I'm American and lived in England for a few years. Roundabouts work well in England but would require some serious retraining here. When we do have them, all four entries have a yield sign, as the only indication of how to navigate one. In England, you have to stick your nose in, and the other drivers let you in. That doesn't work in America, because we are assholes who drive giant trucks and we are more important than the next guy.
Roundabouts do save a lot of time on a commute though. When there's no traffic, you never sit at a red light. When there's moderate traffic, it's no worse than slowing down to rubberneck something on the side of the road. When there's heavy traffic, they work better than giant intersections with several light/turn cycles.
I keep seeing this argument that red light offenses are those of us who are in the intersection when it turns red. That sucks if it's true. However, the article says they are using video, not stills, so when reviewing the tapes, it should be clear who is running red lights versus who was in the intersection when it turned red. The latter should never be ticketed.
In any case, I've been driving for 22 years and can count on one hand the number of times I've misjudged a yellow light and was in the intersection when it turned red, and I can count on ZERO fingers the number of times I've ran through a light that was red before I got to the intersection. Those people are dangerous assholes who need a hefty fine.
I support and oppose the use of red light cameras. I support them if the find and heavily fine people who blow through red lights. You know, those assholes who are far more important than the rest of us, and the rules don't apply to them?
I oppose them for how they are being used in the story--to capture people doing rolling stops on a right turn? Seriously?
It should be self-evident that the consequences of running a red light at 45 mph are far more dire than a rolling stop at an empty intersection.
This is the same reason I oppose speed traps, but not red light cameras used to catch red light runners. The consequences of doing 45 in a 40 mph zone are minimal, and speed limits are artificially low as a matter of revenue, not safety. The consequences of running a red light (majority of accidents are due to failure to yield and occur at intersections, not on straight stretches of road with drivers driving over the posted limit) are deadly.
There are (at least) two camps in the global warming skeptics camp--those who deny it is happening, and those like me who know it's happening but don't think it's worth changing our entire civilization to try and stop something that is, well, already happening anyway.
Depends on what you are trying to do. If we are trying to set minimum standards and then measure who is meeting/not meeting them, then NCLB is a success. I don't think you can say NCLB is a failure like you can say water is wet (just yet).
I am a fan of the premise, but not of the execution. I think the nationalized standards movement is a good start, since the major failing of NCLB is that the States can set their own standards.
I never understood this, if a student is substandard then they are substandard. If this superintendent knew what the definition of average was he would realise that, by definition, some students HAVE to fall below a 'C' mark.
Ahh, but a D or an F student can still meet a standard, because the standards aren't based on your grade or your bell curve distribution amongst your peers. Either you meet the standard or you don't, and your standing amongst your peers is irrelevant.
To be less cynical, either you meet a standard or you don't. I actually think that's a pretty good system, since that's what NCLB was designed to measure.
With the emphasis on standards-based education, the grade system is antiquated. Either a student meets a standard or they don't. It's that simple. If you are like me, and don't like that black/white simplicity, then get rid of the standards-based system of "you must be able to do X". If you can do X, then you pass...why assign a grade?
Wait, who said the Apple users are the ones saying there are people with or without iPads? What about the people who don't have iPods that divide the population into the same two groups? It seems those without are the ones that project their insecurities about those with. Hint: those with don't really care if you are with or without.
I agree with your point, but twenty years ago was 1990. Pretty much everyone had a computer by then.
Don't mind me, its just that I woke up recently and realised that I was old.
Not many normal folks had computers in 1990. I'm sure everyone here did (well, actually, I didn't, but I had a Mac IIfx at work, so I didn't need a home computer).
I like the part where we told them they had until a specific date to let inspectors back in, "or else". That date passed, no inspectors were allowed in, so the "or else" part kicked in. The revisionists around here tend to forget that part. Had we not followed up on our threat of "or else" the UN would have lost what little credibility it still has (or had at that time).
It used to be the latest/greatest game was really the, well, latest and greatest. Now days, the technology doesn't really change fast enough, and the market is flooded with bad games, so there's no harm in cherry-picking some quality games from a year ago.
For example, when Uncharted 2 came out, I went and bought Uncharted for $19. I finished it in a week or so. Maybe I'll go get the sequel, but I'll wait until it drops in price. In the meantime, I've got more 2-year old games to chose from than I have time to play.
Define moderation. You can't because it means different things depending on people's different lifestyles. I don't play WoW anymore, and when I did, it was maybe 4-5 hours a week...pretty moderate, in comparison to other WoWers, but that was a TON of investment for me. My kids play all day long in the summer...beats running around in the 100 degree heat.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm American and lived in England for a few years. Roundabouts work well in England but would require some serious retraining here. When we do have them, all four entries have a yield sign, as the only indication of how to navigate one. In England, you have to stick your nose in, and the other drivers let you in. That doesn't work in America, because we are assholes who drive giant trucks and we are more important than the next guy.
Roundabouts do save a lot of time on a commute though. When there's no traffic, you never sit at a red light. When there's moderate traffic, it's no worse than slowing down to rubberneck something on the side of the road. When there's heavy traffic, they work better than giant intersections with several light/turn cycles.
