Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Diplomatic FIreworks at Bali Climate Change Conference
U.S. Prevails in Climate Talks (at least initially)
The U.S. appeared to have gotten pretty much what it wanted from the negotiatons when the U.N. Climate Change Conference plenary session resumed here in Bali at around 8 am on Saturday morning. Specifically, there is no mention in the text about cutting greenhouse gases (GHG) by between 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 as the Europeans and the developing nations wanted. Instead the preamble reads:
Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and emphasizing the urgency to address climate change as indicated in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
There is a footnote after the word urgency which refers the reader to specific pages of the report by the IPCC Working Group III of the Fourth Assessment Report. (if you're interested see pages 39, 90, and 776.) One finds on those pages emissions reductions scenarios and their projected effects of future temperature increases. By putting it in a footnote, the U.S. hopes to avoid having the reductions transmogrify in subsequent negotiations into firm targets.
It also initially appeared that the U.S. had succeeded in getting language into the text implying that developing countries should also undertake GHG emissions cuts. To wit:
Enhanced national and international action on mitigation of climate change, including, inter alia, consideration of:...
Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported by technology and enabled by financing and capacity-building.
However, when the text was presented in the Plenary session, the representative from India stood up to object saying that his country would prefer a text that read:
...Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported by technology and enabled by financing and capacity-building in a measurable, auditable, and verifiable manner.
Note the difference--instead of putting the burden on developing countries to commit to emissions cuts, the new version puts the burden on developed countries to commit to supplying climate change technologies and financing to developing countries--and they don't mean by markets and trade. At that point the Plenary was suspended for further negotiations.
Diplomatic Tiff
An hour and half later, the president of the Conference, Rachmat Witoelar, tried to begin the meeting. The Chinese, Indian ,and Pakistani delegations objected that negotiations were still going on outside the hall. The Chinese delegate angrily asked, "Whose COP is is this?" and demanded an apology from the president for starting the meeting. The implication was that it is being hijacked by the rich countries.
President Witoelar then suspended the meeting again. We're all waiting to see what happens next. I must leave the Convention Hall in half an hour, so I may not get to report live on the diplomatic endgame.
Hippy|12.15.07 @ 12:08AM|#
More bullshit;
Navajo and Mohawk representatives of the Indigenous
Environmental Network are now in Bali at the 13th United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Jihan Gearon,
Dine' Navajo Nation, IEN energy & climate campaign organizer
and Benjamin Powless, Mohawk, Six Nations, Ontario, Canada, IEN
youth representative, are gathered with other Indigenous Peoples
and taking on the world's super powers and carbon scams.
On December 9 a delegation of indigenous peoples was forcibly
barred from entering the meeting between UNFCCC Executive Secretary
Yvo de Boer and civil society representatives, despite the fact
that the indigenous delegation was invited to attend. This act is
representative of the systematic exclusion of indigenous peoples in
the UNFCCC process.
Gearon, writing from Bali, said, "What I am saying is that
Indigenous People need a much bigger and better seat at the table.
Our communities and livelihoods are the first affected by climate
change. We are also the most affected by the unsustainable
solutions being proposed to solve climate change - nuclear power,
clean coal, carbon sequestration, reforestation, carbon trading,
etc, etc, etc. "The Indigenous Peoples here in Bali are asking the
U.N... to listen to us, and to stop with the false solutions that
devastate our lands, threaten our ways of life, and deny our human
rights... read more >>
danny bee|12.15.07 @ 2:24AM|#
We are really going to need polar cities now in the future. see
polar cities on google or my blog here
http://pcillu101.blogspot.com
|12.15.07 @ 3:31AM|#
ok - a ww is (again) trying get virii on folks' computers.
Anyway, can anybody tell me why we even BOTHER going to these damn
things?
While a bunch of overpaid, ivory-towered diplomats sit around and
jaw about Christ knows what, the rest of us will get up in the
morning and do a real job that actually means something. Dont'
worry bloated bureaucrats! We'll keep your economy humming
along.
|12.15.07 @ 4:43AM|#
Well, whatever they agree to, let's hope we can afford it. Looks
like California is on
the ropes. Again.
On a more positive note, the SPPI
has sent an Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, titled "Re: UN climate conference taking the World in
entirely the wrong direction". If you're an optimist, perhaps you
can talk yourself into believing it will actually have some
influence. And I am Marie of Romania.
Ron, while you're at the conference, kick somebody in the ass.
Doesn't matter who. Considering the environment, there's a very
strong possibility anyone you kick will be someone I'm not going to
like very much...
|12.15.07 @ 5:18AM|#
Without making any claims as to the accuracy of the information
presented (I'm no scientist), here are links to "The Great Global
Warming Swindle".
Take it as you find it...
Parts 1 thru 5
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 1
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 2
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 3
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 4
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 5
|12.15.07 @ 5:18AM|#
Parts 6 thru 9
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 6
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 7
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 8
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 9
|12.15.07 @ 5:32AM|#
This isn't about climate change, it's about global socialism and stealing from "rich" countries.
|12.15.07 @ 8:28AM|#
Bob Smith you are 100% correct.
Global socialism is exactly what they want. This trash needs to
stop,now please.
|12.15.07 @ 10:50AM|#
Third-world shitholes Developing nations demanding
handouts from guilty white people? No one could ever have foreseen
this.
|12.15.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Third-world shitholes Developing nations
demanding handouts from guilty white people? No one could ever have
foreseen this.
Pet peeve warning. Why are places like Somalia, N. Korea, and Sudan
called developing nations? How exactly are they developing? Third
world is a much better term. At least it's not a blatant
untruth.
|12.15.07 @ 11:37AM|#
The biggest marginal gains in pollution reduction are most
likely to be made in the "developing" countries.
Do I expect any money transferred from rich to poor nations to be
used efficiently?
Guess.
|12.15.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Third-world shitholes demanding handouts from guilty white
people? No one could ever have foreseen this.
And people call us libertarians callous to the poor. Pah!
*Lights cigar with flaming $100 bill*
|12.15.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Could someone please tell me if the following information has
been decided?
1) How much we have to reduce global warming in the next hundred
years to ensure the survival of our species with a standard of
living not lower than today
2) How much we have to cut greenhouse gases to achieve that
reduction in global warming
I haven't seen any policy proposals that include cost-benefit
analysis. Maybe I'm just missing it.
stoneymonster|12.15.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Why are places like Somalia, N. Korea, and Sudan called
developing nations? How exactly are they developing?
