Slashdot Mirror
K-12 CS Framework Draft: Kids Taught To 'Protect Original Ideas' In Early Grades
theodp writes: Remember that Code.org and ACM-bankrolled K-12 Computer Science Education Framework that Microsoft, Google, Apple, and others were working on? Well, a draft of the framework was made available for review on Feb. 3rd, coincidentally just 3 business days after U.S. President Barack Obama and Microsoft President Brad Smith teamed up to announce the $4+ billion Computer Science for All initiative for the nation's K-12 students. "Computationally literate citizens have the responsibility to learn about, recognize, and address the personal, ethical, social, economic, and cultural contexts in which they operate," explains the section on Fostering an Inclusive Computing Culture, one of seven listed 'Core K-12 CS Practices'. "Participating in an inclusive computing culture encompasses the following: building and collaborating with diverse computational teams, involving diverse users in the design process, considering the implication of design choices on the widest set of end users, accounting for the safety and security of diverse end users, and fostering inclusive identities of computer scientists." Hey, do as they say, not as they do! Also included in the 10-page draft (pdf) is a section on Law and Ethics, which begins: "In early grades, students differentiate between responsible and irresponsible computing behaviors. Students learn that responsible behaviors can help individuals while irresponsible behaviors can hurt individuals. They examine legal and ethical considerations for obtaining and sharing information and apply those behaviors to protect original ideas."
Kids will learn to protect original ideas.
So they'll learn not to protect unoriginal ideas like 99.9% of software patents.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
get them while they are young.
It sounds like this is more of framework that is mostly about educational standards for teaching right-think in CS. There is a horrific amount of PC buzzwords in there,when the real focus of education should be teaching students the skills they need.
This crazy overreach with indoctrination in schools is unsettling. Apart from the pledge of allegiance, it was pretty subtle and frowned upon when I was in school. I think most teachers actually cared about teaching and kept the crazies who wanted to use the position to indoctrinate in check.
Now it's the other way around.
You might want to consider the inevitable "mission creep." In the long run, it is further conditioning a newer generation to unquestioningly accept demands bestowed onto them by Powers that Be(tm).
Sure, you could argue that the Law and Ethics section will be full of balanced (snort) and logical (snort) approach that will outline current issues with patents (snort) and other forms of IP protection (suuure) as much as underline the need for some form of them and explain why that need is beneficial to society as a whole... but I wouldn't hold my breath seeing where it's coming from. In fact, I wouldn't hold my breath for that even if the guidelines were genuinely prepared by just the Department of Education, much less multinationals with somewhat less magnanimous interests.
Sounds like a pretty good argument for taking the federal government out of education entirely.
Centralized mind control through propaganda; acculturation of our nation's youth to silence, oppression, and acquiescence to authority; normalization of the police state; blind nationalism through a fantastic daily "pledge." All of these things are strong counterarguments to the "fair and equal opportunity/better education for all " kind of rhetoric that comes out of Washington.
Seriously, think of the children. Think of all the misguided ideas their heads will be filled with. Think of the cultural values they will be taught to cherish and those they will be taught to revile. Think of the world they will grow up to accept or even create.
Whatever happened to civics class?
Teach your children well... and keep them far, far away from federally funded schools.
The full quotes from TFA, Law and Ethics section
K-8 Progression
In early grades, students differentiate between responsible and irresponsible computing behaviors. Students learn that responsible behaviors can help individuals while irresponsible behaviors can hurt individuals. They examine legal and ethical considerations for obtaining and sharing information and apply those behaviors to protect original ideas. As students progress academically, they engage in legal and ethical behaviors to guard against intrusive applications and promote a safe and secure computing experience.
9-12 Statement
Laws impact many areas of computing in an effort to protect privacy, data, property, information, and identity. The legal oversight of computing involves tradeoffs; such laws can expedite or delay advancements and infringe upon or protect human rights. Ethical concerns also shape computing practices and professions. International variations in legal and ethical considerations should be examined.
