I attended a northeastern public exam school (no, not stuy). I had pretty good grades (3.3?) and a handful of AP's. I got a fifteen-something on the SAT's.
We sent thirty kids to ivy league schools, and a couple-score more to equivalent ones (swat, wesleyan, etc). That was out of 300 graduating.
We had an "sat prep" course for a couple of weeks, lodged somewhere in a basic computer lit. course. We had one practice test. I think maybe two students actually took the test seriously. And I don't remember anyone preparing for it.
Neither me, nor several of my friends who got similar scores on the SAT, had studied for the exam. I was in an AP English course, getting A's. We did not even pretend to study a list of analogies. The idea of an analogy might have been explained, in ten seconds. I got perfect verbals. Why, not because my curriculum was aimed at helping my scores, but because I had read something with real words in it, because I had taken latin and french, because I had paid some attention to the concept of language before.
Long and the short of it, I've noticed an excellent correlation between SAT scores and mathematical/verbal ability. However, this in no way translates into an ability to excel in college. A moderately bright student can get A's with hard enough work.
The SAT's do not intend to evaluate achievement, but aptitude. They do not intend to measure aptitude to high grades, but merely inherent ability. And they only claim to do that loosely.
A feedback loop would be a great intepretation of the system. But that's not what happened at my high school. Before I accept a school administrator's word that his school preps its students, I'd like the students'.
I know it's heresy to postmodernity's egalitarianism of intellect, but some people can think faster than others: that is the phenomenon, and I'll leave other people to comment on its cause. Though, of course, morality does not intelligence make.
-NotRealGod
"But Fate is sorry, She is, She's/
cruel and She's sorry and She's/
fooling with heroes...."
If we take the verses from matthew as what their quotor intended them, we see not an external code of conduct, but, I think, a hyperbolic extension that gives us insight into the internal morality of the situation.
While I personally am unworried about being cast into any ring of hell, the claim being stated is this: that there is a punishment within your soul (read: mind/consciousness) for an action, then there is an internal moral precept guiding your action from that action.
To mock the suggestions of a book without trying to understand is a mistake.
Moreover, there are actual emotional ramifications to an adulterous feeling. Doesn't it display to the individual in question that he is unhappy in his relationship? The first reply might be that this is good, that a weak relationship must needs be tested. However, I think that any relationship will be at least slightly imperfect, that, no matter the bonds between two people, there will always be capacity to interfere with those bonds. The creation of another significant other deprives the first other of his or her significance.
And, as I see it, most (maybe not all) of the relationships formed online stand worse chances for success than ones formed in "real" life. Leading our hypothetical netadulterer to a very lonely place.
Montesquieu, in his essay "Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness and Decline of the Roman People" describes a paradigm for the expansion and collapse that follows the following (sorry) pattern. With the aid of various social institutions, a state grows. With luck and superior institutions (very vague term, read the book) the state reaches a zenith. The reason that Carthage fell to Rome, he explains, is not that Rome was a greater civilization, but rather was still in an earlier part of a natural cycle.
The greatest challenge to any group is very rarely external. Examine almost any once-great civilization, and trace its eventual collapse to internal events. The Greek nations after Alexander lost to the Romans not because they had less military manpower or drive, but because they were overspecialized and infighting. They had spend two hundred years, from about 350-150, (something like that) developing longer and longer spears for their hoplites. Unfortunately for them, the Romans opted for a mixture of foot, horse, and archers: and a 5'5 guy with eighty pounds of equipment and a 20 foot spear can't really do anything to escape an arrowstorm. Big shields don't do anything after enough time.
My question is, can someone develop a game that balances zero-sum considerations, such as total war with an arch-enemy bent on destroying you and cooking your daughters, with non-zero sum considerations, such as economic managment?
Seems Civ often does this; at the same time, it fails where it "expects" progress. Regression happens: The Carolingian "renaissance" in 800 didn't even catch up to Roman standards. Ptolemy had worked out a astronomical system that you could navigate by, keeping track of the various celestial phenomena to an incredibly precise level, before Christ. And in 1000, fewer people believed the earth was round. I've yet to see a video game with the capacity to lose gains in "progress" because of internal mismanagement.
