Given the Novell deal, the attempted RH deal and other recent MS comments regarding Linux, I am beginning to buy into this whole "MS might be in trouble" arguement. I read about six months ago some issues with its market cap that point to a company not as financially secure as many people believe.
Also, chem didn't teach me any "thinking skills". All it taught me was to ignore my teacher's bad analogies and instead read a textbook if I wanted to know about something.
Are you talking high school chemistry or college level? If the former, then I can understand your point. Too many high school programs have non-chemists teaching chemistry. At the college freshman level, we have to spend an unfortunate amount of time "undoing" the garbage that has been done in high school.
And there is the difference between school and "the real world": if the real world, work has meaningful rewards.
I guess it depends on how you define "meaningful rewards." You see, I find it very rewarding to solve a challenging problem or to stick with a difficult task through to completion. Studying chemistry or other difficult subject HAS, in my professional experience (ie, seeing this reward crystalize in my students), helped students learn to work when they don't really want to as the reward of satisfaction and personal accomplishment exceeds almost any other.
Two very brief stories to illustrate this. One time, a young lady was having a very difficult time UNDERSTANDING some material. This was her second attempt at college, having 'failed out' her first go-around. She was, in a round-a-bout way, trying to get me to 'give' her the answer, but I made her plug through it on her own. It was a difficult process for her, but in the end, she FIGURED IT OUT. She reasoned through it (ie, she was THINKING). She started to cry. She said, "I could hug you." She had learned that she really did, contrary to signals she had been getting her whole life, have what it takes to solve difficult problems.
In another similar case, it was a large group of students in one particular class I had. Their background was atrocious, and their past teachers had solved their "weakness" by dumbing down the material and making things "fun" for them. I did not do that; instead, I told them the level of performance I expected from them and held them to that standard. It was a painful semester for them, as growth often is. But in the end, that last day, after the final exam, they gave me a card that said "Thank-you." In the card, they described how I was the first teacher in their whole educational experience that forced them to see that they COULD do difficult things. I had somehow helped them find within themselves an inner strength they did not know they had. They said that collectively, in the past other, teachers would lower the standard of performance if they had trouble. The underlying message was "you cannot do it, it is too hard. Here, I'll make it easier for you."
If that is not a "meaningful reward" for hard work, one that imo trumps your "financial gain" reward, I don't know what is.
Perhaps to just know that it is still there and has not been (completely) destroyed. Knowing it is still there might justify continued efforts to contact it.
And sometimes when you lots of dollars and man-centuries invested in something, you just want to know what happened to it.
This is definitely still in the good luck category.
Exactly. People can say what they want about NASA | JPL, but the bottom line is they put up some good stuff much of the time. What really got my eye was how they just 'asked' Opportunity to listen for it. That is, that those things are so dynamic in what they do and can be 'asked' to do simply amazes me.
Who knew years ago when Opportunity (also past expected mission life, right?) was designed that it would be on-the-fly tasked to listen for another spacecraft's signal. That it was designed in this way is a testament to well planned engineering. IMO.
(1) It is not about making learning FUN. Sometimes, learning is work; part of what we SHOULD be teaching students is how to WORK when they don't WANT to WORK. You know, like "in the real world."
(2) What you call teaching trivialities I might call teaching the tools necessary to develop those thinking skills. Chemistry is one of the best subjects there is for teaching students "to think," yet we have to spend a fair amount time with things like "sodium chloride is soluble in water, naphthalene is not" to get to the deeper aspects like entropy of mixing, intermolecular forces and radial distribution functions in solutions.
Part of the ongoing feud with the Rails camp?
on
You Call This Agile?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's short sited; you only set up a computer once; you have to maintain it for its entire service life.
Others may disagree, but it has been my experience and observation that Linux is FAR easier to maintain in a productive role than Windows. What are the stats? I've heard these numbers: 1 Windows admin can properly maintain about 20 systems, 1 Linux admin can maintain about 50.
Besides, aren't a lot of systems in an environment like the deployment under discussion (library public access boxes) 'installed' by cloning? Set up one system the way you really want it and clone the rest. Seem to me that in this scenario, installation is pretty much a non-issue.
They 'want' me to relocate. I seek programming jobs that I can fulfill via telecommuting. ESPECIALLY on something like working on a web site that is 'Net based intrinsically.
Ah, good point. Let's play with this one a little bit. What exactly IS a climatologist? One who studies climate, obviously, but what are the mechanisms of that study? From wikipedia:
Climatology is approached in a variety of ways. Paleoclimatology seeks to reconstruct past climates by examining records such as ice cores and tree rings (dendroclimatology). The study of contemporary climates incorporates meteorological data accumulated over many years, such as records of rainfall, temperature and atmospheric composition. Knowledge of the atmosphere and its dynamics is also embodied in models, either statistical or mathematical, which help by integrating different observations and testing how they fit together. Modeling is used for understanding past, present and potential future climates. Historical climatology is the study of climate as related to human history and thus focuses only on the last few thousand years.
Climate research is made difficult by the large scale, long time periods, and complex processes which govern climate. It is generally accepted that climate is governed by differential equations based on physical laws, but what, exactly, are these equations, and what can be concluded from them, is still subject to debate. Climate is sometimes modeled as a stochastic process but this is generally accepted as an approximation to processes that are otherwise too complicated to analyze.
So, it seems that climatologists are PHYSICAL scientists that use modeling of dynamical, stochastic processes as a principle tool. The models include chemical kinetics, thermodynamics and the differential equations represent from flow fields.
In other words, ANYONE with experience any of those fields is capable of reading papers, studying data and drawing conclusions. So, yes, you bet your butt I'd trust a String Theorist to have something to offer the discussion (he may be WRONG that's not the point, but his comments should be heard), especially if what he is saying is "THIS conclusion is not supported by THIS data as presented."
The problem as I see it is that we have reached a point that functional specialization is out of hand. There ARE scientists out there that can effectively and meaningfully THINK about problems outside their specific formal area. I'd take a generalist with a broad view of the problem over a specialist with a "all problems are a nail" approach any day of the week.
Funny that these conservatives never seem to object to the right-wing bias of the private talk radio industry (which even goes out over public radio spectrum).
What bias of the INDUSTRY are you talking about? Let's not be disingenuous here. Liberals have all the opportunities conservatives do to field talk shows. I've heard them on the air, actually. Several of them.
The problem you have to face is that talk radio, like any other radio format (except perhaps NPR, which shows quite a liberal leaning most of the time), is a BUSINESS. The talkers must gain an audience and keep it, so that the stations can sell advertising.
A factual analysis of the liberal attempts at talk radio show that they just don't make money. It seems there is less of a market for liberals bashing of conservatives than most liberals would care to admit.
One last point: those airwaves are not really public - the stations, via their broadcast license, "owns" a frequency in their market. It's misleading to act like this is analogous to "conservatives can stand on the public street corner and say what they want, but liberals cannot." As I opened my reply, liberal talk show hosts have the same opportunities in the business conservative ones do.
The problem is that this article seems to be primarily opinion oriented. Meaning it doesn't have a lot of news content.
I'm shocked that/. would select this report of YouTube censorship instead of another article from a more reputable news source
Again, to reiterate the GP's post, WND is not a reputable news source because it's conservative?
You can call this an opinion piece if you'd like, but stating FACTS like the video was available for viewing on YouTube is reporting, not editorial. From the FTA:
limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable.
What in that statement is OPINION?
Further into the article, we get:
"However, after a brief period of accessibility, the verification page started appearing on YouTube. It asked that: "This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up." Today the verification page on the spoof was removed."
I have to say, that seems like some decent FACTUAL reporting.
(1) They state that the verification page was present due to USERS ratings.
(2) The point out that the verification page has been removed.
People who doubt global warming effects are along the lines of the CEOs of big tobacco
No they are not; some of them are trained scientists who are specialists in their fields. Believe it or not, not all scientists are on the anthopogenic climate change bandwagon. In making the statement you just made, you have insulted both the intelligence and professional integrity of a good number of respectable people.
Some of these include those signers here and here.
You may choose to disagree with their positions, but you cannot discount ALL of these tens of thousands of scientists as willfully misrepresenting the truth as they see it.
I have a few pdf's that don't open properly with kghostview or adobe reader under wine. Foxit Reader under wine worked perfectly, and that makes me a happy camper again.
Nowhere in the article do I mention a statute specifically to regulate sulphuric acid.
I was responding to Cyberax's comment:
"_Concentrated_ acids (and I'm speaking about fuming sulphiric acid and 70% nitric acid) are tightly regulated, because they are used to produce explosives."
tightly regulated, because they are used to produce explosives.
And sulfuric acid is used by the kiloton daily to produce other things besides explosives.
Anyway, it is trivial to make fuming sulfuric acid from sulfuric acid of any concentration.
