There's no such thing, since ID isn't science. Even your buddy Michael Behe admits that in order for ID to be science, Astrology, Alchemy, New Age, Wicca, etc must also be science.
Actually, astrology would be much closer to science than ID since astrology actually makes predictions that can be tested.
However in a 1998 study, Japanese researchers found that while grape juice still had antioxidative benefits, it did not significantly lower LDL cholesterol levels compared to red wine.
Teaching computer science in middle school and high school is probably no more appropriate than teaching mechanical engineering at those levels. What schools really need to be teaching are maths outside of the calculus track--logic, as you said, along with combinatorics, graph theory, geometry, set theory, and a number of other things that are important as foundations to the sciences (including computer science) and engineering disciplines in general. Computer science topics could serve as examples of applications of those mathematical foundations, just as physics is used as an example in calculus courses.
The PLTTeachScheme! project has a curriculum for teaching programming to high school students, and apparently it's been modified for middle school students as well in the Bootstrap project.
Because using Scheme and their teaching methodology will allow you to teach students more stuff that is actually important and have them learn it better and faster. There are a couple of FAQs http://www.teach-scheme.org/Notes/ there that explain why it's a good idea.
If the copyright holder is deriving some indirect benefit from each person who uses the copyrighted work without paying for it (and who would not pay for it anyway) then they copyright holder is still benefiting more than he would if the users were denied usage completely. If those who are able to compensate the creator of the work use it without providing compensation, then there is more of a moral dilemma (one to which I am not sure of an answer). Of course, this is all philosophical--it appears that you also have an opinion on the practicality of the situation as well.
If there is software that people do not want to write for free and which someone (individual or company) requires, that someone will mostly likely either produce the software himself or contract someone to create the software. There is no reason to assume that current practices with regards to these issues are optimal. Nor is there reason to believe that much of the software that would not be created were copyright infringement more common is essential to (or would even be missed by) anyone.
(It seems like it might be worthwhile modeling an economy without or with minimal copyright law and enforcement and contrasting the benefits to individuals and to society suggested by that model with the benefits suggested by a model in which strict copyright laws are enforced. I, however, am not an economist and do not know if such a model would be feasible to create or meaningful enough to make judgments based on even if it were created.)
It's not a matter of entitlement to luxury. If you hold property rights (ignoring the argument of whether IP counts as property) as fundamental to your moral system, then your argument that individuals should do without what they cannot purchase holds. However, the GP's argument is that the good derived by society by the increased productivity of an individual infringing on copyright may be worth more (by some measure) than another individual's "entitlement" to a profit.
The GP's argument is also supported by the difference in logistics between infringing on copyright and stealing physical property. If an individual could not buy the copyrighted material anyway, then the holder of the copyright loses nothing when that individual copies it. However, the holder of the copyright (and the rest of society) may still benefit from the increased productivity of the copier. By this reasoning, the copyright holder benefits more overall than if the copier had not infringed the copyright.
Jarrold and his team are simply time-stamping their efforts by publishing on the arxiv and you can bet your bottom dollar that they're looking for other evidence right now.
However, if you want to go beyond the superficial, the libraries... are essential.
So, the publications of the ACM and IEEE as well as the vast databases of print journals that have been digitized that most schools and universities have access to are all superficial?
A theif should have copyright infringement for personal use regarded as the least of his crimes. The act of depriving another person of his property certainly seems more heinous.
If you follow the latin rules it would be "virus", with a long mark over the 'u'. "Virus" is a fourth declension noun; the the second declension nouns are the ones that end in a long 'i' for their plural form.
Either way, in English it's "viruses", though "virii" may as well be used as the plural for computer viruses, since it's come into such common useage.
And besides, if you're going to use textual criticism to analyze something, I suggest that you go to the authentic text--in Hebrew, in this case. A textual interpretation on a translation is worthless if you're searching for the original meaning or intent of a work.
Don't forget that the meaning of whatever words are used in Hebrew may have changed over time, in connotation if not in denotation.
As well as taking into consideration the text itself, one should remember the historical context of such works. There are a number of problems with modern interpretations of the Bible that could be resolved if the historical context were taken into account.
Above all, in studying texts such as the Bible, it is very important to be cautious of jumping to insupportable or absurd conclusions because of prior assumptions or ideological biases against what may be the most correct interpretation.
I highly doubt that a fully correct understanding of the Bible would clash with science in any way.
I thought the electoral college was there to make sure that the people didn't do something stupid--to correct the vote of the uninformed populus.
Of course, it doesn't work that way anymore, since most states have laws saying that the electoral college must vote with the popular vote in the state, but that was how it was supposed to work....
I don't understand the problem with normal mechanical voting machines. The ones we use in CT aren't difficult at all. What's the point in using computers for voting when there's a mechanical method that works as well already, without the worry of malicious software and the need for an additional paper trail?
I mean.... It's like, what are you going to do when you're trying to vote and the power goes out?
When my SNES broke I would have bought an N64 instead of a PSX if the N64 was backwards compatible.
Now I have a stack of old games and no console.
Oh, and old games are not by definition crappy. Final Fantasy 3? How about Megaman X? Old, but no where near crappy. Besides, that would mean all games are crappy, since they have to be old at some point--and that's blatently false.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no such thing, since ID isn't science. Even your buddy Michael Behe admits that in order for ID to be science, Astrology, Alchemy, New Age, Wicca, etc must also be science.
Actually, astrology would be much closer to science than ID since astrology actually makes predictions that can be tested.
Why does no one think to offset budget deficits but spending money more responsibly? That's what they used to do, right?
