Slashdot Mirror

I seem to remember, Donald Trump being called "racist" over an unsolicited endorsement from a former "KKK"-member. For a while every interviewer kept asking him to "repudiate" it...

Meanwhile the Democratic Party is getting not mere endorsements, but hefty donations from convicted criminals — without anybody asking the inconvenient questions about repudiation. Yeah, they eventually refunded the monies he got for them — but only after the man was convicted — despite "weeks of reports about Hsu's controversial history and murky business practices" and a 15 year-old outstanding warrant for him...

Imagine Trump pointing out, David Duke has never been convicted of any crime — only he did not even know, who the man was... No, he was supposed to know all about David Duke (who, it turns out, quit KKK in 1980).

(Should you choose to reply insisting, Trump really is racist, be sure, your response condemns "Black Lives Matter" as an inherently racist idea, which started with a lie.)

My biggest hope is that Johnson gets very close to 30%, and wrecks the idea that the president (Clinton / Trump) has any sort of mandate to do anything.

Not going to happen.

People may be particularly afraid of supporting a potential spoiler. It may mean voting for someone they're not crazy about, but a voter who really hates the other party would be more likely to do that, if it means stopping the other team from winning.

Americans Really Dislike Trump, Clinton. So Why Aren't Third Parties Doing Better?

For corporations this changes any way: 5 year old gear is amortized and should be replaced, just because the beancounters say so.

However, I doubt you can totally offset the energy savings by purchasing new gear. Assume 500$ for a new machine (Business machines? Hell, you won't get them that cheap, but I'll run with it). I don't know how much my i7 rates, but I know it comes with a 90W powersupply. As such we can assume it uses that as a maximum. Assume a new i5 laptop will use half of that: 45W. So, you save 45W, which means you save 45*24*365 Wh = 394.2kWh over year. Let's assume you live in New York, which means you pay 18.1 cents per kWh (okay, values are from late 2011), which means you pay about 71$ less per year by the replacement. Assuming the 500$ investment, you need 7 years to break even. This is true regardless of scale (1 computer or 10000 computers)

So, yes, energy is a factor, but if it were the only factor, it wouldn't be cost effective. Do, also note that in every assumption I was very very friendly with the "replace" argument: cheap replacement cost, expensive electricity....

Of course, I might have miscalculated and you're right... who knows....

He should have waited to be told to reach for his wallet.

It seems that there may be evidence that he was doing just that. Granted that is what was livestreamed by his girlfriend in the immediate aftermath but it is something more that we have in a lot of cases.

the scary black man trope

The next time you need help make sure sure you call a hacker, they are always virtuous. Remember every police office is some low IQ sadist, yes yes they are. 123 police killed in the line of duty in 2015,( http://www.nleomf.org/facts/of...) thats ok they all had it coming. Of course every one of the 985 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/) people killed by the police were angels on mercy missions, shot down deliberately by the blue minions from hell. Lets see 11.2 million arrests in 2014 https://www.fbi.gov/news/stori... So that's a failure leading to death of the arrestee of .00879% of the time, not getting hysterical over a tiny failure rate nope. Where is the frantic indignation for the 16,000 homicides http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat... we don't care about them as they were killed by their fellow victims of police brutality? Or the 38,300 traffic fatalities? ( http://www.npr.org/sections/th...), we don't care about them because they must have all been killed by accidents caused by police chasing peace loving missionaries? I wonder why I have never been shot? Could it be that I follow directions, and lawful orders of the police?

Nixon was driven from office, Carter just lost an election.

John Kerry earned the disdain of peers. America was lucky not to be stuck with such a mediocrity as president. Bush was a better student (by a nose) and likely better read as well.

Given the feckless foreign policy under Kerry's watch the US had a better Chief Executive and Commander in Chief in Bush.

If the Democrats hadn't blocked Bush administration reform efforts the financial melt-down could probably have been avoided. Where do you think ol' John Kerry was voting there? With his party perhaps?

Bush and Kerry are opposites - Bush pretended to be less than he was, and Kerry pretended to be more than he is.

I find it depends on who's driving the switching. If I'm doing it at my own pace it's much less annoying than when some asshat is wittering or interrupting.

Unlikely. Studies have found that people that think they are good at multitasking are actually the worst at it.

