That would require teachers to know how to think. I felt at the time I was going to school that about 1/10 of my teachers new less then me. I have gotten older and met people training to be teachers in college and I KNOW they knew less then me.
So what your saying is we have to spend thousands of dollars training people to be specialized in the control of groups of students.
If only there was a way of regulating students behavior that was cheap and quick.
You can't walk into the room and treat the kids like adults because the state won't let you. If an adult insults me I pop him in the jaw. Why is it different for a teen?
The biggest problem when it comes to teachers is the level of certification required to become a teacher. I know several bright people who wanted to become teachers when in college but decided not too because of the certification required(1.5 years extra at least) which is exactly what the union wants, because smart people are hard to compete against, even if they will never admit this. Instead the people who pursue teaching at my college are absolute losers who are drawn to the field because of all the evasiveness of duty and desire not to step on anyones toes with things like reviews and work, things that normal people see as the problem with education. They are creating teachers who learn to accept and teach and get what they want through manipulation not to think and be wise and actually perform.
Vouchers aren't necessary, the only benefit the voucher system brings will be in creating incentive to break the teachers union. I think that the union leaders should be arrested for child abuse, I was a very bright student who was nearly broken by their desire to stifle excellence. The incentives as they exist now force students into mediocrity and an unflinching acceptance of whatever BS teachers throw out. My high school was like a fucking Ayn Rand story, forcing me to live one of that bitches fantasies is a crime.
A lot of people confuse the best product for the situation with the best product possible. This is where a lot of the criticism for products comes from IMO. A product that lasts ten years and cost $200 is not better then a product that will last 5 and cost $120 if I only need it for 4 years. just like a movie to see with a date can be absolutely drivel, it's not like I'm thinking about the movie anyways.
"but what is the evidence that Americans use debt wisely?" Firstly some do some don't, I do. Those who didn't/don't can starve in the street while the rest of us who did buy their old house(except now uncle Sam is about to hand them a fat sweaty wad of cash = to.3 trillion $) for all I care.
If you manage your finances well it wont help you find a job. But it will help you weather it a lot better. If you are making x dollars at the peak and you take debt out to that level then you've locked yourself in to having to maintain a basic level that is above your average earnings. If you spend wisely then when things slowdown you'll be able to spend out of your savings and weather the storm without losing all.
That is pretty standard for an industrialized country but thats the point, most industrialized sociality are about on par with everything I've read form the "age of reason" to Marx with what a "utopia" will be like. It's just human nature to only want one thing: MORE.
It seems to me that arguments about the rich having more hinge on jealousy rather than altruism, since the facts show that it is not "the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer." But The rich get richer faster than the poor get richer.
Hopefully Wal-mart will get the federal government to let them open clinics, then we'll see attainable health care in the US, I'm only kind of joking on that.
I thought that I made it clear that it made no sense when I said "without one fact" just like the parent was without one fact and just a snipe at the US. Also towards your snide remark about debt. I only have 3k in student loans, because I live within my means and pay down my loans as soon as possible, instead of viewing extra income as the ability to have higher monthly payments. There is nothing wrong with debt if you know how to use it. The ability to get cheap credit is the only reason I am able to finish school.
And despite what so many are quick to say, prosperity is so very attainable in the US. You're talking about a country where the poorest members have microwaves, color TV, internet, hot and cold potable water in their house, lots of food, new clothing, conditioned air, and relative safety.
Actually, I would rather not drive with someone who smoked pot for this exact fallacy. People who smoke pot often think, like you, that pot isn't as impairing so take more chances IMO. I've seen more people fuck themselves up, not by overestimating their ability's as they would drunk, but underestimating the effects pot has on them.
I have seen plenty of accidents from pot, the idea that people who are high drive safely is just crazy. They may drive slower then drunk people drive yes, but they blow through red lights just as much.
Well MADD's goal is to keep people from driving drunk, but lately they have just been trying to ban all alcohol. Maybe he was just using the same logic?
