I'm guessing it's less that the computer itself is dumbing anyone down, and more that they're doing it instead of other things. 8+ hours a day doesn't leave a lot of time to study.
It could be that using the computer can replace some studying. Games can help improve thinking skills as well as prepare people for careers. People can learn about running a business, or other things such as critical thinking skills, by playing the Hotdog Stand game. Amazon's description says "Students improve math, problem-solving, and communication skills in this real-life business simulation where they manage a busy concession stand in a big-city stadium. Students interpret information, keep records, determine prices, and plat (my comment - plot?) marketing strategies." Super Smart Games lists more games for learning.
It's up to the children to use the computer to educate themselves. Parents cannot teach kids to do this.
Parents can not only teach but they can monitor computer usage too. Obviously if the parents don't know how to use computers then they'll have to learn but they can still teach.
No. You are now creating several straw man arguments. I did not say that Democrats can use it but Republicans cannot
Going up the thread this is where you say "I've watched it. But if you think it's 'fighting corruption' now, you should look into what the minority Republicans do to filibuster. They just notify Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) that they will filibuster, and Reid accepts that they will. Or they use any of the many points in the legislative path to refuse "unanimous consent" to some rule erected to create that option, and derail the process." As if only Democrats can use filibusters. You do not explicitly state it, it is implicit (implied though not directly expressed;).
This was one thing I had a problem with. I know what 12 x 12 is, we had to memorize it, so I don't need to write it out long-hand. I can solve 3x + 4x = 14 in my head, requiring me to write it out long-hand is a waste. On the other hand I may want to write out in long-hand f'(x) or f(x), damn the integral symbol isn't showing, so the integral of f(x).
Do they, and technology in general, make us lazy or stupid? Or do they help us?
I think they can and do both. Being a TBI or Traumatic Brain Injury survivor I have spent years learning how to use compensatory strategies for my weaknesses. One of them is my memory so for instance when I cook, even if I only spend a few minutes to boil water for tea, I use a windup timer. When the alarm goes off I know to check the water or food. I do the same for my laundry. Or planning, I use a notebook planner to write appointments and to-do lists. However I sometimes fail to check the planner so when I can I use the built-in calendar/planner on my cellphone. When I make an appointment with my doc I'll write it in my planner and program my cellphone at the same tyme. The personal care coordinator I see at my doc's office tried to get me to use the calendar/planner software my Mac came with, iCal, but I find the cellphone better.
That is a misleading title, subject-line. TFA says that it's particularly true for disadvantaged families. Further the researchers "concluded that home computers are put to more productive use in households where parental monitoring is more effective. In disadvantaged households, parents are less likely to monitor children's computer use and guide children in using computers for educational purposes."
Now what are the results for children of more affluent parents or parents who spend more tyme with their children? If and when the answer for these show the same results then it might be true.
No I didn't. I pointed out how both parties use filibusters but you only want Democrats to use them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You however only fault Republicans as if only Democrats can use them. As for my use of the citation, I used it because it was the second result for filibusters democrats republicans, the first being wiki. Another result says how Democrats used filibusters to block 10 Bush judicial nominees from a yes-or-no vote in 2003. Why is it alright for Democrats to use filibusters to block yes-or-no votes but not Republicans use of it for health insurance reform? You say how the article I first posted agreed that more people agreed when Democrats used filibusters than when Republicans do, but you neglected the health bill. A majority of people opposed the bill but Nancy Pelosi decided to ram it down people's throats anyway. She didn't care what voters wanted, and I hope she loses here seat because of it. Along with other Democrats.
I've watched it. But if you think it's "fighting corruption" now, you should look into what the minority Republicans do to filibuster. They just notify Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) that they will filibuster, and Reid accepts that they will.
So, Democrats did the same when Republicans were in power. Why the filibuster is OK for Democrats but not for Republicans tries explain why filibusters are okay for Democrats but not Republicans. Do you say that Democrats can use them but not Republicans?
The idea that a state should have rights apart from those of the people who live there is just perverse.
