The debate on evolution v. creationism is a salient point in an election debate because whatever position comes out on top has a ripple effect throughout the country; not only in schools but in how things like stem cell research is funded (if at all), how much federal funding churches might receive, etc. True, evolution is a minor issue in the grand arena of politics, but an important point as well.
Qualified means, in most cases, you know what you're doing. And unqualified people should not be allowed to do things because typically, unqualified people mess those things up. In many other professions, people are qualified or certified; what should make engineering any different?
I'm not saying genetic testing is not important, because I think it most certainly is when it comes time to start raising a family and such, and to see if you are predisposed to certain medical conditions such as Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell, cancer, etc. What I'm saying is that humans should not be playing God when it comes to genetics because then the world will be more of a screwed up place than it already is.
I don't think it's surprising either that females would outnumber males online. Females are social creatures who seek out others to converse and to listen. Instead of spending an hour on the phone, females can now spend an hour online talking. Also, that whole bit about males being on the phone for only one minute isn't all true; I have firsthand experience with that. But I know it's surprising to some people that a female can navigate the web, let alone turn a computer on.
What people forget about the aftermath of September 11th is that the government already had some idea what was going to happen and for whatever reason, chose not to act on it. When September 11th did happen and people were carrying on that the government needs to protect us, logic would say that in order for that to happen, we should willingly give up some of our freedoms to be better protected. Does this make us a police state like some people say? No, because quite frankly, I don't care if the federal government wants to read my emails or listen to my phone conversations. My free speech rights are not being violated. I can say what I want. I've got nothing to hide. So the people who are making a really big fuss must have something to hide, at least in my opinion.
Well, when a teacher is getting slandered on MySpace, and then has to face the music at school the next day, I would say that "substantially disrupts" the educational environment.
Even though the speech occurred off campus, that still doesn't make it right to defame a teacher, or any other individual for that matter. Any speech or action that "substantially disrupts school operations," whether the action occurred on or off campus is grounds for punishment, and rightly so. No one wants false information being spread about them. Teachers work in a profession where image is everything, and a fake MySpace profile can get a teacher fired in the blink of an eye.
If you think an entire company shutting down is bad, what about an entire country shutting down? France basically shuts down for the entire month of August, so if you leave anything to be repaired or need anything fixed, you might as well forget it.
If everyone had a solar array and a windmill on their property, that would take care of a huge problem with nuclear power plants: the disposal of nuclear waste. But what happens when someone develops a more efficient method of energy, like using by-products from consumables used by those living on the property? Then people will definitely be out of work, because there is really nothing left for them to maintain.
My boyfriend was telling me about this, and I agree with you that it is not economically viable to pull this plan off. People do need to change their ways and not put so much CO2 into the air. A good example of this would be to actually enforce the speed limit so people aren't burning as much fuel. The slower people go, the less gasoline they burn, and less CO2 goes into the air.
Also what bothers me is that some millionaire is throwing his cash around, albeit in a good way, to help get the environment cleaned up. Global warming and the destruction of the ozone layer has been a problem forever; why are people making such a big fuss about it now?
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Giving a kid a computer is not going to do anything to benefit their education if they are solely focused on survival. The only tool a person needs for learning is someone else. It's sad that the government thinks the solution to educating the poor is to give them a laptop; which, if they are truly poor, they would probably sell anyway to get much-needed funds. People were learning and succeeding long before computers ever came about; it would be more beneficial to give a kid a book and some pencils and papers.
Myspace is a good way to keep in touch with friends and family that are far away or that we've lost touch with. And yes, the music that so many people must have on their pages is annoying. It is easy to reconnect with people and make new friends, but what worries me is that the socialization on Myspace takes away from face-to-face conversations or phone conversations and that the overall socialization skills in our society go down the toilet, as well as the English language (but that's another story). And we all know how Myspace can be used by the less savory members of society to prey upon those who are innocent. All in all, Myspace will become less and less of a commodity when someone develops something bigger and better.
According to dictionary. com, productive means: "having the power of producing; generative; creative." Productivity means, "the quality of being productive. In economics: the rate at which goods or services are produced especially output per unit of labor." I agree that productivity is not how it is defined in the media. Building a house is productive, because tho finished house is the end product. Labor units are being produced. Harvesting crops is productive, because that is something that goes to the end-user: the consumer. Teaching children is productive (in most cases) because then they will go out and be productive memebers of society. I can say, "I am being productive" when all I'm doing is surfing the net at work. Productivity, however, would be creating exams or corresponding with colleagues. Not quite like the house example, but it fits.
