Pretty soon, people are going to stop using hyperlinks all together and just use google keywords. Maybe there should be a google://.. I know if I'm in a conversation and someone wants a hyperlink, I say "google for (keyword) instead of using a url.
I already browse that way. See, I've got a real browser, and with this browser I can configure it to use one of several search engines from the URL bar. I chose google, and so I just type in keywords in the URL bar, click Search (or use the arrow key to navigate to the google search choice in the dropdown menu and hit enter).
We all agree that piracy isn't a good thing, but I'd like to think the P2P is viable even without copyright infringement.
Um, do you mind if I point out that it's only copyright infringement if someone makes money off it without paying royalties?
For example, assume a non-profit service (which Napster wasn't). Then I charge you 10 cents to download a song from my computer. If I don't pay some chunk of that 10 cents to the RIAA (or whoever it is that collects the royalties), THEN I have violated copyright.
On the other hand, if I don't charge you, then I have NOT violated copyright.
Where Napster screwed up is in not paying royalties. I wonder if they ever offered royalties?
Of course, following the radio model, the music companies should've been paying Napster to host songs and promote the bands, a la payola.
If it involves picking up a phone and dialing, I'll have to pass. I'm not that interested in stalking you. Sorry I'm not a more dedicated stalker.
Other than that, typing in the phone number in Google *should* give the subscriber's name and address, since the phone companies all put their white pages on the web, and Google checks for phone numbers in the search query. Check out:
Remember those stupid little coloured disks with the characters on them, that kids were trading in the playgrounds?
Those were called pogs not blogs, dude.
Other than that, uh, *cough*, obvious mistake, I have to agree with you.
However, it's supposed to be spelled 'blog, with an apostrophe, short for weblog, which of course is supposed to be taking a shit on the web, I believe.
So, they decode some of the bacteria dna at some point thinking that maybe there's some important information left there, and they come up with:
#include "stdio.h"
void main(void) { printf("Hello, world!\n"); }
Now just suppose that the "junk DNA" in the human genome is the documentation package for the machine code. Who wrote that manual?
The article posting was obviously just someone using it as a steppingstool to push their own preconceived notions of science upon us. I declare the article a troll.
It is only a matter of time before this becomes a violation of the DMCA.
Now that you mention it, all the President has to do to get his way with contraceptives is get a law passed that says that every person immediately gets copyright over their DNA (grammar?). Then contraceptive devices themselves and even talking about them would be a violation of the DMCA.
You do realize that we're all biting a troll, right?
For too long this nation (the United States) has been afraid of challenging Israeli responses to Palestinian actions.
I don't think it's "fear" that has kept the US on the side of the Israelis. I think it's "guilt" and "pity". I've only met a couple of Jews in my lifetime, and they're probably not representative of Israel in any case, since they're American jews. (For the record, I do not know or care if the word "jew" is considered derogative) Of them, the one with the numbered tattoo was the one who thought that Israel and Palestine should quit fighting with one another and make friends. The one without the tattoo expected me to feel sorry for him because of the plight of the jewish people in Nazi Germany. In any case, the US has this massive bleeding heart disease going on, and it comes out the most with people that have been persecuted in history. While Moslems have suffered at least as much persecution at the hand of the Christians as the Jews did in Nazi Germany (ref: the Crusades), they happen to be an old enemy of Christianity. So what happens, then, is the bleeding-heart US can only see the Jews as refugees from Sobibor and sees the evil Muslims throwing bombs around Israel and says "Oh no! We must save them!"
Yes, yes. Let's not forget history. Let's also not be dictated by what happened in history. Why don't we instead just grow up?:) (I'm American)
If we really believe in freedom in the US
I believe in freedom, and I will oppose anyone who tries to take that from me, the US government is not excluded. The basic problem here is that we are conditioned from kindergarten to think that 1) the US stands for freedom (but its history doesn't show) and justice (again: look at the history) for all and that 2) the US Government exists to protect these high ideals.
In my adulthood, I've learned that this is no longer the case. While I'm not a conspiracy theorist, it is fairly obvious when you see a press conference with any of the higher-up elected officials and before answering any question they have to listen to their earpiece squawk the correct answer that this elected official is a PUPPET. I first noticed this with Al Gore, and started watching for it.
