You stated a ludicrous exaggeration about how Khan is a better lecturer than 90% of college professors which is just unrealistic. The guy is a bottom 3rd talker who has managed to collect the love of some people with sway. Move on you simpleton.
Declaring something somebody's opinion is the resort of a child or a fool. Find some facts and come back at me. Khan Academy and it's validity is at best a value judgment but it is still just some videos on youtube that don't replace the need for real teachers or even come close to supplanting them at all.
Good for you that you think you're a better teacher than whatever rural district you live in. I'm really seeing nothing you write as realistic or truthful, if anything you're writing a great personal support statement for your agenda and that is fine. I've worked at my current university for about 3 years and spent a little over 12 in college (sad...but I enjoyed the ride to the doctorate). Over the years the home schooled kids came and went, washing out in a bit over a year because for every well-adjusted super successful kid who did manage to be home schooled 9 failed miserably because their parents weren't competent. Of course since I teach at a smaller Tier-3 university the vast majority of students come from a 200-mile radius. Every district has successful students, every district has failures. Your indictment of public education is a joke. I'm just glad you're letting your school taxes go to teaching better people than yours.
Intel kept AMD down by signing huge discounted contracts with OEM manufacturers. That's the reality of how Intel won. The consumer had basically a plethora of names and configurations when the PC came around as a major player but 90% of on the shelf boxes were Intel inside. AMD never was able to sign a huge contract and thus was kept out of the office and shelf space. It wasn't like Intel had vastly better chips until the i-series and even now under the $220 range they aren't really that better, specially considering the average PC is using an i3 chip. It's a game of Intel leveraging vast resources and thin margins to marginalize other players. ARM manufacturers are too large to undercut substantially though and will not take Intel lying down. This medfield processor feels more inclined to be in a semi-stationary position like a light notebook or tablet rather than a mobile phone. But who knows? Maybe Intel will get it's TDP down and do dual-core running at half that wattage...
I find you a repugnant fool and your disagreement only reaffirms my stance that you have never seriously taught or attempted to. Everybody has dealt with teachers and teaching and somehow assume they naturally have knowledge on how the system works. Unless you're a certified teacher or worked in Academia past secondary schools you really are just an armchair quarterback.
I'm calling shennanigans unless your wife's university is unethical or she is miraculously a double-master's holding doctor. You're a home schooler who has found success because most likely you live in a wealthy heavily-christian supported neighborhood. It doesn't mean you won't succeed but your socio-economic status will have a greater effect on your children. Also, never use the term "common sense" because it is neither common nor sense and is merely a cover for personal motivations and cultural assumptions. It bears little weight in any argument and what you described was a perfect trade school, it showed a child a job without any deeper intellectual context and left them knowing something but not the why instead replaced with the how. It's a great method to show a child the working world but limited in making them a more well-rounded person. It's more so a side-approach to the greater understanding.
You're attempt to argue you can live on one salary is limited in that once we prioritize things we're essentially curtailing our children's ability to explore and learn by taking it upon ourselves to teach them when you (as I am certified) are not capable of teaching them on a level that a school can. Barring parents being certified teacher there is little I would trust them to teach over a teacher in a school for proper educational standards. Thus having two salaries is more attractive on a simple level.
statistically they don't. Nobody is saying they don't exist but bad teachers aren't "abound" but are a limite problem throughout society. With almost 7 distinct teaching models in the US not everyone will work for you & if a teacher specializes in only 2-3 (which is realistic) you may find them "bad" when they simply don't cater to you.
5-10K? That's for a house atleast 150K in value. The state average per student spending is around 5-6K with red states on the extreme low-end at around 3-4K. Less than half of that goes into salaries. On top of that teachers make less than their equivalently educated bretheren even accounting for pensions and benefits. So stop feeding into the republican lies and start looking at reality.
what you described is a trade school. Home schooling for the vast majority of Americans is about shielding their children from non-religious or non-shared culture individuals. So unless you have a certification from the state I doubt you're a better educator than 80% of active teachers.
Schools look like they do because they are built around the old imperial system that ended up being cost effective as public school rose. Now we're moving towards the modern continental system that promotes individualized education and support for kids. Still if you want to home school be my guest. I've watched every homeschooled kid in university fail because they weren't prepared for the rigors.
