I don't mean burden of proof to prove something. But an extra burden of evidence to get people's attention. After all it doesn't take too much evidence to have an unusual result and then have other scientists become interested. But it takes a lot more evidence if it's in an area that's not looked on favorably or which does not have a reasonable/testable hypothesis to explain the results.
The whole reason that adblock even works is because the majority of web sites don't serve up the ads themselves, they go through a relatively small set of third party sites that do all the distasteful stuff themselves. So if you visit welovecats.org you don't have to have a block rule for that site or algorithms to figure out if an image coming from that site is an ad or not, instead you've got block rule for googleadservices.com or something like that.
And it works because adblock users are relatively few. If adblock really started cutting into revenue then welovecats.org would start doing things the old fashioned way, do some actual work, curate the ads by hand, sell ad space to potential advertisers, etc.
I use it because I want to get the bandwidth that I'm paying for instead of having a lot of freeloaders piggy back on it. A 100 word article should not take several seconds to load, and if someone is on dialup it shouldn't take 5 minutes just to read the first line. Maybe if the advertisers starting paying their fair share here it wouldn't be so bad - after all, the junk mail that shows up from the postal service is not free, the advertisers had to pay bulk rates to get it to me (which I immediately throw away). If I get soo many advertising mailers the post office does not ask me to pay more money for a higher tier service. Internet advertisers slow down my computer, slow down my internet, and saturate the bandwidth.
I think that for people not streaming video and just going to web pages and reading email, that the majority of bandwidth usage is from advertising and analytics and trcking. If they don't use ad blockers and noscript that is.
The web sites serving ads don't even know if the ads are annoying. It's all handled by a third party and he website owner fully intends to sit back passively and wait for the money to roll in. They're too busy writing their useless blog to actually pay attention. No real newspaper or television channel would ever use an advertisement that none of the staff has viewed first, yet that is the standard practice on the internet. The web site owners don't do the necessary work to decide what sorts of ads might be relevant to their viewers, they let Google figure that part out.
It's well past he absurdity stage. Youtube required me to watch part of a movie preview first before it let me see the video I wanted, even though that video was a movie preview (this actually happened). Imagine a classic rock radio station playing ads for country music because some algorithm decided that the listener appears to have an interest in music.
The whole attitude that someone "deserves" to be paid because of minimal effort spent creating the content is absurd. No one ever deserves anything, you have to work for it. If the money doesn't come in then find a new job.
Of course he is. He doesn't evey try to hide it. He denies it but in the same way he denies everything, rolling his eyes just right to tell his supporters "I'm just saying this to appease the media but you all know what I really think, wink wink, nudge nudge".
Only some high schools even offer AP classes. The good schools in good areas have them, but I never even heard of them until graduate school and only then because I was on a scholarship committee.
To be honest I don't think it helps the students out, especially for science and engineering where there is no need for extra credits. What happens is the student ends up skipping a class designed for incoming freshman and going to a class that assumes you've acclimated to college, which can be a real shock.
AP is about doing college level work before college, it is not mainstream high school curriculum. AP *should* be hard and it should be advanced and it should be college level. These are honors courses.
Yep, the language is unimportant to Computer Science, and programming is a small part of CS too. The language is only important for those treating it as job training or employers looking for quick hires and for short term jobs after which they get fired because they've become outdated. AP used to be about being smart, going above and beyond mere high school curriculum, the cream of the crop, etc. But AP computer science sounds very dumbed down.
Gold plated pensions sounds like an exageration. It varies from state to state, and I hope it has changed since my family were teachers because it really sucked. No social security or medicare unless you explicitly opt in (with medicare being much more important here), low spousal benefits can come as a major surprise.
As with most public sector jobs, the pension is the reward for putting up with lousy pay. Yes there are problems especially today because so many contracts were negotiated when the state and local governments had lots of extra money, meaning today there are unfunded liabilities. Pensions may be more than private sector pensions, but few companies offer pensions anymore and if they do it is in combination with 401Ks
If teachers are overpaid while working and overpaid in retirement then you'd expect to see lots more people going into teaching. Teaching today does not appear to be anyone's first choice of career anymore.
