"A good lawyer is capable of arguing that up is actually down, a black cat is really white, and that you really didn't stab your wife and her lover thirty-seven times even though he/she knows you're guilty as sin."
I wouldn't say that was a "good" lawyer, but rather a "skilled" lawyer.
I have been thinking about this for a couple of years: I'm not sure that it is right for any lawyer, even the guilty one's own lawyer, to exonerate a guilty person. (I'm not sure that it's not, either.) I have thought that, perhaps, the defending lawyer should try just as hard to get at the truth as the prosecutor, but still be an advocate for the defandant. This is possible, you know. The biggest trouble with this idea, as far as I can see, is that we would have to get a whole lot more honest to have this work at all.
"They were dishonest and had to be watched constantly and didn't do good work."
That makes perfect sense to me.
In lots of workplaces if there isn't constant supervision not much gets done and a lot gets stolen. An aquaintance of mine works in a call center where everyone is kicked out and they building is locked during lunchtime, because of employee theft/vandalism problems. It makes sense that slavery would have those problems even more.
Tom and Huck are out late at night, and are scared, and hear a dog howl...
"Oh, lordy, I'm thankful!" whispered Tom. "I know his voice. It's Bull Harbison." *
[* If Mr. Harbison owned a slave named Bull, Tom would have spoken of him as "Harbison's Bull," but a son or a dog of that name was "Bull Harbison."]
Whether Clemens put that in for subtle social commentary (not beyond his skill or habits), or just to help his readers to understand the local way of speaking, I can't say. Either way, this excerpt makes it clear that the dog was more a part of the family than the slave.
Hey, now! Let's play nice. Name-calling, and religious persecution aren't generally considered polite. Giving a straightforward answer to a perfectly reasonable question usually is.
Don't worry, I do understand that fashionable and courteous aren't even closely related.
And now, to misqoute: "Friends, either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowlege, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the [belief that science and religion are necessarily incompatible]" -With apologies to Professor Harold Hill
They do not insist that the lack of monitoring equipment 100 years ago doesn't make a difference, just that they don't believe that it does.
They do take "full account" of the lack of monitoring stations, like you say. In fact, they explain that this is an area of their analysis that can have considerable error.
They also explain that their very high arctic temperatures are basically estimates from a computer model, and that the high arctic estimates are pretty much what makes 2005 such a hot year on average.
So, I can still give them credit for competence, and disgree with the level of certainty of some of their (and others') statements.
"Nobody forces rape victims to endure this or that."
A straigtforward definition of rape really does include the idea that it was forced. (e.g. from google: force (someone) to have sex against their will)
One thing that should be taught first in universities and schools is "how to learn"
There are such classes. At least two of the colleges that I taught at had such a course, along with "how to learn" being a major emphasis in many gen ed classes.
There are many difficulties, though.
One is that professors are just as human as students, and nearly as likely not to know how to learn, let alone know how to teach learning.
Another is that, "how to learn" is (IMO) much more than just a set of techniques such as those that you described, it is a mindset (an attitude, a way of looking at the world). Mindsets are hard to transfer. I have known (both as a teacher and as a student) students that outwardly use all of the techniques that you described, and had other good habits, and still don't learn. (Perhaps part of the problem is the myth that grades measure learning, so many peope study for grades, instead of for learning.)
Our first few years of life vitrually all of us are amazingly good at learning. For some reason (I expect because learning is hard work) nearly all of us slow way down, and many of us stop.
I know that was tongue-in-cheek, but "Thousands of college students can't be wrong" is kind of silly, as you can find thousands on each mutually exclusive side (meaning both sides can't be true) of many issues, including this one.
I've seen a traumatized dog. It was very weird. It was a medium-sized dog, in good health, but obviously terrified of anyone other than its owner. This dog was not just wary or careful, but terrified of strangers. It was so obvious and so severe that it kind of freaked me out The owner said the the dog had improved a lot from when she first got it.
(Yes, it is known that the first owner had been very abusive.)
So, when the building doesn't have a 13th floor (like the one I work in) do the blind people get off one floor too late, or do they get off one floor too early when the building does have a 13th floor?
