I'm not too sure about your second point, but I have personal experience of just 3 overlapping networks(two on 6, one on 10) that caused horrid interference. The channel 10 group had no problems but the two homes on 6(one of which was mine with my roommates in college) had endless problems. For a long time, we couldn't figure out why noone in the house could get a decent internet connection. The problem was that we were getting huge interference from our neighbors.
The only way we figured this out was to sniff all the wireless networks(I'm not sure how, my buddy, the comp sci major did this) and realized that we needed to change our channel. That wasn't so easy because the internet was provided through the school but as soon as we got on channel 2, everything cleared up.
don't blame the contract because that particular artist isn't good enough to be successful.
or would you rather the A&R folks go around and try to sign people by saying "now, you aren't all that great, but we think there is a small amount of money to be made by signing you. YOu won't ever become big but that is how it goes".
you don't get people to sign on with that kind of talk. If the artist lets himself be bullshitted about the possibilities for his own music he's a fool.
aren't you blowing this up a little bit? of course, if all you consider for media is television, then yes, science and world events aren't being portrayed well at all. But then again, it never really was on TV.
As always, all the thing you have mentioned are pretty much front page on the WSJ and NYtimes (my two daily papers) and I"m sure on many others(I'd bet without looking AP and the BBC are covering it as well). I think all the information is still out there and very accessible but as always, most people don't care to go to a real source.
actually much harder. I was at a lecture in a medical school once and the the professor/MD said speed is the most addictive drug we know. It is the only one that can cause real physical addiction after only one dose. any proper medical advice would be to never take it.
but then again, don't confuse all amphetamines with speed. speed is just one of many and lots aren't nearly as strong or addictive. It just happens speed is the most effectual.
I think excel is the best spreadsheet tool on the market and I am always looking for a better one( I have 3 office suites on my computer currently as I try them out, and I'm not counting old versions I haven't deleted)
so the girl nobody wants to date except for the vast majority if every human being that has every dated (continuing with your analogy)? you seem to have an odd definition of nobody. Or are you implying that only those people who use linux/macs can tell the difference between a good computer program and a bad one? Or maybe that those companies which specialize in office apps(especially the big banks) don't know what they are doing sticking with office?
of course, I think windows holds par with linux for all my every day tasks but I know it doesn't for many tasks. so they are equivalent to me but not everyone. But ms office is generally head and shoulders above its competition(as a complete office suite). and of course, two minutes of work and you can turn off any feature you don't like.
of course my experience with office might be unique or limited in some way. I mean, the last 4 years of having to do everything imaginable in it might still have its limits in some esoteric way.
um... wouldn't it be a lot easier to name the variable "final_position" and then have the #define statement so that gets changed, rather than reading four hundred fifty-six and having to remember it doesn't actually equal that??
just personal preference, but I hate it when people name a variable with a number, it feels just like a magic number when I read code.
no, this is akin to my boss asking for several sperm samples. don't exagerate what the procedure is. Its that kind of ignorance that leads to bad policy(not saying this is a bad policy born out of ignorance, but it is how it gets sold off to people, like partial birth abortion).
but there is no even hint of this lady being demanded to undergo this procedure. btw, its not illegal in the civilized world to have a job that demands you to work 80 hours a week to keep your job. It happens all the time in the US, Europe, Japan and other first world countries. IT is only unethical from your point of view. Ethics are constantly changing and in many cultures, working 60 hours a week is seen as completely normal.
you of course, ignore the implication of my statement so I will make it more clear. Why is it unethical to be asked to go above and beyond your job description when it is required to keep the project going? I am making the assumption that if the project fails to go further, it will be shut down and you along with several others will lose your jobs.
obviously you've never submitted to minor surgical procedures and had to work several 80+ hour weeks. I"ve done both. I'll take the first any day of the week. but of course, if you haven't had both, you might not realize the hell working that much can bring into your personal life(which by the way, is another fundamental interest in my book, so I guess I was being set against myself??) as compared to a couple of hours in a hospital followed by being sore for a couple days. Of course, having your "fundamental interests" set against each other happens every single day. People wake up and decide if they should not get fired or go see their child in the school play that afternoon. Life's full of tough choices, in't it? or is only your definition of a fundamental interest valid?
these ethical rules are arbitrary measures of what should be allowed. Anyways, even in the worst of casting of what might have happened(though it is denied by the lab worker, the lead scientist, and the hospital, which could easily account for nothing because there is a real value of this not becoming a scandal for all three), the lady was not forced or had her job threatened. She was offered money to do this. And none of this is proven. So in total, the screaming is really about a woman voluntarily submitting to a procedure and it is only questionable because she works in the lab. No matter how vividly you try to describe a relatively simple procedure, it won't change what actually is being said about this.
how radically different. as I said(though maybe not in this exact post), I didn't sign up for 80 hour weeks. Every now and then you step up and have to do something for the team. Yeah, its not excellent, but its part of working on a project.
