Actually, according to your own argument, secular goals, not atheism, are the cause of history's greatest atrocities. More precisely, power-hungry, megalomanic dictators who put their own goals ahead of everything used the fears, beliefs, and prejudices of others to get their way. You're talking about three men who led millions, but of those millions, how many were religious, and genuinely believed they were fighting for good reasons in the name of God? How many previous famous religious leaders genuinely believed in God, rather than just using religion to leverage their own power?
As for why these leaders were so powerful, it is not because they had some mysterious power of atheism, but because they were intelligent, charismatic men who were in the right place at the right time. It just so happens that Christians had been disliking Jews for 2000 years, and Hitler was able to use that. So, yes, religion was the cause; if Christianity had never come to be, and Jews weren't defined by their religion, then there would be no reason to apply those labels. Then it would be reduced to disliking each other for more secular reasons, as you asserted. However, take religion out of the equation and at least two of the three dictators you put forth as atheists would have never come to be.
I was thinking of the developers, not tech support. Of course, you have a point - just because somebody has credentials doesn't mean they didn't come through by the skin of their teeth on the job interview.
I don't know; if you can prove that an actual sale was lost because somebody ripped off your product, I'd call that pretty significant damage. We're not talking about *potential* sales, but actually having sales abruptly drop off because somebody stole somebody else's idea. I'm not advocating the "I haven't actually implemented it, but I've THOUGHT about it," style of idea, of course.
Actually, Japanese education is mandatory until the age of 15. However, most students continue going until graduation because a) even if they expend no effort whatsoever, they'll get a passing grade, and b) they'd rather hang out with their friends in high school than get a full-time job (however, most kids at low-level schools in Japan work part- or full-time jobs.)
The one place where Japan excels is in their elementary school system, due of the various number of activities, clubs, and trips they get the kids involved in. Lunchtime and cleaning are a group activity. Lunch takes place in the classroom, with the kids taking turns serving the food. Cleaning the school is a student chore as well (no janitors!), with every performing an assigned task.
The place where Japan loses is in their tiered secondary education system (high schools.) They require a proficiency test for placement, and once you've been put in a low-level school, they treat you as if you can't learn anything. Worse, they expect you to behave badly and ignore the dress code, too, etc. There is almost no discipline system in place, with punishments ranging from a severe talking-to (assuming you show up), morning clean-up duty, or simply expulsion. The one good thing, regardless of level, is that pretty much every Japanese student gets to travel abroad at least once. This puts them one up on Americans, who are lucky to get to travel even out of state (distance is a factor, yes, but international flights are just as expensive in Japan, and yet the parents still pay for them to go.) On the downside, they have to pay for their high school tuition as well as uniforms; public schools are not completely supported through taxes.
The Japanese borrowed the tiered idea from Germany, but the problem is, they're not German, and obviously missed the point: German low-level schools are not prisons for the stupid, but rather vocationally oriented Realschule (welding, carpentry, etc.) The students graduate at the end of their second year so that they can then go out and get jobs with the benefit of a high school degree. Having been a student in America and Germany, and a teacher in Japan, I have to say that the Germans win on this one, with America doing well on the secondary school system and the Japanese excelling at the primary level.
It's all about the reassurance of having someone definitive to contact for support (or point your finger at) and who has a vested interest in backing their product. People are far more dependable when they're working for money than for charity. Running a business on a product that was developed for free by someone who "felt like it" doesn't encourage feelings of reliability. The same developer might just decide he feels like quitting tomorrow, too.
I think you're wasting time nitpicking semantics when what you really seem to want to do is disgree with him. If someone uses, "some of us," big deal. It's far more unlikely (if not improbable) for absolutely nobody to share your opinion than for somebody to.
If you want to disagree with him, come out and say it. Some of us would prefer it that way.
Intelligence has nothing to do with a person's emotional or sexual desires, and creative people can be the shallowest of all, having a tendency to appreciate beautiful things. Discriminating against beautiful people by saying they aren't interested in mental pursuits also sounds a bit ingenuous, since it implies that outward appearance is a direct reflection of mental capacity. Perhaps this particular conclusion is based more on the more common school of philosophy that goes something like, "I'm smart and consider myself a nice person, that pretty girl must be an idiot for not going out with me." The good news is, a little dedication and many failed attempts will usually wind up with successfully finding somebody you not only consider pretty and smart, but actually digs you, too.
Having said that, this entire article sounds like a steaming heap of wishful thinking. Whoever came up with this crap obviously subscribed to the idea of vicariously projecting himself into a personal dream world where tall, perky-breasted women admire his witty reparte, handsome features, and, of course, large penis. The best part is, he gets paid to foist this tripe off on the rest of us.
