equality is their God, since they are motivated primarily by envy.
"Equality" is certainly not the goal of the current Chinese leadership. Indeed, they embrace Plato's philosophy ( Plato is very highly regarded in China ) -- including well defined class boundaries
A communist is a leftist with a stronger ideological bent, one who will use any means necessary (almost always brutal force hence the guillotine
I know communists who don't and won't use any such thing.
Maybe you should judge if you've actually been there yourself, and quit trying to dilute the issue by semantics.
I agree with him that China isn't like America, and that China is "really bad", but that doesn't alter the fact that his "point" has nothing to do with what the previous poster said.
BTW, my girlfriend is Chinese, and I am not that badly informed, thank you.
It IS communism in China regardless of what you want to label it as. That is what they call it when the government owns the means of production.
(a) "the government owns the means of production" does not in itself imply communism. It merely implies some form of totalitarianism. (b) It's not entirely clear that the Chinese government completely "owns the means of production" any more. (c) It's kind of funny how Plato is so popular in China -- he was an advocate of clear class divisions ( like in CHina ), and an infallible, supposedly superior ruling elite ( like in China ). He was a member of the aristocracy ( like the Chinese leaders and their families )
However, if you live in big cities like Beijing or Shanghai, they are mostly safe.
In these places, the police and criminal justice system ( which makes "criminals" of people who would be thought of as law abiding citizens anywhere else ) become more of a danger than the criminals.
I am not clear on which leftist policies China are embracing. The fact that they are ultra "big government" may make them totalitarian but not leftist. They certainly aren't leftist in the sense of striving to distribute wealth equitably ( actually, the biggest class-bigots I know are CHinese ). Their criminal justice policy is more like a hard line right policy ( kind of like a conservative judge's ideals on a very bad day ) than a leftist policy. There is a clearly defined class heirarchy, and a corrupt government hell-bent on keeping most of the nations wealth in the hands of a few. They do not have labor laws that protect the rights of their working people. Overall, I find it very hard to see what they have in common with any government that could legitimately call itself "leftist".
As for "communist", I believe you are confusing this with the word "totalitarian". They are becoming more and more like a capitalist totalitarian nation ( much like Singapore is today )
From what it looks like (judging by the other posts), the situation was much less adverserial than the slashdot headline and story would have the readers believe. This should be seen for what it is -- a naked attempt on the part of slashdot to incite readers to pour torrents of rage at someone who clearly doesn't deserve it.
Here we go again. Slashdot posts some flame bait and tries to make a flame war out of nothing. Let the "two minutes of hate" begin. Come and scream your outrage against the "bad guys" !
If you have ever been to China, you would understand quite clearly that much of the population lives a peasant lifestyle that has very little to do with the "essentials", at least in a first-world sense.
He said bare essentials. "In a first world sense" presumably includes a number of things one could ( and indeed prior to 1900 would ) live without ( for example, cars and electricity ). You are guilty of confusing "wealth" with "bare essentials"
I think slashdot should take some responsibility for the effect of their stories. It's not always in the best interests of the community to broadcast one of Bruce's (many) off-the-cuff rants to millions of readers (many of them whom are outside the linux community). It's a pity that we can't moderate the stories themselves, because some of them should be moderated down as "flamebait".
Other incidents such as slashdot prematurely posting various unfounded "conspiracy theories" ( Corel dropping WINE, etc ) serve little purpose other than to draw several predictable knee-jerk rants from ignorant readers, in a manner reminiscent of 1984's two minutes of hate. Rather than slashdot commentating on how hard it is to deal with the tabloid-like linux press, slashdot ( who ARE the only "linux tabloid" ) could perhaps improve matters by choosing their front page stories more judiciously.
I don't see how your statement contradicts mine. You are saying that they should learn concepts and learn to understand instead of learn something very specialised ( ie a particular vendor's product ). I agree with you 100%. This kind of education is not vocational because they are learning to think, not learning how to perform a single function.
The problem with the US education system is that the spending is not equitable. A rich kid and a poor kid going to public schools get very different amounts of funding, because the high schools are primarily locally funding. This should be seen for the scam it is -- no more than an attempt by the wealthy to exclude the poor from the education system.
What incentive is their for them to increase their knowledge
... and what advantage is there on the teacher knowing about the latest developments in their field ? How qualified will the teacher need to be to even understand the latest developments ?
