If school's can embrace policies of publicly weighing and humiliating children, they might well decide that the heart data might be shared in some inappropriate way
I don't think we need public weighings for kids to know who the fat ones are.
But you know what? If a little public shaming gets the little lard-asses to turn off the TV, put down the Big Gulps, and go the hell outside and run around for a bit, I'm foursquare behind it. Our obesity rates are a disgrace.
Also under Obama's plan is the requirement that there be a doctor or other person certified to give physicals (so at least a PA on each campus) during all school hours every day.
Boy, I'm sure glad that we didn't have any health care professionals on campus when I went to school.
Well, except for the school nurse. But she didn't do physicals. Just stuff like scoliosis screenings.
I'd sure like to see a citation for that claim about doctors or PAs on every school campus, though. I've googled in vain.
And I'd like to see a citation for that claim about how the results of student health screenings will end up in insurance company databases.
which is it? Leftists government tit-sucking jobless liberals or right wing fanatics toting guns and talking god?
Ah, but the great irony is that many of those right wing fanatics toting guns and talking god are also government tit-sucking jobless folks. You know, the "keep government out of my Medicare!" sorts.
Take, for instance this little gem of dialog between actor Craig T. Nelson and Glenn Beck, where Nelson spouts a bunch of right-wing anti-tax rhetoric and caps it off with "What happened to society? I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No. No." (For readers outside the U.S., or for fatally ignorant Americans, welfare and food stamps are tax-funded government programs that help people like Craig T. Nelson out when they fall on hard times.)
Don't let the government fool you. They're not in the business of taxing you less or taking taxes away. They're in the business of lining their pockets.
Criticizing communism or socialism, despite the numbers of corpses it caused, the wars it started, and the decades of repression... just won't be accepted on slashdot.
I have no problem with criticizing Stalinism or Maoism for the corpses they caused. I have no problem with criticizing Marx for his errors.
I have a problem with equating all socialists or communists with these groups. Labeling Kropotkin a murderer because of Stalin's bloodshed is intellectually dishonest, like criticizing the Quakers for the insane antics of the Westboro Baptist Church -- indeed, it's worse, since Kropotkinists were among those surpressed by the Soviets.
It's a perpetuation of the "Red Scare" tactics that have been so successful for decades in convincing Americans that the only alternative to getting royally fscked over by Big Business is Stalinism, so you might as well bend over, spread your cheeks, and try to enjoy that corporate reaming.
Capitalists are greedy, conspiring pigs ! (now at least I can be sure this post will be good. Well and I can be sure you won't mention something like "capitalists are not a homogenous group".
Two meanings for "capitalist" are in play here: 1) an owner of capital, a member of that modern aristocracy, the capitalist class; one who reaps profit without productive labor. 2) one who believes that capitalism, a system where a state-backed capitalist class controls the wealth, is the best way to provide for human wants and needs -- either a wanna-be type 1 capitalist, or one who has been duped by them.
A type 1 capitalist is certainly evincing some level of greed. A type 2 capitalist in the "wannabe" category is also. But most capitalists fall into the type 2, duped category -- wrong, but not necessarily greedy or conspiring. So, if it makes you happy, I will certainly agree with the proposition, "capitalists are not a homogenous group".
The USSR did a lot of nasty shit, but I don't see a subcategory at your link for "people who disagreed with `approved' science" who were executed. Please give details.
Here you can find one of many Soviet repressive science disasters.
Yep, pretty nasty. Of course, for a little context, let's consider the American projects in eugenics and other misapplications of Darwinism to social and political issues.
Communists kill scientists, and science.
Stalinists, maybe; I can't imagine Kropotkinists killing scientists. "Communists" are not a homogenous group.
Anyway, it's sure interesting that those science-killing Soviets somehow beat us into space. Maybe the truth is just a little more complicated that simplistic slogans like "Communists kill scientists"?
But I can't really bring myself to think that any (relevant) group of people would counsciously be trying to "dumb down" anyone, let alone an entire country.
The trick is, they don't think that they're dumbing anything down. They're just encouraging their kids to be "normal". You know, teach their boys to be "manly" -- put down that book, son, and let's go spend some father/son time throwing the football around. And Mom can drag Sis away from the computer and teach her how to bake cookies, ain't that wholesome? (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with athletics or cooking.)
It's not that they don't respect smarts -- they're really proud of Uncle Joe, the CPA. They just don't like those egghead "intellectuals".
Are the Jews by any chance trying to dumb down America? Or maybe it is someone who has oil who is trying to dumb down America.
