"Oh Jesus Christ are you really going to sit there and say that anyone could pick up a book on any subject without guidance and get the same level of education they can get in college?"
Why yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
I'm sorry you feel that knowledge is like a manufactured product and that humans, who have the ability to learn, are somehow analogous to machines. However that simply is not the case. Some people learn well in a college setting, others are able to read and comprehend the same information through other means.
What it sounds like you are arguing is that people are somehow required to accept, a-priori, the notion that any education obtained outside of some "approved" means is somehow inferior. What you fail to realize is that such a notion is not only horribly elitist, but flat-out wrong.
"So you think that paying a ton of cash for a university level degree is a waste?"
Oh the piece of paper may be valuable, depending on the organization you purchased it from, but it is a mistake to confuse the piece of paper with the level of education one receives. The two are linked by correlation, not causation.
If we are talking about the paper, I can see a case being made for it's value (which I would also contend is unfortunate).
However, if we are talking about the education by itself, then I would have to say yes. Paying thousands of dollars to learn something you could have spend a fraction of your time and money learning is not a good investment.
"There still exist, however, extraordinarily specialized fields that you do need a university curriculum to learn."
Name one. Name a single field where it is impossible for someone to acquire a meaningful understanding of the subject matter apart from going to college to study it in a formal setting.
What you are advocating here sounds a lot more like magic, or some sort of religious initiation than it does science. In fact, science rather presupposes that given ordered systems it is wholly likely that someone can learn enough to not only understand a body of knowledge but contribute meaningfully to it as well.
Sorry bud, there is no holy priesthood required for any field.
"I promise you that if I had just started picking up space systems books upon HS graduation it would have taken me at least seven years to learn what I learned in four because I would have been like a blind man stumbling around in the dark."
So your personal experience is now the standard by which we can measure all other human beings against?
"Add to that the value of social experience and good times had in college and I guarantee you that my university degree was well worth every penny I spent."
This is another subjective measurement. However even this is a flawed line of argumentation. You don't think people who do not go to college can have the same social experiences and good times that you did for a fraction of the cost?
"College in many cases is more like paying $100 for a new, amazing type of meal that nobody has cooked yet."
That is pure rubbish. If that were true then we, in the real world, would not have to invest so much time into retraining college graduates to actually be useful when it comes to real products.
It's like looking at someone you've never met and saying that they were stupid to go eat at some particular restaurant.
Except, of course, if I know that you payed $100 for the same taco you knew full well you could get for $2 right down the street.
Knowledge and personal development are not confined to universities, believe it or not they can be obtained elsewhere for a lot less money.
Ultimately everyone is answerable to market forces. Public servants are answerable to their market which is taxpayers while private sector employees are ultimately answerable to their market, the consumers. Your output in either position lets your direct employers, the state or local municipality in the case of public workers, or the corporate chain of command in the private sector, decide whether or not you are helping or hurting them in their efforts to satisfy their intended markets.
A key difference here, though, is that private institutions respond to markets by either growing or shrinking in their income whereas public institutions enjoy a sort of monopolistic safety where the only thing they have to fear is a change in policy enacted by elected officials who are, in turn, selected by the market of voters.
Another corollary can be drawn here with SEC filings of publicly traded companies in order to keep potential traders well-informed (or at least that is the aim). People need to be able to make well-informed decisions, whether it be with their votes or with their dollars. And disclosures like these only serve to aid that effort.
A key difference for most of us is that we are not public employees and therefore our ultimate source of income is not the pockets of taxpayers. So yes, their evaluations should be published publicly, especially if voters are to be informed when they go to vote for politicians who support unions who harbor bad teachers.
Why shouldn't you be allowed to vote? Because youve proven to society that you make bad descisions.
Why do we "punish" criminals even after they are free from the courts? Because their debt was never to society and because past actions are the best indicator of future behavior.
Even if no one remembers it, does that mean that it isn't knowable or that it has passed from existance? Put it this way, does our lack of knowledge about historical events mean they never happened?
If not, then we must conclude that while the means of knowing the information we seek may have been marred or even destroyed outright, the information itself has not been destroyed and is therefore still knowable.
