Absolutely correct. Just to add to what you said: if your position is correct, your reasoning is sound, and logic is the order of the day, you will succeed--I guarantee it.
While I don't disagree with you, I just would like to point out that this is not a "Nazi" or "Fascist" idea. Authoritarian maybe, but that's actually different from Fascist.
I agree that people need to take a more active role in making school boards accountable but I really think that in this case it has more to do with citizens demanding action than a school board quietly deciding something needs to be done.
After Columbine, there was such a frenzy of "something must be done or my little Johnny might get hurt!" that any public official not seen to be doing something about it would get thrown out of office immediately.
And you think privatized education would be any different? Businesses would do just the same thing.
We're not talking about business--we're talking about the parents.
Worse, actually; a democracy has to preserve at least some capacity for thought in its citizens (elections and all).
1) This isn't a democracy 2) The public education system is responsible for the lack of thinking skills in our society today.
Businesses don't even have to do that; it's more profitable to squash even those last vestiges of independence.
Government feels this even more strongly than businesses.
Far better to have a child taught by a trained professional than by someone who, in the end, may well not know much more than the student.
Someone who knows not much more than the student? Ahh, you must mean "educators." Your elitism astonishes me. This is the same argument that was made for monarchy--kings must rule because "common" people don't have the necessary training and skill to do things correctly.
Furthermore, the theories I hear coming out of education research are completely bogus; it appears that the "training" doesn't pay off.
While I have seen more than my share of corruption in individual school administrations, I don't see where the corruption is in the system itself.
On principle, it is wrong for the state to educate--this is outside the scope of government and within the realm of parenting. When government oversteps its bounds and invades the parent-child relationship, it is tyranny.
You know, you've been using the word "corrupt" and derivations thereof quite a lot. Without giving a single shred of evidence as to where the corruption lies, no less.
The school system is a way of making sure everyone believes what the government tells them to believe. They make sure you understand the world their way. You must see history their way. You must see philosophy their way. You must see politics their way. The school system is a way of making sure we have ignorant, misinformed, and pliable "citizens."
One last note on this: I have yet to see a kid who is truly addicted to school.
He's talking about the way people fall in love with the doctrines that are dumped on them. Though it will do no good to tell you this--as you obviously believe the things you have been told--look around you: our entire culture is shot through with the same old lies and fairy-tales.
When schools become used as a political tool, it is a Bad Thing. But I'd like to see your evidence that school has become a propaganda tool. Oh, that's right, you don't provide any. And thus, no reason for anyone to believe you.
I'll give you proof enough, but we'll have to take it to private e-mail, as it is too involved to discuss here. Of course, as I said, you most likely will refuse to accept what I have to say--you're firmly convinced by your indoctrination that it's a pack of lies.
By the way, what do you mean by "when" schools are used as a political tool? That's what they were created for.
If you really want to discuss this further, e-mail me.
I don't think high-tech-anything will work. The government just doesn't work that way. They hear protests from constituents, hand-written letters, and personal visits very clearly, though.
Re:Philosophy and physics overlap
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
All theories about the origin of physical laws are just that - theories.
In that case, why teach them as scientific fact? The origin of the universe, the origin of mankind, the origin of thought--all these things are far beyond the scope of science; and yet, they are taught as Scientific Truth and anyone who questions the validity of these theories is called a kook and laughed at.
The point I am trying to make is that a sentient supernatural entity is not a valid default whever we do not understand something, any more than "its just chance" is.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. However, the concept that a deity exists and is in control of the universe is not necessarily put forward as a default.
Without any evidence, both are merely saying that we have no explanation.
Not really. Granted, they aren't science, nor can they be, but both ideas are put forward as serious proposals. There is value and, yes, truth outside of science.
Things that are unobservable, by definition, can also have no affect on me.
This is really the core of your argument, and it's silly: you dismiss everything not observable because of your assumption that those things cannot have an effect on you. How do you support this claim? Looking at the question of a deity, let's suppose that there is an all powerful being who directly manipulates the universe, yet is not a part of that universe. This being, though not a physical entity and therefore not observable, would be in control.
Nevertheless, it is fantasy, it is not to be taken seriously, and it is outside the realm of science.
Outside of the realm of science? Definitely. Fantasy? Who are you kidding? Do you actually believe that anything outside of the realm of science is fantasy?