It's pretty much white guys -- though, you know, a lot of the folks most connected with the anti-intellectualism of the conservative movement do seem to hail from oil-producing states like Texas, Alaska, and California.
[A taser] subdues a suspect faster than the use of a baton, and doesn't have that "Rodney King" stigma attached (though it's rapidly gaining its own level of infamy).
Ahem. May I suggest you review the Rodney King beating, which started with criminal cop Stacey Koon tasing King twice?
At which point you get Windows and write it off as a cost of attending school, like a textbook (have you seen how much textbooks cost these days?)
What's the cost of data insecurity, of giving up freedoms, and of supporting a criminal corporation? What form do you write those costs off on?
your operating system choice should not be so totally ingrained with your personality that you can't change to adapt to situations where you may be required to use something else.
My preference is not for a particular operating system, it is for open standards. A situation where I am forced to use proprietary standards results from either incompetence or corruption; both are things I'd like to avoid.
Possible journey activities can be based on these types of well known journey metaphors:
The labyrinth, Stations of the Cross (non-relgious), TAO, The Artist's Way, Healing walks and paths
How exactly does one have "non-religious" Stations of the Cross? Taoism, at least, can be approached as a philosophy rather than a religion, but I can't think of any approach to venerating the torture and execution of some ancient rabbi that doesn't involve a belief that the poor guy was some sort of religious sacrifice.
If the idea is that religious imagery can be useful in treating PTSD, well, fine, let's discuss if that's true, and how we can balance that against First Amendment concerns in a government-funded treatment program. But "non-religious" Stations of the Cross rings about as true as the disclaimer in those ads in the back of local free paper: "Busty Blond Will Make All Your Fantasies Come True! $100/hr. Non-sexual".
That would also be known as "an increase in temperature"
If inducing a current merely causes "an increase in temperature", please explain how radio communication works...
At the broadest perspective, sure, any energy input is "an increase in temperature". When you set up your crystal radio to receive AM transmissions, yes indeedy, the thing does warm up a bit as it absorbs EM radiation. (Even though some if it is turned into mechanical energy in the earpiece, it's not 100% efficient.) But describing the operation of the radio as "an increase in temperature" is misleading, to put it kindly.
Can non-ionizing EM radiation have an effect on biological systems? You are, quite literally, looking at the answer.
Can EM radiation in the radio range at low intensity have an effect on biological systems? I dunno. Consider the hot and cold spots that arise as you microwave your burrito. Could very mild but uneven heating have an effect?
If the radiation is non-ionizing then it does not induce any chemical reactions, nothing changes (except maybe something gets a little warmer).
If something "gets a little warmer", chemical reactions are affected. If you don't understand this last sentence then please go take a chemistry class and come back.
The scientific way of answering the question "does EM radiation effect biological systems" is to observe biological systems that have been exposed to various sorts of EM radiation and see if there are any effects. Saying "our models don't allow for such effects, therefore they cannot exist" is faith-based reasoning, not science.
What's the name on his ID? At some level of effort, John Q. Brainiac can fool any college, but most places at least check to see if the people in the classroom are who they say they are.
It's been a while, but as I recall, the only time my ID was checked in a college classroom was when I was taking a final exam, in a class with many sections that all came together for the test. That only happened a few times. Most classes made no check at all: you showed up on the first day, answered the roll, and they took your word for who you were.
there's a reason EM radiation of longer wavelengths is called "non-ionizing". Hint: it's because it's incapable of ionizing anything.
The fact that radiation is not ionizing anything does not imply that it has no effect on living tissue. It could induce microcurrents in some tissues, or cause certain molecules to resonate in a way which affected important chemical reactions.
Which is not to say that AM radio does have any effect, only that "it's not ionizing!" is not a refutation.
Biological systems are complex; if something as relatively simple as a computer can be effected by EM radiation, it's not completely batty to speculate that biological systems might be also. There are a few studies -- such as this one -- that have suggested effects on cerebral blood flow or on sleep patterns, but the data remains spotty at best.
I repeat, I'm not claiming that such effects exist, nor am I defending this vandalism. (Calling it "terrorism" is, of course, ridiculous.) But claiming that EM radiation can't have any health effects because it's not ionizing is bad science.
No one has ever explained to me how the 'evaluation' process can reasonably work in an on-line setting.
How is it any more difficult to evaluate an essay or project submitted electronically than one submitted on dead trees?
Nothing is stopping me from enrolling my girlfriend's cat in an on-line degree program and taking all his tests.
Ah, now that's a problem of authentication, completely orthogonal to evaluation.