This is such an infamous argument. The value of a college-educated person in most fields off-set the losses at home. The only real forced cost is childcare. Cleaning, maitenance, and other house chores can be done in free time left over. If the median income of a college-educated person is nearly 3000 dollars take-home the cost of raising 2 kids is still less and emotionally worth more.
Do you feel morally superior for not wanting cable TV or a large flat screen? I want a pool table, a nice one is between 4-6K (before discounts). Does it make me greedy? This whole argument hinges on we are given what we deserve because calvinist ancestry in America forced it upon us. I'll say this though, it's completely untrue. We want more as people by nature. Our society is a first world nation & thus has a much higher standard of living. So unless you plan on living like a cambodian there are standards to be met.
In the social sciences the lecturer adds context. The book is a wonderful tool but without context it is a useless document. Think of HG Well's Time Machine. They had vast information but no context to put it in. That's why he stayed and became their teacher.
This is why most surveys say a classroom of 15 is optimal. But try talking a school district into either adding nearly half of their workforce or doubling it. In this economic downturn we need more education but the right-wing is consistently cutting funding in order to make way for private schools or publically-funded private schools.
You're in la-la land if you think Khan Academy is even close to 50% of the teaching base. Nothing against the program but lectures are largely an upper-class & post-secondary approach that even now is changing due to a new generation of hands-on teachers. E-readers & cloud license support will seriously help public schools curtail cost. New material will become cheaper as smaller non-traditional textbook publishers compete on better tailored books.
Now you know that is bullshit. The democrats are split between blue dogs and liberals. The republicans are split between pro-business, bigots, and the religious conservatives. Democrats are traditionally underfunded versus republicans because they aren't pro-business in the way the republicans are.
So you can either ignore reality or accept that liberalism isn't in bed with corporatism.
The famous "but two isn't enough!" Argument. Too bad two is plenty. The issue you see is when the electorate chooses not to exercise their vote and those that do vote are ill informed, self-hating, and believe that somehow BOTH sides are the cause of problems when it is clearly the pro-business/wealthy party who is sending both aides to K Street.
Because models are automatically stupid just like people who wear glasses are automatically smart? I wonder what slashdot nerds will do since they will never reproduce due to their myopic view of the female gender...
The only "function" you're paying for is iOS. For most everyday use the average user would be hard pressed to differentiate Android from iOS and most of the most popular apps are supported on both. As for "form" there are plenty of smartphones that have a similar shape and heft to an iPhone. Not as many 3.5 inch screens out there and while their "retina display" does have a rather large DPI it's a small advantage in everyday viewing. In essence the price hike is to buy into their ecosystem which is your biggest advantage. Of course if you're on android you can go into Mac's ecosystem somewhat or if you're a Windows user (about 80% of the world) you can use android in conjunction with that or Linux (about 9%). So in other words Android covers 89% of the entire PC world with it's function, Apple 11%.
It was more an exaggeration of feeling. Lord knows if I were to actually gouge your eyes out it would have to be for something more deserving than a simple value judgment rationale. First off: Actual metal? Once again, the core of every laptop EVER made is of metal to avoid flex and destroying the motherboard. Second: Better battery life? I understand the Air has a tremendous battery life but the Macbook and Pro line are just about average for equivalent models and size.
The upgrades do cost money but for half the thickness all you need to do is build a single board instead of using daughter boards like most manufacturers do so they can offer customization. In other words: If you want choice you end up with thickness. Twice the battery life is really only in the Air which is $1000 minimum, so for that amount you could easily buy a $500 model and invest in a spare battery or even two that work just as well and extend your range. I doubt you're carrying around your laptop in a manilla sleeve so the extra size and weight of a battery should be minimal. As for a "real OS" I would believe that the OSX due to it's utter lack of support for most business, science, and academic apps is lacking. It's a minority subset of the whole, dwelling somewhere in the Linux-sized territory for elites who can afford to drop twice the amount on equivalent hardware. Critical mass or not, a software community cannot be supported by a rich minority if it ever wants to blossom into a dominant OS. Thus your argument at best is weak.
Most consumer electronics that are factory refurbished end up with completely new parts simply because the parts aren't repairable in the traditional sense. They whip in a new part and solder it in. So the refurbs are as good as the originals.