One could even go so far as to say they are developed. Developed
about as far as they are going to go!
|12.15.07 @ 11:47AM|#
J sub D,
Third world doesn't make any sense now (if it ever did) since the
Second World doesn't exist any more.
Developing, underdeveloped, undeveloped are pretty subjective,
since development means different things to different people.
Technically, every country on earth that hasn't reached equilibrium
is still "developing" into something.
Shitholes is pretty accurate, but this is diplomacy, so..
Guy Montag|12.15.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Pet peeve warning. Why are places like Somalia, N. Korea,
and Sudan called developing nations? How exactly are they
developing? Third world is a much better term. At least it's not a
blatant untruth.
Because "third world" hurts the feelings of dependant, backward
societies who refuse to learn how to survive without squandering
what few resources they have and refuse to innovate and resist
anything "modern".
Also, rich white college professors get their feelings hurt
whenever anybody criticizes anything outside of the USA.
Guy Montag|12.15.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Jacob,
Our consumption must be restrained until English graduate students
are the most productive members of our society.
P Brooks,
You are as indigenous as any Asian immigrant in the history of the
Americas.
|12.15.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Correction-
Also, rich white college professors get their feelings
hurt whenever anybody criticizes anything outside of the USA.
The adjective is inappropriately used here, Guy. Many of those
easily offended, socialistic professors are not "white".
|12.15.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Guy,
There's exceptions to every rule. The physics department chair at
my school practically worships Bush, and the day I wore a Ron Paul
2008 t-shirt, it looked like his eyes were going to shoot out of
their sockets at 500 m/s and inelastically collide with the rear
wall.
rho|12.15.07 @ 12:09PM|#
This policy wonkfest probably gave Al Gore the biggest boner he's ever had.
|12.15.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Crimethink,
Yes, but what would be their kinetic energy?
Joking aside, while places like Somalia are backward, they are in
fact 'developing.' For example, once they kicked out the Marxist
govenrment, in the early 90's Somalian living standards
improved. In fact, they did surpass their neighbors on
some key benchmarks and their economy was showing some pretty
robust growth.
That is, until a CIA agent who blundered into the middle of a
firefight between warlords involved in a land dispute, panicked and
thought the big bad Al Queda terrorists were shooting at him and
the U.S. started meddling again.
So now there's a foreign army shooting up the place and the economy
as slipping backwards again. But, it's more 'work' for those
welfare queens employed by the security organs of the U.S.
government.
|12.15.07 @ 12:59PM|#
Guy, did you flunk out of college or something? Fail to get into grad school? Just trying to find out where your visceral anti-intellectualism comes from exactly.
|12.15.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Joking aside, while places like Somalia are backward, they
are in fact 'developing.'
And Zimbabwe? How about Liberia? North Korea? No developing is an
inaccurate adjective. IMO, poor, even underdeveloped, would be
preferable.
It's a minor quibble, AKA a pet peeve. People geneally know what
"third world" and "developing nation" refers to. Since, unlike
France, we have no language police, it's up to volunteers to police
American English. ;-)
|12.15.07 @ 1:03PM|#
This policy wonkfest probably gave Al Gore the biggest boner
he's ever had.
That wouldn't be saying much.
Guy Montag|12.15.07 @ 1:03PM|#
Cesar,
Nope. BTW, it is anti-psuedointellectualism.
No, I don't want fries with this either.
|12.15.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Nope. BTW, it is anti-psuedointellectualism.
No, I don't want fries with this either.
Gee, I guess my sister (who was an English major) and makes $70
grand a year must be working at McDonalds.
Please don't confuse things like "ethnic studies" with
real liberal arts majors, Guy. Its like confusing
engineering school graduates with car mechanics.
Guy Montag|12.15.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Cesar,
Ooohhh! Scaring me man bringing your sister out to fight for you.
BTW, I am not paying extra if she spanks me.
|12.15.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Ooohhh! Scaring me man bringing your sister out to fight for
you. BTW, I am not paying extra if she spanks me.
What the fuck are you talking about? You have this weird notion
that anyone who was liberal arts major makes minimum wage, and its
not even remotely true.
|12.15.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Cesar,
I'm guessing whatever your sister does for a living has nothing to
do with the discipline of English, does it?
It's fine to major in English if you're a star basketball player,
or you're going to law school or something. But just an English
degree is pretty rough to market.
|12.15.07 @ 1:12PM|#
I'm guessing whatever your sister does for a living has
nothing to do with the discipline of English, does it?
She works for a magazine. I think thats pretty closely related to
English.
|12.15.07 @ 1:14PM|#
BTW Crimethink, If you look up the bio of many CEOs, you will find quite a few English and History degrees among them.
Guy Montag|12.15.07 @ 1:17PM|#
If you look up the bio of many CEOs, you will find quite a
few English and History degrees among them.
I believe that percentage is higher with bartnders and
telemarketers.
|12.15.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Sorry if I came across a bit harsh on the liberal arts people. I
just got passed over for an academic scholarship worth $2000+
because some ditzy history major had a 4.00 GPA and more
extracurricular activities compared to my 3.98 as a math/physics
double major.
Of course, she and I are both about to graduate, so my revenge
probably isn't that far off.
tepid|12.15.07 @ 1:25PM|#
crimethink,
Respect. Really.
Can't say I agree with your politics or theology (what with having
one and all), but credits given where credits due.
|12.15.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Sorry if I came across a bit harsh on the liberal arts
people. I just got passed over for an academic scholarship worth
$2000+ because some ditzy history major had a 4.00 GPA and more
extracurricular activities compared to my 3.98 as a math/physics
double major.
I can understand why math majors think liberal arts majors are
easy. Usually, their only experience comes from taking a few 101
classes.
If you ever took a 300 or 400 level history course, your opinion
would change trust me.
|12.15.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Yeah, parroting back your instructor's opinions is teh
HARD.
Crimethink, thats like saying all you do in math is memorize a few
formulas and plug some numbers into the calculator.
I've seen people in 300 level history classes parrot back their
instructors opinions. At best, they receive a low C. Usually they
receive a D.
tepid|12.15.07 @ 1:31PM|#
If you ever took a 300 or 400 level history course, your
opinion would change trust me.
