After trying to explain how it was different than her Dell laptop, I finally sent her a picture off google images of a big server rack and she finally got it.
But what did she "get" by looking at the picture? Did she actually understand the server conceptually? Or did it further add to mystery, just with an added mental picture of racks of intimidating equipment?
After all, her Dell laptop could easily perform as a server. And a rack-mount machine can easily function as a workstation. The type of enclosure does not determine the function.
App quality has never been a justification for closing a platform from Apple or any other computer or smartphone system before.
Firstly, I find it dubious that this is true, I'm confident that systems have been closed on these grounds before. Even if it is true that it hasn't been used as a justification before, what's to stop it being used as a justification now?
No, Lithium Polymer was introduced as a much safer alternative to the old-school Lithium Ion. In fact, Lithium polymer Batteries are actually Lithium Ion Polymer, but most people omit the "Ion" part of their full name.
I'm a Mac user, but that's nonsense. Nothing prevents Macs from accessing pornographic sites. Nothing prevents Mac users from clicking on misleadingly-named URLs (whitehouse.com is a good example for a school user). Nothing prevents students from framing a teacher by visiting porno links on the class Macs.
If anything, the lack of malware on the Mac removes one potential defense. At least with Windows, you can say "the malware did it" - but if it is a Mac, it is almost 100% likely that user interaction was involved, weakening the defense arguments.
Because the prosecuter took the jury through the list of URLs and showed them how each was accessed, proving that the way those URLs got on the machine's logs was by a person choosing to click on links,
So, how do they prove that it was this teacher who clicked on those links, and not a student or someone else?
On closer inspection, when I opened the file, I found that I had downloaded the film The Little Mermaid and not an actual mermaid. Should I be ashamed?
They have more right to be pandered to than the academic left, which sees brainwashing everyone as its inborn right.
What the fuck are you talking about? That's the agenda of religion. Academics want people to think for themselves.
Painting all the critics of evolution in color of a fundie idiot is exactly against the core of scientific method, or at least falsification a la Karl Popper:
Except I didn't do that. I was criticizing a fundamentalist for trying to force fundamentalist doctrine onto students, at the expense of science.
Vicious morons like you are little but "Darwin rottweilers", so aggressive
What was vicious or aggressive about what I wrote?
You're a believer really, a lot worse than those fundies. They at least are not driven by viciousness and mindless screaming like you are.
No, I'm a skeptic. And I was writing, not screaming.
Yes, this is done for sake of education, but it has bad side effect of too many people leaving school acquiring habitual attitude towards problems that resembles that textbook exercise attitude, and so they become simpletons like you, expecting one correct answer, evolution in this case.
That's the exact opposite of my philosophy. I don't expect one correct answer. I like complexity and intelligent debate. And why are you harping on about evolution? I never even mentioned it. Is this one of those troll cut-n-pastes?
And this business about the spyware coming from "actively visiting porn sites" - perhaps it was the spyware itself that is responsible for those visits to porn sites? How do they prove that it was this teacher who actively visited the porn sites, anyway?
They wouldn't bother with this one unless they really did have a case against the teacher.
Nice fantasy you have there. School teachers are public enemy #1, they are seen as more of a threat to America than terrorists. Plus there's the thousands of cases that prosecutors take up every year in which they don't have good cases. And then there's the politicians and police wanting to look "tough on pornography" for the votes and funding.
Teaching what the other side is saying doesn't mean they will both be balanced
Precisely.
Analyzing what the other side is saying and digging in to who is paying them to say it seems like it would be an educational way to show both sides.
I think that would be good - in a politics or journalism class, something like that. But in science class? How far should it go? Should we teach every crackpot alternative theory of physics and have them investigate those positions? Sooner or later you have to get around to teaching science, which is hard enough in a high school.
Of course, even in science class, students should be free to point out any fallacies or political bias in the materials. But they don't need to be exposed to every theory in the world - they need to be given a basic grasp of science.
No film or textbook is perfect. There is no material that is flawless and not open to debate, and that includes the dryest textbook. Some people in this debate seem to think there is such mythically perfect teaching material.
Of course there can be criticisms of the Gore film. But I think it conveys enough of the science, and is not so blatantly political that the discussion needs to be all about alternative viewpoints. Heck, when I was in school we saw lots of footage about the Apollo missions and the space program. Now this was highly political, but nobody seemed to be bothered by us seeing it. Should we have been exposed to alternative views that the moon landing was a hoax?