When stuck at one problem it is of no use to focus. Better do something different, so your brain stops going in circles.

Ever had trouble solving a problem, took a break and did something completely different, like take a shower, and *bam* the answer popped into your head while you washed your hair? Left/Right Brain Switch. I am *not* a doctor or scientist, but here's my take on this:

By taking a break and focusing on something else, you are fostering a left to right brain switch. In most people, the Left Brain is dominate and, basically, likes to be in charge. However, it usually tries to solve problems in a linear fashion, using concrete thinking. This doesn't always work. The Right Brain problem solves differently, in a more creative fashion, using more abstract thinking. However, when the Right Brain tries to help out, the Left Brain says, "shut up I'm thinking." Taking a break gives the Left Brain something else to focus on and allows the Right Brain time to work and slip the answer under the Left Brain's door.

For more about general Left/Right Brain stuff, see:

• The Truth About The Left Brain / Right Brain Relationship
• Book: Drawing on the Right Side Brain
• Google: left right brain (switch|shift)

Or this. Apparently the sweet potato was genetically modified 8000 years ago using the same technique often used by scientists, only this occurred naturally. Horizontal gene transfer is not all that uncommon.

Whatever happened to the simple principle of labeling things?

Vermont passed a GMO Labeling Law that went into effect July 1, 2016. As NPR noted, since most food companies can't (read: won't) practically make different labels for different states, the effects of this law will cover national food labels.

Now... The US Congress, pushed by AG companies, is voting on a bill next week to (basically) preempt this law:

This bill would delay labeling for up to two years while the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture develops rules for the labeling of genetically engineered foods. The Secretary would be charged with developing three options of disclosure including a plain language label, a symbol, and electronic or digital links accompanied by the wording “scan here for more food information”.

[Not sure a QR code instead of words would be that helpful while grocery shopping.]

More links at: http://www.google.com/search?q=vermont+gmo+labeling+law

I think it's because she took so long to support it, well after many other prominent Democrats were publicly in favor. Also, she had an almost 20 year public record of being against gay marriage when she was First Lady and Senator Clinton. And, she has shown an amazing record of telling specific audiences what they want to hear in order to further her own goals:

1996: President clinton signs DOMA. I'm sure she didn't have anything to say about that at the time.
1999: When running for Senate, she tells a gay audience that she was against her husband's "Don't ask / Don't tell" policy. Another line the same article clarifies her views on gay marriage and DOMA:

Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said that the first lady, like her husband, supported legislation passed by Congress in 1996 that effectively banned gay marriages.

2000: Speaking in White Plains, NY:

Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.

Also 2000: She supports rights equality with gay civil unions:

"I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont,"

2004: Senate floor speech where she was against a Federal amendment banning same-sex marriage. She still opposed gay marriage in the 2004 speech, but was against enshrining it into the Constitution.
2006: Tells group of gay politicians that and she wouldn't block it if New York passed a law allowing it. Never mind that she couldn't under the 10th Amendment.
2007 - 2008 Presidential Primary: Asked about her opposition on gay marriage by a gay-oriented television network, she gives this:

"Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."

2013: Full throated support of gay marriage now that DOMA is about to be shot to sunshine by the Supreme Court
2014: During her book tour, she interviews on NPR's "Fresh Air" where Terry Gross asks her about her past positions on gay marriage, and Hillary gets a little pissy about it, throwing out the "playing with my words" accusation. About 1/3 of the way through the transcript is where the exchange takes place.

Only now that the majority of the electorate supports gay marriage does she support it. Flip flop on an issue that is religious / moral with a nice sprinkling of civil rights when the polls say to? That's how you define leadership!

(For the record, I'm fine with gay marriage, so don't get up in my business as being some homophobic whatever.)

And why exactly do we need to "limit the number of cars on the road"? Is that in the consumers best interest?

The short answer is no, it isn't in the consumers' best interests, and it may never have been either--the medallion system is in fact often literally the textbook example given for rent-seeking. NPR briefly covers the topic with a mention on the negative consequences to consumers, while the Boston Globe covers why the medallion system ought to be scrapped by answering your question in detail while covering some of the abuses of drivers the medallion system creates as well.

Hillary for prison 2016!

