haha, yes. they are just distractions. i love computers, and i believe they could help education a lot. but i think they should be taken OUT of the classroom for the most part. not because of their inherent badness, but because of the fact that most people dont know how to use them to supplement education. they use them instead of education.
there needs to be a lot of work in redoing the education system before the system is mature enough to have computers actually benefit them.
plus software writers need to understand education more. they make software thats basically flashcards that blink and talk back. i'm waiting for there to be good interactive programming tutorials programs. i figure it wont be until software designers make good learning software about their favorite subject that education software will start to move in the right direction. until that happens, we need to get computers out of the classroom (in most cases) and teachers in. right now most classrooms have drill masters, not teachers.
a lot of language is not memorization and algorithms. sorry. most of language is conversation.
i guarantee you that a person will be better understood if they learn to speak through immersion classroom techniques (and lets say, for example, the teacher never bothered much with irregular verbs) than someone that can just spout out words and tables but not hold a conversation.
i worked on spanish for a month by myself, forgot most of it, and still can speak better spanish than people who can spout out all the tables and vocab and get A's in spanish class.
yes, balance is needed. however, computers are less important than good teaching. you can learn better with amazing teachers in a dirt floored room than with bad teachers and supercomputers all around you.
you said you dont speak japanese.... thats the point. you can learn little stuff, but conversation comes from CONVERSATION and practice. sitting down people in a circle with a person who understands how people learn and how to teach is a lot more high tech than any software.
learning to write is not learning ot speak. learning to increase vocabulary is not learning to speak.
let people port whatever they want to where ever they want. in the long run it doesnt matter.
and if you dont like what linux does, run windows. if you dont like what windows does, run linux. or how about run both. it seems to work for me. best of both worlds at the push of a button and the insert of a disk.
i'm pretty good at reading people, but not in poker, cuz i dont even try. haha, because i dont know how to play. i do well when i play with my friends, because since i dont know how to play they dont know how to read me. i'll have a full house or somethign (i dont even know what that means) and then be like, "o, i'll just keep adding money for the fun of it" and everyone thinks i'm bluffing, cuz i am, because i dont know what a good hand is.
i was gonna say that geeks not being able to read people is a stereotype. but... i can read people really well in eral life, and tell what they are thinking, and figure out what they mean even if they dont know. but i cant do math. haha. which is why i cant program. even though i want to so badly. i can understand program structures and come up with new structures that programmers i know think are really good (and think of them in ways that no one thinks of, because, i dont think like a programmer) but i cant program.
i do know a programmer / math prodigy guy who is good at reading people. which is why we get along (he's a friend's father). however, he is lackign in some social skils. he's always off in his own little world. so, when he comes back, he can read people amazingly . but... when he's not here, he doesnt read people, cuz he's not here. his head is in the math clouds too often.
you're going to have to change the py (or whatever) default program from python to notepad. which would be too annoying to do. but if you want to do it for fun, then woohoo.
i've always wanted something like this! now only if i could get it illegally....
i think i am in the top 20 or 30 of posters for this link, i feel special.
^_^, never can be too careful.
i hope someday that all the languages i will grow to be as fluent as your knowledge of english is. i study many, but my main ones are chinese and japanese. for japanese, you must be very careful with what you say, because japanese people are much more easily offended than many other cultures.
i read an article about your conclusions on revenge in the toronto star ( http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1 093558209949&call_pageid=968867505381&col=96904887 2038 ), and frankly, i think it is ridiculous. i have never been so outraged by an article that i have sent an email to a journalist before. which i did a few hours ago, and now i am sending an email to you.
i would like to preface this with saying that i think science is an important field, and that i in no way doubt your validity as a researcher, or your expertise, and in no way claim to know more than you.
of course, revenge feels good. we all know that. but your research is being used to portray a biological rather than mental derivation of this pleasure. a large part of the fields of psychology, genetics, and other such related disciplines fall into the trap of "if i see the body doing it, its biological". the body and the mind are interconnected, and can not be seperated. for example, psychiatry claims that "ADD" is a lack of dopamine in the brain, which they take to mean that "ADD" is hereditary, because it is "biological". there is one thing that they overlook all too often (besides the fact that they cannot measure this), and that is that your body makes things it uses, and doesnt make things it doesnt use: when it makes things it doesnt need, that is called an illness. if a child is brought up in a stimulant rich environment, or have emotional issues they want to avoid, they will not concentrate on one thing for a long time (either because they are not used to it because of mediums such as tv and internet, or because if they think of something too long, they will not be distracted, and will start to mentally drift toward unpleasant or troubling thoughts, which is just a type of coping), which then means they are not using dopamine as often as a "normal" person, so their brain would not be making it.
