I would just publish the raw data, and move along on my way. If you are getting bent out of shape about people wanting to see your data and records when your statements are being used to ask people to change their entire way of life, you are either evil or a fool.
That right there is what causes me the most skepticism in the whole AGW debate. We are not talking about a poorly performing school, or a local park closure. We are talking about the end of civilization as we know it. Basically an end of days scenario. If you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that an individual was coming to murder your child, would you arm yourself for a fight? Or would you just ask them nicely to not kill your baby?
It has taken a whole lot less than the end of the world to bring about armed rebellion, yet I have not heard of one famous climate scientist arrested for blowing up a refinery. Not one of them has been arrested for using a sniper riffle to take out the head of BP.
Do none of these climate scientists have kids or relatives that they give a damn about? Or, are they not really convinced that it is the end of the world?
I am a child of the 70's/80's, and I can tell you that in my generation, stupidity runs rampant as well. I saw, and still see it in my parent's generation as well. The problem of people being dumb is not new.
You are correct that the public education system is broken to the core. It won't get fixed though. There are just too many people sucking off of that teat. There are too many people employed in the education industry, and our economy is based on the idea of "free" daycare.
Funny, I have not spent a single hour of my life without using tech. Nope, not one single hour. Of course, in true neo-Luddite fashion, what almost everyone on this thread is talking about is "How much technology invented or populorized after 1980 (+TV) can kids take?". It just sounds dumb when put that way though.
True. The sad thing I see is parents who get an educational video, and then play the thing over and over and over for their kid. The video might even be an awesome video that has massive educational value for their kid, but after the third viewing the kid has gotten everything educational out of it that they are going to, and the parent just keeps running it over and over hundreds of times. They pat themselves on the back, and tell themselves how they are "educating" their child. Then you get the exact opposite from other parents, where they will deny their kids the first three showings because some study shows that kids who have only been exposed to 90 minutes of stimulus repeated endlessly for the fist 3 years of their life are stunted.
Would you say the same about reading? Most people would agree with you when it is the TV or the Computer, but would suddenly change their tune when it is a book.
Exactly. The question isn't "How much tech can kids take?". It is "How much tech invented after 1980 can kids take?". It's just that if they had phrased it that way, people would have realized that it was a stupid question from the beginning instead of defining "tech" as any technology they believe was put on earth by some devil to corrupt us.
No, they are not talking about technology in general. They are talking about technology invented ~1980 or later. I'm pretty sure they are not talking about houses, woven cloth, or farmed food. Of course, once the question is actually asked they way they mean it, it becomes apparent how absurd the idea is.
I would say that is absolutely NOT the silver bullet. The problem here is that the people posing the question don't understand what they are even asking. I have yet to meet one single person that has not spent virtually 100% of their time heavily using technology. I know that my child, myself, my parents, grandparents, and so on for many generations have used fire for cooking, woven cloth. The have eaten food that was grown using tech like plows and shovels. They have lived in houses. I intended to continue this trend by continuing to have my child live in a house, with electric lighting, heaters and woven blankets. He will wear woven clothes, and eat food cooked on a stove. In fact, I doubt he will have one single day that he doesn't use tech. He might not even go a single hour without using tech.
The very premise of the question is just stupid. Of course this post will get replies along the line of "You know what they meant.", "Your being pedantic.", "That's not the tech they mean." Well, I, like the rest of the readers here do know what they mean. They meant "How much tech invented after 1980 can kids take." Of course, when put that way, it is still a stupid question.
Yes, they are. Our Sys Admins do backups for us, but they have decided that 3 days worth of rotating backups is sufficient. To be fair, after much gnashing of teeth, we got them to grudgingly up the amount to 7 days worth of rotating backups. Their claim is that disk space is too expensive for anything more. And, no. I don't know why they don't get fired for telling such a poor lie.
All of the time. I don't know what planet you live on, but that behavior is common here on earth. Particularly with sports. When it comes to sports, it is common to actively and openly shun those that don't share the interest. People will literally out of the blue ask strangers at totally unrelated events "What's the score?" I can't count the number of times I have seen someone interested in sports, walk into another person's house and literally change the channel away from what was actively being watched on TV because they didn't get that it was rude. Temper tantrums are common if they don't get to watch their games.
No, there is no group on the planet that has worse manners than people interested in sports. So, clearly that is not the issue.
