It wasn't me, it was the nasty policy that did it! As the Milgram experiment showed, about two-thirds of humans have an astounding capacity for deferring all responsibility for their actions when they are part of a heirarchy. At least the results in this case were comparatively benign.
The student is to be counseled on what behavior is not going to upset the absurd and bloated systems that infest western institutions (public and private) like cancer.I know each generation thinks it is witnessing the Big Decline but I can point to actual problems rather than just a vague sense of social dread. I've already posted some of them in this thread, but to summarize; the attempt to use the power of the 'Invisible Hand' to bring all sectors of society the kind of roaring success we have seen in the sub-prime mortgage market. If this were a single, aborted experiment it wouldn't be so bad - but its become an unfalsifiable, almost religious dogma that is applied over and over again regardless of its previous failure.
I don't think you can frame this as game theory; the staff of the school are not reacting in this way in order to maximize their personal benefit (or minimize their personal loss). Whilst I concede that some people do think in this way, teaching selects out that characteristic by being an underpaid and overworked profession for the level of education and aptitude they have.
The problem is that the staff are not permitted to make any kind of decision themselves; they are completely servile to the institution and the institution cannot be expected to exhibit human rationality.
The education system is an easy target. Its a small voting block which soaks up the blame for bad parenting and broken communities. The likelihood here is that the school in question was micromanaged to fuck, to the point the staff were not permitted independent thought, never mind the students.
These days, the thinking in government is to bring damn markets into everything. Markets mean a price system and the artificial 'prices' are arbitrary government metrics such as test scores, which of course fall foul of Goodhart's law. The idea behind this peculiar form of market fundamentalism is presumably to give schools the kind of secure, nurturing and creatively stimulating environment found in most corporate offices.
In short, don't automatically go after the school or its 'officials' - in all likelihood the environment it is set up in makes it impossible to act rationally as an institution.
Surely that depends on it being spotted? IANAFP (I am not a figher pilot) but if you going for an arbitrary drop site (not a valuable target or anything military) you can simply avoid air defences? There must surely be some techniques you can use, even with a completely non-stealthy fighter, that can increase your chances of dropping off your $100 million dollar payload without being pwned by the air force? I'm also fairly certain that there are some ex-Soviet pilots now down on their luck who would know any tricks that could help.
We don't need new launch technology. The stuff we have is perfectly fine, but nobody wants to launch anything beyond commercial satellites and a few token scientific experiments. Its a political problem, not an engineering one.
That might be because you are absurdly framing the debate, and are unwilling to discuss things without the language you use in order to kill any real discussion stone dead.
Basically, you are a retard and not worth my time.
I can only hope so. At some point the general public have to realise that folk who played guitar instead of doing their maths homework do not have a god-given right to live in luxury for a couple of hours work a week.
Free speech and privacy are not 'phony ethics issues'. Just because your sides argument is so weak and self-serving, don't try and pretend that those on the other side can't possibly have any ideals. The actions of Bono and his ilk make me angry not because I am selfish (I don't want to listen to his music regardless of where it comes from) but because I feel that this collusion between state and business against the Internet as a means of communication is a very real threat to freedom.
There is ethics here, and it is on our side. You can't put a price tag on free communication.
The other 96% consists, I would hope, of actual productivity. Pretending that things like selling music are actual economic activity whilst our energy infrastructure hurtles towards a brick wall of fossil fuel depletion is playing a deadly game of musical chairs; at some point folks will realise that in a society where you can get money in exchange for the rights to hold data, money isn't worth a tremendous amount when it comes to bartering for the last scraps of diesel oil, which we were too shortsighted to replace as a primary energy source because we were to busy listening to fucking U2...
Freely created works abound, but they don't get much coverage because for-profit works are driven, by commercial necessity, to flood all available communication channels with inducements to consume them. For example, from the entire human sphere of creativity, we only hear of only about a dozen movies in cinemas at once. Think about that for a second; getting on for 7 billion people in the world, and from that population we only see a dozen or so movies at any one time.
This is why the label 'creative industry' is a complete oxymoron; to be creative you need to be original, but to be industrious you need to mass produce. The two are mutually exclusive.
What the 'creative industry' is actually doing is clamping down on creativity in favour of selecting a tiny subset of human works, locking down their IP, and then spamming people about them. The idea that human creativity would die if this tiny subset were no longer viable commercial properties is an absolute joke; and it also fails to explain archaeological evidence of at least 10,000 years of human music prior to the invention of copyright.
The end of the content industry is nigh. And everything is going to be fine.
