Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ben wrote
I'm not saying school teachers are useless. I just think that what they have to contribute is some fairly general knowledge,
81st column's response covers some of my feelings buit I'll say it in my words too.
Teachers don't teach general knowledge for the sake of the knowledge itself, it's the process that's important. By forcing kids to learn stuff you cause them to learn how to learn.
That said there are some fundamental things one needs to learn in order to learn more. How to read, how to understand what you read, how to put what you read into context. Basic math is needed in order to understand some logic and to learn other stuff. Note that I'm a not 3R's advocate I think there are plenty of important things to teach above and beyond the 3R's. Those things change with the times and I agree with Russell that at this time some of those things could/should be associated with the changing media.
But most impotant is that by teaching these things and then confirming that the kids have learnt (I don't care how you do that), you force kids to develop the techniques of learning. In the same way you develop sporting skills by playing sport or artistic skills by creating art.
That's what teachers contribute. Much more than general knowledge.
And from what you've said Ben, that's what you learned to do.
School is for learning how to learn, and teachers are our experts in teaching how to learn.
cheers
Bart -
But that movie 'Who killed the electric car?' was interesting viewing.
I'm a big fan of the connections series which explored the relationships between technologies over time and the neat ways one discovery can trigger something apparently unrelated.
I think the above is the other side of that coin. As interesting as how technologies develop is the question of how technologies fail to develop. Betamax vs VHS and the history of music recording technology are nice examples. Sometimes it's tempting to believe in sinister motives and sometimes a technology is not developed simply to make someone richer.
But what is really interesting is when cultures seem to simply not "get" a technology. Whole societies just ignoring technology or innovation. As David points out the Romans seem to have done precisely that with energy efficient technology.
The fascinating question is what are we ignoring now? How does one step far enough back from the assumptions of the society we live in to see what we are missing?
cheers
Bart -
Actually, for certain tasks - fast, ad-hoc travel over a distance - the car is a fantastic tool.
Good call. I guess what I was getting at is that there have been a lot of (sometimes small) innovations that could improve the efficiency of cars which are not taken up because they require retooling of factories and/or require a change in fuel which would require retooling of the oil industry.
I agree the use of an internal combustion engine to move a wheeled vehical over a smooth surface is pretty damn efficient (although not the best we can do now). It's just that in some cases we are stuck with quite old versions of that technology.
And no I don't subscribe to the secret water powered engines that big car companies have withheld :). But I do think there is considerable pressure to stay "within the box" in terms of innovation for efficiency. Some of that comes from within the business, equivalent to the ruling Roman classes no wanting to change their slave economy. But I wonder also whether some of that is a cultural thing and comes from the masses. A psychological resistance to change... we all know that SUVs are half as efficient as sedans but some folks still drive them in spite of the cost.
cheers
Bart -
Thanks for the transcript - I was starting to wonder.
A comment on steam power. While steam power was known, the problem with it was the quality of the metals used for boilers. Steam engines need boilers that can tolerate high pressure and temperature and metalurgy just wasn't up to it till later. So while steam was used for some applications it was always low pressure and hence less useful.
Maybe it's because I'm biologist but the idea of humans as a unit of energy doesn't bother me at all. BTW many modern energy saving approaches rely on getting the best use of human energy e.g. bicycle.
One factor you haven't mentioned is that while horses may not have provided much more work per energy input than humans they can process food that humans can't. So horses actually increase the energy efficiency of the nation even if they are used inefficiently because they use an otherwise unused energy source.
So if you accept the thesis that Roman energy use was so focussed on human/slave energy that they failed to develop more efficient energy sources/uses - the question becomes why was their society unable to see outside the box? That, I suspect, is more a cultural question than an engineering question. The technology to better use energy either existed or was fairly easy to develop at that time - but the Romans (who in other ways were very innovative) failed to develop alternative technologies.
The parallels with late 20th century technology are easy to observe. Internal combustion of gasoline is not the most technologically advanced use of energy, particularly in the form of the car (especially the SUV:)). Yet our current society is finding it very difficult to adopt more efficient energy use. It makes one wonder if there wasn't the equivalent of "big oil" and "the car industry" in Roman society. Were there powerful lobby groups heavily invested in slavery that opposed alternative technology?
cheers
Bart -
zomg
-
the bill is Ahmed Zaoui all over again, a human rights disaster waiting to happen.
It's only a human rights disaster if it gets misused.
The real problem with the bill is that it is legally a mess. The only winners will be lawyers arguing over whether this or that "secret" evidence should or should not be admissible. As such it is simply bad law. Not because of what it tries to do but because it is written so badly that it cannot achieve what it is meant to achieve. For that reason alone it should be rejected.
cheers
Bart -
Creon writ
But I'd have to be quick because, well, unless I'm really naive, I kind of think that some weapons bought on a trademe and a few backyard chemistry experiments would probably not hold out too long against the state.
And I'd certainly rather live in a world where history was allowed to run its course than where faceless bureaucrats, bourgeois apologists, mindless cops, and politicians were deciding on my behalf what elements of history are better repressed before they occur.Sorry but I think you actually need to read some history. What you are saying is that you want these folks to act before the police involve themselves. I understand your logic and appreciate that sometimes pre-emptive action of the police is scary.
But historically when groups like this actually act the result is sufferring and death of citizens.
I agree the police need supervision when they act to prevent crimes rather than respond to them. But we want our police to prevent criminal acts.
I actually think for the most part our police are pretty damn responsible in the use of their powers. Balancing freedoms of expression and prevention of harm to society is not easy but I believe our police try very hard to get it right. But if they get it wrong I want them to get it wrong on the side of the ledger that prevents anyone getting shot.
History also tells us police can get out of hand - but frankly I don't think we're even remotely close to that kind of police force in New Zealand.
cheers
BartStill waiting for actual facts to become public. untill then all this is theory.
-
Hi Jeremy
Making things that go boom is a time honoured tradition of chem students...
I agree entirely. No problem with the odd bang. Although preferably with at least some thought about hazard to others. I like the odd bang as much as any chemistry graduate.
BUT Napalm is different. It really isn't "fun". It isn't even that clever as chemistry. As I said I'm sorry to be so serious about it, but some things are just so nasty that joking doesn't help. Napalm was designed by clever folks to be a viscious and nasty a weapon as possible. There simply is no good reason to "play" with it.
cheers
Bart -
Hi Gabor
I had a science teacher who taught us how to make napalm during a chemistry lesson back in the early 80s.
Yup I took chemistry through Uni and so yes I know how to make Napalm. And yes the chemistry is just fine and dandy.
But that's different from playing with it. And yes I think your social studies teacher was a loony who should at the very least not be allowed near schoolkids. Did he follow up the grenade throwing lessons with picture of schrapnel wounds from real grenades or did he want you to go home thinking grenades were fun?
Napalm is not the same as other weapons, it is quite simply a very horrible way to kill and maim and no I do not believe it has a place in civilised society.
from wiki
Some of its finer selling points were explained to me by a pilot in 1966: "We sure are pleased with those backroom boys at Dow. The original product wasn’t so hot – if the gooks were quick they could scrape it off. So the boys started adding polystyrene – now it sticks like shit to a blanket. But then if the gooks jumped under water it stopped burning, so they started adding Willie Peter (WP – white phosphorus) so’s to make it burn better. It’ll even burn under water now. And just one drop is enough, it’ll keep on burning right down to the bone so they die anyway from phosphorus poisoning."
”
"Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine," said Kim Phúc, a napalm bombing survivor known from a famous Vietnam War photograph."I don't know if the folks in the bush were playing with napalm but IF they were, they need re-educating as does anyone who thinks playing with this stuff is OK.
Sorry to be so serious about this but we have a tendency to forget that some of the things that have been done to fellow humans really are unconscionable. It may sound fun in the chemistry class but in the history class it is horrifying.
cheers
Bart -
So none of those 75% who topped themselves would have died if they didn't have a gun available? Likewise, none of the 1 in 5 homicides committed with firearms would have happened without a gun?
Guns are a convenient method for killing, after all, its what they're made for. But it is disingenuous to imply that by controlling or eliminating firearms those deaths wouldn't happen.Ugh
Sorry Jeremy but the data is really really clear. If you don't have guns you don't have anywhere near the same number of successful suicides.
You are right guns just make it easier to succesfully kill (yourself or another). However removing guns DOES cause a reduction in the number of deaths.
Yes the same number of people may try to kill (themselves or others) but they fail and as a result have the chance to change their mind.
less guns = less deaths
That may not seem logical to you but all the studies show precisely that.
cheers
Bart