123 karma · joined September 29, 2011
This thread is making me nostalgic. I was in the doctor's office with my mother the other day and I actually picked up a copy of National Geographics and sniffed it in the middle of the waiting room. I'll occasionally do it in the supermarket checkout line too. Always reminds me of pulling the first copy I got (Feb 1990) from the Christmas subscription I hounded my mom into buying for me out of its brown paper sleeve.
I don't discount how powerful the emotions elicited by the Proustian recall triggered by tactile interactions with the written word, but I just think the gains far outweigh what we'll lose. The conveniences that dominated the OP don't move me nearly as much as the idea of $10 solar-powered e-readers loaded with the equivalent of entire libraries spreading throughout places like sub-Saharan Africa or rural India (cf. mobile telephones). That kind of stuff gives me a warm fuzzy you wouldn't believe.
Perhaps this explains why I cast off physical books so easily. Once I got my kindle I systematically started paring down my library by removing any books that I was able to find electronically. Most of what got culled were mass market and trade paperbacks, and most of what I kept were books that had intrinsic value as objects (library of america, folio, and mid-century modern library editions).
1. I dimly remember that The Shallows had something thoughtful to say about the topic;
2. I pull out my kindle and search the full text of 443 books for "carr kindle";
3. I wait 3 seconds;
4. I re-read Carr's take and mull it over.
Perhaps not fundamentally different from looking it up in the index, but it certainly feels so.China's leaders have ambitious long-term goals for their space program that will be almost impossible to meet on its own (the cost of a Mars mission would be staggering), so cooperation with the US is in their interests as well as ours. China gains access to dual-use technology, we get to massage China's nationalism into something less virulent, and if nothing else, we both get to delay a strategic confrontation.
Hey, I'm just some guy on the internet. But it seems wise to avoid repeating the mistakes of the 20th century and do a better job of accepting the reality of China's rise to great power status and accommodating them into the international system.
First, in what possible sense is a Chinese manned spaceflight program a challenge to the U.S. If we apply the same standard to the Russians, haven't we've already "lost"? What's with the International Space Station, can China not join the club? The first item in the National Aeronautics and Space Act [1]:
>(a) Devotion of Space Activities to Peaceful Purposes for Benefit of All
>Humankind.--Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that
>activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of
>all humankind.
Second, why no division of labor? Let China do manned spaceflight. Hell, let's chip in (aside from debt service on all those T-bills). We can do plenty of cool stuff: start flinging bacterial spores into interstellar space, submersible probe(s) on Europa, etc.[1]: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY
Since the Academy elects its own members there might be some bias lurking in that number.
That's what's confusing me about the piece. TeX preserves the ability to evolve (XeTeX, etc.) through stasis.
Or is it simply path dependence again?
In practice, the requirement for the classics was no impediment to elites; one could be admitted on the condition that shortcomings would be remediated. Once admitted, you could easily purchase the services of a tutor or cheat your way through.
This is a rather hyperbolic statement. You concede edge cases, but the fluidity of phenotype means that it fails to map cleanly onto neatly delineated categories. We can look at the recent book describing the history of 'passing' reviewed here [1] for one of many examples.
>I haven't read much on the subject, but the idea that races can't be separated based on genetics is either false, or due to the fact that we don't have enough sensitivity in the measurement.
Again, I'd caution against letting your intuition be your guide on this topic. A cursory examination of the literature (i.e., 15 minutes on Google Scholar [2]) might lead you to the conclusion that: (1) genotype != phenotype, and (2) while we can reliably sort humans by ancestry using genetic information, there is variation within these clusters because the proportion of any individuals ancestry that arises from different populations also varies.
I think that the upshot is that the science is less useful when applied to a nebulous term like race, which involves a host of cultural, political and historical factors. The way we Americans define race in debates like these is a legacy of our binary 'one-drop rule' concepts of identity, and it isn't at all clear that appeals to science couched in sweeping generalizations have any connection to the biology.
[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/books/review/Arsenault-t.h...
[2]: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=genomics+race
[...] all else equal, a low-income applicant was no more likely to get in than a high-income applicant with the same SAT score.
[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/business/economy/25leonhar...Agreed. Allowing elite universities to continue to serve up this shadow-play of a sorting function has led to a perverse credentialism that often fails to reflect the actual performance or qualifications of elite graduates.
And even if I were to concede that admissions to elite schools should matter, this thread's focus on URMs reminds me of the joke that was circulating earlier this fall, punchline: 'Watch out for that URM guy. He wants a piece of your cookie.’
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/golden1.htm
The illusion of merit that graduation from these schools imparts leads to a false sense of mastery amongst those who've been able to scale the pyramid of achievement, a self-deception that has had pretty profound consequences for the country since, oh I don't know, say 2008 or so.
[1]: http://chronicle.com/article/Pell-Grant-Recipients-Are/12689...
[2]: http://books.google.com/books?id=4JyQus8r9JYC&pg=PA150...
The results from comparative genomics would suggest, at least superficially, that a combination of compression and data de-duplication in the style of S3 and Dropbox would go a long way towards resolving the issue.
Luckily, I've had some amazing research experiences so I know I can do the science; that said, I can easily imagine how differently things could have gone if that wasn't the case.
This presumption is not supported by the data. Since 1970 the proportion of STEM degrees out of all degrees awarded has averaged 24% with a SD of `2.
See here: http://imgur.com/XUCku
[1]: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_282.asp
Heavy media use in a household is defined as one in which the television is on all or most of the time.