The FCC is "hearing" fewer complaints... I see what you did there!
Doom always reminds me of my first first person shooter multiplayer experience.
My friend got his first 1x CDROM/Soundcard package for his 486 SX 25, and it came with a bunch of free games. We haggled and traded these crappy games at our local computer shop for a Null Model Cable, after discovering the Intersrv.exe and Interlnk.exe files and reading the help
After enormous amounts of trial and error, tweaking config.sys and auto exec.bat, we were able to copy the doom.exe using a null model transfer to another computer, and have player vs player games. We had a lot of fun and felt like this was the cutting edge of gaming, or at least in our world.
Doom for me is the foundation of all modern multiplayer games, regardless of it was the first - i still have fond memories of where it all started for me. It's mind blowing to think about the games industry these days and how it's evolved.
We didn't have search engines or ways to connect with other people of similar minds to solve the problems that we encounter. From these early gaming experiences I learnt enough about DOS and the PC to make it my hobby and later my career.
I owe Doom more than just many hours of entertainment, in a round-about way.
The idea of a secure network and a VPN to get into it if you're working away from the office is all very fine, but the list of problems it throws up is huge - and it just gets bigger as your company expands:
- You almost invariably wind up with a two-tier experience. People who are in the office and get nice fast access to everything and people who are out of the office and everything's dog slow. Oh, sure, you can reduce this problem somewhat by putting servers in a colo, but now you've got to engineer systems so you don't wind up with everyone getting the dog slow experience. (I'm particularly looking at legacy file servers here; SMB was never really designed for use over a slow, high-latency link, though I understand newer versions of Windows Server have mostly cracked this).
- You don't gain an enormous amount of security. Even with a heavily locked-down perimeter firewall it's seldom that difficult to figure out a way to get information out, as long as you can get something nefarious in. And that really isn't difficult with a little light social engineering.
- Expanding beyond one office gets very expensive very fast. You need to be looking into Terminal Server, very fast (=expensive) links or have branch offices put up with terrible application performance. IT as an industry automatically assumes that multiple branches = huge business with a huge budget that takes IT very seriously (seriously, throw that bit of information into any proprietary system you're pricing up and watch the price skyrocket). I can tell you now that every single town has loads of small businesses spread across multiple branches that don't have a huge budget, don't feel the need to dedicate enormous resources to IT and they are absolutely loving the various web-based products such as espoused by Google.
Oh, sure, there's a lot of business applications that are designed on the assumption that you're a company in just one office - or if you have several offices, you have gigabit links between them - but I don't think Google really need to care too much about those.
"...hire a bunch of Academi assassins to take down the corrupt politicians..."
Maybe we should do a kickstarter?
Giving everyone $2/day:
1.033 billion people * $2/day * 365 days/year = $754 billion
That's assuming that, because of local scarcity, the influx of cash doesn't just inflate the cost of everything, leaving everyone in exactly the same place they are today, only unable to afford food next year.
About the best aid we could possibly send to Africa would be to hire a bunch of Academi assassins to take down the corrupt politicians who are causing food aid to rot on the docks while the people the politicians want to oppress starve so that they can't rally sufficient effort to stage a violent overthrow of their corrupt governments.
The solution was that rather than merging the two companies (triggering the giant tax bill), the Indian Development Center was kept as the last remnant of the old multinational and was now considered a "wholly owned subsidiary" of the buying multinational. Apparently the lack of a formal merger of just the portion of the company based out of India negated the tax bill somehow.
Yeah, this is exactly the solution I would have suggested.
My second choice would be to send all 8,000 workers at the Chennai plant a letter explaining which court was at fault for them losing their paychecks this month by forcing them to be furloughed, and which might be responsible for them losing their jobs permanently.
My third choice would be to just close the plant and let them seize the thing, assuming it's tooling is at least 3 years out of date, it's easier to open a new one the same size in another country; I hear Brazil is pretty favorable to people bringing in jobs these days, they just try to screw you on currency conversion if you happen to use a bank.
Two reasons not to publish raw logs like this... (1) Security vulnerabilities in previous versions, unless you guarantee all your customers have updated, and your release notes follow days after a release to give them a chance to avoid being zero-dayed, and (2) Telegraphing new product direction by either the comments themselves, or in such a way that the changes in aggregate allow it to be inferred.
Either of these things will give customers the opportunity to bitch loudly, and even if you have 10,000 customers, 2 of them bitching loudly can lead to weeks of unnecessary meetings.
You have not misrepresented me. Thank you for the succinct comments.
Your organic chemistry example is a good one; I'd class it in there with trigonometric identities and rules of English grammar as things where the patterns must be discerned by the individual (otherwise, the practice of all three would be regular enough to not need exceptions).
The idea that we need to suppress people's critical thinking skills early on because people might question authority figures is something I find positively absurd. People are going to question things either way, and again, if you're teaching by rote, chances are, you screwed up.
I don't understand how refraining from explicitly teaching critical thinking skills as a formal doctrine at an early age, and allowing a child to come up with their own tools for dealing with the world first, equates to suppression. You act as if I were suggesting some Orwellian indoctrination process into a belief in the state.
You don't give children access to power tools when they turn 5.
While we are on the subject - a girl kills your sister and steals her shoes, and a wizard sends the same girl to kill you. Her comrades kill or stop everything you send to stop them. Who is the real evil here?
