Please explain how poor funding is the root cause of the poor performance of the Washington, DC school district, which has among the highest per pupil spending in the country.
Of course, obviously the Washington DC schools are wonderful since they spend among the highest per student amount in the country./s
Or perhaps the difference has to do with the fact that parents in wealthier areas recognize the importance of education for their children to a greater degree than parents in poorer areas (on average) and make additional efforts to see that their children learn. The fact of the matter is that if we look at how much schools actually spend per student there is very little correlation between that and how well the students do. You are making a correlation between how much money the parents have and how well the students do. This assumes that the wealth of the parents correlates with how much the schools spend per student, which does not entirely pan out. The fact that school districts in poorer areas which receive large subsidies from other areas in order to bring their spending per student up to the level of wealthier areas do not do as well as those wealthier areas suggests that there is some other factor at work than the amount of money spent per student.
When we don't respect teachers, treat them like babysitters (and expect to pay them a salary consummate with that of a babysitter's),
That is a nice sentiment. However, if you look at the actual numbers (and remember to pro-rate salaries for the number of days actually worked in a year), you will discover that teacher's salaries are generally pretty good (as they should be).
The fact of the matter is that we spend more on education today per student than we spent in the 1950s (when adjusted for inflation) and yet our results are not as good. This suggests that there is some systemic problem that has nothing to do with how much money we spend on education. The fact of the matter is that teachers in the 1950s were paid like glorified babysitters, yet, they did a better job of teaching children than their much better paid modern successors.
Another report points out that 16% of honor killings in North America are not by Muslims:
This suggests that 84% of honor killings are by Muslims. Even if it is a purely cultural issue, completely separate from the religion of the perpetrators, we wil not be able to identify this conclusively unless reports on honour killings actually list the religion of the perpetrators.
given that the correlation with geography is much greater than that with religion.
I do not have information on India, which might lead this to be changed, but based on what information I do have, it is suggestive that the dominant religion in the areas of the world where those who do the majority of honour killings come from is Islam. The reason that the religion of the perpetrator of an honour killing is relevant is twofold. First, most perpetrators of honour killings justify their actions on the basis of their religious beliefs. Second, if it turns out that it honour killings are the result of a cultural factor independent of the religion of the perpetrator, reporting the religion of all perpetrators of honour killings would help dispel the impression that it is primarily a Muslim issue.
If I have to pay attention, it means I can't be doing something else. Which means that for the advantage of not being able to drive, I get to be bored while riding in the car. I like to drive. I have not had an accident in 20 years, and I have never had an accident that resulted in injury to anyone. How much safer can an autonomous car be than that? I don't do rush hour commuting. Why do I want one of these again?
Another story on this case seemed to say that it was more than just not head hunting each other's employees. That story, as I recall, indicated that the agreement included not hiring people who worked at one of the other companies who applied for a job.
It reminds me of a front page article in Time magazine (in the early 90s, I believe), which asked the question of how parents who had smoked pot would justify telling their children not to smoke pot. I did not understand what was so difficult about this question. I smoked pot as a teenager and into my 20s. If I have kids I have a really easy answer to the question, "I was stupid to smoke pot. You should not make the same mistakes I made." If you smoked pot and do not think that you made a mistake to do so, then you are a hypocrite to try and keep your kids from doing so. On the other hand, if you think it was a mistake and regret doing so, then there is nothing hypocritical about telling your kids not to do so.
Right here you demonstrate one of the problems we have.
...recognized as essential to freedom of the press including the right to withhold the identities of sources.
In what way does the right to withhold the identities of my sources impact on my right, as a citizen, to use a printing press to print whatever I want? The Constitutional provision "freedom of the press" does not refer to the freedom of journalists. It refers to the freedom of citizens to use a printing press (or equivalent) to publish whatever they like. On a side note, I am not convinced that the Framers would approve of libel laws even though I see their value. I would like to have a discussion with someone like James Madison about such laws.
Are you suggesting that when Hindu women in Canada/US get "honor killed", we should be outraged that they're not mentioning that they are Muslim?
