Surely you've heard the phrase "Please hold all your questions until the end".
Not in a classroom., I haven't.
We had over 1400 students in our first year psychology lectures.
I went to a large state university and don't think I ever had a lecture of more than 500 or 600 people. Even at that size, you can ask questions -- if you've got a question, odds are someone else has that same one.
1,400 people, yes, pointless to even attend, get a video. (Though if 1,300 people do that, then you've got a 100 person lecture.)
Besides, not all lectures are held in schools.
We are in a thread titled "Best Way To Take Notes In the Modern Classroom". Business seminars and political speeches aren't really the topic of consideration here.
In a lecture if I just sit there and listen and there's something I don't understand, that point is lost forever since I don't have any notes to review later.
Or if you don't understand, you could raise your fricking hand and ask a question. That is why lectures are useful in a way video is not, you know; two-way communication is possible. (Yes, even in a large lecture hall. Sit up front, ignore the stenographers masquerading as students behind you, and engage the teacher. They will most likely be thrilled.
Yep, I ran into this recently too; one "landlord" was "temporarily" living in Africa and wanted applications sent there.
Works the other way too: I put a room for rent up on Craigslist and got a reply from an obvious scammer who's supposedly in Hawaii now and can't come look at the room but will rent it unseen, I just need to send my info to her father who will pay the bills...
....but I still can't see myself killing a human being when all I stand to lose otherwise is a few hundred dollars.
If the mugger is threatening you with a gun or knife or baseball bat - or even his fists -- you stand to lose more than a few hundred dollars, you stand to possibly lose your life. This isn't simple theft, or even a snatch-and-run; robbery is a crime of violence.
A robber does not get people to give up their stuff by threatening them with wedgies and purple nurples; about 6% of homicides arise from robberies. You may be thinking that you can reliably buy the robber off by capitulating: no. There is a significant possibility that he may take your stuff and then shoot or stab or beat you anyway, either to leave no witnesses or just because he's a violent sociopath.
That said, the moral and tactical decision to use force in any given situation is complicated. If you are not armed and the robber is, and all the robber wants is property, I would say your best bet is most likely to give it to them. On the other hand, *never* go with an attacker; if someone points a gun at your and says "Get in the car," they are saying "I don't want to kill you here, let's go somewhere I can take my time doing horrible things before I kill you."
How, then, does the US system prevent the "professional criminal" from gaining access to guns?
No system can prevent criminals from getting guns off the black market, it can only raise the price and put some obstacles in the way. But background checks are required for anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer.
Who is likely to come off worse - the professional criminal who carries a gun and is practised in threatening people with it, or the ordinary citizen fumbling in his or her coat pocket?
The criminal is surrounded by citizens, an unknown number of whom may be armed. They have to try to keep them all covered; odds are good that a citizen will have the opportunity to draw and fire.
In the U.S., armed citizens successfully engage in defensive firearms use thousands of times a year. Some estimates put the numbers in the millions, but the error bars are very large. These acts of defense range from scaring off a petty thief rummaging in your shed by showing a gun, to shooting and stopping a murderer engaged in a killing spree.
Not sure what Ayn Rand's gibberish has to do with any of this.
As it is, it takes a LOT more guts to kill somebody with a knife than a gun
On what you you base this? Seems to me that someone with the "guts" to threaten someone's life for a few dollars, has enough "guts" to use any tool available to get the job done. Murder by knife are by no means uncommon; more than 20% of murders in the U.S. use knifes, blunt objects, or fists and feet.
It may be harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun -- which is why guns make better defensive weapons, they have more stopping power. But a thief or rapist or general purpose maniac who is willing to shoot you is unlikely to have compunctions about stabbing you. Don't project your own squeamishness on to violent criminals, they do not think the same way you and I do.
If only pro-gun folks knew how easy it was to live without the things, and what a sense of peace one gets knowing they aren't about.
It's easy to live without, say, a fire extinguisher -- until something bursts into flames. It's easy to live without tools of self-defense -- until someone intent on violence is breaking into your home, or until your community is abandoned by the police after a disaster or riot. The odds may be against any of these things happening, but pretending they are impossible is not peace, it is foolishness.