So based on 3 words in a DRAFT statement of a section that considers Laws and Ethics, you want tar and feather the whole course? Where the fuck do you consider legal aspects of computing if you don't do it here. And FFS this could easily apply to GPL or any other such license that relies on the legal framework to enforce its restrictions.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
They are not too many original ideas anywhere.
However part of accademia is the ability to site ideas that you have collected. However using a collection of preused ideas usually creates something that is unique and original.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It is not about protecting "their" ideas, it's about brain washing people that it's okay to own an idea. This already happens today, but we sure don't hear any debate about the Government fixing patent trolls and the laws that allow abuse. In reality, that is small potatoes. Big players own all the big ideas. No need to troll is involved.
The brain washing will stop us peons from challenging the status quo.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Intellectual property isn't physical property, but treating it like it shouldn't have any intrinsic value at all isn't right either. Creators should have the right to pursue (or revoke) monetization of their efforts. We are at the place where the children of the people who took IP from the corporations (through Napster et al) as protest for market collusion are starting to grow up. It would be very easy for these kids, just now starting school, as a generation to grow up and think that creative endeavors have no value and aren't worthy of compensation at all. Copyrights, patents, and trademarks for all the ways they've been manipulated into terrible things, still represent protections that are valuable to society.
the only way to protect and "original idea" is to not share it with anyone. this seems like an idea that microsoft should be protecting/not sharing instead of spreading like a cancer.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
From Microsoft's latest 10-Q SEC filing: "Even as we transition to a mobile-first and cloud-first strategy, the license-based proprietary software model generates most of our software revenue. We bear the costs of converting original ideas into software products through investments in research and development, offsetting these costs with the revenue received from licensing our products."
I was worried for a moment that generations of elementary school children would be forced to suffer through actual computer science content, like programming, sorting, assembly language, and computer architecture. I'm relieved that my worries were unfounded: they just seem to be forced to suffer through the same social activist crap they already have to sit through, except instead of the penguin getting along with the lion, it will now be expressed in the more kid-friendly terms of "inclusive design" and "team diversity". Yay!
Here's the full quote:
"In early grades, students differentiate between responsible and irresponsible computing
behaviors. Students learn that responsible behaviors can help individuals while
irresponsible behaviors can hurt individuals. They examine legal and ethical
considerations for obtaining and sharing information and apply those behaviors to protect
original ideas. As students progress academically, they engage in legal and ethical
behaviors to guard against intrusive applications and promote a safe and secure
computing experience. "
What these Kings of the Universe don't realize is normal people don't share and will never share their Ayn Rand -cocaine-driven amphetamine-fueled vision of extreme indivuduality at the expense of the health of society (which is the bedrock upon which protection of individuality rests).
So, sure, go ahead promote those discussions. The more discussion there is, the less well it goes for software patent lawyers like Brad Smith who, readers should know, basically originated the idea of using software patents as an offense weapon to supress innovation while he was at M$:
http://arstechnica.com/busines...
http://archive.fortune.com/mag...
which directly led to all other tech companies following suit and finally the fantastical, supernatrual prosperity of every Chinese take-out in Tyler, Texas.
All that's going to happen is they're going to find out no one shares their idea of societal good and justice. Every survey finds that young people are far more concerned with creating an fair, free and egalitarian society that benefits everyone, rather than the winner-take-all psychopathic shithole that is America at this particular tick of the clock.
Not everyone blew their brains out snorting coke while reading Ayn Rand in the 80s. That's a particular generation and they have a particular , uh, "view" of what the goals laws of society should support. Going on 40 years later now, it's getting to be old-man-dying-time for this particular strain of sociopathic, societal predators. Can't happen too soon for my money. Here, take it with you; fuckin' see ya later.
Where are my mod points when I need them! I set out to mention indoctrination, and there you've already gone and done it for me.