That would be so fucking funny if they required the space structures to be under the nation that the corporation is based in, and the corporation moved to some third world country for convenience, then all of a sudden some back water now has the best space program anywhere.
The ability to attain prosperity on earth takes away a lot of the desire to watch the government spend on space. luckily the EU and Russia both have heavy handed government so thats not a problem for them.
See what I did there, I took your rant about the US and turned it into one about Europe, all without one fact. I'm going to go smoke a cigarette.
Should the bartender or store clerk be blamed for selling the alcoholic more liquor? Should the pawn shop be blamed for buying his valuables at discount when he hawks them for more drink?
You may think so, and here I will disagree. I hold the individual to their actions, be it a man, woman, corporation, or state.
I didn't include the "other" factors because there really aren't any. Those weapons are available to anyone who wants them, even if it were groups in more developed nations. I have read many of the accounts of nations fermenting unrest in African nations such as Sudan and Darfur, and I am not convinced.
The problem with African tribes is they have too much freedom. They have the freedom to violate the rights of others without any consequence. This lack of law creates a rule by force in which the incentives favor violent force over non-violent competition. This means any new resource found will lead to bloodshed as the means of competing for them instead of market competition. I don't see that as being ethnocentric, since the entirety of history until constitutional monarchy was implemented is filled with the same pattern.
I got assaulted with negative mods when I said the Burma junta was going to seize the aid as being ethnocentric and making over generalizations, a week latter they did. I was no more wrong about that than this because it is human nature to follow self interest, and the incentives as they exist in Africa now make the competition by force and the war of "all against all" it brings the most rational.
The problem with Human nature is that it is very rational, even in irrational situations. Africans may know that if they support co-operation today they might eat better tomorrow but they also Know that if they don't kill the other town they will not live to see tomorrow and will eat better today. The option of furthering the system of violence in this case is the more rational. this is played out in movies, no one is going to be the first to drop the gun when they know the other will shoot them if they do.
Africa has a great many regular Africans who WOULD be happy to get by not much above subsistence, if they COULD do it in relative freedom, but they opt instead to do it through organized violence.
I guess you could call it ethnocentric to assume rule of law is superior to anarchy and force, but then I would say you're disparaging my ethnocentric culture and are engaging in an anti-ethnocentricly biased ethnocentric view point against me, which makes you no better than a hypocrite.
The problem with African tribes is they have too much freedom. They have the freedom to violate the rights of others without any consequence. This lack of law creates a rule by force in which the incentives favor violent force over non-violent competition. This means any new resource found will lead to bloodshed as the means of competing for them instead of market competition. I don't see that as being to general, since the entirety of history until constitutional monarchy was implemented is filled with the same pattern.
I got assaulted with negative mods when I said the Burma junta was going to seize the aid as being ethnocentric and making over generalizations, a week latter they did. I was no more wrong about that than this because it is human nature to follow self interest, and the incentives as they exist in Africa now make the competition by force and the war of all against all it brings the most rational.
The problem is Human nature is that it is very rational even in irrational situations. Africans may know that if they support co-operation today they might eat better tomorrow but they also Know that if they don't kill the other town they will probably not live to see tomorrow and will eat better today if they do. the option of furthering the system of violence in this case is the more rational. this is played out in movies, no one is going to be the first to drop the gun when they know the other will shoot them if they do.
Africa has a great many regular Africans who WOULD be happy to get by not much above subsistence, if they COULD do it in relative freedom, but they opt instead to do it through organized violence.
It's not the consumers of the world's fault that the Africans have absolutely no respect for the concept of rule of law or privet property, and are driven by greed to covet whatever they can sell.
The correct saying should be "anytime a material of value is found in Africa, the locals will murder each other to steal it and sell it." this is true of minerals on the international market, as well as their neighbors corn on the domestic market. People in other nations shouldn't feel bad for profiting from bad government on the part of Africans.