And yet, having your own email server wasn't against the law... So, good luck with that...

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I do believe in a fair representation. What she did was against the spirit of the law and certainly shows an attempt at keeping communications private that should be part of the public record. But there is no proof that anything that she did broke the laws as written.

http://www.npr.org/sections/it...

Well, since I presume you want citations you can view instead of textbooks from bio classes... I'm going to start you with a news article that covers such things as the fact that even its inventor said it was not for use with individuals, then direct you to a a medical news site that gives some of the alternates and covers the history, along with a site that has how to work a couple of the alternates. There's quite a bit of scientific lit on the whole topic of its accuracy and validity; you're on your own there, but yes, both things are different and are important for a measure to be much good.

As for the easy-to-understand rule of thumb? The waist-to-hip ratio is probably is the most simple one to work, but you actually have to take out a tape measure----natural waist to widest part of hips; greater than 0.85 for women and 1 for men is usually given as the mark for obesity. I prefer flat-out body fat measuring, and the one that just tweaks the exponent and constant can be found in its raw form and in a calculator form on the list I gave. (That said, I think my doctors just eyeballed my waist to hip ratio, considered my build, and the fact that I tend to forget to eat...)

Really, the thing that ought to be surprising isn't that the BMI is not a good measure on the individual level but that, over a sufficiently large population, it is safe to assume everybody is a white adult male office worker.

It is already accepted scientific fact that Earth's capacity to carry a population of humans who live *comfortably* is around 2 billion, meaning we're already 3 times overcapacity. If everyone on Earth lived at the same standard as Americans, it would require over 4 Earths to provide the resources.

Yes, Earth can carry more, but you're asking everyone then to live at a standard of living like Bangladesh. And even that is oversimplistic because there's no real way to contain things like sprawl (are you going to force people to live in ultra-dense cities?).

The pie-in-the-sky thinking that science can come along with some miracle fix for this mega-folly is delusional and not borne out in any science.

The fact is that the worst thing any human can do ecologically is to reproduce. Then add the fact that reproductive rates increase inversely proportionally with intelligence, and the future is bleak...

You can thank the liberal humanitarian politicians who think there's an endless supply of free stuff to give away from the impending disaster.

... helps their self esteem.

Sooner or later, anything will be used to commit a crime.

FYI, he did come out as the financier for that lawsuit, which did bankrupt Gawker. Whether or not that was his specific intention, I couldn't say, but he did have an ax to grind and subsequently bury in Gawker. Non-gawker related source below:

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/26/...

Only a fool gets up and leaves money on the table. The rules are the rules, living in society means you follow them, being successful means understanding them maximizing the benefit or minimizing the harm you suffer as a result of the rules.

But one of the big problems that we have is that most of the rules are made by those successful people to ensure their future success, often at the expense of the people who haven't been as successful. When a congressman's buddy, who helped get him elected (and from whom he will ask more money the next election) asks the congressman to look at a pressing issue in the tax code where he thinks there should be a deduction, of COURSE the congressman is going to help his buddy out. It works the same whether it is a buddy or a professional lobbyist, as long as the money from campaigns comes from contributors then those in power are going to be beholden to them. The ROI on lobbying is 22,000%, a lot of this comes from getting preferential tax treatment for your specific situation.

Why not? Pro cycling has "motor doping" -- it's hard to get any more asinine than that!

I stand corrected. Mass shootings are not more common in the US than in Europe. Living in Europe, my perception is different. The difference would have to lie in the media coverage I see.

You are also incorrect, by the way. Of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in the US, only 2 were by Islamists. I maintain that 'going berserk' is a more common cause of mass shootings than terrorism.

Back in the Sputnik-era, people thought of programmers as a priesthood in lab coats: the sole keepers of knowledge that ran these exotic, and mysterious room-sized machines. Today the priesthood is a little hipper -- lab coats have long given way to a countercultural vibe -- but it's still a priesthood, perhaps more druidic than Jesuitic, but a priesthood nonetheless, largely comprised of white men."

