The problem is students memorize procedures without fully understanding the mathematics, he notes.
Thank you American math teachers for teaching me how to memorize procedures for 12 years instead of, you know, actually helping me understand what it all means. Most importantly, thanks for not showing me how it applies to real life.
For the innocent, it's our society's willingness to ostracize someone based merely on accusation that is the problem, not the posting of the picture.
Why make it easier for those idiots amongst us to perpetuate this problem? If you don't post the picture, Average Joe who doesn't understand the difference between an arrest and a conviction won't be able to form faulty conclusions about an innocent person.
I'm pretty sure he was saying local governments, within their own constitutions, cannot do things that violate the US Constitution. I'm pretty sure the 14th amendment makes that clear. While states can do their own thing, especially when not specifically addressed in the Constitution (10th amendment), they can't do things that are unconstitutional at the federal level.
A good example would be Arizona cannot usurp the constitution on the 4th and 5th amendment, nor can they make laws that are clearly enumerated as powers of the federal government, just because they have an immigration problem. Yes, address the immigration problems, but no, don't violate the US Constitution while doing so. Otherwise, as we've seen, your new law gets struck down as, wait for it...unconstitutional.
If you think ruining a guy's life just because they drove after drinking 2 beers is good for society, then we disagree.
I personally prefer non-arbitrary laws to determine what "drunk" means. If drinking impairs our driving so much, then.000001 should be illegal. Why is it ok to be.079 BAC, but not.08? Is there good science to back that up?
Or, back in the real world, we should acknowledge that a cop with an agenda, two beers with dinner, and driving a car are not a good combination.
I thought the Civic hybrid was only hybrid assist. Try comparing it to the Honda Insight (a full hybrid). I thought I read the Insight was around $20k, and I'm pretty sure it get's better gas mileage than a Civic. So, right off the bat it pays off.
This study makes the same, simplistic logical flaw that all my dumb coworkers make. There IS no equivalent gas vehicle to compare against the Toyota Hybrid because there's no gas hybrid model to compare it to. You can't compare the Hybrid to a Camry, or a Corolla, or anything else, because there is nothing in the same class (other than perhaps the Honda Hybrid).
The Fusion is the only realistic car to compare (against itself) because it has a "real" hybrid model and a gas model (with different sized engines too).
Something tells me that the guy going to a nightclub might actually, you know, WANT to be seen. What's the point of going to a nightclub if you are worried about being seen there? The whole point is to be seen.
They'll pay premiums to drive cars that use four times the amount of gasoline to travel one mile as other cars, just to make it look like they can afford it.
They'll pay premiums for "sports cars" to make it look like they're younger than they really are.
Or, as automotive enthusiasts, we buy these cars because they are beautiful, fun, and interesting pieces of engineering. Most people who drive these sort of cars can afford to. We aren't trying to fool you into thinking we are driving cars we can't afford. Actually, we don't really care what you think about our cars, unless you show interest in them and would like to talk about them with us.
Also, I'm 40. I look 30. I don't need a sports car to look younger. If anything, a nice sports car says "older", as "old enough to afford it".
I have an online graduate degree. It's garbage compared to a "real" degree. Zero tests in two years, graduated with a 3.9 (got an A- in a stats class because, imagine this, I couldn't get help from a real human).
The only reason I'd suggest an online degree is for people who end up in my situation (military dependent living in Iceland, with no job and nothing to do other than take classes online). I fully plan on going back to the University of Texas to get the same degree.
Exactly my point. My opinion nor yours matters on issues of Constitutionality. If a law is popularly enacted and it is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. There are many people in this country who think that "majority rules", such as people who vote to let the government violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Ah, yes, the old "activist judge" meme. That's code for "I'm not intelligent enough to understand how law works, so I'll make fun of lawyers and call judges names."
Don't these people understand that it's a judge's JOB to determine whether a law that is passed by the legislative branch is legal? That is not activism, that is judicial checks-and-balances, you know, our government at work.
Well said. The Constitution does have some gray area, and times have changed which provides additional challenges (any soldiers come demanding quartering lately?).
However, most people's opinion about what the Constitution says is what's wrong, not the Constitution itself. We've done a pretty good job at amending the dumb stuff out, and rectifying social unjustices.
I heard some dumb lady (anti-gay marriage) say that we need to read the Constitution, becaues nowhere in it does it allow gays to get married! Well with that completely ignorant world-view I'd like to suggest to that stupid woman that nowhere in the Constitution does it say heterosexuals are allowed to get married. Unless, of course, you want to talk about the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" part, which I'm pretty sure doesn't say *for heterosexuals only* in small print.
I can assure you that a supreme court decision will matter more before any stem-cell breakthrough happens. It will probably TAKE the supreme court to clear the way for such a stem-cell story to matter.
