Did you miss the part where most people don't like the government taking out money and spending it?
Sure didn't. Still doesn't make Obamacare socialized. It might make it expensive, or unpopular, but socialized it is not. It may be paid for by taxes. That's not socialism, unless you can start pointing out those government doctors that will be performing the services.
And if you don't think you are paying enough taxes, then simply check the box at the bottom of the return and donate some more to the federal government. Most state's have that box too, so go all out.
I don't believe I said any such thing. I merely said that Obamacare is not socialism, then some other under-informed person defined socialism as the government taking money from us to use for services. This already happens. It's called progressive taxes, not socialism. Texas doesn't have a State income tax, and I like that, if you'd like some insight to my opinions about taxes (which, btw, have nothing to do with the definition of socialism).
Now if you'd all please injecting your opinions about things that I didn't say, maybe this conversation can get somewhere.
I would always joke that the problem with the Iraqi's is that the words for left and right are Yamiin and Yasaar, respectively, so you can't hold up you finger and thumb with the left hand forming an "L" for "left" like you can in English.
It's not socialized medicine because I can still use my private insurance, for starters.
Your definition of "takes money from society as a whole and redistributes it" describes nearly every economic system on the planet, to include the most successful free markets.
If it involves taking people's income to pay for government services, it's socialism. You're just conditioned to it.
You are wrong. Unless, of course, you view our current progressive tax scheme as socialism. But then if you do, then there's no harm in Obamacare, if we're already socialist because we use taxes to pay for government services, right?
I have trained the Iraqi security forces (military and civilian) and they are pretty much not trainable by western standards. You have grown men/working professionals who don't know their right from their left. You spend one week trying to teach them military drill that takes the average 8th grader 20 minutes to master. Add a loaded rifle and an "Insha Allah" attitude, and you only make everything worse.
Granted, they have pretty severe brain-drain in that country. All the smart ones left years ago (in the 80s, then again in 1990, then yet again in the 2000s). If security ever improves, I have several friends and colleagues that would go back. The problem is, security won't improve without the likes of them returning and bringing their advanced degrees back to their homeland. It's a total "chicken-or-the-egg" conundrum.
You sure your WIFE is the one doing the research and not you? I'm in the same field (instructional technology), and the points you make took me several years (and lots of tuition) to come up with.
I was able to find just as many studies that show good tech implementation indeed improves learning better than standard instruction. Unfortunately, most of the benefit is lost at the hands of inept instructors. The "just stick it in PowerPoint and call it tech", or "make them look it up on the Internet" mentality is still far to prevalent.
There's a curriculum movement that I support called I2 (Integrated-Interdisciplinary). Students take two classes, say Spanish, and Technology, then use the stuff they learn in the technology class and apply it to their Spanish class assignments. Students generally do one project, but get two grades--a Spanish grade for the content of the Spanish, and a tech grade. it can be done with ANY subject--Physical Education and a spreadsheet class (track calories, scores, whatever), Music (AV class to record performances), Math (err, I'm not a math person, but whatever software you need to type Math in word processing?)
it's what students can expect to be exposed to for the rest of their lives/careers. So they might as well become used to it.
This is the worst type of logic that leads to failed technology implementation in schools everywhere.
The point of technology is not to teach the students how to use technology. The point is to facilitate instruction and better learning using technology.
Teaching students HOW to use technology is automatic when you make technology part of the delivery method.
This sort of mindset is why there are so many mindless "Microsoft Excel" classes. The point is not to learn how to use Excel because you'll get a job using Excel one day. The point is to under the concepts of spreadsheets and how they help you do your job in the real world.
Either you are a talented public speaker and in the 1% of the population who can use PowerPoint effectively, or you are being intentionally obtuse. I'm pretty sure most people know a bad PowerPoint presentation when they see one (hint: nearly all of them). I can imagine they would only be worse with an under-motivated tenured prof. of Econ-101 who has little incentive to make better PowerPoint presentations.
is above the level of skill and time the average educator has. I have an MAEd in Computer Education (how to use computers to improve education, not how to use computers) AND I design computer-based training for a living. Even a simplistic interactive quiz is too complicated and more importantly, too time consuming for the average educator.
It's also very expensive. For moderate levels of interactivity, a good average time for development is about 450 hours for one hour of lesson plan (instructor led) training. Multiply that by a typical rate of about $100/hour for corporate training development, and it gets too expensive, too quickly to outsource.
A better alternative would be to abandon the pipe dream of highly interactive, "exciting" training in favor of things that most people already know how to do (blogging, for example).
