I wish I could disagree with me. It's a really depressing realization, and I worry for our collective intelligence when the ability to follow a story or line of reasoning over several hundred pages seems as quaint as the ability to darn one's own socks.
From your previous comment, I'll assume you're American; if not (or for anyone else who's not American), is the literary situation different elsewhere in the world? Is aliteracy a uniquely American situation, or is the growing disdain for books, fiction or non, a worldwide phenomenon?
Never mind that a five-year copyright would essentially make most books thoroughly unprofitable--good job killing off what remains of the American market for books!
This is somewhat off-topic, but the American market for books is already practically dead. We as a culture don't read a whole lot. Walk into a major "book" seller and witness the amount of floorspace devoted to decidedly non-literary ventures--movies, music, leather-bound baubles, coffee drinks, magazines (given the quality of the vast majority of these, I do not count them among the literary)--and it's not too difficult to see which way the tide is headed.
Now that you've waded through to the books that remain, see how much of it is actually decent reading. Toss out all the knock-off Da Vinci Code's & the non-fiction authors purporting to offer the 'real' story behind it (and any other book whose cover has a multi-millionaire actor on it for that matter); jettison the wannabe Harry Potter's; ditch the mountain of dreck that comprises the self-help section; scrap the racks of "political" books with titles like All Aboard the Freedom Express to Libertytown, USA: Why I'm so much smarter than you and anyone who disagrees with my absurdly polarized view of the world is clearly a terrorist/communist agent provocateur (most of which are nearly obsolete by the time they've hit the shelves anyway; these authors have absolutely nothing to lose from a five-year copyright expiration), and how much is left?
We Americans, by and large, don't read. Some of us do--and those of us who do tend to do so voraciously--but the bulk of us just don't read at all. That's why the American market for books is terrible, and no amount of copyright law finagling will fix it.
Agreed. My backup laptop is a Thinkpad 600X that's been frankenstein-ed together from a series of donor machines bought "as-is" on the cheap. It runs Ubuntu no problems at all, on a 450MHz P3 and 192MB RAM. With a wifi card attached, it does anything you'd reasonably want from a laptop, and can be kept alive nearly indefinitely given the amount of spare parts I've amassed.
Built like an M1 Abrams, it is a hardware manufacturer's worst nightmare. Lesser, more "modern" laptops with their shiny metallic cases and accelerometer-protected hard drives would shit their boot sectors at the merest mention of the horrors this computational Sisyphus has endured. It is a laptop for the End of Days; I've faster gear, and I've better looking gear, but when the zombie apocalypse finally jumps off, I know which laptop will be strapped to my back while I grind my way through fields of the undead with shotgun and machete. It weighs somewhere around 12 lbs fully loaded, sports a crudely spray-painted camouflage paint job and, in a pinch, can be used as a bludgeoning weapon.
As a poster below points out, his actions are counter to the American Library Association's policies. I'd think that this particular library would have a similar stance, but you bring up a very interesting point. Whether he had the authority or not, though, I maintain that he's a fool to have done this.
Assuming the worst of government in every situation is not a good policy, ever.
I would argue that assuming the worst of government in every situation is the best policy, always. It's one of the principles on which the United States was founded. If we do not remain constantly skeptical, how are we to ensure that the government truly has our best interests at the heart of its actions?
If the far-too-many hours I've spent watching/reading crime dramas is accurate, then the police (and by extension the FBI) are well within their rights to ask for an item that will assist their investigation. You are also well within your rights to demand they present a valid warrant before allowing them to have it, and you'd have to be either a fool or a fascist not to exercise your rights, particularly when, as library director, you're effectively acting on behalf of the citizenry at large.
If you're brought into an interrogation, they don't automatically provide you with a lawyer, even though you have the right to the presence of legal counsel during questioning. The burden is on us, the citizens, to exercise our rights. Of course, our doing so makes it far more difficult for the constabulary to do their jobs, so investigators will obviously try to take a short cut around these pesky "rights" that seem practically designed to hinder their efforts. That said, I don't begrudge them these tactics, though I find it a bit disheartening that a library director would just roll over like that. Far more encouraging was the example set by those librarians who fought tooth and nail against PATRIOT act intrusions a while back.
This is precisely why we need legislation allowing disputes of this nature to be settled via saber duel. Everything becomes more polite if we may be forced to back our words to first blood at dawn.
I spend so little on gasoline these days that the incremental advantage of using diesel doesn't make me miss it much.