Bumble? Her answer was clear--a law isnt' unconstitutional just because she thinks it's pointless. Then she got cut off trying to respond further, then the clip ended.
Man, if this is all anyone can provide against Kagan than it's no wonder she breezed through confirmation.
Well that's nice that you think it deserves a nice, quick, "NO!" response. But you can't just say something is unconsitutional because you don't like it, don't agree with it, or think it's stupid...which is exactly what Kagan said.
If you think something is unconstitutional, you have to say WHY it is unconstitutional.
Ahhh, the worst part about Senate hearings. The Senators always pose their questions in the form of a statement. Glad to see they don't change anything for Supreme Court nominations!
I would expect a good judge to not be able to make a decision about "should the government be able to tell you what to eat" until she has heard all sides of the case. That's a stupid question to ask in a confirmation hearing. If she didn't answer this question, then good for her...she'll make a great judge.
Me too, until second reading. The problem is with the "choices made by the American people" part.
Of course the court shouldn't give a shit about the choices of American people. The court should only care about the consitutionality of the choices of the American people. I heard it best just this week: just because more people in California voted to ban gay marriage than didn't, doesn't mean that popular opinion is not unconstitutional.
This country is not run by the outcome of popularity contests alone.
Your guess is wrong. Most classified information is AUTOMATICALLY declassified after a certain amount of years (10, I think), unless it gets an exemption (which isn't easy to do). To declassify something before that time, the President can do it, or any of the appointed classification authorities. You may think they are "covert" but I knew many people with classification authority that were in as low of ranks as E-6. And by definition, handling classified material requires "covert" agencies....duh.
Basic programming is, for a beginner, very satisfying - whether it's shell, perl, or VB. "Look what I made" is very horizon opening, regardless of whether it's a crayon drawing, an ash try, a clock, or a highly advanced artificial intelligence.:)
Maybe it's the graphic design bias in me, but that's why I could never continue on with programming. Ok, so now what..I made a bunch of lines of text make the screen do something. WTF do I do now? It's a different type of creativity...one I evidently don't have.
Slashdot Mirror
Because math teachers in America suck.
FTA:
The problem is students memorize procedures without fully understanding the mathematics, he notes.
Thank you American math teachers for teaching me how to memorize procedures for 12 years instead of, you know, actually helping me understand what it all means. Most importantly, thanks for not showing me how it applies to real life.
For the innocent, it's our society's willingness to ostracize someone based merely on accusation that is the problem, not the posting of the picture.
Why make it easier for those idiots amongst us to perpetuate this problem? If you don't post the picture, Average Joe who doesn't understand the difference between an arrest and a conviction won't be able to form faulty conclusions about an innocent person.
I'm pretty sure he was saying local governments, within their own constitutions, cannot do things that violate the US Constitution. I'm pretty sure the 14th amendment makes that clear. While states can do their own thing, especially when not specifically addressed in the Constitution (10th amendment), they can't do things that are unconstitutional at the federal level.
A good example would be Arizona cannot usurp the constitution on the 4th and 5th amendment, nor can they make laws that are clearly enumerated as powers of the federal government, just because they have an immigration problem. Yes, address the immigration problems, but no, don't violate the US Constitution while doing so. Otherwise, as we've seen, your new law gets struck down as, wait for it...unconstitutional.
Civics 101...Libel and slander are not sanctioned under the 1st amendment.
If you think ruining a guy's life just because they drove after drinking 2 beers is good for society, then we disagree.
I personally prefer non-arbitrary laws to determine what "drunk" means. If drinking impairs our driving so much, then .000001 should be illegal. Why is it ok to be .079 BAC, but not .08? Is there good science to back that up?
Or, back in the real world, we should acknowledge that a cop with an agenda, two beers with dinner, and driving a car are not a good combination.
I thought the Civic hybrid was only hybrid assist. Try comparing it to the Honda Insight (a full hybrid). I thought I read the Insight was around $20k, and I'm pretty sure it get's better gas mileage than a Civic. So, right off the bat it pays off.
This study makes the same, simplistic logical flaw that all my dumb coworkers make. There IS no equivalent gas vehicle to compare against the Toyota Hybrid because there's no gas hybrid model to compare it to. You can't compare the Hybrid to a Camry, or a Corolla, or anything else, because there is nothing in the same class (other than perhaps the Honda Hybrid).
The Fusion is the only realistic car to compare (against itself) because it has a "real" hybrid model and a gas model (with different sized engines too).
Something tells me that the guy going to a nightclub might actually, you know, WANT to be seen. What's the point of going to a nightclub if you are worried about being seen there? The whole point is to be seen.
Well, most 40 year old men don't get carded to buy beer. I do.
