Some kids aren't able to handle speaking infront of the class (usually the ones who are bullied), so it should not be mandatory
Actually, I'd argue that it should be mandatory, as long as everybody has to do it. Why? Public speaking is a career skill/ability. If you always let them decline, you're not doing them any good once they get out into the 'real world'.
On the other hand, I'm remembering this one book assigned in English class, 'A thousand acres', that made be nauseous every time I tried to read it. I guess I wouldn't call it 'mandatory', it's just that if you don't do it, you get a zero for that assignment. If not speaking is worth the zero(I got something like a 50% for that assignment, mostly due to picking up the important pieces from class discussion), go right ahead.
As for expelling bullies - I agree. Of course, I handled bullies the old fashioned way when I was in school - I fought back. Got into about 1 fight a year over it. Generally got in school suspension for it.
As for homework - I read somewhere that teachers were expecting 1-2 hours of homework a night per subject. When I was in school, I generally had 6-7 subjects per day. I would have had more work than my parents if teachers tried that. Of course, I generally got my 'homework' done in class so I wouldn't have to haul books home(it started as a mile walk in elementary and got longer).
Actually, I'd tend to say that it has a lot to do with it. Why should I spend the money to set up a resource extraction/manufacturing center when I can't be sure that somebody else will set down 10 feet away and start chewing on the ore that I was planning to use?
I agree. However, that's what I'm talking about with the lowering the drinking age.
I did some further research, and in most states it's perfectly legal for parents to give alchohol to their kids. It's legal during religious ceremonies, etc...
However, the taboo is such that I wasn't aware that it would be legal when I was a teenager, and neither was my parents. Heck, I could see it more if the legal drinking age was 18. After all, you can vote, smoke, and serve in the military when you're 18.
I looked it up, it seems that the minimum drinking age in Britain is 18, versus Germany's 16(where I spent the most time).
16 seems decent, it gives the parents the the chance for two years to correct any problems, or to teach good habits. On the other hand, if the parents don't have good habits themselves...
300 yards, in the dark, with an AK-47? Way inaccurate, on average. 300-400 yards is considered extreme range for point targets with an M16, which is, on average, more accurate than an AK.
I'd tend to say: 300 meters: call for artillery, air strike, snipers, etc...
I read somewhere that they did a study where they took a room full of DUI trained cops, showed them a video of a number of people doing the test, and they said that 70% were 'too drunk to drive'. Only thing-every single one of them were sober.
Also, my handicapped grandfather doesn't stand a chance of completing it even stone cold sober.
And I have a real problem with this because most analyzers have a higher error rate than.01!
At that low of a level, brushing your teeth and using mouthwash could get you busted on the way to school.
Heck, I've read that diabetics, under certain circumstances, can blow a.05 without a drop in them.
I have no problems with busting inebriated drivers. But there's a reason the levels were set to where they were before. The machines are not 100% accurate, especially the breath tests.
You should be carefull with this. Are you aware that your blood-alchohol level can keep increasing for a period of time after you stop drinking?
As for the last part, that's why I'm opposed to the 21 drinking age. I think it should be 15-16 to buy. Why? Because they're still nominally under their parent's control. They're more likely to learn responsable drinking, rather than be hiding it from their parents, or starting around the binge-drinking college kids.
I've been in Europe. Sure, beer is cheaper than water over there, but drinking, even for the teenagers, is no big deal, and they don't drink to get drunk.
On the other hand, also like europe, I'd come down hard on drunk driving.
Maybe so, but you have to be specific in a Poll, especially when words and phrases hold different meanings to different people.
If I'm doing a poll on alien spacecraft in or around Earth's atmosphere, I'm going to very well ask about alien or non-human spacecraft. Of course, anytime you ask 'do you believe X exists', you should be aware that you're going to find 'kooks'. Whether X be aliens, faries, dragons, angels, or even God.
