Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This is not new. (Score 1) 127

by grcumb (#48949617) Attached to: Can Students Have Too Much Tech?

Every serious (read "non-vendor-sponsored") study for the last 20 years has shown that computers in school hinder education.

Except that this one doesn't, smarty-pants. The author of the fucking article herself says as much:

We don’t know why this is, but we can speculate.

And then she goes on for the rest of the fucking article making stupid assumptions about the influence of technology on students, before admitting that the only factor that really matters is good teachers.

Which we have also known for ages, but choose to ignore because having good teachers means paying taxes.

Comment: Re:Who did they compare against? (Score 1) 127

by grcumb (#48949577) Attached to: Can Students Have Too Much Tech?

What's to say that the decline wouldn't have happened anyway over the same time period, even if they hadn't been exposed to computers and the Internet?

Indeed, the very first thing that jumped out at me is: how did they correlate their findings? Did they compare the correlation between computers and schools with the funding abyss into which most poor schools have fallen into over the last two decades? Did they compare the correlation between the arrival of computers and the start of No Child Left Behind, and its disastrous effect on education outcomes?

Prima facie, attempting to isolate the effect of technology from other recently introduced policies and phenomena seems difficult, to put it lightly.

Comment: Re:Government Intervention (Score 1) 474

our healthcare system sucks because we tolerate these parasites on our system that have to "profit" for some reason. there's no competition. so they just siphon profit and buy off our legislators and regulators to keep the money train flowing

they are natural monopolies

they are monopolies alone, no government needed to make them

you don't spend billions to build a hospital across the street from another. there's no free market. we're not talking about nail salons

you don't go shopping for an oncologist based on cost. you don't shop around for hospitals while you are having a heart attack. there's no capitalism here

so we need government control, rather than make believing a magic free market fairy fixes things

i'm not a socialist or a statist. specifically on the topic of natural monopolies *alone*, universal payer is the least worst option

citation: all of our social and economic peers: uk, canada, japan, germany, australia, etc: they spend far less on healthcare, and have higher quality healthcare. and it's all government controlled

our bullshit system persists because our government is corrupted. we need to fix the corruption, then kick out the parasites

Comment: Great!! Now what are we gonna use it for? (Score 1) 107

I've already been lucky enough to get FTTC, and my connection varies between 50/5 and 20/2, I'd say. Other than some improvement in my upload speeds, I'm pretty much happy with the bandwidth. Why would I need more? I have an uncapped connection, but if I had 500Mbps I rather doubt my ISP would be willing to offer THAT uncapped... if I could even find anything that big (legally) to download on a regular basis.

This just seems like a big PR thing BT are doing so they can tell simpletons like David Cameron that "the UK now has super-mega-ultra-uber fast broadband". I'm with the rest of ya; finish the FTTC rollout, get that too ~100% of the population.

FTTC should be enough for anyone. :-)

Comment: Re:hmmmm (Score 1) 204

by l0ungeb0y (#48945423) Attached to: There Is No "You" In a Parallel Universe
Assuming that the concept of the "multiverse" is indeed correct -- and presently, current scientific theories do point to a strong probability -- why would the other Universes be COPIES of this universe? Why wouldn't they be similar, yet different, such as cells in a body? Sure, cells may have all the fundamental parts in common, but the atoms and molecules that comprise them are entirely unique. You and I are frankly of no significance nor would there be even the slightest possibility of a copy or alternate version of ourselves in any other universe. However, if you want to talk about alternate versions of THIS Universe, well, we might have something to talk about.

And for the record, I do not think it so preposterous to posit that the multiverse concept is too wild an idea. Have we seen anything entirely unique in this Universe? Have we seen were magnification or division ends? Why should we not have a multiverse where thousands, even millions or billions of Universes exist? And what contains those? How do you propose we ever find out if we shit all over the very idea until we actually have "proof". Frankly, I find the notion of a singular Universe too close to the notion of a God to take seriously, the multiverse concept seems more in line with what we see in nature

Comment: Re:How (Score 4, Informative) 232

the lawyer seeks out the victim

if you ever are the victim of a newsworthy accident/ crime, you will get cold called by a number of lawyers, who want to represent you pro bono

because such cases gild their CV, get their name out there. free advertising

some lawyers, they seek out interesting strange and noteworthy cases only. out of ego, fame, crank cause, adrenaline, hero complex, whatever:


Comment: Re:Government Intervention (Score 1) 474

i've been commenting on slashdot for years. there's always this steady drip of comments from grammar (punctuation?) nazis like yourself. do you see me changing or caring?

if you don't like the formatting of my comment, don't read it. i don't owe you anything. you're not paying me

this is an informal comment board, not a doctoral thesis. get over yourself

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke