Tagged: Person RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • mazsa 15:08 on February 4, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Person,   

    Before the memristor, it would have been impossible to create something with the form factor of a brain, the low power requirements, and the instantaneous internal communications. Turns out that those three things are key to making anything that resembles the brain and thus can be trained and coaxed to behave like a brain. In this case, form is function, or more accurately, function is hopeless without form. [...]

    A memristor is a two-terminal device whose resistance changes depending on the amount, direction, and duration of voltage that’s applied to it. But here’s the really interesting thing about a memristor: Whatever its past state, or resistance, it freezes that state until another voltage is applied to change it. Maintaining that state requires no power. That’s different from a dynamic RAM cell, which requires regular charge to maintain its state. The upshot is that thousands of memristors could substitute for massive banks of power-hogging memory. Just to be clear, the memristor is not magic—its memristive state does decay over time. That decay can take hours or centuries depending on the material, and stability must often be traded for energy requirements—which is one of the major research reasons memristors aren’t flooding the market yet. [...]

    A biological brain is able to quickly execute this massive simultaneous information orgy—and do it in a small package—because it has evolved a number of stupendous shortcuts. Here’s what happens in a brain: Neuron 1 spits out an impulse, and the resultant information is sent down the axon to the synapse of its target, Neuron 2. The synapse of Neuron 2, having stored its own state locally, evaluates the importance of the information coming from Neuron 1 by integrating it with its own previous state and the strength of its connection to Neuron 1. Then, these two pieces of information—the information from Neuron 1 and the state of Neuron 2′s synapse—flow toward the body of Neuron 2 over the dendrites. And here is the important part: By the time that information reaches the body of Neuron 2, there is only a single value—all processing has already taken place during the information transfer. There is never any need for the brain to take information out of one neuron, spend time processing it, and then return it to a different set of neurons. Instead, in the mammalian brain, storage and processing happen at the same time and in the same place.

    That difference is the main reason the human brain can run on the same power budget as a 20-watt lightbulb. [...]

    To build a brain, you need to throw away the conceit of separate hardware and software because the brain doesn’t work that way. In the brain it’s all just wetware. If you really wanted to replicate a mammalian brain, software and hardware would need to be inextricable. We have no idea how to build such a system at the moment, but the memristor has allowed us to take a big step closer by approximating the biological form factor: hardware that can be both small and ultralow power. [...]

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial-intelligence/moneta-a-mind-made-from-memristors/0

     
  • mazsa 21:30 on October 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Person   

    I just got everything perfect in my life, and then I went and messed it all up by having a baby. [...] I compare the process to becoming a vampire, your old self dies in a sad and painful way, but then you come out the other side with immortality, super strength and a taste for human blood.

    Jonathan Coulton
     
  • mazsa 00:04 on October 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Person   

    Occupy Wall Street vs Tea Party, in 3 sentences:

    [via: Cato]

     
  • mazsa 12:30 on October 8, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Person   

    I’ll believe corporations are people when…

     
  • mazsa 16:05 on June 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Person, ,   

    So What If Corporations Aren’t People? “Corporate participation in public discourse has long been a controversial issue, one that was reignited by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). Much of the criticism of Citizens United stems from the claim that the Constitution does not protect corporations because they are not “real” people. While it’s true that corporations aren’t human beings, that truism is constitutionally irrelevant because corporations are formed by individuals as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights. When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they do not lose their rights. It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents. The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there. Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations. In short, rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups. This essay will demonstrate why the common argument that corporations lack rights because they aren’t people demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of corporations and the First Amendment.” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1873158

     
  • mazsa 21:16 on June 28, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Evolution, , Person   

    Beyond Darwin: Ways to Evolve New Functions – At a recent Kavli Futures Symposium, nineteen experts from a diverse range of fields discussed the promise of using the lab to understand and exploit the evolution of organisms — an advance that may one day be used to develop new vaccines or other biotechnology products. https://www.kavlifoundation.org/kavli-futures-symposium-evolution-new-functions-main

     
  • mazsa 21:05 on June 22, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Person,   

    Parfit: On What Matters (Volume I) is out! http://www.amazon.com/What-Matters-I-Derek-Parfit/dp/0199572801

    Cf. Derek Parfit, 1984: Reasons and Persons http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Oxford-Paperbacks-Parfit/product-reviews/019824908X

     
  • mazsa 11:52 on June 22, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Person   

    Products and companies are both regarded better as entities transcendent from humans, with their own goals and motivations, rather than being reducible to human use or human intentions. [...] The company’s decisions aren’t actually the shareholders’ decisions. A company has a culture which is not the simple sum of the opinions of the people in it. A CEO can never be said to perform an action in the way that a human body can be said to perform an action, like picking an apple. A company is a weird, complex thing, and rather than attempt (uselessly) to reduce it to people within it, it makes more sense – to me – to approach it as an alien being and attempt to understand its biology and momentums only with reference to itself. Having done that, we can then use metaphors to attempt to explain its behaviour: we can say that it follows profit, or it takes an innovative step, or that it is middle-aged, or that it treats the environment badly, or that it takes risks. None of these statements is literally true, but they can be useful to have in mind when attempting to negotiate with these bizarre, massive creatures. (Also, in contradiction, companies are made out of people, at least partially, and we are responsible for their actions. It’s not simple.)

    Matt Webb
     
  • mazsa 23:19 on June 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Person   

    Translation technology may let humans speak with dolphins http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/translation-technology-may-let-humans-speak-with-dolphins/

     
  • mazsa 22:15 on June 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Person   

    How we come to know our bodies as our own http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/cp-hwc061411.php

     
  • mazsa 13:56 on June 7, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Person   

    INFORMATION AND ITS METRIC “When one speaks of information one refers to that entity shared by all sources that are equivalent up to recoding. This observation suggests a definition of information. Information of the source S is the equivalence class of all recodings of the symbol sequences from S. This is noteworthy since information generally is left undefined in information theory. Information theory only considers the amount of information or rates of production, loss, and transmission, as measured by various entropies. [...]

    Recoding R partitions the space I of unique information sources into mutually disjoint subsets. [...]

    This suggests the definition of the more abstract information space I [...] as the set of equivalence classes of I under recodings R. [...] Elements of shall be denoted X, Y, and so on. [...] The elements of I shall be the objects of interest in the following. The necessary logical distinction between the class X and its constituent sources will be blurred in the following. A reference to X as an information source should be construed as connoting the common properties of its members. As a source, X is the generic source. We can speak, in a similar vein, of the events or measurements of source X. [...]

    Theorem: d is a metric and (I, d) is a metric space. [...]

    The theorem indicates that the space of information sources has quite a bit of topological structure. For example, the notion of [epsilon]-balls of “close” information sources, the continuity of functions on information sources, and the limits and convergence of sequences of information sources, can be developed. These and numerical computations of information distances will follow in a sequel. [...]

    CONCLUDING REMARKS

    One question that arises in this development is why not simply use mutual information instead of the information metric. Aside from the pseudo-geometric picture we have presented, we note that the former measures only a kind of informational correlation. The information metric, however, quantifies the degree of recoding equivalence. And so, it provides some insight into the nature of information itself. Mutual information is a derivative concept that simply reflects the properties Shannon entropy and no more.

    The foregoing mathematical development instantiates a particular philosophical view- point, that of phenomenology. All that an observer has to work with in developing an understanding of the world are finite measurements and the attendant information. This intrinsic finiteness derives first and foremost from the limited computation resources available to an observer in a finite space-time region. The information space, as developed here, is the substrate for all perception, quantification, and modeling building. This is then structured with the pseudo-geometry as we have just shown. Only under suitable restrictions is one justified in using observations to form probabilities via (say) frequencies of events.