I admire your sangfroid - you find the indoctrination 'unsettling', whereas I find it downright disturbing and more than a little bit scary.
Obligatory John Taylor Gatto quote: "...school has become the replacement for church, and like church it requires that its teachings must be taken on faith".
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
"Referrer Madness" become required viewing in the schools?
ITIM there should be no reserved characters when naming computer scientists. Not sure if the names are case sensitive though. I suspect sensitivity training would tell us they are.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You keep paying my salary for 70 years after I'm dead and I'll consider paying for your fucking IP.
If there are no 'original ideas' (what an idiotic concept) then there is no point in teaching anyone CS since everything has already been done. And if that is not the case, then why are the new things not worthy of protection? Just because someone else 'could have' done it, but couldn't be bothered to?
"...if there's one thing education is about, it's ensuring ideas are never shared with others."
Seems like it. The whole point of education is to learn from what others have already figured out, and move forward from there. But if all ideas are owned and guarded, then there is nothing to learn from.
What will be in the CS textbooks: Algorithms, Data Structures, Numerical Recipes, Networks, Operating Systems, Architecture, ...? They can all be replaced with a list of patent numbers owned by huge corporations and trolls.
Even if you happen to come up with an idea on your own, it still might belong to someone else and be off-limits. So much for progress.
Do you think they could have mentioned "diversity" a few more times? After all, $4 billion dollars should be able to buy a lot more content-free baffle-gab.
$4 billion of subsidies for a "Don't copy that floppy!" lesson plan ...
First they came for the tape decks, but I didn't say anything because I had a cassette recorder.
Then they came for the cassette recorders, but I didn't say anything because I had already switched to a vcr.
Then they came for the vcr recorders, but I didn't say anything because I had already switched to a dvd.
Then they came for the dvd recorders, but I didn't say anything because I had already switched to flash storage.
Then they came for the flash storage, but I didn't say anything because there was just nothing worth recording any more.
This is what happens when you over-play your hand.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I admire your sangfroid - you find the indoctrination 'unsettling', whereas I find it downright disturbing and more than a little bit scary.
Too much passion in a statement tends to alienate people who might otherwise be receptive; however, I do find the situation deeply disturbing.
What's more unsettling is how there are active campaigns to ban homeschooling and limit access to private schools, even though outcomes for both are almost always better than public schools. Couple that with the ideological takeover of education and it makes you fear for the future.
I know this will get me labeled as a right-wing crazy (even though I'm not, I'm equally disgusted with the political-right), but this is such a perfect microcosm of what the Democratic Party actually pushes vs what they say they want to accomplish:
1. Push diversity in a field that is already pretty diverse (unless you exclude Asians, which these people always do).
2. Switch the focus from technical knowledge to social grouping (they tried this in Math in the 90's with obviously poor results).
3. Don't pirate movies or music! Those are our biggest campaign donors^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ethical concerns!
what "usually" happens when you you use a collection of preused ideas is that you create something that is unoriginal, at best
True, standing on the shoulders of giants is unusual, as Isaac Newton wrote about it in 1676, and Bernard of Chartres five centuries before that.
Creators should have the right to pursue (or revoke) monetization of their efforts.
My answer depends on what you meant by "or revoke". If you meant that a work's author should have power to grant a royalty-free license to the public, I'm all for it. But if you meant that an author of a published work should have power to take it out of print entirely, acting like the proverbial dog in the manger toward historically significant films such as Song of the South and toward fans' ability to participate in culture, that's where I have to disagree.
Can anyone tell me what "fostering inclusive identities of computer scientists" actually means?
1. Induced Multiple Personality Disorder.
2. Cross-gender hormones. LOTS of them.
3. Mandatory physical mutilation so they can understand what the "differently enabled" go through.
4. Obligatory classes on becoming part of the Borg.
5. Removal of the funny bone so that they can't tell jokes that might offend someone.
6. Learning the proper newspeak, where "diversity" always really means politically correct conformity.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yes Miss Berthnal, I did my homework.