Honest to god I hope somebody gouges your eye out for such an incredulous remark. "Ugly hunk of plastic!" First off the core chassis of the laptop is built on a metal frame so it doesn't warp or pop its chips. The crafted aluminum is still under patent & doesn't add that much in cost to the whole production. This is such a pointless argument. People who bought the new x86 OSX systems are buying equivalent PCs. You're welcome to pay more for perceived value but they do compare perfectly well. Don't try and claim because Apple dropped an extra 30 bucks on an aluminum shell they're uncomparable.
Unless you NEED an unlocked phone paying full price is silly. By the way there are plenty of people who buy android phones off contract. This is a marketing/sociology issue where part of the aura of apple is price. It's a luxury item & draws a certain crowd. I'm not against them, they're perfectly fine people. But I see no reason to be proud you paid more or your item has bigger profit margins. I would rather buy what I want & live my life.
I see coming out of people is disturbing. They don't want corporate control but they want state's to decide things where corporate money is easier to influence. In fact they've proven in more rural states buying the legislature or a federal seat is cheap compared to the populous states. The constitution was designed that the state's had rights to decide basic customs and rules that make sense for their populous at their time. The Federal government though was just like the government of England, it was designed to handle interstate commerce, defense of the nation, and foreign affairs. As it turns out though our founding father's didn't have the guts to put an end to slavery so they passed the buck along until it erupted and hence forth after that the Federal government has spent a large portion of it's time working to get basic human rights for all citizens.
In dealing with the media the regulations work perfectly fine if you put competition first. Back in the 1960s they had an equal time clause that forced issues to have equal amounts of time on television. It was a wonderful rule that got destroyed because it allowed for a more equitable distribution of facts. But to resort to wanting state's rights is ludicrous, it's a fool's gambit to want it because the people who do only want it because the larger Federal body isn't doing what they want. When things are going their way they'll want Federal power. Ironically state's rights have been long associated with the worst things in human history, slavery, racism, ethnocentric hatred, and corporate greed. Power has to reside somewhere and in the modern state it resides in the government. Trying to remove corporate power is far better than simply trying to deregulate.
Slashdot Mirror
You stated a ludicrous exaggeration about how Khan is a better lecturer than 90% of college professors which is just unrealistic. The guy is a bottom 3rd talker who has managed to collect the love of some people with sway. Move on you simpleton.
Declaring something somebody's opinion is the resort of a child or a fool. Find some facts and come back at me. Khan Academy and it's validity is at best a value judgment but it is still just some videos on youtube that don't replace the need for real teachers or even come close to supplanting them at all.
Good for you that you think you're a better teacher than whatever rural district you live in. I'm really seeing nothing you write as realistic or truthful, if anything you're writing a great personal support statement for your agenda and that is fine. I've worked at my current university for about 3 years and spent a little over 12 in college (sad...but I enjoyed the ride to the doctorate). Over the years the home schooled kids came and went, washing out in a bit over a year because for every well-adjusted super successful kid who did manage to be home schooled 9 failed miserably because their parents weren't competent. Of course since I teach at a smaller Tier-3 university the vast majority of students come from a 200-mile radius. Every district has successful students, every district has failures. Your indictment of public education is a joke. I'm just glad you're letting your school taxes go to teaching better people than yours.
Intel kept AMD down by signing huge discounted contracts with OEM manufacturers. That's the reality of how Intel won. The consumer had basically a plethora of names and configurations when the PC came around as a major player but 90% of on the shelf boxes were Intel inside. AMD never was able to sign a huge contract and thus was kept out of the office and shelf space. It wasn't like Intel had vastly better chips until the i-series and even now under the $220 range they aren't really that better, specially considering the average PC is using an i3 chip. It's a game of Intel leveraging vast resources and thin margins to marginalize other players. ARM manufacturers are too large to undercut substantially though and will not take Intel lying down. This medfield processor feels more inclined to be in a semi-stationary position like a light notebook or tablet rather than a mobile phone. But who knows? Maybe Intel will get it's TDP down and do dual-core running at half that wattage...
I find you a repugnant fool and your disagreement only reaffirms my stance that you have never seriously taught or attempted to. Everybody has dealt with teachers and teaching and somehow assume they naturally have knowledge on how the system works. Unless you're a certified teacher or worked in Academia past secondary schools you really are just an armchair quarterback.
