In what way is it bad? You say it's harmful to child development. In what way?

I am not changing the requirements. I'm raising my objections to the requirements once it became clear what they were.

That was not my argument. My argument was that android was as good a platform for whatever "interactive books" could mean. I even asked for clarification, and learned that what you were in fact referring to were more like specific educational video games, and then raised my objection.

And this was not my original argument (it's a new one), android also has plenty of games (many educational). I don't see any reason why the games you cited are more educational that the games on android.

Yes, so if you need a specific educational video game about ancient Rome that only runs on iOS, I agree that you should buy something that runs iOS. What I am disputing is the claim that those are the specific apps that are needed on tablets for kids (now that I know that's what you are referring to).

They are the same. Tablets are just bigger phones. Many even have access to cell networks. They are the same components with bigger batteries and bigger screens. The platform is the same in both android and iOS and windows. I am not inventing this idea, Apple, Google, and Microsoft all came to the same conclusion that these devices are basically the same, which is why they run the same OS.

In regards to you accusing me of changing my argument, notice that I didn;t accuse you of changing the what you meant by an "interactive book". I acknowledge that maybe I just didn't know what you meant by it.

Governments are different. what may work well in one country may not work well in another.

I 100% agree with this statement.

The government works better than the market when it works well. But what do you do when it doesn't?

The market gives you a level of success with very little investment. For situations where it is possible to engineer a centralized solution that works better than the market, we should absolutely do that. We can have the government make roads and power lines, and it's better than if we had an ad hoc system made by random people and companies.

But there are lots of systems where the solutions are very complicated and expensive to implement. In these sorts of systems a free market is better. We don't really want the government deciding prices on every good and service. The market does that for free. We don't want the government deciding when people should end relationships with eachother. They don't always make good decisions, but the market of relationships works better than a government solution.

I think we really could do good public schools in America if we poured enough resources into it. But currently it is just not our priority. Even though we spend more money per student than any other country in the world, we are usually ranked near last among developed nations. We have a bunch of people with jobs that they can't be fired from, that have very little interest or capability to do a good job. And despite spending so much on education, teachers get paid very little, which attracts the bottom rung of society to become teachers.

I think a lot of parents would probably prefer to send their kids to schools with amazing teachers that get paid a lot, even if the classrooms didn't have ipads.

In this situation, all it takes is for one private school to offer this alternative to make it possible. To change public school policies requires changing state laws and electing certain people to school boards, etc.

The private sector is like firewood, and the government is like a nuclear reactor. nuclear reactors are much better than firewood when they work correctly, but it takes a lot of investment to get them to work correctly.

In America our government is like 1% working nuclear reactors, and 49% broken ones, and 50% firewood. I am not saying we need more or less government. I am saying we need better government. We should shout down some of those broken nuclear reactors (convert them to firewood), and use those resources better. I'd rather have 25% working nuclear reactors and 75% firewood.

The less nuclear reactors we have, the more resources we can dedicate to making sure they actually work properly, and that we are getting the benefit from our investment.

I started with "not all" because that was one statement that cannot be disputed. I moved to "likely to be less than 50% genetic" because that is my impression from the research I have done. I moved to "slight genetic differences" because that is my impression of what most feminists believe.

Pay attention to the context of each of my statements. I use terms such as "From what I have read" and "Most educated feminists would agree" to provide this context. It isn't that hard to follow if you aren't intentionally trying to take my statements out of context.

Just because the average man and average woman have differences doesn't mean certain men and certain women don't have the exact same motivations, interests, etc. It is not optimal to treat all women the same just because on average they are different than men. Black men have shown they probably have a genetic advantage in sports such as basketball, but you shouldn't accept a society that discourages white men from playing basketball just because of these slight genetic differences.

Just like we shouldn't accept a society that condones the societal factors that make women less likely to pursue certain fields.

Yeah, the hypothesis phase is the start of the scientific method, and it involves intuition and making shit up.

You are supposed to complete the process (i.e. doing experiments and performing analysis of the results), before you claim to have any useful answers.

Here is an even more basic question to answer before doing any science. You say technology is "bad for children before a certain age". What is your criteria for determining a good vs. bad outcome? Attention span? Obesity? obedience? intelligence? maturity? We may not even agree on what is subjectively good or bad. One parent may love that their child is good at video games, and another may not like video games and prefer they played baseball.

Even if we agreed on what good and bad outcomes are. The vast majority of these soft science studies are very poorly done. They have small sample sizes. They can not be replicated. The interpretations of the results are flawed. The methodology is flawed, etc. And even worse is the "journalistic" interpretation of these studies that are the predigested versions that people read on the internet.

Go look in these studies that show video games cause kids to be violent, or that TV rots your brain, or that rap music is detrimental, etc. Words you will not see in those studies "randomized controlled trial", "statistical significance", etc. You will find a lot of correlations cited with 0 evidence of causation (e.g. deaths are highly correlated with hospital visits. clearly hospitals cause of death).

