To all the people who say that "well you should have just worked harder, stop asking for hand outs." It's a little hard to say that in this case, because it's not exactly as though the kids could have been even remotely responsible if parents don't put away. Not that it's a good argument in the first place, but it makes in less sense in the case of post secondary education.
Know that I'm not saying this sarcastically: I have no idea what your point is. Are we agreeing or disagreeing? Do you mean selective isolationism? Can you elaborate and explain a bit more?
The "proper" dialect is always considered the one spoken by the rich and powerful. The "uneducated" dialects are spoken by the poor or otherwise marginalized (i.e. black people speaking ebonics). Linguistically speaking, both the proper dialect and poor dialects are rich and complex. There is no scientific explanation for what makes a "proper" dialect superior other than racism and class discrimination.
Language is constantly evolving and the "proper English" spoken today is massively different from the "proper English" spoken 500 years ago. You would probably have a harder time understanding the "proper English" of 500 years ago than you would with the "lesser varieties" spoken by the people of today you clearly hate so much.
But don't let me get in your way. Go ahead and tell your kids all about the "lesser varieties" spoken by lesser peoples. Lets start them on the hate young.
It's not exactly racism. If a white man were born and raised in China, and came to live in America, he wouldn't encounter the same racism as a person who looked like he belonged to an Asian race.
At any rate, your comment doesn't negate the utility of the parent comment. For example, according to Stats Canada, Indo Canadians marry within their own culture ~90% percent of the time. When it comes to marriage, statistically speaking, Indo Canadians are a xenophobic group of people. That provides some interesting insight into Indo Canadian households. Every time the Arizona electorate votes in favour of politicians who support racist policies, whether they like it or not they are providing an interesting STATISTICAL insight into themselves. It is not unfair to say that the majority of people allowed to vote in Arizona are in favour of or at least indifferent to racist legislation.
I concede that the stakes are higher with instruction. I too have struggled to grasp the thick accents of teachers. I have also noticed that students are less patient with Asian accents than European accents (German, Russian, French etc.) These days, people are more likely to say, "You come to this country, you learn the language!" to a Chinese person than to a French person. The problem I have is when people take a reasonable concern (like wanting to understand their teacher) and use it to shield racism (as evidence by the generally inconsistent application of said concern). Furthermore, it should come as no surprise that this is Arizona we are talking about here.
Interesting idea. In fact babies up to six months can distinguish between the phonemes of all languages. But they begin to lose the ability for the phonemes of other languages at six months, but have an increased awareness for their own language.
It is pretty ignorant to assume that because you can distinguish phonemes in your language, that others should have no problem and that they are lazy if they do.
I bet you couldn't tell the difference between the four D's of Punjabi, even though a native speaker would think you are foolish for not hearing it. F and P are easy to you, and all those D's are just as easy to the Punjabi speaker.
Any linguist worth their salt would tell you the same thing.
And do you really want your children schooled in such a way that they only ever encounter perfect English (by your definition that is, as there is no such thing as one correct dialect in any language)? Cause that would really prepare them for the world we live in, right?
Perhaps these prosecutors and politicians should be careful. They may be setting themselves up for a burning at the stake when the climate really starts a changin'.
How about a "use it or lose it provision" like with trademark law? In order to keep a patent, you (i.e. the current patent holder) have to bring a product to market, and you have to continue selling any product which is reliant on that patent throughout the life of the patent...or the patent is voided so that others can give it a shot. If the monopoly is not promoting the progress, then it is unconstitutional.
That would be more in step with the constitution than any other proposal I've seen, short of NOT GRANTING ANY MONOPOLIES.
Do our current ISPs offer better privacy? As long as the US has legislation like the PATRIOT ACT and the federal courts are fine eroding the 4th amendment, there will not be better alternatives.
Android is "free" to developers because Google made it that way. Apple chose not to do the same...so they should get some sort of crutch because they are adding on costs to their developers? Apple made a walled garden and a significant barrier to entry for their developers, and you think they deserve some sort of special privileges because that decision isn't working out so well in the market place? Please.
Who's "copying"? Android is not a copy of iPhone, even if there are similarities. Innovation is taking good ideas and building on them, as is competition. No idea is truly "unique." Every idea is based upon some previous iteration or technology. I'm surprised this point still needs to be made.
I'll repeat my last point. If Apple has lost all incentive to create, then why don't they quit the smartphone game? If Apple lost this patent war, do you really think they would quit? No? Well that's because they have adequate incentives other than patents driving them forward. The fact that Apple clearly doesn't need the supposed incentives of its patents to continue bringing new products to market calls into question the constitutionality of the same.