But if I was trying to increase the numbers, I might ask about UFO's. My own answer to whether I believe that manned alien spacecraft are visiting earth would be 'unlikely', because I feel it's very hard to prove a negative. I'd answer 'Yes' to the UFO question. I'd answer 'Yes' or 'Almost Certain' to the life on other planets question.
Yes, but should we be expected to spend that much for every disaster out there?
Again - we have to pick and choose our battles, those we help, etc. The USA does have alot of money, but it's not a bottomless pit.
Do nothing is easy, especially under our system of government(it was designed that way).
I view it as a bit of carrot and stick. Some people respond to the carrot, some respond to the stick. We've given billions to Egypt, for little result. Using both methods together works the best.
Don't forget that the USA consists of just about every type of climate from almost-rainforest swamps down in florida to desert to "your skin freezes in how many minutes?" and "It was a light snow, only a foot" up north.
Where I live having more than one heating system is considered prudent.
Because they're corrupt? Like the oil for food Europeons were any better?
had such as the reconstruction billions mentioned above
the process might not be 100% efficient, but at least there's reconstruction going on.
nobody believed he had large WMD stockpiles To be honest, neither did I, I figured he had small stockpiles, or at least the capability to make them. I also figure he destroyed or moved out of country what he had during the prelude to the invasion.
It is exactly this attitude that make people think the worst about some americans. "Oh, strange, the whole world has a differing opinion. But since we can't be wrong, it must be all of them. They went crazy!"
I'm fully aware that most of the time, the people doing the complaining will be different. My point is that somebody will complain no matter what we do. And the USA, being a conglomorate itself, has different opinions and views of the same matter. I know that my personal political views are in some ways very mainstream, and in some ways out there.
With the money the USA spends for the war in Iraq, it could rescue more people from starvation than actually altogether live in Iraq, and without becoming the asshole of the world.
No, we couldn't. Remember my line: "99.9 percent of the starvation in the world is political in nature". The regimes in those areas want the people to starve. Thus, in order to feed them, we'd have to invade that country. At which point even the US military would become stretched to the breaking point.
As soon as the US leaves, there will be civil war That's why we aren't leaving for a while. Think about it, what country have we instituted a new government in and removed all military forces?
US reactors are pretty much plane proof. The concrete domes around them make them not only tough targets to hit, they're so strong that they'd withstand a strike from an airline.
And I wouldn't want them all in one spot, too wasteful, though 4-5 should work. I volunteer most of North Dakota.
Could you name three people from outside the US who have complained that the US doesn't invade enough countries?
Iraqi Ex-pats, various African refugees, some cubans still want us to go in.
Have you ever been to a country that was invaded less than a hundred years ago? Which one? Yes: Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq. German: Well, they're nice people Kuwait: Cautious, I think is the best keyword. Iraq: Mostly business as usual, things are getting better.
Power and hydroponics. There's a couple hydroponic farms up in the north that have actually managed to reach the point of being competitive with south american farm products during the winter, as far as many fruits and vegetables go. As the price of transportation fuel rises, this will become even more critical.
All you need to purify water is power, and ultimatly, so doesn't food.
BTW: My solution to many 'problems' would be to shut down all the coal/oil plants, build nuclear to replace them, and for pete's and everyone else's sake, get ourselves off of fossil fuels. I see ethanol fuel cell vehicles as a good option.
I hear all sorts of people complaining that we're not doing enough!
We go somewhere, people complain, we don't, they still complain.
World politics are messy, but sometimes I think that invasion is the only way to clean somewhere up. I would have taken out Iraq better than 10 years ago.
I figure that the only reason Bush used the WMD argument for going into Iraq was because that was what the Europeans would go for. I figure that we went in because it was a humanitarian nightmare, we had forces tied up just guarding the border, he was flaunting the sanctions, the oil for food program was a joke because of all the corruption, and Bush didn't want another Cuba hanging around for decades.
I'll say this: 99.9% of the starvation in the world today is political in nature. And yes, I consider most war political in nature.