I am unaware of any such cases.
Or that when Christian Arab women in Europe get "honor killed" we should be outraged that they're not being labeled Muslim?
I am unaware of any such case. If you can reference two or three, then you might have a point, but I do not know of any such cases. If there are such cases, then the religion of the perpetrators would be relevant in those cases as well.
Because the fact that he is a Muslim has something to do with why he killed them. And because there are a significant number of other Muslims in Western countries who kill their wives/daughters for similar reasons. In addition, there is a large number of Muslims in Western countries who approve of his actions. It is important that members of Western Civilization be aware of this fairly large subset of Muslims. If he had been a member of one of the minority religions from his home country, it is unlikely that he would have committed this crime.
That is because Big Government is how Big Business gets to be big business. When government power expands so does corporate power. The best way to reduce corporate power is to reduce government power.
You claim that a bill 2000 pages long is incomprehensible. Do you realize how short that is? That's less than half the length of the Harry Potter series.
First of all, it was several Democrat Congresspeople who claimed that the Obamacare bill was incomprehensible. It was Nancy Pelosi who said that, "We have to pass this bill so that you can find out what is in it." Another Democrat said the idea of reading every bill before voting on it was ludicrous because a Congressmen would need a team of lawyers to understand what it said (this was during the Obamacare debate).
Next, you say that a single bill 2000 pages long is not very long because it is less than half the length of a seven book series? How about we compare it to War & Peace?
As to the Boeing case, how can deciding to build a new plant and hiring new workers be retaliation against people who Boeing was continuing to employ? In addition, Boeing was actually expanding the number of people employed at those unionised plants in Washington state. It was just that they felt the history of the union going on strike every couple of years made it a bad idea to open a plant for a new aircraft that was meant to compete with a plane from Airbus that was already on the market. Do you have any idea how badly the threat of a strike would hurt Boeing's attempt to get orders for this new, unproven aircraft? Were you aware that the union made the complaint to the NLRB after the workers at the South Carolina plant voted the union out? When Boeing first started the plant, the workers voted in the union, then shortly after it opened they voted the union back out. There is no evidence that Boeing management had anything to do with the workers in South Carolina rejecting the union (if there were there would have been mention of it in the complaint).
Yeah, that would explain why for almost every major illness, your prognosis is better if you live in the U.S. than if you live somewhere else (there are countries that do better than the U.S. on one or two illnesses, but then they do much worse on most other major illnesses. The U.S. is the only country that ranks highly on 5 year prognosis for every major illness).
There's a difference. Putting them in charge of health care is a matter of ensuring our wellbeing. The others are about violating our rights.
Really, you believe that. Putting the government in charge of health care is a matter of increasing the amount of power bureaucrats have over our lives. What makes you think that self-serving bureaucrats who, when put in charge of ensuring our security, take the opportunity to infringe on our rights in order to increase their power won't use the opportunity, when put in charge of our well-being, to further increase their power by infringing on our rights?
Who thought this was a good idea. Most shoes are mass produced. I bought mine off the shelf at a store that had 10 more just like them in various sizes. Exactly who was it who thought that what type of footwear someone wears would be unique to that person.
If I have to be paying attention, I want to be driving. When somebody else drives, I generally sleep, if the trip is more than 15 minutes. If the trip is shorter, I still don't pay attention if I'm not driving. What's the point of autonomous cars if I have to pay attention?
Several people discussed sleeping while riding in one of these and several more discussed other activities that would preclude one from noticing where the car is taking one (reading being the most common). Personally, if I have to be paying attention, these become the worst of both worlds; I'm not driving and I can't sleep
The difference being that if I am actually driving, I notice when the directions take me somewhere that is significantly atypical for the type of destination I am going to. The car is not going to know that it is going to the wrong place when it turns into the bad part of town rather than the business district, but a person driving would.
What a surprise, the Administration that touts itself as the most transparent in history, isn't. As a matter of fact it is busy obfuscating as much information about the government as possible.