IF I get hints that I need to put in unpaid overtime and decided that I didn't want to do that for my job, so be it. Sometimes certain jobs aren't for everyone. Everyone starts screaming about ethics here, but no one has either shown that
1) she was in any way threatened into doing this
2) she ddn't voluntarily donate eggs to help the project
3) that this in any way posed a real risk to her.
note that the entire argument is that it is unethical to even use volutarily donated eggs if they came from people working on the experiment.
and of course, you dodged my question. I specifically said why it would be unethical for me to be asked to work well beyond my contract to keep my project up and running(I was implying, keeping the project going so I still had a job). So while you try to recast what I said and say they are different, they aren't.
first off, absolutely nothing is proven against this guy. he has been accused of using eggs of one of his lab assistants. While it may be semantics, I think it is improper to condemn someone without any hard evidence.
anyways, there is a small but real percentage of people who die doing anything we consider normal. The question remains, if she voluntarily decided to do this(no threats of personal or professional sabotage), even if the lead scientist let it be known or asked, why is it a problem? The point is, nothing is certain but if a person in a lab wants to do that much more to help, I say let them. Just because you see the possibility of a moral conflict doesn't mean everyone else falls into such a nice little cookie cutter definition.
There are a small but real percent of people(many more than egg donation in fact) who die by working extra hours to help get a project up and running on schedule. We don't chastise every case of a person having to work above and beyond because there is the possibility of them dying, do we? Or maybe because its "scientific research" we feel the need to be stricter.
but then, why is it not unethical for me to work 80 hour weeks for a few months to keep my job by keeping my project up and running? That woman damn well ought to have been under pressure if they can't get donors. The research is important and she, working on the project, was in the best position to know what was needed to keep it going.
We aren't talking about a woman being asked to give up a baby. We aren't even talking about an embryo. We are hypothetically talking about a lady giving up an egg towards research she probably cares at least a little about.
In the US, lots of things get called unethical and I don't know why. Even in science, you want the person in your lab group who will take a hit for the team if it won't leave any permanent marks. So the lady couldn't get pregnant that one time around. It is only unethical if you think it is wrong for someone to give up something with almost no value to help a project along. She lost about 28 days of her reproductive life.
Now if she had been told upon being hired to not get pregnant because they might need her as a donor, that gets into my unethical side. I don't believe there are many fields of work where involving yourself in someone's personal life to that extent is acceptable.
Though, I"m not attacking you. I'm really attacking a system that says a scientist can't give one more thing towards the success of the project.
the switch to intel wasn't announced until well after the G5 release, and the release of the mac mini. both could have easily boosted sales until the announcement of the intel processor. Its not being divorced from reality to assume that there could be a large difference in the first three quarters of this year from last year due to hold offs for the G5.
btw, if you want to know dell's profits, they have increased by I believe a factor of 3 over the last 4 years, from 1.1 billion to 3.4 billion(I can't look them up from here, so if you don't believe them, feel free to do the research). but you are right, in a way it is a race to the bottom. They see a post tax margin about 3.4 percent less than that of apple(which is huge).
you know, it is only 5 years after the internet bubble burst. don't go forgetting about that great example of how revenues are not linked to stock prices already. I can't handle another run up and crash.
Anyways, none of you are being honest about the situation. Yes, apple has had growing revenues over the last few years which have really helped it grow its stock price. But the major run up in prices has nothing to do with the Personal computer market that the arguments seem to center on. almost every analyst attributes the run-up to record profits due mainly to the Ipod, not sales of computers. It has seen over the last two years an increase from 6.2 to 13.9 billion in revenue.
Needed in any honest discussion is where apple is coming from. 4 years ago they posted a net loss. Since then, they have seen incredible earnings grown, especially in the past year(from 276 million to 1.335 billion).