The new Volt comes in at $41k. But the Volt has a $7500 federal rebate and some states are putting up another $1-4k rebate. Which puts it's price right in line with the Prius. You don't have to been in the $200k/year income bracket to be interested in that.
I see plenty of people every day in the $50k a year bracket driving $40k Suburbans. It's not a matter of cost. If people want something badly enough, they'll buy it.
I tried that before too, but quickly got bogged down in all the misinformation on the Internet. My personal favorite being the myth that the Prius batteries cost $10000 to replace and only last 3 years.
You have a glaring flaw in your comparo...the Prius is a much bigger car than a Mazda3 (which I own, btw) and a Fiesta. You need to compare a Prius to a Fusion...or better yet, a Fusion Hybrid to a Fusion.
That's well stated. Maybe that's why, at age 40, I have a very good career that has nothing to do with my German degree (I'm a tech writer for a software company). I worked in many areas that have nothing to do with Liberal Arts, then got a graduate degree in my field after having worked in it for 10 years.
Instead of pointing out your fallacy, I'll just flat-out tell you: You are wrong. I am a counterexample -- most of the time, when I say "citation needed", I mean exactly what you've suggested -- I doubt what you said, could you please present some evidence?
I am not saying "you are wrong" -- I can doubt, but be open to changing my mind if I receive some new evidence. If I was certain you were wrong, I would've said "Bullshit!" instead.
It's a well known snarky tactic. It's sophomoric and lends nothing to civilized discussion. If you think otherwise, than maybe you should take a communication class or something.
Obviousness is not the metric of whether or not a citation is needed.
Yes it is, or at least it is in the APA Writing Style. You don't have to cite what is commonly accepted as truth. If people don't want to accept that US Universities are some of the best in the world, then they are just being contrarian. No citation needed.
Slashdot Mirror
So, I'll say it again. Maybe it's unpopular, unfair, expensive, deceptive, challenged by States in court, but it's STILL not socialism.
Did you miss the part where most people don't like the government taking out money and spending it?
Sure didn't. Still doesn't make Obamacare socialized. It might make it expensive, or unpopular, but socialized it is not. It may be paid for by taxes. That's not socialism, unless you can start pointing out those government doctors that will be performing the services.
And if you don't think you are paying enough taxes, then simply check the box at the bottom of the return and donate some more to the federal government. Most state's have that box too, so go all out.
I don't believe I said any such thing. I merely said that Obamacare is not socialism, then some other under-informed person defined socialism as the government taking money from us to use for services. This already happens. It's called progressive taxes, not socialism. Texas doesn't have a State income tax, and I like that, if you'd like some insight to my opinions about taxes (which, btw, have nothing to do with the definition of socialism).
Now if you'd all please injecting your opinions about things that I didn't say, maybe this conversation can get somewhere.
I would always joke that the problem with the Iraqi's is that the words for left and right are Yamiin and Yasaar, respectively, so you can't hold up you finger and thumb with the left hand forming an "L" for "left" like you can in English.
Yes, it is just the first step. As for now, though, it remains definitively not socialized.
It's not socialized medicine because I can still use my private insurance, for starters.
Your definition of "takes money from society as a whole and redistributes it" describes nearly every economic system on the planet, to include the most successful free markets.
If it involves taking people's income to pay for government services, it's socialism. You're just conditioned to it.
You are wrong. Unless, of course, you view our current progressive tax scheme as socialism. But then if you do, then there's no harm in Obamacare, if we're already socialist because we use taxes to pay for government services, right?
So how long can we afford to maintain 50000 troops in Iraq?
We are already paying those troops. Might as well be doing something while they are getting paid.
I have trained the Iraqi security forces (military and civilian) and they are pretty much not trainable by western standards. You have grown men/working professionals who don't know their right from their left. You spend one week trying to teach them military drill that takes the average 8th grader 20 minutes to master. Add a loaded rifle and an "Insha Allah" attitude, and you only make everything worse.
Granted, they have pretty severe brain-drain in that country. All the smart ones left years ago (in the 80s, then again in 1990, then yet again in the 2000s). If security ever improves, I have several friends and colleagues that would go back. The problem is, security won't improve without the likes of them returning and bringing their advanced degrees back to their homeland. It's a total "chicken-or-the-egg" conundrum.
You do realize that Obamacare is neither socialized nor centralized, right?
You sure your WIFE is the one doing the research and not you? I'm in the same field (instructional technology), and the points you make took me several years (and lots of tuition) to come up with.
I was able to find just as many studies that show good tech implementation indeed improves learning better than standard instruction. Unfortunately, most of the benefit is lost at the hands of inept instructors. The "just stick it in PowerPoint and call it tech", or "make them look it up on the Internet" mentality is still far to prevalent.
