It's definitely not a bad idea, but the type of person who would fall for this stuff is probably not the type of person who really even understands what a URL is, nevermind how to read one or that they can be something other than what they appear to be.
Well, you aren't the guy's wife, and you know nothing of the situation they were in. I've met couples who were happily in "open relationships", but didn't want it getting out to the neighbors or friends. I knew a woman who was well aware that her husband was cheating on her but was willing to ignore it for professional reasons. (No, not Hillary.) Maybe the husband and wife both hated the marriage but didn't want to get an actual divorce for religious reasons which would drag their families into it, but didn't much care if the other was discreetly getting some on the side.
None of these are particularly likely, but none are so far-fetched as to be completely out of the question either. The point is that you can't judge the "victims" here based on what morals you're imposing on what you imagine the situation to be, which may have no reflection in reality.
Furthermore, plenty of the responders were unmarried, without serious girlfriends. They were harmed just as much by this stunt. All so some "lulz"ing whiner who hates the world because he was molested as a kid can feel better about himself, and dress it up with a bunch of BS rhetoric about how he's "proving things" and sending "messages". The message in this case being, I suppose, that guys will respond positively to hot women asking for sex. SHOCKING! Jason Fortuny, journalist extraordinaire.
Well, the victim is basically just complaining about a right to privacy, which, whether you think he's legally correct or not, is at least a valid greivance to make. This dumbass tries to propel himself into the strata of the intellectual elite with overblown, pompous, yet utterly vapid excuses and long-winded rationalizations. My disgust with him isn't merely that he's a complete jackass, but he's stupid, and whiny on top of it. It's all fun and "lulz" until he gets in trouble, then comes the sobbing. Pathetic.
I don't think so. He sent a silly letter full of bluster, and got told "Yeah, uh, we don't really care what you think, especially in a letter." How was that even an attempt at trolling, and how did the court get "trolled"?
No, he's behaving exactly the way all self-styled "trolls" do -- they are full of "lulz" until they get nailed, at which point they panic, knowing that someone can actually put the screws to them. Read that NYtimes article? Check out the owner of Encyclopedia Dramatica, who was happy to have her "epic lulz" until someone tracked her down and people began calling her house and ordering pizzas to her address. Suddenly she's terrified. They all do this, when they get caught. This guy is no different. He's in a corner and facing financial ruin, and he spews out barely coherent explanations that no high school kid would even buy. It's going to get him nothing, which is more than he deserves.
Wait a second, wait a second. You're trying to tell me that a complete dumbass who can't think three seconds into the future beyond his "lulz" isn't intelligent enough to defend himself in court with excuses that wouldn't pass the muster of a middle-school principal? I am shocked, sir!
"To Catch A Predator" is also rather stupid, but the difference is that in one, the person intends to meet someone for an illegal purpose (sex with a minor) and in the other, the person intends to meet someone for a completely legal purpose (sex with a consenting adult).
The other, less important difference is in the attitude. Most people would argue that "To Catch A Predator" accomplishes something at least partially useful, and for better or worse, what "most people" think is usually what's important in law. But this guy pulls his stunts for the sole purpose of being a jackass and humiliating people so he can have "lulz" with his fellow blogtards. It's only after he gets in trouble that he begins his furtive explanations and backpeddling about how it was all really for the common good, an argument I don't think anyone takes seriously.
Does anyone feel the least bit sorry for him? This is a guy who goes on record with the NY Times about how he tries to be a professional jackass. As if that weren't retarded enough, his jackassery relies on the notion that he's anonymous, so he announces his name to the world. Big surprise, some of the people he's pissed off finally did something about it.
People like this are completely useless, and all his high-and-mighty rhetoric about "messages" and "trust" reads like the inane drivel a ninth-grader would scrawl in his Mead notebook after getting shoved by the bullies in gym class. Dressing your bullshit up in high-school "philosophy" doesn't make you any less of an asshole, but it sure does make you look more stupid.
In the end, nothing he does, including his Craigslist stunt, is about "messages" or "public service". If that's all his goal was -- to show that there's a lot of people out there into this sort of thing and willing to cheat on their spouses -- he could've erased or blurred the names and other personal information of the people who responded. But he left it all intact, showing that his goal was really to "lulz" and humiliate people to whom he feels superior.
It's all about how he feels superior to the target and wants to get attention. Well, he got attention. Good work.
Also, did anyone read his hand-wringing, whiny letter to the judge in this case? His tearful sobbing about how he doesn't have the money is quite hilarious, but there's also this gem:
I've been asked over and over, "Jason, why did you do it?" To be honest, it was a small act that quickly spun out of control. It's not like I woke up that morning and said, "hey, I think I'll start a controversy today and get my face in the news."
