I won't spend the time to counter all of your points above, as I don't think it would help. I would ask though for you to read the fine print of the law. There are a lot of things in it that don't make sense.
If you notice, I never said, I didn't want to be held accountable. I think accountability is paramount to teaching all students, but No Child Left Behind puts accountability only on the schools. There are no repercussions for a student who doesn't come to school, nor a parent who doesn't encourage education. Before you say I don't care about those kids, let me remind you, I spend all day teaching them. I work extremely hard to make sure they learn, but to expect every student, regardless of IQ, desire to learn, and time in school is ridiculous. I think we should teach all children, but it is really fair to expect a school, who has only two years with a student who transferred in to teach that student everything he or she missed for their entire life? Remember, No Child Left Behind says EVERY student should pass the test, and the example student I use above would qualify.
At the end of the day, it's about balance and equity in the system. We've reached a point in the United States where teachers are the only ones being held responsible for the issues we have with our students, yet we only see them for eight hours a day. At some point, do we ever expect a child and their parents to be responsible, at least in part, for their own education?
And with all the finger pointing above, tell me, what have you done for those kids? Do you volunteer at your local school? Do you mentor a child? Do you support those teachers you are so quick to dismiss in any way? Or are you only good at pointing out the negatives in a flawed system without any attempt to help it work?
And I am sad to say that I believe that the former greatly outnumber the later.
I don't know. There are a lot of us out there who are really capable of doing other stuff but still teach. It's a good profession in spite of all the crap.
But it's getting harder and harder to do the job with so much pressure from the outside. I teach at a school that has some of the highest SAT scores for my state, the most AP classes, a great graduation rate in spite of our diverse and transient population, but we are labeled as a school on probation under the wonderful No Child Left Behind Act.
It really does do my heart and morale good to see so many positive posts about education. Two things you can do to help keep the good teachers teaching. Go email your good teachers from school and tell them they made a difference and how and cc their principal. The other, write your politicians and tell them No Child Left Behind is bullshit, incessantly. Did you know that by 2014, schools are supposed to have all students at a level of proficiency in Math, Science and English, including kids who just moved to your school, who have parents that think education is a waste of time and don't make their child go to school, or who have only been in the country for three years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind
Okay, I'm with you. It's the flexibility issue that usually gets lost. That's why, in this case, I understand Google's decision to do business in China. I think they honestly see it as being more beneficial for the people in the long run. Remember, not everything gets censored out.
I'm also with you on the omelette thing, just so long as I'm not the egg.
Good points, but realistically, most people in China know the government is censoring information, the web-savvy know they can find it outside China, and they "get" what Google's little message means.
I think sometimes we inadvertently act like the Chinese population are all idiots and don't get what's going on. I know that wasn't the intent of the post, but they are more aware than we sometime suppose.
It is wrong to assist a totalitarian government to violate its citizens' rights.
I understand your argument and don't totally disagree, I think in principle what you say is true. But this is a complicated world, and living by such strict moral guidelines can get dicey. I don't always like the analogy game, because anyone can cook up an analogy to make someone else's point seem ridiculous, but just to prove that point I'm going to use one.
There is a huge earthquake in China. Their crops are ruined, and the people are starving. Some people decide to send them some rice and wheat, but word leaks out that the government is skimming off the top and selling ten percent of the supplies for their own profit and to buy big guns to intimidate the people.
In this scenario, providing food for the people is in reality helping an oppressive regime. So what do we do? Stop sending food? Do we choose to make a life and death choice for the people in China and say it's better that they die than live under an oppressive regime? Are you comfortable making that decision?
The problem I have with moral imperatives is that they assume we can't stand still on a slippery slope. It can be tough to do so, but as long as you are careful and always consider where you are, and how to avoid sliding down, it can be done. Now, before I get railed, I'm not saying we don't slide down, but it is the diligence of attention that we often lack.