Now that the 4th amendment has been repealed, the puppetmasters (whoever they are) are now in a position to start down the path at the end of which lies a dictatorship that is likely to be quite oppressive. We will resemble our Muslim "enemies" more and more the farther down this path we go.
When we're no longer seen as the support of the Israeli war machine, it will become more difficult for the despots of that region to paint the United States as an evil tyrant.
I wouldn't be surprised if they don't actually work that hard to paint this picture of the US. We provide plenty of statistical and anecdotal evidence to support such a claim, and again our history backs this up more than it backs up our conditioning.
Finally, the question is, of course, what do I think we should do about Palestine and Israel? Beats me. Israel is the "little" guy on the playground, but they do seem to be more like the little guy that says "My brother will kick your ass!". What about the people the US helped to evict in order to establish a Jewish state with Jerusalem as the capital? They might just want their homes, and now after spending 30 years or so in battle perhaps they just want to be left alone. There are quite a few nutcases in our own country (ref: the oklahoma bombing) that we can't just assume that any sand-colored person who commits terrorism must be sponsored by a government in the area.
Of course, terrorism has been redefined since those airliners crashed into the twin towers. Terrorism is now anything the president wants it to be in order for him to do what he wants to do.
Since so many teachers are so bad, why aren't they being taught to teach? I got _nothing_ by way of such training in graduate school--I guess they assume teaching is no different than presenting your papers/thesis/results.
I got a better idea!
Require all professors to show some minimum number of hours in a ROCK BAND.:)
Seriously, though, it seems that universities have pursued for a long time with the idea that knowledge==ability to teach. This isn't true, of course.
Other posters ahve commented that the only thing the universities really care about is the research grants and the revenue stream that amounts to, so they don't give a shit how well the students learn or how well professors profess. They only give a shit how much research the dude accomplishes that brings in this all-important revenue stream.
I don't know if that's true or not, but it makes for a tricky situation. ON the one hand, research must go on! On the other hand, the kids in school now are our future, and they MUST BE EDUCATED! Hard balance to strike, eh?
Here's another example, then.:) Contrived? Not quite, this time. I've seen the same method used with an overhead projector.
Using shared desktops, or some app such as that, a teacher could give his lecture from a desk, and instead of using a chalkboard and making students write shit down it could just appear on their screen while he's working. They could then make additional notes based on the lecture. Finally, they could save the entire session and play it back later, step by step, to recapture the lecture. A good study tool.
There are problems with this model, of course. I don't claim to know all the subtleties of the situation.
Also, there are situations where it would be damn useful to have the entire library in a classroom during a lecture. This isn't an everyday occurrence, by any stretch, and many classes wouldn't run across this.
The main point I was trying to make, though, is that the problem here is a human problem, not a technology problem. The technology *can* be used as a tool during the lecture, and if a teacher can do so effectively he should. But the basic problem in the article is a human problem.
I apologize if I came off sounding like someone blaming his failure on the teaching system.
However, it is my experience (granted, no college experience here) that people often blame technology for their own shortcomings.
The computers are not the problem, even in your post. The problem must be either the professor or the students, but *not* the wifi access in the classroom. Therefore, it is a human problem.
Education is a two-person process. The professor must teach it, and must do everything he can to get the message across.
Conversely, the student must learn. He must participate, and do whatever else he has to do to learn the material.
The professor and the student work together to make the education process happen.
Just like "The customer is always right".:) The customer is a part of the business transaction, and he has a role to play. He must work with the merchant to conduct business.
Just like my wife.:) She can't just lay there and take it, she has to participate. Or it just ain't happening.
Try reading it again. In over 90% of the class sessions refers to the total number of class sessions offerred throughout an entire school year. There are down days, even for this guy, like the day before Thanksgiving, the last day before Christmas break. Final weeks don't count because there's no lecture, just tests, but they are class sessions.
Maybe you outta take some math from this guy so you can understand me.:)
I'm gonna have to defend my contrived example.:) Unfortunately, since Konqueror is a piece of crap, I won't be able to copyNpaste the stuff for reference.
If a professor asked the particular question I offered early in the class, later on when some kids had come up with results, even if they just parrotted it to the class, it would make for a good discussion. It would require the kids to quickly develop an understanding of some of the more subtle aspects of the war in order to defend their positions, or even understand other positions, for that matter.