The essence of experience is a balance between zero-sum and non-zero sum games. Often, we are caught playing non-zero sum games when we oughtn't; and yet sometimes zero-sum thinking is exactly what we need.
To wit, and no offence, this is not intended as a flame: the PLO is playing a zero-sum game: only one winner will get control of the land from southern lebanon to the negev. The Israeli gov't (for now) is trying to play a non-zero sum game: the vital waters of the internation cash flow will give to everyone, more. But are the Israelis right in playing for all to win, when dealing with people whose sworn objective is their annihilation? Could they be making a huge mistake?
(My intuition would agree with another line from Montesquieu, implying that a Palestinian child, if raised the same way as an Israeli, would understand the comprise. Optimistic... the big fish eat the little ones...)
Less writing, more thinking.
NotRealGod
(no morality without metaphyics, no metaphysics without revelation, no revelation without reason, and no reason, no reason at all...)
Copywrite is, in fact, transferable.
The US Constitution reads that the Congress has the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Copyright is limited. Intellectual property is transferable; that's why we like to decry musicians "selling out," i.e., giving away right to record and sell some of their music by any other means than the label which hired them.
I'd also like to note the line "useful arts", rather than "arts"-- the authors clearly were away they were distinguishing -- they don't for science. Science in this context is theoretical; arts, I think, practical. The knowledge of how do do particular things might thus be regulated by the feds.
It's already been said that AOL is a corporation. This means it's a private entity, and therefore, unless you see something in the submission contract guaranteeing you press, it has no obligation to print jack.
Sorry.
Corporations may be soulless, but they're not evil.
--Not Real God.
"For mightn't I be crazy and not
doubting what I absolutely ought to doubt?"
-Ludwig Wittgenstein"
They must have a systems administrator and email for him/her. Try sending email to variations on sysadmin@cab.latech.edu. We need less bad precedent. Anyone write a sociology paper on the correlation between satifaction with educatory procedure and success in various terms? Maybe if we taught our kids better they'd stop shooting another because they think life is futile.
Slashdot Mirror
We sent thirty kids to ivy league schools, and a couple-score more to equivalent ones (swat, wesleyan, etc). That was out of 300 graduating.
We had an "sat prep" course for a couple of weeks, lodged somewhere in a basic computer lit. course. We had one practice test. I think maybe two students actually took the test seriously. And I don't remember anyone preparing for it.
Neither me, nor several of my friends who got similar scores on the SAT, had studied for the exam. I was in an AP English course, getting A's. We did not even pretend to study a list of analogies. The idea of an analogy might have been explained, in ten seconds. I got perfect verbals. Why, not because my curriculum was aimed at helping my scores, but because I had read something with real words in it, because I had taken latin and french, because I had paid some attention to the concept of language before.
Long and the short of it, I've noticed an excellent correlation between SAT scores and mathematical/verbal ability. However, this in no way translates into an ability to excel in college. A moderately bright student can get A's with hard enough work.
The SAT's do not intend to evaluate achievement, but aptitude. They do not intend to measure aptitude to high grades, but merely inherent ability. And they only claim to do that loosely.
A feedback loop would be a great intepretation of the system. But that's not what happened at my high school. Before I accept a school administrator's word that his school preps its students, I'd like the students'.
I know it's heresy to postmodernity's egalitarianism of intellect, but some people can think faster than others: that is the phenomenon, and I'll leave other people to comment on its cause. Though, of course, morality does not intelligence make.
-NotRealGod
"But Fate is sorry, She is, She's/ cruel and She's sorry and She's/ fooling with heroes...."
While I personally am unworried about being cast into any ring of hell, the claim being stated is this: that there is a punishment within your soul (read: mind/consciousness) for an action, then there is an internal moral precept guiding your action from that action.
To mock the suggestions of a book without trying to understand is a mistake.