Every one with a brain knows this. Thats why LA has been engageing in the most ambitiouse anti-poverty campaighn in the nation. Here were're shiping off all the crime ridden poor to the wastlands of the desert, where they will be free to live their lives and create their version of Bartertown. It's also shown great improvment for several of the worst neighborhood. Basically we should just ship all those the state has made dependants to the mojave and just air drop food, It would be cheaper then welfare and about on par with the standard of living they seem to expect in their housing projects.
The question is what kind of idiot who is inside uses a blog to reveal information and registers with his real name or doesn't use a proxy. Call me paranoid but basic counter survailence techniqes should be in bloggers FAQ.
That makes sense when our government is run by ideological wackjobs who think violating some abstract moral code is worse than human rights. Especialy when you have a police system in which arrests are based more on your skin color or your ideology than what you actually did. I have seen many peoples lives destroyed by the state for minor offenses only becuase our system is fucked up. They don't arrest carrer criminals becuse they know they will break the law again and won't learn to fear their power, and instead focus on the inocent people who make mistakes opting to beet the libral pansyness out of them.
Am I the only one here who has chocked down enough pulp Sci-fi to think the best solution to Global Warming is domed cities and complete control of the weather?
The mindset of these people is this: I am better then everyone else, so that making me comfortable isn't a waste, the waste is on the ungrateful soldier who should be thankful for his third meal.
The sense of entitlement happens whenever democracy and respect for fellow man breaks down and you have little lords who think themselves divine. This is really just a symptom of the shift away from grass roots democracy towards imperialism and the Aristocratic style government.
As an aside, even with all this graft, I think our government has been getting better over the long run, you look at the luxury officers have had in the past and it should make a decent person sick.
Yes, because government taxing your money and spending it on crap is better then leaving it in your hands to spend on crap. Maybe we should have the government control all the money since they should be better at spending it then we are. Hmm I wonder if anyone has tried this before.
Slashdot Mirror
That would require teachers to know how to think. I felt at the time I was going to school that about 1/10 of my teachers new less then me. I have gotten older and met people training to be teachers in college and I KNOW they knew less then me.
So what your saying is we have to spend thousands of dollars training people to be specialized in the control of groups of students. If only there was a way of regulating students behavior that was cheap and quick. You can't walk into the room and treat the kids like adults because the state won't let you. If an adult insults me I pop him in the jaw. Why is it different for a teen?
The biggest problem when it comes to teachers is the level of certification required to become a teacher. I know several bright people who wanted to become teachers when in college but decided not too because of the certification required(1.5 years extra at least) which is exactly what the union wants, because smart people are hard to compete against, even if they will never admit this. Instead the people who pursue teaching at my college are absolute losers who are drawn to the field because of all the evasiveness of duty and desire not to step on anyones toes with things like reviews and work, things that normal people see as the problem with education. They are creating teachers who learn to accept and teach and get what they want through manipulation not to think and be wise and actually perform.
Vouchers aren't necessary, the only benefit the voucher system brings will be in creating incentive to break the teachers union. I think that the union leaders should be arrested for child abuse, I was a very bright student who was nearly broken by their desire to stifle excellence. The incentives as they exist now force students into mediocrity and an unflinching acceptance of whatever BS teachers throw out. My high school was like a fucking Ayn Rand story, forcing me to live one of that bitches fantasies is a crime.
A lot of people confuse the best product for the situation with the best product possible. This is where a lot of the criticism for products comes from IMO. A product that lasts ten years and cost $200 is not better then a product that will last 5 and cost $120 if I only need it for 4 years. just like a movie to see with a date can be absolutely drivel, it's not like I'm thinking about the movie anyways.
Yes, the only difference between a diploma from a state, and from an ivy league is the name at the top.
I personally just opted to get my diploma from the Wizard of Oz.
"but what is the evidence that Americans use debt wisely?" Firstly some do some don't, I do. Those who didn't/don't can starve in the street while the rest of us who did buy their old house(except now uncle Sam is about to hand them a fat sweaty wad of cash = to .3 trillion $) for all I care.
