Re:No cause for suspicion, surely.
on
How Old is Too Old?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Although you may not realise it, your attitude is somewhat elitist - you suggest that someone who's only dabbled in the field does not truly understand things, and is clearly not motivated enough to make a good go of it.
That's not elitist. It's good, practical advice, and an important point to consider. Just because a person likes computers and has some aptitude for programming does not mean that they will enjoy a career in IT.
When I decided to stay in school and get a second degree in computer science 11 years ago, I already had a lot more programming experience, from the sound of it, than this person does. I enjoyed programming as a hobby, and I enjoyed my coursework and excelled in it. But truth be told, I have never really enjoyed working in IT, and there are plenty of times when I hate it.
I think that at the very least, it would be a good idea for this person to learn some serious programming on his own, before he decides to invest time and money into getting a degree. That still won't be any guarantee of future success and/or happiness, but it's a start.
the Classical era runs from 1812 to 1900-ish (IIRC, and I may not))
That would be the Romantic era. The Classical is generally regarded as having begun in 1750, the year of Bach's death. Before that was the Baroque. But colloquially speaking, "Classical music" encompasses all of that and much more.
It is absolutely in the interests of the other residents not to have wardrivers sitting out in their parking lot doing god-knows-what on the net, anonymously, at all hours.
If Person A sexually harasses Person B in the workplace....Person B not only can sue Person A, but Person A can get fired. This is not much different. Student writes false stuff about Teacher. Teacher can sue Student and school can expel student. See not that different from sexual harassment case.
Surely the time you lose by using such a slow form of transport is more than the time stuck in traffic?
That depends on how far you're going, and what the traffic is like along the route. I've found that over relatively short distances in town, biking is just as fast as driving, sometimes faster.
But as far as time is concerned, I consider every minute I spend on the bike to be one minute I don't need to spend at the gym.
Not to mention the time you spend on a road in the middle of nowhere in the rain pushing the bike along because you've got a puncture.
At least you can push a bike; good luck pushing a car to work in the rain. Although I think carrying a spare inner tube is much easier.:)
Secularism isn't just teaching without religion - it is teaching that religion has no place in society outside of church.
Paranoia. For one thing, "outside of church" and "in public school" do not mean even remotely the same thing. This is not really such a subtle distinction, yet many Christians seem incapable of understanding it.
Another not-so-subtle distinction that many Christians seem incapable of grasping is the difference between religious expression by public institutions and religious expression by private individuals. The latter is perfectly acceptable, even within public institutions, as long as the institution itself does not participate.
So, since religion is not prohibited at public schools, it cannot be said that public schools "teach" that religion has no place outside of church. In fact, a public school is not allowed to teach such a thing. Even the ACLU, perpetually vilified by the Christian right, would side against the school on this issue.
In short, your definition of secularism is a paranoid fantasy. Secularism is not a denial of God or religion. It is not atheism or even agnosticism. We are all secular when we're not being deliberately and actively religious. Secularism is the common denominator that we all share in our lives. Many people and institutions happen to be religious in addition to being secular. Public institutions are not. It really is as simple as that.
Of course, schools can't mention that there are other theories for how humans evolved on this planet because someone would sue, claiming the teaching of non-secular principles.
On the contrary, schools can teach other theories. What they can't do is teach religion (which is what you really mean by your "non-secular principles" obfuscation). They teach evolution because they are interested in having a sound curriculum and providing a quality education, and at present there are no other theories with evolution's explanatory power and weight of evidence.
Yes, if you are a public school, and you teach religion, you run the risk of being sued. Just as a Christian would sue a public school for teaching Wicca. Again, it really is as simple as that.
Because it's common knowledge that people who investigate crimes sometimes gather evidence. It is not clear whether this was merely an assumption on the author's part, or if it really occurred. The article tells us what he told the officer about confiscated CDs; but it does not say what, if anything, the officer told him. Since the article leaves room for doubt, the slashdot headline and summary are not defensible. Even if they are correct, it's a lucky guess.
Personally, it doesn't make sense to me that the authorities would confiscate anything until after they had confirmed that what was happening was really a crime. But I have asked the author for clarification, and I'll let you know what he says if he responds.
I think the meaning of dt/dt is to say that time can only appear to go at always the same rate
If I'm not mistaken, the problem with dt/dt is that it describes an observer's movement through time relative to his own movement through time. Obviously, this is always going to be 1, but that doesn't really mean anything. It's kind of like observing that you are always in the same place relative to your own position, and concluding from this that motion in space is impossible. It simply does not follow.
Instead, we should be describing one observer's movement through time relative to another observer's movement through time. dt1/dt2.
I have no idea why the idea of a "dark side" perpetuates even to this day [...] There have been smart people for centuries that figured it out... and yet the myth remains.
It isn't a myth. It's figurative language. Like how Europeans used to refer to Africa as the "Dark Continent" before they had fully explored it. No one meant or believed that it was literally devoid of light.
(And FWIW, even in a literal sense, the dark side of the moon is in fact darkER, because it receives no earthlight. But that really has nothing to do with the term.)