Great argument there, champ. Even if you buy it, which I don't, at best it shows that he's an unhinged idiot willing to do anything he wants and is incapable of considering the consequences, which is hardly an argument in his favor.
Or this:
I'm sure many people out there believe I'm guilty of something, and that I should be punished somehow, and they may be right. But not like this. Don't punish me at the expense of the rights of the greater community.
Yeah, Jason, you're a real hero to the "community".
Uh, actually, it's more like an office desk which I try to keep extremely tidy and clutter free.
Then I ask HR for a box of paperclips, and instead of handing them to me, they dump the paperclips all over the desk, then stick post-it notes on each one so I can find them easier, then they put a sign on my wall telling me that there are paperclips on my desk and I should look at the post-it notes to find them.
Then, after I've cleaned up the mess and go home, they come back to my desk and tap out a few more paperclips onto it, because they think I must have made a mistake in cleaning it and I really wanted more crap on my desk.
Really, if I install a program, you can just put the launcher in a central place with all the other program launchers. Gnome does this. KDE does this. Windows lets any program shit all over the start menu, often twice, then add a systray startup item, a desktop shortcut, a "quicklaunch" icon which will get hidden behind the forty seven others that are already there, and then it will bleat incessently about how there are unused icons on my desktop.:P
I am the first to blame users for most things, but this isn't one of them. It takes a very strict and painstaking way of doing things to keep all the app launchers in Windows sane.
Please. I can't think of a scientific discovery that has shaken Christianity in the slightest. Heliocentric models? Sure, it caused a stir way back when, but people got over it, and today, any Christian can offer you an impressive account of how the precise orbits of the planets are actually a sign of God's power and wisdom.
Evolutionary biology? There are some loudmouthed idiots who are still fighting it, but their numbers have steadily been dwindling. In another few decades they'll be regarded the same way as people who still think the Earth is flat -- just a couple of stray crackpots. Everyone else will agree that the intricacies of life developing little by little is a sign of God's infinite forethought and divine master plan.
If alien life is ever detected it'll be no different. It'll cause a ruckus at first, and then the fundies will find a way to integrate it into their belief system so that their Bible really supported it all along. You know, something like how the Bible doesn't really even discuss other planets, because it was written for humans, here on Earth, and just because it doesn't mention life elsewhere doesn't mean it says there can't be life elsewhere. God was wise enough to spread magnificent life everywhere, to teach us and let us expand, be fruitful, and multiply! Blessed is the Lord's gracious nature for allowing us to meet our cosmic neighbors. Amen.
Ah yes. The type of person who is so senile and out of touch that she actually thinks the cops are going to come get a dead mouse off her porch is exactly the type who will be looking on youtube for satirical videos about people like her, and fully comprehend the point of the video.
For every dollar paid in taxes, red state North Dakota gets $2.03 back from the government. The rest of the Top Ten Federal Welfare Queens are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, Arkansas, and Virginia, all red states, all receiving between $1.89 to $1.47 back for every dollar. (To be fair, the District of Columbia is the biggest welfare queen, at $6.17 on the dollar, but it's not really a state, so I'm not going to consider it in my research.)
By contrast, eight of the Top Ten Federal Sugar Daddies (states that get less back in federal money than taxes paid) are blue states. New Jersey only gets 62 back on its one dollar investment. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, California, and New York all receive 64 to 81 back for each dollar taxed.
Another interesting analysis may be found here, using data that is available to the public.
There are plenty of studies you can find on this. I don't think anyone is seriously denying that the welfare queens of the union tend to be red states; it's just that the conservatives try really hard not to draw attention to that fact.
You make a fair point, but really, if a few dollars here and there is going to break the bank, maybe your shiny pretty iPhone wasn't the wisest financial move in the first place.
Some of you have probably heard of John Titor, the guy who claimed to be a time-traveller on a bunch of 2000-2001 era forums.
Liar or not, he often made some insightful points. Whenever I see some article about "less lethal" or "non-lethal" weapons, I recall this quote from one of his postings:
Sometimes I watch your television programs that show SWAT teams using new non-lethal weapons. They usually start out with, "In the future, the army and police will fight its enemies with new weapons systems..." When they use the word "enemy", they're talking about YOU! You don't really think the Marines are going to jump out of helicopters overseas with sticky goop, pepper spray and seizure lights, do you? "
Seriously, what do people think this "nonlethal weapon" crap is for? Crowds and protests rarely get out of control to the point where any weapons need to be used, and soldiers certainly aren't going to use "less lethal" weaponry of questionable range and value against enemies armed with real guns. "Less lethal" weapons are intended for use against civilians. I don't like sounding like a paranoid weirdo, but this is one thing that flicks the switch every time. We should all be worried when this kind of thing is being developed.