And there is no place on Earth with a substantial number of human beings where one can know that firearms are not about. Gun bans keep guns away from people about as well as drug bans keep drugs away from people. If the Nazis could not keep resistance movements in occupied countries from making submachine guns in underground machine shops, how exactly do you plan to enforce your ban?
The reason many other nations have a lower violence crime rate than the U.S. is because of better economic justice and better mental health care, not because of gun bans.
This passage illustrates the extreme bogosity of this article: "It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the 1970s that the Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks." It is, of course, bullshit: an Ethernet is a type of computer network, it does not link different computer networks. The glory of the Internet is that it can link computers on Ethernet, serial lines, EVDO, token ring networks (if any still exist!), carrier pigeon, whatever; and those protocols were developed with publicly funded research.
Typical ahistorical right-wing bullshit from the WSJ.
Monarchism (or despotism) is not a philosophical theory. It is the result of what happens when someone uses personal power to control other people.
But that personal power is the result of (unconsciously accepted) political theory. "God made him the king; opposing the Will of God would be evil."
See the man with the big sword? He will kill you if you don't pay him money.
A lot of kings have been physically weak. Heck, Obama is probably the most powerful man in the world; while he's in decent shape and all as a martial artist I know plenty of people who could tear him into pieces. They would never even consider it, though, because of the way they have been socialized.
The "personal power" that makes a king or a despot is a social force, not a physical or biological one. And we have the capability to change human society. Not overnight, of course, but consider the changes in how society views racial and gender equality over only the past century: enormous change is possible.
That said, I'm a Zenarchist: Universal Enlightenment is the prerequisite for the abolition of the state. That's a way off. but we can take steps in the direction right now by spreading anti-authoritarian memes.
Sigh. No, slavery was the root cause for the terrorist organization that called itself the Confederacy, by the terrorist's own admission. "Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace...property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." -- Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union
A stronger federal government contrary to the beliefs and intents of the Founding Fathers. The point of a weak fed was to keep massive government stupidity on a local or state-wide level, not to allow it to infect and infest itself across the entire country.
Double sigh. The whole point of the Constitution was to create a strong federal government, because the weak one of the Articles of Confederation failed. The "original intent" of Federalists like Madison was that the federal government would have more power over things like commerce and taxation than the British Parliament had had.
And, if you haven't noticed, this whole discussion is about how a state -- not the federal gubbmint -- is doing something in violation of people's rights. This is exactly the sort of behavior where the fed should step in to guarantee that a state respects citizens' due process rights.
Odd how so many ancient religions world-wide from completely different and isolated parts of the world can be so similar.
The world wassn't so "isolated" in the old days as we usually think. Buddha statues in China and Japan were came about via the ancient Greek practice of making statues of deities. There's some evidence that the Chinese visited the Americas before Columbus. Ideas get around.
Which is why I said 'near', and '5%'. You get to the point of splitting hairs when the top 5% is calling the top 1% 'loathsome'.
No, actually you don't. Because most folks in the 5th to 2nd percentiles are making their good-but-not-insanely excessive income by actual productive work, whereas the 1% are mostly parasites, gaming the system to make obscene profits from the labor of others.
Also, you do realize that $76,000 number was pulled from a search aggregator and has no validity whatsoever - right?
If you believe that to be the case, kindly present a link to a source with better data.
When Progressives run things, Crony-Capitalism insures plenty of State-sponsored, and enforced by threat of death/imprisonment, feudalism.
Yes, the U.S. under Teddy Roosevelt sure looked feudal. Seriously, dude, do you have any idea what the words you use actually mean?
Point of fact, the Greek economic crisis was largely a creation of banks; trying to fault progressivism is a serious disconnect from reality.
When conservatives run things, on the other hand, capitalism insures plenty of state-enforced feudalism. Under capitalism, the state creates and enforces "property rights" for the aristocrats, using the threat of death/imprisonment to keep the serfs in line. Property is force; if you don't believe that, go try to build yourself a cabin in the backyards of some 1%er's third or fourth house.
but the sheer number of people that try to cite Wikipedia as a reference demonstrates that said hope is misplaced.
