I don't claim to know the mind of the Chinese government, but they don't seem particularly concerned with what the rest of the world thinks. After all, they aren't changing their policies to placate people visiting for the Olympics. And if they can do things like win a bid for the Olympics even when they are suspected of HR violations, why would they care? So I would make an uneducated guess that their goal is internal, not about hiding their HR issues from us.
This beer pong game is not a good example. If someone asked me not to let Jimmy play pong on the Wii, I would probably laugh out loud. But those people probably only let their kids play with people from their church. Anyway, as a general idea, I don't think it is unreasonable. Of course, the person on the receiving end is entitled to say "They're N years old. I don't actively supervise all of my child's activities." Whereupon the paranoid parent can suggest that the kids play at their house instead.
Do I get to enforce equally silly rules on other parents, such as "don't let Johnny watch any Fox News when he's over there.. we don't want to poison his mind with that garbage". Yah think the "Fox News" watching parents might be more than a little offended by that request?
[Substitute playing GTA for watching Fox to get a scenario that might actually happen] If you don't demonize people for making different choices for their children, they're significantly more likely to respect the choices you make.
All the time these parents spend writing angry letters could be put to use parenting. Talk to your kids about things they shouldn't do (like drink alcohol) and why they shouldn't do them. If you don't want your kid playing that game in the house, don't buy it. If you don't want them playing it at a friend's house, know your kids' friends and their parents. If they are reasonable people, they will honor a request that certain things not be on the activity list when Jimmy comes over to play. And if you've done a good job parenting so far, playing virtual pong isn't going to turn your kid into a hooligan.
In addition to irresponsible lending practices and ill informed/stupid borrowing practices, the value of homes has gone down. For some people, the market value of their home is now less than what they owe on their mortgage, so (at least in the short term) they have no reason to pay their mortgage. In the long run, I suspect that the value will return to their house, but people who think about that are generally not the ones who get themselves into mortgage troubles.
What I meant by slave state is a different kind of servitude than the institution of slavery.
Ok. Choose better words next time.
Do they? I know, you know. What the _people_ KNOW, most of the time, is what FOX News feeds them.
Indeed, there is an important difference between "people" and "the people".
While FOX is the network everyone loves to hate, the rest of the media, who you also mentioned, is just as bad. None of them simply report the news, all of them have extensive commentary. I think that part of responsible journalism is keeping them separate. A person who watches a "news" channel and thinks critically about what they are seeing can separate the news from the commentary and make their own judgements about the effects of the day's events, but the average news consumer is passive. Many people latch on to the image of rednecks being brainwashed by FOX, but I'm sure the number of people passively accepting what is peddled by (generally less conservative) other networks is proportional. The people who watch [your least favorite news network here], are doing so by choice and people have an unfortunate tendency to watch things that affirm, rather than challenge their views.
Can you provide citations with evidence of the various "bad" things you say China does? If you can, then you've either misjudged the goal of Chinese censorship, or you are providing evidence that they fail at their own game.
Slaves must be fed carefully filtered information, or they might turn on their masters.
Really? Slaves need to be told that their masters have done wrong by enslaving them? I wonder how the slaves in America found out. They were (with few exceptions) illiterate, broadcast radio didn't exist...singing telegram, perhaps?
It's in principle similar to FOX News and mainstream media in the US, except they spin most of the stuff, while over in China they just pretty much block stuff they don't want known out.
The results achieved are similar though.:)
Surely you're joking. The fact that people "know" that FOX does not deliver fair and balanced news is evidence that they (people, not FOX) are aware of the information not being presented by FOX.
I didn't claim to have read the entire Wiki article. I think that is clear from my asking "Did I miss something?" which is obviously a rhetorical question loosely disguising "What did I miss?"
As long as there are anonymous cowards like yourself itching to "answer" my question, why shouldn't I reveal that I am occasionally lazy, or value my job more than finding the answer to my own question, and ask instead of investigating?
The president's salary is $400,000 annually, so $1.6M. That's salary, not total value of benefits. In the grand scheme of things, the salary is nothing compared to corporate leaders, and nothing compared to what politicians stand to make from book deals and lecture circuits.
But how does the fact that it costs a lot of money to run an effective campaign make people criminals? Surely some of them are criminals, but your logic is...non-existent.
The wikipedia article indicates that people think the device was designed with compactness in mind. So why would you add the feature of calculating when 4 years had passed? It's already keeping track of the months, so couldn't you just count them as they went past? Did I miss something?
Sex and gender are not the same thing, so should not be used interchangeably. I have not seen a single article on this topic that uses the two words correctly.