I'm calling shennanigans unless your wife's university is unethical or she is miraculously a double-master's holding doctor. You're a home schooler who has found success because most likely you live in a wealthy heavily-christian supported neighborhood. It doesn't mean you won't succeed but your socio-economic status will have a greater effect on your children. Also, never use the term "common sense" because it is neither common nor sense and is merely a cover for personal motivations and cultural assumptions. It bears little weight in any argument and what you described was a perfect trade school, it showed a child a job without any deeper intellectual context and left them knowing something but not the why instead replaced with the how. It's a great method to show a child the working world but limited in making them a more well-rounded person. It's more so a side-approach to the greater understanding.
You're attempt to argue you can live on one salary is limited in that once we prioritize things we're essentially curtailing our children's ability to explore and learn by taking it upon ourselves to teach them when you (as I am certified) are not capable of teaching them on a level that a school can. Barring parents being certified teacher there is little I would trust them to teach over a teacher in a school for proper educational standards. Thus having two salaries is more attractive on a simple level.
statistically they don't. Nobody is saying they don't exist but bad teachers aren't "abound" but are a limite problem throughout society. With almost 7 distinct teaching models in the US not everyone will work for you & if a teacher specializes in only 2-3 (which is realistic) you may find them "bad" when they simply don't cater to you.
5-10K? That's for a house atleast 150K in value. The state average per student spending is around 5-6K with red states on the extreme low-end at around 3-4K. Less than half of that goes into salaries. On top of that teachers make less than their equivalently educated bretheren even accounting for pensions and benefits. So stop feeding into the republican lies and start looking at reality.
what you described is a trade school. Home schooling for the vast majority of Americans is about shielding their children from non-religious or non-shared culture individuals. So unless you have a certification from the state I doubt you're a better educator than 80% of active teachers.
Schools look like they do because they are built around the old imperial system that ended up being cost effective as public school rose. Now we're moving towards the modern continental system that promotes individualized education and support for kids. Still if you want to home school be my guest. I've watched every homeschooled kid in university fail because they weren't prepared for the rigors.
This is such an infamous argument. The value of a college-educated person in most fields off-set the losses at home. The only real forced cost is childcare. Cleaning, maitenance, and other house chores can be done in free time left over. If the median income of a college-educated person is nearly 3000 dollars take-home the cost of raising 2 kids is still less and emotionally worth more.
Do you feel morally superior for not wanting cable TV or a large flat screen? I want a pool table, a nice one is between 4-6K (before discounts). Does it make me greedy? This whole argument hinges on we are given what we deserve because calvinist ancestry in America forced it upon us. I'll say this though, it's completely untrue. We want more as people by nature. Our society is a first world nation & thus has a much higher standard of living. So unless you plan on living like a cambodian there are standards to be met.
In the social sciences the lecturer adds context. The book is a wonderful tool but without context it is a useless document. Think of HG Well's Time Machine. They had vast information but no context to put it in. That's why he stayed and became their teacher.
This is why most surveys say a classroom of 15 is optimal. But try talking a school district into either adding nearly half of their workforce or doubling it. In this economic downturn we need more education but the right-wing is consistently cutting funding in order to make way for private schools or publically-funded private schools.
You're in la-la land if you think Khan Academy is even close to 50% of the teaching base. Nothing against the program but lectures are largely an upper-class & post-secondary approach that even now is changing due to a new generation of hands-on teachers. E-readers & cloud license support will seriously help public schools curtail cost. New material will become cheaper as smaller non-traditional textbook publishers compete on better tailored books.
Now you know that is bullshit. The democrats are split between blue dogs and liberals. The republicans are split between pro-business, bigots, and the religious conservatives. Democrats are traditionally underfunded versus republicans because they aren't pro-business in the way the republicans are.
So you can either ignore reality or accept that liberalism isn't in bed with corporatism.
The famous "but two isn't enough!" Argument. Too bad two is plenty. The issue you see is when the electorate chooses not to exercise their vote and those that do vote are ill informed, self-hating, and believe that somehow BOTH sides are the cause of problems when it is clearly the pro-business/wealthy party who is sending both aides to K Street.
Because models are automatically stupid just like people who wear glasses are automatically smart? I wonder what slashdot nerds will do since they will never reproduce due to their myopic view of the female gender...