I can make an explosive from aspirin. Is that regulated as well? How about household bleach? Regulated too? How about 10-10-10, or 34-0-0 fertilizers? You can buy nitrates in the farm store, too. Cellar or cemetary dirt? Are those regulated?
PETN can be made from coal (carbon) and electricity. Are those regulated?
As I said, what regulation exists for the purchase of sulfuric acid? I'd like to know (give me a statute number), because I've purchased sulfuric acid by the case and never had to fill out a form, show ID or any other such regulatory process.
Well, part of it is a mindset that comes from knowing that you are handling something dangerous. If you remove all the danger from a teaching lab (danger from fire, from acute toxicity, etc), you remove the mental aspect of "be careful."
I've observed this trend over several decades. It is not that older chemists are more cavalier, it is that they tend to be more careful due to proper training. But with the confidence that comes from having that proper training, they are not afraid to handle things. Nowadays, many programs eliminate the danger from the curriculum, and thus eliminate the training in the form of the mindset required to handle very bad stuff. I've handled some of the most toxic substances man has ever known, but believe me, when I did, that was not the first time I handled something that could kill me instantly.
The indoctination that has happened, imo, is one of 'safety first' according to some external definition. The problem is that the modern world tends to define the acceptable level as "no risk," which is impossible. A properly educated and trained chemist (either by formal training or by many years of garage experience, etc) knows how to weigh the risk and manage it. Talk to some of your older colleagues, those trained in the 1950's if you can pin them down, and ask them about the differences in how chemistry is taught today vs. then.
The dilution of education is a bit alarming. This safety aspect is but one example.
Since when is sulfuric acid 'regulated?' It's the most used industrical chemical in existence, and I can get all I want from autoparts stores (or car batteries themselves). I've ordered cases of the concentrated stuff from suppliers and never had to fill out a form (though it has been a few years since I've done so).
Let me guess: you are a younger chemist trained within the past decade?
I started exploring my interest in chemistry at home, with home chemistry kits (which are lame nowadays by comparison) and then with ordinary household chemicals that can do interesting things. Even after having a Ph.D. for several years, I explored the shelves at home for interesting experiments. Is these things crimes in your opinion?
Newsflash: those caustic or otherwise dangerous chemicals are ALREADY in most homes. What's wrong with experimentation, assuming SOME level of proper guidance?
Finally, I will add that I have noticed that many chemistry programs, college level now, have surplanted the teaching of proper techniques in the name of "safety." I wrote a report for a private college a few years ago in which I stated:
"If our chemists are not trained in the proper handling of hazardous materials, who in our society will be?"
I've seen the trend toward no toxics in Gen Chem Lab, and it bugs me. There's also a similar trend in Organic Lab, of all places. Now, I used to work in a lab that handled experimental (read: untested, no MSDS, etc) pesticides and we had to KNOW what were doing. I've also worked with many substances that HAD an MSDS that said "no known data." I learned that knowledge in my college chemistry courses, because we handled rough stuff even then.
There are several factors driving these trends. One, schools may fear liability if a student gets hurt or sick handling something dangerous. Two, disposal costs; there's big business in the disposal of anything labeled 'hazardous.' Three, pressures from gov't groups, like Fire Marshalls or BATF, etc, on 'proper' storage and handling equipment (which is bunk in many cases). I've seen departments allocate excessive time and funds to the maintenance of safety procedures that were not really needed for the quantities on hand just to fulfill some bureaucratic policy, in a sense becoming bureaucratic themselves.
I wish I had mod points; You should be modded +5 Right On.
I have a three year old and an 11 mo. old, so we are in both stages right now. It seems to me to be about a constant input-praise-input cycle. My three year old's vocabulary is increasing so rapidly it is amazing to witness, and the young one is trying so hard to communicate (sometimes anyway; others it is just 'can I make noise?').
On the topic of being recorded 14 hrs a day, I sure would not want that. Maybe it is just personal preference waving its head, but I doubt the scientific insight to come from this experiment would outweigh the intrusion/invasion factor.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Another interesting snapshot is Comparison with Red Hat.
Given the Novell deal, the attempted RH deal and other recent MS comments regarding Linux, I am beginning to buy into this whole "MS might be in trouble" arguement. I read about six months ago some issues with its market cap that point to a company not as financially secure as many people believe.
Also, chem didn't teach me any "thinking skills". All it taught me was to ignore my teacher's bad analogies and instead read a textbook if I wanted to know about something.
Are you talking high school chemistry or college level? If the former, then I can understand your point. Too many high school programs have non-chemists teaching chemistry. At the college freshman level, we have to spend an unfortunate amount of time "undoing" the garbage that has been done in high school.
