The first specs of true scientific interest come at the age of about 9.
Then please explain to me, why at age 6, I was actively curious about my stepfather's Apple][+ computer, to the point that I got him to teach me BASIC? (admittedly, I only wrote stupid text adventure games consisting of "print", "input" and "goto" statements, but it's still logical flow, and shows scientific interest).
Kids are FAR smarter than you give them credit for - the only reason many children don't understand answers given to them is because they're not explained clearly enough - you need to REALLY understand a subject to explain it to a child, because there's a lot less pre-cursor knowledge there. So, when you explain something to a child, be prepared to explain EVERY step of it, even the ones you didn't expect would need explaining.
Yes, by all means, show her the scientific documentaries. But also let her read religious texts and go to church, as well as watch religious videos.
NO! The problem with doing this is that without very good guidance from her parents, she is almost certainly not mature enough to weed out "snake oil salesmen", of which many religions are far too rife with.
If you read some of my previous posts, you may find that I am quite staunchly atheist (I actually strongly believe religion to be a harmful mental delusion), but putting that aside, let's try a little thought experiment. Can you imagine a strongly Christian person accepting their daughter being exposed to Islamic religious texts and discussions on a "fair and equal level" to Christian philosophies? I think not! There would be too much fear about the child being "indoctrinated" in to that religion under "false pretences". In the same way, I put to you that the vast majority of religions will attempt to "indoctrinate" in this manner, and it is not responsible parenting to allow the impressionable mind of a child to be exposed to this without some kind of guidance.
Now, if you're a strongly Christian family, you would probably want that "guidance" to be towards Christianity, however one day when I have the great joy of becoming a parent, I will "guide" my children towards science, logic and reason. I will go so far even as to point out my views on religion and if they get it in to their heads that there's a great mystical man in the sky, I'll happily debate with them to change their minds (as I will with ANYONE who brings it up and is open to discussion, whether they're related to me or not).
SLIGHT problem with your method - it almost always will not work. On the occasions that I review a Wikipedia article, I don't just "check that there is a source", but I actually check the validity, quality, reliability and veracity of that source. And I'm not alone in my thoroughness.
How do I "know"? Well, I don't know... not anymore than anyone "knows" anything (how do you "know" you are reading Slashdot right now, rather than locked in a mental institution on Mars in the 25th Century?).
But what I can do is surmise, go with all of the available evidence, apply Occam's Razor, and make an informed decision based on that.
Go to an important (for your kids) Wikipedia article, say one on Hannah Montanah. Edit it. Add the fact that she has a dinosaur for a pet. Or the part about her having five elbows. Save. Show. (And then revert.) Ask your kid about the wisdom of using Wikipedia. (*)
Better idea, do all of that, but DON'T revert it. Go back to the page sometime later and point out that someone else has fixed the mistakes. THEN ask your kid about the wisdom of using Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not infallible, and mistakes can slip through and even remain for a long time in some rare cases, but most things will be fixed very quickly, and "in general" it is a fairly accurate resource (especially if you actually check cited references). It is, on the whole, far MORE accurate than many other accepted resources precisely because it is editable.
I'm sure it's a very nice delusion, with a way to train the release of endorphins or self-stimulate that part of the mind that produces that "one-with-the-universe" feeling (that can also be accomplished with an electrode)
It can also be accomplished with hallucinogenic drugs, and it is indeed a wonderful delusion. I just wish other people would realise it IS only a delusion (I'll happily have a couple of tabs of acid and go all mystical for 12 hours or so, but while I still marvel at the tricks my mind plays on me, I still KNOW they are just tricks.
Actually, it applies to all people on US territory, not just citizens.
It's a bit off topic, but could you give me a good link or two that spells this out clearly?
