But these days, government has largely abdicated its role in cyberspace, and the result is a return to the feudal relationships of yore [...]
Does this mean that, having been born a serf under Apple's demesne, I will have to live my entire life as such—and my children, too! Oh my God, how did I not see this coming!
Your arguments are silly. No one is forced to use credit cards; besides, what are banks going to do with records of your purchases, develop a consumer profile and try to sell you things? No one is forced to join Facebook, and even if they do, you're not forced to share anything you don't want to. Red lights and speed limits are a nonsense argument. As to speed cameras, I and plenty of other people do complain about them, for various reasons. As to shop owners and their CCTV cameras, these are decentralized.
The argument you make is either completely ignorant or you have some kind of hard-on for government. We don't know what the full extent of knowledge about one's DNA will mean, and it's wise to keep it private. Moreover, innocent people shouldn't be bothered as a matter of policy, no matter how "helpful" that is to police work. We don't live for the police or government; they live for us.
It's you who is "mindless," with all your talk of "we" when talking about government. Government is like a gun. It's a great thing to have when it comes to protection, but you don't leave it lying around and you don't let it fall into the wrong hands. Allowing government every type of intrusive "convenience" is the fastest way to put together turnkey totalitarianism. It's bad civic hygiene.
There is no end to the amount of crimes that could be prevented or solved if only we were ready to embrace draconian governmental invasions of our privacy and restrictions on our freedom of choice. Do you realize that if we only had laws forbidding women from traveling alone in public without being escorted by a male relative how many rapes we might prevent each year?
You mean like being a patient such as Mr. Routley and having your organs harvested? Generally, donors are not given pain medication, only tranquilizers to keep their bodies from flinching, since it's assumed that people in such a state are "gone." I brought this up to my brother, the anesthesiologist, when this story was in the news a few months back, and he insisted that there was no need for anesthesia. That's the consensus of the medical community.
That puts us a step ahead of vivisection—but only barely.
We've all lost it when stubbing our toe. But, in the past when I've stubbed my toe, my reaction has never been to yell out, "Who's the nigger who left that there?"
If this were any other subject, I can just imagine the screaming going on around here about correlation not proving causation. But since this is about those rich S.O.B.'s and their Republican shills, I hear nothing but crickets. High taxes hinder capital accumulation, and capital investment is the bedrock of modern civilization. I would like to see someone argue the contrary.
No one with any sophisticated understanding of economics thinks that the relationship between taxes and prosperity exists in a vacuum. First of all, there are more taxes than simply federal taxes. Second, there are regulations. Third, there is a greater or lesser opportunity to invest abroad.
Have you been to upstate New York? It's pretty rural, and even a bit Good-Ole-Boyish. Shooting street signs with shotguns is a teenage prank. It's only a matter of time until they start with these cameras.
Hulu is a mere 5 years old. It was founded in 2007. We are just at the beginning of the sea change in disruptive technology. If Hulu wants to cut its own throat, someone else will come along.
My argument is that while posting homework assignments electronically may indeed be a highly effective, real-world means of letting kids' parents know what their kids have to do, it's a sub-standard way of ensuring that kids develop responsibility. I taught school for a little while, and I will argue right alongside of you that there are some teachers who do not provide the consistency that students need—middle school students especially. Putting the assignment on the board one day, giving it orally the next day, handing it out on a printed sheet the following day, announcing it at the beginning of class one day, during the middle, the next, and at the end, the day after is no way to teach. Personally, I think the assignment should be up at the beginning of class, on the board, in the same spot, every single day. But the larger point I'm making is that there is more to what is going on than merely conveying the assignment.
Don't take my word for it. Go and find someone you trust is a good teacher and ask him or her about what I'm going to describe to you next. Today, when a student does not do what he or she is responsible for, the "solution" is to ask what more could the teacher be doing. Administrators don't tell parents that junior is failing because he stays up all night texting, or that he doesn't do his homework because he has no set time during the day when he's responsible for doing it, or that his homework doesn't get done because he tells his parents—or more often parent, or, increasingly, grandparent or guardian—that he did his homework in school (when he hasn't), and there is never any attempt by those ostensibly in charge at home at verification or any consequences ever given for lying. Administrators placate these so-called parents and dump more responsibility on the teacher.