And there is the difference between school and "the real world": if the real world, work has meaningful rewards.
I guess it depends on how you define "meaningful rewards." You see, I find it very rewarding to solve a challenging problem or to stick with a difficult task through to completion. Studying chemistry or other difficult subject HAS, in my professional experience (ie, seeing this reward crystalize in my students), helped students learn to work when they don't really want to as the reward of satisfaction and personal accomplishment exceeds almost any other.
Two very brief stories to illustrate this. One time, a young lady was having a very difficult time UNDERSTANDING some material. This was her second attempt at college, having 'failed out' her first go-around. She was, in a round-a-bout way, trying to get me to 'give' her the answer, but I made her plug through it on her own. It was a difficult process for her, but in the end, she FIGURED IT OUT. She reasoned through it (ie, she was THINKING). She started to cry. She said, "I could hug you." She had learned that she really did, contrary to signals she had been getting her whole life, have what it takes to solve difficult problems.
In another similar case, it was a large group of students in one particular class I had. Their background was atrocious, and their past teachers had solved their "weakness" by dumbing down the material and making things "fun" for them. I did not do that; instead, I told them the level of performance I expected from them and held them to that standard. It was a painful semester for them, as growth often is. But in the end, that last day, after the final exam, they gave me a card that said "Thank-you." In the card, they described how I was the first teacher in their whole educational experience that forced them to see that they COULD do difficult things. I had somehow helped them find within themselves an inner strength they did not know they had. They said that collectively, in the past other, teachers would lower the standard of performance if they had trouble. The underlying message was "you cannot do it, it is too hard. Here, I'll make it easier for you."
If that is not a "meaningful reward" for hard work, one that imo trumps your "financial gain" reward, I don't know what is.
Perhaps to just know that it is still there and has not been (completely) destroyed. Knowing it is still there might justify continued efforts to contact it.
And sometimes when you lots of dollars and man-centuries invested in something, you just want to know what happened to it.
This is definitely still in the good luck category.
Exactly. People can say what they want about NASA | JPL, but the bottom line is they put up some good stuff much of the time. What really got my eye was how they just 'asked' Opportunity to listen for it. That is, that those things are so dynamic in what they do and can be 'asked' to do simply amazes me.
Who knew years ago when Opportunity (also past expected mission life, right?) was designed that it would be on-the-fly tasked to listen for another spacecraft's signal. That it was designed in this way is a testament to well planned engineering. IMO.
(1) It is not about making learning FUN. Sometimes, learning is work; part of what we SHOULD be teaching students is how to WORK when they don't WANT to WORK. You know, like "in the real world."
(2) What you call teaching trivialities I might call teaching the tools necessary to develop those thinking skills. Chemistry is one of the best subjects there is for teaching students "to think," yet we have to spend a fair amount time with things like "sodium chloride is soluble in water, naphthalene is not" to get to the deeper aspects like entropy of mixing, intermolecular forces and radial distribution functions in solutions.
Seems like this is just another shot in the feud between Spolsky and Heinimer Hansson?
That's short sited; you only set up a computer once; you have to maintain it for its entire service life.
Others may disagree, but it has been my experience and observation that Linux is FAR easier to maintain in a productive role than Windows. What are the stats? I've heard these numbers: 1 Windows admin can properly maintain about 20 systems, 1 Linux admin can maintain about 50.
Besides, aren't a lot of systems in an environment like the deployment under discussion (library public access boxes) 'installed' by cloning? Set up one system the way you really want it and clone the rest. Seem to me that in this scenario, installation is pretty much a non-issue.
I think bad grammar and spelling should be ignored on a math or a chemistry exam, so long the answer is understandable.
That's right, because spelling is irrelevant in chemistry. Oh wait. Ethanol is kinda fun to drink once in a while, but ethanal will kill you.
They 'want' me to relocate. I seek programming jobs that I can fulfill via telecommuting. ESPECIALLY on something like working on a web site that is 'Net based intrinsically.
Ah, good point. Let's play with this one a little bit. What exactly IS a climatologist? One who studies climate, obviously, but what are the mechanisms of that study? From wikipedia:
Climatology is approached in a variety of ways. Paleoclimatology seeks to reconstruct past climates by examining records such as ice cores and tree rings (dendroclimatology). The study of contemporary climates incorporates meteorological data accumulated over many years, such as records of rainfall, temperature and atmospheric composition. Knowledge of the atmosphere and its dynamics is also embodied in models, either statistical or mathematical, which help by integrating different observations and testing how they fit together. Modeling is used for understanding past, present and potential future climates. Historical climatology is the study of climate as related to human history and thus focuses only on the last few thousand years.
