OK. Sorry for the late response. I do not read much/. any more!
The short response is that you have assumed a claim or a conclusion that I never made: I never said that responding to conflict in a nonviolent way would increase violence. I also never said war or killing was necessary. I think maybe you meant to respond to a different poster?
I am arguing against the statement that "communication is the only way to stop violence." Your counterpoint examples *support* my argument. But I do not see how the challenges in your follow-up clarification counter my arguments in any way...
Here's the longer response:
My original point was simply that communication alone cannot resolve undebatable disagreements-- some of which lead to conflict. I did not at any point argue that wars and killing are necessary. I was merely pointing out that if you and I (for example) disagree about something worth killing each other over, all communication does is define the points of our disagreement. But it does not have to lead to violence as you seem to have wrongly concluded from my post.
My response to your counter examples was to agree that Jesus, Ghandi, and Dr. King did not use violence, but I noted that they were still killed. Again, I did not ever suggest that their nonviolent methods led to more violence in the large-- only that they were killed by people who chose to remain their enemies. This is exactly what I was arguing originally-- that communication and "other methods" are not guaranteed to stop the killing. Repeat: A nonviolent or peaceful response to conflict does *not* necessarily end the killing or violence. You can be 100% peaceful and still have enemies that want you dead or want to do you harm. Your three murder victims illustrate that point very clearly and support my point very, very, very well.
The other methods: lying, appeasement, bribery-- none of them are solutions for the points of conflict. They are all nonviolent options, but there is no reason why your enemy can't still hate you--or you him for that matter. The last option, "everyone on earth in agreement" is plain unrealistic, though some seem to think that it is possible on some issues.
I think I see where you are headed in your original response, but I really think that you should re-read my original post. Your arguments are based on conclusions and arguments that I never made-- which is why I found your post confusing.
If you are in fact responding to my post, then you have severely misinterpreted my arguments and have drawn the wrong conclusion. I was never arguing about the necessity of violence, nor did I try to justify violence and war. I was arguing against the statement that "communication and other methods" were the "only answer" to the killing. Since "the killing" can happen on both sides of the fight, one party responding nonviolently does not prevent the other side from continuing the violence or killing. Again, Jesus, MLK, Ghandi and their respective killers are perfect examples of this point.
In response to your clarifications: Since I never laid any framework suggesting that nonviolence leads to violence, or that violence is necessary, and since I never introduced any language related to world peace, I do not understand what you are asking me to argue. You have asked me to support conclusions that I didn't make and that are not even relevant to my original post...
Counter examples to what exactly? All three of them were *murdered* because they couldn't convince everyone to agree with them. Without a doubt they did wonderful things, and are excellent role models. Is your post is meant to support my point by illustrating that even some of history's most power spiritual leaders could not convince everyone to agree with them? That they could not bring peace? (Spiritual peace, yes. But we're talking about lack of physical or economic conflict.)
Incidentally, Jesus's lesson to "turn the other cheek" is appeasement (maybe) or an example of "taking the higher road." Sure you would be a better person if you did this. But I don't see how that would prevent violence. In his case, it certainly did not.
Maybe restate what you are trying to say; I do not think I understand your post...
The only answer is to stop the killing by all those involved using communication and other methods.
Like appeasement? Or bribery? Or lying to avoid conflict? Or global adoption of your philosophy? How do you plan on convincing people to not want "your stuff" or to not want you dead or worse? Are you going to inform them that it is hurtful?
I'll suggest that communication alone may never bring peace, because communication does not address disagreement at the philosophical level. It just defines the boundaries of the disagreement.
You really do eat the propaganda from the military don't you.
Way to communicate. I'm sure your patience, empathy and understanding will bring love and peace to/. in no time.
Oh wait, maybe I misinterpreted that statement as being condescending. Either way, maybe you should consider improving your communication with people you do not agree with.
So really what it it has come to is that kids feel they have nothing to fear. And parents have everything to fear, but no way of strongly disciplining their kids.
I guess some of the lessons that were taught by ma's wooden spoon or dad's occasional belt fall into the capable hands of the true predators, or are self "inflicted."
What do parents use to strongly discipline their kids today? (Strongly in the sense of being "memorable.")
A more cynical person might expect that a politician's answers will be those which state his/her position while alienating the smallest number of people possible. Dr. Paul isn't going to stroke/. readers even if he knows that 100% of/. supports what he is saying. Better to say as little as possible-- to minimize criticism of what he does say, if only by the people who do NOT support him. Who knows, having overwhelming./ support might actually hurt his campaign in some way... "Ron Paul: Endorsed by a large number of teenage./ Virgins." Sure, it's a stereo-type, but I can think of more than one comedian who would use it...
Besides, from what I can see, most of the actively posting/. politicos have already made their decision: Democrat.
Actually, I think some sports fans have played (real and virtual) enough and watched enough that they probably *are* experts-- especially at recognizing patterns related to whatever sport is considered.
Example: If I was coaching a football (US) team and I did not know much about football (I don't), would I want a rabid confident long-time football fan to help me? You betcha! Because compared to someone who does not watch football, that person is an expert.