Probably me, because I would immediately go scorched earth before your first "and" (I happen to believe in the concept of "Total War", and probably get along well with William Tecumseh Sherman). Realize, however, that your argument started with what I'd call an intolerable provocation to war.
I'm not sure this is "stealing" them from their culture. It's equipping them with the ability to make a more rational choice, and I don't think you can really argue against this, regardless of any consideration for the overall effect integrated over population statistics.
I can: it equips them to make a rational choice based on *the information available to them at the time of the choice*. Such a choice based on a lack of critical pieces of information necessary to their understanding of the consequences of the decision is only *situationally rational*, and perhaps not long term rational or correct.
Agreed; experiment is the objective means to determine this.
However, the theory of mind experiment has been conducted many times, and presents a good landmark to use for a reasonable lower bound for such an experiment.
Prior to this, children are unable to reach such an abstraction, and thus will be confused by subject matter that is DESIGNED to cause confusion, and will lack any means of dealing with it.
For an upper bound, I would point to the medical data concerning when a person is statistically likely to have completed the mylenation process, and the body of data concerning the strong correllation between dendrite formation and migration and the curve that corresponds to mylenation. (Note, they are inversely proportional for the most part.)
This suggests that the ideal conditions are in very early childhood, counter to GGP's assertions.
There is an ideal time to teach children that has a real biological basis, yes.
There are also kids *graduating* high school in the U.S. who are lacking in basic skills such as the ability to communicate effectively, or even read above a 3rd grade level.
If we don't take advantage of the window between when they apply critical thinking skills to arrive at such conclusions as "Why learn this crap? I'm never going to use it!" and the earlier point at which they still almost unquestionably integrate information which they conveyed by a teacher because the teacher is an authority figure, we will *continue* to graduate effectively broken human beings unable to effectively function in a society where ditch-digging is largely done by machinery.
We will be continuing to create an perpetual underclass whose only means of survival are either criminal activity, or "the dole", assuming it's available in their area.
You're not teaching them to doubt a source. You're teaching them to use their brains. If you're teaching by rote, chances are (though not always), you're not teaching much of anything. Multiplication tables are garbage, for instance; math is not about being able to calculate random garbage in your head quickly, but even if it were, people will naturally memorize things they see often.
"Critical thinking is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, partially true, or false. Critical thinking is a process that leads to skills that can be learned, mastered and used. Critical thinking is a tool by which one can come about reasoned conclusions based on a reasoned process. This process incorporates passion and creativity, but guides it with discipline, practicality and common sense."
The problem with "teaching critical thinking", then, is that you teach them to decide validity for themselves, but you do NOT teach them to always come to the correct conclusion when the process is complete. If it were about coming to "correct conclusions", rather than "conclusions which appear on the surface to be correct based on the available information", everyone who applied the critical thinking process would always arrive at exactly the same conclusions.
Therefore, you want to maximize "the available information", and turning on the write protect bit on someone's mind before they understand, for example, that "being able to calculate random garbage in your head quickly" is *very* important to knowing whether you have enough money in your pocket to buy the things you have in your shopping basket when you get to the checkout, or whether you're going to look like an ass while you make everyone behind you in line wait while you decide which things to put back to fit your available cash.
is effectively cultural genocide.
Education is not about skill sets, or keeping certain cultures that rely on obedience alive.
I think you really need to look up the term "Cultural Relativism"; not everyone wants to live in an apartment with cable TV, within walking distance of a Walmart, a McDonald's, and a Pizza Hut. Other cultures value other things, and they keep their cultural integrity, often by operating on a different axiomatic basis that has to necessarily exclude some information, but which does not preclude critical thinking within their (different, not necessarily limited) scope.
There are cultures which achieve what they believe to be very fulfilling lives in that way, and tend to have vastly lower suicide rates than our supposedly "superior" culture has; your statement is tantamount to another term you should look up: "Cultural Imperialism".
From the summary..., I figured it was a bunch of ASIMO robots programmed to trundle around the warehouses screaming in the voice of Sgt. R. Lee Ermey's voice "MOVE IT! Move it, MAGGOTS! Work FASTER!"...
Exactly. Why would we ever want to 'teach' people to have critical thinking skills? Schooling is all about indoctrination and rote memorization, and actual thoughts would just get in the way of that.
I think you missed the part where I said that some critical thinking skills are formed on their own; and people should definitely have critical thinking skills; I've been persuaded by another poster that it should be a mandatory grade 12 (High School Senior) course, rather than waiting for the first year of college.
It's counter productive to impair the ability to teach children rote information by teaching them to doubt the source before attempting to teach them the rote information. For non-rote information classes, that's the likely places that self-derived critical thinking skills will develop on their own.
Also see my other post about certain religious sects - I give the example of Amish/Mennonite communities) where doubting your teacher in school becomes the same as doubting your parents and doubting your religious authority. Instilling a high probability of acting on such doubts, which is an opportunity given at 14-16 years of age in those communities, is effectively cultural genocide.
While you may be saying "Good! I'm a rational humanist, and they should be too! I want everyone to be like me!", those cultures embody skill sets that we, as a society, may decide we need some day, in the same way that some - myself included - have argued that kids should be taught to do math without calculators because one EMP, and they won't be able to add anything on their own past "ten fingers" any more.