That certainly happens - a college student who has basically sailed through elementary and high school suddenly runs into difficult material for the first time ever and it's hard to cope. That can happen in fields other than science, math, and engineering, of course.
Another side of this might just be that there is a difference between liking a subject academically (in high school) and deciding you want to do it for the rest of your life. I had an amazing high school chemistry teacher who set me on the path to AP chemistry and eventually a BS in chemistry. But right around junior year (first semester of physical chemistry lecture and second semester of organic lab) I realized I didn't want to have a career in chemistry. I still really enjoyed the intellectual challenge of chemistry (otherwise I wouldn't have finished the degree), but at that point it was a path to grad school. I ended up doing my graduate studies in communication, and I've ended up with a career I love. I enjoy teaching and research in communication is just as intellectually challenging (but in a different way).
I guess my point is that we shouldn't underestimate the impact of students realizing the difference between "I like science subject x" and "I want a career in subject x."
Yes, because the position of the Democratic party (and all Democrats) is that basic. "SPEND MORE!"
It must be a simpler, more straightforward world in which you live.
Most every Democrat I've heard has talked about the desire to do some spending cuts in combination with some array of revenue increases. Sometimes they differ in what they think should be cut or protected (Medicare, Social Security, defense, whatever), which can then lead to internal disagreements among Democrats that might make it look like the entire party doesn't want to cut anything; the same holds for revenue increases, I'd say. I'd hope that over time they could come up with a plan that at least most Democrats could get behind that would be part spending cuts/reforms and part revenue increases.
On the Republican side, there are certainly some I've heard talk about the need to reform the tax code and (at least) start cutting out tax expenditures. I'd say that those Republicans are in the minority, mainly because of the no increased taxes pledge and the Tea Party pressure from the right of the party.
I wouldn't mind the "cut spending" pressure coming from the Tea Party if the people pushing hardest for that didn't also seem to be entirely incapable of compromise. Compromising isn't something to be frowned upon, it's how both parties could leave with a deal they might like (or at least dislike equally). As I see it, the Tea Party's anti-spending stance is one that we need - it's the execution that is lacking.
Amen to this. I had a GREAT high school chemistry teacher that inspired me to pursue a BS in chemistry. I was already in my junior year when I realized I didn't want to work in chemistry for the rest of my life. At that point it made more sense to finish the degree and then move in a different direction for graduate school.
Even if I'm not actually using that chemistry degree, it did help me prepare for graduate school (I was more comfortable with advanced math than some others) and I enjoyed the actual chemistry education even if I didn't want to pursue that as a career. So I'd probably do it again, given the choice.
Nassim Taleb talked about this in a podcast with The Economist a while ago (this is a link to the story that went along with it: http://www.economist.com/node/17509373), where his point was that books would likely be around more or less forever - they're technology that has been around for hundreds of years. Compare that to something like the Kindle (and such) which have been around for a much shorter period of time. His point was that betting against very established, proven technologies due to a very short period of success from a new/shiny technology isn't always a great plan.
(Or at least that's how I remember his interview without re-listening to it.)
I wish I could mod this up, but alas no points to spend... I'll just second the vote for that segment on This American Life - one of the best they've done, I thought. (And that's saying something.)
Well, typically I use Windows, I've played around with Linux a bit, and might get a Mac the next time I'm due for a new laptop... But I have to admit I've never even really considered BSD. Isn't it dead or dying or something?
Why would they EVER let us have a choice? It's like automatic check-out in supermarkets, they can save money by firing employees and forcing their customers to do their job, with no benefit to the consumer what so ever. We take it because we have to, since there are generally LONGER lines now at check-out. If a discount was passed down to the consumer (ever) I wouldn't mind, but it is forced on us since we don't exist as people, only as nice little "money units" to be manipulated at will.
The only comment that I'll make here is that smart businesses might realize they could make more money by giving people a choice. Let's say you've opted not to watch cable TV (or visit certain websites, or whatever) because you don't want to see the ads. If it was a possibility to provide two versions of the product (one without ads and one with) and charge a premium for the one without the ads, both you and the company win. They get another paying customer, you get to enjoy a service you might like without the ads.
Believe me, I'm faaaaaar from a fan of ads ending up EVERYWHERE, particularly when they're often poorly-targeted and unlikely to achieve much of anything. (Such as an ad for the Tyra Banks show that ran on the ESPN Radio channel on XM today. WTF?) Perhaps I'm just more hopeful that smart companies will realize that users might actually embrace useful ads (Google AdWords) or be willing to pay a premium for services that include no ads at all.
