I'm not entirely sure we've stopped reaching. With respect to government reaching like it did with Apollo, Manhattan, etc. no we aren't. Back in that time frame a select few people could afford these glamorous travel options. Now a days if you aren't from a third-world nation you stand a pretty good chance of being able to occasionally if not regularly take advantage of pretty comparable options. The rich have simply moved on to other adventures-- SpaceX, BlueOrigin, Virgin Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace, etc. and we've kept our myopic eyes looking back at Concords and 747s.
We may technically be able to afford things but from a practical standpoint we cannot. The overwhelming majority of our government revenue is tied up in the military industrial complex and social services (Medicare, Social Security, etc.). Since the MIC didn't figure money in hand was sufficient they've coaxed an additional $1T/year from China in the form of U.S. govt. I.O.U.s so that we can wage wars in places and causes that are largely none of our business.
So sure, we can afford it but first you'll have to pry it from the MICs cold dead fingers and pay back China.
I think the biggest problem is that people don't like the word "faith." There's far too much religious, and especially deistic baggage in peoples mind regarding this word that it clouds perspective. I've looked through many of these replies and it's amazing just how viciously people defend the segregation of science and faith. It further demonstrates my point about the inconvenience of measuring rods.
What I find so interesting is how people can cite facts, provide arguments, etc. about how science does not incorporate faith and yet their very arguments observed from another vantage only prove the position of the opposition. Faith is the belief without proof that something is so. Nothing more. For instance I have faith that my government will continue making blunders regarding healthcare, the economy, etc.. I have no proof of this. Yet the strength of my faith is bolstered by historical evidence.
In the same way a scientist demonstrates their faith when they assert something is so in the absence of proof. Sometimes they quantify the strength of their faith with confidence numbers but it does not change what it is that they're exercising. In the absence of definitive proof scientists seek to find substantiating evidence of their belief. The greater the evidence, the greater their confidence or strength of their faith.
It's understandable, and particularly so on issues such as evolution where divinity can make an easy breach in the minds of lay persons to muster a strong defense, and in some cases offense against the alternative. However, the cause is weakened when one does not consider the merits of waging a particular skirmish nor the tools employed beforehand.
As must Darwinian evolution. While we can test and prove micro-evolution (adaptation and such), the same cannot be said for macro (one species to another). It is interesting how measuring rods are both dually convenient and inconvenient at the same time depending upon our preferences for what's being measure.
The scary part isn't so much the irresponsibility of radicals in the house. I'm certain many are pandering for the Nov. 2012 elections. Either way they have the senate to moderate legislation. However, looking down the road a bit further it scares the hell out of me to consider the strong possibility that many of them will go on to become the next generation of senators.
Unfortunately, while that sounds like a reasonable idea, the courts have started making a distinction between subject matter. For instance the validity of business method patents were at issue Bilsky case. Give how substantially similar a business method is to a software algorithm most people believed that any ruling on this case would be directly applicable to software patents. The Supreme Court however intentionally dropped the ball by narrowly defined the terms of their ruling so as to exclude software patents from the scope leaving the matter for a future case.
The trouble is that the damage has already been done. So what if the defendant wins against the AIA, that defendant has already had to shell out substantial money to defend themselves, money that could have been used for research.
You'll point to the dollar menu and I'll point to the fact that few people simply order a solitary item off the dollar menu and call it dinner, most will head straight for the extra value menu and throw on the Coke and fries. When you ring up the final bill for an actual meal they will both land somewhere around $6-7. I also do not recall "ghettos" being brought up. Regardless of food offerings there--which I'm certain do include include at least one grocer if they include a McRotten--most people do not live in the ghetto and we are in fact talking about most people.
3/4c or 10 tsp (a little under 1/4c), the point is still there. Who really recognizes just how much they're consuming with a single can of soda. No consider than most people seem to be chugging 1 liter bottles now a days, not cans.
The notion of "low fat" is healthy was a marketing scheme concocted and proliferated for the purpose of generating revenue back in the 80's. The damage of which still lingers today. Fat is not inherently unhealthy, and is in fact actually an essential nutrient. Obviously we can split hairs and go into how certain fats bad for you and others healthy but, that's tangential. Moderation will take you a lot farther than mucking about with the ratio of sugar (carbohydrates), fat and protein. A shift from nutritionally starved foods to nutritionally rich foods will take you a better part of the rest of the way.
