Funny, that is the single be description of why so many people hate Lotus Notes/Domino. The most developers spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to implement things that would be trivial if they worked with the environment rather than against. So, they make things that should be easy really hard because it is hard in the other environments they work in. Then, they get all bent out of shape when the things that are easy in their regular environment are hard in Domino.
Yes, it is a PC. Not a Windows PC based on the IBM PC, but it is a Personal Computer. It just usually doesn't have a keyboard. Although, sometimes it does. Expect to see the lower end Macs to get phased out, as the iPad with keyboard attachment gains traction.
Yeah, and keep them away from electricity as much as possible too. And book written with that evil movable type, or that were edited using computers. Heck, stay away from any tools that have been popularized in the last century or too. They should be using a chunk of lead to write notes, not the distracting pencils that where made with those modern machines.
OK, that may have been a cheap shot, but books contain at least as much bad to good information as the internet, and making the recommendation that you should keep kids away from the internet makes just as much sense as trying to keep them away from any of the other things I listed.
I would ask the opposite question. Which one doesn't. Here is how you can find tell which schools focus on being smart. Just look at the sign that sits in front of the school with it's name on it. Does it also have the schools sport's team name on it? Or, does it have the name of the Science club on it? Then also look at the amount of land that the school dedicates to the various subjects. How much land does your local school dedicate to Science, Language, Mathmatics, and Physical Education. While, no doubt in big cities where land is EXTREMELY expensive, this will be different, but outside of that situation, 100% of the public schools I have seen across the country have placed Physical Education (sports) as the number one priority of the school.
To more directly answer your question, California for one. I have a hard time believieving California is unique in this, as I hear the exact same story from people all over the country.
Second, one problem with recommending Gatto's book, which I have seen a lot recently on Slashdot, is that it brings on the information too strong. Much of it is obviously correct. Much of it is verifiable correct. Unfortunately, it undermines most peoples basic belief system. This means that it comes across like a book that explains to fundamentalist Christians why their entire religion is a lie.
What this means is that those who would like bring down the target institutions will take the whole book as gospel irrelevant of where it is correct, and where it isn't, and those that unquestionably believe in the institution book targets will deny the whole thing, irrelevant of where it is correct, and where it isn't.
I agree and disagree. While there are exceptions being prodigies, I would say that then number of people that need to learn these advanced subjects to such a degree, and cannot self teach those subjects are just as much an exception.
I would say that the unable to understand it on your own to unable to understand it at all is a pretty narrow band, and the colleges are not even playing to that band. I know that I don't consider a degree less than a Masters to be worth an more than a high school diploma. And I don't think much of those.
Colleges are a REALLY good idea that has been debased into not much more than a paper mill. That includes the big name 'respected' institutions. So, for the vast majority of people, either they are intelligent enough to grasp it on their own or the college won't help. That only leaves the question of whether or not the matter of whether the information is available or not.
No, religion survives science because human's declare anything outside of their ability to understand as MAGIC. Just look at the number of scientists who throw away all of the religion that they can discount with science, but as soon as they get to things they don't understand, they become religious again.
Seriously? If you can't think of fun rides based off the bible, you are not very imaginative. Just off the top of my head, I can think of:
The Noah's Ark animal exhibit
The Noah's Ark Flume ride
The Tower of Babble boat ride that starts off with animatronics singing in one language, and by the end they are all in different languages, like It's a Small World.
The Parting of the Red Sea underwater glass tunnel. Like the shark tunnels, but they drain a channel around the tunnel and have mannequin soldiers and chariots that get washed away when they flood the channel around the glass tunnel
The Lions of the Colosseum show
The Baby Jesus Manger Petting Zoo
The Angelic Flight Sky Wings
Leap of Faith bungee Jumping
All sorts of Hell themed haunted houses
The Heaven themed bounce house
That is without resorting to attractions aimed at mocking the non-religious.
That is just off the top of my head. As much as this is a religious grab at secular money, and it is doomed to fail as an ongoing business, the problem isn't because Christianity doesn't have any myths that could be translated into fun amusement park attractions.
That being said, IF the statement that they will discriminate against people who hold different views on religion in their hiring, they are not being treated the same as a secular one.
That is the tipping point for me. Giving tax brakes to a theme park buisiness is ok, even if the theme 'just happens to be' based on a religious myth. By requiring the employees to belong to a perticular religion means that this isn't a theme park business, it is a religious monument that charges admission. The state has no business give special tax breaks to churches for the purpose of building religious monuments, even if it does being in tourism revenue.
