Last year the NYPD discovered over 6,000 victims of caller ID spoofing, who together lost a total of $15 million.
It's this already called fraud?
Yes, but it was committed with a computer or other telecommunications device, which somehow magically makes it a completely different event!
Sometimes I think the Founding Fathers made one egregious omission when writing the Constitution. There should be a requirement that all written Federal laws may take no longer than 5 hours for an individual to audibly and understandably (i.e. not too quickly) read aloud. Once that point is reached, a new law may be created only by first repealing an old one. That's a needed counterbalance to the observation that, once basic things like murder and robbery are illegal and basic tax codes are set up, there's nothing left for a (mostly) year-round Congress to do that isn't absurd, unnecessary, or both. It'd also be a nice counterbalance to the notion that "ignorance of the law is not a legal defense", since this is a bit unreasonable when no individual could hope to ever memorize every last Federal law.
And if Congress legislates that in all email messages, the "From:" headers cannot be forged, THAT will stop SPAM. I'm certain of it. Just like this will stop caller ID spoofing.
People who steal identities will carry on spoofing caller ID, because they already commit more serious crimes, while users of legitimate services will be inconvenienced. Still, at least the politicians are seen to do something about the problem.
If they really wanted to do something about this, they'd discontinue the entire CallerID system and allow regular folks to use ANI as a standard feature. That's the same system used by both toll-free numbers and emergency services like 911. Unlike CallerID, it's out-of-band and cannot be spoofed by the caller alone. It uses the billing data, the same data that the phone company uses to know whom to charge for the call. By comparison CallerID is a joke.
Of course a lot of the ID theft issues would be greatly reduced if people would use a little sense. That would include never giving confidental information to someone who calls you. If you think that's your bank calling about your account, tell them you are going to hang up and call them back at the number they publish in the phone book or your hardcopy account statements. This simple 20-second step would eliminate a great deal of these problems, no politicians required.
Then use the corn for ethanol! Why we insist on feeding 75% of our grain production to ruminants baffles me.
Probably because GMO corn tastes like shit and only animals which have no choice in the matter will ingest it. I think it's also acceptable for corn oil due to the deodorizers that they add after it becomes rancid during processing.
That and in my opinion, GMO corn fuels the evil which is the Monsanto Corporation. In my opinion, if their corporate charter were revoked and all their patents invalidated and all their assets sold at auction, everyone would be better off. It's hard to imagine a more terrible power than control over the food supply.
Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?
If they think a man's bare chest is in any way a private part or constitutes nudity, then I imagine these prudes would have a heart attack if they went to any beach.
I was responding to the way that you rephrased the OP, and inquiring because parents who use the term "the best way to raise my children" usually hide behind their ignorance.
The last line wasn't a content-free one-liner. Your response shows that you've thought it out. You know the goal, and aren't hiding behind "I know best how to raise my children". It's only meaningless for you because you've really thought through the goals.
I can't really be that concerned with how a lot of people use a phrase just because I don't really have any control over what they do or how they speak. What I'd rather do that is within my control is to demonstrate what is, in my opinion, the correct use. That's how I would make a contrast against those who cover up their own ignorance. I prefer that to allowing them to "taint" a phrase so that no one can use it.
Sometimes this causes me to be pigeonholed into a category, particularly when it's a "Left vs. Right" type of issue. If a Leftist politician is "for" a proposal, and I find fault with that proposal, many here would falsely conclude that I must be a right-winger. The reverse is also true. They're often more concerned with how to assign me than they are with the truth or soundness of any argument I make. Rather than discourage this effect, I consider it a useful indicator that tells me a lot about who I'm dealing with.
I appreciate the graceful way you dealt with me, particularly the last line of my previous comment ("content-free one-liner"). Many folks would rather see that as an affront instead of understanding why I might say such a thing. I take it that many folks who discuss issues like this are not reasonable and aren't trying to be terribly objective. I personally might succeed or fail at achieving that objectivity, but I try. It's generous that you make an effort to recognize that and a refreshing thing to see. Thank you; that really makes for a higher-quality and more enjoyable discussion.
Actually, if you look at it purely in monetary terms, piracy is probably a bigger problem in the United States than terrorism. Obviously, piracy rarely kills anyone, but in terms of murder, terrorism is not as significant a driver of tragedy in America as the US government would like you to think.
If you remember from all those piracy and P2P stories, most people say that police should rather be investigating real crimes like murder, rape and terrorism. Spam and piracy are both crimes, but I would think that most people think to those the same way. They're inconvenience or money lost, but they don't hurt people. If we go by monetary terms, I think piracy is a lot bigger problem.
Lets re-word the GP too...
They use whatever resources are needed to track down and bust the kidnappers, however long it takes. We need that kind of will in the fight against piracy. It is expensive at first, but less expensive as people get out of the business [and P2P sites and networks closed].
Except that piracy is generally not a crime. It's almost always a civil tort.
If you are successful at combating spam, you will see a rising volume. Here is the chain reaction that takes place:
A spammer has an established source of income that he profits from his operations. Let's say it's ten grand a month. Everything is going well--he kicks back and watches watches the money machine.
You implement a better spam blocking program or a better educate users or do something so that the five hundred clicks he gets a day drops to four hundred clicks a day.
The spammer now finishes at eight grand at the end of the month and notices something is wrong.
The spammer is certain that he can grab back those clicks and all he (did you ever notice how spammers are always men?) has to do is crank up the volume whether it be by getting more e-mails to spam or sending more frequent spams or revolutionizing his spamming tactic and adding new templates and variables to trick people or get around blocks.
In the end we see spam rise.
Now, maybe he makes that two grand back in his push and maybe he don't. Maybe your new method reduced his clicks from five hundred to five per month. Either way the best we can hope is that at some point that income shrinks to negative or so little it's not worth his time. The problem is that even if 0.0001% of his spam messages generates a click, he's making bank.
The battle for clean e-mail should be fought on a number of fronts. Public awareness is the key weak link in the chain in my opinion. And as a new net savvy generation arises, that will come naturally.
No matter how much I tell my friends and family to be safe on the net, my friend in Cairo had ten credit cards opened in her name and I had to help her clean it up over here. To make sure it didn't happen again we went over smart procedures like if your bank sends you an e-mail you should read it and then open up your browser by hand and type in the bank's URL as you know it by hand and look for the corresponding information on the site. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass but if you can't find it you can always just call them. Don't click the e-mail link and drop your username and password into some site you don't trust. If I had to guess how she got tripped up, it was when she went to Cairo for school she couldn't afford to talk on the phone and had gotten lazy and careless with doing all her banking online.
