"GWB never tried to tell me that I must buy a product from a for-profit industry....."
No matter what politician you're talking about, you can almost be sure that they have been bought out by large corporations, and blinded by power. Obama is no worse than Bush, and is likely just as much of a sellout.
"you have gone from A to B but not got any mentally fitter"
Uh, you can learn new information from Wikipedia. Besides that, I agree with your post. You should always double check to make sure your information is correct.
"I question the assumption that the capacity for memorization is an accurate measure of "intelligence.""
Me too. I think this is absolutely idiotic. People who regurgitate knowledge that they memorized from a certain source are often undeservingly called "intelligent" (this is evident in the "educational" system), rather than people who can form their own ideas and aren't merely mindless drones.
"which is why tutors quite correctly reject essays consisting only of Wikipedia references"
All websites are crafted by human hands. As such, it is possible that any of them can contain incorrect information. Too often I see people say that you shouldn't cite information from Wikipedia, and then turn around and say that it's completely acceptable to cite information from a random website on the internet that isn't Wikipedia. You should always, always double check your information, no matter where it came from. Quite often I've seen books give out incorrect information in certain places. Also, the chances of a vandal vandalizing an article on Wikipedia a few seconds before you view it (it's usually fixed quite quickly) and you not noticing is quite slim.
No, it doesn't. People that look at a single website with very little information about a subject and then pretend that they know everything about that subject "devalue" expertise. The internet is ripe with all kinds of information. Some of which is highly in-depth, and some is not. It depends on how you use it. The intelligent ones can use it to teach themselves useful information.
"by challenging yourself with a task to determine the answer yourself"
While this is true (I do this all the time), it would also be efficient to look the information up and apply it to what you are doing. If you use it a lot, chances are you'll remember it.
How idiotic. You don't somehow lose your ability to memorize information because said information is easily accessible. That's just insane. I think it's insane that they *expect* people to memorize all kinds of useless information that they'll only use once or twice. What is wrong with using the internet to learn something? Are books bad, too? Also, I certainly don't remember them asking me if I lost my ability to memorize information due to the fact that I use the internet to learn new and interesting things often (and I often memorize it if it's something that I'll use in the future, too).
"objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient."
That could mean anything, though. While I agree that a little bit of censorship is okay if it will protect someones life, I was merely pointing out that this still could be considered censorship.
Uh, I think it's time to put a *bit* (just a bit) more effort into finding an alternate energy source, even if oil isn't going to run out in the next few years. For one thing, it's going to eventually run out. That much is certain. It's better to be prepared than wait until the problem becomes a disaster (though, since these are humans I'm talking about, they certainly will wait until it becomes a disaster). Another thing is that oil pollutes the environment (which is very important, far more so than money) and isn't viably renewable, so we should be using clean, efficient, and renewable energy sources, anyway, not saying "drill baby drill!"
"One thing you may notice is that humans are pretty good at solving problems."
If by that you mean a very limited group of people who are only allowed to fix the problem once it really becomes apparent. Humans are good at waiting until something is a disaster before they do anything and not caring about anything but themselves.
"but when a problem does happen they are pretty good and solving that problems."
This is the problem. They wait until it does happen, not caring about the future.
"which you still bought even though you always have the option to not buy something if you dont agree to the terms"
Well then, there goes my ability to buy... pretty much everything. I'm sure a majority of people will state that you're not allowed to sell their product.
"In a saner world I even agree to keeping the authority out of it especially if I am protesting against that said authority"
Uh, if a bunch of people randomly started protesting and using violence, there'd be nothing the police could do to stop it. It's not like requiring a permit to protest has stopped this at all. It's just opened up more room for power abuse.
"Peaceful assembly still has to be lawful aseembly or the point is lost."
Of course! I didn't say otherwise. However, requiring permission to protest in large groups can be abused too easily, and it clearly violates the constitution.
I'd rather be allowed to protest in an "uncontrolled" group than allow the government to decide what is appropriate for me to protest and abuse its powers in any and every way it can. The constitution mentions *no* exceptions to protests. What good is it if they're just going to ignore the parts that they don't like? Law of the land? Yeah, right. It's sad when violent riots occur, but it's worth it to at least be able to protest in the first place.
"The classic test is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire - that is not free-speech, that's endangering others."
I always found that odd, to be honest. The constitution mentioned nothing about exceptions to that. If the constitution is *really* the law of the land, then why are they allowed to interpret it as they please, ignoring parts that benefit themselves? Not that I'm opposed to his, I can see why it's in place, but they do it for other, more idiotic and corrupt, reasons.
"If you can't say anything nice you shouldn't say anything at all."