Most world religions worked this entire concept out long ago, but they kept things simpler and all-inclusive: when you die, you either go to a good place or a bad place, and people could assuage their anger by imagining what it would be like when their annoying neighbor eventually got theirs.
As for the species diverging, I guess this guy also missed the part where we have distinctive differences in Asians, Africans, Caucasians, Hispanics, etc., and yet we're all roughly on the same footing in both physicality and intelligence. Not to mention, all the happy interbreeding that's probably going on right now.
I agree with your points about "we watch fiction because it isn't real life," as well as the fact that the ending was a bit contrived (Book went from saying he'd reveal his past someday to "ain't never gonna happen.") It felt like Firefly as a whole got a bit quashed, but I think that Whedon's point was that he had a chance to take the series as it was out in a blaze of glory, rather than the fizzle-as-dictated-by-Fox.
If he bought an album that he had previously illegally downloaded, then, yes, they made their money back. It's reasonable to expect a single person to buy one album, not two. It's like arguing that borrowing from a friend first results in lost sales. The important difference, of course, is that you have to erase those files if you decide you really don't like them; otherwise, the analogy breaks down. The claim that someone's appetite for music is so vast that their wallet can't keep up isn't justification for stealing music, however. You also can't argue that you stole it because you didn't like it enough to buy it. If you don't like it, delete it.
I agree that it sucked, but I disagree that it's bad storytelling. Just because the good guys don't always get off scott-free and somebody you love dies doesn't make it a bad movie; it just shows that real life sometimes does crap like that to you. It's not all touchy-feely good times all the time. When my own brother died at the age of 16, I thought that was some pretty poor plot development, too. Kudos to Whedon for a ballsy move and taking the movie someplace serious. Sometimes you have to know loss before you can truly appreciate love.
For all you know, he was planning on doing it at some point during the series, anyway. Now you've opened up the possibility of Zoe's character actually going to some dark places as a result that could be quite interesting, as well as making things complicated for the captain (because things never just go smooth.)
The opening of the article states that the birds fly at night, which leaves little time for sleep.
Sure, if you discount the other half of the day.
I have to agree with the other commenters who pointed out that this is a good example of how watching a bird take naps in a cage may not be the best kind of science. For all we know, the birds in the wild are enjoying a hearty day's sleep, completely undisturbed by pesky lab techs trying to peer into their cage and see what they're doing. You keep looking at me while scribbling on a clipboard, and I'll have trouble sleeping, too.
By the summary's own admission, it seems the problem is apparently limited to Brits, I assume the rest of the buying public is okay. What's the problem?
Which will result in companies investing in a further level of obscurity, meaning that they'll have front companies with innocuous names that will allow them to launder the money involved in gambling. Which will make things even less taxable. All the US government is doing is pushing themselves further and further out of the loop, rather than jumping on a golden opportunity to tax the hell out of it.
How did this get modded insightful? "Ironic," maybe, or perhaps "troll" I could see.
I think you're confusing genius with altruism. Just because somebody is smart doesn't mean that they're automatically obligated to further mankind. Also, since when does being smart mean you have to resign yourself to a life of poverty? Doesn't sound that clever to me.
Actually, their primary concern *is* the viewer, who is skipping the commercials that pay for the show. You can rationalize that they just need to find a new way to pay for the programming (using a magic wand, for example), but the reality is either you have to pay or the advertisers do. Your choice is to either tolerate the commercials or pay more out-of-pocket. I agree that American TV spends way too much time showing the commercials; in Japan and Germany, at least, they keep it down to a dull roar (especially Germany, who only shows commercials at the middle and end of a show.)
As someone else has already said: using the data is not copyright infringement. Copying the data is. I cannot be held liable for buying something in good faith, no matter what somebody's lawyer tells me. At the very worst, all they can do is confiscate the CDs and I'm out my original purchase price, unless I can somehow get a refund or sue the company that took my money.
You mean I can have an 8-station animation render farm in one box for a fraction of the cost? Why is this not big news? As an animator, compositor and editor, I find this big news indeed.
I agree. This story is at least 15 years too late, and that's just counting the electronic gaming communities. I suppose, however, that this is the first time that you're talking about a role-playing game, online communities, and how they result in real-life friendships in a *positive* light. Nothing like finally hitting the mainstream.
"If a student can't be arsed to make it to class, then why should the teacher pass them?"
Because it's the teacher's job to teach, not impose his moral values. Unless the class requires actual interaction between the student and teacher, and if the student is only required to memorize the information presented in the course, then the results of memorizing that information outside of class will be indistinguishable from having attended.
