Because being rich at 60 makes up for being miserable the 20 years prior? Bullshit. Changing careers doesn't mean giving up anything. Experience travels, whether it's in the same field or not. After 20 years of experience the OP should have management level experience, and skills comensurate with someone who does bid proposals, handles large accounts or budgets for multiple programs, and also has some ability to do tech work. This translates very well to many different career fields quite easily with a little "re-education" for terminology and customer focus.
I'd agree with not leaving your wife for a 20 year old bimbo and not buying a sports car, but changing careers isn't as big a deal as people seem to think it is. I've had 2 so far (military and engineer) and will be doing it again in the next 10 years, if it takes that long.
I would teach, personally. I would still be able to do the things I enjoyed and would be providing something back to society at the same time. It's summers off and the best of both worlds. IT without the stress and responsibility of someone's entire company riding on your abilities. Plus I'm the kind of person that really enjoys teaching people new things, whether children or adults it doesn't really matter.
The government may not care about who actually has access, but it's not up to the contractor to decide that. This is a standard situation when things go private. It will take some time to get a policy in place, but until then, research is slowed somewhat.
Beaurocracy happens, that's no surprise. I have no idea what the relevance is of people's political opinions but I'll agree with the paying more part.
See, you're confusing BIG business with all business. It's not the same. This is very anti local business, which may be exactly what the lawmakers were hoping for. Most used record/CD stores are in college towns and they are often associated with stoners (right or wrong) and head shops in some fashion or another. As a result you have this small business bringing money directly into the community through rent/taxes, and dollars spent in the local economy but that also has a negative image. Best way to gentrify an area is to get rid of anything "low end" geared toward lower income brackets. That includes college students, like it or not.
Sure, this benefits the big name sellers and the record labels (in the short term) because they are now making royalties off of every album sold, but I'd be willing to bet they lose overall sales as a result. Every time I've bought music at a used shop I've bought something I was looking for, and something I'd never seen or heard of before going into the shop. Many times I'm a repeat buyer for the new (to me) music and I continue to buy new albums as they are produced. I've probably bought between 20 and 50 CDs that way... CDs I never would have known about had I not been shopping in a used record store.
To further dispute your argument, business isn't all about royalties. Just because record labels get royalties on every sale, doesn't mean this law is beneficial in any way. The record companies had already counted the royalties on the original sale of the album. The only sale they have any right to expect. So instead of giving them more sales, this just takes away the livelihood of smaller business in the area, thus further alienating the customer base. What happens when you alienate your customer base? They go somewhere else. So much for benefitting business.
One might even say that her conduct was encouraging underage drinking not because she drank or took pictures, but because she in essence said to students, "Look, I'm cool, I get drunk at parties." That's much more nuanced than just the fact that she put the pictures up online since it involves actively promoting the pictures in the classroom.
My thoughts exactly. All the slashdotters are getting up in arms about this when they're only getting one side of the story. While I'm not sure the action was completely necessary, I think at least some action was justified. I would have thought they should make her do further student teaching but offer her the degree without the cert. I'm sure that would have brought another big controversy though, so essentially the school was in a no-win situation. I think they made a strong decision and it'll be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Reprimanded may have been too strong of a word, but that's how I read it, knowing how reports tend to be weakened to give the person being nailed a little wiggle room when the supervisor knows the person's intent wasn't bad. Especially in that type of environment, where someone is in essentially a student position that is intended to teach them, not destroy them. I also got a different impression than you about the remediation. I guess that just goes to show perspective is a relative thing.
As for the non-bias, I have to agree it's a good thing. I actually snagged the link from another poster in the thread somewhere, but couldn't find the post again to credit. I'm getting really tired of one-sided journalism.
I don't know for sure but I don't believe student teaching requirements are a pass/fail thing. I think it's just putting in the time as dictated by whatever state certification is required. Some arbitrary number of hours "student teaching", which as far as I can tell usually means grading papers and not actually teaching for most of it.