Of course, this particular contrived example might fit better in a debate class. The beginning of the class the professor organizes the groups that will debate, each retires with their subject and assigns one or more members to google for articles to support their position.
Now, you are correct that there is a certain danger in being able to google for just about anything and get it. You must always take what you find with a grain of salt and question the authenticity of what you find.:)
Can't wait to see a kid get burned because of the information he got from google....
Re:Maybe if teachers worked with technology instea
on
Professors vs. WiFi
·
· Score: 1
I dont believe just by paying im required to get a passing grade but i do expect them to pass me if I do my part of the contract, if it says I have to pass test X and i pass it, I better get a passing grade.
With writing like that you should consider surfing the web less.
It is not the material that makes it boring or interesting, it is the student. People have different interests. Not all subjects are inherently interesting to everyone. But they still must learn it, if they want that piece of paper.
I disagree. Now, unlike the rest of the elite slashdot crowd, I didn't go to college. I said "fuck that."
But I had a teacher in High School (you know, the place you HAVE to go, so kids not paying attention is a real serious problem) who taught several levels of math ranging from low remedial math (I took one of these from him) up to calculus (I also took pre-calc from him), and he taught even higher levels at the local community college.
This guy is extremely passionate about math. He loves it! In his classes, in over 90% of the class sessions, at a guess (he'd probly get pissed at me for estimating without a proof), he had 100% class participation. And math in High School is notorious for being one of the most boring classes you have to take. But he got everybody's attention, everybody working hard to learn the stuff, from the lowest level classes (full of gangsters, drug-pushers, and all-around morons) all the way up into college classes.
He was just DAMN interesting!
The teacher makes or breaks the class. I've seen an extreme example of a teacher taking subject matter that most of his students find boring and captivate the entire class. Most of the kids who took his class and hated math finished the year with at least a sick fascination with math, and most of THEM actually loved math when they were done!
The responsibility of capturing students' attention lay on the teacher, just as certainly as the responsibility for putting on a good show lay on the rock band. And in both cases, if the audience is captivated, they will participate, and the feedback loop is addictive.
Think of these devices as something the enemy would consider a form of intelligence. If you implant them in soldiers, the enemy would make it a point to _dig_ them out of prisioners or wounded in the field so they can use them to mislead us. Not a pleasant thought.
All true, but these are human problems. To be dealt with.
In war, protecting your sources of intelligence is important, but trusting them is more important.
Finally, while your fears are all true, and would almost certainly be exploited by the enemy, there are certainly counters. Then there's counters to the counters, and so on and so forth, just as there is with any other tool of war.
My point was merely to point out the actual benefits of such a thing in a flood of "I sense you are feeling tense, Dave" paranoia comments.:)
While going to school I didn't have these things other than a PDA need the end of my schooling. I didn't then, nor do I now see the need for these devices.
I'm sure at one time people didn't see the need for kids to take pen and paper to class either. It's a new age, and there are new tools available to help kids learn more stuff, and learn it better. We should encourage their use for learning, rather than discouraging their use entirely.
It's up to the professor to exploit the tools the kids have. For example, what if the professor says "Can somebody do a quick Google search to see what the consequences of the US joining the second world war later would have been?". Admitted, it's a contrived example, but computers are a powerful informational tool, and professors are to teach information. They should exploit this tool.
It still disheartens me to see all the students just wasting their time.
Students have always, and will always waste their time. This is a fact of life. If they are interfering with the class with their time-wasting, that's a human problem. Removing the computers will not solve this problem, because the problem existed long before computers were even invented.
New toys are fun but they do not work well in an academic environment.
The fact that computers are treated as toys is in itself, the problem. Make them a tool for education, not a toy for distraction. This is up to the professors and not the students, really. Wouldn't it be great if the professor gave html versions of their class notes to their students to view during the lecture? Then the student could fill them in with more detail than they would have had if they had to take the notes completely themselves, and then have more information to use while studying. At least the information would have more depth, and therefore be more meaningful.
Hell, I'm against putting a computer in every classroom in primary schools. What use is a computer that occasionally gets used to play some dumb little educational game this is several levels below what is being taught in the class.