My family were public school teachers. I still have relatives who are public school teachers. Your comment is repulsive.
when my father retired he was glad to get out of teaching, because the problem was all the parents blaming him for daring to raise his voice at their precious snowflakes. It was the parents who treated the schools as day care centers.
White flight or demographic shifts, it results to the same thing. Demographic shifts is just a polite way of explaining why you moved away from the old neighborhood. However school integration has raised test scores for ALL students, not just white, not just a school wide average, but the averages across the demographics went up. There is not about whites being better than browns, but rich doing better than poor. But everyone fights integration tooth and nail, no one wants to call it racism but they'll claim it's about being busing in violent students to their posh school or sending their precious snowflakes to drug infested slums. The kids in "that school" are bad they claim and they don't want them here.
This has happened in modern America for some school districts, not just during the integration experiments (that were canceled despite the successes). Schools were declared failing, laws demanded that the students be allowed to go to other schools despite angry parents from the rich schools protesting, and those students had their academic achievement increase despite the two hour bus rides every day. Even their parents were willing to put in the effort to make sure their students got up earlier or even drove the students, so it's not just rich parents who care about their children.
The higher schools in white districts are not due to whites being smarter. The differences are due to money. Money for better schools and teachers, money for better educational materials, money so that there's a parent that has more free time, etc.
I suspect in many places that teachers can be fired. I know when my father got tenure it did not mean he could not be fired it just meant he didn't have to deal with the contract every year or wait until a few weeks before school starts to know if he still had the job. Consider how many corporations keep around deadwood who should have been fired ages ago, including managers, so school districts are likely the same. It's too much of a hassle to fire someone, deal with the union, getting real proof of bad performance, and getting a replacement. Though I don't doubt in large cities with stronger unions that it's harder to fire for cause (say New York), but I don't think it's true everywhere. A school board may say they're powerless but that's because they never ever want to rock the boat because it's a cushy elected office most places.
So let's hypothesize that it's not going to matter for climate. But we will still run out of oil someday, and coal is massively polluting, so why not make changes now? Why are we concerned about tar sands oil and thousand mile long pipelines if there's plenty of oil to last forever? What happens in America is that when gas prices go up we tend to by more economical cars, but when gas prices fall we suddenly get amnesia and buy the muscle cars and trucks and other hogs. It's irrational behavior.
The changes I proposed are not much. Bigger changes though would help. Stop deforestation, stop coal fired power plants, etc. That can't be done on an individual basis though.
Each charter school is different though. The point is they get to make up their own charter. They aren't required to follow the same rules as public schools, though they do remain public schools. I suppose they could have a union if they wanted, though I doubt the school boards would like that.
If private schools pay less then it's different than when my family were teachers. But either way it's not a lot of pay and you don't take the job for the money. And definitely not for the lousy retirement plan (though many public unions did negotiate good benefit deals when the economy was zooming which is what has led to all the union backlash today when the economy sucks).
And if you get rid of the unions then what protection do teachers have left? Remember that the school boards, administrators, and politicians do not care about the interests of the kids either. If they could put 60 students in one classroom they would because it would save the cost of one underpaid teacher.
Unions do good and bad things. The question is do you throw it all out because of the bad things, then let the teachers work for near poverty wages? Which is not hyperbole, the school boards are always trying to cut back anywhere they can.
I grew up with teachers. My family was pretty conservative and anti-union. But when it came time for contract negotations my anti-union father was out there on the picket lines when they were being shafted by the board. And that's because the unions are the only thing we have in any form that protects rights of workers and that can balance the power of the employers. For every bad thing a union has done there are even more bad things the employers and governments do.
Slashdot Mirror
The break ins were due to a political party and reelection campaign and had nothing to do with official government intelligence agencies.
The police would rule it a case of suicide.
