I really wish they had gone into detail on what exactly a 'faith science basis' is.
So do I!
I'm not saying they're completely walled off from each other but attempting to give your children solid foundational logic should not be approached from an angle that contains any sort of faith.
True, but science isn't just "solid foundational logic".
If they are indeed teaching intelligent design in much the same way as Niels Bohr's atomic model or -- perhaps more apt -- motivation for slavery then I have little problem with this. But if they spend anymore than a few hours discussing how it was flawed then I would consider this a waste of time instead of 'critical thinking.'
But it's a good case study in what makes for good science and what makes for bad science, and that takes more than a few hours.
If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.
I would have a problem with that, because it isn't "disproved", any more than the FSM is "disproved". If you teach them that it's "disproved" then you're lying to them about what science is and how it works, and you're leaving them open to creationists when they learn that they were lied to about it in the science class. Certainly teach them why it's bad science, why science correctly disregards it, but teach them the real, legitimate, reasons, so they understand how science works and have the necessary ammunition against creationists.
They are arguing that this helps critical thinking and allows the child to make their own conclusions... but curiously this "critical thinking" that presents an opposing view is curiously the view that the localized religion adheres to. If you want to teach critical thinking, expose the child to more views than what the adults are already largely marketing to them in the home and at religious services.
Surely when teaching critical thinking (or anything else, come to that) it's better educational practice to address real issues and controversies that the kids are likely to have actually encountered?
But why bother? They can already sue for whatever amount they want to, why should they ask to be limited?
Remember that this is about UK law. Although I'm sure the major players would love to try it, I'm not aware of any equivalent of the silly numbers in US cases being awarded in UK cases. (Silly actions, yes, silly numbers, no.) Maybe I've missed those cases?
IANAL, but as far as I can see doubling each time would mean that it is no longer "damages" and has become punitive, which takes it out of civil law and into criminal law. There are cases in UK law where punitive can be applied in civil cases, but they're very few and far between and unlikely to apply here. And there are cases in which copyright violation falls within UK criminal law, but they're essentially on the supply side, not on the receiving side so again they don't apply. So no, doubling each time would be a major violation of a basic legal principle, at least, without new legislation to criminalise receipt of copyright material. Expect anybody trying to introduce such legislation to get mail-bombed with lots of copyright music and video clips.
2: They become boutique sites like peer reviewed journals. There are a number of academic sites which are pay to play, and cost a hefty fee per PDF article. However, for wrappers around the same Associated Press articles everybody else is using, I don't think people would be interested in this.
Ohh... Just TRY incorporating the second two into ANY industry not based on shoe shopping.
"Induced obsolescence"? Really?
How would you like to have to re-buy ALL your software, books, movies, CDs EVERY SEASON instead of every time a new digital media appers?
Why would you have to buy it?
Because of "Acceleration in creative innovation", which translates to:
Fashionistas want to stay ahead of the curve.
They don't want to be wearing what everybody else is wearing and so they want to move on to the next trend as soon as possible.
EVERY SEASON these designers have to struggle to come up with the new fabulous idea that everybody's going to love.
And this [..] is very good for the bottom line.
In other words - snobbery supported by profit margin supported by snobbery.
Sure... you might say that we already have that in constantly changing "modern" music, artsy-fartsy films or even Apple.
But none of those "industries" can be pushed into fashion industry's "season based" product cycle.
Why?
Because fashion is the only "art" that can become OBSOLETE.
Sure -- and that's why we never see new releases of software that simply add a pile of tick-box features that add nothing to productivity (and change the file formats, to make it harder for users of old versions to use your output), shortly followed by withdrawal of support for the old version.
Microsoft, Apple and so on follow just that model. The only reasons they're not "season based" are that they're less affected by the weather and development cycles are longer.
I used to teach Sunday School, when I still believed enough of it for them to let me. Fortunately, the church I did it in didn't require me to confuse religion with blinkered social conservatism, so I got away with it.
I didn't realise that it was on US TV, true. But I think my point about the cultural differences holds. On US TV it seems even partial nudity is forbidden, in the UK it's occasionally tolerated, and in France it's pretty much expected.
Because think about it. If there is already free porn of it, why make even more of it for what is a fetish for a small amount of people. If it was free and unregulated it would fill the internet making it hard for people to turn a profit producing it on their own which would lead to any economic benefit being reduced or eliminated.
Yeah, sure. Look at how that has killed the mainstream porn industry. Not.
I can beat that -- the mainstream French channel FR3 used to have a station ident in which three pretty female dancers suddenly took their tops off and stood there exposed, giggling. The jingle (if I recall correctly, the girls sang or mimed it) was: "FR3, c'est trois fois mieux" ("FR3, it's 3 times better"). In the UK we might get a young woman wandering around topless in a drama (after the 9pm watershed), but we'd not allow it in a station ident. Pity. I used to enjoy the FR3 one.
