Way to keep setting that bar higher and higher, America! You can win by being average!
Having a C-average in school doesn't necessarily mean you are an average individual. Grades aren't the end-all for evaluating a person's performance or a good measure of their potential. Give the children tools and see what they can create, there are many creative children who have skills which do not necessarily translate to academic performance. Music, art, and even computer skills aren't measured in traditional schools.
I remember not being able to use a calculator even in college Calculus classes as the professor thought it made people lazy and dependent on them.
I remember having a vector calc teacher encourage us to use calculators because we could solve more complex problems faster. For most engineering applications today it's more important to understand how to set up the problem and have a computer solve it than try to do it all by yourself.
If we approached education on parity with jobs, we could say "we need X good doctors, Y lawyers and Z engineers - everyone else, start shoveling"
Yeah, centralized economic management really works out well.
Excess people will end up taking crappy jobs either way, but the way things are today, they waste 4-5 years and a ton of money in school before ending up in that shit job. It's just a huge waste of resources.
Or when there is lack of opportunities those people will leverage their education to start their own businesses.
In the past and bachelors pretty much ensured you'd get a good paying higher level job. Now, a BS or BA is the minimum requirement for almost any job besides riding on the back of the garbage truck.
The reason is the world is getting more complex and the skills needed for an average job are increasing.
Thats the thing really isn't. You could get some Iranian woman , who might be really white (As many Iranians are) , give her a passport with a name like "Maria Jones" or even "Frances Cohen" or something, swing a cross or star of david around her neck, some fake ID papers and some lessons on affecting a perfect accent, and you have someone that won't raise an eyelid. Comes up on the test as a bit fundamentalist inclined in personality? Sure, she's heading to the US for an Assemblies of God, or Jehovas Witness conference. Theres NOTHING you can do to stop that , and a smart terrorist knows that.
That requires a substantial amount of training, planning, funding, etc. which greatly reduces the number of threats. Sure Al-Queda has the resources to pull such a thing off, but not every group is as functional. Further, each step increases the time and complexity which allows greater potential for the plan to be exposed.
If the world thinks the US is "The happy country with coca cola and Levi Jeans" then you won't recruit a damn soul. If the world thinks the US is a violent country with a military mad government that claims morals whilst going around blowing up shit they don't like, well you won't need to look hard to find those recruits
The problem with your thought is that the US isn't the only targetted country and mid-east related terrorism isn't recent. There are complex philosophical difference between the mideast and western nations that have gone back thousands of years.
Its in fact the infuriating thing about this whole 'terrorism era', we didn't even need to have it.
The 'terrorism era' isn't something new - see Barbary Pirates.
You don't 'fix' bee nests by hitting them with rocks.
Depends on how many rocks you use and if you are willing to suffer through the stings.
Being smart is somehow different than other traits though. If I were to tell a coworker or a friend "let me carry that, I'm stronger" or "let me reach that, I'm taller than you", no one would bat an eye. But if I were to say "let me solve that, I'm smarter", that's plainly offensive. Why is that?
The problem with "smarter" is it is so generic it's difficult to define, and also the primary trait people define themselves by. Offering to carry something because you are stronger doesn't call into question the ability of the person, unless you are in a physically demanding job like moving furniture. If you are an accountant and somebody offers to help you move your desk it isn't as threatening as if somebody offered to help you do your calculations more accurately.
Except, of course, that was never the intended purpose. Which is why copyright law is the way it is, or we'd have an actual system guaranteeing a specific cut to authors, a tax/benefit scheme, or something like that.
The idea of copyright isn't about exploitation, it is designed to reduce risk similar to the formation of corporations encourages risk taking in the business world. The system isn't out there to guarantee that the creator can make money, it is there to give limited protections in the market place so they have the opportunity to profit. It recognizes it's "expensive" to create intellectual property, but inexpensive to reproduce.
Think 'monopoly', 'control' and 'aristocrats' or you will just get confused about why IP law is the way it is.
Everybody keeps pointing and saying copyright is a monopoly, but by definition a monopoly requires no available substitutes, of which there are plenty for most copyrighted material.
Wrong again. You have not lost authority due to the spelling mistakes. You lost authority because of the content of your post. The spelling mistakes simply prove that your content is incorrect. I have not judged you to be "either a hypocrite or failed idealist simply based on an error in punctuation and capitalization". I made that judgment based on the content of your post, and the assumption that you are in fact a human.
