Preventing a cancer before it starts is far more effective than attempting to treat it after years of abuse. But yeah in these types of topics I generally get modded Troll for telling people they need to give up their cars and ride bicycles if they want to stop (or slow down) climate change. Yes there are certainly a very great deal of reasons why, for example, people can't ride bikes: weather is too hot, weather is too cold, work is too far away, biking causes sweat, etc. Yep, just mark me Troll.
If every Britain ran a high definition 24/7 Web cam then the ISPs/government would be struggling to keep all that data, and since porn is pretty much illegal now in Britain; the ISPs would likely be breaking the law in quite of few of these cases. It's always nice to know that the government, by necessity, would have an unofficial backup of my favourite download; the movie 2 Girls 1 Cup.
Clearly, there should be studies done on video games that don't deal with violence at all, but only deal with sex. I want a study done to determine if viewing pornography can improve visual acuity. Sex and sexuality have often been related to blindness (amongst other nasties); it would be good if it can be scientifically demonstrated that sex can actually be beneficial.
Ethics is something most people are taught in Sunday School along with the ten Commandments (or whatever your culture believes in). Too bad Human Nature makes formal education almost next to useless in this regard. If the courses on Ethics deals with topics such as Consequences of Behavior and Logic then hopefully there will be some trickle-down educational value. And courses on Ethics need to be backed up by law enforcement policies or they will be just more token courses towards a Diploma. Just-Say-No educational campaigns don't work.
The tier 1 schools (top 10) are very expensive, but are a golden ticket to a few key companies that don't recruit much anywhere else.
According to this Website, most businesses don't look at the school you went to, except for some notables:
A friend of mine had the pleasure of having a lot of high profile visitors come to his campus. One of them was the CEO of Enron and another one was the CFO of Tyco. These two specific individuals were in fact Harvard Business School graduates.
I'd say top 50 in the Financial Times rankings, but the closer you are to the top the better.
You never answered my question. I didn't ask you to point me to the locations where I can find the top tier schools, I asked you to tell me what a top tier school is.
What looks best on a resume...Computer Science, Information Technology, or something different altogether -- perhaps an MBA?
If you want something that looks good on a resume then get an BMA. You can do just about anything with an BMA without having to have any specific abilities, and it's got the prestige along with the title.
There's a big difference between a satirist and a Troll. Johnathan Swift was a Satirist, George Bush was a Troll (i.e. "You are either with us or against us").
It always amazes me that Americans are willing to pump billion after billion into the justice system, prisons but not into the social, health and educational system...
Here's a concept: If we build more prisons, and put all the unemployed and homeless in them before they feel the need to commit crimes to feed and clothes themselves, then this will: 1) Give people a place to live 2) Guarantee that everybody gets 3 square meals a day 3) Lowers crime do to poverty 4) Creates a lot of jobs that would help to support the prison/industrial economy 5) Lessen the need for the rest of us to provide DNA, finger prints, etc when we get charged with parking infractions, etc (which seems to be the trend) 6) Ensures that diseases like AIDs, TB, etc are not spread (do to the fact that these populations are not mobile) 7) Make large cities more economically healthier do to increased tourism by eliminating pan-handling 8) Protects the poor from crime and violence by keeping them in a protected environment ... and I could go on. Clearly, if we want to make the United States of America a Utopia, then we need to build more prisons.
Reminds me a of a case where a religious preacher convinced a female parishioner to become his (voluntary) sex slave for the sake of the church and for God. After about a decade of this abuse and the preacher telling her to start performing for another religious preacher, she finally started to have suspicions that the preachers' motives were suspect.
From the article you referenced:
, the caller identified himself as a policeman, 'Officer Scott', who described a female employee he suspected of stealing a purse. After the caller demanded that the employee be searched at the store, or taken to jail, the employee was brought into an office and ordered to remove her clothes... Nix arrived and took over from Summers, following the caller's directions for the next 2 hours. He removed the apron the employee had covered herself with, ordered her to dance and perform jumping jacks. He also ordered her to sit on his lap and kiss him, and when she refused he slapped her buttocks. The caller also spoke to the employee, demanding that she do as she was told. During this time the employee said that "I was scared for my life". After the employee had been in the office for 2½ hours, she was ordered to perform oral sex on Nix. Summers had returned to the office periodically, and during these visits the employee was instructed to cover herself up by the caller.
But to crucify the administrators for the school as sex offenders because of it? Come on...
This has absolutely nothing to do with a sex offense at all.
