.... an idiot tax on us for electing these complete and utter morons to positions of power.
Play the Repub/Dem line all you want - we the people are to blame for electing them in the first place.
Whenever things like this happen, we all go 'ohh, that was a mistake. Should we not have done that?', then come election-time, we vote the same old sleaze into office.
Thank you. This myth that HFCS is somehow -different- than sugar in terms of metabolism is utter nonsense.
Truth of the matter is that HFCS is just a stupidly cheap way for super-processed food to taste sweet.
I mean, really.. does bread need HFCS in it? Really now. No, but it does make the hyper-processed mostly nutritionless bread-like product taste better, so we'll buy it.
In a world where you can be (relatively) famous for the ability to eat more hot dogs in five minutes than anyone else in the world, I can't see how gaming is all that bad.
(Why not combine the two? Oh, wait. There's already a competitive eating video game. Holy crap, I think I might just explode.)
I didn't feel it was necessary to point out the entire process, merely the portion TFA was referring to.
Also, in reference to another comment here - I'm fairly certain if you choose 'no thanks', it just isn't rated -- that doesn't result in a one star rate.
"I was bored, and my teachers weren't interested in doing things my way, so instead of making a good faith attempt to learn, I cheated."
Wow. No wonder all my students think they're entitled to passing grades just because they show up.
Man up, Nancy. Until the school systems are so well funded that we have a 1:1 teacher student ratio, some kids are just going to have to suck it up and learn the hard way.
Cheating is just an excuse to not work hard. If you can demonstrate serious effort and still have trouble, try finding a teacher/professor during office hours.
Amazingly, we're pretty ameniable to trying to explain topics over again if you'd bother to ask.
Cheat in my lectures, and you get a zero. The end.
Nothing says that they'll pay for the -right- answer.
And personally, I'd be rather wary of paying $100 for a presentation, since if you don't know the material it's going to be pretty obvious anyway. You'll be out a lot of cash, and still look like an idiot when you get asked a question.
So I'm all for it. The creator is right. They'll have to learn the material sooner or later, because nobody will be able to buy answers on exam day. He might as well make some easy money off of anyone gullible enough to do this.
Of course not, but this isn't competition. Bell -owns- this infrastructure, and they shape all traffic going through their lines.
I -do not- agree with this practice, but I also don't see how these small-time resellers should be exempt just because they feel like it.
Somehow, I fail to see how any of that smacks of wanting to reduce competition. Really, I think all of the copper should be owned by government and treated as a community commodity, like power is (at least where I live).
Like a bunch of middlemen whining because they want Bell to stop doing what it's been doing just because it hurts their already shoddy business model. Unless, of course, these are last-mile providers who extend the Bell network into areas it doesn't already service.
While I don't think that they should be traffic-shaping anyway, the fact is that they are, and asking them to stop doing it just for these companies is unreasonable. What they should be asking for is Bell to cease this practice altogether.
For example, my Mac will go from startup to login in half the time of either Vista -or- Ubuntu (not counting what happens -after- login, but as far as applications go, they're fairly straightforward), but my TV will start in a second or two. So did my old Commodore 64.
How is it that the more power we get, the -longer- this takes? And why is it that the solution always involves hardware makers? Maybe we need to look at how our operating systems are constructed instead of blaming the hardware itself.
While I'm not well-versed in the possible dangers of all this additional radiation, clearly we can't argue that it's anywhere near mainstream yet.
In an age where we are increasingly becoming aware of just how fragile our fossil fuel-based energy supply is, even small-scale uses of this technology would need to see a significant increase in efficiency. Losing a quarter of your energy in the final step (nevermind whatever the endpoint device wastes as heat or whatnot), is simply unacceptable.
I say give it another decade, then we'll have viable application.
Even if nothing goes wrong, they've set a dangerous precedent of basically telling their watchdog group "Well, we'll let you do your thing, but even though we know little about the engineering behind a reactor, we are also going to basically feel free to disregard you and tell you to suck it if we don't like what you say."
A spectacular idea. Why aren't we, maybe, wondering how we ended up with only ONE reactor that can produce this stuff in the first place?
I take it you've actually graded assignments where students have been permitted to use wikipedia?
No? Then I suggest you take your smugness elsewhere.
Do you want to know what happens? 9/10ths of them will go to the article they want, read it, change enough so that it's not a direct quote, put it in their assigment, and then put the wikipedia article in the works cited page.
It's a crutch. Pure and simple. If these students read the article, and used it as a springboard to find primary sources to back up those statements, and CITED THOSE, then this wouldn't be an issue. They would also be required to do critical thinking and analysis of the topic -- something that seems to be lacking since I finished my undergraduate work not so many years ago.
Even when I tell them they can't use it, I always get three or four who still try to sneak it by.