What was suggested, I think, is that people who might put forth enough effort to become as knowledgeable about social policy as they are about football would not have to defer to "social policy experts" as they do now. And I agree. BUT, at the same time, is that person now not an expert in social policy if he/she is more knowledgeable that the person who has not dedicated the time to study it? Are experts always right?
There is the problem with "expertise" in that that "being confident" is not the same as "being right," or even being logical. I can say with perfect confidence that "the free market will prevail, because...." and I could rattle off some supporting arguments. And even if it is perfectly sound to me--even if I am an expert in economics and sociology-- it can be wrong for somebody else, who does not agree with one premise that I might have used. Life is not a football game, where half the people on the field will win, half will lose. With laws/policies, there are a lot more variables, uncertainties, and long-term consequences. And unlike sports, it takes more than "watching other people do it" to become an expert. Sure, it doesn't take a lot to be an "expert" by most people's standards (a degree, or experience). But it takes a helluva lot to be good at it.
...if everyone, globally, took just a mild interest in politics, and truthfully expressed their core political opinions, global politics would change overnight.
Here's where I will break out my "engineering superiority complex." If decisions related to global politics were based on "core political opinions," then yes, politics would definitely change over-night. Because no politician would ever have to justify any decision with quantitative evidence or an argument. I (as a reasonable engineer?) can accept policy decisions that I disagree with if they can at least show traceability and a sound argument. EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH A PREMISE of that argument, I can at least appreciate that a logical argument was formed. This is how I avoid a miserable life under whichever government is installed at the time. But I have a problem with statements like yours, in part because it implies that you think that people's "core political opinions" are good enough to be tied to sweeping policy-- and that you think that it will lead somewhere good. Are you assuming that if people really consider their political beliefs hard enough that we will all come to a consensus? Or is it that you think it would simply make debate more likely, which may/may not "change the face of global politics." Being the arrogant scientist that I am, I am curious as to how you came to such a conclusion, because the absence of a sound basis for the vague conclusion makes my neck-hair stand on-end.
Please note that none of this is meant to be personal. But you (we) have just illustrated a case where I (an engineer) am expecting a logical progression of an argument, leading to a plausible, conclusion--(even if I disagree with it). You, have presented what I call an "english class argument" where you have not really presented any quantitative (logical sense) evidence to support your conclusion-- and there really isn't much of a quantitative conclusion to begin with. There is less rigor than what scientists are used to dealing with, which makes it immediately suspicious to me. And it is incredible frustrating-- though not in a personal way. It is exactly illustrative of what many of the posts in this thread have been about.
Adaptive optics are not that new. (BTW, they are also used in LASIK, I think.)
The objective is to estimate wavefront distortion along the viewing path caused by "atmosphere." These distortions are compensated for by a deformable mirror (and usually a tip-tilt mirror). But I do not believe that you can do better than what is predicted assuming diffraction limited optics... I will have to pull out my Tyson book to check. (Or rather, someone else can...)
There are algorithms that use blind deconvolution to "back out" a less blurry image, but (I think) it is a statistical method requiring several frames and an estimation of the point spread function of the system. It does not make the optical system any better by changing its spot size. An adaptive optics system effectively moves the PSF closer to the diffraction limited size, but not smaller.
Really cool technologies, which I have very limited knowledge of. If AO has strong research support, please let us know. Because I have wanted to work with such systems for a while now...
Well, if you've taught science, maybe you can explain why we should expect a majority to do worse than average? I may not be a masochist, but I'm fairly certain that's an unlikely proposition. Once upon a time, we at least would pretend that a well rounded individual was the proper goal of the liberal arts...
If you have a class where the grades are 50,75,75,85,100, the average in the mean sense is 77, then the majority did worse than average. I don't know that we would "expect" this to happen, as you also ask, but it happens pretty frequently.
Also, consider that it is not difficult to create a bi-modal grade distribution in a class, where the majority of the class is below average (mean sense): Create an exam that will nominally result in a normal distribution for the class. Then add a really challenging question. Ideally (for a good exam writer), the resulting distribution minus the challenging question, is whatever the original exam was written for, which if you intend a normal distribution still puts a few at the high and low ends. But if you have a few really exceptional (or really lucky, or really unethical) students, then they might have also distinguished themselves with the challenging question. If that is the case, and the distribution of the grades excluding the challenging question is normal, then most of the class will have performed below the average. To see this visually, just draw a histogram illustrating a standard distribution of grades, and add one or two outliers to the right. Of course, the results are rarely this pretty, but that doesn't have to change the expectation that they will be.
Don't forget "crippling diarrhea." It's the diarrhea that is so bad (and loud) that you don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's the diarrhea that trumps embarrassment, and will lead strangers to ask you if you are OK. If you have ever walked out of a bathroom, knowing that everyone within 25-m heard you, and not one of them is laughing or grinning, you have suffered crippling diarrhea.