Perhaps it wouldn't be much of a personal improvement for you, but what if there were a wide enough adoption of biodiesel to have it readily available?
There is still an emphasis on personal responsibility, perhaps even more so. In an environment lacking a religious morality, what personal responsibility exists is truly that--personal, and not responsibility exhibited merely to avoid going to hell.
2) An emphasis on acting for the betterment of others rather then self.
But you initially argued that education is no longer a means of self-improvement, and has not been for quite some time. I'm confused...
3) An emphasis on acting morally, ethically and legally.
I'm not sure I understand what you're implying. I've never been encouraged by university faculty to act otherwise. Further, whose morals should get emphasized? We've already discovered in our brief discourse a moral schism related to sexuality. Should your sexual morals or mine be emphasized?
4) those who graduated were of a uniform quality in such a way that the 'reputation' of the institution you graduated from meant something about who you are.
This is still the case, though likely not in the sense you'd like it to. An engineering grad from CalTech will have the reputation of being a good engineer. Likewise, graduates of Yale Law will carry the reputation of being good lawyers. Or at least, they'll have the reputation of having good engineering and legal educations, respectively. Why should it matter that schools' reputations do not generally come with indicators as to their moral stances?
Number 2 above is where the discussion started because the idea that education is for self-improvement comes originally from the idea that ones vocation is a calling by God and education should serve your vocation. A vocation is taken for the betterment of yourself and society at large and not for the sake of money or employment.
I seem to be reading mixed messages here; apologies if that's not the case. If one's vocation is a divine calling, and one's education is meant to support that vocation, then where does the idea of education as self-improvement come in? If I decide to study marine biology because I think sharks are totally awesome, what divine imperatives am I fulfilling, even if I make some breakthrough discovery that leads to vastly improved marine ecosystem management? Surely god would like that, as we're meant to be good stewards of the world he created, but my motives had nothing to do with god.
What does motive matter, if the outcome is desirable? Take the guys who are creating mobile phone empires across Africa, currently the fastest growing cellular market in the world. There's plenty of money to be made, but increased mobile phone usage creates significant economic growth across the board. Is it okay that this happened because a businessman wanted to make money, instead of a missionary's wanting to help the poor and needy?
Further, would you agree that this divinely-inspired vocation stuff extends to more menial jobs, like garbageman or janitor? Both jobs are necessary to society's continued functioning, but no one says to themselves, "Perhaps I can truly serve the lord via mopping and waxing floors." People take these jobs because they need the money and these jobs seemed like the best option available at the time. Dressing it up in religious terms, that one should be satisfied with the lot god has chosen to give them, not question their place at all, and serve for the betterment of mankind, sounds a lot like a system of control designed to keep the masses from rebelling.
The idea from the top of the thread that 'education is for self improvement' can have no meaning inside the context of any of those philosophical frameworks other then 'improving' an individuals objective situation , which is most easily measure by their wealth and self reported happiness. Education can't make you happy so itâ(TM)s only remaining functi
All under classmen, were required to live in the dorms.
Even if it's cheaper and more convenient to live in an off-campus apartment? I lived in a dorm my freshman year. It sucked. Maybe you liked it, but I did not. I went to school for the academics, not the sleeping arrangements, and I fail to see what the two have to do with one another.
All meals were required to be taken in common at the Dorm
I cook for myself, thank you, because I enjoy it and it'll likely be both better tasting and more nutritious than something from an industrial kitchen.
and strict curfews were enforced.
Why does it matter to you, the university I attend, or anyone else what time I like to come home and go to sleep at night? Maybe I was out partying, but perhaps I was working an evening/night job to help finance my daytime studies. How does arbitrary curfew enforcement contribute to a quality education?
There were codes of ethics also enforced and failure to follow them would get you expelled.
Sleeping with someone you weren't married to.
Again, what the fuck business is it of yours, the school's, or anyone else's with whom I choose to sleep? And what does it have to do with education? Perhaps you're arguing that the neurological effects of certain STD's might adversely affect my studies, and are really just looking out for me but, more likely, you're simply foisting your morals onto others.
Consorting with 'the wrong' kind of people.
Who gets to decide who the wrong sort are, and by what arbitrary metric? This is simply preposterous.
Being convicted of crime all were things that could get you expelled.
This is still the case at any school I've attended.
In addition to that the close quarters and common uniform as well as the general conventions of society forced a certain homogeneity into the student body because if a person didn't 'fit in' and was 'liked' they would be hazed harassed or otherwise forced to leave while the faculty looked the other way.
Not to say it was a perfect or even a good system.
