I'm not one for conspiracy theories... but I'm inclined to believe he's still alive.
Ditto that. All of the evidence of his death are things that could easily be staged with 8 months and $137 million to work with. If this had all occurred in Canada I would be suspicious. The fact that most of it occurred in India certainly makes it look more suspicious.
Couldn't be we've let that "evil invisible hand" of capitalism work, could it?
The Obama administration did quite a bit to promote renewables, higher emission/efficiency standards for vehicles, and limit CO2 production overall. Sometimes the invisible hand isn't that invisible. With that said, it's true that the market often only needs a gentle nudge in the right direction and can then take over.
Just Millennial SJW types. They have never seen a real recession so they think these things are the worst things that can happen.
The Great Recession hit at the same time that most millennials were attempting to enter the job market. It hurt that generation worse than any other. Despite this, I think that it's wise to view catastrophes caused by climate change as, if not "the worst things that can happen," to be worse than temporary economic woes caused by a recession. I have children, and I will probably one day have grandchildren. It would be pretty shitty of me to prioritize short term amenities over the sustainability of life on the planet that my progeny will depend on. Unlike the baby boomers, I don't wish take a mortgage out on my children's future for my own benefit.
Of course, asserting that one has to choose between economic stability and sound climate policy is a false dichotomy anyway.
As someone who attended both a rural and an urban high school, I suspect those statistics don't say what you're implying. At the rural school, the average student did better. But I graduated ranked much higher than I would have at the urban high school with the same GPA. The highest performing students at the urban high school performed better, there were more AP classes provided, and I knew several people who went on to Ivy League or equivalent universities. In the rural high school, the graduation rate was much higher but the ceiling was lower. A lot of the extracurriculars that colleges care about didn't exist, while FFA and ROTC were really emphasized. That's not to say they didn't send kids to college, but they weren't sending a handful of kids to elite universities every year the the urban school was. Not that my anecdote is any more than an anecdote, but I think it at least calls your assertion into question.
But regardless of my personal experience, graduation rate is a rather poor metric. And even if it wasn't, both rural and urban areas have school districts controlled locally (either by the state, county, city, district or however the state set it up). Having more representatives at the federal level doesn't change the fact that, Constitutionally, the federal government is limited in the ways it can influence educational policy and funding. If those statistics say anything I would argue that they demonstrate the special challenges schools face in urban areas.
I censor myself from Facebook. That's the last place I'd want my views "published" if I wanted to be taken seriously. Facebook censoring content has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
I think it's problematic to try and make such sweeping generalizations. There's no reason to deny that there are anti-vaxxers on both sides of the political spectrum. Hell, most people don't even vote and a lot of the ones that do aren't committed to a political party. The vaccine issue just isn't a political one. Even if more Republicans are anti-vax than Democrats, there's not enough of them to make it an issue among Republican politicians.
The one thing that all anti-vaccine people have in common is that they're woefully ignorant. That's why Trump questioned vaccines. It's because he's stupid, not because he's a Republican (plus, he says a lot of stupid things on purpose to pander to his stupid base—at this point he probably just attempts to say the stupidest thing possible whenever he's in front of a microphone because it somehow got him elected).
Well, in theory those California votes would be balanced out by Texas votes. I'm not saying that we need to get rid of FFA or that a federally run education system shouldn't ensure that the schools are tailored to their regions. Quite the opposite. I know you'll probably find this suggestion obscene, but I think that the legislation should provide the Department of Education broad leeway when structuring the school systems. This would allow for the rural and urban school to have radically different structures. Yes, I'm suggesting education be put in the hands of bureaucrats. But, as we saw with the Obama administration (or, at least as I would argue), bureaucracies can be highly effective when placed in the right hands. I would trust specialist bureaucrats over local politicians and PTA boards. The thing that's lacking from education in America is the flexibility to experiment. Locally run schools don't have the resources, political capital, or research capabilities necessary to radically experiment with the school structure, and hence most schools are structured no different than schools during the Victorian era where there's a teacher, chalk-board, and students at desks.
I think you misunderstand my post. I fully support free software and the reason I abstain from social media is because signing up for those services require concessions I'm not willing to make.
But for other things I'm willing to make concessions. For instance, it's ridiculous to have Javascript turned off by default. One of the odd things about the internet that makes it inherently insecure is that in order for websites to work seamlessly and dynamically you have to allow scripts or code to run. The internet is much less useful if everything it limited to HTML. I have an adblock extension on my browser and it blocks most of the scripts I don't want while allowing those I do.