I agree that giving telcos carte blanche is a bad idea. But I can't tell if you mean your comment to reflect that or not. If you are saying making any compromise on the role municipalities have in controlling all areas of build outs is stupid, I don't think that is the answer either. If a telcom had to go through 20 municipalities to get a line through, and each one could take up to six months of negotiations, town hall meetings, public forums, and some litigation, then you are looking at years just to get the rights to lay the lines. So I'm arguing that the other side has at least some logical stance for their position. So instead of calling them stupid, would it not be more useful to suggest a solution for a very real, practical problem?
The libertarian miserliness screaming that somebody else is getting a few of their projected pennies of savings
This is the type of over simplification I was referring to. You are understating the issue. We aren't talking about a few pennies, we are talking about millions of dollars. Now, if you want to make the argument that even though the issue is about millions and millions of dollars, fine. But to paint the other side as stingy bastards who only want to save a few pennies, begs a visceral and caustic response. Then you perpetuate the issue.
We in the Blue States proudly endorse the FCC's move - in the hopes that more rural neo cons will be denied high speed internet access, thus hindering the spread of the plague that is your corporate statist "let them eat cake" line of thinking.
While I don't disagree with your position, would you mind toning down the rhetoric a little. I actually live in a "red" state and am tired of the over-generalizations people keep making. This is a complicated issue, without the black and white outcome both sides are claiming. The fact is, without some movement in the system, it is not profitable at all for the telcos to build their infrastructure nationally, if every single municipality they go through is able to negotiate individual terms. Which would be bad for consumers as the infrastructure remains stagnant. At the same time, the telcos have done an excellent job of $elling the politicians on the idea that no regulation is the way to go. I think it's obvious that they are doing this to have a freehand in maximizing their profits.
But the way both sides in this discussion are allowing a political and philosophical discussion to degenerate into name calling is about as productive as beating each other over the heads with bats. It might feel good, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Whatever happened to the days when people were actually willing to consider the other side of an argument, and at least concede that smart people are going to disagree on just about anything.
Now before anyone shoots back with the "I do consider the other side, but they are just stupid," line, take a moment, breathe, and consider the possibility, however remote, that you might be responding emotionally to a logical issue. When you dismantle a bomb, you don't cut the red wire because you think it's an ugly color.
this is more like ClearChannel advertising their radio stations on their billboards and refusing to sell space on the best billboards
Okay, but does that equate to abuse of a monopoly status? And, what if they only reserved one fourth of the billboard? What if they sold their competitors the next billboard over, but not the one on the top of the hill? I guess it seems that we are oversimplifying the issue here. Google hasn't kept its competitors from advertising through them. They are just saying they want some of the best real estate. I don't know if that is wrong. Do we complain if NBC broadcasts commercials for its shows during a major event?
I just did a search for spreadsheets in Google, and although GoogleDocs came up at the top of the search page, there were eight ads for their competitors down the right hand side. Are we saying that if they don't give the top of the page to a competitor, then no customer will look to the right to see the plethora of alternatives to GoogleDocs?
And to continue the billboard analogy, if Google makes the highest billboards, buys the land, convinces people to look there, don't they have somewhat of a right to use that space as they see fit?
they dont have to tell anyone how they found the problem, just where. if the webmaster of a site is deliberately trying to cheat google, they already know what pages are in offence anyway.
But if they tell the webmaster, who might be cheating, (remember, a lot of the exploits out there are actually used by the webmaster) where the problem is, then the cheating webmaster only has to get rid of one exploit and gains insight into the detection methods employed by Google. Then he can leave all the others in place. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the people doing evil is, well, the exploitive webmasters?
Don't hit reply yet...I know this guy was honest, but how in the hell could Google possibly tell who is legit and who is not? Google can't hope to be "fair," only just.
I don't have time to research this fully, but I think the use of military applications isn't a good measure of literacy rates, which your source is using. It's not a good cross section. There are also researchers who would disagree.
The authors review literacy and reading achievement trends over the past century and place current debates in a historical perspective. Although then-and-now studies are methodologically weak, they suggest that students' reading performance at a given age remained stable until the 1970s. The test score decline that then occurred was not as great as many educators think, and much of it can be explained by the changing demographics of test-takers. The decline pales when compared to the tremendous increase in the population's educational attainment over the past 40 years.