The question then becomes, how can information (such as history) exist if we (homans) cannot fully and completely reconstruct every facet of it?
Can we really say that there is meaning or a teleological purpose for information? If there isn't then what would it matter if there were any concious beings to perceive it at all? If there is, then what is its purpose and where did it derive that purpose from?
This just states that information (or the access to it) can be hindered; it says nothing about information being completely lost.
My question is; is it possible for a piece of information to be completely destroyed?
I agree that what we have come to call "evolution" is a result of the fall and a basic deteoriation of species.
However, deteoriation isnt the same as "natural selection" that is expoused as the hallmark of evolution where as one thing "evolves" into something better. Deteoriation like what you are talking about is rather a "devolving" of species.
All in all though, I agree with your conclusion though, species are devolving into shadows of their former selves rather than evolving into something bigger and better than before.
Please explain to me how a few key species "evolved". Namely:
- the chicken (ever seen one in the wild?)
- the cow/bovine (again, have you ever seen heards of them roaming around by themselves)
- the platapus (where is it's evolutionary trail?)
As a Judeo-Christian I find it amusing when people attempt to tell me that evolution/darwinism is a "bona-fide fact" rather than a theory.
And while you are bemoaning the reliance of America's leaders on "religion", try looking up what America was actually founded on and what the founders believed.
is how you can patent an idea or process of doing things. I can understand patenting long complex processes, but where do we draw the line between complex and common?
This might actually help the GPL (and the patient system) by allowing for "prior art". Especially if they did away with the lifetime copyrights and start actually release things into the public domain.
I was able to start and asf download, but it was only a "demo" clip which no one would have issues with anyhow.
My guess is that they kept these active to be able to use it in court later when the prosecuter tries to pull out a wayback machine site capture and use it against them.
No, a student of mine just got a job working for Dibold in south Georgia so I have some insight on this.
Diebold has machines setup through the local goverment and hires local "data collectors" like my student to go to each one and pull out what amounts to a USB drive. Each one is then fed into a database app and sent to the main office in Atlanta (presumably to each state capital).
Currently Dibold oversees the entire process (via sub-contractors). Within a year, local goverments are expected to hire their own "data collector".
There is an interesting summery at Freedom to Tinker that I'll post along with this:
Pay attention now, 'cause this story gets kinda complicated.
See, Apple had this product called iPod that lets you listen to music. That sounds like a good idea. But Apple thought it would be better if the iPod could do less. So their engineers pulled a bunch of all-nighters to make sure that the iPod couldn't play just any music a customer might have laying around. They called this DRM. I think that stands for Don't Replay Music.
Now Apple had a competitor called Real. And Real was unhappy that Apple had made its product less useful. So Real's engineers pulled a bunch of all-nighters, so that they could make Apple's product better. They could've spent that time making their own product better, but that would have been a waste after all of the time they had already spent making their own product worse by making it do DRM too.
You still with me? Good.
Okay, so Apple was mighty ticked off that Real had made Apple's product better, without even getting permission or anything. So Apple cried foul. Apple was shocked 'n' saddened that Real was trying to improve Apple's product, like those hacker guys are always doing. So Apple drew a line in the sand, and swore to make its own product worse again.
I don't know about you, but I find this all very confusing. I guess I just don't have a head for business.
One of the things they ask you when you fill out the short form is if you want the $50 put in your paypal account. Which means paypal will still get interest off the majority of those that do have their $50 sent to their paypal account.
It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation.
I can understand damaging a component if it were hindering their invistigation. But prying open an iBook with a screwdriver, damaging the screen? That's just plain evil.
