> You are getting some good exercise jumping to conclusions.
Your original statement didn't cover married heterosexual couples, but decrying the loss of the two-parent family with gloom-and-doom comments about society at large makes it obvious that the direction you choose involves exactly that. That's not jumping, trooper.
> Whether you like it or not, the human species happens to come in two flavors, male and female. Therefore is it so unreasonable to say that children require the input and discipline from both sexes as well?
Yeah, actually it is unreasonable. The reason is that it's not logically proven that the existence of two genders has any real impact on input and discipline.
> Historically, the marriage relationship between one male and one female has provided the best working model we know.
If you really want to get picky, the most successful model has been small clans, not single families. The marriage relationship has worked well for establishing paternity and maintaining social strata, but the family where a relatively large number of people participate in community is what works best. This is where the statement "It takes a village to raise a child" comes from.
> It is best if the male AND female involved are the mother and father, but it could also be grandparents or aunt and uncle.
See above. It seems you're agreeing with me here, and that means you're contradicting yourself.
> The point is, children need stable, loving input from a male and a female.
It's good you distilled it so. Now, I can say directly that I disagree with it. As I said before, children need stable, loving input. You haven't added anything to the discussion to convince me that it matters what gender that input entails, or that having one's biological mother and father at hand is any better than having one or the other or one or two or more unrelated people around, given an equal amount of attention and care. Considering that you haven't even rationally shown that role models of both genders is a necessity (with which I tend to disagree), what you derive from that doesn't even follow from your own assumptions. Going from "Therefore is it so unreasonable to say that children require the input and discipline from both sexes as well?" to "It is best if the male AND female involved are the mother and father..." is a logical misstep. If the importance is in having role models from each gender, why does it matter whether it's mom and dad that do the modelling? And more to the point, why isn't it better to have multiple role models from each gender? Said another way, I see no reason why "three men and a baby" is somehow worse than mom and dad, assuming all of the adults have comparable levels of concern and attention to give. If you're worried about gender role models, it's not like a child will grow up with no contact from any adult of the opposite gender from the caregiver(s). If that role model is bad, then that's a problem, but then if mom or dad is a bad role model the same is true.
> Part of the problem now is that a lot of schools think that students have to have computers and such in the classroom to learn. Unless you are teaching a computer based course, this is nonsense. If schools used some of that money to pay for better teachers, they would probably have a better return on investment.
I disagree. Firstly, computers for school use aren't all that expensive, so it's not likely you'd get much bang for that buck elsewhere. For 100 computers at US$500.00 each, you could pay one teacher for one year, realistically. That's not very worthwhile against having the computers to use for learning.
Another problem is in hiring "better" teachers. Because of tenure and teacher's unions, you can hire more teachers but it's very hard to hire "better" teachers only, because most teachers' unions fight hard against merit-based pay. To pay any teacher more, you have to pay all of them more, so your money goes fast in that regard. Your idea would work well if only hiring teachers was like a business, but it's not so your idea falls down.
> I do not have children, and I have not been in pre/middle/high school for a long time, so I am probably out of touch with the real issues. However, I completed a college prep curriculum without ever having a teacher use more than a text book, chalk, and a black-board. (OK, we had chemistry labs too...)
Egad, what dull classes you must have had. Even with no budget, it's not that hard to do better than this. I personally would have done badly in such a prep course, despite being able to handle the material very well because I'd have been so bored by the format that I would never have picked up the learning. This is one of the problems with a "one size fits all" teaching method to begin with.
> I cringe when I hear that district x is in deep crap because they don't have enough computers for their kids. Huh? Since when does a solid college prep education require technology beyond a pad and pencil?
Well, since computers became such a large factor in the world at large. One of the things beyond a pad and pencil that makes for a solid college prep education is a well-stocked library. It's tough to justify pouring the massive amounts of money into having copies of most reference materials in paper, on hand when the same stuff is available online for a small fraction of the cost. Accessing that material requires computers and training in their use. Also, using computers is a skill itself, and one that is quickly becoming a requirement in a large range of jobs. Who would hire an editor or bookkeeper or secretary who wasn't comfortable using a computer? Get as nostalgic as you like, but it's foolish not to try to get computers in the classroom.
> Personally, I think fewer, but more focused classes would relieve the students from having to burn calories/time in the "boring" non-essential classes until they are actually interested in them--(say, in college).
This is a dangerous path to walk. The biggest problem with avoiding the "boring, non-essential" classes is twofold. First, you have no idea what's boring or non-essential for any student. Some kids aren't going to care about chemistry. Some will make their living with it. How do you know which is which? The second part of the problem amplifies the first. If a kid doesn't ever get exposure to chemistry, how is he supposed to know if it's boring or exciting? Hoping he'll stumble on it on his own will mean that vast numbers of students will never get exposure to stuff that might interest them. If one never learns calculus, most of the field of physics is inapproachable. If calculus isn't part of the curriculum, nobody who doesn't force through it on their own will even know about the physics. Having had no contact with the field, what young adult is going to want to take college courses (for which they have to pay) to find out what they might like? How will someone who can't afford college ever get to this stuff at all?
