I would wager that if you can afford private school and still afford to eat (even if it stretches the budget), then you probably live in an area where the public schools are pretty good too.
I don't know how it works in the US (very poorly, IIRC), but in Australia, there's a rather interesting factoid which was true 20 years ago when I was an undergraduate. More private school students than public school students start a university-level undergraduate degree. However, more public school students than private school students complete a postgraduate degree.
I can't really think of much that has come out of the Apache Foundation that is 100% homegrown open source [...]
...including, I might add, Apache HTTPD.
Of all of the complaints which could be levelled at the Apache Foundation, this one has to be the least relevant. One of the roles that TAF plays is as a place where you can send your code (as long as it's useful and falls under their purview) to ensure that it's looked after.
I think you're looking at the wrong end of the bell curve.
Think of the worst, most useless, most deadweight programmer you know who's still employed. I'll bet you that every female developer you've ever seen is better than that guy (and I'll bet you it is a guy). That guy can get work because of "culture fit".
If you're reading some source material that makes no sense to you, then there are several possibilities. One possibility is that the writer is wrong. Another is that you lack knowledge about the subject under discussion. Another is that they did not anticipate some objection, but do have a valid response to that objection nonetheless.
The principle of charity states that you pick the interpretation which puts the source material that you're trying to analyse in the best light. If a rational, coherent interpretation is available, then that's the one you should use. If several rational, coherent interpretations are available, you should consider them all.
Academic peer review, by the way, avoids the problem by turning the process into a conversation, at least in theory.
This illustrates a rather important point about critical thinking.
When you walk into a topology class, you expect Moebius strips, Klein bottles, toruses and cool stuff like that. What you actually get is weeks of open and closed sets and metrics.
When you walk into a critical thinking class, you expect long lists of logical fallacies and how to spot them. What you actually get is weeks of the principle of charity and diagramming arguments. When you get to the lecture on logical fallacies, you get told that they pretty much don't matter.
You see, the hard part of critical thinking isn't working out if someone's argument is valid or not, it's working out exactly what they're trying to argue in the first place. It's a safe bet that anyone playing "spot the logical fallacy" literally doesn't know the first thing about critical thinking, having skipped right to the seventh thing without understanding the previous steps.
Regardless of posturing, none of these representatives are going to vote against the NSA since they were the ones that authorized this entire mess in the first place.
You may be underestimating the number of congresscritters who are pissed off that they thought they were authorising one thing but the executive branch decided it meant something else.
Having said that, you may be right. Even then, the campaign is still not a waste of time. The longer the story stays in the news cycle, the better.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, shooting people doesn't require the cooperation of those you are shooting or anyone who lives close to them.
But for that matter, you don't need to go to private school to succeed.
Success, by the way, is a very personal thing. If I'd lived Steve Jobs' life, I would consider my life to be a complete and utter failure.
I would wager that if you can afford private school and still afford to eat (even if it stretches the budget), then you probably live in an area where the public schools are pretty good too.
Yes, but I don't hold that against Slate. They were pretty careful which of his pieces they published.
TL;DR: If we play Prisoner's Dilemma, I'm defecting.
I don't know how it works in the US (very poorly, IIRC), but in Australia, there's a rather interesting factoid which was true 20 years ago when I was an undergraduate. More private school students than public school students start a university-level undergraduate degree. However, more public school students than private school students complete a postgraduate degree.
Of all of the complaints which could be levelled at the Apache Foundation, this one has to be the least relevant. One of the roles that TAF plays is as a place where you can send your code (as long as it's useful and falls under their purview) to ensure that it's looked after.
I think you're looking at the wrong end of the bell curve.
Think of the worst, most useless, most deadweight programmer you know who's still employed. I'll bet you that every female developer you've ever seen is better than that guy (and I'll bet you it is a guy). That guy can get work because of "culture fit".
In all the courtroom pictures I've seen of him, I don't recall ever seeing a tie.
Then forward the video to the NSA and let them do the face recognition. By the power of magic, this is legal.
This explains why Apple has design patents on mobile devices without sharp edges that you could use to hurt casual employees.
I'll bet in the Microsoft store, the screens don't scratch as easily.
Your half-assed crap code. Our passion.
Or a hacker. None of those on Slashdot.
Yes! Older games and second-hand games are almost always cheaper than the equivalent download-on-PC price.
Well, they are in Australia thanks to the 30-50% "because we can" markup.
If you're reading some source material that makes no sense to you, then there are several possibilities. One possibility is that the writer is wrong. Another is that you lack knowledge about the subject under discussion. Another is that they did not anticipate some objection, but do have a valid response to that objection nonetheless.
The principle of charity states that you pick the interpretation which puts the source material that you're trying to analyse in the best light. If a rational, coherent interpretation is available, then that's the one you should use. If several rational, coherent interpretations are available, you should consider them all.
Academic peer review, by the way, avoids the problem by turning the process into a conversation, at least in theory.
Not really, no. The dominance of Wahhabism in the Arabian Peninsula only pre-dates the oil industry by about 20 years.
Defending liberal Saudi web forum founders would be cheaper.
Of course, championing a free and open communications system begins at home.
Dude, your .sig is so far out of date it's not funny.
I mean that. It's really not funny.
This illustrates a rather important point about critical thinking.
When you walk into a topology class, you expect Moebius strips, Klein bottles, toruses and cool stuff like that. What you actually get is weeks of open and closed sets and metrics.
When you walk into a critical thinking class, you expect long lists of logical fallacies and how to spot them. What you actually get is weeks of the principle of charity and diagramming arguments. When you get to the lecture on logical fallacies, you get told that they pretty much don't matter.
You see, the hard part of critical thinking isn't working out if someone's argument is valid or not, it's working out exactly what they're trying to argue in the first place. It's a safe bet that anyone playing "spot the logical fallacy" literally doesn't know the first thing about critical thinking, having skipped right to the seventh thing without understanding the previous steps.
No wonder you found it boring. High school English classes have this way of making even the best books tedious and mind-numbing.
FWIW, James Watt is going to be on the new 50. More of an engineer than a scientist, but still a fine choice.
My pick would have been Mary Cartwright, but that might be too soon. How long do you have to have been dead for to get a banknote?
I'm 99% certain the Bank of England has never done that.
You may be underestimating the number of congresscritters who are pissed off that they thought they were authorising one thing but the executive branch decided it meant something else.
Having said that, you may be right. Even then, the campaign is still not a waste of time. The longer the story stays in the news cycle, the better.