"Yes, he made himself wealthy as a publisher -- by providing (and charging for) the service of making copies when the cost of doing so was not zero, as it is today."
Um, you can't get wealthy by providing services at cost, so he WAS charging more than the cost of making copies. More than he needed to in order to live just like everyone else. Enough more that be became VERY wealthy.
(I don't think that this was a bad thing, but it seems to me to demonstrate that the cost of making the copies isn't part of the issue here.)
After reading a couple of replies to my parent post, I was thinking about people that might understand signing, but not read or hear.
It is my understanding that children can learn to sign before they can learn to read. (In fact hearing children can learn to sign before learning to speak.)
Similarly, developmentally challenged people, such as certain people with Down's Syndrome, never learn to read, but can sign just fine.
Reading takes certain specific brain functions, and it is not inconceivable that there are people who have had head trauma that damaged the reading part of their brain, and the hearing part, but can still understand sign language.
These are just quick thoughts and may have lots of holes, and little sense. Please feel free to expand/correct/flame/whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
"A good lawyer is capable of arguing that up is actually down, a black cat is really white, and that you really didn't stab your wife and her lover thirty-seven times even though he/she knows you're guilty as sin."
I wouldn't say that was a "good" lawyer, but rather a "skilled" lawyer.
I have been thinking about this for a couple of years:
I'm not sure that it is right for any lawyer, even the guilty one's own lawyer, to exonerate a guilty person. (I'm not sure that it's not, either.)
I have thought that, perhaps, the defending lawyer should try just as hard to get at the truth as the prosecutor, but still be an advocate for the defandant. This is possible, you know.
The biggest trouble with this idea, as far as I can see, is that we would have to get a whole lot more honest to have this work at all.
"They were dishonest and had to be watched constantly and didn't do good work."
That makes perfect sense to me.
In lots of workplaces if there isn't constant supervision not much gets done and a lot gets stolen. An aquaintance of mine works in a call center where everyone is kicked out and they building is locked during lunchtime, because of employee theft/vandalism problems. It makes sense that slavery would have those problems even more.
From Tom Sawyer:
Tom and Huck are out late at night, and are scared, and hear a dog howl...
"Oh, lordy, I'm thankful!" whispered Tom. "I know his voice. It's Bull Harbison." *
[* If Mr. Harbison owned a slave named Bull, Tom would have spoken of him as "Harbison's Bull," but a son or a dog of that name was "Bull Harbison."]
Whether Clemens put that in for subtle social commentary (not beyond his skill or habits), or just to help his readers to understand the local way of speaking, I can't say. Either way, this excerpt makes it clear that the dog was more a part of the family than the slave.
Hey, now!
Let's play nice.
Name-calling, and religious persecution aren't generally considered polite.
Giving a straightforward answer to a perfectly reasonable question usually is.
Don't worry, I do understand that fashionable and courteous aren't even closely related.
And now, to misqoute:
"Friends, either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowlege, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the [belief that science and religion are necessarily incompatible]"
-With apologies to Professor Harold Hill
At first I hoped that you really CAN tell the difference between a mathematical theorem and a scientific hypothesis.
Then I thought that if you did know the difference, then you were being deliberately deceptive when you compared them, which would be worse.
Ignorance is easier to cure, and less destructive, than dishonesty.
In the end, I guess, I hope that you really do know the difference, but were just not thinking when you suggested that they work the same.
"I'm not way up on religion myself, but is the notion of a benevolent god really one that is believed?"
Yes. By me, for example.
I read it.
They do not insist that the lack of monitoring equipment 100 years ago doesn't make a difference, just that they don't believe that it does.
They do take "full account" of the lack of monitoring stations, like you say. In fact, they explain that this is an area of their analysis that can have considerable error.
They also explain that their very high arctic temperatures are basically estimates from a computer model, and that the high arctic estimates are pretty much what makes 2005 such a hot year on average.
So, I can still give them credit for competence, and disgree with the level of certainty of some of their (and others') statements.
"Trying is the first step toward failure..."
That soulds like something from http://www.despair.com/
"I think that in a society where everyone is enlightened past belief in God would be that moral."
Did you mean for that sentence to read that way?
It doesn't make sense to me.
