Anti bullying campaigns are crap. Bullying isn't the problem, it is a symptom. Suicide from bullying isn't a bullying issue, it is a mental health/bad parenting issue; healthy people don't off themselves.
Perhaps the issue is trying to implement such a system within the current system.
I don't think further sequestering the "smart kids" from (presumably) "not smart" kids is a good idea -- unless you want to promote the idea of classes of people and, indirectly, the values of those classes to society. Smart kids need to learn that the alleged dumb kids aren't useless members of society, and dumb kids needs to learn that smart kids are just kids, too. They will have plenty of time to be smart as they get older, and this way they might be better people, too.
Also, you think that if we had smart kid school that magically those children would accept everyone in the school as an equal? It just isn't the nature of kids, no matter how much some adult (or system) tells them they are the same. Or in this case, better. And your rosy ideal would leave dumb kid schools in shambles, and parents with children right at the cusp outraged that one percentage point on some alleged standardized test has their child cast into the frying pan with the rest of the mushrooms.
Grass isn't green -- it just absorbs red and blue light. And the sky refracts white light, letting through blue. And even so, "red," "green," and "blue," and "wet" are human created constructs. In an absolute sense, there's no difference between water and air and dirt; they're all made up of the same stuff. Holy shit, that means we can turn lead into gold! I'll be back -- gotta alchemize my fortune.
Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. More at 11.
Now that I think about it, none of those are true in the literal sense. And you probably mean "More at 23" unless you want the wrath of the non-Americans.
1. Change a tire, fill the radiator, change the battery, change the oil (at least know how to check it).
2. Understand the plumbing system in your home.
3. Know how to cook without a microwave and prepackaged foods.
4. Basic navigation...at least know the difference between North South East West.
5. Basic understanding of firearms.
6. Read a map and get somewhere without GPS.
7. How to sharpen a knife.
8. Long division, multiplication, etc...with a pencil and paper.
9. How to swim.
10. Make fire.
Time to go home, so that's all you get.
I learned all of those (except half of #1) before I was 12 (for perspective, 1984), so I take for granted their presence in my life. Unfortunately, I think numbers 3, 4, 6, and 7 are skills in short supply among parents these days, which means their children will also not have those skills. (People think they know how to sharpen knives, but give them a set of stones and some honing oil and they will look at you cross eyed.) Number 5 is taboo for many people, as their understanding is simply "firearms are dangerous and they kill people," which engenders fear rather than understanding or respect.
In regard to the original question, I think "writing" is the most appropriate answer. People should learn your 10 steps before 7th grade.
Grammar, Spelling, and Effective Communication Skills
You can learn all the technology skills you can imagine -- SQL, code from the lowest level to the most abstract, transfer protocols, etc. -- but effective communication skills (writing, speaking, and presenting) will set you apart from others.
>> does having a single- or limited-purpose device make really make sense for consumables that aren't coffee?
If you can find enough suckers to buy them and yield big profits, then yes. (See the original Keurig, for example.)
It isn't just about suckers. It is also about the old Star Trek ideal: The Replicator. Some people will want it for novelty. Others will actually want it, as they seed food only as nourishment and don't care how it is delivered. Look at all the shit we have put into our bodies over the decades - TV dinners, microwaveable everything, frozen whatnot, meal replacement [insert unit of food here] - and you'll see we're always looking for a shortcut. We aren't any healthier for it, and of course blame everyone (marketers, government or lack thereof, evil corporations, Bill Gates and his eugenics squad) and everything (saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, cholesterol, gluten, grain, etc) other than ourselves.
Sorry, that derailed a bit. Uh. Replicator. Seacrest out.
If meritocracy were a real thing, Bush would never have been President.
Politics isn't a meritocracy. Again, no absolutism in qualifications exists. If it did then we wouldn't need elections -- we could just do an absolute comparison of qualifications and know who is the most qualified for the job.
If meritocracy were a real thing, Justin Bieber would never have amounted to anything more than one of countless Youtube uploaders that no one cares about.
Pop music isn't a meritocracy. Otherwise - try to follow this - every high school valedictorian would also have been the most popular kid in high school. Also consider that there is no absolutism in music. Otherwise - this is more straightforward - we would all listen to the same music.
Here's another example for you: If meritocracy were a real thing, GM and Chrysler would have gone out of business in the 1980s (probably Ford too).