Again, I'm not talking about bad teachers—there indeed are some bad teachers. But go and ask a good one about what I described above. Oh, and be kind enough to bring an Alka Seltzer with you, because the teacher you're asking is likely to become nauseated as he or she explains what goes on.
Many teachers confuse the process of doing school with learning.
You're saying that asking students to keep track of their own assignments is "doing school" and not learning, yes? And you're saying that this "doing school" is being done in place of real learning, is that it?
Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or simply adding something to the conversation? I don't believe I have in any way suggested that schools replace parents.
This is a good part of the reason. Schools can't exclude some students, and so disseminating things electronically would make twice as much work for a teacher. But there is another thing going on, too. My girlfriend is a teacher. She used to teach middle school. She wasn't required to post homework assignments online, but there was at least a tiny bit of pressure to do so. She refused, and for what she thought were sound pedagogical reasons.
We live in an age of irresponsible children and helicopter parents. If an assignment is on the board and a middle schooler has to copy it down and keep track of his assignment book, he's learning something. He's forming a habit. That little boy or girl is learning to take responsibility for himself. Moreover, the parent will have to keep tabs on his or her kid, and ask about the homework assignments. In this way, the parent is contributing to the child's moral development. Now, I realize that this is considered a loaded term in our politically correct society, but responsibility is a matter of character, and building character is one of the things that goes on in school, and is certainly one of the things parents ought to encourage the development of. If a parent, instead, spends every evening looking up on the Web to see what the kid's homework assignment is, that parent is not being a parent but a valet.
In short, there's an argument to be made for not putting assignments and other things on the Web.
I'm not sure what in the book fits the definition of pornography, but try to keep in mind that there are people out there who use language in a very impressionistic way.
I remember watching a movie, The Firm, where Tom Cruise plays a lawyer working for a firm that turns out to be in the employ of the Mob. The firm operates by mean of a gloved fist. In one scene, Cruise's wife and another wife of a partner at the firm are walking together -- the other wife is a real Stepford Wife type -- when the subject of children comes up. Cruise's wife says that she and her husband plan on having children.
"Oh, good" says the other wife. "The firm encourages family. It promotes stability."
In the context of the film, it was obvious that there was ultimately menace behind the firm's "encouragement," but as soon as I saw that scene I thought, "Holy shit! That's how society works. That's what the status quo holds over people's heads." I was young at the time, so it was like a revelation. Later, when I became a history major, I learned that the Norman's of France made their way all over Europe, conquering lands, and were also very active in the Crusades, and all because the bulk of them were unmarried men with nothing to lose and everything to gain. (Inheritance laws deprived younger sons of any automatic livelihood.)
I guess what I'm trying to say is your point speaks to something fundamental in human society.
You referred to office culture as "presentism." Would you be kind enough to elaborate? I looked it up, and I'm still not sure I know what you mean. Thanks.
I watched two of the videos, the one on containerization and the one on simple words being more effective than polysyllabic verbalization. They were both nice, but easily misused in a classroom setting. They're over almost as soon as they begin, and they move very quickly. I think they could be used near the end of a lesson, to drive a point home after a teacher did all the groundwork the old-fashioned way; but if you tried to introduce a lesson with one, or, heaven forbid, thought one of these videos could be used in place of a teacher's exposition, it wouldn't work. The video would be over before the students even settled down. That's the problem with new technology and methods. Yes, they're wonderful. But they're not magical. In theory they should work great, but that's because the setting in which they're initially evaluated is nothing like the setting in which they'll be used. And, sadly, not every teacher—or administrator—is smart enough to realized this.
I like these videos, and they have their place. But how they ought to be used in the field is something that requires a bit of thought and experimentation.
I think the concept of hate crimes has been taken to absurdity. The archetypical hate crime in this country is lynching. There you have a murder, but the crime of lynching was, by design, meant to affect more than the killing of the target: it was meant to send a message to the entire black community. Lynching was part of a general policy of violence designed with the intent of striking fear into a civilian population. (Now, you'll see here that I'm avoiding using another term that has recently been extended into absurdity.) That's the idea behind hate crimes. So, I want to ask people: did Ravi act as he did because he wanted to intimidate both Clementi and other gays?
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean that, having been born a serf under Apple's demesne, I will have to live my entire life as such—and my children, too! Oh my God, how did I not see this coming!
