Well of course. That's why you have to make an effort to make your tests as relevant to the real world as possible. I'd actually suggest that the existing standardized tests are pretty good: the students we are churning out of the schools can't pass them, and the students suck. If students were doing extremely well in reality, but poorly on the standardized tests, then I'll be concerned about the quality of the tests.
Well... its not hard to quantify: require that a teaching method reproducibly improve scores on some standardized tests by some % in some number of days. In other words, if it currently takes 9 months of teaching to move a kid from 4th grade level to 5th grade level on some standardized test, offer the x-prize to a method that will do the same in one month. (Of course, you'll probably want to make it x# hours of targetted instruction to allow for the fact that not all of our schooling is or should be targetted at standardized tests).
On the other hand, if a billion people were to riot in the streets because google was important to them, and they couldn't get access to it, one suspects that the censorship might be overcome entirely.
Or, if the government, unable to access google, were to become unable to keep up in efficiency with its western competitors, it might hasten the collapse of that oppressive regime.
How would you feel if your 401K (or other investments) lost half of their value because the companies in your portfolio were being "socially resoponsible?
I'd be so glad to be living in that better world. Of course, I'm already living in that world since I invest all of my 401k and other investments are in investments with stated social interest policies.
Long term or short term shareholder value? What will those google shares be worth when the company is brought up on human rights violations and told to pay penalties like all the now bankrupt insurance companies who sold insurance to jews in WWII? Did that action maximize shareholder value in the short run: yes. In the long run: no.
Somehow it always reassures me when one of these 'big myths' stories comes out, and I'm not wrong on any of them. Are these really widespread?
1. Few people actually saw the Challenger tragedy unfold live on television.
Well I did. I was one of the school children in that program.
2. The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word.
Well duhh, read the details. I'm sure to most of us 'challenger' meant the whole package, and there was a rather large fireball involved, which in the common definition of the word would qualify as an explosion
3. The flight, and the astronauts' lives, did not end at that point, 73 seconds after launch.
The facts are just unclear.
4. The design of the booster, while possessing flaws subject to improvement, was neither especially dangerous if operated properly, nor the result of political interference.
Though the flaws subject to improvement would likely have been fixed if not for political interference (or beurocracy as you prefer).
5. Replacement of the original asbestos-bearing putty in the booster seals was unrelated to the failure.
Who thought this?
6. There were pressures on the flight schedule, but none of any recognizable political origin.
Except of course for the whole 'teacher in space' deal.
7. Claims that the disaster was the unavoidable price to be paid for pioneering a new frontier were self-serving rationalizations on the part of those responsible for incompetent engineering management -- the disaster should have been avoidable.
Which of course runs counter to his previous claim that political interference had no impact.
That part is great, but you're lucky if they've stopped calling you. I have several that call me every couple of weeks now. Do I know anybody looking? Am I looking again yet? They know this great candidate, do we have any more openings?
The easy answer is this: some access to google reduces the motivations to overthrow an oppressive regime, and provides not insubstantial support for that regime to continue to function. By refusing to participate at all with the chinese market Google would far better serve the interests of the Chinese people in the long run.
This is surely pointed out all over the place, but running a slave warehouse in a country in which slavery is legal is not the same thing as doing right. Doing right is refusing to participate or engage in commerce with those involved in evil practices.
The problem is that the laws in place do close to nothing for victims of spousal abuse. Spend some time volunteering for a spousal abuse group. Hear some of the stories. It's terrible how cops and the courts treat women in this situation. If this was completely fixed, then you might have an argument for making such a law, but you clearly have to fix this problem first.
Also, what if the fetus bears no ties to the husband (ie the sperm came from another man)? Why should the husband get a notification? You wouldn't get a notification if your wife went in for any other sort of surgical procedure, what makes this one special that you should get notified?
You put yourself in the wrong other shoes. The right other shoes are the shoes of the severely abused woman too afraid to leave her husband or to go to a court to seek an exception. Terrified of the abuse she and her baby will experience at the hands of her husband, she decides to get an abortion.
In her shoes, do you find it reasonable to be legally required to notify your husband?
Otherwise, I agreed with everything in your post.
And for 2008, I doubt either Condi or Clinton will make it through the primaries. Everyone says I'm insane to think so, but we'll see (and I leave this post as proof of my prediction).
Yeah, I have to agree, flamebait is off. Who was I baiting? The democrats I slighted or the republicans I slighted? I think both were deserving, but the post was merely intended to inform not to bait.
Yes, unfortunately with abortion in particular, I think both sides are at least trying to take a morally defensible position. With most of the other issues, unfortunately, it's all greed/intolerance/ignorance as the motivators.
Frankly, with abortion, I think medical science is going to resolve the issue for us in about 30 years (maybe less), certainly before the issue can be solved by the partisan debate. Every woman will have the right to evict a baby from her womb at any time, and that baby will have the right to the best medical care available during and after the procedure, which will essentially mean that any woman who wants not to carry a baby to term will have the baby transferred to an artificial womb, with the costs born by the state. She'll give up all parental rights by doing so, and the resulting baby will have no legal connection with her whatsoever.
