Absolutely - nothing gets a kid fired up like parsing text, or calculating Fibonacci numbers. </sarcasm>
Seriously, great post, but my number one suggestion would be to let the kid decide what projects to take on. Show him the low-hanging fruit first, like keyboard input, text output, and drawing simple shapes on the screen, and let him come up with his own projects. For a beginner nowadays, Flash w/Actionscript might actually be the best choice, because of the instant gratification.
I don't know if my experiences are typical, but at that age, I wanted to be able to do things quickly, and do them "my way".
I wouldn't hand-hold too much either - let him make his mistakes. I think I appreciated the stately Array far better after writing a game with variables "item1", "item2"... "item20", than I would have if someone had told me "just use this, it's easier".
But that's the crux, isn't it? How can they possibly know there are hidden reasons the bus is unsafe? The only way to be reasonably sure is if some organization of citizens forced the bus companies to a minimal standard of safety.
If the summary is correct (over-under at 38%), the loaded-into-RAM-equals-copy argument is absolutely dumb.
I wouldn't worry about precedent though. If a case ever comes up explicitly claiming this "infringement" (Microsoft suing you for loading Windows into memory), it will be struck down in an instant.
On the Canadian one, it's not as clear-cut as all of that. It sounds more like a custody issue. The girl was punished by her father, who wanted the punishment to still be in effect when she went to live with her mother. To me, this seems really petty and stupid, but I think the decision was actually the common-sense one.
I think you're on the same page as a lot of people here. If you see someone talking about the "ignorant", "uneducated", "bumpkins", etc - just append a virtual "but not you, AC" to it. If you're willing to discuss theories rationally, and accept that there are beliefs other than yours, most of even the most anti-religious folks will treat you with respect.
Just recognize where these labels are coming from, and to whom they're being applied. They tend to be applied to people who: a) Choose their own reality rather than the one in front of their eyes, and try to push that reality on the rest of us (creationism in science class), or b) Try to force arbitrary life-altering choices on the rest of us, having only tradition or their own beliefs to justify it (gay marriage, or earlier on, outlawing gay sex)
I personally think that both of these groups deserve the scorn heaped on them on this site. Even if you are a member of one of these groups, though, I wouldn't bring it up in a scientific thread or any other non-religious discussion. I'll remain intolerant of aspects of a society or individual I believe deserve intolerance, but it is limited to those aspects - I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And please, if you do love science as you say, don't trick yourself into thinking an anti-evolution mindset doesn't fall under (a). The evidence is overwhelming.
I did misuse the metaphor, but was making the best of a metaphor that was already flawed for its purpose. "The sky" isn't a god and it can be verified through empirical means. And even if you can't look at it, you can calculate what would be perceived by a human eye from physical principles. In order for atheists to not believe in the sky, one would have to construct a world in which our knowledge and lifestyles were vastly different - not only living underground (or in space? in the ocean?), but not being able to extrapolate solar systems, planets, and atmospheres from first principles, and the wavelengths of light filtered through those atmospheres.
But the point of my post was that the metaphor was flawed - to make a valid comparison of god-belief and sky-colour-belief, you must assume equal information between you and all of the alternative beliefs, which amount to millenia-old writings and personal revelations.
Ah, but what if *you've* never seen the sky either? And you only know the sky is blue because your parents, your friends, and authority figures have all told you that it's blue, your entire life.
And then you see that there are a bunch of people who *also* have never seen the sky, but they're convinced that it's red, orange, yellow, or black - for exactly the same reasons you believe it's blue.
And finally, there's the group that says "if we've never seen the sky, why are people claiming with such certainty what colour it is?" Which of these many diverse groups would you consider the most rational?
I agree with the GP - the more religions claiming certain truth in the face of uncertainty, the better chance rational people have of throwing off the religious argument altogether, by recognizing that their beliefs really don't have any more substance than anyone else's completely-different beliefs.
It's true. Just like how good reconstructive surgeons are in short supply, and the cost of that resource has gone up. Now the resource can be dedicated to important applications like facelifts and tummy-tucks, while enterprising individuals put Pokemon bandaids on their 3rd-degree burns.
Sorry - the rest of your post deserved the +5 insightful, but that word "important" got to me:)
Accepting the lessons of history would make that impossible; pretending that the world was a perfect place and Islam spread out of the Arabian peninsula with flower garlands and fluffy bunnies right up to the election of George Bush who is the sole source of evil anywhere in the entire world -- that frames the problem in terms they can affect, and thus empowers them, and therefore all reality which contradicts that is denied.