No, I didn't hand it in. It is being reviewed by my attorney. You'll likely get it in 6-12 months, although it may be a bit longer. There were some excellent concepts there that he says need protection.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Then, Mommy (or your best friend, or your Dad, or whoever) is going to show you how to download all the torrents of your favourite show!
And guess what?
- If Mommy does it, it can't be all bad.
- If you can get High-Def versions, it's actually real cool.
- If, during recess, you can swap all those episodes of your show for other shows that are also real cool, you make other people happy.
- And, later, you realize you can relive a bit of your childhood for cheap, since you don't have to buy the DRM Digital version of that real good show you used to watch as a kid... for essentially $0.
I am not worried about the kids -- I am more worried about the entertainment dealers, but the solution has been around for a long time: produce good stuff and slap a $2 per month tax on all internet access. Problem solved. But Hollywood is never going to go for it, they are just too greedy for their own good.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
young new drivers aren't buying cars since they aren't getting drivers licenses at a young age [...] Its cheaper to public transportation
Until they find that they can't keep a job when employers are unwilling to accommodate the limited hours of operation of public transportation, with no service at night or on 58 days per year of scheduled downtime. Is "Reason for leaving: Poor schedule fit" valid?
or ride with friends
Until they find that friends also "aren't getting drivers licenses at a young age".
Except, as you have admitted, the creators' entitlement complex has expanded far beyond what is beneficial to society. Today, we have creators who decide that they don't like a particular use of their work and use computers, the net, and extra judicial methods to ban, and prevent that use. Even if that use is not illegal, or even beneficial to society. (Format shifting, derivative works, etc.) These creators also desperately try at each opportunity, to expand what is considered illegal use. Along with increasingly high penalties for violations, and ever more secret negotiations behind closed doors to get what they want. Many of these creators would believe that they have the "right" to charge society indefinitely for their contributions, and that their descendants should be the beneficiaries. (Despite the fact that such a world would go bankrupt with our current social-economic policies.)
So yes, many people are beginning to say: "It has no value." Because the creators have made it so that only the creators benefit, to the determent of society. Some people are also saying: "Let's get rid of copyright completely." Because they see that these issues are inherent in the system. The current favorite economic policies reward greed, and copyright has been warped (read: corrupted) into being all about financial compensation. So long as the perverse incentive for greed exists in the economic systems of the world, copyright is a prime target for abuse. That's why those people say get "rid of it". They know even if copyright is "fixed" now, it will only get corrupted again by those looking to make money off of it. The temptation for doing so will still be there, and we all know society does not learn from it's mistakes. Those people are trying to prevent the cycle from continuing. That's why they say "get rid of it (copyright)".
Given your support of this system, maybe you should promote it in a way that does not put undue harm on society if you want people to abide by it. Most people are happy to support a creator for a work. They just don't want to support them indefinitely, (No other industry in the world can get away with "one finished job and made for life." Our economic systems would be insolvent if that happened.), to their detriment. (They want the ability to use the idea how they see fit. Restricting that prevents society from generating new ideas, works, and research. In short, restricting ideas leads to a halt of human advancement. Also once again, the world can't afford it.) Work within those restrictions and you would be successful. Work outside of those restrictions, as the industry is doing now, and don't be surprised when society says: "enough is enough."
It's gotten worse. The way they teach math now is so stupid and intentionally non-intuitive that it's no wonder kids can't do simple tasks like make change.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
There is is ... the indoctrination aspect of this to ensure the kids are all fully compliant digital citizens. This shit is exactly what happens when you let corporations drive the curriculum.
This is just more bullshit control being exerted on our lives by asshole corporations.
I weep for humanity, because the next generation is being raised to be good little fucking corporate serfs. This is just forcing them to think "intellectual property" is anything other than an artificial construct to keep corporations rich.