One hell of a stretch.
|12.15.07 @ 1:33PM|#
tepid-
Their opinion might change. Or, they might just bitch the rest of
their lives about how their professor was unfair and how about
liberal arts studies aren't real disciplines like
engineering.
|12.15.07 @ 1:33PM|#
tepid,
Well, that's not nothing, so thanks. It's rough being a hard
sciences major at a liberal arts school...sometimes I think I
understand how that Richard McBeef guy felt.
|12.15.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Cesar,
I'm taking a 400 level English course next semester to satisfy
SUNY's idiotic "contemporary issues" general education requirement.
So, I'll get back to you on that.
|12.15.07 @ 1:39PM|#
I'm taking a 400 level English course next semester to satisfy
SUNY's idiotic "contemporary issues" general education requirement.
So, I'll get back to you on that.
Please do.
Also, don't get me wrong. I have great respect for hard science
people. I don't go around mouthing off about how they're a bunch of
illiterate, narrow-minded technocrats.
I think the real problem is the separation of liberal arts from
hard sciences in the first place. All the great minds in history
had a very firm grounding in both fields.
tepid|12.15.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Cesar,
I don't heap scorn on the liberal arts, but by the measure of most
individuals the hard sciences, maths, and engineering are
considerably more trying subjects.
|12.15.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Well, the problem (if it is a problem) with the hard sciences is
that each of the disciplines has accumulated so much knowledge
which you have to master before you can even deal with the
cutting-edge research, that it's nearly impossible to go the
distance in more than one.
To be honest, while I think the ability to communicate, and some
grounding in history is important for anyone, most of the
upper-level stuff I hear about from those disciplines just seems
silly to me. Does anybody really care what types of clothes were
fashionable among upper-class women in 17th century France (one of
the pressing topics the woman who won the scholarship did a
presentation on)?
Of course, she might say the same thing about my quantum
chromodynamics presentation...but the difference would be that
she'd be WRONG! ;-)
sheesh|12.15.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Also, math and physics are mainstays in a liberal arts
curriculum.
Let's just check out one of the best colleges in the country, shall
we:
Williams
College
Yup - a retarded site, but Physics.
oh Math
and Stats.
and what Cesar said.
History clearly
is about parroting. As they say hier:
Although the History Department aspires to pursue a variety of goals, our core objectives remain the cultivation in our students of a critical understanding and awareness of the past and the development of our students' intellectual, analytical, and rhetorical abilities.
totally useless. Maybe if the current administration had a healthy
dose of the last sentence, well.
tepid - hard to generalize, especially with differing qualities of
universities, programs, etc.
(ooh - Anthro majors are obviously Screwed.)
|12.15.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Re: the Physics site at Williams, there's something massively wrong with that photo. Unless you're in the beam's path, you can't see lasers unless the beam is going through dust, smoke, or some sort of scattering particles. Is their lab that dusty?
|12.15.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Jesus, they're still using frames on that site? The only way to make it anymore 1998 would be to have spinning JPEGS.
tepid|12.15.07 @ 2:09PM|#
The liberal arts have value because they satisfy certain
interests and curiosities in a particular subset of
individuals.
Secondarily, the richness and diversity of thought they add
probably serves as a consequential benefit in ways that are
difficult to quantify in practice.
|12.15.07 @ 2:32PM|#
@ Crimethink:
Re: the Physics site at Williams, there's something massively
wrong with that photo. Unless you're in the beam's path, you can't
see lasers unless the beam is going through dust, smoke, or some
sort of scattering particles. Is their lab that dusty?
I'm not especially knowledgeable in science, so I'm only going to
be guessing. But if the photo was taken with some sort of flash,
wouldn't the light of the flash interfere with the coherent light
of the laser in some manner making something visible?
BakedPenguin|12.15.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Jesus, they're still using frames on that site?
That's what happens when you don't have a comp sci
department.
Oh, wait. They do.
Paul|12.15.07 @ 3:09PM|#
*Lights cigar with flaming $100 bill*
This "poor" libertarian would like to borrow that...
Paul|12.15.07 @ 3:10PM|#
Just trying to find out where your visceral
anti-intellectualism comes from exactly.
Cesar, a lot of us get it from watching climate "negotiation" by
so-called intellectuals who make way more money than we do. It's
really quite reasonable.
|12.15.07 @ 3:23PM|#
But if the photo was taken with some sort of flash, wouldn't
the light of the flash interfere with the coherent light of the
laser in some manner making something visible?
Hmm. The more I think about it, the more I'm going to guess that
the laser beam in the photo is just a "simulation" of some sort.
Either that or they've been sneaking cigarettes into the lab again.
;-)
Guy Montag|12.15.07 @ 3:30PM|#
LASER beam: maybe the graphics folks drew it on the photo just like the lasers in the Batman TV series?
|12.15.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Although the caption under the picture does say something about time-lapse photography making the beam appear bright.
|12.15.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Just an anecdotal argument here. I majored in Statistics, but I also took 4 English classes and 4 Philosophy classes, one of each at the 100, 200, 300, and 400 levels, and they were easy. Doesn't prove anything, but having taken them myself, my opinion on the matter coincides with tepid's and crimethink's. Also, most liberal arts majors I knew in college who attempted to take any math classes past pre-calculus either failed them, or dropped them to avoid failing them.
|12.15.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Math and hard sciences were never hard to me as much as they were just incredibly boring. Biology, physics, and algebra classes had an effect on me not unlike that of Ambien.
|12.15.07 @ 4:00PM|#
re: laser beam.
Okay, FWIW, the laser beam should be invisible and would be in a
perfect vacuum, because it is coherent light. If there are dust or
smoke particles in the air, they will scatter some of the rays
making the beam very dimly visible. If multiple photographic
exposures are made over a period of time (time-lapse photography),
slight air currents will bring new particles into the path of the
beam and disperse its rays. The sum of all this makes the beam
highly visisble in the photo. I'm guessing that the image of the
scientists were in the last exposure.
Thoreau, if you're out there somewhere, you can critique me on
this.
|12.15.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Hmm...that's possible. But they would have had to have the time
lapse going for a very long time to make that even possible...and I
don't think the beam would look as uniform as it does.
There are lasers that are energetic enough to cause atoms in the
surrounding air to radiate visible light, but I don't think
milliwatt lasers have anywhere near that kind of power.