First, if you want to decide not to attend sporting events or watch TV because you find the ads offensive, that's your choice. If enough people felt the same way, I'm sure the people running sports stadium, TV stations, etc. would all start to react. Even on something like cable TV, ads can be considered a necessary evil to help keep the costs you pay directly in check - if all ads were removed from cable TV, I'm pretty sure the bill would go up. Maybe at some point there will be an easy way to let individual consumers make that choice, but that won't happen any time too soon.
You talk about ads having bad consequences on people psychologically and socially... But aren't ads just really a part of culture, our shared experiences? Ads that are done well (or really poorly) tend to work their way into culture and become a part of what we are as a society. I don't think many advertisers simply want to manipulate people into a realm of arbitrary symbols. I think the best advertisers working with the best products can use advertising to help people find products/brands that really work for them.
In any event, blindly railing against all advertising in general is rather pointless. It's here to stay, and I bet if you went back and read op-ed pieces from newspapers 100 years ago there'd be people complaining about how ads have "reached the level of absurdity." Just like every generation of kids is crazy, likes crappy music, and doesn't have the same values we used to have.
If advertisers/media people do something that really pisses off enough people, the advertisers WILL react. I seem to remember a giant outcry about possible ads on MLB bases to promote Spider-Man getting the axe when MLB fans freaked out. But to complain against advertising in general and think it's going to go away is probably a wee bit unrealistic.
Seriously, I agree. While the first time or two I saw that tag pop up (when it was relevant), it was funny/useful. Now it's on EVERY article. I suppose that's the problem of user tagging of content combined with groupthink.
I didn't care about the story, but it was submitted by Roland Piquepaille and I came in here to read the fighting over him, all his submissions, etc. And there's almost nothing here. Where is all the anger today? Slashdot, you disappoint me...
This is very true, but there is a lot of potential on MySpace for long distance (chat, phone, e-mail) abuse to occur. I'm not sure how that works into the equation, but MySpace makes it possible for that guy in Russia to do some real emotional damage to that girl in South Africa.
How many folks here can speak on Nuclear facilities, chemical enginerring processes, and medical tools and be able to say which is good and which is bad?
Have you ever read Slashdot? The people here know everything. Everything. Duh.;)
Will this make web designers think twice about tailoring their web pages to Internet Explorer? Or will they ignore this, given that the Windows client will still have Internet Explorer as the default browser?
I run a good-sized website in my spare time, and I do my best to account for all browser types and such - at least within reason. Some moron complaining about some browser I've never heard of on his Commodore 64 not working well doesn't affect me much...;)
Anyway, what percentage of users are using AOL on Mac OS X? I would wager it's a rather insignificant percentage compared to all the AOL users on Windows. This will have no impact on designers who prefer to go IE-only on their sites.
As long as the current generation of stars still have their power to attract viewers, Hollywood (TV or film) won't be going all digital any time soon.
I mean, let's say Jennifer Aniston wants to have her own series after Friends ends. Do you think some nut at NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX/wherever is going to say, "Sorry, we're going to use a computer-generated star instead." Probably not.
My head damn near exploded reading that blurb there were so many grammatical errors. Do the Slashdot editors not have a grammar checker they could make use of? I say we start a fundraiser of some sort.
I run a pretty good-sized website that pulls in ~20,000 people a day. I occasionally get complaints about things not working properly for certain browsers. I do my best to correct these problems ASAP.
My navigation system is a JavaSciprt menu thing I found online, and it works on IE 4+, Netscape 4+, and Opera. I didn't write it, so there's not much I can do when people complain about it. But I got a nasty e-mail from a Linux user who was using some funky browser I'd never even heard of. He proceeded to attack me for designing my site only for IE (clearly not true) and using FrontPage to design it (I use TextPad and code by hand). I essentially told him to go piss up a rope, as I don't appreciate assholes bitching at me when they don't know the facts.
Complain intelligently. If you come in either ignorant and/or aggresively things aren't going to change...
Slashdot Mirror
That certainly happens - a college student who has basically sailed through elementary and high school suddenly runs into difficult material for the first time ever and it's hard to cope. That can happen in fields other than science, math, and engineering, of course.
Another side of this might just be that there is a difference between liking a subject academically (in high school) and deciding you want to do it for the rest of your life. I had an amazing high school chemistry teacher who set me on the path to AP chemistry and eventually a BS in chemistry. But right around junior year (first semester of physical chemistry lecture and second semester of organic lab) I realized I didn't want to have a career in chemistry. I still really enjoyed the intellectual challenge of chemistry (otherwise I wouldn't have finished the degree), but at that point it was a path to grad school. I ended up doing my graduate studies in communication, and I've ended up with a career I love. I enjoy teaching and research in communication is just as intellectually challenging (but in a different way).