As for the whole "you screwed somebody's life over" I'll respectfully disagree. She was specifically reprimanded and didn't improve her performance, according to the school board. She may or may not have had good grades, but a student teacher who can't even perform the basic tasks of that job without reprimand and needing "significant remediation" in several of those tasks shouldn't get a cert. At the very least she should be required to perform more time as a student teacher and show improvement before getting her cert. Education shouldn't just be something we allow people to do by getting all the boxes checked.
While I don't disagree with the sentiment of your statement, I'd like to say that not all of us who work[ed] fulltime during school did so for the benefit of nice cars, booze or drugs. Some of us, like the lady from the article, do it to raise families.
The internet has always been "made up of 'user generated content'". The difference now is that it's easier to create said content and it's more accessible to people who actually have social lives outside the ability to talk about Star Trek.
So parts of the web are a bit too much like MTV, so what. Don't visit them. The point is that there is something for everyone out there, some you'll like and some you won't. For example, I hate reading slashdot articles and comments with poor grammar and misused words, but I overlook that for the content (most of the time). I don't use myspace however, because the content isn't worth wading through all the flashing blinking junk that makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Other people have a different perspective.
That allegation has been denied by the school district in question. The article below also mentions that she was reprimanded several times (for the same offense) as a student teacher and that she needed "significant remediation" in several areas of her teaching abilities. There is more to the story, but it's generally being told (at least on slashdot) from a one-sided perspective. Here is another side: http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20070502234811315
Care to site some statistics with that statement? I have several good friends who are teachers and none of them are making more than "the private sector" and certainly not "significantly more". These are in several different school districts in the DC Metro area and around the country.
Seems she'd been reprimanded as a student teacher several times and she knew she was in the wrong. It doesn't seem to be as cut and dried as the original article would have us believe. Also, the picture posted in the original article is different than the one in the above article. Two very different images that give completely different impressions of a "teacher" if seen by students.
All NDAs are about fear, nothing more. Most of them, as far as I understand, are unenforceable in a court.
As for "you're not allowed to discuss what you were offered"... Bullshit. I discuss my personal finances and what I was offered with whomever I feel like. No company will ever prevent that. Discussing it with current coworkers is pretty stupid for various reasons, but if I'm not working there, I have no loyalty to the company. Hell, even if I am working there, my loyalty is to me first, and if I'm not being treated well, the company can go straight to hell for all I care.
I work hard for my living, and I expect a certain (not unreasonable) amount of compensation and respect. If I don't get that, I leave. When it comes down to it, the company will always do what is best for the company. The question is whether the company thinks short term or long term. If they think long term, then what they do that is best for the company is often also best for the employees.
"the teachers there where some of the best ever, and good god was it ever easy. I should have stayed - id have graduated"
Well I don't know about the others but the English teacher certainly wasn't one of the best ever.
Seriously, though I agree, this whole zero tolerance policy is the problem. It doesn't give kids any opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them. We're creating the problem we're trying to stop.
Well said. I agree entirely. And that's essentially what my post said, without benefit of citation. I was simply too lazy to even bother, so you got me beat there. As a colleague says "we're in violent agreement".
As I said, societal bullshit. Men are taught to treat sex as some sort of competition and power game. Granted, in some instinctive sense sex can be competition, but men and women both feel that. The difference is we teach men to glorify it and we teach women to abhor it. It's societal crap either way.
This is exactly the bullshit nonsense that makes the whole conversation difficult. The only difference between men and women sexually is a penis and a vagina. The rest is societal bullshit that has nothing to do with anything except control and power.
The fact that you don't buy it just proves how fucked up society is about sex.
"To ignore that sexual relationships imply ownership is the height of folly"
That is completely biased, societal (and generally mysogenistic) bullshit. If you recruit people who don't believe that (there are plenty) that is no longer valid. You still have psychological issues to contend with, but certainly not "ownership".
As for relationships jeapordizing command decisions, that works both ways, but in general I'd agree.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention if you get some experience working on german cars it's pretty easy to make 6 figures a year. This is a great piece of advice.
Because being rich at 60 makes up for being miserable the 20 years prior? Bullshit. Changing careers doesn't mean giving up anything. Experience travels, whether it's in the same field or not. After 20 years of experience the OP should have management level experience, and skills comensurate with someone who does bid proposals, handles large accounts or budgets for multiple programs, and also has some ability to do tech work. This translates very well to many different career fields quite easily with a little "re-education" for terminology and customer focus.