That's why spam has become an arms race, an exchange of measures and countermeasures. The only real solution is to get the word out and equip the average Internet user to identify spam and understand why it should never be responded to. That would remove the profits from the spammers and force them out of business. Then and only then will the spam problem end.
People can use instead of their stolen Adobe Premiere programs.
Especially now that a free alternative is available, there will be no excuse for pirating commercial software. I for one would rather not add legitimacy to the copyright interests' constant claims that piracy is the cause of all of their problems. Every time someone advocates or excuses piracy, they feel vindicated and they don't deserve that. For that reason, I have not and will not pirate Adobe Premiere or any similar commercial software and strongly recommend that no one else does this either.
I realize that this program may or may not suit your individual needs as well as something like Adobe Premiere. That would really be a separate subject, but I will say this much: there's a bit more at stake here than whether you have a super-deluxe video editor. I for one would happily do without a few extra features knowing that I won't be fueling the insanity that keeps coming from the monied interests desiring stronger copyright laws.
To some extent this is true - SpaceX has spent about 2x what they thought they would to a given point in their development program, though they're still liquid and moving forwards at good pace. A number of startups have spent tens of millions of dollars and not flown.
You'd think that after having this consistently happen over and over and over again, maybe they'd revise the way they perform cost estimates? Y'know, so as not to be surprised by these things. It's like making the same mistake time after time and never learning. When an individual repeatedly does this, don't they call it a learning disability?
Don't mean to reply to myself but I wanted to add one thing. Ever wonder why Americans have a bad reputation throughout much of Europe and other parts of the world? That's easy. It's because they see the actions of our federal government and mistakenly believe that it represents us, that it is carrying out our wishes. No wonder we look so bad to so many of them.
If you were thoughtful, instead of a talking-point parrotting teabagger, you'd be happy that the government is getting out of the space business and telling the business businesses to figure it out.
Just curious, why does the Tea Party movement catch so much flak? It's interesting to see during my lifetime that people are showing their dissatisfaction with an ever-growing federal government. It's gratifying to see they are doing this in a "bottom-up" fashion instead of a "top-down" organization, as so many of those are just front groups for various monied interests. It's particularly nice that the majority of its members are more concerned about reform and have little or no concern about party affiliation, since I've always viewed the two-party duopoly as the biggest single part of the problem. Well, that and the massive rate of incumbency.
I can understand disagreeing with their politics. I can understand being opposed to their methods and goals. What I can't understand is the look-down-your-nose disdain that you and many others have shown. If they were an entrenched "establishment" type of political party like the Democrats and Republicans, would that impress you? Would you then feel a desire to back up your demeaning tone with substantive disagreement? Much of this, when I see it, looks like "I have decided I don't like them, and I'll get around to coming up with reasons for it later" rather than having a good reason before deciding not to like them. It looks that way and I'm wondering if it really is that way. I don't know the answer to that, but I would like to.
The way I see it, the federal government is far out of control. We have ACTA and other bad laws that we the people have absolutely no control over, in which we have no voice at all. Every new federal agency becomes a permanent fixture, never to be disbanded. Every entitlement and social program will never be repealed no matter how bankrupt. No law is too intrusive, nor any justification too flimsy. This is not remotely what our government was intended to be, not even close. If a new movement wants to oppose this, why wouldn't I welcome the sight? Should I quibble over my personal feelings towards them in the face of this?
Ever watch old kung-fu movies? I find it fascinating the way mortal enemies still have a genuine respect for one another. Each sees that his opponent is skillful and formidable and honors this. There is none of this catty, petty personal hatred, disdain and "degrade or insult at every opportunity" mentality. Some armed conflicts in real life have been this way; I believe WWI was the last. There used to be the notion that if you lose your honor by engaging in those low-road practices, then the conflict has cost you quite a bit more than even the casualties sustained. What's happened to us?
I should add I am not a member of the Tea Party movement. I have not been to their events or participated in their campaigns. It's just that one thing is consistent whether it's politics or philosophy or even IT: anytime someone acts like a raw nerve has been struck and wants to denigrate what he disagrees with for no apparent reason, that raw nerve deserved to be struck. Watching this only lends credibility to the side that does not do it.
It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:
1. Large IP holders' lobbyists are applying direct financial pressure to the gov't in general and undoubtedly the negotiators personally
2. The public reaction is only important if it is large enough to affect an election outcome. This is blunted by the fact that the negotiators are appointed, not elected. In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians. Here in the US, they don't care as long as they get their 50.1%
3. The negative reaction from the public will only come about if they find out about it, and most will not waver from mainstream media.
4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.
That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.
That actually is a conspiracy for it requires many people to cooperate together to accomplish a shared goal. Self-interest is assumed in a conspiracy since it is unusual to form conspiracies for purposes of charity. It's also a conspiracy because the same small (compared to the whole US population) group that owns the large IP also owns the media. That's evidenced by conducting a smear campaign which by its very nature is not terribly interested in factual accuracy.
There's nothing magic about the word "conspiracy" except in the minds of people who are desperate to dismiss a notion without actually finding fault with it. "You said 'conspiracy' therefore you're automatically a nut and I'll ignore your ideas without actually investigating them" is how that goes. It's a weak mind that uses such tactics to shelter itself from ideas that it would rather not consider. It's a tool of marginalization and nothing more.
If you're interested, I believe the fifth definition of "conspiracy" is most relevant here. From dictionary.reference.com:
conspiracy
/knsprsi/ [[ask.com]] Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-see] [[ask.com]] Show IPA
–noun,plural-cies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
As I have explained from time to time on this site, if you work at a company that produces widgets, you and all of your co-workers are conspiring to make widgets. To put it mildly, it'd be extremely poor form to read that sentence and then dismiss without examination the notion that the company exists, that you work there, or that you make widgets. But that's generally what people want this magic keyword "conspiracy" to be -- an automatic way to end any discussion with zero effort, zero evidence, and no good reason.
Libertardians obviously hate it when they're presented with evidence that the invisible market fairy doesn't fix everything [google.com].
