How much time do you think anyone can or will sit in a computer lab that they are sharing with several dozen other students?
How much time do you think that someone can spend sitting in front of a video monitor at home?
The immersed, "deep" learning occurs when one has the luxury of forgetting where the time went. In a resource-strapped school in a developing country, that's not the computer lab.
There are those of us who learned to program in more primitive environments than these - and we learned to program a little "closer to the metal."
Not completely. They're actually of Japanese origin, though sort of a re-adaptation by 19th-century Japanese immigrants of a somewhat different fortune cookie.
Like the burrito, it's actually kind of wrong to treat the fortune cookie as strictly an American misconception. (Burritos are of Californian origin, it is true: but from the era when California was part of Mexico.)
No, it's not rabid hatred. It's utter contempt for the sitting President, based on a well-based appraisal of GWB as among the worst presidents in US history.
If it were rabid hatred, I would rail against conservatives. I don't. I'm fairly complex politically. Rabid hatred would be foaming-at-the mouth rock-throwing anti-globalization protestors - and the sort of talk-radio-addicted people who use the word "liberal" as an insult.
Bush sucks. He's really, really bad. His administration is out of control in its flouting of any kind of accountability. Government spending has mushroomed under his tenure, while the economy has softened (partially due to a failure to exercise some pro-active constraints on the mortgage industry, among other things.) Dismissing these facts as "rabid hatred" doesn't make them go away.
Bush has been described by Republicans as one of the worst presidents of history. I protested against certain Clinton policies, but Bush's exercise of "executive privilege" to make himself completely unaccountable, the hyper-politicization of the Justice department, the squandering of international goodwill, the profound anti-intellectualism, and so on.
Bush isn't even the past yet.
I'm more than willing to go Godwin on you. Don't make me go Godwin. Unlike Carter or Reagan or Clinton or Bush I, I think GW Bush should stand as an exemplar of a bad presidency, to serve as a warning to the rest of us for years to come.
Have you not heard about the UK, where a judge has upheld the notion that a Muslim family dispute ought to be covered by Sharia, in addition to the normal UK legal system? Whether they do it by force or by subterfuge, "invading" is their goal, and they're already doing it. See also the publicly funded Muslim-based elementary schools in Detroit. Or how about the special exceptions made at an American university for school-funded foot baths for the Muslim facility? I ought to go all Wikipedia and cite my references, but if you've not heard about these things, then you're not paying attention.
There is well-established precedent for allowing religious courts in the UK to act as arbitrators in family matters, by mutual consent of all parties. This is not about Islam taking over, and it is hysterical xenophobia to think it is.
When we hear the word "Sharia," we jump to images of beatings and stonings, but it is, in fact, a very broad term which applies to the framework for jurisprudence derived from Islamic principles. The kind of Sharia which is allowed to arbitrate over certain matters in the UK is as far removed from stonings as a church picnic is from the Spanish Inquisition.
Where do you think the high costs of these things comes from? The design of a product for a given context is an expense that is, for mass-market products, paid for by the volume of sales. The market for space-shuttle seat-belts is probably 6 to 8 units, total.
The cost of an item includes all the costs of research and analysis. $800 is, maybe, half of someone's workday (once you include the full costs of hiring someone, including benefits and space). I think I would actually be nervous if the seat belts were that little.
Here's how it lines up: marketing and sales represent the interests of the customer. HR departments, in theory, align with the interests of the employees (and, in US corporations, are appropriately weak.) Legal departments align with the interests of the executive staff.
Finance and accounting? They represent the shareholders' interests.
A lot of IT is an expense without adequate ROI. Huge IT support staffs were a consequence of poor products, badly implemented systems, a glut of unnecessary purchases, etc. While some IT functions will always need on-site support, better-designed systems and software (including middleware) should make it possible to reduce IT staffing costs.
Think of all the other functions that have disappeared over the past century: typing pools, filing clerks, huge mail rooms. The armies of help desk types will go the same way.
Einstein did not support both: he was fairly anti-religious. As if it would matter anyway: even positive arguments ad-hominem are arguments ad-hominem.
Besides, Christianity didn't bill itself as being "good for society." It billed itself as the "truth, the way, and the life..." and as setting father against son, brother against brother. If you want a religion that is built on the premise of a harmonious society, you'd be better off with Islam.