I'd also like to know where I can get information about addressing what I believe to be a free speech rights violation as a non-US citizen that was there for a business trip not so long ago (I was threatened with arrest by a police officer for simply having a particular discussion (not loudly, not disturbing the peace, and not inciting violence - just a discussion). As it turned out, I was NOT arrested and there were no consequences other than the immediate end of the discussion I was having, and so I have no interest in pursuing it further, but I want to be prepared should a similar thing ever happen again and it not turn out okay)
Actually, I'm not familiar with that one, so I guess it's something from outside of my experience (US only perhaps?). But okay, if it's common, then sure! I guess it may be the US equivalent of "Collex" in Australian English, which is just the same (a kind of large outdoor wheeled rubbish bin - "Collex" is also a brand name that gets used to refer to ANY large outdoor wheeled rubbish bins).
I'm not sure how clear I am making myself, but simply put, "last minute" is a relatively common phrase in the States, and if it is similarly common in the UK, I doubt LastMinute.com will be able to do much in court to give themselves a victory.
We're shocking close to being back on topic here;) But don't worry, you were perfectly clear (to me at least)
You're absolutely right though - in pretty much the entire English speaking world as far as I know, "last minute" has the exact meaning that you're describing, and so it would be quite reasonable for people to Google for "last minute airfare" or similar, without any expectation of getting a particular company.
Really, that's why companies shouldn't use common words or phrases for their names and trademarks, nor should they use overly-simply words or phrases.
Actually, I'd disagree with you there. I think they have no right to complain and certainly no right to bring a legal suit over it, but the choice of name isn't all that bad... they probably chose it specifically because it is a common use, and if someone does a web based search for "last minute", they'll be what is found. As stated though, it's RIDICULOUS to expect any kind of protection of this name though, as it is a common phrase.
Actually "Band Aid" as a generic term is mostly from Australia/New Zealand. I'm pretty sure "Xerox" is mostly America and non-English speaking countries that have adopted it (see posts above from Russian, Polish and Romanian people)
Also, another one that another replier (zsau) pointed out and I somehow forgot about is "Glad Wrap" - very common in New Zealand at least, and I believe elsewhere also.
I think "hoover" tends to be quite common in some areas of the UK, but primarily amongst the older generation now.
You're quite right about "Xerox" and "Kleenex" though. I'd throw in to the list "Band Aid", "Post It" and "Biro".
It all depends on where you live though - different countries, and even different locations within countries are more or less likely to use these. For example, in Japan there's "almost" a verb for copying ("xeroxing") based on the name Ricoh (roughly "Ricohpying"). Or in some less developed countries, the world "Nescafe" is a synonym for "coffee".
Ah but because printing is, er was, so expensive if there were no computers there'd be less documents.
I addressed that in the following paragraph that you didn't quote...
But I do print articles longer than a couple of pages.
While I have no real evidence to back up this belief, I think you're probably in the minority there... most people do NOT print articles to read them.
As for manuals for hardware, the only hardware I've bought in a few years is the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on that I got last summer and a tower PC I got about a year earlier. For the MBP I bought two books and for the PC I didn't need much.
Actually, this raises an interesting point. I wonder what percentage of people that buy new hardware also buy books for it? I think it's pretty low actually, but I can't be as sure of that as my other (also unsubstantiated) ideas.
However really, my point wasn't just about computer hardware - reading back, I can see I wasn't so clear though. I really meant ALL hardware - my car, telephone, fridge, camera and computer hardware all came with softcopy manuals. The only stuff I own that came with hardcopy manuals are my furniture and small kitchen appliances such as kettle and toaster. (note that I don't own a TV and haven't for about 7 years - the last one I had did come with a hardcopy manual, but I assume they come with softcopy manuals instead these days as well)
Honestly, no... nothing that isn't just anecdotal. But I think the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong in that the vast majority of people I know print less than 10% of their "documents" (be it email, manuals, ebooks, or whatever else). One can only really assume that if it weren't for computers, 100% of this would be "printed".
One can of course argue that there'd be less data going around, and so the number wouldn't be so high, but even if it were only half as much data, that's still 50% rather than 10%.
Yes, completely anecdotal and also "guesstimate" figures, so I realise it doesn't count as evidence.
Unless and until they come up that displays text and graphics like paper and doesn't use much if any energy, I will want paper. I have no problem with my eyes when reading a book or magazine but monitors, both CRTs and LCDs bother my eyes when I read something long being displayed.