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. They could easily cut down on long lines at the DMV by having more locations and/or longer hours. They could even serve you tea and rub your feet. But that kind of thing takes money.
You get what you pay for. I don't understand why people expect this to be any different when they're dealing with the government.
Logicians love to quote clear examples of logical and then claim that their examples apply to real arguments (ironically, this is itself an example of fallacious argumentation -- it's a straw man.)
No, they simply make a distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning, which you apparently do not.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not elitist. It's good, practical advice, and an important point to consider. Just because a person likes computers and has some aptitude for programming does not mean that they will enjoy a career in IT.
When I decided to stay in school and get a second degree in computer science 11 years ago, I already had a lot more programming experience, from the sound of it, than this person does. I enjoyed programming as a hobby, and I enjoyed my coursework and excelled in it. But truth be told, I have never really enjoyed working in IT, and there are plenty of times when I hate it.
I think that at the very least, it would be a good idea for this person to learn some serious programming on his own, before he decides to invest time and money into getting a degree. That still won't be any guarantee of future success and/or happiness, but it's a start.
It's a joke. Possibly even ripped off from Colbert himself.
In this picture we cannot see Mrs. Thelma Arnold of Lilburn, Georgia. Mrs. Arnold will you stand up please....
(Except that it was actually written by Werner Herzog, who attributed it to Pascal to give it more weight.)
It is absolutely in the interests of the other residents not to have wardrivers sitting out in their parking lot doing god-knows-what on the net, anonymously, at all hours.
Irrelevant. The blog is not in the teacher's workplace. Nor was the student when he posted it.
The only difference is your place of business will probably not fire you
Which is a pretty significant difference, and pretty much encompasses my point.
It's much easier if you include the word "internet" somewhere.
Yes it is. The key phrase is "in the workplace."
That depends on how far you're going, and what the traffic is like along the route. I've found that over relatively short distances in town, biking is just as fast as driving, sometimes faster.
But as far as time is concerned, I consider every minute I spend on the bike to be one minute I don't need to spend at the gym.
Not to mention the time you spend on a road in the middle of nowhere in the rain pushing the bike along because you've got a puncture.
At least you can push a bike; good luck pushing a car to work in the rain. Although I think carrying a spare inner tube is much easier. :)
That there other variables you haven't considered.
Must I remind you where you are? This is slashdot. We'll have none of that.
Paratranslated.
*nods*
Sounds like a fun church!
Paranoia. For one thing, "outside of church" and "in public school" do not mean even remotely the same thing. This is not really such a subtle distinction, yet many Christians seem incapable of understanding it.
Another not-so-subtle distinction that many Christians seem incapable of grasping is the difference between religious expression by public institutions and religious expression by private individuals. The latter is perfectly acceptable, even within public institutions, as long as the institution itself does not participate.
So, since religion is not prohibited at public schools, it cannot be said that public schools "teach" that religion has no place outside of church. In fact, a public school is not allowed to teach such a thing. Even the ACLU, perpetually vilified by the Christian right, would side against the school on this issue.
In short, your definition of secularism is a paranoid fantasy. Secularism is not a denial of God or religion. It is not atheism or even agnosticism. We are all secular when we're not being deliberately and actively religious. Secularism is the common denominator that we all share in our lives. Many people and institutions happen to be religious in addition to being secular. Public institutions are not. It really is as simple as that.
Of course, schools can't mention that there are other theories for how humans evolved on this planet because someone would sue, claiming the teaching of non-secular principles.
On the contrary, schools can teach other theories. What they can't do is teach religion (which is what you really mean by your "non-secular principles" obfuscation). They teach evolution because they are interested in having a sound curriculum and providing a quality education, and at present there are no other theories with evolution's explanatory power and weight of evidence.
Yes, if you are a public school, and you teach religion, you run the risk of being sued. Just as a Christian would sue a public school for teaching Wicca. Again, it really is as simple as that.
As I see it, it's mostly about religious types trying to get a foot back in the door of public schools.
Although I can understand where Apple is coming from, I've got to side with Apple on this one.
Personally, it doesn't make sense to me that the authorities would confiscate anything until after they had confirmed that what was happening was really a crime. But I have asked the author for clarification, and I'll let you know what he says if he responds.
In any case, the submitter clearly went too far.
Benny Hill was unavailable for comment.
If I'm not mistaken, the problem with dt/dt is that it describes an observer's movement through time relative to his own movement through time. Obviously, this is always going to be 1, but that doesn't really mean anything. It's kind of like observing that you are always in the same place relative to your own position, and concluding from this that motion in space is impossible. It simply does not follow.
Instead, we should be describing one observer's movement through time relative to another observer's movement through time. dt1/dt2.
It isn't a myth. It's figurative language. Like how Europeans used to refer to Africa as the "Dark Continent" before they had fully explored it. No one meant or believed that it was literally devoid of light.
(And FWIW, even in a literal sense, the dark side of the moon is in fact darkER, because it receives no earthlight. But that really has nothing to do with the term.)
You get what you pay for. I don't understand why people expect this to be any different when they're dealing with the government.
No, they simply make a distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning, which you apparently do not.