No soldier will ever use it, and if a cop needs to draw a weapon, it should be lethal so he needs to think about what he's doing, or close-quartered like a baton so he has to be in immediate danger. Any "less lethal" weapon that can be used at range is begging to be abused.
Hell yes, I ignore voicemail. I pretty much ignore my phone, too, though I have it on me all the time. If someone calls and I care what they have to say, I'd answer the damn thing. If I'm ignoring the call it's because I don't care, so why would I care enough to listen to a pedantic lecture about how many messages I have, and then someone yammering at me?
But I hate that stupid little voicemail icon, too, so when I see it, I usually play a game called "How fast can I delete the voicemail?" On my phone I don't think it's possible to break the two second barrier, but I'm trying.
Of course, then I have to go clear out the "New Voicemail Message" notification, and the "X Missed Calls" notification. Then I have a pristine phone once again until some other jackwit calls me.
We have a toll highway in Atlanta where you can either wait in line to throw your fifty cents into the thing for the privilege of driving on this oh-so-well-maintained road, or you can get a little card with some sort of RFID and just cruise through, letting the card debit your account. Naturally, those lanes are watched by cameras to look for evildoers who aren't paying.
The fun part is, if you get caught, the state mails you and demands that you pay. Their "evidence" of your crime is a blurry, black and white photograph of the back of your car, which doesn't show who is driving it. As far as they're concerned, I guess, if it's your car you're responsibile for anything anyone does with it, even if the real perp was a friend to whom you loaned the car.
So yes, there is legal precedent for the owner of something being liable for whatever anyone does with it, regardless of whether the owner had knowledge about it. I'm not saying it makes any bloody sense, but what did you expect from the government?
So, someone should be able to do a future, or present, value calculation without know algebra?
That's exactly right. If your goal is to teach kids how to manage finances, then teach them applied finances. Teaching them random algebraic concepts isn't going to help them balance a checkbook. Teaching them how to balance a checkbook will help them balance a checkbook.
Don't teach them how to calculate linear regressions, a concept they will never use, and hope that somehow, maybe, magically, they'll make some sort of leap between such totally abstract concepts and real-life applied concepts.
You don't need math only if you're going to be a janitor.
Or a restuarant manager, or a clerk, a cab driver, a rancher, most so-called "business" positions including middle and executive management. You don't need it to be a sysadmin, a waiter, a cop, or a lawyer. All of these positions require some math, but not more than arithmetic and a few basic concepts of geometry. None of these people, in their day to day lives, will ever need to solve quadratic equations, determine the volume of a cone, or calculate nonlinear equations. Ever.
If someone has a bent for mathematics, great! Let them take all the math they want. Those are the types who are going to become engineers, accountants, architects, and so on -- but they're also the types who you don't need to force into math classes, because they already find it interesting. For the rest of the population, who will never need to find the length of a hypotenuse, who cares?
I'm not saying math shouldn't be taught. I'm saying it shouldn't be forced. Like Latin, it amounts to little more than useless trivia for the overwhelming majority of the population, who will never find any application for it in life, and are thus guaranteed to forget it shortly after graduation. It is of professional use to some, of personal interest to a few more, and completely useless for everyone else.
In a way I agree, students should be shown or taught the practical application of what they are being taught
So, tell me. What's the "practical application" of a quadratic equation to Joe Punchclock's day to day life, assuming he's not already in a technical field? What's a real-life situation where some average slob like me would ever need something like that?
I did say "fields which require it" along with a few examples. An accountant clearly needs more than just arithmetic.:P
But the majority of people aren't going to go into financial or technical fields. Much of the finance world's calculations are handled by computers anyway. While I agree those in such a field should know their stuff, the truth is, any schmuck can become a banker or mortgage broker without knowing much math, as long as they can operate a computer.
I don't buy the notion that personal finance and retirement planning is so horrendously complicated that it justifies twelve to fourteen years of forced marches through math classes.
We could sit here spewing examples and counterexamples all day and get nowhere. But the next time you find yourself in a public place populated by average Joes, ask yourself how many of them over the age of 30 could seriously sit down with a pencil and paper and work out a quadratic equation or plot a linear regression or calculate the volume of a cone. Ask yourself how many of them ever need to.
I'm fairly confident that I will go to my grave having never used any of those concepts outside of a classroom. As for financial issues, if that's the goal, then let's teach students about applied finance, instead of making them memorize random mathematical concepts with no application and hoping they somehow magically make the connection.
The original poster's point was that learning Latin is a useless skill for the vast majority of the populace, who will never use it outside of a classroom and because of that disuse, are guaranteed to forget most of it anyway. The same is true of most math; most people will never use it and will thus forget it, so what's the point?