This is also a human problem. Again, like I've said several times before, this is people not exploiting the tools that they have before them. It's up to the teacher to use the tool to benefit the class. Do the teachers need better software to do this? Arguably, yes. Do the teachers need training to exploit this tool? Definitely, yes. Does it do any good to slap one in every classroom (or on every kid's desk, where it could do the most good) without providing the necessary infrastructure (including software) to use it? No.
A tool is only as useful as the people using them allow them to be. Computers are a great tool for storing, retrieving, modeling, et al, information. Let's use them that way. But they still only do what they've been told to do.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
*nod* We're all supposed to take responsibility for our actions. Anarchy, really, boils down to who can bully who and get away with it. In other words, it's 6th grade gym class for the rest of your life.
This isn't true.
*IF* we all take responsibility for our actions, then Anarchy is the most suitable form of government. Consider this:
In an anarchist society, we would be free to kick the geek's ass. However, we would have the responsibility not to do so. As a check to help us NOT to kick his ass his family would have the freedom to retaliate.
It is true that there are always people in the minority who would abuse their freedom by behaving irresponsibly. However, in an anarchist society the politicians and the criminals would be one and the same.
I know, I know, how can there be criminals?
Simple, some group of people would start a business to enforce laws. Simple enough, right? I might be one of them.:) Basically, some people decide that in this certain space (a neighborhood for example) there are certain behaviors which are unacceptable. In order to prevent the kinds of blood feuds that could occur if families and friends dealt directly with retaliation they would instead create a "police force" that would handle it for them. Similar to the Mafia in practice, but different in organization. It would actually be run as a service-oriented business that needs to satisfy its customers to stay in business.
I realize the situation is very complex, and any society needs a basic set of rules to prevent the sort of stuff that anti-anarchists promise us will happen in a free society. That's why we have "manners".:) Also, I don't think a true anarchy would ever happen because people would still group together and establish rules and throw out those who break these rules. The fact that humans invented government in the first place is a result of this basic tendency. Therefore, in an anarchist society, there would still be rules.
Anarchy only means that there should be no government to control us. It doesn't mean there would be no rules. I'll bet that if our country became a true anarchy then in Texas you would have all kinds of freedom as long as you were a Christian. In WA state there would be a people-elected fascist regime. In other places there would be different stuff.
Many people have a misperception of anarchy and are afraid of it. We should try to understand something before we fear it, but if we fear something we should try to understand it better to eliminate our fear. Understanding is vital, and fear without understanding is unacceptable behavior in my world.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty soon, people are going to stop using hyperlinks all together and just use google keywords. Maybe there should be a google:// .. I know if I'm in a conversation and someone wants a hyperlink, I say "google for (keyword) instead of using a url.
I already browse that way. See, I've got a real browser, and with this browser I can configure it to use one of several search engines from the URL bar. I chose google, and so I just type in keywords in the URL bar, click Search (or use the arrow key to navigate to the google search choice in the dropdown menu and hit enter).
You know, you and someone else posted the article text into slashdot at the same time. Is this equiv of a dupe story by the editors? :)
It's worse because it's the readers that are always bitching about it.
We all agree that piracy isn't a good thing, but I'd like to think the P2P is viable even without copyright infringement.
Um, do you mind if I point out that it's only copyright infringement if someone makes money off it without paying royalties?
For example, assume a non-profit service (which Napster wasn't). Then I charge you 10 cents to download a song from my computer. If I don't pay some chunk of that 10 cents to the RIAA (or whoever it is that collects the royalties), THEN I have violated copyright.
On the other hand, if I don't charge you, then I have NOT violated copyright.
Where Napster screwed up is in not paying royalties. I wonder if they ever offered royalties?
Of course, following the radio model, the music companies should've been paying Napster to host songs and promote the bands, a la payola.
If it involves picking up a phone and dialing, I'll have to pass. I'm not that interested in stalking you. Sorry I'm not a more dedicated stalker.
Other than that, typing in the phone number in Google *should* give the subscriber's name and address, since the phone companies all put their white pages on the web, and Google checks for phone numbers in the search query. Check out:
this one
Remember those stupid little coloured disks with the characters on them, that kids were trading in the playgrounds?
Those were called pogs not blogs, dude.
Other than that, uh, *cough*, obvious mistake, I have to agree with you.
However, it's supposed to be spelled 'blog, with an apostrophe, short for weblog, which of course is supposed to be taking a shit on the web, I believe.
"What did Spock find in the toilet?"
The Captain's 'blog.