So if you don't have positive criticism to give someone, you should just keep your mouth shut? You're allowed to voice objection or give criticism to as many things as you please, even if someone else deems it "mean."
I think books (the paper ones) are huge wastes of paper, time, and effort. If it wasn't for money problems, and a lack of computers in some places, I would suggest that all books be digitized. Then anyone could freely read these books and not have to waste a bunch of money on a bunch of paper that could be available to everyone. I don't know about the improvement rate, but I suspect that students would 'improve' and better their worthless grades if they gave them some choice in school instead of forcing them to take 50 useless classes that teach them information that they won't use for their career. If they fail these classes currently, it could make them fail the entire year. If they want to see real improvement, they need to reform the poorly thought out educational system instead of just giving students more and more mandatory worthless classes each year, and more work, thinking it's going to somehow make them more 'intelligent'.
It appears that you misunderstood me. If the child doesn't understand the consequences of their actions, they're probably not going to understand why cleaning their rooms, studying (at least in the current horrible public education system), and exercising are important. If it is explained to them, they will understand, and from then on, it's their own choice. The key is to be blunt, and not lie about the consequences or butter them up, but to tell them if they fuck it up, they're screwed. Don't force them to do shit like exercise after they already understand the consequences. They likely won't do it purely *because* you're forcing them to.
"Most of those kids will understand that the things their parents tried to "force" on them when they were young were for their own good - but only after they're finally out on their own and they realize that if they don't do these things, nobody will."
Too much room for abuse, sorry. "For your own good" could mean just about anything. Brainwashing them into believing a set of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, etc. This is a giant excuse to indoctrinate someone with your own beliefs.
"You support compulsory math and history education in violation of your principle of choice."
Only subjects in which the chances of you not using them is so slim that they may as well be mandatory. Who doesn't use basic math? Who doesn't speak the language(s) of their own country? Who shouldn't learn about history?
"A lot of school level trigonometry, geometry etc. are never going to be used by a vast majority of the students."
I said basic math. Even though I'll use those, I agree with you there. Those shouldn't be mandatory.
"No student is ever going to meet a military general of the civil war."
History is studied so we don't repeat past mistakes. Not all of it is particularly useful, but a lot of it actually is.
"So learning a few aspects of taking care of it help them live life better and learn the other subjects by keeping them out of sick-bed more often."
By... throwing/hitting random objects around on fields, pretending sports are important, and running around for a few hours a week? I know that wasn't the case for me, and it isn't the case for anyone else. Again, it's not going to do any good until *you* take the initiative to be healthy.
"PS - your rant has nothing to do with the topic being discussed."
It has plenty to do with what is being discussed. I don't feel enough people will actually *use* physical education for it to be mandatory. Not to mention the fact that what a gym class teaches can be learned with a simple Google search if need be. It is far easier than any other subject and it doesn't really warrant being a mandatory class.
"The public school system is failing *miserably*, for some of the reasons I mentioned above. It's highly inefficient due to how much time you waste 'learning' (memorizing) useless information that you know you won't use for your job, and forcing you to memorize such information could even make you fail the entire year. Shortsighted politicians think that by focusing more on worthless letter grades, jamming more useless work down their throats, and making more useless classes mandatory, that students will somehow become more 'intelligent', even though their risk of failing is much higher even in classes that they need and are doing good in. What it needs is some actual choice, with a few mandatory classes that everyone will likely need (basic math, health, history, the native language(s) of their country, etc). They also need to put more emphasis on education instead of worthless grades, complete conformity, and repetitive work. They could actually allow the students to choose classes that would be important to them in the job they wish to possess (probably not immediately). They could actually let the students take their education into their own hands (sort of, there would still be adults to guide them and a curriculum for the classes). Their motivation would come from wanting to get a job, their love of the subjects that they are being taught, and the fact that if they didn't learn what they were supposed to, no one would hire them (which would be clearly explained). Stuffing work down their throat and making them taking useless subjects isn't working and never will work."
"Mental education is more important than physical in so many cases."
The difference being that physical education is almost worthless in nearly every case.
"If they want to add numbers, let them. If they don't, leave them alone."
I know not a single person that doesn't use basic math. That's the difference.
"If they want to do science experiments, let them. If they don't, leave them alone."
Actually, this one could really apply to many people. Making them take useless classes for the job that they wish to possess will just waste their time and possibly make them 'fail' an entire year of school because of a single worthless class. This includes physical education. The difference between these classes and basic math is that the chance of you *not* using it is so low that it should definitely be mandatory. The same thing applies to classes that teach the native language(s) of your country, and history, too.
