I hate to make generalizations, but these radical anarchist types are all alike.
But you do it so well. Really, you have no idea what you're talking about. What, one guy you know from middle school? Give me a break. I know about six or seven people who went to the WEF; three were arrested.
One of my friends that was arrested was for unlawful conduct, loitering (yes, loitering), and unlawful assembley--at a permitted march. I will rephrase that for clarity: he was arrested for unlawful assembley at a permitted march. The cops targeted the group of people he was with--anarchists. They weren't doing anything, just marching.
This friend was actually in jail with Sherman, who was released without any charges--and was promptly picked up by the Feds.
Oh, and this friend of mine has a masters in Geology, and is working on his doctorate in history of science and technology.
But hey, they're all the same, so it doesn't matter.
Not necessarily disagreeing with his thesis, I take exception to this:
What are problems in American schools? It is often discipline, lack of attention, poor study habits, the unwillingness to sit down, in a disciplined manner, and learn.
As far as I can tell, he really doesn't have any experience teaching, which means he is basing this conclusion not on emperical evidence, but on his own assumptions.
Being a colledge undergrad who has recent memories of my public school days, I'd say one of the biggest problems any educational system faces is making the class interesting. Kids won't learn if it's boring as hell--and no, I won't accept that some stuff is just plain boring. Everything can be made interesting.
You don't have the choice? For programs that were auto-graded, it was always on a Windows machine running VC++ 6.0, but once we got into programs that were demoed, we always had the Linux option. (I wasn't very initiated in the world of Unix at that point, and I gotta admit VC++ is a damned fine product.)
Anyway, last semester in operating systems, we had to use Linux. If you haven't gotten into higher classes, you might find those give you the option of developing under some flavor of Unix, if it's not required.
Professors wasn't the issue, they obviously changed the cirriculums. None of the programming intensive classes you mentioned had group work when I took them, which was ranging from a year to two years ago.
The exact opposite is no better--making talking about the programs a cardinal sin. At Virginia Tech, no amount of solution-sharing is allowed, at any level. That's not how the real world works, nor is it how classes in other disciplines work (math, physics, biology, history, english, etc.).
Saying that someone must learn everything on their own, or else they're "not a real programmer" is very short-sighted. It's called learning. Learning requires teaching, and soemtimes--often, in fact--it is better and easier to learn from other students.
No, I do not endorse cheating or copying programs, but I do think some amount of colloboration should be allowed. Not only that, because of the notion that talking about programs is cardinal sin, I'm a second semester junior in CS at Virginia Tech, and my Intermediate Software Engineering class is the first CS class I've had where we will work in groups--and my professor knows this, and realizes that we need to learn how to work in groups.
Virigia Tech has had something similar, and maybe better, for some time. It was written by a graduate student (I believe), and it pays no attention to variable names, it purely focuses on the syntax of a program. Programs with a similar enough syntax are flagged and looked at by TAs.
I know because I went through the process (long story), and it's mentioned at the beginning of any coding-intensive class at the 1000 or 2000 level.
You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use.
But I will see a new commercial every time AOL puts out a new version saying how this is the easiest to use incarnation of AOL yet. Part of this premise is wrong--AOL very definitely sells itself on ease of use, true or not.
Yes, everyone has depth. Don't confuse a difference in interests and what one considers important in life as a lack of depth.
Those people that bore you have depth, you just haven't bothered to find it. (They still, however, may bore you, and that's fine; no one said we had to like everyone.)
If you think you're better off, fine, in fact, I applaud you; you're comfortable with who you are, and you like who you are. That's a good thing to feel. It is possible, however, to be secure like that in your own person and not act quite as elitist as you have. Don't excuse one with the other.
There was a point behind my sarcasm (there usually is). Just about everyone - including "normals" - think that they are better than everyone else. If you're going to take this attitude, than ironicaly, you're acting just like the people you're assuming to be better than. (And given your attitude, I feel you are acting like that.)
Oh, one more thing:
Oh, wait... this is that monkey prank called "sarcasm", isn't it? Did you have a point, or were you just flinging some faeces to let off steam?
