Most students doing research are paid by the university. At least, almost all graduate students in sciences are. Plus they are using university's facilities.
Even if there is open access to the articles, that will hardly change much. Few people skip on reading pertinent articles in the current setting. What is missing is access to data. Most "scientific" articles do not publish their experimental data. So there is no way to check their conclusions without trying to reproduce the experiments and then running the same analysis methods. If experimental data were required to be published, it would be possible to mine for information that original investigators missed. Since most of the cost is in conducting the experiments themselves, this would give taxpayers much, much, much more "bang for the buck".
Law? As in rules of civil society? How bout acknowledging the fact that there is no society on a space station and not giving in to lawyers who are trying to con people into thinking that their contribution is necessary in a situation where "law" is, in fact, the least efficient way to solve problems?
It is OK to be offensive. That's right. Racial slurs, ethnic slurs and religious slurs are all better than censorship. Do society a favor. Act incensitive. Even if you think you can mild it down, don't. People have gotten too used to the idea that their right not to be offended stand in the way of other people's rights to tell the truth. Time to give the "niceness lobby" a verbal slap in the face. Because so far they have set the world's greatest democracy on a way to becoming a tyranny. Have you offended someone's religion or race today? Time to start.
didn't they just find that those are directly related to cancer? are they seriously putting carcinogenic devices in students uniforms? which one is it this time? "think of the children"? or "it's for their safety"?
A domain is a publicly accessible mapping of a name to an IP address. Nothing more. It is in no way comparable to a store front. It doesn't 'say' anything. It is not a sign. I am note sure about that. "In now way comparable"? Well, it is rather comparable in that a store front maps a name of a business to the business' physical location. Seems like that's pretty comparable.
No. As in something that allows the world to see a document that I created which may not actually be about me in any way. Why does the world need to know my home address and home phone number simply because I posted this document online? You, too, have posted online. I can't help but notice that you didn't include your full real name, home address, email address, and telephone number in your post.
There is plenty of ways to post documents anonymously online. Other people's websites... the ones that never check any personal information or don't even require it come to mind. But a web domain is more like a sign on a door saying there is such and such behind this door. How can you expect (or even why would you want) anonymity in that situation is beyond me. I posted on other people's website. I can also post on a bulleten board in my local supermarket. But if someone opens a store front in my neighborhood and expects anonymity, I'd say they are dreaming.
About your signature:
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein I just don't think Einstein could say something this misguided. The only way prevent a war in the face of an aggressor is to be prepared to meet him.
Having an anonymous discussion is not the same thing as having what essentially amounts to a store front... No, I don't mean that every website is commercial, but a domain is just differnt... I can't quite put my finger on it. I guess, the view is that a domain is more like a door sign naming an organization and an internet discussion board is more like a conversation one has with strangers standing on a corner. And it just seems odd to put a sign on your door saying that there is such and such behind this door and then to insist on anonymity.
Can you point to the article of the Constitution that states that police will be controlled by corporate interests? Instead of beina tazered by a police officer who laughs at the idea that he answers to people you would be greeted by a police officer that actually answers to the people.
You get a domain... As in something that allows the world to see you. But you want the world not to see who you are? This is not even part of an anonymity debate. You have to pay to be seen. Why would you not want it to be seen who you are then?
Interesting signature. Are you sure that preventing an officer from tazering someone (even yourself) by telling a lie is not an abstraction of justice? If you want to prevent an officer from having the power to tazer innocent people why not... oh I don't know... vote for Ron Paul?:)
It would never work in the US. It would mean having to hire people that know how to screw in a light bulb. And neither hardware stores not consumer electronics stores pay enough for that.
If you treat the free society as if you were a prisoner, don't be surprised when it starts treating you as if it were jail. Reporting crimes is a good thing (tm).
Not exactly. Euclid's geometry expressed in modern arabic numbers. But Descartes' contribution can be safely ignored when considering real-life applicability. So "over the real numbers" yes, but "analytic geometry" no. As a matter of fact, better intuition is built (when studying geometry) by delaying introduction of coordinate methods for as long as possible. Keep in mind that I am not talking about how it's applicable to computer scientists, but to people performing tasks such as planning their trips, arranging furniture around their rooms, etc.