I wish I could say I'm shocked, but this shit was never really about educating kids, this was always about controlling the damned message to serve corporate interests.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Before any "original thinking" indoctrination, I think that the young inventors of the world need to be introduced to the "Melancholy Elephants" http://www.spiderrobinson.com/... - there are Billions of educated people who have come before you, and independently developing an idea is far different from developing an original idea that _should be_ eligible for protection as intellectual property.
They want the ability to use the idea how they see fit. Restricting that prevents society from generating new ideas, works, and research. In short, restricting ideas leads to a halt of human advancement.
The common counterargument to that is that copyright and patent encourage exploration of a larger fraction of the hyperspace of ideas. Patent design-arounds lead to alternative designs that are often more fit than the originally patented one. For example, PNG is more efficient rate/distortion-wise than still GIF, as is Vorbis than MP3. Copyright workarounds likewise lead to the development of more distinctive art styles.
The tragedy of the anticommons that you describe comes into play when there is a thicket, that is, when enough of the space around an idea is claimed that it's difficult to find space in which to stake a new claim. One might use combinatorics to suggest that music is already a thicket, such as the "105 million melodies" proof derived from seven pitch classes (do, re, mi through si), two duration classes (short and long), and an estimate of eight notes (seven intervals) to make a song's hook identifiable and protectable. Thus there are 14 different intervals from one note to the next, and 14^7 = 105.4 million, of which publishers represented by BMI and ASCAP already control over ten million.
Need the part where the artiest gets nothing and no rights to there own work.
With the Hollywood accounting, very inflated studio fees, etc that shows we lost money on your work.
The way they teach math now is so stupid and intentionally non-intuitive that it's no wonder kids can't do simple tasks like make change.
Could you please explain what your are talking about? I have two kids in public schools, and the math instruction is pretty much exactly what it should be. They focus on the basics, include real world applications (including "making change"), and allow smart kids to move ahead at their own pace on the computer.
Perhaps you are talking about New Math which was introduced in the 1960s, and then abandoned by 1970. That was five decades ago.
independently developing an idea is far different
In theory, independent creation is not infringement. In practice, good luck proving that.
A successful copyright infringement suit requires the copyright owner to show evidence of three things: the plaintiff's ownership of the copyright in suit, the alleged infringer's access to the plaintiff's work, substantial similarity between the plaintiff's work and the alleged infringer's work. The alleged infringer's defense can include evidence against these three elements, such as independent creation, or it can involve evidence of authorization, such as a license or a legally authorized use (such as fair use or other limitations 17 USC 107 through 123).
So if the plaintiff fails to prove the alleged infringer's access to the plaintiff's work, the judge will find no infringement. But there is a sliding scale: the more similarity the plaintiff can show, the less access it needs to show, and vice versa. A "striking similarity" creates a rebuttable presumption of access, and an alleged infringer is likely to have a hard time disproving that. Likewise, if the plaintiff's work has become widely exhibited in some market, a circumstantial argument that the alleged infringer reasonably should have had access to the work will put more pressure on the alleged infringer to prove dissimilarity. Thus flooding the market with trailers and merchandise, as the various companies in various countries' MAFIA (music and film industry associations) are known to do, makes it harder to prove independent creation.
As a very introverted child, this sort of curriculum would have turned me right off from programming. I was attracted to computers precisely because it was something I could do quietly by myself and away from other people.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but he/she might be referring to programs like CPM, which had mixed results when I was in school.
The problem isn't that it uses real world examples (those are excellent in teaching the "why" instead of just the "how"), it's that there is also an emphasis on group participation and strange unorthodox methods that aren't necessarily better.
As for "New Math" being five decades ago... I've seen some relative's kids' homework that is required to be solved in strange ways using matrices, etc, that is definitely outside of the realm of traditional math.
he/she might be referring to programs like CPM
CPM is a middle and high school program, when kids should be far beyond the ability to "make change". It is also specifically targeted toward college bound kids, where a more theoretical approach may be justified.
