So you received no federal PELL or MAP money? You received no student loans? You received no scholarships? You received no student aid of any kind? That claim states that you paid cash, dollar bills, for your education.
Allow me to further rebut your statements: 1. Because you live in a society that values education for their soldiers, so that they don't have to "kill" their entire lives; 2. See answer #1; 3. Not all soldiers are poor, and not all soldiers use the service to fund their education. You're looking at it backwards. What I said was that some civilians can't afford education, so then they become soldiers to help pay for it. It's called incentive. One thing that you're not touching on is that the soldiers have the chance of being killed as well. So, they should do that for free?; 3 again; and I want to call back to; you live in a society that asks you to pay taxes. It's not your money and your money alone - that's the beautiful thing about living in the world, it turns out that there are other people here!; 4. If you can't retire at 50, don't blame other people. I won't be able to retire at 50, but that's because I went into a career field that doesn't pay well, and I didn't start investing in my retirement until into my late twenties. Who do I blame for that? Do I blame my parents for being poor and raising me poor? Do I blame the economy for sucking? Do I fucking blame my taxes for keeping me from investing as much as I should? Nope.
In other words, if you don't like what your tax money pays for, you have two options: (a)Don't pay taxes; (b) shut up.
And again, you use no facts, only opinion. At this point, I will stop feeding the troll. It's been fun.
I know that this may be futile, but allow me to rebut your statements.
Man, you screwed my sense of reason.
What?
So first they are soldier, but we like them not because they are actually doing their job (killing people)
Yes, some soldiers are infantry, and have the aim of killing people, sure. BUT, there are many people who are soldiers because they want to help other people, and see the military as the best way to do that, because of their limited funds, or some other factor.
but because they are helping the people during some natural disasters (for which you usually have insurance anyway)
Yes, I do have insurance, but do you know what my personal insurance doesn't do? Rebuild the levees that busted. I was implying that they were there doing things that insurance and individuals don't do - like fixing infrastructure to make the area habitable again. Please Google search Illinois and the flood of 1993.
and also all these money that we throw at them help them get some education (again, not part of their duties)
So bettering themselves isn't part of their job? Does your place of work have an educational stipend to pay for professional development or continuing education? It's the same thing, just on a larger scale.
and when they retire at age of 30 they could get all these benefits, and FINALLY, DECENT JOB???
That's incorrect. The retirement limits are as follows:
For Navy and Marine Corps members, you are considered to be a "retired member" for classification purposes if you are an enlisted member with over 30 years service, or a warrant or commissioned officer. Enlisted Navy and Marine Corps members with less than 30 years service are transferred to the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Corps Reserve and their pay is referred to as "retainer pay". Air Force and Army members with over 20 years service are all classified as retired, and receive retired pay. When a Navy or Marine Corps member completes 30 years, including time on the retired rolls in receipt of retainer pay, the Fleet Reserve status is changed to retired status, and they begin receiving retired pay.
So, if you put your time in (the shortest being 20 years, so realistically 38 is the soonest that you could draw a full military pension), you get a retirement. My current, non-military position has 30 years as its amount of time to be vested. . . . Seems like the same amount as most of those above. . . . .
Do you see the problem here? No? You prefer to WASTE a tons of money just to give some maybe brave, but still stupid soldier decent job?
1. Yes, the problem is that your logic is terrible and is based on opinion, not fact. 2. Yes. 3. Why are they stupid? Are you saying that all soldiers are stupid? Okay, let's speak in absolutes! All people who write left-handed smell, all lawyers eat babies, and all middle-aged white men are serial killers. Yay! Making new stereotypes is fun!
When a lot of decent and skilled people are without any decent job????
Now here is how I know that you didn't understand what I was saying. For many, many, many people, the military is the only way to pay for college. Believe it or not, many people don't have access to enough money or connections to be able to start a decent career.
So, would you rather pay for their educational benefits for 4-5 years, or their social welfare benefits for the rest of their lives, their kids' lives, their grandkids' lives and so on and so on?