No, it sounds like a really fucked up system that values conformity, groupthink, and a condescending piety, almost to the exclusion of actual education. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I simply fail to grasp which parts of the environment you describe would be a desirable thing to have return to modern academia.
I've taken some similar classes, and it really comes down to test design. My online professors were good enough at making tests that, despite an open book and the internet available, if you didn't know your stuff without them, you simply couldn't finish in time.
This still leaves the possibility that someone else is actually taking the test, but I'm not sure video cameras are the right solution. Are these cameras going to be connected to government mandated face-recognition software, to ensure that the humanoid form in front of the camera actually is the person supposed to be taking the test? Would I have to go to the school at some point to be biometrically examined? Or will the university be given access to the government database that contains my state ID photo? 'Cause now it's really starting to sound creepy.
Do they keep a stash of "the good stuff" in the back room for themselves?
I used to work as a waiter in a Chinese restaurant that had a pretty good reputation for its (American) Chinese food. About 5-10% of the patrons were Chinese, and we had a separate menu in Chinese. Not being Chinese, I have no idea what was on it, but they fed us every shift and, as most of the employees were Chinese, the chef cooked us authentic Chinese food. It was fantastic. A couple weeks after I started, I was thoroughly amazed one evening by a dish involving pork belly, sweet potatoes and ginger. A fellow (Chinese) waiter, upon finding me scrutinizing the English menu, explained that it was something from the Chinese menu. So, to answer your question, yes, they do keep a stock of the good stuff in back. You just have to ask for it. Even if you don't know what specifically to ask for, most Chinese restaurants that I've been to since have been pretty accommodating when I ask for them to cook me up something authentic.
As for why American Chinese restaurants don't serve more authentic Chinese food, I've no idea. It likely stems from a lack of demand for it. It seems as if the average American has fairly specific expectations about what "should" be on a Chinese restaurant menu. At the restaurant I worked in, the two most common entrees I served were either Sesame Chicken or General Tso's Chicken. Add in a few other stand-bys like [Meat] with Broccoli, Kung Pao Chicken, and Szechuan [Meat], and we probably did 3/4 of our business with under 10 dishes. Fewer if you don't count swapping out the meat.
Given those kinds of numbers, perhaps it just doesn't make sense for the average Chinese restaurant owner to make that sort of investment in a more authentic menu. A restaurant is already a ridiculously difficult business to operate successfully, so why take the extra risk? Though they'll never beat wings in my opinion, it turns out I really like barbecue chicken feet. But it took me a couple of evenings watching my co-workers devouring them before I cowboyed up and gave them a shot. Same for the pig intestine, and I'd consider myself fairly adventurous food-wise. One of the best things I ate working at this place was a soup that I'm told was some sort of delicacy in China. But had I seen it on a menu before tasting it, I'm not sure I would have taken a chance on it after reading the description that explained how it was made from the egg sacks of a fish.
Well, obviously when you're dealing with deadly illnesses you're going to have to pull some weird hours. My point was merely that this attitude of total devotion to the job seems to have crept into jobs where the only thing on the line is whether customers have to wait 20 or 30 minutes to get a table.
My dad was issued one by his company a couple of years ago. As background, you should understand that, while he's had a (personal, not business) cell phone for years prior, that lived, powered off, in the glove box of his car. Since then, I'd say he's become even *less* tied to his office. He's always travelled a lot for work, so it makes sense for him to have one, but he manages to use it in a manner that allows him *more* personal time, not less. For example: it's 3:00pm. The day's meetings are over, and chances are that no one will be rushing into his office in the next few hours with some mission critical problem. Why not head home, touch up that PowerPoint presentation for tomorrow from there, and catch my little sister's High School volleyball game? If someone *really* needs something, well, that's what the Blackberry's for, right?
Now, granted, he's at a point in his life (he's towards the top end of that 25-54 demographic) where he's not too concerned with beating out Johnson for the Big Promotion, and thus can use the technology to his benefit. Were he a young up-and-coming executive, things would probably be much different; the guy who rushes into the office at 5:00am at the behest of a 4:45am email will (other things being equal) get the promotion over the guy who says, "Sorry, boss, MY time is MY time." But I don't think that it's strictly an issue with Blackberries, but rather with the culture of connectedness that the proliferation of cell phones has brought us. I've worked a number of part-time (i.e. non-career-related) jobs over the years, waiter, cook, cashier, etc. and every place I worked a) assumed that you had a cell phone, and b) assumed that they could use it at any time to wrangle you in to work if they needed you. Few things are more frustrating than having your evening interrupted by work, calling to "ask" if you can cover someone's shift.