    Information theory was founded on a quantitative measure of the amount of information. The foregoing has given a formal definition of information itself in terms of the equivalence class structure of sources. But what of the “meaning” of this information? A motivation of this work, unstated until this point, was the conviction that an understanding of the topological structure of the metric lattice of inferential logic is necessary for developing a quantitative measure of meaning and of context. Thus, we offer no immediate answer to the question, only the hope that progress can be made. We shall return to this question in the future.”

    @inproceedings{crutchfield1990information,
    title={Information and Its Metric},
    author={Crutchfield, JP},
    booktitle={Nonlinear structures in physical systems: pattern formation, chaos, and waves: proceedings of the Second Woodward Conference, San Jose State University, November 17-18, 1989},
    pages={119},
    year={1990},
    organization={Springer}
    }

    Download: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2410770660010935934

     
  • mazsa 11:30 on June 7, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Person,   

    Transhumanist Declaration

    1. Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.

    2. We believe that humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions.

    3. We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some of these scenarios are drastic, others are subtle.

    4. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress.
    Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.

    5. Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded.

    6. Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future.

    7. We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.

    8. We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies.

    http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/

    Cf. http://www.philosophybro.com/2011/06/mailbag-monday-transhumanism-and.html

     
  • mazsa 14:14 on April 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Person   

    Breakthrough to bridge the gap between man and machine: a research team has developed a technique for mapping both the connections and functions of nerve cells in the brain https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1104/11041102

     
  • mazsa 11:18 on April 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Person,   

    What would help is if the Supreme Court (and indeed corporate law in general) adopted a clear principle when it comes to the analogy between artificial persons and real ones: that companies should be treated as people only in so far as it is expedient. They clearly need to be able to enter into contracts just like individuals. But they should not be treated as if they experience such essentially human emotions as embarrassment and a desire for self-expression. Thus they should not have the same rights to privacy and political freedom as a citizen, but should have only as much of a right to confidentiality and political participation as is helpful for the efficient functioning of business (including letting firms contribute to the public debate on the regulation of business). Companies—or rather their bosses and owners—should welcome such constraints: any further “rights” would, sooner or later, be matched by onerous responsibilities.

    Schumpeter
     
  • mazsa 22:30 on March 31, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Person   

    I am not suggesting that the focus on children as a means to adulthood is inherently bad; indeed it’s absolutely necessary to prepare them for what is to come, and to guide them in the process of learning. We could even say that to neglect this would be immoral. Yet, I still wonder: is there a feature of childhood that ought not simply be a means to an end? Is there something of moral value that we ought not reduce to an investment into the future, whether theirs or ours?

    Regan Penaluna
     
  • mazsa 19:06 on March 21, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Person   

    Bill Zeller – A suicide note from a PhD student who passed earlier this year “I have the urge to declare my sanity and justify my actions, but I
    assume I’ll never be able to convince anyone that this was the right
    decision. Maybe it’s true that anyone who does this is insane by
    definition, but I can at least explain my reasoning. I considered not
    writing any of this because of how personal it is, but I like tying up
    loose ends and don’t want people to wonder why I did this. Since I’ve
    never spoken to anyone about what happened to me, people would likely
    draw the wrong conclusions.

    My first memories as a child are of being raped, repeatedly. This has
    affected every aspect of my life. This darkness, which is the only way I
    can describe it, has followed me like a fog, but at times intensified
    and overwhelmed me, usually triggered by a distinct situation. [...]” http://pastebin.com/ge77Lxr8

    http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2011/01/07/27306/

    http://1000memories.com/billzeller

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Zeller

    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2074109

     
  • mazsa 16:26 on March 20, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Person, , ,   

    Obama on #Libya

    Today [Saturday] I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians. That action has now begun.

    In this effort, the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people. That coalition met in Paris today to send a unified message, and it brings together many of our European and Arab partners.