In 2002, I kept getting answering machine messages from a modem or fax machine. It went on for a few months (~9), in spurts. I just erased them. Then one day, I was home when the calls started up. So I had my computer answer the phone (modem days). It turned out to be test results from a local diagnostic lab. They had been faxing blood-work reports to me instead of some doctor. So I called the doctor listed on the fax and informed him of the error by the diagnostic company. Scary that the company had been faxing this sort of stuff to me for *months* without ever realizing their error...
Similarly, having a girlfriend may give a guy a little more confidence in dealing with other girls. The "risk" of being rejected feels lower; the fallout from rejection is not as bad. A guy can be more assertive and less cautious. If things go badly, the guy has his girlfriend to fall back on-(literally). Trading up seems to be pretty common across many aspects of life: Cars, homes, BFs, GFs, jobs, computers, but not BFFs.
But they actually discussed what to do if the situation had been real, which is more than what any other teachers/school leaders I know have ever done. Because god forbid anyone ever talk to students about what students can do to save their own lives. (Because *that* would be politically incorrect.)
Hopefully they told the students that it would be more effective to *move* than to hide behind a desk. A desk won't stop a handgun round....
Of all of the postings that I have seen since I started reading/. in the 90s, those in response to Mr. Valenti's death have been some of the most disturbing. I was expecting--and even appreciated, some of the comedic posts. And I don't mind most of the disrespectful posts: Most of you thought he was an asshole. Congratulations. He's dead. Good for you.
But the level of hatred that is showing up is disturbing. And it makes me wonder how many of you people would have shot and killed him if you knew that you could have gotten away with it.
To a good number of you: Show some class--if only out of respect to those who did care for him.
To the creeps: See a therapist.
To those of you can only now, after his death, vigorously express your hatred for Mr. Valenti, well, I bet we'll be seeing some of you on CNN in the future.
I don't work in IT, but I have noticed a trend: Women who *like* computers and tech, and who engage in traditionally geeky hobbies outside work often have keys to the "No Girlz Allowed" clubhouse. I think what is being overlooked is that the IT profession might not have a "No Girlz Allowed" mentality as much as it has a "No Non-Geeks Allowed" mentality. And I use "geeks" here as a general reference to people who generally live technology-centric lives.
I know plenty of guys who can't get into the IT clubhouse either, presumably because they don't have the same level of interest in IT and "tech toys" as the rest of the group. And it isn't so much of a communication barrier as it is a lack of bonding with the rest of the group, usually through "pain."
Not to mention that it's a ridiculous assertion that "bullets would be flying everywhere", at most a handful of people at any time would have a weapon on them and also be trained in the proper use thereof. You forget that people who carry firearms legally are generally not batshit insane and therefore less likley to just spray lead everywhere.
I was just at Virginia Tech late last month for their "Graduate Student Weekend." I also have a CCW, and recent/pretty good (tactical) pistol-craft and carbine training. My first thoughts, as a logical person, are that if *anyone* would have taken a shot at the shooter, his attention would have been drawn away from his unarmed targets. He would have had to focus on the person shooting at him, and would probably end up shooting back- unless he was shot down. So while there might be an exchange of gunfire between two shooters, it would probably have been pretty predicable (a line?). But, at this point, this is all worthless speculation on my part.
Secondly, I am not a gun nut. But I am an engineer. And my engineering sense tells me that guns are not going to go away. So, without waving the pro/anti gun flag, my suggestion to *everyone* is to take a gun (pistol) safety class, just to learn the basics of gun operation. Shoot a few rounds too. (Rent or borrow a pistol.) You would be surprised at how hard it is to "kill" a static paper target at more than a few meters-- especially with shaking hands and an adrenaline rush going. You will also be surprised at how loud guns are. The objective of such a class isn't necessarily to become a proficient shooter. Rather, it is to familiarize yourself with the limitations of a shooter, and the psychological effects of the noise/chaos of gunfire.
For those of you who are turned off *completely* by guns, and think that they are the root of all evil: Take a course anyway. Think of it like a continuation of the lectures for safe-sex or "stranger safely" or traffic safety that you had when you were younger. Awkward, unpleasant, but informative....
I don't want to sound preachy, but in this type of situation, nobody can protect you better than you can. In a shooting like this, the police will rarely be there in time, as it only takes a second to draw and shoot. The media are already consulting "experts" on what can be done to prevent this from happening again. And regardless of what the media "experts" say, I doubt that any amount of legislation or policy or emergency planning can ever practically shield you from becoming a victim of someone who is irrational. It doesn't happen often, but it obviously happens. Be alert.
Right. So then you could use your extensive training to avoid the accident that is caused when your excessive speed freaks out some 80-year old (or otherwise "bad" driver) who wasn't expecting you to pass/approach so quickly. Oh wait, the accident will probably happen behind you. So it's not really your problem, unless he/she happens to be turning in front of you or scrambles suddenly to get out of your way. (This happens all the time, right? The infamous "T-bone?")