I guess my point is that we shouldn't underestimate the impact of students realizing the difference between "I like science subject x" and "I want a career in subject x."
Yes, because the position of the Democratic party (and all Democrats) is that basic. "SPEND MORE!"
It must be a simpler, more straightforward world in which you live.
Most every Democrat I've heard has talked about the desire to do some spending cuts in combination with some array of revenue increases. Sometimes they differ in what they think should be cut or protected (Medicare, Social Security, defense, whatever), which can then lead to internal disagreements among Democrats that might make it look like the entire party doesn't want to cut anything; the same holds for revenue increases, I'd say. I'd hope that over time they could come up with a plan that at least most Democrats could get behind that would be part spending cuts/reforms and part revenue increases.
On the Republican side, there are certainly some I've heard talk about the need to reform the tax code and (at least) start cutting out tax expenditures. I'd say that those Republicans are in the minority, mainly because of the no increased taxes pledge and the Tea Party pressure from the right of the party.
I wouldn't mind the "cut spending" pressure coming from the Tea Party if the people pushing hardest for that didn't also seem to be entirely incapable of compromise. Compromising isn't something to be frowned upon, it's how both parties could leave with a deal they might like (or at least dislike equally). As I see it, the Tea Party's anti-spending stance is one that we need - it's the execution that is lacking.
Amen to this. I had a GREAT high school chemistry teacher that inspired me to pursue a BS in chemistry. I was already in my junior year when I realized I didn't want to work in chemistry for the rest of my life. At that point it made more sense to finish the degree and then move in a different direction for graduate school.
Even if I'm not actually using that chemistry degree, it did help me prepare for graduate school (I was more comfortable with advanced math than some others) and I enjoyed the actual chemistry education even if I didn't want to pursue that as a career. So I'd probably do it again, given the choice.
Nassim Taleb talked about this in a podcast with The Economist a while ago (this is a link to the story that went along with it: http://www.economist.com/node/17509373), where his point was that books would likely be around more or less forever - they're technology that has been around for hundreds of years. Compare that to something like the Kindle (and such) which have been around for a much shorter period of time. His point was that betting against very established, proven technologies due to a very short period of success from a new/shiny technology isn't always a great plan.
(Or at least that's how I remember his interview without re-listening to it.)
NPR On the Media covered this last week with a pretty good story: http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/09/10/05
I wish I could mod this up, but alas no points to spend... I'll just second the vote for that segment on This American Life - one of the best they've done, I thought. (And that's saying something.)
Well, typically I use Windows, I've played around with Linux a bit, and might get a Mac the next time I'm due for a new laptop... But I have to admit I've never even really considered BSD. Isn't it dead or dying or something?
Don't you mean the last "17.6 football fields" that matter? I prefer my measurements to be less clear. :)
Why would they EVER let us have a choice? It's like automatic check-out in supermarkets, they can save money by firing employees and forcing their customers to do their job, with no benefit to the consumer what so ever. We take it because we have to, since there are generally LONGER lines now at check-out. If a discount was passed down to the consumer (ever) I wouldn't mind, but it is forced on us since we don't exist as people, only as nice little "money units" to be manipulated at will.
The only comment that I'll make here is that smart businesses might realize they could make more money by giving people a choice. Let's say you've opted not to watch cable TV (or visit certain websites, or whatever) because you don't want to see the ads. If it was a possibility to provide two versions of the product (one without ads and one with) and charge a premium for the one without the ads, both you and the company win. They get another paying customer, you get to enjoy a service you might like without the ads.
Believe me, I'm faaaaaar from a fan of ads ending up EVERYWHERE, particularly when they're often poorly-targeted and unlikely to achieve much of anything. (Such as an ad for the Tyra Banks show that ran on the ESPN Radio channel on XM today. WTF?) Perhaps I'm just more hopeful that smart companies will realize that users might actually embrace useful ads (Google AdWords) or be willing to pay a premium for services that include no ads at all.
First, if you want to decide not to attend sporting events or watch TV because you find the ads offensive, that's your choice. If enough people felt the same way, I'm sure the people running sports stadium, TV stations, etc. would all start to react. Even on something like cable TV, ads can be considered a necessary evil to help keep the costs you pay directly in check - if all ads were removed from cable TV, I'm pretty sure the bill would go up. Maybe at some point there will be an easy way to let individual consumers make that choice, but that won't happen any time too soon.
