"not to insure that everyone who gets a grade from you earns it honestly."
You're wrong. That is precisely his job. As the professor in charge of a course he is certifying, for every student who passes, that the student has sufficiently mastered the course material to fulfil the requirements of that course.
A university degree is not suppose to be a certification that you went to a certain place and sat in a classroom for four years. It's a certification that you have certain knowledge.
"If the student is capable of getting the answers right, what difference does it make how it's obtained."
By that definition the best all around students in university will be attractive women. Their assets might not be quite as valuable to your company once they graduate.
A university test isn't to determine how you'd function in the "real world." It's to specifically test what knowledge you yourself have. Your grade in a course certainly shouldn't be based entirely on tests but part of the passing a course is accumulating some knowledge yourself, not just meeting people who can give you the answers.
Allow electronic devices that do not have network access. Simple. There are lots of these paper things called dictionaries.
However, most universities have language fluency requirements. If the course is taught in English, students must be sufficiently familiar with English. Otherwise there's no point in them taking the course. Not knowing a language is not a disability.
The bush pilot is a significant figure in Canadian history. You were in Canada right?
You must either have had some very creative teachers or perhaps some sort of crazy bias of your own. In high school in Canada I learned a little about Canadian history, but mostly about Russian, ancient Greek and Brazilian history. Canada was mostly covered in elementary school.
" if you take government grant money, you will only publish results that agree with the government's stances."
There's a slight difference between the actual situation and what you imply. The scientists in question aren't recipients of federal grant money. They're federal employees.
There's a definite problem here, but it's not that the government is telling it's employees they need permission to talk to the media. It's that the National Research Council (I think the article screwed up - I don't think the Natural Resources Council exists) isn't arms length enough from the government.
Grants are a different thing. The guy quoted in the article, the one is is extremely critical of this, is funded by government grants.
Sure. An easy one is filesystem access. Until you jailbreak your app is sandboxed and the system won't let it see the rest of the filesystem.
I might be wrong, but I don't think there's a non-jailbreak accessible private system call that gets you around the sandbox. You have to convince the system itself to run your app unsandboxed first.
"I love it, guns are the new Hitler." Yeah, exactly. Way to pick an emotionally loaded (and poor) analogy.
Try this one instead. Some people believe that vaccinating children causes autism. This has been well disproven by many studies and the only remotely scientific evidence supporting it has been not only disproven, but shown to be the product of fraud and questionable ethics.
However, various celebrities, including such influential ones as Oprah, insist, publicly, that vaccinating your child causes autism.
What are we do to? Shut up about it and let the idiots be idiots? Or provide parents with the correct information?
The situation is analogous with the literal belief in the bible. People who take the bible literally are (a) dangerous (if nothing else, they vote, and (b) try very hard to spread their belief. A significant group of people could be swayed by literalists if no counterbalance existed.
Your last point about "everyone should accept or believe only what they themselves can prove" is irrelevant, or a strawman. I didn't suggest any such thing. In fact, I'm suggesting exactly the opposite. Resources, in the form of well reasoned arguments and summaries of the actual evidence, should be available to those who do not have the ability or will to investigate themselves.
Yeah, to someone who doesn't believe in the bible it seems ridiculous to even bother trying to "refute" it. But you're ignoring history: EVERYONE used to believe in the bible. Or else. You're also ignoring the present: many people still do believe in the bible, or at least parts of it.
Demonstrating the ridiculousness of believing in the bible as literal fact is useful. There are a not inconsiderable number of very vocal people who claim the book is literal fact. There area not inconsiderable number of people who sit on the fence - who might believe the former group if there were no rational counterbalance.
I didn't claim it was unique to the bible. I would strongly suggest not putting too much stock in anything where it's difficult to tell simile and metaphor from fact.
WAY more interesting than that. Dark matter behaves the same way ordinary matter does, at least as far as gravity is concerned. To make a spot on Earth an inertial reference frame you need a gravitational field that couldn't be caused by anything that behaves in any remotely normal way.
That would be insightful, except for the fact that there are a large number of people who "blatantly ignore context and treat obvious similes and metaphors as literal statements of fact" in other parts of the bible as well.
Right now the cell companies are having trouble carrying the occasional voice call reliably and supporting people's casual small screen web surfing.
PS - if you have to wait for your tablet or smart phone to boot up, you're doing something wrong (or have the wrong device). Mine get rebooted when they get OS upgrades. Same as my computers, actually.
Uh, right. Here are the numbers for Polio. It went into sharp decline all right. Twice in fact. Once after the first vaccine was introduced, and again after it was refined.
How is that? We still use vaccines against pertussis, polio and a whole bunch of other diseases. Except for polio these aren't usually brought out as the poster children of vaccination success stories but they're still there, still preventing diseases most of us probably have barely heard of that previously killed or crippled a large percentage of children.
Sure, the actual formulations have been changed a bit. And those changes have been very carefully validated and found to make the vaccines even safer and more effective.
The only really different one is the flu vaccine, and again, flu vaccines are very carefully monitored and validated.
"don't blindly follow the doctors orders, chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than your doctor."
Absolutely. You should definitely do a few minutes of research and then treat yourself. Repeatedly. Keep doing it until, well, you'll see. The world will be a better place.
Slashdot Mirror
"not to insure that everyone who gets a grade from you earns it honestly."
You're wrong. That is precisely his job. As the professor in charge of a course he is certifying, for every student who passes, that the student has sufficiently mastered the course material to fulfil the requirements of that course.
A university degree is not suppose to be a certification that you went to a certain place and sat in a classroom for four years. It's a certification that you have certain knowledge.
"honor code requires professors to give unproctored exams"
That's hilarious. Someone should be fired. Trust. And verify.