Counter citation: "Body size and composition. To function properly, a bigger body mass requires more energy (more calories) than does a smaller body mass. Also, muscle burns more calories than fat does. So the more muscle you have in relation to fat, the higher your basal metabolic rate." From http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/metabolism/WT00006
The article makes some interesting points about changes in education, but doesn't say anything about the students' responsibilities in the education process.
For and increasing number people, attending college is something they take for granted. I don't have statistics, and I don't know where I would get them from, but I think the proportion of college students for whom getting into a college and finding some way to pay for it was considered a fantastic achievement is fairly small. Perhaps getting into a particular college was notable, but there are a lot of people for whom it is just expected that they will go to college. And once there, the goal is usually to graduate, not to learn things.
Students at colleges with good reputations and challenging curricula can fall into the trap of thinking that they will be prepared for life because they have a diploma from a fancy school. Those people put forth little effort. If they don't work hard and they get Cs, they excuse it by saying that the coursework is exceptionally difficult, although they could have done better if they tried.
Students at schools with less challenging curricula may be fooled into thinking they are learning something because they are making straight As.
Both are doomed in the long run if they don't develop an appreciation for what they can achieve when they have discipline. Getting As or a diploma, by themselves are meaningless. The best student is the one who works his ass off. Even if his best effort only earns him a C, that person works to their full potential. They know how to work hard and can continue to improve throughout their life. The one who's natural abilities get them As in college, but does not pursue challenges, will never reach their full potential, so it doesn't matter that it may be higher than that C student's.
People who are motivated to learn, be it for the sake of learning or because they think it will help them get ahead in the world, are going to be the greatest contributors to society, regardless of the quality of what the education system puts on a platter for them.
It has been said that no matter how stony the path, some forge to the front, and no matter how easy the going, some lag behind. I'm not saying efforts shouldn't be made to make the path easier. But if people were made to appreciate how lucky they are that a path exists at all, and that they are on it, there might be more forging to the front.
Can someone sue Facebook for this, considering they're doing exactly what they said they wouldn't do (or at least that's what it looks like)?
You can sue whether you have a case or not. But I would guess that you (and the rest of FB users) don't. I think you would need to show that that particular clause was material in your decision to accept the terms of service and that their violation caused actual damages. I seriously doubt that even one of those conditions is met for most users, if any.
People complain that lawyers are evil, but what is the first question they ask when something bad happens? Can I sue someone over this?
It says "calibrated to women's level of interest", not "calibrated to women's ability".
Suppose your aptitude for coloring inside the lines is equal to everyone else's, but you aren't interested in coloring. But some entity put incentives in place to increase the number of people in the coloring field, so you took a job. Are you going to do as good of a job as the person who has loved coloring their entire life?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't claim to know the mind of the Chinese government, but they don't seem particularly concerned with what the rest of the world thinks. After all, they aren't changing their policies to placate people visiting for the Olympics. And if they can do things like win a bid for the Olympics even when they are suspected of HR violations, why would they care? So I would make an uneducated guess that their goal is internal, not about hiding their HR issues from us.
Do I get to enforce equally silly rules on other parents, such as "don't let Johnny watch any Fox News when he's over there.. we don't want to poison his mind with that garbage". Yah think the "Fox News" watching parents might be more than a little offended by that request?
[Substitute playing GTA for watching Fox to get a scenario that might actually happen] If you don't demonize people for making different choices for their children, they're significantly more likely to respect the choices you make.
All the time these parents spend writing angry letters could be put to use parenting . Talk to your kids about things they shouldn't do (like drink alcohol) and why they shouldn't do them. If you don't want your kid playing that game in the house, don't buy it. If you don't want them playing it at a friend's house, know your kids' friends and their parents. If they are reasonable people, they will honor a request that certain things not be on the activity list when Jimmy comes over to play. And if you've done a good job parenting so far, playing virtual pong isn't going to turn your kid into a hooligan.
In addition to irresponsible lending practices and ill informed/stupid borrowing practices, the value of homes has gone down. For some people, the market value of their home is now less than what they owe on their mortgage, so (at least in the short term) they have no reason to pay their mortgage. In the long run, I suspect that the value will return to their house, but people who think about that are generally not the ones who get themselves into mortgage troubles.
What I meant by slave state is a different kind of servitude than the institution of slavery.
Ok. Choose better words next time.
Do they? I know, you know. What the _people_ KNOW, most of the time, is what FOX News feeds them.
Indeed, there is an important difference between "people" and "the people".
While FOX is the network everyone loves to hate, the rest of the media, who you also mentioned, is just as bad. None of them simply report the news, all of them have extensive commentary. I think that part of responsible journalism is keeping them separate. A person who watches a "news" channel and thinks critically about what they are seeing can separate the news from the commentary and make their own judgements about the effects of the day's events, but the average news consumer is passive. Many people latch on to the image of rednecks being brainwashed by FOX, but I'm sure the number of people passively accepting what is peddled by (generally less conservative) other networks is proportional. The people who watch [your least favorite news network here], are doing so by choice and people have an unfortunate tendency to watch things that affirm, rather than challenge their views.