"There's no way of knowing how well they understand the material through testing unless the subject is extremely technical in nature."
If a teacher is unable to test the students over the course material, regardless of the subject, then he is either grossly incompetent in his field or a really bad teacher.
"Learning how to read a textbook right before an exam and learning where to find information doesn't mean you deserve to pass most courses."
Again, the argument isn't about whether or not you "deserve" something; it's about whether or not you can learn the material just as well on your own. I personally think somebody who can self-teach himself college-level material well enough to past a test a very clever and motivated person indeed. That, or the material is so simplistic in nature that it's not worthy of being taught in a university.
"On the other hand, if you can't make an attempt to take anything more from a class than a "rubber stamp" and view attendance as a chore, perhaps the fault is yours."
Unfortunately, it's the system, not the student, who has made college this way. If classes are truly lectures (i.e. somebody talking at you for an hour) and the teachers unengaging, then it is the fault of the university for accepting such low standards in its faculty. If your future employers don't really care how you got a degree, just that you *have* a degree, then again, that is not the fault of the students, either.
For example, as a graphic designer, a university degree is a nicety, not a necessity. Your career is made on your abilities as presented in your portfolio, not on how many letters come after your name. As someone who also has a degree in a foreign language, my abilities are measured on whether or not I can speak the language. What happened before the degree is a moot point; I am merely required to have the degree in order to get a job.
In the end, if you want to be able to punish the wicked for skipping class while you labor to scribble your notes, take comfort in the fact that it's not in the rote knowledge, but in how you can actually apply it, that success is made. Of course, if you've only attended lectures and memorized facts, then you're likely to find life after the degree a bit more challenging than you might have expected.
Don't knock it until you try it. There's nothing like coming out of a bathroom feeling as clean as when you went in. Next we'll be sneering at people who use showers when they know darn well that they're just going to be dirty again by tomorrow. Despite all the things Americans have invented technology-wise, we're still Luddites compared to the rest of the world. Go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, according to your own argument, secular goals, not atheism, are the cause of history's greatest atrocities. More precisely, power-hungry, megalomanic dictators who put their own goals ahead of everything used the fears, beliefs, and prejudices of others to get their way. You're talking about three men who led millions, but of those millions, how many were religious, and genuinely believed they were fighting for good reasons in the name of God? How many previous famous religious leaders genuinely believed in God, rather than just using religion to leverage their own power?
As for why these leaders were so powerful, it is not because they had some mysterious power of atheism, but because they were intelligent, charismatic men who were in the right place at the right time. It just so happens that Christians had been disliking Jews for 2000 years, and Hitler was able to use that. So, yes, religion was the cause; if Christianity had never come to be, and Jews weren't defined by their religion, then there would be no reason to apply those labels. Then it would be reduced to disliking each other for more secular reasons, as you asserted. However, take religion out of the equation and at least two of the three dictators you put forth as atheists would have never come to be.
I was thinking of the developers, not tech support. Of course, you have a point - just because somebody has credentials doesn't mean they didn't come through by the skin of their teeth on the job interview.
I don't know; if you can prove that an actual sale was lost because somebody ripped off your product, I'd call that pretty significant damage. We're not talking about *potential* sales, but actually having sales abruptly drop off because somebody stole somebody else's idea. I'm not advocating the "I haven't actually implemented it, but I've THOUGHT about it," style of idea, of course.
Actually, Japanese education is mandatory until the age of 15. However, most students continue going until graduation because a) even if they expend no effort whatsoever, they'll get a passing grade, and b) they'd rather hang out with their friends in high school than get a full-time job (however, most kids at low-level schools in Japan work part- or full-time jobs.)
The one place where Japan excels is in their elementary school system, due of the various number of activities, clubs, and trips they get the kids involved in. Lunchtime and cleaning are a group activity. Lunch takes place in the classroom, with the kids taking turns serving the food. Cleaning the school is a student chore as well (no janitors!), with every performing an assigned task.
The place where Japan loses is in their tiered secondary education system (high schools.) They require a proficiency test for placement, and once you've been put in a low-level school, they treat you as if you can't learn anything. Worse, they expect you to behave badly and ignore the dress code, too, etc. There is almost no discipline system in place, with punishments ranging from a severe talking-to (assuming you show up), morning clean-up duty, or simply expulsion. The one good thing, regardless of level, is that pretty much every Japanese student gets to travel abroad at least once. This puts them one up on Americans, who are lucky to get to travel even out of state (distance is a factor, yes, but international flights are just as expensive in Japan, and yet the parents still pay for them to go.) On the downside, they have to pay for their high school tuition as well as uniforms; public schools are not completely supported through taxes.
