He refused to consider himself a teacher, he considered it immoral decadence to accept payment for teaching.
This is known, and at his trial he pointed out that his poverty was proof that he wasn't a teacher, as teachers were expected to be paid by their students. He was merely a person who was respected, and was friends with many people who sought to learn from him.
So while he had followers that would loosely be considered students, he was clearly not a booster of formal education, and his only known statements about it are critical.
getting a junior engineer to senior-level operation in 3-4 years... My bad!
LOL exactly. If you let them work under a slashdot neckbeard it would only take them 3-4 years for them to consider themselves Senior-level, fuck midlevel that's for wankers.
There is really no way to turn them into a useful worker after that. There is no way to get them to go back, and be a Jr. Engineer for real for a few years, or even to convince them to get past Mt. Stupid before they're Sr. Level and refuse to learn anything new.
A lot of sites appear to not work. If you hand over all your security it is true that they appear to work again.
But you can also usually just turn off CSS and suddenly the content is easily visible. Works for most news paywalls, and nearly any site that likes to get traffic from search engines.
In most cases a C compiler would already remove the unused bugs, and it wouldn't really be that hard to alter an SCA tool to know about a few of the tricks that could be used to prevent it getting optimized out.
Apparently wearing a shirt, designed by a woman, is "magically" sexist.
*facepalm*
Well, we do know that wearing a shirt designed by a woman doesn't mean you're not a sexist, so I get suspicious at your construction. You're asking people to make assumptions that are not falsifiable, while also claiming to possess some sort of knowledge or idea. That adds up to something suspicious, in my experience.
Indentitarian Politics? What is that, the politics of getting words stuck between your teeth as a way of life?
I tried hard, I dug up the Latin root and everything, but that's the best I can come up with. WTF are you even talking about? Don't forget to include an idea between the derps.
There is no contradiction between being a White Supremacist and being Japanese. That is just about the stupidest and most ignorant thing I've heard about race today, and I'm right here in this thread reading it.
Racism literally means that you believe the differences between races are substantive.
There are not even legit biological differences that group into the purported races. Genetically it is complete hogwash.
It doesn't become racism only when you decide that you must be superior to others, it starts when you get tricked into believing that the categories are substantive.
A Bachelor of Arts in Computer Blahblah is qualified to actually use computers to do Blahblah. (usually that means programming)
A Bachelor of Science in Computer Blahblah is qualified to write scientific papers in an academic environment involving theoretical use of computers for Blahblah.
That is the basic difference between the "Art of Something" and the "Science of Something." One is about doing. The other is about studying.
The litmus test is what does the major prepare you for? If it only prepares you to get employment as a professor of the field you are studying, then it probably doesn't have much application to the world at large.
To wit:
... English - Not so much
...
If you don't know that English can be used to make money outside of the academic environment, my advice, CONTROL-SHIFT-A BACKSPACE
OTOH, almost all Object Oriented and Functional programming get their object semantics from the answers to Russell's Paradox.
They might only be raiding from a 30 year period from 1890 to 1920.
If they were really going that far back, instead of "Traveling Salesman" algorithms it would Traveling Mercenaries and somebody would have solved the actual route that was taken by the Ten Thousand and I'd be able to buy a copy of Anabasis with a map that matched the (probably re-ordered) text.
As it is, good luck even finding an engineering text that illustrates an Archimedean screw as having a level of vertical displacement somewhere within the theoretical range of the device.
Around abouts 2500 years ago, a witty wag from Athens made a pilgrimage to the Temple at Delphi. Once there he paid the fee for the luxury of asking a question of the Oracle. And the question he asked was if Socrates was indeed the wisest man alive. The Oracle replied that indeed it was true, Socrates was the wisest man alive.
Socrates, on hearing of this, was incensed. For while he considered himself a philosopher, and he had questions about many areas of wisdom, he also knew very well that he had arrived at no answers at all! His pursuit of philosophy had only managed to reject lots of ideas, he hadn't actually discovered any wisdom at all about anything. So surely the Gods were making sport of him, They would could see inside his thoughts, they alone who knew the actual depth and completeness of his ignorance. Being made sport by the Gods was not a desirable thing; he set out to overcome this insult, to prove the Gods wrong, to redeem himself in their eyes.