Science is a limited tool for the inductive study of the physical universe. Science is neither absolute truth nor the only means for discovering truth--it's merely a tool. Science, when treated as the only method of discovering truth, becomes a deity.
I know this is rated as "funny," and indeed it is. The problem is, this is pretty much what's going on.
It's strange, this attitude toward people with depression is so much like the prevailing 19th century belief that people with depression were insane or demon-posessed and just needed to be locked up in a dark room for the rest of their lives for public (and their own) safety.
I don't think it's a conspiracy exactly, I just think we are entering a new dark age where ignorance and fear reign supreme and blur all rational thought.
Re:Philosophy and physics overlap
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
Of course, it ceases to be science as soon as you consider questions about non-material things or material things that happened in the past (like the origin of the universe).
A quick question, though: if physicists are so adamant about an orderly universe governed by rules, why assume that it came about by chaos and chance?
The modern university teaching that "every idea has equal value", and "science is just another form of faith" are crap. When you can prove what you say through observable events, and logic, then let's talk, otherwise, don't waste my time.
And how do you observe that which is unobservable? Or are you just too narrow to approach anything non-material? Science has scope and there are important questions that lie outside that scope.
It's true that enough people don't understand the scope of science (science cannot answer whether there is a God or not!) However, we must remember that philosophy had its beginnings in questions about "what the universe consists of."
Our ability to observe is finally getting to the point where we can answer some of those "philosophical" questions.
Re:Is it so hard to accept the possibility?
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
They all sound as if it's not possible that humans may exist simply due to one of the infinite number of experiments of the universe gone mad.
Of course, "experiments" require an intelligent being behind them. "Going mad" also has connections to sentience.
Re:This stuff is not physics.
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
Cosmology (not cosmotology...that's different;-) has been rushing to unite itself with philosophy for quite some time now. It is through this avenue that physics and philosophy are colliding.
BTW, I didn't get the impression that anyone was claiming this book explained the difficult in "pretty word pictures," or that this book was about physics qua physics.
Um, I think the original poster may have intended his statement to be more of an epigram than a statement of pure fact. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and he doesn't know anything about the history of virii on UNIX...
I just dont understand that statement. Could someone expand on it?
With open source, many people (though not necessarily the end users) thoroughly read the code. If there is anything suspect, many people will notice it and spread the word. With many people collaborating on projects it would be difficult for anyone to slip something bad in unnoticed.
This is offtopic but I think a much better solution than breaking up M$ would be requiring them to publish all specs for their protocols and file formats. This way, we can write players for their new Windows Media format or read and write Office documents.
Are all Americans to obnixious that they believe that an Iran gov't group will actually listen to Jackson?
Sigh. No, we don't all think like this; I'm surprised people make such statements. I might as well say something like, "Are all Argentineans ruthless dictators like that Pinochet guy?" or, "Are all Germans evil Nazis like Hitler?" or, "Do all Russians murder peasants like Stalin did?" Come on people, grow up.
Well, I'm biased of course;-), but I highly suggest you throw KDE in the trash can and switch to WindowMaker/GNUstep. Plus, I'm working (slowly) on porting NeXT music and sound applications to GNUstep.
You could be right, I don't really know. However, I can't really feel too bad about it.
I don't get it, why provoke judges and legislators like this?
I'm supposing that it's meant as a form of civil disobedience but I could be wrong.
I feel this type of behavior only serves to show disrepect for the intent of the law; disrepect is not something we need to be showing.
I both agree and disagree with this depending on what kind of mood I'm in at the time. On the one hand, I have the pragmatic side of me that says we should work within the system to bring about change (which is not to say that this stunt would bring about change) and I do have respect for law; on the other hand, I have some leanings toward civil disobedience. I often think approvingly of that famous statement that it is the duty of a citizen to overthrow a government that is not upholding their social contract with said citizen. Obviously, the DMCA isn't serious enough to overthrow the government but it might be serious enough to disobey. Everyone must come to their own conclusion about this.
Thoughtful undersanding of the issues is what we need to be demonstrating; further dissemminating material which a judge has restricted (regardless of the country)
Now this I disagree with. People in other countries absolutely must ignore American law. It amazes me how many people think laws should be binding on people the legislator and judicial system have no jurisdiction over! Furthermore, I'm opposed to any government pushing it's own legal agenda down the throat of another government. National sovereignty for every nation is of the utmost importance. (We need to reclaim the sovereignty of local governments as well but that's another issue).