Nothing (except my generally honest nature, and a lack of money) was stopping me from hiring a smarter person to write my papers and do my projects, or even sit in classes and take my tests. (If John Q. Brainiac was in your class all semester claiming to be Tom Swiss, you wouldn't suspect anything f he showed up to take the test, too...)
The authentication problem is real, but I don't think it's fundamentally worse for on-line education than for face-to-face classes.
Your argument is correct if there wasn't the internet, but since there is, most people don't need college to learn more about the world, its just as easy to hop on Google and find out more interesting information in a few hours
A (decent) college education doesn't just give you information. It teaches you intellectual skills. Via the interaction with your professors, you learn how to learn.
Of course I think most of us who HAVE gone to college realize that's not really the point. College is a chance to be a kid for 4 more years, scoring with women, and hopefully meet your future wife or husband. The reason people remember their alma maters so fondly is because it was the last time they lived without any responsibility.
Funny, I'm more of a "kid" in many ways now than I was in college...sure didn't score with women! (Young geeks - it *does* get better! Have hope!) I was taking challenging classes -- was actually trying to do a dual degree in CS and physics, before my brain started to melt and I decide that was Not Fun. and working part-time, certainly not living with no responsibility.
When I look back at my college days, the thing I remember most fondly is the continual encounter with new ideas. Yes, that is something that you can and should keep going for the rest of your life. And I have, to some degree -- besides voracious reading on many topics, I went back to school a few years ago to study Asian Bodywork Therapy, and in the past few years I also took two semesters of Japanese at the community college.
But as an undergrad, my prime occupation was learning new stuff.
There's a Roger Zelazny novel where the protagonist inherits a trust fund that supports him so long as he's in college -- so he manages to keep changing his major, and doesn't gradate for over a decade. I always thought that sounded like an excellent way to live.
A general overall look or style is frequently not trademarkable
And generally it should not be. An overall look or style is not likely to fool you into thinking that a product came from one company rather than another.
If the overall look or style is a creative artistic work, copyright should apply. If it provides some functional innovation, normal patent should apply. Otherewise, there's no way that protecting the look and style of something will "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
What, are you suggesting that Google is going to just take this patent and frame it and hang it up as decoration? A bogus patent like this is a lawsuit threat, a Damoclean sword threatening competitors.
Now they're a huge company, but that doesn't mean they must be evil.
Actually, yes, it pretty much does.
Corporations have exactly one interest and function: maximize shareholder return. If Google could increase its profits by powering its servers with forsaken children, it would do it -- otherwise it would face shareholder lawsuits.
Large for-profit corporations are, in essence, psychopaths, lacking any sort of conscience or empathy. They will do only and exactly what is in their own interest, regardless of how it effects others. If that's not "evil", nothing is.
Or it's to prevent scammers and phishers from making Google-like homepages
Which is the purpose of trademark law -- to protect the customer by allowing them to distinguish with whom they're doing business.
Google's homepage has this big Google logo on it, which is (I presume) a registered trademark of Google. If you put a Google logo, or something that looks like it, on your page, the trademark cops will crush you. No design patent is necessary.
This is more like Apple's evil "look-and-feel" lawsuits from the early 90s.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think we need public weighings for kids to know who the fat ones are.
But you know what? If a little public shaming gets the little lard-asses to turn off the TV, put down the Big Gulps, and go the hell outside and run around for a bit, I'm foursquare behind it. Our obesity rates are a disgrace.
Boy, I'm sure glad that we didn't have any health care professionals on campus when I went to school.
Well, except for the school nurse. But she didn't do physicals. Just stuff like scoliosis screenings.
I'd sure like to see a citation for that claim about doctors or PAs on every school campus, though. I've googled in vain.
And I'd like to see a citation for that claim about how the results of student health screenings will end up in insurance company databases.
Um, when the state is running public schools that take care of kids, I think "nanny state" might be a fine way to operate in that realm.
Ah, but the great irony is that many of those right wing fanatics toting guns and talking god are also government tit-sucking jobless folks. You know, the "keep government out of my Medicare!" sorts.
Take, for instance this little gem of dialog between actor Craig T. Nelson and Glenn Beck, where Nelson spouts a bunch of right-wing anti-tax rhetoric and caps it off with "What happened to society? I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No. No." (For readers outside the U.S., or for fatally ignorant Americans, welfare and food stamps are tax-funded government programs that help people like Craig T. Nelson out when they fall on hard times.)