Chrysler was on the brink of bankruptcy in 1981 (ish), but was bailed out. Then a few years ago - along with GM - they were on the brink of bankruptcy and were bailed out. Meritocracy (in the form of people spending their money) really tried to exert its will on the car companies.
Wrong. Obama was indeed pretty short on merit, as was Reagan (a former B-list actor of all things). Just being a governor doesn't mean you'll be a good president.
But "just being a governor" of a large, populace state is certainly more relevant to being president than "just being a junior senator."
Don't worry, a few days after release we will find that all the old crap can be turned on with registry tweak. Microsoft never writes new programs. They are just polishing a turd as usual.
Either way, I have seen so many low-power, corporate users switch to Chrome in the last couple years that I doubt Edge will get the market share typically enjoyed by IE. After all, it was the masses not willing to be early adopters of Firefox, Chrome, or Opera that kept IE in the forefront. Once legacy business apps that require IE (probably 8/9 with a smattering of 7 and 10) disappear or are converted, Edge will just be another browser. And "IE" usage stats won't prop it up because as a browser it will necessarily be a separate usage group from preceding versions.
...if it disagrees with their pre-determined world view
Everyone -- scientists, janitors, senators, saviors riding triceratops -- engages in this exact behavior. Logic and reason work only so long as the individual's core belief is not called into question, and at that point they line up on their predetermined side of whatever topic is being discussed.
And please don't pretend that science is above reproach and never wrong. It involves people, and ultimately all people, no matter how credentialed are prone to the same failings.
"especially since Rodney King, which made it en vogue"
En vogue?
Rodney King did not make a fucking fashion statement; he got the shit beaten out of him like I'd never seen before by several officers, who punched, kicked, and Tasered him with several dozen baton blows thrown in for good measure.
It should be obvious that I meant fashionable for others to claim the same happened to them, given that it actually happened to him. Like the first kid in an elementary school class who gets glasses, then all of a sudden several other children want them. Except in King's case, glasses were a brutal beating by police, and the other children wanted the result of having been a victim of said brutality without the actual brutality.
I wonder if it's reached a point where abuse of power is regular, or if it always has been and it's only the fact that nearly everyone carries a camera.
I'm sure there was way more outright police corruption in the early 20th century.
Power corrupts. Money corrupts. It has been true as long as they have been around.
I'm not going to pretend I know which side is correct, if either. But to play Devil's advocate, I'd bet dollars to donuts the vast majority of the people making these completes are criminals or otherwise people on the police radar. As such, they are motivated to claim police brutality -- especially since Rodney King, which made it en vogue.
Oh look, an opinionated academic saying we need academics to run the country. Weird. I'm sure plenty of racists think we need a Klansman to properly run the country.
Also, it isn't that I prefer the "CEO" of my local landscaping company to be president over an Ivy League graduate. What I don't want is someone with only academics and politics. When people bury their heads in statistics they become just as blind to their ideology as the Jesus-on-a-triceratops, young earth creationists. Even the ones like Krugman blathering on about inequality. We have too many rich people; our economy must be ill?
This is exactly what's wrong in politics these days. Politics is not a spectator sport. There aren't simply two teams vying for the prize of being elected and using that as the trophy to put in one's case. Treating it like a spectator sport completely ignores the whole point of the exercise, which is to effectively govern the wealthiest nation in the world, and to see to the interests of both the nation and the persons in that nation.
Couldn't agree more. But we seem to have collectively decided that politics is hard, and best left to those career politicians, which I see as a necessary first step on the road back to tyranny. Celebrity worship + politics = royalty.
I'm no fan of Hilary Clinton, and she definitely failed on-style when she was First Lady, but I can look at her academic and professional records and see that she has experience in several different areas that might make her a successful President.
Academics is too abstract. The president is the CEO of the country -- I don't want a lawyer, academic, or career politician filling those shoes.
Other than the so called "fair tax" I could support him.
What don't you like about it?
Considering the (un)likelihood of it ever passing congress, and the fact that any other candidate I can think of has way more dings against him or her, he is a winner in my book.
Slashdot Mirror
Anti bullying campaigns are crap. Bullying isn't the problem, it is a symptom. Suicide from bullying isn't a bullying issue, it is a mental health /bad parenting issue; healthy people don't off themselves.
Perhaps the issue is trying to implement such a system within the current system.