Here are some tips on making your point in a more effective manner: avoid caps lock, it's not your friend; use facts instead of opinions; and try not to call an entire subsection of a country 'stupid' - remember when people used to believe that black people were inferior? That's the same sort of thing.
I'm not, but being a soldier is a decent job. Here in the states, when a river floods, the first on the scene are soldiers. When there is a relief effort for victims of a natural disaster of any kind, generally soldiers are the first there to help.
For many, being a soldier is the only way to pay for college effectively. or to increase their experience before looking for full-time employment - a means to an end, or, as you put it, to help them "GET A DECENT JOB".
Okay then, other than improved voter participation, how do you suggest that we remove the billions of dollars of special interest money from the process?
AND, further, how do you propose that we guarantee that big media and the like won't skew the stories to condition people to think a certain way about the candidate of their choice?
And as a side note, I didn't say that I agreed with it, I was simply explaining it as you asked,
I'm always curious as to why people think getting rid of professional politicians will help things.
And there's the problem; it always comes down to morals and opinions. Is the life of a scientist or the life of a soldier more valuable?
Is it better to spend $10 trillion on guns, barracks, flak jackets, soldier pay and pensions, health care for vets and the like, or on chemicals, labs, lab-coats (I don't really know how scientists dress anymore. . ..), scientist pay and pensions, and health care and the like for people trying to do science? (does one 'do' science?)
One is not inherently more valuable than the other by any means - both have their appropriate place in society; our opinions dictate which we see as more valuable.
The problem isn't long-term politicians, the problem is that long-term politicians become easy targets for large money interest groups. Capping their terms is often viewed as the easiest way to end that entrenched issue. But, as with most things, there is no silver bullet. . . . .
That's true. And I haven't had a "Re: re re Re re Fwd re fwd fwd Re re: fwd: re Re re Fwd fwd:" make it through my email filters for years now.
FTFY
Or, your other option is that your mom has passed away; moms always send that stuff. (but only because they just want you to call, they just need someone to talk to, because since your dad died, they just haven't been the same; too much time on their hands, maybe a bit depressed, and the kids are all gone. Like what, they're supposed to get a hobby? What can they do, they're on a fixed income and have arthritis. Oh, go on a date? Who wants to date a post-menopausal white-haired old lady? All they want is for their son/daughter to call to see how its' going. Is that too much to ask?)
Can't do that, here in 'Merka we know that's socialism. Everyone knows socialism is only one step away from communism, and everyone knows that communism leads to false idols, and false idols might as well be satan, and satan demands sacrifice. DID YOU JUST ASK ME TO SACRIFICE MY DAUGHTER????
Actually, that's the standard teachers union line, where the fast learning kids get to teach the slower kids instead of learning farther ahead themselves. This makes them more manageable, and keeps everything on a nice grade-level basis so the teacher can read the lesson plan a week ahead of having to teach the lesson, instead of knowing the material cold. This is why it's possible for the P.E. teacher to substitute for the History teacher on occasion.
In my experience in education, that's a horrible spin on peer-learning. Methinks you had a poor experience.
If you're going to be ignorant, that's great, but don't group all learning and educators into one group because of your own bias. Do you know the real reason that "it's possible for the P.E. teacher to substitute for the History teacher on occasion"? Because the P.E. teacher is a trained professional, believe it or not. S/he understands the basics of education and the fundamentals of teaching. This means that if the History teacher makes good lesson plans, prepares well, and does what s/he is supposed to do, then YES, there can be cross-discipline teaching in the short term.
Does it work that way all the time? Nope. But, can you tell me that you give 100% on every project you've ever done, and that every single hour of every single day of your working career has been spent working to your maximum potential?
Keep your ignorance in check, please, and don't equate sample size to population - it's bad practice.
What's that thing about having cake and eating it too. . . . Realistically, trademark and intellectual property aren't going away anytime soon. So, would you rather have letters and processes like this, or would you just like to skip to the lawsuits at the drop of a hat?
3. Remove any student who is constantly disrupting class. If they become a problem (and don't have a documented mental handicap), simply expel them and kick them out onto the street.
If they are a problem, the parents will just get them diagnosed as something. The kid could just be a little shit, and somewhere, someone will diagnose him/her as having oppositional defiance disorder.