I've experienced the same for the drive to visit my parents.
They go "It's only a few minutes". Well, multiply a few minutes by a drive that's several hours long, and I'll willingly pay another $10 for the gas to get there two hours earlier.
And yes, my fuel-efficiency is quite good in the 75mph area.
Insurance costs more because of several things: 1. Newer cars are more valuable, like most things except antiques. 2. Those 'crush zones' and such make new cars harder to repair, increasing the average costs for repair, and making the max payment 'totaled' more likely. 3. You're far more likely to have full insurance on the new car. Many people with older cars just get collision/liability.
At least in the last four years or so, I've actually found that a new car would cost me less than a newer used car. The drop of a couple points of interest can do that.
As for accidents - I agree with you. Besides, highway accidents are actually fairly rare. What's the statistic? Something like 90% of accidents occur within 3 miles of home or work?
A good way to drop accidents would be to: 1. Require additional training to obtain a driver's license 2. Throw people to drive on a suspended/revoked license in prison. 3. Have real penalties for DUI
especially after having sworn at my neighbour this morning for his parking up against my bumper
Do you have a rage problem? Are you sure that over something that stupid you'd go postal? I know that I wouldn't.
My area has better than 80% household gun ownership, and a portion of that 20% answered 'none of your business'. Yet I don't feel unsafe. Our murder rate is so low that a single murder in the state is news for weeks. Matter of fact, I feel safer here than I would somewhere that restricts gun ownership.
I personally own 5 handguns, and 6 rifles, 3 of which are military pattern, though 2 are WWII design. All but two I would consider suitable for hunting deer. WWII battle rifles make good deer rifles.
I'm not advocating anarchy. I should note that the government in 'my world' would still have a very large stick. It's just that it wouldn't be the only one with a stick, and could be overwhelmed by the little guys with their sticks if it becomes necessary.
Lets all just be pragmatic here and ensure that government is as best as possible
Certainly. You should see some of the letters I send to my congresscritters. I vote too. I might even assist in campaigning next time.
not leave the use of violence to the strongest monkey in the jungle, okay?
That's why I like having the guns spread around. They weren't called 'The great equalizer' for nothing. Everything from a 400 pound-linebacker to his 90 year old grandmother can use one. Suddenly the 100 pound gorilla is actually a threat to the 800 pound one.
The law in most "civilised" countries forsees the use of violence as a last resort but still, self-defence is a tough call.
Maybe it's my background, but I forsee the usage of violence in self-defense as a whole lot earlier than 'last resort'. Submitting is last resort, depending on circumstance. Pleading for your life is a last resort. For a while, at least in California, rape wasn't considered justification for usage of lethal force. At the same time, the maximum penalty for rape in the military was death.
1. Most believe that to not use the animal you shot (generally: eat it) is wasteful, and given the areas that hunting is still prevalent in, sinful as well.
This doesn't really apply if the game meat is considered unsafe somehow, due to disease for example. Then it's considered a mercy to put the animal down. Another exemption is the killing of pest, dangerous, or varmit species such as wolves, feral dogs, feral cats, bears(some do eat the bear), groundhogs, etc.
2. Part of the interenet hunting guy's service was that they would also do the butchering and preperation of trophy (if you want it), and ship it to you.
But let's get realistic for a second. Since when was nearly any hunt that man did fair? We're smarter, and we had the mental capabilities to easily slaughter huge numbers of animals for 10,000+ years.
I'd just like to make the point that these attributes would apply to pretty much any predator. The Cheeta has the advantage of speed and jaw strength over their game. The lions are stronger, hunt in packs, and pick the young, sick, and injured. Wolves are able to run down deer and such. And they do this week in and week out, while us humans generally only go out a few times a year anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Some kids aren't able to handle speaking infront of the class (usually the ones who are bullied), so it should not be mandatory
Actually, I'd argue that it should be mandatory, as long as everybody has to do it. Why? Public speaking is a career skill/ability. If you always let them decline, you're not doing them any good once they get out into the 'real world'.