Faith requires you to believe in something without questioning it and without seeing any evidence of that thing being true or actually existing.
I find that absurd.
I'm an atheist, but I find something rather tragic in your observation.
You reduce faith to a kind of information: as if it were about axioms. Faith is an existential posture that has little to do with propositions as such. I know this is Slashdot, and information-processing metaphors for human cognition and inner life have displaced others almost completely, but there really is more to mental life than strings of propositions.
Um, the sort of people who would advertise their marital availability to men who don't speak their language, from another culture, whom they haven't met who just happen to be living in the wealthiest country of the world are probably the most mercenary subset of people you could imagine.
In other words, anyone who gets a mail-order bride shouldn't be surprised when they don't exactly get a soul-mate.
If you don't understand the difference between a generalization grounded in experience and outright bias leading to judgement against an individual - well, you should learn the difference.
If he had said that Reiser must have been guilty because geeks can't deal with women, you'd have a point. He didn't and you don't.
There is a history of refusing the honor in order to make criticisms of UK government policy. In fact, in may be a greater honor to be on the list of people who refuse the title than to be on the list of people who accept it.
A good example, but it seems the exception. The British are usually ready to laud anyone they can. Turing was generally turned away because of his homosexuality and a suspicion that he might be Communist.
Despite the "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag, there's common sense in the other direction.
At a certain point, you have to aggregate. If we divide all students at a grade level into two populations, the "regular" and the "high-achieving", you'll get the same result in the "high-achieving" student class as teaching to the average of the high-achievers will mean the highest of the high-achievers is not getting full stimulation. The only solution to this is the unrealistic one of everyone getting their own private teacher that teaches to the maximum of each student's abilities: a laudable goal, and I want a pony.
Slashdot Mirror
Really?
How much time do you think anyone can or will sit in a computer lab that they are sharing with several dozen other students?
How much time do you think that someone can spend sitting in front of a video monitor at home?
The immersed, "deep" learning occurs when one has the luxury of forgetting where the time went. In a resource-strapped school in a developing country, that's not the computer lab.
There are those of us who learned to program in more primitive environments than these - and we learned to program a little "closer to the metal."
Not completely. They're actually of Japanese origin, though sort of a re-adaptation by 19th-century Japanese immigrants of a somewhat different fortune cookie.
Like the burrito, it's actually kind of wrong to treat the fortune cookie as strictly an American misconception. (Burritos are of Californian origin, it is true: but from the era when California was part of Mexico.)
Oh, that "Godwin" thing as rabid hatred? No, it's called meta-discursive wit.
No, it's not rabid hatred. It's utter contempt for the sitting President, based on a well-based appraisal of GWB as among the worst presidents in US history.
If it were rabid hatred, I would rail against conservatives. I don't. I'm fairly complex politically. Rabid hatred would be foaming-at-the mouth rock-throwing anti-globalization protestors - and the sort of talk-radio-addicted people who use the word "liberal" as an insult.
Bush sucks. He's really, really bad. His administration is out of control in its flouting of any kind of accountability. Government spending has mushroomed under his tenure, while the economy has softened (partially due to a failure to exercise some pro-active constraints on the mortgage industry, among other things.) Dismissing these facts as "rabid hatred" doesn't make them go away.
Bush has been described by Republicans as one of the worst presidents of history. I protested against certain Clinton policies, but Bush's exercise of "executive privilege" to make himself completely unaccountable, the hyper-politicization of the Justice department, the squandering of international goodwill, the profound anti-intellectualism, and so on.
Bush isn't even the past yet.
I'm more than willing to go Godwin on you. Don't make me go Godwin. Unlike Carter or Reagan or Clinton or Bush I, I think GW Bush should stand as an exemplar of a bad presidency, to serve as a warning to the rest of us for years to come.
Have you not heard about the UK, where a judge has upheld the notion that a Muslim family dispute ought to be covered by Sharia, in addition to the normal UK legal system? Whether they do it by force or by subterfuge, "invading" is their goal, and they're already doing it. See also the publicly funded Muslim-based elementary schools in Detroit. Or how about the special exceptions made at an American university for school-funded foot baths for the Muslim facility? I ought to go all Wikipedia and cite my references, but if you've not heard about these things, then you're not paying attention.
There is well-established precedent for allowing religious courts in the UK to act as arbitrators in family matters, by mutual consent of all parties. This is not about Islam taking over, and it is hysterical xenophobia to think it is.