BakedPenguin|12.15.07 @ 4:25PM|#
All the laser beam / visible spectrum talk is really pointless. I mean, what about the important issues? Where's the course where you learn to tie them to sharks?
|12.15.07 @ 4:35PM|#
There are lasers that are energetic enough to cause atoms in
the surrounding air to radiate visible light, but I don't think
milliwatt lasers have anywhere near that kind of power.
No, I don't think they do either. As the caption says, the
participants in the photo don't have to wear safety goggles,
because the laser is relatively low-powered. Professional
photographers know all manner of techniques to enhance images and I
should imagine that expertese was put to use here. Maybe special
filters or something. Hell, maybe an invisible, flourescent gas hit
with a UV laser of some kind. At any rate it isn't a simple
snapshot.
|12.15.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Hard sciences can be genuinely Teh HARD if you're not
interested, or just don't have the aptitude. I did real well in
college in biology and astrophysics, but came this close to
flunking out chem lab, and was a C- to D+ student in regular
chemistry. I pulled decent grades in math and physics, too, but
didn't enjoy them.
I was actually in a liberal arts college -- didn't think much of
liberal arts at the time, but turns out my most marketable skills
were the writing and analytical skills taught there. Go figure.
|12.15.07 @ 4:40PM|#
Where's the course where you learn to tie them to
sharks?
Join the CIA or the military - they can probably teach you how.
:-)
|12.15.07 @ 4:43PM|#
Wow, you're a sloppy aspiring world dominator, aren't you? You can't just tie them to the sharks' backs, you've got to put them in their eyes!
|12.15.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Sign posted in the optics lab:
Do Not Look Directly At Laser With Remaining Good Eye.
robc|12.15.07 @ 5:19PM|#
I didnt click on the link above leading to all the laser talk
but I was about to post a comment wrt liberal
arts/math/science.
I went to an engineering school that was still on the quarter
system (so convert if you wish) (they changed to semesters in mid
90s).
As an engineering major I had to take 18 hours of humanities and 18
hours of social sciences, so 12 classes in what I would call
"liberal arts". I guess there is some question whether the 2 econ
classes count, but call it 10 classes instead if you dont want them
to count.
I think I took:
4 english classes
2 linguistic classes
2 econ
1 history
1 political science
1 philosophy
1 something else that I dont remember 16 years later. I took a
Psych class, I wonder if that counted as a social science?
Anyway, my point is, how many liberal arts schools require the
equivalent in math and science? 18 hours in math, 18 in science.
Oh, and any math before calculus doesnt count, if you are a
university student you should have got up to pre-cal in high
school.
I guess that would be 4 classes in each on a semester based
system.
A system like:
2 calculus classes, a management math class, a stats class +
2 one year 2 class sequences from physics/chemistry/biology
No physics for poets either, the calculus based physics, since you
will have the math background anyway.
I can respect any liberal arts program that requires something like
that.
thoreau|12.15.07 @ 5:24PM|#
When I see pictures showing a laser beam visible in the air, I
assume the picture was edited to look cool.
Over the years, I've become less and less upset about pictures of
laser beams being edited to look cool. It's just not worth getting
pissed off over. I've even seen them in optics catalogs, things
written by and for people who know better. Yet they put those
pictures in anyway, because they look cool. And that's good
enough.
On liberal arts: In college I didn't like most of the non-science
stuff, except economics, which I minored in because I like
math.
Then I taught freshman science classes for people who hadn't taken
too many liberal arts classes yet, and I asked them to write
papers.
Grading those poorly written papers was when I figured out why
liberal arts classes are important.
Now I'm a faculty member, and I find that I have more in common
with non-science faculty than I had in common with non-science
students in college. We all seem to want the same things for our
students, and we complain about the same things. To be honest,
having done a lot of physics in different fields, I really don't
give a shit whether students master any particular topic in
physics. Rather, I care about the analytical abilities that they
cultivate. I've done too many things and seen too many areas of
research and applications to really believe that any particular
topic is TEH MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE CURRICULUM! It's all about
the skills that you acquire.
And looking back on my econ classes, I find that I value the skills
that I acquired in those classes. If you were to ask me to go back
and relate the cost curves to the supply and demand curves, or
whatever it was that we did in Econ 101 (there's a lot more to it
than just remembering the laws of supply and demand) I doubt I
could get it right without a lot of effort. But I feel that
spending all that time analyzing social phenomena with graphs and
numbers made me smarter in a way that's hard to pin down. In fact,
I think it was good to practice those quantitative skills in a
non-physics context, because it made me able to distinguish general
skills from specific contexts.
So I'm no longer so harsh on liberal arts. I think it's good for
students to take classes with heavy reading and writing
assignments. We don't give them much of that in physics and math
(and, to be fair, it's harder to give them that, because we have so
many other things we're trying to do). But they need it.
So, yeah, I'm kind of mellow on the whole thing now.
|12.15.07 @ 5:26PM|#
robc -
Did you have to take four semesters of a foreign language to the
300 level in your major? No? Didn't think so.
robc|12.15.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Cesar,
Actually, for some bizarre reason, they made it almost impossible
to count foreign language classes.
First 3 quarters would count as humanities credits but only if you
took another 3 quarters which counted as SS. Otherwise, the first 3
just counted as free electives. I always found that policy
bizarre.
thoreau|12.15.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Oh, yeah:
Having defended liberal arts, let me also say that I nonetheless
hate liberal arts snobs. There is a subset that looks down on
scientists as uncouth and uncultured technicians. Not a lot, and I
don't feel persecuted, but I find them from time to time. Science
is just as much a part of mankind's intellectual heritage as
literature or history.
Regarding GE science for liberal arts majors: I go back and forth
on the purpose of GE science classes. That's actually a long
conversation to have, because there are multiple goals that you
could have for such a class, and it's probably good to have
different classes focusing on different goals. I will say, however,
that "They should take the hard stuff because that's what we have
to take" is the shittiest reason to make somebody take a class.
Figure out what you want them to learn and why you want them to
learn it, and then design a class around that, not some sort of
"Dammit, I had to suffer through calculus-based physics, so should
you!" revenge fantasy.
I'm actually in the process of designing some GE science classes,
and once you start asking what it is that you want them to learn,
the whole thing becomes quite complicated. I don't have any easy
answers there. The best I can say is that you should take more than
one class from instructors with different goals, because it's not
as simple as having only one goal that matters.