I find it more interesting to consider why it doesn't generally work that way. I have only one answer: we care a HELL of a lot more about immediate convenience and instant gratification than we have ever cared about being consistent with our principles. So we'll buy from abusive companies that deliver poor service before we'll do without their products/services. We'll patronize a company that is known to engage in extremely dishonorable business practices so long as their products are 5% cheaper than the competitors'.
The market idea really could work, except that it requires a people who are both more noble and have a far stronger backbone than our general population. Such a people would individually and voluntarily refuse to ever support any business that takes actions which are not in their interests, at all costs. In turn, the corporations would understand this which would both raise the general standard and guarantee that actually proving this to them would be a relatively rare event.
But we want our shiny and we want it now and we don't care what sort of behavior we are rewarding by voting with our wallets. That's the only reason it doesn't work. There is none other. Corporations cannot act against our interests except that we provide the funding by which they do it.
What do you propose to use as a teaching strategy other than "specific goals set to a given time frame"? "Learn on your own and hopefully don't stop"?
Actually I was not talking about discarding all goals and timeframes. Did you notice I never said that? That's how you know this cannot be the case. Simple.
What I am talking about is how those goals are realized. I specifically mentioned rote memorization as part of the problem. I'll give an example, hoping it is not a poor one:
I personally perform better when I learn in a fashion I will deem "conceptually", as opposed to a fashion I will deem "formulaically". This means that if I really understand what I am doing and why, and what the purpose is, I can easily come up with the correct formulas on my own. That means it makes sense to me that the math would be done that way. The minutia of "how" becomes self-evident and a joy to figure out for myself. This gave me a deeper understanding and appreciation of the task at hand.
Most teachers I had did not do things this way. Instead, they would require you to memorize formulas. The only skill they were testing was your ability to memorize a formula and then memorize which numbers to plug into it. They had little or no concern for whether you really understood what you were doing. Thus, their teaching was not knowledge or understanding; it was programming. You could easily configure a machine to do the same thing. People who can question and think for themselves are not merely executing a program.
There were two exceptional, wonderful teachers who cared more about whether I learned than they did about whether I fit their cookie-cutter. They accommodated me and enjoyed doing it. Their reward was seeing how well I did in their class, not so much in terms of grades but rather the fact that I was a willing, happy participant and was not merely "going through the motions."
If I politely questioned them, they were delighted that I wanted to know, that I demonstrated independent thought and cared enough to ask. Do you know what the other teachers did? They viewed that as a confrontation that they must win at all costs. Usually they tried to "win" by belittling me, trying to humiliate me, and if all else failed, they "pulled rank" and asserted their authority. I wanted a better understanding of what they were teaching and was polite about it; all they wanted was for me to sit down and shut up.
They didn't "win" of course, because I saw that for what it was. So I didn't let them change me. I realize now that most young people faced with that same situation would have been compromised by it, in a "Stockholm syndrome" type of way. They were petty tyrants of the one-size-fits-all sort who didn't want me to care that much about understanding because that might mean more work for them. What they considered "just more work" or an inconvenience, those two exceptional teachers considered a joy and a privilege because they really cared and it showed. If anything, they seemed like they wished more students would ask them what they wanted to know.
Our whole culture needs to be changed to show that every fact and lesson learned is an accomplishment, but not everyone will find this self gratification; they need to be shown that the people around them have interest in what they learned about corals/computers/chemistry, and that it's an accomplishment that they learned something outside of the standard curriculum. Then, and only then, will they integrate it into themselves as a part of their personality.
Ever notice how young children are constantly asking questions about everything? They have a natural curiosity and that's a wonderful thing. They want to know, to understand, to ask "why?" This is consistent across countries, cultures, and demographics because that's the way we are born, our natural state. Schooling as we know it treats this as an enemy, using rote, dri
Well, I guess it's better than trusting someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "convicted". Or maybe doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase "civil suit".
In any case, "convicted" and "civil suit" are mutually exclusive.
Actually I wasn't asking you to trust me. I don't want you to take my statements on faith. I would prefer that you maintain a healthy skepticism and evaluate for yourself whether my reasoning makes sense. Thus, if you disagree with me, it would be not because you trust me or don't trust me, but because the reasons I gave would not affect your perception of a corporation. If they wouldn't, I'd like to know why. A company's well-established negative track record certainly does affect how I perceive them; if it has no such effect on you, I'd be interested in hearing about this.
If a company knowingly does something that causes harm to people, the government taking them to court generally only results in a fine. An individual who does the same thing might face criminal charges.
In light of this, I believe "convicted" is an acceptable term. You may disagree, but you now know my reason for selecting this word.
Really this is semantics. We can argue about whether "convicted" is too strong of a word but it doesn't change the fact that various courts around the world have found Microsoft to be engaging in illegal business practices. Those practices were found to be abusive. That was one of my reasons for distrusting them. Whatever you like to call the process by which abusive practices were determined, I don't trust companies that engage in them. So you see, in a discussion about reputation and trustworthiness, that really is just semantics.
I have just one question: why should we trust them?
Answer is simple: maybe you shouldn't. But who is this we?
Initially, I didn't consider this an important point. It seemed like mere semantics to me, like I could have put that several different ways without taking away from the meaning of my post.
You've made me reconsider that, however. It may have been a poor choice of words. When I said "why should we trust them" I meant it in the sense of "why should anyone trust them".
I believe that's reasonable, really. If I don't know anything about a company, I can give them benefit of doubt as a default position. When I observe that the company frequently says one thing while doing another, I now have a reason not to trust them. Now my default position is to consider everything they say suspect without some hard proof that they are telling the truth.
Companies that want to be regarded as trustworthy will be careful not to deliberately engage in business practices that tarnish their reputation (honest mistakes are understandable, if corrected). In my opinion, Microsoft is not such a company. So I personally do not trust them.
You are assigning a moral absolutism to your personal feelings about it. Somehow your feelings about what is acceptable to you trump everyone else's opinion of what is acceptable? And that anyone who acts in conflict with your own personal opinion is a fool?
The acceptance of something that is not really acceptable is what I mean by "foolish". I still want people to have the right to make those decisions, because I think micromanaging their decision-making is a "cure" that is far worse than the disease.
Sure, you never abridge free will by preventing people from acting... but you pass a value judgment on them for doing so. It's not surprising that people might take offense to it.
