Most IQ tests are in written form, so they can only be administered to children and adults old enough to read. So, only people who've been exposed to at least kindergarten plus (for a lot of people) preschool.
I am not a teacher, but I would venture to say that a whole buckload of evidence-based developmental psychology has gone into improving the educational system since 1912. Plus, things like school enrollment have gone way up. In 1912 a lot of rural kids -- and most people lived in the country -- went to one-room schoolhouses.
So I would think that IQ scores should go up in the competency areas schools have been trying to cultivate. And I would say, thinking about how different the education system probably is today, I'd be more surprised if nothing had changed.
I see your point that drones make attacks seem somehow sanitary and much more acceptable than they should be. At the same time, I think your tone is a little insensitive to the real-world remote pilots who fly these missions, and have to deal with the moral and emotional consequences of pulling the trigger on real people. From what I've heard in an NPR story, it's a stressful job and it definitely counts as combat even if the remote pilots are in no physical danger.
What about people like me who turn off their computers at night so they're not connected to the Net and therefore not exposed to remote exploit when not in active use?
So what they've basically done is created a missile that does the same thing as my cat -- disables computer systems. Though since my cat is not available for deployment in a combat zone, I think the missile is the way to go.
Yes, this does sound like snake oil from a thermodynamic point of view. But don't you think it is at least worth tinkering around with the technology? Extracting CO2 from ambient air is probably not efficient enough, but if one were to get the CO2 from a concentrated source like the smokestack of a coal-burning power plant, and if, as TFA says,
the company believes it will eventually be possible to use power from renewable sources such as wind farms or tidal barrages [to synthesize the fuel]
might there not be something of value 20-30 years down the road?
You do not mod someone down merely because their logic stinks. If the person was trolling, that would be something different. GP did not seem to be, however.
The idea behind mod points is not to decide who is right. The idea is to weed out those comments unhelpful to constructive discussion, and keep those that promote it.
You seem to be implying that bad logic can promote good discussion, and I think the contrary view is equally plausible -- that bad logic does, indeed, detract from the quality of discussion and deserves to be modded down.
But I guess I would agree that there should be no *need* to mod down a post that is poorly thought out, uninteresting, or unenlightening, because in principle it should never have been modded *up*. In the not-so-infrequent cases where that seems to happen anyway the "Overrated" option comes into play.
I understand the technical aspects of Bitcoin but not the economic ones. I can see how people might be willing to speculate a bit and accept payment in BTC in the hope they will go up in value, but I can't see any reason why anyone would circulate them on a routine basis.
Perhaps hoarding is a consequence of this speculative hope they will go up in value. But that seems self-defeating, since if Bitcoins don't circulate it's hard to see how they will become more widely accepted.
I thought the point of currency was to be perfectly fungible.
So can someone draw me a picture: if I am not yet a Bitcoin user, and you offered to pay me 1 BTC instead of the current equivalent in USD, why should I agree to that?
Based on experience, a day in my life 15 years from now will look a lot like a day in my life now. Except, hopefully, I won't still be working on my second master's degree, and I'll have kids.
If your goal is to reduce air pollution TODAY, then quite probably electric vehicles don't help.
If your goal is to shift the technology base of the entire transportation system toward renewable energy sources, then electric vehicles are necessary.
In other words, don't blame the electric vehicle. Blame the lack of wind turbines. Electric vehicles will run just fine whether the generators the powers them is driven by coal or by wind. In contrast, gasoline and diesel vehicles tie us down to fossil fuels indefinitely.
If you have a better plan for long-term control of carbon emissions than cutting our dependency on the internal combustion (and diesel) engine, I'd love to hear it.
Making a digital copy of an entire book and re-publishing it online for profit doesn't seem like "fair" use to me. So, while I'll be the first to point out that copyright law is flawed, I'm pleased to see that Google is going to comply with it just like every other company (and individual) has to.
Make it so when I pay $10 to download a movie, that it's truly MINE, and I'll gladly buy more movies online.
But that is what the RIAA and MPAA really want to prevent. "Piracy" is just a pretext that gets the politicians on their side. Their real goal is to revoke the idea of owning a copy of a book or movie, and "monetize" all digital "content;" that is, lock you in to paying them every time you want to review/view/listen to anything.
If they can prove he intentionally lied during jury selection, then their job is done and the juror is in a lot of trouble.
Probably not nearly enough trouble. I don't know what the penalties for perjury and contempt of court are, but I suspect they're less than a billion dollars.
It doesn't matter if the cyclist was running a red light, it doesn't matter if it was on the wrong side of the road: if a car hits a bicycle, it's the car's fault. Always.
And they call that a "justice" system!? You just made me proud to be an American.