It costs money to comply with regulations, the larger the company the smaller the percentage of its revenue that is necessary to comply. You seem to miss that not only does the company have to comply with the regulation, but they must document that they have complied with the regulation. Then they must store that documentation for some period of time. All of that costs money.
As far as I know for any decently large city in the U.S., public transit is a viable option for those who live in the city. I know that my wife grew up in a major city and her family never had a car. For that matter, my nephew went to school in that same city and lives there now without a car. For my nephew the only time that causes an issue is when he comes to family functions (my family all lives out of the city and we hold our events in the area where most of us live). But even then it is not a big problem as all he has to do is ask one of us to pick him up at the train station and then drop him off after the event is over. We are all willing to and at least one of us will be able to arrange their schedule to do so (and because we are a close family, we would be willing to go to significant inconvenience, if necessary, to enable him to come to our family get togethers).
It has nothing to do with Americans being unaware of Europe's rail system. It has to do with the fact that the U.S. chose to use railways for what they do most optimally (in a country with the size and geography of the U.S.), which is deliver freight. A much greater percentage of freight shipment is done by rail in the U.S. than in Europe. This happens for two reasons. First, rail is more suited for delivering freight to where it is going in the U.S. than it is for delivering people to where they are going in the U.S.. Second, a much larger percentage of industrialized Europe is relatively close to seaports than in the U.S..
One must choose to either optimize one's rail system to deliver freight or to deliver passengers. In the U.S. the decision was made to optimize the rail system to deliver freight. In Europe, the opposite happened (although that was less of a conscious choice in Europe than in the U.S. and in both places it mostly grew out of existing conditions rather than conscious choice).
That brings up a point that most people do not realize when they compare U.S rail to European rail. In the U.S., the railroads transport a much greater percentage of freight than the railroads do in Europe (at least in part because a larger percentage of industrialized Europe is more closely accessible from a seaport). As a result of the greater utilization of rail for freight transport it is optimized for freight delivery. The European railways are optimized for passengers.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain how poor funding is the root cause of the poor performance of the Washington, DC school district, which has among the highest per pupil spending in the country.
Of course, obviously the Washington DC schools are wonderful since they spend among the highest per student amount in the country./s
Or perhaps the difference has to do with the fact that parents in wealthier areas recognize the importance of education for their children to a greater degree than parents in poorer areas (on average) and make additional efforts to see that their children learn. The fact of the matter is that if we look at how much schools actually spend per student there is very little correlation between that and how well the students do. You are making a correlation between how much money the parents have and how well the students do. This assumes that the wealth of the parents correlates with how much the schools spend per student, which does not entirely pan out. The fact that school districts in poorer areas which receive large subsidies from other areas in order to bring their spending per student up to the level of wealthier areas do not do as well as those wealthier areas suggests that there is some other factor at work than the amount of money spent per student.
When we don't respect teachers, treat them like babysitters (and expect to pay them a salary consummate with that of a babysitter's),
That is a nice sentiment. However, if you look at the actual numbers (and remember to pro-rate salaries for the number of days actually worked in a year), you will discover that teacher's salaries are generally pretty good (as they should be).
The fact of the matter is that we spend more on education today per student than we spent in the 1950s (when adjusted for inflation) and yet our results are not as good. This suggests that there is some systemic problem that has nothing to do with how much money we spend on education. The fact of the matter is that teachers in the 1950s were paid like glorified babysitters, yet, they did a better job of teaching children than their much better paid modern successors.
Another report points out that 16% of honor killings in North America are not by Muslims:
This suggests that 84% of honor killings are by Muslims. Even if it is a purely cultural issue, completely separate from the religion of the perpetrators, we wil not be able to identify this conclusively unless reports on honour killings actually list the religion of the perpetrators.
given that the correlation with geography is much greater than that with religion.