I agree but the reason states supposedly had rights was because states would not have agreed to join a union if the union could dictate to them.
Some signers of, and states that ratified, the Constitution of the USA only agreed to do so if a bill of rights was ratified. They were afraid a federal government would run roughshod over the states, which is what is happening now. Others such as Alexander Hamilton opposed enumerated rights because they believed a right people innately enjoyed would not be enumerated. In Federalist No 84 he wrote a bill of rights was "unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous." Further, "it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
Exactly. If I claim there is an invisible unicorn in the room the burden is on me to prove it. Not on you to prove there is not. The negative is the default lacking evidence of the positive.
Not exactly, quite the opposite. Claiming there's a unicorn is a positive, claiming I was not given money is a negative. Or to correspond to you giving me money, it would be relatively easy for you to show based on preponderance of evidence that I was given money. A canceled check that was deposited in my banking account for instance. That is a positive.
While he's making statements about Nevada being the Saudi Arabia of Geothermal... remember that all these geothermal plants are in the 10's MW range. We build coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants on the scale of 100's and 000's of MW. We need to replace 1000's MW of ageing coal and nuclear plants.
You like so many others want the One Big Thing when many small scale things can do as well if not better. Of course small scale projects take away the power of the fascists, er corporate socialists.
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
And where pray tell does he propose to get the necessary water for this project?
From the Colorado River -- Nevada has been trying to get a greater allocation for a long time and this would get the Feds in on their side. Or, of course, there's all the sewage from Las Vegas.
You want to start another civil war? Take water away from the other 6 states making up the Colorado River Compact. Then deny Mexico of it's treaty guaranteed water too and watch for more fun. If I lived in Colorado I'd start it myself, by building cisterns to capture and store rainwater for my garden.
And if you look around, nearly all the radio stations that were around 30 years ago are now gone completely or their call letters used by Cumulus, ClearChannel or similar propaganda engine.
Propaganda engines like Air America, a progressive but not liberal radio station. Because it could not compeat with other stations it had to shut down in January 2010. Now if you look at how long network ownership lasts, in 30 years ClearChannel may be gone too. In the '70s ABC, CBS, and NBC were the big networks. Cable and satellite TV came along in the '80 with WGN in Chicago, Ted Turner's stations, and others coming to dominate broadcasting. The '90s came and cable stations mushroomed. Now we have internet based programming. I bet in 20 years the media giants will not look like they do now.
If you look around at newspapers you'll see that nearly all the newspapers have disappeared in all but title.
Nearly but not all. Some newspapers are actually expanding. They are doing it by offering what people want. I couldn't find it online but a couple of weeks ago CNN had a story about a newspaper in AZ. It was going under, out of business, when this guy scrapped all the money he could then bought the paper and brought it back to life. Residents liked what was printed so they subscribed. Then with subscriptions growing advertisers started advertising.
Give enough people what they want and enough will pay for it.
How can any country have open and democratic elections with out a forum for discussing facts and debating positions?
How did Jessie "The Body" Ventura become the governor of MN in 1999" How did Ron Paul raise millions in campaign contributions in days? By using the internet. With the internet it's easy to create meeting spaces. Look at Move-over.org and Meetup.
Plus people are pretty damn ignorant about it. Fluoridate your water already.
If you don't want to make your own choice fine with me but don't force to to follow your lead. If you want to jump of the Empire State building go ahead, but I won't. Nor do I want fluoride in my water or food. I buy purified because I don't want chemicals in my water. Here I have to pay to have chemical added then I have to pay to remove them.
Not have a country wide education programs mean poor states and counties have an efen worse time educating people.
The most importants document in the US are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA neither one says anything about any federal government education department, The fact it doesn't but you want it to doesn't mean it does. If you want, it provides a method to change it, by amending it.
Don't just treat either documents as toilet paper.
"What's crazy for scaling back the US Government to its constitutional limits "
it is within in constitutional limits. The problem is you have no clue about the constitution.
