Yes, and as a hamburger eater you are *not* a consumer, you are a hamburger eater! Don't try to bring that stupid consumer victimization routine to hamburger land!
(No wonder people find academicians so pretentious.)
Yep -- kids learn things they *want* to learn very easily.
I know this girl who grew up in a house with a French dad and Dutch mom... she and her sister both spoke English, French, and Dutch perfectly by age four. (And they still choose to speak to each parent in the parent's native language, despite all having lived in the US for over 30 years.)
Computing baseball statistics (or stats from any other sport for that matter) seems easy enough for interested kids... robotics, model rocketry, and computer programming are other great examples of how we can improve our chances of kids actually learning something.
But despite being a math geek myself, I happen to think that if we can produce high-school graduates with comprehension of even *basic* algebra and geometry, then we've succeeded in teaching kids math. Leave trig and calculus for college.
Let's use the extra time to teach them logic, or stats, or basic philosophy... something a little more practical... which is pretty much everything once basic algebra and geometry are under the belt.
Sines and cosines and calculating areas under curves is great and all -- but I'd rather have us teaching our kids how to see through the crap they're fed by mainstream news outlets, how to put statistics into perspective, and what "ad hominem" and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" mean.
I agree with your point that it's interesting to see the differences in blame-placing...
But is the "mainstream news establishment" anti-government...?!?!?
On the contrary, the "mainstream news establishment" here in the USA seems to be pretty much just a fourth "Public Relations" branch of government.
(Which is why, in the USA, a "balanced" debate in the popular media is usually between one person who thinks the President is "really, really good" and another person who thinks the President is "really, really, really good.")
There may be global warming, but there's absolutely no reason to think that there is.
Actually, there are a few reasons to think that there is, based on what we know about greenhouse gases.
You see, it's kinda like me walking into your house and taking a big shit on your living room floor, and then asking you to "prove" that the shit is what's causing your room to stink.
In other words, it's so *likely* that the stink is caused by the big shit pile on the floor that asking for detailed double-blind peer-reviewed chi-square blah blah analysis of the relative shit molecule concentrations is just ridiculous.
We know what carbon tends to do in large quantities, and we know how much carbon we're dumping into the atmosphere. (It's a veritable fuckload, every minute of every day, I assure you.)
As you point out, climatology is a new science, climate changes take place slowly, and it's very difficult to prove with any degree of scientific rigor that specific instances of warming and cooling are attributable to specific human activities.
But, IMHO, all the more reason to turn the burden of proof around -- i.e., let's make sure that our activities are safe before we allow them, rather than requiring that they be proven dangerous before we stop them.
Saying that the argument is flawed because "the laws don't support it" is like saying that the pre-1865 slavery-abolitionist ideals were flawed because the laws didn't support them.
I kinda agree with the "who's getting hurt here?" argument... same thing with RIAA/MPAA... if you wouldn't be paying for it *anyway* then surely it's not really *wrong* to enjoy the content... and the opposite point is so ridiculously counter-intuitive.
(It conjures up images of some kind of paramilitary Ashcroft-esque "Fun Prevention Agency.")
I don't see any of the patronizing you allude to here.
It's just that some of us are skeptical of the degree to which Iraqis will be able to decide *anything* for themselves with a U.S. government so clearly and singularly dedicated to the interests of large corporations.
I would wager that if (a) Iraqis are really *free* to choose, and (b) they're provided with information in an unbiased way to assist them in making decisions, that there will be a very strong open-source presence in Iraq's future.
I think the/. crowd is justifiably skeptical about the likelihood of (a) and (b) happening, and we're only trying to do what we can to increase the odds.
The question is whether nuts like you will accept that middle ground and accept the tenets of our democracy.
I don't disagree with your point (that they shouldn't bomb stem cell research labs), but I think that if you condemn such actions on purely legal grounds -- i.e., hey, that's the way democracy works -- you'd also have to condemn actions like those of anti-slavery activists, working prior to the time when slavery was made illegal, who would illegally free other people's slaves.
