Two comments. First, the small nerve node where the right and left eye images are swapped (basically, the patch panel for the optic nerves) is called the optic chiasma. I believe (but am less sure that the right and left eyes are completely reversed as to brain half. I don't think it's half of each eye to each half of the brain. Someone check me on that, as I'm a lowly EMT and not a doctor.:-) Second, as a person who has lived his entire life without depth perception (I have monocular vision) I am not sure why they are so emphasizing depth perception as a priority. Get the resolution up to where other visual cues, such as the relative size of objects, becomes usable to the patient.
I can do just about anything an unimpaired person can do, including parallel parking, backing a car with an attached trailer, and shooting archery at ranges up to 100 yards. The only things that really give me trouble are stairs in dim light (I sometimes don't realize where the first step is) and catching thrown objects (team sports involving a ball are Right Out, to use the British expression).
If I were in Jerry's position, I would want the priority to be given to visual acuity. Depth perception is vastly overrated for daily activity, as our brains have excellent compensatory means.
Being married to a librarian, perhaps I can help here.
Policies on adult material vary from one library system to another, but in general there is a distinction drawn between adult and obscene. For example, most major libraries do carry Playboy because, whatever one may think of the photographic content, the magazine does have articles and editorial content and does not meet the common legal definition of obscenity (appealing only to a prurient interest) in most parts of the US.
An important concept in all obscenity laws is the notion of community standards for acceptability. What is considered obscene in one community may be considered perfectly acceptable elsewhere. This is where Ms. Dole's plan deviates from prior legal practice, by setting a national standard. Libraries often use their own community's standard for "obscene" to decide what is and is not in their collection.
Incidentally, my wife happens to be a strong free-speech advocate (as am I). In her selection of what A-V titles to carry, she makes a point of keeping a broad-spectrum collection, especially in the areas of politics and religion. She has in the collection hundreds of videotapes which she personally finds objectionable from religious grounds, but which she believes others have a right to see if they wish to do so.
Other librarians in the area run the gamut from free-speech advocates to those who would censor even literary classics. There is a Library Bill of Rights (put out by the American Library Association, I think) that lists among its tenets the right of any patron to access any material, and the right to privacy of that material from government review. This does not mean that children can view bestiality at the library, but it does mean that your local sheriff cannot get the "goods" on you and harass or arrest you just for reading about illegal drugs.
In many areas, librarians are on the front lines in the battle to preserve free speech.
Thanks for the suggested readings. I'll check a couple of these out after I finish with Holographic Universe (an interesting read, though I don't agree with all the conclusions therein).
I've always envied (truly...I'm not being sarcastic) you liberal arts types for knowing so much about how to think broadly and critically. My education was almost 100% engineering and science, and I feel I really lost something by not being better rounded. In areas like philosophy and anthropology, I know so little that I don't even know what I don't know -- and therefore where to begin to learn.
Before I read this article and the commentary, I didn't know what "social [de]construction" was. I still don't understand it as deeply as you probably do, but three important things have happened today:
I have seen an example of social [de]constructionist analysis.
I have read an explanation of why, at least in some people's opinion, it is a cliche' in academic circles.
I am motivated to go find out more about something I never heard of until now. I want to know what I'm missing by not knowing a post-structuralist from a structured poster.
In other words, my mind is expanding, just a little bit. There is more to this medium of/. than just a one-way presentation of articles, and to me the value (or lack thereof) of an article is partly dependent on whether or not the discussion it stimulates is enlightening. This one passes that test.
Having said that, I do think he needs to run the next one through compress or gzip. Every word is not a diamond, and I had to chip away too much slag here.
Gospel or crap? Who can say? But I vote to keep it, at least for now, just because it makes for interesting discussions. As for whether non-technical topics belong here, the slogan of/. is "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." Are people saying that only technical knowledge matters? If so, then maybe we tech-types really are as narrow-minded as the PHBs think we are. I hope not.
I've always envied (truly...I'm not being sarcastic) you liberal arts types for knowing so much about how to think broadly and critically. My education was almost 100% engineering and science, and I feel I really lost something by not getting a broader education.
Before I read this article and the commentary, I didn't know what "social [de]construction" was. I still don't understand it as deeply as you probably do, but three important things have happened today:
I have seen an example of social [de]constructionist analysis.
I have read an explanation of why, at least in some people's opinion, it is a clich in academic circles.
I am motivated to go find out more about something I never heard of until now. I want to know what I'm missing by not knowing a post-structuralist from a structured poster.