But, for example, do you print all the Slashdot comments before reading and replying? Or every email you receive? Or the user manuals for the new hardware you buy that normally comes on CD? (actually, especially that one... imagine if every time you bought something, you got PAPER manuals instead of a CD!)
You have three choices: Nuclear Power, Agrarian Society, Global Warming. Pick one.
Couldn't agree more! I'm a "staunch environmentalist" and am often referred to as a "tree hugging hippy", but one point that I and other "tree hugging hippies" STRONGLY disagree on is that of nuclear power.
I WANT more nuclear stations (as long as they are built to modern standards and maintained in responsible ways) because it is the ONLY realistic measure currently to meet our energy needs with the most minimal impact on the environment.
Perhaps in some years, we will have perfected other, better methods, but we should NOT wait until then - it may be 10 years away or it may be hundreds. Let's start solving the problem NOW by building and using more nuclear power stations.
given that there isn't going to be much of an airline industry in 2020. By then, fuel will be so expensive, air travel will revert to what it was prior to the 1970s: something the rich did.
Someone above made a comment to the effect that datacentres use electricity and jets use jet fuel, and so they can't be fairly compared. However, what about using ground generated electricity for flights? We can build electric cars, why not electric flying machines?
Granted, at present (AFAIK) we have NO way to store the amount of energy required for an intercontinental flight in any storage medium that wouldn't weigh so much as to make the idea unfeasible, but perhaps in the future, this may be a possibility?
Those data centers haven't reduced paper used, paper use is actually up not down. The paperless office was nothing but a dream.
That is correct, as you say it... However it ignores the actual situation, which is that paper usage would be even higher were it not for computers. Paper usage HAS been on a constant increase, but it is a lesser increase than if we had not moved towards the "paperless office" ideal.
Working in the MFP industry, I'm pretty glad that we haven't (and almost certainly never will) moved to a paperless office society completely otherwise I'd be looking for new work.
I just moved from Australia to Germany, and after my pitiful 10Mbit cable (capped at 36GB a month) with Optus in Australia for $64.95/month, I'm LOVING my 16Mbit DSL (uncapped) with Alice here in Germany for only 29,95€
Self employed coding... I did it for a while myself MANY years ago, but being self employed just isn't my cup of tea.
Roughly, it works like this:
1) Company contacts you (after seeing your advertising/word of mouth/whatever) and says they need a small project done. Often it's an integration between two existing systems that they'd like to streamline the processes of.
2) You set a price and timeframe for the project, and they agree to it.
3) You spend your time, mostly at home, writing code and a little time at their offices testing/finalising if necessary.
4) You finish the project, train some of their staff, and you're done.
After a few projects, you juggle the price/time thing around and you'll find that as long as you're not unreasonable, $50k a year for 20 hours a week is pretty easy to achieve.
On the downside, you do HAVE to be in a location that this works - smaller towns just don't have enough businesses and some cities have the wrong "kind" of businesses (generally too large with their own processes already for this sort of thing). You really need a location with a large number of mid-sized businesses. I found it worked well in Sydney, Australia.
Also, as I said, self-employment really wasn't my cup of tea... so now I work for someone else and do much longer hours... but I also get paid a lot more than I used to, and it's steady (unlike self-employment where "you don't work, you don't get paid").
1/4 = 0.25 = (2 * 1)/8 then aren't these three ways of describing the same information.
I would argue that they're not the same information. They are all equal in value, but they describe different processes that reach that value. The equation is often as important as the answer...
It's the difference between, "I have 4 people and 1 car" and "I have 8 people and 2 cars" - in both cases, the number of people per car is the same and we can even use the same mathematics, but the information itself is different (and the formulas should be written as 1/4 and 2/8 respectively - the second should NOT be simplified to 1/4, as that's a loss of information).
but what if that doesn't change a thing and the Earth's climate is still doing wacky anti-human changes?
What if it doesn't change a thing? Well, then we've got cleaner air, cooler tech and quieter cars. And we should start finding ways to adapt... But, what if it DOES solve the problem?