As for Linux, I still have a box that runs it but I hardly touch it. I just don't have time and Apple gives me too many useful features. For instance, everything I do on my Mac is automatically saved to my iCloud account. I can then access those files from my phone or the PC my work provides. Also, if my laptop or phone gets stolen or dropped in a puddle or whatever, setting up a new MacBook or iPhone with my iCloud account will set it up just like my old one. Apple pay is incredibly convenient, especially since my credit cards always get worn down or cracked. And the UI of OS X maximizes my efficiency. The best Linux desktop environments run no better than Windows, let alone OS X.
Do I still try to push for free? Sure. I insist on using LibreOffice and I annoy coworkers with my Open Document formats. If I need a particular piece of software I look for free first and only use proprietary when necessary. But I don't think that proprietary is inherently evil. I just think that, when a free open-source alternative crops up, it's beneficial to support it. I certainly don't think that proprietary necessarily means shackles, though.
I support free software and see the obvious benefits of its existence, but these guys who try to excise all proprietary software are living in a dreamland. My wife thinks I'm weird enough for abstaining from social media. When free software is convenient and useful, I use it.
The ironic part is that, as much as guys like Stallman rant and rave about freedom, the lifestyle they promote is extremely limiting. No wonder those nerds can't get dates. A free software dating app wouldn't change things.
The problem is that education is left in the hands of local entities. The most the federal government can do is offer grants for doing particular things. I know that when I was in school, much of the money went to computers that we didn't use. The one "computer class" I had was run by this lady who was completely unqualified to teach it.
Meanwhile, with the exception of the AP classes, class sizes remained very large. Standards were lowered because that increased the graduation rate, which made the administrators look good and kept those computer grants coming.
Until a Constitutional Amendment allows the federal government to really get involved in education, the quality of education one receives will be highly variable. If you look at the difference between our education system and those more successful ones it comes down to our education system isn't an education system, it's a bunch of little systems that operate in vastly different ways and the decisions are primarily controlled by those who shouldn't be qualified to make them.
While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I disagree with your dissent of the OP. The well of civic conversation has been poisoned by several actors and Facebook is one of them. I think the sad irony is that the tools of technology that allow for greater egalitarianism are also the ones that dumb down public discourse. In your Fox News example, we see the rise of cable news networks that will put any argumentative talking heads they can book on TV because they have so much time to fill (and CNN does the same thing: John Stewart's attack on the network while they had him as a guest on Crossfire was an amazing critique of the 24/7 cable news model). Facebook, however, doesn't just give a platform to morons like Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, it gives a platform to everyone. Instead of having the choice between two biased news channels (Fox & MSNBC) and one that somehow manages to constantly screw things up by trying too hard to be objective (CNN) we now social media where people can find even more specific and insular pockets of information.
The internet is a great source for information when one knows how to critically evaluate sources of information. Unfortunately, most people don't know how to do that. As much as I share your disdain for Fox News, it's still a better source of information than InfoWars.
I haven't looked at any MS software since about 1998 or Apple software since about 2000. So it's possible they've improved things.
Oh, no, Office is much worse. They took away like a third of the screen's vertical space away to include a toolbar with Fischer Price icons. It's as dumb as it sounds.
Honestly, though, I prefer Keynote to Impress or PowerPoint. I hate making slideshow presentations so when I have to I make them as simple as possible and Keynote requires the least amount of work on my part. Sometimes they don't show up right when I open them in PowerPoint, but my colleagues are clueless enough that I get away with saying, "Oops, looks like our computer here is running an old version of PowerPoint." That's only happened once or twice, though. As long as I use a font that Microsoft uses I don't encounter any problems.
This is true. Even at universities where Office 365 is made available to the students, it's been my experience that most students use Google Docs anyway. Students who use Excel use Office, for the rest Google Docs is the most popular option. I have not used Google's spreadsheet program, so I don't know how it compares, but it's still not quite there with LibreOffice. Libre's version is much more functional than it once was, but the smoothness and compatibility still leave something to be desired.
Excel is a tough nut to crack. Google and Libre provide users with viable alternatives to Word and PowerPoint and that's reflected in how those are becoming the programs of choice for non-corporate users. Until they crack the corporate dependence on Excel, I see corporations continuing to shell out for Office subscriptions. Unlike the Office software of old, however, it seems less likely that home users will shell out cash for 365. No one wants to pay a subscription when Google is free.