I would have to mostly disagree. For the most part not being an idiot in and of itself will get a person labeled as a geek. More often people confuse being an sociopath fixated on money or having a specific talent/field of expertise with not being an idiot.
Holley Shiftwell was not an iPad programmer because it was cool. She was an iPad programmer because she was a dork. She was no more cool than Mater. She was just a hot female nerd instead of an ugly male nerd.
Programming has been cool since at least the 80's as long as those you are talking too don't have to know anything about the reality of it. The place that software developers often blow it in the 'programming is cool' area is that they think people showing interest in their jobs as people actually having an interest. If you write code for a living and people ask what you do, stick to telling them what your end product is. As soon as you start telling them details, even as broad as what language you use, the shine is lost.
I can understand that. I find discussions on subjects that are completely settled to be boring. I find it pointless to sit around patting each other on the back for saying things that we all already know and agree on. I find it enjoyable, and by extension relaxing to discuss things that are not already settled. To hear new ideas, give new ideas, and use that interaction to form new ideas. I have learned that most people HATE that. They consider it work, and want to avoid it when possible. People also have a tendency to take offense when someone doesn't agree with them, and new ideas very frequently lead to disagreement.
So, like you, I am an extrovert that frequently gets mistaken for an introvert.
No. Apple has generally NOT appealed to regular people. If they had, Macs would not have been an irrelevant minority of computers. Even today, Mac market share is closer to Linux than it is to Windows. iOS has been popular, but that is already losing market share as devices that appeal more to regular people are being released.
Your assuming that it would be easier to write out the state of one of these brains than it would be to do it with a biological brain. That is a big assumption.
A person who reads exclusively through phonetics is functionally illiterate. While it is technically possible to be literate by strictly reading by rote memorization, it is unlikely to be successful. Phonetics is a hinting system. It is a REALLY GOOD hinting system, but much of our language is simply not phonetic.
Dick and Jane got a bad rap. "Whole Language" will mean different thing based on who you talk to, so I will try to take with the definition that your context seems to indicate. That is, you seem to be defining "Whole Language as reading as "rote memorization". If I understand you correctly, you have developed a false dichotomy. Phonetics is insufficient on it's own to teach someone to be functionally literate. Our language has WAY to many exceptions. Much of our language has spellings that can (barring university level etymology) pretty much only be explained by "That is an exception, and we just spell it that way."
Phonetics is a hinting system. It is a REALLY GOOD hinting system, but it cannot be relied on for functional literacy. Learning words by rote is absolutely necessary. Dick and Jane are great because it starts out with one word a page, and builds to the point that kids are reading real stories. Very simple stories, sure. But real stories none the less. There is nothing about Dick and Jane that precludes teaching phonetics other than it uses some very common words that are not spelled phonetically.
It wasn't phonetics that killed Dick and Jane. It was Doctor Suess. That is a real shame too, since much of Doctor Suess'es works are terrible for teach children. They are made up of nonsense and mispronounced words. They were heralded as great for kids because they were fun, and the thinking of the time was that if it was fun, kids would read them, and this would inherently translate into better reading. I don't believe this to have panned out.
No. The you're / your mix-up happens because the apostrophe is normally used to indicate a possessive word. This is a usage conflict with the use of apostrophes to indicate writing words as if they are poorly pronounced. "You're" is writing the same way you would write "S'up" for poorly spoken "What is up?", or " 'cept " might be writing to indicate someone using poor grammar for saying "except". In English, we have a small list of slurred exceptions that we have declared to be "proper" English.
While our language is what it is, "You're" is a case of bad grammar being introduced and accepted into the language, and it having a punctuation that indicates it is possessive.
I tend to recommend to people that they not behave as grammar Nazi's for two reasons. The first is because it is the internet equivalent of saying "You are completely right. Since I don't want to admit it, and have nothing rational to add, I will attack the spelling/grammar."
The second is that EVERYONE makes spelling and grammar mistakes sometimes when writing. In years gone by, I would engage the spelling/grammer Nazi's for sport. If I could keep them typing long enough, they would always end up making some kind of written error. Thus being a spelling/grammar Nazi is inherently being a hypocrite.
Slashdot Mirror
I would just publish the raw data, and move along on my way. If you are getting bent out of shape about people wanting to see your data and records when your statements are being used to ask people to change their entire way of life, you are either evil or a fool.