On the other hand, I'm remembering this one book assigned in English class, 'A thousand acres', that made be nauseous every time I tried to read it. I guess I wouldn't call it 'mandatory', it's just that if you don't do it, you get a zero for that assignment. If not speaking is worth the zero(I got something like a 50% for that assignment, mostly due to picking up the important pieces from class discussion), go right ahead.
As for expelling bullies - I agree. Of course, I handled bullies the old fashioned way when I was in school - I fought back. Got into about 1 fight a year over it. Generally got in school suspension for it.
As for homework - I read somewhere that teachers were expecting 1-2 hours of homework a night per subject. When I was in school, I generally had 6-7 subjects per day. I would have had more work than my parents if teachers tried that. Of course, I generally got my 'homework' done in class so I wouldn't have to haul books home(it started as a mile walk in elementary and got longer).
Actually, I'd tend to say that it has a lot to do with it. Why should I spend the money to set up a resource extraction/manufacturing center when I can't be sure that somebody else will set down 10 feet away and start chewing on the ore that I was planning to use?
I agree. However, that's what I'm talking about with the lowering the drinking age.
I did some further research, and in most states it's perfectly legal for parents to give alchohol to their kids. It's legal during religious ceremonies, etc...
However, the taboo is such that I wasn't aware that it would be legal when I was a teenager, and neither was my parents. Heck, I could see it more if the legal drinking age was 18. After all, you can vote, smoke, and serve in the military when you're 18.
I looked it up, it seems that the minimum drinking age in Britain is 18, versus Germany's 16(where I spent the most time).
16 seems decent, it gives the parents the the chance for two years to correct any problems, or to teach good habits. On the other hand, if the parents don't have good habits themselves...
I have to agree.
300 yards, in the dark, with an AK-47? Way inaccurate, on average. 300-400 yards is considered extreme range for point targets with an M16, which is, on average, more accurate than an AK.
I'd tend to say:
300 meters: call for artillery, air strike, snipers, etc...
I read somewhere that they did a study where they took a room full of DUI trained cops, showed them a video of a number of people doing the test, and they said that 70% were 'too drunk to drive'. Only thing-every single one of them were sober.
Also, my handicapped grandfather doesn't stand a chance of completing it even stone cold sober.
And I have a real problem with this because most analyzers have a higher error rate than .01!
.05 without a drop in them.
At that low of a level, brushing your teeth and using mouthwash could get you busted on the way to school.
Heck, I've read that diabetics, under certain circumstances, can blow a
I have no problems with busting inebriated drivers. But there's a reason the levels were set to where they were before. The machines are not 100% accurate, especially the breath tests.
You should be carefull with this. Are you aware that your blood-alchohol level can keep increasing for a period of time after you stop drinking?
As for the last part, that's why I'm opposed to the 21 drinking age. I think it should be 15-16 to buy. Why? Because they're still nominally under their parent's control. They're more likely to learn responsable drinking, rather than be hiding it from their parents, or starting around the binge-drinking college kids.
I've been in Europe. Sure, beer is cheaper than water over there, but drinking, even for the teenagers, is no big deal, and they don't drink to get drunk.
On the other hand, also like europe, I'd come down hard on drunk driving.
Maybe so, but you have to be specific in a Poll, especially when words and phrases hold different meanings to different people.
If I'm doing a poll on alien spacecraft in or around Earth's atmosphere, I'm going to very well ask about alien or non-human spacecraft. Of course, anytime you ask 'do you believe X exists', you should be aware that you're going to find 'kooks'. Whether X be aliens, faries, dragons, angels, or even God.
But if I was trying to increase the numbers, I might ask about UFO's. My own answer to whether I believe that manned alien spacecraft are visiting earth would be 'unlikely', because I feel it's very hard to prove a negative. I'd answer 'Yes' to the UFO question. I'd answer 'Yes' or 'Almost Certain' to the life on other planets question.