"If they want to appreciate or create art, let them. If they don't, leave them alone."
I agree with this one, too.
"There's a point at which you're not advocating for liberty any more, but ignorance. And ignorance is a powerful tool of enslavement."
I've seen nothing *but* indoctrination from public schools. Always obey authority even when they're incorrect, always follow the system even if it is horrible thought up (republics), pretend that public education is the *only* form of education and that worthless degrees are extremely important (what matters is actual knowledge, not paper, despite how you learned that knowledge), brainwash students into believing that since they *could* use any of the classes that they're teaching they're all worth their time (even though using that logic, they'd have to be at school constantly in order to teach them every available subject in existence. Besides, that's really the fault of the student), brainwash students into believing that there's actually such a thing as forbidden words (even though every word is just a string of letters with a meaning), etc.
"The public school system was established on the notion that it is beneficial to society for everyone to learn something of certain subjects regardless of the ability of their parents to provide for that instruction."
The public school system is failing *miserably*, for some of the reasons I mentioned above. It's highly inefficient due to how much time you waste 'learning' (memorizing) useless information that you know you won't use for your job, and forcing you to memorize such information could even make you fail the entire year. Shortsighted politicians think that by focusing more on worthless letter grades, jamming more useless work down their throats, and making more useless classes mandatory, that students will somehow become more 'intelligent', even though their risk of failing is much higher even in classes that they need and are doing good in. What it needs is some actual choice, with a few mandatory classes that everyone will likely need (basic math, health, history, the native language(s) of their country, etc). They also need to put more emphasis on education instead of worthless grades, complete conformity, and repetitive work. They could actually allow the students to choose classes that would be important to them in the job they wish to possess (probably not immediately). They could actually let the students take their education into their own hands (sort of, there would still be adults to guide them and a curriculum for the classes). Their motivation would come from wanting to get a job, their love of the subjects that they are being taught, and the fact that if they didn't learn what they were supposed to, no one would hire them (which would be clearly explained). Stuffing work down their throat and making them taking useless subjects isn't working and never will work.
Slashdot Mirror
What "good reason" would that be? He brought up a valid point.
"Senior level positions that barely pay 49k"
I don't know about you, but 49k sounds good to me!
"GWB never tried to tell me that I must buy a product from a for-profit industry....."
No matter what politician you're talking about, you can almost be sure that they have been bought out by large corporations, and blinded by power. Obama is no worse than Bush, and is likely just as much of a sellout.
"you have gone from A to B but not got any mentally fitter"
Uh, you can learn new information from Wikipedia. Besides that, I agree with your post. You should always double check to make sure your information is correct.
"I question the assumption that the capacity for memorization is an accurate measure of "intelligence.""
Me too. I think this is absolutely idiotic. People who regurgitate knowledge that they memorized from a certain source are often undeservingly called "intelligent" (this is evident in the "educational" system), rather than people who can form their own ideas and aren't merely mindless drones.
"which is why tutors quite correctly reject essays consisting only of Wikipedia references"
All websites are crafted by human hands. As such, it is possible that any of them can contain incorrect information. Too often I see people say that you shouldn't cite information from Wikipedia, and then turn around and say that it's completely acceptable to cite information from a random website on the internet that isn't Wikipedia. You should always, always double check your information, no matter where it came from. Quite often I've seen books give out incorrect information in certain places. Also, the chances of a vandal vandalizing an article on Wikipedia a few seconds before you view it (it's usually fixed quite quickly) and you not noticing is quite slim.
No, it doesn't. People that look at a single website with very little information about a subject and then pretend that they know everything about that subject "devalue" expertise. The internet is ripe with all kinds of information. Some of which is highly in-depth, and some is not. It depends on how you use it. The intelligent ones can use it to teach themselves useful information.
"by challenging yourself with a task to determine the answer yourself"
While this is true (I do this all the time), it would also be efficient to look the information up and apply it to what you are doing. If you use it a lot, chances are you'll remember it.
How idiotic. You don't somehow lose your ability to memorize information because said information is easily accessible. That's just insane. I think it's insane that they *expect* people to memorize all kinds of useless information that they'll only use once or twice. What is wrong with using the internet to learn something? Are books bad, too? Also, I certainly don't remember them asking me if I lost my ability to memorize information due to the fact that I use the internet to learn new and interesting things often (and I often memorize it if it's something that I'll use in the future, too).
Technically, meager insults anger just about anyone of any age. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how upset people get over mere words.
"objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient."
That could mean anything, though. While I agree that a little bit of censorship is okay if it will protect someones life, I was merely pointing out that this still could be considered censorship.