That right there is what causes me the most skepticism in the whole AGW debate. We are not talking about a poorly performing school, or a local park closure. We are talking about the end of civilization as we know it. Basically an end of days scenario. If you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that an individual was coming to murder your child, would you arm yourself for a fight? Or would you just ask them nicely to not kill your baby?
It has taken a whole lot less than the end of the world to bring about armed rebellion, yet I have not heard of one famous climate scientist arrested for blowing up a refinery. Not one of them has been arrested for using a sniper riffle to take out the head of BP.
Do none of these climate scientists have kids or relatives that they give a damn about? Or, are they not really convinced that it is the end of the world?
I am a child of the 70's/80's, and I can tell you that in my generation, stupidity runs rampant as well. I saw, and still see it in my parent's generation as well. The problem of people being dumb is not new.
You are correct that the public education system is broken to the core. It won't get fixed though. There are just too many people sucking off of that teat. There are too many people employed in the education industry, and our economy is based on the idea of "free" daycare.
Funny, I have not spent a single hour of my life without using tech. Nope, not one single hour. Of course, in true neo-Luddite fashion, what almost everyone on this thread is talking about is "How much technology invented or populorized after 1980 (+TV) can kids take?". It just sounds dumb when put that way though.
True. The sad thing I see is parents who get an educational video, and then play the thing over and over and over for their kid. The video might even be an awesome video that has massive educational value for their kid, but after the third viewing the kid has gotten everything educational out of it that they are going to, and the parent just keeps running it over and over hundreds of times. They pat themselves on the back, and tell themselves how they are "educating" their child. Then you get the exact opposite from other parents, where they will deny their kids the first three showings because some study shows that kids who have only been exposed to 90 minutes of stimulus repeated endlessly for the fist 3 years of their life are stunted.
Would you say the same about reading? Most people would agree with you when it is the TV or the Computer, but would suddenly change their tune when it is a book.
Exactly. The question isn't "How much tech can kids take?". It is "How much tech invented after 1980 can kids take?". It's just that if they had phrased it that way, people would have realized that it was a stupid question from the beginning instead of defining "tech" as any technology they believe was put on earth by some devil to corrupt us.
No, they are not talking about technology in general. They are talking about technology invented ~1980 or later. I'm pretty sure they are not talking about houses, woven cloth, or farmed food. Of course, once the question is actually asked they way they mean it, it becomes apparent how absurd the idea is.
I would say that is absolutely NOT the silver bullet. The problem here is that the people posing the question don't understand what they are even asking. I have yet to meet one single person that has not spent virtually 100% of their time heavily using technology. I know that my child, myself, my parents, grandparents, and so on for many generations have used fire for cooking, woven cloth. The have eaten food that was grown using tech like plows and shovels. They have lived in houses. I intended to continue this trend by continuing to have my child live in a house, with electric lighting, heaters and woven blankets. He will wear woven clothes, and eat food cooked on a stove. In fact, I doubt he will have one single day that he doesn't use tech. He might not even go a single hour without using tech.
The very premise of the question is just stupid. Of course this post will get replies along the line of "You know what they meant.", "Your being pedantic.", "That's not the tech they mean." Well, I, like the rest of the readers here do know what they mean. They meant "How much tech invented after 1980 can kids take." Of course, when put that way, it is still a stupid question.
The live dataset is less than 100 GB and only about The cost of backing up the data is less than the cost of telling us that they won't do it.
Yes, they are. Our Sys Admins do backups for us, but they have decided that 3 days worth of rotating backups is sufficient. To be fair, after much gnashing of teeth, we got them to grudgingly up the amount to 7 days worth of rotating backups. Their claim is that disk space is too expensive for anything more. And, no. I don't know why they don't get fired for telling such a poor lie.
That is insightful.
Your probably right. The difference is geographical.
All of the time. I don't know what planet you live on, but that behavior is common here on earth. Particularly with sports. When it comes to sports, it is common to actively and openly shun those that don't share the interest. People will literally out of the blue ask strangers at totally unrelated events "What's the score?" I can't count the number of times I have seen someone interested in sports, walk into another person's house and literally change the channel away from what was actively being watched on TV because they didn't get that it was rude. Temper tantrums are common if they don't get to watch their games.
No, there is no group on the planet that has worse manners than people interested in sports. So, clearly that is not the issue.
