smorrow

It should be easy to do flowcharts in pic(1). It's also more diff-friendly.

GNU pic can target LaTeX directly, if that helps.

The trick seems to be to avoid subvocalising (where possible).

Competitiveness, for one thing. Then there's the play deprivation, which isn't too good for the social skills in general, and externalises your locus of control.

The topic at hand, paranoia, or at least distrustfulness, is practically defined by having an external locus of control.

While we're on the topic of trust, kids today aren't exactly treated with much trust. Are they even trusted to stay at home unattended without getting themselves in some accident? And then there's the whole system of school, which is specifically founded on not trusting children (to self-educate, which is what they're genetically programmed to do...). The implicit message they're receiving is that people are guilty until proven otherwise.

If there's one thing we've established by now, it's that unsolicited instruction doesn't work:

* Merrel et al, "How effective are school bullying intervention programs?"

* Smith et al, "The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs".

Not to mention all those ant-drug classes they have in America that don't work.

It's true for academic subjects too. The declining interest in science as people go through school is well-documented:

* Eccles et al, "Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students' motivation",

* Harter, "A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom",

* Lepper et al, "Instrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates",

which, together with this result:

Vedder-Weiss and Fortus, "Adolescent's declining motivation to learn science: Inevitable or not?",

proves that it's the schooling that's causing it, and not, say, a natural part of growing up: this last paper uses schools that don't teach you anything you don't want to learn (democratic schools).

(I think that compulsory, curriculum-based computer programming stuff should be kept out of schools for this reason, too.)

Since democratic schools are private schools, you could make the argument that there's a socioeconomic status thing involved, where rich people "are just smarter". I'd counter by saying that homeschoolers don't show any significant variation in academics w.r.t. wealth, and that I don't see any reason why it should be different for democratic schooling, which is practically group homeschooling.

> Uneducated about reality, as you would expect at that age

People would know more about the real world if they weren't stuck in a building all day.

You sure we're not behind the Stone Age? The mainstream paleoanthropological position is that hunter-gatherers were completely egalitarian socially. Inequality is something that came up (resurfaced actually, because apes have it) only in the last 10-12 thousand years as a result of owning property and land and some people owning more of it than others.

Again, this is not my theory, this is what anthropologists actually believe.

In the interest of giving both sides, there's a recent book, that I haven't read (yet), called Constant Battles, which disputes all of that.

Also: giving classes on this kind of thing solves nothing; see below.

Also: the upside of Religious Education is that it was practically a free period, at least where I'm from.

A single staff can switch between different clefs, if you ever want to redfine what lines mean what notes. Then you can switch back to the normal treble clef.

That double treble clef is called the super-treble clef and I've only ever seen it in the appendix of a book called the science of sound.

The only reason I even know what this is is that I just happened to go on /r/all that day out of boredom.

And I go on Reddit, like, every day.

Oh, and there's already a notation within the standard system for your first proposal: a treble clef with "8vb" written below it.

The more sharps or flats the key has, the more the need for putting them in the key signature, not less. Otherwise there'd be sharps and flats everywhere. And you wouldn't be able to determine the key by looking at one bar.

Experienced musicians don't look at a key signature and say "okay, so I need to perform so-and-so particular substitutions", they look at a key signature and say "okay, so it's in the key of X".

The best way to do that stackable staves: see the last two lines here: http://i.imgur.com/tqZRXzt.jpg

Ledger lines preserve the melodic contour but it's harder to read the notes. 8va's stay within the regular five lines you know how to read, but fragment the melodic curve. This way has the advantages of both the above and the disadvantage of neither.

(The lack of key sig in that image is a limitation of the software it was printed out from, I think; it should start in E and change around a bit afterwards. The "3"s are that software's way of printing tuplets.)

It's "Notes on (the paper) 'Plan 9 From Bell Labs, 1995', 2012"

diff

This is a perfectly valid comment until it's proven wrong. I don't think it should be "LA LA LA I'm not list-en-ing"-downvoted.