As a low-paid underling, what can you do? Tell them "No." too often, or simply ignore the call, and you soon find that your hours are reduced, or you're stuck working undesirable shifts. Drop everything and run to their service, and you just reinforce the idea that they own you, that you're their bitch. Eventually I settled into a habit of telling overzealous employers that I was "too drunk to work," even if all I had planned was an evening of Mountain Dew and Counterstrike. I was in college at the time, so it was a feasible excuse. That strategy might not work as well for, say, a cardiothoracic surgeon.
Not to mention I would suspect that most Net Cafes would prevent booting from a USB device because they want you to run the special "cafe" software they usually have that prompts for your credit card, tracks your time, etc.
My own $0.02:
I spent several months over the summer travelling around Europe. To manage my finances, as well as email friends and family, I occasionally had to find net cafe's along my way. Not wanting to lug a laptop around, I carried an Ubuntu liveCD with me. Most net cafe proprietors were reasonable when I asked if it would be alright to use it, although a couple outright refused. Most of the time the only concern (to them) is that they need to know how long you were on for, something which is usually handled by a small Windows app (the client is simply a timer, telling the "admin" how long you've been on. Payment is in cash when you're done). My concern was not transmitting my financial data from a computer running a questionable copy of XP Home used by who knows how many people each day for who knows what purposes.
Again, most people were reasonable with me, if a bit confused, and simply wrote down the time I arrived on a sheet of paper. Other places were more hostile, and these places were, invariably, the places where one would most want *not* to use their computers. As for disabling the use of things like USB, etc., you'd be shocked at the lax security measures in virtually every net cafe I went to. Well, maybe you wouldn't be. The other customers didn't seem to be either, but I certainly was. Most net cafes amount to a small room full of computers (again, running bone-stock XP Home) connected to a cable modem or DSL, overseen by a disinterested middle-aged man. Sure, booting from USB could have probably been disabled in the BIOS but, heck, I'd have been overjoyed if they'd just had some sort of anti-virus software. Or at the *very* least, not running as Administrator. On the upside, I was thus able to wage a one-man Firefox-installing campaign over somewhere around a dozen cities:)
So, yeah, it would be great for these flashdrives to boot a custom Linux distro. Convincing these kids it's worth their time to use it, that's a horse of a different color.
I tracked down a friend with some bootlegs of their concerts. As I've encountered the Dead, and most of the other bands I listed, only through their recorded works, it was easy to overlook the experiential aspect of their music. I appreciate your point much better now.
He's got incredible skill with words, whether talking about meeting a girl at a Star Wars convention, or telling the story of Little Red Riding Hood. And, for those who refuse to acknowledge the musical validity of a sampler and drum machine, he plays live shows backed by a jazz trio.
Seriously, though, the best music in the past 100 years is the Grateful Dead? While I respect your opinion, and the contributions of the Dead to music (personally, my favorite GD song is China Cat Sunflower), that seems like a bit of an hyperbole to me. If nothing else, the Dead lose a ton of points for the zillions* of "jam bands" that so many of my peers seem to like that they've influenced.
Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, James Brown, John Coltrane, Miles Davis (who arguably owes some influence to the Dead), Mingus, George Clinton et al, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, Iggy Pop, David Bowie, hell, even Karlheinz Stockhausen...If you say the Grateful Dead are the best thing to happen to music in the past 100 years, I say they've an awful lot of competition.
"I don't know how much I would trust a machine to reproduce the sublties of, say, a fine wine, or something where smell was particularly telling or vital."
I'm not a medical expert, but how useful could this really be? I mean, there's no question that this won't catch on with wine connoisseurs. They're a pretty picky bunch by nature; I doubt if they'd trust a machine over their refined noses. Not to mention that there's more to selecting a wine than its scent.
But medical diagnosis? Seriously? I mean, if someone is going to go to the trouble of examining a biological substance so closely that its odor can be reproduced to medically-valuable standards by a remote machine, why not just spend that time & effort doing real medical tests?
Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that the Japanese will find fantastically weird ways to use this technology, but I suspect it'll end up in a lot more video arcades than hospitals.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could disagree with me. It's a really depressing realization, and I worry for our collective intelligence when the ability to follow a story or line of reasoning over several hundred pages seems as quaint as the ability to darn one's own socks.