Speed limits don't exist to "hold you back." They (presumably) exist to create a nice predictable flow of traffic so that the "minimally educated driver" can get from point A to point B without shitting his/her/your pants, and without causing an accident. The graduated license that you speak of might work on the highway (carpool lane?) or if the licensing process was improved, (i.e. with better licensed drivers), or under certain driving conditions (night-time, no traffic). But all the training in the world won't prevent other people from overcompensating for unpredicable actions--actions that are far removed from what those drivers consider "normal." And your advanced training won't prevent them from being horribly bad drivers themselves.
Consider this: Some people are astonishingly bad at timing their turns/merges with oncoming traffic. Could you imagine how badly they would do if the speed limit was variable? I can. I live in Albuquerque, where traffic on a 45-MPH road may be going anywhere between 30 and 65 MPH in any lane, at any time. I pooped a little in fear just thinking about it!
It's *always* the other guy that I worry about when driving, and that includes situations where I think that my actions might provoke an unintended reaction. Personally, if you drive predictably, and give me (and those around me) a reasonable time to think and react, I don't care how fast you drive.
That's how I killed my last laptop. I have found that I have very little patience with technology on some days. It was one of those days, and I pounded my keyboard a little too hard. The laptop blue screened, and never booted again. (It lasted about 3 years, and was flaking out...which is probably why I smacked it. I guess I helped it along.)
Yes, computer knowledge is necessary. But math, science and liberal arts education do not require the use of a computer. I think this is the point the crack-guy was trying to make.
There are issues with our education system, issues with todays students, and issues with parents that are probably far more serious than learning how to type a letter into MS Word. Computers make work easier--or they are supposed to. But hey: Garbage in, garbage out. A computer can't instantaneously make its operator any smarter.
So it seems that we need to figure out the proportions of job-training and classical education that we want in our schools.
My US based high-school education (all four years) did emphasize analysis of language and literature, much like introductory university english classes.
I have noticed that many college graduates in the US who do *not* major/minor in math or science of some sort never really learn how to think critically. Example: There are *way* too many college graduates who attempt to form logical, reasonable arguments using the same process that was used to generate bull-crap papers in english class. Sure, there is thought involved, and there is usually a flow of connected statements that look like an argument. But, bull-crap speculation of what Piggy's head on a stick "really means" is hardly good preparation for forming and delivering clear, well-formed and well supported logical arguments. It is certainly an acceptable way to get kids to think about the big picture/emotions that authors are trying to convey. And it is an excellent way to teach writing/composition. But much like a "stick sharpened at both ends," learning logic and critical thinking exclusively from humanities classes can be damaging to a student. (With Philosophy being an exception.)
By my experience, analysis of language and literature is typically NOT the same as scientific analysis, and does not necessarily require the same level of critical thinking. An exception might be if students had to analyze arguments made by politicians, or journalists, or authors-- much like the analytical writing sections of the GRE. That's the good stuff, requiring analysis of someone else's viewpoint or argument. Sadly, my english professors were not as interested in logic as they were in seeing me agree with their interpretations of literary works. And even then, a lousy bs argument on my part was still rewarded with an "A" if it was written in good English. (So the process became: 1) Make up some crappy "observation" or conclusion. 2) Find a few references in the work that support my conclusion. 3) Write it up. 4) Turn it in. Do you notice the scientific no-no of steps one and two?)
If teachers were paid better and given more resources the job of teacher would be more sought after and a higher degree of competent teachers would be the likely result (if at the very least because higher competition would allow administrators more choices therefore weeding out those who are poor teachers). (Cultural change: 'sports stars deserve a 50 million dollar contract teachers should be happy enough just teaching my kids')
I have a few comments in reply to this point. First, the sports star that is pulling in $50e6 is helping to pull in a great deal more than that. His (her?) salary is a fraction of the money that the sports franchise and sponsors pull in. Second, the sports stars pulling in million-dollar salaries have demonstrated that they are the BEST in the field. I would happily support six figure salaries for teachers who could demonstrate marked superiority in teaching. But where the hell are they?
I do not have children, and I have not been in pre/middle/high school for a long time, so I am probably out of touch with the real issues. However, I completed a college prep curriculum without ever having a teacher use more than a text book, chalk, and a black-board. (OK, we had chemistry labs too...) I cringe when I hear that district x is in deep crap because they don't have enough computers for their kids. Huh? Since when does a solid college prep education require technology beyond a pad and pencil?
Personally, I think fewer, but more focused classes would relieve the students from having to burn calories/time in the "boring" non-essential classes until they are actually interested in them--(say, in college). Similarly, I think that if teachers could spend more time teaching fewer (but more focused) classes, they would be more likely to become proficient in those areas-- much like college professors.
One other thing that might help: Guest teachers from industry. I would certainly consider teaching a science or math class once-and-a-while if my employer was flexible enough to let me. And I would not hesitate to kick kids out of class, knowing that I don't have to stroke the parents to keep my "real" job. I think this was actually suggested in the recent study on technical competitiveness of the US....
Slashdot Mirror
OK. Sorry for the late response. I do not read much /. any more!
The short response is that you have assumed a claim or a conclusion that I never made: I never said that responding to conflict in a nonviolent way would increase violence. I also never said war or killing was necessary. I think maybe you meant to respond to a different poster?
I am arguing against the statement that "communication is the only way to stop violence." Your counterpoint examples *support* my argument. But I do not see how the challenges in your follow-up clarification counter my arguments in any way...
Here's the longer response:
My original point was simply that communication alone cannot resolve undebatable disagreements-- some of which lead to conflict. I did not at any point argue that wars and killing are necessary. I was merely pointing out that if you and I (for example) disagree about something worth killing each other over, all communication does is define the points of our disagreement. But it does not have to lead to violence as you seem to have wrongly concluded from my post.
My response to your counter examples was to agree that Jesus, Ghandi, and Dr. King did not use violence, but I noted that they were still killed. Again, I did not ever suggest that their nonviolent methods led to more violence in the large-- only that they were killed by people who chose to remain their enemies. This is exactly what I was arguing originally-- that communication and "other methods" are not guaranteed to stop the killing. Repeat: A nonviolent or peaceful response to conflict does *not* necessarily end the killing or violence. You can be 100% peaceful and still have enemies that want you dead or want to do you harm. Your three murder victims illustrate that point very clearly and support my point very, very, very well.
The other methods: lying, appeasement, bribery-- none of them are solutions for the points of conflict. They are all nonviolent options, but there is no reason why your enemy can't still hate you--or you him for that matter. The last option, "everyone on earth in agreement" is plain unrealistic, though some seem to think that it is possible on some issues.
I think I see where you are headed in your original response, but I really think that you should re-read my original post. Your arguments are based on conclusions and arguments that I never made-- which is why I found your post confusing.
If you are in fact responding to my post, then you have severely misinterpreted my arguments and have drawn the wrong conclusion. I was never arguing about the necessity of violence, nor did I try to justify violence and war. I was arguing against the statement that "communication and other methods" were the "only answer" to the killing. Since "the killing" can happen on both sides of the fight, one party responding nonviolently does not prevent the other side from continuing the violence or killing. Again, Jesus, MLK, Ghandi and their respective killers are perfect examples of this point.
In response to your clarifications: Since I never laid any framework suggesting that nonviolence leads to violence, or that violence is necessary, and since I never introduced any language related to world peace, I do not understand what you are asking me to argue. You have asked me to support conclusions that I didn't make and that are not even relevant to my original post...
Wow dude, the Arctic ocean will be free of summer ice by 2013 and you're still calling environmentalists "tree huggers"? (Emphasis added)
Has the stereotype changed much?
Sigh.... Just kidding.
Counter examples to what exactly? All three of them were *murdered* because they couldn't convince everyone to agree with them. Without a doubt they did wonderful things, and are excellent role models. Is your post is meant to support my point by illustrating that even some of history's most power spiritual leaders could not convince everyone to agree with them? That they could not bring peace? (Spiritual peace, yes. But we're talking about lack of physical or economic conflict.)
Incidentally, Jesus's lesson to "turn the other cheek" is appeasement (maybe) or an example of "taking the higher road." Sure you would be a better person if you did this. But I don't see how that would prevent violence. In his case, it certainly did not.
Maybe restate what you are trying to say; I do not think I understand your post...
The only answer is to stop the killing by all those involved using communication and other methods.
Like appeasement? Or bribery? Or lying to avoid conflict? Or global adoption of your philosophy? How do you plan on convincing people to not want "your stuff" or to not want you dead or worse? Are you going to inform them that it is hurtful?
I'll suggest that communication alone may never bring peace, because communication does not address disagreement at the philosophical level. It just defines the boundaries of the disagreement.
You really do eat the propaganda from the military don't you.
Way to communicate. I'm sure your patience, empathy and understanding will bring love and peace to /. in no time.
Oh wait, maybe I misinterpreted that statement as being condescending. Either way, maybe you should consider improving your communication with people you do not agree with.
God I love irony.
So really what it it has come to is that kids feel they have nothing to fear. And parents have everything to fear, but no way of strongly disciplining their kids.
I guess some of the lessons that were taught by ma's wooden spoon or dad's occasional belt fall into the capable hands of the true predators, or are self "inflicted."
What do parents use to strongly discipline their kids today? (Strongly in the sense of being "memorable.")
I think you set your expectations too high.
/. readers even if he knows that 100% of /. supports what he is saying. Better to say as little as possible-- to minimize criticism of what he does say, if only by the people who do NOT support him. Who knows, having overwhelming ./ support might actually hurt his campaign in some way... "Ron Paul: Endorsed by a large number of teenage ./ Virgins." Sure, it's a stereo-type, but I can think of more than one comedian who would use it...
/. politicos have already made their decision: Democrat.
A more cynical person might expect that a politician's answers will be those which state his/her position while alienating the smallest number of people possible. Dr. Paul isn't going to stroke
Besides, from what I can see, most of the actively posting
Actually, I think some sports fans have played (real and virtual) enough and watched enough that they probably *are* experts-- especially at recognizing patterns related to whatever sport is considered.
Example: If I was coaching a football (US) team and I did not know much about football (I don't), would I want a rabid confident long-time football fan to help me? You betcha! Because compared to someone who does not watch football, that person is an expert.