A decade’s worth of music file-sharing and swiping has made clear that the people it hurts are the creators — in this case, the young, fledgling songwriters who can’t live off ticket and T-shirt sales like the least sympathetic among us — and the people this reverse Robin Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business.
Here he gives us the benefit of his PhD in econo^H^H^H^Hcomplete fucking ignorance of economics. He says that all the profits made by ISPs rightfully belong to the "creative" industry. He claims to know what every consumer of Internet services is thinking, what every supplier of Internet services is thinking, and that they are all only in it to rip of his music.
Online gaming? Working from home? Transferring large (legal) files faster? Flash content? Supporting multiple users in a household? Nah, it must all be about stopping Bono making another mountain of cash.
Bono has come out in favour of tracking content to help 'deserving' artists. Given that the general public consider Bono to have a massively inflated sense of his own worth, and a massively inflated bank account, this can only help those who are on the side of a free Internet.
It isn't as bad, of course - but they are taking part of the citizens rights (free speech) and claiming ownership of it. This is seperated from taking over all of a persons rights (as in slavery) by degree.
But of course, you think people who disagree with you are automatically not allowed to make any comparison at all, don't you?
Or does the summary sound like a briefing from a C&C Generals mod? Is it just a coincidence that high tech devices require an element with an abnormally sci-fi sounding name?
It isn't brain size they are on about, its the size of a specific region of the brain. Other mammals assign their neurological resources differently; and in the case of dolphins I imagine a lot of the extra hardware for things such as echolocation.
Depends when the baby comes out. Human babies are one of the only mammals that can't walk soon after birth, because we come out earlier to save straining the mothers. Perhaps they took this further.
I have an IQ in the ballpark of the estimate of this species, and whilst my head is large enough that I broke all the paper hats I tried to wear at Christmas - it certainly isn't 25% larger than the average human cranium. At least, not in physical terms:)
The brain seems larger, but seeing as the pre-frontal cortex isn't marked its relative size is difficult to guess. It is also worth bearing in mind that elephants are pretty intelligent animals.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't me, it was the nasty policy that did it! As the Milgram experiment showed, about two-thirds of humans have an astounding capacity for deferring all responsibility for their actions when they are part of a heirarchy. At least the results in this case were comparatively benign.
The student is to be counseled on what behavior is not going to upset the absurd and bloated systems that infest western institutions (public and private) like cancer.I know each generation thinks it is witnessing the Big Decline but I can point to actual problems rather than just a vague sense of social dread. I've already posted some of them in this thread, but to summarize; the attempt to use the power of the 'Invisible Hand' to bring all sectors of society the kind of roaring success we have seen in the sub-prime mortgage market. If this were a single, aborted experiment it wouldn't be so bad - but its become an unfalsifiable, almost religious dogma that is applied over and over again regardless of its previous failure.
I don't think you can frame this as game theory; the staff of the school are not reacting in this way in order to maximize their personal benefit (or minimize their personal loss). Whilst I concede that some people do think in this way, teaching selects out that characteristic by being an underpaid and overworked profession for the level of education and aptitude they have.
The problem is that the staff are not permitted to make any kind of decision themselves; they are completely servile to the institution and the institution cannot be expected to exhibit human rationality.
School officials? Who do you mean?
Teachers? Headteachers? Board members? PTA?
The education system is an easy target. Its a small voting block which soaks up the blame for bad parenting and broken communities. The likelihood here is that the school in question was micromanaged to fuck, to the point the staff were not permitted independent thought, never mind the students.
These days, the thinking in government is to bring damn markets into everything. Markets mean a price system and the artificial 'prices' are arbitrary government metrics such as test scores, which of course fall foul of Goodhart's law. The idea behind this peculiar form of market fundamentalism is presumably to give schools the kind of secure, nurturing and creatively stimulating environment found in most corporate offices.
In short, don't automatically go after the school or its 'officials' - in all likelihood the environment it is set up in makes it impossible to act rationally as an institution.
Surely that depends on it being spotted? IANAFP (I am not a figher pilot) but if you going for an arbitrary drop site (not a valuable target or anything military) you can simply avoid air defences? There must surely be some techniques you can use, even with a completely non-stealthy fighter, that can increase your chances of dropping off your $100 million dollar payload without being pwned by the air force? I'm also fairly certain that there are some ex-Soviet pilots now down on their luck who would know any tricks that could help.
Exactly. And considering all the wonderful things we could do with launchers available now, if we wanted - whats the point obsessing over it?
We don't need new launch technology. The stuff we have is perfectly fine, but nobody wants to launch anything beyond commercial satellites and a few token scientific experiments. Its a political problem, not an engineering one.