I would have to mostly disagree. For the most part not being an idiot in and of itself will get a person labeled as a geek. More often people confuse being an sociopath fixated on money or having a specific talent/field of expertise with not being an idiot.
Holley Shiftwell was not an iPad programmer because it was cool. She was an iPad programmer because she was a dork. She was no more cool than Mater. She was just a hot female nerd instead of an ugly male nerd.
Programming has been cool since at least the 80's as long as those you are talking too don't have to know anything about the reality of it. The place that software developers often blow it in the 'programming is cool' area is that they think people showing interest in their jobs as people actually having an interest. If you write code for a living and people ask what you do, stick to telling them what your end product is. As soon as you start telling them details, even as broad as what language you use, the shine is lost.
I can understand that. I find discussions on subjects that are completely settled to be boring. I find it pointless to sit around patting each other on the back for saying things that we all already know and agree on. I find it enjoyable, and by extension relaxing to discuss things that are not already settled. To hear new ideas, give new ideas, and use that interaction to form new ideas. I have learned that most people HATE that. They consider it work, and want to avoid it when possible. People also have a tendency to take offense when someone doesn't agree with them, and new ideas very frequently lead to disagreement.
So, like you, I am an extrovert that frequently gets mistaken for an introvert.
Let me try it:
What happens when the employee is asked if it is correct that their mother is going to get punched?
Modern Phrenology.
No. Apple has generally NOT appealed to regular people. If they had, Macs would not have been an irrelevant minority of computers. Even today, Mac market share is closer to Linux than it is to Windows. iOS has been popular, but that is already losing market share as devices that appeal more to regular people are being released.
Your assuming that it would be easier to write out the state of one of these brains than it would be to do it with a biological brain. That is a big assumption.
You are missing the point. The fact that you are debating this at all is proof of the OP's assertion.
A person who reads exclusively through phonetics is functionally illiterate. While it is technically possible to be literate by strictly reading by rote memorization, it is unlikely to be successful. Phonetics is a hinting system. It is a REALLY GOOD hinting system, but much of our language is simply not phonetic.
Dick and Jane got a bad rap. "Whole Language" will mean different thing based on who you talk to, so I will try to take with the definition that your context seems to indicate. That is, you seem to be defining "Whole Language as reading as "rote memorization". If I understand you correctly, you have developed a false dichotomy. Phonetics is insufficient on it's own to teach someone to be functionally literate. Our language has WAY to many exceptions. Much of our language has spellings that can (barring university level etymology) pretty much only be explained by "That is an exception, and we just spell it that way."
Phonetics is a hinting system. It is a REALLY GOOD hinting system, but it cannot be relied on for functional literacy. Learning words by rote is absolutely necessary. Dick and Jane are great because it starts out with one word a page, and builds to the point that kids are reading real stories. Very simple stories, sure. But real stories none the less. There is nothing about Dick and Jane that precludes teaching phonetics other than it uses some very common words that are not spelled phonetically.
It wasn't phonetics that killed Dick and Jane. It was Doctor Suess. That is a real shame too, since much of Doctor Suess'es works are terrible for teach children. They are made up of nonsense and mispronounced words. They were heralded as great for kids because they were fun, and the thinking of the time was that if it was fun, kids would read them, and this would inherently translate into better reading. I don't believe this to have panned out.
No. The you're / your mix-up happens because the apostrophe is normally used to indicate a possessive word. This is a usage conflict with the use of apostrophes to indicate writing words as if they are poorly pronounced. "You're" is writing the same way you would write "S'up" for poorly spoken "What is up?", or " 'cept " might be writing to indicate someone using poor grammar for saying "except". In English, we have a small list of slurred exceptions that we have declared to be "proper" English.
While our language is what it is, "You're" is a case of bad grammar being introduced and accepted into the language, and it having a punctuation that indicates it is possessive.
I tend to recommend to people that they not behave as grammar Nazi's for two reasons. The first is because it is the internet equivalent of saying "You are completely right. Since I don't want to admit it, and have nothing rational to add, I will attack the spelling/grammar."
The second is that EVERYONE makes spelling and grammar mistakes sometimes when writing. In years gone by, I would engage the spelling/grammer Nazi's for sport. If I could keep them typing long enough, they would always end up making some kind of written error. Thus being a spelling/grammar Nazi is inherently being a hypocrite.