Climate research is made difficult by the large scale, long time periods, and complex processes which govern climate. It is generally accepted that climate is governed by differential equations based on physical laws, but what, exactly, are these equations, and what can be concluded from them, is still subject to debate. Climate is sometimes modeled as a stochastic process but this is generally accepted as an approximation to processes that are otherwise too complicated to analyze.
So, it seems that climatologists are PHYSICAL scientists that use modeling of dynamical, stochastic processes as a principle tool. The models include chemical kinetics, thermodynamics and the differential equations represent from flow fields.
In other words, ANYONE with experience any of those fields is capable of reading papers, studying data and drawing conclusions. So, yes, you bet your butt I'd trust a String Theorist to have something to offer the discussion (he may be WRONG that's not the point, but his comments should be heard), especially if what he is saying is "THIS conclusion is not supported by THIS data as presented."
The problem as I see it is that we have reached a point that functional specialization is out of hand. There ARE scientists out there that can effectively and meaningfully THINK about problems outside their specific formal area. I'd take a generalist with a broad view of the problem over a specialist with a "all problems are a nail" approach any day of the week.
Except it was not a joke. That line in the /. summary was probably put there for one purpose: to flame.
/. to defend WND.
/., you "lack intelligence"?
Either to flame the liberals to come out and say "yeah right, curse you WND."
Or to flame (those few) conservatives on
If I may paraphrse the GP, I'll now ask YOU: if you don't toe the party line here on
Funny that these conservatives never seem to object to the right-wing bias of the private talk radio industry (which even goes out over public radio spectrum).
What bias of the INDUSTRY are you talking about? Let's not be disingenuous here. Liberals have all the opportunities conservatives do to field talk shows. I've heard them on the air, actually. Several of them.
The problem you have to face is that talk radio, like any other radio format (except perhaps NPR, which shows quite a liberal leaning most of the time), is a BUSINESS. The talkers must gain an audience and keep it, so that the stations can sell advertising.
A factual analysis of the liberal attempts at talk radio show that they just don't make money. It seems there is less of a market for liberals bashing of conservatives than most liberals would care to admit.
One last point: those airwaves are not really public - the stations, via their broadcast license, "owns" a frequency in their market. It's misleading to act like this is analogous to "conservatives can stand on the public street corner and say what they want, but liberals cannot." As I opened my reply, liberal talk show hosts have the same opportunities in the business conservative ones do.
The problem is that this article seems to be primarily opinion oriented. Meaning it doesn't have a lot of news content.
/. would select this report of YouTube censorship instead of another article from a more reputable news source
I'm shocked that
Again, to reiterate the GP's post, WND is not a reputable news source because it's conservative?
You can call this an opinion piece if you'd like, but stating FACTS like the video was available for viewing on YouTube is reporting, not editorial. From the FTA:
limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable. What in that statement is OPINION?
Further into the article, we get:
"However, after a brief period of accessibility, the verification page started appearing on YouTube. It asked that: "This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up." Today the verification page on the spoof was removed."
I have to say, that seems like some decent FACTUAL reporting.
(1) They state that the verification page was present due to USERS ratings.
(2) The point out that the verification page has been removed.
Your choice of insult for WND is unwarranted.
People who doubt global warming effects are along the lines of the CEOs of big tobacco
No they are not; some of them are trained scientists who are specialists in their fields. Believe it or not, not all scientists are on the anthopogenic climate change bandwagon. In making the statement you just made, you have insulted both the intelligence and professional integrity of a good number of respectable people.
Some of these include those signers here and here.
You may choose to disagree with their positions, but you cannot discount ALL of these tens of thousands of scientists as willfully misrepresenting the truth as they see it.
That's six things.
Some of those are hard to ask questions of these days...unless you want to hold a seance.
All the company is doing is marketing a product to paranoid and overly-protective parents.
Isn't like 98% or so of ALL marketing based on fear*? So, how is this any different?
* fear to get hurt, sick, be different, not cool, etc.
Thanks!
I have a few pdf's that don't open properly with kghostview or adobe reader under wine. Foxit Reader under wine worked perfectly, and that makes me a happy camper again.
Nowhere in the article do I mention a statute specifically to regulate sulphuric acid.