From the Yale-New Haven Hospital website http://www.ynhh.org/online/nutrition/advisor/red_wine.html
Teaching computer science in middle school and high school is probably no more appropriate than teaching mechanical engineering at those levels. What schools really need to be teaching are maths outside of the calculus track--logic, as you said, along with combinatorics, graph theory, geometry, set theory, and a number of other things that are important as foundations to the sciences (including computer science) and engineering disciplines in general. Computer science topics could serve as examples of applications of those mathematical foundations, just as physics is used as an example in calculus courses.
The PLT TeachScheme! project has a curriculum for teaching programming to high school students, and apparently it's been modified for middle school students as well in the Bootstrap project.
How to Design Programs is essentially a gentler SICP, and it accomplishes most of the same goals.
http://www.teach-scheme.org/
Because using Scheme and their teaching methodology will allow you to teach students more stuff that is actually important and have them learn it better and faster. There are a couple of FAQs http://www.teach-scheme.org/Notes/ there that explain why it's a good idea.
If the copyright holder is deriving some indirect benefit from each person who uses the copyrighted work without paying for it (and who would not pay for it anyway) then they copyright holder is still benefiting more than he would if the users were denied usage completely. If those who are able to compensate the creator of the work use it without providing compensation, then there is more of a moral dilemma (one to which I am not sure of an answer). Of course, this is all philosophical--it appears that you also have an opinion on the practicality of the situation as well.
If there is software that people do not want to write for free and which someone (individual or company) requires, that someone will mostly likely either produce the software himself or contract someone to create the software. There is no reason to assume that current practices with regards to these issues are optimal. Nor is there reason to believe that much of the software that would not be created were copyright infringement more common is essential to (or would even be missed by) anyone.
(It seems like it might be worthwhile modeling an economy without or with minimal copyright law and enforcement and contrasting the benefits to individuals and to society suggested by that model with the benefits suggested by a model in which strict copyright laws are enforced. I, however, am not an economist and do not know if such a model would be feasible to create or meaningful enough to make judgments based on even if it were created.)
It's not a matter of entitlement to luxury. If you hold property rights (ignoring the argument of whether IP counts as property) as fundamental to your moral system, then your argument that individuals should do without what they cannot purchase holds. However, the GP's argument is that the good derived by society by the increased productivity of an individual infringing on copyright may be worth more (by some measure) than another individual's "entitlement" to a profit.
The GP's argument is also supported by the difference in logistics between infringing on copyright and stealing physical property. If an individual could not buy the copyrighted material anyway, then the holder of the copyright loses nothing when that individual copies it. However, the holder of the copyright (and the rest of society) may still benefit from the increased productivity of the copier. By this reasoning, the copyright holder benefits more overall than if the copier had not infringed the copyright.
So, the publications of the ACM and IEEE as well as the vast databases of print journals that have been digitized that most schools and universities have access to are all superficial?
A theif should have copyright infringement for personal use regarded as the least of his crimes. The act of depriving another person of his property certainly seems more heinous.
If you follow the latin rules it would be "virus", with a long mark over the 'u'. "Virus" is a fourth declension noun; the the second declension nouns are the ones that end in a long 'i' for their plural form.
Either way, in English it's "viruses", though "virii" may as well be used as the plural for computer viruses, since it's come into such common useage.
And besides, if you're going to use textual criticism to analyze something, I suggest that you go to the authentic text--in Hebrew, in this case. A textual interpretation on a translation is worthless if you're searching for the original meaning or intent of a work.
Don't forget that the meaning of whatever words are used in Hebrew may have changed over time, in connotation if not in denotation.
As well as taking into consideration the text itself, one should remember the historical context of such works. There are a number of problems with modern interpretations of the Bible that could be resolved if the historical context were taken into account.
Above all, in studying texts such as the Bible, it is very important to be cautious of jumping to insupportable or absurd conclusions because of prior assumptions or ideological biases against what may be the most correct interpretation.
I highly doubt that a fully correct understanding of the Bible would clash with science in any way.
I thought the electoral college was there to make sure that the people didn't do something stupid--to correct the vote of the uninformed populus.
Of course, it doesn't work that way anymore, since most states have laws saying that the electoral college must vote with the popular vote in the state, but that was how it was supposed to work....
How is this funny? It's too sadly true to be funny...
I don't understand the problem with normal mechanical voting machines. The ones we use in CT aren't difficult at all. What's the point in using computers for voting when there's a mechanical method that works as well already, without the worry of malicious software and the need for an additional paper trail?
I mean.... It's like, what are you going to do when you're trying to vote and the power goes out?
"Owned."
You're assuming that most of these politicians even care whether the measures they propose are practical, effective, fair, or even needed.
But... then what do they care about?
What they do care about is getting some publicity, and being seen as strong and proactive
So... where does that get them? Is it really just a lust for power? No wonder I hate politics....
Also because politicians lie.
The answer to "why" is the same reason you just posted all of those other ideas, which many people here are now going to go try.
The slot-car thing seems fun, too. You could race monitors against each other.
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/13/12 3226&mode=thread&tid=137
has info on silent mice.
Well, you likely shouldn't buy her diamonds in the first place. No?
When my SNES broke I would have bought an N64 instead of a PSX if the N64 was backwards compatible.
Now I have a stack of old games and no console.
Oh, and old games are not by definition crappy. Final Fantasy 3? How about Megaman X? Old, but no where near crappy. Besides, that would mean all games are crappy, since they have to be old at some point--and that's blatently false.
The snowman and penguin game that he spoke of: http://meph.eu.org/