And if your standard of affordability means you have to pay cash for a car, then you are simply unrealistic.
They'll pay premiums to drive cars that use four times the amount of gasoline to travel one mile as other cars, just to make it look like they can afford it.
They'll pay premiums for "sports cars" to make it look like they're younger than they really are.
Or, as automotive enthusiasts, we buy these cars because they are beautiful, fun, and interesting pieces of engineering. Most people who drive these sort of cars can afford to. We aren't trying to fool you into thinking we are driving cars we can't afford. Actually, we don't really care what you think about our cars, unless you show interest in them and would like to talk about them with us.
Also, I'm 40. I look 30. I don't need a sports car to look younger. If anything, a nice sports car says "older", as "old enough to afford it".
I bought a 2002 Prius at 1 year of age.
I didn't buy my first car until I was 19.
I guess that means you don't need to go to college to be good at business. Engineering, on the other hand...
I have an online graduate degree. It's garbage compared to a "real" degree. Zero tests in two years, graduated with a 3.9 (got an A- in a stats class because, imagine this, I couldn't get help from a real human).
The only reason I'd suggest an online degree is for people who end up in my situation (military dependent living in Iceland, with no job and nothing to do other than take classes online). I fully plan on going back to the University of Texas to get the same degree.
Exactly my point. My opinion nor yours matters on issues of Constitutionality. If a law is popularly enacted and it is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. There are many people in this country who think that "majority rules", such as people who vote to let the government violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Ah, yes, the old "activist judge" meme. That's code for "I'm not intelligent enough to understand how law works, so I'll make fun of lawyers and call judges names."
Don't these people understand that it's a judge's JOB to determine whether a law that is passed by the legislative branch is legal? That is not activism, that is judicial checks-and-balances, you know, our government at work.
Well said. The Constitution does have some gray area, and times have changed which provides additional challenges (any soldiers come demanding quartering lately?).
However, most people's opinion about what the Constitution says is what's wrong, not the Constitution itself. We've done a pretty good job at amending the dumb stuff out, and rectifying social unjustices.
I heard some dumb lady (anti-gay marriage) say that we need to read the Constitution, becaues nowhere in it does it allow gays to get married! Well with that completely ignorant world-view I'd like to suggest to that stupid woman that nowhere in the Constitution does it say heterosexuals are allowed to get married. Unless, of course, you want to talk about the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" part, which I'm pretty sure doesn't say *for heterosexuals only* in small print.
I can assure you that a supreme court decision will matter more before any stem-cell breakthrough happens. It will probably TAKE the supreme court to clear the way for such a stem-cell story to matter.
Bumble? Her answer was clear--a law isnt' unconstitutional just because she thinks it's pointless. Then she got cut off trying to respond further, then the clip ended.
Man, if this is all anyone can provide against Kagan than it's no wonder she breezed through confirmation.
Well that's nice that you think it deserves a nice, quick, "NO!" response. But you can't just say something is unconsitutional because you don't like it, don't agree with it, or think it's stupid...which is exactly what Kagan said.
If you think something is unconstitutional, you have to say WHY it is unconstitutional.
Ahhh, the worst part about Senate hearings. The Senators always pose their questions in the form of a statement. Glad to see they don't change anything for Supreme Court nominations!
I would expect a good judge to not be able to make a decision about "should the government be able to tell you what to eat" until she has heard all sides of the case. That's a stupid question to ask in a confirmation hearing. If she didn't answer this question, then good for her...she'll make a great judge.
Thank you for providing more proof that anti-intellectualism is still thriving. PLEASE keep this trend going through the next election cycle.
Me too, until second reading. The problem is with the "choices made by the American people" part.
Of course the court shouldn't give a shit about the choices of American people. The court should only care about the consitutionality of the choices of the American people. I heard it best just this week: just because more people in California voted to ban gay marriage than didn't, doesn't mean that popular opinion is not unconstitutional.
This country is not run by the outcome of popularity contests alone.
Your guess is wrong. Most classified information is AUTOMATICALLY declassified after a certain amount of years (10, I think), unless it gets an exemption (which isn't easy to do). To declassify something before that time, the President can do it, or any of the appointed classification authorities. You may think they are "covert" but I knew many people with classification authority that were in as low of ranks as E-6. And by definition, handling classified material requires "covert" agencies....duh.
Basic programming is, for a beginner, very satisfying - whether it's shell, perl, or VB. "Look what I made" is very horizon opening, regardless of whether it's a crayon drawing, an ash try, a clock, or a highly advanced artificial intelligence. :)
Maybe it's the graphic design bias in me, but that's why I could never continue on with programming. Ok, so now what..I made a bunch of lines of text make the screen do something. WTF do I do now? It's a different type of creativity...one I evidently don't have.