Somewhat recently NPR featured a story about women programmers, and a graph showing women in CS climbing until the 1980s. In another article at Smithsonianmag.com on how programming used to be "women's work" a commenter states:

In the 1960s, some vocational profiling studies came out that coloured computer programmers as "disinterested in people", and this personality profiling was added into the aptitude tests by which companies decided who to train for programming positions, despite evidence that psychometric profiling is inaccurate. This, in addition to the increased requirement for formal mathematical training (which not many women had), the changing view programmers were skilled professionals (traditionally men) and not people who just calibrated machines, and women's lack of access to personal computers, contributed to the decline of women in computing.

Fast forward a decad: the Personal Computer revolution of the 90s and increasing accessibility, falling prices, there has never been a time where computing is so accessible. YouTube, and plenty of other sites including MOOC courses, which in no way discriminate, what gives? Apparently the vast majority of people don't want to program either. If you're interested in it, you will seek it out. What next, forcing people to study topics based on their sex?

Funny you should mention that, I hear he's just been booked into the GNU/Comedy Store in Cambridge. (His contract called for the venue to change their name rather than simply omit the brown M&Ms.)

why bother buying a movie where the plot matters (i.e. not directed by Michael Bay) when I know beforehand how it's going to end?

I thought spoilers increased enjoyment as well as aerodynamics.

32% of voters are Democrats, 23% Republicans. Each has primaries where the winner is chosen by a majority of votes.

So basically, even if the system were perfectly democratic and there were no manipulation by the party bosses, the Democrat nominee can be decided by just 17% of all eligible voters, and the Republican nominee by just 12%. In a close primary season such as this year's, our two choices for President are dictated by just 29% of the voting population. The way the parties are designed, this usually ends up the most politically extreme or bat-wing crazy 29%.

The problem is we use a plurality voting system. It's mathematically pretty much the worst possible system, scoring high only on clarity of who the winner is. Pretty much any other system (1) encourages more than two parties (you aren't "throwing away your vote" if you don't vote for the two major candidates), and (2) encourages selection of candidates more acceptable to the entire population, not just the party doing the nomination.

Well, it just goes to show how far robots have come in the last couple of months. Remember it was only back in March that they were trying to launch a second holocaust.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/27/...

I keep my phone in airplane mode and disable wireless outside my house whenever I'm not actively making a call. (Yes, that means no incoming calls).

It's not just stingray that's a problem, it's asshole marketers.

It's really sad to me that such steps are now needed if you want to retain a shred of privacy from the surveillance state (both commercial and governmental branches thereof). However, it is.

This is why we can't have nice things.

What ever happened to good old inert gas asphyxiation?

It is an alternative execution method by law in Oklahoma.

I've been annoyed by the lack of FM radio on my phone for years now. My Samsung Omnia and Motorola Droid X on Verizon had the basic FM radio (not HD), but my Samsung Note 2 and Note 4 on Verizon do not have a working FM radio. The same phone on Sprint has the radio, and they even advertise it with the NextRadio app. I've seen an HTC M8 with a working FM radio on Verizon. I could have switched to the M8, or maybe it's time to try Sprint, since I had a recent bad sales experience with Verizon.

I've asked about this in forums, and one explanation was that the carrier and manufacturer must pay licensing and spectrum testing fees to the FCC. Some carriers and some manufacturers won't pay the additional cost for the FM radio testing. Another explanation is that HTC left the hooks intact, but removed the radio app, and Samsung actually removed the hooks to the FM radio on Verizon phones, but not in Sprint phones. Maybe it was at the request of Verizon, to force users into streaming radio. Customer service doesn't seem to know anything about this, some don't even know the difference between FM radio and streaming.

I've heard that HD is proprietary and manufacturers don't want to pay licensing. It would be nice to have some kind of digital broadcast available, like they have in Norway. Plain old FM radio at least.

Another argument is that it's not worth the effort since radio listeners are declining. They could leave the FM tuner working and let the owner decide to use it or not. If you don't like it, don't listen. I listen quite a bit, by carrying around a small Insignia HD. A few years ago I won so much stuff on the radio that they sent me a W-2 form, which included $2,404 in cash prizes.

This was discussed on NPR last year:
http://www.npr.org/sections/al...

(***) Science now says that SSRI's are ineffective, despite being the go-to prescription medication for depression.

They're the go to meds because they work. They don't know conclusively how or why they work. They get the answers about effectiveness by asking the patient if they feel less anxious or depressed which is the fuzziest science you can do.

