The real question is: Would you react exactly the same to the same situation every time? If so, your actions are said to be deterministic. Of course, such a simplistic model ignores the cognitive processes going on inside your head which cause you to react differently to the same situation. That may be what is meant by free will lying somewhere between absolute determinism and absolute randomness. Your brain is tweaking the situation each time even though it's physically the same.
No, the next "crop" of teachers is NOT being taught that self-esteem is more important. Every single piece of literature or textbook that I've read and all of the ed teachers I've had have all said that self-esteem does not neccessarily correlate well with improved ability. Improved ability correlates with higher self-esteem, however. In developmental psychology, the realistic self-evaluation is indeed touted as a more adult quality than simplistic "high self-esteem." Why don't you actually look at the coursework you're commenting about instead of making unfounded claims based on a 10 year old view of education?
I think it's also important that everyone know that there are teachers out here who aren't the major fuckups that these teachers apparently were. My teachers certainly wouldn't have done this, nor did they scar us in any appreciable way.
And kids snap and start shooting because they're mentally unstable--dare I say maladjusted--to begin with. I'm really having trouble not reading into your comment that you're talking about all teachers, not just the bad ones.
Let me just say that every education course I've taken has drilled the idea that punishment alone is never effective. Punishment does not tell you what to do differently, only what not to do. A system of reward works much better for training. So while your educational experience may have been much different, the teachers who are in training aren't the same kind of teacher that you're thinking of, or that would pull this kind of moronic stunt.
Please don't let an event like this sour the other million or so teachers out there for you.
I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure you're not tailgating at that distance at less than 10 miles per hour. Frequently the traffic lights around where I used to live would change in about 3 seconds, so only the first semi or two or three cars would get out before it switched. If you're not experienced driving the particular route you can easily miss that the light changed as the semi pulls out, thus forcing you to run it or stop dead in the intersection.
Actually, Google doesn't have a monopoly in the search engine market, as there are a fuckton of other engines available. A monopoly is defined as something like 80-90% market share. Thus, your argument that Google is abusing a monopoly position doesn't hold water.
Why should I have to come up with a better theory in order that I be allowed to criticize our current theories?
And since we discovered Dark Matter via gravitational interaction, anything that uses gravitational interaction to demonstrate the existance of dark matter is inheriently flawed circular logic. Another poster mentioned the Cosmic Microwave Background as another source of evidence, which I do buy. But when you come up with a new theory based on observations of gravity, you can't then turn around and cite observations of gravity as proof that your theory exists.
The problem I've always had with dark matter is the idea that we first suggested the phenomenon as an explanation for why our current theories of gravity do not work on the galactic and above scale. Now, after we've determined that there must be some theoretical type of matter which contributes mass but does not interact with electromagnetic waves, we've determined that we can observe it through the same phenomena which originally led us to postulate its existance. Does that strike anyone else as slightly broken? Might there be some circular logic in that idea?
So what does the study's method of obscurity have to do with what it's measuring? I can say that culture has changed in such a fashion because the attitudes of a culture frequently change from generation to generation. Also, the ethics boards may not disagree with my assertion at all. They may just feel that it's not an ethical study to run, kind of like an ethics board having people pretend to be electrocuted in front of other people also doesn't indicate their opinion on the cultural basis of that matter either. I really don't see any arguments against what I've said in your post. Just a couple of fallacies and an insult.
My opposition to your citation of this study comes from the fact that it's about 20-30 years old. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a culture's attitudes change over time? This very well may not be true anymore.
Tell that to the WWII veterans, or the Vietnam veterans who came back with PTSD. They didn't have a choice in the matter.
And your last statement is a testament to your own ignorance. There are plenty of civilians who have never killed anyone who get PTSD from being in a stressful or traumatic event, like rape, or being caught in a housefire, or sexual abuse, or any number of horrible situations.
The problem with the research you cite is that we don't know if the baby is thinking of count as it's reacting to the doll stimulus. All we know for sure is that the baby is responding to a novel stimulus, in this case a doll that's moving more or fewer times than it did before. Is the baby attaching meaning in terms of count, or is it attaching meaning in terms of difference of motion? The question the research is attempting to answer versus the question the research actually answers may be completely different.
I'd say that giving a herpes vaccine to women at 11 is protecting their future babies from a life of blindness, and horrible scarring. Oh, it also protects them from cervical cancer. But that's just me.
Personally, I blame peoples' inability to look past themselves and understand other people. They try to control other people because they know that the other person has feelings and compulsions, but they haven't gotten to the point where they realize that the other person also has enough of a brain to know when those compulsions are appropriate.
Sometimes you just have to trust other people even if the consequence is betrayal. It's part of life, but when we lose the ability to trust others we give up our own innocence.
Actually, this kind of excessive force against teachers has been going on for about 200 or so years. For example, back in the late 1800's, women teachers weren't allowed to marry, and male teachers weren't allowed to have their hair cut in a barber shop in Philidelphia. Teachers aren't allowed to have social lives in the public eye. It's a good way to get fired, even though you're not doing anything to harm the students and may be the best teacher they've ever hired. Even after social liberation late last century, there's still a culture lag for teachers.
