Why are you so upset? You DO set the rules, period the end. You DO decide the punishment if any, period the end. You CAN overturn the detention, period the end.
You get to do all of these things when you are the school administrator -- by which I mean, when you run a home school. This is America, man, where we don't force your kids to be indoctrinated in public schools; you get to indoctrinate them in your own school if you want to! We give you, the parent, complete and total control over your child's Jolly Rancher consumption (and whatever else). You want your kid to chow down on candy all the time? (and I'm not saying you personally do) -- great! While you are supervising your child in your homeschool, you can force-feed them candy until you feel satisfied.
So, dude, take a few deep breaths and try to say what is actually bothering you. Really. You don't need to be so angry.
Okay, look I agree that the candy thing deserves ridicule, but let's not try to turn elementary schools into libertarian utopias, okay?
"Who are they"? THEY are the school administrators, the ones specifically entrusted to make rules and enforce them upon the children. It is *literally* their job to do so.
It's okay to be a moderate and oppose this rule as going too far, without resorting to extremist black-and-white ideology. Get some perspective.
Whenever I hear about a "zero tolerance" policy, I always think "But I thought tolerance was good? I though we were supposed to try to be tolerant of other people?" I know this is only a problem of nomenclature, but I think the policy-makers should find a better phrase than "zero tolerance". How about "zero guns" or in this case "zero candy"? Then at least we are focusing on the determination that guns or candy is bad, and not tolerance. Let's keep tolerance firmly in the "good" category.
I'm wondering, do you think it is true that when a lawyer representing a client makes an argument in court, that the argument necessarily or even probably represents the personal views of the lawyer herself?
I'm genuinely curious if you think so. I don't think so, but such would be an essential part of your claim.
risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.
I was napping through the first part of your comment. With this last part, you were referring to Thomas, right? the justice who famously decides the case before oral arguments are even made, and thus has no use to ever ask any questions? And you are probably hoping that Kagan will be as astute and informed as he is?
That's hogwash. There are certainly actions that are wrong for an individual to do that become acceptable or even right when a group does it. I don't know where you got that impression. Also, some actions are wrong when obscured and acceptable or right in when done openly.
Anyway, I tire of your ideology. You can have the last word. Cheers.
Oh okay. So because the government does it without deception (they publish the amount of currency they print), then you're saying it's not a crime? Okay, well then we agree on everything. Cheers!
Of course: because it undermines the Sovereign's exclusive prerogative to control the currency. One of the many potential effects is inflation, but not the only one.
Too bad this guy decided to beat up his boss. He had a slam-dunk sexual harassment case. He could have gotten a million dollars, maybe a couple million, without ever going to trial.
You make a good point, but be careful not to equate "right lane" with "right-most lane". If you are on a six-lane highway, and driving the limit, then you are probably driving faster than the people entering and exiting -- right? If so, then you belong at least one lane to the left, maybe more; if not, if you really are driving the same speed as incoming and outgoing traffic, then sorry, yes, you belong in that right-most lane with those cars.
The lane-to-speed theory is very simple. Just look to your right. Is that car traveling slower than you? If not, move to the right, and repeat.
You ask that question rhetorically, as if it doesn't have an obvious answer.
The part is the part where we live in a universe governed by time. You might not have noticed, but humans have limited resources but unlimited desires -- it's a basic tenet of economic theory. One of the limited resources is time.
Sure, I could walk to the store 10 miles away, and spend a 9 hour day completing only my grocery shopping. I can improve that by riding a bike; I can improve that by driving a car; and the faster I drive, the more improvement I can make.
(Sheesh, as I'm typing this I'm wondering for what kind of person it isn't obvious?)
Obviously, the limiting factor is safety: although it is more convenient to travel at 99 MPH than 98 MPH, it is less convenient to have an accident than not. So, we try to find a sweet spot -- and in America, where I live, our speed limits do not correspond to that sweet spot.
Well, what can I say, I think you are driving like a jerk. You decline to share the road, and I think that's jerkish behavior. Obviously, many people think that anyone who goes above the limit are jerks, too; and reasonable people can disagree. It is my opinion that not only are you driving like a jerk, but also causing unsafe conditions. I wish you would reconsider your rude driving habits and drive in the lane appropriate to your speed.
For the record, I'm an American, and on highways I find my preferred driving speed is about 65-70. On some roads, despite a 65 MPH limit, this puts me at the very bottom of the speed of traffic, and I have no problem driving in the slow lane. Sometimes, less often, it puts me at the top of the speed of traffic and I use left lanes. I don't try to justify forcing other people to drive my speed -- those other drivers doing 80 are almost always driving perfectly safely, and I do not beef them for getting where they are going at their own speed.