Remember Texas Governor Rick Perry's recent secession rhetoric about how "the federal government has become oppressive"? Turns out that he just turned to said oppressive government and asked to suck at its tit for swine flu emergency funding -- since the beginning of FEMA's record-keeping, Texas has actually received more federal assistance from FEMA than any other state.
It's just more red state socialism.
Well, they do a pretty poor job of it here in the U.S. then, since our overall tax burden is lower than most every other developed nation. (Interesting that Japan and Switzerland, the only nations with a comparable standard of living with lower taxes, have almost no military.)
I have no problem with criticizing Stalinism or Maoism for the corpses they caused. I have no problem with criticizing Marx for his errors.
I have a problem with equating all socialists or communists with these groups. Labeling Kropotkin a murderer because of Stalin's bloodshed is intellectually dishonest, like criticizing the Quakers for the insane antics of the Westboro Baptist Church -- indeed, it's worse, since Kropotkinists were among those surpressed by the Soviets.
It's a perpetuation of the "Red Scare" tactics that have been so successful for decades in convincing Americans that the only alternative to getting royally fscked over by Big Business is Stalinism, so you might as well bend over, spread your cheeks, and try to enjoy that corporate reaming.
Two meanings for "capitalist" are in play here: 1) an owner of capital, a member of that modern aristocracy, the capitalist class; one who reaps profit without productive labor. 2) one who believes that capitalism, a system where a state-backed capitalist class controls the wealth, is the best way to provide for human wants and needs -- either a wanna-be type 1 capitalist, or one who has been duped by them.
A type 1 capitalist is certainly evincing some level of greed. A type 2 capitalist in the "wannabe" category is also. But most capitalists fall into the type 2, duped category -- wrong, but not necessarily greedy or conspiring. So, if it makes you happy, I will certainly agree with the proposition, "capitalists are not a homogenous group".
The USSR did a lot of nasty shit, but I don't see a subcategory at your link for "people who disagreed with `approved' science" who were executed. Please give details.
Yep, pretty nasty. Of course, for a little context, let's consider the American projects in eugenics and other misapplications of Darwinism to social and political issues.
Stalinists, maybe; I can't imagine Kropotkinists killing scientists. "Communists" are not a homogenous group.
Anyway, it's sure interesting that those science-killing Soviets somehow beat us into space. Maybe the truth is just a little more complicated that simplistic slogans like "Communists kill scientists"?
The trick is, they don't think that they're dumbing anything down. They're just encouraging their kids to be "normal". You know, teach their boys to be "manly" -- put down that book, son, and let's go spend some father/son time throwing the football around. And Mom can drag Sis away from the computer and teach her how to bake cookies, ain't that wholesome? (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with athletics or cooking.)
It's not that they don't respect smarts -- they're really proud of Uncle Joe, the CPA. They just don't like those egghead "intellectuals".
It's pretty much white guys -- though, you know, a lot of the folks most connected with the anti-intellectualism of the conservative movement do seem to hail from oil-producing states like Texas, Alaska, and California.
Women worth pursuing enjoy classic science fiction.
Ahem. May I suggest you review the Rodney King beating, which started with criminal cop Stacey Koon tasing King twice?
The right to communicate -- to share information -- is most certainly a natural right. Copyright is an interference with this natural right.
Birthdate. There might be 50 or 100 men and boys with birthday January 12 in zip code 21228, but how many of them were born in 19xx?
What's the cost of data insecurity, of giving up freedoms, and of supporting a criminal corporation? What form do you write those costs off on?
My preference is not for a particular operating system, it is for open standards. A situation where I am forced to use proprietary standards results from either incompetence or corruption; both are things I'd like to avoid.
According to the Coming Home page:
How exactly does one have "non-religious" Stations of the Cross? Taoism, at least, can be approached as a philosophy rather than a religion, but I can't think of any approach to venerating the torture and execution of some ancient rabbi that doesn't involve a belief that the poor guy was some sort of religious sacrifice.
If the idea is that religious imagery can be useful in treating PTSD, well, fine, let's discuss if that's true, and how we can balance that against First Amendment concerns in a government-funded treatment program. But "non-religious" Stations of the Cross rings about as true as the disclaimer in those ads in the back of local free paper: "Busty Blond Will Make All Your Fantasies Come True! $100/hr. Non-sexual".
If inducing a current merely causes "an increase in temperature", please explain how radio communication works...
At the broadest perspective, sure, any energy input is "an increase in temperature". When you set up your crystal radio to receive AM transmissions, yes indeedy, the thing does warm up a bit as it absorbs EM radiation. (Even though some if it is turned into mechanical energy in the earpiece, it's not 100% efficient.) But describing the operation of the radio as "an increase in temperature" is misleading, to put it kindly.