The article is clearly nonsense. It doesn't explain anything, merely speculates idly about how the tunnel that doesn't exist should work, throws in a few buzzwords, and some general information, and calls it a day. Nothing to see here, just more pageviews for Scientific American.
Because technology makes certain demonstrations easier, makes it easer to do the math of calculating grades, makes it easier to keep track of information, makes it easier to access information, makes it easier for students to do homework, and because it's a good idea for the curriculum to give some practical skills.
Yes, the catalyst exists. We are all made in His image. You might also be interested to know that He is invisible, and passes through normal matter with ease. Clearly you cannot see past the marinara to the noodles below and understand that this is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence.
Speaking of scratching/breaking an original CD, I once helped a guy clean bits of a Windows XP Pro disc out of his CD-rom drive. It was the original install disc he was borrowing from a friend. Sucker popped in the middle of the install.
This is just to refute anyone who might say that backup copies are unnecessary. Breaking a CD in the drive is a risk. Seen it happen.
Also, I applaud when a crack is found because it amuses me that after a company invested all that time and money into making their product un-copyable, someone comes along and copies it; but if they had invested that manpower into making a better product we would all come out richer, instead of more annoyed. The real travesty of DRM isn't that it locks us out of our own purchases. It's that all those man-hours are wasted on its implementation instead of on contributing to our culture.
It's entirely possible that it isn't a mission critical application, and that whatever version they're currently using is working fine for them. A filesystem isn't like database software or a web server.
And besides, I suspect that if an OSS application suddenly loses its maintainer, we end users will do what we always do when a piece of software stops being available or stops recieving updates. We stop using it and switch to something newer. This happens whether or not something is Open-source.
Anonymous Coward's corollary: All discussions in which this event has occurred must degenerate into political bickering no matter how distantly related the original subject was.
Lol. You're missing the point of open source, which is that, if something is mission-critical, and the maintainer falls off the face of the earth, anyone, and I mean anyone, can pick up the code and continue on. The practical upshot of this is that, if suddenly overnight and with no warning your software became unsupported you could hire someone to provide support because you have all the code.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question is: Would you react exactly the same to the same situation every time? If so, your actions are said to be deterministic. Of course, such a simplistic model ignores the cognitive processes going on inside your head which cause you to react differently to the same situation. That may be what is meant by free will lying somewhere between absolute determinism and absolute randomness. Your brain is tweaking the situation each time even though it's physically the same.
Good point, actually. That'll teach me to be a reactionary.
No, the next "crop" of teachers is NOT being taught that self-esteem is more important. Every single piece of literature or textbook that I've read and all of the ed teachers I've had have all said that self-esteem does not neccessarily correlate well with improved ability. Improved ability correlates with higher self-esteem, however. In developmental psychology, the realistic self-evaluation is indeed touted as a more adult quality than simplistic "high self-esteem." Why don't you actually look at the coursework you're commenting about instead of making unfounded claims based on a 10 year old view of education?
I think it's also important that everyone know that there are teachers out here who aren't the major fuckups that these teachers apparently were. My teachers certainly wouldn't have done this, nor did they scar us in any appreciable way.
And kids snap and start shooting because they're mentally unstable--dare I say maladjusted--to begin with. I'm really having trouble not reading into your comment that you're talking about all teachers, not just the bad ones.
Let me just say that every education course I've taken has drilled the idea that punishment alone is never effective. Punishment does not tell you what to do differently, only what not to do. A system of reward works much better for training. So while your educational experience may have been much different, the teachers who are in training aren't the same kind of teacher that you're thinking of, or that would pull this kind of moronic stunt.
Please don't let an event like this sour the other million or so teachers out there for you.
I'm an idiot too. Don't feel bad, we all are.
I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure you're not tailgating at that distance at less than 10 miles per hour. Frequently the traffic lights around where I used to live would change in about 3 seconds, so only the first semi or two or three cars would get out before it switched. If you're not experienced driving the particular route you can easily miss that the light changed as the semi pulls out, thus forcing you to run it or stop dead in the intersection.
Are you even old enough to drive?
I make coffee with one of those cheap little reusable tea baskets. Works fine, if you don't mind a little grit in the bottom of your cup.
Actually, Google doesn't have a monopoly in the search engine market, as there are a fuckton of other engines available. A monopoly is defined as something like 80-90% market share. Thus, your argument that Google is abusing a monopoly position doesn't hold water.
Why should I have to come up with a better theory in order that I be allowed to criticize our current theories?
And since we discovered Dark Matter via gravitational interaction, anything that uses gravitational interaction to demonstrate the existance of dark matter is inheriently flawed circular logic. Another poster mentioned the Cosmic Microwave Background as another source of evidence, which I do buy. But when you come up with a new theory based on observations of gravity, you can't then turn around and cite observations of gravity as proof that your theory exists.