Problem is I don't find anything to do with the incompetence of a "world leader" to be funny.
That sound you hear is your sense of humor dying as a result of your bleeding heart....
Not that I thought the original post was funny either, but it wasn't on account of my heart having a bleeding-based disease.
(I refuse to use the phrase Googling)
your fave search engine
So you're only half lame, but which half?
it's also nearly 4,000km away
Um, what's that in miles?
"I was, booooooorn in the usa"
603 330 3532
Do you think it would be worth anything now?
Heh.
So, they decode some of the bacteria dna at some point thinking that maybe there's some important information left there, and they come up with:
Now just suppose that the "junk DNA" in the human genome is the documentation package for the machine code. Who wrote that manual?
The article posting was obviously just someone using it as a steppingstool to push their own preconceived notions of science upon us. I declare the article a troll.
It is only a matter of time before this becomes a violation of the DMCA.
Now that you mention it, all the President has to do to get his way with contraceptives is get a law passed that says that every person immediately gets copyright over their DNA (grammar?). Then contraceptive devices themselves and even talking about them would be a violation of the DMCA.
For too long this nation (the United States) has been afraid of challenging Israeli responses to Palestinian actions.
I don't think it's "fear" that has kept the US on the side of the Israelis. I think it's "guilt" and "pity". I've only met a couple of Jews in my lifetime, and they're probably not representative of Israel in any case, since they're American jews. (For the record, I do not know or care if the word "jew" is considered derogative) Of them, the one with the numbered tattoo was the one who thought that Israel and Palestine should quit fighting with one another and make friends. The one without the tattoo expected me to feel sorry for him because of the plight of the jewish people in Nazi Germany. In any case, the US has this massive bleeding heart disease going on, and it comes out the most with people that have been persecuted in history. While Moslems have suffered at least as much persecution at the hand of the Christians as the Jews did in Nazi Germany (ref: the Crusades), they happen to be an old enemy of Christianity. So what happens, then, is the bleeding-heart US can only see the Jews as refugees from Sobibor and sees the evil Muslims throwing bombs around Israel and says "Oh no! We must save them!"
Yes, yes. Let's not forget history. Let's also not be dictated by what happened in history. Why don't we instead just grow up? :) (I'm American)
If we really believe in freedom in the US
I believe in freedom, and I will oppose anyone who tries to take that from me, the US government is not excluded. The basic problem here is that we are conditioned from kindergarten to think that 1) the US stands for freedom (but its history doesn't show) and justice (again: look at the history) for all and that 2) the US Government exists to protect these high ideals.
In my adulthood, I've learned that this is no longer the case. While I'm not a conspiracy theorist, it is fairly obvious when you see a press conference with any of the higher-up elected officials and before answering any question they have to listen to their earpiece squawk the correct answer that this elected official is a PUPPET. I first noticed this with Al Gore, and started watching for it.
Now that the 4th amendment has been repealed, the puppetmasters (whoever they are) are now in a position to start down the path at the end of which lies a dictatorship that is likely to be quite oppressive. We will resemble our Muslim "enemies" more and more the farther down this path we go.
When we're no longer seen as the support of the Israeli war machine, it will become more difficult for the despots of that region to paint the United States as an evil tyrant.
I wouldn't be surprised if they don't actually work that hard to paint this picture of the US. We provide plenty of statistical and anecdotal evidence to support such a claim, and again our history backs this up more than it backs up our conditioning.
Finally, the question is, of course, what do I think we should do about Palestine and Israel? Beats me. Israel is the "little" guy on the playground, but they do seem to be more like the little guy that says "My brother will kick your ass!". What about the people the US helped to evict in order to establish a Jewish state with Jerusalem as the capital? They might just want their homes, and now after spending 30 years or so in battle perhaps they just want to be left alone. There are quite a few nutcases in our own country (ref: the oklahoma bombing) that we can't just assume that any sand-colored person who commits terrorism must be sponsored by a government in the area.
Of course, terrorism has been redefined since those airliners crashed into the twin towers. Terrorism is now anything the president wants it to be in order for him to do what he wants to do.
I can't resist. Sorry. :) I read this forum just for these jokes...
I don't think we have all the facts here.
In Soviet Russia, All Facts have you!
In soviet russia, book steals you!
I got a better idea!
