There is no evidence that funding has any appreciable effect on the quality of education. Currently, some of the worst school districts in the country spend the most money per student. The funding issue has been vastly overblown by those who profit from increased school funding. Education should be a local issue, not state or federal.
That's a great idea, then you will only be able to drive your car to government approved destinations, or at least the government will know when you drive your car to "inappropriate" destinations.
Well, how has education being controlled by anti-religious fundamentalists worked out? I hate to have to tell you this, but when U.S. education was controlled by religious fundamentalists is was markedly superior to the current version.
BBut more importantly, if those kids are not in tthe school district you live in, what business of yours is what they are taught? How has making the school bureaucracy less responsive to individual parents improved education?
Actually it is a fail from the quote taken from the article. The actual study says that this is the misconception: "Gases such as carbon dioxide lack sufficient mass to lead
to the development of dry biomass in plants. Plants get
mass from the soil."
So, the actual problem is that students believe that plants get most of their dry bio-mass from the soil, which is incorrect.
How does the existence of the Tea Party illustrate that people are missing basic logic tools? Unless you are saying that if people had basic logic tools the Tea Party would never have been necessary?
Or maybe you don't know what the basic point of the Tea Party is? The basic point is that the government cannot continue to spend more than it takes in indefinitely without a collapse at some point. Raising taxes does not solve the problem. Historically, the U.S. government has recieved about 18-19% of GDP in taxes (19% is the highest it has ever been), currently it is spending approximately 24% of GDP.
There are several things that would go a long way towards improving education in the US. First, stop worrying about "education in the U.S." and warry about education in your state. Second, get rid of teacher's tenure. Third is related to the first, shrink school districts, so that a few parents can influence the outcome of schoolboard elections.
Except that you don't have to demonstrate that you can teach, you just have to meet a set of semi-arbitrary standards that are primarily designed to ensure employment for those who teach "Education".
If they wanted to ensure that potential teachers could teach, they would test the students at the beginning and end of the student teaching assignment and only those whose students showed an improvement in understanding the subject above a certain level would get certified. Designing the tests and defining the level is another subject.
You touch on, but don't spell out, the fact that as they use more and more complicated DRM, the rewards for pirating their products and the penalties for paying for them both go up. It has gotten to the point where a significant number of people who will not pirate material, buy it and then go out and get the pirated versions because they are better.
What I like is how companies like Intel and Microsoft make this big announcement about how their new product has this wonderful feature, that provides nothing of value to their customers. Microsoft made a big deal about incorporating DRM in Vista when they were first marketing it. I could never understand why I would want my computer to limit my ability to copy information that I possess. This is the same thing. What is in this new technology for the end user? You know, the guy that Intel has to convince to lay out cash for the product in order for it to be a success.
Actually, you are only partly right. Intel originally licensed x86 processor technology to AMD and Cyrix because they could not produce enough chips to meet demand. Intel understood at the time that they had the opportunity to become the standard for personal computers, but only if people could get enough of their chip design to meet demand. If manufacturers could not get enough x86 chips to meet demand, they would go with someone else's chips. If that happened, there would be people out there who were not subject to Intel's vendor lock-in. Unfortunately for Intel (but fortunately for everybody else), by the time Intel had enough manufacturing capacity to keep up with demand, they had licensed enough of the x86 instruction set to AMD, that AMD could reverse engineer any advances Intel made in its chipsets. That combined with the fact that the courts refused to allow Intel to trademark 80x86 meant that Intel could not keep AMD out of the x86 market.
This is not to contradict your point but to augment it, because the point you made played a role in the situation as well.
I don't think that any people should kill themselves, I just don't understand why those who believe this life is all there is don't kill themselves. Life is a lot of work, if it serves no purpose, why bother?
Actually, there were microscopes in Louis Pasteur's day. Antony van Leeuwenhoek was the first person to observe microorganisms through a microscope in the late 1600s. Louis Pasteur most important breakthrough was disproving the theory of spontaneous generation. His experiment disproving spontaneous generation gave him the stature to successfully promote the germ theory of disease. He also did some good work developing the science of the germ theory, but without the stature from his disproving spontaneous generation he would have had more trouble getting germ theory accepted.
On the other hand I think your example is a great way to make your point even if it isn't exactly historically accurate.