Yeah, it was sarcasm, a tool which I use. Now, what do you suppose the faeces flinging comment was? More sarcasm, perhaps? So you're calling it a "monkey prank," but using it yourself. Interesting...
You said "women going to the office..." not "parents going to the office..." This implies that you view it as the women's responsibility, since their role is the only one mentioned.
The rise of capitalism and modern industry took men out of their homes to work; it would have been natural for the same to happent to women. That's what I mean by a correction.
I notice you're blaming the women. Why not blame the lack of adequate - gasp, perhaps even free - daycare? If that is happening to the child, are not the men doing the same thing?
You're free to percieve what I said as an attack, but that's not how I viewed it. I was asking a serious question.
I fully understand feeling different than most people (notice "feel," there's a difference between actually being different than most people and feeling different), but what I see his post as is a defensive mechanism. "I don't fit in with them, so they must be below me." If you'd actually engage all those people you deem below you in meaningful conversation, you'd find that everyone has depth. Not everyone outwardly shows it, but social outcasts aren't the only ones who are capable of intellectual thought.
"Only in very very recent times have women and men met and courted and married based on professions which they entered due to mutual interest."
That is your main point, concisely put. However, you originaly tried to blame it on "women's liberation." Big difference. Still using your main point from above, I could just as easily blame capitalism, or a better educational system that enables us to get the education necessary to hold these jobs, or even cars and planes that enable us to travel long distances.
Women only tending to the home and children is the anomaly, so the women's liberation movement was really a correction. You're blaming a single factor when there are much larger issues to contend with.
He had two main points; I countered one of them. The other I didn't bother with because I don't know enough about the degradation of the environment to understand how it is a factor, as it very well may be.
Oh, and this particular passage sprang to mind when I read this post, I didn't "go find it." Big difference. Obviously I looked it up again, but I didn't scour random books looking for something to use.
Oh, I'm not pissed off. (Guess you're not that good at reading emotions, eh?) Why shouldn't you feel superior to everyone else? Probably because you're not. I'm going to guess that the only reason you do is that you think you are. And most people think this, it's hardly a unique trait. And in my experience, the more sure someone is of their superiority, the more false a claim it is.
And even if it is true... it's just plain obnoxious.
Oh, and one can easily be secure and not be a snob.
Obviously, on some level, you do care about my opinions, even if it is for amusement, since you are bothering to respond. Don't fool yourself.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you don't have much social connections is that people don't want to hang around someone so full of themself?
The women's lib stuff is bunk. All of it. Contrary to popular beleif, what this culture views as the "normal" family and social structure isn't quite normal. When you say "traditionaly," you're going back, what, 100 years, 500 years? Not far enough.
From "The Way We Really Are," by Stephanie Coontz:
One of the most common misconceptions about modern marriage is the notion that coprovider families are a new invention in human history. In fact, today's dual-earner family represents a return to older norms, after a very short interlude that people mistakenly identify as "traditional."
Thoughout most of humanity's history women as well as men were family breadwinners. Contrary to cartoons of cavemen dragging home food to a wife waiting at a campfire, in the distant past of early gathering and hunting societies women contributed as much or more to family substinence as men. Mothers left the hearth to forage for food, hunt small animals, trade with other groups, or tend to crops.
On this continent, neither Native American, African-American, nor white women were originally seen as economic dependents. Among European colonists, men dominated women, but their authority was based on legal, political and religious coercion, not on men's greater economic importance. The most common words for wives in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century colonial America were "yoke-mates" or "meet-helps," labels that indicated women's economic partnership with men....
But in the early 1800s, as capitalist production for the market replaced home-based production for local exchange, and a wage-labor system supplanted widespread self-employment and farming, more and more work was conducted in centralized workplaces removed from the farm or home.... Men (and older children) began to specialize in work outside the home, withdrawing from their traditional child-raising responsibilities. Household work and child care were delegated to wives, who gave up their older roles in production and barter.