Yes, but should we be expected to spend that much for every disaster out there?
Again - we have to pick and choose our battles, those we help, etc. The USA does have alot of money, but it's not a bottomless pit.
Do nothing is easy, especially under our system of government(it was designed that way).
I view it as a bit of carrot and stick. Some people respond to the carrot, some respond to the stick. We've given billions to Egypt, for little result. Using both methods together works the best.
Exactly,
Don't forget that the USA consists of just about every type of climate from almost-rainforest swamps down in florida to desert to "your skin freezes in how many minutes?" and "It was a light snow, only a foot" up north.
Where I live having more than one heating system is considered prudent.
Because they're corrupt?
Like the oil for food Europeons were any better?
had such as the reconstruction billions mentioned above
the process might not be 100% efficient, but at least there's reconstruction going on.
nobody believed he had large WMD stockpiles
To be honest, neither did I, I figured he had small stockpiles, or at least the capability to make them. I also figure he destroyed or moved out of country what he had during the prelude to the invasion.
It is exactly this attitude that make people think the worst about some americans. "Oh, strange, the whole world has a differing opinion. But since we can't be wrong, it must be all of them. They went crazy!"
I'm fully aware that most of the time, the people doing the complaining will be different. My point is that somebody will complain no matter what we do. And the USA, being a conglomorate itself, has different opinions and views of the same matter. I know that my personal political views are in some ways very mainstream, and in some ways out there.
With the money the USA spends for the war in Iraq, it could rescue more people from starvation than actually altogether live in Iraq, and without becoming the asshole of the world.
No, we couldn't. Remember my line: "99.9 percent of the starvation in the world is political in nature". The regimes in those areas want the people to starve. Thus, in order to feed them, we'd have to invade that country. At which point even the US military would become stretched to the breaking point.
As soon as the US leaves, there will be civil war
That's why we aren't leaving for a while. Think about it, what country have we instituted a new government in and removed all military forces?
US reactors are pretty much plane proof. The concrete domes around them make them not only tough targets to hit, they're so strong that they'd withstand a strike from an airline.
And I wouldn't want them all in one spot, too wasteful, though 4-5 should work. I volunteer most of North Dakota.
Could you name three people from outside the US who have complained that the US doesn't invade enough countries?
Iraqi Ex-pats, various African refugees, some cubans still want us to go in.
Have you ever been to a country that was invaded less than a hundred years ago? Which one?
Yes: Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq.
German: Well, they're nice people
Kuwait: Cautious, I think is the best keyword.
Iraq: Mostly business as usual, things are getting better.
Power and hydroponics. There's a couple hydroponic farms up in the north that have actually managed to reach the point of being competitive with south american farm products during the winter, as far as many fruits and vegetables go. As the price of transportation fuel rises, this will become even more critical.
All you need to purify water is power, and ultimatly, so doesn't food.
BTW: My solution to many 'problems' would be to shut down all the coal/oil plants, build nuclear to replace them, and for pete's and everyone else's sake, get ourselves off of fossil fuels. I see ethanol fuel cell vehicles as a good option.
I hear all sorts of people complaining that we're not doing enough!
We go somewhere, people complain, we don't, they still complain.
World politics are messy, but sometimes I think that invasion is the only way to clean somewhere up. I would have taken out Iraq better than 10 years ago.
I figure that the only reason Bush used the WMD argument for going into Iraq was because that was what the Europeans would go for. I figure that we went in because it was a humanitarian nightmare, we had forces tied up just guarding the border, he was flaunting the sanctions, the oil for food program was a joke because of all the corruption, and Bush didn't want another Cuba hanging around for decades.
I'll say this: 99.9% of the starvation in the world today is political in nature. And yes, I consider most war political in nature.
I'd mod you up if I could.
I've experienced the same for the drive to visit my parents.