I frequently encounter this line of reasoning and believe it unnecessary. I can believe that an action is foolish without judging the worth of the person who takes it. That's easy for me; I too have done foolish things. But I overcame them by being honest about the fact that they were foolish and correcting my actions. I don't believe that work is ever going to be finished.
Because of all of this, I'd have to negatively judge myself personally if I negatively judged them personally. It's interesting that no one complains about "value judgments" when I say that I have done foolish things. They only complain when I am as honest with others as I am with myself. It's clear to me this is about ego and not about any perceived double standard.
And what if you choose to be childless because you don't agree with the current system and self righteous ass hats such as yourself?
I prefer to call it "child-free" myself. I figure enough other people are having children that if the human race ever goes extinct, it definitely will not be because we didn't breed enough. Meanwhile I can go anywhere and find many emotionally and spiritually broken adults about whom no one seems to care, I guess because they're not cute enough. I'd rather do something about that. This would have the secondary effect of giving the children a better future world, because the best way to have a good future world is to correctly deal with the present world.
Uhm, no, it doesn't. You can have a heartfelt opinion that raping children is a nice, cheap form of entertainment or that Hitler destroying the Jews was the greatest accomplishment of mankind. Nobody is going to take you more seriously if you're moderated down for it or outright censored.
As far as "valid?" Valid is the opinion.
You might consider those two examples valid opinions. I don't. I consider them both the product of a sick mind, and thus not valid. Valid doesn't mean the same thing as "non-existant".
Interesting. Personally I think that somebody who judges people based on an opinion they're supposing based on a moderation choice rather than one that person has even expressed is a self-important moron. And judging by your other posts in this thread, that's exactly what you are. You are consistently smug, insulting, dismissive and superior, with an obvious belief that anybody who doesn't agree with you not only has a lesser opinion, but is a lesser person; a lesser intellect.
This is the part I think you don't understand. I don't "judge people" based on an opinion. I judge the opinion itself. A person can hold an inferior worldview that produces inferior actions, such as censorship, without themselves being any more or less worthy than another human being. I liken it to any other misguided or mistaken idea. If you spill the milk, does that make you a bad person? No. If you believe something that isn't true, or causes you to take the low road of censorship rather than the high road of contention, that doesn't make you a bad person either. It just indicates something that should be examined and addressed.
If someone is so thoroughly identified with their opinions and worldviews that they believe I am personally insulting them or judging their worth as a human being, merely by speaking of the status of their worldviews and opinions, that's part of the childishness I was talking about.
People who have grown and changed throughout the years, who have questioned their beliefs, found some to be faulty, and discarded them understand one thing: worldviews and perspectives are both malleable and voluntary. To give an analogy, they're more like the clothes the person is wearing and not the person themselves. If I don't like your shirt it doesn't mean I hate you personally and it's quite melodramatic and silly to think otherwise. If you falsely derive your status as a human being from the shirt you wear, then this might be a problem for you. It's the same for people who are too closely identified with their worldviews and opinions.
You don't even know these people. You don't even know who these people are, much less why they may have moderated it the way they did. What if it is just a valid, honest opinion that he was trying to start a flamewar? Never even crossed your mind, did it?
You're right, I don't know them. That means I can evaluate only their expressed intentions and not their status as human beings, not even if I were inclined to do so (I'm not). I have already explained that. It did cross my mind that there's a non-zero chance he could possibly have been trying to start a flamewar. But, that's an accusation. As such, it should not be made without evidence. Evidence would consist of racial slurs, absurd statements that cannot possibly make sense, etc. I have seen nothing of the sort, therefore this accusation is baseless and should not be acted upon.
You just decided the person who was moderated down was right and these mods most be puerile, childish, emotionally overreactive, dismissive, unthoughtful, immature so-called adults. All things you've said in the course of, what, 200 words or so? About people you know nothing whatsoever about, including their own views on the actual topic at hand which you nonetheless saw fit to assume and lambast in their absence?
Parents' belief that they know what's best for their children is usually egotism.
That's funny. Without further evidence, egotism (and/or a desire for power) is my very first assumption whenever the government or anyone else thinks they know better than parents how a child should be raised. Among other things, all of the bad laws that are "for the children" have destroyed their credibility.
Without further evidence, my position is that they care about their children more than anyone else does. Not only is there what you might call a moral obligation, there are also strong biological and genetic drives to protect one's offspring and ensure that they do well. As an analogy, I consider it an "innocent until proven guilty" situation.
What's our responsibility when they're clearly wrong? (i.e. the vaccination-autism conspiracy theorists)
Continuing my analogy, that would constitute proof of "guilt". Upon finding such proof, then and only then is there a reason to intervene and tell the parent how they should raise a child. In the absence of such proof, that should never be a default position.
To protect parental rights? To protect the children themselves? To protect the rest of us?
I honestly believe both parents and children have more to fear from power-hungry and overzealous outsiders who'd love to micromanage their lives, than anyone else. If you want to speak of protecting children, first you must demonstrate a verifiable threat. The decision to use or not use money to motivate their school performance is not a verifiable, demonstrable threat. Therefore parents' rights should be respected and honored in this situation.
Determine the goal before you look for a solution and you're more likely to find it.
That's a content-free one-liner you could attach to the end of nearly any post without adding anything to its meaning.
Yeah because all we need is your parents choosing your path in life FOR YOU.
"I want my child to be a musician! I don't care if he is terrible at it!"
The government is in control of public education. They don't choose your path in life for you. Why do you think giving parents drastically more control over education would automatically amount to choosing your path in life for you? It stands to reason that the parents would care about their children a lot more than a bureaucrat, teacher, or other paid professional.
Also, in general: is there any reason why a stick should be preferred over a carrot?
A preference for sticks says nothing about the recipient but plenty about the administrator. It's not so much about efficacy of methods because positive incentives work better. It's about being basically a bully and using parental authority and the need to meet the responsibility of schoolwork as justifications and excuses for it. It's not natural for anyone to think like that, but it's acquired so early in life that it seems this way. By their example, these parents are teaching this mindset to their children who are unlikely to recognize it for what it is and reject it.
As a sort of analogy, I'll give you a completely unrelated phenomenon that nevertheless works the same way. You are driving and someone gives you the middle finger on the highway. You get angry at the insult as an automatic response, like a reflex. It doesn't seem like something you're choosing because you can't do otherwise and you'd probably rather not be upset. Consider that anger is part of the fight-or-flight response; you could say it's the "fight" portion.