When we hear the word "Sharia," we jump to images of beatings and stonings, but it is, in fact, a very broad term which applies to the framework for jurisprudence derived from Islamic principles. The kind of Sharia which is allowed to arbitrate over certain matters in the UK is as far removed from stonings as a church picnic is from the Spanish Inquisition.
Where do you think the high costs of these things comes from? The design of a product for a given context is an expense that is, for mass-market products, paid for by the volume of sales. The market for space-shuttle seat-belts is probably 6 to 8 units, total.
The cost of an item includes all the costs of research and analysis. $800 is, maybe, half of someone's workday (once you include the full costs of hiring someone, including benefits and space). I think I would actually be nervous if the seat belts were that little.
Here's how it lines up: marketing and sales represent the interests of the customer. HR departments, in theory, align with the interests of the employees (and, in US corporations, are appropriately weak.) Legal departments align with the interests of the executive staff.
Finance and accounting? They represent the shareholders' interests.
A lot of IT is an expense without adequate ROI. Huge IT support staffs were a consequence of poor products, badly implemented systems, a glut of unnecessary purchases, etc. While some IT functions will always need on-site support, better-designed systems and software (including middleware) should make it possible to reduce IT staffing costs.
Think of all the other functions that have disappeared over the past century: typing pools, filing clerks, huge mail rooms. The armies of help desk types will go the same way.
Every time someone describes "hit by a bus" scenario, I think that we really should get rid of buses altogether.
Einstein did not support both: he was fairly anti-religious. As if it would matter anyway: even positive arguments ad-hominem are arguments ad-hominem.
Besides, Christianity didn't bill itself as being "good for society." It billed itself as the "truth, the way, and the life..." and as setting father against son, brother against brother. If you want a religion that is built on the premise of a harmonious society, you'd be better off with Islam.
Faith requires you to believe in something without questioning it and without seeing any evidence of that thing being true or actually existing.
I find that absurd.
I'm an atheist, but I find something rather tragic in your observation.
You reduce faith to a kind of information: as if it were about axioms. Faith is an existential posture that has little to do with propositions as such. I know this is Slashdot, and information-processing metaphors for human cognition and inner life have displaced others almost completely, but there really is more to mental life than strings of propositions.
You're confusing Buddhism with (probably) some interpretation of Hinduism. Buddhism doesn't have any Gods.
Hey, those University world religion classes were somewhat useful after all.
Your university world religion classes were woefully inadequate.
I think you underestimate the power of chocolate.
Um, the sort of people who would advertise their marital availability to men who don't speak their language, from another culture, whom they haven't met who just happen to be living in the wealthiest country of the world are probably the most mercenary subset of people you could imagine.
In other words, anyone who gets a mail-order bride shouldn't be surprised when they don't exactly get a soul-mate.
If you don't understand the difference between a generalization grounded in experience and outright bias leading to judgement against an individual - well, you should learn the difference.
If he had said that Reiser must have been guilty because geeks can't deal with women, you'd have a point. He didn't and you don't.
OMG the sky is falling...
What were we doing for the first 10,000 years of prehistory before the invention of the steel-hulled boat?
Moving very slowly, not showering, and dying by age 40?
The belief that you have to have the skills of the people you manage is a misguided one. It is enough to simply understand those skills.
I assure you, the CEO of The Gap does not know how to sew blue jeans. He probably doesn't even know how to do the CFO's job.
The fact that he recognizes limitations and is honest about them would make him an excellent manager.
More on those who have refused honors here.
There is a history of refusing the honor in order to make criticisms of UK government policy. In fact, in may be a greater honor to be on the list of people who refuse the title than to be on the list of people who accept it.
A good example, but it seems the exception. The British are usually ready to laud anyone they can. Turing was generally turned away because of his homosexuality and a suspicion that he might be Communist.
Despite the "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag, there's common sense in the other direction.
At a certain point, you have to aggregate. If we divide all students at a grade level into two populations, the "regular" and the "high-achieving", you'll get the same result in the "high-achieving" student class as teaching to the average of the high-achievers will mean the highest of the high-achievers is not getting full stimulation. The only solution to this is the unrealistic one of everyone getting their own private teacher that teaches to the maximum of each student's abilities: a laudable goal, and I want a pony.
... or he went out to dinner and a movie with her - and her boyfriend.