The Japanese borrowed the tiered idea from Germany, but the problem is, they're not German, and obviously missed the point: German low-level schools are not prisons for the stupid, but rather vocationally oriented Realschule (welding, carpentry, etc.) The students graduate at the end of their second year so that they can then go out and get jobs with the benefit of a high school degree. Having been a student in America and Germany, and a teacher in Japan, I have to say that the Germans win on this one, with America doing well on the secondary school system and the Japanese excelling at the primary level.
It's all about the reassurance of having someone definitive to contact for support (or point your finger at) and who has a vested interest in backing their product. People are far more dependable when they're working for money than for charity. Running a business on a product that was developed for free by someone who "felt like it" doesn't encourage feelings of reliability. The same developer might just decide he feels like quitting tomorrow, too.
A statistical probability that there isn't an even distribution of ignorance? Just goes to show you that statistics isn't always right. ;)
If Japanese need to be updated on all the latest, there's a Japanese version of Slashdot just for that purpose. http://www.slashdot.jp/
There are USB extension cords available, assuming that you can find somewhere in your house that gets better reception.
I think you're wasting time nitpicking semantics when what you really seem to want to do is disgree with him. If someone uses, "some of us," big deal. It's far more unlikely (if not improbable) for absolutely nobody to share your opinion than for somebody to.
If you want to disagree with him, come out and say it. Some of us would prefer it that way.
Intelligence has nothing to do with a person's emotional or sexual desires, and creative people can be the shallowest of all, having a tendency to appreciate beautiful things. Discriminating against beautiful people by saying they aren't interested in mental pursuits also sounds a bit ingenuous, since it implies that outward appearance is a direct reflection of mental capacity. Perhaps this particular conclusion is based more on the more common school of philosophy that goes something like, "I'm smart and consider myself a nice person, that pretty girl must be an idiot for not going out with me." The good news is, a little dedication and many failed attempts will usually wind up with successfully finding somebody you not only consider pretty and smart, but actually digs you, too.
Having said that, this entire article sounds like a steaming heap of wishful thinking. Whoever came up with this crap obviously subscribed to the idea of vicariously projecting himself into a personal dream world where tall, perky-breasted women admire his witty reparte, handsome features, and, of course, large penis. The best part is, he gets paid to foist this tripe off on the rest of us.
Most world religions worked this entire concept out long ago, but they kept things simpler and all-inclusive: when you die, you either go to a good place or a bad place, and people could assuage their anger by imagining what it would be like when their annoying neighbor eventually got theirs.
As for the species diverging, I guess this guy also missed the part where we have distinctive differences in Asians, Africans, Caucasians, Hispanics, etc., and yet we're all roughly on the same footing in both physicality and intelligence. Not to mention, all the happy interbreeding that's probably going on right now.
I agree with your points about "we watch fiction because it isn't real life," as well as the fact that the ending was a bit contrived (Book went from saying he'd reveal his past someday to "ain't never gonna happen.") It felt like Firefly as a whole got a bit quashed, but I think that Whedon's point was that he had a chance to take the series as it was out in a blaze of glory, rather than the fizzle-as-dictated-by-Fox.
If he bought an album that he had previously illegally downloaded, then, yes, they made their money back. It's reasonable to expect a single person to buy one album, not two. It's like arguing that borrowing from a friend first results in lost sales. The important difference, of course, is that you have to erase those files if you decide you really don't like them; otherwise, the analogy breaks down. The claim that someone's appetite for music is so vast that their wallet can't keep up isn't justification for stealing music, however. You also can't argue that you stole it because you didn't like it enough to buy it. If you don't like it, delete it.
I agree that it sucked, but I disagree that it's bad storytelling. Just because the good guys don't always get off scott-free and somebody you love dies doesn't make it a bad movie; it just shows that real life sometimes does crap like that to you. It's not all touchy-feely good times all the time. When my own brother died at the age of 16, I thought that was some pretty poor plot development, too. Kudos to Whedon for a ballsy move and taking the movie someplace serious. Sometimes you have to know loss before you can truly appreciate love.
For all you know, he was planning on doing it at some point during the series, anyway. Now you've opened up the possibility of Zoe's character actually going to some dark places as a result that could be quite interesting, as well as making things complicated for the captain (because things never just go smooth.)
The opening of the article states that the birds fly at night, which leaves little time for sleep.
Sure, if you discount the other half of the day.