It engages your adrenaline glands and triggers all sorts of changes in the body, all designed to make you physically ready to respond to a legitimate threat. The distant sight of a finger is not a legitimate threat for which you need physical preparation. Yet it seems so natural to react this way. I don't believe that the fight-or-flight system of every last person is hyperactive or otherwise faulty. I believe this is learned behavior. That means two things: it is contagious, and it can be understood and replaced with superior learning.
ups, I actually wanted to write there "(PS. I'm not not sure how clear it was that I'm NOT disagreeing with you)". Seems it wasn't very clear after all... (maybe in another post somewhere here which wasn't in direct response to you but to someone else who responded to you in this subtree of discussion...)
Haha. Click "More" on the little Slashdot bar to ensure you have loaded all the posts. Then use your browser's text search (CTRL-F in Firefox) to look for my username, "causality". You'll find that what you mentioned has happened to just about every post I have made in this discussion. I'm wondering what they're smoking, except I can't think of anything that would harm reading comprehension so severely.
You assume most students are getting this gratification from sheer learning in and of itself out of the current system as it stands today.
I'm sorry but how do you so drastically fail to understand what I said?
What I said was that most students do NOT enjoy learning, and they do NOT enjoy it because of how they have been made to do it. I am suggesting that their failure to enjoy learning is not the way people naturally are. It's an artificial product of the way we have chosen to teach them, and as such, it could be changed. I'll show you by quoting my own text:
by rote memorization, with a method designed to make them dependent on someone else to tell them what is worth learning and when they have learned it. Neither future job placement nor immediate financial rewards teach them that learning is a joy, that the world is a place full of wonderous and interesting things, that you can value your own edification for its own sake and not just as a means to accomplish something else. Instead, the public schools teach by experience that learning is tedious and boring and that there must always be something to force you to do it, like future poverty or immediate disapproval of parents and teachers.
Slashdot Mirror
Last year the NYPD discovered over 6,000 victims of caller ID spoofing, who together lost a total of $15 million.
It's this already called fraud?
Yes, but it was committed with a computer or other telecommunications device, which somehow magically makes it a completely different event!
Sometimes I think the Founding Fathers made one egregious omission when writing the Constitution. There should be a requirement that all written Federal laws may take no longer than 5 hours for an individual to audibly and understandably (i.e. not too quickly) read aloud. Once that point is reached, a new law may be created only by first repealing an old one. That's a needed counterbalance to the observation that, once basic things like murder and robbery are illegal and basic tax codes are set up, there's nothing left for a (mostly) year-round Congress to do that isn't absurd, unnecessary, or both. It'd also be a nice counterbalance to the notion that "ignorance of the law is not a legal defense", since this is a bit unreasonable when no individual could hope to ever memorize every last Federal law.
And if Congress legislates that in all email messages, the "From:" headers cannot be forged, THAT will stop SPAM. I'm certain of it. Just like this will stop caller ID spoofing.
Just require that the Evil Bit be set to 1.
People who steal identities will carry on spoofing caller ID, because they already commit more serious crimes, while users of legitimate services will be inconvenienced. Still, at least the politicians are seen to do something about the problem.
If they really wanted to do something about this, they'd discontinue the entire CallerID system and allow regular folks to use ANI as a standard feature. That's the same system used by both toll-free numbers and emergency services like 911. Unlike CallerID, it's out-of-band and cannot be spoofed by the caller alone. It uses the billing data, the same data that the phone company uses to know whom to charge for the call. By comparison CallerID is a joke.
Of course a lot of the ID theft issues would be greatly reduced if people would use a little sense. That would include never giving confidental information to someone who calls you. If you think that's your bank calling about your account, tell them you are going to hang up and call them back at the number they publish in the phone book or your hardcopy account statements. This simple 20-second step would eliminate a great deal of these problems, no politicians required.
Then use the corn for ethanol! Why we insist on feeding 75% of our grain production to ruminants baffles me.
Probably because GMO corn tastes like shit and only animals which have no choice in the matter will ingest it. I think it's also acceptable for corn oil due to the deodorizers that they add after it becomes rancid during processing.
That and in my opinion, GMO corn fuels the evil which is the Monsanto Corporation. In my opinion, if their corporate charter were revoked and all their patents invalidated and all their assets sold at auction, everyone would be better off. It's hard to imagine a more terrible power than control over the food supply.
Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?
If they think a man's bare chest is in any way a private part or constitutes nudity, then I imagine these prudes would have a heart attack if they went to any beach.
I was responding to the way that you rephrased the OP, and inquiring because parents who use the term "the best way to raise my children" usually hide behind their ignorance.
The last line wasn't a content-free one-liner. Your response shows that you've thought it out. You know the goal, and aren't hiding behind "I know best how to raise my children". It's only meaningless for you because you've really thought through the goals.
I can't really be that concerned with how a lot of people use a phrase just because I don't really have any control over what they do or how they speak. What I'd rather do that is within my control is to demonstrate what is, in my opinion, the correct use. That's how I would make a contrast against those who cover up their own ignorance. I prefer that to allowing them to "taint" a phrase so that no one can use it.
Sometimes this causes me to be pigeonholed into a category, particularly when it's a "Left vs. Right" type of issue. If a Leftist politician is "for" a proposal, and I find fault with that proposal, many here would falsely conclude that I must be a right-winger. The reverse is also true. They're often more concerned with how to assign me than they are with the truth or soundness of any argument I make. Rather than discourage this effect, I consider it a useful indicator that tells me a lot about who I'm dealing with.
I appreciate the graceful way you dealt with me, particularly the last line of my previous comment ("content-free one-liner"). Many folks would rather see that as an affront instead of understanding why I might say such a thing. I take it that many folks who discuss issues like this are not reasonable and aren't trying to be terribly objective. I personally might succeed or fail at achieving that objectivity, but I try. It's generous that you make an effort to recognize that and a refreshing thing to see. Thank you; that really makes for a higher-quality and more enjoyable discussion.
Actually, if you look at it purely in monetary terms, piracy is probably a bigger problem in the United States than terrorism. Obviously, piracy rarely kills anyone, but in terms of murder, terrorism is not as significant a driver of tragedy in America as the US government would like you to think.