You're missing an important link - the parent's occupations are effects, but another effect is that these two people met (due to similar interests/occupations), got married, and had a kid. If autisim/Aspeger's are in fact caused by genetics, and if both parents have some of those genes, their kids are more likely to have it as well. Hence, the effects of the parent's conditions became the cause of their child's.
What's also not going to help the developing world is allowing U.S. corporations to exploit third world workers for cheap labor that is prevented by their own poverty and lack of political influence in their own country from unionizing.
Many years from now, people will be able to look at this books without thinking "Horror author," which is often attached to this name. A lot (maybe a majority) of his stuff isn't horror.
And he's written so much. This man doesn't write because he likes it, he writes because he has to.
Really, I think that one hunred years from now, King's books will be a great insight to what our culture was like at this time. In all of his books, he does a great job of capturing the time period, which is something that is often looked for in classic authors.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to make generalizations, but these radical anarchist types are all alike.
But you do it so well. Really, you have no idea what you're talking about. What, one guy you know from middle school? Give me a break. I know about six or seven people who went to the WEF; three were arrested.
One of my friends that was arrested was for unlawful conduct, loitering (yes, loitering), and unlawful assembley--at a permitted march. I will rephrase that for clarity: he was arrested for unlawful assembley at a permitted march. The cops targeted the group of people he was with--anarchists. They weren't doing anything, just marching.
This friend was actually in jail with Sherman, who was released without any charges--and was promptly picked up by the Feds.
Oh, and this friend of mine has a masters in Geology, and is working on his doctorate in history of science and technology.
But hey, they're all the same, so it doesn't matter.
- What are problems in American schools? It is often discipline, lack of attention, poor study habits, the unwillingness to sit down, in a disciplined manner, and learn.
As far as I can tell, he really doesn't have any experience teaching, which means he is basing this conclusion not on emperical evidence, but on his own assumptions.Being a colledge undergrad who has recent memories of my public school days, I'd say one of the biggest problems any educational system faces is making the class interesting. Kids won't learn if it's boring as hell--and no, I won't accept that some stuff is just plain boring. Everything can be made interesting.
Susie, from Calvin & Hobbes?
It's heartening to see someone else on slashdot with some of these views. But I gotta say paragraph breaks really do make things easier to read.
Read Declarations of Independence by Howard Zinn for a counter to the notion that we should concede to punishment meted out by institutions we oppose.
You don't have the choice? For programs that were auto-graded, it was always on a Windows machine running VC++ 6.0, but once we got into programs that were demoed, we always had the Linux option. (I wasn't very initiated in the world of Unix at that point, and I gotta admit VC++ is a damned fine product.)
Anyway, last semester in operating systems, we had to use Linux. If you haven't gotten into higher classes, you might find those give you the option of developing under some flavor of Unix, if it's not required.
Professors wasn't the issue, they obviously changed the cirriculums. None of the programming intensive classes you mentioned had group work when I took them, which was ranging from a year to two years ago.
The exact opposite is no better--making talking about the programs a cardinal sin. At Virginia Tech, no amount of solution-sharing is allowed, at any level. That's not how the real world works, nor is it how classes in other disciplines work (math, physics, biology, history, english, etc.).
Saying that someone must learn everything on their own, or else they're "not a real programmer" is very short-sighted. It's called learning. Learning requires teaching, and soemtimes--often, in fact--it is better and easier to learn from other students.
No, I do not endorse cheating or copying programs, but I do think some amount of colloboration should be allowed. Not only that, because of the notion that talking about programs is cardinal sin, I'm a second semester junior in CS at Virginia Tech, and my Intermediate Software Engineering class is the first CS class I've had where we will work in groups--and my professor knows this, and realizes that we need to learn how to work in groups.
Virigia Tech has had something similar, and maybe better, for some time. It was written by a graduate student (I believe), and it pays no attention to variable names, it purely focuses on the syntax of a program. Programs with a similar enough syntax are flagged and looked at by TAs.
I know because I went through the process (long story), and it's mentioned at the beginning of any coding-intensive class at the 1000 or 2000 level.
You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use.
