Your statement shows that you are largely ignorant about homeschooling. Most parents who homeschool are college educated themselves and have realized that most public schools are not preparing their children adequately for college. There are also curricula available to homeschoolers, which were developed by highly educated and skilled people, many of them certified teachers. Some states administer their standardized tests to homeschool students. Multiple studies have shown that homeschooled children score considerably better than the equivalent public school students.
You are also under the misconception that homeschooling is not much different from schooling at home. Having one on one interaction with each child is much different than sitting 30 or more children in a classroom and lecturing them. The public education establishment has tried for years to shut down home schools. They have been unsuccessful so far, because every study without exception has shown that schooling kids at home by their parents is far superior on average than any public school.
When the overwhelming majority of homeschooled children are tested for real knowledge rather than current political correctness, they get higher scores than those from public schools. That is a fact! Educate yourself! Real knowledge of English, math, science, and history, is what gets these children into prestigious colleges. Brainwashing people into believing political and scientific fantasies, such as socialism and evolution does not give them a better life. Teaching a kid the philosophies of Karl Marx or Charles Darwin does not make them into better persons that will result in a better job. Teaching a child about Jesus Christ and the importance of honesty, truth and love, will help them in all areas of life, including a job. Most employers highly value a truthful and honest person of integrity. Teaching someone about how their ancestors crawled out of the primordial ooze, can only have a negative effect on their life.
Do parents who teach their own values and worldview to THEIR kids screw children up anymore than public school teachers who indoctrinate OTHER people's children in whatever is politically correct at the moment?
Homeschooling is not simply schooling at home. It is an entirely different paradigm. Parents who homeschool are still forced to pay taxes to the public school system, so why should they not be entitled to some of the services? Over the years many excellent curricula have been made available, that are particularly suitable for parents who wish to homeschool their children. Educating children, whether in public schools or private home, depends on motivating children to want to learn. That is the main job of educators, whether those are parents or public school teachers. Parents know their children better than anyone in public school, who is essentially a stranger. Therefore they have a much better chance at motivating their own children, than any public school teacher.
How does the Catholic church or any church enter into this? Parents have an intrinsic right to pass their worldview onto THEIR OWN children. You do not have a right to indoctrinate and brainwash MY children with your worldview. This has been true for thousands of years, long before the invention of public education.
How does believing in the fairytales of evolution or the Big Bang prepare children to hold a decent job when they grow up or become productive members of our society? Perhaps, if they are training to be a public school teacher, they must learn how to indoctrinate other people's children in the current politically correct socialistic and scientific mantras. Instead of learning that they are a special, precious creation of a supreme God who loves them, they must be told that they are nothing but a cosmic accident that crawled out of the primordial ooze and that there are no moral absolutes.
I know of a homeschooled family with 6 children of which I know several personally. They all grew up on a farm not very far from here. They were raised and educated by their father because their mother died when the youngest child was still a baby. If you want to learn more about them, you can read part of their story here:
The big difference is that homeschooling parents indoctrinate (educate) their own children, but in public school the state educates (indoctrinates) other people's children. People who send their children to private schools, make sure that the teachers there and the administrators have a similar worldview to their own. This is called freedom of religion.
In this country we still have freedom of religion. This includes the freedom for people to teach their children their own values and traditions. We have always had religious private schools in this country. We also have religious homeschools in this country. You are wrong and bigoted by labeling religious education as child abuse. I think that failing to teach moral values in public schools is child abuse.
I know of ONE homeschooled family with 6 children of which I know several personally. They all grew up on a farm not very far from here. They were raised and educated by their father because their mother died when the youngest child was still a baby. If you want to learn more about them, you can read part of their story here:
Most public schools, especially in certain areas, only turn out illiterate juvenile delinquents. Do some research and find out how many homeschooled teenagers DON'T graduate from high school and go on to college. You will find it is a very small percentage of homeschooled students.