The ONLY rational that the business could use for discriminating against people from other (or no) religious groups is that the facility is a religious facility.
So, you want to lecture people on how bad it is to use a simple and inexpensive device to protect against 99.999% of the problems they might need a backup for? Instead you want them to send their data to Amazon over a network connection that may not be fast enough to even keep up with the data changes on their drives.
It doesn't sound like you are doing them any favors.
So, what was the year before 1? If you say -1 then clearly you cannot count unless you accept that there is a numbering error.
The ONLY argument for the claim that x000 does not belong to the Mill place value is that there was no zero. The lack of a year zero was a mistake. Just like all the other mistakes in the calendar at the time. Claiming that all reason should be thrown out the window because someone made an error 1500 years ago is a ridiculous argument.
So again, what is year 1000 - 2000? Show me how well you can count.
You must be one of the REALLY REALLY Young Earthers.
More seriously:
More than 1999 years has passed for humanity.
Less than 1999 years has passed for any specific individual.
We have discovered the number 0.
Grouping things by place value is easy, convenient, and logical
Metric naming is based on place value for just about every other scale (hard drives excepted)
The start date for the new millennium is an arbitrary value, and thus with more people agreeing that it starts in x000, like the arbitrariness of language, makes it so.
Since when discussing years, 1000 - 2000 = -1001, we must conclude that there is an error in the numbering system. Since that error can be identified as being the missing year zero, we are faced with either propagating the error forever, accepting that the first millennium had a one year error, or declaring year -1 to be the first year of the first millennium.
Declaring the first millennium to have run from -1 to 1999 makes just as much sense as declaring it running from 1 to 2001.
If one cannot accept that the way to handle the numbering error is to just accept that the first millennium only has 999 years, it makes more sense to push the miss counting into the past where dates with a resolution of only one year are generally lucky guesses at best, rather than into the future where the dates matter.
Given that chunks of the Gregorian calendar have been ripped out on multiple occasions, slavish adherence to truly 1000 year millenniums would not put the new millennium anywhere near January 1st 2001.
So, back at you... Why would you want to start the 21st century after ~2000.8 years AND make the naming sound metric, but not be metric?
Exactly, right now tracking is ubiquitus. The value/destructiveness of tracking does not increase linearly with added trackers. One site tracking you is just running it's own site. Two sites sharing tracking are not much of a problem. As the number of sites increase, it becomes a real problem. If cross site tracking were illegal, you would still get a few sites doing it, but the would be few and far between, and thus not a problem. As with any conspiracy, the bigger it is the harder it is to keep contained. Thus any large scale and truly harmful tacking would just not work.
That is why both the Republican and the Democrats promote the "Everyone should vote." line. Since the uninformed will just vote for whose name they heard the most, it pretty well becomes a was for the Republicans and Democrats, but puts a very large barrier to entry for a third party candidate. The Republicans and Democrats don't want another repeat of what happened with Perot.
Given the number of women I heard saying they wanted to vote for Clinton BECAUSE she was a woman, I have always assumed that Palin was chosen to pick up the female chauvinist pig vote.
The only reason anybody in the media talks about her is that people think she's pretty.
Exactly. I would have sex with her. I just wouldn't vote for her. Of course, I WOULD tell her that I was going to voter for her if that would let me have sex with her. Good thing I'm not in Sweden.
So, your saying that if you use the language wrong, you can disagree with the majority of people, and still have counting error, since Yeah! That's a grand idea!
Besides, giving your rationalization on the ruler, you would also have to claim that a meter doesn't start until you complete the first centimeter. A centimeter is a subunit to a meter. A year is a subunit to a millennium. In fact, the counting of years is metric.
Century = 100 years
100 Centimeter = meter
Millennium = 1000 years
1000 Millimeters = meter
Your logic would then dictate that a meter ends at 101 centimeters, or 1001 millimeters.
It's very simple. The year before year 1 is simply counted wrong. -1 does not come before 1. Between 1 centimeter and -1 centimeters, there is 0 centimeters. Between my having 1 beer, and my owing you 1 beer (-1), I have 0 beers.
When you have drank 20 beers, you have drank a case, and start on the next one. When you have drank 20 beers, and take a sip of the next one, you are on the second case. You don't start the second case when you have drank 21 beers. Your logic only applies if years were an atomic value.