Dell has increased it's revenues from 35 to 49 billion in just 2 years. That is phenomenal growth for a company of its type and size. unlike apple, it does not try to sell goods that are priced at an incredible premium based on name and popularity. It also is not riding a wave of a new comsumer product so it has not seen a windfall in profits(and it probably never will). It sits at just over 3 billion in earnings.
Yes, the ggp was incredibly dishonest trying to say apple is dying and is frankly, an idiot. Every analyst in the world thinks they are looking at financial health for a long while to come.
Of course, I claim this analyst is an idiot. He gives these headline predictions assuming all macs that are selling this year beyond last year are windows converts. He is completely ignoring the highly probably activity of many mac users of holding off on mac purchases in expectance of the G5 and lower prices for it. This would imply that many users would not buy last year and buy this year to get access to a modern CPU.
Now, I'm not arguing there weren't a lot of windows to mac switches, but this analyst lacks a basic control over logic.
no, no , no!!! you're just wrong. The bible says that I owe god something and that you owe god something and so that is the way it is. There is nothing else.
you're trying to make humans more important than a bookshelf in god's mind and you can't do that. You damn well have an obligation because....... well damn, I couldn't turn off my "logic" circuits long enough to complete an argument. Guess I Need to get back into those good old houses of worship and really shut them down..
I think the real problem is most religious people want to make it sound like they have somehow logically derived god's existance and you will never be able to shake that foundation. The forget to say they take as an axiom the bible and certain limitations on methods of interpretation(some require literalism, some only partial, some none). You can never win the argument when an axiom for their standpoint is
1) God owes humans nothing 2)Humans are indebted to god 3) No analogy can be drawn from this relation to any other relation a person may have with something else, including children. They have have their own underlying axioms. 4)no matter what math or other systems of logic tell you, this system is consistent and complete.
There is actually a similar argument in mathematics. Namely, under certain axioms, one can show that any set of numbers is a complete, ordered field. So for example, the square root of 2 is a proof for the reals unless you reject the notion of a square root of a prime number. Without that notion, that proof falls flat on its face. It doesn't matter what anything else tell you, you simply reject the underpinnings of different systems and you win.
not at all? have you ever lived in Japan, with a family perhaps? if you didn't notice, children never use Keigo with adults because they don't know it. They are in no way expected to know it. I know becuase I lived with two different families and my girlfriend was born and raised there.
The formal communications requiring Keigo are few and far between in the culture(I know, I can speak it) today and is hardly ever used. Most people dont learn it until they are starting work. At times, the employer will provide training in it if it is a service job(especially part time jobs).
But I can't speak for koreans. Maybe they expect their 8 year olds to be able to speak it and this kid never learned, but I highly doubt it.
why exactly? I definitely value the person I can sit down and have a long, interesting conversation with and hten turn around and go have a beer and play croquet with over the computer programmer that can give a proof for p = np. It's all about what's important in my life and frankly, some things aren't important at all. I don't care if this kid solves the Riemman hypothesis because nothing in my life depends on it being true.
I also don't care if he finds a material that can create a flying car. its just not interesting to me at all. I'm not sure why I have to value the completely uninteresting, removed from reality "intellectual" over the fun, blue collared worker I go to martial arts wtih.
no wonder it has nothing to do with actually having sex with a girl (it's funny when you see interviews with porn stars talking about how much it isn't fun to have sex in the common way they have to for porn movies)
I believe most PhD's in physics or math would disagree with you. Almost all beieve their prime years are before 30 and many hae told me they don't think they will contribute at all if they haven't by the time they are 25. It's probably why speed-like drugs are so common among these people.
I think he shouldn't be let into college full time simply because he lacks the social skills college demands. It even said in the article he has trouble communicating with adults. These are skills he needs to learn and you can't communicate with adults in general if you can't communicate with others your own age. He might be far beyond most people when it comes to physics and math, but he is way behind those who will be around by any other measure. What I always say: even if your kid is a prodigy at baseball you don't let him fail out of school.
but he isn't the intellectual equal of those people he is sitting next to in college. having the ability to communicate with your peers is important. There is real value is being around people of your age to learn these skills. My mom was 3 years ahead(so significantly less but still a wide gap) and she grew up in india. This mean she was ready for medical school at 13/14 years old. She felt it was such a terrible social experience that when I was given the option by my teachers to move up 2 or 3 grades, she turned them down.