In your response to my original post, you spent as much time adressing the content (your first 3 sentences), as you did addressing the failures of the author (your final 3 sentences). In fact, you went into more detail to subvert the authority of the writer through the use of citation than you did to respond to the actual content. Looking at your response to my previous post, you did not address the content at all. In fact, the entire basis of your rebuttal is tied to the author, evidenced by the use of "You" and "Your" 20 times in 18 sentences.
Your stance that it is realistic for a human to never making a spelling/grammar/punctuation error is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A quick search, and there was evidence that your content was incorrect. So, no, your point was not made. Your content was wrong.
In neither of my posts did not state that it is realistic for a human to not make an error, I specifically stated the "authority" of the writer will be judged based on their use of language. In my previous post I added examples to demonstrate how the same content presented differently results in different judgement in "authority" by the reader.
You are now faced with an opportunity. You can accept that you were wrong in your judgment, and never complain about minor spelling, typo, or grammar mistakes again. This way you will no longer be wrong going forward. Or, you can continue to be unrealistic in your expectations.
This is a false dichotomy. I never made unrealistic expectations, I pointed out an aspect of human behavior. Your interpretation of my motivation was mistaken, not the actual content of the statement.
My suggestion is to accept that humans sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes that mistake is in their capitalization of the word 'English', sometimes it is by adding an extra 'o' to the word 'lose', and sometimes it is in their expectations that humans should never make mistakes in their casual writing.
I don't deny that mistakes will occur especially in casual writing, however, expect such mistakes to be used in judgement. An isolated incident may be overlooked, but repeated incidents such as your use of the word "loose" multiple times instead of "lose" or my failure to capitalize "English" twice in the same post will be more highly scrutinized. How such issues are interpreted in judgement ultimately will fall upon the reader.
You would be wrong. For the reader to have nothing else to draw upon, the reader would have to be retarded, as to have any access to the writers command of the English language, there would have to be some kind of content. Your theory would require that the reader not understand any of the content.
That is why I used the term "authority." Readers will use whatever they can to try and filter information based on a perception of "authority." They judge the reader's education, motivation, and other implicit factors based on command of language. The same content expressed differently may have different meaning. Just changing how something is written can result in the reader interpreting the content differently. For example:
"Dark matter does not need to exist if F != ma for small values of a." "DARK MATTER DOES NOT NEED TO EXIST IF F != MA FOR SMALL VALUES OF A." "D@rK |\/|@773r d03$ |\|07 |\|33d 70 3Xi$7 iF F != |\/|@ f0r $|\/|@LL \/@Lu3$ 0f @." "Dark mattar does not need too exist if F !=MA fer small valus of A."
The first example is a neutral declaration. The second example can be interpreted as a flame, possibly resulting in the reader dismissing the comment by virtue of their interpretation of the writer's motivation. The third is a mess, where even if the reader was familiar with "leet-speak," the content would be considered the ramblings of a teenager. The fourth example demontrates significant spelling issues, but not so many that the content is lost. The spelling mistakes themselves call into question the writer's level of education.
For example, I would not even think of trying to convince you that your misuse of the English language is a big deal. Given that I only had to go back 3 posts to find you using a period to end a question, and in your post right here, you type the word "English" with a lower case 'e', it is clear that either you do not have a decent command of the English language, you are arguing a point that you actually disagree with, or you have never bothered to see if you actually live up to the standards that you expect of those around you.
Hence, the point I am arguing is made. I have lost the authority for you, the reader, to comment on a subject because you have judged me either a hypocrite or failed idealist simply based on an error in punctuation and capitalization. You question the value of the content not on what is actually written, but based on your judgement of the author.
And today, more than 30 years later, that's still how things work over there, but here, people freak out at the very idea.
There are many places where it is still like that in the US.
But then, hey, why am I surprised, this being a country that finds it necessary to build a monstrous nuclear-armed army, in a world that is almost entirely benevolent or at least neutral towards them, and then pick fights with third world countries left and right?