There may be a few parents that keep their children out of public school, so the kids can work in the family business. This mainly works with older children and is not at all common, because there are not that many family businesses. Homeschoolers do far better in almost every respect than the equivalent age children schooled in public schools. Many graduate at age 16 and enter college. If you want to educate yourself, read this:
Permission to drive is not taken away arbitrarily. There is also an appeals process that can override the decision of some bureaucrat. Usually permission to drive is taken away by due process in a court of law, not by some faceless, and unelected bureaucrat.
If you would educate yourself about homeschooling, you would learn that homeschooled children do far better on average than the ones in public school. For many parents who send their kids to public school, that school is not much more than an inexpensive babysitting service. Homeschooling parents are much more likely to stay faithful and their marriage relationship, then others who send their kids to public school. Read about homeschooling statistics and educate yourself.
Anybody can be a teacher. What's so special about a teacher? Anybody who has any kind of skill, can teach it to somebody else. That makes him/her a teacher.
Islamists and other religions also indoctrinate their children. We have the freedom of religion in this country and that includes the freedom to indoctrinate, if you want to call it that, any parent's own children, but not other people's children like the public schools do.
Any time a person needs permission from the government for any activity, including homeschooling, and such permission is denied for whatever reason, it becomes effectively illegal to do that particular activity, including homeschooling. In Sweden and in other countries, permission is required from a government official. If this permission is denied, there is no appeal in many places. You can look at the article here:
For now at least, in the US, parents can still shield their children, keeping them out of the public indoctrination academies by sending their children to private schools or homeschooling them. I suspect though that if large numbers of people start doing this, self serving politicians lobbied by school administrators will make it illegal to homeschool children, like they have done in Germany and Sweden. Educating children at home is an economic sacrifice. It requires one of the parents to forgo income from a traditional job. Staying faithful to the marriage commitment is also a necessity.
The reason the copyright holders are doing this, is because the courts have been increasingly saying that an IP address and a time are insufficient evidence to show the person behind the IP did anything wrong. This is the same as saying that the person paying the phone bill is responsible for someone using that phone to plan or commit a crime. The **AA's are using the ISPs to do an end run around the courts, which have been getting increasingly skeptical and resistant to **AA's empty claims.
You don't have to prove your innocence, but they have to prove your guilt. At least that is how it used to be. Welcome to the new corporate dictatorship USA.
Google has already demonstrated that robotic cars are quite capable of navigating on normal roads, without a network to other cars. Why make something more complicated than it needs to be? Other things being equal, a networked car will always be more vulnerable to attack than one that does not need an external wireless connection.
The big difference is that an attacker in China cannot cause havoc on an American highway. The inconvenient truth is that anything on a network can be compromised. I have no problem with a robotic driver controlling the car if it can do so safely with the same information that a human driver uses to do that same job. Human drivers do not have their brains networked to each other. Why should the brain of a car driving robot be networked to the brain of another car driving robot? Is such a car driving robot depends on GPS information to keep the car functioning safely, that could be another safety hazard. There are places where GPS information is not available (tunnels) and such GPS data can be spoofed by an attacker. Human drivers do not need GPS information either to safely operate an automobile.
It's not like a car absolutely needs antilock brakes, or seatbelts, or traction control, or a backup camera either. But driving is the most dangerous thing most of us do each week, and tech that can make it safer is a good plan..
We're very close now to freeway lanes with self-driving cars talking to one another making your freeway drive for you. My car does a pretty good job of knowing where the lanes are, and where the other cars nearby are, though cameras and radar, but it's not there yet. I've seen a Google self-driving car on the road, but the tall camera mast on the thing isn't going to work for most people. We need car-to-car comms for the compuets to chat with one another to do this right.
Except that antilock brakes, seatbelts, traction control etc. don't provide external access to their controllers. Any time such access is provided by a network connection, hacking the control system remotely becomes possible. Self driving cars is a neat idea, but not at the expense of safety. If car control systems are externally accessible, they WILL be compromised.
They want to implement their harebrained scheme, where cars communicate with each other to facilitate self driving cars in the future. Computers on the net, controlling cars is one of the most crazy ideas that anybody has come up with lately. Instead of hackers and criminals crashing computers only, they will crash car computers which will crash cars injuring and possibly killing people. If Microsoft has anything to say about this, they will insist that such vehicles run Windows.