What was suggested, I think, is that people who might put forth enough effort to become as knowledgeable about social policy as they are about football would not have to defer to "social policy experts" as they do now. And I agree. BUT, at the same time, is that person now not an expert in social policy if he/she is more knowledgeable that the person who has not dedicated the time to study it? Are experts always right?
There is the problem with "expertise" in that that "being confident" is not the same as "being right," or even being logical. I can say with perfect confidence that "the free market will prevail, because...." and I could rattle off some supporting arguments. And even if it is perfectly sound to me--even if I am an expert in economics and sociology-- it can be wrong for somebody else, who does not agree with one premise that I might have used. Life is not a football game, where half the people on the field will win, half will lose. With laws/policies, there are a lot more variables, uncertainties, and long-term consequences. And unlike sports, it takes more than "watching other people do it" to become an expert. Sure, it doesn't take a lot to be an "expert" by most people's standards (a degree, or experience). But it takes a helluva lot to be good at it.
Here's where I will break out my "engineering superiority complex." If decisions related to global politics were based on "core political opinions," then yes, politics would definitely change over-night. Because no politician would ever have to justify any decision with quantitative evidence or an argument. I (as a reasonable engineer?) can accept policy decisions that I disagree with if they can at least show traceability and a sound argument. EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH A PREMISE of that argument, I can at least appreciate that a logical argument was formed. This is how I avoid a miserable life under whichever government is installed at the time. But I have a problem with statements like yours, in part because it implies that you think that people's "core political opinions" are good enough to be tied to sweeping policy-- and that you think that it will lead somewhere good. Are you assuming that if people really consider their political beliefs hard enough that we will all come to a consensus? Or is it that you think it would simply make debate more likely, which may/may not "change the face of global politics." Being the arrogant scientist that I am, I am curious as to how you came to such a conclusion, because the absence of a sound basis for the vague conclusion makes my neck-hair stand on-end.
Please note that none of this is meant to be personal. But you (we) have just illustrated a case where I (an engineer) am expecting a logical progression of an argument, leading to a plausible, conclusion--(even if I disagree with it). You, have presented what I call an "english class argument" where you have not really presented any quantitative (logical sense) evidence to support your conclusion-- and there really isn't much of a quantitative conclusion to begin with. There is less rigor than what scientists are used to dealing with, which makes it immediately suspicious to me. And it is incredible frustrating-- though not in a personal way. It is exactly illustrative of what many of the posts in this thread have been about.
The other thing that struck me is that Texans are both numerous and crazy.
And not just on the snow! My experience has been that Texans are extremely friendly, and extremely bad skiers/snowboarders.
Adaptive optics are not that new. (BTW, they are also used in LASIK, I think.)
The objective is to estimate wavefront distortion along the viewing path caused by "atmosphere." These distortions are compensated for by a deformable mirror (and usually a tip-tilt mirror). But I do not believe that you can do better than what is predicted assuming diffraction limited optics... I will have to pull out my Tyson book to check. (Or rather, someone else can...)
There are algorithms that use blind deconvolution to "back out" a less blurry image, but (I think) it is a statistical method requiring several frames and an estimation of the point spread function of the system. It does not make the optical system any better by changing its spot size. An adaptive optics system effectively moves the PSF closer to the diffraction limited size, but not smaller.
Really cool technologies, which I have very limited knowledge of. If AO has strong research support, please let us know. Because I have wanted to work with such systems for a while now...
Well, if you've taught science, maybe you can explain why we should expect a majority to do worse than average? I may not be a masochist, but I'm fairly certain that's an unlikely proposition. Once upon a time, we at least would pretend that a well rounded individual was the proper goal of the liberal arts...
If you have a class where the grades are 50,75,75,85,100, the average in the mean sense is 77, then the majority did worse than average. I don't know that we would "expect" this to happen, as you also ask, but it happens pretty frequently.
Also, consider that it is not difficult to create a bi-modal grade distribution in a class, where the majority of the class is below average (mean sense): Create an exam that will nominally result in a normal distribution for the class. Then add a really challenging question. Ideally (for a good exam writer), the resulting distribution minus the challenging question, is whatever the original exam was written for, which if you intend a normal distribution still puts a few at the high and low ends. But if you have a few really exceptional (or really lucky, or really unethical) students, then they might have also distinguished themselves with the challenging question. If that is the case, and the distribution of the grades excluding the challenging question is normal, then most of the class will have performed below the average. To see this visually, just draw a histogram illustrating a standard distribution of grades, and add one or two outliers to the right. Of course, the results are rarely this pretty, but that doesn't have to change the expectation that they will be.
Don't forget "crippling diarrhea." It's the diarrhea that is so bad (and loud) that you don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's the diarrhea that trumps embarrassment, and will lead strangers to ask you if you are OK. If you have ever walked out of a bathroom, knowing that everyone within 25-m heard you, and not one of them is laughing or grinning, you have suffered crippling diarrhea.