Heh heh. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many Republicans who will agree to your health care premises. Most of them feel that the status quo is just fine, that people with money should have access to better care than those without.
Wow, that's interesting. I'd have been happy to tell you where kerry was wrong. Actually, 5 areas might have been pushing it, since he was so wishy washy on so many issues. Still, I figured he'd be better than bush, and i'm pretty well convinced by the outcome.
Yes, allow me to clarify. I think people actually being motivated by pure evil is relatively rare. What is unfortunately common is individuals motivated by intolerance, ignorance, and greed, who wind up advocating for and supporting evil outcomes. The ignorance has a pretty good case for not being an evil motivation, though it becomes hard to excuse when there are so many opportunities to learn in this world, particularly among the demographic I tend to see the highest incidence of it in. Intolerance tends to be learned in the family life, so there is some excuse for this as well, though it doesn't earn a full excuse since again there are so many opportunities to learn better. And finally there is greed, which is an unfortunate part of our baser nature. Still, resisting greed is an important part of being good, and so I can't fully excuse those motivated by it either. So all in all, though I think few people are motivated by pure evil, I do think far too many people are ruled by motivations from the more evil side of life.
Ahh, that was definitely what I was after. More noise about Condorcet voting is a good thing (though I tend to agree that it is unlikely we'll see it til after our current government collapses)!
Yes, having very little government pass was exactly my idea. I tend to think we only need government when the people pretty much agree that we need it.
And don't you think that is pretty much how every senator did in fact vote? I know mine did. Alito was a polarizing figure for the people as well as the senators.
The real problem with the 3rd parties is how crazy they are. I don't want those people getting into a position of any power. What i'd love to see would be a republican-lite party, without any of the religious issues (ditch all of the abortion, gay, and hippy worries). Just business/tax emphasis. Frankly, I'd vote republican (for limited government) were it not for the risk that i'd get Christianity assigned as my religion the day after. So I vote Democrat, as they are the least objectionable of the remaining parties.
I think you're wrong about most people. I think most have looked at the opposing position, considered it, tried to reason with it, and ultimately given up. You can only hold a dialogue with an evil opponent for so long before giving up in frustration, and frankly you are right to do so, as your time is probably more effectively spent trying to rally your cause rather than trying to convert the other side. And when you're fighting against evil, effective really matters.
Slashdot Mirror
Well of course. That's why you have to make an effort to make your tests as relevant to the real world as possible. I'd actually suggest that the existing standardized tests are pretty good: the students we are churning out of the schools can't pass them, and the students suck. If students were doing extremely well in reality, but poorly on the standardized tests, then I'll be concerned about the quality of the tests.
Well ... its not hard to quantify: require that a teaching method reproducibly improve scores on some standardized tests by some % in some number of days. In other words, if it currently takes 9 months of teaching to move a kid from 4th grade level to 5th grade level on some standardized test, offer the x-prize to a method that will do the same in one month. (Of course, you'll probably want to make it x# hours of targetted instruction to allow for the fact that not all of our schooling is or should be targetted at standardized tests).
On the other hand, if a billion people were to riot in the streets because google was important to them, and they couldn't get access to it, one suspects that the censorship might be overcome entirely.
Or, if the government, unable to access google, were to become unable to keep up in efficiency with its western competitors, it might hasten the collapse of that oppressive regime.
Hmm, I can't find any. But maybe that's because I checked before I bought them.
How would you feel if your 401K (or other investments) lost half of their value because the companies in your portfolio were being "socially resoponsible?
I'd be so glad to be living in that better world. Of course, I'm already living in that world since I invest all of my 401k and other investments are in investments with stated social interest policies.
Long term or short term shareholder value? What will those google shares be worth when the company is brought up on human rights violations and told to pay penalties like all the now bankrupt insurance companies who sold insurance to jews in WWII? Did that action maximize shareholder value in the short run: yes. In the long run: no.
Somehow it always reassures me when one of these 'big myths' stories comes out, and I'm not wrong on any of them. Are these really widespread?
1. Few people actually saw the Challenger tragedy unfold live on television.
Well I did. I was one of the school children in that program.
2. The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word.
Well duhh, read the details. I'm sure to most of us 'challenger' meant the whole package, and there was a rather large fireball involved, which in the common definition of the word would qualify as an explosion
3. The flight, and the astronauts' lives, did not end at that point, 73 seconds after launch.
The facts are just unclear.
4. The design of the booster, while possessing flaws subject to improvement, was neither especially dangerous if operated properly, nor the result of political interference.
Though the flaws subject to improvement would likely have been fixed if not for political interference (or beurocracy as you prefer).
5. Replacement of the original asbestos-bearing putty in the booster seals was unrelated to the failure.
Who thought this?
6. There were pressures on the flight schedule, but none of any recognizable political origin.
Except of course for the whole 'teacher in space' deal.
7. Claims that the disaster was the unavoidable price to be paid for pioneering a new frontier were self-serving rationalizations on the part of those responsible for incompetent engineering management -- the disaster should have been avoidable.
Which of course runs counter to his previous claim that political interference had no impact.
All in all, what a crap article.