Besides, if you want to whine about your calculus-based physics
class, let me be honest about something: I still go back and forth
on what the real purpose of intro physics is. It may seem obvious,
because this stuff is foundational, right? So it's the stuff that
you just need to know to do anything else, right? Yes, it is, but
there's still a lot of stuff there, and you can't emphasize all of
it in the quarter, semester, year, or whatever the duration is. You
have to pick what to emphasize, and once you look at it from the
instructor's side of the classroom you'll see that there's a whole
lot there and it isn't at all obvious what is most important. So,
once again, I come down on the side of diversity: I'll pick one
aspect of the subject and emphasize it, and pray that whoever my
students take the class from next quarter emphasizes something
different. That's all we can hope for.
robc|12.15.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Cesar,
Also not sure what foreign languages has to do with my point about
required LA majors to take math and science classes.
thoreau|12.15.07 @ 5:38PM|#
Oh, I guess it's possible that they put dust in the air to
scatter the laser beam, but most experimental physicists would aim
the laser beam at your eye and fry you if you tried to get dust all
over their lenses.
So I'm betting that most of what you see there is Photoshop.
robc|12.15.07 @ 5:40PM|#
thoreau,
My point on calculus based physics is there are 2
possibilities:
1. You can memorize
s(t)=1/2at^2+v0t+s0
2. You can know that the position equation can be found be taken 2
integrals of acceleration.
One of these is worth knowing, one isnt.
thoreau|12.15.07 @ 5:41PM|#
Yeah, knowing that it's the solution to a differential equation
is important. Knowing how to use it to solve practical problems is
also important. Having a good conceptual feel for how that
manifests in experiments is also important.
Figuring out how many of those things to address in 50 minutes
(while also addressing all the other topics) is a lot harder than
it may seem to those who have never tried it.
|12.15.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Cesar, a lot of us get it from watching climate
"negotiation" by so-called intellectuals who make way more money
than we do. It's really quite reasonable.
Doesn't that kind of make you a whiny person? I mean, you're so
irritated that you don't make as much as someone else that you feel
the need to denigrate a field that they may or may not have majored
in to make yourself feel better? Sounds pretty insecure to
me.
To the people who have taken upper-division liberal arts courses
and found them easy, I ask; what were the topics of your papers?
What sources did you use? I ask because unless you've written a
paper longer than 15-20 pages using primary documents for more than
two-thirds of your sources, you have not the first idea about the
comparative difficulty of liberal arts, especially History or
English. If you didn't, what you took was probably one of the
in-depth survey classes that are offered to give majors a grounding
in a specific period or theory so that they can go on and craft
those papers using primary sources. And you passed that, and good
for you, but you've hardly conquered the field because of it.
robc|12.15.07 @ 5:53PM|#
thoreau,
True enough. But, if your students have had integral calculus
before they get to into physics, you only need spend 5 minutes at
most deriving that.
Calc 2 was a prereq to my Phys 1 class.
I took a Technical Elective on lasers my graduating quarter. I
remember almost none of it. Its kinda sad, I remember it being some
cool material. I also took a 4000 level (we were cooler that nearly
every other school, we had 4 digit class numbers) English class
called "Imagining the American West". I remember much more of it.
The books from that class are sitting on my bookshelf right behind
me, the only one Ive reread since 1991 is Sometimes a Great
Notion.
robc|12.15.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Looking at a 20 year old course catalog that is still floating around amongst my books, the class I referred to was probably (its not specifically listed) a 3000 level class.
thoreau|12.15.07 @ 6:15PM|#
robc-
I can spend at most 5 minutes deriving it. Then I have to figure
out what I want my students to take away from it, what sort of
problems I want to solve with it. And I have to decide whether I'll
lecture on those things or take a lot more time to use one of the
new "active learning" pedagogy techniques being promoted.
These decisions aren't easy.
thoreau|12.15.07 @ 6:19PM|#
Here's what's even harder:
If I derive that equation, and then I have my students do homework
problems from a chapter that features that equation, they all know
what they need to use. It might not always be easy, but they can
figure it out with enough time.
Then the next week I derive a different equation, and assign
problems from the chapter using that other equation. And they all
know which equation to use again.
But on an exam, I don't tell them which chapter the problem is
from. And they stumble.
What I'd like to do is sort of blitz through all of the topics in
the first half of the course, and just assign the simplest problems
for each topic. Then, in the second half, spend the whole time
solving hard problems without telling them which chapters the
problems are from.
I'm not going to try that format, however, until I've taught the
traditional format a few more times. I feel like I need to get more
comfortable teaching this material before I branch out and do
something radical.
VM|12.15.07 @ 6:24PM|#
"Having defended liberal arts, let me also say that I
nonetheless hate liberal arts snobs"
QFT, but this citizen would like to amend it to "humanities
snobs".
Those types he and I are thinking about (but with different tags,
reflecting our different experiences) are just as anti learning,
anti intellect as the LA haters.
and there's also the complication of public vs private schools.
Williams, Amherst, Carlton, etc are private, so you could argue
there is a different focus (where education might be viewed as a
consumption and investment good) from the public ones (where you
could argue that education on the public good should tend to pure
investment good)...
But one thing about libertarianism or libertarians who are skeptics
- learning, being able to learn, wanting to learn, and challenging
your beliefs should be at the core. Those are intellectual
pursuits.
The philosophy of individualism or libertarianism is intellectual
and requires thinking, learning, reading, studying, and
reflecting.
The economics of many libertarians, the Austrian school, is a
school that doesn't rely on formal methods, but on interpretation
and abductive reasoning - liberal arts-based processes. Certainly
not the überformality of engineering. (or the oftentimes übermathed
graduate Economics, for that matter)
Nothing about libertarianism is a proscribed, algorithmic approach
that is basically programmed learning - it's dynamic, requiring
computational, applied, conceptual, and theoretical (transferable)
processes.
Many non liberal arts students would recognize those skill sets,
but so would most liberal arts' students, too.
|12.15.07 @ 7:07PM|#
Also not sure what foreign languages has to do with my point
about required LA majors to take math and science
classes.
My point is, in order to include the classes you listed and still
make it a four-year program, they'd have to take out a lot of other
higher level stuff.