Slashdot Mirror
The debate on evolution v. creationism is a salient point in an election debate because whatever position comes out on top has a ripple effect throughout the country; not only in schools but in how things like stem cell research is funded (if at all), how much federal funding churches might receive, etc. True, evolution is a minor issue in the grand arena of politics, but an important point as well.
You're random!
Qualified means, in most cases, you know what you're doing. And unqualified people should not be allowed to do things because typically, unqualified people mess those things up. In many other professions, people are qualified or certified; what should make engineering any different?
I'm not saying genetic testing is not important, because I think it most certainly is when it comes time to start raising a family and such, and to see if you are predisposed to certain medical conditions such as Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell, cancer, etc. What I'm saying is that humans should not be playing God when it comes to genetics because then the world will be more of a screwed up place than it already is.
Genetic selection is strictly an environmental thing, so why humans have to get involved is way beyond me.
I don't think it's surprising either that females would outnumber males online. Females are social creatures who seek out others to converse and to listen. Instead of spending an hour on the phone, females can now spend an hour online talking. Also, that whole bit about males being on the phone for only one minute isn't all true; I have firsthand experience with that. But I know it's surprising to some people that a female can navigate the web, let alone turn a computer on.
What people forget about the aftermath of September 11th is that the government already had some idea what was going to happen and for whatever reason, chose not to act on it. When September 11th did happen and people were carrying on that the government needs to protect us, logic would say that in order for that to happen, we should willingly give up some of our freedoms to be better protected. Does this make us a police state like some people say? No, because quite frankly, I don't care if the federal government wants to read my emails or listen to my phone conversations. My free speech rights are not being violated. I can say what I want. I've got nothing to hide. So the people who are making a really big fuss must have something to hide, at least in my opinion.
Well, when a teacher is getting slandered on MySpace, and then has to face the music at school the next day, I would say that "substantially disrupts" the educational environment.
Even though the speech occurred off campus, that still doesn't make it right to defame a teacher, or any other individual for that matter. Any speech or action that "substantially disrupts school operations," whether the action occurred on or off campus is grounds for punishment, and rightly so. No one wants false information being spread about them. Teachers work in a profession where image is everything, and a fake MySpace profile can get a teacher fired in the blink of an eye.
If you think an entire company shutting down is bad, what about an entire country shutting down? France basically shuts down for the entire month of August, so if you leave anything to be repaired or need anything fixed, you might as well forget it.
If everyone had a solar array and a windmill on their property, that would take care of a huge problem with nuclear power plants: the disposal of nuclear waste. But what happens when someone develops a more efficient method of energy, like using by-products from consumables used by those living on the property? Then people will definitely be out of work, because there is really nothing left for them to maintain.
My boyfriend was telling me about this, and I agree with you that it is not economically viable to pull this plan off. People do need to change their ways and not put so much CO2 into the air. A good example of this would be to actually enforce the speed limit so people aren't burning as much fuel. The slower people go, the less gasoline they burn, and less CO2 goes into the air. Also what bothers me is that some millionaire is throwing his cash around, albeit in a good way, to help get the environment cleaned up. Global warming and the destruction of the ozone layer has been a problem forever; why are people making such a big fuss about it now?
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Giving a kid a computer is not going to do anything to benefit their education if they are solely focused on survival. The only tool a person needs for learning is someone else. It's sad that the government thinks the solution to educating the poor is to give them a laptop; which, if they are truly poor, they would probably sell anyway to get much-needed funds. People were learning and succeeding long before computers ever came about; it would be more beneficial to give a kid a book and some pencils and papers.
Myspace is a good way to keep in touch with friends and family that are far away or that we've lost touch with. And yes, the music that so many people must have on their pages is annoying. It is easy to reconnect with people and make new friends, but what worries me is that the socialization on Myspace takes away from face-to-face conversations or phone conversations and that the overall socialization skills in our society go down the toilet, as well as the English language (but that's another story). And we all know how Myspace can be used by the less savory members of society to prey upon those who are innocent. All in all, Myspace will become less and less of a commodity when someone develops something bigger and better.
According to dictionary. com, productive means: "having the power of producing; generative; creative." Productivity means, "the quality of being productive. In economics: the rate at which goods or services are produced especially output per unit of labor." I agree that productivity is not how it is defined in the media. Building a house is productive, because tho finished house is the end product. Labor units are being produced. Harvesting crops is productive, because that is something that goes to the end-user: the consumer. Teaching children is productive (in most cases) because then they will go out and be productive memebers of society. I can say, "I am being productive" when all I'm doing is surfing the net at work. Productivity, however, would be creating exams or corresponding with colleagues. Not quite like the house example, but it fits.