this type of flawed logic is what makes me not take science seriously. in genetics, they say that if a behavior runs in a family, it is genetic, never minding the fact that people are highly influenced by their families, and that they have no genetic proof that these "behavior" genes that refer to very specific thing exist; a fundamental fact of human nature is that people act like the people they love, and people try to act more like the people they love (the broadest definition of the term, and again, act like doesnt mean in obvious ways, in subtle ways, speach patterns, movements, hair, clothes, interests, hates, hobbies, dreams, fears, and any combination thereof), so needless to say people will act like their families. that is not to say that no behaviors have a genetic component, but it is brash and unscientific to come to the conclusion that because people are associated genetically, that the social component is completely irrelevant. the social component would be much harder to study, so they ignore it. how can you study the environment of a child? because a single minute, seemingly unimportant, can influence someone's entire life? and it is impossible to observe at such a depth without changing the subject (as of course you know, observing and studying changes all subjects, from photons to plants, to animals to people).
which brings me to the problem of your conclusions on revenge. if you have not made these conclusions, then i apologize, i have not read your original article, but even so, if you have not, other people i have read discussing your paper are coming to these conclusions. which is largely your responsibility. your conclusions as i see them (and in the least as others see them) is that love for revenge is natural. it is built into us.
"Eye-for
your english is much better than my russian! which is non existant. the only way i could tell was that you said, "i by myself". i thought you spoke english natively.
i sent this email to the journalist. this BS really pisses me off (sorry, that before was me, i didnt mean to post anonymously):
your article is based on flawed conclusions. this is the kind of stuff that makes the valid science of genetics nothing but mysticism and pop culture ignorance, and sadly the geneticists themselves are to blame, and not the media. all the study concludes is that it feels good to be revengeful. well, of course it does! people enjoy being vengeful! that doesnt mean its not learned. the mind can learn to activate pleasure centers... its pretty a pretty well designed system. saying that enjoying revenge is natural is like saying that building sky scrapers is natural, because, "a recent study found that a large percent of countries build sky scrapers". they tested pleasure centers, woop dee doo. what about long term health and stress affects of people who enjoy revenge or causing people pain "judiciously". i'm sure risking your life to cut someone off, and having "pleasure centers" activate really is true happiness, especially the chronic fatigue, stress, paranoia, and hatefulness that comes with living your life like that.
pk
its an art if they treat it as an art, a science if they treat it as a science. drawing thousands of perfect circles could be a science, or it could be a giant, repetitive artistic masterpiece. it all depends on how you treat it.
is making a glowing bunny art or science? they werent doing it to prove anything scientifically, they used science to make art.
dancing is art, even though nothing is produced when you are done. when you are done with math you have scrap paper. if they then made a collage of the scrap paper would it be art?
i would like to see more work on the google directory. make the directory open source, which would really help classifies thousands of sites and help people sift through the internet by category.
i heard on the history channel that they are working on software that lets you hum a song and then it will figure out which song it was. them != google. some university. so i am sure someone is working on that.
google's image search is one of google's main search queries besides text. most people have no idea other search engines let you search by file extension, they are amazed when they discover image search.
but insert was never used for pasting in traditional word processing. in word processors, insert did what we do now in all typing. we type with insert standard. when you press insert, it turns insert off. originally, you pressed insert, yoru system froze, the screen moved all the text below it down, you typed what you wanted to go there, you pressed insert, it froze, it moved back. in later models, the insert function didnt freeze or move the text, it just let you type new stuff in next to instead of over.
i dont see why insert would be different for dos if the key was based on the insert function. perhaps it was changed later on as a paste, on a program by program basis... but it is not traditionally a paste function. *conspiracy half killed*
i just dont make my passwords in english. i make them in obscure languages. or a mix of english and obscure languages (obscure = not languages that are widely known in the us, or languages that very few people know exist)
i named my computer res mortis, which is latin for thing of death. it tends to die. and not turn on. although we fixed that. but it never stays fixed for long, and makes more problems. fun ones. like explor.exe becoming corrupt, and having to ctl alt del it and running it completely from open save as dialog boxes (ok, that was fun, especially teaching my whole family how to do that because i was too lazy to reinstall xp again). now it has a fun tendency to not like playing mpegs, and turning off when i try, no matter what the program.