As for having calculus in high school, don't they have Survey of
American History in high school too? But I bet thats the only
history course you were required to take.
|12.15.07 @ 7:10PM|#
Having defended liberal arts, let me also say that I
nonetheless hate liberal arts snobs. There is a subset that looks
down on scientists as uncouth and uncultured technicians. Not a
lot, and I don't feel persecuted, but I find them from time to
time. Science is just as much a part of mankind's intellectual
heritage as literature or history.
Agreed. I hate it when liberal arts people think hard sciences
people are technocratic, illiterate, two-dimensional philistines.
Again, the greatest thinkers in history were very well-grounded in
both fields. Think of Leonardo Di Vinci, or Benjamin Franklin.
VM|12.15.07 @ 7:19PM|#
Cesar - again, excellent!
are you in Chicago, BTW?
calculus in high school - fine. all private ones have that, every
European one does, too. Are you suggesting that you identify with
the technocratic European university degrees?
if so, I'd assume you'd feel that's a superiority. If so,
(channeling Otter), you must feel that Europe is superior.
Well, you can do anything you like to us. But we will not sit here,
and let you insult the United States of America.
(plus, not surprised you don't understand the connection between
math and science with advanced language.)
|12.15.07 @ 7:23PM|#
VM: good stuff, and I'll remember that stuff when my knee
attempts to jerk in the future.
I know part of the liberal arts/technical arts division comes from
grade inflation. There were many people who partied every night and
graduated with a 4.0 in a humanities discipline, while the people
who graduated with a 4.0 in engineering were lucky to take one
night off. There were humanities students who actually gained
critical thinking skills and took their learning seriously, but
there were an awful lot of students who couldn't reason their way
out of a paper bag who graduated with a 4.0. It's not hard to see
why that generates the impression that humanities classes are a
joke.
|12.15.07 @ 7:27PM|#
@ thoreau,
So I'm betting that most of what you see there is
Photoshop.
So it's really not just all smoke and mirrors? ;-)
VM|12.15.07 @ 7:31PM|#
AC: agreed totally - which is why institution matters! And there
are some institutions that excel in "harder" disciplines and really
flunk the "soft" ones. I'd guess that Big Ten Schools really fit
that bill!
Think: Wash U Engineering and St Louis State humanities. That
illustrates your point beautifully! And it hopefully supports the
frustration of the one group of students vis a vis the other!
(I went to Hamilton, and the geology people took claim to the
biggest workload at school - dunno if it was true, but a lot of
nice people there)
|12.15.07 @ 7:32PM|#
robc,
As someone who's worked as a math and science tutor for my college
for two years, I thank goodness we don't require everyone to take
calculus and calc-based physics. The bare minimum my college
requires for math is "college" algebra, both of which I took in
10th grade, and I've had plenty of tutees who I wasn't sure would
be able to make it past such advanced topics as solving right
triangles and completing the square.
They also require a very basic natural science course, the lab for
which I've worked as a TA, and to be honest, I think that class is
actually harder than calculus based physics. There's a
reason physics and the other natural sciences boomed after the
discovery of calculus -- science is pretty much impossible without
it. I do not envy the people who take that course and have to
memorize every formula they'll ever need, when all I had to do was
whip out a derivative or integral to derive it on the fly.
We have a new faculty member teaching it this year, and he claims
he's developed a way to teach it without using math at all, which
he'll implement next semester. To me, physics without math is
tantamount to blasphemy, but his idea is so crazy that it just
might work.
thoreau|12.15.07 @ 7:47PM|#
Keep in mind that what we teach in "real" intro physics (and
other intro science classes) is not a deep understanding of the
breadth of the subject, its applications, and its intellectual
foundations, i.e. the stuff that you want from a General Education
class. Rather, what we teach is the basic technical material that
you need to tackle more advanced classes. We teach more focused
things to get ready for other focused things, and it eventually
adds up to a broad survey of the subject.
I see no reason to make liberal arts students take these focused
classes and call it "General Education." I have mixed feelings on
what we should teach them, but making them take what we
teach the engineers and scientists doesn't seem to make any
sense.
Also, what crimethink said.
|12.15.07 @ 7:56PM|#
are you in Chicago, BTW?
Nope, I'm down in the political/homeless capital of the Old
Dominion, Richmond. My only experience with the midwest comes from
St.Paul/Minneapolis. The Twin Cities seemed to be filled with
drunken Scandinavians. Not that theres anything wrong with that, of
course.
|12.15.07 @ 7:59PM|#
The Twin Cities seemed to be filled with drunken
Scandinavians
It's spelled "Scandahoovians."
VM|12.15.07 @ 8:42PM|#
smaller, friendlier, not even close to planet manhattan!
Midwest vs east type of thing
("midwest" isn't "great lakes" area" - I define it from ohio
westward, YMMV, FWIW)
|12.15.07 @ 10:17PM|#
The Twin Cities seemed to be filled with drunken
Scandinavians. Not that theres anything wrong with that, of
course.
It's
a goot thing, ya betcha.
|12.16.07 @ 12:48AM|#
wow, physics geek stuff and i came late? sorry, fellas.
making them take what we teach the engineers and scientists
doesn't seem to make any sense
no, it doesn't. the university at which i t.a.'ed chemistry and
physics many eons ago had parallel courses for tech majors and non.
the non courses ran to dumbed-down versions of the tech courses; no
overview of the power and beauty of physics in describing the
universe nor how these ideas made chemistry work, just a bunch of
predigested ideas that the student could memorize and spit back on
demand. what a waste, but the students who just wanted to get that
horrible science course out of the way preferred not to think, just
memorize.
i always wanted to do a course called "why is the sky blue?"
dhex|12.16.07 @ 1:14AM|#
what puzzles me about the larger issue is the small subset of
"math is like arbitrary and stuff" (really i'm surrounded by crazy
libruh artz people - including some whom i think are legitimately
nuts - and that's a subset of a subset of an opinion, like blue
libertarians) and the seemingly immense "READING ARE FOR LAZY FAGS"
crew that always pops up here any time someone mentions college in
some small way.
weirdness.
dhex|12.16.07 @ 1:22AM|#
cesar: let me explain guy to you. his brain is made out of
kultur war.
also he has a blog.
also a woman picked on him once, and she was a writer, and, well,
you can figure out the rest.
Guy Montag|12.16.07 @ 2:51AM|#
Cesar,
Back to my comment to Jacob that, somehow, brought out such a
defensive reaction from you.
"Our consumption must be restrained until English graduate students
are the most productive members of our society."