So yes, maybe I"m not as advanced as I could have been. But then again, I'll give up already being in grad school for the friends and experiences I had growing up that shaped me into a complete person. I think in the same way that a superstar athlete still needs a "book smarts" education, simply because this child is such a "book learning" prodigy, he needs to be pushed and prodded by his parents to enter into the social realm(like their equivalent of YMCA sports). The math problem is great, but just like most kids and games, he has to know when to put it away to go do other things. I meet too many people who get to college and are way too much of one or the other and its a little sad. I think this child my unfortunately end up being a truly extreme case.
If he is so bright to be this self-driven, his education could easily be supplemented as it has been, by self learning. I think dooming him to lacking so many basic social skills is a much larger detriment that slowing down an already amazing pace of learning. Personally, I would rather this kid goes out for recess and learns to play kickball. I"m not saying he needs to be outside all day, but he needs to interact with people his own age because there are lots of things he has not learned yet that are just as important as "flying cars".
the homogeneity I am talking about is how every time I Look around, I don't see the differences. I see a bunch of people who have completely fallen for the Ipod and do the exact same thing, walk around not paying attention to other humans just listening their Ipods(looks almost like apple is brainwashing what was once a diverse group of people;-).
That homogeneity exists in droves with the success of the Ipod. I just find it funny that people who were once incredibly diverse in what they did and how they acted now do exactly the same thing when they are walking alone.
actually, I probably should have simply worded it that way. Yes, I argue that some policies that are put into place are purely political and others are purely economics. Others are a precarious mix of the two. What I really mean is the economic side of a socialist policy is not usually to blame, its the foolish politicians who want to kill people and settle vendettas under the veil of socialism that kill that people. I think a lot of the real problem is overt idealism, which makes people believe they can never be wrong. The beauty of capitalism is that it is usually direction connected to true democracy(or something close) so while at times we swing one way or another, forces seem to always draw us back to the other side.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not too sure about your second point, but I have personal experience of just 3 overlapping networks(two on 6, one on 10) that caused horrid interference. The channel 10 group had no problems but the two homes on 6(one of which was mine with my roommates in college) had endless problems. For a long time, we couldn't figure out why noone in the house could get a decent internet connection. The problem was that we were getting huge interference from our neighbors.
The only way we figured this out was to sniff all the wireless networks(I'm not sure how, my buddy, the comp sci major did this) and realized that we needed to change our channel. That wasn't so easy because the internet was provided through the school but as soon as we got on channel 2, everything cleared up.
don't blame the contract because that particular artist isn't good enough to be successful.
or would you rather the A&R folks go around and try to sign people by saying "now, you aren't all that great, but we think there is a small amount of money to be made by signing you. YOu won't ever become big but that is how it goes".
you don't get people to sign on with that kind of talk. If the artist lets himself be bullshitted about the possibilities for his own music he's a fool.
aren't you blowing this up a little bit? of course, if all you consider for media is television, then yes, science and world events aren't being portrayed well at all. But then again, it never really was on TV.
As always, all the thing you have mentioned are pretty much front page on the WSJ and NYtimes (my two daily papers) and I"m sure on many others(I'd bet without looking AP and the BBC are covering it as well). I think all the information is still out there and very accessible but as always, most people don't care to go to a real source.
actually much harder. I was at a lecture in a medical school once and the the professor/MD said speed is the most addictive drug we know. It is the only one that can cause real physical addiction after only one dose. any proper medical advice would be to never take it.
but then again, don't confuse all amphetamines with speed. speed is just one of many and lots aren't nearly as strong or addictive. It just happens speed is the most effectual.