I don't mean burden of proof to prove something. But an extra burden of evidence to get people's attention. After all it doesn't take too much evidence to have an unusual result and then have other scientists become interested. But it takes a lot more evidence if it's in an area that's not looked on favorably or which does not have a reasonable/testable hypothesis to explain the results.
So this means they just don't care?
I do not! My complexes are as superior as anyone else's!
A brilliant stateman, Britain must be proud.
It's not disparaging, it's ironic. It's what this country was founded on; we were called Yankee Doodle as an insult and we threw it back at them.
The whole reason that adblock even works is because the majority of web sites don't serve up the ads themselves, they go through a relatively small set of third party sites that do all the distasteful stuff themselves. So if you visit welovecats.org you don't have to have a block rule for that site or algorithms to figure out if an image coming from that site is an ad or not, instead you've got block rule for googleadservices.com or something like that.
And it works because adblock users are relatively few. If adblock really started cutting into revenue then welovecats.org would start doing things the old fashioned way, do some actual work, curate the ads by hand, sell ad space to potential advertisers, etc.
I use it because I want to get the bandwidth that I'm paying for instead of having a lot of freeloaders piggy back on it. A 100 word article should not take several seconds to load, and if someone is on dialup it shouldn't take 5 minutes just to read the first line. Maybe if the advertisers starting paying their fair share here it wouldn't be so bad - after all, the junk mail that shows up from the postal service is not free, the advertisers had to pay bulk rates to get it to me (which I immediately throw away). If I get soo many advertising mailers the post office does not ask me to pay more money for a higher tier service. Internet advertisers slow down my computer, slow down my internet, and saturate the bandwidth.
I think that for people not streaming video and just going to web pages and reading email, that the majority of bandwidth usage is from advertising and analytics and trcking. If they don't use ad blockers and noscript that is.
The web sites serving ads don't even know if the ads are annoying. It's all handled by a third party and he website owner fully intends to sit back passively and wait for the money to roll in. They're too busy writing their useless blog to actually pay attention. No real newspaper or television channel would ever use an advertisement that none of the staff has viewed first, yet that is the standard practice on the internet. The web site owners don't do the necessary work to decide what sorts of ads might be relevant to their viewers, they let Google figure that part out.
It's well past he absurdity stage. Youtube required me to watch part of a movie preview first before it let me see the video I wanted, even though that video was a movie preview (this actually happened). Imagine a classic rock radio station playing ads for country music because some algorithm decided that the listener appears to have an interest in music.
The whole attitude that someone "deserves" to be paid because of minimal effort spent creating the content is absurd. No one ever deserves anything, you have to work for it. If the money doesn't come in then find a new job.
Of course he is. He doesn't evey try to hide it. He denies it but in the same way he denies everything, rolling his eyes just right to tell his supporters "I'm just saying this to appease the media but you all know what I really think, wink wink, nudge nudge".
I'm practicing my Trump salute. All hail our new furor.
Only some high schools even offer AP classes. The good schools in good areas have them, but I never even heard of them until graduate school and only then because I was on a scholarship committee.
To be honest I don't think it helps the students out, especially for science and engineering where there is no need for extra credits. What happens is the student ends up skipping a class designed for incoming freshman and going to a class that assumes you've acclimated to college, which can be a real shock.
AP is about doing college level work before college, it is not mainstream high school curriculum. AP *should* be hard and it should be advanced and it should be college level. These are honors courses.
Yep, the language is unimportant to Computer Science, and programming is a small part of CS too. The language is only important for those treating it as job training or employers looking for quick hires and for short term jobs after which they get fired because they've become outdated. AP used to be about being smart, going above and beyond mere high school curriculum, the cream of the crop, etc. But AP computer science sounds very dumbed down.
You insulted all teachers. Why do you call an ad hominem attack "facts?
Gold plated pensions sounds like an exageration. It varies from state to state, and I hope it has changed since my family were teachers because it really sucked. No social security or medicare unless you explicitly opt in (with medicare being much more important here), low spousal benefits can come as a major surprise.