Has there ever been a “secure” computer system? If a computer is on the net, it can be accessed and compromised, if there is an incentive to do so. I can just imagine some enterprising kid turning off the engines of vehicles traveling down the highway going past his house. Suddenly jamming on the brakes or running them off the road should be kinda fun also. If computer controlled cars should become the norm, I will have to drive my now 7-year-old car until the wheels fall off. I certainly won't buy such a hackable contraption.
The contract is not likely to say either that payment must be made by certified check or some other means. So then when you open your suitcase full of cash, they would be foolish not to accept it. Besides that they have no choice like you said. Even so, it is probably true that there is no pile of random cash that would NOT have some drug residue on it. A police dog would probably smell that and then the police would confiscate the whole suitcase full of money. Cash is increasingly becoming a no no.
There will be sometime in the not too distant future a world government and no more cash. Every sale will be tracked. This was written about almost 2000 years ago in Revelation 13:17. There was no way that such a thing could be implemented until our modern networked computer age. Try to get a job, open a bank account, file your taxes, or get a drivers license without giving them your Social Security number. The time for that to happen could be close. Anybody who refuses to take that number, will be locked out of all commerce and business.
What the hell are these ivy league lawschool graduates being taught that makes them think like this?
I'm beginning to believe that an Ivy League degree is becoming an absolutely meaningless indicator of intelligence and competence. Still an indicator of eliteness, yes, but not of ability.
There are just way way to many examples out there of Ivy Leaguers who are mindblowingly stupid.
It is indeed clear that they have been educated beyond their intelligence. That process is called brainwashing.
Slashdot Mirror
Your statement shows that you are largely ignorant about homeschooling. Most parents who homeschool are college educated themselves and have realized that most public schools are not preparing their children adequately for college. There are also curricula available to homeschoolers, which were developed by highly educated and skilled people, many of them certified teachers. Some states administer their standardized tests to homeschool students. Multiple studies have shown that homeschooled children score considerably better than the equivalent public school students.
You are also under the misconception that homeschooling is not much different from schooling at home. Having one on one interaction with each child is much different than sitting 30 or more children in a classroom and lecturing them. The public education establishment has tried for years to shut down home schools. They have been unsuccessful so far, because every study without exception has shown that schooling kids at home by their parents is far superior on average than any public school.
When the overwhelming majority of homeschooled children are tested for real knowledge rather than current political correctness, they get higher scores than those from public schools. That is a fact! Educate yourself! Real knowledge of English, math, science, and history, is what gets these children into prestigious colleges. Brainwashing people into believing political and scientific fantasies, such as socialism and evolution does not give them a better life. Teaching a kid the philosophies of Karl Marx or Charles Darwin does not make them into better persons that will result in a better job. Teaching a child about Jesus Christ and the importance of honesty, truth and love, will help them in all areas of life, including a job. Most employers highly value a truthful and honest person of integrity. Teaching someone about how their ancestors crawled out of the primordial ooze, can only have a negative effect on their life.
Do parents who teach their own values and worldview to THEIR kids screw children up anymore than public school teachers who indoctrinate OTHER people's children in whatever is politically correct at the moment?
Homeschooling is not simply schooling at home. It is an entirely different paradigm. Parents who homeschool are still forced to pay taxes to the public school system, so why should they not be entitled to some of the services? Over the years many excellent curricula have been made available, that are particularly suitable for parents who wish to homeschool their children. Educating children, whether in public schools or private home, depends on motivating children to want to learn. That is the main job of educators, whether those are parents or public school teachers. Parents know their children better than anyone in public school, who is essentially a stranger. Therefore they have a much better chance at motivating their own children, than any public school teacher.
How does the Catholic church or any church enter into this? Parents have an intrinsic right to pass their worldview onto THEIR OWN children. You do not have a right to indoctrinate and brainwash MY children with your worldview. This has been true for thousands of years, long before the invention of public education.
