Illegal content distribution is not child porn. As for what constitutes child porn--the laws determine that, not random slashdot user guy. If you don't like the law, get them changed, or abide by them.
That is a correct, yet secondary problem. I've always had a problem with registering sex offenders, because thinking back when I was 16 and my girlfriends were also in the 14-17 range, I probably would have been convicted by today's standards.
Why isn't the government funding research? How about 8-years of leadership from a political party that revels in anti-intellectualism. Everyone knows common sense is all we need--why spend money on those liberal college people!
The problem is we are teaching children that hypocrisy is ok? Other than that, my problem is you can't force a child to learn voluntarism, by MAKING them volunteer for stuff. Mandatory voluntarism is an oxymoron.
everything you said is great. Indeed it sounds like a positive experience for everyone involved. My problem isn't with your proram, it is with mandatory volunteering as a graduation requirement.
The problem is that a lot of children have parents who do not give a flip about education and will not do diddly to motivate their children. The low-performing schools mentioned in this article are full of those kinds of kids.
What do you do then? Write these kids off because they lost the parent lottery?
Well, not all children CAN be motivated. My child is fortunate to have two parents with graduate degrees, yet he hates school. He's not stupid, but he's not exactly tearing up the GPA or the standardized tests. School isn't for everyone even when all the right environmental factors are in place.
I agree this idea is philosophically disappointing-- all children SHOULD cherish education, blah, blah blah. But they don't.
As a high school teacher, I can tell you the most common "notes" a student puts in the margins are "Roger kills Piggy," "Lennie kills George," and "Gatsby dies."
OK, I'm so passionate about this topic, I bothered myself to search for something to cite while at work. I correct myself, and update the worst school Internet access from 95% to 97%... in 2001!!!
So this means practically every school in America has Internet access. The statistic is staggeringly surprising to me still, three years after I learned of it.
Notice too, how "rural" schools are listed at 100 percent access (rounded up from more than 99.5). The lowest access is actually "city".
Perhaps more pertinent to this conversation is how many kids actually have access to this nearly 100% Internet access rate. Well, that is addressed in another table, which lists percentage of classrooms that have Internet access. Again, the worst demographic in 2001!!! is at 79%, which is still "most" in my book. Certainly the numbers in this list, while already pretty high, even for 2001, have only gone up as of the 2006 study I wanted to cite in my previous post.
And if you're making the logical connection that kids that don't have showers, who live 30 miles away from the school up backcountry roads, don't have internet access, why, you'd be right.
Incorrect!!!!! I'm at work right now and can't get to it, but I have the US Department of Education statistics (through 2006) breakdown of Internet access in schools. The lowest access demographic is still near 95%. That means, on the average, the WORST demographic in the US still has a 95% access rate.
Sure, that doesn't do anything for that other 5% without access, but it's time to move beyond the myth of the "digital divide". Frankly, "most" schools in America DO have access to the Internet, and it is around 95% for every demographic group. Poorly performing schools need to stop using this excuse, because it simply isn't true.
Now, knowing how to use the Internet to improve learning is another discussion altogether, but access is NOT the problem. Also, access at home IS a problem. Kids with Internet/computer at home are much better off than those who would have to stay at school longer or go to the public library.
This is such an annoying misconception that I actually feel compelled (for once) to go home, find the study and properly cite it!!!
High school students these days if I recall *have* to do community service to graduate.
Not all school curriculums require community service. Personally, I find service-based education to be hypocritical, because: a) education is mandatory (in the US), and b) requiring voluntarism really negates the entire notion of voluntarism. If you are volunteering to do something, but are only doing so because you are forced to, it really isn't volunteering anymore now is it?
Service-based education is a waste of my child's time. I don't need a community to teach my child what its standards are through forced labor, thanks.
Schwarzenegger believes internet (sic) activities such as Facebook, Twitter and downloading to iPods show that young people are the first to adopt new online technologies and that the internet (sic) is the best way to learn in classrooms...
Close. The Internet is not necessarily the "best" way to learn, but it is a method easily dismissed by most teachers and administrators. Administration, however, spends more time trying to figure out how to BLOCK these technologies instead of trying to figure out how to successfully implement them into the curriculum.
Yes. As an existing iPhone customer, I can buy another iPhone at the $99 rate, and give it to "my wife". You have to convert your account to a family plan, but depending on how much time is left on your current contract, it may be worth it to pay the extra monthly fee for a family plan, versus paying the upgrade price. Once your first phone's individual contract expires, ditch the family plan, and go back to an individual plan on your newer, $99 iPhone. I've done this once already, and depending on how compelling the new phone is, I might be doing it again.
I cut diet soda out of my life in 2005 and lost 30 pounds. I was 210lbs at 5'8" which was the straight up short/fat geek look. Guess what? I changed nothing else in my life or diet, other than swapping out diet soda with water. Carbonation is bad, mmmkay?