You apparently fail to understand what the basic Christian doctrine means, if you didn't accept that you "needed to improve", you did not understand Christianity.
However, that was not the reason I chose to reply. My question for you is, life is a lot of work, if the 70-100 years of biological life is all there is, why bother? Why haven't you committed suicide? This is not a troll, but a genuine question, when I struggled with my doubts, I could conceive of no reason to go on living if this life is all there is.
Which is les expensive, a keyboard or display space? I want a keyboard. How will taking away some of the display space in order to provide me with a keyboard on the display improve my experience using a device? So in order to give the same display experience as a device that comes with a traditional keyboard, you need to have that much more display. That means the device that gives me the same display experience with just a touchscreen needs to cost more than a device with a traditional keyboard.
Self improvement for me came when I accepted that I needed to improve. Before, I always thought that I was a good person and didn't need to try harder. Coincidentally my realisation of a need for self improvement also coincided with me losing my religion.
It is a shame that the religion that you lost wasn't Christianity, since one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity is that no one is a good person.
Sure it all involves a good dose of self-delusion, but a lot of people have improved their lives greatly with a little self-delusion. After all, no one starts down their path to self-improvement by admitting to themselves that they are an unexceptional, not particularly good or worthwhile person.
Actually, the first step in improving yourself is admitting that you are not a particularly good or worthwhile person and then trying to change that fact.
Of course the interesting thing is that one of the basic specs is that the solution needs to be FISMA certified. BPOS is not FISMA certified. The Google solution is FISMA certified.
So, the Department of the Interior chose the product that doesn't meet one of their basic requirements without even considering the product that does.
So Google should accept that the government is going to go with Microsoft because the government has always gone with Microsoft? That would mean giving up on the market because, in the long run, they will have to spend more to make sure that the documents their products produce work the same way in the Microsoft product as documents produced with the Microsoft product. Even if they do that, there are still a lot of people who will go with the Microsoft solution because it is the one the government uses, so it must be the best, yet the government chose the Microsoft product solely because it was the Micosoft product without ever cosidering alternative products.
Why would I in the ordinary course of business keep that paper trail. The number of times that a business would reference that paper trail comes nowhere near justifying the cost of setting up a system to acquire and store that data. If I spend the money to acquire and keep that data trail, I will be selling screws for $2 that my competitor is selling for 2 cents (or less).
The standard method of quality control used in industry is to do tests on randomly selected items from a given production run.
Most politicians around the world admired the fascists before WWII. The majority never really got over it, they just knew that they couldn't admit it after war broke out.
Pointing out flaws in leadership by and to people who in are in no position to correct those flaws is destructive. If you recognize flaws in leadership at the company you work for and you do not have either the power to fix them or the ear of someone who does, you have two constructive options: get out of there, keep your mouth shut and hope your wrong (or someone who does have the power to change things sees the same problem).
If you believe that Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, or any other current ISP are a bigger threat to personal freedom and/or more powerful than the federal government, there is no point in me trying to have a rational discussion with you. For that matter, if you believe that ISPs have a greater interest in exerting control over freedom of expression than the federal government, you are not a rational actor.
Unfortunately, what you seem to be overlooking is that if a considerable number of PCs have suspicious History entries, it cannot be used as proof regardless of who's the suspect.
How would they know? Additionally, what made this history suspicious was two fold. First, timing: he searched ethylene glycol poisoning the morning his wife died of ethylene glycol poisoning. Second, he was exchanging emails with his lover discussing getting out of his marriage without getting a divorce.
So, you think it is a good idea to give one very large, very pwoerful organization (the government) more power in order to prevent several less powerful, not as large organizations (ISPs) from acquiring power that they might use to reduce the freedom of individuals? People not in the U.S. (and many people in the U.S.) seem to forget that historically the organization most likely to reduce the freedom of individuals is the government.
Your example fails because the organization being regulated and the organization doing the regulation in your example are both the government (possibly two different governmental bodies, but still the government).
Well, the fact that he searched ethylene glycol poisoning the morning of her death might have something to do with why they thought he might have poisoned her with ethylene glycol. Or maybe it was the fact that he was exchanging emails with another woman about getting out of his marriage so that he could be with the other woman, emails which curiously enough never once mentioned separation or divorce.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no evidence that funding has any appreciable effect on the quality of education. Currently, some of the worst school districts in the country spend the most money per student. The funding issue has been vastly overblown by those who profit from increased school funding. Education should be a local issue, not state or federal.