If you remember from all those piracy and P2P stories, most people say that police should rather be investigating real crimes like murder, rape and terrorism. Spam and piracy are both crimes, but I would think that most people think to those the same way. They're inconvenience or money lost, but they don't hurt people. If we go by monetary terms, I think piracy is a lot bigger problem.
Lets re-word the GP too...
They use whatever resources are needed to track down and bust the kidnappers, however long it takes. We need that kind of will in the fight against piracy. It is expensive at first, but less expensive as people get out of the business [and P2P sites and networks closed].
Except that piracy is generally not a crime. It's almost always a civil tort.
If you are successful at combating spam, you will see a rising volume. Here is the chain reaction that takes place:
Now, maybe he makes that two grand back in his push and maybe he don't. Maybe your new method reduced his clicks from five hundred to five per month. Either way the best we can hope is that at some point that income shrinks to negative or so little it's not worth his time. The problem is that even if 0.0001% of his spam messages generates a click, he's making bank. The battle for clean e-mail should be fought on a number of fronts. Public awareness is the key weak link in the chain in my opinion. And as a new net savvy generation arises, that will come naturally. No matter how much I tell my friends and family to be safe on the net, my friend in Cairo had ten credit cards opened in her name and I had to help her clean it up over here. To make sure it didn't happen again we went over smart procedures like if your bank sends you an e-mail you should read it and then open up your browser by hand and type in the bank's URL as you know it by hand and look for the corresponding information on the site. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass but if you can't find it you can always just call them. Don't click the e-mail link and drop your username and password into some site you don't trust. If I had to guess how she got tripped up, it was when she went to Cairo for school she couldn't afford to talk on the phone and had gotten lazy and careless with doing all her banking online.
That's why spam has become an arms race, an exchange of measures and countermeasures. The only real solution is to get the word out and equip the average Internet user to identify spam and understand why it should never be responded to. That would remove the profits from the spammers and force them out of business. Then and only then will the spam problem end.
People can use instead of their stolen Adobe Premiere programs.
Especially now that a free alternative is available, there will be no excuse for pirating commercial software. I for one would rather not add legitimacy to the copyright interests' constant claims that piracy is the cause of all of their problems. Every time someone advocates or excuses piracy, they feel vindicated and they don't deserve that. For that reason, I have not and will not pirate Adobe Premiere or any similar commercial software and strongly recommend that no one else does this either.
I realize that this program may or may not suit your individual needs as well as something like Adobe Premiere. That would really be a separate subject, but I will say this much: there's a bit more at stake here than whether you have a super-deluxe video editor. I for one would happily do without a few extra features knowing that I won't be fueling the insanity that keeps coming from the monied interests desiring stronger copyright laws.
You'd think that after having this consistently happen over and over and over again, maybe they'd revise the way they perform cost estimates? Y'know, so as not to be surprised by these things. It's like making the same mistake time after time and never learning. When an individual repeatedly does this, don't they call it a learning disability?
Don't mean to reply to myself but I wanted to add one thing. Ever wonder why Americans have a bad reputation throughout much of Europe and other parts of the world? That's easy. It's because they see the actions of our federal government and mistakenly believe that it represents us, that it is carrying out our wishes. No wonder we look so bad to so many of them.
Just curious, why does the Tea Party movement catch so much flak? It's interesting to see during my lifetime that people are showing their dissatisfaction with an ever-growing federal government. It's gratifying to see they are doing this in a "bottom-up" fashion instead of a "top-down" organization, as so many of those are just front groups for various monied interests. It's particularly nice that the majority of its members are more concerned about reform and have little or no concern about party affiliation, since I've always viewed the two-party duopoly as the biggest single part of the problem. Well, that and the massive rate of incumbency.
I can understand disagreeing with their politics. I can understand being opposed to their methods and goals. What I can't understand is the look-down-your-nose disdain that you and many others have shown. If they were an entrenched "establishment" type of political party like the Democrats and Republicans, would that impress you? Would you then feel a desire to back up your demeaning tone with substantive disagreement? Much of this, when I see it, looks like "I have decided I don't like them, and I'll get around to coming up with reasons for it later" rather than having a good reason before deciding not to like them. It looks that way and I'm wondering if it really is that way. I don't know the answer to that, but I would like to.
The way I see it, the federal government is far out of control. We have ACTA and other bad laws that we the people have absolutely no control over, in which we have no voice at all. Every new federal agency becomes a permanent fixture, never to be disbanded. Every entitlement and social program will never be repealed no matter how bankrupt. No law is too intrusive, nor any justification too flimsy. This is not remotely what our government was intended to be, not even close. If a new movement wants to oppose this, why wouldn't I welcome the sight? Should I quibble over my personal feelings towards them in the face of this?
Ever watch old kung-fu movies? I find it fascinating the way mortal enemies still have a genuine respect for one another. Each sees that his opponent is skillful and formidable and honors this. There is none of this catty, petty personal hatred, disdain and "degrade or insult at every opportunity" mentality. Some armed conflicts in real life have been this way; I believe WWI was the last. There used to be the notion that if you lose your honor by engaging in those low-road practices, then the conflict has cost you quite a bit more than even the casualties sustained. What's happened to us?
I should add I am not a member of the Tea Party movement. I have not been to their events or participated in their campaigns. It's just that one thing is consistent whether it's politics or philosophy or even IT: anytime someone acts like a raw nerve has been struck and wants to denigrate what he disagrees with for no apparent reason, that raw nerve deserved to be struck. Watching this only lends credibility to the side that does not do it.
It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:
1. Large IP holders' lobbyists are applying direct financial pressure to the gov't in general and undoubtedly the negotiators personally 2. The public reaction is only important if it is large enough to affect an election outcome. This is blunted by the fact that the negotiators are appointed, not elected. In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians. Here in the US, they don't care as long as they get their 50.1% 3. The negative reaction from the public will only come about if they find out about it, and most will not waver from mainstream media. 4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.
That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.
That actually is a conspiracy for it requires many people to cooperate together to accomplish a shared goal. Self-interest is assumed in a conspiracy since it is unusual to form conspiracies for purposes of charity. It's also a conspiracy because the same small (compared to the whole US population) group that owns the large IP also owns the media. That's evidenced by conducting a smear campaign which by its very nature is not terribly interested in factual accuracy.
