"Kitchen Hygiene" would be a fine example of how badly our public education has failed. It wasn't that long ago that by the time a student graduated from his 13 year public education program, half of them already had taken courses on "kitchen hygiene".
Absolute and complete BS. While there is a small subset of jobs that have become more complex, the vast majority of them have not. Every single one of your examples shows just how much LESS knowledge is required today than in the past. If you think that an Amish farmer who butchers pigs knows less about the subject of cutting up pigs than the "butcher" (more accurately called a meat cutter) that works in at Safeway, you are deluded.
Specialization DECREASES the amount of education necessary for 99% of all jobs.
Honestly, his site isn't that bad. The only usability problem on his site is that his column is sized for a small screen, and his picture window is made for a large screen.
Besides, you don't have to be a master chef to know if a restaurant's food tastes bad.
Are you really trying to use a website that hasn't been updated in over 12 years that reviews a version of software that is 14 years old and 7 major released back as evidence that an application has a bad UI? That on it's own would be stupid. The fact that half the complaints are about Lotus Notes using standard UI features makes the use of that site doubly stupid as an example of how bad the Lotus Notes UI is.
Do you really think that taking physical education in college has any measurable effect on the likely hood someone will be fit later in life? If you are not even going to try to make your arguments sound even vaguely plausible, why even bother posting?
The problem with that is that public education has already failed. Think about it. It is becoming more and more accepted every day that 13 years of education is not enough to function at basic jobs. Of course, colleges are not far off from our public education as it is.
People take 13 years of general ed classes before they ever get to college. If they haven't gotten a decent general education by that time, they are not going to get it with a few more years.
Not to mention it is also a classic example of someone not understanding just how brutal the world has been to life, and just how many life forms have died over the earths history.
Your comment, while true kind of points out just how badly our education system is. There is nothing strange about the concept. It is simple enough for very small children to understand with no problem. The reason it often seems strange is that our education system often teaches kids wrong for the purpose of "being simple" and then tries to reteach them later.
One of the most glaring examples is with math. Children are taught variables from the very beggining. They are just not told that they are variables. They are given a square or an underline for the variable's symbol. It isn't until much later that we start using letters for the variables, and tell them that they are learning a whole new kind of math.
The problem with that is that the AGW crowed is overloading the definition of 'climate change'. They use the definition of "The climate changes. It always has and always will" to 'prove' that everyone agrees with the definition that "humans are making the planet unlivable". The term "Climate Change" is now tainted, and if you use it to strictly refer to the changing of the climate, you will be unknowingly telling the students something distinctly different than you think you are.
You would hate me, and how I teach my child then. If I wanted to have an "expert" give an answer to my child, I would specifically go out of my way to ask it in a non-leading way. Teaching my child what bias is, is part of his education. Asking a leading question generates bias, and my child knows this. This is particularly frequent when a parent asks a leading question to prove a point to a child.
We did the fruit fly experiment in the 80's also. That experiment alone should not have convinced you. That experiment only showed that existing genes get passed along from the parents, and that some are recessive while others are dominant. The other piece that you should have been taught was mutation. It is mutation + inheritance that = evolution.
You assume that if someone discounts a pro AGW scientist that they support the Anti-AGW scientist. This isn't the case. As a general rule, as statement of "I don't know if there is climate change because the issue is too politicized and there is too much money involved to trust any reports." will be attacked by the pro-AGW zealots.
"The science has been settled", and "there is no debate" is the stance that has been taken by the AGW crowd in the AGW debate ever since Al Gore declared breathing an option in "An Inconvenient Truth".
You can't silence them through rational argument because their argument is the lip service that our entire country gives to the subject. It is as rational as our laws that prevent discrimination based on religion. It is repeated over and over that we should have religious tolerance. That all religions are valid. That it isn't OK to call the highly religious crazy because they believe in magic beings.
When a teacher tells a child that their statements are true facts, and those statements are in direct contradiction of the religious "facts" that their parents are teaching them, then the teacher is telling the child that their religion is false. We can jump through hoops to try to avoid facing it, but all that does is destroy the child's critical thinking. We end up with people who believe that if a statement is false, it isn't a fact. Statements that are not facts are opinions, and opinions can't be wrong, so if you are wrong, you are right.
There isn't an easy answer, but as long as we profess, and even put into law that being batshit insane is a basic human right, then we are hypocrites for trying to convince their children not to be inflicted with the same insanity that we endorse in the parent.