I do not have information on India, which might lead this to be changed, but based on what information I do have, it is suggestive that the dominant religion in the areas of the world where those who do the majority of honour killings come from is Islam. The reason that the religion of the perpetrator of an honour killing is relevant is twofold. First, most perpetrators of honour killings justify their actions on the basis of their religious beliefs. Second, if it turns out that it honour killings are the result of a cultural factor independent of the religion of the perpetrator, reporting the religion of all perpetrators of honour killings would help dispel the impression that it is primarily a Muslim issue.
Sorry, the problem with education in the U.S. has nothing to do with lack of funding.
If I have to pay attention, it means I can't be doing something else. Which means that for the advantage of not being able to drive, I get to be bored while riding in the car. I like to drive. I have not had an accident in 20 years, and I have never had an accident that resulted in injury to anyone. How much safer can an autonomous car be than that? I don't do rush hour commuting. Why do I want one of these again?
Another story on this case seemed to say that it was more than just not head hunting each other's employees. That story, as I recall, indicated that the agreement included not hiring people who worked at one of the other companies who applied for a job.
It reminds me of a front page article in Time magazine (in the early 90s, I believe), which asked the question of how parents who had smoked pot would justify telling their children not to smoke pot. I did not understand what was so difficult about this question. I smoked pot as a teenager and into my 20s. If I have kids I have a really easy answer to the question, "I was stupid to smoke pot. You should not make the same mistakes I made." If you smoked pot and do not think that you made a mistake to do so, then you are a hypocrite to try and keep your kids from doing so. On the other hand, if you think it was a mistake and regret doing so, then there is nothing hypocritical about telling your kids not to do so.
I was not aware that they had arrested any presses. I was under the impression that they only arrested several journalists.
...recognized as essential to freedom of the press including the right to withhold the identities of sources.
In what way does the right to withhold the identities of my sources impact on my right, as a citizen, to use a printing press to print whatever I want? The Constitutional provision "freedom of the press" does not refer to the freedom of journalists. It refers to the freedom of citizens to use a printing press (or equivalent) to publish whatever they like. On a side note, I am not convinced that the Framers would approve of libel laws even though I see their value. I would like to have a discussion with someone like James Madison about such laws.
Are you suggesting that when Hindu women in Canada/US get "honor killed", we should be outraged that they're not mentioning that they are Muslim?
I am unaware of any such cases.
Or that when Christian Arab women in Europe get "honor killed" we should be outraged that they're not being labeled Muslim?
I am unaware of any such case. If you can reference two or three, then you might have a point, but I do not know of any such cases. If there are such cases, then the religion of the perpetrators would be relevant in those cases as well.
Because the fact that he is a Muslim has something to do with why he killed them. And because there are a significant number of other Muslims in Western countries who kill their wives/daughters for similar reasons. In addition, there is a large number of Muslims in Western countries who approve of his actions. It is important that members of Western Civilization be aware of this fairly large subset of Muslims. If he had been a member of one of the minority religions from his home country, it is unlikely that he would have committed this crime.
That is because Big Government is how Big Business gets to be big business. When government power expands so does corporate power. The best way to reduce corporate power is to reduce government power.
You claim that a bill 2000 pages long is incomprehensible. Do you realize how short that is? That's less than half the length of the Harry Potter series.
First of all, it was several Democrat Congresspeople who claimed that the Obamacare bill was incomprehensible. It was Nancy Pelosi who said that, "We have to pass this bill so that you can find out what is in it." Another Democrat said the idea of reading every bill before voting on it was ludicrous because a Congressmen would need a team of lawyers to understand what it said (this was during the Obamacare debate).
Next, you say that a single bill 2000 pages long is not very long because it is less than half the length of a seven book series? How about we compare it to War & Peace?
As to the Boeing case, how can deciding to build a new plant and hiring new workers be retaliation against people who Boeing was continuing to employ? In addition, Boeing was actually expanding the number of people employed at those unionised plants in Washington state. It was just that they felt the history of the union going on strike every couple of years made it a bad idea to open a plant for a new aircraft that was meant to compete with a plane from Airbus that was already on the market. Do you have any idea how badly the threat of a strike would hurt Boeing's attempt to get orders for this new, unproven aircraft? Were you aware that the union made the complaint to the NLRB after the workers at the South Carolina plant voted the union out? When Boeing first started the plant, the workers voted in the union, then shortly after it opened they voted the union back out. There is no evidence that Boeing management had anything to do with the workers in South Carolina rejecting the union (if there were there would have been mention of it in the complaint).