I've been taking anti depressants for 20 years and have switched a few times. Switching usually means weaning off, going though depression again, then ramping up again. I know they do help manage my depression because I've gone without and seen the differences.

Just because something can't be measured by someone doesn't mean it does or doesn't have an effect. Look at THC driving tests

Oh tell me about it! I work with ERP systems (Enterprise Resource Planning) in aerospace.

If you haven't listened to this, I think you will enjoy:
http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

stop acting like your opinion is the one true enlightened path

I never said that, you did.

Just because you think you're older than me. Is time what's gonna cure my ignorance? Another decade or two is gonna overwrite everything I've learned up to now and suddenly I'm gonna agree

Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

- who's trying his absolute best to come across as the smuggest blowhard in the entire slashdot comment section?

- I can clearly see you are striving to uphold a longstanding tradition of

Not sure you're a qualified psychic to know my intentions.

I've also been here for years, and while I don't think you deserve that title yet,

1999, HAY?

- The non-anglosphere world doesnt get so desperate to pig out on crappy mystery meat hot dogs.

- I'm still waiting for you to explain how you could only afford cheap shitty food and not cheap healthy food like the rest of the world tries to eat.

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

http://journalistsresource.org...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://jn.nutrition.org/conten...

Let Google be your Guide.

My parents told me they ate cat before i was born! I hope I never have to

I have eaten Dog, it was the most delicious thing I had eaten in months. Would I again? If I ever got that hungry again you betcha. You would be amazed at what you would eat when you're hungry.

You just dont get it. You think you have all the answers because you've had a tough life and you're so old. You have no wisdom, only bitterness.

Nope, I have been there, and done that. I have the answers for some of the questions life has posed of me, and when you get old there are new questions. You are one of them.

So are you using an alt account to upvote all of your comments here? I'm pretty sure nobody else is following us this deep into a personal discussion, so it must be all you

Nope, I wasn't even paying attention TBH.

That's probably why you make sure to smugly get the last word over and over.

I participated in a workshop in Los Angeles when I was 19 to help find ways to help ease hunger in the area and the majority of the participants couldn't even identify a homeless person. My effort here is to hopefully educate you, or others that may be lurking in this thread to understand how people really are not getting proper nutrition and how it's a very real issue that needs attention, not dismissal 'This has all been settled, it doesn't happen in America'. There's starving children in Africa, AND America. There are people that don't believe or understand this, and then there's the people that dismiss the claims.

Smug has nothing to do with it. Nobody should have to suffer for the sake of ignorance of the topic.

Happy reading.

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/...

Meanwhile Miami Beach is already underwater

This graph shows it is about 30c (USD)/kWh. Ignoring Hawaii (33), the most expensive state in the US is New York at 18.

Yeah, and I hear Microsoft is making over 1 trillion in revenue worldwide. Surely this means all Americans are ok and the economy has recovered! Praise be Obama! /sarcasm

Don't confuse individual data points with the overall trend.

In the very link you give, there's a link to another story that says the US students as a whole are only average in a 2012 report, failing to crack into the top 20.

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

Though TFA talks about a national competition, last year the American team has won the international Math Olympiad. For the first time in 21 years too.

Maybe, Bush's hated ideas of accountability for schools and teachers weren't entirely bad? Neah, can't be...

I have two tracts with this: money isn't wealth (finance is significant) and the whole concept is ridiculous.

Cupertino is my favored example for the moment. Apple makes $42.25 billion in revenues and $32.25 in operating expenses, employing 13,000 people at their Cupertino HQ with a combined salary of around $2 billion. Cupertino mayor claims Apple is "abusing them" by avoiding taxes; never mind that Apple pumps 6% of its operating expenses into Cupertino, money which it collects from business all over the world, which California and the Cupertino government taxes the shit out of (8.25% sales tax and 8% income tax, plus municipal property taxes and some other shit). Money gets poured into the local economy off the back of productive output in another country (China), and Cupertino wants to be the recipient of wealth produced in China.

Business profits are tiny compared to operating costs; Apple is an outlier, with its operating costs 75% of its total revenue. They're also not *exactly* unreasonable to claim they've created shitloads of US jobs beyond their 47,000 total--that's 47,000 jobs fueled by global sales, with Apple getting 37% of its revenue from the Americas (including Canada and South America!). Apple's business requires shipping companies, retail stores, marketers, logistics, warehouses, and all kinds of other labor in other companies--effectively impacting employment in all of these job areas.