Another part of this is is teacher specialization. If you remove most of the "non-essential" stuff, you don't need a very tight specialization to teach high school level courses. One doesn't need a PhD to teach pre-calculus mathematics, nor English at the high school level. You didn't specify what courses you'd remove and which you'd keep, but I couldn't come up with any high school course that requires an extreme amount of learning to teach. Perhaps you could inform me on that.
> One other thing that might help: Guest teachers from industry. I would certainly consider teaching a science or math class once-and-a-while if my employer was flexible enough to let me.
I very much agree with the concept, but the problem that comes up quite often when the ideal intersects with the real world is that a lot of industry leaders aren't very good teachers. I've run into more than my fair share of PhD economists who can't adequately explain profit maximization price points to someone with no
> It doesn't take a village to raise a child, but it does take a mother AND a father.
Sorry, but you're pitching crap with a shovel. Your myopic view of childrearing doesn't intersect with reality.
> Any child that doesn't get loving care and discipline from a mom AND a dad will be at a disadvantage over one that does, not matter how much tax money is thrown into so called "education".
You can drop the "..from a mom AND a dad" from your sentence, and then it'd be right. Children who have consistent discipline, love and concerned caregivers will always do better than those who don't, but I've never seen anything to indicate that one man and one woman is any better combination than any other possible mix.
> Without an intact family, everything else falls apart, mark my words.
I will only mark your words to the point where I find that your definition of "family" is broken, since you seem to think that the only "family" that counts is a married heterosexual couple.
> Well, I do think teachers should be parents, in the sense that they need to be authority figures, maintain control of the children, and give them positive direction.
I agree wholeheartedly.
> The problem is that teachers have been stripped of most of the tools for discipline.
Number one, I can see where this is going. And number two, consider who's stripping those rights. More on that in a minute.
> Sometimes a kid just needs a good whack on the backside.
I knew this was your end statement. It's depressing how the comment that teachers don't have effective discipline tools always degenerates to corporal punishment. I disagree. I don't think that my child ever needs a good whack on the backside, for any reason. I've never had any (insurmountable) difficulty keeping discipline with my kids, and I don't hit them. Therefore, his teachers shouldn't be doing it either.
> Private schools still have their problems, to be sure, and obviously a teenager doesn't need a spanking, but if it's done when the kids are still in elementary school, it makes for better-behaved teenagers.
Prove it. Nobody with any credibility has managed to do it yet.
> 'm not saying that hitting a kid is always a solution either, but my kid's in kindergarten, and if he starts whining about something, the teacher calls US! While it's ridiculous -- I can't just leave work to tell my kid to shut up and sit down -- the teacher isn't allowed to do anything that might damage the child's self esteem, or to spank, obviously. That means they can't even tell him to go stand in timeout, because it's "embarrassing." The only thing they can do is send kids to the principal, and obviously they're reluctant to do that because it reflects poorly on them, for the reasons you stated.
See, here's the part where it burns me to listen to all of the people jumping about how teachers need to have more "tools" to be effective in disciplining children. The tools are the parents' to give. In the parent poster's example, the failing is with the parent. To counter it, try this. When your child's teacher calls you, tell that teacher to sit your child in time-out. Tell that teacher you'll back them up with the administration about it. When the principal comes down on the teacher, actually get off your butt, go there and make good on that promise. If you side with the teacher, the principal will ease up (since the principal is concerned with CYA and your permission clears that hurdle), the teacher gets the tool to use to maintain discipline with your kid, and your kid sees that the teacher has your backing to do it, so they're not going to get away with the "you're not my mommy/daddy!" arguments. The reason so many teachers and administrators are gun-shy is because too many people talk like you do but they don't back it up with their actions, so everyone loses. Step up to the plate and you'll find yourself surprised at how most (not all, but most) schools will work with you.
> Teachers need to be given more respect, and latitude. Sure, some will abuse their power, but they're likely to abuse it anyway, so banning disciplinary tools only exacerbates the problem.
Again, it lies with the parents to solve it. Do your part, then talk about whether it works. Give them the latitude with your own kid. I'll handle giving them latitude with mine, if you please.
> It seems to me that there is no disadvantage in putting money in a sports program if it makes money. The money sports makes can be used to subsidize education, right?
I agree, but virtually no high school level sports teams make money over the cost of the program. Therefore, most such programs are a net loss for the district at large. While I very much believe that sports programs need to have a place in secondary schools, in many schools they take an inordinately large portion of the budget.
> What's wrong with capitalism anyway?
It's very unbalanced, and therefore not usually a good fit for education. Using capitalism to fund schools has shown in the past that well funded schools do well, and schools in underprivileged areas get screwed. In a country where schooling is mandated by law, the government must take on some responsibility for financing that schooling. Making school sports programs "pay the way", even in part, for the school just leads to an excessive emphasis on the sports program, to the detriment of other parts of the school program that are just as important but not as profitable.
I have found one situation in which a dress code for a public school works. Most trade schools have fairly strict dress codes, and they include long hair and other such things, due to safety reasons (like getting tangled in machines). So, for the public at large I agree, but be careful that your statement about absurdity addresses situations where the code makes sense.