If you're going to ponder "what ifs", then at least consider both possibilities!
I also don't remember ever hearing that kind of idea bounced around in the mainstream until it after The Day After Tomorrow came out
Where do you think that crappy movie got the idea for it? There were PLENTY of people talking about temperature drops caused by climate change before that movie, otherwise they wouldn't have made it!
Slashdot Mirror
Then please explain to me, why at age 6, I was actively curious about my stepfather's Apple][+ computer, to the point that I got him to teach me BASIC? (admittedly, I only wrote stupid text adventure games consisting of "print", "input" and "goto" statements, but it's still logical flow, and shows scientific interest).
Kids are FAR smarter than you give them credit for - the only reason many children don't understand answers given to them is because they're not explained clearly enough - you need to REALLY understand a subject to explain it to a child, because there's a lot less pre-cursor knowledge there. So, when you explain something to a child, be prepared to explain EVERY step of it, even the ones you didn't expect would need explaining.
NO! The problem with doing this is that without very good guidance from her parents, she is almost certainly not mature enough to weed out "snake oil salesmen", of which many religions are far too rife with.
If you read some of my previous posts, you may find that I am quite staunchly atheist (I actually strongly believe religion to be a harmful mental delusion), but putting that aside, let's try a little thought experiment. Can you imagine a strongly Christian person accepting their daughter being exposed to Islamic religious texts and discussions on a "fair and equal level" to Christian philosophies? I think not! There would be too much fear about the child being "indoctrinated" in to that religion under "false pretences". In the same way, I put to you that the vast majority of religions will attempt to "indoctrinate" in this manner, and it is not responsible parenting to allow the impressionable mind of a child to be exposed to this without some kind of guidance.
Now, if you're a strongly Christian family, you would probably want that "guidance" to be towards Christianity, however one day when I have the great joy of becoming a parent, I will "guide" my children towards science, logic and reason. I will go so far even as to point out my views on religion and if they get it in to their heads that there's a great mystical man in the sky, I'll happily debate with them to change their minds (as I will with ANYONE who brings it up and is open to discussion, whether they're related to me or not).
SLIGHT problem with your method - it almost always will not work. On the occasions that I review a Wikipedia article, I don't just "check that there is a source", but I actually check the validity, quality, reliability and veracity of that source. And I'm not alone in my thoroughness.
I am definitely NOT new to "this Wikipedia thing"
How do I "know"? Well, I don't know... not anymore than anyone "knows" anything (how do you "know" you are reading Slashdot right now, rather than locked in a mental institution on Mars in the 25th Century?).
But what I can do is surmise, go with all of the available evidence, apply Occam's Razor, and make an informed decision based on that.
Hmmm... reading that, it all looks fairly "flakey" really. Not so good :(
Edit it. Add the fact that she has a dinosaur for a pet. Or the part about her having five elbows. Save. Show. (And then revert.) Ask your kid about the wisdom of using Wikipedia. (*)
Better idea, do all of that, but DON'T revert it. Go back to the page sometime later and point out that someone else has fixed the mistakes. THEN ask your kid about the wisdom of using Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not infallible, and mistakes can slip through and even remain for a long time in some rare cases, but most things will be fixed very quickly, and "in general" it is a fairly accurate resource (especially if you actually check cited references). It is, on the whole, far MORE accurate than many other accepted resources precisely because it is editable.
It can also be accomplished with hallucinogenic drugs, and it is indeed a wonderful delusion. I just wish other people would realise it IS only a delusion (I'll happily have a couple of tabs of acid and go all mystical for 12 hours or so, but while I still marvel at the tricks my mind plays on me, I still KNOW they are just tricks.
It's a bit off topic, but could you give me a good link or two that spells this out clearly?
