You say this, but in my field almost no one comes out of college with any useful job skills. I value "life long enrichment," but you won't get that by forcing kids to do shit they hate. Art is enriching for a kid who likes art. Sports are enriching for a kid who likes to participate. Forcing kids into stuff that's neither vocational nor enjoyable is simply mental torture for the sake of mental torture.
Setting aside the difference you missed between "students can get 100%" and "students all get 100%," the point of state-wide testing isn't to challenge students, it's to ensure a basic minimum standard of education.
Different people have different views on what it's important to teach. Imposing from some central power an entire curriculum in every detail by very broad testing leads to legitimate complaints form teachers about being forced to teach to the test.
OTOH, narrowly testing against minimum basic standards leaves plenty of room for teachers to teach what the district, school, teacher, and parents find important.
You have to include pensions in the compensation analysis. There are many places where the teacher's up-front pay is about median income, but the value of the pension funding is $40k/year on top of that pay. Public sector pensions now dominate the budgets of most state and local governments, so it's not some minor thing to handwave away.
That's simply a load of crap. Look around you. Do you see the luxury to deprive kids of skills relevant to earning a living (not to mention enjoying life) in order to spend time on crap that neither fun nor useful? We need a reasonable balance between studies the kids will find "fun" and "useful", but anything that's neither one for a particular kid should just vanish.
It's ridiculous groupthink that this is currently modded "troll". I don't agree with much of it, but c'mon mods, this isn't even troll-shaped, and "troll" is not the "I disagree" button!
If the test is decently written, your students will get 100% if you've taught them the minimum basics that any reasonable curriculum should include. "Teaching to the test" only becomes relevant if you're spending the majority of your time covering those basics (i.e., the test is too broad).
What part of "almost anyone" made you just right to the lowest legal wage? Why would anyone make that wage for long? Plus, if you're near minimum wage, you don't work just 40 hours. When I was just out of college I had a friend working for a couple of bucks above minimum wage and saving $1k/month, but he worked a shitton of hours as a security guard to manage that.
It's possible for almost anyone with a full-time job to invest but is has to be sufficiently important to you. Every bit of my investments have come not from "extra money I didn't need" but from living well below the standard of living of my peers. You have to make sacrifices, it won't be handed to you, it won't be easy, but for sure it's possible.
Indeed, thus "two sides of the same evil coin". Different faces, but evil either way. But people care more that their team wins on election day than they care about how they're governed afterwards, so nothing will change.
I think Japan has had the Idiocracy version of game shows for some time now. Easy questions with humorous punishments for wrong answers seems like the perfect Idiocracy approach - makes you wonder why approach hasn't taken over US TV gameshows.
You say that now, but that's not the original idea of airbags. They were pushed as a solution to the problem that people weren't wearing their seatbelts. Oops. They quickly became described as "supplemental restraints", but that wasn't the original justification for mandating them.
But even with a seatbelt, were there (many, non-isolated "random" issues) issues with seatbelts + old airbags that made them worse than no airbags?
Yes, early on they were quite dangerous to kids (and sufficiently small and/or frail adults). It seems not that long ago that minivans with no passenger-side airbag were valued for school carpools because you could take 1 more child in them than the dual-airbag models. There were certainly several years during which you simply did not let a kid ride in a seat with an airbag (I hope we're past that now with new cars, but plenty of cars with child-dangerous airbags are still around!)
The bit about don't put your kid in the front seat? Consumers discovered it the hard way. There's nothing about putting explosives in you dashboard that's automatically safer than not putting explosives in you dashboard. Also, it wasn't well understood by consumers that an Airbag is not a substitute for a seatbelt, and can actually be more dangerous if you're not wearing a seatbelt (though that was mostly people being idiots). Airbags should have been allowed to follow the normal "expensive cars first till the bugs are worked out" cycle of new automotive technology, but they were rushed.
Gradual progress from enthusiast cars to mid-line family cars to econoboxes is critical, both to get mileage on high-margin solutions before choosing the bottom-dollar part, and to socialize changes in driver behavior needed gradually.
The difference between "here's a standard to follow if you add this feature" and "you must add this feature, we'll get back to you on the standard" is the difference between the government doing it's job, and the government being a dick. Some of us still remember when the government mandated airbags before good standards for safety had been worked out - this was not a good thing.
You have a strange idea of "special privileges" when they apply to everyone. And how does this in any way apply to treating employees badly in the first place?
Some large companies will buy 1-2 of anything new and relevant to their field, just to see what it's good for. Even if it's bogus, that didn't mean they "fell for it", more that it's worth looking at to see if it works as advertised.
1: Put the EPO button under glass or have a flap that requires a seal to be broken before the button can be pushed. One place I worked at had it unmarked and people confused it for the door exit button.
Those are called "Molly Guards". (There was actually a young girl named Molly where the name originated, though I never made the association with the name until I learned that).