It may seem to a lot of parents that technology is bad for kids. And in our society parents get to decide (within reason) what is good and bad for their kids. But this isn't science. This is just a preference.

You can't scientifically prove that pizza is more delicious that sushi. All you can do is prove that more people prefer pizza over sushi (or the opposite).

There is probably enough scientific evidence to prove that parents prefer kids who play sports over kids who play video games. But this is not proof that technology is bad for them.

So you are referring to specific "books" being available on iOS? I thought you were talking about some kind of interactive book framework/platform. This seems even more ridiculous.

I thought you were talking about apps that were more like books rather than video games. If you want cross platform mobile video game performance, you can use unity.

Unity is pretty popular.

I have been developing on Qt for like 9 years. It seems to be a pretty popular platform. Linux desktops are a worse choice for many business applications because they've already invested heavily into MS office. At our company we do all our work on Linux, but we still need a windows machine just to be able to run outlook and get our email, because it's all our IT staff knows how to use.

Even in the realm of documents, there are groups starting to replace Ms documents with tex files, because they are easier to version control and we don't really use any of the features of MS Office.

The world is changing. Office software is moving to the cloud. It no longer even matters what kind of computer you have as long as it has a current browser.

tablets and phones run the same software, and there is just as much android software as ios software. I think you have to deal with the reality that products these 2 companies offer are essentially equivalent.

No I talking about the original topic of what choice is better for school students.

If you think Google is not successful, you need to move back to earth.

I question the educational value of what you call "interactive textbooks" over other materials. The money wasted in ipads could have been used on something much more useful.

False equivalence. Helping people where "they are behind" is not the goal. The area where boys are behind that the new school purports to help is not as conducive to good jobs as the girls school.

Like you said in another post, nobody's helping people get into the toilet cleaning industry, because that's not really a worthy goal.

If there's a boys school that focuses on STEM, then it's fine, just like separate bathrooms are fine. In this article, the boys school is going to be focused on language skills.

And that's the same reasoning as why the boys language school is not good enough.

I think segregation would be okay if it were optional and not mandated by the state. If all boys and all girls (or all blacks and all whites) must attend segregated schools, that's not nice. But if there were options available so that you could attend whichever type of school you want, the arguments made in Brown would not apply.

They need a warrant to perform any search or seizure—the warrant is the authorization to perform the search or seizure; you can't have one without the other. It isn't "either the search is 'reasonable' or you have a warrant", applying for a warrant is how you document that the search was reasonable in the first place, by providing probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. A blanket authorization for so-called 'reasonable' searches and/or seizures is just another way of issuing an unconstitutionally broad warrant which fails to document the probable cause or to particularly describe the place to be searched or the persons or things to be seized.

However, you are correct that they probably wouldn't have any trouble getting a warrant after his comments. If you make a credible threat, even if your intent was humorous or sarcastic, you shouldn't act surprised when people take you seriously.

Interesting -- I've lived in the Pacific NW almost all of my life. I wonder where I picked it up.

I am not aware of any research which backs up that all perceived differences between genders in their interests, problem solving, and communication are purely genetic. I don't even know of any research which backs up it is mostly genetic. There is research which shows genetics plays a role, but the magnitude of this difference is very much in question.

There is plenty of research which shows sociological factors shape the differences in interests, problem solving, and communication between the genders. Once again, we don't know the magnitude, but we know with almost certainty that it is not 100% genetic. From what I have read, it is much more likely to be less than 50% genetic, and perhaps much much lower than that. That is why we push for societal changes and not just blame all of these differences on genetics.

Most educated feminists would agree the balance in STEM will never reach 50/50 because of slight genetic differences and the fact women are the only gender that can give birth. But just because we won't reach 50/50 doesn't mean we cannot try to improve the gross imbalance we have today.

"For historical reasons the best solution to racial problems in society is mixing."

What historical reasons are those? What do you mean by "problem"? What data do you have to support the conclusion that "mixing" is the best solution to that "problem"?

I've never seen tangible evidence to indicate that this society's obsession with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" is justified or that implementing public policy to achieve it yields net positive results.

Yes, you have to prevent them from oxidizing somehow. Dumping them in water or burying them raises a lot of questions though. Would the operation of cutting them down and either digging deep holes to bury them or transporting them to the ocean to be weighted down and dumped be carbon negative? The market need for building materials is presumably being filled with current operations, so I don't think you could store much additional carbon that way. Many logging operations also re-plant.

I wonder if something like hemp wouldn't suck up more carbon than trees and be easier to sequester?

Maybe it is a regional idiomatic usage. I use it. It seems I hear it often -- I was initially puzzled about what the objection to the phrase was. Anyhow, there's nothing bad about using idioms -- it gives the language spice.