So he set out a list of questions he could use to interrogate persons in order to determine if they were wise. And he then set out to interview all the important people of Athens, all those whom would by their success in life be presumed to be possessed of wisdom. And he found that of those who had success at the important things in life, none understood why; they generally would cite the things they were doing poorly as the reasons for their success, and were unable to explain how their success came about. And furthermore, they were no more likely than the common man to even have success at the things most important to them! In the end, he found no man possessed of any wisdom at all, though they all believed themselves to be.
And this was his great breakthrough; perhaps the Oracle was right after all! Perhaps humans generally lack wisdom! And, being apparently the only one to believe himself to be without wisdom, he had at least that tiny sliver that no one else had.
Unfortunately, after his death his student Plato wrote a bunch of arrogant, bombastic stuff that he attributed to Socrates, so it gets a bit confused in the histories. Plato's Cave is the exact ideological opposite of the Wisdom of Socrates, for example; pure hubris.
Perhaps academic pursuits are not, therefore, ever wise. Surely there is some other sort of Virtue more accessible to humans, though?
I agree, but this is about humanities, who is really the expert here? I am a human, I am every bit an expert as you or that person holding a degree.
Speaking as a physical object, I'm every bit an expert on physics as someone holding a degree.
That truly sad part of this comment is that if you presented it to 100 people with physics degrees, not even 10% are likely to understand the difference between physical and metaphysical concepts contained in it, and yet they'll give Very Strongly Worded Answers anyways.
While generally true, it might matter at least a little bit.
For example, Noam Chomsky is the Father of Modern Linguistics. In the same way that Freud is the Father of Psychology; people who believed his ideas were inspired by them to supersede them entirely. So if he's writing about linguistics, you have to consider what he said even when he was wrong; even if that was most of the time.
But when he's writing about geography and politics, it is important to remember, he's just blathering from his armchair, same as any Joe on the street. He's no expert. People are repeating his words because his name is important in another field, not because he has any training or experience. It is useful to at least know why people are repeating what a certain person says, even if the underlying truths of the universe don't care who says an idea.
(I was wondering how long it would take to be downvoted by someone who works for Big Intrusive Adware.)
I see you attended your Mind Reading seminar in college! Did you get $15? I only got $15. Somebody afterwards told me he got $20 for the same session! I felt totally robbed.
You need to take a bunch of ethics classes first, before you start trying to teach us about what ethics classes are needed.
There are reasons for ethics, reasons that make sense. For example, general business ethics help a business to operate in a way that reduces liability, improves morale, and supports predictability.
Journalism ethics cover different types of things, and following the forms has a PR function of insulating the journalist from various types of accusations. Often it is used to mislead the reader though; there is a special sort of code language used when throwing the ethics rubber chicken, such that the casual reader/listener is tricked into thinking that they contacted the subject of the story and the subject refused to comment, but really what they did is they left a phone message at the front desk and didn't wait to call back; so they initiated a contact, but didn't actually make contact yet. And that gets represented the same as a "no comment" comment if you don't understand the details of their code.
In medicine, ethics has various legal implications and is a much more serious and studied issue where the ethics requirements generally are enforced by government. (via the courts)
These all have some perspective that the ethics are presented from; some stakeholder who is enforcing ethics for a purpose. In business ethics, it is enforced at the hiring stage, it is used internally in companies to evaluate candidates for positions, as a way to protect the company from the employee. In journalism it is used to protect the employee from their external competitors. In medicine it is used by society to protect patients against harm. Financial services is another example similar to medicine, where the ethics protect society and are enforced by the government.
What would be the goal of marketing ethics? In the US the government can't be the enforcer, because Freedom of Speech. Therefore, what goal of a marketing company would be supported by "ethics?" It is one thing to blather, "It would be nice if marketing was more ethical." But it is a whole different ball of wax to propose teaching some sort of ethics.
Ethics is rules that people agree on to regulate their interactions. What would marketers want to agree to with the people they're targeting? Does that even make sense? Perhaps you have some external source of right and wrong that you would want to enforce on them, instead. But that would be legislating morality, not ethics.
Slashdot Mirror
Golly, do you mean that everything with the word "critical" in the name is related?!
Or you just Whatabouting?
Please, please tell me, I long to know exactly which form of rank idiocy you're subjugating yourself to.
He refused to consider himself a teacher, he considered it immoral decadence to accept payment for teaching.
This is known, and at his trial he pointed out that his poverty was proof that he wasn't a teacher, as teachers were expected to be paid by their students. He was merely a person who was respected, and was friends with many people who sought to learn from him.