I don't think further sequestering the "smart kids" from (presumably) "not smart" kids is a good idea -- unless you want to promote the idea of classes of people and, indirectly, the values of those classes to society. Smart kids need to learn that the alleged dumb kids aren't useless members of society, and dumb kids needs to learn that smart kids are just kids, too. They will have plenty of time to be smart as they get older, and this way they might be better people, too.
Also, you think that if we had smart kid school that magically those children would accept everyone in the school as an equal? It just isn't the nature of kids, no matter how much some adult (or system) tells them they are the same. Or in this case, better. And your rosy ideal would leave dumb kid schools in shambles, and parents with children right at the cusp outraged that one percentage point on some alleged standardized test has their child cast into the frying pan with the rest of the mushrooms.
Grass isn't green -- it just absorbs red and blue light. And the sky refracts white light, letting through blue. And even so, "red," "green," and "blue," and "wet" are human created constructs. In an absolute sense, there's no difference between water and air and dirt; they're all made up of the same stuff. Holy shit, that means we can turn lead into gold! I'll be back -- gotta alchemize my fortune.
Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. More at 11.
Now that I think about it, none of those are true in the literal sense. And you probably mean "More at 23" unless you want the wrath of the non-Americans.
Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. More at 11.
I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL 11! TELL ME OTHER OBVIOUS THINGS NOW!
1. Change a tire, fill the radiator, change the battery, change the oil (at least know how to check it). 2. Understand the plumbing system in your home. 3. Know how to cook without a microwave and prepackaged foods. 4. Basic navigation...at least know the difference between North South East West. 5. Basic understanding of firearms. 6. Read a map and get somewhere without GPS. 7. How to sharpen a knife. 8. Long division, multiplication, etc...with a pencil and paper. 9. How to swim. 10. Make fire.
Time to go home, so that's all you get.
I learned all of those (except half of #1) before I was 12 (for perspective, 1984), so I take for granted their presence in my life. Unfortunately, I think numbers 3, 4, 6, and 7 are skills in short supply among parents these days, which means their children will also not have those skills. (People think they know how to sharpen knives, but give them a set of stones and some honing oil and they will look at you cross eyed.) Number 5 is taboo for many people, as their understanding is simply "firearms are dangerous and they kill people," which engenders fear rather than understanding or respect.
In regard to the original question, I think "writing" is the most appropriate answer. People should learn your 10 steps before 7th grade.
...writing...
Grammar, Spelling, and Effective Communication Skills
You can learn all the technology skills you can imagine -- SQL, code from the lowest level to the most abstract, transfer protocols, etc. -- but effective communication skills (writing, speaking, and presenting) will set you apart from others.
>> does having a single- or limited-purpose device make really make sense for consumables that aren't coffee?
If you can find enough suckers to buy them and yield big profits, then yes. (See the original Keurig, for example.)
It isn't just about suckers. It is also about the old Star Trek ideal: The Replicator. Some people will want it for novelty. Others will actually want it, as they seed food only as nourishment and don't care how it is delivered. Look at all the shit we have put into our bodies over the decades - TV dinners, microwaveable everything, frozen whatnot, meal replacement [insert unit of food here] - and you'll see we're always looking for a shortcut. We aren't any healthier for it, and of course blame everyone (marketers, government or lack thereof, evil corporations, Bill Gates and his eugenics squad) and everything (saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, cholesterol, gluten, grain, etc) other than ourselves.
Sorry, that derailed a bit. Uh. Replicator. Seacrest out.
If meritocracy were a real thing, Bush would never have been President.
Politics isn't a meritocracy. Again, no absolutism in qualifications exists. If it did then we wouldn't need elections -- we could just do an absolute comparison of qualifications and know who is the most qualified for the job.
If meritocracy were a real thing, Justin Bieber would never have amounted to anything more than one of countless Youtube uploaders that no one cares about.
Pop music isn't a meritocracy. Otherwise - try to follow this - every high school valedictorian would also have been the most popular kid in high school. Also consider that there is no absolutism in music. Otherwise - this is more straightforward - we would all listen to the same music.
Yep, inertia is a powerful thing.
Here's another example for you: If meritocracy were a real thing, GM and Chrysler would have gone out of business in the 1980s (probably Ford too).
Chrysler was on the brink of bankruptcy in 1981 (ish), but was bailed out. Then a few years ago - along with GM - they were on the brink of bankruptcy and were bailed out. Meritocracy (in the form of people spending their money) really tried to exert its will on the car companies.
Wrong. Obama was indeed pretty short on merit, as was Reagan (a former B-list actor of all things). Just being a governor doesn't mean you'll be a good president.