Require all professors to show some minimum number of hours in a ROCK BAND. :)
Seriously, though, it seems that universities have pursued for a long time with the idea that knowledge==ability to teach. This isn't true, of course.
Other posters ahve commented that the only thing the universities really care about is the research grants and the revenue stream that amounts to, so they don't give a shit how well the students learn or how well professors profess. They only give a shit how much research the dude accomplishes that brings in this all-important revenue stream.
I don't know if that's true or not, but it makes for a tricky situation. ON the one hand, research must go on! On the other hand, the kids in school now are our future, and they MUST BE EDUCATED! Hard balance to strike, eh?
Here's another example, then. :) Contrived? Not quite, this time. I've seen the same method used with an overhead projector.
Using shared desktops, or some app such as that, a teacher could give his lecture from a desk, and instead of using a chalkboard and making students write shit down it could just appear on their screen while he's working. They could then make additional notes based on the lecture. Finally, they could save the entire session and play it back later, step by step, to recapture the lecture. A good study tool.
There are problems with this model, of course. I don't claim to know all the subtleties of the situation.
Also, there are situations where it would be damn useful to have the entire library in a classroom during a lecture. This isn't an everyday occurrence, by any stretch, and many classes wouldn't run across this.
The main point I was trying to make, though, is that the problem here is a human problem, not a technology problem. The technology *can* be used as a tool during the lecture, and if a teacher can do so effectively he should. But the basic problem in the article is a human problem.
I apologize if I came off sounding like someone blaming his failure on the teaching system.
However, it is my experience (granted, no college experience here) that people often blame technology for their own shortcomings.
The computers are not the problem, even in your post. The problem must be either the professor or the students, but *not* the wifi access in the classroom. Therefore, it is a human problem.
Education is a two-person process. The professor must teach it, and must do everything he can to get the message across.
Conversely, the student must learn. He must participate, and do whatever else he has to do to learn the material.
The professor and the student work together to make the education process happen.
Just like "The customer is always right". :) The customer is a part of the business transaction, and he has a role to play. He must work with the merchant to conduct business.
Just like my wife. :) She can't just lay there and take it, she has to participate. Or it just ain't happening.
Try reading it again. In over 90% of the class sessions refers to the total number of class sessions offerred throughout an entire school year. There are down days, even for this guy, like the day before Thanksgiving, the last day before Christmas break. Final weeks don't count because there's no lecture, just tests, but they are class sessions.
Maybe you outta take some math from this guy so you can understand me. :)
I'm gonna have to defend my contrived example. :) Unfortunately, since Konqueror is a piece of crap, I won't be able to copyNpaste the stuff for reference.
If a professor asked the particular question I offered early in the class, later on when some kids had come up with results, even if they just parrotted it to the class, it would make for a good discussion. It would require the kids to quickly develop an understanding of some of the more subtle aspects of the war in order to defend their positions, or even understand other positions, for that matter.
Of course, this particular contrived example might fit better in a debate class. The beginning of the class the professor organizes the groups that will debate, each retires with their subject and assigns one or more members to google for articles to support their position.
Now, you are correct that there is a certain danger in being able to google for just about anything and get it. You must always take what you find with a grain of salt and question the authenticity of what you find. :)
Can't wait to see a kid get burned because of the information he got from google....
With writing like that you should consider surfing the web less.
I disagree. Now, unlike the rest of the elite slashdot crowd, I didn't go to college. I said "fuck that."
But I had a teacher in High School (you know, the place you HAVE to go, so kids not paying attention is a real serious problem) who taught several levels of math ranging from low remedial math (I took one of these from him) up to calculus (I also took pre-calc from him), and he taught even higher levels at the local community college.
This guy is extremely passionate about math. He loves it! In his classes, in over 90% of the class sessions, at a guess (he'd probly get pissed at me for estimating without a proof), he had 100% class participation. And math in High School is notorious for being one of the most boring classes you have to take. But he got everybody's attention, everybody working hard to learn the stuff, from the lowest level classes (full of gangsters, drug-pushers, and all-around morons) all the way up into college classes.
He was just DAMN interesting!
The teacher makes or breaks the class. I've seen an extreme example of a teacher taking subject matter that most of his students find boring and captivate the entire class. Most of the kids who took his class and hated math finished the year with at least a sick fascination with math, and most of THEM actually loved math when they were done!