From your previous comment, I'll assume you're American; if not (or for anyone else who's not American), is the literary situation different elsewhere in the world? Is aliteracy a uniquely American situation, or is the growing disdain for books, fiction or non, a worldwide phenomenon?
Never mind that a five-year copyright would essentially make most books thoroughly unprofitable--good job killing off what remains of the American market for books!
This is somewhat off-topic, but the American market for books is already practically dead. We as a culture don't read a whole lot. Walk into a major "book" seller and witness the amount of floorspace devoted to decidedly non-literary ventures--movies, music, leather-bound baubles, coffee drinks, magazines (given the quality of the vast majority of these, I do not count them among the literary)--and it's not too difficult to see which way the tide is headed.
Now that you've waded through to the books that remain, see how much of it is actually decent reading. Toss out all the knock-off Da Vinci Code's & the non-fiction authors purporting to offer the 'real' story behind it (and any other book whose cover has a multi-millionaire actor on it for that matter); jettison the wannabe Harry Potter's; ditch the mountain of dreck that comprises the self-help section; scrap the racks of "political" books with titles like All Aboard the Freedom Express to Libertytown, USA: Why I'm so much smarter than you and anyone who disagrees with my absurdly polarized view of the world is clearly a terrorist/communist agent provocateur (most of which are nearly obsolete by the time they've hit the shelves anyway; these authors have absolutely nothing to lose from a five-year copyright expiration), and how much is left?
We Americans, by and large, don't read. Some of us do--and those of us who do tend to do so voraciously--but the bulk of us just don't read at all. That's why the American market for books is terrible, and no amount of copyright law finagling will fix it.
Agreed. My backup laptop is a Thinkpad 600X that's been frankenstein-ed together from a series of donor machines bought "as-is" on the cheap. It runs Ubuntu no problems at all, on a 450MHz P3 and 192MB RAM. With a wifi card attached, it does anything you'd reasonably want from a laptop, and can be kept alive nearly indefinitely given the amount of spare parts I've amassed.
Built like an M1 Abrams, it is a hardware manufacturer's worst nightmare. Lesser, more "modern" laptops with their shiny metallic cases and accelerometer-protected hard drives would shit their boot sectors at the merest mention of the horrors this computational Sisyphus has endured. It is a laptop for the End of Days; I've faster gear, and I've better looking gear, but when the zombie apocalypse finally jumps off, I know which laptop will be strapped to my back while I grind my way through fields of the undead with shotgun and machete. It weighs somewhere around 12 lbs fully loaded, sports a crudely spray-painted camouflage paint job and, in a pinch, can be used as a bludgeoning weapon.
As a poster below points out, his actions are counter to the American Library Association's policies. I'd think that this particular library would have a similar stance, but you bring up a very interesting point. Whether he had the authority or not, though, I maintain that he's a fool to have done this.
Assuming the worst of government in every situation is not a good policy, ever.
I would argue that assuming the worst of government in every situation is the best policy, always. It's one of the principles on which the United States was founded. If we do not remain constantly skeptical, how are we to ensure that the government truly has our best interests at the heart of its actions?
If the far-too-many hours I've spent watching/reading crime dramas is accurate, then the police (and by extension the FBI) are well within their rights to ask for an item that will assist their investigation. You are also well within your rights to demand they present a valid warrant before allowing them to have it, and you'd have to be either a fool or a fascist not to exercise your rights, particularly when, as library director, you're effectively acting on behalf of the citizenry at large.
If you're brought into an interrogation, they don't automatically provide you with a lawyer, even though you have the right to the presence of legal counsel during questioning. The burden is on us, the citizens, to exercise our rights. Of course, our doing so makes it far more difficult for the constabulary to do their jobs, so investigators will obviously try to take a short cut around these pesky "rights" that seem practically designed to hinder their efforts. That said, I don't begrudge them these tactics, though I find it a bit disheartening that a library director would just roll over like that. Far more encouraging was the example set by those librarians who fought tooth and nail against PATRIOT act intrusions a while back.
This is precisely why we need legislation allowing disputes of this nature to be settled via saber duel. Everything becomes more polite if we may be forced to back our words to first blood at dawn.
...most credible population models have the worlds population leveling out at 15 billion, which we can easily sustain.
But sustain at what level of existence?
I spend so little on gasoline these days that the incremental advantage of using diesel doesn't make me miss it much.
Perhaps it wouldn't be much of a personal improvement for you, but what if there were a wide enough adoption of biodiesel to have it readily available?
