Re:If I could do it all over again...
on
MIT's SAT Math Error
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
A philosaphy degree would be useless. But it would still be heaps of fun
An English degree might be helpful, though.
Re:If I could do it all over again...
on
MIT's SAT Math Error
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Having a college degree confirms that the bearer can finish college. This isn't trivial: someone who claims to have equivalent knowledge without the degree may, in fact, lack discipline or the ability to embark on long-term projects. Just knowing that someone can do the things required to get a degree is an important piece of positive information above and beyond the demonstrated learning that the degree indicates.
That's simply not true," as a very cursory search shows. Great Britain's inflation rate outpaced the US by a good measure, for example, yet the pound was and remains very strong against the dollar.
It is more accurate to say that the US dollar was overvalued for quite a few years, and that this is an overdue correction.
Your 2-line complaint is based on such a deep confusion, that I need to answer at length.
First, game studies is not the same thing as a major program in videogame studies. Most of the academics involved in game studies have other home disciplines, whether anthropology, film studies, communications, computer science, sociology, comparative literature, economics, or what have you. Talking about the over-focus on one game or another is a top-level discussion among researchers across disciplines, not a question of what to be teaching undergraduates. Research fields are not the same as undergrad programs.
Second, I can imagine at some point there actually being an undergrad program in game studies. I know that there are minor programs. Like English or other degrees that don't seem to have immediate relevance, they are usually made far more relevant when mixed with a different graduate degree. An undergrad in game studies who then goes to law school might work on game-related policy, censorship issues, game-dev labor disputes, etc. Another one who then goes to business school might work on game-dev management issues, etc. Another might get an MFA or a CS MS and working on design or programming issues at a high level.
Games are significant. We're now seeing in adulthood people who grew up with them as their primary entertainment activity. Digital games structure thought, attention and activity differently than any other media before them. They merit study.
Make no mistake, it is possible to lose one's life in WoW just like other MMOs. But other MMOs seem to penalize you for not playing obsessively. WoW, in general, doesn't, although it offers many of the same appeals that cause people to abandon real-world rewards for in-game ones.
Those of us whose time is worth a lot like being able to stop by any mall, shopping center or such, see an identifiable logo, walk in, get the game we want with a reasonable amount of confidence it'll be there, and leave.
There's a lot more dignity in a GS than in the weird-smelling boutique game shop run by a guy who looks like the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons. Not that I don't go there, too, particularly if I'm looking for something no longer in print or for a vintage platform. But your elitism is easily reversed on itself, and probably will be by the growing number of professional people who game without being geeks.
Absolutely not. Final Fantasy XI was built on an much more successful brand, yet is less successful than World of Warcraft. WoW attracted many, many players that were not only new to the Warcraft franchise, but new to gaming in general.
The main reasons for its success are, I think, the quick pace of rewards and its friendliness to casual and occasional players. It is possible to have a very rewarding experience in WoW, easily play with your friends, and still "have a life." This isn't really the case for other MMORPGs.
So, if you or your relative's pet dies, I can tell either you or them to get over it, because a couple hundred people were killed in drunk driving accidents?
Not really an ad hominem. More like a question of semantics, really: people who are only interested in consumer commodities rather than anything theoretical, scientific or philosophical, I'd call idiots a priori. But it's just not about my interests, either: I don't have much interest in theoretical physics, but I would still consider articles about physics news-for-nerds and stuff-that-matters, and I would read them to stay abreast.
Do you remember Koko, the signing chimpanzee? Or Sitka, the first dog that was shot into space? These animals were symbolically important in scientific history. The case of Alex is particularly important, because it suggests that it is interaction (that is, the close relationship between learner and teacher) that is as important as innate capability in structuring cognitive function. Research like this is hard to repeat, since it involves actually creating a long-term relationship, including an emotional one, with your research subject. (Imagine trying to raise a child you didn't care about - it's the same problem.)
The ad hominem isn't against me. It's what I see as your campaign against kdawson, which is what motivated your remark to begin with. I don't really notice who-edits-what - I'm not really a Slashdot trainspotter - but you assumed that since he posted it, it must not have been of value or interest. You were wrong.
And the "practically useful knowledge" remark reinforces my observation about iPhones, CPUs and videogames.
If you did any reading of the article or the other posts on this thread, you'd know that this was significant to people interested in cognitive development, non-human cognition, and linguistics - very nerdly topics, if you get past the lack of iPhones and such. But no, you decided to go ad hominem.
There was a book about Alex, called "The Alex Papers," describing the research, and the relationship between the researcher and Alex. It may have some flaws, but it is still important work.
You may be right about that poll, though. That's what I describe as a "decline." The term "idiocracy" comes to mind.
What I hope is that findings like those related to Alex, as well as those involving learned and socially communicated non-human primate behavior, gets us farther and farther away from crude nature-vs-nurture models and toward theories based on brains as adaptive, re-organizing dynamical systems. It is shocking how much naive innatism and folk-modularity is getting promulgated in the popular media nowadays.