...will only serve to motivate the WTO and other organizations to have bi-lateral agreements which will only tighten our straight jacket.
I don't know what "other organizations" you are talking about but if they and the WTO have the power to do this, the Constitution (in this country), national sovereignty (everywhere), and the rights of mankind in general are dead. If we have given international organizations that much power we might as well just hang it all up right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely correct. Just to add to what you said: if your position is correct, your reasoning is sound, and logic is the order of the day, you will succeed--I guarantee it.
While I don't disagree with you, I just would like to point out that this is not a "Nazi" or "Fascist" idea. Authoritarian maybe, but that's actually different from Fascist.
After Columbine, there was such a frenzy of "something must be done or my little Johnny might get hurt!" that any public official not seen to be doing something about it would get thrown out of office immediately.
We're not talking about business--we're talking about the parents.
Worse, actually; a democracy has to preserve at least some capacity for thought in its citizens (elections and all).
1) This isn't a democracy
2) The public education system is responsible for the lack of thinking skills in our society today.
Businesses don't even have to do that; it's more profitable to squash even those last vestiges of independence.
Government feels this even more strongly than businesses.
Far better to have a child taught by a trained professional than by someone who, in the end, may well not know much more than the student.
Someone who knows not much more than the student? Ahh, you must mean "educators." Your elitism astonishes me. This is the same argument that was made for monarchy--kings must rule because "common" people don't have the necessary training and skill to do things correctly.
Furthermore, the theories I hear coming out of education research are completely bogus; it appears that the "training" doesn't pay off.
While I have seen more than my share of corruption in individual school administrations, I don't see where the corruption is in the system itself.
On principle, it is wrong for the state to educate--this is outside the scope of government and within the realm of parenting. When government oversteps its bounds and invades the parent-child relationship, it is tyranny.
You know, you've been using the word "corrupt" and derivations thereof quite a lot. Without giving a single shred of evidence as to where the corruption lies, no less.
The school system is a way of making sure everyone believes what the government tells them to believe. They make sure you understand the world their way. You must see history their way. You must see philosophy their way. You must see politics their way. The school system is a way of making sure we have ignorant, misinformed, and pliable "citizens."
One last note on this: I have yet to see a kid who is truly addicted to school.
He's talking about the way people fall in love with the doctrines that are dumped on them. Though it will do no good to tell you this--as you obviously believe the things you have been told--look around you: our entire culture is shot through with the same old lies and fairy-tales.
When schools become used as a political tool, it is a Bad Thing. But I'd like to see your evidence that school has become a propaganda tool. Oh, that's right, you don't provide any. And thus, no reason for anyone to believe you.
I'll give you proof enough, but we'll have to take it to private e-mail, as it is too involved to discuss here. Of course, as I said, you most likely will refuse to accept what I have to say--you're firmly convinced by your indoctrination that it's a pack of lies.
By the way, what do you mean by "when" schools are used as a political tool? That's what they were created for.
If you really want to discuss this further, e-mail me.
I don't think high-tech-anything will work. The government just doesn't work that way. They hear protests from constituents, hand-written letters, and personal visits very clearly, though.
In that case, why teach them as scientific fact? The origin of the universe, the origin of mankind, the origin of thought--all these things are far beyond the scope of science; and yet, they are taught as Scientific Truth and anyone who questions the validity of these theories is called a kook and laughed at.
The point I am trying to make is that a sentient supernatural entity is not a valid default whever we do not understand something, any more than "its just chance" is.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. However, the concept that a deity exists and is in control of the universe is not necessarily put forward as a default.
Without any evidence, both are merely saying that we have no explanation.
Not really. Granted, they aren't science, nor can they be, but both ideas are put forward as serious proposals. There is value and, yes, truth outside of science.
This is really the core of your argument, and it's silly: you dismiss everything not observable because of your assumption that those things cannot have an effect on you. How do you support this claim? Looking at the question of a deity, let's suppose that there is an all powerful being who directly manipulates the universe, yet is not a part of that universe. This being, though not a physical entity and therefore not observable, would be in control.