It was not a comment on people who get LA degrees and then go out
into the world and contribute great things, even though they posess
said degrees. It was a comment on those who become English graduate
(or other) students as an apparent substitute for a
profession.
The ones who lounge around the Student Union, spouting all of this
class struggle nonsense, while producing nothing but poetry that
nobody but an instructor reads, while pontificating to all that the
reason they have to shop at the food bank is because [insert
productive business person here] has "all of the money".
Folks like the forest raping
orchid thief who know how to fix the election system, by making
sure the only people who can vote are those who he approves
of.
Like the topic at hand, with a bunch of Al Gore worshipers running
about with their latest scheme to force the producers to fund the
whining classes, that is the context of my comment.
In short, it is a comment about those who want a free ride just
because they have proclaimed their own narrow little sliver of
study to be superior to all others, therefore no others should be
no more well compensated than them.
One thing I can be glad, entertained by, and sure of is your
knee-jerk reaction to anything in the humanaties discipline, no
matter how out of context that reaction might be.
I look forward to your spelling, grammar and other corrections to
this post.
Guy Montag|12.16.07 @ 2:54AM|#
therefore no others should be no more well compensated than
them.
therefore no others should be better compensated than them.
There, saved you some time.
thoreau|12.16.07 @ 2:58AM|#
i always wanted to do a course called "why is the sky
blue?"
That sounds like a nice starting point for a whole lot of
fascinating issues in science!
dhex-
I wasn't as radical as the "TEH READING IS TEH GAY" crowd that
shows up here when liberal arts degrees are mentioned, but I did
have some definite anti-liberal arts bias in college. It's a common
thing in science, and there are a lot of reasons for it. But then I
grew up.
So I don't get why all these people still carry that chip on their
shoulder. They should have lost that chip in their first job, when
they wrote a lousy report and the Marketing Division Manager with a
humanities degree sent it back with scathing remarks.
|12.16.07 @ 8:15AM|#
i always wanted to do a course called "why is the sky
blue?"
If you really want to put butts in the seats, you should do a
course called "The Physics of Sex". I can't think of any better way
to get college kids interested in damped harmonic
oscillations...
|12.16.07 @ 8:56AM|#
ct, that's not as goofy as you think. here's an interesting
problem:
anyone who has seen network t&a-fests or has spent any time
near a track has observed an interesting phenomenon. when women
with small breasts run, the breasts bounce up and down in phase.
when women with large breasts run, they tend to bounce up and down
180 degrees out of phase. what is the expected size for the breasts
to move chaotically? iow, where is the phase transition, what is
the critical size, and how is it affected by silicone?
next, we consider the unconstrained penis in male runners. is there
a similar critical size where it rotates during a run?
you have 45 minutes.
|12.16.07 @ 9:25AM|#
But who among you will design a model (in three dimensions) which will accurately predict the direction taken by one of these threads?
|12.16.07 @ 9:26AM|#
I guess it's a matter of conservation of angular momentum. At the beginning of the motion, the breasts will tend to move in phase, with increased arm swinging compensating for the changes in angular momentum. However, if their moment of inertia is large enough, the arm motion won't be able to compensate fully, so the breasts will move out of phase, until they are moving in opposite directions (and thus not affecting the total angular momentum).
|12.16.07 @ 9:39AM|#
Of course, all this theorizing isn't really science. Maybe I
should go to the mall today and find a large-breasted woman, and
ask her to let me record video of her breasts moving while she's
running with and without heavy shopping bags in each hand.
If my hypothesis is correct, the breast motion should be in phase
much longer with the bags. Oh, and, it's ALL in the interest of
science.
|12.16.07 @ 9:45AM|#
Or you can calculate the force of impact when she wallops you with one of those shopping bgs.
VM|12.16.07 @ 9:46AM|#
"Marketing Division Manager with a humanities degree sent it
back with scathing remarks."
*gets 1,000 mile stare. shudders*
let's get dhex hate on hier, too!
The Mktg Division manager with BA in LA (humanities) and an MBA
sends it back!!
[ducks]
|12.16.07 @ 10:01AM|#
P Brooks,
I hadn't considered that possibility. Maybe I should inform mall
security about my plan beforehand, so that they can give me an
escort for the duration of my experiment to discourage any such
anti-scientific violence.
BakedPenguin|12.16.07 @ 10:31AM|#
crimethink - Forget going to the mall. I think you need to apply for a grant to do a full blown study at exotic dancing clubs, where you can be guaranteed an ample supply of amply supplied women. For the furthering of science, of course.
dhex|12.16.07 @ 3:28PM|#
thoreau: i can totally understand hating on the obnoxious types
who seem to derive pleasure from inane misreadings of the dust
jacket of the structure of scientific revolutions (probably the
most quoted yet least read book next to the bible) in a weird
attempt to play "my discipline's dick is bigger than yours." which
is fairly fucktarded so far as things go but - as cultural
anthropology shows us, lol - completely expected in any human clash
over prestige and university resources.
now, i've never met any "math is imaginary" (keep the fucking
imaginary numbers jokes at bay for just a minute, gentlemen) people
in person, though i've read an essay or two that plays along those
lines, and they were indeed painfully, agonizingly stupid. (we can
measure stupidity in terms of steyns, so i'd put them at 4 steyns
on a 5 steyn scale, one steyn being equal to 2 montblogs or 44
chalupas)
but actual humans who spout that stuff are far less common, i
think. it's unfortunately like any office environment where you
have to at least pay some lip service to the full-blown
hallucinations of upper management lest ye find yourself in the
cold and dark regions of shitsville.
now, i have a sinking suspicion (aka i know i'm dead right, but am
employing false modesty for the sake of rhetorical entertainment)
that were the bias rightist instead of leftist, h+r would not have
READING IS FOR FAGS threads but instead would suffer an invasion of
READING IS FOR IMPERIALIST FAGS by leftist.
The Mktg Division manager with BA in LA (humanities) and an MBA
sends it back!!
too many long words without hypens make value-added MBA brain hurt
bad. BAD HURT! BAD WORDS! BAD!
The ones who lounge around the Student Union, spouting all of this
class struggle nonsense
you forgot the blowjob surplus, which i believe to be the root of
all class struggle, as seen in the severe class envy displayed in
this thread.