That's a great idea, then you will only be able to drive your car to government approved destinations, or at least the government will know when you drive your car to "inappropriate" destinations.
Well, how has education being controlled by anti-religious fundamentalists worked out? I hate to have to tell you this, but when U.S. education was controlled by religious fundamentalists is was markedly superior to the current version.
BBut more importantly, if those kids are not in tthe school district you live in, what business of yours is what they are taught? How has making the school bureaucracy less responsive to individual parents improved education?
Actually it is a fail from the quote taken from the article. The actual study says that this is the misconception: "Gases such as carbon dioxide lack sufficient mass to lead to the development of dry biomass in plants. Plants get mass from the soil."
So, the actual problem is that students believe that plants get most of their dry bio-mass from the soil, which is incorrect.
How does the existence of the Tea Party illustrate that people are missing basic logic tools? Unless you are saying that if people had basic logic tools the Tea Party would never have been necessary?
Or maybe you don't know what the basic point of the Tea Party is? The basic point is that the government cannot continue to spend more than it takes in indefinitely without a collapse at some point. Raising taxes does not solve the problem. Historically, the U.S. government has recieved about 18-19% of GDP in taxes (19% is the highest it has ever been), currently it is spending approximately 24% of GDP.
There are several things that would go a long way towards improving education in the US. First, stop worrying about "education in the U.S." and warry about education in your state. Second, get rid of teacher's tenure. Third is related to the first, shrink school districts, so that a few parents can influence the outcome of schoolboard elections.
Except that you don't have to demonstrate that you can teach, you just have to meet a set of semi-arbitrary standards that are primarily designed to ensure employment for those who teach "Education".
If they wanted to ensure that potential teachers could teach, they would test the students at the beginning and end of the student teaching assignment and only those whose students showed an improvement in understanding the subject above a certain level would get certified. Designing the tests and defining the level is another subject.
You touch on, but don't spell out, the fact that as they use more and more complicated DRM, the rewards for pirating their products and the penalties for paying for them both go up. It has gotten to the point where a significant number of people who will not pirate material, buy it and then go out and get the pirated versions because they are better.
What I like is how companies like Intel and Microsoft make this big announcement about how their new product has this wonderful feature, that provides nothing of value to their customers. Microsoft made a big deal about incorporating DRM in Vista when they were first marketing it. I could never understand why I would want my computer to limit my ability to copy information that I possess. This is the same thing. What is in this new technology for the end user? You know, the guy that Intel has to convince to lay out cash for the product in order for it to be a success.
Actually, you are only partly right. Intel originally licensed x86 processor technology to AMD and Cyrix because they could not produce enough chips to meet demand. Intel understood at the time that they had the opportunity to become the standard for personal computers, but only if people could get enough of their chip design to meet demand. If manufacturers could not get enough x86 chips to meet demand, they would go with someone else's chips. If that happened, there would be people out there who were not subject to Intel's vendor lock-in. Unfortunately for Intel (but fortunately for everybody else), by the time Intel had enough manufacturing capacity to keep up with demand, they had licensed enough of the x86 instruction set to AMD, that AMD could reverse engineer any advances Intel made in its chipsets. That combined with the fact that the courts refused to allow Intel to trademark 80x86 meant that Intel could not keep AMD out of the x86 market.
This is not to contradict your point but to augment it, because the point you made played a role in the situation as well.
I don't think that any people should kill themselves, I just don't understand why those who believe this life is all there is don't kill themselves. Life is a lot of work, if it serves no purpose, why bother?
Actually, there were microscopes in Louis Pasteur's day. Antony van Leeuwenhoek was the first person to observe microorganisms through a microscope in the late 1600s. Louis Pasteur most important breakthrough was disproving the theory of spontaneous generation. His experiment disproving spontaneous generation gave him the stature to successfully promote the germ theory of disease. He also did some good work developing the science of the germ theory, but without the stature from his disproving spontaneous generation he would have had more trouble getting germ theory accepted.
On the other hand I think your example is a great way to make your point even if it isn't exactly historically accurate.
