I think some teachers will always be excellent; others need to be nudged that way; and still others will never be excellent. Tiered pay rewards excellent teachers for their commitment and ability, giving them some additional incentive not to take their motivation into the private sector.
Your analogy is like saying that a CEO should be paid the same as a group lead to prevent an "economic hierarchy", since they basically do the same thing, right. No difference between leading a team and leading a company; just like there isn't a difference between teaching civics or physical education and teaching AP calc or physics.
Actually, other parts of the galaxy are farther from the milky way and other black holes. These arms, teeming with life, use gamma rays to communicate and travel. They haven't come calling since our arm is poisoned with radiation, making interstellar travel prohibitively dangerous!
...Who the hell do you think they attacked when they conquered the land? Anarchies typically don't produce walled cities. By your standards, the Greek city-states weren't self-governing either.
You act as if there is no chance that there may be stalkers or pedophiles administering this system. An semi-open system at least allows for self or external regulation vis-a-vis the recent Wikipedia scandals.
That is very interesting. While fixed-pitch fonts may be declining, I think laziness is the primary motivator of single spacing. I can't think of any fonts off the top of my head that don't look wrong when formatted with a single space.
You could just as easily have said, "I have never seen anything to suggest that atheists are inherently immoral. In fact, there is little reason to believe such to be the case." I'd say my version is a bit more accurate.
You have presented what amounts to a really confusing version of Anselm's Ontological Argument, involving the greatest conceivable being. Most philosophers do not believe that it works as a proof for god, according to Graham Oppy's "Ontological Arguments" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Gaunilo's Island is one of the earliest counterarguments, and Hume made a very nice general argument against a priori arguments in general.
I promise you that this only leads into a long dargument in which you just thrash about defining and redefining terms without actually learning anything about what the other person thinks. Free Will discussions always have a bit of eye-crossing, just like time-travel paradoxes. But have fun!
As an atheist, I wouldn't be offended by this at all. I also am not offended by any of the many religions practiced throughout the world. I believe that there are no gods, and it doesn't bother me one bit that others think that there are.
From my point of view, religion fills an important societal need. People like to feel that they belong, and religion allows them to belong to something infinitely greater than themselves. People like to be inspired, and credence in miracles can provide an immense inspiration. People like to feel good about themselves when they do "right", and they like a way to assuage their conscience when they feel guilty. In summary, religions allow many people to live more comfortably with themselves and with others.
Looks like the Ben Franklin scenario isn't quite as cut and dried as I tried to present it. (A classic strawman!) However, I think when you inspect Franklin's motivations, they are significantly easier to justify than in the current Wikipedia case.
In the case you cite, Franklin used his pseudonym's persona to present his opinions in letters to the editor—Essjay used his pseudonym's credentials to preserve his opinions on a supposedly factual reference work.
During the eighteenth century, it was common for writers and journalists to use pseudonyms, or false names, when they created newspaper articles and letters to the editor. Franklin used this convention extensively throughout his life, sometimes to express an idea that might have been considered slanderous or even illegal by the authorities; other times to present two sides of an issue, much like the point-counterpoint style of journalism used today.
When Ben was 15, [his brother] James created the 'New England Courant', the first truly independent newspaper in the colonies. When denied the option to write to the paper, Franklin invented the pseudonym of 'Mrs. Silence Dogood' who was ostensibly a middle-aged widow.... Neither James nor the Courant's readers were aware of the ruse and James was unhappy with Ben when he discovered the popular correspondent was his younger brother. Franklin left his apprenticeship without permission and in so doing became a fugitive.
False information is always intended to mislead. The aim of misleading may be innocent or harmless, but its intent is always deception.
He claimed to be a doctor of theology, not medicine.
The good he has done cannot be separated from the lying he has also done. To regard them separately is a double standard.
Further, it isn't as if his past good has magically vanished just because he lied—however, his potential as a source of future good must be evaluated. Right now he is a significant black eye to Wikipedia.
Ben Franklin used pseudonyms in the traditional sense, to hide his identity. He did not present himself as someone with qualifications he did not have or earn.
Most heavy weapons ARE vehicles though, aren't they? Maybe it is a matter of terminology. I've never played the tabletop game, only Dawn of War, so my perspective is undoubtedly skewed by that. Can you really one-shot a Prism or Predator Tank or a Squiggoth?
Based on Dawn of War, the other 40K computer offering, I would expect the MMO to reflect RTS sensibilities more than FPS. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to create an epic-feeling arena for play, in which each player is inserted into the role of a commander or subcommander, similar to the special characters in Dawn of War. If each player had an AI-controlled squad of soldiers, or controlled one of the many powerful vehicles, an MMO could reflect the sort of large-scale chaos and high casualty rates that others have mentioned.