In the case cancer, I heard the reason it's good is that the cancer cells die off faster than the normal ones do, when they're not being fed.

Might just be a case of more intelligence => more depression?

If that were the sole reason, then men would be looking for women that are funny, too.

They're not, so there's more to it than that.

Downplaying it.

Single System Image.

That's true, but it's also true that you can only add so much stuff to the syllabus, and then there'll be too much school.

You've got to draw the line at some point. Why not draw it at boring computer stuff that barely anybody needs to know?

You can teach maths on a blackboard. Can't teach maths on a whiteboard.

Don't ask me to explain it, but it's true.

Maybe his thought process was that giving the age twice ("elderly" and then "70" -- do you need both?) would be redundant, so that the redundant number might not be an age.

and the reason I'm saying that is that the main argument against me on that subject seems to be: "rape is very bad because rape is very bad".

also: the posts were shadow-deleted. also: I can't even comprehend how sensitive people are that they feel the need to delete that. it isn't even hate speech or anything, not that speech in itself is a bad thing or that people can't just ignore it when they see it.

the only thing I can see accomplished by such deletion would be people assuming the absolute worst, on the basis of information they don't have access to.

I can't remember everything I've written, but I don't see that anything's been deleted.

I'm sorry if I can't accept it as an axiom that all rape is equally bad...

Are you. seriously. saying. that just because something falls under the broadest and most pedantic definition of rape, that that means it must automatically be violent, bloody, sadistic?

If you fuck someone awake in the morning, that fits that very same definition of rape, therefore it _is_ rape, but it's obviously not a bad thing.

If one such counterexample exists I don't see why a few more shouldn't.

Are you even AWARE that I'm talking about the WOMAN initiating here?

I think he'd weigh up the pros and the cons.

First one is great (and better) in all respects except line width, but I didn't need that new page to tell me that.

> It's the generalisations across entire genders

Do you take everyone so literally?

> horrific attitudes to rape.

... I'd roll my eyes, but I'm not American enough. What's being discussed is barely even rape at all, except in some broad, all-encompassing dictionary-style definition of the word. Something falling under the broadest possible definition of the word rape doesn't automatically mean that it's rape in the sense of a male assaulting and raping someone.

> women are people with varying tastes and drives just as much as men are.

Yes, and there's barely a person alive that doesn't know this; see point #1.

Acting shocked at something doesn't make you right.

What can I say, I just can't see how there's much difference between 1) a woman being very forward with you and 2) a woman being very, very forward with you. There is a difference, but it's a difference in degree. If one is a good thing it's pretty unlikely that the other is a heinous, horrible thing.

I don't see how it would very traumatic any more than a woman hitting would be very painful: possible, but not the most likely outcome.

I may have been exaggerating when I said mental health+, but it's still a fact that men still aren't getting laid as much as they would ideally like to=.

I mean, how would you even know? Because they aren't begging for it constantly? Really, I can tell you that that's more due to being polite and knowing in advance that the answer will be no.

+ I term I use in a much broader sense internally, since I don't know any better for word it. So I might let it out without checking if other people will understand what I'm saying.

= Not that they're entitled to it or anything, but then that never was my point.

Having the same name as an often-violent crime doesn't automatically mean something is that bad.

Squashing an insect and setting a mouse trap are technically killing, but there's nothing wrong with them.

I think you first need to admit that it's at least conceivably possible that your emotion overreaction is compromising your objectivity on this subject.

Unless she's bending it, squeezing them, or using a strap-on, the woman thing is a complete non-issue in terms of actual consequences. If men and women are different, I just can't see how a woman raping is supposed to be equally as bad as a man raping.

heh. Is there any part of that that's concretely not true? Humans all over the world have come up with it independently -- I dunno, unless Muslims and Mormons shared notes.

I could even go further and claim it to be an almost pan-mammalian truth.

Men and women are different. Especially when it comes to sex.