I'd also like to know where I can get information about addressing what I believe to be a free speech rights violation as a non-US citizen that was there for a business trip not so long ago (I was threatened with arrest by a police officer for simply having a particular discussion (not loudly, not disturbing the peace, and not inciting violence - just a discussion). As it turned out, I was NOT arrested and there were no consequences other than the immediate end of the discussion I was having, and so I have no interest in pursuing it further, but I want to be prepared should a similar thing ever happen again and it not turn out okay)
Actually, I'm not familiar with that one, so I guess it's something from outside of my experience (US only perhaps?). But okay, if it's common, then sure! I guess it may be the US equivalent of "Collex" in Australian English, which is just the same (a kind of large outdoor wheeled rubbish bin - "Collex" is also a brand name that gets used to refer to ANY large outdoor wheeled rubbish bins).
I'm not sure how clear I am making myself, but simply put, "last minute" is a relatively common phrase in the States, and if it is similarly common in the UK, I doubt LastMinute.com will be able to do much in court to give themselves a victory.We're shocking close to being back on topic here ;) But don't worry, you were perfectly clear (to me at least)
You're absolutely right though - in pretty much the entire English speaking world as far as I know, "last minute" has the exact meaning that you're describing, and so it would be quite reasonable for people to Google for "last minute airfare" or similar, without any expectation of getting a particular company.
Really, that's why companies shouldn't use common words or phrases for their names and trademarks, nor should they use overly-simply words or phrases.Actually, I'd disagree with you there. I think they have no right to complain and certainly no right to bring a legal suit over it, but the choice of name isn't all that bad... they probably chose it specifically because it is a common use, and if someone does a web based search for "last minute", they'll be what is found. As stated though, it's RIDICULOUS to expect any kind of protection of this name though, as it is a common phrase.
Ah yep - forgot about "Glad Wrap" - thanks for reminding me of that one.
And for reference, "Xerox" is pronounced something like "Zeroks".
Actually "Band Aid" as a generic term is mostly from Australia/New Zealand. I'm pretty sure "Xerox" is mostly America and non-English speaking countries that have adopted it (see posts above from Russian, Polish and Romanian people)
Also, another one that another replier (zsau) pointed out and I somehow forgot about is "Glad Wrap" - very common in New Zealand at least, and I believe elsewhere also.
I believe the drugs won...
Parent may be a rant with terrible formatting and poor English grammar, but it's still right. Mods, pay attention!
I think "hoover" tends to be quite common in some areas of the UK, but primarily amongst the older generation now.
You're quite right about "Xerox" and "Kleenex" though. I'd throw in to the list "Band Aid", "Post It" and "Biro".
It all depends on where you live though - different countries, and even different locations within countries are more or less likely to use these. For example, in Japan there's "almost" a verb for copying ("xeroxing") based on the name Ricoh (roughly "Ricohpying"). Or in some less developed countries, the world "Nescafe" is a synonym for "coffee".
I addressed that in the following paragraph that you didn't quote...
But I do print articles longer than a couple of pages.While I have no real evidence to back up this belief, I think you're probably in the minority there... most people do NOT print articles to read them.
As for manuals for hardware, the only hardware I've bought in a few years is the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on that I got last summer and a tower PC I got about a year earlier. For the MBP I bought two books and for the PC I didn't need much.Actually, this raises an interesting point. I wonder what percentage of people that buy new hardware also buy books for it? I think it's pretty low actually, but I can't be as sure of that as my other (also unsubstantiated) ideas.
However really, my point wasn't just about computer hardware - reading back, I can see I wasn't so clear though. I really meant ALL hardware - my car, telephone, fridge, camera and computer hardware all came with softcopy manuals. The only stuff I own that came with hardcopy manuals are my furniture and small kitchen appliances such as kettle and toaster. (note that I don't own a TV and haven't for about 7 years - the last one I had did come with a hardcopy manual, but I assume they come with softcopy manuals instead these days as well)
Ummm... can't you walk???
Honestly, no... nothing that isn't just anecdotal. But I think the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong in that the vast majority of people I know print less than 10% of their "documents" (be it email, manuals, ebooks, or whatever else). One can only really assume that if it weren't for computers, 100% of this would be "printed".
One can of course argue that there'd be less data going around, and so the number wouldn't be so high, but even if it were only half as much data, that's still 50% rather than 10%.