"4. Establish a general policy of erring on the side of pacing the class to the speed of the top 50% of the class, not the bottom 50%. If the bottom cannot keep up, offer them tutoring; if they fail objectively, fail them for the year.
Tried that once - parents lose their minds. Remember - teachers have a class of 20-40 little special fucking snowflakes to deal with. Most parents believe that their kid is the most special, and that if little Johnny fails the teacher has done something wrong. It is damned near impossible to hold a student back - not because of the school, but because of the parents and their propensity to sue at the drop of a hat.
Parents don't have to 'make their kids work,' they have to encourage their kids to work, and teach them the value of an education. I believe that what the poster was trying to say is that if parents don't encourage education, the student won't succeed. That rule stands --regardless of ability--. There's research there - go to ERIC, and search the words 'parental involvement correlation with student achievement'. That's a basic, basic fact about education. Teachers are only glorified babysitters if parents don't teach the kids to value education.
Pricing, please. Saying it isn't that expensive does not equal a price. What distance? Man hours? Price for materials, etc.? We're looking into viable options for our own farm/property, and fiber's on there, I just can't find any reliable pricing structures.
Okay, and I was once pulled over for possible DUI. I was swerving because I dropped my tea and was trying to grab it - it was late at night, and they were right, it looked like a DUI.
Ever think that maybe, just maybe they had an actual reason for pulling you over?
What my argument above was is that the AC claimed that driving in Illinois = spot checks for papers like Nazi Germany. That is not true. I regularly drive on Illinois highways.
I live in Illinois, and have never had to show my license unless I was pulled over for something like speeding, or some other traffic violation. What are you trying to reference with this?
The problem is that the folks who have most of the money got a taste for tearing countries apart and sucking up their public sector at a profit. They did it in South America, they've done it in Europe a few times and have started that money train again, and they tried to do it in Asia. That leaves two more options for BIG money - try Asia again, but the last try was such a miserable failure because of the Asian Tigers and their propensity to buck the IMF's trend that rich folks don't want to deal with that shit again; or they could come to the US and break us down.
Right now, a lot of public money flows to private enterprise because of the military, but there's a shit-load more money there. Communications, transportation, energy and education are all cash-cows that they're just starting to seriously milk to varying degrees.
Has anyone else started seeing much, much more of these sorts of patent related articles in the media recently? I assume that patents have always been an issue, so why the vigorous focus at this point? Hell, I thought that the big 5 movie studios were built because of patents, and that was a hell of a long time ago. So, why are almost all media sources focusing so much on patents and patent trolls? What's the agenda here?
Statistics do not clearly show that, anecdotes from half-interpreted statistics show that. What statistics show (the ones that state that there is a 50% divorce rate) is that for every year, for every 1,000 people, around 7.8(ish) get married, and around 3.4(ish) get divorced, OR, statistics show that at one time a reporter found the numbers that 2.4 million people got married in a year and 1.2 got divorced. Now, that doesn't mean that half of all people get divorced, or that half of all marriages end in divorce. What it actually means is that about half as many people get divorced each year as get married (which seems to me to leave a surplus, correct?).
A more accurate number could be gleamed by tracking each year's marriages individually, but we don't do that. We track them when they get married and when they get divorced. In the mean-time, they get lumped into the 60 million other marriages that exist. . . .
For a more accurate representation of divorce rates, we have to look at the actual percentages of people who have been divorced. That number has been hovering pretty steadily for around 40 years. According to a NY Times article, "The highest rate of divorce in the 2001 survey was 41 percent for men who were then between the ages of 50 to 59, and 39 percent for women in the same age group." That's the highest divorce rate - you notice that it's for one set of ages? That's because all other age groups reported lower rates of divorce. That number was steadily rising until 2001, and has been steadily dropping from that time on.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the idea. . . .
I am also poor, and NO, no one paid my education
So you received no federal PELL or MAP money? You received no student loans? You received no scholarships? You received no student aid of any kind? That claim states that you paid cash, dollar bills, for your education.