What the hell is wrong with competition?! Ideas are nothing, implementation is everything. If Apple didn't have incentive to keep creating after Android supposedly 'copied' them, then they would have dropped out of the smartphone market.
Android is a better product. So what if it has some similarities to Apple??? Let them duke it out in the marketplace, not the courtrooms.
"...and significantly lower the cost of producing solar cells with promising, yet expensive compounds."
And yet somehow I imagine that traditional printer ink is still more expensive.
Why is the war in Libya illegal? I understand why the war in Iraq is illegal, but when did the UN stop sanctioning action in Libya? [No sarcasm, I'm genuinely interested.]
I have no studies, and I'm not going to look any up for you. I'm a teacher, if that helps. It is, however, generally accepted that you don't compete for the best employees with the lowest pay/benefits (and in my region, private schools pay the least). My goal is not to say public is better, but to challenge the assumption that private is better.
It is absolutely disputable whether public schools or private schools, on average, have higher quality teachers. Unionized public school teachers may very well start out as effective and deteriorate with nearly guaranteed job security and eroding patience. And even if there were a trend, it's going to vary a lot among individuals. On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that public school teachers have to balance a heck of a lot more, and it would be impossible to accurately measure teaching quality. We can both agree that nearly all the problem students get shunted to public education; naturally, private education students would have higher grades.
The point I'm saying is this [and it should be fairly self-evident, with or without studies]: saying that private education is better because the students score better [because they only admit the best students, with the fewest behavioural problems and the most invested parents] is like saying that scientists have cured cancer because no one dies from cancer in this country anymore [because they send cancer patients to a remote island before they die].
Slashdot Mirror
There are some people who are genuinely contraindicated for certain vaccinations. I only hope this program accounts for that.
I totally agree.
To all the people who say that "well you should have just worked harder, stop asking for hand outs." It's a little hard to say that in this case, because it's not exactly as though the kids could have been even remotely responsible if parents don't put away. Not that it's a good argument in the first place, but it makes in less sense in the case of post secondary education.
It's okay, we can still pay in Nuka Cola bottle caps.
Aw yes I understand now. Thanks for clarifying.
Know that I'm not saying this sarcastically: I have no idea what your point is. Are we agreeing or disagreeing? Do you mean selective isolationism? Can you elaborate and explain a bit more?
There is no such thing as "lesser varieties."
The "proper" dialect is always considered the one spoken by the rich and powerful. The "uneducated" dialects are spoken by the poor or otherwise marginalized (i.e. black people speaking ebonics). Linguistically speaking, both the proper dialect and poor dialects are rich and complex. There is no scientific explanation for what makes a "proper" dialect superior other than racism and class discrimination.
Language is constantly evolving and the "proper English" spoken today is massively different from the "proper English" spoken 500 years ago. You would probably have a harder time understanding the "proper English" of 500 years ago than you would with the "lesser varieties" spoken by the people of today you clearly hate so much.
But don't let me get in your way. Go ahead and tell your kids all about the "lesser varieties" spoken by lesser peoples. Lets start them on the hate young.
Regionism?
It's not exactly racism. If a white man were born and raised in China, and came to live in America, he wouldn't encounter the same racism as a person who looked like he belonged to an Asian race.
At any rate, your comment doesn't negate the utility of the parent comment. For example, according to Stats Canada, Indo Canadians marry within their own culture ~90% percent of the time. When it comes to marriage, statistically speaking, Indo Canadians are a xenophobic group of people. That provides some interesting insight into Indo Canadian households. Every time the Arizona electorate votes in favour of politicians who support racist policies, whether they like it or not they are providing an interesting STATISTICAL insight into themselves. It is not unfair to say that the majority of people allowed to vote in Arizona are in favour of or at least indifferent to racist legislation.
I concede that the stakes are higher with instruction. I too have struggled to grasp the thick accents of teachers. I have also noticed that students are less patient with Asian accents than European accents (German, Russian, French etc.) These days, people are more likely to say, "You come to this country, you learn the language!" to a Chinese person than to a French person. The problem I have is when people take a reasonable concern (like wanting to understand their teacher) and use it to shield racism (as evidence by the generally inconsistent application of said concern). Furthermore, it should come as no surprise that this is Arizona we are talking about here.