The problem I've always had with dark matter is the idea that we first suggested the phenomenon as an explanation for why our current theories of gravity do not work on the galactic and above scale. Now, after we've determined that there must be some theoretical type of matter which contributes mass but does not interact with electromagnetic waves, we've determined that we can observe it through the same phenomena which originally led us to postulate its existance. Does that strike anyone else as slightly broken? Might there be some circular logic in that idea?
So what does the study's method of obscurity have to do with what it's measuring? I can say that culture has changed in such a fashion because the attitudes of a culture frequently change from generation to generation. Also, the ethics boards may not disagree with my assertion at all. They may just feel that it's not an ethical study to run, kind of like an ethics board having people pretend to be electrocuted in front of other people also doesn't indicate their opinion on the cultural basis of that matter either. I really don't see any arguments against what I've said in your post. Just a couple of fallacies and an insult.
My opposition to your citation of this study comes from the fact that it's about 20-30 years old. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a culture's attitudes change over time? This very well may not be true anymore.
They can have my analog channels when digital doesn't cost $30 more.
Tell that to the WWII veterans, or the Vietnam veterans who came back with PTSD. They didn't have a choice in the matter.
And your last statement is a testament to your own ignorance. There are plenty of civilians who have never killed anyone who get PTSD from being in a stressful or traumatic event, like rape, or being caught in a housefire, or sexual abuse, or any number of horrible situations.
The problem with the research you cite is that we don't know if the baby is thinking of count as it's reacting to the doll stimulus. All we know for sure is that the baby is responding to a novel stimulus, in this case a doll that's moving more or fewer times than it did before. Is the baby attaching meaning in terms of count, or is it attaching meaning in terms of difference of motion? The question the research is attempting to answer versus the question the research actually answers may be completely different.
I'd say that giving a herpes vaccine to women at 11 is protecting their future babies from a life of blindness, and horrible scarring. Oh, it also protects them from cervical cancer. But that's just me.
Personally, I blame peoples' inability to look past themselves and understand other people. They try to control other people because they know that the other person has feelings and compulsions, but they haven't gotten to the point where they realize that the other person also has enough of a brain to know when those compulsions are appropriate.
Sometimes you just have to trust other people even if the consequence is betrayal. It's part of life, but when we lose the ability to trust others we give up our own innocence.
Actually, this kind of excessive force against teachers has been going on for about 200 or so years. For example, back in the late 1800's, women teachers weren't allowed to marry, and male teachers weren't allowed to have their hair cut in a barber shop in Philidelphia. Teachers aren't allowed to have social lives in the public eye. It's a good way to get fired, even though you're not doing anything to harm the students and may be the best teacher they've ever hired. Even after social liberation late last century, there's still a culture lag for teachers.
The article is clearly nonsense. It doesn't explain anything, merely speculates idly about how the tunnel that doesn't exist should work, throws in a few buzzwords, and some general information, and calls it a day. Nothing to see here, just more pageviews for Scientific American.
Because technology makes certain demonstrations easier, makes it easer to do the math of calculating grades, makes it easier to keep track of information, makes it easier to access information, makes it easier for students to do homework, and because it's a good idea for the curriculum to give some practical skills.
Yes, the catalyst exists. We are all made in His image. You might also be interested to know that He is invisible, and passes through normal matter with ease. Clearly you cannot see past the marinara to the noodles below and understand that this is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence.
Speaking of scratching/breaking an original CD, I once helped a guy clean bits of a Windows XP Pro disc out of his CD-rom drive. It was the original install disc he was borrowing from a friend. Sucker popped in the middle of the install.
This is just to refute anyone who might say that backup copies are unnecessary. Breaking a CD in the drive is a risk. Seen it happen.
Also, I applaud when a crack is found because it amuses me that after a company invested all that time and money into making their product un-copyable, someone comes along and copies it; but if they had invested that manpower into making a better product we would all come out richer, instead of more annoyed. The real travesty of DRM isn't that it locks us out of our own purchases. It's that all those man-hours are wasted on its implementation instead of on contributing to our culture.
It's entirely possible that it isn't a mission critical application, and that whatever version they're currently using is working fine for them. A filesystem isn't like database software or a web server.
And besides, I suspect that if an OSS application suddenly loses its maintainer, we end users will do what we always do when a piece of software stops being available or stops recieving updates. We stop using it and switch to something newer. This happens whether or not something is Open-source.
Anonymous Coward's corollary: All discussions in which this event has occurred must degenerate into political bickering no matter how distantly related the original subject was.
Lol. You're missing the point of open source, which is that, if something is mission-critical, and the maintainer falls off the face of the earth, anyone, and I mean anyone, can pick up the code and continue on. The practical upshot of this is that, if suddenly overnight and with no warning your software became unsupported you could hire someone to provide support because you have all the code.
That reminds me of my favorite grant proposal ever: Variable-speed oscillating thermal exchange units.