That part is great, but you're lucky if they've stopped calling you. I have several that call me every couple of weeks now. Do I know anybody looking? Am I looking again yet? They know this great candidate, do we have any more openings?
It gets irritating.
The easy answer is this: some access to google reduces the motivations to overthrow an oppressive regime, and provides not insubstantial support for that regime to continue to function. By refusing to participate at all with the chinese market Google would far better serve the interests of the Chinese people in the long run.
This is surely pointed out all over the place, but running a slave warehouse in a country in which slavery is legal is not the same thing as doing right. Doing right is refusing to participate or engage in commerce with those involved in evil practices.
Incidentally no SUVs, chemical plants, aerosol cans or overclocked processors were found at the scene.
Well duhh. They melted.
The problem is that the laws in place do close to nothing for victims of spousal abuse. Spend some time volunteering for a spousal abuse group. Hear some of the stories. It's terrible how cops and the courts treat women in this situation. If this was completely fixed, then you might have an argument for making such a law, but you clearly have to fix this problem first.
Also, what if the fetus bears no ties to the husband (ie the sperm came from another man)? Why should the husband get a notification? You wouldn't get a notification if your wife went in for any other sort of surgical procedure, what makes this one special that you should get notified?
You put yourself in the wrong other shoes. The right other shoes are the shoes of the severely abused woman too afraid to leave her husband or to go to a court to seek an exception. Terrified of the abuse she and her baby will experience at the hands of her husband, she decides to get an abortion.
In her shoes, do you find it reasonable to be legally required to notify your husband?
Otherwise, I agreed with everything in your post.
And for 2008, I doubt either Condi or Clinton will make it through the primaries. Everyone says I'm insane to think so, but we'll see (and I leave this post as proof of my prediction).
Yeah, I have to agree, flamebait is off. Who was I baiting? The democrats I slighted or the republicans I slighted? I think both were deserving, but the post was merely intended to inform not to bait.
Yes, unfortunately with abortion in particular, I think both sides are at least trying to take a morally defensible position. With most of the other issues, unfortunately, it's all greed/intolerance/ignorance as the motivators.
Frankly, with abortion, I think medical science is going to resolve the issue for us in about 30 years (maybe less), certainly before the issue can be solved by the partisan debate. Every woman will have the right to evict a baby from her womb at any time, and that baby will have the right to the best medical care available during and after the procedure, which will essentially mean that any woman who wants not to carry a baby to term will have the baby transferred to an artificial womb, with the costs born by the state. She'll give up all parental rights by doing so, and the resulting baby will have no legal connection with her whatsoever.
Heh heh. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many Republicans who will agree to your health care premises. Most of them feel that the status quo is just fine, that people with money should have access to better care than those without.
Wow, that's interesting. I'd have been happy to tell you where kerry was wrong. Actually, 5 areas might have been pushing it, since he was so wishy washy on so many issues. Still, I figured he'd be better than bush, and i'm pretty well convinced by the outcome.
Yes, allow me to clarify. I think people actually being motivated by pure evil is relatively rare. What is unfortunately common is individuals motivated by intolerance, ignorance, and greed, who wind up advocating for and supporting evil outcomes. The ignorance has a pretty good case for not being an evil motivation, though it becomes hard to excuse when there are so many opportunities to learn in this world, particularly among the demographic I tend to see the highest incidence of it in. Intolerance tends to be learned in the family life, so there is some excuse for this as well, though it doesn't earn a full excuse since again there are so many opportunities to learn better. And finally there is greed, which is an unfortunate part of our baser nature. Still, resisting greed is an important part of being good, and so I can't fully excuse those motivated by it either. So all in all, though I think few people are motivated by pure evil, I do think far too many people are ruled by motivations from the more evil side of life.
Ahh, that was definitely what I was after. More noise about Condorcet voting is a good thing (though I tend to agree that it is unlikely we'll see it til after our current government collapses)!
Well, if you have a cheap, safe way to induce whale vomitting, let's hear about it.
Sorry if I was unclear, I was curious about what position you specifically were advocating.
Yes, having very little government pass was exactly my idea. I tend to think we only need government when the people pretty much agree that we need it.
And don't you think that is pretty much how every senator did in fact vote? I know mine did. Alito was a polarizing figure for the people as well as the senators.
The real problem with the 3rd parties is how crazy they are. I don't want those people getting into a position of any power. What i'd love to see would be a republican-lite party, without any of the religious issues (ditch all of the abortion, gay, and hippy worries). Just business/tax emphasis. Frankly, I'd vote republican (for limited government) were it not for the risk that i'd get Christianity assigned as my religion the day after. So I vote Democrat, as they are the least objectionable of the remaining parties.
As an aside, when advocating for a truth that you claim most people to be ignorant of, it can be helpful to expound upon it.
I think you're wrong about most people. I think most have looked at the opposing position, considered it, tried to reason with it, and ultimately given up. You can only hold a dialogue with an evil opponent for so long before giving up in frustration, and frankly you are right to do so, as your time is probably more effectively spent trying to rally your cause rather than trying to convert the other side. And when you're fighting against evil, effective really matters.