They refused to "accept the tenets of our democracy" too... but I don't think I would condemn them for it.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Are your souls dead?
I'm a bit surprised at this, too. I mean, of course it's nobody's job to help this guy fly his plane out. If I'm cross-country skiing and I come across some poor kid who's lost and trying to find his way home, it's not my job to help him out either. But I'm still being a total prick if I don't.
What if it had been Earhart or Lindbergh who got stuck somewhere? Would you still have this kind of this-guy-deserves-it attitude?
I would definitely recommend scouring the photo.net site, too.
But in the end, I would recommend sticking with some variety of Canon Rebel... IMHO it doesn't really matter whether it's a Canon Rebel II, X, XS, etc.
Remember that your camera is just a box to hold film flat... the lens does all the work. Rebels are cheap -- you'll have more money left over for lenses.
And the only real "pro" feature you're missing with the Rebel is depth-of-field preview, something that plenty of pros have done *quite* nicely without for years... you just get used to figuring out how much DOF you'll have for a given aperture setting.
Rebels let you do *everything* manually, or you can choose to let the camera pick the appropriate focus, shutter speed, or aperture automatically.
It's even got easy modes for taking portraits, action shots, close-ups, etc... in case you find out that you really *don't* want to learn all that much about photography, or you just don't feel like messing with it from time to time.
And you'll have access to Canon's excellent EF line of lenses... btw, it's true that Canon changed the mount when they went from manual-focus to autofocus... but this is a very *good* thing, not a bad one (as some here may argue).
A Rebel weighs next to nothing, so you'll be likelier to take it places you wouldn't lug around a heavy camera.
And as for the argument that its plastic lens mount is somehow structurally inferior to a metal (Nikon) one... a quick thought about the helmets of pro (American) football players should convince you that we can make plastics pretty much as strong as we want these days.
I would also recommend picking up the 50mm f/1.8 lens instead of the more expensive and optically inferior 35-70 or 28-80 zoom lenses.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and as a hamburger eater you are *not* a consumer, you are a hamburger eater! Don't try to bring that stupid consumer victimization routine to hamburger land!
(No wonder people find academicians so pretentious.)
Yep -- kids learn things they *want* to learn very easily.
I know this girl who grew up in a house with a French dad and Dutch mom... she and her sister both spoke English, French, and Dutch perfectly by age four. (And they still choose to speak to each parent in the parent's native language, despite all having lived in the US for over 30 years.)
Computing baseball statistics (or stats from any other sport for that matter) seems easy enough for interested kids... robotics, model rocketry, and computer programming are other great examples of how we can improve our chances of kids actually learning something.
But despite being a math geek myself, I happen to think that if we can produce high-school graduates with comprehension of even *basic* algebra and geometry, then we've succeeded in teaching kids math. Leave trig and calculus for college.
Let's use the extra time to teach them logic, or stats, or basic philosophy... something a little more practical... which is pretty much everything once basic algebra and geometry are under the belt.
Sines and cosines and calculating areas under curves is great and all -- but I'd rather have us teaching our kids how to see through the crap they're fed by mainstream news outlets, how to put statistics into perspective, and what "ad hominem" and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" mean.
I agree with your point that it's interesting to see the differences in blame-placing...
But is the "mainstream news establishment" anti-government...?!?!?
On the contrary, the "mainstream news establishment" here in the USA seems to be pretty much just a fourth "Public Relations" branch of government.
(Which is why, in the USA, a "balanced" debate in the popular media is usually between one person who thinks the President is "really, really good" and another person who thinks the President is "really, really, really good.")
Actually, there are a few reasons to think that there is, based on what we know about greenhouse gases.
You see, it's kinda like me walking into your house and taking a big shit on your living room floor, and then asking you to "prove" that the shit is what's causing your room to stink.
In other words, it's so *likely* that the stink is caused by the big shit pile on the floor that asking for detailed double-blind peer-reviewed chi-square blah blah analysis of the relative shit molecule concentrations is just ridiculous.