Hmm, calorie wise you may be right, but from a health and nutrition point of view current wisdom would disagree. The consensus hovers around several small meals spread throughout the day. It is not reasonable to think of one's stomach as a gas tank on a car. It just doesn't work that way. It's a processing tank in a multi-stage "use it or convert it" system. If there isn't a present need for food energy by the body it will convert it to fat for storage on the body. This of course requires insulin. The excess use of which will lead to creating an insulin resistance in the body resulting in type II Diabetes.
Cut McRotten out of that and you'll have money to purchase a reasonable amount of low/no-prep fruits and veggies. If you have to eat on the go, try a Subway, Jimmy Johns, or any of a growing number of same price, yet healthier alternatives. There's also nothing horrible with Ramens if you throw something healthy with it, and no one forces you to put half a stick of butter into your Mac and Cheese. Further if you're willing to go through the effort of Mac and Cheese then you have a whole host of very simple, similarly priced healthy alternatives. Believe it or not you can actually eat pretty well on not much money if you put a bit of effort into looking for alternatives. Even if you can't afford that much produce you can generally afford a bottle of multi-vitamins to supplement.
With respect to adjusting the cost of unhealthy food a tax isn't really necessary. If you examine the ingredients of healthy food vs. unhealthy food you will find that they are generally not the same. With a bit more examination you will realize that the US government is providing a tax subsidy for the production of those ingredients constituting unhealthy food but not for those ingredients of healthy food. Chief among those is the corn subsidy, a nutritionally vacant crop whose primary use is in the production of corn syrup (people feed), as well cattle feed. No one subsidizes spinach, oranges, carrots, flax, mushrooms, etc. certainly not at comparable levels. It's a token gesture at best. Get rid of the subsidies and you'll see production levels and supermarket prices self-correct.
I'm not so sure a tax on the tools would be that helpful if the aim is to actually persuade people to change their lifestyle. No one would connect A with B and just grumble about the tax. But if they are penalized directly a better point is made. That said $50 is far too low to be an effective consequence for someone bent on destroying their health at tax payer expense.
To a point yes, other factors are considered but there's an interesting trend towards drawing a line in the sand such that anything under a certain bar doesn't even get consideration. This is particularly true with respect to entry level career positions but even with many colleges.
Testing in general has problems but I would rather have at least "some" metric by which to gauge education. I have never seen a reasonably formulated argument justifying disparate testing systems. The only accomplishment achieved in having them different is preventing comparisons between educational systems thereby hindering people from learning what works and what doesn't. Every state is forced to experiment on their own to try and find (or perhaps not try) productive strategies for education.
I understand the motivation or lack thereof regarding a kid and their education. However, this is why the adults need to step in and guide the kid on to bigger and better things with various incentives such as quality weighted GPAs. If kids were properly motivated and applied themselves to their primary education like they do in various Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea maybe there wouldn't be so much "catch-up" work needed if and when they get to college.
I understand generalization does not capture the exceptions and I would expect this to be understood whenever a generalization is made. However, generalizations do a fair job of capturing the majority which was my intention.
Pre-calculus is a stepping stone between Algebra and Calculus wherein concepts introduced in Algebra, and used in Calculus are taught again with more rigor. For those a bit slower on the "uptake" it helps strengthen their Algebra skills so they don't have to struggle quite so hard with the same while fighting the new battles of Calculus. Some people need it, others don't.
With respect, there shouldn't be a semester that doesn't include at least one math course. The pace and rigor of primary education is terribly lacking and this more than anything is to blame for underachievement, not intellectual capacity. Americans simply do not value education and the fact that we're even having this conversation reflect it.
If they lack the necessary intellectual prowess why "should" they be allowed into college? College used to be about actually learning something, not putting up with incompetents that slow the pace of learning and erode academic standards. College should be more than a piece of paper that permits a job interview. It shouldn't be necessary to waste time and money on an advanced degree simply because dumb asses were permitted entrance and allowed to waste everyone elses time as an undergrad. We have trade schools for a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not entirely sure we've stopped reaching. With respect to government reaching like it did with Apollo, Manhattan, etc. no we aren't. Back in that time frame a select few people could afford these glamorous travel options. Now a days if you aren't from a third-world nation you stand a pretty good chance of being able to occasionally if not regularly take advantage of pretty comparable options. The rich have simply moved on to other adventures-- SpaceX, BlueOrigin, Virgin Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace, etc. and we've kept our myopic eyes looking back at Concords and 747s.