... is a big D&D nerd. How can that go unmentioned? Becaues geek pursuits don't count if he uses them as part of his acting training.... his only acting training.
Hmm. I found his C book a good read when I was 14. So I am not sure I'd agree that the books are bad. They are just as good as good "for dummies" books only less condescending.
I hate to (possibly) burst your bubble, but she is co-author of these, not sole author. Two other boys worked on the high school paper with her, and three men and two other women worked on the psych. paper. There's no telling how much content is hers, short of asking her. Actually, there is. In experimental sciences, the first name on the paper is the author, the names in the middle contributed something to the paper (sorted in descending order by the level of contribution as determined by the author) and the last name in the paper is the person running the lab. So Natalie is the least important person in the paper to which you linked.
All it says is that there is more top tier people being produced. Ok, it matters when it we engage in the h1b arguments. But it doesn't matter when it comes to the general education arguments. As long as an average joe graduating from HS can't do basic math, he can't be expected to adequately maneuver in the modern world. And yet he is. Of course, by "basic" I mean Euclidean Geometry and algebra of at least 2 variables. Here come's the torrent of anecdotal evidence of people doing just fine without it.... but a modern man without those skills is a tourist in his own life.
Please show me the ones with PhD's. The rest are just BLOGGERS. Why would one choose to complete a thesis in some esoteric point of some esoteric field when one has so many chances to contribute to fields in which people need help so direly that they are willing to pay for it? Alas, I am currently completing a thesis. So there might be some buyer's remorse here.
Any statement about "society at large" can only be reasonably interpreted as a statement about society's average trend. The fact is that a large number of schools has changed their curriculum to put less emphethis on critical thinking (which is seen as being overly argumentative) and put it on conformity (which is seen as "playing nice"). That is not a statment about every school. But so what? That's understood (see the first sentence of this reply, make sure to skip later on or an infinite loop will result).
On a more personal note, this is a forum of opinions. To defend a point as extensive as the one made by the statement "critical thinking is taught less now than it used to be" would require a huge thesis. This isn't the place for such a thesis. This is a place to voice your opinion on what you can guage from the facts and possibly ask a question on what other people can guage from the facts.
On a yet more personal note, I teach college kids on fairly regular basis. I have taught a few thousand of them by now. I can get a pretty good idea of how modern HS grads think. So my opinion in an informed opinion. Of course, you can still argue that it's just an opinion, but since it's based in fact, such an argument would deny empirical observation as a truth-finding mechanism.
It's something you have to learn but can not be taught. Oh, contre! Teaching is not necesserily a rote procedure. It can involve an invitation to disagree. If nothing else, encouraging debate and fostering a mind-set of questioning authority would be a good part of critical thinking education. When combined with a proper logic training (and again, geometry is a tool that is accessible at a pretty early level to almost everyone) would produce a large population of critically thinking individuals. Leaving it to people to discover it on their own still results in a population of people who have mastered it, but then such population will be much smaller and full of people who argue for the sake of adrenaline rush rather than for the sake of truth-finding.
Slashdot Mirror
It was fun.
Most students doing research are paid by the university. At least, almost all graduate students in sciences are. Plus they are using university's facilities.
Even if there is open access to the articles, that will hardly change much. Few people skip on reading pertinent articles in the current setting. What is missing is access to data. Most "scientific" articles do not publish their experimental data. So there is no way to check their conclusions without trying to reproduce the experiments and then running the same analysis methods. If experimental data were required to be published, it would be possible to mine for information that original investigators missed. Since most of the cost is in conducting the experiments themselves, this would give taxpayers much, much, much more "bang for the buck".
Law? As in rules of civil society? How bout acknowledging the fact that there is no society on a space station and not giving in to lawyers who are trying to con people into thinking that their contribution is necessary in a situation where "law" is, in fact, the least efficient way to solve problems?
It is OK to be offensive. That's right. Racial slurs, ethnic slurs and religious slurs are all better than censorship. Do society a favor. Act incensitive. Even if you think you can mild it down, don't. People have gotten too used to the idea that their right not to be offended stand in the way of other people's rights to tell the truth. Time to give the "niceness lobby" a verbal slap in the face. Because so far they have set the world's greatest democracy on a way to becoming a tyranny. Have you offended someone's religion or race today? Time to start.
didn't they just find that those are directly related to cancer? are they seriously putting carcinogenic devices in students uniforms? which one is it this time? "think of the children"? or "it's for their safety"?