I have to agree with the other commenters who pointed out that this is a good example of how watching a bird take naps in a cage may not be the best kind of science. For all we know, the birds in the wild are enjoying a hearty day's sleep, completely undisturbed by pesky lab techs trying to peer into their cage and see what they're doing. You keep looking at me while scribbling on a clipboard, and I'll have trouble sleeping, too.
By the summary's own admission, it seems the problem is apparently limited to Brits, I assume the rest of the buying public is okay. What's the problem?
Doesn't "usage" imply that he's running up your phone bill? I think this sounds like a good start, if not the best way of taking care of the problem.
Which will result in companies investing in a further level of obscurity, meaning that they'll have front companies with innocuous names that will allow them to launder the money involved in gambling. Which will make things even less taxable. All the US government is doing is pushing themselves further and further out of the loop, rather than jumping on a golden opportunity to tax the hell out of it.
It's called irony. Marketing doesn't actually require that what you say is true.
How did this get modded insightful? "Ironic," maybe, or perhaps "troll" I could see.
I think you're confusing genius with altruism. Just because somebody is smart doesn't mean that they're automatically obligated to further mankind. Also, since when does being smart mean you have to resign yourself to a life of poverty? Doesn't sound that clever to me.
Actually, their primary concern *is* the viewer, who is skipping the commercials that pay for the show. You can rationalize that they just need to find a new way to pay for the programming (using a magic wand, for example), but the reality is either you have to pay or the advertisers do. Your choice is to either tolerate the commercials or pay more out-of-pocket. I agree that American TV spends way too much time showing the commercials; in Japan and Germany, at least, they keep it down to a dull roar (especially Germany, who only shows commercials at the middle and end of a show.)
As someone else has already said: using the data is not copyright infringement. Copying the data is. I cannot be held liable for buying something in good faith, no matter what somebody's lawyer tells me. At the very worst, all they can do is confiscate the CDs and I'm out my original purchase price, unless I can somehow get a refund or sue the company that took my money.
You mean I can have an 8-station animation render farm in one box for a fraction of the cost? Why is this not big news? As an animator, compositor and editor, I find this big news indeed.
I agree. This story is at least 15 years too late, and that's just counting the electronic gaming communities. I suppose, however, that this is the first time that you're talking about a role-playing game, online communities, and how they result in real-life friendships in a *positive* light. Nothing like finally hitting the mainstream.
"If a student can't be arsed to make it to class, then why should the teacher pass them?"
Because it's the teacher's job to teach, not impose his moral values. Unless the class requires actual interaction between the student and teacher, and if the student is only required to memorize the information presented in the course, then the results of memorizing that information outside of class will be indistinguishable from having attended.
"There's no way of knowing how well they understand the material through testing unless the subject is extremely technical in nature."
If a teacher is unable to test the students over the course material, regardless of the subject, then he is either grossly incompetent in his field or a really bad teacher.
"Learning how to read a textbook right before an exam and learning where to find information doesn't mean you deserve to pass most courses."
Again, the argument isn't about whether or not you "deserve" something; it's about whether or not you can learn the material just as well on your own. I personally think somebody who can self-teach himself college-level material well enough to past a test a very clever and motivated person indeed. That, or the material is so simplistic in nature that it's not worthy of being taught in a university.
"On the other hand, if you can't make an attempt to take anything more from a class than a "rubber stamp" and view attendance as a chore, perhaps the fault is yours."
Unfortunately, it's the system, not the student, who has made college this way. If classes are truly lectures (i.e. somebody talking at you for an hour) and the teachers unengaging, then it is the fault of the university for accepting such low standards in its faculty. If your future employers don't really care how you got a degree, just that you *have* a degree, then again, that is not the fault of the students, either.
For example, as a graphic designer, a university degree is a nicety, not a necessity. Your career is made on your abilities as presented in your portfolio, not on how many letters come after your name. As someone who also has a degree in a foreign language, my abilities are measured on whether or not I can speak the language. What happened before the degree is a moot point; I am merely required to have the degree in order to get a job.
In the end, if you want to be able to punish the wicked for skipping class while you labor to scribble your notes, take comfort in the fact that it's not in the rote knowledge, but in how you can actually apply it, that success is made. Of course, if you've only attended lectures and memorized facts, then you're likely to find life after the degree a bit more challenging than you might have expected.
Don't knock it until you try it. There's nothing like coming out of a bathroom feeling as clean as when you went in. Next we'll be sneering at people who use showers when they know darn well that they're just going to be dirty again by tomorrow. Despite all the things Americans have invented technology-wise, we're still Luddites compared to the rest of the world. Go figure.