But a worthwhile question is, *why* do some excel at one skill, some at another? To what extent is it nature vs. nurture? Lots of slashdotians are willing to come down on one side or the other, but, far as I know, we don't really understand everything about how people develop skills and interests.

Perhaps a reasonable hypothesis is that nature and nurture both play a role, with the assumption that at this point, we don't really understand the interrelationship between the two. Isn't it therefore worthwhile to do our best to give every child the opportunity to realize what unrealized skills and abilities they may have?

Whoa, pricey. They could probably rule the world if they released an ultra-simple free version and a somewhat more featured cheap version.

We all carry models of reality around in our heads.

Some of us like to share our models and call them science. Some of us like to share our models and call them religion.

Personally, I like the science type of model when it comes to figuring out how stuff works. I think the religion type of model has some interesting things to say about the world also, although for my 2c more about human nature and being a person than how stuff works.

Those folks on the Texas BOE, they are dangerous though. Someone ought to vote them out. I don't think their arguments have anything to do with religion. It's about power.

Everyone seems to agree that Google is definitely taking the text of email messages and analyzing it to collect summary data. Some people say that's "reading", others say it isn't. Whatever. Personally, I think it is reading, but let's just call it analyzing. Perhaps that's more accurate anyway.

Clearly, Google is analyzing everyone's email. Clearly, Google is very, very good at data collection and analysis. Personally, I think they are capable of analyzing a single person's email and learning a great deal about that individual person, and I think they are capable of analyzing groups of people and learning a great deal about those groups. So both breadth and depth correlation. So, they might, just making stuff up, be able to figure out that a great number of people lived in city A and moved to city B. They might be able to tell who is having an affair. Who is launching a business. Or all kinds of things. Note, when I say things like "figure out", I don't mean a person is doing it. I mean an automated program has been programmed to find the cheaters or the dissidents, or whatever. I person wouldn't read a million people's email. Now, a person might read a summary of a million people's email, but not the emails themselves. Or they might read a report that correlates data gathered by email with data gathered by a variety of other methods in order to build up a complete picture of their users.

Some people might think that's oogey, some might not. I think it is, but that's just me.

You ARE kidding, right? When they say a war "cost $500 billion dollars", that money is going somewhere. A substantial portion of it goes to the corporations that make the weapons systems that kill the people. A war is just another way of figuring out how to transfer wealth from the many to the few using the government as a middle man.

I'm not saying that all the ills of every kind of government don't have a lot to do with it, I'm just saying that among those people with a vested financial interest in seeing the bombs drop, are the shareholders, officers, managers, and employees of a large number of corporations.

You're right. It is hard to imagine a for-profit company having any interest in producing F/OSS software. Still, I bet there are exceptions. Maybe I'll do a search.

Yes, Lego has completely sold out. Actually, that's not true. That implies that that there was a time that they hadn't sold out. It's a for-profit company. They are in it to make money. Nothing wrong with that, but that is what they are, first and foremost.

They will do what they need to do to survive. In their opinion, they cannot sustain their business by using the value proposition of 40 years ago. As much as I admired that value proposition, I personally agree with them. They could not survive turning out the basic building blocks, or even more advanced building kits, or even robotics kits. They wouldn't have the market share, or the advertising appeal, or the patent protection. They are fighting for their existence every day. They've got constant competition for kids' time and for M&D's dollars from endless and ever-increasing sources, and competitors willing to race them to the bottom every step of the way.

There was a time that Lego said, "we'll never make Lego guns". That is long gone. There are Lego guns, ray guns, knives, swords, scimitars. Heck, space ships with laser cannon. They've made endless marketing deals with entertainment conglomerates in order to stay relevant. They have not yet found their bottom. They have not yet found where they will not go to stay in business.

To me, as much as I still love the company, and the product, they've lost their soul, and they are walking dead guys, however successful they are currently. The color palette is out of control. The types of pieces have grown to be absurd. Although there is still play value, it becomes harder and harder for any pile of n Legos to have general playability. If you have a Luke Skywalker, and a wookie, then that is your story palette. It becomes that much more challenging to make a house. If you have the batmobile, it becomes difficult to make a regular car.

One could hope they'll split the company, and spin off a company focused only on the basics for ages 0 through 10, without marketing tie-ins, and another company focused just on robotics, and let the main company battle it out in pop culture land. But it will never happen.

Perhaps the 3D printer world will take over the basics niche. I could see a not-for-profit doing very well making it easy for people to print their own sets for their 1 year olds or 5 year olds.

Just my 2 bricks.

There Are Only Three True Job Interview Questions

1. Can you do the job?
2. Will you love the job?
3. Can we tolerate working with you?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2011/04/27/top-executive-recruiters-agree-there-are-only-three-key-job-interview-questions/

If the USPS is self-sufficient why MUST it be a government service? Do you actually think that government agencies are better?

Here's your answer:

The mission of the Postal Service is to provide the American public with trusted universal postal service at affordable prices. While not explicitly defined, the Postal Service's universal service obligation (USO) is broadly outlined in statute and includes multiple dimensions: geographic scope, range of products, access to services and facilities, delivery frequency, affordable and uniform pricing, service quality, and security of the mail. While other carriers may claim to voluntarily provide delivery on a broad basis, the Postal Service is the only carrier with a legal obligation to provide all the various aspects of universal service at affordable rates.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usps#Universal_service_obligation_and_monopoly_status.

So, if we don't think we need a post office, let's change the constitution.

Personally, I think there some services best provided by the government, including services where it might be desirable to provide a certain level of service at a certain price to everyone in the country. Maybe you disagree. That is your right. So change it. Get your congresscritters to amend the Constitution.

Again, just my opinion, but to some extent our national character is defined by the obligations that unite us. The interstate system, CDC, USPS, NASA, the US military, Sesame Street. Things that exist only in America. Get rid of enough of those obligations, and we're no longer the United States, we're just some states.

Or maybe, just maybe, the actual learning happens in the student's head. If the student is motivated, and has the materials available, nothing can stop them.

On the other hand, the university setting provides the marginally motivated the necessary framework to execute the prescribed tasks to earn the credits to earn the degree.

So let's be careful to not confuse getting a degree with getting an education.

However, Charles Darwin got 4000 votes in the recent election, hence the post. The incumbent, who won, is Paul Broun:

Here's an interesting excerpt from Wikipedia:

In a leaked video of a speech given at Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman's Banquet on September 27, Broun is heard telling supporters that, “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.” Broun also believes that the world is less than 9000 years old and that it was created in six literal days. In response to this, and as Broun is also on the House Science Committee, libertarian radio talk show host Neil Boortz spear-headed a campaign to run the English naturalist and evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) against Broun, with the intention of drawing attention to these comments from the scientific community and having Broun removed from his post on the House Science Committee.