In formal writing, one should never reference an encyclopedia. (I say that even though I referenced the wik on one very minor point in my forthcoming book.) In an informal internet discussion, depending on the topic, a wik reference can be quite appropriate.
However, if I tried to share that sheet music on the internet, I would be sued, and I would lose.
Maybe. In practice, guitar tab (a form of sheet music, really) sites have proliferated like rabbits since Harry Fox smashed OLGA with legal threats, and AFAIK the question of whether posting one's own by-ear transcription of a song is fair use has never been taken to court.
NTP could mean anything. It could be "Novell transfer protocol"...
In the same sense that HTTP could be "Highly Technical TARDIS Protocol", yes. But anyone who needs HTTP expanded is a n00b (no offense, we were all n00bs once);it's a universally-used protocol.
NTP is also a universally-used protocol. Every server (every properly-managed server, at least) uses it, and many if not most PCs use it.
OTOH, the number one meaning for "LSEQ" seems to be "Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire", according to the duck. Not universal.
If you not only don't know what NTP is, but after looking it up think it's mysterious to the average/.er, you deserve a little teasing.;-)
No. Socialism is force & operates based upon fear of the government (jail time).
"Private property" is force, and operates based upon fear of the government. It is the government, after all, that creates and enforces laws against "trespassing" and "theft". "Property" is nothing more or less than the ability to call on the state to back up your claim to control something.
Socialism is democratic control of a societies' means of economic production, which may be done directly (libertarian socialism) or via an elected government (state socialism). It contrasts with "capitalism", where a societies' means of economic production are under the control of a state-backed minority class called "owners" or "investors".
On (rooted) Android, you can easily route all your network traffic through Tot with Orbot:
Orbot contains Tor, libevent and privoxy. Orbot provides a local HTTP proxy and the standard SOCKS4A/SOCKS5 proxy interfaces into the Tor network. Orbot has the ability to transparently torify all of the TCP traffic on your Android device when it has the correct permissions and system libraries.
You can, in fact, shout fire in a crowded theater. If something is actually on fire, you could be a hero for doing so. If it's done on stage as part of the script, it could be perfectly normal.
If there isn't a fire and you know it, then you've committed fraud and may be civilly and/or criminally liable afterwards, which is a big difference from prior restraint. We don't put masking tape over your mouth when you enter the theater on the theory that "OMG, somebody might yell 'Fire!'"
How about if someone rapes your daughter, films the act, and puts it on a billboard across the street from her school?
Do you have a release from her? If not, then you've used someone's image without their permission and will be open to a civil suit, which is also a big difference from prior restraint.
Some public school administrators are largely a joke.
And so are some private school administrators. Private schools can mostly be divided into expensive, mostly secular, ones, which do well; Catholic schools, which do on average a little worse than public schools, and conservative religious schools, which are generally crap.
Private schools tend to be run more like companies and lousy administrators don't last.
Where does this myth that private sector companies somehow are run competently and effectively come from? Have people not worked
I don't really get why, the built-in browser and Dolphin are exactly the same thing.
The built-in browser on my Epic 4G doesn't support the useful extensions that Dolphin does. Text selection for copy/paste also works better under Dolphin.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in a classroom., I haven't.
I went to a large state university and don't think I ever had a lecture of more than 500 or 600 people. Even at that size, you can ask questions -- if you've got a question, odds are someone else has that same one.
1,400 people, yes, pointless to even attend, get a video. (Though if 1,300 people do that, then you've got a 100 person lecture.)
We are in a thread titled "Best Way To Take Notes In the Modern Classroom". Business seminars and political speeches aren't really the topic of consideration here.
IIRC, Apple gave special pricing to schools; so students and teacher got a distorted view.
Where the hell did you go to school where asking questions during a lecture was not permitted???
Or if you don't understand, you could raise your fricking hand and ask a question. That is why lectures are useful in a way video is not, you know; two-way communication is possible. (Yes, even in a large lecture hall. Sit up front, ignore the stenographers masquerading as students behind you, and engage the teacher. They will most likely be thrilled.
Works the other way too: I put a room for rent up on Craigslist and got a reply from an obvious scammer who's supposedly in Hawaii now and can't come look at the room but will rent it unseen, I just need to send my info to her father who will pay the bills...