/knsprsi/ [[ask.com]] Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-see] [[ask.com]] Show IPA
There's nothing magic about the word "conspiracy" except in the minds of people who are desperate to dismiss a notion without actually finding fault with it. "You said 'conspiracy' therefore you're automatically a nut and I'll ignore your ideas without actually investigating them" is how that goes. It's a weak mind that uses such tactics to shelter itself from ideas that it would rather not consider. It's a tool of marginalization and nothing more.
If you're interested, I believe the fifth definition of "conspiracy" is most relevant here. From dictionary.reference.com:
conspiracy
–noun,plural-cies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
As I have explained from time to time on this site, if you work at a company that produces widgets, you and all of your co-workers are conspiring to make widgets. To put it mildly, it'd be extremely poor form to read that sentence and then dismiss without examination the notion that the company exists, that you work there, or that you make widgets. But that's generally what people want this magic keyword "conspiracy" to be -- an automatic way to end any discussion with zero effort, zero evidence, and no good reason.
I find it more interesting to consider why it doesn't generally work that way. I have only one answer: we care a HELL of a lot more about immediate convenience and instant gratification than we have ever cared about being consistent with our principles. So we'll buy from abusive companies that deliver poor service before we'll do without their products/services. We'll patronize a company that is known to engage in extremely dishonorable business practices so long as their products are 5% cheaper than the competitors'.
The market idea really could work, except that it requires a people who are both more noble and have a far stronger backbone than our general population. Such a people would individually and voluntarily refuse to ever support any business that takes actions which are not in their interests, at all costs. In turn, the corporations would understand this which would both raise the general standard and guarantee that actually proving this to them would be a relatively rare event.
But we want our shiny and we want it now and we don't care what sort of behavior we are rewarding by voting with our wallets. That's the only reason it doesn't work. There is none other. Corporations cannot act against our interests except that we provide the funding by which they do it.
Actually I was not talking about discarding all goals and timeframes. Did you notice I never said that? That's how you know this cannot be the case. Simple.
What I am talking about is how those goals are realized. I specifically mentioned rote memorization as part of the problem. I'll give an example, hoping it is not a poor one:
I personally perform better when I learn in a fashion I will deem "conceptually", as opposed to a fashion I will deem "formulaically". This means that if I really understand what I am doing and why, and what the purpose is, I can easily come up with the correct formulas on my own. That means it makes sense to me that the math would be done that way. The minutia of "how" becomes self-evident and a joy to figure out for myself. This gave me a deeper understanding and appreciation of the task at hand.
Most teachers I had did not do things this way. Instead, they would require you to memorize formulas. The only skill they were testing was your ability to memorize a formula and then memorize which numbers to plug into it. They had little or no concern for whether you really understood what you were doing. Thus, their teaching was not knowledge or understanding; it was programming. You could easily configure a machine to do the same thing. People who can question and think for themselves are not merely executing a program.
There were two exceptional, wonderful teachers who cared more about whether I learned than they did about whether I fit their cookie-cutter. They accommodated me and enjoyed doing it. Their reward was seeing how well I did in their class, not so much in terms of grades but rather the fact that I was a willing, happy participant and was not merely "going through the motions."
If I politely questioned them, they were delighted that I wanted to know, that I demonstrated independent thought and cared enough to ask. Do you know what the other teachers did? They viewed that as a confrontation that they must win at all costs. Usually they tried to "win" by belittling me, trying to humiliate me, and if all else failed, they "pulled rank" and asserted their authority. I wanted a better understanding of what they were teaching and was polite about it; all they wanted was for me to sit down and shut up.
They didn't "win" of course, because I saw that for what it was. So I didn't let them change me. I realize now that most young people faced with that same situation would have been compromised by it, in a "Stockholm syndrome" type of way. They were petty tyrants of the one-size-fits-all sort who didn't want me to care that much about understanding because that might mean more work for them. What they considered "just more work" or an inconvenience, those two exceptional teachers considered a joy and a privilege because they really cared and it showed. If anything, they seemed like they wished more students would ask them what they wanted to know.
Ever notice how young children are constantly asking questions about everything? They have a natural curiosity and that's a wonderful thing. They want to know, to understand, to ask "why?" This is consistent across countries, cultures, and demographics because that's the way we are born, our natural state. Schooling as we know it treats this as an enemy, using rote, dri
Well, I guess it's better than trusting someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "convicted". Or maybe doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase "civil suit".
In any case, "convicted" and "civil suit" are mutually exclusive.
Actually I wasn't asking you to trust me. I don't want you to take my statements on faith. I would prefer that you maintain a healthy skepticism and evaluate for yourself whether my reasoning makes sense. Thus, if you disagree with me, it would be not because you trust me or don't trust me, but because the reasons I gave would not affect your perception of a corporation. If they wouldn't, I'd like to know why. A company's well-established negative track record certainly does affect how I perceive them; if it has no such effect on you, I'd be interested in hearing about this.
If a company knowingly does something that causes harm to people, the government taking them to court generally only results in a fine. An individual who does the same thing might face criminal charges.
In light of this, I believe "convicted" is an acceptable term. You may disagree, but you now know my reason for selecting this word.
Really this is semantics. We can argue about whether "convicted" is too strong of a word but it doesn't change the fact that various courts around the world have found Microsoft to be engaging in illegal business practices. Those practices were found to be abusive. That was one of my reasons for distrusting them. Whatever you like to call the process by which abusive practices were determined, I don't trust companies that engage in them. So you see, in a discussion about reputation and trustworthiness, that really is just semantics.
Answer is simple: maybe you shouldn't. But who is this we?
Initially, I didn't consider this an important point. It seemed like mere semantics to me, like I could have put that several different ways without taking away from the meaning of my post.
You've made me reconsider that, however. It may have been a poor choice of words. When I said "why should we trust them" I meant it in the sense of "why should anyone trust them".
I believe that's reasonable, really. If I don't know anything about a company, I can give them benefit of doubt as a default position. When I observe that the company frequently says one thing while doing another, I now have a reason not to trust them. Now my default position is to consider everything they say suspect without some hard proof that they are telling the truth.
Companies that want to be regarded as trustworthy will be careful not to deliberately engage in business practices that tarnish their reputation (honest mistakes are understandable, if corrected). In my opinion, Microsoft is not such a company. So I personally do not trust them.
The acceptance of something that is not really acceptable is what I mean by "foolish". I still want people to have the right to make those decisions, because I think micromanaging their decision-making is a "cure" that is far worse than the disease.