Counter-point: if Apple didn't sell iPhones, the available consumer dollars would buy other things to create the same number of jobs, assuming the same price per unit goods. That's why I said it's not *exactly* unreasonable: their understanding of economics is flawed, but not egregiously so.

That counter-point is important if you consider all the Chinese labor. American-made iPhones would cost a *lot* more and, if consumers actually bought them, would result in consumers buying fewer products. That would shift Americans off existing jobs onto factory work; and the dearth in shipped goods would reduce logistics, marketing, retail, and shipping, leading to a corresponding reduction in jobs. The additional cost moved onto Americans would prevent the purchase of other goods including things like Spotify and more modern healthcare (we spend more today for more and better healthcare because we can). I've projected the total impact of rejecting 100% of Chinese manufacture as a rough 15 million to 40 million lost American jobs and corresponding wide-spread poverty, a total failure of our welfare system, and a culling by mass starvation; Apple is only a small part of that.

Put that into perspective with Microsoft. Microsoft sells software all over the world. Microsoft's software is made right here in America; even with lower-cost H1B workers moved to Redmond, those operating costs disperse into spending in the United States, income taxes in the United States, and money flowing *from* India to the United States instead of *to* India *from* the United States. Microsoft has $108 billion offshored, which represents $42 billion in corporate income taxes evaded *over* *its* *lifetime*; the United States Federal income in 2013 was some $2,775 billion, with $2,304 billion from income tax. That means Microsoft has, in its lifetime, kept 1.5% of a year's income from the Federal government; since April 4, 1975, that's about $1 billion/year, or 0.037%,or $2.94 per current American.

Microsoft has 40,000 employees at Redmond, plus more in Belleview and Issaquah down the road, totaling 42,000 at $100k-$120k salaries, or *FIVE* *BILLION* *DOLLARS* of global revenue coming to Washington State for dispersal into the economy, getting taxed by the United States Federal Government and the state and local authorities, every fucking year.

Those numbers--for Microsoft and Apple--count only their direct employees; we're not counting their business services. Do they pay for electricity

Is there a liberal equivalent of talk radio?

Commercially, no. All large scale commercial attempts have failed spectacularly. Air America is the most outstanding attempt that comes to mind. The only national network is NPR. While not specifically liberal, the network tends toward liberal views. Many of NPR's large supporters have a liberal bend so they have a large influence on their programming.

There several independent liberal radio station but they tend be in larger, more affluent cities.

No they don't.
You don't have a single f'ing clue what you're talking about.

NPR has been running a series on this, diving deep into what is actually going on.
I suggest you correct your ignorance (for indeed, you are the only one poisoning anyone's minds) by reading it.
( http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/... )
( http://www.npr.org/2016/05/01/... )
( http://www.npr.org/sections/ed... )

But I can condense it some for you:

The national average is ~11k per student.
But, averages being averages, the majority of US states and districts spend far less than that.
so the median number doesn't really mean much.
And it's because in this country we primarily fund schools through property taxes.

Live a poor low income area? Your schools will also be poorly funded.
Live in a wealth neighborhood, or near a bunch of successful tech startups? Your district will probably be rolling in dough.

The national average is ~11k.
But in my state the avg is ~9k.
But in my personal school district, which by the way is a theoretical "rich suburb" of the metro area, the amount per student is actually only 6600.
Why? Because averages. And because the actual rich people, while having a address that's technically part of the rich suburb, are actually in a separate school district. The "rich suburb school district" actually only encompasses the working class neighborhoods of the burb and covers ~ 60 schools. The rich folks meanwhile have their own district, encompassing just 2 schools, and it funds its schools to the tune of ~20k per student. And they have tremendously better outcomes and graduations rates to go with it.

In fact, the distribution for school funding almost exactly matches the chart of the income distribution (and inequality):
The majority of people (school districts) are below the average, and then there's sharp spike on the right at the very top that drags the average up, causing the "average" to be misleading.

This is the income distribution graph:
http://theglitteringeye.com/im...