Good luck. Really, consider driving in the slow lane. The slow lane can be very nice and relaxing.
Okay, let me assume that is true. Now let's say I don't particularly care about comparative inflation rates, because even the numbers you quoted aren't very impressive. What else do you have?
Really, I'm not trying to be combative. I know some people are really, really pissed off about the concept of fiat currency, and I just don't get it.
The CCTV resulted in reports of a "middle aged white male". The man arrested is a young, non-white male, and was found *despite* the *bad evidence* provided by the CCTV.
So, I just want to make sure we are on the same page here -- you readily acknowledge that the CCTV was ineffective?
Obviously it's too late to solve this problem now, but I always wondered by schools are ever built near busy streets. Forget about the safety issues -- the distracting noise alone is a good enough reason to tuck them away in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Busy streets should be near commercial businesses.
You touched on it at the end of your comment, but my preferred solution is improved technology: is there a way to design roads and cars that can be safely navigated at the speeds people want to drive? Can we make a highway and a car both safe at 100 MPH?
The angry people always harumph and tell everyone to slow down, and I don't understand that. If we MUST choose between safety and convenience, then I'm willing to go with safety (to an extent), but in this case I think it's a total false choice. Let's have both!
I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but you never linked the fatalities to high speeds -- only to being struck by a vehicle. The accidents might be due to high speed, or might not -- and it's not reasonable to assume. I have to admit that I can't take the time right now to read the report and check for myself; I can only be bothered to make this comment.
The goal here is to make things safer, right? Not enforce arbitrary limits because it makes you feel better.
Wrong. The goal *should* be to make things safer, but in fact it is exactly to enforce an arbitrary limit because it massages a sense of moral superiority.
Just like there are anti-fun-sex ideologues, there are anti-convenient-driving ideologues.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you so upset? You DO set the rules, period the end. You DO decide the punishment if any, period the end. You CAN overturn the detention, period the end.
You get to do all of these things when you are the school administrator -- by which I mean, when you run a home school. This is America, man, where we don't force your kids to be indoctrinated in public schools; you get to indoctrinate them in your own school if you want to! We give you, the parent, complete and total control over your child's Jolly Rancher consumption (and whatever else). You want your kid to chow down on candy all the time? (and I'm not saying you personally do) -- great! While you are supervising your child in your homeschool, you can force-feed them candy until you feel satisfied.
So, dude, take a few deep breaths and try to say what is actually bothering you. Really. You don't need to be so angry.
Okay, look I agree that the candy thing deserves ridicule, but let's not try to turn elementary schools into libertarian utopias, okay?
"Who are they"? THEY are the school administrators, the ones specifically entrusted to make rules and enforce them upon the children. It is *literally* their job to do so.
It's okay to be a moderate and oppose this rule as going too far, without resorting to extremist black-and-white ideology. Get some perspective.
Whenever I hear about a "zero tolerance" policy, I always think "But I thought tolerance was good? I though we were supposed to try to be tolerant of other people?" I know this is only a problem of nomenclature, but I think the policy-makers should find a better phrase than "zero tolerance". How about "zero guns" or in this case "zero candy"? Then at least we are focusing on the determination that guns or candy is bad, and not tolerance. Let's keep tolerance firmly in the "good" category.
Oh, hai jcr! Good to see you again.
I'm wondering, do you think it is true that when a lawyer representing a client makes an argument in court, that the argument necessarily or even probably represents the personal views of the lawyer herself?
I'm genuinely curious if you think so. I don't think so, but such would be an essential part of your claim.
risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.
I was napping through the first part of your comment. With this last part, you were referring to Thomas, right? the justice who famously decides the case before oral arguments are even made, and thus has no use to ever ask any questions? And you are probably hoping that Kagan will be as astute and informed as he is?
Is there a way to know whether it is her personal view, or whether she was just doing her job?
That's hogwash. There are certainly actions that are wrong for an individual to do that become acceptable or even right when a group does it. I don't know where you got that impression. Also, some actions are wrong when obscured and acceptable or right in when done openly.
Anyway, I tire of your ideology. You can have the last word. Cheers.
You haven't convinced me, but good luck with all that.
Oh okay. So because the government does it without deception (they publish the amount of currency they print), then you're saying it's not a crime? Okay, well then we agree on everything. Cheers!