Slashdot Mirror
Most IQ tests are in written form, so they can only be administered to children and adults old enough to read. So, only people who've been exposed to at least kindergarten plus (for a lot of people) preschool.
I am not a teacher, but I would venture to say that a whole buckload of evidence-based developmental psychology has gone into improving the educational system since 1912. Plus, things like school enrollment have gone way up. In 1912 a lot of rural kids -- and most people lived in the country -- went to one-room schoolhouses.
So I would think that IQ scores should go up in the competency areas schools have been trying to cultivate. And I would say, thinking about how different the education system probably is today, I'd be more surprised if nothing had changed.
I see your point that drones make attacks seem somehow sanitary and much more acceptable than they should be. At the same time, I think your tone is a little insensitive to the real-world remote pilots who fly these missions, and have to deal with the moral and emotional consequences of pulling the trigger on real people. From what I've heard in an NPR story, it's a stressful job and it definitely counts as combat even if the remote pilots are in no physical danger.
The problem I see here is that because of the two-party system, the incumbent party has an incentive to block access to the polls. So they do.
What about people like me who turn off their computers at night so they're not connected to the Net and therefore not exposed to remote exploit when not in active use?
So what they've basically done is created a missile that does the same thing as my cat -- disables computer systems. Though since my cat is not available for deployment in a combat zone, I think the missile is the way to go.
Only if "terrorism" means "anything and everything Progrman3K disapproves of."
That wasn't a prediction, that was his business plan.
might there not be something of value 20-30 years down the road?
You seem to be implying that bad logic can promote good discussion, and I think the contrary view is equally plausible -- that bad logic does, indeed, detract from the quality of discussion and deserves to be modded down.
But I guess I would agree that there should be no *need* to mod down a post that is poorly thought out, uninteresting, or unenlightening, because in principle it should never have been modded *up*. In the not-so-infrequent cases where that seems to happen anyway the "Overrated" option comes into play.
No. If I wanted to watch video, I would be on YouTube, not Slashdot. I come to Slashdot to *read*.
I understand the technical aspects of Bitcoin but not the economic ones. I can see how people might be willing to speculate a bit and accept payment in BTC in the hope they will go up in value, but I can't see any reason why anyone would circulate them on a routine basis.
Perhaps hoarding is a consequence of this speculative hope they will go up in value. But that seems self-defeating, since if Bitcoins don't circulate it's hard to see how they will become more widely accepted.
I thought the point of currency was to be perfectly fungible.
So can someone draw me a picture: if I am not yet a Bitcoin user, and you offered to pay me 1 BTC instead of the current equivalent in USD, why should I agree to that?
Microhard is taken -- by a company that makes crappy IP radios. Not that there is any company that makes good IP radios.
Based on experience, a day in my life 15 years from now will look a lot like a day in my life now. Except, hopefully, I won't still be working on my second master's degree, and I'll have kids.
If your goal is to reduce air pollution TODAY, then quite probably electric vehicles don't help.
If your goal is to shift the technology base of the entire transportation system toward renewable energy sources, then electric vehicles are necessary.
In other words, don't blame the electric vehicle. Blame the lack of wind turbines. Electric vehicles will run just fine whether the generators the powers them is driven by coal or by wind. In contrast, gasoline and diesel vehicles tie us down to fossil fuels indefinitely.
If you have a better plan for long-term control of carbon emissions than cutting our dependency on the internal combustion (and diesel) engine, I'd love to hear it.
Actually, I was referring to Slashdot.
Making a digital copy of an entire book and re-publishing it online for profit doesn't seem like "fair" use to me. So, while I'll be the first to point out that copyright law is flawed, I'm pleased to see that Google is going to comply with it just like every other company (and individual) has to.
Since Steve Jobs has been in the headlines every freaking day since he died, I would never have guess it happened a whole year ago.
I suppose the terrorists are going to have to plant their bombs without boarding the plane, now. Oh, wait! They already figured that out.
The false-positive rates should be low because it's a waste of time and money to search non-terrorists. Seriously.
I could also make the "freedom" argument but I suspect that might fall on deaf ears.
What makes you think the rough handling is unintentional?
The same thing we've always done. Use something called "the will of the people." Amazingly, it still works.
But that is what the RIAA and MPAA really want to prevent. "Piracy" is just a pretext that gets the politicians on their side. Their real goal is to revoke the idea of owning a copy of a book or movie, and "monetize" all digital "content;" that is, lock you in to paying them every time you want to review/view/listen to anything.
WTF does NC mean? ;-)
\ducks
Probably not nearly enough trouble. I don't know what the penalties for perjury and contempt of court are, but I suspect they're less than a billion dollars.
And they call that a "justice" system!? You just made me proud to be an American.