If the mugger is threatening you with a gun or knife or baseball bat - or even his fists -- you stand to lose more than a few hundred dollars, you stand to possibly lose your life. This isn't simple theft, or even a snatch-and-run; robbery is a crime of violence.
A robber does not get people to give up their stuff by threatening them with wedgies and purple nurples; about 6% of homicides arise from robberies. You may be thinking that you can reliably buy the robber off by capitulating: no. There is a significant possibility that he may take your stuff and then shoot or stab or beat you anyway, either to leave no witnesses or just because he's a violent sociopath.
That said, the moral and tactical decision to use force in any given situation is complicated. If you are not armed and the robber is, and all the robber wants is property, I would say your best bet is most likely to give it to them. On the other hand, *never* go with an attacker; if someone points a gun at your and says "Get in the car," they are saying "I don't want to kill you here, let's go somewhere I can take my time doing horrible things before I kill you."
No system can prevent criminals from getting guns off the black market, it can only raise the price and put some obstacles in the way. But background checks are required for anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer.
Quite often, the "professional" criminal gets the worst of it. Like this, for example: http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120716/ARTICLES/120719707
The criminal is surrounded by citizens, an unknown number of whom may be armed. They have to try to keep them all covered; odds are good that a citizen will have the opportunity to draw and fire.
In the U.S., armed citizens successfully engage in defensive firearms use thousands of times a year. Some estimates put the numbers in the millions, but the error bars are very large. These acts of defense range from scaring off a petty thief rummaging in your shed by showing a gun, to shooting and stopping a murderer engaged in a killing spree.
Not sure what Ayn Rand's gibberish has to do with any of this.
On what you you base this? Seems to me that someone with the "guts" to threaten someone's life for a few dollars, has enough "guts" to use any tool available to get the job done. Murder by knife are by no means uncommon; more than 20% of murders in the U.S. use knifes, blunt objects, or fists and feet.
It may be harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun -- which is why guns make better defensive weapons, they have more stopping power. But a thief or rapist or general purpose maniac who is willing to shoot you is unlikely to have compunctions about stabbing you. Don't project your own squeamishness on to violent criminals, they do not think the same way you and I do.
It's easy to live without, say, a fire extinguisher -- until something bursts into flames. It's easy to live without tools of self-defense -- until someone intent on violence is breaking into your home, or until your community is abandoned by the police after a disaster or riot. The odds may be against any of these things happening, but pretending they are impossible is not peace, it is foolishness.
And there is no place on Earth with a substantial number of human beings where one can know that firearms are not about. Gun bans keep guns away from people about as well as drug bans keep drugs away from people. If the Nazis could not keep resistance movements in occupied countries from making submachine guns in underground machine shops, how exactly do you plan to enforce your ban?
The reason many other nations have a lower violence crime rate than the U.S. is because of better economic justice and better mental health care, not because of gun bans.
This passage illustrates the extreme bogosity of this article: "It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the 1970s that the Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks." It is, of course, bullshit: an Ethernet is a type of computer network, it does not link different computer networks. The glory of the Internet is that it can link computers on Ethernet, serial lines, EVDO, token ring networks (if any still exist!), carrier pigeon, whatever; and those protocols were developed with publicly funded research.
Typical ahistorical right-wing bullshit from the WSJ.
SInce there is already a hybrid SUV on the market, I'd suggest starting with that.
But that personal power is the result of (unconsciously accepted) political theory. "God made him the king; opposing the Will of God would be evil."
A lot of kings have been physically weak. Heck, Obama is probably the most powerful man in the world; while he's in decent shape and all as a martial artist I know plenty of people who could tear him into pieces. They would never even consider it, though, because of the way they have been socialized.
The "personal power" that makes a king or a despot is a social force, not a physical or biological one. And we have the capability to change human society. Not overnight, of course, but consider the changes in how society views racial and gender equality over only the past century: enormous change is possible.
That said, I'm a Zenarchist: Universal Enlightenment is the prerequisite for the abolition of the state. That's a way off. but we can take steps in the direction right now by spreading anti-authoritarian memes.