How does believing in the fairytales of evolution or the Big Bang prepare children to hold a decent job when they grow up or become productive members of our society? Perhaps, if they are training to be a public school teacher, they must learn how to indoctrinate other people's children in the current politically correct socialistic and scientific mantras. Instead of learning that they are a special, precious creation of a supreme God who loves them, they must be told that they are nothing but a cosmic accident that crawled out of the primordial ooze and that there are no moral absolutes.
I know of a homeschooled family with 6 children of which I know several personally. They all grew up on a farm not very far from here. They were raised and educated by their father because their mother died when the youngest child was still a baby. If you want to learn more about them, you can read part of their story here:
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p54.htm
Because their fathers is a scientist, they ALL followed in his footsteps.
The big difference is that homeschooling parents indoctrinate (educate) their own children, but in public school the state educates (indoctrinates) other people's children. People who send their children to private schools, make sure that the teachers there and the administrators have a similar worldview to their own. This is called freedom of religion.
In this country we still have freedom of religion. This includes the freedom for people to teach their children their own values and traditions. We have always had religious private schools in this country. We also have religious homeschools in this country. You are wrong and bigoted by labeling religious education as child abuse. I think that failing to teach moral values in public schools is child abuse.
I have a “pointless” anecdote to add here.
I know of ONE homeschooled family with 6 children of which I know several personally. They all grew up on a farm not very far from here. They were raised and educated by their father because their mother died when the youngest child was still a baby. If you want to learn more about them, you can read part of their story here:
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p54.htm
How did I abandon it?
Purposefully under educating children is abuse. You are making sure they will be unsuited to operate in society and stealing their future.....
It turns out that homeschooled kids on average do far better than those in public school. If you want to educate yourself, read this:
http://homeschooling.about.com/od/gettingstarted/a/homeschoolrise_2.htm
Most public schools, especially in certain areas, only turn out illiterate juvenile delinquents. Do some research and find out how many homeschooled teenagers DON'T graduate from high school and go on to college. You will find it is a very small percentage of homeschooled students.
There may be a few parents that keep their children out of public school, so the kids can work in the family business. This mainly works with older children and is not at all common, because there are not that many family businesses. Homeschoolers do far better in almost every respect than the equivalent age children schooled in public schools. Many graduate at age 16 and enter college. If you want to educate yourself, read this:
http://homeschooling.about.com/od/gettingstarted/a/homeschoolrise_2.htm
Permission to drive is not taken away arbitrarily. There is also an appeals process that can override the decision of some bureaucrat. Usually permission to drive is taken away by due process in a court of law, not by some faceless, and unelected bureaucrat.
If you would educate yourself about homeschooling, you would learn that homeschooled children do far better on average than the ones in public school. For many parents who send their kids to public school, that school is not much more than an inexpensive babysitting service. Homeschooling parents are much more likely to stay faithful and their marriage relationship, then others who send their kids to public school. Read about homeschooling statistics and educate yourself.
Anybody can be a teacher. What's so special about a teacher? Anybody who has any kind of skill, can teach it to somebody else. That makes him/her a teacher.
Islamists and other religions also indoctrinate their children. We have the freedom of religion in this country and that includes the freedom to indoctrinate, if you want to call it that, any parent's own children, but not other people's children like the public schools do.
Any time a person needs permission from the government for any activity, including homeschooling, and such permission is denied for whatever reason, it becomes effectively illegal to do that particular activity, including homeschooling. In Sweden and in other countries, permission is required from a government official. If this permission is denied, there is no appeal in many places. You can look at the article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_international_status_and_statistics
For now at least, in the US, parents can still shield their children, keeping them out of the public indoctrination academies by sending their children to private schools or homeschooling them. I suspect though that if large numbers of people start doing this, self serving politicians lobbied by school administrators will make it illegal to homeschool children, like they have done in Germany and Sweden. Educating children at home is an economic sacrifice. It requires one of the parents to forgo income from a traditional job. Staying faithful to the marriage commitment is also a necessity.