Actually, SWF (what Flash creates) is an open standard. There are plenty of other apps that have the ability to create/view SWFs other than Flash. It's just that SWF is generally associated with Flash since they created it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Oh Jesus Christ are you really going to sit there and say that anyone could pick up a book on any subject without guidance and get the same level of education they can get in college?" Why yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I'm sorry you feel that knowledge is like a manufactured product and that humans, who have the ability to learn, are somehow analogous to machines. However that simply is not the case. Some people learn well in a college setting, others are able to read and comprehend the same information through other means. What it sounds like you are arguing is that people are somehow required to accept, a-priori, the notion that any education obtained outside of some "approved" means is somehow inferior. What you fail to realize is that such a notion is not only horribly elitist, but flat-out wrong. "So you think that paying a ton of cash for a university level degree is a waste?" Oh the piece of paper may be valuable, depending on the organization you purchased it from, but it is a mistake to confuse the piece of paper with the level of education one receives. The two are linked by correlation, not causation. If we are talking about the paper, I can see a case being made for it's value (which I would also contend is unfortunate). However, if we are talking about the education by itself, then I would have to say yes. Paying thousands of dollars to learn something you could have spend a fraction of your time and money learning is not a good investment. "There still exist, however, extraordinarily specialized fields that you do need a university curriculum to learn." Name one. Name a single field where it is impossible for someone to acquire a meaningful understanding of the subject matter apart from going to college to study it in a formal setting. What you are advocating here sounds a lot more like magic, or some sort of religious initiation than it does science. In fact, science rather presupposes that given ordered systems it is wholly likely that someone can learn enough to not only understand a body of knowledge but contribute meaningfully to it as well. Sorry bud, there is no holy priesthood required for any field. "I promise you that if I had just started picking up space systems books upon HS graduation it would have taken me at least seven years to learn what I learned in four because I would have been like a blind man stumbling around in the dark." So your personal experience is now the standard by which we can measure all other human beings against? "Add to that the value of social experience and good times had in college and I guarantee you that my university degree was well worth every penny I spent." This is another subjective measurement. However even this is a flawed line of argumentation. You don't think people who do not go to college can have the same social experiences and good times that you did for a fraction of the cost? "College in many cases is more like paying $100 for a new, amazing type of meal that nobody has cooked yet." That is pure rubbish. If that were true then we, in the real world, would not have to invest so much time into retraining college graduates to actually be useful when it comes to real products.
It's like looking at someone you've never met and saying that they were stupid to go eat at some particular restaurant.
Except, of course, if I know that you payed $100 for the same taco you knew full well you could get for $2 right down the street. Knowledge and personal development are not confined to universities, believe it or not they can be obtained elsewhere for a lot less money.
Ultimately everyone is answerable to market forces. Public servants are answerable to their market which is taxpayers while private sector employees are ultimately answerable to their market, the consumers. Your output in either position lets your direct employers, the state or local municipality in the case of public workers, or the corporate chain of command in the private sector, decide whether or not you are helping or hurting them in their efforts to satisfy their intended markets. A key difference here, though, is that private institutions respond to markets by either growing or shrinking in their income whereas public institutions enjoy a sort of monopolistic safety where the only thing they have to fear is a change in policy enacted by elected officials who are, in turn, selected by the market of voters. Another corollary can be drawn here with SEC filings of publicly traded companies in order to keep potential traders well-informed (or at least that is the aim). People need to be able to make well-informed decisions, whether it be with their votes or with their dollars. And disclosures like these only serve to aid that effort.
A key difference for most of us is that we are not public employees and therefore our ultimate source of income is not the pockets of taxpayers. So yes, their evaluations should be published publicly, especially if voters are to be informed when they go to vote for politicians who support unions who harbor bad teachers.
Why shouldn't you be allowed to vote? Because youve proven to society that you make bad descisions. Why do we "punish" criminals even after they are free from the courts? Because their debt was never to society and because past actions are the best indicator of future behavior.
Does this mean we _aren't_ mere biomechanical machines and actually _do_ posses more attributes than the physical ones we can see, touch, and dissect?
Even if no one remembers it, does that mean that it isn't knowable or that it has passed from existance? Put it this way, does our lack of knowledge about historical events mean they never happened? If not, then we must conclude that while the means of knowing the information we seek may have been marred or even destroyed outright, the information itself has not been destroyed and is therefore still knowable. The question then becomes, how can information (such as history) exist if we (homans) cannot fully and completely reconstruct every facet of it?
Can we really say that there is meaning or a teleological purpose for information? If there isn't then what would it matter if there were any concious beings to perceive it at all? If there is, then what is its purpose and where did it derive that purpose from?