Very simply, there is no way to deny that that -1/0/1 point on the calender, there is an error. Your argument is that that error should be carried forward indefinitely, even though the majority of people have corrected the error.
Because when it is someone else's ideas, they should be able to be used without limit. When it is your idea, it should be protected at any cost. It is called hypocrisy.
Every one of the arguments that the new millennium starts in x001 are based on the idea that there was no year 0, and that 1000 years after the mistakenly labeled year 1 would be 1001. This is making the claim that because someone made a mistake early on, that the rest of humanity must also make the same mistake. First, the 1 was supposed to be the birth of Christ. As in the magical being who is both God and not God. Even if you go for the idea that Invisible Sky Man is real, the date of 1 is highly contested, and generally believed to be wrong. While at the time and place that the year 1 was established, the number 0 was not in wide use, the calander has been modified many times since then. The fact that there is a psudo-intellectual circle jerk that insists that the inability of early church folk in the 500s to properly count is somehow gospel for the rest of the world doesn't make it so. You want a link showing the millinium starting in 2000? Here you go.
Again. Look at every source you can find that claims the millinuim starts at year x001. Every single one of them claims it is because there was no zero. They flat out admit that it is a counting error. Here in this millinuim, we know that between the numbers 1 and -1, there is this really cool number called 0. All of your sources basically state that 1-1=-1.
So, we are left with a few possiblities:
1) The start is an arbitrarily chosen date, and since the vast majority of people who use the Gregorian calendar agree that millenniums start in x000, that is when they start.
2) The fact that there is no year 0 is an error, and thus claiming the new millennium starts in x001 years, is thus in error also.
3) There was a ripple in the space time continuum that swallowed the year between 1 and -1.
4) A minority of people using the fallacy of 'Argument from Authority' to convince a bunch of people who want to sound smart that the inability for people hundreds of years ago to count properly makes the majority of modern humans wrong when they use the obvious and logical marking points for a date system that only has meaning when people agree on it's values.
5) The new millennium DOES start in x001 because God said so!
Let me guess, your one of those guys that boycotted the "millennium Parties" on New Years 2000, and rented a huge party hall for New Years 2001 because you figured everyone would figure out how stupid they were in 2000.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, that is the single be description of why so many people hate Lotus Notes/Domino. The most developers spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to implement things that would be trivial if they worked with the environment rather than against. So, they make things that should be easy really hard because it is hard in the other environments they work in. Then, they get all bent out of shape when the things that are easy in their regular environment are hard in Domino.
Yes, it is a PC. Not a Windows PC based on the IBM PC, but it is a Personal Computer. It just usually doesn't have a keyboard. Although, sometimes it does. Expect to see the lower end Macs to get phased out, as the iPad with keyboard attachment gains traction.
Yeah, and keep them away from electricity as much as possible too. And book written with that evil movable type, or that were edited using computers. Heck, stay away from any tools that have been popularized in the last century or too. They should be using a chunk of lead to write notes, not the distracting pencils that where made with those modern machines.
OK, that may have been a cheap shot, but books contain at least as much bad to good information as the internet, and making the recommendation that you should keep kids away from the internet makes just as much sense as trying to keep them away from any of the other things I listed.
I would ask the opposite question. Which one doesn't. Here is how you can find tell which schools focus on being smart. Just look at the sign that sits in front of the school with it's name on it. Does it also have the schools sport's team name on it? Or, does it have the name of the Science club on it? Then also look at the amount of land that the school dedicates to the various subjects. How much land does your local school dedicate to Science, Language, Mathmatics, and Physical Education. While, no doubt in big cities where land is EXTREMELY expensive, this will be different, but outside of that situation, 100% of the public schools I have seen across the country have placed Physical Education (sports) as the number one priority of the school.
To more directly answer your question, California for one. I have a hard time believieving California is unique in this, as I hear the exact same story from people all over the country.
First, you are right.
Second, one problem with recommending Gatto's book, which I have seen a lot recently on Slashdot, is that it brings on the information too strong. Much of it is obviously correct. Much of it is verifiable correct. Unfortunately, it undermines most peoples basic belief system. This means that it comes across like a book that explains to fundamentalist Christians why their entire religion is a lie.
What this means is that those who would like bring down the target institutions will take the whole book as gospel irrelevant of where it is correct, and where it isn't, and those that unquestionably believe in the institution book targets will deny the whole thing, irrelevant of where it is correct, and where it isn't.
I agree and disagree. While there are exceptions being prodigies, I would say that then number of people that need to learn these advanced subjects to such a degree, and cannot self teach those subjects are just as much an exception.