I think the only space shuttle missions most Europeans remember (certainly the only ones I remember) are Challenger STS-51-L and Columbia STS-107. They probably gained the USA some sympathy goodwill, but I'm not sure they did much for prestige.
Well, if the Diebold systems are alleged to be built by Republicans to be rigged for a Republican win, we have to go for your "wrong engineers" theory because they didn't work last time!
I think in the end it does depend how hard ball people play on electoral reform. In the end it could be a deal breaker for both sides, as the conservatives don't want to change a system that suits them pretty well, and the Lib dems want badly to change a system that gives them 8.8% of the seats with 23% of the vote.
Labour have recently sided with electoral reform, although they favour AV rather than the STV preferred by the Liberal Democrats. That opens up another possibility: rather than a coalition, the LDs could agree to a "confidence and resources" arrangement: vote with the Conservatives on votes of confidence and on budget, but act independently on all other matters. That would give the Conservatives a majority to form a government, but leaves the Liberal Democrats free to pursue electoral reform. The LDs I've spoken to prefer AV to the present system, even though they would like STV better, so a compromise with Labour is possible. With Labour on side, and with all of the small parties likely to be in favour (because they all stand to gain from it at the expense of Labour and even more at the expense the Conservatives) they might have a chance of pushing it through despite the opposition of the Conservative government.
and no configuration of coalitions (there aren't enough Liberal Democrats, SNP and other groups who tend towards left-of-centre to add up to a majority in the House of Commons).
Yes there are, because Sinn Féin don't take up their seats (they won't swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen). Without them in the House, Labour + Liberal Democrats + Scottish Nationalists + Plaid Cymru gives a majority of 1. Actually, if Sinn Féin did take up their seats the left-wing majority would be bigger.
Slashdot Mirror
I really wish they had gone into detail on what exactly a 'faith science basis' is.
So do I!
I'm not saying they're completely walled off from each other but attempting to give your children solid foundational logic should not be approached from an angle that contains any sort of faith.
True, but science isn't just "solid foundational logic".
If they are indeed teaching intelligent design in much the same way as Niels Bohr's atomic model or -- perhaps more apt -- motivation for slavery then I have little problem with this. But if they spend anymore than a few hours discussing how it was flawed then I would consider this a waste of time instead of 'critical thinking.'
But it's a good case study in what makes for good science and what makes for bad science, and that takes more than a few hours.
If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.
I would have a problem with that, because it isn't "disproved", any more than the FSM is "disproved". If you teach them that it's "disproved" then you're lying to them about what science is and how it works, and you're leaving them open to creationists when they learn that they were lied to about it in the science class. Certainly teach them why it's bad science, why science correctly disregards it, but teach them the real, legitimate, reasons, so they understand how science works and have the necessary ammunition against creationists.
They are arguing that this helps critical thinking and allows the child to make their own conclusions ... but curiously this "critical thinking" that presents an opposing view is curiously the view that the localized religion adheres to. If you want to teach critical thinking, expose the child to more views than what the adults are already largely marketing to them in the home and at religious services.
Surely when teaching critical thinking (or anything else, come to that) it's better educational practice to address real issues and controversies that the kids are likely to have actually encountered?
But why bother? They can already sue for whatever amount they want to, why should they ask to be limited?
Remember that this is about UK law. Although I'm sure the major players would love to try it, I'm not aware of any equivalent of the silly numbers in US cases being awarded in UK cases. (Silly actions, yes, silly numbers, no.) Maybe I've missed those cases?
IANAL, but as far as I can see doubling each time would mean that it is no longer "damages" and has become punitive, which takes it out of civil law and into criminal law. There are cases in UK law where punitive can be applied in civil cases, but they're very few and far between and unlikely to apply here. And there are cases in which copyright violation falls within UK criminal law, but they're essentially on the supply side, not on the receiving side so again they don't apply. So no, doubling each time would be a major violation of a basic legal principle, at least, without new legislation to criminalise receipt of copyright material. Expect anybody trying to introduce such legislation to get mail-bombed with lots of copyright music and video clips.
But I suspect relatively few chips-and-brown-sauce consumers in the east of Scotland consider themselves "English".
You're thinking of Belgians. The English put some combination of salt, vinegar, curry sauce and ketchup on their chips (rarely all four).
2: They become boutique sites like peer reviewed journals. There are a number of academic sites which are pay to play, and cost a hefty fee per PDF article. However, for wrappers around the same Associated Press articles everybody else is using, I don't think people would be interested in this.
Fixed that for ya.
We rehearse coping with dangerous situations all the time (including public speaking ;-) )
Sure, but naked?