I don't know what morons you've been talking to, but I've never seen that view espoused, or even the moderate view you've hyperbolized to make your point. No one's saying the mideast doesn't (and hasn't for a long time) had its problems.
The biggest problem I - and a lot of people - have had with GWB's rule is how incomprehensibly stupid it's been. He kicked a hornets' nest with no plan to deal with the consequences. He's managed to set up a situation in Iraq where more people are killed than under Saddam. By just about every measure, Iraq is worse today than it was in 2002. It is more dangerous today than it was in 2002. Whatever the long-term goals were, they have not been achieved (no, "getting rid of Saddam" is not a long-term goal. It is a step in a longer plan to, say, bring peace to the middle east, or cheapen oil, or whatever).
There is a world of difference you do not seem to see between "thinking the world is made of fluffy bunnies who love us", and recognizing that war is not the best answer to 99.9% of the world's problems. War has been tried in the middle east for centuries, and really hasn't worked out.
In short, you're creating an idiotic charachiture of those who believe different of you. I have never seen the views you ascribe to those who view Bush in a negative light. *Never*. We all recognize that there are severe problems in the middle east - some old, some new. There is some very justified anger at actions taken by the US and other foreign agents. There is also very unjustified and stupid anger that you get in poverty-stricken theocracies. And the entire thing is a shade of gray.
You do yourself a disservice by characterizing your opponents this way. You'll only serve to harden those who disagree with you, as they'll think your views so far from reality that you can't be reasoned with.
Good point. Because that bastion of freedom - Iran - denies others the right to exist, there's a good case for the US to do the same throughout the world.
Fair enough. I'm younger - pretty cynical in general, but Obama's got me hoping.
I'm still not convinced by your reasoning though (not that "if he's a politician, there's a 90% chance he's voting against our interests" doesn't ring true). His missed votes can be seen as a sad reality of a presidential run (McCain missed 60%, Clinton 33%). Another interesting fact is that while he did vote with the Dems a significant portion of the time, the votes that went against Dems often went against Reps as well. I think it's very hard to get a good idea of corporate sponsorship from this type of information though - particularly at this very partisan time, when relatively few bipartisan bills on significant issues have been coming through the pipe.
That said, I think I'd be pleased as punch to see Bob Barr as president.
Hmmm...and as a completely off-the-wall hypothetical - what would you think of Barr as Obama's running mate?
I've got a "map" of the Linux Kernel from a few years ago. It's a bit bland (basic coloured text/boxes on a white background), but there might be more exciting ones out there now. I've been able to find the original/. story (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/07/1327226&mode=flat), but not the actual poster.
I've seen this sentiment around a bit, but I've never seen justification for it. I'm sorry to pick apart your reply and focus just on this one bit, but I really am curious. To me, he seems like a genuinely populist candidate, and an idealist to boot. Now, whether a populist or idealist would actually make a good president is a valid question, but I've seen nothing to indicate that he's in the pocket of corporations - after all, he was one of the first candidates to refuse lobbyist donations.
Is there something in his voting or donation records to refute this?
Is that going to work, or are they just going to keep scraping the bottom of the newly-graduated barrel?
Maybe we can think of this another way - can RIAA cases be used as a honeypot? Let the lawyers bring cases forward, have "judges" spend a few years waffling about it, while the families pretend to be mortified (they've been let in on the whole thing). Then the lawyers are kept busy on pointless cases that go nowhere, and the rest of us can live our lives in peace.
Once the bacteria have lived out their useful time in their "natural environment", they are relegated to a cold, freezing place for far longer than bacteria generally live - it must seem like an eternity.
However, if they've proven their worth to the almighty Scientist, He shall free them from their frozen chamber, and grants them a second chance at life.
It smacks of being lazy, or just not knowing the importance of validating code.
Either that, or they *do* know the importance of validating code - almost no importance at all. If it works in 99% of browsers, what do 99% of people care if it matches standards?
Heh - you've accused the wrong guy. My disagreements are more with the particle physics side of things, and I'm well aware that I haven't had enough schooling to take on established theories.
But let's say I did go back to school to gain that knowledge. Should I answer all of the questions on tests as if my theory were right and the established ones were wrong? No. As you said - I have to first understand existing theories if I want to be taken seriously when challenging them.