I'd agree with not leaving your wife for a 20 year old bimbo and not buying a sports car, but changing careers isn't as big a deal as people seem to think it is. I've had 2 so far (military and engineer) and will be doing it again in the next 10 years, if it takes that long.
I would teach, personally. I would still be able to do the things I enjoyed and would be providing something back to society at the same time. It's summers off and the best of both worlds. IT without the stress and responsibility of someone's entire company riding on your abilities. Plus I'm the kind of person that really enjoys teaching people new things, whether children or adults it doesn't really matter.
The government may not care about who actually has access, but it's not up to the contractor to decide that. This is a standard situation when things go private. It will take some time to get a policy in place, but until then, research is slowed somewhat.
Beaurocracy happens, that's no surprise. I have no idea what the relevance is of people's political opinions but I'll agree with the paying more part.
See, you're confusing BIG business with all business. It's not the same. This is very anti local business, which may be exactly what the lawmakers were hoping for. Most used record/CD stores are in college towns and they are often associated with stoners (right or wrong) and head shops in some fashion or another. As a result you have this small business bringing money directly into the community through rent/taxes, and dollars spent in the local economy but that also has a negative image. Best way to gentrify an area is to get rid of anything "low end" geared toward lower income brackets. That includes college students, like it or not.
Sure, this benefits the big name sellers and the record labels (in the short term) because they are now making royalties off of every album sold, but I'd be willing to bet they lose overall sales as a result. Every time I've bought music at a used shop I've bought something I was looking for, and something I'd never seen or heard of before going into the shop. Many times I'm a repeat buyer for the new (to me) music and I continue to buy new albums as they are produced. I've probably bought between 20 and 50 CDs that way... CDs I never would have known about had I not been shopping in a used record store.
To further dispute your argument, business isn't all about royalties. Just because record labels get royalties on every sale, doesn't mean this law is beneficial in any way. The record companies had already counted the royalties on the original sale of the album. The only sale they have any right to expect. So instead of giving them more sales, this just takes away the livelihood of smaller business in the area, thus further alienating the customer base. What happens when you alienate your customer base? They go somewhere else. So much for benefitting business.
One might even say that her conduct was encouraging underage drinking not because she drank or took pictures, but because she in essence said to students, "Look, I'm cool, I get drunk at parties." That's much more nuanced than just the fact that she put the pictures up online since it involves actively promoting the pictures in the classroom.
My thoughts exactly. All the slashdotters are getting up in arms about this when they're only getting one side of the story. While I'm not sure the action was completely necessary, I think at least some action was justified. I would have thought they should make her do further student teaching but offer her the degree without the cert. I'm sure that would have brought another big controversy though, so essentially the school was in a no-win situation. I think they made a strong decision and it'll be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Reprimanded may have been too strong of a word, but that's how I read it, knowing how reports tend to be weakened to give the person being nailed a little wiggle room when the supervisor knows the person's intent wasn't bad. Especially in that type of environment, where someone is in essentially a student position that is intended to teach them, not destroy them. I also got a different impression than you about the remediation. I guess that just goes to show perspective is a relative thing.
As for the non-bias, I have to agree it's a good thing. I actually snagged the link from another poster in the thread somewhere, but couldn't find the post again to credit. I'm getting really tired of one-sided journalism.
I don't know for sure but I don't believe student teaching requirements are a pass/fail thing. I think it's just putting in the time as dictated by whatever state certification is required. Some arbitrary number of hours "student teaching", which as far as I can tell usually means grading papers and not actually teaching for most of it.
As for the whole "you screwed somebody's life over" I'll respectfully disagree. She was specifically reprimanded and didn't improve her performance, according to the school board. She may or may not have had good grades, but a student teacher who can't even perform the basic tasks of that job without reprimand and needing "significant remediation" in several of those tasks shouldn't get a cert. At the very least she should be required to perform more time as a student teacher and show improvement before getting her cert. Education shouldn't just be something we allow people to do by getting all the boxes checked.