Students can use it, but the only problem is that you still have to save your documents in Word format. For some reason (which surely isn't intentional on Microsoft's part), the Open Document files are never formatted correctly when opened in Microsoft Word. Most students use Google Docs these days unless the university has a subscription to Office 365 (many do), but they still save the files in Word format.
Those things are a lot more complicated than you're making them out to be. Repair codes can be read by anyone with a $100 device. The devices that the dealerships have just provide a lot more live data. Like all data (including the diagnostic codes), they need to be interpreted properly to be useful. Also, individual repair shops usually can buy equipment to provide them with the same information as the dealerships, it's just really expensive if each official product individually (such as VACOM for VW). But they can buy devices from companies like Autel and SnapOn that will work on pretty much any make.
As for John Deere, it's a similar situation just with a much larger piece of equipment. If you own a John Deere then there's an authorized dealership nearby, and they will come to you assuming you're under warranty.
I think the problem is that you're conflating diagnostics with repairs. Nowadays, repairing automobiles and farm equipment isn't much more difficult than it was in the past. But due to the amount of sensors that allow the PCM/ECM to maximize efficiency, diagnostics have become much more difficult. For instance, your idiot light might say "camshaft position sensor" but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have a bad camshaft position sensor. It could be a problem with your variable valve timing system, it could be a timing issue, it could be a short in the wiring for the sensor. As vehicles have become more complex, diagnostics have become more and more difficult. Despite their fancy equipment, the type of service you'll get at a dealership is only as good as the techs who use that equipment.
"Right to repair" should mean that you can't be forced to sign a user agreement saying that you can't tinker with something you own. It shouldn't mean that manufacturers have to make things simple to tinker with. As a user, I should have the right to buy something that's horribly difficult to work on as long as I'm not legally prohibited from trying. I prefer the style of my MacBook to laptops that have batteries that pop out. An easily replaceable battery is a design constraint that isn't worth it to me. I'd rather take it to the Apple store and have them do it.
Let's say you are a landowner who has a significant property—let's say, 1,000 acres. Do you fence in the 1,000 acres of land or do you hang up some "No Trespassing" signs? Before you answer, check out the cost of fencing. Even basic field fencing (that won't keep anyone out) will cost you thousands of dollars just for the materials. Installing the fencing will cost you even more, as we're talking about hundreds of hours of labor.
So let's say that you go through with this and you spend tens of thousands of dollars installing the most badass, secure fence that money can buy around your 1,000 acres. Any schmuck with some hand tools will still be able to break through it or dig under it or climb over it.
Now consider your neighbor, who also has 1,000 acres. For a fraction of the cost he boosts wifi to the entire property and sets up wireless security cameras in the trees that record to a server in his basement and can be accessed from his cellphone wherever he is. Not only is your neighbor's property more secure than your property, but it also wouldn't enhance his security if he built a fence.
Your position on immigration shouldn't affect your position on the whole border wall thing. You should oppose the border wall because it's impractical and ineffective regardless of how you feel about immigration. The house analogy fails because large swaths of land are not like houses. We cannot place a roof over the United States and lock all the doors. It's just too big. If your concern is terrorists, then building a wall would just squander resources that could be used to combat terrorism. If a terrorist has the resources to stage a deadly attack on U.S. soil then they have the resources to go through, over, or around a wall.
For people such as those who belong to the slashdot crowd, the engineering method of paragraph construction is usually taught. There are other ways to teach paragraph structure, but that method seems to work best with STEM students. Basically, paragraph strategies revolve around devoloping an idea rather than number of sentences.
The five-paragraph format isnâ(TM)t for scientific writing. Scientific writing utilizes the IMRAD format. Interestingly enough, the formulaic structure of the IMRAD format faces its own criticisms. For instance, if you look at the replication crisis in psychology/sociology, one cause thatâ(TM)s been suggested has been journals looking for papers that meet the conventions of the genre rather than providing useful content.
This is a problem with formulaic writing structures. You write for the structure of the genre first and foremost. Itâ(TM)s hard for students to learn to deviate from the five-paragraph structure essay once theyâ(TM)ve learned it, and it only provides a template for an extremely limited genre of essay that is not particularly useful. Once they are asked to write more than two or three pages they donâ(TM)t know what to do.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a story about a game company that hired psychologists to make their game as addictive as a slot machine
Many companies have been doing this for a long time.
scientist i dont give a shit!
my neighbor with PHd med. is abusing her kids. the opinion of those ppl dont matter to me.
Sound logic.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories... but I'm inclined to believe he's still alive.