And this is the school funding distribution graph:
below the map applet

Now do you see why your comments were utter ignorance?

No they don't.
You don't have a single f'ing clue what you're talking about.

NPR has been running a series on this, diving deep into what is actually going on.
I suggest you correct your ignorance (for indeed, you are the only one poisoning anyone's minds) by reading it.
( http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/... )
( http://www.npr.org/2016/05/01/... )
( http://www.npr.org/sections/ed... )

But I can condense it some for you:

The national average is ~11k per student.
But, averages being averages, the majority of US states and districts spend far less than that.
so the median number doesn't really mean much.
And it's because in this country we primarily fund schools through property taxes.

Live a poor low income area? Your schools will also be poorly funded.
Live in a wealth neighborhood, or near a bunch of successful tech startups? Your district will probably be rolling in dough.

The national average is ~11k.
But in my state the avg is ~9k.
But in my personal school district, which by the way is a theoretical "rich suburb" of the metro area, the amount per student is actually only 6600.
Why? Because averages. And because the actual rich people, while having a address that's technically part of the rich suburb, are actually in a separate school district. The "rich suburb school district" actually only encompasses the working class neighborhoods of the burb and covers ~ 60 schools. The rich folks meanwhile have their own district, encompassing just 2 schools, and it funds its schools to the tune of ~20k per student. And they have tremendously better outcomes and graduations rates to go with it.

In fact, the distribution for school funding almost exactly matches the chart of the income distribution (and inequality):
The majority of people (school districts) are below the average, and then there's sharp spike on the right at the very top that drags the average up, causing the "average" to be misleading.

This is the income distribution graph:
http://theglitteringeye.com/im...

And this is the school funding distribution graph:
below the map applet

Now do you see why your comments were utter ignorance?

No they don't.
You don't have a single f'ing clue what you're talking about.

NPR has been running a series on this, diving deep into what is actually going on.
I suggest you correct your ignorance (for indeed, you are the only one poisoning anyone's minds) by reading it.
( http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/... )
( http://www.npr.org/2016/05/01/... )
( http://www.npr.org/sections/ed... )

But I can condense it some for you:

The national average is ~11k per student.
But, averages being averages, the majority of US states and districts spend far less than that.
so the median number doesn't really mean much.
And it's because in this country we primarily fund schools through property taxes.

Live a poor low income area? Your schools will also be poorly funded.
Live in a wealth neighborhood, or near a bunch of successful tech startups? Your district will probably be rolling in dough.

The national average is ~11k.
But in my state the avg is ~9k.
But in my personal school district, which by the way is a theoretical "rich suburb" of the metro area, the amount per student is actually only 6600.
Why? Because averages. And because the actual rich people, while having a address that's technically part of the rich suburb, are actually in a separate school district. The "rich suburb school district" actually only encompasses the working class neighborhoods of the burb and covers ~ 60 schools. The rich folks meanwhile have their own district, encompassing just 2 schools, and it funds its schools to the tune of ~20k per student. And they have tremendously better outcomes and graduations rates to go with it.

In fact, the distribution for school funding almost exactly matches the chart of the income distribution (and inequality):
The majority of people (school districts) are below the average, and then there's sharp spike on the right at the very top that drags the average up, causing the "average" to be misleading.

This is the income distribution graph:
http://theglitteringeye.com/im...

And this is the school funding distribution graph:
below the map applet

Now do you see why your comments were utter ignorance?

No they don't.
You don't have a single f'ing clue what you're talking about.

NPR has been running a series on this, diving deep into what is actually going on.
I suggest you correct your ignorance (for indeed, you are the only one poisoning anyone's minds) by reading it.
( http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/... )
( http://www.npr.org/2016/05/01/... )
( http://www.npr.org/sections/ed... )

But I can condense it some for you:

The national average is ~11k per student.
But, averages being averages, the majority of US states and districts spend far less than that.
so the median number doesn't really mean much.
And it's because in this country we primarily fund schools through property taxes.

Live a poor low income area? Your schools will also be poorly funded.
Live in a wealth neighborhood, or near a bunch of successful tech startups? Your district will probably be rolling in dough.

