While I do agree that congress needs to quit meddling in my school, I would argue that complete responsibility shouldn't be held locally. That would create too wide of a disparity between the rich districts and poor districts (and no, we can't count on humans to be altruistic, especially when their precious little snowflakes are in the picture). But, instead, how about a happy medium? Congress controls the broad strokes, like funding (not removing funding - that should be held for public debate and vote), and deciding what subjects are taught - not content, like we have today. That way, some wacky group can't teach that the world is made of hammers, or that a magic genie created dinosaurs to eat all the oil to save it for future generations, or anything else equally as silly.
OH, and the teachers will be able to decide if their students are learning, based on a FAIR, and LOCALLY DECIDED metric created, annually reviewed, and updated by parents, teachers, RELEVANT administration, and RELEVANT community members (no, I don't think that the Wal-Mart in town has our students' best interests in mind.)
It's not a perfect idea, by any means, but it's mine, and I like it.
A subscriber sees the articles before a non-subscriber, although you can't post until the story is visible to everyone.
LIES, ALL LIES!!! It's a shill; plainly that is the only answer. Don't try to use your logic on me, I'm wearing my tinfoil helmet today; it's casual Monday in the office, and nothing matches leopard print quite like a tinfoil hat.
I am hearing more and more on the news/on-line about how Russia and some other country are involved in something dodgy. Too lazy to look it up. Just take my word for it.
you are falling into the media's fascination with only reporting bad things.
Exactly. The news story that I saw listed 'an outbreak of violent cannibalistic crime on the East Coast'. There were four or five instances ranging from upper New York to Florida. Now, I'm not a geographer, but I'm pretty sure that four or five out of then ENTIRE east coast isn't exactly statistically significant.
I swear to God, if you say my name three times and make me appear in whatever hole you currently reside. It's over. I have work to do this afternoon, and I can't be schlepping off to some third world hell hole.
Least bad = I vote against someone, therefore I have to vote for you (I'm assuming a two party system, because we are trained to believe that voting third party necessarily means we're pissing away our vote). Best = I vote for you, because I agree with you. It might be semantics, but it's a very definite line.
Voting against someone doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the person I'm voting for, or that he/she is the best candidate. It simply means that I don't want the other person to be elected.
It's very close to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". That statement is not always true (think mujahideen).
That makes those ads the most hateful things I've ever heard. That means Adams just wanted to call Jefferson a rapist in public, for no reason other than to be a dick.
I'm not arguing that it was illegal, and immoral. What I'm arguing is that a super rosy picture like the Facebook IPO is almost never true. I am also arguing that when there are Billions of dollars floating around, morals, ethics and the law tend to become gray areas. . . . At least from what I've seen, and at least temporarily.
The point isn't who won. I don't care who won. The point is that we no longer vote for the best, we only vote for who is the least bad option. Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Paul, Peter, Mary. I don't care who is running - the best way for them to get elected is to make us vote against their competition, instead of for themselves. That's the issue.
If you're an investor you've got to assume they're painting a rosy picture to try an convince people to invest. It's your responsibility to figure out if the story is too good to be true.
EX-FUCKING-ACTLY. If you are going to invest money in anything, you have to assume that the other person is at least lying a bit. Maybe not a lot, but a bit. It's up to you to look at as many sources as you have available to you to figure out the real picture. If you only go off of the word of the person you’re buying from, you’re an idiot (and that applies to anything in the world from toilet paper to your stock portfolio).
For example: when you purchase a new car, do you just walk in and say, “Gee, that looks shiny, and I'm sure the salesman is telling me the truth. SOLD!” or, do you research first, test-drive, research some more, then buy the shiny one?
For Fucks sake folks. You bet on an intangible product that overvalues itself (based on what I've read), spend BILLIONS on it, and are surprised when the people receiving the BILLIONS are trying to make as much money as possible, even if it's unscrupulous?
And before I'm called for hating facebook (which I do) - I don't care what the company is; if it produces an intangibleentertainment service that can be replaced at the drop of a hat, based on mass will and crowd decision making, it isn't worth b-b-b-b-billions of dollars.
Okay, you got me there, I actually did not know that, because I've never been that invested in political history. BUT, no matter how long-standing of a tradition dirty ads are, is it right to run them?
I worked retail management for about 3 years while I was finishing my masters. I don't mean to toot my own horn (okay, I kind of do), but they were desperate to keep me. Why? I was a terrible manager - I let the employees get away with murder, as long as the work got done. I was insubordinate - if the policy was stupid, I didn't follow it. I told the head of the store that I hated my job and I hated the store - every day for two years.
So, why were they desperate to keep me? I could think. The regional actually told me that he would be sad to see me go, because critical thinking is rare in retail. They dangled long-term job offers, travel, higher pay and increased benefits to try to get me to stay. Again, why?
Because I could think. They know that if you have any sort of brain, that retail is just a temporary gig on the road of life, and it makes them sad on the inside.
The point is that we no longer vote for the best, we only vote for who is the least bad option.
Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Paul, Peter, Mary. I don't care who is running - the best way for them to get elected is to make us vote against their competition, instead of for themselves.
You actually just called out major flaw in the US election system. We no longer vote for the best candidate, and they no longer run on the 'I am best platform.' We now vote for the least bad option. When Bush came up for a second term, his competition was Kerry - who may actually be a Cylon.
So, we voted for the one who was the least bad - Bush.
Look at campaign adverts now. Sure, they run clean ads for the first few months of the election year, but mostly the ads are, "Look at the fire demon I'm running against. He eats babies and punched orphans. I do not." We are forced to look at the bad of (a) vs the bad of (b), instead of what (a) and (b) really stand for.
Again, I believe that Bush was re-elected simply because we are no longer voting for a candidate, but against another.
Want proof? Look at the comments in this or any/. thread about Obama or Romney. No one really has good things to say about either one. Most comments made are that Obama is awful because _____, or Romney is awful because ______. At this point, the vote against Candidate A attitude is so deeply entrenched that we have more of a popularity contest than an actual fucking presidential election.
For some reason I feel like I did a terrible job of explaining my rant. I hope that all makes sense and doesn't come across as too 'screw the gub'ment'.
This is why I never bought the whole "we should leave more things up to the states to decide" line of argument: as bad as the US Congress is, state legislatures are generally solidly worse; they just don't get as much press. Or maybe this is just a New York thing and other states are different, I don't know.
Intention is everything. If I am driving down the road, and hit a pedestrian on accident, your theory states that I have committed the same crime as someone who goes out of his/her way to hit a pedestrian on the same road.
Intention is everything - If I pull the trigger in hate, I have committed a crime. If I pull the trigger in self-defense, have I committed a crime?
'client'? And why does he need to know the content of every. single. message. that goes out on his network? Is this going to be like the talk with my kids when they say 'my friend has this girl he likes' kind of thing?
If you need to know what every message going out is, including the content of a (I assume) 'words with friends' game, maybe you should just unplug for a while and take a walk in the woods to clear your head. Then maybe speak to a psychiatrist for the paranoia issues.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, it's too easy, but seriously Mitt?
While I do agree that congress needs to quit meddling in my school, I would argue that complete responsibility shouldn't be held locally. That would create too wide of a disparity between the rich districts and poor districts (and no, we can't count on humans to be altruistic, especially when their precious little snowflakes are in the picture). But, instead, how about a happy medium? Congress controls the broad strokes, like funding (not removing funding - that should be held for public debate and vote), and deciding what subjects are taught - not content, like we have today. That way, some wacky group can't teach that the world is made of hammers, or that a magic genie created dinosaurs to eat all the oil to save it for future generations, or anything else equally as silly.
OH, and the teachers will be able to decide if their students are learning, based on a FAIR, and LOCALLY DECIDED metric created, annually reviewed, and updated by parents, teachers, RELEVANT administration, and RELEVANT community members (no, I don't think that the Wal-Mart in town has our students' best interests in mind.)
It's not a perfect idea, by any means, but it's mine, and I like it.
It's like a short penis.
A subscriber sees the articles before a non-subscriber, although you can't post until the story is visible to everyone.
LIES, ALL LIES!!! It's a shill; plainly that is the only answer. Don't try to use your logic on me, I'm wearing my tinfoil helmet today; it's casual Monday in the office, and nothing matches leopard print quite like a tinfoil hat.
I am hearing more and more on the news/on-line about how Russia and some other country are involved in something dodgy. Too lazy to look it up. Just take my word for it.
you are falling into the media's fascination with only reporting bad things.
Exactly. The news story that I saw listed 'an outbreak of violent cannibalistic crime on the East Coast'. There were four or five instances ranging from upper New York to Florida. Now, I'm not a geographer, but I'm pretty sure that four or five out of then ENTIRE east coast isn't exactly statistically significant.
But it does make for good ratings. . . .
talk about beating a dead horse.
At this point, I think it might be more akin to rape.
I swear to God, if you say my name three times and make me appear in whatever hole you currently reside. It's over. I have work to do this afternoon, and I can't be schlepping off to some third world hell hole.
Least bad = I vote against someone, therefore I have to vote for you (I'm assuming a two party system, because we are trained to believe that voting third party necessarily means we're pissing away our vote). Best = I vote for you, because I agree with you. It might be semantics, but it's a very definite line.
Voting against someone doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the person I'm voting for, or that he/she is the best candidate. It simply means that I don't want the other person to be elected.
It's very close to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". That statement is not always true (think mujahideen).
That makes those ads the most hateful things I've ever heard. That means Adams just wanted to call Jefferson a rapist in public, for no reason other than to be a dick.
That's hilarious!
I'm not arguing that it was illegal, and immoral. What I'm arguing is that a super rosy picture like the Facebook IPO is almost never true. I am also arguing that when there are Billions of dollars floating around, morals, ethics and the law tend to become gray areas. . . . At least from what I've seen, and at least temporarily.