No, you are the one that is wrong. Currently the US federal government is out of it's constitutional limits. The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, if it does not say the government can do something it can not do it. Paper after paper says so. The principle writer of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote "The powers of the central government are few and explicitly defined, while those of the state governments are several." If the Constitution gave the federal government unlimited powers then states would not have ratified it. To think anything else is delusional. And to try to convince others otherwise is corrupt.
I don't really care much about the UN. I especially don't like it when people say the US has to follow UN rules, even when they are unconstitutional and deny sovereignty.
The federal Department of Education? Where is it mentioned in the Costitution of the USA? It isn't so it isn't authorized.
you justified this on the basis that your claim was "negative" and therefore did not need citations. I pointed out that if you make assertions of any kind you have to provide proof.
How can I, you, or anyone else proof a negative? Say you claim you gave me $1 millions, how do I prove you didn't? No matter what I say or proof I provide you can always say I got the money another way or did something else with it. No returned but canceled check, you gave me a money order or something else. No deposit in my accounts that big? I deposited it in another account. Or I cashed it and took money. I was given cash, now how do I prove I was not given cash?
It's not enough, after all, to show that the Dept. of Education exists, and that poor schools exist. You have to show how the first causes the last.
No you don't, what you have to do to justify a federal department of education is show the US Constitution authorizes it. And no matter how many tymes I search it I do not find "education" anywhere in the Constitution. And yes, the Constitution does grant limited powers not limitless powers to the federal government.
James Madison specifically (even sarcastically) cited a public education system as a potential result of abuse of the "general welfare" clause, so I content that opposing the byzantine and wasteful Department of Education is, in fact, quite reasonable.
I'm curious, do you have a reference? Googling I found James Madison supported public education. Here's a letter Madison wrote to William Taylor Barry when Barry asked for advise from Madison. It's said Madison's reply was his strongest support for public education, he wrote:
"The liberal appropriations made by the Legislature of Kentucky for a general system of Education cannot be too much applauded. A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
Perhaps you meant a federal public education system, because he did support state systems.
Personally, I think we should have term limits, but that will never fly as Congress itself would have to approve it.
Congress does not have to approve an amendment to the constitution. Two thirds, 34, states can call for a convention. No congressional approval needed. Then three quarters of the states, 38, can approve the amendment.
The majority rule has been replaced by minority tyranny through abusing rules that protect minority rights to influence (but not control) decisionmaking. That's the automatic and universal filibuster at work
If you really believe filibusters are bad then you need to watch the movie Mr Smith Goes to Washington with Jimmy Steward. Talk about corruption, that is what the filibuster is for, to fight against corruption.
If big business feels they are losing control of the senate they can focus on the congress and president. Lose control of congress, focus on the senate and president.
The Senate is part of Congress, not separate from it. There are 3 part of the federal government. The legislative or congressional part is made up of the House of representatives and the Senate. The executive actually runs the government. And the third leg is the Supreme Court, and other lower courts congress and the president agree to. Man, if public schools in the US aren't teaching that anymore they are really failing.
Further, consider the priorities of an elected official. He gets into office by whoring for votes. His priority is the next election, not how his actions will affect the country decades into the future.
So do unelected officials.
I actually think it was a mistake to allow direct election of the president.
You're in luck then, the president of the USA is elected not by a direct election but by the Electoral College.
One of the reasons for splitting the legislature was to over-represent small states; I'm opposed to that one.
Not quite, representatives are there so large states will not dictate to small states. If a state were to be dictated to why would it want to approve the Constitution and join the union? To be dictated to? Few states, or people, want to be dictated to but they love being able to dictate to others.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing it's less that the computer itself is dumbing anyone down, and more that they're doing it instead of other things. 8+ hours a day doesn't leave a lot of time to study.
It could be that using the computer can replace some studying. Games can help improve thinking skills as well as prepare people for careers. People can learn about running a business, or other things such as critical thinking skills, by playing the Hotdog Stand game. Amazon's description says "Students improve math, problem-solving, and communication skills in this real-life business simulation where they manage a busy concession stand in a big-city stadium. Students interpret information, keep records, determine prices, and plat (my comment - plot?) marketing strategies." Super Smart Games lists more games for learning.