As for kids not learning Latin anymore, I think that's just because Latin is not particularly useful to anyone not in a specialized field (like medicine or law),
You could say that about many other fields as well, though, most notably math. Beyond basic arithmetic and decimals and maybe, maybe a bit of basic geometry, most people have absolutely no use for it. At 28 I can honestly say I've never had to factor a quadratic equation, calculate the volume of a sphere, or solve a linear equation outside of a classroom setting. Ever. I'd wager this holds true for the vast majority of the populace.
What's more, since I haven't had to use this stuff in ten years, I am quite incapable of doing it now, which makes me wonder what point was served by all the forced marches through years and years of class.
You only need mathematics more advanced than this stuff if you're planning on going into a field which requires it, like architecture or physics or engineering. For everyone who isn't, sitting through math classes beyond age 13 is a waste of time and resources, teaching children how to memorize things they don't really understand, have no use for, and are guaranteed to forget shortly after they graduate. Unless you can come up with a reason anything beyond rudiumentary algebra is particularly useful for people who aren't going into technical fields, let's drop that as well.
Cite me any theories, studies, or research which even hint at the existence of a primal instinct in animals which draws them towards fire and/or smoke and I'll concede to your retort.
I dunno, a lot of moths and other insects seem pretty attracted to fire, often to their own detriment.:P
My argument was not entirely serious, but was just to illustrate that there are better arguments for why smoking is dumb than "it's bad the first time," because that's true for a lot of things, whether we're biologically driven to them or not.
have to be a follow-the-crowd dumb-ass to force your way through the initial phases of smoking in order to become tolerant of the practice
Just to be a jackass, let me point out that for a girl, it's generally somewhat painful the first time she has sex. By your logic, most girls should have sex once, see how bad it is, and then never do it again unless they're some kind of follow-the-crowd dumbasses.
Imagine a day when Linux is popular enough to be targeted by adware makers. "Ubuntu users: FREE screensaver! Just install this package."
Fair enough. But I think by the time "Joe User" is using Linux on a regular basis, they'll be used to instalilng things from the package manager, not from random-ass websites and email spam. The difference is that from a package manager, it's already been vouched for by people who know what the hell is going on, whereas in Windows, the default is to get whatever random-ass software you can, and let it do whatever the hell it wants, with zero oversight.
Yes, there will come a day when stupid banner ads and other garbage will want to entice users into installing things from sketchy websites. But just as they've been trained to think that's normal under Windows, they'll have been trained to think that's really abnormal under Linux, and will likely steer clear.
And finally, Linux's root-or-sudo system is leaps and bounds ahead of UAC. The most an "average" user will be able to do is screw up their home directory a bit, not cripple the entire system. I'm well aware this is not foolproof nor is it an all-encompassing statement, but even the warning is better. In Debian/Ubuntu systems it's something like "If you do this, you could modify essential parts of your system." Under Vista, it's "A program needs your permission to continue," with no explanation as to why, or what the potential problem might be.
You make some fair points, but I have to say, some of them are rather silly. A USB modem? Are you serious? Who these days is plugging a modem directly into a single computer with USB? Everyone I've ever encountered plugs into a router via ethernet, or at the very least, uses ethernet to the modem. If you're serious, then okay, that sucks, but please don't act like that's a common thing that Joe User is actually doing.
But what's even more hilarious is this. Usually, if a driver won't autoload in Linux, it's because the manufacturer is being a jackass and won't release the drivers or specs. In Windows, it is often the case that the driver exists, and is available, but Windows just won't load it, or even a generic "just enough to get started" driver. No one knows why, it just won't. I can't tell you how many times I've had a clean XP install fail to load wireless, ethernet, video, and sound, on common hardware. And every time it happens, I sigh, crawl over to dell.com or whatever, and get the driver and burn it to CD...using my Debian machine.
Same for your USB 802.11 interface. I've seen a few more of those than I have of your above example, but really. Every laptop made in the past six years has wireless built in, and most people just cable their desktops. For those that don't, I'd say it's a fifty/fifty split between getting a PCI wireless card or using some USB solution, as you are. Though I have to wonder why you're using USB wireless when you're plugged directly into your USB modem.:P Either way, that has to be an astonishingly small subset of people who need that functionality.
For the majority of people, all they need is basic wireless or ethernet functionality, which Ubuntu, and most other distros, handles neatly out of the box If it's a Broadcom wireless chipset (sigh) they have to click two extra things to enable the "restricted driver", but still, no big deal. Intel and Atheros, the other two major players, are up and running even in the installer phase.