The same rules apply to creationists. If they want to take on established theories, they shouldn't be shunted out of schools just because they do not already hold the view that what they're learning is correct. The privilege of learning the details of a subject in order to challenge it should be open to *everyone*. You seem to want to shut the door on the people who need to learn *the most*.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to shut the door of science to those who are unwilling or unable to actually perform science. But it's a pie-in-the-sky idea. There is no way of telling who is unwilling/unable, and who is simply ignorant and in need of education. And educating the ignorant is far more valuable than cultivating a "pure" academic environment.
Further, if we start allowing people to be dismissed for beliefs they hold, it opens the door for all sorts of abuse.
Finally, science is supposed to be impersonal. It doesn't matter who says something, or what beliefs they hold. What matters is what they put down on paper, and whether it passes the basic test of "is this reasonable?". If a creationist who believes the earth is 6k years old can show that in certain circumstances, carbon dating is off by X%, what does it matter that he's a creationist? If the numbers are right, they're right.
Don't confuse this with supporting anyone pushing a creationist agenda. I've seen a lot of creationists with what I can only describe a contempt for science, ignoring those findings which do not match their expectations. But just because there are a few bad apples (80 or 90 percent:) - doesn't mean we should close the door to people willing to examine the evidence.
Dude - gotta come out against you on this one. Einstein had to pass tests on Newtonian physics, as did Schrodinger. If you've got a radical idea that overturns conventional logic, then by all means, "lie" on the tests - or mentally preface them with "According to current theories...". I personally don't believe everything I was taught in physics classes, but would never have been so arrogant as to push my own pet theories in a test environment.
And if someone is capable of pursuing mainstream science, while looking for validation of their own theories in their spare time (or funded by someone they've managed to convince), then that *is* science.
Bottom line, I guess: less science education is *not* the answer to a lack of science education.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely - nothing gets a kid fired up like parsing text, or calculating Fibonacci numbers. </sarcasm>
Seriously, great post, but my number one suggestion would be to let the kid decide what projects to take on. Show him the low-hanging fruit first, like keyboard input, text output, and drawing simple shapes on the screen, and let him come up with his own projects. For a beginner nowadays, Flash w/Actionscript might actually be the best choice, because of the instant gratification.
I don't know if my experiences are typical, but at that age, I wanted to be able to do things quickly, and do them "my way".
I wouldn't hand-hold too much either - let him make his mistakes. I think I appreciated the stately Array far better after writing a game with variables "item1", "item2" ... "item20", than I would have if someone had told me "just use this, it's easier".
Why would anyone ride an unsafe bus knowingly?
But that's the crux, isn't it? How can they possibly know there are hidden reasons the bus is unsafe? The only way to be reasonably sure is if some organization of citizens forced the bus companies to a minimal standard of safety.
But at least there wouldn't be any regulations.
If the summary is correct (over-under at 38%), the loaded-into-RAM-equals-copy argument is absolutely dumb.
I wouldn't worry about precedent though. If a case ever comes up explicitly claiming this "infringement" (Microsoft suing you for loading Windows into memory), it will be struck down in an instant.
On the Canadian one, it's not as clear-cut as all of that. It sounds more like a custody issue. The girl was punished by her father, who wanted the punishment to still be in effect when she went to live with her mother. To me, this seems really petty and stupid, but I think the decision was actually the common-sense one.
I think you're on the same page as a lot of people here. If you see someone talking about the "ignorant", "uneducated", "bumpkins", etc - just append a virtual "but not you, AC" to it. If you're willing to discuss theories rationally, and accept that there are beliefs other than yours, most of even the most anti-religious folks will treat you with respect.
Just recognize where these labels are coming from, and to whom they're being applied. They tend to be applied to people who:
a) Choose their own reality rather than the one in front of their eyes, and try to push that reality on the rest of us (creationism in science class), or
b) Try to force arbitrary life-altering choices on the rest of us, having only tradition or their own beliefs to justify it (gay marriage, or earlier on, outlawing gay sex)
I personally think that both of these groups deserve the scorn heaped on them on this site. Even if you are a member of one of these groups, though, I wouldn't bring it up in a scientific thread or any other non-religious discussion. I'll remain intolerant of aspects of a society or individual I believe deserve intolerance, but it is limited to those aspects - I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And please, if you do love science as you say, don't trick yourself into thinking an anti-evolution mindset doesn't fall under (a). The evidence is overwhelming.
Hey - don't go so hard on ID "scholars" "rectifying" contradictory observations - as long as it's done in a scientific manner.
