I have to agree with this very strongly. Many people could do quite well in math, but got tripped up by one or two bad classes (or bad years) along the way, and if there is one thing that really separates the natural sciences from the other fields, it's the nested skills sets and dependencies on a ladder of skills - so if you miss a rung, you don't easily move up. Because higher education in the sciences and engineering is competitive - based more on regulating access to high-paying careers than on really developing people to their benefit - there has not been a lot of focus on overcoming those who've fallen off the ladder.
One suggestion I'd add to yours is to consider exercises which involve data visualization and the presentation of research. Many humanities and social sciences students are good communicators - letting them bring that strength into your classroom will make them feel like they belong there.
Within the US, bringing a bottle of water onto an airplane is considered a potentially terrorist act.
If this had happened to the US (especially in the context of attacks on nuclear scientists) it would unquestionably be treated as a terrorist attack.http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/06/20/0027250/us-israel-behind-flame-malware#
Pre-1913 American society was a disaster for most Americans. Economic history has proven your models wrong every time.
Right now, corporations are sitting on larger cash reserves than ever, yet they do not hire. Surveys of businesses report that the number one reason they aren't growing or hiring is the lack of markets: people are spending too little, because they are insecure about the future and have little discretionary income.
The reason that little is produced in the USA is: free trade, which allows manufacturing to occur where there is no environmental protection or labor laws, at all. This was part of a national economic strategy - advanced largely during the Clinton administration - which sought to build the US economy on services, research and creative sectors, while allowing the developing world to focus on manufacturing. We're still living with the fallout of that decision (which relied, incidentally, on getting the rest of the world to commit to US intellectual property guidelines.)
Germany, on the other hand, is still a manufacturing powerhouse and next exporter. Do you know why? Low income inequality, strong environmental and labor standards restricting the flow of cheap goods from coming into the country, and broad national support of a manufacturing infrastructure.
The job of the University of Florida is to produce research (I believe it's an R1 school) and then educate students, but they have to figure out the most cost-effective way of doing it. They aren't going to educate everyone on everything, so they evaluate outcomes and other scenarios (are CS grads getting jobs? Are other depts., such as the math dept., producing more students who get jobs as programmers or placing students into grad programs? Are there viable alternatives in the region? etc.)
There's also the other side of it: if you have a bunch of tenured faculty that aren't performing well, the easiest way to get rid of them is to shut down the department. That may be what is really at play here: a group of ineffective professors who have neither taught students effectively nor produced good research (in this case, winning grants or creating new technologies.) The best way to reboot is to nuke the department. rather than going through the excruciating, legally fraught, and expensive task of winding down your faculty.
I have to especially agree with the idea that chess - and other non-digital games - are going to be a lot more beneficial than digital games. Because when you play a videogame, you're just responding to the game and creating a loose model of the system, but when you play chess (or Warhammer, or Settlers of Catan, or MtG, or cribbage) you have to know the rules completely in order to play. I'm all for my kid becoming a big gamer, but mostly in the non-digital realm.
Well, yes, there will be a little underground economy of these things, though there have been a few effective raids which caught and arrested hundreds of people. But that's a fallacy of its own - that a law is only effective if it is never broken. Dramatically reducing the market for child pornography by criminalizing its consumption is an unmitigated good.
The difference between narcotics and child pornography is huge. There is nothing essentially exploitative about either producing or consuming drugs. Some people find the consumption of some drugs immoral, or (more reasonably) a mental health issue, but the production is generally like that of any other agricultural and/or chemical products. In this case, however, the production of the material (by which I mean recordings of actual episodes of child assault, not imaginary/synthetic/illustrated versions) is the most unquestionably heinous link on the chain.
You're not getting this, are you? Try to work through it. If we don't ban the market, then the production will go to where there is no enforcement - and grow there. That is a moral formula that I and a large majority of people, of virtually all political stripes, would find pretty unacceptable, and will for as long as I can imagine.
In fact, your position is one that others use as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the unworkability of that brand of fundamentalist libertarianism.
The problem is that a local market (i.e., in the US) might create supply elsewhere (i.e., Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia). I'm afraid that I'd support criminalizing the market as well as the production, because the supply will just move to wherever enforcement is non-existent otherwise. It's a formula for outsourcing child-rape.
I do distinguish between pedophilia and attraction to teens. I don't think it's appropriate to treat pictures of naked teenagers in the same way as videos of toddlers being raped. In the case of the latter, I think even viewing/possessing them should be criminalized in very strong terms.
It depends on the class. A history class isn't about learning how to solve problems, so much as it is about having a sophisticated model of what happened before the present day, different models of contingency in human events, and - yes - learning names and dates.
Has the irony anvil hit you on the head yet? In a thread thick with ridiculous generalizations about Islam and Arab countries, with (as of this writing) no contributions from people who might actually live there or have lived there (partially, but only partial, credit for having been deployed there) we get the voice of "expertise" based on limited experience pointed back to Americans - and you balk.