Nevertheless, it is fantasy, it is not to be taken seriously, and it is outside the realm of science.
Outside of the realm of science? Definitely. Fantasy? Who are you kidding? Do you actually believe that anything outside of the realm of science is fantasy?
Science is a limited tool for the inductive study of the physical universe. Science is neither absolute truth nor the only means for discovering truth--it's merely a tool. Science, when treated as the only method of discovering truth, becomes a deity.
It's strange, this attitude toward people with depression is so much like the prevailing 19th century belief that people with depression were insane or demon-posessed and just needed to be locked up in a dark room for the rest of their lives for public (and their own) safety.
I don't think it's a conspiracy exactly, I just think we are entering a new dark age where ignorance and fear reign supreme and blur all rational thought.
A quick question, though: if physicists are so adamant about an orderly universe governed by rules, why assume that it came about by chaos and chance?
And how do you observe that which is unobservable? Or are you just too narrow to approach anything non-material? Science has scope and there are important questions that lie outside that scope.
Our ability to observe is finally getting to the point where we can answer some of those "philosophical" questions.
Of course, "experiments" require an intelligent being behind them. "Going mad" also has connections to sentience.
BTW, I didn't get the impression that anyone was claiming this book explained the difficult in "pretty word pictures," or that this book was about physics qua physics.
Um, I think the original poster may have intended his statement to be more of an epigram than a statement of pure fact. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and he doesn't know anything about the history of virii on UNIX...
Most Script Kiddies work from Windows boxes and spend their "productive" time (and I use that term loosely) in AOL chat rooms.
With open source, many people (though not necessarily the end users) thoroughly read the code. If there is anything suspect, many people will notice it and spread the word. With many people collaborating on projects it would be difficult for anyone to slip something bad in unnoticed.
I know this was posted by an AC, but this is obviously not a troll--this is humor. Get with it.
This is offtopic but I think a much better solution than breaking up M$ would be requiring them to publish all specs for their protocols and file formats. This way, we can write players for their new Windows Media format or read and write Office documents.
Sigh. No, we don't all think like this; I'm surprised people make such statements. I might as well say something like, "Are all Argentineans ruthless dictators like that Pinochet guy?" or, "Are all Germans evil Nazis like Hitler?" or, "Do all Russians murder peasants like Stalin did?" Come on people, grow up.
I'm not a doctor, but I have heard of some malady where people "exude" blood. I believe it has to do with extreme stress.
See this to find out what really happened to JFK. You'll be shocked and proud of to be an American...I know I was.
So what do you call NeXTSTEP and SGI? ;-)
Well, I'm biased of course ;-), but I highly suggest you throw KDE in the trash can and switch to WindowMaker/GNUstep. Plus, I'm working (slowly) on porting NeXT music and sound applications to GNUstep.
You mean you can't quote all three?
You could be right, I don't really know. However, I can't really feel too bad about it.
I don't get it, why provoke judges and legislators like this?
I'm supposing that it's meant as a form of civil disobedience but I could be wrong.
I feel this type of behavior only serves to show disrepect for the intent of the law; disrepect is not something we need to be showing.
I both agree and disagree with this depending on what kind of mood I'm in at the time. On the one hand, I have the pragmatic side of me that says we should work within the system to bring about change (which is not to say that this stunt would bring about change) and I do have respect for law; on the other hand, I have some leanings toward civil disobedience. I often think approvingly of that famous statement that it is the duty of a citizen to overthrow a government that is not upholding their social contract with said citizen. Obviously, the DMCA isn't serious enough to overthrow the government but it might be serious enough to disobey. Everyone must come to their own conclusion about this.
Thoughtful undersanding of the issues is what we need to be demonstrating; further dissemminating material which a judge has restricted (regardless of the country)
Now this I disagree with. People in other countries absolutely must ignore American law. It amazes me how many people think laws should be binding on people the legislator and judicial system have no jurisdiction over! Furthermore, I'm opposed to any government pushing it's own legal agenda down the throat of another government. National sovereignty for every nation is of the utmost importance. (We need to reclaim the sovereignty of local governments as well but that's another issue).
I don't know what "other organizations" you are talking about but if they and the WTO have the power to do this, the Constitution (in this country), national sovereignty (everywhere), and the rights of mankind in general are dead. If we have given international organizations that much power we might as well just hang it all up right now.