Yes, completely anecdotal and also "guesstimate" figures, so I realise it doesn't count as evidence.
Unless and until they come up that displays text and graphics like paper and doesn't use much if any energy, I will want paper. I have no problem with my eyes when reading a book or magazine but monitors, both CRTs and LCDs bother my eyes when I read something long being displayed.But, for example, do you print all the Slashdot comments before reading and replying? Or every email you receive? Or the user manuals for the new hardware you buy that normally comes on CD? (actually, especially that one... imagine if every time you bought something, you got PAPER manuals instead of a CD!)
Couldn't agree more! I'm a "staunch environmentalist" and am often referred to as a "tree hugging hippy", but one point that I and other "tree hugging hippies" STRONGLY disagree on is that of nuclear power.
I WANT more nuclear stations (as long as they are built to modern standards and maintained in responsible ways) because it is the ONLY realistic measure currently to meet our energy needs with the most minimal impact on the environment.
Perhaps in some years, we will have perfected other, better methods, but we should NOT wait until then - it may be 10 years away or it may be hundreds. Let's start solving the problem NOW by building and using more nuclear power stations.
Someone above made a comment to the effect that datacentres use electricity and jets use jet fuel, and so they can't be fairly compared. However, what about using ground generated electricity for flights? We can build electric cars, why not electric flying machines?
Granted, at present (AFAIK) we have NO way to store the amount of energy required for an intercontinental flight in any storage medium that wouldn't weigh so much as to make the idea unfeasible, but perhaps in the future, this may be a possibility?
That is correct, as you say it... However it ignores the actual situation, which is that paper usage would be even higher were it not for computers. Paper usage HAS been on a constant increase, but it is a lesser increase than if we had not moved towards the "paperless office" ideal.
Working in the MFP industry, I'm pretty glad that we haven't (and almost certainly never will) moved to a paperless office society completely otherwise I'd be looking for new work.
I just moved from Australia to Germany, and after my pitiful 10Mbit cable (capped at 36GB a month) with Optus in Australia for $64.95/month, I'm LOVING my 16Mbit DSL (uncapped) with Alice here in Germany for only 29,95€
Self employed coding... I did it for a while myself MANY years ago, but being self employed just isn't my cup of tea.
Roughly, it works like this:
1) Company contacts you (after seeing your advertising/word of mouth/whatever) and says they need a small project done. Often it's an integration between two existing systems that they'd like to streamline the processes of.
2) You set a price and timeframe for the project, and they agree to it.
3) You spend your time, mostly at home, writing code and a little time at their offices testing/finalising if necessary.
4) You finish the project, train some of their staff, and you're done.
After a few projects, you juggle the price/time thing around and you'll find that as long as you're not unreasonable, $50k a year for 20 hours a week is pretty easy to achieve.
On the downside, you do HAVE to be in a location that this works - smaller towns just don't have enough businesses and some cities have the wrong "kind" of businesses (generally too large with their own processes already for this sort of thing). You really need a location with a large number of mid-sized businesses. I found it worked well in Sydney, Australia.
Also, as I said, self-employment really wasn't my cup of tea... so now I work for someone else and do much longer hours... but I also get paid a lot more than I used to, and it's steady (unlike self-employment where "you don't work, you don't get paid").
I would argue that they're not the same information. They are all equal in value, but they describe different processes that reach that value. The equation is often as important as the answer...
It's the difference between, "I have 4 people and 1 car" and "I have 8 people and 2 cars" - in both cases, the number of people per car is the same and we can even use the same mathematics, but the information itself is different (and the formulas should be written as 1/4 and 2/8 respectively - the second should NOT be simplified to 1/4, as that's a loss of information).
What if it doesn't change a thing? Well, then we've got cleaner air, cooler tech and quieter cars. And we should start finding ways to adapt... But, what if it DOES solve the problem?
If you're going to ponder "what ifs", then at least consider both possibilities!
Where do you think that crappy movie got the idea for it? There were PLENTY of people talking about temperature drops caused by climate change before that movie, otherwise they wouldn't have made it!