A great deal of criminal sex offenses has nothing to do with a sex offense and yet people still go to jail and are put on sex offense registries. Clearly there should not be double-standards for school officials.
"School refusal is a term originally used in Great Britain to describe refusal to attend school, due to emotional distress." How do you get from "term originally used in Great Britain" to "a British phenomena"?
It was a bit of sarcasm mate. It's bad in either case. I'm not aware that this is viewed differently in practice elsewhere. You certainly haven't given any examples.
Why the sexism? Why is it reasonable to strip search a boy but not a girl?
Unless they specifically want to be strip searched, then it is wrong in both cases. It would appear that boys prefer to be strip searched by female authority figures though. With girls it's just sexual harassment. I suppose it's the way people are socialized.
What is happening is that special interest groups are normalizing this aggressive and authoritarian policy
Are "special interests" the new name for communists and terrorists? What are you talking about?
It's groups and individuals that belong to the neo-conservative christian right. I thought this would be obvious, seeing as how they are making themselves quite public. There is an example in the journal entry I submitted yesterday.
The idea that people are presenting is that going to public school will teach you to deal with bullies and not going to public school will not teach you to deal with bullies. Not only that, another idea is being promoted; and that is if you don't go to public school then you will some how become mal-adjusted.
The ironic thing is that these arguments are self-defeating, because if people learned to successfully handle bullies in public school, then there would indeed not be a problem with bullies in public school.
And yes there certainly are bullies in the workplace, but by that time the bullies have lost a lot of testosterone and realize that the possibility of getting fired from a job has the tendency of lessening the severity of bullying. I rarely see or here about fist fights breaking out in the workplace, but it sure does happen a lot in primary school (K to 6th grade).
The other assumption that people have is the dealing poorly with bullies is a peer problem that is only solved by peers. People don't seem to realize that a very large part of human behavior is genetically based, so any kind of pro-bully socialization won't have any effect on people incapable of fighting back.
What going to public school does seem to do (based on the arguments I see here and elsewhere) is just reenforce and normalize bullying as natural and an important part of growing up. But really I doubt if not being bullied with make people mal-adjusted. In fact the evidence is clearly the opposite. The Trench Coat Mafia where bullied in public school and most people would say they were mal-adjusted. It's too bad, because if they decided not to seek revenge and be more normal they would probably be suffering right now in the workplace because of what they learned in high school.
Sometimes the folklore we learn from socializing with people isn't true.
School teaches you how to deal with assholes which I assert is a necessary life skill.
This is wrong, public school does not teach you how to deal with assholes (unless what I hear and read on the news is completely wrong; people are still getting beaten up, bullied, teased, assaulted, etc at public schools). And no, unless you take basic training you are unlikely to have this type of environment in the typical adult workplace. Don't assume I have anything against public schools. Most times I post, people (and moderators) seem to think I am arguing against their agenda, which is wrong. I'm not arguing against their agenda, I am arguing against their faulty (and often dishonest) arguments. I'm more interested in Truth and Logic than agendas.
Correct, most of the time. I am not advocating doing anything wrong however. Even if there was no sex offender registry, I'm sure a lawyer could think of many other laws that were broken that could add up to a lot of jail time.
You won't stop people from trying to make examples of potential criminals by making examples of them.
Perhaps not. Or even probably not. But to make an example of some-one does not mean that it has to be for the purpose of deterrence, it could be for simple justice. Often times there just needs to be political will to do something.
What I don't want to here (yet again) is about someone doing something unethical and illegal and having supporters make excuses and the more neutral give the guilty the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes good people need to stop appeasing bad people.
Wait a minute, zero tolerance on prescription drugs? What the hells with that?
It's because prescription drugs are a slippery slope to non-prescription drugs. Once teens get used to using Ibuprofen then they will start experimenting with aspirin, then the next thing you know they're smoking tobacco, and then marijuana, and then crack cocaine. Just Say No!
Slashdot Mirror
Preventing a cancer before it starts is far more effective than attempting to treat it after years of abuse. But yeah in these types of topics I generally get modded Troll for telling people they need to give up their cars and ride bicycles if they want to stop (or slow down) climate change. Yes there are certainly a very great deal of reasons why, for example, people can't ride bikes: weather is too hot, weather is too cold, work is too far away, biking causes sweat, etc. Yep, just mark me Troll.
