His second point has everything to do with unions as they actually exist even today.
Unions may be a great theory, but in reality many do threaten violence against defectors. There is also the rot that goes on in a union shop where people are now untouchable. Sure, that's great if you want to sit on your ass, but it's not so good for those that wish to excel.
Liberals intentionally confuse the issue with the term "pro-choice". It isn't about choice, it is about whether the fetus is a life worth protecting.
While I agree that abortion should be legal and available at least up to some point in the pregnancy, I disagree with the point of view that it is all about "choice". The liberal argument casts the woman as victim. The conservative stance isn't "let's victimize this woman", it is "let's not kill kids", which is a reasonable point of view.
The only issue is when is it a kid? At 8 cells? No. One day before natural due date? Yes. Somewhere in between would seem obvious but isn't debated at all.
It's rather easy to show you an incident where someone killed another with an illegal gun.
You say some bans shouldn't be a bad idea. You haven't established yet that they are a good idea. Your argument hinges on murderer's compliance with gun control statutes.
The debate really should center on the unknown number of individuals not murdered because a gun was unavailable versus the number of individuals murdered/robbed/raped because they couldn't defend themselves with a gun. Someone in support of control would argue that victims of crimes of passion may be aided by a banning of weapons for otherwise law abiding citizens. Others would argue that they could control who they associate with and would prefer to be able to defend themselves when they can't.
The hold the dumb kid at that level until he can successfully teach the next dumb kid.
They get to move on at a certain level of master, but not the smart kid?
I'm all for "see one, do one, teach one", but that typically isn't applied to fundamental skills. Kids at that level of school are learning tools to be used at the next grade up. You learn basic math to move on to algebra, stopping to teach basic math before proceeding to algebra would not increase understanding. The best way to drive home math mastery would be to move on to something tougher and apply it in more advanced math or science classes.
Sure, individual tutors would be better. Wow, brilliant.
The problem today is that a lot of schools have something like 5 classes and kids are randomly assigned to all 5 classes. The slow or trouble kids drain the resources of the teachers. If you were to put the 30 smartest kids in the top class, even #1 and #30 would both be better off.
Teaching to the average of the high-achievers is a lot closer and more productive for #1 than teaching to the average of the slow performers, which is what is really going on.
So the message you send is, "we don't care if you are smart, you will comply and conform to the mediocre.
Nice.
Take the test when they finish, hand them some math puzzles/problems. You'll find they'll race through that against each other just for bragging rights.
Sure, but the smart kid isn't there to serve. He is there to be taught. If you pair him with a slow kid with the justification that it will help motivate the slow one at the expense of the smart one, you need to start paying the smart kids.
I always thought one of the nice things about DAoC was that there were three realms and if one got out of hand, they had to fight both of the other two.
Dallas (and Austin) aren't expensive compared to anything in California.
One reason games have to cluster in the same area is that the development cycle is so cyclical. Large numbers of programmers or artists are needed for specific portions of each project but not for the rest of it. This leads to a small core that stays on the project and the rest are either supplemental staff or are employees that rotate from project to project. Basically, the payroll expands and contracts based not just on projects, but on the specific phase of the project. This is much easier to do if there are lots of other game companies around as there will be an available pool of contractors.
That loses with pass, but only pushes with don't pass. This pushes your odds to around 49% when betting on either pass or don't pass. don't pass is slightly in your favor, but doing that will piss off everyone at the table that you're now betting against.
Why would you go about discounting prices for illegal immigrants before discounting for legal residents? Sorry, you're from out of state, you have have to pay more than the out of country guys -- except the ones that applied properly -- of course.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an outrage! My advertising is relevant!
His second point has everything to do with unions as they actually exist even today.
Unions may be a great theory, but in reality many do threaten violence against defectors. There is also the rot that goes on in a union shop where people are now untouchable. Sure, that's great if you want to sit on your ass, but it's not so good for those that wish to excel.
Yea...it's only $199.
Even if that were true, it is still a lot of money to replace a phone that already works.
Of course, I don't have a mobile phone. You have to be really important to pull that one off these days.
This is one major reason to buy retail and not a corporate license.
The only thing that allows them to do this is your consent to inspection.
I suspect they want to avoid releasing head to head with Warcraft's expansion.