If you manage your finances well it wont help you find a job. But it will help you weather it a lot better. If you are making x dollars at the peak and you take debt out to that level then you've locked yourself in to having to maintain a basic level that is above your average earnings. If you spend wisely then when things slowdown you'll be able to spend out of your savings and weather the storm without losing all.
That is pretty standard for an industrialized country but thats the point, most industrialized sociality are about on par with everything I've read form the "age of reason" to Marx with what a "utopia" will be like. It's just human nature to only want one thing: MORE.
It seems to me that arguments about the rich having more hinge on jealousy rather than altruism, since the facts show that it is not "the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer." But The rich get richer faster than the poor get richer.
Hopefully Wal-mart will get the federal government to let them open clinics, then we'll see attainable health care in the US, I'm only kind of joking on that.
I thought that I made it clear that it made no sense when I said "without one fact" just like the parent was without one fact and just a snipe at the US. Also towards your snide remark about debt. I only have 3k in student loans, because I live within my means and pay down my loans as soon as possible, instead of viewing extra income as the ability to have higher monthly payments. There is nothing wrong with debt if you know how to use it. The ability to get cheap credit is the only reason I am able to finish school.
And despite what so many are quick to say, prosperity is so very attainable in the US. You're talking about a country where the poorest members have microwaves, color TV, internet, hot and cold potable water in their house, lots of food, new clothing, conditioned air, and relative safety.
Actually, I would rather not drive with someone who smoked pot for this exact fallacy. People who smoke pot often think, like you, that pot isn't as impairing so take more chances IMO. I've seen more people fuck themselves up, not by overestimating their ability's as they would drunk, but underestimating the effects pot has on them.
I have seen plenty of accidents from pot, the idea that people who are high drive safely is just crazy. They may drive slower then drunk people drive yes, but they blow through red lights just as much.
Well MADD's goal is to keep people from driving drunk, but lately they have just been trying to ban all alcohol. Maybe he was just using the same logic?
That would be so fucking funny if they required the space structures to be under the nation that the corporation is based in, and the corporation moved to some third world country for convenience, then all of a sudden some back water now has the best space program anywhere.
The ability to attain prosperity on earth takes away a lot of the desire to watch the government spend on space. luckily the EU and Russia both have heavy handed government so thats not a problem for them.
See what I did there, I took your rant about the US and turned it into one about Europe, all without one fact. I'm going to go smoke a cigarette.
Should the bartender or store clerk be blamed for selling the alcoholic more liquor? Should the pawn shop be blamed for buying his valuables at discount when he hawks them for more drink?
You may think so, and here I will disagree. I hold the individual to their actions, be it a man, woman, corporation, or state.
I didn't include the "other" factors because there really aren't any. Those weapons are available to anyone who wants them, even if it were groups in more developed nations. I have read many of the accounts of nations fermenting unrest in African nations such as Sudan and Darfur, and I am not convinced.
The problem with African tribes is they have too much freedom. They have the freedom to violate the rights of others without any consequence. This lack of law creates a rule by force in which the incentives favor violent force over non-violent competition. This means any new resource found will lead to bloodshed as the means of competing for them instead of market competition. I don't see that as being ethnocentric, since the entirety of history until constitutional monarchy was implemented is filled with the same pattern.
I got assaulted with negative mods when I said the Burma junta was going to seize the aid as being ethnocentric and making over generalizations, a week latter they did. I was no more wrong about that than this because it is human nature to follow self interest, and the incentives as they exist in Africa now make the competition by force and the war of "all against all" it brings the most rational.
The problem with Human nature is that it is very rational, even in irrational situations. Africans may know that if they support co-operation today they might eat better tomorrow but they also Know that if they don't kill the other town they will not live to see tomorrow and will eat better today. The option of furthering the system of violence in this case is the more rational. this is played out in movies, no one is going to be the first to drop the gun when they know the other will shoot them if they do.
Africa has a great many regular Africans who WOULD be happy to get by not much above subsistence, if they COULD do it in relative freedom, but they opt instead to do it through organized violence.