Ditto that. All of the evidence of his death are things that could easily be staged with 8 months and $137 million to work with. If this had all occurred in Canada I would be suspicious. The fact that most of it occurred in India certainly makes it look more suspicious.
Couldn't be we've let that "evil invisible hand" of capitalism work, could it?
The Obama administration did quite a bit to promote renewables, higher emission/efficiency standards for vehicles, and limit CO2 production overall. Sometimes the invisible hand isn't that invisible. With that said, it's true that the market often only needs a gentle nudge in the right direction and can then take over.
Just Millennial SJW types. They have never seen a real recession so they think these things are the worst things that can happen.
The Great Recession hit at the same time that most millennials were attempting to enter the job market. It hurt that generation worse than any other. Despite this, I think that it's wise to view catastrophes caused by climate change as, if not "the worst things that can happen," to be worse than temporary economic woes caused by a recession. I have children, and I will probably one day have grandchildren. It would be pretty shitty of me to prioritize short term amenities over the sustainability of life on the planet that my progeny will depend on. Unlike the baby boomers, I don't wish take a mortgage out on my children's future for my own benefit.
Of course, asserting that one has to choose between economic stability and sound climate policy is a false dichotomy anyway.
You can stand up for you country better than that. Beat him with a leek and make him eat it.
Point me to where the constitution says anything about what car's I can drive. It do'snt.
So I can do as I like, and you are a libcuck fagass.
--
cayenne8
I like how you included your sig after you posted as AC. Classy move.
Straight razor is the way to go. All you have to do is sharpen it.
As someone who attended both a rural and an urban high school, I suspect those statistics don't say what you're implying. At the rural school, the average student did better. But I graduated ranked much higher than I would have at the urban high school with the same GPA. The highest performing students at the urban high school performed better, there were more AP classes provided, and I knew several people who went on to Ivy League or equivalent universities. In the rural high school, the graduation rate was much higher but the ceiling was lower. A lot of the extracurriculars that colleges care about didn't exist, while FFA and ROTC were really emphasized. That's not to say they didn't send kids to college, but they weren't sending a handful of kids to elite universities every year the the urban school was. Not that my anecdote is any more than an anecdote, but I think it at least calls your assertion into question.
But regardless of my personal experience, graduation rate is a rather poor metric. And even if it wasn't, both rural and urban areas have school districts controlled locally (either by the state, county, city, district or however the state set it up). Having more representatives at the federal level doesn't change the fact that, Constitutionally, the federal government is limited in the ways it can influence educational policy and funding. If those statistics say anything I would argue that they demonstrate the special challenges schools face in urban areas.
I censor myself from Facebook. That's the last place I'd want my views "published" if I wanted to be taken seriously. Facebook censoring content has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
I think it's problematic to try and make such sweeping generalizations. There's no reason to deny that there are anti-vaxxers on both sides of the political spectrum. Hell, most people don't even vote and a lot of the ones that do aren't committed to a political party. The vaccine issue just isn't a political one. Even if more Republicans are anti-vax than Democrats, there's not enough of them to make it an issue among Republican politicians.
The one thing that all anti-vaccine people have in common is that they're woefully ignorant. That's why Trump questioned vaccines. It's because he's stupid, not because he's a Republican (plus, he says a lot of stupid things on purpose to pander to his stupid base—at this point he probably just attempts to say the stupidest thing possible whenever he's in front of a microphone because it somehow got him elected).
Well, in theory those California votes would be balanced out by Texas votes. I'm not saying that we need to get rid of FFA or that a federally run education system shouldn't ensure that the schools are tailored to their regions. Quite the opposite. I know you'll probably find this suggestion obscene, but I think that the legislation should provide the Department of Education broad leeway when structuring the school systems. This would allow for the rural and urban school to have radically different structures. Yes, I'm suggesting education be put in the hands of bureaucrats. But, as we saw with the Obama administration (or, at least as I would argue), bureaucracies can be highly effective when placed in the right hands. I would trust specialist bureaucrats over local politicians and PTA boards. The thing that's lacking from education in America is the flexibility to experiment. Locally run schools don't have the resources, political capital, or research capabilities necessary to radically experiment with the school structure, and hence most schools are structured no different than schools during the Victorian era where there's a teacher, chalk-board, and students at desks.
I think you misunderstand my post. I fully support free software and the reason I abstain from social media is because signing up for those services require concessions I'm not willing to make.