I keep seeing this argument that red light offenses are those of us who are in the intersection when it turns red. That sucks if it's true. However, the article says they are using video, not stills, so when reviewing the tapes, it should be clear who is running red lights versus who was in the intersection when it turned red. The latter should never be ticketed.
In any case, I've been driving for 22 years and can count on one hand the number of times I've misjudged a yellow light and was in the intersection when it turned red, and I can count on ZERO fingers the number of times I've ran through a light that was red before I got to the intersection. Those people are dangerous assholes who need a hefty fine.
I support and oppose the use of red light cameras. I support them if the find and heavily fine people who blow through red lights. You know, those assholes who are far more important than the rest of us, and the rules don't apply to them?
I oppose them for how they are being used in the story--to capture people doing rolling stops on a right turn? Seriously?
It should be self-evident that the consequences of running a red light at 45 mph are far more dire than a rolling stop at an empty intersection.
This is the same reason I oppose speed traps, but not red light cameras used to catch red light runners. The consequences of doing 45 in a 40 mph zone are minimal, and speed limits are artificially low as a matter of revenue, not safety. The consequences of running a red light (majority of accidents are due to failure to yield and occur at intersections, not on straight stretches of road with drivers driving over the posted limit) are deadly.
There are (at least) two camps in the global warming skeptics camp--those who deny it is happening, and those like me who know it's happening but don't think it's worth changing our entire civilization to try and stop something that is, well, already happening anyway.
Wait, you can't use a computer analogy in a car conversation. It only works the other way around.
Depends on what you are trying to do. If we are trying to set minimum standards and then measure who is meeting/not meeting them, then NCLB is a success. I don't think you can say NCLB is a failure like you can say water is wet (just yet).
I am a fan of the premise, but not of the execution. I think the nationalized standards movement is a good start, since the major failing of NCLB is that the States can set their own standards.
I never understood this, if a student is substandard then they are substandard. If this superintendent knew what the definition of average was he would realise that, by definition, some students HAVE to fall below a 'C' mark.
Ahh, but a D or an F student can still meet a standard, because the standards aren't based on your grade or your bell curve distribution amongst your peers. Either you meet the standard or you don't, and your standing amongst your peers is irrelevant.
To be less cynical, either you meet a standard or you don't. I actually think that's a pretty good system, since that's what NCLB was designed to measure.
Better yet, why not pass or fail? Or to be touchy feely, maybe "meets standard", "exceeds standard" or "doesn't meet standard"?
With the emphasis on standards-based education, the grade system is antiquated. Either a student meets a standard or they don't. It's that simple. If you are like me, and don't like that black/white simplicity, then get rid of the standards-based system of "you must be able to do X". If you can do X, then you pass...why assign a grade?
Wait, who said the Apple users are the ones saying there are people with or without iPads? What about the people who don't have iPods that divide the population into the same two groups? It seems those without are the ones that project their insecurities about those with. Hint: those with don't really care if you are with or without.
I agree with your point, but twenty years ago was 1990. Pretty much everyone had a computer by then.
Don't mind me, its just that I woke up recently and realised that I was old.
Not many normal folks had computers in 1990. I'm sure everyone here did (well, actually, I didn't, but I had a Mac IIfx at work, so I didn't need a home computer).
And yes, some of us are old ;-)
If
wealthy, sophisticated, (and) highly educated
is equal to selfish elite, then sign me up?
I like the part where we told them they had until a specific date to let inspectors back in, "or else". That date passed, no inspectors were allowed in, so the "or else" part kicked in. The revisionists around here tend to forget that part. Had we not followed up on our threat of "or else" the UN would have lost what little credibility it still has (or had at that time).
Leavenworth for Life + 50 sounds about right.
The same reason people who make more money should pay more taxes. You may not agree with it, but it has worked for the US for at least my 40 years.
It's a free market; if you can't complete, suck it!
It's a free market; if you can't type, suck it!
They should change their name to kitschdesign.com and sell their wares at walmart.com.
OOh, look at big tough computer science nerd thinking his undergrad degree is better than graphic designer nerd's MFA.
So graphic designers don't have to learn well, eh? Guess you really don't know anything about graphic design then.
Those who want to pay peanuts, end up hiring monkeys.
That is the most eloquent equivalent of "you get what you pay for" that I've ever read. Nicely done.
It used to be the latest/greatest game was really the, well, latest and greatest. Now days, the technology doesn't really change fast enough, and the market is flooded with bad games, so there's no harm in cherry-picking some quality games from a year ago.
For example, when Uncharted 2 came out, I went and bought Uncharted for $19. I finished it in a week or so. Maybe I'll go get the sequel, but I'll wait until it drops in price. In the meantime, I've got more 2-year old games to chose from than I have time to play.
Management skills and combat skills have both the same difficulty,
In management, you can't just spam the 1 key to succeed.
WoW makes you get good at time management...maybe that's the benefit.
Define moderation. You can't because it means different things depending on people's different lifestyles. I don't play WoW anymore, and when I did, it was maybe 4-5 hours a week...pretty moderate, in comparison to other WoWers, but that was a TON of investment for me. My kids play all day long in the summer...beats running around in the 100 degree heat.
I don't see where he ever denied being a terrible employee.
Also he said he's a gamer, not necessarily a WoW player, and that WoW players specifically are 99.999% morons.