How'd the information get there in the first place?
This just states that information (or the access to it) can be hindered; it says nothing about information being completely lost. My question is; is it possible for a piece of information to be completely destroyed?
Can you ever truly destroy information?
I agree that what we have come to call "evolution" is a result of the fall and a basic deteoriation of species.
However, deteoriation isnt the same as "natural selection" that is expoused as the hallmark of evolution where as one thing "evolves" into something better. Deteoriation like what you are talking about is rather a "devolving" of species.
All in all though, I agree with your conclusion though, species are devolving into shadows of their former selves rather than evolving into something bigger and better than before.
scientific evidence of darwinism"
Please explain to me how a few key species "evolved". Namely:
- the chicken (ever seen one in the wild?) - the cow/bovine (again, have you ever seen heards of them roaming around by themselves) - the platapus (where is it's evolutionary trail?)
As a Judeo-Christian I find it amusing when people attempt to tell me that evolution/darwinism is a "bona-fide fact" rather than a theory.
And while you are bemoaning the reliance of America's leaders on "religion", try looking up what America was actually founded on and what the founders believed.
is how you can patent an idea or process of doing things.
I can understand patenting long complex processes, but where do we draw the line between complex and common?
This might actually help the GPL (and the patient system) by allowing for "prior art". Especially if they did away with the lifetime copyrights and start actually release things into the public domain.
Seems to me this would be a "good thing" (TM)
that looks like a prime position for a serious wedgie...
I was mistaken.
I was able to start and asf download, but it was only a "demo" clip which no one would have issues with anyhow.
My guess is that they kept these active to be able to use it in court later when the prosecuter tries to pull out a wayback machine site capture and use it against them.
No, a student of mine just got a job working for Dibold in south Georgia so I have some insight on this.
Diebold has machines setup through the local goverment and hires local "data collectors" like my student to go to each one and pull out what amounts to a USB drive. Each one is then fed into a database app and sent to the main office in Atlanta (presumably to each state capital).
Currently Dibold oversees the entire process (via sub-contractors). Within a year, local goverments are expected to hire their own "data collector".
There is an interesting summery at Freedom to Tinker that I'll post along with this:
Pay attention now, 'cause this story gets kinda complicated. See, Apple had this product called iPod that lets you listen to music. That sounds like a good idea. But Apple thought it would be better if the iPod could do less. So their engineers pulled a bunch of all-nighters to make sure that the iPod couldn't play just any music a customer might have laying around. They called this DRM. I think that stands for Don't Replay Music. Now Apple had a competitor called Real. And Real was unhappy that Apple had made its product less useful. So Real's engineers pulled a bunch of all-nighters, so that they could make Apple's product better. They could've spent that time making their own product better, but that would have been a waste after all of the time they had already spent making their own product worse by making it do DRM too. You still with me? Good. Okay, so Apple was mighty ticked off that Real had made Apple's product better, without even getting permission or anything. So Apple cried foul. Apple was shocked 'n' saddened that Real was trying to improve Apple's product, like those hacker guys are always doing. So Apple drew a line in the sand, and swore to make its own product worse again. I don't know about you, but I find this all very confusing. I guess I just don't have a head for business.
Perhaps, like us, they are watching this guy's story with a sense of morbid curiousity.
No, they made PayPal put up a link: https:/www.paypal.com/settlement/ to prove that it's not a fraud.
One of the things they ask you when you fill out the short form is if you want the $50 put in your paypal account. Which means paypal will still get interest off the majority of those that do have their $50 sent to their paypal account.
It also looks like the ASF download links are still active.
-Wes
It's a shame that his computer equipment got trashed, but the FBI (and other law-enforcement agencies) are somewhat prone to do that over the course of an investigation.
I can understand damaging a component if it were hindering their invistigation. But prying open an iBook with a screwdriver, damaging the screen?
That's just plain evil.
Actually, SWF (what Flash creates) is an open standard. There are plenty of other apps that have the ability to create/view SWFs other than Flash. It's just that SWF is generally associated with Flash since they created it.