I'm stupid because you can't make an intelligent point. Got it. Hope calling people names makes you feel good, because quite frankly, I don't give a shit what you think of me.
Words have shifting connotations all the time. Retard(ed) used to be an acceptable word (Meaning slowed down) It is still used in that context, for Fire Protection and describing engine performance. But someone got offended when it was ascribed to people and the meaning shifted over time.
The term "special" has taken its place, and over time, using the word "special" has started to shift over time, to the point where calling someone "special" can be offensive.
The problem isn't the words themselves, it is always the intentions behind them. Why people can't apply that view to other words is just "special"
My wife calls me an idiot all the time. It is and isn't offensive based on the context. It isn't the person using the word, it is the context.
Case in point, Dog the Bounty Hunter used the word, and I believe he is not racist, and got castigated for it. He used it because it is the culture he deals with uses it... a lot. But none of that matters to the monochrome viewpoints of certain groups.
If you can have it both ways, then why are certain people offended at its use, while simultaneously using it themselves? I think that is a tad hypocritical.
Words are words, neither bad nor good. Intentions are good or bad, not the words. But that doesn't help those that can't tell intentions by their use or who only see things in monochrome (Irony here if you look for it).
Saying it is a joke after the fact isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for saying something retarded like this.
It sure works for Politicians all the time. I didn't see any left wing people complaining about Gruber's comments about "American People are Stupid", which is actually more offensive .
If the word is so offensive, then why do all the Rap chanters use it in their lyrics? Either it is offensive, or it isn't, you can't have it both ways. If it is "hate" embodied in the word, then the last people to use it should be black people.
My contention is that black people using the word does embody "hate" but it is the worst kind, self hated. I personally think it is deeming to use that word, and skin color of those using it doesn't matter.
So, you have no point other than asking a question that isn't a question. Got it.
FYI, I read the whole article, and what he said, in FULL context wasn't offensive at all. It was admission of his own weaknesses towards women and how that doesn't fit Science Labs.
To be honest, is to be commended. Yet, he is being bullied by people only reading the headline from someone "offended" at his admission. He didn't say anything about women NOT being in a science lab, only that science would be better off without the male/female interactions. And he might not be wrong.
I am not offended by people being offended at such. I simply shake my head at the outrage held by some, who ignore even more outrageous comments by people they tend to "like".
If you are offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, it says more about ridiculous you are, than he is. Political Correctness is a disease, not the cure for what ails us.
You are making my point, but using your life experiences. You learned, TRS-80 probably on your own, at your own pace, and what was beyond what was taught in school. What if, schools had access to all toys and such needed to have those experiences instead of being exclusive to home.
What if instead of paying teachers administrators etc, to the tune of $5000 per kid per year, we build learning systems that allowed kids to learn naturally at their own pace (as you did) doing things that interested them.
That is just the surface of what I am promoting (concept) Imagine a system of learning where the kids learn, without realizing they are in school, because it isn't school, it is just "learning".
Kids are amazing mental sponges, and yet, we've built a system that restricts so many of them from reaching potential, simply because we're afraid of "leaving kids behind". The result, is that we're dragging kids down so that we don't feel like we've left someone behind.
Kids also use TVs at that age. We didn't say that kids should be Broadcast Engineering specialists.
This is pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Classroom teaching works, and is actually affordable.
Classroom teaching doesn't work. It holds people back to the slowest kid in the class. And we should be replacing Teachers with Learning systems, that adapt to the talents and needs of the kids using them, augmented by proctors who specialize in helping kids when they do struggle.
"Common Core" is just a series of education standards that proscribes a minimal level of education that children should achieve, before they (inevitably, nowadays) go on to college.
You are exactly right, and also oblivious to why that is inherently unworkable. The prescription given is "one size fits all" and that is completely inappropriate at its core. As someone who is physically in the 95% size (6'5", 270 lbs) I can tell you, that I fail most standard size measurements. I rarely can buy "off the rack" anything. Finding shoes that fit my feet right is impossible, both due to the size and shape of my feet.
The fact that average people think about being average and that it is okay is not surprising. I want excellence, and the only way to get there is to allow for it, and not hold people back to the lowest common denominator.
I'm glad we have a system where educators aren't encouraged to give up on lower-achieving students
You've obviously never been in a classroom full of kids lost because the teacher had to spend too much time on the one kid who didn't want to be there. Not only is it not fair to the rest of the class, it isn't fair to the kid getting all the attention (what they want), as it only reinforces bad behavior. It happens more often than it should.
The difference between a nice set of knives, specialized for purpose, and a Swiss army knife with everything built in, but not good at any particular task.
One may may consider a corkscrew a critical feature of a knife. It doesn't make it so.
We have to get past "hurt feelings" when people are better than others. Unless you're the best ( which is temporary / fleeting), there is always someone better than you. Customized education allows each person to be exactly what they can and try to be. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the fairest of all approaches.
And given this approach, you might find we are selling a large number of our kids short.
Excellence knows no bounds. Mediocrity is bounded by failure.