In 2002, I kept getting answering machine messages from a modem or fax machine. It went on for a few months (~9), in spurts. I just erased them. Then one day, I was home when the calls started up. So I had my computer answer the phone (modem days). It turned out to be test results from a local diagnostic lab. They had been faxing blood-work reports to me instead of some doctor. So I called the doctor listed on the fax and informed him of the error by the diagnostic company. Scary that the company had been faxing this sort of stuff to me for *months* without ever realizing their error...
Similarly, having a girlfriend may give a guy a little more confidence in dealing with other girls. The "risk" of being rejected feels lower; the fallout from rejection is not as bad. A guy can be more assertive and less cautious. If things go badly, the guy has his girlfriend to fall back on-(literally). Trading up seems to be pretty common across many aspects of life: Cars, homes, BFs, GFs, jobs, computers, but not BFFs.
It is terrorism. And it was incredibly stupid.
But they actually discussed what to do if the situation had been real, which is more than what any other teachers/school leaders I know have ever done. Because god forbid anyone ever talk to students about what students can do to save their own lives. (Because *that* would be politically incorrect.)
Hopefully they told the students that it would be more effective to *move* than to hide behind a desk. A desk won't stop a handgun round....
Of all of the postings that I have seen since I started reading /. in the 90s, those in response to Mr. Valenti's death have been some of the most disturbing. I was expecting--and even appreciated, some of the comedic posts. And I don't mind most of the disrespectful posts: Most of you thought he was an asshole. Congratulations. He's dead. Good for you.
But the level of hatred that is showing up is disturbing. And it makes me wonder how many of you people would have shot and killed him if you knew that you could have gotten away with it.
To a good number of you: Show some class--if only out of respect to those who did care for him.
To the creeps: See a therapist.
To those of you can only now, after his death, vigorously express your hatred for Mr. Valenti, well, I bet we'll be seeing some of you on CNN in the future.
I don't work in IT, but I have noticed a trend: Women who *like* computers and tech, and who engage in traditionally geeky hobbies outside work often have keys to the "No Girlz Allowed" clubhouse. I think what is being overlooked is that the IT profession might not have a "No Girlz Allowed" mentality as much as it has a "No Non-Geeks Allowed" mentality. And I use "geeks" here as a general reference to people who generally live technology-centric lives.
I know plenty of guys who can't get into the IT clubhouse either, presumably because they don't have the same level of interest in IT and "tech toys" as the rest of the group. And it isn't so much of a communication barrier as it is a lack of bonding with the rest of the group, usually through "pain."
Just a few of my observations.
Not to mention that it's a ridiculous assertion that "bullets would be flying everywhere", at most a handful of people at any time would have a weapon on them and also be trained in the proper use thereof. You forget that people who carry firearms legally are generally not batshit insane and therefore less likley to just spray lead everywhere.
I was just at Virginia Tech late last month for their "Graduate Student Weekend." I also have a CCW, and recent/pretty good (tactical) pistol-craft and carbine training. My first thoughts, as a logical person, are that if *anyone* would have taken a shot at the shooter, his attention would have been drawn away from his unarmed targets. He would have had to focus on the person shooting at him, and would probably end up shooting back- unless he was shot down. So while there might be an exchange of gunfire between two shooters, it would probably have been pretty predicable (a line?). But, at this point, this is all worthless speculation on my part.
Secondly, I am not a gun nut. But I am an engineer. And my engineering sense tells me that guns are not going to go away. So, without waving the pro/anti gun flag, my suggestion to *everyone* is to take a gun (pistol) safety class, just to learn the basics of gun operation. Shoot a few rounds too. (Rent or borrow a pistol.) You would be surprised at how hard it is to "kill" a static paper target at more than a few meters-- especially with shaking hands and an adrenaline rush going. You will also be surprised at how loud guns are. The objective of such a class isn't necessarily to become a proficient shooter. Rather, it is to familiarize yourself with the limitations of a shooter, and the psychological effects of the noise/chaos of gunfire.
For those of you who are turned off *completely* by guns, and think that they are the root of all evil: Take a course anyway. Think of it like a continuation of the lectures for safe-sex or "stranger safely" or traffic safety that you had when you were younger. Awkward, unpleasant, but informative....
I don't want to sound preachy, but in this type of situation, nobody can protect you better than you can. In a shooting like this, the police will rarely be there in time, as it only takes a second to draw and shoot. The media are already consulting "experts" on what can be done to prevent this from happening again. And regardless of what the media "experts" say, I doubt that any amount of legislation or policy or emergency planning can ever practically shield you from becoming a victim of someone who is irrational. It doesn't happen often, but it obviously happens. Be alert.
Right. So then you could use your extensive training to avoid the accident that is caused when your excessive speed freaks out some 80-year old (or otherwise "bad" driver) who wasn't expecting you to pass/approach so quickly. Oh wait, the accident will probably happen behind you. So it's not really your problem, unless he/she happens to be turning in front of you or scrambles suddenly to get out of your way. (This happens all the time, right? The infamous "T-bone?")
