Well, I'm in Texas, and we don't have the greatest track record for education. I'm glad it sounds like we are doing at least one thing better than other places!
My experience is indeed different (my graduate degree is in Curriculum). I've never seen a school administrator who doesn't have an degree in Education. Maybe you are talking about for-profit/private/charter schools?
Complete Epic fail on this one. passing a test means one thing, the student passed the test. It can (not always) mean they know nothing about the concepts at all except what is on the test.
Speaking of Epic Fail...The whole point of a test is to measure whether an objective has been met or not. So no, you can't pass a valid test without knowing the concepts. You can pass a test that is not valid, which is the problem with our teachers--they don't know how to teach the standards and objectives that will be tested, because they themselves often can't, or they teach their own pet-interests.
Passing a valid test means exactly one thing -- the student has met the objective that the test is measuring. When you meet a string of objectives, you meet the standards that those objectives cover.
Do you have any data to back up your claims? Most of them are false. For example, there are no more administrators now than before (per teacher or per student). The "top-heavy" myth about our schools is exactly that...a myth. While a typical high school in America had 1500 students 30 years ago and a Principal and an Assistant Principal as the sole administrators, that same school now has 3200 students and a Principal and maybe 2 Assistant Principals. Or, that school was broken into two schools, with two sets of administrators (still roughly the same ratio of admin to teachers/students).
The increase in learning disabilities is not because more kids have them, but because programs are in place to identify them. In my day, we called that ADHD kid "hyper". He didn't get special classes because nobody diagnosed him as needing special classes.
Legislators are unqualified to design curriculum, but, by definition, administration is good at it. Teachers are just the delivery of the the curriculum that is developed by administrators. To say administrators are unqualified is not accurate.
Right. It's so serious that it must be Apple's fault. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the government policies and lack of regulation and enforcement on the behalf of the Chinese government.
Since I did work for a defense contractor, I know that the government is consistently ripped-off year-in and year-out. The quality of work I saw in Defense (software, mind you, not the big ticket weapon systems and vehicles) was easily five times as costly and five times worse work compared to the work I'm in now (giant tech company).
Look, in the Defense Industry the joke is something like this: "Our company isn't good at writing software, but we are good at winning contracts". That's the problem...the MBAs, Sales, and Procurement folks win billions of dollars of work that their companies can't possibly deliver on, then they turn around a year later to win more contracts by deferring the inadequacies of their current requirements and contracts.
My last company (giant defense contractor) had a PAC and it was straight up bribery. They browbeat us to contribute a percentage of our pay to the PAC, then they use that money to give to politicians who promise to vote for things that are in the best interest of the Defense Industry. How is that not bribery?
Yeah, because we NEVER bribe party members here in the US. It's not bribery only because we call it a PAC, but it's the same thing. "Here congress critter, have some money, but only if you vote the way we want you to."
Yes, yes, I understand that at a fundamental level, when a car is in gear and going downhill or using momentum (say a sudden acceleration, then complete lift of the throttle) the ECU doesn't apply gas for that very brief moment.
I've only ever owned manual cars, so of course I've push started one by rolling, them dumping the clutch.
However, these very brief moments (as you said, "until it starts slowing down") are the only time the engine doesn't need a constant fuel flow. But since no real-world situation exists where an engine can do this, for all intents, an engine needs fuel to continue to run (except in the case of the mythical 500 mile downhill engine braking scenario above).
You seem to be confused. We're not talking about idling, we're talking about coasting downhill, in gear.
Um, YOU are talking about coasting downhill. I was talking about idling. But while we are at it, an engine in a car coasting downhill requires the same amount of fuel as an idling engine, because that's exactly what the engine is doing as you coast downhill. Unless you turn it off, then it no longer requires any fuel.
Cars can't idle when they're in gear. They only idle when they're in neutral.
Correct, like pressing in the clutch. With the clutch depressed, the engine still uses gas, because, well, it's idling, and idling engines need fuel.
I am not confused. You are the one interjecting a conversation about up and downhill. I never said anything to the point. I merely said an idling engine uses gas (as does a car in fourth gear, as does a car when you engine break by downshifting from 4th to third).
YES, IT DOES. If you are going downhill, and not pressing on the accelerator, then ZERO FUEL is used. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you. Maybe you should find an automotive engineer and ask him.
Yeah, if you are going downhill... WITH THE ENGINE OFF... zero fuel is indeed used, otherwise, it takes gas to keep an engine running. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you but internal combustion engines need gas to stay on. Using momentum from going down a hill does not power the engine, it merely requires no throttle imput.
I think you are confused in you think that NO gas goes into the engine unless you press the throttle. All that does is allow MORE gas to go into the engine. It's not an on/off switch.
Before you reply, just keep this simple question in mind, and try to reply accordingly. Can start your car, stick it in neutral and cost down a 500 mile hill and never need to refuel? Because after all this, if you still say yes, then I can write of "misunderstanding" and be finished with this conversation because you simply don't understand that an engine uses gas the entire time it is on.