There's a curriculum movement that I support called I2 (Integrated-Interdisciplinary). Students take two classes, say Spanish, and Technology, then use the stuff they learn in the technology class and apply it to their Spanish class assignments. Students generally do one project, but get two grades--a Spanish grade for the content of the Spanish, and a tech grade. it can be done with ANY subject--Physical Education and a spreadsheet class (track calories, scores, whatever), Music (AV class to record performances), Math (err, I'm not a math person, but whatever software you need to type Math in word processing?)
Technology is a just tool.
It's also "just a tool" as well.
it's what students can expect to be exposed to for the rest of their lives/careers. So they might as well become used to it.
This is the worst type of logic that leads to failed technology implementation in schools everywhere.
The point of technology is not to teach the students how to use technology. The point is to facilitate instruction and better learning using technology.
Teaching students HOW to use technology is automatic when you make technology part of the delivery method.
This sort of mindset is why there are so many mindless "Microsoft Excel" classes. The point is not to learn how to use Excel because you'll get a job using Excel one day. The point is to under the concepts of spreadsheets and how they help you do your job in the real world.
Either you are a talented public speaker and in the 1% of the population who can use PowerPoint effectively, or you are being intentionally obtuse. I'm pretty sure most people know a bad PowerPoint presentation when they see one (hint: nearly all of them). I can imagine they would only be worse with an under-motivated tenured prof. of Econ-101 who has little incentive to make better PowerPoint presentations.
Just curious how you learn computer science without tech.
That's lack of preparation, not tech, interfering with your learning. As usual, the human is the problem.
is above the level of skill and time the average educator has. I have an MAEd in Computer Education (how to use computers to improve education, not how to use computers) AND I design computer-based training for a living. Even a simplistic interactive quiz is too complicated and more importantly, too time consuming for the average educator.
It's also very expensive. For moderate levels of interactivity, a good average time for development is about 450 hours for one hour of lesson plan (instructor led) training. Multiply that by a typical rate of about $100/hour for corporate training development, and it gets too expensive, too quickly to outsource.
A better alternative would be to abandon the pipe dream of highly interactive, "exciting" training in favor of things that most people already know how to do (blogging, for example).
just rolled over in his grave.
The new Volt comes in at $41k. But the Volt has a $7500 federal rebate and some states are putting up another $1-4k rebate. Which puts it's price right in line with the Prius. You don't have to been in the $200k/year income bracket to be interested in that.
I see plenty of people every day in the $50k a year bracket driving $40k Suburbans. It's not a matter of cost. If people want something badly enough, they'll buy it.
Ooh ooh, my anecdote!
I have a 2008 Mazda3. The turbo has been replaced twice, under 42,000 miles.
I have a 1999 Ford Contour SVT. I've replaced the window motor twice in 120,000 miles.
I expect, based on the European track recored, for the Fiesta to be a much more reliable car than the Mazda3 (even the non-turbo version).
I think your world view of Ford vs. Toyotas might be a little outdated.
I tried that before too, but quickly got bogged down in all the misinformation on the Internet. My personal favorite being the myth that the Prius batteries cost $10000 to replace and only last 3 years.
You have a glaring flaw in your comparo...the Prius is a much bigger car than a Mazda3 (which I own, btw) and a Fiesta. You need to compare a Prius to a Fusion...or better yet, a Fusion Hybrid to a Fusion.
Let the early adopters bring me an affordable, not-ugly-ass electric car.
Yes, I'm clearly racist, as evident by my long history of racist posts on slashdot.
Please do not confuse pragmatism with racism.
No, I think a better analogy is, just because some planes crash, I'm not going to avoid flying.
That's well stated. Maybe that's why, at age 40, I have a very good career that has nothing to do with my German degree (I'm a tech writer for a software company). I worked in many areas that have nothing to do with Liberal Arts, then got a graduate degree in my field after having worked in it for 10 years.
Instead of pointing out your fallacy, I'll just flat-out tell you: You are wrong. I am a counterexample -- most of the time, when I say "citation needed", I mean exactly what you've suggested -- I doubt what you said, could you please present some evidence?
I am not saying "you are wrong" -- I can doubt, but be open to changing my mind if I receive some new evidence. If I was certain you were wrong, I would've said "Bullshit!" instead.
It's a well known snarky tactic. It's sophomoric and lends nothing to civilized discussion. If you think otherwise, than maybe you should take a communication class or something.
Obviousness is not the metric of whether or not a citation is needed.
Yes it is, or at least it is in the APA Writing Style. You don't have to cite what is commonly accepted as truth. If people don't want to accept that US Universities are some of the best in the world, then they are just being contrarian. No citation needed.