What we need is a body to oversee the teaching curriculum to ensure that the material being taught is reasonably current
This is a load of nonsense. What do you mean by "reasonably current" ? "Reasonably current" is little use if students coming out of your schools can't even pass college algebra courses ( I should know, I teach college algebra ! ) The schools need to focus on developing the students basic skills so the kids can do wierd things like ADD. READ, AND WRITE. Stick to the basics and can the technical training until the kids have the skills to apply their "cutting edge" knowledge.
If teachers wish to be kept up to date maybe they should actually think about what they do and tailor it specific audiences. Most people have the ability to buy a subscription to one of their academic journals
Reading academic journals is a nontrivial task, and the teachers, who usually have slightly less than a full degree in their field will not find an academic journal easy reading, to put it lightly. What you're not understanding is that you're requiring your teachers to be on the same level as PhDs in their field, and unless compensation for high school teachers increases accordingly, it just won't happen.
The next issue is the question : why do teachers need to know about the advances in their field in the last 10 years, and how will that effect the curriculum ? concrete examples ?
BTW, if you have found a "lack of rigor" in your tertiary education... maybe it's the college profs you should be complaining about. What School are you studying at ?
What's wrong with using books that are over 10 years old ? SHould the students learn "programming" or "visual C++" ? "Databases" or "MS SQL" ? As long as the course emphasises the basic concepts, the students will benefit. Learning the latest vendor technology is really not essential ( and indeed expensive ) in high schools.
I could start with that same class today, and because I had good teachers (not necessarily good teaching materials), I would arguably be one step ahead of a teacher who didn't care and half-assed taught his class Java. Sure I'd be behind initially in the college Java class, but I would really get it IF I was taught programming methodology.
IF the teacher didn't teach you about good programming practice, etc, you would have NO real skills, but just superficial knowledge of a particular product. On the other hand, if you did a course using a 10 year old book on C or pascal, you could really learn a lot about programming, and develop the skills required to learn any language. High school should not a vocational training center.
Chances are better that they'll learn stuff that is actually being used, or even about things that are right over the horizon.
This is irrelevant. The students are there to learn basic skills. High schools are not vocational training centers.
The biggest problem I found with my teachers in High Schools was that they'd been teaching the course for too long, and not learning what was actually being developed.
There's no need for them to learn the "cutting edge" in their field. For example, there's no reason why a teacher couldn't use a ten year old book to teach C-programming. The students will still learn the basic skills.
What we need is qualified teachers who can impart valuable skills, not a vocational training program.
Really and do you know the chances of a third world country getting out of poverty?
Not as low as you think. For example, China, Malaysia, and Singapore have all come a long way forward in the last 30 or so years.
As for curing starvation - it's about as easy as "curing" human rights abuses. A lot of the problems are political, and it's awfully hard to do very much about them. Take a look around the world and you will see that the countries with stable, sensible political systems ( NOT the countries with the most resources ) are the most succesful.
I am not a debian user, but I think that if Debian became a company, and then had an IPO, effectively forcing them to put the interests of their shareholders first, it would be a very bad thing. We need free debian to keep linux honest.
Hey I'd like to run a company where someone else does the work and I collect all of the money too.
This is unfair. Redhat contribute. They pay developers full time to work on GNOME, and their regular employees have contributed to GNOME as well ( see the credits ). Redhat are a company that gives back.
BTW, you don't have to wait for someone to "write a GPL'd product you can sell". You can sell any existing GPL product ( including the free part of Redhat's distribution ) -- read the license !
Ahhh! Excellent, that means I can put that big 'No Blacks Allowed' Sign back outside of my resteraunt! If they want to eat freely they should do so in a medium they control, right?
Actually, it's like "politely requesting" that blacks don't enter. ( to address the followups about the FBI asking nicely ). Which is not that much different.
Slashdot Mirror
"Equality" is certainly not the goal of the current Chinese leadership. Indeed, they embrace Plato's philosophy ( Plato is very highly regarded in China ) -- including well defined class boundaries
A communist is a leftist with a stronger ideological bent, one who will use any means necessary (almost always brutal force hence the guillotine
I know communists who don't and won't use any such thing.
I agree with him that China isn't like America, and that China is "really bad", but that doesn't alter the fact that his "point" has nothing to do with what the previous poster said.
BTW, my girlfriend is Chinese, and I am not that badly informed, thank you.
It IS communism in China regardless of what you want to label it as. That is what they call it when the government owns the means of production.
(a) "the government owns the means of production" does not in itself imply communism. It merely implies some form of totalitarianism.