Not a kill switch. That might violate the law in some jurisdictions. You make any delivery a 60 day timed demo and you give them the registration file when they have paid in full.
I have been thinking on this, and your suggestion is good. The option I thought of was requiring equal pay to both sides of the case for each client. As in, if I only pay my lawyer $100, then I have to pay your lawyer $100 also. If Bethesda decides to sue you and let you know their lawyers charge $10k/day, then they will need to cough up $20k/day because they will be paying your lawyer that much as well. This would solve the same problem your suggestion solves, but would level the playing field in lawyer quality due to personal wealth.
The people that have a problem with games being ported via Wine are really shooting themselves in the foot. Modern software is loaded with layer after layer of abstraction. Wine is just one more layer. If the game is tested and works, there is no good reason to care how it was coded. The standard "It doesn't run as good as if it was written native" has two answers. 1) Ported via Wine certainly runs better than not written at all native. 2) No. It doesn't. Fewer abstraction layers will sometimes bring faster code, but 'native' does not mean fewer abstraction layers. We are way past the point of developers eeking out every last bit of performance from the hardware. We are well into the age when developers use abstraction layers to ease development. And that is all Wine is in this case.
Tablet phone it doesn't matter. My comment had nothing to do with Android vs. iOS. It was pointing out that people already spend the cost of a tablet/phone for electronic toys for their kids. A phone just happens to be useful as well as fun.
No, it is just people getting old. When I got Nexus one, I handed my MyTouch down to my 6 year. The sales people at T-Mobile were a bit shocked that a 6 year old had a smartphone. The HTC rep was in the store, and was fascinated at our existence. It was a completely new concept to him that a 6 year old would have one of their phones.
The think was, the phone, even if purchased that day brand new, had a lower dollar value than a Nintendo DS with a dozen games. Yet no one would bat an eye over a 6 year old having that. $1000 is an expensive gift for a 6 year old, but for families that can afford it, it isn't out of line for what would be spent if there was no iPad.
Slashdot Mirror
God told him so?
"Kitchen Hygiene" would be a fine example of how badly our public education has failed. It wasn't that long ago that by the time a student graduated from his 13 year public education program, half of them already had taken courses on "kitchen hygiene".
Absolute and complete BS. While there is a small subset of jobs that have become more complex, the vast majority of them have not. Every single one of your examples shows just how much LESS knowledge is required today than in the past. If you think that an Amish farmer who butchers pigs knows less about the subject of cutting up pigs than the "butcher" (more accurately called a meat cutter) that works in at Safeway, you are deluded.
Specialization DECREASES the amount of education necessary for 99% of all jobs.
Which doesn't make your comment any less ridiculous in intent or effectiveness.
I see what you did there.....
Honestly, his site isn't that bad. The only usability problem on his site is that his column is sized for a small screen, and his picture window is made for a large screen.
Besides, you don't have to be a master chef to know if a restaurant's food tastes bad.
Are you really trying to use a website that hasn't been updated in over 12 years that reviews a version of software that is 14 years old and 7 major released back as evidence that an application has a bad UI? That on it's own would be stupid. The fact that half the complaints are about Lotus Notes using standard UI features makes the use of that site doubly stupid as an example of how bad the Lotus Notes UI is.
Do you really think that taking physical education in college has any measurable effect on the likely hood someone will be fit later in life? If you are not even going to try to make your arguments sound even vaguely plausible, why even bother posting?
The problem with that is that public education has already failed. Think about it. It is becoming more and more accepted every day that 13 years of education is not enough to function at basic jobs. Of course, colleges are not far off from our public education as it is.
People take 13 years of general ed classes before they ever get to college. If they haven't gotten a decent general education by that time, they are not going to get it with a few more years.
Not to mention it is also a classic example of someone not understanding just how brutal the world has been to life, and just how many life forms have died over the earths history.
Your comment, while true kind of points out just how badly our education system is. There is nothing strange about the concept. It is simple enough for very small children to understand with no problem. The reason it often seems strange is that our education system often teaches kids wrong for the purpose of "being simple" and then tries to reteach them later.
One of the most glaring examples is with math. Children are taught variables from the very beggining. They are just not told that they are variables. They are given a square or an underline for the variable's symbol. It isn't until much later that we start using letters for the variables, and tell them that they are learning a whole new kind of math.