OK, but I still think that if your post (ggp) was not meant to imply that rape doesn't force anything on the victim, you should have been more clear.
Should I have known that you didn't mean that, even though you weren't clear? Maybe on some other forum, or if I actually knew you.
I thought that it was kind of obvious, but I'll try to explain a little.
There are (and have been, and probably will be) cultures that don't find rape or murder so horrible.
IMO our culture does find them horrible because of the religious teachings that are behind the traditional moral ideals in this culture.
In case you're wondering, I won't feel bad if anyone disagrees. (Though I know that will disappoint some people.)
"Nobody forces rape victims to endure this or that."
A straigtforward definition of rape really does include the idea that it was forced.
(e.g. from google: force (someone) to have sex against their will)
"He who controls the past, commands the future. He who commands the future, conquers the past." - Kane
Rape is considered bad because of religion.
(Then again, so is murder.)
One thing that should be taught first in universities and schools is "how to learn"
There are such classes. At least two of the colleges that I taught at had such a course, along with "how to learn" being a major emphasis in many gen ed classes.
There are many difficulties, though.
One is that professors are just as human as students, and nearly as likely not to know how to learn, let alone know how to teach learning.
Another is that, "how to learn" is (IMO) much more than just a set of techniques such as those that you described, it is a mindset (an attitude, a way of looking at the world). Mindsets are hard to transfer.
I have known (both as a teacher and as a student) students that outwardly use all of the techniques that you described, and had other good habits, and still don't learn. (Perhaps part of the problem is the myth that grades measure learning, so many peope study for grades, instead of for learning.)
Our first few years of life vitrually all of us are amazingly good at learning. For some reason (I expect because learning is hard work) nearly all of us slow way down, and many of us stop.
I know that was tongue-in-cheek, but "Thousands of college students can't be wrong" is kind of silly, as you can find thousands on each mutually exclusive side (meaning both sides can't be true) of many issues, including this one.
I've seen a traumatized dog.
It was very weird.
It was a medium-sized dog, in good health, but obviously terrified of anyone other than its owner. This dog was not just wary or careful, but terrified of strangers.
It was so obvious and so severe that it kind of freaked me out
The owner said the the dog had improved a lot from when she first got it.
(Yes, it is known that the first owner had been very abusive.)
So, when the building doesn't have a 13th floor (like the one I work in) do the blind people get off one floor too late, or do they get off one floor too early when the building does have a 13th floor?
The fact that there's a scale where you bag your groceries.
RFID may be more effective.
"Yes, he made himself wealthy as a publisher -- by providing (and charging for) the service of making copies when the cost of doing so was not zero, as it is today."
Um, you can't get wealthy by providing services at cost, so he WAS charging more than the cost of making copies. More than he needed to in order to live just like everyone else. Enough more that be became VERY wealthy.
(I don't think that this was a bad thing, but it seems to me to demonstrate that the cost of making the copies isn't part of the issue here.)
Posessing wit and being a wit are two different things.
After reading a couple of replies to my parent post, I was thinking about people that might understand signing, but not read or hear.
It is my understanding that children can learn to sign before they can learn to read. (In fact hearing children can learn to sign before learning to speak.)
Similarly, developmentally challenged people, such as certain people with Down's Syndrome, never learn to read, but can sign just fine.
Reading takes certain specific brain functions, and it is not inconceivable that there are people who have had head trauma that damaged the reading part of their brain, and the hearing part, but can still understand sign language.
These are just quick thoughts and may have lots of holes, and little sense. Please feel free to expand/correct/flame/whatever.
Since sign languages are different all over the world, I don't know if there is the same problem in Japan, but:
American Sign Language is not English (American or other).
Thus, translating speech to ASL would reach people that that understand ASL but don't read Englih.
You should watch your step, or at least clean your bathroom.
Besides, my copy of Sid Meier's Pirates (the original one) is on a 3.5" DD (not HD) floppy, and it boots to the game.
Luckily it doesn't appear to use FAT. (Which is why I don't have a backup.)
[Notice how that wad of tangents and non-sequiters got back to the topic, before getting off-topic again?]
Reviewers don't need to see a movie before they comment.