You talk about ads having bad consequences on people psychologically and socially... But aren't ads just really a part of culture, our shared experiences? Ads that are done well (or really poorly) tend to work their way into culture and become a part of what we are as a society. I don't think many advertisers simply want to manipulate people into a realm of arbitrary symbols. I think the best advertisers working with the best products can use advertising to help people find products/brands that really work for them.
In any event, blindly railing against all advertising in general is rather pointless. It's here to stay, and I bet if you went back and read op-ed pieces from newspapers 100 years ago there'd be people complaining about how ads have "reached the level of absurdity." Just like every generation of kids is crazy, likes crappy music, and doesn't have the same values we used to have.
If advertisers/media people do something that really pisses off enough people, the advertisers WILL react. I seem to remember a giant outcry about possible ads on MLB bases to promote Spider-Man getting the axe when MLB fans freaked out. But to complain against advertising in general and think it's going to go away is probably a wee bit unrealistic.
It's a trap!
Seriously, I agree. While the first time or two I saw that tag pop up (when it was relevant), it was funny/useful. Now it's on EVERY article. I suppose that's the problem of user tagging of content combined with groupthink.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of... Never mind.
I didn't care about the story, but it was submitted by Roland Piquepaille and I came in here to read the fighting over him, all his submissions, etc. And there's almost nothing here. Where is all the anger today? Slashdot, you disappoint me...
This is very true, but there is a lot of potential on MySpace for long distance (chat, phone, e-mail) abuse to occur. I'm not sure how that works into the equation, but MySpace makes it possible for that guy in Russia to do some real emotional damage to that girl in South Africa.
Please stop being reasonable. This is Slashdot, we'd rather see some wild speculation.
Thank you.
Neat article about self-repairing computers courtesy of Scientific American.
i cleID=000DAA41-3B4E-1EB7-BDC0809EC588EEDF
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&art
Neat stuff, interesting ideas.
How many folks here can speak on Nuclear facilities, chemical enginerring processes, and medical tools and be able to say which is good and which is bad?
;)
Have you ever read Slashdot? The people here know everything. Everything. Duh.
Wow, only 13 minutes for a Microsoft joke. Hahahaha... Never mind, it wasn't really funny...
Sorry, this dude doesn't get geek status unless each piece is bar code scanned into a MySQL database with Apache/PHP front end.
mySQL, are you an idiot? Clearly Oracle or DB2 will be needed to scale to such levels!
But wait, mySQL is faster!
But it doesn't support transactions!
But now it does!
Wait, this isn't a database pissing contest? I'll go find a different article, never mind.
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.
Will this make web designers think twice about tailoring their web pages to Internet Explorer? Or will they ignore this, given that the Windows client will still have Internet Explorer as the default browser?
;)
I run a good-sized website in my spare time, and I do my best to account for all browser types and such - at least within reason. Some moron complaining about some browser I've never heard of on his Commodore 64 not working well doesn't affect me much...
Anyway, what percentage of users are using AOL on Mac OS X? I would wager it's a rather insignificant percentage compared to all the AOL users on Windows. This will have no impact on designers who prefer to go IE-only on their sites.
As long as the current generation of stars still have their power to attract viewers, Hollywood (TV or film) won't be going all digital any time soon.
I mean, let's say Jennifer Aniston wants to have her own series after Friends ends. Do you think some nut at NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX/wherever is going to say, "Sorry, we're going to use a computer-generated star instead." Probably not.
My head damn near exploded reading that blurb there were so many grammatical errors. Do the Slashdot editors not have a grammar checker they could make use of? I say we start a fundraiser of some sort.
I run a pretty good-sized website that pulls in ~20,000 people a day. I occasionally get complaints about things not working properly for certain browsers. I do my best to correct these problems ASAP.
My navigation system is a JavaSciprt menu thing I found online, and it works on IE 4+, Netscape 4+, and Opera. I didn't write it, so there's not much I can do when people complain about it. But I got a nasty e-mail from a Linux user who was using some funky browser I'd never even heard of. He proceeded to attack me for designing my site only for IE (clearly not true) and using FrontPage to design it (I use TextPad and code by hand). I essentially told him to go piss up a rope, as I don't appreciate assholes bitching at me when they don't know the facts.
Complain intelligently. If you come in either ignorant and/or aggresively things aren't going to change...
At $95 million they're practically giving that software away... ;)