1) An emphasis on personal responsibility
There is still an emphasis on personal responsibility, perhaps even more so. In an environment lacking a religious morality, what personal responsibility exists is truly that--personal, and not responsibility exhibited merely to avoid going to hell.
2) An emphasis on acting for the betterment of others rather then self.
But you initially argued that education is no longer a means of self-improvement, and has not been for quite some time. I'm confused...
3) An emphasis on acting morally, ethically and legally.
I'm not sure I understand what you're implying. I've never been encouraged by university faculty to act otherwise. Further, whose morals should get emphasized? We've already discovered in our brief discourse a moral schism related to sexuality. Should your sexual morals or mine be emphasized?
4) those who graduated were of a uniform quality in such a way that the 'reputation' of the institution you graduated from meant something about who you are.
This is still the case, though likely not in the sense you'd like it to. An engineering grad from CalTech will have the reputation of being a good engineer. Likewise, graduates of Yale Law will carry the reputation of being good lawyers. Or at least, they'll have the reputation of having good engineering and legal educations, respectively. Why should it matter that schools' reputations do not generally come with indicators as to their moral stances?
Number 2 above is where the discussion started because the idea that education is for self-improvement comes originally from the idea that ones vocation is a calling by God and education should serve your vocation. A vocation is taken for the betterment of yourself and society at large and not for the sake of money or employment.
I seem to be reading mixed messages here; apologies if that's not the case. If one's vocation is a divine calling, and one's education is meant to support that vocation, then where does the idea of education as self-improvement come in? If I decide to study marine biology because I think sharks are totally awesome, what divine imperatives am I fulfilling, even if I make some breakthrough discovery that leads to vastly improved marine ecosystem management? Surely god would like that, as we're meant to be good stewards of the world he created, but my motives had nothing to do with god.
What does motive matter, if the outcome is desirable? Take the guys who are creating mobile phone empires across Africa, currently the fastest growing cellular market in the world. There's plenty of money to be made, but increased mobile phone usage creates significant economic growth across the board. Is it okay that this happened because a businessman wanted to make money, instead of a missionary's wanting to help the poor and needy?
Further, would you agree that this divinely-inspired vocation stuff extends to more menial jobs, like garbageman or janitor? Both jobs are necessary to society's continued functioning, but no one says to themselves, "Perhaps I can truly serve the lord via mopping and waxing floors." People take these jobs because they need the money and these jobs seemed like the best option available at the time. Dressing it up in religious terms, that one should be satisfied with the lot god has chosen to give them, not question their place at all, and serve for the betterment of mankind, sounds a lot like a system of control designed to keep the masses from rebelling.
The idea from the top of the thread that 'education is for self improvement' can have no meaning inside the context of any of those philosophical frameworks other then 'improving' an individuals objective situation , which is most easily measure by their wealth and self reported happiness. Education can't make you happy so itâ(TM)s only remaining functi
All under classmen, were required to live in the dorms.
Even if it's cheaper and more convenient to live in an off-campus apartment? I lived in a dorm my freshman year. It sucked. Maybe you liked it, but I did not. I went to school for the academics, not the sleeping arrangements, and I fail to see what the two have to do with one another.
All meals were required to be taken in common at the Dorm
I cook for myself, thank you, because I enjoy it and it'll likely be both better tasting and more nutritious than something from an industrial kitchen.
and strict curfews were enforced.
Why does it matter to you, the university I attend, or anyone else what time I like to come home and go to sleep at night? Maybe I was out partying, but perhaps I was working an evening/night job to help finance my daytime studies. How does arbitrary curfew enforcement contribute to a quality education?
There were codes of ethics also enforced and failure to follow them would get you expelled. Sleeping with someone you weren't married to.
Again, what the fuck business is it of yours, the school's, or anyone else's with whom I choose to sleep? And what does it have to do with education? Perhaps you're arguing that the neurological effects of certain STD's might adversely affect my studies, and are really just looking out for me but, more likely, you're simply foisting your morals onto others.
Consorting with 'the wrong' kind of people.
Who gets to decide who the wrong sort are, and by what arbitrary metric? This is simply preposterous.
Being convicted of crime all were things that could get you expelled.
This is still the case at any school I've attended.
In addition to that the close quarters and common uniform as well as the general conventions of society forced a certain homogeneity into the student body because if a person didn't 'fit in' and was 'liked' they would be hazed harassed or otherwise forced to leave while the faculty looked the other way.
Not to say it was a perfect or even a good system.
No, it sounds like a really fucked up system that values conformity, groupthink, and a condescending piety, almost to the exclusion of actual education. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I simply fail to grasp which parts of the environment you describe would be a desirable thing to have return to modern academia.