For me, the sign of the decline of Slashdot isn't that they are posting articles on the death of Alex. It's that the readership thinks only articles about iPhones, CPUs and videogames are "news for nerds."
Alex is an important case for understanding cognitive development and non-human linguistic competence, and findings related to the study of Alex's linguistic development have implications for natural language processing.
But they're not evenly bad. The distribution of "bad people" is not the same within the Hell's Angels as it is within the Peace Corps. And different groups produce different norms of behavior.
The whole "there's always some bad people" line strikes me as hand-waving.
The "hegemony machine" part is the important aspect.
Look, not only do I know that the military does some good work at times, I know that a lot of the kids in the military are well-intentioned and responsible people (I was a service brat, I got a pretty close look at the military psyche in action.) But the same can be said of the military of just about any country, as well. And, conversely, it can also be said of the non-military governmental bodies, and just about anything else.
The truth is that there isn't much that's defensive about the present-day US military - most of the security work is now being done by the "Department of Homeland Security" (just what the hell is "Defense" supposed to be, then? Maybe it should go back to being called the Department of War, like it used to be.) The de-facto purpose of the US military is to project force overseas. That occasionally it performs relief and rescue services doesn't change that.
I'm no fan of PETA, but as to your original point:
You are aware of the case of US soldiers in Iraq doing exactly what the GP described, aren't you? It's not a hypothetical. There really is a difference in the behavior between peace activists, even when they are being irrational and rude, and military forces of occupation.
No, the definition is crap, because it pretends that it isn't a term that is already partisan.
Environmentalist hypocrisy is a fair criticism - the Greenpeace-sticker-on-a-Land-Rover phenomenon. But the term is really meant to discredit left thinking by characterizing it as elitist and out-of-touch. As far as political hypocrisy goes, however, no one can hold a candle to the right - from Ted Haggard to Mark Foley to Larry Craig, even to the Bush willingness to prosecute drug users by the hundreds in Texas, yet to declare themselves "healed".
That sounds about right - Madonna's environmentalist screeds really do ring hollow when one learns of just how huge her trailer convoys for her shows are.
That said, it strikes my that social conservatives are more likely to be actual hypocrites, advocating chastity and fidelity (and heterosexuality) and abstinence, happily prosecuting poor drug users and prostitutes, yet keeping mistresses on the side, excusing their own drug use, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
A philosaphy degree would be useless. But it would still be heaps of fun
An English degree might be helpful, though.
Having a college degree confirms that the bearer can finish college. This isn't trivial: someone who claims to have equivalent knowledge without the degree may, in fact, lack discipline or the ability to embark on long-term projects. Just knowing that someone can do the things required to get a degree is an important piece of positive information above and beyond the demonstrated learning that the degree indicates.
That's simply not true," as a very cursory search shows. Great Britain's inflation rate outpaced the US by a good measure, for example, yet the pound was and remains very strong against the dollar.
It is more accurate to say that the US dollar was overvalued for quite a few years, and that this is an overdue correction.
A lot of factors, of which inflation may or may not be one at any given time.
Some of it is based on currency markets and speculation, trade balances, etc.
They can fly because they have wings, they are not "meant" to fly. Penguins have wings: are they meant to fly?
Avoid inappropriate teleological arguments.
Your 2-line complaint is based on such a deep confusion, that I need to answer at length.
First, game studies is not the same thing as a major program in videogame studies. Most of the academics involved in game studies have other home disciplines, whether anthropology, film studies, communications, computer science, sociology, comparative literature, economics, or what have you. Talking about the over-focus on one game or another is a top-level discussion among researchers across disciplines, not a question of what to be teaching undergraduates. Research fields are not the same as undergrad programs.
Second, I can imagine at some point there actually being an undergrad program in game studies. I know that there are minor programs. Like English or other degrees that don't seem to have immediate relevance, they are usually made far more relevant when mixed with a different graduate degree. An undergrad in game studies who then goes to law school might work on game-related policy, censorship issues, game-dev labor disputes, etc. Another one who then goes to business school might work on game-dev management issues, etc. Another might get an MFA or a CS MS and working on design or programming issues at a high level.
Games are significant. We're now seeing in adulthood people who grew up with them as their primary entertainment activity. Digital games structure thought, attention and activity differently than any other media before them. They merit study.
Make no mistake, it is possible to lose one's life in WoW just like other MMOs. But other MMOs seem to penalize you for not playing obsessively. WoW, in general, doesn't, although it offers many of the same appeals that cause people to abandon real-world rewards for in-game ones.
Those of us whose time is worth a lot like being able to stop by any mall, shopping center or such, see an identifiable logo, walk in, get the game we want with a reasonable amount of confidence it'll be there, and leave.
There's a lot more dignity in a GS than in the weird-smelling boutique game shop run by a guy who looks like the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons. Not that I don't go there, too, particularly if I'm looking for something no longer in print or for a vintage platform. But your elitism is easily reversed on itself, and probably will be by the growing number of professional people who game without being geeks.
Absolutely not. Final Fantasy XI was built on an much more successful brand, yet is less successful than World of Warcraft. WoW attracted many, many players that were not only new to the Warcraft franchise, but new to gaming in general.