The responsibility of capturing students' attention lay on the teacher, just as certainly as the responsibility for putting on a good show lay on the rock band. And in both cases, if the audience is captivated, they will participate, and the feedback loop is addictive.
All true, but these are human problems. To be dealt with.
In war, protecting your sources of intelligence is important, but trusting them is more important.
Finally, while your fears are all true, and would almost certainly be exploited by the enemy, there are certainly counters. Then there's counters to the counters, and so on and so forth, just as there is with any other tool of war.
My point was merely to point out the actual benefits of such a thing in a flood of "I sense you are feeling tense, Dave" paranoia comments. :)
I'm sure at one time people didn't see the need for kids to take pen and paper to class either. It's a new age, and there are new tools available to help kids learn more stuff, and learn it better. We should encourage their use for learning, rather than discouraging their use entirely.
It's up to the professor to exploit the tools the kids have. For example, what if the professor says "Can somebody do a quick Google search to see what the consequences of the US joining the second world war later would have been?". Admitted, it's a contrived example, but computers are a powerful informational tool, and professors are to teach information. They should exploit this tool.
It still disheartens me to see all the students just wasting their time.
Students have always, and will always waste their time. This is a fact of life. If they are interfering with the class with their time-wasting, that's a human problem. Removing the computers will not solve this problem, because the problem existed long before computers were even invented.
New toys are fun but they do not work well in an academic environment.
The fact that computers are treated as toys is in itself, the problem. Make them a tool for education, not a toy for distraction. This is up to the professors and not the students, really. Wouldn't it be great if the professor gave html versions of their class notes to their students to view during the lecture? Then the student could fill them in with more detail than they would have had if they had to take the notes completely themselves, and then have more information to use while studying. At least the information would have more depth, and therefore be more meaningful.
Hell, I'm against putting a computer in every classroom in primary schools. What use is a computer that occasionally gets used to play some dumb little educational game this is several levels below what is being taught in the class.
This is also a human problem. Again, like I've said several times before, this is people not exploiting the tools that they have before them. It's up to the teacher to use the tool to benefit the class. Do the teachers need better software to do this? Arguably, yes. Do the teachers need training to exploit this tool? Definitely, yes. Does it do any good to slap one in every classroom (or on every kid's desk, where it could do the most good) without providing the necessary infrastructure (including software) to use it? No.
A tool is only as useful as the people using them allow them to be. Computers are a great tool for storing, retrieving, modeling, et al, information. Let's use them that way. But they still only do what they've been told to do.
This isn't true.
*IF* we all take responsibility for our actions, then Anarchy is the most suitable form of government. Consider this:
In an anarchist society, we would be free to kick the geek's ass. However, we would have the responsibility not to do so. As a check to help us NOT to kick his ass his family would have the freedom to retaliate.
It is true that there are always people in the minority who would abuse their freedom by behaving irresponsibly. However, in an anarchist society the politicians and the criminals would be one and the same.
I know, I know, how can there be criminals?
Simple, some group of people would start a business to enforce laws. Simple enough, right? I might be one of them. :) Basically, some people decide that in this certain space (a neighborhood for example) there are certain behaviors which are unacceptable. In order to prevent the kinds of blood feuds that could occur if families and friends dealt directly with retaliation they would instead create a "police force" that would handle it for them. Similar to the Mafia in practice, but different in organization. It would actually be run as a service-oriented business that needs to satisfy its customers to stay in business.
I realize the situation is very complex, and any society needs a basic set of rules to prevent the sort of stuff that anti-anarchists promise us will happen in a free society. That's why we have "manners". :) Also, I don't think a true anarchy would ever happen because people would still group together and establish rules and throw out those who break these rules. The fact that humans invented government in the first place is a result of this basic tendency. Therefore, in an anarchist society, there would still be rules.
Anarchy only means that there should be no government to control us. It doesn't mean there would be no rules. I'll bet that if our country became a true anarchy then in Texas you would have all kinds of freedom as long as you were a Christian. In WA state there would be a people-elected fascist regime. In other places there would be different stuff.
Many people have a misperception of anarchy and are afraid of it. We should try to understand something before we fear it, but if we fear something we should try to understand it better to eliminate our fear. Understanding is vital, and fear without understanding is unacceptable behavior in my world. :)