And please, man, don't pretend MSN is in any way comparable to Gaim or Pidgin or whatever they're calling it these days. Besides the annoyance of idiotic ads, and MSN's habit of popping up when you don't want it, Pidgin handles multiple protocols, whereas MSN, so far as I know, handles one.
Still waiting to hear about an office suite, or an email client that doesn't suck, or an graphics program. Ubuntu also handles scanning, and CD ripping, and CD burning, out of the box with zero screwing around. XP and Vista don't come close to this. Have fun crawling around on the web looking for an app to do these things which you don't have to pay for, register for, get a crippled trial version of, or crack on dodgy Russian websites.. and don't forget to clean up all the other garbage they'll want to install alongside. Ready for the desktop!
Slashdot Mirror
It's definitely not a bad idea, but the type of person who would fall for this stuff is probably not the type of person who really even understands what a URL is, nevermind how to read one or that they can be something other than what they appear to be.
Well, you aren't the guy's wife, and you know nothing of the situation they were in. I've met couples who were happily in "open relationships", but didn't want it getting out to the neighbors or friends. I knew a woman who was well aware that her husband was cheating on her but was willing to ignore it for professional reasons. (No, not Hillary.) Maybe the husband and wife both hated the marriage but didn't want to get an actual divorce for religious reasons which would drag their families into it, but didn't much care if the other was discreetly getting some on the side.
None of these are particularly likely, but none are so far-fetched as to be completely out of the question either. The point is that you can't judge the "victims" here based on what morals you're imposing on what you imagine the situation to be, which may have no reflection in reality.
Furthermore, plenty of the responders were unmarried, without serious girlfriends. They were harmed just as much by this stunt. All so some "lulz"ing whiner who hates the world because he was molested as a kid can feel better about himself, and dress it up with a bunch of BS rhetoric about how he's "proving things" and sending "messages". The message in this case being, I suppose, that guys will respond positively to hot women asking for sex. SHOCKING! Jason Fortuny, journalist extraordinaire.
Well, the victim is basically just complaining about a right to privacy, which, whether you think he's legally correct or not, is at least a valid greivance to make. This dumbass tries to propel himself into the strata of the intellectual elite with overblown, pompous, yet utterly vapid excuses and long-winded rationalizations. My disgust with him isn't merely that he's a complete jackass, but he's stupid, and whiny on top of it. It's all fun and "lulz" until he gets in trouble, then comes the sobbing. Pathetic.
I don't think so. He sent a silly letter full of bluster, and got told "Yeah, uh, we don't really care what you think, especially in a letter." How was that even an attempt at trolling, and how did the court get "trolled"?
No, he's behaving exactly the way all self-styled "trolls" do -- they are full of "lulz" until they get nailed, at which point they panic, knowing that someone can actually put the screws to them. Read that NYtimes article? Check out the owner of Encyclopedia Dramatica, who was happy to have her "epic lulz" until someone tracked her down and people began calling her house and ordering pizzas to her address. Suddenly she's terrified. They all do this, when they get caught. This guy is no different. He's in a corner and facing financial ruin, and he spews out barely coherent explanations that no high school kid would even buy. It's going to get him nothing, which is more than he deserves.
Wait a second, wait a second. You're trying to tell me that a complete dumbass who can't think three seconds into the future beyond his "lulz" isn't intelligent enough to defend himself in court with excuses that wouldn't pass the muster of a middle-school principal? I am shocked, sir!
"To Catch A Predator" is also rather stupid, but the difference is that in one, the person intends to meet someone for an illegal purpose (sex with a minor) and in the other, the person intends to meet someone for a completely legal purpose (sex with a consenting adult).
The other, less important difference is in the attitude. Most people would argue that "To Catch A Predator" accomplishes something at least partially useful, and for better or worse, what "most people" think is usually what's important in law. But this guy pulls his stunts for the sole purpose of being a jackass and humiliating people so he can have "lulz" with his fellow blogtards. It's only after he gets in trouble that he begins his furtive explanations and backpeddling about how it was all really for the common good, an argument I don't think anyone takes seriously.
People like this are completely useless, and all his high-and-mighty rhetoric about "messages" and "trust" reads like the inane drivel a ninth-grader would scrawl in his Mead notebook after getting shoved by the bullies in gym class. Dressing your bullshit up in high-school "philosophy" doesn't make you any less of an asshole, but it sure does make you look more stupid.
In the end, nothing he does, including his Craigslist stunt, is about "messages" or "public service". If that's all his goal was -- to show that there's a lot of people out there into this sort of thing and willing to cheat on their spouses -- he could've erased or blurred the names and other personal information of the people who responded. But he left it all intact, showing that his goal was really to "lulz" and humiliate people to whom he feels superior.
It's all about how he feels superior to the target and wants to get attention. Well, he got attention. Good work.