So while he had followers that would loosely be considered students, he was clearly not a booster of formal education, and his only known statements about it are critical.
I'll bite - what are the career paths for English majors?
Ones involving words.
If you can't come up with at least 50 examples on your own, fuck off. ;)
getting a junior engineer to senior-level operation in 3-4 years... My bad!
LOL exactly. If you let them work under a slashdot neckbeard it would only take them 3-4 years for them to consider themselves Senior-level, fuck midlevel that's for wankers.
There is really no way to turn them into a useful worker after that. There is no way to get them to go back, and be a Jr. Engineer for real for a few years, or even to convince them to get past Mt. Stupid before they're Sr. Level and refuse to learn anything new.
No, that's called an "echo chamber of assholes." Don't presume that other rooms around the world have the same conversations.
They do different things, perhaps you should reconsider the meaning of the word "redundant."
A lot of sites appear to not work. If you hand over all your security it is true that they appear to work again.
But you can also usually just turn off CSS and suddenly the content is easily visible. Works for most news paywalls, and nearly any site that likes to get traffic from search engines.
In most cases a C compiler would already remove the unused bugs, and it wouldn't really be that hard to alter an SCA tool to know about a few of the tricks that could be used to prevent it getting optimized out.
Every show would be either Leave It To Beaver, or Babylon 5.
Apparently wearing a shirt, designed by a woman, is "magically" sexist.
*facepalm*
Well, we do know that wearing a shirt designed by a woman doesn't mean you're not a sexist, so I get suspicious at your construction. You're asking people to make assumptions that are not falsifiable, while also claiming to possess some sort of knowledge or idea. That adds up to something suspicious, in my experience.
Indentitarian Politics? What is that, the politics of getting words stuck between your teeth as a way of life?
I tried hard, I dug up the Latin root and everything, but that's the best I can come up with. WTF are you even talking about? Don't forget to include an idea between the derps.
There is no contradiction between being a White Supremacist and being Japanese. That is just about the stupidest and most ignorant thing I've heard about race today, and I'm right here in this thread reading it.
Racism literally means that you believe the differences between races are substantive.
There are not even legit biological differences that group into the purported races. Genetically it is complete hogwash.
It doesn't become racism only when you decide that you must be superior to others, it starts when you get tricked into believing that the categories are substantive.
The internet says it is actually just a style of literature.
A Bachelor of Arts in Computer Blahblah is qualified to actually use computers to do Blahblah. (usually that means programming)
A Bachelor of Science in Computer Blahblah is qualified to write scientific papers in an academic environment involving theoretical use of computers for Blahblah.
That is the basic difference between the "Art of Something" and the "Science of Something." One is about doing. The other is about studying.
The litmus test is what does the major prepare you for? If it only prepares you to get employment as a professor of the field you are studying, then it probably doesn't have much application to the world at large.
To wit:
English - Not so much
If you don't know that English can be used to make money outside of the academic environment, my advice, CONTROL-SHIFT-A BACKSPACE
Honestly, you could learn a lot more about China from Naomi Wu's twitter feed.
Her English is easier on the eyes, too.
OTOH, almost all Object Oriented and Functional programming get their object semantics from the answers to Russell's Paradox.
They might only be raiding from a 30 year period from 1890 to 1920.
If they were really going that far back, instead of "Traveling Salesman" algorithms it would Traveling Mercenaries and somebody would have solved the actual route that was taken by the Ten Thousand and I'd be able to buy a copy of Anabasis with a map that matched the (probably re-ordered) text.
As it is, good luck even finding an engineering text that illustrates an Archimedean screw as having a level of vertical displacement somewhere within the theoretical range of the device.
Around abouts 2500 years ago, a witty wag from Athens made a pilgrimage to the Temple at Delphi. Once there he paid the fee for the luxury of asking a question of the Oracle. And the question he asked was if Socrates was indeed the wisest man alive. The Oracle replied that indeed it was true, Socrates was the wisest man alive.
Socrates, on hearing of this, was incensed. For while he considered himself a philosopher, and he had questions about many areas of wisdom, he also knew very well that he had arrived at no answers at all! His pursuit of philosophy had only managed to reject lots of ideas, he hadn't actually discovered any wisdom at all about anything. So surely the Gods were making sport of him, They would could see inside his thoughts, they alone who knew the actual depth and completeness of his ignorance. Being made sport by the Gods was not a desirable thing; he set out to overcome this insult, to prove the Gods wrong, to redeem himself in their eyes.