The point isn't who won. I don't care who won. The point is that we no longer vote for the best, we only vote for who is the least bad option. Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Paul, Peter, Mary. I don't care who is running - the best way for them to get elected is to make us vote against their competition, instead of for themselves. That's the issue.
If you're an investor you've got to assume they're painting a rosy picture to try an convince people to invest. It's your responsibility to figure out if the story is too good to be true.
EX-FUCKING-ACTLY. If you are going to invest money in anything, you have to assume that the other person is at least lying a bit. Maybe not a lot, but a bit. It's up to you to look at as many sources as you have available to you to figure out the real picture. If you only go off of the word of the person you’re buying from, you’re an idiot (and that applies to anything in the world from toilet paper to your stock portfolio).
For example: when you purchase a new car, do you just walk in and say, “Gee, that looks shiny, and I'm sure the salesman is telling me the truth. SOLD!” or, do you research first, test-drive, research some more, then buy the shiny one?
For Fucks sake folks. You bet on an intangible product that overvalues itself (based on what I've read), spend BILLIONS on it, and are surprised when the people receiving the BILLIONS are trying to make as much money as possible, even if it's unscrupulous?
And before I'm called for hating facebook (which I do) - I don't care what the company is; if it produces an intangible entertainment service that can be replaced at the drop of a hat, based on mass will and crowd decision making, it isn't worth b-b-b-b-billions of dollars.
Okay, you got me there, I actually did not know that, because I've never been that invested in political history. BUT, no matter how long-standing of a tradition dirty ads are, is it right to run them?
Exactly. It's like the checkered suit wearing used car salesman of the US.
I worked retail management for about 3 years while I was finishing my masters. I don't mean to toot my own horn (okay, I kind of do), but they were desperate to keep me. Why? I was a terrible manager - I let the employees get away with murder, as long as the work got done. I was insubordinate - if the policy was stupid, I didn't follow it. I told the head of the store that I hated my job and I hated the store - every day for two years.
So, why were they desperate to keep me? I could think. The regional actually told me that he would be sad to see me go, because critical thinking is rare in retail. They dangled long-term job offers, travel, higher pay and increased benefits to try to get me to stay. Again, why?
Because I could think. They know that if you have any sort of brain, that retail is just a temporary gig on the road of life, and it makes them sad on the inside.
The point isn't who won.
I don't care who won.
The point is that we no longer vote for the best, we only vote for who is the least bad option.
Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Paul, Peter, Mary. I don't care who is running - the best way for them to get elected is to make us vote against their competition, instead of for themselves.
That's the issue.
As the other poster stated - how easy is it, really, to sell a house (or farm). Find a new job (or farm), school, etc.? It's not.
Also, we the people, can have more influence over state legislation than we can at the Federal level.
Easier physical access to their office, and an easier process to get face time with them != more influence.
You actually just called out major flaw in the US election system. We no longer vote for the best candidate, and they no longer run on the 'I am best platform.' We now vote for the least bad option. When Bush came up for a second term, his competition was Kerry - who may actually be a Cylon.
So, we voted for the one who was the least bad - Bush.
Look at campaign adverts now. Sure, they run clean ads for the first few months of the election year, but mostly the ads are, "Look at the fire demon I'm running against. He eats babies and punched orphans. I do not." We are forced to look at the bad of (a) vs the bad of (b), instead of what (a) and (b) really stand for.
Again, I believe that Bush was re-elected simply because we are no longer voting for a candidate, but against another.
Want proof? Look at the comments in this or any /. thread about Obama or Romney. No one really has good things to say about either one. Most comments made are that Obama is awful because _____, or Romney is awful because ______. At this point, the vote against Candidate A attitude is so deeply entrenched that we have more of a popularity contest than an actual fucking presidential election.
For some reason I feel like I did a terrible job of explaining my rant. I hope that all makes sense and doesn't come across as too 'screw the gub'ment'.
This is why I never bought the whole "we should leave more things up to the states to decide" line of argument: as bad as the US Congress is, state legislatures are generally solidly worse; they just don't get as much press. Or maybe this is just a New York thing and other states are different, I don't know.
Illinois, that is all.(And I found that article with a twenty second search.)
That's a shitload of porn.
You are walking a fine line.
Intention is everything. If I am driving down the road, and hit a pedestrian on accident, your theory states that I have committed the same crime as someone who goes out of his/her way to hit a pedestrian on the same road.
Intention is everything - If I pull the trigger in hate, I have committed a crime. If I pull the trigger in self-defense, have I committed a crime?
It's not news, it's a euphemism that's been around for years: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
In other news, water - wet, air - dry, penguins - little Hitlers in tuxedos.
'client'? And why does he need to know the content of every. single. message. that goes out on his network? Is this going to be like the talk with my kids when they say 'my friend has this girl he likes' kind of thing?
If you need to know what every message going out is, including the content of a (I assume) 'words with friends' game, maybe you should just unplug for a while and take a walk in the woods to clear your head. Then maybe speak to a psychiatrist for the paranoia issues.