Your arguments are silly. No one is forced to use credit cards; besides, what are banks going to do with records of your purchases, develop a consumer profile and try to sell you things? No one is forced to join Facebook, and even if they do, you're not forced to share anything you don't want to. Red lights and speed limits are a nonsense argument. As to speed cameras, I and plenty of other people do complain about them, for various reasons. As to shop owners and their CCTV cameras, these are decentralized.
The argument you make is either completely ignorant or you have some kind of hard-on for government. We don't know what the full extent of knowledge about one's DNA will mean, and it's wise to keep it private. Moreover, innocent people shouldn't be bothered as a matter of policy, no matter how "helpful" that is to police work. We don't live for the police or government; they live for us.
It's you who is "mindless," with all your talk of "we" when talking about government. Government is like a gun. It's a great thing to have when it comes to protection, but you don't leave it lying around and you don't let it fall into the wrong hands. Allowing government every type of intrusive "convenience" is the fastest way to put together turnkey totalitarianism. It's bad civic hygiene.
Take your servile mentality somewhere else.
I for one cannot wait to see Jefferson and Lincoln toss a ball.
There is no end to the amount of crimes that could be prevented or solved if only we were ready to embrace draconian governmental invasions of our privacy and restrictions on our freedom of choice. Do you realize that if we only had laws forbidding women from traveling alone in public without being escorted by a male relative how many rapes we might prevent each year?
Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, by Dinesh D'Souza, discussed this issue almost 15 years ago. It's nothing new—it's perhaps just that others are beginning to catch on.
You mean like being a patient such as Mr. Routley and having your organs harvested? Generally, donors are not given pain medication, only tranquilizers to keep their bodies from flinching, since it's assumed that people in such a state are "gone." I brought this up to my brother, the anesthesiologist, when this story was in the news a few months back, and he insisted that there was no need for anesthesia. That's the consensus of the medical community.
That puts us a step ahead of vivisection—but only barely.
We've all lost it when stubbing our toe. But, in the past when I've stubbed my toe, my reaction has never been to yell out, "Who's the nigger who left that there?"
The most charitable explanation for your post is that you did not click on the link and take a look at the article.
Political science is all about getting and keeping power. It's amoral. It's sad.
Holy smokes! It's not like Apple owns a patent on the proper use of punctuation. Did you type that with your eyes closed?
If this were any other subject, I can just imagine the screaming going on around here about correlation not proving causation. But since this is about those rich S.O.B.'s and their Republican shills, I hear nothing but crickets. High taxes hinder capital accumulation, and capital investment is the bedrock of modern civilization. I would like to see someone argue the contrary.
No one with any sophisticated understanding of economics thinks that the relationship between taxes and prosperity exists in a vacuum. First of all, there are more taxes than simply federal taxes. Second, there are regulations. Third, there is a greater or lesser opportunity to invest abroad.
Sorry, but it's just not that simple.
Ay, there's the rub.
Have you been to upstate New York? It's pretty rural, and even a bit Good-Ole-Boyish. Shooting street signs with shotguns is a teenage prank. It's only a matter of time until they start with these cameras.
Hulu is a mere 5 years old. It was founded in 2007. We are just at the beginning of the sea change in disruptive technology. If Hulu wants to cut its own throat, someone else will come along.
My argument is that while posting homework assignments electronically may indeed be a highly effective, real-world means of letting kids' parents know what their kids have to do, it's a sub-standard way of ensuring that kids develop responsibility. I taught school for a little while, and I will argue right alongside of you that there are some teachers who do not provide the consistency that students need—middle school students especially. Putting the assignment on the board one day, giving it orally the next day, handing it out on a printed sheet the following day, announcing it at the beginning of class one day, during the middle, the next, and at the end, the day after is no way to teach. Personally, I think the assignment should be up at the beginning of class, on the board, in the same spot, every single day. But the larger point I'm making is that there is more to what is going on than merely conveying the assignment.
Don't take my word for it. Go and find someone you trust is a good teacher and ask him or her about what I'm going to describe to you next. Today, when a student does not do what he or she is responsible for, the "solution" is to ask what more could the teacher be doing. Administrators don't tell parents that junior is failing because he stays up all night texting, or that he doesn't do his homework because he has no set time during the day when he's responsible for doing it, or that his homework doesn't get done because he tells his parents—or more often parent, or, increasingly, grandparent or guardian—that he did his homework in school (when he hasn't), and there is never any attempt by those ostensibly in charge at home at verification or any consequences ever given for lying. Administrators placate these so-called parents and dump more responsibility on the teacher.