> A lot of places I visit have a fair amount of hispanic workers. They seem to have twice the drive and work output of the equivalent native.
Although it's not obvious at first, this does stand to reason. See, the immigrants were motivated enough to move to America looking for an opportunity. Most of the lazy Mexicans are still, well, in Mexico. When someone who is willing to move so far to find work comes up against someone who lives here and is flipping burgers because he's not skilled for something else, it's likely the immigrant will measure up stronger.
> Anakin is the real story of 1-6 and that is one of the reasons that 1-3 failed for me. They don't really show the tragic hero that he was supposed to be, Anakin was f'ing evil, I fail to see how saving his son somehow redeems him of the billions of people he has murdered.
Well, the simple fact of that is that saving his son wasn't the act of redmption, nor was his redemption enough to forgive the crimes he'd committed. The act of redemption was Luke saving Anakin, by finally getting him to turn against his Sith master and give up the Dark Side. Vader's death became inevitable at that point, but his ability to come back from evil and do the right thing in the clutch was the real redemption. The fact that his love for his son was the catalyst is the irony of the whole thing, in that the thing that made him fall (being in love) was also what eventually redeemed him. His death was the symbolic price he paid for what he did.
> The first time you see the original trilogy, it's about Luke. The second time, it's about Anakin.
I fell into this realization myself, and it really does add to the feel of the story. 4-6 are the story of Luke Skywalker, but 1-6 is really the story of Anakin, and seen in that light (and having seen the movies in release order) it's an interesting change of perspective. Without the first three, it's impossible to see the story of Anakin through Luke's experiences, because Vader seems to be the antagonist when the real evil in the story is Palpatine. Going back to watch them in numbered order is a good way to watch that progression, although as the original article demonstrates, the first three almost assume knowledge of the last three so for a "Star Wars virgin" it's not the best way.
I'll concur that that best way to see them for the first time is 4,5,1,2,3,6. That does really preserve the best plot twists while still allowing the final confrontation and Vader's redemption to have its full effect. The only plot twist that gets pre-revealed by this order is Luke figuring out that Leia is his sister, and that's not a big surprise by the time it gets revealed in episode 6.
> Something that always bothered me was how Kenobi (in Jedi, I think) tells Luke about Anakin was already a great pilot when they met ("the best star pilot in the galaxy") -- that even then he detected that the force was very strong in him. Yet, in Phantom Anakin is a child, not a star pilot, and here comes Qui-Gon discovering Anakin and setting out to train him. Very incoherent.
Remember that Obi-Wan is good at Jedi doublespeak (note how he explains "Vader betrayed and murdered your father" in ESB). While he met Anakin as a boy, also note that Anakin was widely known as the only human capable of competing in a podrace, and it may have been that Obi-Wan was commenting on his ability to see the potential in Anakin as a pilot. That is, he may have simply said that he was the best pilot when he was really commenting that he could tell that he would grow into the greatest star pilot. And yes, I know this is stretching, but at least it's in character for Obi-Wan.
Also, the comment of the Force being strong with him may have been Obi-Wan's foreknowledge of the kid's mitichlorean count which Qui-Gon had mentioned before Obi-Wan and Anakin first physically met each other. Since he already knew that Anakin was crawling in Force, he would be more likely to try to sense it (and more likely to succeed).
> True, plus it makes no sense for yoda to go from being 880 years and fit as a fiddle to 900 and dying, though I've always told myself this was just because Yoda felt bad for fucking up so bad and decided he was done after helping Luke to fix Yoda's mess. Mostly though he was a pretty ludicrous character to have serving as a general -- it didn't fit his V/VI persona at all.
While I'm no Lucas apologist by any means, this particular change isn't hard to explain away at all. Just a few ideas right off the top of my head, which show how easy it is to justify:
1.) Yoda drew some or most of his power from the Jedi order. When they all died, it took away a lot of his ability to support himself with the Force. You could also spin this to him drawing his power directly from the Jedi temple, but that would be much cheesier.
2.) As you said, but differently, the death of his friends and way of life demoralized him to the point where he decided (literally in his case) to give up the ghost, and only stuck around until he could train up the next torchbearer of the Jedi ways.
3.) He "went philosophical" upon seeing that "bringing balance to the Force" meant that the old order needed to be swept away. Perhaps in his soul searching after the betrayal, he decided that having too many Jedi would also increase the power of the Sith, so he wisely decided to fade away so that the Force would allow the Emperor to be removed to "square the scale".
Now I realize that each of these choices has flaws to be worked out, but they're all off-the-cuff. In the light that it's so easy to come up with possible answers you can't really say that Yoda's collapse after the fall of the Jedi order is incongruous.
I agree that even the forward-thinking can sometimes fail to think forward, but if you're going to put quotes around an attributed statement then you must be sure you quote exactly. The problem is that the actual quote can't ever be pinned down, so it's not proper to attribute it to him as a direct quote. See this link for more information.