Interesting idea. In fact babies up to six months can distinguish between the phonemes of all languages. But they begin to lose the ability for the phonemes of other languages at six months, but have an increased awareness for their own language.
It is pretty ignorant to assume that because you can distinguish phonemes in your language, that others should have no problem and that they are lazy if they do. I bet you couldn't tell the difference between the four D's of Punjabi, even though a native speaker would think you are foolish for not hearing it. F and P are easy to you, and all those D's are just as easy to the Punjabi speaker. Any linguist worth their salt would tell you the same thing. And do you really want your children schooled in such a way that they only ever encounter perfect English (by your definition that is, as there is no such thing as one correct dialect in any language)? Cause that would really prepare them for the world we live in, right?
Perhaps these prosecutors and politicians should be careful. They may be setting themselves up for a burning at the stake when the climate really starts a changin'.
How about a "use it or lose it provision" like with trademark law? In order to keep a patent, you (i.e. the current patent holder) have to bring a product to market, and you have to continue selling any product which is reliant on that patent throughout the life of the patent...or the patent is voided so that others can give it a shot. If the monopoly is not promoting the progress, then it is unconstitutional. That would be more in step with the constitution than any other proposal I've seen, short of NOT GRANTING ANY MONOPOLIES.
Do our current ISPs offer better privacy? As long as the US has legislation like the PATRIOT ACT and the federal courts are fine eroding the 4th amendment, there will not be better alternatives.
Android is "free" to developers because Google made it that way. Apple chose not to do the same...so they should get some sort of crutch because they are adding on costs to their developers? Apple made a walled garden and a significant barrier to entry for their developers, and you think they deserve some sort of special privileges because that decision isn't working out so well in the market place? Please. Who's "copying"? Android is not a copy of iPhone, even if there are similarities. Innovation is taking good ideas and building on them, as is competition. No idea is truly "unique." Every idea is based upon some previous iteration or technology. I'm surprised this point still needs to be made. I'll repeat my last point. If Apple has lost all incentive to create, then why don't they quit the smartphone game? If Apple lost this patent war, do you really think they would quit? No? Well that's because they have adequate incentives other than patents driving them forward. The fact that Apple clearly doesn't need the supposed incentives of its patents to continue bringing new products to market calls into question the constitutionality of the same.
What the hell is wrong with competition?! Ideas are nothing, implementation is everything. If Apple didn't have incentive to keep creating after Android supposedly 'copied' them, then they would have dropped out of the smartphone market. Android is a better product. So what if it has some similarities to Apple??? Let them duke it out in the marketplace, not the courtrooms.
PS if anyone wants a google+ invite, reply to this message with your email
Also in the news, Google bans Facebook from it's search results. Facebook complains, fails to see the humour of the situation.
"...and significantly lower the cost of producing solar cells with promising, yet expensive compounds." And yet somehow I imagine that traditional printer ink is still more expensive.
And it will wash your car!
Where do I sign up?!
No kidding. What are they suggesting, that they should make cooking and cleaning games? Obviously women are enjoying the games they play.
I'm Canadian so naturally some of this is news to me. I don't really know what it takes for you to go to war.
Alright. Thanks for clarifying.
Why is the war in Libya illegal? I understand why the war in Iraq is illegal, but when did the UN stop sanctioning action in Libya? [No sarcasm, I'm genuinely interested.]
Did a quick Google search: is this to what you are referring?
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/05/20/obama-misses-legal-deadline-for-us-forces-in-libya/
On a sadder note, DUST 514 is going to be ps3 exclusive?!?!?!? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!1!
I have no studies, and I'm not going to look any up for you. I'm a teacher, if that helps. It is, however, generally accepted that you don't compete for the best employees with the lowest pay/benefits (and in my region, private schools pay the least). My goal is not to say public is better, but to challenge the assumption that private is better.
It is absolutely disputable whether public schools or private schools, on average, have higher quality teachers. Unionized public school teachers may very well start out as effective and deteriorate with nearly guaranteed job security and eroding patience. And even if there were a trend, it's going to vary a lot among individuals. On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that public school teachers have to balance a heck of a lot more, and it would be impossible to accurately measure teaching quality. We can both agree that nearly all the problem students get shunted to public education; naturally, private education students would have higher grades.
The point I'm saying is this [and it should be fairly self-evident, with or without studies]: saying that private education is better because the students score better [because they only admit the best students, with the fewest behavioural problems and the most invested parents] is like saying that scientists have cured cancer because no one dies from cancer in this country anymore [because they send cancer patients to a remote island before they die].