Falcon
It's up to the children to use the computer to educate themselves. Parents cannot teach kids to do this.
Parents can not only teach but they can monitor computer usage too. Obviously if the parents don't know how to use computers then they'll have to learn but they can still teach.
Falcon
No. You are now creating several straw man arguments. I did not say that Democrats can use it but Republicans cannot
Going up the thread this is where you say "I've watched it. But if you think it's 'fighting corruption' now, you should look into what the minority Republicans do to filibuster. They just notify Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) that they will filibuster, and Reid accepts that they will. Or they use any of the many points in the legislative path to refuse "unanimous consent" to some rule erected to create that option, and derail the process." As if only Democrats can use filibusters. You do not explicitly state it, it is implicit (implied though not directly expressed;).
Falcon
This was one thing I had a problem with. I know what 12 x 12 is, we had to memorize it, so I don't need to write it out long-hand. I can solve 3x + 4x = 14 in my head, requiring me to write it out long-hand is a waste. On the other hand I may want to write out in long-hand f'(x) or f(x), damn the integral symbol isn't showing, so the integral of f(x).
Falcon
Do they, and technology in general, make us lazy or stupid? Or do they help us?
I think they can and do both. Being a TBI or Traumatic Brain Injury survivor I have spent years learning how to use compensatory strategies for my weaknesses. One of them is my memory so for instance when I cook, even if I only spend a few minutes to boil water for tea, I use a windup timer. When the alarm goes off I know to check the water or food. I do the same for my laundry. Or planning, I use a notebook planner to write appointments and to-do lists. However I sometimes fail to check the planner so when I can I use the built-in calendar/planner on my cellphone. When I make an appointment with my doc I'll write it in my planner and program my cellphone at the same tyme. The personal care coordinator I see at my doc's office tried to get me to use the calendar/planner software my Mac came with, iCal, but I find the cellphone better.
Falcon
That is a misleading title, subject-line. TFA says that it's particularly true for disadvantaged families. Further the researchers "concluded that home computers are put to more productive use in households where parental monitoring is more effective. In disadvantaged households, parents are less likely to monitor children's computer use and guide children in using computers for educational purposes."
Now what are the results for children of more affluent parents or parents who spend more tyme with their children? If and when the answer for these show the same results then it might be true.
Falcon
No I didn't. I pointed out how both parties use filibusters but you only want Democrats to use them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You however only fault Republicans as if only Democrats can use them. As for my use of the citation, I used it because it was the second result for filibusters democrats republicans, the first being wiki. Another result says how Democrats used filibusters to block 10 Bush judicial nominees from a yes-or-no vote in 2003. Why is it alright for Democrats to use filibusters to block yes-or-no votes but not Republicans use of it for health insurance reform? You say how the article I first posted agreed that more people agreed when Democrats used filibusters than when Republicans do, but you neglected the health bill. A majority of people opposed the bill but Nancy Pelosi decided to ram it down people's throats anyway. She didn't care what voters wanted, and I hope she loses here seat because of it. Along with other Democrats.
Falcon
I've watched it. But if you think it's "fighting corruption" now, you should look into what the minority Republicans do to filibuster. They just notify Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) that they will filibuster, and Reid accepts that they will.
So, Democrats did the same when Republicans were in power. Why the filibuster is OK for Democrats but not for Republicans tries explain why filibusters are okay for Democrats but not Republicans. Do you say that Democrats can use them but not Republicans?
Falcon
The idea that a state should have rights apart from those of the people who live there is just perverse.
I agree but the reason states supposedly had rights was because states would not have agreed to join a union if the union could dictate to them.
Some signers of, and states that ratified, the Constitution of the USA only agreed to do so if a bill of rights was ratified. They were afraid a federal government would run roughshod over the states, which is what is happening now. Others such as Alexander Hamilton opposed enumerated rights because they believed a right people innately enjoyed would not be enumerated. In Federalist No 84 he wrote a bill of rights was "unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous." Further, "it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
Falcon
Exactly. If I claim there is an invisible unicorn in the room the burden is on me to prove it. Not on you to prove there is not. The negative is the default lacking evidence of the positive.