That said, I think Mr. Allchin is treading dangerous ground. Even with lockdowns, exploits are a moving target, and when users can get infected by a malicious banner ad found on a popular commercial site it's bad karma to say that you can be confident that nothing will ever get in. Running AV software is a pain, but it does have the advantage that the company stays up to date on new threats so they might build in an update that fixes a problem you've never encountered before it starts attacking you.
Nope, you blew the analogy, due to the use of "my lawn". I seriously doubt you offer your lawn to the general public for use. Therefore, Verizon is in a different category of property than your lawn is. They're not allowed to censor like you can on your private property, because they offer their property for public use, much like the local shopping mall, and therefore they get privileges that you don't (like protection from liability and other legal advantages). That comes with added limitations on what they can do, and censorship is one of those limitations.
> A URL will return whatever the web server wants to give you.
I'll yield that the web server configuration is the final word, but I was talking about default behavior (and I did comment "in a perfect world" in describing it). My point was that the ending slash is not always necessary nor is it always correct.
Also, having a trailing slash after the host name is part of the spec, but most browsers will fill in if you leave it off. Not related to spec, but something to note when someone finds out they don't need to type it.
On an unrelated note, Cowboyneal comments that access to/. should be http://slashdot.org/ (which I only point out since adding the www. got me in trouble back a few years ago and I wanted to save anyone else the headache).
> Actually, a correct URL is supposed to include the / at the end.
Not always. the URL ending in / is suppoed to mean "go to the directory shown and display index.html", so http://slashdot.org/ and http://slashdot.org/index.html are (in a perfect world) equivalent. That doesn't mean that the second is wrong, though, and in the case of the link provided for the gallery, it's the full name of the file, so it's a valid hyperlink.
The point to consider is that part where he said she swears she's on the pill. In the case where she's not, then your patch will prevent her showing up with a baby that matches your DNA.
> Unfortunately the rest of the world disagrees with you.
The part you're responding to is, "His point is that the cost of the vanity items is far out of line with what they do, and it was so unrealistic that it was an affront to common sense." I've done the favor of highlighting the part that's important here. I don't actually agree with him in that, but the parent to my post is attacking the wrong target.
The salient point is simply that I think the parent to my post is wrong to say that complaining about the price is stupid. One must consider that this guy's bitching (along with the others who fell into this pit) has some nonzero chance of actually changing the point cost of some of the baubles, so even if we think he was dumb to buy in before he knew the score, he's not completely off his nut to complain about it.
While I found the jajah site to be nearly incomprehensible, I did get the gist of it, and what you describe is not how it works. What you described would be a criminal offense in the U.S.. The way the service works is that you give it two numbers, and jajah calls your number, then calls the other number, then connects you with the other caller using VOIP. Charges are not sent from one phone to another, and to use it for more than a five minute test, you need to register (and assumably pay for) an account for continued usage.
> As far as I'm concerned, the article invalidated it's own point and yours.
Firstly, since the article is an opinion, it's not invalidated by disagreement. Second, my point is that the only proper target for complaints about WoW is Blizzard. Since this guy is grousing to Blizzard about the "values" oif the items, he's taking proper recourse.
> It's like complaining to McDonalds that their Happy Meal toy costs the price of a Happy Meal.
Why would that be inappropriate? Sure, it's likely that McDonald's will tell you that you're getting the Happy Meal too, but still they're the ones that should field complaints about Happy Meals. I agree that it was dumb to assume things about the points in the card packs. That wasn't my point, though. My point is that he should complain to Blizzard about it, where the parent of my post stated, "I'm not sure that having one's un-researched expectations shattered by reality is something that warrants casting blame on the manufacturer." That's not right. Shattering a preconceived notion is something to take up with a manufacturer.
> Welcome to the internet Virg. Bring along a sense of humor next time you visit.
Nice thought, but you didn't do anything humorous. You didn't even attempt to make a joke at my expense, which I'd have just eaten due to being wrong. You just acted like a dick for no purpose at all. I'm sure it doesn't break your heart that your lack of decorum annoyed me, but perhaps you'll learn something here. If not, I've lost nothing, but if so, you might be more pleasant to be around in the future, so I figured it's worth a shot.
> So the writer of this article is upset that vanity items cost too much?
Not exactly his point. His point is that the cost of the vanity items is far out of line with what they do, and it was so unrealistic that it was an affront to common sense.
> I'm not sure that
having one's un-researched expectations shattered by reality is something that warrants
casting blame on the manufacturer.
Considering the venue I'd say that the only appropriate target for complaint is the manufacturer. Since complaining might (assuming enough complaints) get the manufacturer to drop the cost of the items, that's proper recourse. If lawsuits were involved I'd say it went too far, but expressing displeasure to the game maker for something like this is entirely proper.
I stand corrected. I was working with older information. Now, since I did specify that it was a minor point, you might consider being more polite in the future, especially considering I didn't insult you directly. Instead of thinking more of you, I think less of you, even though you were right.
Slashdot Mirror
> You are getting some good exercise jumping to conclusions.
Your original statement didn't cover married heterosexual couples, but decrying the loss of the two-parent family with gloom-and-doom comments about society at large makes it obvious that the direction you choose involves exactly that. That's not jumping, trooper.