Yeah European countries don't have nuclear weapons, nor do they ever have violent disputes in smaller nations around the world Just because it isn't on CNN, doesn't mean it isn't happening in places like Africa. The only reason Iraq is such a big deal is because it is bigger and richer than places like the Ivory Coast.
I can chew on that herring, but a child who plays with chemistry sets becomes an experimentor and shows a more direct scientific curiosity and may be inspired to later pursue chemistry or physics;
I disagree; it depends how the kid plays with the chemistry set, just as it depends how the child approaches sports, video games, or any other activity. Unless the child is interested in understanding what is going on when playing, all they are doing is mixing stuff together until they get bored. Whether it's sports, video games, going to Space Camp, or a chemistry set, a child can be inspired to invistigate further or merely be entertained for a few weeks.
a child who plays sports becomes a guinea pig for medicine, but does not care how or why, except that maybe will be inspired by broken bones and snapped tendons and take up sports medicine.
Sports medicine is the obvious example, but a child can also be inspired to investigate material science (golfclubs), chemistry(steroids), psychology (reaching peak performance), aerodynamics (golfballs).
On the other hand, one could also argue that without players of professional sports, we would not have amazing big screen HDTV technology today, that is, if we also ignore the chemistry and physics scientists who actually created that technology in the first place.
Yes, the world is a complex web. If it wasn't for philosophy we might not have physics; if it wasn't for music we might not have modern electronics.
And how does one's excellence in sports directly advance discoveries in science? I suppose one could argue that a few (re)discoveries in Newtonian physics are made now and then while in the middle of performing a sport.
Sports is to medicine what the space program is to physics
certain US jurisdictions will allow it or a polygraph expert to testify or test to be conducted in front of juries. defense councils occasionally use them in jury cases. So no they aren't strictly forbidden and thats is one of the problems.
Is it allowed for trial juries (determine guilt or innocence) or only grand juries (determine whether or not there is enough evidence to indict)
Actually my son is already better educated in the English language than you. He already understands that there are times that being very careful is important, and that there are times when it is not. Fifth grade homework assignment? Important. Internet forum post? Not important.
I would argue that any public communication requires careful use of the english language. With nothing else to draw upon, a reader will often judge the writer's "authority" based on command of the english language.
I would argue theoretical physics has become the art of manipulating math to create interesting possibilities which may or may not have any grounding in reality.
I do wonder, though, what process a human soul must go through to file lawsuits against single mom's and 80-yr old grandmothers (and the occasional dead person) and not even blink. RIAA lawyers must be getting paid a lot of money.
The same process a reporter goes through when they don't get involved and watch a person trapped in a car dying. Lawyers place their belief in the letter of the law over all else. Doesn't matter if you are a single mom, paralyzed grandmother, or 5 year old child - the law is the law. Sadly, a republic fails when the law is considered over common sense.
In short the all volunteer army just guarantees you people who have nothing better to do than willingly join (plus a small number of really patriotic smart people surrounded by the aforementioned) an institution in which they may be assigned to kill or be killed. Not that many really bright people are going to join that kind of an institution without being somewhat coerced.
I would disagree. At 18 not everybody has the maturity to enter the workplace, at the same time not everybody has the drive to go to college. An all volunteer army gets you the people who are smart enough to want to do something with their life but lack discipline, focus, or motivation to search for work in the private sector. The people who have nothing better to do will typically go to criminal life (gangs, drugs, etc.)
The idea is that you would get a textbook that can be referenced by anyone, checked by anyone, and teachers can download updates and corrections without having to buy a whole new damn book. I don't know how well it would work in the long run, but I'd say it's a sight better than the current set up for text books in school..
This could actually be detrimental, the potential signal-to-noise could result in a large amount of resources to try and maintain the textbook. Somebody submits a correction, it would require an internal peer review to deterimine if that correction is correct, not to mention resources getting trapped on contentious points in an area of study.
Personally, I would leverage universities to create textbooks for public schools. Have people give back to the education system - Require PhD candidates to contribute to an open textbook to graduate, and a professor to serve as editor to gain tenure.
Having to pay for text books every semester (even if I buy the international editions) hurts.
In college free learning materials won't change anything. I had Mat. Sci. classes that used photocopied course notes for $15, and a kinetics class that had a useless textbook which cost $2/page (100page book for $200). Ultimately it's up to your professor who often wrote the book, collaborated with the author, or gets a kickback from the publisher.