The reason the copyright holders are doing this, is because the courts have been increasingly saying that an IP address and a time are insufficient evidence to show the person behind the IP did anything wrong. This is the same as saying that the person paying the phone bill is responsible for someone using that phone to plan or commit a crime. The **AA's are using the ISPs to do an end run around the courts, which have been getting increasingly skeptical and resistant to **AA's empty claims.
You don't have to prove your innocence, but they have to prove your guilt. At least that is how it used to be. Welcome to the new corporate dictatorship USA.
Google has already demonstrated that robotic cars are quite capable of navigating on normal roads, without a network to other cars. Why make something more complicated than it needs to be? Other things being equal, a networked car will always be more vulnerable to attack than one that does not need an external wireless connection.
The big difference is that an attacker in China cannot cause havoc on an American highway. The inconvenient truth is that anything on a network can be compromised. I have no problem with a robotic driver controlling the car if it can do so safely with the same information that a human driver uses to do that same job. Human drivers do not have their brains networked to each other. Why should the brain of a car driving robot be networked to the brain of another car driving robot? Is such a car driving robot depends on GPS information to keep the car functioning safely, that could be another safety hazard. There are places where GPS information is not available (tunnels) and such GPS data can be spoofed by an attacker. Human drivers do not need GPS information either to safely operate an automobile.
It's not like a car absolutely needs antilock brakes, or seatbelts, or traction control, or a backup camera either. But driving is the most dangerous thing most of us do each week, and tech that can make it safer is a good plan..
We're very close now to freeway lanes with self-driving cars talking to one another making your freeway drive for you. My car does a pretty good job of knowing where the lanes are, and where the other cars nearby are, though cameras and radar, but it's not there yet. I've seen a Google self-driving car on the road, but the tall camera mast on the thing isn't going to work for most people. We need car-to-car comms for the compuets to chat with one another to do this right.
Except that antilock brakes, seatbelts, traction control etc. don't provide external access to their controllers. Any time such access is provided by a network connection, hacking the control system remotely becomes possible. Self driving cars is a neat idea, but not at the expense of safety. If car control systems are externally accessible, they WILL be compromised.
They want to implement their harebrained scheme, where cars communicate with each other to facilitate self driving cars in the future. Computers on the net, controlling cars is one of the most crazy ideas that anybody has come up with lately. Instead of hackers and criminals crashing computers only, they will crash car computers which will crash cars injuring and possibly killing people. If Microsoft has anything to say about this, they will insist that such vehicles run Windows.
Has there ever been a “secure” computer system? If a computer is on the net, it can be accessed and compromised, if there is an incentive to do so. I can just imagine some enterprising kid turning off the engines of vehicles traveling down the highway going past his house. Suddenly jamming on the brakes or running them off the road should be kinda fun also. If computer controlled cars should become the norm, I will have to drive my now 7-year-old car until the wheels fall off. I certainly won't buy such a hackable contraption.
The contract is not likely to say either that payment must be made by certified check or some other means. So then when you open your suitcase full of cash, they would be foolish not to accept it. Besides that they have no choice like you said. Even so, it is probably true that there is no pile of random cash that would NOT have some drug residue on it. A police dog would probably smell that and then the police would confiscate the whole suitcase full of money. Cash is increasingly becoming a no no.
There will be sometime in the not too distant future a world government and no more cash. Every sale will be tracked. This was written about almost 2000 years ago in Revelation 13:17. There was no way that such a thing could be implemented until our modern networked computer age. Try to get a job, open a bank account, file your taxes, or get a drivers license without giving them your Social Security number. The time for that to happen could be close. Anybody who refuses to take that number, will be locked out of all commerce and business.
What the hell are these ivy league lawschool graduates being taught that makes them think like this?
I'm beginning to believe that an Ivy League degree is becoming an absolutely meaningless indicator of intelligence and competence. Still an indicator of eliteness, yes, but not of ability.
There are just way way to many examples out there of Ivy Leaguers who are mindblowingly stupid.
It is indeed clear that they have been educated beyond their intelligence. That process is called brainwashing.