Obviously, learning to read, write and do basic math will be set aside for learning how to program.
Here is the problem, these people don't have a clue what is learned at what levels. And while I am all for teaching Computer science and such where it is profitable to do so, starting before kids can even write and do math is not "computer science" at all, it is just dick waving "hey look what I did for the kids!" political crap.
Here's an idea. Why not focus on reading, writing, math and building upon those at the appropriate times? And what about all those kids who don't want to be computer geeks, but rather artists, business people, biologists, doctors, lawyers etc? Are we going to build all those careers into our children's curriculum as well?
The fact is, factory learning is dead, we just don't know it yet. We have spent the last 250 years in factory schools, built using factory ideas to populate our factories with workers. Today, we need a change in how we educate people, so that they are ready for information jobs. This requires scrapping the "one size fits all" education model that is clearly dying (NCLB, Common Core etc), and replacing it with student paced education system where each student has a customized curriculum, based on ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to learn.
It wasn't a pretend, it was a reasonable approximation of "there ought to be a law". The problem is, we have gone so far over that line, that it is acceptable for someone to think this was okay, let alone longer than the moment it would have taken to go... "naaaaah"
After all, we gotta protect everyone from everything ever possible. You know, there oughta be a law !
The whole thing started to crumble, once the one guy said "there ought to be a law" and it was considered. Now, we have a bunch of nanny raised kids who can't handled even the slightest taste of harshness without crumbling into a ball of whimpering jelly. All because someone said "there ought to be a law" and made it so.
... and those that know nothing about it also won't complain either.
The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink. In the end, you have a program that does everything for everyone, that nobody really can use effectively. IT is a choice of providing 95% of what everyone needs, in a small easy to use package, or having 99.9999% of what everyone MIGHT need in a package that is too bloated to actually be usable.
How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?
So, the lack of spine by employees, allows companies to benefit from screwing their employees.
You have skills, they are either replaceable machine parts (someone else for you) or you're unique. AND you're always replaceable until you're unique. So, work on being different, and not being a run of the mill cog in a machine. My guess, you'd be happier, less stressed and have a better life. I work to live, not live to work, and I am unique.
Slashdot Mirror
I see a porn movie plot somewhere in here :-D
I'm stupid because you can't make an intelligent point. Got it. Hope calling people names makes you feel good, because quite frankly, I don't give a shit what you think of me.
Words have shifting connotations all the time. Retard(ed) used to be an acceptable word (Meaning slowed down) It is still used in that context, for Fire Protection and describing engine performance. But someone got offended when it was ascribed to people and the meaning shifted over time.
The term "special" has taken its place, and over time, using the word "special" has started to shift over time, to the point where calling someone "special" can be offensive.
The problem isn't the words themselves, it is always the intentions behind them. Why people can't apply that view to other words is just "special"
Irony, in a nutshell
My wife calls me an idiot all the time. It is and isn't offensive based on the context. It isn't the person using the word, it is the context.
Case in point, Dog the Bounty Hunter used the word, and I believe he is not racist, and got castigated for it. He used it because it is the culture he deals with uses it ... a lot. But none of that matters to the monochrome viewpoints of certain groups.
If you can have it both ways, then why are certain people offended at its use, while simultaneously using it themselves? I think that is a tad hypocritical.
Words are words, neither bad nor good. Intentions are good or bad, not the words. But that doesn't help those that can't tell intentions by their use or who only see things in monochrome (Irony here if you look for it).
Saying it is a joke after the fact isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for saying something retarded like this.
It sure works for Politicians all the time. I didn't see any left wing people complaining about Gruber's comments about "American People are Stupid", which is actually more offensive .
If the word is so offensive, then why do all the Rap chanters use it in their lyrics? Either it is offensive, or it isn't, you can't have it both ways. If it is "hate" embodied in the word, then the last people to use it should be black people.
My contention is that black people using the word does embody "hate" but it is the worst kind, self hated. I personally think it is deeming to use that word, and skin color of those using it doesn't matter.
So, you have no point other than asking a question that isn't a question. Got it.
FYI, I read the whole article, and what he said, in FULL context wasn't offensive at all. It was admission of his own weaknesses towards women and how that doesn't fit Science Labs.
To be honest, is to be commended. Yet, he is being bullied by people only reading the headline from someone "offended" at his admission. He didn't say anything about women NOT being in a science lab, only that science would be better off without the male/female interactions. And he might not be wrong.
I am not offended by people being offended at such. I simply shake my head at the outrage held by some, who ignore even more outrageous comments by people they tend to "like".
If you are offended by what he said, in the context of why he said it, it says more about ridiculous you are, than he is. Political Correctness is a disease, not the cure for what ails us.
Proteins, water, DNA, RNA, synapse interconnects ...
All the other computers I use are controlled by this one.
You are making my point, but using your life experiences. You learned, TRS-80 probably on your own, at your own pace, and what was beyond what was taught in school. What if, schools had access to all toys and such needed to have those experiences instead of being exclusive to home.