3: Keep the backup generator fueled and maybe test it. If diesel, add some anti-fungal preservative to it. Nothing like a power failure event, and the generator unable to fire up since the fuel hasn't been touched for 4+ years.
Don't forget the UPS needed to keep power going long enough for the generators to spin up. You'd think that would be obvious, but...
Anyone can create an LLC, no incorporation needed. LLCs are incredibly common in real estate, but uncommon elsewhere, because banks don't generally like to lend to them compared to normal partnerships.
For a for-profit company, the significant added tax burden of a corporation only makes sense when a partnership management structure stops working, that is, when you're raising capital from strangers who expect some control of the company in return (you can sell limited partnerships to an LLC just like stock shares if there's a market for them without the control that common stock gets, which sometimes happens).
And didn't 3 guys make a working front-end site in a few weeks (the part that lets you browse for coverage). This project went quite well if the goal was to funnel $600 MM into the pockets of well-connected contracting firms, but otherwise it's hard to see how anyone could fail so badly at what's effectively a storefront website. (Yes, the backend's a bitch, and 3 guys couldn't do it in a month, but it's not that hard).
It always seemed to me that people who insist on the distinction are missing the fact that it's the "coding" part of the job that matters in the end. Yes, it's good to have a sane design and so on, but that only has value because it makes for better code. And save me from architecture astronauts who don't write code any more, and so produce designs of no value whatsoever.
Most people have no compelling need to obfuscate their home address. Regardless, I'd bet that if you went to county records to figure out where a federal judge lived, not only would you not find out, but you'd find yourself answering questions from armed men in bad suits soon enough.
Perhaps, but it's not one specific to corporations. We get significant social advantage from being able to start a business without necessarily losing all your personal assets if that business should fail (though often it ends up that way, as banks will often refuse loans to LLCs precisely because of that limit).
I'm not sure why you think that means it puts "corporations" in some special place to abuse employees - non-corporate owners abuse employees just as badly.
Was that company LinkedIn, by any chance? That's the only company I can imagine with that attitude. It's true though that LinkedIn isn't like Facebook: it's not really a "social" site at all, it's just a place to post your resume, with as few or as many details as you like, and a somewhat-screened contact system.
Also, when someone at a job fair makes some polite excuse for not anting to take your resume, well, maybe take the hint?
Slashdot Mirror
You say this, but in my field almost no one comes out of college with any useful job skills. I value "life long enrichment," but you won't get that by forcing kids to do shit they hate. Art is enriching for a kid who likes art. Sports are enriching for a kid who likes to participate. Forcing kids into stuff that's neither vocational nor enjoyable is simply mental torture for the sake of mental torture.
Setting aside the difference you missed between "students can get 100%" and "students all get 100%," the point of state-wide testing isn't to challenge students, it's to ensure a basic minimum standard of education.
Different people have different views on what it's important to teach. Imposing from some central power an entire curriculum in every detail by very broad testing leads to legitimate complaints form teachers about being forced to teach to the test.
OTOH, narrowly testing against minimum basic standards leaves plenty of room for teachers to teach what the district, school, teacher, and parents find important.
You have to include pensions in the compensation analysis. There are many places where the teacher's up-front pay is about median income, but the value of the pension funding is $40k/year on top of that pay. Public sector pensions now dominate the budgets of most state and local governments, so it's not some minor thing to handwave away.
That's simply a load of crap. Look around you. Do you see the luxury to deprive kids of skills relevant to earning a living (not to mention enjoying life) in order to spend time on crap that neither fun nor useful? We need a reasonable balance between studies the kids will find "fun" and "useful", but anything that's neither one for a particular kid should just vanish.
It's ridiculous groupthink that this is currently modded "troll". I don't agree with much of it, but c'mon mods, this isn't even troll-shaped, and "troll" is not the "I disagree" button!
If the test is decently written, your students will get 100% if you've taught them the minimum basics that any reasonable curriculum should include. "Teaching to the test" only becomes relevant if you're spending the majority of your time covering those basics (i.e., the test is too broad).
Oh, if only /. still gave me mod points.
What part of "almost anyone" made you just right to the lowest legal wage? Why would anyone make that wage for long? Plus, if you're near minimum wage, you don't work just 40 hours. When I was just out of college I had a friend working for a couple of bucks above minimum wage and saving $1k/month, but he worked a shitton of hours as a security guard to manage that.
It's possible for almost anyone with a full-time job to invest but is has to be sufficiently important to you. Every bit of my investments have come not from "extra money I didn't need" but from living well below the standard of living of my peers. You have to make sacrifices, it won't be handed to you, it won't be easy, but for sure it's possible.
Indeed, thus "two sides of the same evil coin". Different faces, but evil either way. But people care more that their team wins on election day than they care about how they're governed afterwards, so nothing will change.
I think Japan has had the Idiocracy version of game shows for some time now. Easy questions with humorous punishments for wrong answers seems like the perfect Idiocracy approach - makes you wonder why approach hasn't taken over US TV gameshows.