I think excel is the best spreadsheet tool on the market and I am always looking for a better one( I have 3 office suites on my computer currently as I try them out, and I'm not counting old versions I haven't deleted)
so the girl nobody wants to date except for the vast majority if every human being that has every dated (continuing with your analogy)? you seem to have an odd definition of nobody. Or are you implying that only those people who use linux/macs can tell the difference between a good computer program and a bad one? Or maybe that those companies which specialize in office apps(especially the big banks) don't know what they are doing sticking with office?
of course, I think windows holds par with linux for all my every day tasks but I know it doesn't for many tasks. so they are equivalent to me but not everyone. But ms office is generally head and shoulders above its competition(as a complete office suite). and of course, two minutes of work and you can turn off any feature you don't like.
of course my experience with office might be unique or limited in some way. I mean, the last 4 years of having to do everything imaginable in it might still have its limits in some esoteric way.
um... wouldn't it be a lot easier to name the variable "final_position" and then have the #define statement so that gets changed, rather than reading four hundred fifty-six and having to remember it doesn't actually equal that??
just personal preference, but I hate it when people name a variable with a number, it feels just like a magic number when I read code.
no, this is akin to my boss asking for several sperm samples. don't exagerate what the procedure is. Its that kind of ignorance that leads to bad policy(not saying this is a bad policy born out of ignorance, but it is how it gets sold off to people, like partial birth abortion).
but there is no even hint of this lady being demanded to undergo this procedure. btw, its not illegal in the civilized world to have a job that demands you to work 80 hours a week to keep your job. It happens all the time in the US, Europe, Japan and other first world countries. IT is only unethical from your point of view. Ethics are constantly changing and in many cultures, working 60 hours a week is seen as completely normal.
you of course, ignore the implication of my statement so I will make it more clear. Why is it unethical to be asked to go above and beyond your job description when it is required to keep the project going? I am making the assumption that if the project fails to go further, it will be shut down and you along with several others will lose your jobs.
obviously you've never submitted to minor surgical procedures and had to work several 80+ hour weeks. I"ve done both. I'll take the first any day of the week. but of course, if you haven't had both, you might not realize the hell working that much can bring into your personal life(which by the way, is another fundamental interest in my book, so I guess I was being set against myself??) as compared to a couple of hours in a hospital followed by being sore for a couple days. Of course, having your "fundamental interests" set against each other happens every single day. People wake up and decide if they should not get fired or go see their child in the school play that afternoon. Life's full of tough choices, in't it? or is only your definition of a fundamental interest valid?
these ethical rules are arbitrary measures of what should be allowed. Anyways, even in the worst of casting of what might have happened(though it is denied by the lab worker, the lead scientist, and the hospital, which could easily account for nothing because there is a real value of this not becoming a scandal for all three), the lady was not forced or had her job threatened. She was offered money to do this. And none of this is proven. So in total, the screaming is really about a woman voluntarily submitting to a procedure and it is only questionable because she works in the lab. No matter how vividly you try to describe a relatively simple procedure, it won't change what actually is being said about this.
how radically different. as I said(though maybe not in this exact post), I didn't sign up for 80 hour weeks. Every now and then you step up and have to do something for the team. Yeah, its not excellent, but its part of working on a project.
IF I get hints that I need to put in unpaid overtime and decided that I didn't want to do that for my job, so be it. Sometimes certain jobs aren't for everyone. Everyone starts screaming about ethics here, but no one has either shown that
1) she was in any way threatened into doing this
2) she ddn't voluntarily donate eggs to help the project
3) that this in any way posed a real risk to her.
note that the entire argument is that it is unethical to even use volutarily donated eggs if they came from people working on the experiment.
and of course, you dodged my question. I specifically said why it would be unethical for me to be asked to work well beyond my contract to keep my project up and running(I was implying, keeping the project going so I still had a job). So while you try to recast what I said and say they are different, they aren't.
first off, absolutely nothing is proven against this guy. he has been accused of using eggs of one of his lab assistants. While it may be semantics, I think it is improper to condemn someone without any hard evidence.
anyways, there is a small but real percentage of people who die doing anything we consider normal. The question remains, if she voluntarily decided to do this(no threats of personal or professional sabotage), even if the lead scientist let it be known or asked, why is it a problem? The point is, nothing is certain but if a person in a lab wants to do that much more to help, I say let them. Just because you see the possibility of a moral conflict doesn't mean everyone else falls into such a nice little cookie cutter definition.
There are a small but real percent of people(many more than egg donation in fact) who die by working extra hours to help get a project up and running on schedule. We don't chastise every case of a person having to work above and beyond because there is the possibility of them dying, do we? Or maybe because its "scientific research" we feel the need to be stricter.
but then, why is it not unethical for me to work 80 hour weeks for a few months to keep my job by keeping my project up and running? That woman damn well ought to have been under pressure if they can't get donors. The research is important and she, working on the project, was in the best position to know what was needed to keep it going.