As an immunologist, I've been known to go to wikipedia for a quick refresher of some of the more complicated bits and pieces I need to know -- there's just too much behind it to remember it all 24/7.
As I argue elsewhere however, there's a vast difference between using it as a quick reminder or a jumping-off point, and relying on it for the entire content of a topic. Until the average undergraduate is capable of making that distinction, wikipedia should never be considered a valid research tool -- regardless of what Mr. Wales (who undoubtedly has a/huge/ amount of teaching experience) may think.
The issue is quite simply: Wikipedia should NOT be the end of research. I don't care if you're writing a two page synopsis of a piece of work you did in an introductory bio lab and need a reference, or you're writing your dissertation.
But the problem with saying this and then unleashing wikipedia is that most students will take the shortest route to the destination. Well, wikipedia is an ok source to use, so I'll just type in what I want, read the article and paraphrase it for my paper. Walla. Done. NO. This is not how research is critically analyzed and considered. At the very least, they should be looking at some of the sources given in the wikipedia article and reading them to confirm the hypothesis and details given.
As an educator and a graduate student, I can attest -- this doesn't happen. Once you open the wikipedia floodgates, all scientific rigor goes out the window because students don't think they still should have to do the heavy lifting. This is why I will never, ever allow it to be used in my classes. Ever. It's a shortcut; one step above physically copying someone else's homework and handing it in as your own, because nobody who relies on it continuously is going to do -any- critical thinking.
I seem to be the minority, but I didn't find this series particularly engaging. In that context, I'm not surprised that they decided to go with a format that certainly costs less than a movie or a series, yet will still bring diehard fans in to buy it.
I wonder how this works; obviously, 25 minutes isn't enough time to perform any PCR (even something like hot start PCR), so does it rely on having sufficient amounts of DNA available to perform whatever test they're using? Sometimes that can be a not-inconsiderable amount.
I didn't read the article, but eh. Just wondering.
Slashdot Mirror
.... an idiot tax on us for electing these complete and utter morons to positions of power.
Play the Repub/Dem line all you want - we the people are to blame for electing them in the first place.
Whenever things like this happen, we all go 'ohh, that was a mistake. Should we not have done that?', then come election-time, we vote the same old sleaze into office.
Well, once again - we reap what we sow.
THIS.
Thank you. This myth that HFCS is somehow -different- than sugar in terms of metabolism is utter nonsense.
Truth of the matter is that HFCS is just a stupidly cheap way for super-processed food to taste sweet.
I mean, really.. does bread need HFCS in it? Really now. No, but it does make the hyper-processed mostly nutritionless bread-like product taste better, so we'll buy it.
Yuck.
I don't think so. Whoever it is is holding a chair over their head and he looks angry. ...
Do not feed the trolls.
In a world where you can be (relatively) famous for the ability to eat more hot dogs in five minutes than anyone else in the world, I can't see how gaming is all that bad.
(Why not combine the two? Oh, wait. There's already a competitive eating video game. Holy crap, I think I might just explode.)
Note I said 'when you uninstall the application'.
I didn't feel it was necessary to point out the entire process, merely the portion TFA was referring to.
Also, in reference to another comment here - I'm fairly certain if you choose 'no thanks', it just isn't rated -- that doesn't result in a one star rate.
Does he own an iPhone/iTouch?
When you uninstall the application, there's a large button right below the stars that says 'NO THANKS'.
It's very clear, and .. oh, useful -- when you uninstall an application but don't feel like rating it.
Maybe his eyes are broken.
She's bat**** crazy, obviously.
I can't blame either one of them for not bringing grandchildren around for a 'nice visit'.
Ten minutes later, they're in the oven.
"I was bored, and my teachers weren't interested in doing things my way, so instead of making a good faith attempt to learn, I cheated."
Wow. No wonder all my students think they're entitled to passing grades just because they show up.
Man up, Nancy. Until the school systems are so well funded that we have a 1:1 teacher student ratio, some kids are just going to have to suck it up and learn the hard way.
Cheating is just an excuse to not work hard. If you can demonstrate serious effort and still have trouble, try finding a teacher/professor during office hours.
Amazingly, we're pretty ameniable to trying to explain topics over again if you'd bother to ask.
Cheat in my lectures, and you get a zero. The end.
Nothing says that they'll pay for the -right- answer.
And personally, I'd be rather wary of paying $100 for a presentation, since if you don't know the material it's going to be pretty obvious anyway. You'll be out a lot of cash, and still look like an idiot when you get asked a question.
So I'm all for it. The creator is right. They'll have to learn the material sooner or later, because nobody will be able to buy answers on exam day. He might as well make some easy money off of anyone gullible enough to do this.
Of course not, but this isn't competition. Bell -owns- this infrastructure, and they shape all traffic going through their lines.
I -do not- agree with this practice, but I also don't see how these small-time resellers should be exempt just because they feel like it.