They go "It's only a few minutes". Well, multiply a few minutes by a drive that's several hours long, and I'll willingly pay another $10 for the gas to get there two hours earlier.
And yes, my fuel-efficiency is quite good in the 75mph area.
car thats < 3 years old.
/. will strip unformatted less than/greater than signs.
I keep forgetting that
Newer used car = car thats 3 years old. They generally have at least some manufacturer's warranty left.
Insurance costs more because of several things:
1. Newer cars are more valuable, like most things except antiques.
2. Those 'crush zones' and such make new cars harder to repair, increasing the average costs for repair, and making the max payment 'totaled' more likely.
3. You're far more likely to have full insurance on the new car. Many people with older cars just get collision/liability.
At least in the last four years or so, I've actually found that a new car would cost me less than a newer used car. The drop of a couple points of interest can do that.
As for accidents - I agree with you. Besides, highway accidents are actually fairly rare. What's the statistic? Something like 90% of accidents occur within 3 miles of home or work?
A good way to drop accidents would be to:
1. Require additional training to obtain a driver's license
2. Throw people to drive on a suspended/revoked license in prison.
3. Have real penalties for DUI
makes me feel a whole lot safer
Key word here: feel.
especially after having sworn at my neighbour this morning for his parking up against my bumper
Do you have a rage problem? Are you sure that over something that stupid you'd go postal? I know that I wouldn't.
My area has better than 80% household gun ownership, and a portion of that 20% answered 'none of your business'. Yet I don't feel unsafe. Our murder rate is so low that a single murder in the state is news for weeks. Matter of fact, I feel safer here than I would somewhere that restricts gun ownership.
I personally own 5 handguns, and 6 rifles, 3 of which are military pattern, though 2 are WWII design. All but two I would consider suitable for hunting deer. WWII battle rifles make good deer rifles.
Anarchy is a dream just as utopian as communism
I'm not advocating anarchy. I should note that the government in 'my world' would still have a very large stick. It's just that it wouldn't be the only one with a stick, and could be overwhelmed by the little guys with their sticks if it becomes necessary.
Lets all just be pragmatic here and ensure that government is as best as possible
Certainly. You should see some of the letters I send to my congresscritters. I vote too. I might even assist in campaigning next time.
not leave the use of violence to the strongest monkey in the jungle, okay?
That's why I like having the guns spread around. They weren't called 'The great equalizer' for nothing. Everything from a 400 pound-linebacker to his 90 year old grandmother can use one. Suddenly the 100 pound gorilla is actually a threat to the 800 pound one.
The law in most "civilised" countries forsees the use of violence as a last resort but still, self-defence is a tough call.
Maybe it's my background, but I forsee the usage of violence in self-defense as a whole lot earlier than 'last resort'. Submitting is last resort, depending on circumstance. Pleading for your life is a last resort. For a while, at least in California, rape wasn't considered justification for usage of lethal force. At the same time, the maximum penalty for rape in the military was death.
1. Most believe that to not use the animal you shot (generally: eat it) is wasteful, and given the areas that hunting is still prevalent in, sinful as well.
This doesn't really apply if the game meat is considered unsafe somehow, due to disease for example. Then it's considered a mercy to put the animal down. Another exemption is the killing of pest, dangerous, or varmit species such as wolves, feral dogs, feral cats, bears(some do eat the bear), groundhogs, etc.
2. Part of the interenet hunting guy's service was that they would also do the butchering and preperation of trophy (if you want it), and ship it to you.
But let's get realistic for a second. Since when was nearly any hunt that man did fair? We're smarter, and we had the mental capabilities to easily slaughter huge numbers of animals for 10,000+ years.
I'd just like to make the point that these attributes would apply to pretty much any predator. The Cheeta has the advantage of speed and jaw strength over their game. The lions are stronger, hunt in packs, and pick the young, sick, and injured. Wolves are able to run down deer and such. And they do this week in and week out, while us humans generally only go out a few times a year anymore.