Also, did anyone read his hand-wringing, whiny letter to the judge in this case? His tearful sobbing about how he doesn't have the money is quite hilarious, but there's also this gem:
Great argument there, champ. Even if you buy it, which I don't, at best it shows that he's an unhinged idiot willing to do anything he wants and is incapable of considering the consequences, which is hardly an argument in his favor.
Or this:
Yeah, Jason, you're a real hero to the "community".
What a pissant.
Uh, actually, it's more like an office desk which I try to keep extremely tidy and clutter free.
:P
Then I ask HR for a box of paperclips, and instead of handing them to me, they dump the paperclips all over the desk, then stick post-it notes on each one so I can find them easier, then they put a sign on my wall telling me that there are paperclips on my desk and I should look at the post-it notes to find them.
Then, after I've cleaned up the mess and go home, they come back to my desk and tap out a few more paperclips onto it, because they think I must have made a mistake in cleaning it and I really wanted more crap on my desk.
Really, if I install a program, you can just put the launcher in a central place with all the other program launchers. Gnome does this. KDE does this. Windows lets any program shit all over the start menu, often twice, then add a systray startup item, a desktop shortcut, a "quicklaunch" icon which will get hidden behind the forty seven others that are already there, and then it will bleat incessently about how there are unused icons on my desktop.
I am the first to blame users for most things, but this isn't one of them. It takes a very strict and painstaking way of doing things to keep all the app launchers in Windows sane.
Please. I can't think of a scientific discovery that has shaken Christianity in the slightest. Heliocentric models? Sure, it caused a stir way back when, but people got over it, and today, any Christian can offer you an impressive account of how the precise orbits of the planets are actually a sign of God's power and wisdom.
Evolutionary biology? There are some loudmouthed idiots who are still fighting it, but their numbers have steadily been dwindling. In another few decades they'll be regarded the same way as people who still think the Earth is flat -- just a couple of stray crackpots. Everyone else will agree that the intricacies of life developing little by little is a sign of God's infinite forethought and divine master plan.
If alien life is ever detected it'll be no different. It'll cause a ruckus at first, and then the fundies will find a way to integrate it into their belief system so that their Bible really supported it all along. You know, something like how the Bible doesn't really even discuss other planets, because it was written for humans, here on Earth, and just because it doesn't mention life elsewhere doesn't mean it says there can't be life elsewhere. God was wise enough to spread magnificent life everywhere, to teach us and let us expand, be fruitful, and multiply! Blessed is the Lord's gracious nature for allowing us to meet our cosmic neighbors. Amen.
And it's damn odd that scientific results have to be 'discussed' with him before they're released.
Not really. They knew he'd need more time than the average person to comprehend the news, so they're giving him a little head start.
Ah yes. The type of person who is so senile and out of touch that she actually thinks the cops are going to come get a dead mouse off her porch is exactly the type who will be looking on youtube for satirical videos about people like her, and fully comprehend the point of the video.
Or there's this quote:
Another interesting analysis may be found here, using data that is available to the public.
There are plenty of studies you can find on this. I don't think anyone is seriously denying that the welfare queens of the union tend to be red states; it's just that the conservatives try really hard not to draw attention to that fact.
You make a fair point, but really, if a few dollars here and there is going to break the bank, maybe your shiny pretty iPhone wasn't the wisest financial move in the first place.
Liar or not, he often made some insightful points. Whenever I see some article about "less lethal" or "non-lethal" weapons, I recall this quote from one of his postings:
Seriously, what do people think this "nonlethal weapon" crap is for? Crowds and protests rarely get out of control to the point where any weapons need to be used, and soldiers certainly aren't going to use "less lethal" weaponry of questionable range and value against enemies armed with real guns. "Less lethal" weapons are intended for use against civilians. I don't like sounding like a paranoid weirdo, but this is one thing that flicks the switch every time. We should all be worried when this kind of thing is being developed.
No soldier will ever use it, and if a cop needs to draw a weapon, it should be lethal so he needs to think about what he's doing, or close-quartered like a baton so he has to be in immediate danger. Any "less lethal" weapon that can be used at range is begging to be abused.
Hell yes, I ignore voicemail. I pretty much ignore my phone, too, though I have it on me all the time. If someone calls and I care what they have to say, I'd answer the damn thing. If I'm ignoring the call it's because I don't care, so why would I care enough to listen to a pedantic lecture about how many messages I have, and then someone yammering at me?
But I hate that stupid little voicemail icon, too, so when I see it, I usually play a game called "How fast can I delete the voicemail?" On my phone I don't think it's possible to break the two second barrier, but I'm trying.
Of course, then I have to go clear out the "New Voicemail Message" notification, and the "X Missed Calls" notification. Then I have a pristine phone once again until some other jackwit calls me.
We have a toll highway in Atlanta where you can either wait in line to throw your fifty cents into the thing for the privilege of driving on this oh-so-well-maintained road, or you can get a little card with some sort of RFID and just cruise through, letting the card debit your account. Naturally, those lanes are watched by cameras to look for evildoers who aren't paying.
The fun part is, if you get caught, the state mails you and demands that you pay. Their "evidence" of your crime is a blurry, black and white photograph of the back of your car, which doesn't show who is driving it. As far as they're concerned, I guess, if it's your car you're responsibile for anything anyone does with it, even if the real perp was a friend to whom you loaned the car.
So yes, there is legal precedent for the owner of something being liable for whatever anyone does with it, regardless of whether the owner had knowledge about it. I'm not saying it makes any bloody sense, but what did you expect from the government?
SPEAKER
Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--
CONGRESSMAN
Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER
All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
FLOOR
Boo!
SPEAKER
Bill defeated.
So, someone should be able to do a future, or present, value calculation without know algebra?
That's exactly right. If your goal is to teach kids how to manage finances, then teach them applied finances. Teaching them random algebraic concepts isn't going to help them balance a checkbook. Teaching them how to balance a checkbook will help them balance a checkbook.
Don't teach them how to calculate linear regressions, a concept they will never use, and hope that somehow, maybe, magically, they'll make some sort of leap between such totally abstract concepts and real-life applied concepts.
You don't need math only if you're going to be a janitor.
Or a restuarant manager, or a clerk, a cab driver, a rancher, most so-called "business" positions including middle and executive management. You don't need it to be a sysadmin, a waiter, a cop, or a lawyer. All of these positions require some math, but not more than arithmetic and a few basic concepts of geometry. None of these people, in their day to day lives, will ever need to solve quadratic equations, determine the volume of a cone, or calculate nonlinear equations. Ever.
If someone has a bent for mathematics, great! Let them take all the math they want. Those are the types who are going to become engineers, accountants, architects, and so on -- but they're also the types who you don't need to force into math classes, because they already find it interesting. For the rest of the population, who will never need to find the length of a hypotenuse, who cares?
I'm not saying math shouldn't be taught. I'm saying it shouldn't be forced. Like Latin, it amounts to little more than useless trivia for the overwhelming majority of the population, who will never find any application for it in life, and are thus guaranteed to forget it shortly after graduation. It is of professional use to some, of personal interest to a few more, and completely useless for everyone else.
In a way I agree, students should be shown or taught the practical application of what they are being taught
So, tell me. What's the "practical application" of a quadratic equation to Joe Punchclock's day to day life, assuming he's not already in a technical field? What's a real-life situation where some average slob like me would ever need something like that?
I did say "fields which require it" along with a few examples. An accountant clearly needs more than just arithmetic. :P
But the majority of people aren't going to go into financial or technical fields. Much of the finance world's calculations are handled by computers anyway. While I agree those in such a field should know their stuff, the truth is, any schmuck can become a banker or mortgage broker without knowing much math, as long as they can operate a computer.
I don't buy the notion that personal finance and retirement planning is so horrendously complicated that it justifies twelve to fourteen years of forced marches through math classes.
We could sit here spewing examples and counterexamples all day and get nowhere. But the next time you find yourself in a public place populated by average Joes, ask yourself how many of them over the age of 30 could seriously sit down with a pencil and paper and work out a quadratic equation or plot a linear regression or calculate the volume of a cone. Ask yourself how many of them ever need to.
I'm fairly confident that I will go to my grave having never used any of those concepts outside of a classroom. As for financial issues, if that's the goal, then let's teach students about applied finance, instead of making them memorize random mathematical concepts with no application and hoping they somehow magically make the connection.
The original poster's point was that learning Latin is a useless skill for the vast majority of the populace, who will never use it outside of a classroom and because of that disuse, are guaranteed to forget most of it anyway. The same is true of most math; most people will never use it and will thus forget it, so what's the point?
As for kids not learning Latin anymore, I think that's just because Latin is not particularly useful to anyone not in a specialized field (like medicine or law),
You could say that about many other fields as well, though, most notably math. Beyond basic arithmetic and decimals and maybe, maybe a bit of basic geometry, most people have absolutely no use for it. At 28 I can honestly say I've never had to factor a quadratic equation, calculate the volume of a sphere, or solve a linear equation outside of a classroom setting. Ever. I'd wager this holds true for the vast majority of the populace.
What's more, since I haven't had to use this stuff in ten years, I am quite incapable of doing it now, which makes me wonder what point was served by all the forced marches through years and years of class.