I've taken some similar classes, and it really comes down to test design. My online professors were good enough at making tests that, despite an open book and the internet available, if you didn't know your stuff without them, you simply couldn't finish in time.
This still leaves the possibility that someone else is actually taking the test, but I'm not sure video cameras are the right solution. Are these cameras going to be connected to government mandated face-recognition software, to ensure that the humanoid form in front of the camera actually is the person supposed to be taking the test? Would I have to go to the school at some point to be biometrically examined? Or will the university be given access to the government database that contains my state ID photo? 'Cause now it's really starting to sound creepy.
In criminal cases, sure, but in a civil suit either plaintiff or defendant could benefit (or suffer) from a choice facebook picture.
Why assume that he got dumped? Maybe she was let go owing to overly-paranoid tendencies. Give the guy a little credit.
I used to work as a waiter in a Chinese restaurant that had a pretty good reputation for its (American) Chinese food. About 5-10% of the patrons were Chinese, and we had a separate menu in Chinese. Not being Chinese, I have no idea what was on it, but they fed us every shift and, as most of the employees were Chinese, the chef cooked us authentic Chinese food. It was fantastic. A couple weeks after I started, I was thoroughly amazed one evening by a dish involving pork belly, sweet potatoes and ginger. A fellow (Chinese) waiter, upon finding me scrutinizing the English menu, explained that it was something from the Chinese menu. So, to answer your question, yes, they do keep a stock of the good stuff in back. You just have to ask for it. Even if you don't know what specifically to ask for, most Chinese restaurants that I've been to since have been pretty accommodating when I ask for them to cook me up something authentic.
As for why American Chinese restaurants don't serve more authentic Chinese food, I've no idea. It likely stems from a lack of demand for it. It seems as if the average American has fairly specific expectations about what "should" be on a Chinese restaurant menu. At the restaurant I worked in, the two most common entrees I served were either Sesame Chicken or General Tso's Chicken. Add in a few other stand-bys like [Meat] with Broccoli, Kung Pao Chicken, and Szechuan [Meat], and we probably did 3/4 of our business with under 10 dishes. Fewer if you don't count swapping out the meat.
Given those kinds of numbers, perhaps it just doesn't make sense for the average Chinese restaurant owner to make that sort of investment in a more authentic menu. A restaurant is already a ridiculously difficult business to operate successfully, so why take the extra risk? Though they'll never beat wings in my opinion, it turns out I really like barbecue chicken feet. But it took me a couple of evenings watching my co-workers devouring them before I cowboyed up and gave them a shot. Same for the pig intestine, and I'd consider myself fairly adventurous food-wise. One of the best things I ate working at this place was a soup that I'm told was some sort of delicacy in China. But had I seen it on a menu before tasting it, I'm not sure I would have taken a chance on it after reading the description that explained how it was made from the egg sacks of a fish.
Well, obviously when you're dealing with deadly illnesses you're going to have to pull some weird hours. My point was merely that this attitude of total devotion to the job seems to have crept into jobs where the only thing on the line is whether customers have to wait 20 or 30 minutes to get a table.
My own father-related anecdote:
My dad was issued one by his company a couple of years ago. As background, you should understand that, while he's had a (personal, not business) cell phone for years prior, that lived, powered off, in the glove box of his car. Since then, I'd say he's become even *less* tied to his office. He's always travelled a lot for work, so it makes sense for him to have one, but he manages to use it in a manner that allows him *more* personal time, not less. For example: it's 3:00pm. The day's meetings are over, and chances are that no one will be rushing into his office in the next few hours with some mission critical problem. Why not head home, touch up that PowerPoint presentation for tomorrow from there, and catch my little sister's High School volleyball game? If someone *really* needs something, well, that's what the Blackberry's for, right?
Now, granted, he's at a point in his life (he's towards the top end of that 25-54 demographic) where he's not too concerned with beating out Johnson for the Big Promotion, and thus can use the technology to his benefit. Were he a young up-and-coming executive, things would probably be much different; the guy who rushes into the office at 5:00am at the behest of a 4:45am email will (other things being equal) get the promotion over the guy who says, "Sorry, boss, MY time is MY time." But I don't think that it's strictly an issue with Blackberries, but rather with the culture of connectedness that the proliferation of cell phones has brought us. I've worked a number of part-time (i.e. non-career-related) jobs over the years, waiter, cook, cashier, etc. and every place I worked a) assumed that you had a cell phone, and b) assumed that they could use it at any time to wrangle you in to work if they needed you. Few things are more frustrating than having your evening interrupted by work, calling to "ask" if you can cover someone's shift.
