The reason primary and secondary schools in the US don't teach philosophy is not that the kids can't handle it, it's that the parents can't handle it.
Most parents can't deal with their kids believing something different than them, so you'll end up with a constant stream of different groups complaining about the school indoctrinating their children. The religious parents will complain that the school is pushing atheism, the secular parents will complain that the school is pushing religion, the right wing parents will complain that the school is pushing collectivism, the left wing parents will complain the school is pushing fascism, etc.
With no offense to Steven Chu, this sort of post is why I have to hope his time as the Secretary of Energy goes very poorly. The idea that there is one correct policy and that all we need to do is get a scientist smart enough to tell us what Science says that is come from a gross misunderstand of the nature science.
Any real policy involves trade offs between what's best for a large number of different groups, each of which has different needs, goals, tolerance for risk, etc. Deciding how to make those tradeoffs and select who's interests take priority in any given situation is largely subjective. While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.
The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.
> I think we can all agree, 256 cores is enough for anybody.
And much like Gate's unfortunate prediction regarding memory usage, in 25 years, this quote will be included at the end of millions of e-mail messages as "evidence" of how silly people were at the beginning of the 21st century.
Somewhere out there, right now, this very minute, The Worst Computer Engineer in America is incompetently scrabbling away at his work.
And yet he somehow managed to find a job.
Is anyone else bothered that this organization (which I've never heard of) seems to be presenting itself as speaking for programmers in general? I'm far more disturbed by them presuming to speak for me than I am by anything related to immigration policy.
Do you expect me to believe that California Government employees never get pay increases or promotions? They obviously have ways of changing pay and do it regularly.
This is a flat out lie, and frankly we should all be personally insulted that the CA comptroller thinks we're too stupid to figure that out.
Before the DNC list was even established, I was on the Direct Marketing Association's do not call list. And it worked great; no one ever bothered me. Then the DNC law was passed and DMA terminate their list and I signed up for the new federal one.
Suddenly I started getting all kinds of calls. From charities, pollsters, and ESPECIALLY political groups -- all of whom are exempt from the law. It got so annoying that when it came time to renew my DNC registration, I decided to let my name fall off.
And since then the calls have mostly stopped. That's right, being on the DNC list actually increased the number of annoying calls I got. All this law does is spend taxpayer dollars to build a huge database of phone numbers that political groups can use for fundraising purposes.
barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress
And what is she going to do to congressmen who do it anyways?
Each person is the result of the specific DNA in their embryo and the experiences they had while growing up. If you change the starting state, that particular individual never comes into existence.
Suppose it were possible to choose embryos according to athletic ability (of which I have none) and my parents had selected a different embryo on that basis. Their child wouldn't be just a more athletic version of me, it would be an entirely different person. And I wouldn't have died (since I was never alive to begin with), but I would have not come into existence.
It wouldn't make sense to say I had been spared being non-athletic, because without that non-athleticism, there is no I.
That being said, if you could choose the genetic make-up of your children and spare them any diseases or malformations
A lot of people seem to have this weird Hoober-Bloob highway view of reproduction where there's this line of souls up in heaven and whenever a baby is born whoever is at the front of the line gets shoved into the body. So by making sure that body is better we 'spare' them from a deformity.
When you're getting rid of certain embryos, the deformed individual is not being spared anything. They're being prevented from coming into existence at all and being replaced with a completely different individual.
With a key difference: as much as I dislike Richard Stallman, I don't fear that he will some day break down my door in the middle of the night and drag me off to some forced labor camp.
You entirely misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. It is "not an enumeration right granted by authority, but an enumeration of powers ceded by liberty." If you start from the assumption of an all powerful state that can do whatever it likes except for certain listed exceptions, you've lost your freedom before you even begin.
The proper question is not "Where does the Constitution mention a right to privacy?", but "Where does the Constitution mention a power to interfere with my privacy?"
There are explicitly listed powers that the government is responsible for in the Constution. Ideally, whenever the constitutionality of a government act is challenged, the burden of proof should be on the government to should that the act is necessary to perform one of those enumerated functions.
The Bill of Rights is then seen as a few rights that are protected even further, in that the government cannot interfere with even if preventing that interference will make it impossible for the government to performing one of its stated functions.
If you read the actual procedure, what they did was drive up to a red light in the turning lane and then when the light turned green just sat there and timed how long it took the person behind them to honk. They then just attributed any difference in time to the driver being more aggresive and hence more prone to road rage.
I find it hard to categorize honking at someone while stopped at a light as 'agressive driving', particularly when compared to someone who thinks they're entitled to deliberately block traffic for an experiment.
Perhaps someone should study the 'territorialty mindset' of the scientists in the study.
My hybrid cost approx $3000 more than a comparably equipped gas-only version of the same vehicle. I received a $1950 Alternative Motor Vehical tax credit for the purchase, so the effective premium was $1050. I've had a 55% increase in fuel efficiency, which even at the $2.50/gallon I was paying when I bought it means the car will have paid for itself after only 21,168 miles. The deal has only been getting better since then.
Slashdot Mirror
Stallman reminds me a lot of George Bush; if you disagree with his position on something, you're accused of being against freedom.
Blizzard's been farming 10,000,000 * $15 per month. Worlds.com doesn't want to PVP against lawyers who have equipped that much twink gear.
The reason primary and secondary schools in the US don't teach philosophy is not that the kids can't handle it, it's that the parents can't handle it.
Most parents can't deal with their kids believing something different than them, so you'll end up with a constant stream of different groups complaining about the school indoctrinating their children. The religious parents will complain that the school is pushing atheism, the secular parents will complain that the school is pushing religion, the right wing parents will complain that the school is pushing collectivism, the left wing parents will complain the school is pushing fascism, etc.