In other words, my mind is expanding, just a little bit. There is more to this medium of/. than just a one-way presentation of articles, and to me the value (or lack thereof) of an article is partly dependent on whether or not the discussion it stimulates is enlightening. This one passes that test.
Gospel or crap? Who can say? But I vote to keep it, at least for now, just because it makes for interesting discussions.
I won't even bother to comment on your prejudiced and arrogant attitude, except to reassure the Indians who frequent this forum that not all Americans are as stupid and narrow-minded as you are.
One point that may not have occurred to you: To the extent that developing countries develop, and gain in wealth and technical capabilities and infrastructure, they become more than just competitors for American jobs. They also become customers for American products and services. Think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
They are trying to trick Micros~1 into open sourcing Windows 2000. This would be the first award that they could truly win on merit.
I can do just about anything an unimpaired person can do, including parallel parking, backing a car with an attached trailer, and shooting archery at ranges up to 100 yards. The only things that really give me trouble are stairs in dim light (I sometimes don't realize where the first step is) and catching thrown objects (team sports involving a ball are Right Out, to use the British expression).
If I were in Jerry's position, I would want the priority to be given to visual acuity. Depth perception is vastly overrated for daily activity, as our brains have excellent compensatory means.
Policies on adult material vary from one library system to another, but in general there is a distinction drawn between adult and obscene. For example, most major libraries do carry Playboy because, whatever one may think of the photographic content, the magazine does have articles and editorial content and does not meet the common legal definition of obscenity (appealing only to a prurient interest) in most parts of the US.
An important concept in all obscenity laws is the notion of community standards for acceptability. What is considered obscene in one community may be considered perfectly acceptable elsewhere. This is where Ms. Dole's plan deviates from prior legal practice, by setting a national standard. Libraries often use their own community's standard for "obscene" to decide what is and is not in their collection.
Incidentally, my wife happens to be a strong free-speech advocate (as am I). In her selection of what A-V titles to carry, she makes a point of keeping a broad-spectrum collection, especially in the areas of politics and religion. She has in the collection hundreds of videotapes which she personally finds objectionable from religious grounds, but which she believes others have a right to see if they wish to do so.
Other librarians in the area run the gamut from free-speech advocates to those who would censor even literary classics. There is a Library Bill of Rights (put out by the American Library Association, I think) that lists among its tenets the right of any patron to access any material, and the right to privacy of that material from government review. This does not mean that children can view bestiality at the library, but it does mean that your local sheriff cannot get the "goods" on you and harass or arrest you just for reading about illegal drugs.
In many areas, librarians are on the front lines in the battle to preserve free speech.
Thanks for the suggested readings. I'll check a couple of these out after I finish with Holographic Universe (an interesting read, though I don't agree with all the conclusions therein).
Before I read this article and the commentary, I didn't know what "social [de]construction" was. I still don't understand it as deeply as you probably do, but three important things have happened today:
- I have seen an example of social [de]constructionist analysis.
- I have read an explanation of why, at least in some people's opinion, it is a cliche' in academic circles.
- I am motivated to go find out more about something I never heard of until now. I want to know what I'm missing by not knowing a post-structuralist from a structured poster.
In other words, my mind is expanding, just a little bit. There is more to this medium ofHaving said that, I do think he needs to run the next one through compress or gzip. Every word is not a diamond, and I had to chip away too much slag here.
Gospel or crap? Who can say? But I vote to keep it, at least for now, just because it makes for interesting discussions. As for whether non-technical topics belong here, the slogan of /. is "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." Are people saying that only technical knowledge matters? If so, then maybe we tech-types really are as narrow-minded as the PHBs think we are. I hope not.
IDIC.
Before I read this article and the commentary, I didn't know what "social [de]construction" was. I still don't understand it as deeply as you probably do, but three important things have happened today:
- I have seen an example of social [de]constructionist analysis.
- I have read an explanation of why, at least in some people's opinion, it is a clich in academic circles.
- I am motivated to go find out more about something I never heard of until now. I want to know what I'm missing by not knowing a post-structuralist from a structured poster.
In other words, my mind is expanding, just a little bit. There is more to this medium ofGospel or crap? Who can say? But I vote to keep it, at least for now, just because it makes for interesting discussions.
IDIC.
One point that may not have occurred to you: To the extent that developing countries develop, and gain in wealth and technical capabilities and infrastructure, they become more than just competitors for American jobs. They also become customers for American products and services. Think about it.