"Cultural relativism" is simply a fact, in that cultures produce morality. You can deny that all you like, but it's obvious from history and anthropology.
Of course, the idea that you have to tolerate another culture's morality is also grounded only in one's own culture, and is clearly not shared by many cultures.
Yes, at the bottom is nihilism of a sort. How you deal with that is your problem, ultimately. Hold onto your values as loosely or as tightly as you like, but don't look for the universe itself to confirm them: it doesn't care about what you think is "universally" applicable.
And I suspect, too, that you will find some mode of speech to exempt from absolute commitment to non-censorship. Say, making threats. Revealing personal information (e.g., your SSN,)
In the past, there would be simply silence. A government order would be delivered to a Twitter (or a Facebook or a forum) and the material would disappear, everywhere. Often the material was child pornography - most links removed by Twitter last year were child porn links.
Now, there is a trace left for every act of censorship. When a government demands something be removed (and this will only matter for those countries in which Twitter is doing business and has offices - e.g., not Iran, but France, Germany, etc) the rest of us will find out, as will the twitterer. This is the minimum amount of accommodation that Twitter can make to a censoring government while still doing business in that country at all, and is less accommodation than they used to do, or anyone else (including Slashdot) does.
So, yes, I am applauding Twitter for letting me know that they were ordered by the government to censor me, for reporting the act of censorship to Chilling Effects, and for routing around that censorship where that government has no authority.
Actually, it's about them reluctantly following the rules of those countries, yet still letting the rest of the world route around those rules, and being completely transparent when censorship does occur (with their partnership with Chilling Effects.) Twitter is kind of being a warrior for free speech in its way here.
I think there are really maybe four of us who understand that this is a measure against censorship, as much as Twitter can make one. The outrage-machine is in full swing and completely misinterprets what is actually going on.
Slashdot Mirror
"but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"
He'd have to train the Great Dane to say "I do" first.
If you can manage that feat, then it would ok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWXMJP1J-3Y
I was going to say "and that's why you're still a virgin", but you mentioned your wife, so, um ... never mind.
Reparability means that it is not so damaged that it cannot be repaired: it connotes something about the level of damage of the object.
"Unrepairability" may be a useful neologism to distinguish those products that are designed to restrict just who can repair them.
"Lemmy is reading a live-stream of Bill posting a video of Charles watching Gilmore Girls on CWTV."
I have to agree with this very strongly. Many people could do quite well in math, but got tripped up by one or two bad classes (or bad years) along the way, and if there is one thing that really separates the natural sciences from the other fields, it's the nested skills sets and dependencies on a ladder of skills - so if you miss a rung, you don't easily move up. Because higher education in the sciences and engineering is competitive - based more on regulating access to high-paying careers than on really developing people to their benefit - there has not been a lot of focus on overcoming those who've fallen off the ladder.
One suggestion I'd add to yours is to consider exercises which involve data visualization and the presentation of research. Many humanities and social sciences students are good communicators - letting them bring that strength into your classroom will make them feel like they belong there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U8CZAKSsNA
Within the US, bringing a bottle of water onto an airplane is considered a potentially terrorist act.
If this had happened to the US (especially in the context of attacks on nuclear scientists) it would unquestionably be treated as a terrorist attack.http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/06/20/0027250/us-israel-behind-flame-malware#
Pre-1913 American society was a disaster for most Americans. Economic history has proven your models wrong every time.
Right now, corporations are sitting on larger cash reserves than ever, yet they do not hire. Surveys of businesses report that the number one reason they aren't growing or hiring is the lack of markets: people are spending too little, because they are insecure about the future and have little discretionary income.
The reason that little is produced in the USA is: free trade, which allows manufacturing to occur where there is no environmental protection or labor laws, at all. This was part of a national economic strategy - advanced largely during the Clinton administration - which sought to build the US economy on services, research and creative sectors, while allowing the developing world to focus on manufacturing. We're still living with the fallout of that decision (which relied, incidentally, on getting the rest of the world to commit to US intellectual property guidelines.)
Germany, on the other hand, is still a manufacturing powerhouse and next exporter. Do you know why? Low income inequality, strong environmental and labor standards restricting the flow of cheap goods from coming into the country, and broad national support of a manufacturing infrastructure.
This society needs more income equality and public services, so there's less panicked rushing from one sector of the labor market to another.
Don't count on that. There are lots of jock children of geek parents.
So is "(digital) camera," which isn't really a chamber anymore.
The job of the University of Florida is to produce research (I believe it's an R1 school) and then educate students, but they have to figure out the most cost-effective way of doing it. They aren't going to educate everyone on everything, so they evaluate outcomes and other scenarios (are CS grads getting jobs? Are other depts., such as the math dept., producing more students who get jobs as programmers or placing students into grad programs? Are there viable alternatives in the region? etc.)