Can non-ionizing EM radiation have an effect on biological systems? You are, quite literally, looking at the answer.
Can EM radiation in the radio range at low intensity have an effect on biological systems? I dunno. Consider the hot and cold spots that arise as you microwave your burrito. Could very mild but uneven heating have an effect?
If something "gets a little warmer", chemical reactions are affected. If you don't understand this last sentence then please go take a chemistry class and come back.
The scientific way of answering the question "does EM radiation effect biological systems" is to observe biological systems that have been exposed to various sorts of EM radiation and see if there are any effects. Saying "our models don't allow for such effects, therefore they cannot exist" is faith-based reasoning, not science.
It's been a while, but as I recall, the only time my ID was checked in a college classroom was when I was taking a final exam, in a class with many sections that all came together for the test. That only happened a few times. Most classes made no check at all: you showed up on the first day, answered the roll, and they took your word for who you were.
The fact that radiation is not ionizing anything does not imply that it has no effect on living tissue. It could induce microcurrents in some tissues, or cause certain molecules to resonate in a way which affected important chemical reactions.
Which is not to say that AM radio does have any effect, only that "it's not ionizing!" is not a refutation.
Biological systems are complex; if something as relatively simple as a computer can be effected by EM radiation, it's not completely batty to speculate that biological systems might be also. There are a few studies -- such as this one -- that have suggested effects on cerebral blood flow or on sleep patterns, but the data remains spotty at best.
I repeat, I'm not claiming that such effects exist, nor am I defending this vandalism. (Calling it "terrorism" is, of course, ridiculous.) But claiming that EM radiation can't have any health effects because it's not ionizing is bad science.
How is it any more difficult to evaluate an essay or project submitted electronically than one submitted on dead trees?
Ah, now that's a problem of authentication, completely orthogonal to evaluation.
Nothing (except my generally honest nature, and a lack of money) was stopping me from hiring a smarter person to write my papers and do my projects, or even sit in classes and take my tests. (If John Q. Brainiac was in your class all semester claiming to be Tom Swiss, you wouldn't suspect anything f he showed up to take the test, too...)
The authentication problem is real, but I don't think it's fundamentally worse for on-line education than for face-to-face classes.
A (decent) college education doesn't just give you information. It teaches you intellectual skills. Via the interaction with your professors, you learn how to learn.
Funny, I'm more of a "kid" in many ways now than I was in college...sure didn't score with women! (Young geeks - it *does* get better! Have hope!) I was taking challenging classes -- was actually trying to do a dual degree in CS and physics, before my brain started to melt and I decide that was Not Fun. and working part-time, certainly not living with no responsibility.
When I look back at my college days, the thing I remember most fondly is the continual encounter with new ideas. Yes, that is something that you can and should keep going for the rest of your life. And I have, to some degree -- besides voracious reading on many topics, I went back to school a few years ago to study Asian Bodywork Therapy, and in the past few years I also took two semesters of Japanese at the community college.
But as an undergrad, my prime occupation was learning new stuff.
There's a Roger Zelazny novel where the protagonist inherits a trust fund that supports him so long as he's in college -- so he manages to keep changing his major, and doesn't gradate for over a decade. I always thought that sounded like an excellent way to live.
And generally it should not be. An overall look or style is not likely to fool you into thinking that a product came from one company rather than another.
If the overall look or style is a creative artistic work, copyright should apply. If it provides some functional innovation, normal patent should apply. Otherewise, there's no way that protecting the look and style of something will "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
What, are you suggesting that Google is going to just take this patent and frame it and hang it up as decoration? A bogus patent like this is a lawsuit threat, a Damoclean sword threatening competitors.
Actually, yes, it pretty much does.
Corporations have exactly one interest and function: maximize shareholder return. If Google could increase its profits by powering its servers with forsaken children, it would do it -- otherwise it would face shareholder lawsuits.
Large for-profit corporations are, in essence, psychopaths, lacking any sort of conscience or empathy. They will do only and exactly what is in their own interest, regardless of how it effects others. If that's not "evil", nothing is.
In computer interfaces, there is no such thing as non-functional elements of design.
Which is the purpose of trademark law -- to protect the customer by allowing them to distinguish with whom they're doing business.
Google's homepage has this big Google logo on it, which is (I presume) a registered trademark of Google. If you put a Google logo, or something that looks like it, on your page, the trademark cops will crush you. No design patent is necessary.
This is more like Apple's evil "look-and-feel" lawsuits from the early 90s.