NERDS OF THE WORLD, LEARN HOW TO TALK TO GIRLS
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT MONEY SPENT ON SOAP
also guy has a blog.
dhex|12.16.07 @ 3:30PM|#
speaking of breast physics, i always wondered how game companies decided to first start including bouncy bouncy in their character models. whether it was a gradual thing or doa2 just showed everyone that they had the technology, the know how and the agressively virginal audience required to sustain development.
|12.16.07 @ 3:35PM|#
IIRC, Orchid from Killer Instinct back in the mid-90s was pretty stacked. I don't remember if there was bouncing or not, as I was too young to care about such things at the time (though not too young to relish Sabrewolf's Disemboweler Combo).
|12.16.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Guy, you won't have to worry about anhy more defensive reactions from me. Or any reactions at all, really. Life is too long to argue with cartoonish right-winger who borders on self-parody.
Minion of URKOBOLD|12.16.07 @ 4:01PM|#
AND HE HAS A BLOG!! A BLOG!!!!!!
AND HIS MERKIN NEEDS REPLACING. hier clicky to get a new one!!!
Another Phil|12.16.07 @ 4:17PM|#
I was an undergraduate English major. About 5 years ago, I
decided I wanted to be a veteranarian. I had to go back and take
all of the undergraduate pre-med courses. I've done very well,
thank you. So, it is possible for an English major to grasp
scientific ideas. On the other hand, with only a few exceptions,
the science courses have been more interesting than any courses I
took for my English major. None of which proves anything.
I know, all English majors are ignorant marxists. Rest assured,
you're far superior to those evil bastards.
Another Phil|12.16.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Only tangentially related...I've found chemistry much more interesting than biology. Maybe this doesn't bode well for vet school?
|12.16.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Only tangentially related...I've found chemistry much more
interesting than biology. Maybe this doesn't bode well for vet
school?
Perhaps you should do pharmacy?
|12.16.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Another Phil,
Obviously you were a chemistry major trapped inside an English
major's body all along, so my point stands.
Another Phil|12.16.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Although this should be obvious, there's no point in majoring in
something you don't find interesting. Still, you're going to have
to support yourself, so, whatever your major, you'd better have a
plan.
I think that parents can help their kids become happier,
self-sufficient adults by making them pay for a significant part of
their education (even if the parents can afford to pay for the
whole thing). An education that seems "free" will often be consumed
recklessly.
|12.16.07 @ 5:19PM|#
Its interesting to note that the President of this particular conference had a degree in architecture.
|12.16.07 @ 6:12PM|#
Well, there's something to be said for majoring in English and working as a plumber's apprentice for the summer...
thoreau|12.16.07 @ 6:30PM|#
dhex-
Another issue that I had during my anti-humanities bias was that I
was just really, really excited to get into my science and math
classes, and all this other stuff was a distraction. Yeah, there's
a lot to be said for breadth, and ultimately I did a minor in
economics, so I did come down in favor of breadth. But it's hard to
make the argument in favor of breadth for somebody who wants to
plunge into his field.
From a faculty perspective, I wish that there were more humanities
and social science classes offered with science angles: History of
science, philosophy of science, ethical issues in new technology,
writing skills for scientists, portrayals of science in the arts,
etc. Every school has a few of those classes, but I think we need
more, and we need to let science students count more of those
classes for General Education credit.
It's not that I think a humanities class is worthless if it isn't
related to science. Rather, it's that there are valuable skills to
learn in those classes, but the skills are more easily transfered
if there are more classes that bridge those fields. We can't expect
students to do most of their heavy writing assignments in
humanities classes until senior year, and then shake our heads in
confusion when their Senior Project Report sucks. And then shake
our fists and blame the English department for not teaching them
how to write about science.
I think we need to bridge the disciplines better, so that the
intellectual skills from writing-intensive and reading-intensive
classes carry over better to the sciences. Otherwise, if they're
taught as distinct realms, students won't be able to transfer the
skills as easily.
poetryman69|12.16.07 @ 7:00PM|#
I came across and interesting idea. Future news. Here is my
attempt:
China shocks the world by revealing the first completely pollution
free coal fired power plants are supplying energy to the Olympics.
Every gram of carbon the plants produced is trapped and
recycled.
In further news it is announced that you may save the environment
by getting drunk. Distilled spirits manufacturers finally realized
that they could trap and recycle CO2 produced by sour mash
fermentation by adding just a little extra plumbing.
And finally, one of the largest sources of waste paper was
eliminated as phone books the world over went on an "opt in"
system. After it was realized that many people who communicate via
cell phone and internet never even open a phone book, it was easy
to cut the number of phone books produced in the world by
90%.
|12.16.07 @ 7:24PM|#
From a faculty perspective, I wish that there were more
humanities and social science classes offered with science angles:
History of science, philosophy of science, ethical issues in new
technology, writing skills for scientists, portrayals of science in
the arts, etc. Every school has a few of those classes, but I think
we need more, and we need to let science students count more of
those classes for General Education credit.
Thoreau thats one of the best ideas I've ever heard in a long time
and I wish Universities would listen to this idea.
dhex|12.16.07 @ 7:25PM|#
Another issue that I had during my anti-humanities bias was
that I was just really, really excited to get into my science and
math classes, and all this other stuff was a
distraction.
yeah, i felt the same way about the math requirements. not that i
hated math majors, just math itself.
i always thought an interdisciplinary math/humanities course using
economics and perhaps even tax return stuff as a basis might be a
good replacement for math 101 for writers or whatever. (in that
same vein, a fixation on business or report writing rather than
essay writing might be more useful for some people.
Guy Montag|12.16.07 @ 7:45PM|#
Isn't this juvenile nonsense an IP blocking offense or
something?
Guy Montag | December 16, 2007, 3:38pm | #
READING IS FOR LEFTIST MARXIST FAGS! READ ABOUT IT ON MY
BLOG.
Hope nobody confused that with a post of mine.
|12.16.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Hope nobody confused that with a post of mine.
They wouldn't confuse it with any post of yours. Its way to witty
and intelligent.
|12.16.07 @ 9:31PM|#
I wish that there were more humanities and social science
classes offered with science angles: History of science, philosophy
of science
How about a "History of Curiosity" class?
VM|12.16.07 @ 10:58PM|#
Cesar, Doktor T:
with econ, there are several bridges - "The Grapes of Wrath" is a
classic bridge topic. yay!
:)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245