I'm a public high school teacher, and I would agree that things are a mess, but I'd like to spread the blame a little further than the school system. Parents absolutely have leverage, and they have used it well in recent history. So well in fact, that I had a student in my class after she had pushed and threatened to "beat the fucking shit" out of on of my colleagues because the alternative school was full, so the school system couldn't expel her. That is one of the main problems we have. Parents have used the court system to hamstring the schools. Politicians have repeatedly passed laws requiring more and more of schools while reducing funding for them. More and more has been asked of teachers in the classroom without giving them more time or pay. the problem is one for our entire society. We need to decide what the role for schools should be. We need to streamline the system and remove politics from education. Politicians should not make policies about the day to day workings of a school, yet they do all the time.
With that said, I think the suspension mentioned in the article is silly, but the waters are murkier than they appear. School's are responsible for students while they are on their way to and from school. From what I know, and I might be off, this has been a long held law in many states. So the school most likely had the right to suspend him, but it would have been more productive to just shake their heads and talk to him about appropriate venues. But school administrators aren't known for their subtleties.
When this country was founded private education was the norm.
I'm not sure I'd like to go back to the days when only the rich white kids got a quality education.
I'm not sure why you say I have a problem. I'm asking for a clear discussion about what is going on and that we don't bash each other because our views differ. I've heard a lot of evidence that global warming is an issue and one we need to address. If you think I'm wrong, tell me. Don't tell me I'm an idiot, but tell me where I made a mistake.
I'm also unclear about the connection you are making with regulation. Are you talking about the oil companies? If so, I ask a serious question. If coal gasification was an easy solution, wouldn't the people in charge of the oil industry be buying up coal mines and using them? Granted I know little about international business, but would it not be easier for them to eliminate the uncertainty of international politics from the equation, if there was really such an easy solution in their backyard?
Again, I'm actually interested in trying to get to the truth, not prove anyone wrong.
I hear your frustration. Believe me, I've felt it. I'm not saying we need to always have an ongoing conversation, but we should attempt to. I've started many conversations with the intent to speak rationally with someone, only to hear that God created the world a couple thousand years ago. I usually ask about fossils or other evidence, and if I get something back about God testing our faith, I excuse myself and make a quick exit. Those are my good days; on the bad days I goad them a little before leaving.
But my point is that we need to attempt to engage them in dialogue. If they don't want to hear another point of view, there is nothing to be done, and forget them. But... we too often dismiss people who make those comments as irrational, when in reality, the only reason they are spouting off inaccurate information is because they have never questioned it. And I think the majority of people out there aren't zealots and actually care about the world, but have simply never really looked at the issues. If you can get them to question something or look deeper, you might win one over from the uninformed masses.
Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I think we have to try.
Re:what a hard-nosed skeptic you are
on
Oceans Empty By 2048?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Your response is exactly what I'm suggesting. It's reasoned and you didn't resort to attacking me, but instead dealt with the issue I raised. I'm afraid though you lumped my own views in with that of the poster I was, for want of a better term, defending. I wasn't defending what he said, but encouraging others to respond differently.
I actually am totally on the Global Warming bandwagon. I had some concerns over the past decade, but slowly I have learned more, and don't doubt the seriousness of the issue. But my concern is the way people respond to the skeptics. I think this issue permeates western society in general, but I'll stay with the specifics here.
I'm a teacher, and I promise you the majority of the population I've taught, including many on/. never look at scientific journals, or even summaries of scientific journals. They rely on the media and snippets of information on the web to get their information. When we, those who actually seek out a deeper understanding of issues, have a chance to address those who are less informed, as I think the original poster was, we need to engage them in discussion. But generally when they give an uninformed opinion, they are assaulted with personal attacks, as somewhat happened in this instance. They logically conclude that the people on the other side of the issue are mean spirited extremists. That is where a lot of the distrust comes from.
I wish we lived in a society that didn't see the world in thirty seconds snippets. I wish everyone looked deeper. But they never will if they aren't encouraged to. In another thread, a poster commented on Crichton's State of Fear and was told not to cite it if he wanted to be taken seriously. That's a quick way to end a productive conversation.