I frequently encounter this line of reasoning and believe it unnecessary. I can believe that an action is foolish without judging the worth of the person who takes it. That's easy for me; I too have done foolish things. But I overcame them by being honest about the fact that they were foolish and correcting my actions. I don't believe that work is ever going to be finished.
Because of all of this, I'd have to negatively judge myself personally if I negatively judged them personally. It's interesting that no one complains about "value judgments" when I say that I have done foolish things. They only complain when I am as honest with others as I am with myself. It's clear to me this is about ego and not about any perceived double standard.
And what if you choose to be childless because you don't agree with the current system and self righteous ass hats such as yourself?
I prefer to call it "child-free" myself. I figure enough other people are having children that if the human race ever goes extinct, it definitely will not be because we didn't breed enough. Meanwhile I can go anywhere and find many emotionally and spiritually broken adults about whom no one seems to care, I guess because they're not cute enough. I'd rather do something about that. This would have the secondary effect of giving the children a better future world, because the best way to have a good future world is to correctly deal with the present world.
You might consider those two examples valid opinions. I don't. I consider them both the product of a sick mind, and thus not valid. Valid doesn't mean the same thing as "non-existant".
This is the part I think you don't understand. I don't "judge people" based on an opinion. I judge the opinion itself. A person can hold an inferior worldview that produces inferior actions, such as censorship, without themselves being any more or less worthy than another human being. I liken it to any other misguided or mistaken idea. If you spill the milk, does that make you a bad person? No. If you believe something that isn't true, or causes you to take the low road of censorship rather than the high road of contention, that doesn't make you a bad person either. It just indicates something that should be examined and addressed.
If someone is so thoroughly identified with their opinions and worldviews that they believe I am personally insulting them or judging their worth as a human being, merely by speaking of the status of their worldviews and opinions, that's part of the childishness I was talking about.
People who have grown and changed throughout the years, who have questioned their beliefs, found some to be faulty, and discarded them understand one thing: worldviews and perspectives are both malleable and voluntary. To give an analogy, they're more like the clothes the person is wearing and not the person themselves. If I don't like your shirt it doesn't mean I hate you personally and it's quite melodramatic and silly to think otherwise. If you falsely derive your status as a human being from the shirt you wear, then this might be a problem for you. It's the same for people who are too closely identified with their worldviews and opinions.
You're right, I don't know them. That means I can evaluate only their expressed intentions and not their status as human beings, not even if I were inclined to do so (I'm not). I have already explained that. It did cross my mind that there's a non-zero chance he could possibly have been trying to start a flamewar. But, that's an accusation. As such, it should not be made without evidence. Evidence would consist of racial slurs, absurd statements that cannot possibly make sense, etc. I have seen nothing of the sort, therefore this accusation is baseless and should not be acted upon.
As I
That's funny. Without further evidence, egotism (and/or a desire for power) is my very first assumption whenever the government or anyone else thinks they know better than parents how a child should be raised. Among other things, all of the bad laws that are "for the children" have destroyed their credibility.
Without further evidence, my position is that they care about their children more than anyone else does. Not only is there what you might call a moral obligation, there are also strong biological and genetic drives to protect one's offspring and ensure that they do well. As an analogy, I consider it an "innocent until proven guilty" situation.
Continuing my analogy, that would constitute proof of "guilt". Upon finding such proof, then and only then is there a reason to intervene and tell the parent how they should raise a child. In the absence of such proof, that should never be a default position.
I honestly believe both parents and children have more to fear from power-hungry and overzealous outsiders who'd love to micromanage their lives, than anyone else. If you want to speak of protecting children, first you must demonstrate a verifiable threat. The decision to use or not use money to motivate their school performance is not a verifiable, demonstrable threat. Therefore parents' rights should be respected and honored in this situation.
That's a content-free one-liner you could attach to the end of nearly any post without adding anything to its meaning.
Yeah because all we need is your parents choosing your path in life FOR YOU.
"I want my child to be a musician! I don't care if he is terrible at it!"
The government is in control of public education. They don't choose your path in life for you. Why do you think giving parents drastically more control over education would automatically amount to choosing your path in life for you? It stands to reason that the parents would care about their children a lot more than a bureaucrat, teacher, or other paid professional.
A preference for sticks says nothing about the recipient but plenty about the administrator. It's not so much about efficacy of methods because positive incentives work better. It's about being basically a bully and using parental authority and the need to meet the responsibility of schoolwork as justifications and excuses for it. It's not natural for anyone to think like that, but it's acquired so early in life that it seems this way. By their example, these parents are teaching this mindset to their children who are unlikely to recognize it for what it is and reject it.
As a sort of analogy, I'll give you a completely unrelated phenomenon that nevertheless works the same way. You are driving and someone gives you the middle finger on the highway. You get angry at the insult as an automatic response, like a reflex. It doesn't seem like something you're choosing because you can't do otherwise and you'd probably rather not be upset. Consider that anger is part of the fight-or-flight response; you could say it's the "fight" portion.
It engages your adrenaline glands and triggers all sorts of changes in the body, all designed to make you physically ready to respond to a legitimate threat. The distant sight of a finger is not a legitimate threat for which you need physical preparation. Yet it seems so natural to react this way. I don't believe that the fight-or-flight system of every last person is hyperactive or otherwise faulty. I believe this is learned behavior. That means two things: it is contagious, and it can be understood and replaced with superior learning.
ups, I actually wanted to write there "(PS. I'm not not sure how clear it was that I'm NOT disagreeing with you)". Seems it wasn't very clear after all... (maybe in another post somewhere here which wasn't in direct response to you but to someone else who responded to you in this subtree of discussion...)
Haha. Click "More" on the little Slashdot bar to ensure you have loaded all the posts. Then use your browser's text search (CTRL-F in Firefox) to look for my username, "causality". You'll find that what you mentioned has happened to just about every post I have made in this discussion. I'm wondering what they're smoking, except I can't think of anything that would harm reading comprehension so severely.
I'm sorry but how do you so drastically fail to understand what I said?
What I said was that most students do NOT enjoy learning, and they do NOT enjoy it because of how they have been made to do it. I am suggesting that their failure to enjoy learning is not the way people naturally are. It's an artificial product of the way we have chosen to teach them, and as such, it could be changed. I'll show you by quoting my own text:
(emphasis added)
I don't know how to make this more clear to you.