As with most public sector jobs, the pension is the reward for putting up with lousy pay. Yes there are problems especially today because so many contracts were negotiated when the state and local governments had lots of extra money, meaning today there are unfunded liabilities. Pensions may be more than private sector pensions, but few companies offer pensions anymore and if they do it is in combination with 401Ks
If teachers are overpaid while working and overpaid in retirement then you'd expect to see lots more people going into teaching. Teaching today does not appear to be anyone's first choice of career anymore.
They get money from incarcerated prisoners...
My family were public school teachers. I still have relatives who are public school teachers. Your comment is repulsive.
when my father retired he was glad to get out of teaching, because the problem was all the parents blaming him for daring to raise his voice at their precious snowflakes. It was the parents who treated the schools as day care centers.
White flight or demographic shifts, it results to the same thing. Demographic shifts is just a polite way of explaining why you moved away from the old neighborhood. However school integration has raised test scores for ALL students, not just white, not just a school wide average, but the averages across the demographics went up. There is not about whites being better than browns, but rich doing better than poor. But everyone fights integration tooth and nail, no one wants to call it racism but they'll claim it's about being busing in violent students to their posh school or sending their precious snowflakes to drug infested slums. The kids in "that school" are bad they claim and they don't want them here.
This has happened in modern America for some school districts, not just during the integration experiments (that were canceled despite the successes). Schools were declared failing, laws demanded that the students be allowed to go to other schools despite angry parents from the rich schools protesting, and those students had their academic achievement increase despite the two hour bus rides every day. Even their parents were willing to put in the effort to make sure their students got up earlier or even drove the students, so it's not just rich parents who care about their children.
The higher schools in white districts are not due to whites being smarter. The differences are due to money. Money for better schools and teachers, money for better educational materials, money so that there's a parent that has more free time, etc.
I suspect in many places that teachers can be fired. I know when my father got tenure it did not mean he could not be fired it just meant he didn't have to deal with the contract every year or wait until a few weeks before school starts to know if he still had the job. Consider how many corporations keep around deadwood who should have been fired ages ago, including managers, so school districts are likely the same. It's too much of a hassle to fire someone, deal with the union, getting real proof of bad performance, and getting a replacement. Though I don't doubt in large cities with stronger unions that it's harder to fire for cause (say New York), but I don't think it's true everywhere. A school board may say they're powerless but that's because they never ever want to rock the boat because it's a cushy elected office most places.
So let's hypothesize that it's not going to matter for climate. But we will still run out of oil someday, and coal is massively polluting, so why not make changes now? Why are we concerned about tar sands oil and thousand mile long pipelines if there's plenty of oil to last forever? What happens in America is that when gas prices go up we tend to by more economical cars, but when gas prices fall we suddenly get amnesia and buy the muscle cars and trucks and other hogs. It's irrational behavior.
The changes I proposed are not much. Bigger changes though would help. Stop deforestation, stop coal fired power plants, etc. That can't be done on an individual basis though.
Each charter school is different though. The point is they get to make up their own charter. They aren't required to follow the same rules as public schools, though they do remain public schools. I suppose they could have a union if they wanted, though I doubt the school boards would like that.
If private schools pay less then it's different than when my family were teachers. But either way it's not a lot of pay and you don't take the job for the money. And definitely not for the lousy retirement plan (though many public unions did negotiate good benefit deals when the economy was zooming which is what has led to all the union backlash today when the economy sucks).
And if you get rid of the unions then what protection do teachers have left? Remember that the school boards, administrators, and politicians do not care about the interests of the kids either. If they could put 60 students in one classroom they would because it would save the cost of one underpaid teacher.
Unions do good and bad things. The question is do you throw it all out because of the bad things, then let the teachers work for near poverty wages? Which is not hyperbole, the school boards are always trying to cut back anywhere they can.
I grew up with teachers. My family was pretty conservative and anti-union. But when it came time for contract negotations my anti-union father was out there on the picket lines when they were being shafted by the board. And that's because the unions are the only thing we have in any form that protects rights of workers and that can balance the power of the employers. For every bad thing a union has done there are even more bad things the employers and governments do.