Moreover, there are actual emotional ramifications to an adulterous feeling. Doesn't it display to the individual in question that he is unhappy in his relationship? The first reply might be that this is good, that a weak relationship must needs be tested. However, I think that any relationship will be at least slightly imperfect, that, no matter the bonds between two people, there will always be capacity to interfere with those bonds. The creation of another significant other deprives the first other of his or her significance.
And, as I see it, most (maybe not all) of the relationships formed online stand worse chances for success than ones formed in "real" life. Leading our hypothetical netadulterer to a very lonely place.
NotRealGod
you can do what you want to,
whenever you want to.
you can do what you want to,
there's no one to stop you.
Montesquieu, in his essay "Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness and Decline of the Roman People" describes a paradigm for the expansion and collapse that follows the following (sorry) pattern. With the aid of various social institutions, a state grows. With luck and superior institutions (very vague term, read the book) the state reaches a zenith. The reason that Carthage fell to Rome, he explains, is not that Rome was a greater civilization, but rather was still in an earlier part of a natural cycle. The greatest challenge to any group is very rarely external. Examine almost any once-great civilization, and trace its eventual collapse to internal events. The Greek nations after Alexander lost to the Romans not because they had less military manpower or drive, but because they were overspecialized and infighting. They had spend two hundred years, from about 350-150, (something like that) developing longer and longer spears for their hoplites. Unfortunately for them, the Romans opted for a mixture of foot, horse, and archers: and a 5'5 guy with eighty pounds of equipment and a 20 foot spear can't really do anything to escape an arrowstorm. Big shields don't do anything after enough time. My question is, can someone develop a game that balances zero-sum considerations, such as total war with an arch-enemy bent on destroying you and cooking your daughters, with non-zero sum considerations, such as economic managment? Seems Civ often does this; at the same time, it fails where it "expects" progress. Regression happens: The Carolingian "renaissance" in 800 didn't even catch up to Roman standards. Ptolemy had worked out a astronomical system that you could navigate by, keeping track of the various celestial phenomena to an incredibly precise level, before Christ. And in 1000, fewer people believed the earth was round. I've yet to see a video game with the capacity to lose gains in "progress" because of internal mismanagement. The essence of experience is a balance between zero-sum and non-zero sum games. Often, we are caught playing non-zero sum games when we oughtn't; and yet sometimes zero-sum thinking is exactly what we need. To wit, and no offence, this is not intended as a flame: the PLO is playing a zero-sum game: only one winner will get control of the land from southern lebanon to the negev. The Israeli gov't (for now) is trying to play a non-zero sum game: the vital waters of the internation cash flow will give to everyone, more. But are the Israelis right in playing for all to win, when dealing with people whose sworn objective is their annihilation? Could they be making a huge mistake? (My intuition would agree with another line from Montesquieu, implying that a Palestinian child, if raised the same way as an Israeli, would understand the comprise. Optimistic... the big fish eat the little ones...) Less writing, more thinking. NotRealGod (no morality without metaphyics, no metaphysics without revelation, no revelation without reason, and no reason, no reason at all...)
Copywrite is, in fact, transferable. The US Constitution reads that the Congress has the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Copyright is limited. Intellectual property is transferable; that's why we like to decry musicians "selling out," i.e., giving away right to record and sell some of their music by any other means than the label which hired them. I'd also like to note the line "useful arts", rather than "arts"-- the authors clearly were away they were distinguishing -- they don't for science. Science in this context is theoretical; arts, I think, practical. The knowledge of how do do particular things might thus be regulated by the feds. It's already been said that AOL is a corporation. This means it's a private entity, and therefore, unless you see something in the submission contract guaranteeing you press, it has no obligation to print jack. Sorry. Corporations may be soulless, but they're not evil. --Not Real God. "For mightn't I be crazy and not doubting what I absolutely ought to doubt?" -Ludwig Wittgenstein"
They must have a systems administrator and email for him/her. Try sending email to variations on sysadmin@cab.latech.edu. We need less bad precedent. Anyone write a sociology paper on the correlation between satifaction with educatory procedure and success in various terms? Maybe if we taught our kids better they'd stop shooting another because they think life is futile.