Like I said, if this were a media studies or politics class - then it could be open slather. But in science there's already enough to get through.
Promoting critical thinking and debate is exactly the idea of this decision.
Oh, bullshit. It's pandering to religious parents. I think it's also designed to avoid the issue ever being discussed in class again, because it makes it that much more difficult to deal with some parent mafia and stick to whatever their crazy ideas of "alternative views" are. Do you think the parent in question would be happy with alternative scientific opinions? I don't think so. He wants religious views included. In science.
This amounts to an effective ban, because it's not OK to teach religion in a public school.
How do you expect to teach students critical thinking and media analysis by only presenting one view?
By teaching them critical thinking and media analysis. They should be able to make their own criticisms and analysis, rather than uncritically accepting everything unless they are presented with an opposing view. They should be able to do their own research.
In many ways this idea that "we must show every opinion" is the opposite of critical thinking. How about we show them what's worthwhile for their education, rather than wasting time giving every crackpot a soap box in public schools?
Speaking from my educational background, (as a high school senior in Shoreline, WA) every social studies class I've had starts out with some sort of media analysis. English classes too. In my composition classes, pretty much all we do is analyze authors' opinions with respect to other authors' opinions.
And this kind of nuttery means that those days are coming to an end, in favor of Fox News style education.
I'm pointing out that the issue was the suppresion of one side of a political debate in a government-funded, mandatory-attendance, school.
What evidence do you have that there was any suppression of the other side of the debate in the school in question? just showing a movie does not equal suppression of conflicting viewpoints. Were kids sent to detention if they dared to criticize the film? That would be suppression of differing viewpoints. Do you have any evidence of anything like that?
And I'm pointing out that the reportage of his opinions is ITSELF propaganda directed against those who don't believe that public schools should be government-run political indoctrination mills.
Why? When somebody deliberately causes a stir, or acts to impact the way kids are taught - their beliefs and background are often reported. In fact, almost every article about any person has at least a brief mention of their beliefs and background. Seeing that his beliefs are very relevant to how he formed those ideas, how is it out of place?
Heck, he was the one who touted his beliefs to the press and public. He uses them as the basis of his argument. So, how is it propaganda to report on what he is saying about his own beliefs?
To the extent that I'm taking a position of my own on this, it's against mandatory government indoctrination of youth in politically correct thinking and against propaganda in the press disguised as unbiased reporting.
But where is the evidence of any of that in this case? I see nothing indicating "mandatory indoctrination of politically correct beliefs" here - and I see no propaganda in the press disguised as unbiased reporting. Perhaps you could point it out?
Which schools? I've certainly seen many schools do this.
I've heard of students in England and Sweden being marked down for being 'wrong' about environmental issues.
Need more information. Were they actually wrong, or not? Because it is possible to be wrong about environmental issues.
Admittedly it's hard to teach this stuff in a balanced way because the people that believe in environmental decline seem to be better at explaining their ideas than the people who don't.
I'd say it's more because environmental degradation is happening. Denying this is similar to being a holocaust denier. What's the balance you are talking about? I don't think espousing falsehoods is any kind of worthwhile "balance."
Still it seems to be just as bad to teach left wing pseudo religious ideas like environmentalism as right wing ones like Christianity,
Ummm, what's religious about environmentalism? It has nothing to do with religion. Also, where is this hostility to criticism you speak of? I don't recall any environmentalists taking over school boards like Christians have, or being averse to real debate like many religious folk are.
I am saying that to say that ad hominem attacks are brought about by differences of viewpoint and instead of addressing the differences directly name calling is employed... it's lazy.
And laziness is a wonderful thing. Why toil away on duplicated effort? Why do more work, when you can do less? Laziness is an under-appreciated virtue. Without it, we'd work ourselves into an early grave and have no joy in our lives.
I'll try and answer... to either make yourself feel good by being right or to point out an error.
Or just for a bit of fun.
if you take a minute and address the argument itself you demonstrate what the errors are and give others something to learn from or think about.
Do you really think that Frosty Hardison will actually be reading this slashdot thread? Do you actually think his mind would be changed by any logical/factual arguments we might make here? How many slashdotters do you think believe the earth is 14,000 years old, and would be swayed by argument?
It just seems like a pointless waste of time, in this case. If it were an issue with more controvery for slashdotters, then it would make sense to take the argument to a higher level. Which is why I am discussing this with you at length, because the "do ad hominems have any value" argument is a lot more contentious on this forum. And I'm not attacking you or engaging in ad hominem, because your side of the argument is valid and well-argued.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an interesting euphemism for "Mom's computer."