I agree. There is no "obsolescence" involved at all, only progressively better products. Until my 1st and 2nd gen iPhones no longer work and until my 2nd generation through current line of iPods stop working, I'll just keep on picking and choosing when I buy new Apple products and when I feel compelled to skip a version (such as this new iPhone).
Absolutely. Besides, early adopters always get the shaft. That's the price you pay for being an early adopter.
If this is true (and I believe it to be) then nobody is really getting the shaft. If that's the price to pay, and they are willingly paying it, then they WANT the shaft. I know because I took the $699 shaft on August 10th, 2007.
Or, you can keep your existing account, buy a new $99 iPhone for your make-believe spouse (this is slashdot, right) and add it to your existing plan for a little more (I previously posted $15 a month more, but I think it's more like $30 for the family plan). When your original plan dies, depending on how many months you had to pay "family plan" for two phones, simply go back to a single plan for the new phone, and donate your old iPhone. Who knows, since you'll be sporting a new shiny iPhone, you might actually land a spouse before it expires so then you can keep both.
You can buy a new iPhone for $100 (and bypass the upgrade fee/turn in your old phone), even if you are already a customer. It will cost you about $15 a month more to be on the "Family" plan, until your current contract ends. At that time, cancel your old iPhone contract, and go back to a single iPhone bill. That's what I did with the first round, but ended up keeping the original phone and giving it to my wife. $120 a month for 2 family plan iPhones is much better than $180 a month for 2 individual plans (if you need two phones in your household).
My main point is pretty simple - MS can, and has, produced some good products.
And my rebuttal is equally simple. Other than a couple versions of Office in the mid 1990s, what have they made that qualifies as "some good products"? I can think of only a couple -- the Xbox line (even with it's quality issues), Word for Macintosh, version 4, Excel (way back before it became a bloated spreadsheet that does incorrect math calculations), and Windows XP (only after a couple years of service packs, and even still, compared to the competition, only rates "good enough").
Engineering tradeoffs--I prefer UI not suffer at the expense of other things, like long "feature" lists and "legacy support" that Microsoft is so in love with.
Slashdot Mirror
Illegal content distribution is not child porn. As for what constitutes child porn--the laws determine that, not random slashdot user guy. If you don't like the law, get them changed, or abide by them.
That is a correct, yet secondary problem. I've always had a problem with registering sex offenders, because thinking back when I was 16 and my girlfriends were also in the 14-17 range, I probably would have been convicted by today's standards.
Why isn't the government funding research? How about 8-years of leadership from a political party that revels in anti-intellectualism. Everyone knows common sense is all we need--why spend money on those liberal college people!
You know, you could always choose NOT to have child pornography on your computer.
The problem is we are teaching children that hypocrisy is ok? Other than that, my problem is you can't force a child to learn voluntarism, by MAKING them volunteer for stuff. Mandatory voluntarism is an oxymoron.
everything you said is great. Indeed it sounds like a positive experience for everyone involved. My problem isn't with your proram, it is with mandatory volunteering as a graduation requirement.
The problem is that a lot of children have parents who do not give a flip about education and will not do diddly to motivate their children. The low-performing schools mentioned in this article are full of those kinds of kids.
What do you do then? Write these kids off because they lost the parent lottery?
Well, not all children CAN be motivated. My child is fortunate to have two parents with graduate degrees, yet he hates school. He's not stupid, but he's not exactly tearing up the GPA or the standardized tests. School isn't for everyone even when all the right environmental factors are in place.
I agree this idea is philosophically disappointing-- all children SHOULD cherish education, blah, blah blah. But they don't.
Exactly.
As a high school teacher, I can tell you the most common "notes" a student puts in the margins are "Roger kills Piggy," "Lennie kills George," and "Gatsby dies."
OK, I'm so passionate about this topic, I bothered myself to search for something to cite while at work. I correct myself, and update the worst school Internet access from 95% to 97%... in 2001!!!
So this means practically every school in America has Internet access. The statistic is staggeringly surprising to me still, three years after I learned of it.
Notice too, how "rural" schools are listed at 100 percent access (rounded up from more than 99.5). The lowest access is actually "city".
Perhaps more pertinent to this conversation is how many kids actually have access to this nearly 100% Internet access rate. Well, that is addressed in another table, which lists percentage of classrooms that have Internet access. Again, the worst demographic in 2001!!! is at 79%, which is still "most" in my book. Certainly the numbers in this list, while already pretty high, even for 2001, have only gone up as of the 2006 study I wanted to cite in my previous post.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002018.pdf Go to the "Tables of Estimates and Standard Errors" section, pages 14 and 16.
And if you're making the logical connection that kids that don't have showers, who live 30 miles away from the school up backcountry roads, don't have internet access, why, you'd be right.
Incorrect!!!!! I'm at work right now and can't get to it, but I have the US Department of Education statistics (through 2006) breakdown of Internet access in schools. The lowest access demographic is still near 95%. That means, on the average, the WORST demographic in the US still has a 95% access rate.