Again, I'm not talking about bad teachers—there indeed are some bad teachers. But go and ask a good one about what I described above. Oh, and be kind enough to bring an Alka Seltzer with you, because the teacher you're asking is likely to become nauseated as he or she explains what goes on.
You're saying that asking students to keep track of their own assignments is "doing school" and not learning, yes? And you're saying that this "doing school" is being done in place of real learning, is that it?
Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or simply adding something to the conversation? I don't believe I have in any way suggested that schools replace parents.
That's bad teaching, pure and simple. And I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote.
And "rote memorization" is related to what I wrote how?
This is a good part of the reason. Schools can't exclude some students, and so disseminating things electronically would make twice as much work for a teacher. But there is another thing going on, too. My girlfriend is a teacher. She used to teach middle school. She wasn't required to post homework assignments online, but there was at least a tiny bit of pressure to do so. She refused, and for what she thought were sound pedagogical reasons.
We live in an age of irresponsible children and helicopter parents. If an assignment is on the board and a middle schooler has to copy it down and keep track of his assignment book, he's learning something. He's forming a habit. That little boy or girl is learning to take responsibility for himself. Moreover, the parent will have to keep tabs on his or her kid, and ask about the homework assignments. In this way, the parent is contributing to the child's moral development. Now, I realize that this is considered a loaded term in our politically correct society, but responsibility is a matter of character, and building character is one of the things that goes on in school, and is certainly one of the things parents ought to encourage the development of. If a parent, instead, spends every evening looking up on the Web to see what the kid's homework assignment is, that parent is not being a parent but a valet.
In short, there's an argument to be made for not putting assignments and other things on the Web.
I'm not sure what in the book fits the definition of pornography, but try to keep in mind that there are people out there who use language in a very impressionistic way.
I remember watching a movie, The Firm, where Tom Cruise plays a lawyer working for a firm that turns out to be in the employ of the Mob. The firm operates by mean of a gloved fist. In one scene, Cruise's wife and another wife of a partner at the firm are walking together -- the other wife is a real Stepford Wife type -- when the subject of children comes up. Cruise's wife says that she and her husband plan on having children.
"Oh, good" says the other wife. "The firm encourages family. It promotes stability."
In the context of the film, it was obvious that there was ultimately menace behind the firm's "encouragement," but as soon as I saw that scene I thought, "Holy shit! That's how society works. That's what the status quo holds over people's heads." I was young at the time, so it was like a revelation. Later, when I became a history major, I learned that the Norman's of France made their way all over Europe, conquering lands, and were also very active in the Crusades, and all because the bulk of them were unmarried men with nothing to lose and everything to gain. (Inheritance laws deprived younger sons of any automatic livelihood.)
I guess what I'm trying to say is your point speaks to something fundamental in human society.
You referred to office culture as "presentism." Would you be kind enough to elaborate? I looked it up, and I'm still not sure I know what you mean. Thanks.
I watched two of the videos, the one on containerization and the one on simple words being more effective than polysyllabic verbalization. They were both nice, but easily misused in a classroom setting. They're over almost as soon as they begin, and they move very quickly. I think they could be used near the end of a lesson, to drive a point home after a teacher did all the groundwork the old-fashioned way; but if you tried to introduce a lesson with one, or, heaven forbid, thought one of these videos could be used in place of a teacher's exposition, it wouldn't work. The video would be over before the students even settled down. That's the problem with new technology and methods. Yes, they're wonderful. But they're not magical. In theory they should work great, but that's because the setting in which they're initially evaluated is nothing like the setting in which they'll be used. And, sadly, not every teacher—or administrator—is smart enough to realized this.
I like these videos, and they have their place. But how they ought to be used in the field is something that requires a bit of thought and experimentation.
I think the concept of hate crimes has been taken to absurdity. The archetypical hate crime in this country is lynching. There you have a murder, but the crime of lynching was, by design, meant to affect more than the killing of the target: it was meant to send a message to the entire black community. Lynching was part of a general policy of violence designed with the intent of striking fear into a civilian population. (Now, you'll see here that I'm avoiding using another term that has recently been extended into absurdity.) That's the idea behind hate crimes. So, I want to ask people: did Ravi act as he did because he wanted to intimidate both Clementi and other gays?