Personally, I prefer a Ferrari filled with 60GB iPods for my bandwidth needs.
But what did she "get" by looking at the picture? Did she actually understand the server conceptually? Or did it further add to mystery, just with an added mental picture of racks of intimidating equipment?
After all, her Dell laptop could easily perform as a server. And a rack-mount machine can easily function as a workstation. The type of enclosure does not determine the function.
How did the sharks know that optical fiber is a tasty snack? I'm chewing on a strand right now.
Firstly, I find it dubious that this is true, I'm confident that systems have been closed on these grounds before. Even if it is true that it hasn't been used as a justification before, what's to stop it being used as a justification now?
One more thing ... now you can store backups of your brain and personality on your iPod*, and share it with other users.
*Requires BrainSlug Express accessory.
Why would you need to keep mental track of it? You could just put a label in the battery bay.
No, Lithium Polymer was introduced as a much safer alternative to the old-school Lithium Ion. In fact, Lithium polymer Batteries are actually Lithium Ion Polymer, but most people omit the "Ion" part of their full name.
If anything, the lack of malware on the Mac removes one potential defense. At least with Windows, you can say "the malware did it" - but if it is a Mac, it is almost 100% likely that user interaction was involved, weakening the defense arguments.
Spyware doesn't belong in the classroom, and neither does Al Gore.
So, how do they prove that it was this teacher who clicked on those links, and not a student or someone else?
On closer inspection, when I opened the file, I found that I had downloaded the film The Little Mermaid and not an actual mermaid. Should I be ashamed?
What the fuck are you talking about? That's the agenda of religion. Academics want people to think for themselves.
Painting all the critics of evolution in color of a fundie idiot is exactly against the core of scientific method, or at least falsification a la Karl Popper:Except I didn't do that. I was criticizing a fundamentalist for trying to force fundamentalist doctrine onto students, at the expense of science.
Vicious morons like you are little but "Darwin rottweilers", so aggressiveWhat was vicious or aggressive about what I wrote?
You're a believer really, a lot worse than those fundies. They at least are not driven by viciousness and mindless screaming like you are.No, I'm a skeptic. And I was writing, not screaming.
Yes, this is done for sake of education, but it has bad side effect of too many people leaving school acquiring habitual attitude towards problems that resembles that textbook exercise attitude, and so they become simpletons like you, expecting one correct answer, evolution in this case.That's the exact opposite of my philosophy. I don't expect one correct answer. I like complexity and intelligent debate. And why are you harping on about evolution? I never even mentioned it. Is this one of those troll cut-n-pastes?
And this business about the spyware coming from "actively visiting porn sites" - perhaps it was the spyware itself that is responsible for those visits to porn sites? How do they prove that it was this teacher who actively visited the porn sites, anyway?
Nice fantasy you have there. School teachers are public enemy #1, they are seen as more of a threat to America than terrorists. Plus there's the thousands of cases that prosecutors take up every year in which they don't have good cases. And then there's the politicians and police wanting to look "tough on pornography" for the votes and funding.
Precisely.
Analyzing what the other side is saying and digging in to who is paying them to say it seems like it would be an educational way to show both sides.I think that would be good - in a politics or journalism class, something like that. But in science class? How far should it go? Should we teach every crackpot alternative theory of physics and have them investigate those positions? Sooner or later you have to get around to teaching science, which is hard enough in a high school.
Of course, even in science class, students should be free to point out any fallacies or political bias in the materials. But they don't need to be exposed to every theory in the world - they need to be given a basic grasp of science.
No film or textbook is perfect. There is no material that is flawless and not open to debate, and that includes the dryest textbook. Some people in this debate seem to think there is such mythically perfect teaching material.
Of course there can be criticisms of the Gore film. But I think it conveys enough of the science, and is not so blatantly political that the discussion needs to be all about alternative viewpoints. Heck, when I was in school we saw lots of footage about the Apollo missions and the space program. Now this was highly political, but nobody seemed to be bothered by us seeing it. Should we have been exposed to alternative views that the moon landing was a hoax?
Like I said, if this were a media studies or politics class - then it could be open slather. But in science there's already enough to get through.
What, are they Amish or something? Every modern company uses sharks with friggin' lasers to repair optical cables.