    This is not an outcome that the United States or any of our partners sought. Even yesterday, the international community offered Muammar Qaddafi the opportunity to pursue an immediate cease-fire, one that stopped the violence against civilians and the advances of Qaddafi’s forces. But despite the hollow words of his government, he has ignored that opportunity. His attacks on his own people have continued. His forces have been on the move. And the danger faced by the people of Libya has grown.

    I am deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it. I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.

    So we must be clear: Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced. That is the cause of this coalition.

    As a part of this effort, the United States will contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission to protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners. And as I said yesterday, we will not — I repeat — we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.

    As Commander-in-Chief, I have great confidence in the men and women of our military who will carry out this mission. They carry with them the respect of a grateful nation.

    I’m also proud that we are acting as part of a coalition that includes close allies and partners who are prepared to meet their responsibility to protect the people of Libya and uphold the mandate of the international community.

    I’ve acted after consulting with my national security team, and Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress. And in the coming hours and days, my administration will keep the American people fully informed. But make no mistake: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/20/remarks-president-libya-today-we-are-part-broad-coalition-we-are-answering-calls-thr

     
  • mazsa 12:01 on March 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Person,   

    Experimental Philosophy and the Problem of Free Will: “A deterministic universe [is one] in which “Every decision is completely caused by what happened before the decision—given the past, each decision has to happen the way that it does.” … One group of participants was asked whether it is possible for anyone to be morally responsible for their actions in such a universe. These participants tended to say that it is not possible to be morally responsible in that universe. That question about moral responsibility is, of course, pitched at an abstract level.

    Another group of participants was presented instead with a concrete case of a man who killed his family. That provoked a much different response. When presented with a concrete case of man performing a reprehensible action, people tended to say that the man was fully morally responsible for his actions, even when set in a deterministic universe. Indeed, concrete cases of bad behavior lead people to attribute responsibility, even when the action is caused by a neurological disorder. […]

    People are pulled in different directions because different mental mechanisms are implicated in different conditions.” https://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6023/1401.abstract via http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/03/responsibility-is-near.html

     
  • mazsa 01:24 on March 14, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Person, , ,   

    “[...] get rid of the power. Political power is, in fact, the source of the wealth concentrations that fund the industry lobbyists and the campaign contributions. The wealth of big business and the plutocracy is funneled to them by subsidies, protections, oligopoly markups on state-cartelized markets, scarcity rents from artificial property rights, etc., none of which would exist without the state.

    Getting rid of the power seemingly involves a Catch-22: How can you dismantle the state policies underlying the political means to wealth, when you’re outspent and outgunned in the policy-making process by those who profit from it? How do you change the system to prevent their making money off it, in a system rigged in favor of the big money?

    The answer: Get rid of the money. At first glance this seems to be a circular argument, since — to repeat — we can’t challenge their control of the political means to wealth.

    No, we get rid of the money in politics by undermining — at the economic level — the means by which the plutocracy makes its money. For example, we destroy the proprietary content industries’ ability to make money — not by contesting their power in the political arenas where legislation like the DMCA is passed — but by combating their ability to enforce the copyright laws they make money from. We’ll probably never secure the repeal of DMCA in Congress. But we can destroy the record and movie industries’ profit economically, with weapons like torrent download, strong encryption, and proxies — and laugh ourselves silly at the blustering of clowns like Lieberman and Biden. [...]

    We solve the problem of money in politics, not by contesting money’s control of the political process — but by economically destroying the political profiteers’ power to make money, and rendering their political power useless.” http://c4ss.org/content/6416

     
  • mazsa 09:56 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Person   

    The brain has 3 layers of working memory: “[...] In a paper in the March issue of the Journal of Cognitive Psychology, researchers found that short-term memory is made up of three areas: a core focusing on one active item, a surrounding area holding at least three more active items, and a wider region containing passive items that have been tagged for later retrieval or “put on the back burner.” But more importantly, they found that the core region, called the focus of attention, has three roles — not two as proposed by previous researchers. First, this core focus directs attention to the correct item, which is affected by predictability of input pattern. Then it retrieves the item and subsequently, when needed, updates it. [...]” http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-03/ru-nsp030911.php