Yeah, that would explain why for almost every major illness, your prognosis is better if you live in the U.S. than if you live somewhere else (there are countries that do better than the U.S. on one or two illnesses, but then they do much worse on most other major illnesses. The U.S. is the only country that ranks highly on 5 year prognosis for every major illness).
There's a difference. Putting them in charge of health care is a matter of ensuring our wellbeing. The others are about violating our rights.
Really, you believe that. Putting the government in charge of health care is a matter of increasing the amount of power bureaucrats have over our lives. What makes you think that self-serving bureaucrats who, when put in charge of ensuring our security, take the opportunity to infringe on our rights in order to increase their power won't use the opportunity, when put in charge of our well-being, to further increase their power by infringing on our rights?
Who thought this was a good idea. Most shoes are mass produced. I bought mine off the shelf at a store that had 10 more just like them in various sizes. Exactly who was it who thought that what type of footwear someone wears would be unique to that person.
If I have to be paying attention, I want to be driving. When somebody else drives, I generally sleep, if the trip is more than 15 minutes. If the trip is shorter, I still don't pay attention if I'm not driving. What's the point of autonomous cars if I have to pay attention?
Several people discussed sleeping while riding in one of these and several more discussed other activities that would preclude one from noticing where the car is taking one (reading being the most common). Personally, if I have to be paying attention, these become the worst of both worlds; I'm not driving and I can't sleep
The difference being that if I am actually driving, I notice when the directions take me somewhere that is significantly atypical for the type of destination I am going to. The car is not going to know that it is going to the wrong place when it turns into the bad part of town rather than the business district, but a person driving would.
What a surprise, the Administration that touts itself as the most transparent in history, isn't. As a matter of fact it is busy obfuscating as much information about the government as possible.
It costs money to comply with regulations, the larger the company the smaller the percentage of its revenue that is necessary to comply. You seem to miss that not only does the company have to comply with the regulation, but they must document that they have complied with the regulation. Then they must store that documentation for some period of time. All of that costs money.
As far as I know for any decently large city in the U.S., public transit is a viable option for those who live in the city. I know that my wife grew up in a major city and her family never had a car. For that matter, my nephew went to school in that same city and lives there now without a car. For my nephew the only time that causes an issue is when he comes to family functions (my family all lives out of the city and we hold our events in the area where most of us live). But even then it is not a big problem as all he has to do is ask one of us to pick him up at the train station and then drop him off after the event is over. We are all willing to and at least one of us will be able to arrange their schedule to do so (and because we are a close family, we would be willing to go to significant inconvenience, if necessary, to enable him to come to our family get togethers).
It has nothing to do with Americans being unaware of Europe's rail system. It has to do with the fact that the U.S. chose to use railways for what they do most optimally (in a country with the size and geography of the U.S.), which is deliver freight. A much greater percentage of freight shipment is done by rail in the U.S. than in Europe. This happens for two reasons. First, rail is more suited for delivering freight to where it is going in the U.S. than it is for delivering people to where they are going in the U.S.. Second, a much larger percentage of industrialized Europe is relatively close to seaports than in the U.S..
One must choose to either optimize one's rail system to deliver freight or to deliver passengers. In the U.S. the decision was made to optimize the rail system to deliver freight. In Europe, the opposite happened (although that was less of a conscious choice in Europe than in the U.S. and in both places it mostly grew out of existing conditions rather than conscious choice).
That brings up a point that most people do not realize when they compare U.S rail to European rail. In the U.S., the railroads transport a much greater percentage of freight than the railroads do in Europe (at least in part because a larger percentage of industrialized Europe is more closely accessible from a seaport). As a result of the greater utilization of rail for freight transport it is optimized for freight delivery. The European railways are optimized for passengers.