Sigh. No, slavery was the root cause for the terrorist organization that called itself the Confederacy, by the terrorist's own admission. "Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace...property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." -- Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union
Double sigh. The whole point of the Constitution was to create a strong federal government, because the weak one of the Articles of Confederation failed. The "original intent" of Federalists like Madison was that the federal government would have more power over things like commerce and taxation than the British Parliament had had.
And, if you haven't noticed, this whole discussion is about how a state -- not the federal gubbmint -- is doing something in violation of people's rights. This is exactly the sort of behavior where the fed should step in to guarantee that a state respects citizens' due process rights.
The world wassn't so "isolated" in the old days as we usually think. Buddha statues in China and Japan were came about via the ancient Greek practice of making statues of deities. There's some evidence that the Chinese visited the Americas before Columbus. Ideas get around.
No, actually you don't. Because most folks in the 5th to 2nd percentiles are making their good-but-not-insanely excessive income by actual productive work, whereas the 1% are mostly parasites, gaming the system to make obscene profits from the labor of others.
If you believe that to be the case, kindly present a link to a source with better data.
Yes, the U.S. under Teddy Roosevelt sure looked feudal. Seriously, dude, do you have any idea what the words you use actually mean?
Point of fact, the Greek economic crisis was largely a creation of banks; trying to fault progressivism is a serious disconnect from reality.
When conservatives run things, on the other hand, capitalism insures plenty of state-enforced feudalism. Under capitalism, the state creates and enforces "property rights" for the aristocrats, using the threat of death/imprisonment to keep the serfs in line. Property is force; if you don't believe that, go try to build yourself a cabin in the backyards of some 1%er's third or fourth house.
Cutoff for top 1%: about $380,000.
Average salary of PhD in molecular biology: $76,000.
Scientists are not, generally, 1%ers.
In formal writing, one should never reference an encyclopedia. (I say that even though I referenced the wik on one very minor point in my forthcoming book.) In an informal internet discussion, depending on the topic, a wik reference can be quite appropriate.
Maybe. In practice, guitar tab (a form of sheet music, really) sites have proliferated like rabbits since Harry Fox smashed OLGA with legal threats, and AFAIK the question of whether posting one's own by-ear transcription of a song is fair use has never been taken to court.
In the same sense that HTTP could be "Highly Technical TARDIS Protocol", yes. But anyone who needs HTTP expanded is a n00b (no offense, we were all n00bs once);it's a universally-used protocol.
NTP is also a universally-used protocol. Every server (every properly-managed server, at least) uses it, and many if not most PCs use it.
OTOH, the number one meaning for "LSEQ" seems to be "Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire", according to the duck. Not universal.
If you not only don't know what NTP is, but after looking it up think it's mysterious to the average /.er, you deserve a little teasing. ;-)
"Private property" is force, and operates based upon fear of the government. It is the government, after all, that creates and enforces laws against "trespassing" and "theft". "Property" is nothing more or less than the ability to call on the state to back up your claim to control something.
Socialism is democratic control of a societies' means of economic production, which may be done directly (libertarian socialism) or via an elected government (state socialism). It contrasts with "capitalism", where a societies' means of economic production are under the control of a state-backed minority class called "owners" or "investors".
On (rooted) Android, you can easily route all your network traffic through Tot with Orbot:
You can, in fact, shout fire in a crowded theater. If something is actually on fire, you could be a hero for doing so. If it's done on stage as part of the script, it could be perfectly normal.
If there isn't a fire and you know it, then you've committed fraud and may be civilly and/or criminally liable afterwards, which is a big difference from prior restraint. We don't put masking tape over your mouth when you enter the theater on the theory that "OMG, somebody might yell 'Fire!'"
Do you have a release from her? If not, then you've used someone's image without their permission and will be open to a civil suit, which is also a big difference from prior restraint.
And so are some private school administrators. Private schools can mostly be divided into expensive, mostly secular, ones, which do well; Catholic schools, which do on average a little worse than public schools, and conservative religious schools, which are generally crap.
Where does this myth that private sector companies somehow are run competently and effectively come from? Have people not worked
The built-in browser on my Epic 4G doesn't support the useful extensions that Dolphin does. Text selection for copy/paste also works better under Dolphin.