That's still censorship, though.
Uh, I think it's time to put a *bit* (just a bit) more effort into finding an alternate energy source, even if oil isn't going to run out in the next few years. For one thing, it's going to eventually run out. That much is certain. It's better to be prepared than wait until the problem becomes a disaster (though, since these are humans I'm talking about, they certainly will wait until it becomes a disaster). Another thing is that oil pollutes the environment (which is very important, far more so than money) and isn't viably renewable, so we should be using clean, efficient, and renewable energy sources, anyway, not saying "drill baby drill!"
"One thing you may notice is that humans are pretty good at solving problems."
If by that you mean a very limited group of people who are only allowed to fix the problem once it really becomes apparent. Humans are good at waiting until something is a disaster before they do anything and not caring about anything but themselves.
"but when a problem does happen they are pretty good and solving that problems."
This is the problem. They wait until it does happen, not caring about the future.
"which you still bought even though you always have the option to not buy something if you dont agree to the terms"
Well then, there goes my ability to buy... pretty much everything. I'm sure a majority of people will state that you're not allowed to sell their product.
"In a saner world I even agree to keeping the authority out of it especially if I am protesting against that said authority"
Uh, if a bunch of people randomly started protesting and using violence, there'd be nothing the police could do to stop it. It's not like requiring a permit to protest has stopped this at all. It's just opened up more room for power abuse.
"Peaceful assembly still has to be lawful aseembly or the point is lost."
Of course! I didn't say otherwise. However, requiring permission to protest in large groups can be abused too easily, and it clearly violates the constitution.
"You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots?"
I'd rather be allowed to protest in an "uncontrolled" group than allow the government to decide what is appropriate for me to protest and abuse its powers in any and every way it can. The constitution mentions *no* exceptions to protests. What good is it if they're just going to ignore the parts that they don't like? Law of the land? Yeah, right. It's sad when violent riots occur, but it's worth it to at least be able to protest in the first place.
"The classic test is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire - that is not free-speech, that's endangering others."
I always found that odd, to be honest. The constitution mentioned nothing about exceptions to that. If the constitution is *really* the law of the land, then why are they allowed to interpret it as they please, ignoring parts that benefit themselves? Not that I'm opposed to his, I can see why it's in place, but they do it for other, more idiotic and corrupt, reasons.
"Disagree? Well, you could always sue them (and lose)."
Just because you will lose, just because it's lawful, that doesn't mean that it's right.
"If you can't say anything nice you shouldn't say anything at all."
So if you don't have positive criticism to give someone, you should just keep your mouth shut? You're allowed to voice objection or give criticism to as many things as you please, even if someone else deems it "mean."
I think books (the paper ones) are huge wastes of paper, time, and effort. If it wasn't for money problems, and a lack of computers in some places, I would suggest that all books be digitized. Then anyone could freely read these books and not have to waste a bunch of money on a bunch of paper that could be available to everyone. I don't know about the improvement rate, but I suspect that students would 'improve' and better their worthless grades if they gave them some choice in school instead of forcing them to take 50 useless classes that teach them information that they won't use for their career. If they fail these classes currently, it could make them fail the entire year. If they want to see real improvement, they need to reform the poorly thought out educational system instead of just giving students more and more mandatory worthless classes each year, and more work, thinking it's going to somehow make them more 'intelligent'.
"I'm sorry but you're fucking wrong."
It appears that you misunderstood me. If the child doesn't understand the consequences of their actions, they're probably not going to understand why cleaning their rooms, studying (at least in the current horrible public education system), and exercising are important. If it is explained to them, they will understand, and from then on, it's their own choice. The key is to be blunt, and not lie about the consequences or butter them up, but to tell them if they fuck it up, they're screwed. Don't force them to do shit like exercise after they already understand the consequences. They likely won't do it purely *because* you're forcing them to.
"Most of those kids will understand that the things their parents tried to "force" on them when they were young were for their own good - but only after they're finally out on their own and they realize that if they don't do these things, nobody will."
Too much room for abuse, sorry. "For your own good" could mean just about anything. Brainwashing them into believing a set of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, etc. This is a giant excuse to indoctrinate someone with your own beliefs.
"Can't be."
Well, I am.
"You support compulsory math and history education in violation of your principle of choice."
Only subjects in which the chances of you not using them is so slim that they may as well be mandatory. Who doesn't use basic math? Who doesn't speak the language(s) of their own country? Who shouldn't learn about history?
"A lot of school level trigonometry, geometry etc. are never going to be used by a vast majority of the students."
I said basic math. Even though I'll use those, I agree with you there. Those shouldn't be mandatory.