> Whether you like it or not, the human species happens to come in two flavors, male and female. Therefore is it so unreasonable to say that children require the input and discipline from both sexes as well?
Yeah, actually it is unreasonable. The reason is that it's not logically proven that the existence of two genders has any real impact on input and discipline.
> Historically, the marriage relationship between one male and one female has provided the best working model we know.
If you really want to get picky, the most successful model has been small clans, not single families. The marriage relationship has worked well for establishing paternity and maintaining social strata, but the family where a relatively large number of people participate in community is what works best. This is where the statement "It takes a village to raise a child" comes from.
> It is best if the male AND female involved are the mother and father, but it could also be grandparents or aunt and uncle.
See above. It seems you're agreeing with me here, and that means you're contradicting yourself.
> The point is, children need stable, loving input from a male and a female.
It's good you distilled it so. Now, I can say directly that I disagree with it. As I said before, children need stable, loving input. You haven't added anything to the discussion to convince me that it matters what gender that input entails, or that having one's biological mother and father at hand is any better than having one or the other or one or two or more unrelated people around, given an equal amount of attention and care. Considering that you haven't even rationally shown that role models of both genders is a necessity (with which I tend to disagree), what you derive from that doesn't even follow from your own assumptions. Going from "Therefore is it so unreasonable to say that children require the input and discipline from both sexes as well?" to "It is best if the male AND female involved are the mother and father..." is a logical misstep. If the importance is in having role models from each gender, why does it matter whether it's mom and dad that do the modelling? And more to the point, why isn't it better to have multiple role models from each gender? Said another way, I see no reason why "three men and a baby" is somehow worse than mom and dad, assuming all of the adults have comparable levels of concern and attention to give. If you're worried about gender role models, it's not like a child will grow up with no contact from any adult of the opposite gender from the caregiver(s). If that role model is bad, then that's a problem, but then if mom or dad is a bad role model the same is true.
Virg
> Part of the problem now is that a lot of schools think that students have to have computers and such in the classroom to learn. Unless you are teaching a computer based course, this is nonsense. If schools used some of that money to pay for better teachers, they would probably have a better return on investment.
I disagree. Firstly, computers for school use aren't all that expensive, so it's not likely you'd get much bang for that buck elsewhere. For 100 computers at US$500.00 each, you could pay one teacher for one year, realistically. That's not very worthwhile against having the computers to use for learning.
Another problem is in hiring "better" teachers. Because of tenure and teacher's unions, you can hire more teachers but it's very hard to hire "better" teachers only, because most teachers' unions fight hard against merit-based pay. To pay any teacher more, you have to pay all of them more, so your money goes fast in that regard. Your idea would work well if only hiring teachers was like a business, but it's not so your idea falls down.
Virg
I have a few replies to your replies.
> I do not have children, and I have not been in pre/middle/high school for a long time, so I am probably out of touch with the real issues. However, I completed a college prep curriculum without ever having a teacher use more than a text book, chalk, and a black-board. (OK, we had chemistry labs too...)
Egad, what dull classes you must have had. Even with no budget, it's not that hard to do better than this. I personally would have done badly in such a prep course, despite being able to handle the material very well because I'd have been so bored by the format that I would never have picked up the learning. This is one of the problems with a "one size fits all" teaching method to begin with.
> I cringe when I hear that district x is in deep crap because they don't have enough computers for their kids. Huh? Since when does a solid college prep education require technology beyond a pad and pencil?
Well, since computers became such a large factor in the world at large. One of the things beyond a pad and pencil that makes for a solid college prep education is a well-stocked library. It's tough to justify pouring the massive amounts of money into having copies of most reference materials in paper, on hand when the same stuff is available online for a small fraction of the cost. Accessing that material requires computers and training in their use. Also, using computers is a skill itself, and one that is quickly becoming a requirement in a large range of jobs. Who would hire an editor or bookkeeper or secretary who wasn't comfortable using a computer? Get as nostalgic as you like, but it's foolish not to try to get computers in the classroom.
> Personally, I think fewer, but more focused classes would relieve the students from having to burn calories/time in the "boring" non-essential classes until they are actually interested in them--(say, in college).
This is a dangerous path to walk. The biggest problem with avoiding the "boring, non-essential" classes is twofold. First, you have no idea what's boring or non-essential for any student. Some kids aren't going to care about chemistry. Some will make their living with it. How do you know which is which? The second part of the problem amplifies the first. If a kid doesn't ever get exposure to chemistry, how is he supposed to know if it's boring or exciting? Hoping he'll stumble on it on his own will mean that vast numbers of students will never get exposure to stuff that might interest them. If one never learns calculus, most of the field of physics is inapproachable. If calculus isn't part of the curriculum, nobody who doesn't force through it on their own will even know about the physics. Having had no contact with the field, what young adult is going to want to take college courses (for which they have to pay) to find out what they might like? How will someone who can't afford college ever get to this stuff at all?