But "just being a governor" of a large, populace state is certainly more relevant to being president than "just being a junior senator."
"Cue", dumbass. What blows my mind is that somehow you people always manage to spell "queue" properly!
Uh, I meant, put them in a line?
Goddammit. That's what I get for not Googling it.
Oh my god! The space port is to let them in, not us out!
I would like to extend this olive branch and a hardy handshake to our new...Lizards?
Don't worry, a few days after release we will find that all the old crap can be turned on with registry tweak. Microsoft never writes new programs. They are just polishing a turd as usual.
Either way, I have seen so many low-power, corporate users switch to Chrome in the last couple years that I doubt Edge will get the market share typically enjoyed by IE. After all, it was the masses not willing to be early adopters of Firefox, Chrome, or Opera that kept IE in the forefront. Once legacy business apps that require IE (probably 8/9 with a smattering of 7 and 10) disappear or are converted, Edge will just be another browser. And "IE" usage stats won't prop it up because as a browser it will necessarily be a separate usage group from preceding versions.
...if it disagrees with their pre-determined world view
Everyone -- scientists, janitors, senators, saviors riding triceratops -- engages in this exact behavior. Logic and reason work only so long as the individual's core belief is not called into question, and at that point they line up on their predetermined side of whatever topic is being discussed.
And please don't pretend that science is above reproach and never wrong. It involves people, and ultimately all people, no matter how credentialed are prone to the same failings.
"especially since Rodney King, which made it en vogue" En vogue? Rodney King did not make a fucking fashion statement; he got the shit beaten out of him like I'd never seen before by several officers, who punched, kicked, and Tasered him with several dozen baton blows thrown in for good measure.
It should be obvious that I meant fashionable for others to claim the same happened to them, given that it actually happened to him. Like the first kid in an elementary school class who gets glasses, then all of a sudden several other children want them. Except in King's case, glasses were a brutal beating by police, and the other children wanted the result of having been a victim of said brutality without the actual brutality.
I wonder if it's reached a point where abuse of power is regular, or if it always has been and it's only the fact that nearly everyone carries a camera.
I'm sure there was way more outright police corruption in the early 20th century.
Power corrupts. Money corrupts. It has been true as long as they have been around.
I'm not going to pretend I know which side is correct, if either. But to play Devil's advocate, I'd bet dollars to donuts the vast majority of the people making these completes are criminals or otherwise people on the police radar. As such, they are motivated to claim police brutality -- especially since Rodney King, which made it en vogue.
Oh look, an opinionated academic saying we need academics to run the country. Weird. I'm sure plenty of racists think we need a Klansman to properly run the country.
Also, it isn't that I prefer the "CEO" of my local landscaping company to be president over an Ivy League graduate. What I don't want is someone with only academics and politics. When people bury their heads in statistics they become just as blind to their ideology as the Jesus-on-a-triceratops, young earth creationists. Even the ones like Krugman blathering on about inequality. We have too many rich people; our economy must be ill?
Don't forget that Clinton was also a Senator and Secretary of State so she has experience in both the legislative and executive branches.
There are probably a few janitors with legislative, executive, and judicial branch experience.
This is exactly what's wrong in politics these days. Politics is not a spectator sport. There aren't simply two teams vying for the prize of being elected and using that as the trophy to put in one's case. Treating it like a spectator sport completely ignores the whole point of the exercise, which is to effectively govern the wealthiest nation in the world, and to see to the interests of both the nation and the persons in that nation.
Couldn't agree more. But we seem to have collectively decided that politics is hard, and best left to those career politicians, which I see as a necessary first step on the road back to tyranny. Celebrity worship + politics = royalty.
I'm no fan of Hilary Clinton, and she definitely failed on-style when she was First Lady, but I can look at her academic and professional records and see that she has experience in several different areas that might make her a successful President.
Academics is too abstract. The president is the CEO of the country -- I don't want a lawyer, academic, or career politician filling those shoes.
Gary Johnson for president!
Shame on you, you bad man. I don't know if fracking is actually good or bad*, but I do know that agreeing with fracking is bad.
*Note: It doesn't seem like a good idea, but that is in no way based on hard science.
Other than the so called "fair tax" I could support him.
What don't you like about it?
Considering the (un)likelihood of it ever passing congress, and the fact that any other candidate I can think of has way more dings against him or her, he is a winner in my book.