Sure, that doesn't do anything for that other 5% without access, but it's time to move beyond the myth of the "digital divide". Frankly, "most" schools in America DO have access to the Internet, and it is around 95% for every demographic group. Poorly performing schools need to stop using this excuse, because it simply isn't true.
Now, knowing how to use the Internet to improve learning is another discussion altogether, but access is NOT the problem. Also, access at home IS a problem. Kids with Internet/computer at home are much better off than those who would have to stay at school longer or go to the public library.
This is such an annoying misconception that I actually feel compelled (for once) to go home, find the study and properly cite it!!!
High school students these days if I recall *have* to do community service to graduate.
Not all school curriculums require community service. Personally, I find service-based education to be hypocritical, because: a) education is mandatory (in the US), and b) requiring voluntarism really negates the entire notion of voluntarism. If you are volunteering to do something, but are only doing so because you are forced to, it really isn't volunteering anymore now is it?
Service-based education is a waste of my child's time. I don't need a community to teach my child what its standards are through forced labor, thanks.
Less than half? I'd say less than 25%...and even then, 95% of that 25% was the answer pages in the back.
Heck, PC + Internet + printing/binding may still be significantly than my book costs some semesters
a) More
b) Less
Which is it?
Schwarzenegger believes internet (sic) activities such as Facebook, Twitter and downloading to iPods show that young people are the first to adopt new online technologies and that the internet (sic) is the best way to learn in classrooms ...
Close. The Internet is not necessarily the "best" way to learn, but it is a method easily dismissed by most teachers and administrators. Administration, however, spends more time trying to figure out how to BLOCK these technologies instead of trying to figure out how to successfully implement them into the curriculum.
Yes. As an existing iPhone customer, I can buy another iPhone at the $99 rate, and give it to "my wife". You have to convert your account to a family plan, but depending on how much time is left on your current contract, it may be worth it to pay the extra monthly fee for a family plan, versus paying the upgrade price. Once your first phone's individual contract expires, ditch the family plan, and go back to an individual plan on your newer, $99 iPhone. I've done this once already, and depending on how compelling the new phone is, I might be doing it again.
my card reader weighs probably 3 ounces. Add a 2 ounce usb cable, and I still have a problem with your "weight" argument.
I cut diet soda out of my life in 2005 and lost 30 pounds. I was 210lbs at 5'8" which was the straight up short/fat geek look. Guess what? I changed nothing else in my life or diet, other than swapping out diet soda with water. Carbonation is bad, mmmkay?
It's about time somebody else chimed in about the "family plan" option of getting a new phone at the subsidized prices!
I agree. There is no "obsolescence" involved at all, only progressively better products. Until my 1st and 2nd gen iPhones no longer work and until my 2nd generation through current line of iPods stop working, I'll just keep on picking and choosing when I buy new Apple products and when I feel compelled to skip a version (such as this new iPhone).
Absolutely. Besides, early adopters always get the shaft. That's the price you pay for being an early adopter.
If this is true (and I believe it to be) then nobody is really getting the shaft. If that's the price to pay, and they are willingly paying it, then they WANT the shaft. I know because I took the $699 shaft on August 10th, 2007.
Or, you can keep your existing account, buy a new $99 iPhone for your make-believe spouse (this is slashdot, right) and add it to your existing plan for a little more (I previously posted $15 a month more, but I think it's more like $30 for the family plan). When your original plan dies, depending on how many months you had to pay "family plan" for two phones, simply go back to a single plan for the new phone, and donate your old iPhone. Who knows, since you'll be sporting a new shiny iPhone, you might actually land a spouse before it expires so then you can keep both.
You can buy a new iPhone for $100 (and bypass the upgrade fee/turn in your old phone), even if you are already a customer. It will cost you about $15 a month more to be on the "Family" plan, until your current contract ends. At that time, cancel your old iPhone contract, and go back to a single iPhone bill. That's what I did with the first round, but ended up keeping the original phone and giving it to my wife. $120 a month for 2 family plan iPhones is much better than $180 a month for 2 individual plans (if you need two phones in your household).
My main point is pretty simple - MS can, and has, produced some good products.
And my rebuttal is equally simple. Other than a couple versions of Office in the mid 1990s, what have they made that qualifies as "some good products"? I can think of only a couple -- the Xbox line (even with it's quality issues), Word for Macintosh, version 4, Excel (way back before it became a bloated spreadsheet that does incorrect math calculations), and Windows XP (only after a couple years of service packs, and even still, compared to the competition, only rates "good enough").
Not to mention that the comments along the lines of "Microsoft cannot produce any quality products [therefore, this new one can't be good]."
Well, with years and years of precedent, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt on any new product they make?
Engineering tradeoffs--I prefer UI not suffer at the expense of other things, like long "feature" lists and "legacy support" that Microsoft is so in love with.