Well good luck with your patent on idling engines that require no fuel. If you are telling me an idling motor doesn't use any gas, then I guess we have nothing to discuss. Put one gallon of gas in your car, then go sit in it at idle and tell me how long it takes until you run out of gas.
Think about it a little: according to the way you think cars work, hills don't matter. You can drive up an infinitely steep hill, and use the same amount of fuel as if you drove downhill. Obviously, that's wrong, so obviously the rest of your understanding is flawed too.
I never said anything that could be construed as such. Going downhill takes less fuel. It doesn't take ZERO fuel, which seems to be your contention. On a flat surface at a steady speed, it takes MORE fuel in a lower gear because the engine requires more rpms to maintain that speed. It takes more gas to increase the rpms (unless you are going down the imaginary hill that you interject into this topic).
I'll say again, I jumped to conclusions saying that downshifting into 3rd uses more gas (because I was thinking that maintaing speed in 3rd takes more gas than 4th), without thinking about the fact that, even though you are downshifting, you are also not applying the throttle, whereas when you were in 4th and maintaining a steady speed, you most likely were pressing the gas.
You are correct in that the wheels are being turned by momentum. However, an engine that is running is still using fuel, which is the point of contention I have with the original premise that an engine doesn't get any fuel unless you press the gas. That's why I mentioned idling--because you aren't pressing the gas, yet you are still using fuel.
I did misspeak, however, and was thinking that a car going 35 mph in 3rd gear requires more fuel than one in 4th gear. While true, that's only the case for maintaining that speed, which is not part of this conversation about engine braking. I should have proofed my initial thoughts better. But my point is still correct that it takes more fuel in a lower gear (as long as you are maintaining that speed, and not coasting and/or engine braking).
And to say it is obvious I don't know much about cars--it's obvious you don't know much about me.
I lived in the UK for three years (and Germany for a couple). That's where I got the idea that roundabouts are superior to traffic lights/4-way intersections in nearly all cases...until they put stop lights IN or shortly after the exit of a roundabout. Now THAT is just stupid.
That has nothing to do with engine braking, but is a cool idea. You can accelerate, say up to 90mph then coast...the NASCAR guys do that at end of races when they are trying to not run out of fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm in Texas, and we don't have the greatest track record for education. I'm glad it sounds like we are doing at least one thing better than other places!
My experience is indeed different (my graduate degree is in Curriculum). I've never seen a school administrator who doesn't have an degree in Education. Maybe you are talking about for-profit/private/charter schools?
Complete Epic fail on this one. passing a test means one thing, the student passed the test. It can (not always) mean they know nothing about the concepts at all except what is on the test.
Speaking of Epic Fail...The whole point of a test is to measure whether an objective has been met or not. So no, you can't pass a valid test without knowing the concepts. You can pass a test that is not valid, which is the problem with our teachers--they don't know how to teach the standards and objectives that will be tested, because they themselves often can't, or they teach their own pet-interests.
Passing a valid test means exactly one thing -- the student has met the objective that the test is measuring. When you meet a string of objectives, you meet the standards that those objectives cover.
Do you have any data to back up your claims? Most of them are false. For example, there are no more administrators now than before (per teacher or per student). The "top-heavy" myth about our schools is exactly that...a myth. While a typical high school in America had 1500 students 30 years ago and a Principal and an Assistant Principal as the sole administrators, that same school now has 3200 students and a Principal and maybe 2 Assistant Principals. Or, that school was broken into two schools, with two sets of administrators (still roughly the same ratio of admin to teachers/students).
The increase in learning disabilities is not because more kids have them, but because programs are in place to identify them. In my day, we called that ADHD kid "hyper". He didn't get special classes because nobody diagnosed him as needing special classes.
Legislators are unqualified to design curriculum, but, by definition, administration is good at it. Teachers are just the delivery of the the curriculum that is developed by administrators. To say administrators are unqualified is not accurate.
Once literally every person who could conceivably buy your produce knows you exist...
Damn those people at Dole!
Yes, because the iPhone 5 obviously needs hype.
Right. It's so serious that it must be Apple's fault. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the government policies and lack of regulation and enforcement on the behalf of the Chinese government.
Riiiiight.
Since I did work for a defense contractor, I know that the government is consistently ripped-off year-in and year-out. The quality of work I saw in Defense (software, mind you, not the big ticket weapon systems and vehicles) was easily five times as costly and five times worse work compared to the work I'm in now (giant tech company).
Look, in the Defense Industry the joke is something like this: "Our company isn't good at writing software, but we are good at winning contracts". That's the problem...the MBAs, Sales, and Procurement folks win billions of dollars of work that their companies can't possibly deliver on, then they turn around a year later to win more contracts by deferring the inadequacies of their current requirements and contracts.
My last company (giant defense contractor) had a PAC and it was straight up bribery. They browbeat us to contribute a percentage of our pay to the PAC, then they use that money to give to politicians who promise to vote for things that are in the best interest of the Defense Industry. How is that not bribery?
Nope. I can't get past sensationalist garbage summaries all the way to their end. My bad.