I would say that the unable to understand it on your own to unable to understand it at all is a pretty narrow band, and the colleges are not even playing to that band. I know that I don't consider a degree less than a Masters to be worth an more than a high school diploma. And I don't think much of those.
Colleges are a REALLY good idea that has been debased into not much more than a paper mill. That includes the big name 'respected' institutions. So, for the vast majority of people, either they are intelligent enough to grasp it on their own or the college won't help. That only leaves the question of whether or not the matter of whether the information is available or not.
Mormon Tabernacle.
Sistine Chapel
Parthenon
Just off the top of my head.
No, religion survives science because human's declare anything outside of their ability to understand as MAGIC. Just look at the number of scientists who throw away all of the religion that they can discount with science, but as soon as they get to things they don't understand, they become religious again.
Seriously? If you can't think of fun rides based off the bible, you are not very imaginative. Just off the top of my head, I can think of:
The Noah's Ark animal exhibit
The Noah's Ark Flume ride
The Tower of Babble boat ride that starts off with animatronics singing in one language, and by the end they are all in different languages, like It's a Small World.
The Parting of the Red Sea underwater glass tunnel. Like the shark tunnels, but they drain a channel around the tunnel and have mannequin soldiers and chariots that get washed away when they flood the channel around the glass tunnel
The Lions of the Colosseum show
The Baby Jesus Manger Petting Zoo
The Angelic Flight Sky Wings
Leap of Faith bungee Jumping
All sorts of Hell themed haunted houses
The Heaven themed bounce house
That is without resorting to attractions aimed at mocking the non-religious.
That is just off the top of my head. As much as this is a religious grab at secular money, and it is doomed to fail as an ongoing business, the problem isn't because Christianity doesn't have any myths that could be translated into fun amusement park attractions.
I grudingly agree.
That being said, IF the statement that they will discriminate against people who hold different views on religion in their hiring, they are not being treated the same as a secular one.
That is the tipping point for me. Giving tax brakes to a theme park buisiness is ok, even if the theme 'just happens to be' based on a religious myth. By requiring the employees to belong to a perticular religion means that this isn't a theme park business, it is a religious monument that charges admission. The state has no business give special tax breaks to churches for the purpose of building religious monuments, even if it does being in tourism revenue.
The ONLY rational that the business could use for discriminating against people from other (or no) religious groups is that the facility is a religious facility.
So, you want to lecture people on how bad it is to use a simple and inexpensive device to protect against 99.999% of the problems they might need a backup for? Instead you want them to send their data to Amazon over a network connection that may not be fast enough to even keep up with the data changes on their drives.
It doesn't sound like you are doing them any favors.
Sample.
So, what was the year before 1? If you say -1 then clearly you cannot count unless you accept that there is a numbering error.
The ONLY argument for the claim that x000 does not belong to the Mill place value is that there was no zero. The lack of a year zero was a mistake. Just like all the other mistakes in the calendar at the time. Claiming that all reason should be thrown out the window because someone made an error 1500 years ago is a ridiculous argument.
So again, what is year 1000 - 2000? Show me how well you can count.
You must be one of the REALLY REALLY Young Earthers.
More seriously:
More than 1999 years has passed for humanity.
Less than 1999 years has passed for any specific individual.
We have discovered the number 0.
Grouping things by place value is easy, convenient, and logical
Metric naming is based on place value for just about every other scale (hard drives excepted)
The start date for the new millennium is an arbitrary value, and thus with more people agreeing that it starts in x000, like the arbitrariness of language, makes it so.
Since when discussing years, 1000 - 2000 = -1001, we must conclude that there is an error in the numbering system. Since that error can be identified as being the missing year zero, we are faced with either propagating the error forever, accepting that the first millennium had a one year error, or declaring year -1 to be the first year of the first millennium.
Declaring the first millennium to have run from -1 to 1999 makes just as much sense as declaring it running from 1 to 2001.
If one cannot accept that the way to handle the numbering error is to just accept that the first millennium only has 999 years, it makes more sense to push the miss counting into the past where dates with a resolution of only one year are generally lucky guesses at best, rather than into the future where the dates matter.
Given that chunks of the Gregorian calendar have been ripped out on multiple occasions, slavish adherence to truly 1000 year millenniums would not put the new millennium anywhere near January 1st 2001.
So, back at you... Why would you want to start the 21st century after ~2000.8 years AND make the naming sound metric, but not be metric?