(b) It's not entirely clear that the Chinese government completely "owns the means of production" any more.
(c) It's kind of funny how Plato is so popular in China -- he was an advocate of clear class divisions ( like in CHina ), and an infallible, supposedly superior ruling elite ( like in China ). He was a member of the aristocracy ( like the Chinese leaders and their families )
In these places, the police and criminal justice system ( which makes "criminals" of people who would be thought of as law abiding citizens anywhere else ) become more of a danger than the criminals.
As for "communist", I believe you are confusing this with the word "totalitarian". They are becoming more and more like a capitalist totalitarian nation ( much like Singapore is today )
He didn't say or imply anything of the sort. His point is that China is totalitarian, but not really "communist" or "leftist".
China is not leftist and not communist. HAND,
Because it isn't accurately reported. The media and the government in China are notoriously untrustworthy.
and the link works just fine.
They could certainly do an enormous amount of damage if they got hold of the right weapons ( eg nuclear )
He said bare essentials. "In a first world sense" presumably includes a number of things one could ( and indeed prior to 1900 would ) live without ( for example, cars and electricity ). You are guilty of confusing "wealth" with "bare essentials"
Other incidents such as slashdot prematurely posting various unfounded "conspiracy theories" ( Corel dropping WINE, etc ) serve little purpose other than to draw several predictable knee-jerk rants from ignorant readers, in a manner reminiscent of 1984's two minutes of hate. Rather than slashdot commentating on how hard it is to deal with the tabloid-like linux press, slashdot ( who ARE the only "linux tabloid" ) could perhaps improve matters by choosing their front page stories more judiciously.
What we need is a body to oversee the teaching curriculum to ensure that the material being taught is reasonably current
This is a load of nonsense. What do you mean by "reasonably current" ? "Reasonably current" is little use if students coming out of your schools can't even pass college algebra courses ( I should know, I teach college algebra ! ) The schools need to focus on developing the students basic skills so the kids can do wierd things like ADD. READ, AND WRITE. Stick to the basics and can the technical training until the kids have the skills to apply their "cutting edge" knowledge.
Reading academic journals is a nontrivial task, and the teachers, who usually have slightly less than a full degree in their field will not find an academic journal easy reading, to put it lightly. What you're not understanding is that you're requiring your teachers to be on the same level as PhDs in their field, and unless compensation for high school teachers increases accordingly, it just won't happen.
The next issue is the question : why do teachers need to know about the advances in their field in the last 10 years, and how will that effect the curriculum ? concrete examples ?
BTW, if you have found a "lack of rigor" in your tertiary education ... maybe it's the college profs you should be complaining about. What School are you studying at ?
What's wrong with using books that are over 10 years old ? SHould the students learn "programming" or "visual C++" ? "Databases" or "MS SQL" ? As long as the course emphasises the basic concepts, the students will benefit. Learning the latest vendor technology is really not essential ( and indeed expensive ) in high schools.
IF the teacher didn't teach you about good programming practice, etc, you would have NO real skills, but just superficial knowledge of a particular product. On the other hand, if you did a course using a 10 year old book on C or pascal, you could really learn a lot about programming, and develop the skills required to learn any language. High school should not a vocational training center.
This is irrelevant. The students are there to learn basic skills. High schools are not vocational training centers.
The biggest problem I found with my teachers in High Schools was that they'd been teaching the course for too long, and not learning what was actually being developed.
There's no need for them to learn the "cutting edge" in their field. For example, there's no reason why a teacher couldn't use a ten year old book to teach C-programming. The students will still learn the basic skills.
What we need is qualified teachers who can impart valuable skills, not a vocational training program.
Not as low as you think. For example, China, Malaysia, and Singapore have all come a long way forward in the last 30 or so years.
As for curing starvation - it's about as easy as "curing" human rights abuses. A lot of the problems are political, and it's awfully hard to do very much about them. Take a look around the world and you will see that the countries with stable, sensible political systems ( NOT the countries with the most resources ) are the most succesful.
Cheers,
cheers,
This is unfair. Redhat contribute. They pay developers full time to work on GNOME, and their regular employees have contributed to GNOME as well ( see the credits ). Redhat are a company that gives back.
BTW, you don't have to wait for someone to "write a GPL'd product you can sell". You can sell any existing GPL product ( including the free part of Redhat's distribution ) -- read the license !
Actually, it's like "politely requesting" that blacks don't enter. ( to address the followups about the FBI asking nicely ). Which is not that much different.