Another part of this is is teacher specialization. If you remove most of the "non-essential" stuff, you don't need a very tight specialization to teach high school level courses. One doesn't need a PhD to teach pre-calculus mathematics, nor English at the high school level. You didn't specify what courses you'd remove and which you'd keep, but I couldn't come up with any high school course that requires an extreme amount of learning to teach. Perhaps you could inform me on that.
> One other thing that might help: Guest teachers from industry. I would certainly consider teaching a science or math class once-and-a-while if my employer was flexible enough to let me.
I very much agree with the concept, but the problem that comes up quite often when the ideal intersects with the real world is that a lot of industry leaders aren't very good teachers. I've run into more than my fair share of PhD economists who can't adequately explain profit maximization price points to someone with no
> It doesn't take a village to raise a child, but it does take a mother AND a father.
Sorry, but you're pitching crap with a shovel. Your myopic view of childrearing doesn't intersect with reality.
> Any child that doesn't get loving care and discipline from a mom AND a dad will be at a disadvantage over one that does, not matter how much tax money is thrown into so called "education".
You can drop the "..from a mom AND a dad" from your sentence, and then it'd be right. Children who have consistent discipline, love and concerned caregivers will always do better than those who don't, but I've never seen anything to indicate that one man and one woman is any better combination than any other possible mix.
> Without an intact family, everything else falls apart, mark my words.
I will only mark your words to the point where I find that your definition of "family" is broken, since you seem to think that the only "family" that counts is a married heterosexual couple.
Virg
> Well, I do think teachers should be parents, in the sense that they need to be authority figures, maintain control of the children, and give them positive direction.
I agree wholeheartedly.
> The problem is that teachers have been stripped of most of the tools for discipline.
Number one, I can see where this is going. And number two, consider who's stripping those rights. More on that in a minute.
> Sometimes a kid just needs a good whack on the backside.
I knew this was your end statement. It's depressing how the comment that teachers don't have effective discipline tools always degenerates to corporal punishment. I disagree. I don't think that my child ever needs a good whack on the backside, for any reason. I've never had any (insurmountable) difficulty keeping discipline with my kids, and I don't hit them. Therefore, his teachers shouldn't be doing it either.
> Private schools still have their problems, to be sure, and obviously a teenager doesn't need a spanking, but if it's done when the kids are still in elementary school, it makes for better-behaved teenagers.
Prove it. Nobody with any credibility has managed to do it yet.
> 'm not saying that hitting a kid is always a solution either, but my kid's in kindergarten, and if he starts whining about something, the teacher calls US! While it's ridiculous -- I can't just leave work to tell my kid to shut up and sit down -- the teacher isn't allowed to do anything that might damage the child's self esteem, or to spank, obviously. That means they can't even tell him to go stand in timeout, because it's "embarrassing." The only thing they can do is send kids to the principal, and obviously they're reluctant to do that because it reflects poorly on them, for the reasons you stated.
See, here's the part where it burns me to listen to all of the people jumping about how teachers need to have more "tools" to be effective in disciplining children. The tools are the parents' to give. In the parent poster's example, the failing is with the parent. To counter it, try this. When your child's teacher calls you, tell that teacher to sit your child in time-out. Tell that teacher you'll back them up with the administration about it. When the principal comes down on the teacher, actually get off your butt, go there and make good on that promise. If you side with the teacher, the principal will ease up (since the principal is concerned with CYA and your permission clears that hurdle), the teacher gets the tool to use to maintain discipline with your kid, and your kid sees that the teacher has your backing to do it, so they're not going to get away with the "you're not my mommy/daddy!" arguments. The reason so many teachers and administrators are gun-shy is because too many people talk like you do but they don't back it up with their actions, so everyone loses. Step up to the plate and you'll find yourself surprised at how most (not all, but most) schools will work with you.
> Teachers need to be given more respect, and latitude. Sure, some will abuse their power, but they're likely to abuse it anyway, so banning disciplinary tools only exacerbates the problem.
Again, it lies with the parents to solve it. Do your part, then talk about whether it works. Give them the latitude with your own kid. I'll handle giving them latitude with mine, if you please.
Virg
> It seems to me that there is no disadvantage in putting money in a sports program if it makes money. The money sports makes can be used to subsidize education, right?
I agree, but virtually no high school level sports teams make money over the cost of the program. Therefore, most such programs are a net loss for the district at large. While I very much believe that sports programs need to have a place in secondary schools, in many schools they take an inordinately large portion of the budget.
> What's wrong with capitalism anyway?
It's very unbalanced, and therefore not usually a good fit for education. Using capitalism to fund schools has shown in the past that well funded schools do well, and schools in underprivileged areas get screwed. In a country where schooling is mandated by law, the government must take on some responsibility for financing that schooling. Making school sports programs "pay the way", even in part, for the school just leads to an excessive emphasis on the sports program, to the detriment of other parts of the school program that are just as important but not as profitable.
Virg
I have found one situation in which a dress code for a public school works. Most trade schools have fairly strict dress codes, and they include long hair and other such things, due to safety reasons (like getting tangled in machines). So, for the public at large I agree, but be careful that your statement about absurdity addresses situations where the code makes sense.
