saying they should be doing it, you're saying you want the government to be able to do whatever it wants.
By leaking this, Snowden is not helping his "concerned citizen" image.
That's the dumbest reasoning I've seen someone use when it comes to the topic of the NSA surveillance.
Patriotism is most certainly not blind allegiance to the law or a certain country, in addition to not meaning you're a masochist or a martyr.
and if he was a true patriot as he claims he'd have faced the music.
Nice No True Scotsman, there. I didn't know the definition of "patriot" required that one be a masochist or a martyr; he gave us the information, and now it's up to all of us to stop the evil organization known as the NSA.
Ok. Whose morals? Yours? Or some elses?
At the very least, they should know not to work for an organization like the NSA that violates the highest law of the land and almost everyone's privacy rights. You should have no problem agreeing with that statement, just like you should have no problem agreeing that murdering innocent people is wrong; there's simply no room for disagreement.
It's toxic garbage. I reject numerous ridiculous terms, regardless of how long they've been around.
That's how language works. Deal with it.
Dealing with such toxic bullshit only ensures it will spread around more, even if only slightly. I'd rather point out why it's garbage.
Decriminalization isn't good enough; legalize them.
An awful amount of successful content creators die young from drugs or suicide
Due to their own choices. We're talking about outright murder here.
The pirate bay case showed that they are willing to go as far as to bribe police officers to get the desired result when going after copyright infringement.
What does this have to do with people dying so that copyrights will expire? It seems like these people *wouldn't* want the copyrights to expire...
You need reinforcement in order to retain stuff long term.
Thinking about something long and hard enough such that you gain a deep, intuitive understanding of it is reinforcement in and of itself.
The best solution would be to abolish copyright completely and provide money for creators in some other way without artificial limits on content distribution.
The best way to do that would be to let the free market decide. Besides that, no one is entitled to an income.
How do you enforce copyright? Websites are often censored or taken down. That one should've been obvious.
Also, I'm not legally able to send or receive certain data released out in the open using my own equipment, and I'm not legally able to use my own resources to perform certain series of steps to get a certain result. An obvious infringement upon *real* property rights.
I'd say people who want to limit others' free speech and private property rights by having government-enforced monopolies over ideas and methods while not even having scientific proof that they effective are the "extreme" ones. It just goes to show how subjective "extreme" is.
All of this has happened with the patent system in place
Do you think that this is scientific thinking? What if it happened in spite of it? We don't know. How can you support laws that place restrictions upon fundamental rights without at least having rigorous scientific evidence (Not mindless speculation like, "There wouldn't be as much innovation without them!") that they do what they say they will?
Everything will become trade secrets making it impossible or extremely difficult for others to build on previous discoveries.
Do you have rigorous scientific evidence to back that up? You shouldn't be able to pass such laws without having at least that.
Though, even if you did (you don't), copyrights and patents infringe upon free speech (copyright enforcement utilizes censorship to enforce copyrights) and/or private property rights (can't pass around data using your own equipment or make something using your own resources), and are therefore 100% intolerable.
Also, your logic of, "X seems successful. Therefore, it's because of the current system, and not in spite of it!" is not scientific at all. Do you honestly think that such mindless speculation would be applauded in real science?
Revoking the copyright at the death of the author would create a reason to have the author killed.
That's just ridiculous. How often does that actually happen in practice? Or is this just more fearmongering, much like terrorism or child porn?
But there is another way to fix that 'problem': Have copyrights last 0 years.
For copyrights, the content creator's remaining natural life plus ten years, or 40 years total, which ever is longer.
That's way too long, since it's more than zero years. Copyrights infringe upon free speech and private property rights, and patents infringe upon the latter. Also, neither are scientifically proven to be effective at promoting innovation (and no, you can't just arbitrarily assume they are; that's not science). The burden is on those making the laws or - since they were never proven before they were made - defending them.
As an adult, sure.
Not just as an adult.
It's that you need time to get them back into the swing of working on schoolwork
Most of the schoolwork is useless monotonous garbage; that needs to be fixed as well. Rarely does it require any sort of intuitive understanding of the material; it's all about doing the same types of problems over and over again, and in a way that doesn't require any sort of understanding. Another problem is that it's one-size-fits-all. What if I get it after doing only a single problem? What if I already understand it? It's just an eyesore in those cases. Focusing on understanding would help with all this, and such useless memorization would be made obsolete (it already is, since it doesn't work).
Most will forget the "more interesting" things too, or more likely, never learn them since our education system is rather abysmal. Learning by rote is simply not a good method, due to how uninteresting it makes things, and the fact that it wastes time that you could use to actually understand the material and thereby make it more meaningful. I've learned that a lot of trivial and uninteresting facts can just be looked up when needed, and you can use your understanding to get by.
Honestly, some of these problems could be solved by dropping the rote memorization nonsense that has been so prevalent. You could also integrate programming into math classes so that kids aren't left wondering when they're going to use any of it, and have them write programs that test their actual understanding (rather than testing their ability to memorize) of the material.
Bottom line, though, is that handing out tests that can be trivially defeated by opening a book is not a good idea (for subjects like math and some science tests). That just means they're not testing understanding at all.
Ergo, they won't be stuck in a job that doesn't require 'any of it'.
Most will, though. That's just the reality. Even in cases where they'd be more efficient if they had the knowledge, people still get by. Sometimes it's sad to watch.
But word problems are 'hard' when you don't have proper understanding of basic English* either.
I'm not really talking about normal word problems; those usually don't test your understanding, either. Even just asking someone to write out why something works in their own words is superior (though not best) to these types of problems. Can't stick that on a multiple choice test, though.
And frankly, people who actually understand the material don't usually forget things in such a short time frame like 3 months. That has been my experience, and I'm not particularly good at memorizing at all. It's usually just trivial, uninteresting facts (usually learned by rote) that get forgotten. Understanding it makes it more meaningful. That doesn't mean it will be retained forever if you don't use it, but forgetting in a mere 3 months seems improbable.
Fair enough, but attacking him based on his character is just stupid and won't debunk anything he said.
I've always thought that, after teaching the fundamentals, there should be a trade school route starting at around high school. People who want to go to college or receive a more 'academic' education could still do so, and the other people could have their job training. I don't even feel that it's necessary to teach such general 'job skills'; what public schools do now is so generic and useless that it's just a waste of time. That's why it's just half-assed.
And that hurts them LOTS in later life.
Not entirely sure I believe this. Sure, they might forget information, but they'll forget nearly everything after they leave school anyway; most of it they would simply never use, and that's why they forgot. Some will forget and end up using it. Some. Most will find a job that doesn't require any of it anyway. Besides that, you could reduce the number of people who forget by actually teaching people, and not just shoving rote memorization down their throats; encouraging them to come to an intuitive understanding of the material. Don't just teach the Pythagorean theorem by giving them homework assignments with 25 problems telling them to find the missing side of a triangle; that's monotonous nonsense and will never encourage understanding, which makes everything less meaningful and therefore forgettable.