The main reasons for its success are, I think, the quick pace of rewards and its friendliness to casual and occasional players. It is possible to have a very rewarding experience in WoW, easily play with your friends, and still "have a life." This isn't really the case for other MMORPGs.
So, if you or your relative's pet dies, I can tell either you or them to get over it, because a couple hundred people were killed in drunk driving accidents?
I think you're full of it.
Not really an ad hominem. More like a question of semantics, really: people who are only interested in consumer commodities rather than anything theoretical, scientific or philosophical, I'd call idiots a priori. But it's just not about my interests, either: I don't have much interest in theoretical physics, but I would still consider articles about physics news-for-nerds and stuff-that-matters, and I would read them to stay abreast.
The interesting research part was in TFA.
Correction, by the way: Laika was the dog shot into space.
Do you think it wouldn't be "news for nerds" to report the death of Laika?
Do you remember Koko, the signing chimpanzee? Or Sitka, the first dog that was shot into space? These animals were symbolically important in scientific history. The case of Alex is particularly important, because it suggests that it is interaction (that is, the close relationship between learner and teacher) that is as important as innate capability in structuring cognitive function. Research like this is hard to repeat, since it involves actually creating a long-term relationship, including an emotional one, with your research subject. (Imagine trying to raise a child you didn't care about - it's the same problem.)
The ad hominem isn't against me. It's what I see as your campaign against kdawson, which is what motivated your remark to begin with. I don't really notice who-edits-what - I'm not really a Slashdot trainspotter - but you assumed that since he posted it, it must not have been of value or interest. You were wrong.
And the "practically useful knowledge" remark reinforces my observation about iPhones, CPUs and videogames.
You probably have one fine looking arm.
Read the book, or at least some reviews of it, before you make such wrong-headed assumptions based on "what you've heard."
If you did any reading of the article or the other posts on this thread, you'd know that this was significant to people interested in cognitive development, non-human cognition, and linguistics - very nerdly topics, if you get past the lack of iPhones and such. But no, you decided to go ad hominem.
There was a book about Alex, called "The Alex Papers," describing the research, and the relationship between the researcher and Alex. It may have some flaws, but it is still important work.
You may be right about that poll, though. That's what I describe as a "decline." The term "idiocracy" comes to mind.
What I hope is that findings like those related to Alex, as well as those involving learned and socially communicated non-human primate behavior, gets us farther and farther away from crude nature-vs-nurture models and toward theories based on brains as adaptive, re-organizing dynamical systems. It is shocking how much naive innatism and folk-modularity is getting promulgated in the popular media nowadays.
For me, the sign of the decline of Slashdot isn't that they are posting articles on the death of Alex. It's that the readership thinks only articles about iPhones, CPUs and videogames are "news for nerds."
Alex is an important case for understanding cognitive development and non-human linguistic competence, and findings related to the study of Alex's linguistic development have implications for natural language processing.
In this case, the shark jumps you.
No, but I'm not canonizing these people like many are wont to do, either.
But they're not evenly bad. The distribution of "bad people" is not the same within the Hell's Angels as it is within the Peace Corps. And different groups produce different norms of behavior.
The whole "there's always some bad people" line strikes me as hand-waving.
The "hegemony machine" part is the important aspect.
Look, not only do I know that the military does some good work at times, I know that a lot of the kids in the military are well-intentioned and responsible people (I was a service brat, I got a pretty close look at the military psyche in action.) But the same can be said of the military of just about any country, as well. And, conversely, it can also be said of the non-military governmental bodies, and just about anything else.
The truth is that there isn't much that's defensive about the present-day US military - most of the security work is now being done by the "Department of Homeland Security" (just what the hell is "Defense" supposed to be, then? Maybe it should go back to being called the Department of War, like it used to be.) The de-facto purpose of the US military is to project force overseas. That occasionally it performs relief and rescue services doesn't change that.
I'm no fan of PETA, but as to your original point:
You are aware of the case of US soldiers in Iraq doing exactly what the GP described, aren't you? It's not a hypothetical. There really is a difference in the behavior between peace activists, even when they are being irrational and rude, and military forces of occupation.
No, the definition is crap, because it pretends that it isn't a term that is already partisan.
Environmentalist hypocrisy is a fair criticism - the Greenpeace-sticker-on-a-Land-Rover phenomenon. But the term is really meant to discredit left thinking by characterizing it as elitist and out-of-touch. As far as political hypocrisy goes, however, no one can hold a candle to the right - from Ted Haggard to Mark Foley to Larry Craig, even to the Bush willingness to prosecute drug users by the hundreds in Texas, yet to declare themselves "healed".
That sounds about right - Madonna's environmentalist screeds really do ring hollow when one learns of just how huge her trailer convoys for her shows are.
That said, it strikes my that social conservatives are more likely to be actual hypocrites, advocating chastity and fidelity (and heterosexuality) and abstinence, happily prosecuting poor drug users and prostitutes, yet keeping mistresses on the side, excusing their own drug use, etc.