So he set out a list of questions he could use to interrogate persons in order to determine if they were wise. And he then set out to interview all the important people of Athens, all those whom would by their success in life be presumed to be possessed of wisdom. And he found that of those who had success at the important things in life, none understood why; they generally would cite the things they were doing poorly as the reasons for their success, and were unable to explain how their success came about. And furthermore, they were no more likely than the common man to even have success at the things most important to them! In the end, he found no man possessed of any wisdom at all, though they all believed themselves to be.
And this was his great breakthrough; perhaps the Oracle was right after all! Perhaps humans generally lack wisdom! And, being apparently the only one to believe himself to be without wisdom, he had at least that tiny sliver that no one else had.
Unfortunately, after his death his student Plato wrote a bunch of arrogant, bombastic stuff that he attributed to Socrates, so it gets a bit confused in the histories. Plato's Cave is the exact ideological opposite of the Wisdom of Socrates, for example; pure hubris.
Perhaps academic pursuits are not, therefore, ever wise. Surely there is some other sort of Virtue more accessible to humans, though?
That is not even a remotely reasonable comparison.
Physics is the study of phenomena associated with actual physical interactions and have verifiable facts and information.
How would you even know that you verified what you thought you verified?
Because somebody who came before you claimed it was so?
I agree, but this is about humanities, who is really the expert here? I am a human, I am every bit an expert as you or that person holding a degree.
Speaking as a physical object, I'm every bit an expert on physics as someone holding a degree.
That truly sad part of this comment is that if you presented it to 100 people with physics degrees, not even 10% are likely to understand the difference between physical and metaphysical concepts contained in it, and yet they'll give Very Strongly Worded Answers anyways.
While generally true, it might matter at least a little bit.
For example, Noam Chomsky is the Father of Modern Linguistics. In the same way that Freud is the Father of Psychology; people who believed his ideas were inspired by them to supersede them entirely. So if he's writing about linguistics, you have to consider what he said even when he was wrong; even if that was most of the time.
But when he's writing about geography and politics, it is important to remember, he's just blathering from his armchair, same as any Joe on the street. He's no expert. People are repeating his words because his name is important in another field, not because he has any training or experience. It is useful to at least know why people are repeating what a certain person says, even if the underlying truths of the universe don't care who says an idea.
You spelled liberaal wrong
(I was wondering how long it would take to be downvoted by someone who works for Big Intrusive Adware.)
I see you attended your Mind Reading seminar in college! Did you get $15? I only got $15. Somebody afterwards told me he got $20 for the same session! I felt totally robbed.
You need to take a bunch of ethics classes first, before you start trying to teach us about what ethics classes are needed.
There are reasons for ethics, reasons that make sense. For example, general business ethics help a business to operate in a way that reduces liability, improves morale, and supports predictability.
Journalism ethics cover different types of things, and following the forms has a PR function of insulating the journalist from various types of accusations. Often it is used to mislead the reader though; there is a special sort of code language used when throwing the ethics rubber chicken, such that the casual reader/listener is tricked into thinking that they contacted the subject of the story and the subject refused to comment, but really what they did is they left a phone message at the front desk and didn't wait to call back; so they initiated a contact, but didn't actually make contact yet. And that gets represented the same as a "no comment" comment if you don't understand the details of their code.
In medicine, ethics has various legal implications and is a much more serious and studied issue where the ethics requirements generally are enforced by government. (via the courts)
These all have some perspective that the ethics are presented from; some stakeholder who is enforcing ethics for a purpose. In business ethics, it is enforced at the hiring stage, it is used internally in companies to evaluate candidates for positions, as a way to protect the company from the employee. In journalism it is used to protect the employee from their external competitors. In medicine it is used by society to protect patients against harm. Financial services is another example similar to medicine, where the ethics protect society and are enforced by the government.
What would be the goal of marketing ethics? In the US the government can't be the enforcer, because Freedom of Speech. Therefore, what goal of a marketing company would be supported by "ethics?" It is one thing to blather, "It would be nice if marketing was more ethical." But it is a whole different ball of wax to propose teaching some sort of ethics.
Ethics is rules that people agree on to regulate their interactions. What would marketers want to agree to with the people they're targeting? Does that even make sense? Perhaps you have some external source of right and wrong that you would want to enforce on them, instead. But that would be legislating morality, not ethics.