We aren't talking about a woman being asked to give up a baby. We aren't even talking about an embryo. We are hypothetically talking about a lady giving up an egg towards research she probably cares at least a little about.
In the US, lots of things get called unethical and I don't know why. Even in science, you want the person in your lab group who will take a hit for the team if it won't leave any permanent marks. So the lady couldn't get pregnant that one time around. It is only unethical if you think it is wrong for someone to give up something with almost no value to help a project along. She lost about 28 days of her reproductive life.
Now if she had been told upon being hired to not get pregnant because they might need her as a donor, that gets into my unethical side. I don't believe there are many fields of work where involving yourself in someone's personal life to that extent is acceptable.
Though, I"m not attacking you. I'm really attacking a system that says a scientist can't give one more thing towards the success of the project.
Sorry I couldn't resist
Few people have that capacity.
The story just induces bad jokes, doesn't it?
the switch to intel wasn't announced until well after the G5 release, and the release of the mac mini. both could have easily boosted sales until the announcement of the intel processor. Its not being divorced from reality to assume that there could be a large difference in the first three quarters of this year from last year due to hold offs for the G5.
btw, if you want to know dell's profits, they have increased by I believe a factor of 3 over the last 4 years, from 1.1 billion to 3.4 billion(I can't look them up from here, so if you don't believe them, feel free to do the research). but you are right, in a way it is a race to the bottom. They see a post tax margin about 3.4 percent less than that of apple(which is huge).
you know, it is only 5 years after the internet bubble burst. don't go forgetting about that great example of how revenues are not linked to stock prices already. I can't handle another run up and crash.
Anyways, none of you are being honest about the situation. Yes, apple has had growing revenues over the last few years which have really helped it grow its stock price. But the major run up in prices has nothing to do with the Personal computer market that the arguments seem to center on. almost every analyst attributes the run-up to record profits due mainly to the Ipod, not sales of computers. It has seen over the last two years an increase from 6.2 to 13.9 billion in revenue.
Needed in any honest discussion is where apple is coming from. 4 years ago they posted a net loss. Since then, they have seen incredible earnings grown, especially in the past year(from 276 million to 1.335 billion).
Dell has increased it's revenues from 35 to 49 billion in just 2 years. That is phenomenal growth for a company of its type and size. unlike apple, it does not try to sell goods that are priced at an incredible premium based on name and popularity. It also is not riding a wave of a new comsumer product so it has not seen a windfall in profits(and it probably never will). It sits at just over 3 billion in earnings.
Yes, the ggp was incredibly dishonest trying to say apple is dying and is frankly, an idiot. Every analyst in the world thinks they are looking at financial health for a long while to come.
Of course, I claim this analyst is an idiot. He gives these headline predictions assuming all macs that are selling this year beyond last year are windows converts. He is completely ignoring the highly probably activity of many mac users of holding off on mac purchases in expectance of the G5 and lower prices for it. This would imply that many users would not buy last year and buy this year to get access to a modern CPU.
Now, I'm not arguing there weren't a lot of windows to mac switches, but this analyst lacks a basic control over logic.
no, no , no!!! you're just wrong. The bible says that I owe god something and that you owe god something and so that is the way it is. There is nothing else.
you're trying to make humans more important than a bookshelf in god's mind and you can't do that. You damn well have an obligation because....... well damn, I couldn't turn off my "logic" circuits long enough to complete an argument. Guess I Need to get back into those good old houses of worship and really shut them down..
I think the real problem is most religious people want to make it sound like they have somehow logically derived god's existance and you will never be able to shake that foundation. The forget to say they take as an axiom the bible and certain limitations on methods of interpretation(some require literalism, some only partial, some none). You can never win the argument when an axiom for their standpoint is
1) God owes humans nothing
2)Humans are indebted to god
3) No analogy can be drawn from this relation to any other relation a person may have with something else, including children. They have have their own underlying axioms.
4)no matter what math or other systems of logic tell you, this system is consistent and complete.
There is actually a similar argument in mathematics. Namely, under certain axioms, one can show that any set of numbers is a complete, ordered field. So for example, the square root of 2 is a proof for the reals unless you reject the notion of a square root of a prime number. Without that notion, that proof falls flat on its face. It doesn't matter what anything else tell you, you simply reject the underpinnings of different systems and you win.