Liberals intentionally confuse the issue with the term "pro-choice". It isn't about choice, it is about whether the fetus is a life worth protecting.
While I agree that abortion should be legal and available at least up to some point in the pregnancy, I disagree with the point of view that it is all about "choice". The liberal argument casts the woman as victim. The conservative stance isn't "let's victimize this woman", it is "let's not kill kids", which is a reasonable point of view.
The only issue is when is it a kid? At 8 cells? No. One day before natural due date? Yes. Somewhere in between would seem obvious but isn't debated at all.
The French companies are laughing until they're sued by the raw goods producing companies and told they can't distribute their handbags.
It's rather easy to show you an incident where someone killed another with an illegal gun.
You say some bans shouldn't be a bad idea. You haven't established yet that they are a good idea. Your argument hinges on murderer's compliance with gun control statutes.
The debate really should center on the unknown number of individuals not murdered because a gun was unavailable versus the number of individuals murdered/robbed/raped because they couldn't defend themselves with a gun. Someone in support of control would argue that victims of crimes of passion may be aided by a banning of weapons for otherwise law abiding citizens. Others would argue that they could control who they associate with and would prefer to be able to defend themselves when they can't.
The hold the dumb kid at that level until he can successfully teach the next dumb kid.
They get to move on at a certain level of master, but not the smart kid?
I'm all for "see one, do one, teach one", but that typically isn't applied to fundamental skills. Kids at that level of school are learning tools to be used at the next grade up. You learn basic math to move on to algebra, stopping to teach basic math before proceeding to algebra would not increase understanding. The best way to drive home math mastery would be to move on to something tougher and apply it in more advanced math or science classes.
Sure, individual tutors would be better. Wow, brilliant.
The problem today is that a lot of schools have something like 5 classes and kids are randomly assigned to all 5 classes. The slow or trouble kids drain the resources of the teachers. If you were to put the 30 smartest kids in the top class, even #1 and #30 would both be better off.
Teaching to the average of the high-achievers is a lot closer and more productive for #1 than teaching to the average of the slow performers, which is what is really going on.
So the message you send is, "we don't care if you are smart, you will comply and conform to the mediocre.
Nice.
Take the test when they finish, hand them some math puzzles/problems. You'll find they'll race through that against each other just for bragging rights.
Sure, but the smart kid isn't there to serve. He is there to be taught. If you pair him with a slow kid with the justification that it will help motivate the slow one at the expense of the smart one, you need to start paying the smart kids.
>> I'll be the first to say that it would be great if education could be fair... but in practice it can't.
But it is the smart kids bearing much of the burden as the low end is catered to.
Apple, with a fraction of the software guys, customizes BSD to multiple limited-hardware platforms.
I always thought one of the nice things about DAoC was that there were three realms and if one got out of hand, they had to fight both of the other two.
that, or the sheer number of transactions was somehow costing his bank money. That would put a real quick stop to it.
For $200, I'll provide you with a map so you too can find your way "outside" and view it in all its glory.
That's Job Calibretto. His run-in with whales is well documented.
Why would you limit emacs to three dimensions?
Dallas (and Austin) aren't expensive compared to anything in California.
One reason games have to cluster in the same area is that the development cycle is so cyclical. Large numbers of programmers or artists are needed for specific portions of each project but not for the rest of it. This leads to a small core that stays on the project and the rest are either supplemental staff or are employees that rotate from project to project. Basically, the payroll expands and contracts based not just on projects, but on the specific phase of the project. This is much easier to do if there are lots of other game companies around as there will be an available pool of contractors.
...pushes on 12.
That loses with pass, but only pushes with don't pass. This pushes your odds to around 49% when betting on either pass or don't pass. don't pass is slightly in your favor, but doing that will piss off everyone at the table that you're now betting against.
Why would you go about discounting prices for illegal immigrants before discounting for legal residents? Sorry, you're from out of state, you have have to pay more than the out of country guys -- except the ones that applied properly -- of course.
Practical Common Lisp is the better book for someone starting oiut.
On Lisp is for someone who wants to learn the portions of Lisp that make it worth learning--after they've learned the basic syntax.
"They always think they know better, they have a massive attitude, and a huge superiority complex."
They?
Sometimes they forget a moon and have to go back and get it. Notice that it never happens to Venus or Mercury.