"No student is ever going to meet a military general of the civil war."
History is studied so we don't repeat past mistakes. Not all of it is particularly useful, but a lot of it actually is.
"So learning a few aspects of taking care of it help them live life better and learn the other subjects by keeping them out of sick-bed more often."
By... throwing/hitting random objects around on fields, pretending sports are important, and running around for a few hours a week? I know that wasn't the case for me, and it isn't the case for anyone else. Again, it's not going to do any good until *you* take the initiative to be healthy.
"PS - your rant has nothing to do with the topic being discussed."
It has plenty to do with what is being discussed. I don't feel enough people will actually *use* physical education for it to be mandatory. Not to mention the fact that what a gym class teaches can be learned with a simple Google search if need be. It is far easier than any other subject and it doesn't really warrant being a mandatory class.
It's because I believe in choice.
"The public school system is failing *miserably*, for some of the reasons I mentioned above. It's highly inefficient due to how much time you waste 'learning' (memorizing) useless information that you know you won't use for your job, and forcing you to memorize such information could even make you fail the entire year. Shortsighted politicians think that by focusing more on worthless letter grades, jamming more useless work down their throats, and making more useless classes mandatory, that students will somehow become more 'intelligent', even though their risk of failing is much higher even in classes that they need and are doing good in. What it needs is some actual choice, with a few mandatory classes that everyone will likely need (basic math, health, history, the native language(s) of their country, etc). They also need to put more emphasis on education instead of worthless grades, complete conformity, and repetitive work. They could actually allow the students to choose classes that would be important to them in the job they wish to possess (probably not immediately). They could actually let the students take their education into their own hands (sort of, there would still be adults to guide them and a curriculum for the classes). Their motivation would come from wanting to get a job, their love of the subjects that they are being taught, and the fact that if they didn't learn what they were supposed to, no one would hire them (which would be clearly explained). Stuffing work down their throat and making them taking useless subjects isn't working and never will work."
"Mental education is more important than physical in so many cases."
The difference being that physical education is almost worthless in nearly every case.
"If they want to add numbers, let them. If they don't, leave them alone."
I know not a single person that doesn't use basic math. That's the difference.
"If they want to do science experiments, let them. If they don't, leave them alone."
Actually, this one could really apply to many people. Making them take useless classes for the job that they wish to possess will just waste their time and possibly make them 'fail' an entire year of school because of a single worthless class. This includes physical education. The difference between these classes and basic math is that the chance of you *not* using it is so low that it should definitely be mandatory. The same thing applies to classes that teach the native language(s) of your country, and history, too.
"If they want to appreciate or create art, let them. If they don't, leave them alone."
I agree with this one, too.
"There's a point at which you're not advocating for liberty any more, but ignorance. And ignorance is a powerful tool of enslavement."
I've seen nothing *but* indoctrination from public schools. Always obey authority even when they're incorrect, always follow the system even if it is horrible thought up (republics), pretend that public education is the *only* form of education and that worthless degrees are extremely important (what matters is actual knowledge, not paper, despite how you learned that knowledge), brainwash students into believing that since they *could* use any of the classes that they're teaching they're all worth their time (even though using that logic, they'd have to be at school constantly in order to teach them every available subject in existence. Besides, that's really the fault of the student), brainwash students into believing that there's actually such a thing as forbidden words (even though every word is just a string of letters with a meaning), etc.
"The public school system was established on the notion that it is beneficial to society for everyone to learn something of certain subjects regardless of the ability of their parents to provide for that instruction."
The public school system is failing *miserably*, for some of the reasons I mentioned above. It's highly inefficient due to how much time you waste 'learning' (memorizing) useless information that you know you won't use for your job, and forcing you to memorize such information could even make you fail the entire year. Shortsighted politicians think that by focusing more on worthless letter grades, jamming more useless work down their throats, and making more useless classes mandatory, that students will somehow become more 'intelligent', even though their risk of failing is much higher even in classes that they need and are doing good in. What it needs is some actual choice, with a few mandatory classes that everyone will likely need (basic math, health, history, the native language(s) of their country, etc). They also need to put more emphasis on education instead of worthless grades, complete conformity, and repetitive work. They could actually allow the students to choose classes that would be important to them in the job they wish to possess (probably not immediately). They could actually let the students take their education into their own hands (sort of, there would still be adults to guide them and a curriculum for the classes). Their motivation would come from wanting to get a job, their love of the subjects that they are being taught, and the fact that if they didn't learn what they were supposed to, no one would hire them (which would be clearly explained). Stuffing work down their throat and making them taking useless subjects isn't working and never will work.