If every Britain ran a high definition 24/7 Web cam then the ISPs/government would be struggling to keep all that data, and since porn is pretty much illegal now in Britain; the ISPs would likely be breaking the law in quite of few of these cases. It's always nice to know that the government, by necessity, would have an unofficial backup of my favourite download; the movie 2 Girls 1 Cup.
According to the Authors Guild, if you read out loud with this device you will be sued because the device isn't covered by a read-out-loud license.
Clearly, there should be studies done on video games that don't deal with violence at all, but only deal with sex. I want a study done to determine if viewing pornography can improve visual acuity. Sex and sexuality have often been related to blindness (amongst other nasties); it would be good if it can be scientifically demonstrated that sex can actually be beneficial.
Ethics is something most people are taught in Sunday School along with the ten Commandments (or whatever your culture believes in). Too bad Human Nature makes formal education almost next to useless in this regard. If the courses on Ethics deals with topics such as Consequences of Behavior and Logic then hopefully there will be some trickle-down educational value. And courses on Ethics need to be backed up by law enforcement policies or they will be just more token courses towards a Diploma. Just-Say-No educational campaigns don't work.
My stupid brain is at it again. "causal leader" should be "casual reader".
You said:
The tier 1 schools (top 10) are very expensive, but are a golden ticket to a few key companies that don't recruit much anywhere else.
According to this Website, most businesses don't look at the school you went to, except for some notables:
A friend of mine had the pleasure of having a lot of high profile visitors come to his campus. One of them was the CEO of Enron and another one was the CFO of Tyco. These two specific individuals were in fact Harvard Business School graduates.
I suppose I will have to tell the causal leader that none of these companies exist anymore because of financial scandals. Ref: http://nofieiman.com/2006/10/top-tier-school-or-not/
I'd say top 50 in the Financial Times rankings, but the closer you are to the top the better.
You never answered my question. I didn't ask you to point me to the locations where I can find the top tier schools, I asked you to tell me what a top tier school is.
In the top tier schools (the only ones worth the tuition) it's basically a stepping stone
What is a "top tier school"?
BMA = MBA. See if I had an MBA this probably wouldn't have happened.
What looks best on a resume...Computer Science, Information Technology, or something different altogether -- perhaps an MBA?
If you want something that looks good on a resume then get an BMA. You can do just about anything with an BMA without having to have any specific abilities, and it's got the prestige along with the title.
compression to shorten the URL's?
No, throttle these Web sites. Throttling is a more traditional approach to bandwidth management.
You're probably trolling be here goes...
There's a big difference between a satirist and a Troll. Johnathan Swift was a Satirist, George Bush was a Troll (i.e. "You are either with us or against us").
It always amazes me that Americans are willing to pump billion after billion into the justice system, prisons but not into the social, health and educational system...
Here's a concept: If we build more prisons, and put all the unemployed and homeless in them before they feel the need to commit crimes to feed and clothes themselves, then this will:
... and I could go on. Clearly, if we want to make the United States of America a Utopia, then we need to build more prisons.
1) Give people a place to live
2) Guarantee that everybody gets 3 square meals a day
3) Lowers crime do to poverty
4) Creates a lot of jobs that would help to support the prison/industrial economy
5) Lessen the need for the rest of us to provide DNA, finger prints, etc when we get charged with parking infractions, etc (which seems to be the trend)
6) Ensures that diseases like AIDs, TB, etc are not spread (do to the fact that these populations are not mobile)
7) Make large cities more economically healthier do to increased tourism by eliminating pan-handling
8) Protects the poor from crime and violence by keeping them in a protected environment
Reminds me a of a case where a religious preacher convinced a female parishioner to become his (voluntary) sex slave for the sake of the church and for God. After about a decade of this abuse and the preacher telling her to start performing for another religious preacher, she finally started to have suspicions that the preachers' motives were suspect.
From the article you referenced:
, the caller identified himself as a policeman, 'Officer Scott', who described a female employee he suspected of stealing a purse. After the caller demanded that the employee be searched at the store, or taken to jail, the employee was brought into an office and ordered to remove her clothes... Nix arrived and took over from Summers, following the caller's directions for the next 2 hours. He removed the apron the employee had covered herself with, ordered her to dance and perform jumping jacks. He also ordered her to sit on his lap and kiss him, and when she refused he slapped her buttocks. The caller also spoke to the employee, demanding that she do as she was told. During this time the employee said that "I was scared for my life". After the employee had been in the office for 2½ hours, she was ordered to perform oral sex on Nix. Summers had returned to the office periodically, and during these visits the employee was instructed to cover herself up by the caller.
- Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam#Mount_Washington.2C_Kentucky_incident
I'm not sure if this is coincidental, but these types of cases always seem to occured in the US southern states.
But to crucify the administrators for the school as sex offenders because of it? Come on...
This has absolutely nothing to do with a sex offense at all.
A great deal of criminal sex offenses has nothing to do with a sex offense and yet people still go to jail and are put on sex offense registries. Clearly there should not be double-standards for school officials.
"School refusal is a term originally used in Great Britain to describe refusal to attend school, due to emotional distress."
How do you get from "term originally used in Great Britain" to "a British phenomena"?
"School refusal is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis." - http://www.healthyplace.com/parenting/anxiety/understanding-school-refusal/menu-id-61/
We now have a society where parents can't be parents, schools (soon) won't be parents, and all the kids will grow up to be monsters.
That meme is older than Jesus. It seems like every generation has the same un-original thing to say about the decline of the morality of our youth.
It was a bit of sarcasm mate. It's bad in either case. I'm not aware that this is viewed differently in practice elsewhere. You certainly haven't given any examples.
Why the sexism? Why is it reasonable to strip search a boy but not a girl?
Unless they specifically want to be strip searched, then it is wrong in both cases. It would appear that boys prefer to be strip searched by female authority figures though. With girls it's just sexual harassment. I suppose it's the way people are socialized.
It's groups and individuals that belong to the neo-conservative christian right. I thought this would be obvious, seeing as how they are making themselves quite public. There is an example in the journal entry I submitted yesterday.
The idea that people are presenting is that going to public school will teach you to deal with bullies and not going to public school will not teach you to deal with bullies. Not only that, another idea is being promoted; and that is if you don't go to public school then you will some how become mal-adjusted.
The ironic thing is that these arguments are self-defeating, because if people learned to successfully handle bullies in public school, then there would indeed not be a problem with bullies in public school.
And yes there certainly are bullies in the workplace, but by that time the bullies have lost a lot of testosterone and realize that the possibility of getting fired from a job has the tendency of lessening the severity of bullying. I rarely see or here about fist fights breaking out in the workplace, but it sure does happen a lot in primary school (K to 6th grade).
The other assumption that people have is the dealing poorly with bullies is a peer problem that is only solved by peers. People don't seem to realize that a very large part of human behavior is genetically based, so any kind of pro-bully socialization won't have any effect on people incapable of fighting back.
What going to public school does seem to do (based on the arguments I see here and elsewhere) is just reenforce and normalize bullying as natural and an important part of growing up. But really I doubt if not being bullied with make people mal-adjusted. In fact the evidence is clearly the opposite. The Trench Coat Mafia where bullied in public school and most people would say they were mal-adjusted. It's too bad, because if they decided not to seek revenge and be more normal they would probably be suffering right now in the workplace because of what they learned in high school.
Sometimes the folklore we learn from socializing with people isn't true.
School teaches you how to deal with assholes which I assert is a necessary life skill.
This is wrong, public school does not teach you how to deal with assholes (unless what I hear and read on the news is completely wrong; people are still getting beaten up, bullied, teased, assaulted, etc at public schools). And no, unless you take basic training you are unlikely to have this type of environment in the typical adult workplace. Don't assume I have anything against public schools. Most times I post, people (and moderators) seem to think I am arguing against their agenda, which is wrong. I'm not arguing against their agenda, I am arguing against their faulty (and often dishonest) arguments. I'm more interested in Truth and Logic than agendas.
Or more simply, two wrongs do not make a right.
Correct, most of the time. I am not advocating doing anything wrong however. Even if there was no sex offender registry, I'm sure a lawyer could think of many other laws that were broken that could add up to a lot of jail time.
You won't stop people from trying to make examples of potential criminals by making examples of them.
Perhaps not. Or even probably not. But to make an example of some-one does not mean that it has to be for the purpose of deterrence, it could be for simple justice. Often times there just needs to be political will to do something.
What I don't want to here (yet again) is about someone doing something unethical and illegal and having supporters make excuses and the more neutral give the guilty the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes good people need to stop appeasing bad people.
Wait a minute, zero tolerance on prescription drugs? What the hells with that?
It's because prescription drugs are a slippery slope to non-prescription drugs. Once teens get used to using Ibuprofen then they will start experimenting with aspirin, then the next thing you know they're smoking tobacco, and then marijuana, and then crack cocaine. Just Say No!