Links With Your Coffee - Saturday
- The battle of the butterflies and the ants : Nature News
- My Time in the Indexing Trade| More Intelligent Life
I never dreamed of becoming an indexer. Such skills belonged to Randy and Grady, outwardly placid but impish fellows of a puckish disposition. David and Fred were more serious, arriving about once a fortnight carrying several 1,000-count cartons of 4 x 6-inch index cards (their original function), or to pick up blank ones. More rarely we steeled ourselves for the arrival of L., the son of someone famous, who was a crack indexer and an amiable fellow, but who'd gotten into some trouble for making obscene phone calls and spent some time on Rikers. (Employees, abilities of, 63; criminal records of, 66)
- MathTrek: The Power of Being Influenced
Sometimes an idea spreads through society like a newly-mutated cold virus zooming through a class of first-graders. Other times, a good idea never seems to take hold. What makes the difference? Scientists want to know, and marketers want to know even more, since they make their living spreading ideas about their products.
A key reason some ideas are so successful, conventional wisdom has held, is that a few highly influential people espouse them. In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell wrote that what he calls "social epidemics" are "driven by the efforts of a handful of exceptional people." Those exceptional people tend to be experts on a subject who love to talk. Such people can convince dozens of others of their opinions. An excellent sales strategy, then, would be to find those few critical people, persuade them of the value of your product, and leave it to them to convince others.
It's a compelling idea, but does it really work? Social network theorists Duncan J. Watts of Columbia University and Peter Sheridan Dodds of the University of Vermont in Burlington decided to put the notion to a test. What they found is a disappointment for "viral marketers" who specialize in selling products by influencing influential people. - FT.com / World - Decline in scientific gaffes by celebrities
A year ago Sense About Science, the educational charity, launched a drive for celebrities or their agents to check the facts before making claims. It quoted many examples of famous people making questionable statements.
- Atheist Sues To Prevent Son From Attending Catholic School - Louisville News Story - WLKY Louisville
Quicktime Video 4.1 MB | Duration: 02'31
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.
digg
del.icio.us
reddit
Newsvine
FaceBook
Stumble Upon
Comments
Some of the most settled, intelligent and conscientious atheists I know are veterans of a Catholic education. Given the abysmal condition of public schools in the United States, there is a strong case to be made for the quality of a parochial school education. Is this worth exposure to religious fanaticism and a greater potential for pedophilia than a child might experience in a dangerous, anarchic, unprofessional and pathetically inept public school? What a dilemma.
fp
Posted by: FDP
|
January 5, 2008 11:47 AM
Attending a Catholic school means giving money to a Catholic school. I doubt this is something an atheist wants to monetarily support.
Posted by: Firi | January 5, 2008 12:56 PM
Just an anecdotal comment, but I have a friend who's an atheist and she elected to send her daughter to a private Catholic school because she didn't believe that her daughter would receive a good education from the public schools... And she was a teacher...
Posted by: JoAnn
|
January 5, 2008 2:46 PM
Not all public schools are created equal. My children received a good basic public school education that prepared them for college very well. This may be the exception rather than the rule, but this was in Oklahoma which rates very low in public education. All the more surprising that my kids were fortunate enough to have had good instruction.
Posted by: will
|
January 5, 2008 3:11 PM
I'm an atheist and also went to a Catholic school. I don't really know the situation here so I'm sure the situation is more complicated than it seems.
All I can say is, as a parent, I strongly believe that I don't "own" my child - which, traditionally, is a position too many parents take. If my daughter chose to go to a Catholic school of her own free will, then so be it. When I speak to her about my beliefs, then that's where I come from. Certainly I encourage her to question and I hope my example can help her make choices, but her future is not mine to control.
She is not my property after all. How foolish would it be for me to replace the tyranny of religion with myself?
Posted by: Mark Ainslie | January 5, 2008 3:56 PM
heh dang, I misheard that.
At first, I thought the reporter said "Kevin Pagan" :-)
Posted by: jodezza
|
January 5, 2008 5:37 PM
Some of the most settled, intelligent and conscientious atheists I know are veterans of a Catholic education.
I'm an atheist and also went to a Catholic school.
I attended Catholic schools for only first grade and part of second grade, but my older brothers went all the way through high school in Catholic schools and are both atheists. (My three younger brothers all attended public schools, and one of them is a Christian.) There is nothing like having the absurdities of Catholicism put before intelligent kids to make good atheists out of people!
Posted by: Tim
|
January 5, 2008 9:39 PM
Isn't the important question: What does the child want. If the child wants to stay at the catholic school then he should stay. If the father wants to voice disagreement he can, but when both parents disagree, the Child should be the decision maker. Turning the divorce into a very public legal battle is not going to help their son.
Posted by: oehlberg | January 6, 2008 1:48 AM
power of being influenced:
one of the stupidest things I've read all year. How do you model an influential person's power to inspire? Influential people have greater resources to package their message in compelling ways (with powerful footage, photography and music) and to reach larger audiences (in magazine interviews, as guests on TED, in radio interviews.) Try modelling all those factors and get back with us.
Posted by: Max | January 6, 2008 9:41 AM
"Isn't the important question: What does the child want."
Absolutely not. He's a CHILD. His preferences should be considered but they should not trump the decision of the ADULTS in this matter.
If Kentucky law in fact reads the way it's presented in this story then it allows for no consideration of the child's views as a deciding factor.
fp
Posted by: FDP
|
January 6, 2008 11:29 AM
I agree with Mark. The situation is definitely more complicated than any television news outlet could possibly report. If the kid's mother is the primary caregiver I don't see the lawsuit getting very far. I'd also like to point out that, unfortunately, the Kentucky Supreme Court is elected, and is therefore very conservative. So the constitutional issue is moot.
Posted by: St Patt | January 6, 2008 4:54 PM
And that's why you don't have a kid with a nutty christian!
Posted by: Brian Ward | January 7, 2008 11:52 AM
"Butterflies that trick ants into helping to raise their young are driving an evolutionary arms race between the two [sub]species," zero sum, Zerosophy,
Pardon my grasshopper hubris, but...
Isn't that a(n analogous) description of why Bill Clinton types love the Welfare State? AND DNA, APE-EPA, eugenious anticulturalvirus, antiretroculturalretrovirus, "that's [how] you don't have a kid with a" sheepy...
i.e., science sniffs,... Sophia.
Posted by: one evo emo | January 8, 2008 10:51 AM
Post a comment