With no offense to Steven Chu, this sort of post is why I have to hope his time as the Secretary of Energy goes very poorly. The idea that there is one correct policy and that all we need to do is get a scientist smart enough to tell us what Science says that is come from a gross misunderstand of the nature science.
Any real policy involves trade offs between what's best for a large number of different groups, each of which has different needs, goals, tolerance for risk, etc. Deciding how to make those tradeoffs and select who's interests take priority in any given situation is largely subjective. While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.
The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.
> I think we can all agree, 256 cores is enough for anybody.
And much like Gate's unfortunate prediction regarding memory usage, in 25 years, this quote will be included at the end of millions of e-mail messages as "evidence" of how silly people were at the beginning of the 21st century.
Wouldn't it be less confusing to just call it Global Ninja Day?
Somewhere out there, right now, this very minute, The Worst Computer Engineer in America is incompetently scrabbling away at his work. And yet he somehow managed to find a job.
How can you make a list of greatest errors ever without the zen-like paradox of the MS-DOS 'Keyboard not found, hit F1 to continue.' error?
>Cops
>Teachers
Government monopolies that don't have to worry about competition
>Cops
>Teachers
>Truck Drivers
>Carpenters
>Plumbers
Geographically limited (e.g. you can't very well have someone in India come fix your plumbing)
>Actors
>Screenwriters
Were able to negotiate closed-shop contracts that make it impossible for non-union alternatives to compete with them.
Which of these applies to IT?
Also with this system, a Dalek robot could follow the Doctor during his rounds.
Is anyone else bothered that this organization (which I've never heard of) seems to be presenting itself as speaking for programmers in general? I'm far more disturbed by them presuming to speak for me than I am by anything related to immigration policy.
Isn't announcing that you henceforth refuse to do the work you've been assigned normally called quitting?
That's even easier then: don't change the payroll system at all. The problem being described is an accounts payable issue, not a payroll issue.
Do you expect me to believe that California Government employees never get pay increases or promotions? They obviously have ways of changing pay and do it regularly.
This is a flat out lie, and frankly we should all be personally insulted that the CA comptroller thinks we're too stupid to figure that out.
Before the DNC list was even established, I was on the Direct Marketing Association's do not call list. And it worked great; no one ever bothered me. Then the DNC law was passed and DMA terminate their list and I signed up for the new federal one.
Suddenly I started getting all kinds of calls. From charities, pollsters, and ESPECIALLY political groups -- all of whom are exempt from the law. It got so annoying that when it came time to renew my DNC registration, I decided to let my name fall off.
And since then the calls have mostly stopped. That's right, being on the DNC list actually increased the number of annoying calls I got. All this law does is spend taxpayer dollars to build a huge database of phone numbers that political groups can use for fundraising purposes.
Duh, the Wrath of the Lich King bard class was announced months ago: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/wrath/features/bard/bardclass.xml
barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress
And what is she going to do to congressmen who do it anyways?
'Exploding 12" Butt Plugs' would be a pretty good name for a band.
Maybe a Nine Inch Nails tribute band?
Remain calm everyone! Please move to the back! No pushing!
Each person is the result of the specific DNA in their embryo and the experiences they had while growing up. If you change the starting state, that particular individual never comes into existence.
Suppose it were possible to choose embryos according to athletic ability (of which I have none) and my parents had selected a different embryo on that basis. Their child wouldn't be just a more athletic version of me, it would be an entirely different person. And I wouldn't have died (since I was never alive to begin with), but I would have not come into existence.
It wouldn't make sense to say I had been spared being non-athletic, because without that non-athleticism, there is no I.
That being said, if you could choose the genetic make-up of your children and spare them any diseases or malformations
A lot of people seem to have this weird Hoober-Bloob highway view of reproduction where there's this line of souls up in heaven and whenever a baby is born whoever is at the front of the line gets shoved into the body. So by making sure that body is better we 'spare' them from a deformity.
When you're getting rid of certain embryos, the deformed individual is not being spared anything. They're being prevented from coming into existence at all and being replaced with a completely different individual.
With a key difference: as much as I dislike Richard Stallman, I don't fear that he will some day break down my door in the middle of the night and drag me off to some forced labor camp.
You entirely misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. It is "not an enumeration right granted by authority, but an enumeration of powers ceded by liberty." If you start from the assumption of an all powerful state that can do whatever it likes except for certain listed exceptions, you've lost your freedom before you even begin. The proper question is not "Where does the Constitution mention a right to privacy?", but "Where does the Constitution mention a power to interfere with my privacy?" There are explicitly listed powers that the government is responsible for in the Constution. Ideally, whenever the constitutionality of a government act is challenged, the burden of proof should be on the government to should that the act is necessary to perform one of those enumerated functions. The Bill of Rights is then seen as a few rights that are protected even further, in that the government cannot interfere with even if preventing that interference will make it impossible for the government to performing one of its stated functions.
If you read the actual procedure, what they did was drive up to a red light in the turning lane and then when the light turned green just sat there and timed how long it took the person behind them to honk. They then just attributed any difference in time to the driver being more aggresive and hence more prone to road rage. I find it hard to categorize honking at someone while stopped at a light as 'agressive driving', particularly when compared to someone who thinks they're entitled to deliberately block traffic for an experiment. Perhaps someone should study the 'territorialty mindset' of the scientists in the study.
My hybrid cost approx $3000 more than a comparably equipped gas-only version of the same vehicle. I received a $1950 Alternative Motor Vehical tax credit for the purchase, so the effective premium was $1050. I've had a 55% increase in fuel efficiency, which even at the $2.50/gallon I was paying when I bought it means the car will have paid for itself after only 21,168 miles. The deal has only been getting better since then.