I originally thought the book raised some important issues that deserved to be discussed. Since reading it, I've seen some clear refutations of much in the book, but I'm glad it was written. More people might now ask questions, and therefore start a discussion they would not have had otherwise.
If I yelled at my students whenever they asked an uninformed question or claimed something as fact that was really fiction, I would never have the opportunity to teach them because they would have a natural distrust for me. Let the uninformed questions come. Ask them questions, in return, that point to a better understanding. But too often, outside academic settings, when people venture an opinion, they are shot down with personal attacks. They then walk away, offended, and unwilling to consider an alternative.
Now if you ask rational questions and repeatedly get personal attacks in your face, then they look the fool.
When you have a moment, reread my post. I think you missed the main point.
Your ad hominem attack on his intelligence, missed the fact that he never made a point other than that the "global warming" people are an angry mob. While I personally don't agree with that in general, there is a vocal group of supporters of the global warming theory who are unwilling to engage in a conversation on the issues. The fact that you keep calling him a jerk and moron because he disagrees with you, goes a long way to prove his point for him. I encourage you to stop treating him like an idiot, and try to put your arguments and evidence on the table. If he then keeps insulting you, then he comes off as the hardline fanatic unwilling to discuss the issue. As soon as you insult his intelligence because he disagrees with you, you will get lumped into the same boat.
In no way is this meant to defend the grandparent post, yet I'm compelled yet again to point out an issue that keeps arising with some of the most important issues raised on/.. Why is it that we always end up sneering at people with the opposite opinion?
This thread took less than two posts to become a rant on each other. This kind of debate does very little but polarize the very people needed to make change.
I'm glad you're too much of an independent thinker to fall for their soft-headed ruses.
So the first guy doubts the scientists, not in itself a bad thing. Remember, science is based on opening up all theories to critics. It's a fundamental part of the process. Now the guy is obviously pissing in your coke with the first comment, but he knows he's about to get railed and starts the conversation off with a slight. But instead of ignoring the bait and saying, ok, here are the stats, and allowing the theory to be opened to criticism, the guy is written off as a flake because he disagrees. And his point is, in a weak sense, made. The "global warming" crowd heard him, and stormed in with guns blazing. Then we have an entertaining flamewar that doesn't deal with any of the issues being raised and only polarizes everyone who reads them.
I actually like reading these threads, because most people on/. are much smarter than I am, and I come in with an open mind looking to learn something. Both camps missed the chance on this one.
I think the gp post's point is that we need accurate information. You are over generalizing to make his argument seem worse than it is. His statement says that the media is helping the terrorists, by not giving accurate information.
So when you categorize his argument in such a way that makes it look like he wants to trick the American public, you are either letting your emotions get ahead of your logic, or you are purposefully obfuscating the discussion to make people who disagree with you seem sinister. Either way, you do democratic discourse no favor.
The gp post makes reference to one story and implies that there were others. I don't see how you equate that to "news media are always lying."
I'd suggest that is one of the major issues in politics today, everyone wants to play all or nothing games. Do media outlets report inaccurate information? Yes. Will the military try to put a positive slant on things it does, whether they are good or bad? Yes.
I'd love to see a political argument about the war in Iraq where intelligent people discuss issues rationally and with decency, rather than jumping to conclusions and name calling.
I agree the US can go a long way to improve its image, but to suggest that we have some kind of global democracy voting on a country's approval, comes across as obtuse.
It would be MUCH more effective for the really popular news aggregators and so forth to whole heartedly comply with those content-producers that are upset about this.... simply remove the offending material.
I don't work that much with meta data, but can't you add a robot.txt file to keep those aggragators from gathering your content?
The precedent is touchy at best if we lay the responsibility on those organizing the information. If they have to check with every source they gather information from, we are likely to see aggragators drying up. There needs to be some common sense in play here. If you get into a cab, and ask the driver where the best food is in town, and they charge you to take you there, does the restaraunt deserve a percentage of the cab's profits?
Fair Use is the only viable solution. Google's aggragator isn't, IMHO, displaying enough information from the content provider to warrant content abuse.