There is plenty of ways to post documents anonymously online. Other people's websites... the ones that never check any personal information or don't even require it come to mind. But a web domain is more like a sign on a door saying there is such and such behind this door. How can you expect (or even why would you want) anonymity in that situation is beyond me. I posted on other people's website. I can also post on a bulleten board in my local supermarket. But if someone opens a store front in my neighborhood and expects anonymity, I'd say they are dreaming.
About your signature: "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein I just don't think Einstein could say something this misguided. The only way prevent a war in the face of an aggressor is to be prepared to meet him.Having an anonymous discussion is not the same thing as having what essentially amounts to a store front... No, I don't mean that every website is commercial, but a domain is just differnt... I can't quite put my finger on it. I guess, the view is that a domain is more like a door sign naming an organization and an internet discussion board is more like a conversation one has with strangers standing on a corner. And it just seems odd to put a sign on your door saying that there is such and such behind this door and then to insist on anonymity.
Can you point to the article of the Constitution that states that police will be controlled by corporate interests? Instead of beina tazered by a police officer who laughs at the idea that he answers to people you would be greeted by a police officer that actually answers to the people.
You get a domain... As in something that allows the world to see you. But you want the world not to see who you are? This is not even part of an anonymity debate. You have to pay to be seen. Why would you not want it to be seen who you are then?
lol. ok, no more comments while going on 3 hours of sleep... maybe just this one.
Interesting signature. Are you sure that preventing an officer from tazering someone (even yourself) by telling a lie is not an abstraction of justice? If you want to prevent an officer from having the power to tazer innocent people why not... oh I don't know... vote for Ron Paul? :)
There has got to be a Natalie Portman joke sitting somewhere in this comment.
It would never work in the US. It would mean having to hire people that know how to screw in a light bulb. And neither hardware stores not consumer electronics stores pay enough for that.
If you treat the free society as if you were a prisoner, don't be surprised when it starts treating you as if it were jail. Reporting crimes is a good thing (tm).
Not exactly. Euclid's geometry expressed in modern arabic numbers. But Descartes' contribution can be safely ignored when considering real-life applicability. So "over the real numbers" yes, but "analytic geometry" no. As a matter of fact, better intuition is built (when studying geometry) by delaying introduction of coordinate methods for as long as possible. Keep in mind that I am not talking about how it's applicable to computer scientists, but to people performing tasks such as planning their trips, arranging furniture around their rooms, etc.
... is a big D&D nerd. How can that go unmentioned? Becaues geek pursuits don't count if he uses them as part of his acting training.... his only acting training.Hmm. I found his C book a good read when I was 14. So I am not sure I'd agree that the books are bad. They are just as good as good "for dummies" books only less condescending.
All it says is that there is more top tier people being produced. Ok, it matters when it we engage in the h1b arguments. But it doesn't matter when it comes to the general education arguments. As long as an average joe graduating from HS can't do basic math, he can't be expected to adequately maneuver in the modern world. And yet he is. Of course, by "basic" I mean Euclidean Geometry and algebra of at least 2 variables. Here come's the torrent of anecdotal evidence of people doing just fine without it.... but a modern man without those skills is a tourist in his own life.
touche... ok, ok, touché
Any statement about "society at large" can only be reasonably interpreted as a statement about society's average trend. The fact is that a large number of schools has changed their curriculum to put less emphethis on critical thinking (which is seen as being overly argumentative) and put it on conformity (which is seen as "playing nice"). That is not a statment about every school. But so what? That's understood (see the first sentence of this reply, make sure to skip later on or an infinite loop will result).
On a more personal note, this is a forum of opinions. To defend a point as extensive as the one made by the statement "critical thinking is taught less now than it used to be" would require a huge thesis. This isn't the place for such a thesis. This is a place to voice your opinion on what you can guage from the facts and possibly ask a question on what other people can guage from the facts.
On a yet more personal note, I teach college kids on fairly regular basis. I have taught a few thousand of them by now. I can get a pretty good idea of how modern HS grads think. So my opinion in an informed opinion. Of course, you can still argue that it's just an opinion, but since it's based in fact, such an argument would deny empirical observation as a truth-finding mechanism.