If it meant that nobody needs a publisher to produce learning materials, then people with expertise everywhere would be able to publish their works with target audiences being children and teenagers, particularly in the field of history I could well see that being made illegal. No government wants its taxpayers to think any more than absolutely necessary.
You think most taxpayers don't have access to learning materials already? Most taxpayers don't want to think more than absolutely necessary, that's why we have the media to tell us what to think, or at least keep us distracted so we don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
Give the children tools and see what they can create, there are many creative children who have skills which do not necessarily translate to academic performance. Music, art, and even computer skills aren't measured in traditional schools.
For most engineering applications today it's more important to understand how to set up the problem and have a computer solve it than try to do it all by yourself.
Or when there is lack of opportunities those people will leverage their education to start their own businesses.
The problem with your thought is that the US isn't the only targetted country and mid-east related terrorism isn't recent. There are complex philosophical difference between the mideast and western nations that have gone back thousands of years.
The 'terrorism era' isn't something new - see Barbary Pirates.
Depends on how many rocks you use and if you are willing to suffer through the stings.
Everybody keeps pointing and saying copyright is a monopoly, but by definition a monopoly requires no available substitutes, of which there are plenty for most copyrighted material.
Looking at your response to my previous post, you did not address the content at all. In fact, the entire basis of your rebuttal is tied to the author, evidenced by the use of "You" and "Your" 20 times in 18 sentences.
In neither of my posts did not state that it is realistic for a human to not make an error, I specifically stated the "authority" of the writer will be judged based on their use of language. In my previous post I added examples to demonstrate how the same content presented differently results in different judgement in "authority" by the reader.
This is a false dichotomy. I never made unrealistic expectations, I pointed out an aspect of human behavior. Your interpretation of my motivation was mistaken, not the actual content of the statement.
I don't deny that mistakes will occur especially in casual writing, however, expect such mistakes to be used in judgement. An isolated incident may be overlooked, but repeated incidents such as your use of the word "loose" multiple times instead of "lose" or my failure to capitalize "English" twice in the same post will be more highly scrutinized. How such issues are interpreted in judgement ultimately will fall upon the reader.
The same content expressed differently may have different meaning. Just changing how something is written can result in the reader interpreting the content differently. For example:
"Dark matter does not need to exist if F != ma for small values of a."
"DARK MATTER DOES NOT NEED TO EXIST IF F != MA FOR SMALL VALUES OF A."
"D@rK |\/|@773r d03$ |\|07 |\|33d 70 3Xi$7 iF F != |\/|@ f0r $|\/|@LL \/@Lu3$ 0f @."
"Dark mattar does not need too exist if F !=MA fer small valus of A."
The first example is a neutral declaration.
The second example can be interpreted as a flame, possibly resulting in the reader dismissing the comment by virtue of their interpretation of the writer's motivation.
The third is a mess, where even if the reader was familiar with "leet-speak," the content would be considered the ramblings of a teenager.
The fourth example demontrates significant spelling issues, but not so many that the content is lost. The spelling mistakes themselves call into question the writer's level of education.
Hence, the point I am arguing is made. I have lost the authority for you, the reader, to comment on a subject because you have judged me either a hypocrite or failed idealist simply based on an error in punctuation and capitalization. You question the value of the content not on what is actually written, but based on your judgement of the author.
Yeah European countries don't have nuclear weapons, nor do they ever have violent disputes in smaller nations around the world
Just because it isn't on CNN, doesn't mean it isn't happening in places like Africa. The only reason Iraq is such a big deal is because it is bigger and richer than places like the Ivory Coast.
Sports medicine is the obvious example, but a child can also be inspired to investigate material science (golfclubs), chemistry(steroids), psychology (reaching peak performance), aerodynamics (golfballs).
Yes, the world is a complex web. If it wasn't for philosophy we might not have physics; if it wasn't for music we might not have modern electronics.
Sadly, a republic fails when the law is considered over common sense.
Personally, I would leverage universities to create textbooks for public schools. Have people give back to the education system - Require PhD candidates to contribute to an open textbook to graduate, and a professor to serve as editor to gain tenure.
Ultimately it's up to your professor who often wrote the book, collaborated with the author, or gets a kickback from the publisher.