Well you inferred that I actually read the article ;-)
Yeah, because we NEVER bribe party members here in the US. It's not bribery only because we call it a PAC, but it's the same thing. "Here congress critter, have some money, but only if you vote the way we want you to."
Seriously? 9 people have died of cancer...in China, population 1.3 billion. 9 out of 1,300,000,000?
Yes, yes, I understand that at a fundamental level, when a car is in gear and going downhill or using momentum (say a sudden acceleration, then complete lift of the throttle) the ECU doesn't apply gas for that very brief moment.
I've only ever owned manual cars, so of course I've push started one by rolling, them dumping the clutch.
However, these very brief moments (as you said, "until it starts slowing down") are the only time the engine doesn't need a constant fuel flow. But since no real-world situation exists where an engine can do this, for all intents, an engine needs fuel to continue to run (except in the case of the mythical 500 mile downhill engine braking scenario above).
Or it will be patched within weeks and will be part of the next Software Update. What precedent can you provide that would suggest otherwise?
Wow, somebody has insecurity issues.
You seem to be confused. We're not talking about idling, we're talking about coasting downhill, in gear.
Um, YOU are talking about coasting downhill. I was talking about idling. But while we are at it, an engine in a car coasting downhill requires the same amount of fuel as an idling engine, because that's exactly what the engine is doing as you coast downhill. Unless you turn it off, then it no longer requires any fuel.
Cars can't idle when they're in gear. They only idle when they're in neutral.
Correct, like pressing in the clutch. With the clutch depressed, the engine still uses gas, because, well, it's idling, and idling engines need fuel.
I am not confused. You are the one interjecting a conversation about up and downhill. I never said anything to the point. I merely said an idling engine uses gas (as does a car in fourth gear, as does a car when you engine break by downshifting from 4th to third).
YES, IT DOES. If you are going downhill, and not pressing on the accelerator, then ZERO FUEL is used. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you. Maybe you should find an automotive engineer and ask him.
Yeah, if you are going downhill ... WITH THE ENGINE OFF ... zero fuel is indeed used, otherwise, it takes gas to keep an engine running. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you but internal combustion engines need gas to stay on. Using momentum from going down a hill does not power the engine, it merely requires no throttle imput.
I think you are confused in you think that NO gas goes into the engine unless you press the throttle. All that does is allow MORE gas to go into the engine. It's not an on/off switch.
Before you reply, just keep this simple question in mind, and try to reply accordingly. Can start your car, stick it in neutral and cost down a 500 mile hill and never need to refuel? Because after all this, if you still say yes, then I can write of "misunderstanding" and be finished with this conversation because you simply don't understand that an engine uses gas the entire time it is on.
Well good luck with your patent on idling engines that require no fuel. If you are telling me an idling motor doesn't use any gas, then I guess we have nothing to discuss. Put one gallon of gas in your car, then go sit in it at idle and tell me how long it takes until you run out of gas.
Think about it a little: according to the way you think cars work, hills don't matter. You can drive up an infinitely steep hill, and use the same amount of fuel as if you drove downhill. Obviously, that's wrong, so obviously the rest of your understanding is flawed too.
I never said anything that could be construed as such. Going downhill takes less fuel. It doesn't take ZERO fuel, which seems to be your contention. On a flat surface at a steady speed, it takes MORE fuel in a lower gear because the engine requires more rpms to maintain that speed. It takes more gas to increase the rpms (unless you are going down the imaginary hill that you interject into this topic).
I'll say again, I jumped to conclusions saying that downshifting into 3rd uses more gas (because I was thinking that maintaing speed in 3rd takes more gas than 4th), without thinking about the fact that, even though you are downshifting, you are also not applying the throttle, whereas when you were in 4th and maintaining a steady speed, you most likely were pressing the gas.
You are correct in that the wheels are being turned by momentum. However, an engine that is running is still using fuel, which is the point of contention I have with the original premise that an engine doesn't get any fuel unless you press the gas. That's why I mentioned idling--because you aren't pressing the gas, yet you are still using fuel.
I did misspeak, however, and was thinking that a car going 35 mph in 3rd gear requires more fuel than one in 4th gear. While true, that's only the case for maintaining that speed, which is not part of this conversation about engine braking. I should have proofed my initial thoughts better. But my point is still correct that it takes more fuel in a lower gear (as long as you are maintaining that speed, and not coasting and/or engine braking).
And to say it is obvious I don't know much about cars--it's obvious you don't know much about me.
I lived in the UK for three years (and Germany for a couple). That's where I got the idea that roundabouts are superior to traffic lights/4-way intersections in nearly all cases...until they put stop lights IN or shortly after the exit of a roundabout. Now THAT is just stupid.
Well, I did say I've never owned an automatic, so maybe I overstated the average automatic-transmission driver's willingness to understand their car.
That has nothing to do with engine braking, but is a cool idea. You can accelerate, say up to 90mph then coast...the NASCAR guys do that at end of races when they are trying to not run out of fuel.
No, your 1999 Civic AC unit uses a belt that is driven by the engine.
Wooo hooo, I'm in the .0001th percentile!