But I will see a new commercial every time AOL puts out a new version saying how this is the easiest to use incarnation of AOL yet. Part of this premise is wrong--AOL very definitely sells itself on ease of use, true or not.
Yes, everyone has depth. Don't confuse a difference in interests and what one considers important in life as a lack of depth.
Those people that bore you have depth, you just haven't bothered to find it. (They still, however, may bore you, and that's fine; no one said we had to like everyone.)
There was a point behind my sarcasm (there usually is). Just about everyone - including "normals" - think that they are better than everyone else. If you're going to take this attitude, than ironicaly, you're acting just like the people you're assuming to be better than. (And given your attitude, I feel you are acting like that.)
Oh, one more thing:
Yeah, it was sarcasm, a tool which I use. Now, what do you suppose the faeces flinging comment was? More sarcasm, perhaps? So you're calling it a "monkey prank," but using it yourself. Interesting...You said "women going to the office..." not "parents going to the office..." This implies that you view it as the women's responsibility, since their role is the only one mentioned.
The rise of capitalism and modern industry took men out of their homes to work; it would have been natural for the same to happent to women. That's what I mean by a correction.
I notice you're blaming the women. Why not blame the lack of adequate - gasp, perhaps even free - daycare? If that is happening to the child, are not the men doing the same thing?
You're free to percieve what I said as an attack, but that's not how I viewed it. I was asking a serious question.
I fully understand feeling different than most people (notice "feel," there's a difference between actually being different than most people and feeling different), but what I see his post as is a defensive mechanism. "I don't fit in with them, so they must be below me." If you'd actually engage all those people you deem below you in meaningful conversation, you'd find that everyone has depth. Not everyone outwardly shows it, but social outcasts aren't the only ones who are capable of intellectual thought.
"Only in very very recent times have women and men met and courted and married based on professions which they entered due to mutual interest."
That is your main point, concisely put. However, you originaly tried to blame it on "women's liberation." Big difference. Still using your main point from above, I could just as easily blame capitalism, or a better educational system that enables us to get the education necessary to hold these jobs, or even cars and planes that enable us to travel long distances.
Women only tending to the home and children is the anomaly, so the women's liberation movement was really a correction. You're blaming a single factor when there are much larger issues to contend with.
He had two main points; I countered one of them. The other I didn't bother with because I don't know enough about the degradation of the environment to understand how it is a factor, as it very well may be.
Oh, and this particular passage sprang to mind when I read this post, I didn't "go find it." Big difference. Obviously I looked it up again, but I didn't scour random books looking for something to use.
Oh, I'm not pissed off. (Guess you're not that good at reading emotions, eh?) Why shouldn't you feel superior to everyone else? Probably because you're not. I'm going to guess that the only reason you do is that you think you are. And most people think this, it's hardly a unique trait. And in my experience, the more sure someone is of their superiority, the more false a claim it is.
And even if it is true... it's just plain obnoxious.
Oh, and one can easily be secure and not be a snob.
Obviously, on some level, you do care about my opinions, even if it is for amusement, since you are bothering to respond. Don't fool yourself.
Right. Have fun going around thinking you're better than everyone else, just like damn near everyone else does.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you don't have much social connections is that people don't want to hang around someone so full of themself?
From "The Way We Really Are," by Stephanie Coontz:
You're missing an important link - the parent's occupations are effects, but another effect is that these two people met (due to similar interests/occupations), got married, and had a kid. If autisim/Aspeger's are in fact caused by genetics, and if both parents have some of those genes, their kids are more likely to have it as well. Hence, the effects of the parent's conditions became the cause of their child's.
What's also not going to help the developing world is allowing U.S. corporations to exploit third world workers for cheap labor that is prevented by their own poverty and lack of political influence in their own country from unionizing.
Many years from now, people will be able to look at this books without thinking "Horror author," which is often attached to this name. A lot (maybe a majority) of his stuff isn't horror.
And he's written so much. This man doesn't write because he likes it, he writes because he has to.
Really, I think that one hunred years from now, King's books will be a great insight to what our culture was like at this time. In all of his books, he does a great job of capturing the time period, which is something that is often looked for in classic authors.