What if instead of paying teachers administrators etc, to the tune of $5000 per kid per year, we build learning systems that allowed kids to learn naturally at their own pace (as you did) doing things that interested them.
A real life case study can be found here: http://www.hole-in-the-wall.co...
That is just the surface of what I am promoting (concept) Imagine a system of learning where the kids learn, without realizing they are in school, because it isn't school, it is just "learning".
Kids are amazing mental sponges, and yet, we've built a system that restricts so many of them from reaching potential, simply because we're afraid of "leaving kids behind". The result, is that we're dragging kids down so that we don't feel like we've left someone behind.
Kids are using iPads at this age.
Kids also use TVs at that age. We didn't say that kids should be Broadcast Engineering specialists.
This is pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Classroom teaching works, and is actually affordable.
Classroom teaching doesn't work. It holds people back to the slowest kid in the class. And we should be replacing Teachers with Learning systems, that adapt to the talents and needs of the kids using them, augmented by proctors who specialize in helping kids when they do struggle.
"Common Core" is just a series of education standards that proscribes a minimal level of education that children should achieve, before they (inevitably, nowadays) go on to college.
You are exactly right, and also oblivious to why that is inherently unworkable. The prescription given is "one size fits all" and that is completely inappropriate at its core. As someone who is physically in the 95% size (6'5", 270 lbs) I can tell you, that I fail most standard size measurements. I rarely can buy "off the rack" anything. Finding shoes that fit my feet right is impossible, both due to the size and shape of my feet.
The fact that average people think about being average and that it is okay is not surprising. I want excellence, and the only way to get there is to allow for it, and not hold people back to the lowest common denominator.
I'm glad we have a system where educators aren't encouraged to give up on lower-achieving students
You've obviously never been in a classroom full of kids lost because the teacher had to spend too much time on the one kid who didn't want to be there. Not only is it not fair to the rest of the class, it isn't fair to the kid getting all the attention (what they want), as it only reinforces bad behavior. It happens more often than it should.
The difference between a nice set of knives, specialized for purpose, and a Swiss army knife with everything built in, but not good at any particular task.
One may may consider a corkscrew a critical feature of a knife. It doesn't make it so.
We have to get past "hurt feelings" when people are better than others. Unless you're the best ( which is temporary / fleeting), there is always someone better than you. Customized education allows each person to be exactly what they can and try to be. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the fairest of all approaches.
And given this approach, you might find we are selling a large number of our kids short.
Excellence knows no bounds. Mediocrity is bounded by failure.
Obviously, learning to read, write and do basic math will be set aside for learning how to program.
Here is the problem, these people don't have a clue what is learned at what levels. And while I am all for teaching Computer science and such where it is profitable to do so, starting before kids can even write and do math is not "computer science" at all, it is just dick waving "hey look what I did for the kids!" political crap.
Here's an idea. Why not focus on reading, writing, math and building upon those at the appropriate times? And what about all those kids who don't want to be computer geeks, but rather artists, business people, biologists, doctors, lawyers etc? Are we going to build all those careers into our children's curriculum as well?
The fact is, factory learning is dead, we just don't know it yet. We have spent the last 250 years in factory schools, built using factory ideas to populate our factories with workers. Today, we need a change in how we educate people, so that they are ready for information jobs. This requires scrapping the "one size fits all" education model that is clearly dying (NCLB, Common Core etc), and replacing it with student paced education system where each student has a customized curriculum, based on ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to learn.
and then pretended it was so.
It wasn't a pretend, it was a reasonable approximation of "there ought to be a law". The problem is, we have gone so far over that line, that it is acceptable for someone to think this was okay, let alone longer than the moment it would have taken to go ... "naaaaah"
After all, we gotta protect everyone from everything ever possible. You know, there oughta be a law !
You make my point. While trying to be pedantic. :-D
Seems like classic government overreach.
Government doesn't seem to think so. Never does either. Which is why the road to tyranny is always a slow drip.
The whole thing started to crumble, once the one guy said "there ought to be a law" and it was considered. Now, we have a bunch of nanny raised kids who can't handled even the slightest taste of harshness without crumbling into a ball of whimpering jelly. All because someone said "there ought to be a law" and made it so.
Nobody stops are to even ask "why".
The sadness when you realize you can be, and have been replaced.
How many iterations of COD can there be? The game play hasn't really changed. At some point there is no point in getting the next one.
Fact is that those who like it won't complain
... and those that know nothing about it also won't complain either.
The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink. In the end, you have a program that does everything for everyone, that nobody really can use effectively. IT is a choice of providing 95% of what everyone needs, in a small easy to use package, or having 99.9999% of what everyone MIGHT need in a package that is too bloated to actually be usable.
How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?
So, the lack of spine by employees, allows companies to benefit from screwing their employees.
You have skills, they are either replaceable machine parts (someone else for you) or you're unique. AND you're always replaceable until you're unique. So, work on being different, and not being a run of the mill cog in a machine. My guess, you'd be happier, less stressed and have a better life. I work to live, not live to work, and I am unique.