I am not either of the Anonymous Cowards in this thread, but, yeah, I am pretty sure those are the only two options to pay "not a single penny" to raise a child of your wife's.
There are two separate things here: CCing the recipient's boss, CCing the sender's boss.
When the sender CC's the recipient's boss they are usually trying to apply pressure to the recipient by going over their head. The overwhelming majority of the times people have done this to me it is because they want me to do something which violates my understanding of company policy. Since the majority of the time, my understanding of company policy is the same as my boss', this usually fails. Sometimes my boss sees their point and changes policy. Sometimes the other person has sufficient clout that their take on company policy overrides my boss'. Very rarely, my understanding of policy was wrong (the reason this happens so rarely is not because I am such a genius about company policy, rather it is because if I am not absolutely sure about company policy on an issue where someone is pushing me, I CC my boss first).
When the sender CC's their own boss, it is usually one of four things:
1)The sender wants to make sure his boss has his back on the position he is about to take on the issue under dispute
2)The sender thinks the situation has potential complications which his boss should not be blindsided by
3)The sender thinks the decision is one which should be made at a higher level (if higher than his boss, it is his boss' job to decide who)
4)The sender is covering his ass in case things go badly (and he thinks they are likely to go badly)
Oh there is a fifth reason, although this could apply to both types: the sender is a complete douchebag.
Or, you might consider NOT placing an always listening piece of spyware into your private home....
Considering the number of slashdot commentators who think that Burger King is the villain in this story and Google the victim, clearly there are few people who consider that a viable option.
"Not renewing its mandate" means allowing something which was set up to operate for a limited time to end when that limited time is up. "Dismantling" means shutting down something which was set up to operate for the indefinite future. Saying that they dismantled this commission is like saying LBJ dismantled the Warren Commission after it gave its final report.
Women are not penalized for having a baby. Men, and women who do not have babies, are rewarded for being in the workforce more. It is real simple, every time you take an extended period of time off (whether that is to have a baby, or for some other reason) you need a certain length of time to get completely back up to speed when you return to work. Even leaving that out, studies have shown that women make essentially the same as men, when adjusted for time in the workforce and education (the remaining variation can easily be explained by the other work-life balance decisions tend to make differently than men). In other words, the only real difference that having a baby makes for what a woman earns is the amount of time she is out of the workforce while having/raising said baby.
Here is a simplistic example of that: a man and a woman start work at the same company in the same job at the same time. After a year, the woman takes three months of maternity leave. At the end of those three months she chooses not to return to the job. However, she left the company in good standing, so when she chooses to go back to work when the child enters school at five years old, the company rehires her at the rate they pay someone who has been with the company for one year.. At this point, the man has 6 years of experience in the workforce, but the woman only has one. This sort of scenarios (although usually the company hiring the woman when she returns to the workforce is different from the one she left, but she is usually hired at the rate of someone with the one year experience rather than that of someone with no experience).
Well, since the "don't even go down this road" is my preferred option, you obviously got my point. Once you go down the road of determining which articles are accurate and which are not, you are quickly going to start basing that decision on whether or not you agree with the conclusions they reach.
What Politifact is commenting on is whether the opinion, belief, or conclusion drawn from those facts is "mostly false".
In other words, Politifact is NOT a FACT checking organization. They are checking whether or not the opinions presented are "correct". If the facts presented in the story are true, I do not need someone else to tell me if the conclusions the author reaches are true or not. If someone is going to claim to be a fact checker, I want them to limit themselves to checking the facts. If they do not, it is just a matter of time, and probably not much of it, before they are calling fake news true because it reaches the "correct" conclusions (or leads people to do so) even though the facts are completely false.
Is this fact checking going to be like Politifact, which has said that an article or tweet is "mostly false" while saying that the facts it contains are true?
The summary continues to play into the hype about a law which merely cancels a regulation which had not yet gone into effect. The passage of the law changed NOTHING with regard to consumer privacy. It merely prevented a regulation from going into effect in December, which it was claimed would increase protections for consumer privacy (I have not studied the regulation in question, so I do not have much of an opinion of whether it would have actually done so. I am however skeptical about whether it would have made much difference based on my experience with similar previous regulations).
You put entirely too much emphasis on "pedagogy methods". Historically, the population of the U.S. was better educated before any of these "pedagogy methods" had been developed.
I cannot disagree with you more. Parents are more likely to understand their child and how they learn than any random stranger. In addition, a parent is more likely to want what is best for their child than that random stranger. There are parents of whom it is not true that they want what is best for their child and there are parents of whom it is not true that they understand their child and how they learn. But, if you are looking for the person who best understands a child chosen at random and who wants what is best for that child, you are more likely to find that person by finding their parent than by choosing one of their teachers at random.