But for other things I'm willing to make concessions. For instance, it's ridiculous to have Javascript turned off by default. One of the odd things about the internet that makes it inherently insecure is that in order for websites to work seamlessly and dynamically you have to allow scripts or code to run. The internet is much less useful if everything it limited to HTML. I have an adblock extension on my browser and it blocks most of the scripts I don't want while allowing those I do.
As for Linux, I still have a box that runs it but I hardly touch it. I just don't have time and Apple gives me too many useful features. For instance, everything I do on my Mac is automatically saved to my iCloud account. I can then access those files from my phone or the PC my work provides. Also, if my laptop or phone gets stolen or dropped in a puddle or whatever, setting up a new MacBook or iPhone with my iCloud account will set it up just like my old one. Apple pay is incredibly convenient, especially since my credit cards always get worn down or cracked. And the UI of OS X maximizes my efficiency. The best Linux desktop environments run no better than Windows, let alone OS X.
Do I still try to push for free? Sure. I insist on using LibreOffice and I annoy coworkers with my Open Document formats. If I need a particular piece of software I look for free first and only use proprietary when necessary. But I don't think that proprietary is inherently evil. I just think that, when a free open-source alternative crops up, it's beneficial to support it. I certainly don't think that proprietary necessarily means shackles, though.
. . .it's hard to find a date.
I support free software and see the obvious benefits of its existence, but these guys who try to excise all proprietary software are living in a dreamland. My wife thinks I'm weird enough for abstaining from social media. When free software is convenient and useful, I use it.
The ironic part is that, as much as guys like Stallman rant and rave about freedom, the lifestyle they promote is extremely limiting. No wonder those nerds can't get dates. A free software dating app wouldn't change things.
The problem is that education is left in the hands of local entities. The most the federal government can do is offer grants for doing particular things. I know that when I was in school, much of the money went to computers that we didn't use. The one "computer class" I had was run by this lady who was completely unqualified to teach it.
Meanwhile, with the exception of the AP classes, class sizes remained very large. Standards were lowered because that increased the graduation rate, which made the administrators look good and kept those computer grants coming.
Until a Constitutional Amendment allows the federal government to really get involved in education, the quality of education one receives will be highly variable. If you look at the difference between our education system and those more successful ones it comes down to our education system isn't an education system, it's a bunch of little systems that operate in vastly different ways and the decisions are primarily controlled by those who shouldn't be qualified to make them.
Nice poem.
While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I disagree with your dissent of the OP. The well of civic conversation has been poisoned by several actors and Facebook is one of them. I think the sad irony is that the tools of technology that allow for greater egalitarianism are also the ones that dumb down public discourse. In your Fox News example, we see the rise of cable news networks that will put any argumentative talking heads they can book on TV because they have so much time to fill (and CNN does the same thing: John Stewart's attack on the network while they had him as a guest on Crossfire was an amazing critique of the 24/7 cable news model). Facebook, however, doesn't just give a platform to morons like Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, it gives a platform to everyone. Instead of having the choice between two biased news channels (Fox & MSNBC) and one that somehow manages to constantly screw things up by trying too hard to be objective (CNN) we now social media where people can find even more specific and insular pockets of information.
The internet is a great source for information when one knows how to critically evaluate sources of information. Unfortunately, most people don't know how to do that. As much as I share your disdain for Fox News, it's still a better source of information than InfoWars.
I haven't looked at any MS software since about 1998 or Apple software since about 2000. So it's possible they've improved things.
Oh, no, Office is much worse. They took away like a third of the screen's vertical space away to include a toolbar with Fischer Price icons. It's as dumb as it sounds.
HyperCard is where it's at for slideshows.
Honestly, though, I prefer Keynote to Impress or PowerPoint. I hate making slideshow presentations so when I have to I make them as simple as possible and Keynote requires the least amount of work on my part. Sometimes they don't show up right when I open them in PowerPoint, but my colleagues are clueless enough that I get away with saying, "Oops, looks like our computer here is running an old version of PowerPoint." That's only happened once or twice, though. As long as I use a font that Microsoft uses I don't encounter any problems.
This is true. Even at universities where Office 365 is made available to the students, it's been my experience that most students use Google Docs anyway. Students who use Excel use Office, for the rest Google Docs is the most popular option. I have not used Google's spreadsheet program, so I don't know how it compares, but it's still not quite there with LibreOffice. Libre's version is much more functional than it once was, but the smoothness and compatibility still leave something to be desired.