While I don't disagree with the sentiment of your statement, I'd like to say that not all of us who work[ed] fulltime during school did so for the benefit of nice cars, booze or drugs. Some of us, like the lady from the article, do it to raise families.
The internet has always been "made up of 'user generated content'". The difference now is that it's easier to create said content and it's more accessible to people who actually have social lives outside the ability to talk about Star Trek.
So parts of the web are a bit too much like MTV, so what. Don't visit them. The point is that there is something for everyone out there, some you'll like and some you won't. For example, I hate reading slashdot articles and comments with poor grammar and misused words, but I overlook that for the content (most of the time). I don't use myspace however, because the content isn't worth wading through all the flashing blinking junk that makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Other people have a different perspective.
That allegation has been denied by the school district in question. The article below also mentions that she was reprimanded several times (for the same offense) as a student teacher and that she needed "significant remediation" in several areas of her teaching abilities. There is more to the story, but it's generally being told (at least on slashdot) from a one-sided perspective. Here is another side: http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20070502234811315
Care to site some statistics with that statement? I have several good friends who are teachers and none of them are making more than "the private sector" and certainly not "significantly more". These are in several different school districts in the DC Metro area and around the country.
Actually someone else posted this elsewhere in the thread, but there is definitely more to it.
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20070502234811315
Seems she'd been reprimanded as a student teacher several times and she knew she was in the wrong. It doesn't seem to be as cut and dried as the original article would have us believe. Also, the picture posted in the original article is different than the one in the above article. Two very different images that give completely different impressions of a "teacher" if seen by students.
Nice to get both sides of the story for once. Someone mod parent up.
You ever been to Jersey...those people definitely have their own language.
You breath through your eyes? Dude where are you from?
It's not difficult to get music or videos off the ipod. Apple just doesn't provide you the tools to do it.
V, is that you? You've started using C and I'm confused. Weren't you supposed to blow up parliament?
All NDAs are about fear, nothing more. Most of them, as far as I understand, are unenforceable in a court.
As for "you're not allowed to discuss what you were offered"... Bullshit. I discuss my personal finances and what I was offered with whomever I feel like. No company will ever prevent that. Discussing it with current coworkers is pretty stupid for various reasons, but if I'm not working there, I have no loyalty to the company. Hell, even if I am working there, my loyalty is to me first, and if I'm not being treated well, the company can go straight to hell for all I care.
I work hard for my living, and I expect a certain (not unreasonable) amount of compensation and respect. If I don't get that, I leave. When it comes down to it, the company will always do what is best for the company. The question is whether the company thinks short term or long term. If they think long term, then what they do that is best for the company is often also best for the employees.
"the teachers there where some of the best ever, and good god was it ever easy. I should have stayed - id have graduated"
Well I don't know about the others but the English teacher certainly wasn't one of the best ever.
Seriously, though I agree, this whole zero tolerance policy is the problem. It doesn't give kids any opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them. We're creating the problem we're trying to stop.
Well said. I agree entirely. And that's essentially what my post said, without benefit of citation. I was simply too lazy to even bother, so you got me beat there. As a colleague says "we're in violent agreement".
As I said, societal bullshit. Men are taught to treat sex as some sort of competition and power game. Granted, in some instinctive sense sex can be competition, but men and women both feel that. The difference is we teach men to glorify it and we teach women to abhor it. It's societal crap either way.
This is exactly the bullshit nonsense that makes the whole conversation difficult. The only difference between men and women sexually is a penis and a vagina. The rest is societal bullshit that has nothing to do with anything except control and power.
The fact that you don't buy it just proves how fucked up society is about sex.
"To ignore that sexual relationships imply ownership is the height of folly"
That is completely biased, societal (and generally mysogenistic) bullshit. If you recruit people who don't believe that (there are plenty) that is no longer valid. You still have psychological issues to contend with, but certainly not "ownership".
As for relationships jeapordizing command decisions, that works both ways, but in general I'd agree.
And that proves what? It is a known medical fact that men who ejaculate "more regularly" have a lower rate of prostate cancer.
Does that require sex? Not really. But it does require consideration, and that's what the whole point of the article is. What needs to be considered.