The only "function" you're paying for is iOS. For most everyday use the average user would be hard pressed to differentiate Android from iOS and most of the most popular apps are supported on both. As for "form" there are plenty of smartphones that have a similar shape and heft to an iPhone. Not as many 3.5 inch screens out there and while their "retina display" does have a rather large DPI it's a small advantage in everyday viewing. In essence the price hike is to buy into their ecosystem which is your biggest advantage. Of course if you're on android you can go into Mac's ecosystem somewhat or if you're a Windows user (about 80% of the world) you can use android in conjunction with that or Linux (about 9%). So in other words Android covers 89% of the entire PC world with it's function, Apple 11%.
It was more an exaggeration of feeling. Lord knows if I were to actually gouge your eyes out it would have to be for something more deserving than a simple value judgment rationale. First off: Actual metal? Once again, the core of every laptop EVER made is of metal to avoid flex and destroying the motherboard. Second: Better battery life? I understand the Air has a tremendous battery life but the Macbook and Pro line are just about average for equivalent models and size.
The upgrades do cost money but for half the thickness all you need to do is build a single board instead of using daughter boards like most manufacturers do so they can offer customization. In other words: If you want choice you end up with thickness. Twice the battery life is really only in the Air which is $1000 minimum, so for that amount you could easily buy a $500 model and invest in a spare battery or even two that work just as well and extend your range. I doubt you're carrying around your laptop in a manilla sleeve so the extra size and weight of a battery should be minimal. As for a "real OS" I would believe that the OSX due to it's utter lack of support for most business, science, and academic apps is lacking. It's a minority subset of the whole, dwelling somewhere in the Linux-sized territory for elites who can afford to drop twice the amount on equivalent hardware. Critical mass or not, a software community cannot be supported by a rich minority if it ever wants to blossom into a dominant OS. Thus your argument at best is weak.
Most consumer electronics that are factory refurbished end up with completely new parts simply because the parts aren't repairable in the traditional sense. They whip in a new part and solder it in. So the refurbs are as good as the originals.
Too bad our corporate culture has overrode much of society and Japan's greatest exports are reinterpetations of American culture?
Honest to god I hope somebody gouges your eye out for such an incredulous remark. "Ugly hunk of plastic!" First off the core chassis of the laptop is built on a metal frame so it doesn't warp or pop its chips. The crafted aluminum is still under patent & doesn't add that much in cost to the whole production. This is such a pointless argument. People who bought the new x86 OSX systems are buying equivalent PCs. You're welcome to pay more for perceived value but they do compare perfectly well. Don't try and claim because Apple dropped an extra 30 bucks on an aluminum shell they're uncomparable.
Unless you NEED an unlocked phone paying full price is silly. By the way there are plenty of people who buy android phones off contract. This is a marketing/sociology issue where part of the aura of apple is price. It's a luxury item & draws a certain crowd. I'm not against them, they're perfectly fine people. But I see no reason to be proud you paid more or your item has bigger profit margins. I would rather buy what I want & live my life.
I see coming out of people is disturbing. They don't want corporate control but they want state's to decide things where corporate money is easier to influence. In fact they've proven in more rural states buying the legislature or a federal seat is cheap compared to the populous states. The constitution was designed that the state's had rights to decide basic customs and rules that make sense for their populous at their time. The Federal government though was just like the government of England, it was designed to handle interstate commerce, defense of the nation, and foreign affairs. As it turns out though our founding father's didn't have the guts to put an end to slavery so they passed the buck along until it erupted and hence forth after that the Federal government has spent a large portion of it's time working to get basic human rights for all citizens.
In dealing with the media the regulations work perfectly fine if you put competition first. Back in the 1960s they had an equal time clause that forced issues to have equal amounts of time on television. It was a wonderful rule that got destroyed because it allowed for a more equitable distribution of facts. But to resort to wanting state's rights is ludicrous, it's a fool's gambit to want it because the people who do only want it because the larger Federal body isn't doing what they want. When things are going their way they'll want Federal power. Ironically state's rights have been long associated with the worst things in human history, slavery, racism, ethnocentric hatred, and corporate greed. Power has to reside somewhere and in the modern state it resides in the government. Trying to remove corporate power is far better than simply trying to deregulate.