After all, if they do this long enough, they might end up with a great little theory of evolution :)
I did misuse the metaphor, but was making the best of a metaphor that was already flawed for its purpose. "The sky" isn't a god and it can be verified through empirical means. And even if you can't look at it, you can calculate what would be perceived by a human eye from physical principles. In order for atheists to not believe in the sky, one would have to construct a world in which our knowledge and lifestyles were vastly different - not only living underground (or in space? in the ocean?), but not being able to extrapolate solar systems, planets, and atmospheres from first principles, and the wavelengths of light filtered through those atmospheres.
But the point of my post was that the metaphor was flawed - to make a valid comparison of god-belief and sky-colour-belief, you must assume equal information between you and all of the alternative beliefs, which amount to millenia-old writings and personal revelations.
Ah, but what if *you've* never seen the sky either? And you only know the sky is blue because your parents, your friends, and authority figures have all told you that it's blue, your entire life.
And then you see that there are a bunch of people who *also* have never seen the sky, but they're convinced that it's red, orange, yellow, or black - for exactly the same reasons you believe it's blue.
And finally, there's the group that says "if we've never seen the sky, why are people claiming with such certainty what colour it is?" Which of these many diverse groups would you consider the most rational?
I agree with the GP - the more religions claiming certain truth in the face of uncertainty, the better chance rational people have of throwing off the religious argument altogether, by recognizing that their beliefs really don't have any more substance than anyone else's completely-different beliefs.
Well, I'm going to have to nitpick one of my favourite Simpson's moments and ask - what indication was there that the narrator was Jimmy's Dad?
used for more important applications
It's true. Just like how good reconstructive surgeons are in short supply, and the cost of that resource has gone up. Now the resource can be dedicated to important applications like facelifts and tummy-tucks, while enterprising individuals put Pokemon bandaids on their 3rd-degree burns.
Sorry - the rest of your post deserved the +5 insightful, but that word "important" got to me :)
Accepting the lessons of history would make that impossible; pretending that the world was a perfect place and Islam spread out of the Arabian peninsula with flower garlands and fluffy bunnies right up to the election of George Bush who is the sole source of evil anywhere in the entire world -- that frames the problem in terms they can affect, and thus empowers them, and therefore all reality which contradicts that is denied.
I don't know what morons you've been talking to, but I've never seen that view espoused, or even the moderate view you've hyperbolized to make your point. No one's saying the mideast doesn't (and hasn't for a long time) had its problems.
The biggest problem I - and a lot of people - have had with GWB's rule is how incomprehensibly stupid it's been. He kicked a hornets' nest with no plan to deal with the consequences. He's managed to set up a situation in Iraq where more people are killed than under Saddam. By just about every measure, Iraq is worse today than it was in 2002. It is more dangerous today than it was in 2002. Whatever the long-term goals were, they have not been achieved (no, "getting rid of Saddam" is not a long-term goal. It is a step in a longer plan to, say, bring peace to the middle east, or cheapen oil, or whatever).
There is a world of difference you do not seem to see between "thinking the world is made of fluffy bunnies who love us", and recognizing that war is not the best answer to 99.9% of the world's problems. War has been tried in the middle east for centuries, and really hasn't worked out.
In short, you're creating an idiotic charachiture of those who believe different of you. I have never seen the views you ascribe to those who view Bush in a negative light. *Never*. We all recognize that there are severe problems in the middle east - some old, some new. There is some very justified anger at actions taken by the US and other foreign agents. There is also very unjustified and stupid anger that you get in poverty-stricken theocracies. And the entire thing is a shade of gray.
You do yourself a disservice by characterizing your opponents this way. You'll only serve to harden those who disagree with you, as they'll think your views so far from reality that you can't be reasoned with.
Good point. Because that bastion of freedom - Iran - denies others the right to exist, there's a good case for the US to do the same throughout the world.
Fair enough. I'm younger - pretty cynical in general, but Obama's got me hoping.
I'm still not convinced by your reasoning though (not that "if he's a politician, there's a 90% chance he's voting against our interests" doesn't ring true). His missed votes can be seen as a sad reality of a presidential run (McCain missed 60%, Clinton 33%). Another interesting fact is that while he did vote with the Dems a significant portion of the time, the votes that went against Dems often went against Reps as well. I think it's very hard to get a good idea of corporate sponsorship from this type of information though - particularly at this very partisan time, when relatively few bipartisan bills on significant issues have been coming through the pipe.
That said, I think I'd be pleased as punch to see Bob Barr as president.
Hmmm...and as a completely off-the-wall hypothetical - what would you think of Barr as Obama's running mate?