We may technically be able to afford things but from a practical standpoint we cannot. The overwhelming majority of our government revenue is tied up in the military industrial complex and social services (Medicare, Social Security, etc.). Since the MIC didn't figure money in hand was sufficient they've coaxed an additional $1T/year from China in the form of U.S. govt. I.O.U.s so that we can wage wars in places and causes that are largely none of our business.
So sure, we can afford it but first you'll have to pry it from the MICs cold dead fingers and pay back China.
I think the biggest problem is that people don't like the word "faith." There's far too much religious, and especially deistic baggage in peoples mind regarding this word that it clouds perspective. I've looked through many of these replies and it's amazing just how viciously people defend the segregation of science and faith. It further demonstrates my point about the inconvenience of measuring rods.
What I find so interesting is how people can cite facts, provide arguments, etc. about how science does not incorporate faith and yet their very arguments observed from another vantage only prove the position of the opposition. Faith is the belief without proof that something is so. Nothing more. For instance I have faith that my government will continue making blunders regarding healthcare, the economy, etc.. I have no proof of this. Yet the strength of my faith is bolstered by historical evidence.
In the same way a scientist demonstrates their faith when they assert something is so in the absence of proof. Sometimes they quantify the strength of their faith with confidence numbers but it does not change what it is that they're exercising. In the absence of definitive proof scientists seek to find substantiating evidence of their belief. The greater the evidence, the greater their confidence or strength of their faith.
It's understandable, and particularly so on issues such as evolution where divinity can make an easy breach in the minds of lay persons to muster a strong defense, and in some cases offense against the alternative. However, the cause is weakened when one does not consider the merits of waging a particular skirmish nor the tools employed beforehand.
Perhaps, but more probably, they're just doing as they said. Gaining sample data for training their AI.
As must Darwinian evolution. While we can test and prove micro-evolution (adaptation and such), the same cannot be said for macro (one species to another). It is interesting how measuring rods are both dually convenient and inconvenient at the same time depending upon our preferences for what's being measure.
they want their joke back.
Isn't it great when you can act without thinking and blame someone else for the results..?
The scary part isn't so much the irresponsibility of radicals in the house. I'm certain many are pandering for the Nov. 2012 elections. Either way they have the senate to moderate legislation. However, looking down the road a bit further it scares the hell out of me to consider the strong possibility that many of them will go on to become the next generation of senators.
Send them word, I'm sure they're game.
Unfortunately, while that sounds like a reasonable idea, the courts have started making a distinction between subject matter. For instance the validity of business method patents were at issue Bilsky case. Give how substantially similar a business method is to a software algorithm most people believed that any ruling on this case would be directly applicable to software patents. The Supreme Court however intentionally dropped the ball by narrowly defined the terms of their ruling so as to exclude software patents from the scope leaving the matter for a future case.
The trouble is that the damage has already been done. So what if the defendant wins against the AIA, that defendant has already had to shell out substantial money to defend themselves, money that could have been used for research.
You'll point to the dollar menu and I'll point to the fact that few people simply order a solitary item off the dollar menu and call it dinner, most will head straight for the extra value menu and throw on the Coke and fries. When you ring up the final bill for an actual meal they will both land somewhere around $6-7. I also do not recall "ghettos" being brought up. Regardless of food offerings there--which I'm certain do include include at least one grocer if they include a McRotten--most people do not live in the ghetto and we are in fact talking about most people.
3/4c or 10 tsp (a little under 1/4c), the point is still there. Who really recognizes just how much they're consuming with a single can of soda. No consider than most people seem to be chugging 1 liter bottles now a days, not cans.
The notion of "low fat" is healthy was a marketing scheme concocted and proliferated for the purpose of generating revenue back in the 80's. The damage of which still lingers today. Fat is not inherently unhealthy, and is in fact actually an essential nutrient. Obviously we can split hairs and go into how certain fats bad for you and others healthy but, that's tangential. Moderation will take you a lot farther than mucking about with the ratio of sugar (carbohydrates), fat and protein. A shift from nutritionally starved foods to nutritionally rich foods will take you a better part of the rest of the way.