America is one of the only countries with a fascination with homeschooling and private schools. The benefits from homeschooling are erased when adjusted for income (that is, yes, homeschooled kids do better than average, but worse when you compare them to kids who have parents with similar incomes and educations), and on top of that you often end up with children who are brainwashed and socially awkward.
Homeschooling is filled with far more faith and indoctrination than public schooling. That's the entire reason most people homeschool. So they can enforce their worldview on their children to the exclusion of all others. In most countries in the world, homeschooling is heavily regulated or even banned, and their public education is better for it.
And nobody is limiting access to private schools, nor do they argue its poor quality. The argument is that you should not get any tax breaks or vouchers towards it, because that would be to the detriment of public education, essentially funding the rich at the expense of the poor.
he/she might be referring to programs like CPM
CPM is a middle and high school program, when kids should be far beyond the ability to "make change". It is also specifically targeted toward college bound kids, where a more theoretical approach may be justified.
You have obvious stopped paying cash for goods. There are plenty of cashiers who, when the total is $18.25, and you give them $20.25, give you back your 25 cents, and then another $1.75, instead of just giving you two bucks.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Perhaps you are talking about New Math [wikipedia.org] which was introduced in the 1960s, and then abandoned by 1970. That was five decades ago.
When I was in college during the 1990's, Harvard Calculus became the new thing in teaching introduction calculus. The textbook had only word problems from "real life applications" with none of the problems demonstrated in familiar mathematical symbols. Even the instructors had problems trying to translate the word problems into mathematical symbols on the blackboard. I gave up the class after a few weeks. The university gave up on the courses a few years later.
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill/pedagogy/harvardcalculus/
You have obvious stopped paying cash for goods. There are plenty of cashiers who, when the total is $18.25, and you give them $20.25, give you back your 25 cents, and then another $1.75, instead of just giving you two bucks.
If you really want to throw them for a loop, hand them $20.30 and watch them call the manager to figure out how to give back $2.05 in change. This has gotten so bad that I use only whole dollars at the stores and dump all the change into a jar at home. Coinstar does a better job counting change than these kids!
The quality of the design, code, etc. is less important than some meaningless or circumstantial characteristic of person who wrote it.
Trojan horse curriculum. Hey, let's get the people to pay for their own brainwashing! Sounds like Alex P Keaton when he found his brother being taught to share in preschool.
As a home schooler I'm interested in some of your claims. You have actually had contact with home schoolers? Their children? If so, how many? Was it just in a small area? Or spread out? You make some broad claims without any citation and it seems rather unlikely that you have broad experience on the subject.
First, lets take your claim that it "comes out equal" when "adjusting for income". Some home schoolers I know are well off (middle class), but most are -- at best -- in the lower portion of the middle class if not lower class. As families, the ones I am familiar with, put a greater emphasis on the family rather than status or money -- which is why they home school and often have lower income than other families in the area.
Second, you echo a broadly held belief that home schoolers are religious nutters. And it is certainly true that the people you find actively defending parental rights are often christian. But so is a lot of the rest of the population. For those families I'm familiar with they are as likely to be atheist or wiccan as christian, and the population at large here is *definitely* conservative christian. Go to the public schools and you will be around far more conservative christians than the home schoolers.
Third, there are certainly some home schooled children who do not benefit from it. Bordering on teenager and still unable to write their names or do simple arithmetic. And that is sad and disturbing. Same area, much the same can be said of graduates from the public high school -- in other words children who are even older and cannot subtract, much less divide or multiply. The real reason home schoolers do better on average is most likely the vastly better student/teacher ratio.
Fourth, it isn't as simple as home schooling vs public education. I am a firm supporter of public education -- but I am exercising my right to educate my children at home. It isn't easy -- to actually educate someone takes time, effort and money. I am supporting public education through property taxes (which, again, I support and approve of), but on top of that I am researching and obtaining educational materials (for the same reasons I support public education, I feel that educational materials should be provided to the public free of charge -- that is, subsidized as necessary for production). Then there has to be time to spend with the children to teach them *and* patience to go along with that. It isn't easy: sending your children to public school? *That* is easy.