Excel is a tough nut to crack. Google and Libre provide users with viable alternatives to Word and PowerPoint and that's reflected in how those are becoming the programs of choice for non-corporate users. Until they crack the corporate dependence on Excel, I see corporations continuing to shell out for Office subscriptions. Unlike the Office software of old, however, it seems less likely that home users will shell out cash for 365. No one wants to pay a subscription when Google is free.
Students can use it, but the only problem is that you still have to save your documents in Word format. For some reason (which surely isn't intentional on Microsoft's part), the Open Document files are never formatted correctly when opened in Microsoft Word. Most students use Google Docs these days unless the university has a subscription to Office 365 (many do), but they still save the files in Word format.
Those things are a lot more complicated than you're making them out to be. Repair codes can be read by anyone with a $100 device. The devices that the dealerships have just provide a lot more live data. Like all data (including the diagnostic codes), they need to be interpreted properly to be useful. Also, individual repair shops usually can buy equipment to provide them with the same information as the dealerships, it's just really expensive if each official product individually (such as VACOM for VW). But they can buy devices from companies like Autel and SnapOn that will work on pretty much any make.
As for John Deere, it's a similar situation just with a much larger piece of equipment. If you own a John Deere then there's an authorized dealership nearby, and they will come to you assuming you're under warranty.
I think the problem is that you're conflating diagnostics with repairs. Nowadays, repairing automobiles and farm equipment isn't much more difficult than it was in the past. But due to the amount of sensors that allow the PCM/ECM to maximize efficiency, diagnostics have become much more difficult. For instance, your idiot light might say "camshaft position sensor" but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have a bad camshaft position sensor. It could be a problem with your variable valve timing system, it could be a timing issue, it could be a short in the wiring for the sensor. As vehicles have become more complex, diagnostics have become more and more difficult. Despite their fancy equipment, the type of service you'll get at a dealership is only as good as the techs who use that equipment.
"Right to repair" should mean that you can't be forced to sign a user agreement saying that you can't tinker with something you own. It shouldn't mean that manufacturers have to make things simple to tinker with. As a user, I should have the right to buy something that's horribly difficult to work on as long as I'm not legally prohibited from trying. I prefer the style of my MacBook to laptops that have batteries that pop out. An easily replaceable battery is a design constraint that isn't worth it to me. I'd rather take it to the Apple store and have them do it.
Let's say you are a landowner who has a significant property—let's say, 1,000 acres. Do you fence in the 1,000 acres of land or do you hang up some "No Trespassing" signs? Before you answer, check out the cost of fencing. Even basic field fencing (that won't keep anyone out) will cost you thousands of dollars just for the materials. Installing the fencing will cost you even more, as we're talking about hundreds of hours of labor.
So let's say that you go through with this and you spend tens of thousands of dollars installing the most badass, secure fence that money can buy around your 1,000 acres. Any schmuck with some hand tools will still be able to break through it or dig under it or climb over it.
Now consider your neighbor, who also has 1,000 acres. For a fraction of the cost he boosts wifi to the entire property and sets up wireless security cameras in the trees that record to a server in his basement and can be accessed from his cellphone wherever he is. Not only is your neighbor's property more secure than your property, but it also wouldn't enhance his security if he built a fence.
Your position on immigration shouldn't affect your position on the whole border wall thing. You should oppose the border wall because it's impractical and ineffective regardless of how you feel about immigration. The house analogy fails because large swaths of land are not like houses. We cannot place a roof over the United States and lock all the doors. It's just too big. If your concern is terrorists, then building a wall would just squander resources that could be used to combat terrorism. If a terrorist has the resources to stage a deadly attack on U.S. soil then they have the resources to go through, over, or around a wall.
For people such as those who belong to the slashdot crowd, the engineering method of paragraph construction is usually taught. There are other ways to teach paragraph structure, but that method seems to work best with STEM students. Basically, paragraph strategies revolve around devoloping an idea rather than number of sentences.
The five-paragraph format isnâ(TM)t for scientific writing. Scientific writing utilizes the IMRAD format. Interestingly enough, the formulaic structure of the IMRAD format faces its own criticisms. For instance, if you look at the replication crisis in psychology/sociology, one cause thatâ(TM)s been suggested has been journals looking for papers that meet the conventions of the genre rather than providing useful content.
This is a problem with formulaic writing structures. You write for the structure of the genre first and foremost. Itâ(TM)s hard for students to learn to deviate from the five-paragraph structure essay once theyâ(TM)ve learned it, and it only provides a template for an extremely limited genre of essay that is not particularly useful. Once they are asked to write more than two or three pages they donâ(TM)t know what to do.