Speed limits don't exist to "hold you back." They (presumably) exist to create a nice predictable flow of traffic so that the "minimally educated driver" can get from point A to point B without shitting his/her/your pants, and without causing an accident. The graduated license that you speak of might work on the highway (carpool lane?) or if the licensing process was improved, (i.e. with better licensed drivers), or under certain driving conditions (night-time, no traffic). But all the training in the world won't prevent other people from overcompensating for unpredicable actions--actions that are far removed from what those drivers consider "normal." And your advanced training won't prevent them from being horribly bad drivers themselves.
Consider this: Some people are astonishingly bad at timing their turns/merges with oncoming traffic. Could you imagine how badly they would do if the speed limit was variable? I can. I live in Albuquerque, where traffic on a 45-MPH road may be going anywhere between 30 and 65 MPH in any lane, at any time. I pooped a little in fear just thinking about it!
It's *always* the other guy that I worry about when driving, and that includes situations where I think that my actions might provoke an unintended reaction. Personally, if you drive predictably, and give me (and those around me) a reasonable time to think and react, I don't care how fast you drive.
-jde
Don't worry. As illustrated by this story, the nuts will roll downhill to Florida first.
That's how I killed my last laptop. I have found that I have very little patience with technology on some days. It was one of those days, and I pounded my keyboard a little too hard. The laptop blue screened, and never booted again. (It lasted about 3 years, and was flaking out...which is probably why I smacked it. I guess I helped it along.)
Now I use an external keyboard when I can.
The car started, so I obviously wasn't drunk.......
Yes, computer knowledge is necessary. But math, science and liberal arts education do not require the use of a computer. I think this is the point the crack-guy was trying to make.
There are issues with our education system, issues with todays students, and issues with parents that are probably far more serious than learning how to type a letter into MS Word. Computers make work easier--or they are supposed to. But hey: Garbage in, garbage out. A computer can't instantaneously make its operator any smarter.
So it seems that we need to figure out the proportions of job-training and classical education that we want in our schools.
My US based high-school education (all four years) did emphasize analysis of language and literature, much like introductory university english classes.
I have noticed that many college graduates in the US who do *not* major/minor in math or science of some sort never really learn how to think critically. Example: There are *way* too many college graduates who attempt to form logical, reasonable arguments using the same process that was used to generate bull-crap papers in english class. Sure, there is thought involved, and there is usually a flow of connected statements that look like an argument. But, bull-crap speculation of what Piggy's head on a stick "really means" is hardly good preparation for forming and delivering clear, well-formed and well supported logical arguments. It is certainly an acceptable way to get kids to think about the big picture/emotions that authors are trying to convey. And it is an excellent way to teach writing/composition. But much like a "stick sharpened at both ends," learning logic and critical thinking exclusively from humanities classes can be damaging to a student. (With Philosophy being an exception.)
By my experience, analysis of language and literature is typically NOT the same as scientific analysis, and does not necessarily require the same level of critical thinking. An exception might be if students had to analyze arguments made by politicians, or journalists, or authors-- much like the analytical writing sections of the GRE. That's the good stuff, requiring analysis of someone else's viewpoint or argument. Sadly, my english professors were not as interested in logic as they were in seeing me agree with their interpretations of literary works. And even then, a lousy bs argument on my part was still rewarded with an "A" if it was written in good English. (So the process became: 1) Make up some crappy "observation" or conclusion. 2) Find a few references in the work that support my conclusion. 3) Write it up. 4) Turn it in. Do you notice the scientific no-no of steps one and two?)
If teachers were paid better and given more resources the job of teacher would be more sought after and a higher degree of competent teachers would be the likely result (if at the very least because higher competition would allow administrators more choices therefore weeding out those who are poor teachers). (Cultural change: 'sports stars deserve a 50 million dollar contract teachers should be happy enough just teaching my kids')
I have a few comments in reply to this point. First, the sports star that is pulling in $50e6 is helping to pull in a great deal more than that. His (her?) salary is a fraction of the money that the sports franchise and sponsors pull in. Second, the sports stars pulling in million-dollar salaries have demonstrated that they are the BEST in the field. I would happily support six figure salaries for teachers who could demonstrate marked superiority in teaching. But where the hell are they?
I do not have children, and I have not been in pre/middle/high school for a long time, so I am probably out of touch with the real issues. However, I completed a college prep curriculum without ever having a teacher use more than a text book, chalk, and a black-board. (OK, we had chemistry labs too...) I cringe when I hear that district x is in deep crap because they don't have enough computers for their kids. Huh? Since when does a solid college prep education require technology beyond a pad and pencil?
Personally, I think fewer, but more focused classes would relieve the students from having to burn calories/time in the "boring" non-essential classes until they are actually interested in them--(say, in college). Similarly, I think that if teachers could spend more time teaching fewer (but more focused) classes, they would be more likely to become proficient in those areas-- much like college professors.
One other thing that might help: Guest teachers from industry. I would certainly consider teaching a science or math class once-and-a-while if my employer was flexible enough to let me. And I would not hesitate to kick kids out of class, knowing that I don't have to stroke the parents to keep my "real" job. I think this was actually suggested in the recent study on technical competitiveness of the US....
Right with you on all of your other comments.....