Then what does the year before the new millennium start with?
Exactly, right now tracking is ubiquitus. The value/destructiveness of tracking does not increase linearly with added trackers. One site tracking you is just running it's own site. Two sites sharing tracking are not much of a problem. As the number of sites increase, it becomes a real problem. If cross site tracking were illegal, you would still get a few sites doing it, but the would be few and far between, and thus not a problem. As with any conspiracy, the bigger it is the harder it is to keep contained. Thus any large scale and truly harmful tacking would just not work.
That is why both the Republican and the Democrats promote the "Everyone should vote." line. Since the uninformed will just vote for whose name they heard the most, it pretty well becomes a was for the Republicans and Democrats, but puts a very large barrier to entry for a third party candidate. The Republicans and Democrats don't want another repeat of what happened with Perot.
Given the number of women I heard saying they wanted to vote for Clinton BECAUSE she was a woman, I have always assumed that Palin was chosen to pick up the female chauvinist pig vote.
The only reason anybody in the media talks about her is that people think she's pretty.
Exactly. I would have sex with her. I just wouldn't vote for her. Of course, I WOULD tell her that I was going to voter for her if that would let me have sex with her. Good thing I'm not in Sweden.
Being stupid didn't stop bush.
So, your saying that if you use the language wrong, you can disagree with the majority of people, and still have counting error, since Yeah! That's a grand idea!
Besides, giving your rationalization on the ruler, you would also have to claim that a meter doesn't start until you complete the first centimeter. A centimeter is a subunit to a meter. A year is a subunit to a millennium. In fact, the counting of years is metric.
Century = 100 years
100 Centimeter = meter
Millennium = 1000 years
1000 Millimeters = meter
Your logic would then dictate that a meter ends at 101 centimeters, or 1001 millimeters. It's very simple. The year before year 1 is simply counted wrong. -1 does not come before 1. Between 1 centimeter and -1 centimeters, there is 0 centimeters. Between my having 1 beer, and my owing you 1 beer (-1), I have 0 beers.
When you have drank 20 beers, you have drank a case, and start on the next one. When you have drank 20 beers, and take a sip of the next one, you are on the second case. You don't start the second case when you have drank 21 beers. Your logic only applies if years were an atomic value.
Very simply, there is no way to deny that that -1/0/1 point on the calender, there is an error. Your argument is that that error should be carried forward indefinitely, even though the majority of people have corrected the error.
Because when it is someone else's ideas, they should be able to be used without limit. When it is your idea, it should be protected at any cost. It is called hypocrisy.
Every one of the arguments that the new millennium starts in x001 are based on the idea that there was no year 0, and that 1000 years after the mistakenly labeled year 1 would be 1001. This is making the claim that because someone made a mistake early on, that the rest of humanity must also make the same mistake. First, the 1 was supposed to be the birth of Christ. As in the magical being who is both God and not God. Even if you go for the idea that Invisible Sky Man is real, the date of 1 is highly contested, and generally believed to be wrong. While at the time and place that the year 1 was established, the number 0 was not in wide use, the calander has been modified many times since then. The fact that there is a psudo-intellectual circle jerk that insists that the inability of early church folk in the 500s to properly count is somehow gospel for the rest of the world doesn't make it so. You want a link showing the millinium starting in 2000? Here you go.
Again. Look at every source you can find that claims the millinuim starts at year x001. Every single one of them claims it is because there was no zero. They flat out admit that it is a counting error. Here in this millinuim, we know that between the numbers 1 and -1, there is this really cool number called 0. All of your sources basically state that 1-1=-1.
So, we are left with a few possiblities:
1) The start is an arbitrarily chosen date, and since the vast majority of people who use the Gregorian calendar agree that millenniums start in x000, that is when they start.
2) The fact that there is no year 0 is an error, and thus claiming the new millennium starts in x001 years, is thus in error also.
3) There was a ripple in the space time continuum that swallowed the year between 1 and -1.
4) A minority of people using the fallacy of 'Argument from Authority' to convince a bunch of people who want to sound smart that the inability for people hundreds of years ago to count properly makes the majority of modern humans wrong when they use the obvious and logical marking points for a date system that only has meaning when people agree on it's values.
5) The new millennium DOES start in x001 because God said so!
Let me guess, your one of those guys that boycotted the "millennium Parties" on New Years 2000, and rented a huge party hall for New Years 2001 because you figured everyone would figure out how stupid they were in 2000.