That's a good point. However, I wonder if this group has launched similar "porn-accessible" awareness campaigns for cell phones. Although a lot of conservative groups view technology distastefully in general, many seem particularly against video games. I wouldn't be surprised if they give the Wii or the "Playstation Pornable" (PSP) a worse rap than browser-enabled phones.
When I graduated, my free time literally doubled. I don't think I had single class that averaged 35 hrs a week, but I definitely worked much longer hours to get my degree than I do in the workplace. My worst semester I forced myself to take three hours on Saturday and one on Sunday as free time. Other than that I only attended class and did homework.
I don't see anything inconsistent in the parent's story. Don't assume that everyone shares the same experiences that you do. Particularly don't assume that someone working harder than you is less intelligent than yourself.
I wish you hadn't posted anonymously so that I could 'friend' you. I don't agree with all the ideas expressed in this post, but they are definitely interesting.
The company I work for has ~300 developers in the United States and ~45 in India. Among managers I've discussed it with, developing modules in India is widely regarded as a mistake. There is no push to export more, and I hear rumors of schemes to move the India modules here.
Free speech doesn't help people get along with one another, but there are some things we shouldn't get along with. Free speech allows us to criticize these things. Free speech is best used in critique of concepts and actions than of people.
I misunderstood you to at least some extent. I thought you were saying we should get rid of free speech because of the controversy. In my opinion, free speech is exactly the right to be annoying. There is another quote I like, by Potter Stewart, "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." I think our society suffers from a tremendous lack of confidence on the individual level as well as the collective. I agree that just as we cannot effectively legislate decency, we cannot effectively legislate politeness, common sense, and empathy either.
And, frankly, I do wonder why you're homeschooling your kids. You can't convince me that they are getting the education they need and deserve. Sorry.
I think both your post and the parent's post are excellent. I have one tiny quibble though. Homeschooling is a superb way to educate in a "reading, writing, and arithmetic" sense. However, it is very poor at teaching interpersonal skills, teamwork, and empathy. Homeschooling enables a child to learn to the upper limits of his or her ability, limited only by motivation (either personal or exterior)—what many people don't realize is that a homeschooled child is basically teaching themselves. In my experience as someone homeschooled from first grade through high school with significant exposure to many other homeschoolers, homeschooling works best academically for very bright or very dim students. Bright students will learn far more simply because they will cover more material than a class which needs to wait for slower students. Similarly, dim students benefit from the self-paced environment and increased personal attention available.
I got an excellent and broad education, and you would be hard-pressed to convince me that it was inferior to that of a public school. Learning from a textbook is much harder for me that learning from a lecture (particularly for the hard sciences), but homeschooling was still extremely successful. To reiterate my previous point, the disadvantages of homeschooling are not educational. They are interpersonal.
You advocate the sort of ideas that lead to "decency" laws. You basically are saying that someone should only be allowed to speak freely when they have proved themselves mature and responsible. However, the courts would decide whether someone fulfilled these criteria. If we are going to end up in court either way I will always choose the path of free speech. Just because someone is offended by what another says does not mean that the speaker should be censored. As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Slashdot Mirror
I think some teachers will always be excellent; others need to be nudged that way; and still others will never be excellent. Tiered pay rewards excellent teachers for their commitment and ability, giving them some additional incentive not to take their motivation into the private sector.
Your analogy is like saying that a CEO should be paid the same as a group lead to prevent an "economic hierarchy", since they basically do the same thing, right. No difference between leading a team and leading a company; just like there isn't a difference between teaching civics or physical education and teaching AP calc or physics.
Actually, other parts of the galaxy are farther from the milky way and other black holes. These arms, teeming with life, use gamma rays to communicate and travel. They haven't come calling since our arm is poisoned with radiation, making interstellar travel prohibitively dangerous!
Huh. Insightful is it? I just see a lot of Tom Cruise movie titles strung together. Where I come from, that's a joke!
...Who the hell do you think they attacked when they conquered the land? Anarchies typically don't produce walled cities. By your standards, the Greek city-states weren't self-governing either.
You act as if there is no chance that there may be stalkers or pedophiles administering this system. An semi-open system at least allows for self or external regulation vis-a-vis the recent Wikipedia scandals.
That is very interesting. While fixed-pitch fonts may be declining, I think laziness is the primary motivator of single spacing. I can't think of any fonts off the top of my head that don't look wrong when formatted with a single space.
You could just as easily have said, "I have never seen anything to suggest that atheists are inherently immoral. In fact, there is little reason to believe such to be the case." I'd say my version is a bit more accurate.
You have presented what amounts to a really confusing version of Anselm's Ontological Argument, involving the greatest conceivable being. Most philosophers do not believe that it works as a proof for god, according to Graham Oppy's "Ontological Arguments" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Gaunilo's Island is one of the earliest counterarguments, and Hume made a very nice general argument against a priori arguments in general.
I promise you that this only leads into a long dargument in which you just thrash about defining and redefining terms without actually learning anything about what the other person thinks. Free Will discussions always have a bit of eye-crossing, just like time-travel paradoxes. But have fun!
As an atheist, I wouldn't be offended by this at all. I also am not offended by any of the many religions practiced throughout the world. I believe that there are no gods, and it doesn't bother me one bit that others think that there are.
From my point of view, religion fills an important societal need. People like to feel that they belong, and religion allows them to belong to something infinitely greater than themselves. People like to be inspired, and credence in miracles can provide an immense inspiration. People like to feel good about themselves when they do "right", and they like a way to assuage their conscience when they feel guilty. In summary, religions allow many people to live more comfortably with themselves and with others.
In the case you cite, Franklin used his pseudonym's persona to present his opinions in letters to the editor—Essjay used his pseudonym's credentials to preserve his opinions on a supposedly factual reference work.
Here is more detailed information. From PBS: From Wikipedia, to be read with a nod and a wink:
Most heavy weapons ARE vehicles though, aren't they? Maybe it is a matter of terminology. I've never played the tabletop game, only Dawn of War, so my perspective is undoubtedly skewed by that. Can you really one-shot a Prism or Predator Tank or a Squiggoth?
Based on Dawn of War, the other 40K computer offering, I would expect the MMO to reflect RTS sensibilities more than FPS. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to create an epic-feeling arena for play, in which each player is inserted into the role of a commander or subcommander, similar to the special characters in Dawn of War. If each player had an AI-controlled squad of soldiers, or controlled one of the many powerful vehicles, an MMO could reflect the sort of large-scale chaos and high casualty rates that others have mentioned.
That's coincidence, not irony. I expected better from a Brit!
That's a good point. However, I wonder if this group has launched similar "porn-accessible" awareness campaigns for cell phones. Although a lot of conservative groups view technology distastefully in general, many seem particularly against video games. I wouldn't be surprised if they give the Wii or the "Playstation Pornable" (PSP) a worse rap than browser-enabled phones.
When I graduated, my free time literally doubled. I don't think I had single class that averaged 35 hrs a week, but I definitely worked much longer hours to get my degree than I do in the workplace. My worst semester I forced myself to take three hours on Saturday and one on Sunday as free time. Other than that I only attended class and did homework.
I don't see anything inconsistent in the parent's story. Don't assume that everyone shares the same experiences that you do. Particularly don't assume that someone working harder than you is less intelligent than yourself.
I wish you hadn't posted anonymously so that I could 'friend' you. I don't agree with all the ideas expressed in this post, but they are definitely interesting.
The company I work for has ~300 developers in the United States and ~45 in India. Among managers I've discussed it with, developing modules in India is widely regarded as a mistake. There is no push to export more, and I hear rumors of schemes to move the India modules here.
Free speech doesn't help people get along with one another, but there are some things we shouldn't get along with. Free speech allows us to criticize these things. Free speech is best used in critique of concepts and actions than of people.
I misunderstood you to at least some extent. I thought you were saying we should get rid of free speech because of the controversy. In my opinion, free speech is exactly the right to be annoying. There is another quote I like, by Potter Stewart, "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." I think our society suffers from a tremendous lack of confidence on the individual level as well as the collective. I agree that just as we cannot effectively legislate decency, we cannot effectively legislate politeness, common sense, and empathy either.
Fallacy of composition, with a healthy dose of Biased Sample.
I got an excellent and broad education, and you would be hard-pressed to convince me that it was inferior to that of a public school. Learning from a textbook is much harder for me that learning from a lecture (particularly for the hard sciences), but homeschooling was still extremely successful. To reiterate my previous point, the disadvantages of homeschooling are not educational. They are interpersonal.
You advocate the sort of ideas that lead to "decency" laws. You basically are saying that someone should only be allowed to speak freely when they have proved themselves mature and responsible. However, the courts would decide whether someone fulfilled these criteria. If we are going to end up in court either way I will always choose the path of free speech. Just because someone is offended by what another says does not mean that the speaker should be censored. As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."