There's also the other side of it: if you have a bunch of tenured faculty that aren't performing well, the easiest way to get rid of them is to shut down the department. That may be what is really at play here: a group of ineffective professors who have neither taught students effectively nor produced good research (in this case, winning grants or creating new technologies.) The best way to reboot is to nuke the department. rather than going through the excruciating, legally fraught, and expensive task of winding down your faculty.
I have to especially agree with the idea that chess - and other non-digital games - are going to be a lot more beneficial than digital games. Because when you play a videogame, you're just responding to the game and creating a loose model of the system, but when you play chess (or Warhammer, or Settlers of Catan, or MtG, or cribbage) you have to know the rules completely in order to play. I'm all for my kid becoming a big gamer, but mostly in the non-digital realm.
Well, yes, there will be a little underground economy of these things, though there have been a few effective raids which caught and arrested hundreds of people. But that's a fallacy of its own - that a law is only effective if it is never broken. Dramatically reducing the market for child pornography by criminalizing its consumption is an unmitigated good.
The difference between narcotics and child pornography is huge. There is nothing essentially exploitative about either producing or consuming drugs. Some people find the consumption of some drugs immoral, or (more reasonably) a mental health issue, but the production is generally like that of any other agricultural and/or chemical products. In this case, however, the production of the material (by which I mean recordings of actual episodes of child assault, not imaginary/synthetic/illustrated versions) is the most unquestionably heinous link on the chain.
You're not getting this, are you? Try to work through it. If we don't ban the market, then the production will go to where there is no enforcement - and grow there. That is a moral formula that I and a large majority of people, of virtually all political stripes, would find pretty unacceptable, and will for as long as I can imagine.
In fact, your position is one that others use as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the unworkability of that brand of fundamentalist libertarianism.
The problem is that a local market (i.e., in the US) might create supply elsewhere (i.e., Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia). I'm afraid that I'd support criminalizing the market as well as the production, because the supply will just move to wherever enforcement is non-existent otherwise. It's a formula for outsourcing child-rape.
I do distinguish between pedophilia and attraction to teens. I don't think it's appropriate to treat pictures of naked teenagers in the same way as videos of toddlers being raped. In the case of the latter, I think even viewing/possessing them should be criminalized in very strong terms.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/sharks-in-space
It depends on the class. A history class isn't about learning how to solve problems, so much as it is about having a sophisticated model of what happened before the present day, different models of contingency in human events, and - yes - learning names and dates.
Has the irony anvil hit you on the head yet? In a thread thick with ridiculous generalizations about Islam and Arab countries, with (as of this writing) no contributions from people who might actually live there or have lived there (partially, but only partial, credit for having been deployed there) we get the voice of "expertise" based on limited experience pointed back to Americans - and you balk.
Ah, it's the Apple of your Eye.
"Cultural relativism" is simply a fact, in that cultures produce morality. You can deny that all you like, but it's obvious from history and anthropology.
Of course, the idea that you have to tolerate another culture's morality is also grounded only in one's own culture, and is clearly not shared by many cultures.
Yes, at the bottom is nihilism of a sort. How you deal with that is your problem, ultimately. Hold onto your values as loosely or as tightly as you like, but don't look for the universe itself to confirm them: it doesn't care about what you think is "universally" applicable.
And I suspect, too, that you will find some mode of speech to exempt from absolute commitment to non-censorship. Say, making threats. Revealing personal information (e.g., your SSN,)
In the past, there would be simply silence. A government order would be delivered to a Twitter (or a Facebook or a forum) and the material would disappear, everywhere. Often the material was child pornography - most links removed by Twitter last year were child porn links.
Now, there is a trace left for every act of censorship. When a government demands something be removed (and this will only matter for those countries in which Twitter is doing business and has offices - e.g., not Iran, but France, Germany, etc) the rest of us will find out, as will the twitterer. This is the minimum amount of accommodation that Twitter can make to a censoring government while still doing business in that country at all, and is less accommodation than they used to do, or anyone else (including Slashdot) does.
So, yes, I am applauding Twitter for letting me know that they were ordered by the government to censor me, for reporting the act of censorship to Chilling Effects, and for routing around that censorship where that government has no authority.
Actually, it's about them reluctantly following the rules of those countries, yet still letting the rest of the world route around those rules, and being completely transparent when censorship does occur (with their partnership with Chilling Effects.) Twitter is kind of being a warrior for free speech in its way here.
No, quite the opposite. Twitter as actually being as brave as they can reasonably get away with. There's a pandemic of misunderstanding here.
I think there are really maybe four of us who understand that this is a measure against censorship, as much as Twitter can make one. The outrage-machine is in full swing and completely misinterprets what is actually going on.