I'm with you! And don't get me started on these newfangled horseless carriages. I spent all morning beating mine with the buggy whip and it didn't budge an inch!
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
In my opinion the first few years of school are a decent time to homeschool. There is no way to say what's best for any one kid/family, but there is a very small skill set taught in the first few years. The major subject is reading. This is a subject where one on one time is highly productive and group activities tend to be not as effective. As an example I have an aunt that didn't learn to read till she was in 4th or 5th grade. She got by through memorization of the story books as they were read to the class. When it came time for her 5 minutes with the teacher she could spout the story back and pretend to be reading. If it was a book that she hadn't seen she would look at the pictures and guess. None of her teachers figured out she couldn't read till she was almost done with elementary school. This doesn't happen if mom is spending hours per day, one on one with her child.
As for socialization, I can't tell you how many times my bully avoidance skills have saved me from a near certain pounding at the office. I went to public school and ended up as a physicist, so obviously there is absolutely no socialization benefit to attending public school. (How's that for anecdote.)
It's just metadata.
In fact tell us who requested data and which users data was requested. It's just metadata. As long as we don't know what the actual user data is then there can't be any harm in it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I dissagree. Altruism itself is by definition not a profit motive, but only a very simple robot or a computer could possibly be driven by a single pure motivation (seek light, or some such.). I am always motivated by multiple things. Greed, desire to do good, desire to be seen doing good, laziness, boredom, desire to learn something new, fun seeking, thrill seeking, etc. all play a part in what I choose to do at any one moment. Even if it's 90% profit motive and 10% charitable motive, perhaps the project would have been ignored without that other 10%. And even that is too simplistic. If they are even remotely human I would guess you could easily add in, desire to be admired, desire to solve a difficult problem, ego, adventure, and a long list of other motivations for this single project alone.
I'm not sure why we need to split the entire world into a series of false dichotomies. Couldn't they be altruistic and at the same time motivated by profit? What is the point of the constant adversarial split for every stupid little issue? Is Slashdot interested in news for nerds for the purpose of enlightening its user base or is it simply a money hungry capitalistic shill for the corporate powers that be?
I thought this subject was dead yesterday when the first story was published. How is it still viable? Why is it still kicking? Aren't we just beating a dead horse at this point? Why oh why won't it die!?
Reading the summary I thought "No big deal, so some contaminated dirt is out there and someone might refine it for a few grams of plutonium residue."
But then I decided to read the article. It was slashdotted of course so I went on Google and found the article at a non-slashdotted site. (I know, not really the slashdot way.) All I can say is, HOLY PLUTONIUM Batman! Not residue from tests, but hundreds of pounds of plutonium metal in useable form. Enough for dozens of nuclear bombs. And they capped it and left it there! And now they are telling the world where it is. I'm speechless. (Other than the preceding text of course.)
Yes, and I think it was missunderstood. I should have gone for something more obvious. How about
Scientist spends $375,000 beating meat in his lab. He says it's cultured.
Scientist spends $375,000 trying to beat meat in his lab.
Scientist says you can't beat meat. Now that's cultured!
The authors seem to be entirely missing the point. 3D printers are for prototyping stuff that isn't already sold at the dollar store. Additionally they are useful for making replacement parts that are not available or only available as part of a larger assembly. For me the list currently includes:
Servo brackets for a 2DOF Quadruped
Replacement spacers for a trampoline safety net
Lead foil holders for a linear accelerator
Wall hook to hang a bow
Handle for a dead bolt lock
case for a raspberry pi
thermometer holder for a water phantom
ion chamber clamp for a water phantom
Has it paid for itself? No. Is that why you bought a 2D printer? Or did you buy one because it does useful stuff like print out recipes n stuff. Did you buy that compound miter saw after a careful calculation of payback time, or did you just buy one because it helps you do/build fun stuff. Do you buy a mill or cnc cutter based on time to payback? For most of us I would guess the answer is no. We buy these tools because they fit in with our hobbies and interests. The "usefulness" and "savings" are just arguments we use to get the significant other to buy into the purchase. (And he/she doesn't really believe you, but goes along anyway.)