How the hell did this thread go so long without a Prisoner reference?
That might be because you are absurdly framing the debate, and are unwilling to discuss things without the language you use in order to kill any real discussion stone dead.
Basically, you are a retard and not worth my time.
I can only hope so. At some point the general public have to realise that folk who played guitar instead of doing their maths homework do not have a god-given right to live in luxury for a couple of hours work a week.
Free speech and privacy are not 'phony ethics issues'. Just because your sides argument is so weak and self-serving, don't try and pretend that those on the other side can't possibly have any ideals. The actions of Bono and his ilk make me angry not because I am selfish (I don't want to listen to his music regardless of where it comes from) but because I feel that this collusion between state and business against the Internet as a means of communication is a very real threat to freedom.
There is ethics here, and it is on our side. You can't put a price tag on free communication.
It might work better; artists who aren't frightened by the Magic Box Of Lights will get more exposure as the recording industry continues to flounder.
The other 96% consists, I would hope, of actual productivity. Pretending that things like selling music are actual economic activity whilst our energy infrastructure hurtles towards a brick wall of fossil fuel depletion is playing a deadly game of musical chairs; at some point folks will realise that in a society where you can get money in exchange for the rights to hold data, money isn't worth a tremendous amount when it comes to bartering for the last scraps of diesel oil, which we were too shortsighted to replace as a primary energy source because we were to busy listening to fucking U2...
This is what we thinking people call a 'lie'
Freely created works abound, but they don't get much coverage because for-profit works are driven, by commercial necessity, to flood all available communication channels with inducements to consume them. For example, from the entire human sphere of creativity, we only hear of only about a dozen movies in cinemas at once. Think about that for a second; getting on for 7 billion people in the world, and from that population we only see a dozen or so movies at any one time.
This is why the label 'creative industry' is a complete oxymoron; to be creative you need to be original, but to be industrious you need to mass produce. The two are mutually exclusive.
What the 'creative industry' is actually doing is clamping down on creativity in favour of selecting a tiny subset of human works, locking down their IP, and then spamming people about them. The idea that human creativity would die if this tiny subset were no longer viable commercial properties is an absolute joke; and it also fails to explain archaeological evidence of at least 10,000 years of human music prior to the invention of copyright.
The end of the content industry is nigh. And everything is going to be fine.
Also, just after that:
Here he gives us the benefit of his PhD in econo^H^H^H^Hcomplete fucking ignorance of economics. He says that all the profits made by ISPs rightfully belong to the "creative" industry. He claims to know what every consumer of Internet services is thinking, what every supplier of Internet services is thinking, and that they are all only in it to rip of his music.
Online gaming? Working from home? Transferring large (legal) files faster? Flash content? Supporting multiple users in a household? Nah, it must all be about stopping Bono making another mountain of cash.
Well that's bullshit for a start. Plenty of people want to hear rock; and for that reason they stayed well away from Bono's "creative" output.
Bono has come out in favour of tracking content to help 'deserving' artists. Given that the general public consider Bono to have a massively inflated sense of his own worth, and a massively inflated bank account, this can only help those who are on the side of a free Internet.
It isn't as bad, of course - but they are taking part of the citizens rights (free speech) and claiming ownership of it. This is seperated from taking over all of a persons rights (as in slavery) by degree.
But of course, you think people who disagree with you are automatically not allowed to make any comparison at all, don't you?
Or does the summary sound like a briefing from a C&C Generals mod? Is it just a coincidence that high tech devices require an element with an abnormally sci-fi sounding name?
The loss of something isn't inherently bad. That a change terrifies someone you might respect does not make it bad.
Learn to read, dipshit. I understand what an average is and this should be apparent to anybody who doesn't drool on themselves.
It isn't brain size they are on about, its the size of a specific region of the brain. Other mammals assign their neurological resources differently; and in the case of dolphins I imagine a lot of the extra hardware for things such as echolocation.
Depends when the baby comes out. Human babies are one of the only mammals that can't walk soon after birth, because we come out earlier to save straining the mothers. Perhaps they took this further.
I have an IQ in the ballpark of the estimate of this species, and whilst my head is large enough that I broke all the paper hats I tried to wear at Christmas - it certainly isn't 25% larger than the average human cranium. At least, not in physical terms :)
Take a peek... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Ele-brain.png
The brain seems larger, but seeing as the pre-frontal cortex isn't marked its relative size is difficult to guess. It is also worth bearing in mind that elephants are pretty intelligent animals.