Same here. Our social circles are all parents with kids and kids are still playing the Wii. My 4yo has a Go Diego Go title that he can play, my 8yo is working on NSMBW, and I have golf, baseball, etc. games that I can play casually as a break from my more pressing responsibilities.

Enter Marcel Duchamp's snow shovel, comb, and urinal, and other "readymade" or "found" art.

Or at least, if we want to affect racial attitudes, should we be focusing on treating "fear" as well as correcting for the effects of racism? I suppose psychology is very familiar with fear and has some treatment for it.

It would, at least, change the format of diversity/sensitivity training.

See, modern White Privilege theory defines racism as gaining unearned benefit from belonging to the privileged race. Because whites cannot divorce themselves from this privilege, all whites are racist. Conversely, because Blacks cannot claim white privilege - upon which racism is predicated - Blacks cannot be racist.

Whether these children exhibit racist tendencies is irrelevant. The real question is, "What color is the child's skin?" If it's white, they are racist. ...

Wow. Did I just type all that without laughing? Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek, but if you read Kendall's book, that is her model of racism and white privilege.

The interesting part is that I posted my comment from my black MacBook - a computer that I chose for the reasons you stated (plus its openness - runs Windows and Linux just fine *in addition to* the "just works" Mac OS X). But I've never been interested in iPod or iPhone because the fine engineering is useless when it locks me out of it.

But you and I are in the vast minority of Mac users. Microsoft couldn't survive on the techies, neither could Apple. They make their money on the less-savvy masses. In the MP3 and smartphone market, Apple has embraced that lack of knowledge and extended it into a locked-in content/applications model.

The iPad extends that further, which is why it would be a bad thing even if (*especially if*) everyone bought one.

I appreciate Apple somewhat because - for example - the iPod did increase the competition in the DAP market. I don't think my iRiver Clix would exist sans Apple.

But we shouldn't overlook the fact that Apple has been successful because they market locked-in solutions to largely technology-ignorant consumers. Very intelligent (but less computer-savvy) people buy iPods and iPhones because they don't know anything else exists. (How many people do you know who a) owned an MP3 player before buying an iPod? or b) owned a smart phone before buying an iPhone?) Now those people don't know that there are other iPod-compatible music outlets besides the iTunes store, and there *isn't* anywhere else to buy apps for the iPhone besides the app store.

So forgive us for hoping the iPad fails. If it succeeds, it will only further ingrain the vendor-lock-in model in the psyche of American consumers. That would be a loss for all of us.

Great point.

The obvious parallel here is hearing impairment. The deaf community does not consider themselves to be disabled (though that confuses me when a deaf individual sues for accommodation under ADA). When cochlear implants became possible in the 80's, deaf protests were held outside Senate hearings on whether to cover them with Medicare.

If it costs $10^12 to *attempt* to prevent it and $10^8 to adapt, plus we can bring about a bunch of good with the rest of the funds, it's a no-brainer to me. Admittedly, I pulled those numbers out of mid-air, but it's just an illustration of the options we should consider.

I'd mod you up, but I already commented.

The original poster fully supports Lomborg''s position. Oddly, none of the mainstream environmentalists (that I've seem - please correct me if I'm wrong) are pushing adaptation.

On another note, Lomborg also compares the cost of fighting global warming to the cost of other efforts. He claims that we could get almost everyone clean drinking water and eradicate malaria for less than cap-and-trade would cost.

Not a skeptic; just want to know.

Was that the IPCC sea-level claim that was based on a paper that was retracted this week?

I agree with you. Putting a trackpad on the back - if done properly - could be one of those I-can't-believe-we-didn't-think-of-this-before ideas. I hope to see it on more devices, if it works. Even if it does work, it might not catch on. The old Garmin 12 had thumb controls *above* the screen. Despite its efficiency for one-hand use, that format never caught on.

Back in the 19th Century (in the US anyway), mail *recipients* paid postage to get their mail from the local general store. Political figures and others who might have a negative following would receive scores of blank letters and have to pay for them. The objective was to either crowd out the legitimate communications or bankrupt the recipient. Traditionally, one could place an ad in the local paper explaining that he or she would no longer receive letters at the store, which would free them from their obligation.

Also, his "they were in charge" cry is tiresome since congress has been in democratic control since 2006. I saw one poll just after the 2008 election asking people which party controlled congress. Around 80% of those who voted democratic responded "the republicans."

Of course, if the tables were turned, I'm not sure those who vote republican would have any clearer idea of how the government operates. It just demonstrates how people craft reality to meet their own beliefs.

One danger of any instructional system is that the student will only retain the material as it pertains to the classroom context. Last night a teacher told me that their "social-awareness" curriculum seemed to work great, until they watched the kids on the playground. In class, the kids applied the negotiation and mediation skills, but not outside the classroom.

I've had math teachers tell me they couldn't think of a real-world problem that could be solved with the math they were teaching.

With educational games - on a computer or not - social or not - the fear is that the students will learn the rules of the game, which are loose abstractions of physical reality, rather than the rules of reality. Oregon Trail taught everyone that each settler needed 99 bullets, and that you could be killed by some wild animal called a "dysentery."

Off topic, but the use of "thru" on a thesis reminded me of something from my dissertation.

I used the term "thusly" in my prospectus, as in "So-and-so explained the effect thusly:" followed by a long quote. The most esteemed (and elderly) member of my committee said, "Look that up before you use it."

I discovered that "thusly" was first used by British satirists to mock the speech of people who were trying to sound intelligent. Its use was promptly adopted by academics.

I learned my lesson and changed it to "thus".