Can you provide citations with evidence of the various "bad" things you say China does? If you can, then you've either misjudged the goal of Chinese censorship, or you are providing evidence that they fail at their own game.
Cause it's a slave state.
[citation needed]
Slaves must be fed carefully filtered information, or they might turn on their masters.
Really? Slaves need to be told that their masters have done wrong by enslaving them? I wonder how the slaves in America found out. They were (with few exceptions) illiterate, broadcast radio didn't exist...singing telegram, perhaps?
It's in principle similar to FOX News and mainstream media in the US, except they spin most of the stuff, while over in China they just pretty much block stuff they don't want known out.
The results achieved are similar though. :)
Surely you're joking. The fact that people "know" that FOX does not deliver fair and balanced news is evidence that they (people, not FOX) are aware of the information not being presented by FOX.
As long as there are anonymous cowards like yourself itching to "answer" my question, why shouldn't I reveal that I am occasionally lazy, or value my job more than finding the answer to my own question, and ask instead of investigating?
The president's salary is $400,000 annually, so $1.6M. That's salary, not total value of benefits. In the grand scheme of things, the salary is nothing compared to corporate leaders, and nothing compared to what politicians stand to make from book deals and lecture circuits.
But how does the fact that it costs a lot of money to run an effective campaign make people criminals? Surely some of them are criminals, but your logic is...non-existent.
The wikipedia article indicates that people think the device was designed with compactness in mind. So why would you add the feature of calculating when 4 years had passed? It's already keeping track of the months, so couldn't you just count them as they went past? Did I miss something?
Sex and gender are not the same thing, so should not be used interchangeably. I have not seen a single article on this topic that uses the two words correctly.
Counter citation: "Body size and composition. To function properly, a bigger body mass requires more energy (more calories) than does a smaller body mass. Also, muscle burns more calories than fat does. So the more muscle you have in relation to fat, the higher your basal metabolic rate." From http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/metabolism/WT00006
The article makes some interesting points about changes in education, but doesn't say anything about the students' responsibilities in the education process.
For and increasing number people, attending college is something they take for granted. I don't have statistics, and I don't know where I would get them from, but I think the proportion of college students for whom getting into a college and finding some way to pay for it was considered a fantastic achievement is fairly small. Perhaps getting into a particular college was notable, but there are a lot of people for whom it is just expected that they will go to college. And once there, the goal is usually to graduate, not to learn things.
Students at colleges with good reputations and challenging curricula can fall into the trap of thinking that they will be prepared for life because they have a diploma from a fancy school. Those people put forth little effort. If they don't work hard and they get Cs, they excuse it by saying that the coursework is exceptionally difficult, although they could have done better if they tried. Students at schools with less challenging curricula may be fooled into thinking they are learning something because they are making straight As. Both are doomed in the long run if they don't develop an appreciation for what they can achieve when they have discipline. Getting As or a diploma, by themselves are meaningless. The best student is the one who works his ass off. Even if his best effort only earns him a C, that person works to their full potential. They know how to work hard and can continue to improve throughout their life. The one who's natural abilities get them As in college, but does not pursue challenges, will never reach their full potential, so it doesn't matter that it may be higher than that C student's.
People who are motivated to learn, be it for the sake of learning or because they think it will help them get ahead in the world, are going to be the greatest contributors to society, regardless of the quality of what the education system puts on a platter for them.
It has been said that no matter how stony the path, some forge to the front, and no matter how easy the going, some lag behind. I'm not saying efforts shouldn't be made to make the path easier. But if people were made to appreciate how lucky they are that a path exists at all, and that they are on it, there might be more forging to the front.
Can someone sue Facebook for this, considering they're doing exactly what they said they wouldn't do (or at least that's what it looks like)?
You can sue whether you have a case or not. But I would guess that you (and the rest of FB users) don't. I think you would need to show that that particular clause was material in your decision to accept the terms of service and that their violation caused actual damages. I seriously doubt that even one of those conditions is met for most users, if any.
People complain that lawyers are evil, but what is the first question they ask when something bad happens? Can I sue someone over this?
omg you're a felon! http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/07/1824228
oh noes! they can figure out my real name just by using google calendar and my email address (first.last@gmail.com)!?
It says "calibrated to women's level of interest", not "calibrated to women's ability". Suppose your aptitude for coloring inside the lines is equal to everyone else's, but you aren't interested in coloring. But some entity put incentives in place to increase the number of people in the coloring field, so you took a job. Are you going to do as good of a job as the person who has loved coloring their entire life?