Somehow, I fail to see how any of that smacks of wanting to reduce competition. Really, I think all of the copper should be owned by government and treated as a community commodity, like power is (at least where I live).
Like a bunch of middlemen whining because they want Bell to stop doing what it's been doing just because it hurts their already shoddy business model. Unless, of course, these are last-mile providers who extend the Bell network into areas it doesn't already service.
While I don't think that they should be traffic-shaping anyway, the fact is that they are, and asking them to stop doing it just for these companies is unreasonable. What they should be asking for is Bell to cease this practice altogether.
I'm willing to take the -1, Flamebait on this:
Did you even -think- about trying, oh, say, a web search on this?
Google is pretty good, I suggest you try it.
What a pointless Ask Slashdot.
Why this is still an issue in this day and age.
For example, my Mac will go from startup to login in half the time of either Vista -or- Ubuntu (not counting what happens -after- login, but as far as applications go, they're fairly straightforward), but my TV will start in a second or two. So did my old Commodore 64.
How is it that the more power we get, the -longer- this takes? And why is it that the solution always involves hardware makers? Maybe we need to look at how our operating systems are constructed instead of blaming the hardware itself.
College? Maybe you'd like to try some of that delicious pizza over there?
NTFS on Vista?
I hear your disk space shrinks like nobody's business.
While I'm not well-versed in the possible dangers of all this additional radiation, clearly we can't argue that it's anywhere near mainstream yet.
In an age where we are increasingly becoming aware of just how fragile our fossil fuel-based energy supply is, even small-scale uses of this technology would need to see a significant increase in efficiency. Losing a quarter of your energy in the final step (nevermind whatever the endpoint device wastes as heat or whatnot), is simply unacceptable.
I say give it another decade, then we'll have viable application.
They could take off the critic's hat and -fix- the things that they complain about.
I mean, isn't that one of the things that makes OSS great?
Isn't this slow and steady 'removal of promised features' what got us Vista in the first place?
Even if nothing goes wrong, they've set a dangerous precedent of basically telling their watchdog group "Well, we'll let you do your thing, but even though we know little about the engineering behind a reactor, we are also going to basically feel free to disregard you and tell you to suck it if we don't like what you say."
A spectacular idea. Why aren't we, maybe, wondering how we ended up with only ONE reactor that can produce this stuff in the first place?
I take it you've actually graded assignments where students have been permitted to use wikipedia?
No? Then I suggest you take your smugness elsewhere.
Do you want to know what happens? 9/10ths of them will go to the article they want, read it, change enough so that it's not a direct quote, put it in their assigment, and then put the wikipedia article in the works cited page.
It's a crutch. Pure and simple. If these students read the article, and used it as a springboard to find primary sources to back up those statements, and CITED THOSE, then this wouldn't be an issue. They would also be required to do critical thinking and analysis of the topic -- something that seems to be lacking since I finished my undergraduate work not so many years ago.
Even when I tell them they can't use it, I always get three or four who still try to sneak it by.
As an immunologist, I've been known to go to wikipedia for a quick refresher of some of the more complicated bits and pieces I need to know -- there's just too much behind it to remember it all 24/7.
/huge/ amount of teaching experience) may think.
As I argue elsewhere however, there's a vast difference between using it as a quick reminder or a jumping-off point, and relying on it for the entire content of a topic. Until the average undergraduate is capable of making that distinction, wikipedia should never be considered a valid research tool -- regardless of what Mr. Wales (who undoubtedly has a
The issue is quite simply: Wikipedia should NOT be the end of research. I don't care if you're writing a two page synopsis of a piece of work you did in an introductory bio lab and need a reference, or you're writing your dissertation.
But the problem with saying this and then unleashing wikipedia is that most students will take the shortest route to the destination. Well, wikipedia is an ok source to use, so I'll just type in what I want, read the article and paraphrase it for my paper. Walla. Done. NO. This is not how research is critically analyzed and considered. At the very least, they should be looking at some of the sources given in the wikipedia article and reading them to confirm the hypothesis and details given.
As an educator and a graduate student, I can attest -- this doesn't happen. Once you open the wikipedia floodgates, all scientific rigor goes out the window because students don't think they still should have to do the heavy lifting. This is why I will never, ever allow it to be used in my classes. Ever. It's a shortcut; one step above physically copying someone else's homework and handing it in as your own, because nobody who relies on it continuously is going to do -any- critical thinking.
I seem to be the minority, but I didn't find this series particularly engaging. In that context, I'm not surprised that they decided to go with a format that certainly costs less than a movie or a series, yet will still bring diehard fans in to buy it.
I wonder how this works; obviously, 25 minutes isn't enough time to perform any PCR (even something like hot start PCR), so does it rely on having sufficient amounts of DNA available to perform whatever test they're using? Sometimes that can be a not-inconsiderable amount.
I didn't read the article, but eh. Just wondering.