    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/302781498-9429375/content~db=all~content=a933515287~frm=titlelink

     
  • mazsa 09:39 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Person, ,   

    “In the very near future you may be forced to go through a “professional” to get access to your genetic information. [...]” http://www.gnxp.com/wp/2011/03/09/your-genes-your-rights-fdas-jeffrey-shuren-not-a-fan/

     
  • mazsa 09:18 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Person, , ,   

    The democracy of the state will always be of the state, by the state and for the state.

    David D’Amato
     
  • mazsa 18:48 on March 8, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Person,   

    Ten Reasons Not to Abolish Slavery http://mises.org/daily/5076/Ten-Reasons-Not-to-Abolish-Slavery

     
  • mazsa 07:37 on March 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Person,   

    NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite: “[...] Dr. Hoover fractured the meteorite stones under a sterile environment before examining the freshly broken surface with the standard tools of the scientist: a scanning-electron microscope and a field emission electron-scanning microscope, which allowed him to search the stone’s surface for evidence of fossilized remains.
    He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from ordinary ones found underfoot — here on earth, that is.
    “The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be associated very closely with the generic species here on earth,” Hoover told FoxNews.com. But not all of them. “There are some that are just very strange and don’t look like anything that I’ve been able to identify, and I’ve shown them to many other experts that have also come up stumped.”
    Other scientists tell FoxNews.com the implications of this research are shocking, describing the findings variously as profound, very important and extraordinary. But Dr. David Marais, an astrobiologist with NASA’s AMES Research Center, says he’s very cautious about jumping onto the bandwagon.
    These kinds of claims have been made before, he noted — and found to be false.
    “It’s an extraordinary claim, and thus I’ll need extraordinary evidence,” Marais said.
    Knowing that the study will be controversial, the journal invited members of the scientific community to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries ahead of time. Though none are online yet, those comments will be posted alongside the article, said Dr. Rudy Schild, a scientist with the Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmology.
    “Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis,” Schild wrote in an editor’s note along with the article. “No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote. [...]”

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite

     
  • mazsa 06:44 on March 4, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Person,   

    Critique of The Story of Citizens United v. FEC: Annie Leonard released a video titled “The Story of Citizens United v. FEC,” an eight-and-a-half-minute criticism of http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/420

    Lee Doren made his own video critique above in response to Ms. Leonard’s offering.

     
  • mazsa 06:29 on March 4, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Person   

    moral implications of defining marriage as between a man and a woman http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=14301

     
  • mazsa 22:11 on March 2, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Person, ,   

    Supreme Court Backs Government Transparency Over Corporate Privacy Claims https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/supreme-court-backs-government-transparency-over

    Cf. http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/supreme-court-whether-corporations-may-assert-personal-privacy-interests

     
  • mazsa 07:47 on February 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , Person,   

    (a) the term “person” means an individual or entity; (b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and (c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen or national, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER BLOCKING PROPERTY AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO LIBYA
     
  • mazsa 17:13 on February 23, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Person,   

    “One plausible scenario for the next few centuries is that we build an AI as smart as we are at designing AI, which means it could improve its own intelligence very quickly, which means it would soon become a superintelligent machine, with almost unlimited power to accomplish whatever it desires.

    So we need to consider carefully how to program its desires, so that it doesn’t kill us all.

    Presumably, this is a matter of ethics. Which ethical theory should we use to program the goal system of a future superintelligence?” Desirism and Friendly AI http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=14505

     
  • mazsa 00:29 on February 23, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Person   

    Who says schools don’t teach values? (Warning: Not for the faint of heart) http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/schools_and_soc.html

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel

This site is protected with Urban Giraffe's plugin 'HTML Purified' and Edward Z. Yang's Powered by HTML Purifier. 67090 items have been purified.