Allow me to further rebut your statements: 1. Because you live in a society that values education for their soldiers, so that they don't have to "kill" their entire lives; 2. See answer #1; 3. Not all soldiers are poor, and not all soldiers use the service to fund their education. You're looking at it backwards. What I said was that some civilians can't afford education, so then they become soldiers to help pay for it. It's called incentive. One thing that you're not touching on is that the soldiers have the chance of being killed as well. So, they should do that for free?; 3 again; and I want to call back to; you live in a society that asks you to pay taxes. It's not your money and your money alone - that's the beautiful thing about living in the world, it turns out that there are other people here!; 4. If you can't retire at 50, don't blame other people. I won't be able to retire at 50, but that's because I went into a career field that doesn't pay well, and I didn't start investing in my retirement until into my late twenties. Who do I blame for that? Do I blame my parents for being poor and raising me poor? Do I blame the economy for sucking? Do I fucking blame my taxes for keeping me from investing as much as I should? Nope.
In other words, if you don't like what your tax money pays for, you have two options: (a)Don't pay taxes; (b) shut up.
And again, you use no facts, only opinion. At this point, I will stop feeding the troll. It's been fun.
Man, you screwed my sense of reason.
What?
So first they are soldier, but we like them not because they are actually doing their job (killing people)
Yes, some soldiers are infantry, and have the aim of killing people, sure. BUT, there are many people who are soldiers because they want to help other people, and see the military as the best way to do that, because of their limited funds, or some other factor.
but because they are helping the people during some natural disasters (for which you usually have insurance anyway)
Yes, I do have insurance, but do you know what my personal insurance doesn't do? Rebuild the levees that busted. I was implying that they were there doing things that insurance and individuals don't do - like fixing infrastructure to make the area habitable again. Please Google search Illinois and the flood of 1993.
and also all these money that we throw at them help them get some education (again, not part of their duties)
So bettering themselves isn't part of their job? Does your place of work have an educational stipend to pay for professional development or continuing education? It's the same thing, just on a larger scale.
and when they retire at age of 30 they could get all these benefits, and FINALLY, DECENT JOB???
That's incorrect. The retirement limits are as follows:
For Navy and Marine Corps members, you are considered to be a "retired member" for classification purposes if you are an enlisted member with over 30 years service, or a warrant or commissioned officer. Enlisted Navy and Marine Corps members with less than 30 years service are transferred to the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Corps Reserve and their pay is referred to as "retainer pay". Air Force and Army members with over 20 years service are all classified as retired, and receive retired pay. When a Navy or Marine Corps member completes 30 years, including time on the retired rolls in receipt of retainer pay, the Fleet Reserve status is changed to retired status, and they begin receiving retired pay.
So, if you put your time in (the shortest being 20 years, so realistically 38 is the soonest that you could draw a full military pension), you get a retirement. My current, non-military position has 30 years as its amount of time to be vested. . . . Seems like the same amount as most of those above. . . . .
Do you see the problem here? No? You prefer to WASTE a tons of money just to give some maybe brave, but still stupid soldier decent job?
1. Yes, the problem is that your logic is terrible and is based on opinion, not fact. 2. Yes. 3. Why are they stupid? Are you saying that all soldiers are stupid? Okay, let's speak in absolutes! All people who write left-handed smell, all lawyers eat babies, and all middle-aged white men are serial killers. Yay! Making new stereotypes is fun!
When a lot of decent and skilled people are without any decent job????
Now here is how I know that you didn't understand what I was saying. For many, many, many people, the military is the only way to pay for college. Believe it or not, many people don't have access to enough money or connections to be able to start a decent career.
So, would you rather pay for their educational benefits for 4-5 years, or their social welfare benefits for the rest of their lives, their kids' lives, their grandkids' lives and so on and so on?
Here are some tips on making your point in a more effective manner: avoid caps lock, it's not your friend; use facts instead of opinions; and try not to call an entire subsection of a country 'stupid' - remember when people used to believe that black people were inferior? That's the same sort of thing.
I'm not, but being a soldier is a decent job. Here in the states, when a river floods, the first on the scene are soldiers. When there is a relief effort for victims of a natural disaster of any kind, generally soldiers are the first there to help.