I can see your point about putting that option on the actual dialogue box, but having to "dig down" two layers one time to turn off a feature is a trivial reason not to use a browser that has some pretty cool features that IE hasn't had.
Also, keep in mind, you aren't the only user out there. I can pretty much gaurantee that there are others out there that feel the exact opposite as you do. I'd try to avoid the arrogance of assuming your views is the only "right" one.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't spend the time to counter all of your points above, as I don't think it would help. I would ask though for you to read the fine print of the law. There are a lot of things in it that don't make sense.
If you notice, I never said, I didn't want to be held accountable. I think accountability is paramount to teaching all students, but No Child Left Behind puts accountability only on the schools. There are no repercussions for a student who doesn't come to school, nor a parent who doesn't encourage education. Before you say I don't care about those kids, let me remind you, I spend all day teaching them. I work extremely hard to make sure they learn, but to expect every student, regardless of IQ, desire to learn, and time in school is ridiculous. I think we should teach all children, but it is really fair to expect a school, who has only two years with a student who transferred in to teach that student everything he or she missed for their entire life? Remember, No Child Left Behind says EVERY student should pass the test, and the example student I use above would qualify.
At the end of the day, it's about balance and equity in the system. We've reached a point in the United States where teachers are the only ones being held responsible for the issues we have with our students, yet we only see them for eight hours a day. At some point, do we ever expect a child and their parents to be responsible, at least in part, for their own education?
And with all the finger pointing above, tell me, what have you done for those kids? Do you volunteer at your local school? Do you mentor a child? Do you support those teachers you are so quick to dismiss in any way? Or are you only good at pointing out the negatives in a flawed system without any attempt to help it work?
With the current school calendar it works out to around two months off during the summer. Not a major point, but I thought I would mention it.
I don't know. There are a lot of us out there who are really capable of doing other stuff but still teach. It's a good profession in spite of all the crap.
But it's getting harder and harder to do the job with so much pressure from the outside. I teach at a school that has some of the highest SAT scores for my state, the most AP classes, a great graduation rate in spite of our diverse and transient population, but we are labeled as a school on probation under the wonderful No Child Left Behind Act.
It really does do my heart and morale good to see so many positive posts about education. Two things you can do to help keep the good teachers teaching. Go email your good teachers from school and tell them they made a difference and how and cc their principal. The other, write your politicians and tell them No Child Left Behind is bullshit, incessantly. Did you know that by 2014, schools are supposed to have all students at a level of proficiency in Math, Science and English, including kids who just moved to your school, who have parents that think education is a waste of time and don't make their child go to school, or who have only been in the country for three years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind
And whatever you do, ignore really funny parodies of movies that show the callous nature of many of those in control.
Okay, I'm with you. It's the flexibility issue that usually gets lost. That's why, in this case, I understand Google's decision to do business in China. I think they honestly see it as being more beneficial for the people in the long run. Remember, not everything gets censored out.
I'm also with you on the omelette thing, just so long as I'm not the egg.
Good points, but realistically, most people in China know the government is censoring information, the web-savvy know they can find it outside China, and they "get" what Google's little message means.
I think sometimes we inadvertently act like the Chinese population are all idiots and don't get what's going on. I know that wasn't the intent of the post, but they are more aware than we sometime suppose.
I understand your argument and don't totally disagree, I think in principle what you say is true. But this is a complicated world, and living by such strict moral guidelines can get dicey. I don't always like the analogy game, because anyone can cook up an analogy to make someone else's point seem ridiculous, but just to prove that point I'm going to use one.
There is a huge earthquake in China. Their crops are ruined, and the people are starving. Some people decide to send them some rice and wheat, but word leaks out that the government is skimming off the top and selling ten percent of the supplies for their own profit and to buy big guns to intimidate the people.
In this scenario, providing food for the people is in reality helping an oppressive regime. So what do we do? Stop sending food? Do we choose to make a life and death choice for the people in China and say it's better that they die than live under an oppressive regime? Are you comfortable making that decision?
The problem I have with moral imperatives is that they assume we can't stand still on a slippery slope. It can be tough to do so, but as long as you are careful and always consider where you are, and how to avoid sliding down, it can be done. Now, before I get railed, I'm not saying we don't slide down, but it is the diligence of attention that we often lack.