As a low-paid underling, what can you do? Tell them "No." too often, or simply ignore the call, and you soon find that your hours are reduced, or you're stuck working undesirable shifts. Drop everything and run to their service, and you just reinforce the idea that they own you, that you're their bitch. Eventually I settled into a habit of telling overzealous employers that I was "too drunk to work," even if all I had planned was an evening of Mountain Dew and Counterstrike. I was in college at the time, so it was a feasible excuse. That strategy might not work as well for, say, a cardiothoracic surgeon.
Money. Almost pretend amounts of money.
Not to mention I would suspect that most Net Cafes would prevent booting from a USB device because they want you to run the special "cafe" software they usually have that prompts for your credit card, tracks your time, etc.
:)
My own $0.02:
I spent several months over the summer travelling around Europe. To manage my finances, as well as email friends and family, I occasionally had to find net cafe's along my way. Not wanting to lug a laptop around, I carried an Ubuntu liveCD with me. Most net cafe proprietors were reasonable when I asked if it would be alright to use it, although a couple outright refused. Most of the time the only concern (to them) is that they need to know how long you were on for, something which is usually handled by a small Windows app (the client is simply a timer, telling the "admin" how long you've been on. Payment is in cash when you're done). My concern was not transmitting my financial data from a computer running a questionable copy of XP Home used by who knows how many people each day for who knows what purposes.
Again, most people were reasonable with me, if a bit confused, and simply wrote down the time I arrived on a sheet of paper. Other places were more hostile, and these places were, invariably, the places where one would most want *not* to use their computers. As for disabling the use of things like USB, etc., you'd be shocked at the lax security measures in virtually every net cafe I went to. Well, maybe you wouldn't be. The other customers didn't seem to be either, but I certainly was. Most net cafes amount to a small room full of computers (again, running bone-stock XP Home) connected to a cable modem or DSL, overseen by a disinterested middle-aged man. Sure, booting from USB could have probably been disabled in the BIOS but, heck, I'd have been overjoyed if they'd just had some sort of anti-virus software. Or at the *very* least, not running as Administrator. On the upside, I was thus able to wage a one-man Firefox-installing campaign over somewhere around a dozen cities
So, yeah, it would be great for these flashdrives to boot a custom Linux distro. Convincing these kids it's worth their time to use it, that's a horse of a different color.
Both of you?
Only if she's wearing the full Amidala regalia.
I tracked down a friend with some bootlegs of their concerts. As I've encountered the Dead, and most of the other bands I listed, only through their recorded works, it was easy to overlook the experiential aspect of their music. I appreciate your point much better now.
MC Frontalot
http://www.frontalot.com/
He's got incredible skill with words, whether talking about meeting a girl at a Star Wars convention, or telling the story of Little Red Riding Hood. And, for those who refuse to acknowledge the musical validity of a sampler and drum machine, he plays live shows backed by a jazz trio.
Cut your hair and get a job, hippy :-P
Seriously, though, the best music in the past 100 years is the Grateful Dead? While I respect your opinion, and the contributions of the Dead to music (personally, my favorite GD song is China Cat Sunflower), that seems like a bit of an hyperbole to me. If nothing else, the Dead lose a ton of points for the zillions* of "jam bands" that so many of my peers seem to like that they've influenced.
Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, James Brown, John Coltrane, Miles Davis (who arguably owes some influence to the Dead), Mingus, George Clinton et al, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, Iggy Pop, David Bowie, hell, even Karlheinz Stockhausen...If you say the Grateful Dead are the best thing to happen to music in the past 100 years, I say they've an awful lot of competition.
"I don't know how much I would trust a machine to reproduce the sublties of, say, a fine wine, or something where smell was particularly telling or vital."
I'm not a medical expert, but how useful could this really be? I mean, there's no question that this won't catch on with wine connoisseurs. They're a pretty picky bunch by nature; I doubt if they'd trust a machine over their refined noses. Not to mention that there's more to selecting a wine than its scent.
But medical diagnosis? Seriously? I mean, if someone is going to go to the trouble of examining a biological substance so closely that its odor can be reproduced to medically-valuable standards by a remote machine, why not just spend that time & effort doing real medical tests?
Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that the Japanese will find fantastically weird ways to use this technology, but I suspect it'll end up in a lot more video arcades than hospitals.