Virg
> A lot of places I visit have a fair amount of hispanic workers. They seem to have twice the drive and work output of the equivalent native.
Although it's not obvious at first, this does stand to reason. See, the immigrants were motivated enough to move to America looking for an opportunity. Most of the lazy Mexicans are still, well, in Mexico. When someone who is willing to move so far to find work comes up against someone who lives here and is flipping burgers because he's not skilled for something else, it's likely the immigrant will measure up stronger.
Virg
> Anakin is the real story of 1-6 and that is one of the reasons that 1-3 failed for me. They don't really show the tragic hero that he was supposed to be, Anakin was f'ing evil, I fail to see how saving his son somehow redeems him of the billions of people he has murdered.
Well, the simple fact of that is that saving his son wasn't the act of redmption, nor was his redemption enough to forgive the crimes he'd committed. The act of redemption was Luke saving Anakin, by finally getting him to turn against his Sith master and give up the Dark Side. Vader's death became inevitable at that point, but his ability to come back from evil and do the right thing in the clutch was the real redemption. The fact that his love for his son was the catalyst is the irony of the whole thing, in that the thing that made him fall (being in love) was also what eventually redeemed him. His death was the symbolic price he paid for what he did.
Virg
Odd, I thought this was the seventh one.
Virg
> The first time you see the original trilogy, it's about Luke. The second time, it's about Anakin.
I fell into this realization myself, and it really does add to the feel of the story. 4-6 are the story of Luke Skywalker, but 1-6 is really the story of Anakin, and seen in that light (and having seen the movies in release order) it's an interesting change of perspective. Without the first three, it's impossible to see the story of Anakin through Luke's experiences, because Vader seems to be the antagonist when the real evil in the story is Palpatine. Going back to watch them in numbered order is a good way to watch that progression, although as the original article demonstrates, the first three almost assume knowledge of the last three so for a "Star Wars virgin" it's not the best way.
I'll concur that that best way to see them for the first time is 4,5,1,2,3,6. That does really preserve the best plot twists while still allowing the final confrontation and Vader's redemption to have its full effect. The only plot twist that gets pre-revealed by this order is Luke figuring out that Leia is his sister, and that's not a big surprise by the time it gets revealed in episode 6.
Virg
> Something that always bothered me was how Kenobi (in Jedi, I think) tells Luke about Anakin was already a great pilot when they met ("the best star pilot in the galaxy") -- that even then he detected that the force was very strong in him. Yet, in Phantom Anakin is a child, not a star pilot, and here comes Qui-Gon discovering Anakin and setting out to train him. Very incoherent.
Remember that Obi-Wan is good at Jedi doublespeak (note how he explains "Vader betrayed and murdered your father" in ESB). While he met Anakin as a boy, also note that Anakin was widely known as the only human capable of competing in a podrace, and it may have been that Obi-Wan was commenting on his ability to see the potential in Anakin as a pilot. That is, he may have simply said that he was the best pilot when he was really commenting that he could tell that he would grow into the greatest star pilot. And yes, I know this is stretching, but at least it's in character for Obi-Wan.
Also, the comment of the Force being strong with him may have been Obi-Wan's foreknowledge of the kid's mitichlorean count which Qui-Gon had mentioned before Obi-Wan and Anakin first physically met each other. Since he already knew that Anakin was crawling in Force, he would be more likely to try to sense it (and more likely to succeed).
Virg
> True, plus it makes no sense for yoda to go from being 880 years and fit as a fiddle to 900 and dying, though I've always told myself this was just because Yoda felt bad for fucking up so bad and decided he was done after helping Luke to fix Yoda's mess. Mostly though he was a pretty ludicrous character to have serving as a general -- it didn't fit his V/VI persona at all.
While I'm no Lucas apologist by any means, this particular change isn't hard to explain away at all. Just a few ideas right off the top of my head, which show how easy it is to justify:
1.) Yoda drew some or most of his power from the Jedi order. When they all died, it took away a lot of his ability to support himself with the Force. You could also spin this to him drawing his power directly from the Jedi temple, but that would be much cheesier.
2.) As you said, but differently, the death of his friends and way of life demoralized him to the point where he decided (literally in his case) to give up the ghost, and only stuck around until he could train up the next torchbearer of the Jedi ways.
3.) He "went philosophical" upon seeing that "bringing balance to the Force" meant that the old order needed to be swept away. Perhaps in his soul searching after the betrayal, he decided that having too many Jedi would also increase the power of the Sith, so he wisely decided to fade away so that the Force would allow the Emperor to be removed to "square the scale".
Now I realize that each of these choices has flaws to be worked out, but they're all off-the-cuff. In the light that it's so easy to come up with possible answers you can't really say that Yoda's collapse after the fall of the Jedi order is incongruous.
Virg
I don't think that "Darth Mumble" would have quite the punch over what Lucas chose. Maybe that's just me.
Virg
I agree that even the forward-thinking can sometimes fail to think forward, but if you're going to put quotes around an attributed statement then you must be sure you quote exactly. The problem is that the actual quote can't ever be pinned down, so it's not proper to attribute it to him as a direct quote. See this link for more information.