Hey, at least you tried... ;)
I agree that giving telcos carte blanche is a bad idea. But I can't tell if you mean your comment to reflect that or not. If you are saying making any compromise on the role municipalities have in controlling all areas of build outs is stupid, I don't think that is the answer either. If a telcom had to go through 20 municipalities to get a line through, and each one could take up to six months of negotiations, town hall meetings, public forums, and some litigation, then you are looking at years just to get the rights to lay the lines. So I'm arguing that the other side has at least some logical stance for their position. So instead of calling them stupid, would it not be more useful to suggest a solution for a very real, practical problem?
The libertarian miserliness screaming that somebody else is getting a few of their projected pennies of savingsThis is the type of over simplification I was referring to. You are understating the issue. We aren't talking about a few pennies, we are talking about millions of dollars. Now, if you want to make the argument that even though the issue is about millions and millions of dollars, fine. But to paint the other side as stingy bastards who only want to save a few pennies, begs a visceral and caustic response. Then you perpetuate the issue.
While I don't disagree with your position, would you mind toning down the rhetoric a little. I actually live in a "red" state and am tired of the over-generalizations people keep making. This is a complicated issue, without the black and white outcome both sides are claiming. The fact is, without some movement in the system, it is not profitable at all for the telcos to build their infrastructure nationally, if every single municipality they go through is able to negotiate individual terms. Which would be bad for consumers as the infrastructure remains stagnant. At the same time, the telcos have done an excellent job of $elling the politicians on the idea that no regulation is the way to go. I think it's obvious that they are doing this to have a freehand in maximizing their profits.
But the way both sides in this discussion are allowing a political and philosophical discussion to degenerate into name calling is about as productive as beating each other over the heads with bats. It might feel good, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Whatever happened to the days when people were actually willing to consider the other side of an argument, and at least concede that smart people are going to disagree on just about anything.
Now before anyone shoots back with the "I do consider the other side, but they are just stupid," line, take a moment, breathe, and consider the possibility, however remote, that you might be responding emotionally to a logical issue. When you dismantle a bomb, you don't cut the red wire because you think it's an ugly color.
Okay, but does that equate to abuse of a monopoly status? And, what if they only reserved one fourth of the billboard? What if they sold their competitors the next billboard over, but not the one on the top of the hill? I guess it seems that we are oversimplifying the issue here. Google hasn't kept its competitors from advertising through them. They are just saying they want some of the best real estate. I don't know if that is wrong. Do we complain if NBC broadcasts commercials for its shows during a major event?
I just did a search for spreadsheets in Google, and although GoogleDocs came up at the top of the search page, there were eight ads for their competitors down the right hand side. Are we saying that if they don't give the top of the page to a competitor, then no customer will look to the right to see the plethora of alternatives to GoogleDocs?
And to continue the billboard analogy, if Google makes the highest billboards, buys the land, convinces people to look there, don't they have somewhat of a right to use that space as they see fit?
But if they tell the webmaster, who might be cheating, (remember, a lot of the exploits out there are actually used by the webmaster) where the problem is, then the cheating webmaster only has to get rid of one exploit and gains insight into the detection methods employed by Google. Then he can leave all the others in place. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the people doing evil is, well, the exploitive webmasters?
Don't hit reply yet...I know this guy was honest, but how in the hell could Google possibly tell who is legit and who is not? Google can't hope to be "fair," only just.
I don't have time to research this fully, but I think the use of military applications isn't a good measure of literacy rates, which your source is using. It's not a good cross section. There are also researchers who would disagree.
From http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0034-0553(198724I'm a public high school teacher, and I would agree that things are a mess, but I'd like to spread the blame a little further than the school system. Parents absolutely have leverage, and they have used it well in recent history. So well in fact, that I had a student in my class after she had pushed and threatened to "beat the fucking shit" out of on of my colleagues because the alternative school was full, so the school system couldn't expel her. That is one of the main problems we have. Parents have used the court system to hamstring the schools. Politicians have repeatedly passed laws requiring more and more of schools while reducing funding for them. More and more has been asked of teachers in the classroom without giving them more time or pay. the problem is one for our entire society. We need to decide what the role for schools should be. We need to streamline the system and remove politics from education. Politicians should not make policies about the day to day workings of a school, yet they do all the time.