Slashdot Mirror
haha, yes. they are just distractions. i love computers, and i believe they could help education a lot. but i think they should be taken OUT of the classroom for the most part. not because of their inherent badness, but because of the fact that most people dont know how to use them to supplement education. they use them instead of education. there needs to be a lot of work in redoing the education system before the system is mature enough to have computers actually benefit them. plus software writers need to understand education more. they make software thats basically flashcards that blink and talk back. i'm waiting for there to be good interactive programming tutorials programs. i figure it wont be until software designers make good learning software about their favorite subject that education software will start to move in the right direction. until that happens, we need to get computers out of the classroom (in most cases) and teachers in. right now most classrooms have drill masters, not teachers.
a lot of language is not memorization and algorithms. sorry. most of language is conversation. i guarantee you that a person will be better understood if they learn to speak through immersion classroom techniques (and lets say, for example, the teacher never bothered much with irregular verbs) than someone that can just spout out words and tables but not hold a conversation. i worked on spanish for a month by myself, forgot most of it, and still can speak better spanish than people who can spout out all the tables and vocab and get A's in spanish class.
yes, balance is needed. however, computers are less important than good teaching. you can learn better with amazing teachers in a dirt floored room than with bad teachers and supercomputers all around you.
you said you dont speak japanese.... thats the point. you can learn little stuff, but conversation comes from CONVERSATION and practice. sitting down people in a circle with a person who understands how people learn and how to teach is a lot more high tech than any software. learning to write is not learning ot speak. learning to increase vocabulary is not learning to speak.
let people port whatever they want to where ever they want. in the long run it doesnt matter. and if you dont like what linux does, run windows. if you dont like what windows does, run linux. or how about run both. it seems to work for me. best of both worlds at the push of a button and the insert of a disk.
spymac.com has free 1gb email! dont submit to the evil corporations!
i'm pretty good at reading people, but not in poker, cuz i dont even try. haha, because i dont know how to play. i do well when i play with my friends, because since i dont know how to play they dont know how to read me. i'll have a full house or somethign (i dont even know what that means) and then be like, "o, i'll just keep adding money for the fun of it" and everyone thinks i'm bluffing, cuz i am, because i dont know what a good hand is. i was gonna say that geeks not being able to read people is a stereotype. but... i can read people really well in eral life, and tell what they are thinking, and figure out what they mean even if they dont know. but i cant do math. haha. which is why i cant program. even though i want to so badly. i can understand program structures and come up with new structures that programmers i know think are really good (and think of them in ways that no one thinks of, because, i dont think like a programmer) but i cant program. i do know a programmer / math prodigy guy who is good at reading people. which is why we get along (he's a friend's father). however, he is lackign in some social skils. he's always off in his own little world. so, when he comes back, he can read people amazingly . but... when he's not here, he doesnt read people, cuz he's not here. his head is in the math clouds too often.
you're going to have to change the py (or whatever) default program from python to notepad. which would be too annoying to do. but if you want to do it for fun, then woohoo.
i've always wanted something like this! now only if i could get it illegally.... i think i am in the top 20 or 30 of posters for this link, i feel special.
umm, its like that now. you can only drive on roads and not on other peoples property.
^_^, never can be too careful. i hope someday that all the languages i will grow to be as fluent as your knowledge of english is. i study many, but my main ones are chinese and japanese. for japanese, you must be very careful with what you say, because japanese people are much more easily offended than many other cultures.