;)
I was responding to Cyberax's comment:
"_Concentrated_ acids (and I'm speaking about fuming sulphiric acid and 70% nitric acid) are tightly regulated, because they are used to produce explosives."
I question the phrase "tightly regulated."
tightly regulated, because they are used to produce explosives.
And sulfuric acid is used by the kiloton daily to produce other things besides explosives.
Anyway, it is trivial to make fuming sulfuric acid from sulfuric acid of any concentration.
I can make an explosive from aspirin. Is that regulated as well? How about household bleach? Regulated too? How about 10-10-10, or 34-0-0 fertilizers? You can buy nitrates in the farm store, too. Cellar or cemetary dirt? Are those regulated?
PETN can be made from coal (carbon) and electricity. Are those regulated?
As I said, what regulation exists for the purchase of sulfuric acid? I'd like to know (give me a statute number), because I've purchased sulfuric acid by the case and never had to fill out a form, show ID or any other such regulatory process.
I'd ask what these techniques are.
Well, part of it is a mindset that comes from knowing that you are handling something dangerous. If you remove all the danger from a teaching lab (danger from fire, from acute toxicity, etc), you remove the mental aspect of "be careful."
I've observed this trend over several decades. It is not that older chemists are more cavalier, it is that they tend to be more careful due to proper training. But with the confidence that comes from having that proper training, they are not afraid to handle things. Nowadays, many programs eliminate the danger from the curriculum, and thus eliminate the training in the form of the mindset required to handle very bad stuff. I've handled some of the most toxic substances man has ever known, but believe me, when I did, that was not the first time I handled something that could kill me instantly.
The indoctination that has happened, imo, is one of 'safety first' according to some external definition. The problem is that the modern world tends to define the acceptable level as "no risk," which is impossible. A properly educated and trained chemist (either by formal training or by many years of garage experience, etc) knows how to weigh the risk and manage it. Talk to some of your older colleagues, those trained in the 1950's if you can pin them down, and ask them about the differences in how chemistry is taught today vs. then.
The dilution of education is a bit alarming. This safety aspect is but one example.
Since when is sulfuric acid 'regulated?' It's the most used industrical chemical in existence, and I can get all I want from autoparts stores (or car batteries themselves). I've ordered cases of the concentrated stuff from suppliers and never had to fill out a form (though it has been a few years since I've done so).
Let me guess: you are a younger chemist trained within the past decade?
I started exploring my interest in chemistry at home, with home chemistry kits (which are lame nowadays by comparison) and then with ordinary household chemicals that can do interesting things. Even after having a Ph.D. for several years, I explored the shelves at home for interesting experiments. Is these things crimes in your opinion?
Newsflash: those caustic or otherwise dangerous chemicals are ALREADY in most homes. What's wrong with experimentation, assuming SOME level of proper guidance?
Finally, I will add that I have noticed that many chemistry programs, college level now, have surplanted the teaching of proper techniques in the name of "safety." I wrote a report for a private college a few years ago in which I stated:
"If our chemists are not trained in the proper handling of hazardous materials, who in our society will be?"
I've seen the trend toward no toxics in Gen Chem Lab, and it bugs me. There's also a similar trend in Organic Lab, of all places. Now, I used to work in a lab that handled experimental (read: untested, no MSDS, etc) pesticides and we had to KNOW what were doing. I've also worked with many substances that HAD an MSDS that said "no known data." I learned that knowledge in my college chemistry courses, because we handled rough stuff even then.
There are several factors driving these trends. One, schools may fear liability if a student gets hurt or sick handling something dangerous. Two, disposal costs; there's big business in the disposal of anything labeled 'hazardous.' Three, pressures from gov't groups, like Fire Marshalls or BATF, etc, on 'proper' storage and handling equipment (which is bunk in many cases). I've seen departments allocate excessive time and funds to the maintenance of safety procedures that were not really needed for the quantities on hand just to fulfill some bureaucratic policy, in a sense becoming bureaucratic themselves.
I wish I had mod points; You should be modded +5 Right On.
I have a three year old and an 11 mo. old, so we are in both stages right now. It seems to me to be about a constant input-praise-input cycle. My three year old's vocabulary is increasing so rapidly it is amazing to witness, and the young one is trying so hard to communicate (sometimes anyway; others it is just 'can I make noise?').
On the topic of being recorded 14 hrs a day, I sure would not want that. Maybe it is just personal preference waving its head, but I doubt the scientific insight to come from this experiment would outweigh the intrusion/invasion factor.
You never actually make photons move any slower.
;)
But virtually, you do.