With that said, I think the suspension mentioned in the article is silly, but the waters are murkier than they appear. School's are responsible for students while they are on their way to and from school. From what I know, and I might be off, this has been a long held law in many states. So the school most likely had the right to suspend him, but it would have been more productive to just shake their heads and talk to him about appropriate venues. But school administrators aren't known for their subtleties.
I'm not sure I'd like to go back to the days when only the rich white kids got a quality education.
I'm not sure why you say I have a problem. I'm asking for a clear discussion about what is going on and that we don't bash each other because our views differ. I've heard a lot of evidence that global warming is an issue and one we need to address. If you think I'm wrong, tell me. Don't tell me I'm an idiot, but tell me where I made a mistake.
I'm also unclear about the connection you are making with regulation. Are you talking about the oil companies? If so, I ask a serious question. If coal gasification was an easy solution, wouldn't the people in charge of the oil industry be buying up coal mines and using them? Granted I know little about international business, but would it not be easier for them to eliminate the uncertainty of international politics from the equation, if there was really such an easy solution in their backyard?
Again, I'm actually interested in trying to get to the truth, not prove anyone wrong.
I hear your frustration. Believe me, I've felt it. I'm not saying we need to always have an ongoing conversation, but we should attempt to. I've started many conversations with the intent to speak rationally with someone, only to hear that God created the world a couple thousand years ago. I usually ask about fossils or other evidence, and if I get something back about God testing our faith, I excuse myself and make a quick exit. Those are my good days; on the bad days I goad them a little before leaving.
But my point is that we need to attempt to engage them in dialogue. If they don't want to hear another point of view, there is nothing to be done, and forget them. But... we too often dismiss people who make those comments as irrational, when in reality, the only reason they are spouting off inaccurate information is because they have never questioned it. And I think the majority of people out there aren't zealots and actually care about the world, but have simply never really looked at the issues. If you can get them to question something or look deeper, you might win one over from the uninformed masses.
Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I think we have to try.
Your response is exactly what I'm suggesting. It's reasoned and you didn't resort to attacking me, but instead dealt with the issue I raised. I'm afraid though you lumped my own views in with that of the poster I was, for want of a better term, defending. I wasn't defending what he said, but encouraging others to respond differently.
I actually am totally on the Global Warming bandwagon. I had some concerns over the past decade, but slowly I have learned more, and don't doubt the seriousness of the issue. But my concern is the way people respond to the skeptics. I think this issue permeates western society in general, but I'll stay with the specifics here.
I'm a teacher, and I promise you the majority of the population I've taught, including many on /. never look at scientific journals, or even summaries of scientific journals. They rely on the media and snippets of information on the web to get their information. When we, those who actually seek out a deeper understanding of issues, have a chance to address those who are less informed, as I think the original poster was, we need to engage them in discussion. But generally when they give an uninformed opinion, they are assaulted with personal attacks, as somewhat happened in this instance. They logically conclude that the people on the other side of the issue are mean spirited extremists. That is where a lot of the distrust comes from.
I wish we lived in a society that didn't see the world in thirty seconds snippets. I wish everyone looked deeper. But they never will if they aren't encouraged to. In another thread, a poster commented on Crichton's State of Fear and was told not to cite it if he wanted to be taken seriously. That's a quick way to end a productive conversation.
I originally thought the book raised some important issues that deserved to be discussed. Since reading it, I've seen some clear refutations of much in the book, but I'm glad it was written. More people might now ask questions, and therefore start a discussion they would not have had otherwise.
If I yelled at my students whenever they asked an uninformed question or claimed something as fact that was really fiction, I would never have the opportunity to teach them because they would have a natural distrust for me. Let the uninformed questions come. Ask them questions, in return, that point to a better understanding. But too often, outside academic settings, when people venture an opinion, they are shot down with personal attacks. They then walk away, offended, and unwilling to consider an alternative.
