Ok, maybe you're right. I see it like this though: A certain supermarket chain where I live uses something called a "club card" as a substitute for coupons. You get the sale price when you use your club card. I don't have a club card. Why? If I gave them the information they wanted in order to receive a card, the data base associated with me would become much more complete than it already is.:) If I gave them fictitious info in order to get the card, I've surrendered my ethics. I don't have full and complete access because I choose not to comply with the "club card" game. (In fact, I don't frequent this supermarket at all anymore.) Whose loss is it then really?
Those sites lose a lot more than Linux users. There are many other OS's out there than *nix and Windoze, and there are even other browsers! It's always give and take -- no piece of software is everything to everyone.
I second this idea. I didn't switch from Windoze to Linux for the web browser. Let her have her M$ machine, and after it crashes a whole bunch, ask her how much those coupons were worth.
What website could be worth so much that you'd give up a stable OS to view it?
You make a good point -- we do some genetic selection just by which partner we choose. I can't say I oppose that. What I wouldn't "do" is request alteration of the genes of myself or the partner I have chosen to make my child smarter, prettier, shorter, taller, thinner, whatever. It's hard not to bite for that healthier thing though.
Then again, I'm against cosmetic surgery on healthy individuals (as opposed to those with scars, illness, birth defects, etc.), just to make your but firmer or your breasts larger. I think diversity rules -- isn't it wonderful that we aren't all like the supermodels!
This is not a new idea. It's been tried already, thought not to this techno level. Think about a "super-race" for the "Motherland". Hitler did try to genetically engineer the people of his country by getting rid of all "inferior" peoples, including those with CF and other genitic diseases.
This is based in money and we all know it. The parents of the 90% of the children of the world that are born in third world countries will not have access to this technology. These children will wind up doing the labor for the elite offspring of the wealthy. Oh, wait, is this something new?
I have children -- I wouldn't do this to them for all the gold in Fort Knox, and I hope no one else will either (though I know they will if it ever becomes available).
There are two reasons we (women) seem to be less involved in the hard sciences (yes, I know I'm generalizing):
1. Women don't seem to have the "if I break it I can fix it" attitude men have (for whatever social, physiological or psychological reason you would like to insert here).
2. They seem to be less interested or think they are less competent in mathematics (please, once again insert your favorite social, physiological or psychological reason here).
Overcome these obstacles, and they will tackle and succeed at anything they want to, including "male dominated fields" such as computer science.
Universities of any kind (either Virtual or "real") are here because we created them. We want to jump hoops, to distinguish ourselves from those that can't or won't jump hoops.
"Real" U's have problems just like he says, including that they are out of touch with the real world. First, I'm not sure they should be more in touch with the real world. Second, how would a Virtual U. solve that "problem" (and should it)?
When I taught at a University (the dreaded Mathematics), I resisted the fashionable trend of using "real world" problems and making students write essays for their solutions. My goal in teaching a class (and yes, I was allowed to have goals) was not just content, but abstraction of thinking and mathematical maturity. I don't believe those things can be gained without a firm understanding of basic concepts. They are tools, and it is up to the student to apply them appropriately. That is, you can't build a house (the "real world") unless you know the strength of materials (i.e. the class might teach you the properties of wood, even though your plans are only to build houses of brick).
A virtual University will be no better (and possibly no worse) than a "real" University -- but we are limited by our expectations and social needs. I can see from the interview, he wishes for some kind of miracle transformation to happen just because a computer is involved. Any Virtual University will still have to pass some kind of accreditation in order to be accepted as legitimate by society as a whole, and that means evaluation (including testing of the students).
Does Barbrook have a problem with public libraries? After all, they subvert capitalism by letting people read books without buying them.
Giving away the secrets of math used to be a crime punishable by death (think of the Pythagoreans). Good thing all we have to worry about is capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, maybe you're right. I see it like this though: :) If I gave them fictitious info in order to get the card, I've surrendered my ethics. I don't have full and complete access because I choose not to comply with the "club card" game. (In fact, I don't frequent this supermarket at all anymore.) Whose loss is it then really?
A certain supermarket chain where I live uses something called a "club card" as a substitute for coupons. You get the sale price when you use your club card. I don't have a club card. Why? If I gave them the information they wanted in order to receive a card, the data base associated with me would become much more complete than it already is.
Those sites lose a lot more than Linux users. There are many other OS's out there than *nix and Windoze, and there are even other browsers! It's always give and take -- no piece of software is everything to everyone.
I second this idea. I didn't switch from Windoze to Linux for the web browser. Let her have her M$ machine, and after it crashes a whole bunch, ask her how much those coupons were worth.
What website could be worth so much that you'd give up a stable OS to view it?
You make a good point -- we do some genetic selection just by which partner we choose. I can't say I oppose that. What I wouldn't "do" is request alteration of the genes of myself or the partner I have chosen to make my child smarter, prettier, shorter, taller, thinner, whatever. It's hard not to bite for that healthier thing though.
Then again, I'm against cosmetic surgery on healthy individuals (as opposed to those with scars, illness, birth defects, etc.), just to make your but firmer or your breasts larger. I think diversity rules -- isn't it wonderful that we aren't all like the supermodels!
This is not a new idea. It's been tried already, thought not to this techno level. Think about a "super-race" for the "Motherland". Hitler did try to genetically engineer the people of his country by getting rid of all "inferior" peoples, including those with CF and other genitic diseases.
This is based in money and we all know it. The parents of the 90% of the children of the world that are born in third world countries will not have access to this technology. These children will wind up doing the labor for the elite offspring of the wealthy. Oh, wait, is this something new?
I have children -- I wouldn't do this to them for all the gold in Fort Knox, and I hope no one else will either (though I know they will if it ever becomes available).
There are two reasons we (women) seem to be less involved in the hard sciences (yes, I know I'm generalizing):
1. Women don't seem to have the "if I break it I can fix it" attitude men have (for whatever social, physiological or psychological reason you would like to insert here).
2. They seem to be less interested or think they are less competent in mathematics (please, once again insert your favorite social, physiological or psychological reason here).
Overcome these obstacles, and they will tackle and succeed at anything they want to, including "male dominated fields" such as computer science.
Universities of any kind (either Virtual or "real") are here because we created them. We
want to jump hoops, to distinguish ourselves from those that can't or won't jump hoops.
"Real" U's have problems just like he says, including that they are out of touch with the
real world. First, I'm not sure they should be more in touch with the real world. Second, how
would a Virtual U. solve that "problem" (and should it)?
When I taught at a University (the dreaded Mathematics), I resisted the fashionable
trend of using "real world" problems and making students write essays for their solutions. My
goal in teaching a class (and yes, I was allowed to have goals) was not just content, but
abstraction of thinking and mathematical maturity. I don't believe those things can be
gained without a firm understanding of basic concepts. They are tools, and it is up to the student to apply them appropriately. That is, you can't build a house (the "real world")
unless you know the strength of materials (i.e. the class might teach you the properties of
wood, even though your plans are only to build houses of brick).
A virtual University will be no better (and possibly no worse) than a "real" University --
but we are limited by our expectations and social needs. I can see from the interview, he
wishes for some kind of miracle transformation to happen just because a computer is involved. Any Virtual University will still have to pass some kind of accreditation in order to be accepted as legitimate by society as a whole, and that means evaluation (including testing of the students).
Does Barbrook have a problem with public libraries? After all, they subvert capitalism by letting people read books without buying them.
Giving away the secrets of math used to be a crime punishable by death (think of the Pythagoreans). Good thing all we have to worry about is capitalism.