For many, being a soldier is the only way to pay for college effectively. or to increase their experience before looking for full-time employment - a means to an end, or, as you put it, to help them "GET A DECENT JOB".
Wait, are you telling soldiers and scientists to get decent jobs? Or are you telling me to get a decent job? Your thesis statement is confusing.
History has shown that high taxes on the rich do NOT harm the economy.
They do when the rich arbitrarily make decisions to fuck the rest of us if we tax them more. Humans are one thing consistently: spiteful and greedy.
AND, further, how do you propose that we guarantee that big media and the like won't skew the stories to condition people to think a certain way about the candidate of their choice?
And as a side note, I didn't say that I agreed with it, I was simply explaining it as you asked,
I'm always curious as to why people think getting rid of professional politicians will help things.
And there's the problem; it always comes down to morals and opinions. Is the life of a scientist or the life of a soldier more valuable?
Is it better to spend $10 trillion on guns, barracks, flak jackets, soldier pay and pensions, health care for vets and the like, or on chemicals, labs, lab-coats (I don't really know how scientists dress anymore. . . .), scientist pay and pensions, and health care and the like for people trying to do science? (does one 'do' science?)
One is not inherently more valuable than the other by any means - both have their appropriate place in society; our opinions dictate which we see as more valuable.
The problem isn't long-term politicians, the problem is that long-term politicians become easy targets for large money interest groups. Capping their terms is often viewed as the easiest way to end that entrenched issue. But, as with most things, there is no silver bullet. . . . .
and subsequent public trading of Facebook are both good ideas, and this company's shares are definitely not overvalued. . . . . .
That's true. And I haven't had a "Re: re re Re re Fwd re fwd fwd Re re: fwd: re Re re Fwd fwd:" make it through my email filters for years now.
FTFY
Or, your other option is that your mom has passed away; moms always send that stuff. (but only because they just want you to call, they just need someone to talk to, because since your dad died, they just haven't been the same; too much time on their hands, maybe a bit depressed, and the kids are all gone. Like what, they're supposed to get a hobby? What can they do, they're on a fixed income and have arthritis. Oh, go on a date? Who wants to date a post-menopausal white-haired old lady? All they want is for their son/daughter to call to see how its' going. Is that too much to ask?)
Can't do that, here in 'Merka we know that's socialism. Everyone knows socialism is only one step away from communism, and everyone knows that communism leads to false idols, and false idols might as well be satan, and satan demands sacrifice. DID YOU JUST ASK ME TO SACRIFICE MY DAUGHTER????
Actually, that's the standard teachers union line, where the fast learning kids get to teach the slower kids instead of learning farther ahead themselves. This makes them more manageable, and keeps everything on a nice grade-level basis so the teacher can read the lesson plan a week ahead of having to teach the lesson, instead of knowing the material cold. This is why it's possible for the P.E. teacher to substitute for the History teacher on occasion.
In my experience in education, that's a horrible spin on peer-learning. Methinks you had a poor experience.
Used correctly, peer learning is not only beneficial, but can improve grades in math for all students, can improve self-esteem and self-efficacy in young girls in math and science, and is considered one of the better cost-to-benefit options available.
Again, though, that's done correctly.
If you're going to be ignorant, that's great, but don't group all learning and educators into one group because of your own bias. Do you know the real reason that "it's possible for the P.E. teacher to substitute for the History teacher on occasion"? Because the P.E. teacher is a trained professional, believe it or not. S/he understands the basics of education and the fundamentals of teaching. This means that if the History teacher makes good lesson plans, prepares well, and does what s/he is supposed to do, then YES, there can be cross-discipline teaching in the short term.
Does it work that way all the time? Nope. But, can you tell me that you give 100% on every project you've ever done, and that every single hour of every single day of your working career has been spent working to your maximum potential?
Keep your ignorance in check, please, and don't equate sample size to population - it's bad practice.
But I thought that the standard /. line was to teach to the highest student and pull the rest along. . . . .