Now if you ask rational questions and repeatedly get personal attacks in your face, then they look the fool.
--steps off soap box.--
When you have a moment, reread my post. I think you missed the main point.
Your ad hominem attack on his intelligence, missed the fact that he never made a point other than that the "global warming" people are an angry mob. While I personally don't agree with that in general, there is a vocal group of supporters of the global warming theory who are unwilling to engage in a conversation on the issues. The fact that you keep calling him a jerk and moron because he disagrees with you, goes a long way to prove his point for him. I encourage you to stop treating him like an idiot, and try to put your arguments and evidence on the table. If he then keeps insulting you, then he comes off as the hardline fanatic unwilling to discuss the issue. As soon as you insult his intelligence because he disagrees with you, you will get lumped into the same boat.
In no way is this meant to defend the grandparent post, yet I'm compelled yet again to point out an issue that keeps arising with some of the most important issues raised on /.. Why is it that we always end up sneering at people with the opposite opinion?
This thread took less than two posts to become a rant on each other. This kind of debate does very little but polarize the very people needed to make change.
So the first guy doubts the scientists, not in itself a bad thing. Remember, science is based on opening up all theories to critics. It's a fundamental part of the process. Now the guy is obviously pissing in your coke with the first comment, but he knows he's about to get railed and starts the conversation off with a slight. But instead of ignoring the bait and saying, ok, here are the stats, and allowing the theory to be opened to criticism, the guy is written off as a flake because he disagrees. And his point is, in a weak sense, made. The "global warming" crowd heard him, and stormed in with guns blazing. Then we have an entertaining flamewar that doesn't deal with any of the issues being raised and only polarizes everyone who reads them.
I actually like reading these threads, because most people on /. are much smarter than I am, and I come in with an open mind looking to learn something. Both camps missed the chance on this one.
I just did a side by side. Yahoo Maps Beta was slower, jerkier, and takes a long time to reload images after I zoom extensively.
I'm a Google fan, but when a better product comes along, I'll use it. Yahoo Maps isn't there yet.
I'd reread my post. I'm agreeing with you. The comment you quote refers to the approach the gp poster took.
I think the gp post's point is that we need accurate information. You are over generalizing to make his argument seem worse than it is. His statement says that the media is helping the terrorists, by not giving accurate information.
So when you categorize his argument in such a way that makes it look like he wants to trick the American public, you are either letting your emotions get ahead of your logic, or you are purposefully obfuscating the discussion to make people who disagree with you seem sinister. Either way, you do democratic discourse no favor.
The gp post makes reference to one story and implies that there were others. I don't see how you equate that to "news media are always lying."
I'd suggest that is one of the major issues in politics today, everyone wants to play all or nothing games. Do media outlets report inaccurate information? Yes. Will the military try to put a positive slant on things it does, whether they are good or bad? Yes.
I'd love to see a political argument about the war in Iraq where intelligent people discuss issues rationally and with decency, rather than jumping to conclusions and name calling.
To which democracy do you refer?
I agree the US can go a long way to improve its image, but to suggest that we have some kind of global democracy voting on a country's approval, comes across as obtuse.
I don't work that much with meta data, but can't you add a robot.txt file to keep those aggragators from gathering your content?
The precedent is touchy at best if we lay the responsibility on those organizing the information. If they have to check with every source they gather information from, we are likely to see aggragators drying up. There needs to be some common sense in play here. If you get into a cab, and ask the driver where the best food is in town, and they charge you to take you there, does the restaraunt deserve a percentage of the cab's profits?
Fair Use is the only viable solution. Google's aggragator isn't, IMHO, displaying enough information from the content provider to warrant content abuse.
I can see your point about putting that option on the actual dialogue box, but having to "dig down" two layers one time to turn off a feature is a trivial reason not to use a browser that has some pretty cool features that IE hasn't had.
Also, keep in mind, you aren't the only user out there. I can pretty much gaurantee that there are others out there that feel the exact opposite as you do. I'd try to avoid the arrogance of assuming your views is the only "right" one.