I"M not sure of this is a joke, but that might be the funniest site I have ever read. its like FUD for the religious masses.
not at all? have you ever lived in Japan, with a family perhaps? if you didn't notice, children never use Keigo with adults because they don't know it. They are in no way expected to know it. I know becuase I lived with two different families and my girlfriend was born and raised there.
The formal communications requiring Keigo are few and far between in the culture(I know, I can speak it) today and is hardly ever used. Most people dont learn it until they are starting work. At times, the employer will provide training in it if it is a service job(especially part time jobs).
But I can't speak for koreans. Maybe they expect their 8 year olds to be able to speak it and this kid never learned, but I highly doubt it.
why exactly? I definitely value the person I can sit down and have a long, interesting conversation with and hten turn around and go have a beer and play croquet with over the computer programmer that can give a proof for p = np. It's all about what's important in my life and frankly, some things aren't important at all. I don't care if this kid solves the Riemman hypothesis because nothing in my life depends on it being true.
I also don't care if he finds a material that can create a flying car. its just not interesting to me at all. I'm not sure why I have to value the completely uninteresting, removed from reality "intellectual" over the fun, blue collared worker I go to martial arts wtih.
no wonder it has nothing to do with actually having sex with a girl (it's funny when you see interviews with porn stars talking about how much it isn't fun to have sex in the common way they have to for porn movies)
I believe most PhD's in physics or math would disagree with you. Almost all beieve their prime years are before 30 and many hae told me they don't think they will contribute at all if they haven't by the time they are 25. It's probably why speed-like drugs are so common among these people.
I think he shouldn't be let into college full time simply because he lacks the social skills college demands. It even said in the article he has trouble communicating with adults. These are skills he needs to learn and you can't communicate with adults in general if you can't communicate with others your own age. He might be far beyond most people when it comes to physics and math, but he is way behind those who will be around by any other measure. What I always say: even if your kid is a prodigy at baseball you don't let him fail out of school.
but he isn't the intellectual equal of those people he is sitting next to in college. having the ability to communicate with your peers is important. There is real value is being around people of your age to learn these skills. My mom was 3 years ahead(so significantly less but still a wide gap) and she grew up in india. This mean she was ready for medical school at 13/14 years old. She felt it was such a terrible social experience that when I was given the option by my teachers to move up 2 or 3 grades, she turned them down.
So yes, maybe I"m not as advanced as I could have been. But then again, I'll give up already being in grad school for the friends and experiences I had growing up that shaped me into a complete person. I think in the same way that a superstar athlete still needs a "book smarts" education, simply because this child is such a "book learning" prodigy, he needs to be pushed and prodded by his parents to enter into the social realm(like their equivalent of YMCA sports). The math problem is great, but just like most kids and games, he has to know when to put it away to go do other things. I meet too many people who get to college and are way too much of one or the other and its a little sad. I think this child my unfortunately end up being a truly extreme case.
If he is so bright to be this self-driven, his education could easily be supplemented as it has been, by self learning. I think dooming him to lacking so many basic social skills is a much larger detriment that slowing down an already amazing pace of learning.
Personally, I would rather this kid goes out for recess and learns to play kickball. I"m not saying he needs to be outside all day, but he needs to interact with people his own age because there are lots of things he has not learned yet that are just as important as "flying cars".
the homogeneity I am talking about is how every time I Look around, I don't see the differences. I see a bunch of people who have completely fallen for the Ipod and do the exact same thing, walk around not paying attention to other humans just listening their Ipods(looks almost like apple is brainwashing what was once a diverse group of people;-).
That homogeneity exists in droves with the success of the Ipod. I just find it funny that people who were once incredibly diverse in what they did and how they acted now do exactly the same thing when they are walking alone.
actually, I probably should have simply worded it that way. Yes, I argue that some policies that are put into place are purely political and others are purely economics. Others are a precarious mix of the two. What I really mean is the economic side of a socialist policy is not usually to blame, its the foolish politicians who want to kill people and settle vendettas under the veil of socialism that kill that people. I think a lot of the real problem is overt idealism, which makes people believe they can never be wrong. The beauty of capitalism is that it is usually direction connected to true democracy(or something close) so while at times we swing one way or another, forces seem to always draw us back to the other side.