I guess you could call it ethnocentric to assume rule of law is superior to anarchy and force, but then I would say you're disparaging my ethnocentric culture and are engaging in an anti-ethnocentricly biased ethnocentric view point against me, which makes you no better than a hypocrite.
The problem with African tribes is they have too much freedom. They have the freedom to violate the rights of others without any consequence. This lack of law creates a rule by force in which the incentives favor violent force over non-violent competition. This means any new resource found will lead to bloodshed as the means of competing for them instead of market competition. I don't see that as being to general, since the entirety of history until constitutional monarchy was implemented is filled with the same pattern.
I got assaulted with negative mods when I said the Burma junta was going to seize the aid as being ethnocentric and making over generalizations, a week latter they did. I was no more wrong about that than this because it is human nature to follow self interest, and the incentives as they exist in Africa now make the competition by force and the war of all against all it brings the most rational.
The problem is Human nature is that it is very rational even in irrational situations. Africans may know that if they support co-operation today they might eat better tomorrow but they also Know that if they don't kill the other town they will probably not live to see tomorrow and will eat better today if they do. the option of furthering the system of violence in this case is the more rational. this is played out in movies, no one is going to be the first to drop the gun when they know the other will shoot them if they do.
Africa has a great many regular Africans who WOULD be happy to get by not much above subsistence, if they COULD do it in relative freedom, but they opt instead to do it through organized violence.
It's not the consumers of the world's fault that the Africans have absolutely no respect for the concept of rule of law or privet property, and are driven by greed to covet whatever they can sell.
The correct saying should be "anytime a material of value is found in Africa, the locals will murder each other to steal it and sell it." this is true of minerals on the international market, as well as their neighbors corn on the domestic market. People in other nations shouldn't feel bad for profiting from bad government on the part of Africans.
Coltrane was a good musician, but I could never see myself killing over him.
Could there be a more selfish person on earth?
Use a wireless headset and keep the phone in your front pocket. The poor mans vasectomy.
Every one with a brain knows this. Thats why LA has been engageing in the most ambitiouse anti-poverty campaighn in the nation. Here were're shiping off all the crime ridden poor to the wastlands of the desert, where they will be free to live their lives and create their version of Bartertown. It's also shown great improvment for several of the worst neighborhood. Basically we should just ship all those the state has made dependants to the mojave and just air drop food, It would be cheaper then welfare and about on par with the standard of living they seem to expect in their housing projects.
The question is what kind of idiot who is inside uses a blog to reveal information and registers with his real name or doesn't use a proxy. Call me paranoid but basic counter survailence techniqes should be in bloggers FAQ.
That makes sense when our government is run by ideological wackjobs who think violating some abstract moral code is worse than human rights. Especialy when you have a police system in which arrests are based more on your skin color or your ideology than what you actually did. I have seen many peoples lives destroyed by the state for minor offenses only becuase our system is fucked up. They don't arrest carrer criminals becuse they know they will break the law again and won't learn to fear their power, and instead focus on the inocent people who make mistakes opting to beet the libral pansyness out of them.
I can see it now:
Mayor: For your act of bravery we give you the key to the city's network!
Citizen: Uh thanks, I guess I'll use that to download porn, and umm, upload torrents, and stuff...
Mayor: Give use the key back.
Am I the only one here who has chocked down enough pulp Sci-fi to think the best solution to Global Warming is domed cities and complete control of the weather?
The mindset of these people is this: I am better then everyone else, so that making me comfortable isn't a waste, the waste is on the ungrateful soldier who should be thankful for his third meal.
The sense of entitlement happens whenever democracy and respect for fellow man breaks down and you have little lords who think themselves divine. This is really just a symptom of the shift away from grass roots democracy towards imperialism and the Aristocratic style government.
As an aside, even with all this graft, I think our government has been getting better over the long run, you look at the luxury officers have had in the past and it should make a decent person sick.
Yes, because government taxing your money and spending it on crap is better then leaving it in your hands to spend on crap. Maybe we should have the government control all the money since they should be better at spending it then we are. Hmm I wonder if anyone has tried this before.