Not exactly, quite the opposite. Claiming there's a unicorn is a positive, claiming I was not given money is a negative. Or to correspond to you giving me money, it would be relatively easy for you to show based on preponderance of evidence that I was given money. A canceled check that was deposited in my banking account for instance. That is a positive.
Falcon
While he's making statements about Nevada being the Saudi Arabia of Geothermal... remember that all these geothermal plants are in the 10's MW range. We build coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants on the scale of 100's and 000's of MW. We need to replace 1000's MW of ageing coal and nuclear plants.
You like so many others want the One Big Thing when many small scale things can do as well if not better. Of course small scale projects take away the power of the fascists, er corporate socialists.
Falcon
The nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies.
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Falcon
And where pray tell does he propose to get the necessary water for this project?
From the Colorado River -- Nevada has been trying to get a greater allocation for a long time and this would get the Feds in on their side. Or, of course, there's all the sewage from Las Vegas.
You want to start another civil war? Take water away from the other 6 states making up the Colorado River Compact. Then deny Mexico of it's treaty guaranteed water too and watch for more fun. If I lived in Colorado I'd start it myself, by building cisterns to capture and store rainwater for my garden.
Falcon
I've said it before and I'll say it again: geothermal power is a total failure on all levels.
Oh really? So geothermal doesn't really supply Iceland with approximately 24% of it's electricity? It didn't supply California with 13,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in 2007? Geothermal in Hawaii doesn't provide 20% or 30 MW of the Big Island's electricity? And it doesn't provide the Philippines with 27% electricity? Oh, and MIT scientists are lying when they say GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands?
Falcon
And if you look around, nearly all the radio stations that were around 30 years ago are now gone completely or their call letters used by Cumulus, ClearChannel or similar propaganda engine.
Propaganda engines like Air America, a progressive but not liberal radio station. Because it could not compeat with other stations it had to shut down in January 2010. Now if you look at how long network ownership lasts, in 30 years ClearChannel may be gone too. In the '70s ABC, CBS, and NBC were the big networks. Cable and satellite TV came along in the '80 with WGN in Chicago, Ted Turner's stations, and others coming to dominate broadcasting. The '90s came and cable stations mushroomed. Now we have internet based programming. I bet in 20 years the media giants will not look like they do now.
If you look around at newspapers you'll see that nearly all the newspapers have disappeared in all but title.
Nearly but not all. Some newspapers are actually expanding. They are doing it by offering what people want. I couldn't find it online but a couple of weeks ago CNN had a story about a newspaper in AZ. It was going under, out of business, when this guy scrapped all the money he could then bought the paper and brought it back to life. Residents liked what was printed so they subscribed. Then with subscriptions growing advertisers started advertising.
Give enough people what they want and enough will pay for it.
How can any country have open and democratic elections with out a forum for discussing facts and debating positions?
How did Jessie "The Body" Ventura become the governor of MN in 1999" How did Ron Paul raise millions in campaign contributions in days? By using the internet. With the internet it's easy to create meeting spaces. Look at Move-over.org and Meetup.
Falcon
Plus people are pretty damn ignorant about it. Fluoridate your water already.
If you don't want to make your own choice fine with me but don't force to to follow your lead. If you want to jump of the Empire State building go ahead, but I won't. Nor do I want fluoride in my water or food. I buy purified because I don't want chemicals in my water. Here I have to pay to have chemical added then I have to pay to remove them.
Not have a country wide education programs mean poor states and counties have an efen worse time educating people.
The most importants document in the US are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA neither one says anything about any federal government education department, The fact it doesn't but you want it to doesn't mean it does. If you want, it provides a method to change it, by amending it.
Don't just treat either documents as toilet paper.
"What's crazy for scaling back the US Government to its constitutional limits "
it is within in constitutional limits. The problem is you have no clue about the constitution.