The problem is that you do not make a good teacher by teaching them techniques (no matter how good those techniques are). You make a good teacher by teaching that to care about whether or not the student learns and to recognize when the student is actually learning. An additional necessary skill is for the teacher to realize that different students learn in different ways and that they need to change their approach for different students. Not every person is willing to become a good teacher, not even every person who has become a teacher.
Further point, to be a good teacher a person must want to enable students to learn, all too many other teachers have other agendas.
The difference is that she has a PhD in education and knows all the pedagogy research.
No, the difference is that your wife is a good teacher. She has the PhD and knows all of that research because she is a good teacher and the subject interests her. Knowing all of the pedagogy research is not what makes her a good teacher (although it likely made her a better teacher faster than without that knowledge). If she was not already a good teacher the studies would not have made her a good teacher. This does not mean that people who are not good teachers cannot be taught to be good teachers, only that our education system does not do so (except by accident).
At least in that case it is possible to throw them out. It takes work, but it can be done. I fully understand that most people are too lazy for democracy and much prefer some form of tyranny.
If you are willing to make the effort, you can change things. Most people are not willing to make the effort.
No, the FCC did not need to regulate this. Congress needed (needs) to pass a law (although, even better would be for Congress to stop facilitating the creation of monopolies). We do not need unelected bureaucrats deciding what we can and cannot do.
You are not entirely wrong. However, the creators of the EU blamed democracy for the nationalism and the wars. So, they designed the EU to have the forms of democracy without any actual democracy. The problem is that the wars were not caused by the democratic will of the people, they were caused by the ambitions of the elites of the major nations. Particularly those of Germany, but only because the elites of England and France perceived themselves as dominant without a war. Nevertheless, all of the elites believed that WWI as a way to increase their own power. In the event, this proved not to be the case, but they used WWII as a means to regain the power they lost in WWI.
OK, the reason they can do this the way they are is because the regulation in question is NEW. That means it has only been in effect for a short period of time. In other words, this law only returns things to the state they were in less than TWO YEARS ago.
No, he will not be condemned by the "wider social justice community" because it appears that Larry Garfield believes that all (or, at least most) women want to be dominated by men. He, also, apparently believes that they need to come to that realization on their own before a man asserts dominance over them.
The French Revolution was fomented by people like you, not by the people starving in France at the time. People like you stirred up those who were afraid of ending up like those who were starving and convinced them to increase their odds of ending up like that, which resulted in the rise of Napoleon.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not either of the Anonymous Cowards in this thread, but, yeah, I am pretty sure those are the only two options to pay "not a single penny" to raise a child of your wife's.
When the sender CC's their own boss, it is usually one of four things:
Oh there is a fifth reason, although this could apply to both types: the sender is a complete douchebag.
Or, you might consider NOT placing an always listening piece of spyware into your private home....
Considering the number of slashdot commentators who think that Burger King is the villain in this story and Google the victim, clearly there are few people who consider that a viable option.
"Not renewing its mandate" means allowing something which was set up to operate for a limited time to end when that limited time is up. "Dismantling" means shutting down something which was set up to operate for the indefinite future. Saying that they dismantled this commission is like saying LBJ dismantled the Warren Commission after it gave its final report.
Women are not penalized for having a baby. Men, and women who do not have babies, are rewarded for being in the workforce more. It is real simple, every time you take an extended period of time off (whether that is to have a baby, or for some other reason) you need a certain length of time to get completely back up to speed when you return to work. Even leaving that out, studies have shown that women make essentially the same as men, when adjusted for time in the workforce and education (the remaining variation can easily be explained by the other work-life balance decisions tend to make differently than men). In other words, the only real difference that having a baby makes for what a woman earns is the amount of time she is out of the workforce while having/raising said baby.
Here is a simplistic example of that: a man and a woman start work at the same company in the same job at the same time. After a year, the woman takes three months of maternity leave. At the end of those three months she chooses not to return to the job. However, she left the company in good standing, so when she chooses to go back to work when the child enters school at five years old, the company rehires her at the rate they pay someone who has been with the company for one year.. At this point, the man has 6 years of experience in the workforce, but the woman only has one. This sort of scenarios (although usually the company hiring the woman when she returns to the workforce is different from the one she left, but she is usually hired at the rate of someone with the one year experience rather than that of someone with no experience).
Tens of millions of votes for an idiot because the voters were unable to draw the correct conclusions from the available facts
Fortunately, she lost anyway. Unfortunately, the other choice was only minimally better.
Well, since the "don't even go down this road" is my preferred option, you obviously got my point. Once you go down the road of determining which articles are accurate and which are not, you are quickly going to start basing that decision on whether or not you agree with the conclusions they reach.