Oh, bullshit. It's pandering to religious parents. I think it's also designed to avoid the issue ever being discussed in class again, because it makes it that much more difficult to deal with some parent mafia and stick to whatever their crazy ideas of "alternative views" are. Do you think the parent in question would be happy with alternative scientific opinions? I don't think so. He wants religious views included. In science.
This amounts to an effective ban, because it's not OK to teach religion in a public school.
How do you expect to teach students critical thinking and media analysis by only presenting one view?By teaching them critical thinking and media analysis. They should be able to make their own criticisms and analysis, rather than uncritically accepting everything unless they are presented with an opposing view. They should be able to do their own research.
In many ways this idea that "we must show every opinion" is the opposite of critical thinking. How about we show them what's worthwhile for their education, rather than wasting time giving every crackpot a soap box in public schools?
Speaking from my educational background, (as a high school senior in Shoreline, WA) every social studies class I've had starts out with some sort of media analysis. English classes too. In my composition classes, pretty much all we do is analyze authors' opinions with respect to other authors' opinions.And this kind of nuttery means that those days are coming to an end, in favor of Fox News style education.
What evidence do you have that there was any suppression of the other side of the debate in the school in question? just showing a movie does not equal suppression of conflicting viewpoints. Were kids sent to detention if they dared to criticize the film? That would be suppression of differing viewpoints. Do you have any evidence of anything like that?
And I'm pointing out that the reportage of his opinions is ITSELF propaganda directed against those who don't believe that public schools should be government-run political indoctrination mills.Why? When somebody deliberately causes a stir, or acts to impact the way kids are taught - their beliefs and background are often reported. In fact, almost every article about any person has at least a brief mention of their beliefs and background. Seeing that his beliefs are very relevant to how he formed those ideas, how is it out of place?
Heck, he was the one who touted his beliefs to the press and public. He uses them as the basis of his argument. So, how is it propaganda to report on what he is saying about his own beliefs?
To the extent that I'm taking a position of my own on this, it's against mandatory government indoctrination of youth in politically correct thinking and against propaganda in the press disguised as unbiased reporting.But where is the evidence of any of that in this case? I see nothing indicating "mandatory indoctrination of politically correct beliefs" here - and I see no propaganda in the press disguised as unbiased reporting. Perhaps you could point it out?
Are you kidding? Shatner is gold. He's my favorite musician. The only way I'll go see Star Trek XI is if they make it a musical.
Me too. Yesterday I downloaded a mermaid. Should I be ashamed?
How do we shame people who post on YouTube?
Which schools? I've certainly seen many schools do this.
I've heard of students in England and Sweden being marked down for being 'wrong' about environmental issues.Need more information. Were they actually wrong, or not? Because it is possible to be wrong about environmental issues.
Admittedly it's hard to teach this stuff in a balanced way because the people that believe in environmental decline seem to be better at explaining their ideas than the people who don't.I'd say it's more because environmental degradation is happening. Denying this is similar to being a holocaust denier. What's the balance you are talking about? I don't think espousing falsehoods is any kind of worthwhile "balance."
Still it seems to be just as bad to teach left wing pseudo religious ideas like environmentalism as right wing ones like Christianity,Ummm, what's religious about environmentalism? It has nothing to do with religion. Also, where is this hostility to criticism you speak of? I don't recall any environmentalists taking over school boards like Christians have, or being averse to real debate like many religious folk are.
And laziness is a wonderful thing. Why toil away on duplicated effort? Why do more work, when you can do less? Laziness is an under-appreciated virtue. Without it, we'd work ourselves into an early grave and have no joy in our lives.
I'll try and answer... to either make yourself feel good by being right or to point out an error.Or just for a bit of fun.
if you take a minute and address the argument itself you demonstrate what the errors are and give others something to learn from or think about.Do you really think that Frosty Hardison will actually be reading this slashdot thread? Do you actually think his mind would be changed by any logical/factual arguments we might make here? How many slashdotters do you think believe the earth is 14,000 years old, and would be swayed by argument?
It just seems like a pointless waste of time, in this case. If it were an issue with more controvery for slashdotters, then it would make sense to take the argument to a higher level. Which is why I am discussing this with you at length, because the "do ad hominems have any value" argument is a lot more contentious on this forum. And I'm not attacking you or engaging in ad hominem, because your side of the argument is valid and well-argued.
Cheers... you douchebagNo problem, smeghead.
In Jackson's Middle Earth, New Zealand acknowledges YOU!