Of *course* it's not a substitute for a seatbelt.
You say that now, but that's not the original idea of airbags. They were pushed as a solution to the problem that people weren't wearing their seatbelts. Oops. They quickly became described as "supplemental restraints", but that wasn't the original justification for mandating them.
But even with a seatbelt, were there (many, non-isolated "random" issues) issues with seatbelts + old airbags that made them worse than no airbags?
Yes, early on they were quite dangerous to kids (and sufficiently small and/or frail adults). It seems not that long ago that minivans with no passenger-side airbag were valued for school carpools because you could take 1 more child in them than the dual-airbag models. There were certainly several years during which you simply did not let a kid ride in a seat with an airbag (I hope we're past that now with new cars, but plenty of cars with child-dangerous airbags are still around!)
The bit about don't put your kid in the front seat? Consumers discovered it the hard way. There's nothing about putting explosives in you dashboard that's automatically safer than not putting explosives in you dashboard. Also, it wasn't well understood by consumers that an Airbag is not a substitute for a seatbelt, and can actually be more dangerous if you're not wearing a seatbelt (though that was mostly people being idiots). Airbags should have been allowed to follow the normal "expensive cars first till the bugs are worked out" cycle of new automotive technology, but they were rushed.
Gradual progress from enthusiast cars to mid-line family cars to econoboxes is critical, both to get mileage on high-margin solutions before choosing the bottom-dollar part, and to socialize changes in driver behavior needed gradually.
The difference between "here's a standard to follow if you add this feature" and "you must add this feature, we'll get back to you on the standard" is the difference between the government doing it's job, and the government being a dick. Some of us still remember when the government mandated airbags before good standards for safety had been worked out - this was not a good thing.
You have a strange idea of "special privileges" when they apply to everyone. And how does this in any way apply to treating employees badly in the first place?
Some large companies will buy 1-2 of anything new and relevant to their field, just to see what it's good for. Even if it's bogus, that didn't mean they "fell for it", more that it's worth looking at to see if it works as advertised.
1: Put the EPO button under glass or have a flap that requires a seal to be broken before the button can be pushed. One place I worked at had it unmarked and people confused it for the door exit button.
Those are called "Molly Guards". (There was actually a young girl named Molly where the name originated, though I never made the association with the name until I learned that).
3: Keep the backup generator fueled and maybe test it. If diesel, add some anti-fungal preservative to it. Nothing like a power failure event, and the generator unable to fire up since the fuel hasn't been touched for 4+ years.
Don't forget the UPS needed to keep power going long enough for the generators to spin up. You'd think that would be obvious, but ...
I'm amazed they got so much done under the conditions and constraints I've heard they worked under.
I agree: the blame here falls at the highest levels, where the "conditions and constraints" come from.
Anyone can create an LLC, no incorporation needed. LLCs are incredibly common in real estate, but uncommon elsewhere, because banks don't generally like to lend to them compared to normal partnerships.
For a for-profit company, the significant added tax burden of a corporation only makes sense when a partnership management structure stops working, that is, when you're raising capital from strangers who expect some control of the company in return (you can sell limited partnerships to an LLC just like stock shares if there's a market for them without the control that common stock gets, which sometimes happens).
Probably would have cost less money to just put up a web page that says; "We can't help you, but we will gladly take your money."
Not really, as the "take your money" part also doesn't work reliably.
And didn't 3 guys make a working front-end site in a few weeks (the part that lets you browse for coverage). This project went quite well if the goal was to funnel $600 MM into the pockets of well-connected contracting firms, but otherwise it's hard to see how anyone could fail so badly at what's effectively a storefront website. (Yes, the backend's a bitch, and 3 guys couldn't do it in a month, but it's not that hard).
It always seemed to me that people who insist on the distinction are missing the fact that it's the "coding" part of the job that matters in the end. Yes, it's good to have a sane design and so on, but that only has value because it makes for better code. And save me from architecture astronauts who don't write code any more, and so produce designs of no value whatsoever.
Most people have no compelling need to obfuscate their home address. Regardless, I'd bet that if you went to county records to figure out where a federal judge lived, not only would you not find out, but you'd find yourself answering questions from armed men in bad suits soon enough.
Perhaps, but it's not one specific to corporations. We get significant social advantage from being able to start a business without necessarily losing all your personal assets if that business should fail (though often it ends up that way, as banks will often refuse loans to LLCs precisely because of that limit).
I'm not sure why you think that means it puts "corporations" in some special place to abuse employees - non-corporate owners abuse employees just as badly.
Was that company LinkedIn, by any chance? That's the only company I can imagine with that attitude. It's true though that LinkedIn isn't like Facebook: it's not really a "social" site at all, it's just a place to post your resume, with as few or as many details as you like, and a somewhat-screened contact system.
Also, when someone at a job fair makes some polite excuse for not anting to take your resume, well, maybe take the hint?