What Politifact is commenting on is whether the opinion, belief, or conclusion drawn from those facts is "mostly false".
In other words, Politifact is NOT a FACT checking organization. They are checking whether or not the opinions presented are "correct". If the facts presented in the story are true, I do not need someone else to tell me if the conclusions the author reaches are true or not. If someone is going to claim to be a fact checker, I want them to limit themselves to checking the facts. If they do not, it is just a matter of time, and probably not much of it, before they are calling fake news true because it reaches the "correct" conclusions (or leads people to do so) even though the facts are completely false.
A conclusion is not a fact. So, what you want is someone to check that the articles reach the "correct" conclusions?
Is this fact checking going to be like Politifact, which has said that an article or tweet is "mostly false" while saying that the facts it contains are true?
The best piece of advice I have seen for a business owner is this, "If you have an employee who is indispensable, fire them immediately."
The summary continues to play into the hype about a law which merely cancels a regulation which had not yet gone into effect. The passage of the law changed NOTHING with regard to consumer privacy. It merely prevented a regulation from going into effect in December, which it was claimed would increase protections for consumer privacy (I have not studied the regulation in question, so I do not have much of an opinion of whether it would have actually done so. I am however skeptical about whether it would have made much difference based on my experience with similar previous regulations).
You put entirely too much emphasis on "pedagogy methods". Historically, the population of the U.S. was better educated before any of these "pedagogy methods" had been developed.
parents need to be barred from schools
I cannot disagree with you more. Parents are more likely to understand their child and how they learn than any random stranger. In addition, a parent is more likely to want what is best for their child than that random stranger. There are parents of whom it is not true that they want what is best for their child and there are parents of whom it is not true that they understand their child and how they learn. But, if you are looking for the person who best understands a child chosen at random and who wants what is best for that child, you are more likely to find that person by finding their parent than by choosing one of their teachers at random.
The problem is that you do not make a good teacher by teaching them techniques (no matter how good those techniques are). You make a good teacher by teaching that to care about whether or not the student learns and to recognize when the student is actually learning. An additional necessary skill is for the teacher to realize that different students learn in different ways and that they need to change their approach for different students. Not every person is willing to become a good teacher, not even every person who has become a teacher.
Further point, to be a good teacher a person must want to enable students to learn, all too many other teachers have other agendas.
The difference is that she has a PhD in education and knows all the pedagogy research.
No, the difference is that your wife is a good teacher. She has the PhD and knows all of that research because she is a good teacher and the subject interests her. Knowing all of the pedagogy research is not what makes her a good teacher (although it likely made her a better teacher faster than without that knowledge). If she was not already a good teacher the studies would not have made her a good teacher. This does not mean that people who are not good teachers cannot be taught to be good teachers, only that our education system does not do so (except by accident).
This was what I came here to comment on.
Microsoft has fans? Who knew?
For that matter, who are they? MS employees and stockholders don't count.
If you are a cable TV subscriber, ESPN does not CARE if you watch or not because you are paying for it either way.
At least in that case it is possible to throw them out. It takes work, but it can be done. I fully understand that most people are too lazy for democracy and much prefer some form of tyranny.
If you are willing to make the effort, you can change things. Most people are not willing to make the effort.
No, the FCC did not need to regulate this. Congress needed (needs) to pass a law (although, even better would be for Congress to stop facilitating the creation of monopolies). We do not need unelected bureaucrats deciding what we can and cannot do.
You are not entirely wrong. However, the creators of the EU blamed democracy for the nationalism and the wars. So, they designed the EU to have the forms of democracy without any actual democracy. The problem is that the wars were not caused by the democratic will of the people, they were caused by the ambitions of the elites of the major nations. Particularly those of Germany, but only because the elites of England and France perceived themselves as dominant without a war. Nevertheless, all of the elites believed that WWI as a way to increase their own power. In the event, this proved not to be the case, but they used WWII as a means to regain the power they lost in WWI.
OK, the reason they can do this the way they are is because the regulation in question is NEW. That means it has only been in effect for a short period of time. In other words, this law only returns things to the state they were in less than TWO YEARS ago.
No, he will not be condemned by the "wider social justice community" because it appears that Larry Garfield believes that all (or, at least most) women want to be dominated by men. He, also, apparently believes that they need to come to that realization on their own before a man asserts dominance over them.
So, your answer is, those people whose alternative is no job should just be happy to have no job.
The French Revolution was fomented by people like you, not by the people starving in France at the time. People like you stirred up those who were afraid of ending up like those who were starving and convinced them to increase their odds of ending up like that, which resulted in the rise of Napoleon.