*take that stanford
here's the email i sent to the harvard guy:
i read an article about your conclusions on revenge in the toronto star ( http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1 093558209949&call_pageid=968867505381&col=96904887 2038 ), and frankly, i think it is ridiculous. i have never been so outraged by an article that i have sent an email to a journalist before. which i did a few hours ago, and now i am sending an email to you. i would like to preface this with saying that i think science is an important field, and that i in no way doubt your validity as a researcher, or your expertise, and in no way claim to know more than you. of course, revenge feels good. we all know that. but your research is being used to portray a biological rather than mental derivation of this pleasure. a large part of the fields of psychology, genetics, and other such related disciplines fall into the trap of "if i see the body doing it, its biological". the body and the mind are interconnected, and can not be seperated. for example, psychiatry claims that "ADD" is a lack of dopamine in the brain, which they take to mean that "ADD" is hereditary, because it is "biological". there is one thing that they overlook all too often (besides the fact that they cannot measure this), and that is that your body makes things it uses, and doesnt make things it doesnt use: when it makes things it doesnt need, that is called an illness. if a child is brought up in a stimulant rich environment, or have emotional issues they want to avoid, they will not concentrate on one thing for a long time (either because they are not used to it because of mediums such as tv and internet, or because if they think of something too long, they will not be distracted, and will start to mentally drift toward unpleasant or troubling thoughts, which is just a type of coping), which then means they are not using dopamine as often as a "normal" person, so their brain would not be making it. this type of flawed logic is what makes me not take science seriously. in genetics, they say that if a behavior runs in a family, it is genetic, never minding the fact that people are highly influenced by their families, and that they have no genetic proof that these "behavior" genes that refer to very specific thing exist; a fundamental fact of human nature is that people act like the people they love, and people try to act more like the people they love (the broadest definition of the term, and again, act like doesnt mean in obvious ways, in subtle ways, speach patterns, movements, hair, clothes, interests, hates, hobbies, dreams, fears, and any combination thereof), so needless to say people will act like their families. that is not to say that no behaviors have a genetic component, but it is brash and unscientific to come to the conclusion that because people are associated genetically, that the social component is completely irrelevant. the social component would be much harder to study, so they ignore it. how can you study the environment of a child? because a single minute, seemingly unimportant, can influence someone's entire life? and it is impossible to observe at such a depth without changing the subject (as of course you know, observing and studying changes all subjects, from photons to plants, to animals to people). which brings me to the problem of your conclusions on revenge. if you have not made these conclusions, then i apologize, i have not read your original article, but even so, if you have not, other people i have read discussing your paper are coming to these conclusions. which is largely your responsibility. your conclusions as i see them (and in the least as others see them) is that love for revenge is natural. it is built into us. "Eye-for
your english is much better than my russian! which is non existant. the only way i could tell was that you said, "i by myself". i thought you spoke english natively.
i sent this email to the journalist. this BS really pisses me off (sorry, that before was me, i didnt mean to post anonymously):
your article is based on flawed conclusions. this is the kind of stuff that makes the valid science of genetics nothing but mysticism and pop culture ignorance, and sadly the geneticists themselves are to blame, and not the media. all the study concludes is that it feels good to be revengeful. well, of course it does! people enjoy being vengeful! that doesnt mean its not learned. the mind can learn to activate pleasure centers... its pretty a pretty well designed system. saying that enjoying revenge is natural is like saying that building sky scrapers is natural, because, "a recent study found that a large percent of countries build sky scrapers". they tested pleasure centers, woop dee doo. what about long term health and stress affects of people who enjoy revenge or causing people pain "judiciously". i'm sure risking your life to cut someone off, and having "pleasure centers" activate really is true happiness, especially the chronic fatigue, stress, paranoia, and hatefulness that comes with living your life like that. pk
its an art if they treat it as an art, a science if they treat it as a science. drawing thousands of perfect circles could be a science, or it could be a giant, repetitive artistic masterpiece. it all depends on how you treat it. is making a glowing bunny art or science? they werent doing it to prove anything scientifically, they used science to make art. dancing is art, even though nothing is produced when you are done. when you are done with math you have scrap paper. if they then made a collage of the scrap paper would it be art?
i would like to see more work on the google directory. make the directory open source, which would really help classifies thousands of sites and help people sift through the internet by category.
i heard on the history channel that they are working on software that lets you hum a song and then it will figure out which song it was. them != google. some university. so i am sure someone is working on that. google's image search is one of google's main search queries besides text. most people have no idea other search engines let you search by file extension, they are amazed when they discover image search.
have you ever thought that not everything in the world can be summed up by something in the dsm4?
*i'm not not licking toads
*haiku wa haiku da
but insert was never used for pasting in traditional word processing. in word processors, insert did what we do now in all typing. we type with insert standard. when you press insert, it turns insert off. originally, you pressed insert, yoru system froze, the screen moved all the text below it down, you typed what you wanted to go there, you pressed insert, it froze, it moved back. in later models, the insert function didnt freeze or move the text, it just let you type new stuff in next to instead of over. i dont see why insert would be different for dos if the key was based on the insert function. perhaps it was changed later on as a paste, on a program by program basis... but it is not traditionally a paste function. *conspiracy half killed*
i just dont make my passwords in english. i make them in obscure languages. or a mix of english and obscure languages (obscure = not languages that are widely known in the us, or languages that very few people know exist)
i have caught myself on 2 occasions saying goodnight to my computer. that was scary.
i named my computer res mortis, which is latin for thing of death. it tends to die. and not turn on. although we fixed that. but it never stays fixed for long, and makes more problems. fun ones. like explor.exe becoming corrupt, and having to ctl alt del it and running it completely from open save as dialog boxes (ok, that was fun, especially teaching my whole family how to do that because i was too lazy to reinstall xp again). now it has a fun tendency to not like playing mpegs, and turning off when i try, no matter what the program.