I've got a "map" of the Linux Kernel from a few years ago. It's a bit bland (basic coloured text/boxes on a white background), but there might be more exciting ones out there now. I've been able to find the original /. story (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/07/1327226&mode=flat), but not the actual poster.
As do nearly 100% of non-hardened-drug-crazed-criminals, making this a near perfect example of a non-example of correllation.
the corporate stooge Obama
I've seen this sentiment around a bit, but I've never seen justification for it. I'm sorry to pick apart your reply and focus just on this one bit, but I really am curious. To me, he seems like a genuinely populist candidate, and an idealist to boot. Now, whether a populist or idealist would actually make a good president is a valid question, but I've seen nothing to indicate that he's in the pocket of corporations - after all, he was one of the first candidates to refuse lobbyist donations.
Is there something in his voting or donation records to refute this?
Is that going to work, or are they just going to keep scraping the bottom of the newly-graduated barrel?
Maybe we can think of this another way - can RIAA cases be used as a honeypot? Let the lawyers bring cases forward, have "judges" spend a few years waffling about it, while the families pretend to be mortified (they've been let in on the whole thing). Then the lawyers are kept busy on pointless cases that go nowhere, and the rest of us can live our lives in peace.
Actually, maybe that's happening already...
Are you serious?
Once the bacteria have lived out their useful time in their "natural environment", they are relegated to a cold, freezing place for far longer than bacteria generally live - it must seem like an eternity.
However, if they've proven their worth to the almighty Scientist, He shall free them from their frozen chamber, and grants them a second chance at life.
As long as we're trying to find a "root problem" from which the Holocaust, Crusades, Gulags, etc, etc stemmed, let me throw my hat in the ring:
These are all the result of certainty in the absence of evidence justifying that certainty.
Whether certainty in God, or in an unproven political system, making grand decisions based on certainty was what lead to horrendously bad choices.
Unless, of course, he was referring to the flat end, not the pointy end.
Is it too late to suggest *aybyte? Kaybyte, Maybyte, G...
Dammit.
It smacks of being lazy, or just not knowing the importance of validating code.
Either that, or they *do* know the importance of validating code - almost no importance at all. If it works in 99% of browsers, what do 99% of people care if it matches standards?
Heh - you've accused the wrong guy. My disagreements are more with the particle physics side of things, and I'm well aware that I haven't had enough schooling to take on established theories.
:) - doesn't mean we should close the door to people willing to examine the evidence.
But let's say I did go back to school to gain that knowledge. Should I answer all of the questions on tests as if my theory were right and the established ones were wrong? No. As you said - I have to first understand existing theories if I want to be taken seriously when challenging them.
The same rules apply to creationists. If they want to take on established theories, they shouldn't be shunted out of schools just because they do not already hold the view that what they're learning is correct. The privilege of learning the details of a subject in order to challenge it should be open to *everyone*. You seem to want to shut the door on the people who need to learn *the most*.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to shut the door of science to those who are unwilling or unable to actually perform science. But it's a pie-in-the-sky idea. There is no way of telling who is unwilling/unable, and who is simply ignorant and in need of education. And educating the ignorant is far more valuable than cultivating a "pure" academic environment.
Further, if we start allowing people to be dismissed for beliefs they hold, it opens the door for all sorts of abuse.
Finally, science is supposed to be impersonal. It doesn't matter who says something, or what beliefs they hold. What matters is what they put down on paper, and whether it passes the basic test of "is this reasonable?". If a creationist who believes the earth is 6k years old can show that in certain circumstances, carbon dating is off by X%, what does it matter that he's a creationist? If the numbers are right, they're right.
Don't confuse this with supporting anyone pushing a creationist agenda. I've seen a lot of creationists with what I can only describe a contempt for science, ignoring those findings which do not match their expectations. But just because there are a few bad apples (80 or 90 percent
Dude - gotta come out against you on this one. Einstein had to pass tests on Newtonian physics, as did Schrodinger. If you've got a radical idea that overturns conventional logic, then by all means, "lie" on the tests - or mentally preface them with "According to current theories...". I personally don't believe everything I was taught in physics classes, but would never have been so arrogant as to push my own pet theories in a test environment.
And if someone is capable of pursuing mainstream science, while looking for validation of their own theories in their spare time (or funded by someone they've managed to convince), then that *is* science.
Bottom line, I guess: less science education is *not* the answer to a lack of science education.
Dude - humans *are* the Singularity.