We know what carbon tends to do in large quantities, and we know how much carbon we're dumping into the atmosphere. (It's a veritable fuckload, every minute of every day, I assure you.)
As you point out, climatology is a new science, climate changes take place slowly, and it's very difficult to prove with any degree of scientific rigor that specific instances of warming and cooling are attributable to specific human activities.
But, IMHO, all the more reason to turn the burden of proof around -- i.e., let's make sure that our activities are safe before we allow them, rather than requiring that they be proven dangerous before we stop them.
Excellent point.
Saying that the argument is flawed because "the laws don't support it" is like saying that the pre-1865 slavery-abolitionist ideals were flawed because the laws didn't support them.
I kinda agree with the "who's getting hurt here?" argument... same thing with RIAA/MPAA... if you wouldn't be paying for it *anyway* then surely it's not really *wrong* to enjoy the content... and the opposite point is so ridiculously counter-intuitive.
(It conjures up images of some kind of paramilitary Ashcroft-esque "Fun Prevention Agency.")
I don't see any of the patronizing you allude to here.
/. crowd is justifiably skeptical about the likelihood of (a) and (b) happening, and we're only trying to do what we can to increase the odds.
It's just that some of us are skeptical of the degree to which Iraqis will be able to decide *anything* for themselves with a U.S. government so clearly and singularly dedicated to the interests of large corporations.
I would wager that if (a) Iraqis are really *free* to choose, and (b) they're provided with information in an unbiased way to assist them in making decisions, that there will be a very strong open-source presence in Iraq's future.
I think the
Great piece, Adam.
I don't disagree with your point (that they shouldn't bomb stem cell research labs), but I think that if you condemn such actions on purely legal grounds -- i.e., hey, that's the way democracy works -- you'd also have to condemn actions like those of anti-slavery activists, working prior to the time when slavery was made illegal, who would illegally free other people's slaves.
They refused to "accept the tenets of our democracy" too... but I don't think I would condemn them for it.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Are your souls dead?
I'm a bit surprised at this, too. I mean, of course it's nobody's job to help this guy fly his plane out. If I'm cross-country skiing and I come across some poor kid who's lost and trying to find his way home, it's not my job to help him out either. But I'm still being a total prick if I don't.
What if it had been Earhart or Lindbergh who got stuck somewhere? Would you still have this kind of this-guy-deserves-it attitude?
I would definitely recommend scouring the photo.net site, too.
But in the end, I would recommend sticking with some variety of Canon Rebel... IMHO it doesn't really matter whether it's a Canon Rebel II, X, XS, etc.
Remember that your camera is just a box to hold film flat... the lens does all the work. Rebels are cheap -- you'll have more money left over for lenses.
And the only real "pro" feature you're missing with the Rebel is depth-of-field preview, something that plenty of pros have done *quite* nicely without for years... you just get used to figuring out how much DOF you'll have for a given aperture setting.
Rebels let you do *everything* manually, or you can choose to let the camera pick the appropriate focus, shutter speed, or aperture automatically.
It's even got easy modes for taking portraits, action shots, close-ups, etc... in case you find out that you really *don't* want to learn all that much about photography, or you just don't feel like messing with it from time to time.
And you'll have access to Canon's excellent EF line of lenses... btw, it's true that Canon changed the mount when they went from manual-focus to autofocus... but this is a very *good* thing, not a bad one (as some here may argue).
A Rebel weighs next to nothing, so you'll be likelier to take it places you wouldn't lug around a heavy camera.
And as for the argument that its plastic lens mount is somehow structurally inferior to a metal (Nikon) one... a quick thought about the helmets of pro (American) football players should convince you that we can make plastics pretty much as strong as we want these days.
I would also recommend picking up the 50mm f/1.8 lens instead of the more expensive and optically inferior 35-70 or 28-80 zoom lenses.
Mine's pretty lightweight: XRMS