Ohh... Just TRY incorporating the second two into ANY industry not based on shoe shopping.
"Induced obsolescence"? Really? How would you like to have to re-buy ALL your software, books, movies, CDs EVERY SEASON instead of every time a new digital media appers?
Why would you have to buy it? Because of "Acceleration in creative innovation", which translates to:
Fashionistas want to stay ahead of the curve. They don't want to be wearing what everybody else is wearing and so they want to move on to the next trend as soon as possible. EVERY SEASON these designers have to struggle to come up with the new fabulous idea that everybody's going to love. And this [..] is very good for the bottom line.
In other words - snobbery supported by profit margin supported by snobbery.
Sure... you might say that we already have that in constantly changing "modern" music, artsy-fartsy films or even Apple. But none of those "industries" can be pushed into fashion industry's "season based" product cycle.
Why? Because fashion is the only "art" that can become OBSOLETE.
Sure -- and that's why we never see new releases of software that simply add a pile of tick-box features that add nothing to productivity (and change the file formats, to make it harder for users of old versions to use your output), shortly followed by withdrawal of support for the old version.
Microsoft, Apple and so on follow just that model. The only reasons they're not "season based" are that they're less affected by the weather and development cycles are longer.
And maybe they didn't realise what "suck an elf!" in 10th Kingdom was substituting.
I used to teach Sunday School, when I still believed enough of it for them to let me. Fortunately, the church I did it in didn't require me to confuse religion with blinkered social conservatism, so I got away with it.
I didn't realise that it was on US TV, true. But I think my point about the cultural differences holds. On US TV it seems even partial nudity is forbidden, in the UK it's occasionally tolerated, and in France it's pretty much expected.
Because think about it. If there is already free porn of it, why make even more of it for what is a fetish for a small amount of people. If it was free and unregulated it would fill the internet making it hard for people to turn a profit producing it on their own which would lead to any economic benefit being reduced or eliminated.
Yeah, sure. Look at how that has killed the mainstream porn industry. Not.
Which animal is in your usual porn?
H. sapiens?
I can beat that -- the mainstream French channel FR3 used to have a station ident in which three pretty female dancers suddenly took their tops off and stood there exposed, giggling. The jingle (if I recall correctly, the girls sang or mimed it) was: "FR3, c'est trois fois mieux" ("FR3, it's 3 times better"). In the UK we might get a young woman wandering around topless in a drama (after the 9pm watershed), but we'd not allow it in a station ident. Pity. I used to enjoy the FR3 one.
Theres a guy in every group thats into cougars.
Yes, but he's the one in his late 60s, which rather defeats the object.
I think that was because we Brits didn't understand the concept of an Individual Retirement Account.
Just print the U please, it won't hurt anyone.
Ok. This is a big *u***** deal.
You never clicked the "Random article" link, then?
I think the only space shuttle missions most Europeans remember (certainly the only ones I remember) are Challenger STS-51-L and Columbia STS-107. They probably gained the USA some sympathy goodwill, but I'm not sure they did much for prestige.
They also have all of your money. Your call.
Well, if the Diebold systems are alleged to be built by Republicans to be rigged for a Republican win, we have to go for your "wrong engineers" theory because they didn't work last time!
True, The Speaker ties it -- but it looks as if the DUP might throw their votes in with such a coalition which would give a majority.
Even with support from the Unionists, the parliament was hung -- no party had an overall majority.
I think in the end it does depend how hard ball people play on electoral reform. In the end it could be a deal breaker for both sides, as the conservatives don't want to change a system that suits them pretty well, and the Lib dems want badly to change a system that gives them 8.8% of the seats with 23% of the vote.
Labour have recently sided with electoral reform, although they favour AV rather than the STV preferred by the Liberal Democrats. That opens up another possibility: rather than a coalition, the LDs could agree to a "confidence and resources" arrangement: vote with the Conservatives on votes of confidence and on budget, but act independently on all other matters. That would give the Conservatives a majority to form a government, but leaves the Liberal Democrats free to pursue electoral reform. The LDs I've spoken to prefer AV to the present system, even though they would like STV better, so a compromise with Labour is possible. With Labour on side, and with all of the small parties likely to be in favour (because they all stand to gain from it at the expense of Labour and even more at the expense the Conservatives) they might have a chance of pushing it through despite the opposition of the Conservative government.
and no configuration of coalitions (there aren't enough Liberal Democrats, SNP and other groups who tend towards left-of-centre to add up to a majority in the House of Commons).
Yes there are, because Sinn Féin don't take up their seats (they won't swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen). Without them in the House, Labour + Liberal Democrats + Scottish Nationalists + Plaid Cymru gives a majority of 1. Actually, if Sinn Féin did take up their seats the left-wing majority would be bigger.