What's that thing about having cake and eating it too. . . . Realistically, trademark and intellectual property aren't going away anytime soon. So, would you rather have letters and processes like this, or would you just like to skip to the lawsuits at the drop of a hat?
Here;s my experience in education talking:
3. Remove any student who is constantly disrupting class. If they become a problem (and don't have a documented mental handicap), simply expel them and kick them out onto the street.
If they are a problem, the parents will just get them diagnosed as something. The kid could just be a little shit, and somewhere, someone will diagnose him/her as having oppositional defiance disorder.
"4. Establish a general policy of erring on the side of pacing the class to the speed of the top 50% of the class, not the bottom 50%. If the bottom cannot keep up, offer them tutoring; if they fail objectively, fail them for the year.
Tried that once - parents lose their minds. Remember - teachers have a class of 20-40 little special fucking snowflakes to deal with. Most parents believe that their kid is the most special, and that if little Johnny fails the teacher has done something wrong. It is damned near impossible to hold a student back - not because of the school, but because of the parents and their propensity to sue at the drop of a hat.
Parents don't have to 'make their kids work,' they have to encourage their kids to work, and teach them the value of an education. I believe that what the poster was trying to say is that if parents don't encourage education, the student won't succeed. That rule stands --regardless of ability--. There's research there - go to ERIC, and search the words 'parental involvement correlation with student achievement'. That's a basic, basic fact about education. Teachers are only glorified babysitters if parents don't teach the kids to value education.
Pricing, please. Saying it isn't that expensive does not equal a price. What distance? Man hours? Price for materials, etc.? We're looking into viable options for our own farm/property, and fiber's on there, I just can't find any reliable pricing structures.
Okay, and I was once pulled over for possible DUI. I was swerving because I dropped my tea and was trying to grab it - it was late at night, and they were right, it looked like a DUI.
Ever think that maybe, just maybe they had an actual reason for pulling you over?
What my argument above was is that the AC claimed that driving in Illinois = spot checks for papers like Nazi Germany. That is not true. I regularly drive on Illinois highways.
Umm, being able to make that statement without fear of arrest, doesn't that mean that you have. . . . . . freedom?
people driving along the highway in Illinois
I live in Illinois, and have never had to show my license unless I was pulled over for something like speeding, or some other traffic violation. What are you trying to reference with this?
Right now, a lot of public money flows to private enterprise because of the military, but there's a shit-load more money there. Communications, transportation, energy and education are all cash-cows that they're just starting to seriously milk to varying degrees.
Has anyone else started seeing much, much more of these sorts of patent related articles in the media recently? I assume that patents have always been an issue, so why the vigorous focus at this point? Hell, I thought that the big 5 movie studios were built because of patents, and that was a hell of a long time ago. So, why are almost all media sources focusing so much on patents and patent trolls? What's the agenda here?
Statistics do not clearly show that, anecdotes from half-interpreted statistics show that. What statistics show (the ones that state that there is a 50% divorce rate) is that for every year, for every 1,000 people, around 7.8(ish) get married, and around 3.4(ish) get divorced, OR, statistics show that at one time a reporter found the numbers that 2.4 million people got married in a year and 1.2 got divorced. Now, that doesn't mean that half of all people get divorced, or that half of all marriages end in divorce. What it actually means is that about half as many people get divorced each year as get married (which seems to me to leave a surplus, correct?).
A more accurate number could be gleamed by tracking each year's marriages individually, but we don't do that. We track them when they get married and when they get divorced. In the mean-time, they get lumped into the 60 million other marriages that exist. . . .
For a more accurate representation of divorce rates, we have to look at the actual percentages of people who have been divorced. That number has been hovering pretty steadily for around 40 years. According to a NY Times article, "The highest rate of divorce in the 2001 survey was 41 percent for men who were then between the ages of 50 to 59, and 39 percent for women in the same age group." That's the highest divorce rate - you notice that it's for one set of ages? That's because all other age groups reported lower rates of divorce. That number was steadily rising until 2001, and has been steadily dropping from that time on.
Oh, and that's not quite half, huh?
there are no other communities which equal what /. once was
That's actually a type of cognitive bias. . . .