The problem with that is that the AGW crowed is overloading the definition of 'climate change'. They use the definition of "The climate changes. It always has and always will" to 'prove' that everyone agrees with the definition that "humans are making the planet unlivable". The term "Climate Change" is now tainted, and if you use it to strictly refer to the changing of the climate, you will be unknowingly telling the students something distinctly different than you think you are.
You would hate me, and how I teach my child then. If I wanted to have an "expert" give an answer to my child, I would specifically go out of my way to ask it in a non-leading way. Teaching my child what bias is, is part of his education. Asking a leading question generates bias, and my child knows this. This is particularly frequent when a parent asks a leading question to prove a point to a child.
We did the fruit fly experiment in the 80's also. That experiment alone should not have convinced you. That experiment only showed that existing genes get passed along from the parents, and that some are recessive while others are dominant. The other piece that you should have been taught was mutation. It is mutation + inheritance that = evolution.
You assume that if someone discounts a pro AGW scientist that they support the Anti-AGW scientist. This isn't the case. As a general rule, as statement of "I don't know if there is climate change because the issue is too politicized and there is too much money involved to trust any reports." will be attacked by the pro-AGW zealots.
You do realize the irony of your post, right?
"The science has been settled", and "there is no debate" is the stance that has been taken by the AGW crowd in the AGW debate ever since Al Gore declared breathing an option in "An Inconvenient Truth".
You can't silence them through rational argument because their argument is the lip service that our entire country gives to the subject. It is as rational as our laws that prevent discrimination based on religion. It is repeated over and over that we should have religious tolerance. That all religions are valid. That it isn't OK to call the highly religious crazy because they believe in magic beings.
When a teacher tells a child that their statements are true facts, and those statements are in direct contradiction of the religious "facts" that their parents are teaching them, then the teacher is telling the child that their religion is false. We can jump through hoops to try to avoid facing it, but all that does is destroy the child's critical thinking. We end up with people who believe that if a statement is false, it isn't a fact. Statements that are not facts are opinions, and opinions can't be wrong, so if you are wrong, you are right.
There isn't an easy answer, but as long as we profess, and even put into law that being batshit insane is a basic human right, then we are hypocrites for trying to convince their children not to be inflicted with the same insanity that we endorse in the parent.
Not a kill switch. That might violate the law in some jurisdictions. You make any delivery a 60 day timed demo and you give them the registration file when they have paid in full.
I have been thinking on this, and your suggestion is good. The option I thought of was requiring equal pay to both sides of the case for each client. As in, if I only pay my lawyer $100, then I have to pay your lawyer $100 also. If Bethesda decides to sue you and let you know their lawyers charge $10k/day, then they will need to cough up $20k/day because they will be paying your lawyer that much as well. This would solve the same problem your suggestion solves, but would level the playing field in lawyer quality due to personal wealth.
The people that have a problem with games being ported via Wine are really shooting themselves in the foot. Modern software is loaded with layer after layer of abstraction. Wine is just one more layer. If the game is tested and works, there is no good reason to care how it was coded. The standard "It doesn't run as good as if it was written native" has two answers. 1) Ported via Wine certainly runs better than not written at all native. 2) No. It doesn't. Fewer abstraction layers will sometimes bring faster code, but 'native' does not mean fewer abstraction layers. We are way past the point of developers eeking out every last bit of performance from the hardware. We are well into the age when developers use abstraction layers to ease development. And that is all Wine is in this case.
Tablet phone it doesn't matter. My comment had nothing to do with Android vs. iOS. It was pointing out that people already spend the cost of a tablet/phone for electronic toys for their kids. A phone just happens to be useful as well as fun.
You are arguing with someone who doesn't disagree with you.
No, it is just people getting old. When I got Nexus one, I handed my MyTouch down to my 6 year. The sales people at T-Mobile were a bit shocked that a 6 year old had a smartphone. The HTC rep was in the store, and was fascinated at our existence. It was a completely new concept to him that a 6 year old would have one of their phones.
The think was, the phone, even if purchased that day brand new, had a lower dollar value than a Nintendo DS with a dozen games. Yet no one would bat an eye over a 6 year old having that. $1000 is an expensive gift for a 6 year old, but for families that can afford it, it isn't out of line for what would be spent if there was no iPad.