No, you are the one that is wrong. Currently the US federal government is out of it's constitutional limits. The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, if it does not say the government can do something it can not do it. Paper after paper says so. The principle writer of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote "The powers of the central government are few and explicitly defined, while those of the state governments are several." If the Constitution gave the federal government unlimited powers then states would not have ratified it. To think anything else is delusional. And to try to convince others otherwise is corrupt.
Falcon
Opposes fluoridation, the UN and the Department of Education.
Good, I'm not sure, and good.
Fluoridation causes a few health problems from weak, stained, teeth and skeletal damage, to cancer, fluoride is a mutagen.
I don't really care much about the UN. I especially don't like it when people say the US has to follow UN rules, even when they are unconstitutional and deny sovereignty.
The federal Department of Education? Where is it mentioned in the Costitution of the USA? It isn't so it isn't authorized.
Falcon
you justified this on the basis that your claim was "negative" and therefore did not need citations. I pointed out that if you make assertions of any kind you have to provide proof.
How can I, you, or anyone else proof a negative? Say you claim you gave me $1 millions, how do I prove you didn't? No matter what I say or proof I provide you can always say I got the money another way or did something else with it. No returned but canceled check, you gave me a money order or something else. No deposit in my accounts that big? I deposited it in another account. Or I cashed it and took money. I was given cash, now how do I prove I was not given cash?
Trying to proof a negative can be impossible.
Falcon
It's not enough, after all, to show that the Dept. of Education exists, and that poor schools exist. You have to show how the first causes the last.
No you don't, what you have to do to justify a federal department of education is show the US Constitution authorizes it. And no matter how many tymes I search it I do not find "education" anywhere in the Constitution. And yes, the Constitution does grant limited powers not limitless powers to the federal government.
Falcon
James Madison specifically (even sarcastically) cited a public education system as a potential result of abuse of the "general welfare" clause, so I content that opposing the byzantine and wasteful Department of Education is, in fact, quite reasonable.
I'm curious, do you have a reference? Googling I found James Madison supported public education. Here's a letter Madison wrote to William Taylor Barry when Barry asked for advise from Madison. It's said Madison's reply was his strongest support for public education, he wrote:
"The liberal appropriations made by the Legislature of Kentucky for a general system of Education cannot be too much applauded. A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
Perhaps you meant a federal public education system, because he did support state systems.
Personally, I think we should have term limits, but that will never fly as Congress itself would have to approve it.
Congress does not have to approve an amendment to the constitution. Two thirds, 34, states can call for a convention. No congressional approval needed. Then three quarters of the states, 38, can approve the amendment.
Falcon
The majority rule has been replaced by minority tyranny through abusing rules that protect minority rights to influence (but not control) decisionmaking. That's the automatic and universal filibuster at work
If you really believe filibusters are bad then you need to watch the movie Mr Smith Goes to Washington with Jimmy Steward. Talk about corruption, that is what the filibuster is for, to fight against corruption.
Falcon
If big business feels they are losing control of the senate they can focus on the congress and president. Lose control of congress, focus on the senate and president.
The Senate is part of Congress, not separate from it. There are 3 part of the federal government. The legislative or congressional part is made up of the House of representatives and the Senate. The executive actually runs the government. And the third leg is the Supreme Court, and other lower courts congress and the president agree to. Man, if public schools in the US aren't teaching that anymore they are really failing.
Falcon
Further, consider the priorities of an elected official. He gets into office by whoring for votes. His priority is the next election, not how his actions will affect the country decades into the future.
So do unelected officials.
I actually think it was a mistake to allow direct election of the president.
You're in luck then, the president of the USA is elected not by a direct election but by the Electoral College.
Falcon
One of the reasons for splitting the legislature was to over-represent small states; I'm opposed to that one.
Not quite, representatives are there so large states will not dictate to small states. If a state were to be dictated to why would it want to approve the Constitution and join the union? To be dictated to? Few states, or people, want to be dictated to but they love being able to dictate to others.
Falcon