The national average is ~11k.
But in my state the avg is ~9k.
But in my personal school district, which by the way is a theoretical "rich suburb" of the metro area, the amount per student is actually only 6600.
Why? Because averages. And because the actual rich people, while having a address that's technically part of the rich suburb, are actually in a separate school district. The "rich suburb school district" actually only encompasses the working class neighborhoods of the burb and covers ~ 60 schools. The rich folks meanwhile have their own district, encompassing just 2 schools, and it funds its schools to the tune of ~20k per student. And they have tremendously better outcomes and graduations rates to go with it.

In fact, the distribution for school funding almost exactly matches the chart of the income distribution (and inequality):
The majority of people (school districts) are below the average, and then there's sharp spike on the right at the very top that drags the average up, causing the "average" to be misleading.

This is the income distribution graph:
http://theglitteringeye.com/im...

And this is the school funding distribution graph:
below the map applet

Now do you see why your comments were utter ignorance?

Actually, in the case of x (as a variable), there is reason to support a hypothesis for its origin as being similar to what was described above. I recommend listening to this TED talk (which I referenced in another comment in this thread as well) which includes a talk someone gave on where x actually came from (ie, why x, not y or z or w or any other letter). The talk does seem to pin it on a translation from the Arabic.

Indeed, it is. I remember hearing it mentioned decades ago in middle school when I first started taking Algebra (although the notion of what Arabic was likely was more abstract to me at the time). There was a good "TED radio hour" that talked about that (and other related topics) as well:

Solve for X

Actually, especially considering their net worth, Apple doesn't really give all that much to lobbyists.

That's because the ROI on lobbying is 22000%, you don't have to spend very much to garner massive rewards.

Don't underestimate the self absorbed nature of the millenials

http://www.npr.org/sections/al...

I honest think all this identity politics, blacklivesmatter, transrights, green, peta, and other nonsense has to do with the fact that nobody ever told them no. They never learned any real empathy or "mindfulness" that would lead them make basic human considerations like not endangering the lives of others. Since they don't actually care or love anyone but themselves the find the most ridiculous causes they can to latch onto so as to convince themselves they complete narcissists.

Click the little (npr.org) link in the title.

Oh, wait.. http://www.npr.org/podcasts/45...

It depends on the state. In Michigan, we can't seem to fix Flint's water, our crumbling roads and infrastructure, or a come up with a sane tax system. The only thing the legislature seems capable of is passing laws every year that cause chaos in public schools.

So go ahead, and be like the legislature and line up to kick a teacher. It is such a fun game.

The bad news is that the teacher workforce is in decline. Great teachers are leaving 'en masse' and enrollment in Michigan teacher colleges is down over 50%. Some school districts already have a shortage of teachers and substitute teachers. Technical Education teachers are impossible to find i.e. Computer Programming, Electrical Occupations, Automotive Repair, Drafting and CAD etc....

Just in case you need a citation, here is a link to the over 150+ bills passed in Michigan since 2015 and it doesn't even take into consideration the bills in committee which look to replace the curriculum they just implemented. It is literally chaos when you need to devote a staff member just to monitoring legislation. It is an average of one bill every two days.

The legislature should just pass a law saying all students need to learn Computer Science, just throw it on the pile and let the schools figure it out. Schools get unfunded mandates all the time, it is just a matter of whether there will be any staff left to carry out the mandate.

Note to moderators: the parent should be modded as flamebait or troll. It's terribly wrong.

The prairies actually need to be burned in order to exist. It's essential for the native plants and animals. If the prairies don't burn, trees start to grow. The shade kills the native grasses, which in turn destroys the habitats for native animals like birds that nest on the ground. The grasses are also a food source for native animals like bison. The fact that prairies exist and the Plains weren't taken over by trees suggests that they burned on a regular basis. Burning the prairies in a controlled fashion replenishes the soil and limits the buildup of dried vegetation that could lead to much larger fires. But it's also essential for the native wildlife. Since prescribed burns in parts of the Konza Prairie Station near Manhattan, KS were stopped in 1991, the number of cedar trees has increased in that area from four trees to over 1,200, at the expense of the native grasses.

Again, burning the prairies doesn't destroy the habitat of the wildlife. Not burning the prairies, however, will actually destroy the native wildlife. That is why environmentalists strongly support the prescribed burning of prairies.

Your post is factually incorrect and should be modded down accordingly.