No thanks.
That was informative and insightful. Thanks for weighing in.
Of course: because it undermines the Sovereign's exclusive prerogative to control the currency. One of the many potential effects is inflation, but not the only one.
Too bad this guy decided to beat up his boss. He had a slam-dunk sexual harassment case. He could have gotten a million dollars, maybe a couple million, without ever going to trial.
Dude, wow, even though I disagree with you I certainly don't agree with whoever modded you Troll. How is that a troll?
You make a good point, but be careful not to equate "right lane" with "right-most lane". If you are on a six-lane highway, and driving the limit, then you are probably driving faster than the people entering and exiting -- right? If so, then you belong at least one lane to the left, maybe more; if not, if you really are driving the same speed as incoming and outgoing traffic, then sorry, yes, you belong in that right-most lane with those cars.
The lane-to-speed theory is very simple. Just look to your right. Is that car traveling slower than you? If not, move to the right, and repeat.
The cost of Windows?
You ask that question rhetorically, as if it doesn't have an obvious answer.
The part is the part where we live in a universe governed by time. You might not have noticed, but humans have limited resources but unlimited desires -- it's a basic tenet of economic theory. One of the limited resources is time.
Sure, I could walk to the store 10 miles away, and spend a 9 hour day completing only my grocery shopping. I can improve that by riding a bike; I can improve that by driving a car; and the faster I drive, the more improvement I can make.
(Sheesh, as I'm typing this I'm wondering for what kind of person it isn't obvious?)
Obviously, the limiting factor is safety: although it is more convenient to travel at 99 MPH than 98 MPH, it is less convenient to have an accident than not. So, we try to find a sweet spot -- and in America, where I live, our speed limits do not correspond to that sweet spot.
Well, what can I say, I think you are driving like a jerk. You decline to share the road, and I think that's jerkish behavior. Obviously, many people think that anyone who goes above the limit are jerks, too; and reasonable people can disagree. It is my opinion that not only are you driving like a jerk, but also causing unsafe conditions. I wish you would reconsider your rude driving habits and drive in the lane appropriate to your speed.
For the record, I'm an American, and on highways I find my preferred driving speed is about 65-70. On some roads, despite a 65 MPH limit, this puts me at the very bottom of the speed of traffic, and I have no problem driving in the slow lane. Sometimes, less often, it puts me at the top of the speed of traffic and I use left lanes. I don't try to justify forcing other people to drive my speed -- those other drivers doing 80 are almost always driving perfectly safely, and I do not beef them for getting where they are going at their own speed.
Good luck. Really, consider driving in the slow lane. The slow lane can be very nice and relaxing.
Okay, let me assume that is true. Now let's say I don't particularly care about comparative inflation rates, because even the numbers you quoted aren't very impressive. What else do you have?
Really, I'm not trying to be combative. I know some people are really, really pissed off about the concept of fiat currency, and I just don't get it.
The CCTV resulted in reports of a "middle aged white male". The man arrested is a young, non-white male, and was found *despite* the *bad evidence* provided by the CCTV.
So, I just want to make sure we are on the same page here -- you readily acknowledge that the CCTV was ineffective?
If you're dumb enough to repeatedly get caught speeding and not learn from it
Yeah, silly American citizens, trying to complete their chores and commutes conveniently. What dummies. /rolls eyes
Obviously it's too late to solve this problem now, but I always wondered by schools are ever built near busy streets. Forget about the safety issues -- the distracting noise alone is a good enough reason to tuck them away in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Busy streets should be near commercial businesses.
You touched on it at the end of your comment, but my preferred solution is improved technology: is there a way to design roads and cars that can be safely navigated at the speeds people want to drive? Can we make a highway and a car both safe at 100 MPH?
The angry people always harumph and tell everyone to slow down, and I don't understand that. If we MUST choose between safety and convenience, then I'm willing to go with safety (to an extent), but in this case I think it's a total false choice. Let's have both!
I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but you never linked the fatalities to high speeds -- only to being struck by a vehicle. The accidents might be due to high speed, or might not -- and it's not reasonable to assume. I have to admit that I can't take the time right now to read the report and check for myself; I can only be bothered to make this comment.
The goal here is to make things safer, right? Not enforce arbitrary limits because it makes you feel better.
Wrong. The goal *should* be to make things safer, but in fact it is exactly to enforce an arbitrary limit because it massages a sense of moral superiority.
Just like there are anti-fun-sex ideologues, there are anti-convenient-driving ideologues.