"If the student is capable of getting the answers right, what difference does it make how it's obtained."
By that definition the best all around students in university will be attractive women. Their assets might not be quite as valuable to your company once they graduate.
A university test isn't to determine how you'd function in the "real world." It's to specifically test what knowledge you yourself have. Your grade in a course certainly shouldn't be based entirely on tests but part of the passing a course is accumulating some knowledge yourself, not just meeting people who can give you the answers.
Allow electronic devices that do not have network access. Simple. There are lots of these paper things called dictionaries.
However, most universities have language fluency requirements. If the course is taught in English, students must be sufficiently familiar with English. Otherwise there's no point in them taking the course. Not knowing a language is not a disability.
Kind of like when they tried to take over Canada and didn't. Somehow that war wasn't lost either.
The bush pilot is a significant figure in Canadian history. You were in Canada right?
You must either have had some very creative teachers or perhaps some sort of crazy bias of your own. In high school in Canada I learned a little about Canadian history, but mostly about Russian, ancient Greek and Brazilian history. Canada was mostly covered in elementary school.
" if you take government grant money, you will only publish results that agree with the government's stances."
There's a slight difference between the actual situation and what you imply. The scientists in question aren't recipients of federal grant money. They're federal employees.
There's a definite problem here, but it's not that the government is telling it's employees they need permission to talk to the media. It's that the National Research Council (I think the article screwed up - I don't think the Natural Resources Council exists) isn't arms length enough from the government.
Grants are a different thing. The guy quoted in the article, the one is is extremely critical of this, is funded by government grants.
Sure. An easy one is filesystem access. Until you jailbreak your app is sandboxed and the system won't let it see the rest of the filesystem.
I might be wrong, but I don't think there's a non-jailbreak accessible private system call that gets you around the sandbox. You have to convince the system itself to run your app unsandboxed first.
"I love it, guns are the new Hitler." Yeah, exactly. Way to pick an emotionally loaded (and poor) analogy.
Try this one instead. Some people believe that vaccinating children causes autism. This has been well disproven by many studies and the only remotely scientific evidence supporting it has been not only disproven, but shown to be the product of fraud and questionable ethics.
However, various celebrities, including such influential ones as Oprah, insist, publicly, that vaccinating your child causes autism.
What are we do to? Shut up about it and let the idiots be idiots? Or provide parents with the correct information?
The situation is analogous with the literal belief in the bible. People who take the bible literally are (a) dangerous (if nothing else, they vote, and (b) try very hard to spread their belief. A significant group of people could be swayed by literalists if no counterbalance existed.
Your last point about "everyone should accept or believe only what they themselves can prove" is irrelevant, or a strawman. I didn't suggest any such thing. In fact, I'm suggesting exactly the opposite. Resources, in the form of well reasoned arguments and summaries of the actual evidence, should be available to those who do not have the ability or will to investigate themselves.
Yeah, to someone who doesn't believe in the bible it seems ridiculous to even bother trying to "refute" it. But you're ignoring history: EVERYONE used to believe in the bible. Or else. You're also ignoring the present: many people still do believe in the bible, or at least parts of it.
Demonstrating the ridiculousness of believing in the bible as literal fact is useful. There are a not inconsiderable number of very vocal people who claim the book is literal fact. There area not inconsiderable number of people who sit on the fence - who might believe the former group if there were no rational counterbalance.
I didn't claim it was unique to the bible. I would strongly suggest not putting too much stock in anything where it's difficult to tell simile and metaphor from fact.
WAY more interesting than that. Dark matter behaves the same way ordinary matter does, at least as far as gravity is concerned. To make a spot on Earth an inertial reference frame you need a gravitational field that couldn't be caused by anything that behaves in any remotely normal way.
And requires a rather interesting gravitational field that emanates from nothing.
Funny you should mention that. Know what happens if you aim a laser at a target on Earth that's far enough away? It misses.
I've never seen Deepak Chopra use a pigeon. Does he cure it by thinking hard? Cool name for a pigeon though. But a cooler name for a cat.
Nor have you, apparently.
The equivalence principle is a wee bit different for accelerated motion.
Holmes didn't claim to know.
Yes, because we'll get so much more done if we let every nutjob directly influence any projects we undertake as a group.
That would be insightful, except for the fact that there are a large number of people who "blatantly ignore context and treat obvious similes and metaphors as literal statements of fact" in other parts of the bible as well.
Yuh huh. Maybe in the DISTANT future.
Right now the cell companies are having trouble carrying the occasional voice call reliably and supporting people's casual small screen web surfing.
PS - if you have to wait for your tablet or smart phone to boot up, you're doing something wrong (or have the wrong device). Mine get rebooted when they get OS upgrades. Same as my computers, actually.
Uh, right. Here are the numbers for Polio. It went into sharp decline all right. Twice in fact. Once after the first vaccine was introduced, and again after it was refined.
http://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html
How is that? We still use vaccines against pertussis, polio and a whole bunch of other diseases. Except for polio these aren't usually brought out as the poster children of vaccination success stories but they're still there, still preventing diseases most of us probably have barely heard of that previously killed or crippled a large percentage of children.
Sure, the actual formulations have been changed a bit. And those changes have been very carefully validated and found to make the vaccines even safer and more effective.
The only really different one is the flu vaccine, and again, flu vaccines are very carefully monitored and validated.
"don't blindly follow the doctors orders, chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than your doctor."
Absolutely. You should definitely do a few minutes of research and then treat yourself. Repeatedly. Keep doing it until, well, you'll see. The world will be a better place.
All the ones that don't capitalize "scientific," "vaccination," and "autism." I.e., the reputable ones.