Hmm, calorie wise you may be right, but from a health and nutrition point of view current wisdom would disagree. The consensus hovers around several small meals spread throughout the day. It is not reasonable to think of one's stomach as a gas tank on a car. It just doesn't work that way. It's a processing tank in a multi-stage "use it or convert it" system. If there isn't a present need for food energy by the body it will convert it to fat for storage on the body. This of course requires insulin. The excess use of which will lead to creating an insulin resistance in the body resulting in type II Diabetes.
Cut McRotten out of that and you'll have money to purchase a reasonable amount of low/no-prep fruits and veggies. If you have to eat on the go, try a Subway, Jimmy Johns, or any of a growing number of same price, yet healthier alternatives. There's also nothing horrible with Ramens if you throw something healthy with it, and no one forces you to put half a stick of butter into your Mac and Cheese. Further if you're willing to go through the effort of Mac and Cheese then you have a whole host of very simple, similarly priced healthy alternatives. Believe it or not you can actually eat pretty well on not much money if you put a bit of effort into looking for alternatives. Even if you can't afford that much produce you can generally afford a bottle of multi-vitamins to supplement.
With respect to adjusting the cost of unhealthy food a tax isn't really necessary. If you examine the ingredients of healthy food vs. unhealthy food you will find that they are generally not the same. With a bit more examination you will realize that the US government is providing a tax subsidy for the production of those ingredients constituting unhealthy food but not for those ingredients of healthy food. Chief among those is the corn subsidy, a nutritionally vacant crop whose primary use is in the production of corn syrup (people feed), as well cattle feed. No one subsidizes spinach, oranges, carrots, flax, mushrooms, etc. certainly not at comparable levels. It's a token gesture at best. Get rid of the subsidies and you'll see production levels and supermarket prices self-correct.
I'm not so sure a tax on the tools would be that helpful if the aim is to actually persuade people to change their lifestyle. No one would connect A with B and just grumble about the tax. But if they are penalized directly a better point is made. That said $50 is far too low to be an effective consequence for someone bent on destroying their health at tax payer expense.
To a point yes, other factors are considered but there's an interesting trend towards drawing a line in the sand such that anything under a certain bar doesn't even get consideration. This is particularly true with respect to entry level career positions but even with many colleges.
Testing in general has problems but I would rather have at least "some" metric by which to gauge education. I have never seen a reasonably formulated argument justifying disparate testing systems. The only accomplishment achieved in having them different is preventing comparisons between educational systems thereby hindering people from learning what works and what doesn't. Every state is forced to experiment on their own to try and find (or perhaps not try) productive strategies for education.
I understand the motivation or lack thereof regarding a kid and their education. However, this is why the adults need to step in and guide the kid on to bigger and better things with various incentives such as quality weighted GPAs. If kids were properly motivated and applied themselves to their primary education like they do in various Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea maybe there wouldn't be so much "catch-up" work needed if and when they get to college.
I understand generalization does not capture the exceptions and I would expect this to be understood whenever a generalization is made. However, generalizations do a fair job of capturing the majority which was my intention.
Pre-calculus is a stepping stone between Algebra and Calculus wherein concepts introduced in Algebra, and used in Calculus are taught again with more rigor. For those a bit slower on the "uptake" it helps strengthen their Algebra skills so they don't have to struggle quite so hard with the same while fighting the new battles of Calculus. Some people need it, others don't.
With respect, there shouldn't be a semester that doesn't include at least one math course. The pace and rigor of primary education is terribly lacking and this more than anything is to blame for underachievement, not intellectual capacity. Americans simply do not value education and the fact that we're even having this conversation reflect it.
If they lack the necessary intellectual prowess why "should" they be allowed into college? College used to be about actually learning something, not putting up with incompetents that slow the pace of learning and erode academic standards. College should be more than a piece of paper that permits a job interview. It shouldn't be necessary to waste time and money on an advanced degree simply because dumb asses were permitted entrance and allowed to waste everyone elses time as an undergrad. We have trade schools for a reason.
This may well suggest that the pace at which people are being taught mathematics is too slow?