You only need mathematics more advanced than this stuff if you're planning on going into a field which requires it, like architecture or physics or engineering. For everyone who isn't, sitting through math classes beyond age 13 is a waste of time and resources, teaching children how to memorize things they don't really understand, have no use for, and are guaranteed to forget shortly after they graduate. Unless you can come up with a reason anything beyond rudiumentary algebra is particularly useful for people who aren't going into technical fields, let's drop that as well.
Cite me any theories, studies, or research which even hint at the existence of a primal instinct in animals which draws them towards fire and/or smoke and I'll concede to your retort.
:P
I dunno, a lot of moths and other insects seem pretty attracted to fire, often to their own detriment.
My argument was not entirely serious, but was just to illustrate that there are better arguments for why smoking is dumb than "it's bad the first time," because that's true for a lot of things, whether we're biologically driven to them or not.
No Mac version yet? Oh no, what will 4% of the marketplace do?!
have to be a follow-the-crowd dumb-ass to force your way through the initial phases of smoking in order to become tolerant of the practice
:P
Just to be a jackass, let me point out that for a girl, it's generally somewhat painful the first time she has sex. By your logic, most girls should have sex once, see how bad it is, and then never do it again unless they're some kind of follow-the-crowd dumbasses.
You really should refine your argument.
Imagine a day when Linux is popular enough to be targeted by adware makers. "Ubuntu users: FREE screensaver! Just install this package."
Fair enough. But I think by the time "Joe User" is using Linux on a regular basis, they'll be used to instalilng things from the package manager, not from random-ass websites and email spam. The difference is that from a package manager, it's already been vouched for by people who know what the hell is going on, whereas in Windows, the default is to get whatever random-ass software you can, and let it do whatever the hell it wants, with zero oversight.
Yes, there will come a day when stupid banner ads and other garbage will want to entice users into installing things from sketchy websites. But just as they've been trained to think that's normal under Windows, they'll have been trained to think that's really abnormal under Linux, and will likely steer clear.
And finally, Linux's root-or-sudo system is leaps and bounds ahead of UAC. The most an "average" user will be able to do is screw up their home directory a bit, not cripple the entire system. I'm well aware this is not foolproof nor is it an all-encompassing statement, but even the warning is better. In Debian/Ubuntu systems it's something like "If you do this, you could modify essential parts of your system." Under Vista, it's "A program needs your permission to continue," with no explanation as to why, or what the potential problem might be.
You make some fair points, but I have to say, some of them are rather silly. A USB modem? Are you serious? Who these days is plugging a modem directly into a single computer with USB? Everyone I've ever encountered plugs into a router via ethernet, or at the very least, uses ethernet to the modem. If you're serious, then okay, that sucks, but please don't act like that's a common thing that Joe User is actually doing.
:P Either way, that has to be an astonishingly small subset of people who need that functionality.
But what's even more hilarious is this. Usually, if a driver won't autoload in Linux, it's because the manufacturer is being a jackass and won't release the drivers or specs. In Windows, it is often the case that the driver exists, and is available, but Windows just won't load it, or even a generic "just enough to get started" driver. No one knows why, it just won't. I can't tell you how many times I've had a clean XP install fail to load wireless, ethernet, video, and sound, on common hardware. And every time it happens, I sigh, crawl over to dell.com or whatever, and get the driver and burn it to CD...using my Debian machine.
Same for your USB 802.11 interface. I've seen a few more of those than I have of your above example, but really. Every laptop made in the past six years has wireless built in, and most people just cable their desktops. For those that don't, I'd say it's a fifty/fifty split between getting a PCI wireless card or using some USB solution, as you are. Though I have to wonder why you're using USB wireless when you're plugged directly into your USB modem.
For the majority of people, all they need is basic wireless or ethernet functionality, which Ubuntu, and most other distros, handles neatly out of the box If it's a Broadcom wireless chipset (sigh) they have to click two extra things to enable the "restricted driver", but still, no big deal. Intel and Atheros, the other two major players, are up and running even in the installer phase.
And please, man, don't pretend MSN is in any way comparable to Gaim or Pidgin or whatever they're calling it these days. Besides the annoyance of idiotic ads, and MSN's habit of popping up when you don't want it, Pidgin handles multiple protocols, whereas MSN, so far as I know, handles one.
Still waiting to hear about an office suite, or an email client that doesn't suck, or an graphics program. Ubuntu also handles scanning, and CD ripping, and CD burning, out of the box with zero screwing around. XP and Vista don't come close to this. Have fun crawling around on the web looking for an app to do these things which you don't have to pay for, register for, get a crippled trial version of, or crack on dodgy Russian websites.. and don't forget to clean up all the other garbage they'll want to install alongside. Ready for the desktop!