You apparently fail to understand what the basic Christian doctrine means, if you didn't accept that you "needed to improve", you did not understand Christianity.
However, that was not the reason I chose to reply. My question for you is, life is a lot of work, if the 70-100 years of biological life is all there is, why bother? Why haven't you committed suicide? This is not a troll, but a genuine question, when I struggled with my doubts, I could conceive of no reason to go on living if this life is all there is.
Which is les expensive, a keyboard or display space? I want a keyboard. How will taking away some of the display space in order to provide me with a keyboard on the display improve my experience using a device? So in order to give the same display experience as a device that comes with a traditional keyboard, you need to have that much more display. That means the device that gives me the same display experience with just a touchscreen needs to cost more than a device with a traditional keyboard.
Self improvement for me came when I accepted that I needed to improve. Before, I always thought that I was a good person and didn't need to try harder. Coincidentally my realisation of a need for self improvement also coincided with me losing my religion.
It is a shame that the religion that you lost wasn't Christianity, since one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity is that no one is a good person.
Sure it all involves a good dose of self-delusion, but a lot of people have improved their lives greatly with a little self-delusion. After all, no one starts down their path to self-improvement by admitting to themselves that they are an unexceptional, not particularly good or worthwhile person.
Actually, the first step in improving yourself is admitting that you are not a particularly good or worthwhile person and then trying to change that fact.
Of course the interesting thing is that one of the basic specs is that the solution needs to be FISMA certified. BPOS is not FISMA certified. The Google solution is FISMA certified.
So, the Department of the Interior chose the product that doesn't meet one of their basic requirements without even considering the product that does.
So Google should accept that the government is going to go with Microsoft because the government has always gone with Microsoft? That would mean giving up on the market because, in the long run, they will have to spend more to make sure that the documents their products produce work the same way in the Microsoft product as documents produced with the Microsoft product. Even if they do that, there are still a lot of people who will go with the Microsoft solution because it is the one the government uses, so it must be the best, yet the government chose the Microsoft product solely because it was the Micosoft product without ever cosidering alternative products.
Why would I in the ordinary course of business keep that paper trail. The number of times that a business would reference that paper trail comes nowhere near justifying the cost of setting up a system to acquire and store that data. If I spend the money to acquire and keep that data trail, I will be selling screws for $2 that my competitor is selling for 2 cents (or less).
The standard method of quality control used in industry is to do tests on randomly selected items from a given production run.
Most politicians around the world admired the fascists before WWII. The majority never really got over it, they just knew that they couldn't admit it after war broke out.
Pointing out flaws in leadership by and to people who in are in no position to correct those flaws is destructive. If you recognize flaws in leadership at the company you work for and you do not have either the power to fix them or the ear of someone who does, you have two constructive options: get out of there, keep your mouth shut and hope your wrong (or someone who does have the power to change things sees the same problem).
If you believe that Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, or any other current ISP are a bigger threat to personal freedom and/or more powerful than the federal government, there is no point in me trying to have a rational discussion with you. For that matter, if you believe that ISPs have a greater interest in exerting control over freedom of expression than the federal government, you are not a rational actor.
Unfortunately, what you seem to be overlooking is that if a considerable number of PCs have suspicious History entries, it cannot be used as proof regardless of who's the suspect.
How would they know? Additionally, what made this history suspicious was two fold. First, timing: he searched ethylene glycol poisoning the morning his wife died of ethylene glycol poisoning. Second, he was exchanging emails with his lover discussing getting out of his marriage without getting a divorce.
So, you think it is a good idea to give one very large, very pwoerful organization (the government) more power in order to prevent several less powerful, not as large organizations (ISPs) from acquiring power that they might use to reduce the freedom of individuals? People not in the U.S. (and many people in the U.S.) seem to forget that historically the organization most likely to reduce the freedom of individuals is the government.
Your example fails because the organization being regulated and the organization doing the regulation in your example are both the government (possibly two different governmental bodies, but still the government).
Well, the fact that he searched ethylene glycol poisoning the morning of her death might have something to do with why they thought he might have poisoned her with ethylene glycol. Or maybe it was the fact that he was exchanging emails with another woman about getting out of his marriage so that he could be with the other woman, emails which curiously enough never once mentioned separation or divorce.