Finally, not all home schoolers are the same so unless you have some meaningful study or verifiable facts to back up your assertion then it is likely to be inaccurate generalizations brought on by prejudice.
a) The President cannot unilaterally create a Cabinet-level department. In addition, all Cabinet member appointments require Senate approval.
b) The Department of Education Organization Act merely split Education from Health and Human Services, which were previously one department.
c) The earliest Department of Education was created in 1867, somewhat before Jimmy Carter took office.,
which involved the biggest, most-privacy-robbing corporations getting in bed with a massive central government went a little fascist....who'd a thunk it?!?!?
Stupid ignorant morons who refuse to study history and willfully ignore nearly everything America's founders wrote are likely to be surprised. The rest of us: not so much. Part of the basic idea of human civilization is that each generation ought to learn the lessons of their predecessors; it saves lots of time and pain to dodge the pain of errors by reading about them and then avoiding them rather than repeating them. The nation's founders wrote extensively about tyranny and avoiding it. They even set up a system to make it easy to avoid tyranny; we only needed to follow the guidelines. Sadly, most people are easily tempted to enable the government to grow and get into lots of stuff where it does not belong in order to achieve something THEY want, ignoring that this expansion of government automatically enables lots of other stuff they do not want. This is sheer idiocy, which our founders explicitly warned us against.
The best way to protect ideas is to copy them as much as possible. Protecting the "owner" of an idea is a different story. This involves restricting use of an idea only to people that have paid for the rights to the idea.
Do we need intellectual property laws? Probably, but what current intellectual property laws do is more like protecting young girls by ensuring they can only marry who pays their father the most money.
Nothing to do with what he claimed.
It seems homeschoolers either don't learn reading comprehension or don't learn statistics.
They're not so hot on punctuation either.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
My fist thought was that a tape deck is a cassette recorder.
You must be reely reely old.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You have obvious stopped paying cash for goods.
Some cashiers can't make change today. Some cashiers couldn't make change in the 1950s. Do you have any evidence that the problem is getting worse, or that it is in any way related to how the schools teach math?
Go to the public schools and you will be around far more conservative christians than the home schoolers.
My ex and I homeschooled I precisely because the local public schools were staffed by evangelical illiterates; hell, they even keep the Ten Commandments up on the walls...
http://www.theagitator.com/201...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
And, of course, IDEAS can not be patented nor copyrighted, only the implementation
So why teach kids not to use that which is lawful use?
because Mickey is an IDEA (says Disney)
I think GP is referring to Common Core
That makes no sense, since CC does not specify any teaching method, only objectives.
Most people opposed to Common Core have little idea what it actually is. Democrats tend to oppose it because they oppose anything that may lead to accountability. Republicans tend to oppose it because, although it was their idea, Obama is now for it, so that means they have to be against it.
Besides, I doubt if there are many cashiers, competent or not, that were educated in arithmetic under Common Core, which has only been around for a few years.
Not when they give you back your quarter, then break open another roll of quarters to give you back three more.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The kids won't learn much about computer science but they'll learn how to talk and write like corporate lobbyists ;)
I took some online tests for college proctored at a Sylvan Learning Center. One day, just making conversation, I asked what the problem was with Common Core. The lady told me Common Core expected teachers to teach how to come up with an answer in multiple different ways (I think she said at least three, but this was early last year). Every method works but many are non-intuitive -- they're most definitely NOT the way you would solve the problem in real life on a daily basis. Parents call Sylvan frustrated because their kids' homework says "Solve the problem using method x" and they don't understand what method x is or why'd you'd do it; 9 - 5 = 4. 7 x 3 = 21. Those are just facts. Why would you try to teach three different ways for coming up with the answer? That's how I understand the problem with Common Core.