That said, I think Mr. Allchin is treading dangerous ground. Even with lockdowns, exploits are a moving target, and when users can get infected by a malicious banner ad found on a popular commercial site it's bad karma to say that you can be confident that nothing will ever get in. Running AV software is a pain, but it does have the advantage that the company stays up to date on new threats so they might build in an update that fixes a problem you've never encountered before it starts attacking you.
Virg
Nope, you blew the analogy, due to the use of "my lawn". I seriously doubt you offer your lawn to the general public for use. Therefore, Verizon is in a different category of property than your lawn is. They're not allowed to censor like you can on your private property, because they offer their property for public use, much like the local shopping mall, and therefore they get privileges that you don't (like protection from liability and other legal advantages). That comes with added limitations on what they can do, and censorship is one of those limitations.
Virg
> A URL will return whatever the web server wants to give you.
/. should be http://slashdot.org/ (which I only point out since adding the www. got me in trouble back a few years ago and I wanted to save anyone else the headache).
I'll yield that the web server configuration is the final word, but I was talking about default behavior (and I did comment "in a perfect world" in describing it). My point was that the ending slash is not always necessary nor is it always correct.
Also, having a trailing slash after the host name is part of the spec, but most browsers will fill in if you leave it off. Not related to spec, but something to note when someone finds out they don't need to type it.
On an unrelated note, Cowboyneal comments that access to
Virg
> Actually, a correct URL is supposed to include the / at the end.
Not always. the URL ending in / is suppoed to mean "go to the directory shown and display index.html", so http://slashdot.org/ and http://slashdot.org/index.html are (in a perfect world) equivalent. That doesn't mean that the second is wrong, though, and in the case of the link provided for the gallery, it's the full name of the file, so it's a valid hyperlink.
Virg
The point to consider is that part where he said she swears she's on the pill. In the case where she's not, then your patch will prevent her showing up with a baby that matches your DNA.
Carry on.
Virg
> Unfortunately the rest of the world disagrees with you.
The part you're responding to is, "His point is that the cost of the vanity items is far out of line with what they do, and it was so unrealistic that it was an affront to common sense." I've done the favor of highlighting the part that's important here. I don't actually agree with him in that, but the parent to my post is attacking the wrong target.
The salient point is simply that I think the parent to my post is wrong to say that complaining about the price is stupid. One must consider that this guy's bitching (along with the others who fell into this pit) has some nonzero chance of actually changing the point cost of some of the baubles, so even if we think he was dumb to buy in before he knew the score, he's not completely off his nut to complain about it.
Virg
While I found the jajah site to be nearly incomprehensible, I did get the gist of it, and what you describe is not how it works. What you described would be a criminal offense in the U.S.. The way the service works is that you give it two numbers, and jajah calls your number, then calls the other number, then connects you with the other caller using VOIP. Charges are not sent from one phone to another, and to use it for more than a five minute test, you need to register (and assumably pay for) an account for continued usage.
Virg
> As far as I'm concerned, the article invalidated it's own point and yours.
Firstly, since the article is an opinion, it's not invalidated by disagreement. Second, my point is that the only proper target for complaints about WoW is Blizzard. Since this guy is grousing to Blizzard about the "values" oif the items, he's taking proper recourse.
> It's like complaining to McDonalds that their Happy Meal toy costs the price of a Happy Meal.
Why would that be inappropriate? Sure, it's likely that McDonald's will tell you that you're getting the Happy Meal too, but still they're the ones that should field complaints about Happy Meals. I agree that it was dumb to assume things about the points in the card packs. That wasn't my point, though. My point is that he should complain to Blizzard about it, where the parent of my post stated, "I'm not sure that having one's un-researched expectations shattered by reality is something that warrants casting blame on the manufacturer." That's not right. Shattering a preconceived notion is something to take up with a manufacturer.
Virg
> Welcome to the internet Virg. Bring along a sense of humor next time you visit.
Nice thought, but you didn't do anything humorous. You didn't even attempt to make a joke at my expense, which I'd have just eaten due to being wrong. You just acted like a dick for no purpose at all. I'm sure it doesn't break your heart that your lack of decorum annoyed me, but perhaps you'll learn something here. If not, I've lost nothing, but if so, you might be more pleasant to be around in the future, so I figured it's worth a shot.
Virg
> So the writer of this article is upset that vanity items cost too much?
Not exactly his point. His point is that the cost of the vanity items is far out of line with what they do, and it was so unrealistic that it was an affront to common sense.
> I'm not sure that having one's un-researched expectations shattered by reality is something that warrants casting blame on the manufacturer.
Considering the venue I'd say that the only appropriate target for complaint is the manufacturer. Since complaining might (assuming enough complaints) get the manufacturer to drop the cost of the items, that's proper recourse. If lawsuits were involved I'd say it went too far, but expressing displeasure to the game maker for something like this is entirely proper.
Virg
I stand corrected. I was working with older information. Now, since I did specify that it was a minor point, you might consider being more polite in the future, especially considering I didn't insult you directly. Instead of thinking more of you, I think less of you, even though you were right.
Virg