Parents don't need to understand differential equations. By the time their children need to understand differential equations they will be more than ready to decide which college they want to go themselves.
And that is a huge fallacy in the ends. Parents can and do consult specialists to help their children. That happens every time they take their children to the doctor, for example, they don't need to be medics themselves to be able to provide medical care to their children.
Governments on the other hand try to apply the same formula based on prejudices, technocracy, political views and mediocrity to all children in the public school system, and care very little if the results are really beneficial to these children.
They accept anyone willing to pay, and enforce rules. Rich kids are not a guarantee of better grades, my friends. Intelligence distribution does not match money distribution. Your excuses are just that: excuses.
Private schools are better because they are more efficient, like private companies, private health care, or anything at all that is not controlled by the government.
I am not against universal education paid by the government, but I am certainly against of education controlled and managed by the government.
But seriously, the teacher's unions around here do not make the arguments that you claim yours do, but if yours does, ok, however it seems you're also making that same argument. So if we can't trust them, how can we trust you when you're doing the same thing you say not to trust in others?
Teacher's unions anywhere use this argument. It is the argument used against charter schools anywhere charter schools exist. They try to detract charter school quality anyway they can. They preach that privatization of all schools would make education worse because it would be a commercial and ruled by market laws, ignoring that private schools are better. They use the students supposed "well being" to leverage their position all the time, in US and everywhere else where there is threat to their jobs.
And you don`t need to trust me. Trust is irrelevant. Arguments stand on their own regardless of who makes them. And in this case it is even more irrelevant if you trust me or not, because the ones you should decide to trust or not are the parents, and it is simply stupid not to trust them with this, as we already trust them with much more important things, like the lives and physical integrity of the children in question
Parents have been making a mess of raising their children for several millennium, while the survival of the human race has not been threatened by any such individual decision, many children have paid the price for their actions.
Only in your distorted view. Most parents do aquite a good job, and that is the only motive why we have a functional society. Governments on the other hand made huge messes and disrupted society with wars, genocides, massacres, mass surveillance,, indocrinnation, etc.
Whatever can we do, apparently neither side can be trusted to do things right! Let's go for the nihilistic solution!
Perfection does not exist in this world, but imperfections vary greatly. Nobody is talking about nihilistic solution, just about putting the decision in the hands of parents, because they are the least imperfect solution for this problem, being better than the government by far.
They are making decisions that impact me, and I don't agree with them, yet my ability to effect change is limited. You seem to be in the same situation. Whatever shall we do?
Easy, we should fight for our freedom to make our decisions and have control over any aspect of our lives that are not a government business to dictate, like the education of our children.
Governments work by coercion through threat of violence. They are a necessary evil to keep society working, but they are an evil. Exactly because there is no consensus about most human endeavors we should keep coercion over people that disagree with most of us to the minimum necessary. that is the moral thing to do. Or do you think that if 70% of the people suddenly decide that we should exterminate the other 30% it would be ok to do so?
I've never heard the teacher's unions around here make that argument.
Not my fault if you have been isolated in a cave for the last 50 years or so .
The parents are both interested in their children's best welfare and that they are informed enough to make the right choice
Between the parents and government bureaucrats I will bet in the parents every time. Parents are responsible for many other critical decisions regarding their children and considering the human race haven't been extinct yet I think they are doing a reasonably good job. Bureaucrats on the other hand have very little interest in creating a society that does not need their "guidance".
Oh, and regarding your last silly remarks, many did not vote for the current government, and even those who did are not voting for people so these people can run their lives for them. They are voting for people to fill executive and legislative positions in the government. How much of their lives this government should be in charge is open to debate and certainly it is not a consensus between those who voted for it much less between those that did not.
Between feeding the students corporate propaganda and government propaganda I certainly prefer the former. At least there will be many corporations fighting for what to feed them and not a single one.
Teachers unions are all but direct in their interest being the representations of teachers. All their political arguments start and end with "for the students". Same thing about the public school system. The public servers that run it have exactly one interest, and that is keeping their jobs and their regulative power, but all their arguments also start and end with "for the students".
You are right in one assumption though: "You can't serve two masters.". That is exactly why giving parents the power to choose their children schools is the best way to solve the problem, because the only people who serve the right masters, the students, are the parents.
Yes, but the energy costs of printing real money is fairly low, and non-constant.
On the other hand the energy necessary to produce the paper and the ink used are significant, and the energy used to circulate this physical money is constant and several orders of magnitude higher than the energy necessary to circulate virtual money.
That describes practically every data transaction we do involving money in this world, and it is still much better than printing paper and transferring it by truck, train or plane between one place and the other.
Sooner or later that chances. The exceptions are very very rare and usually end on the company dying and the IP going to obscurity where it is some times bought by a troll or another.
Sure it does. It increases the rate at which other companies can make proprietary software, by relieving them of some costs. Therefore it increases the number of proprietary software available to be bought by bigger companies, which given the patent system, increases the probability of an open source software step into a patented code owned by a big company.
How much it helps is arguable, but that it does help is undeniable.
Yes, but is that enough to justify the negative effects that the increasing concentration of copyrights, and worse, patents in the hands of the big? Personally I don`t think so.
Maybe, it would be different if there was no such thing as software patents in US, like in most of the world, and only copyright, and if copyright was not a lifelong and more right as it is today, but as it is I am forced to agree with him on this.
That is because most fathers only seek custody when mothers are dysfunctional and unfit for it. Usually fathers leave the custody at the hands of women, because that is the tradition. You and this study would ONLY have a point if every case of divorce ended in custody fights and the numbers were similar to this. Otherwise whatever point you are trying to make is just speculation.
It is inevitable. It is the result of competition. Either you sell to the big or you become big.
Computer games didn't reach so much as an equilibrium as you think. Except for very odd exceptions the only independents that keep being small are those that are unable to succeed and usually those end closing doors. Those that succeed eventually are either absorbed by the great labels, become big themselves, or, more commonly, both.
The one fantasizing is you. The fact that most democratic representatives are men is irrelevant. For the last decades they have consistently given more and more rights to women. Women didn't take arms and forced those in power to give them the right to vote, for example, or any right at all. They were given to them. Every single right women "conquered" in the last 50 years was given to them by those "evil men".
Your theory that because men writing laws couldn't possibly benefit women and marginalize men is ridiculous. Men have been used as cannon fodder and beasts of burden for most of human history, by women and by the other men in power. Men have died in mass to give women what they and their children need to survive. Men are hardwired to put women's interests above even theirs, and certainly above the interests of other men.
You talk about misogyny, but your misandry is appalling.
Incredible, isn't it? But the fact is they do, and that is undeniable. Maybe the reason is because men are used to protect and provide women with everything they want for millennia.
Oh, telling the truth can have horrendous consequences, my friend, and you can be the bad guy by doing it sometimes and quite spectacularly. Thinking otherwise is the extreme of naivety. Without lies our society would collapse very quickly.
He is not dehumanizing anyone. You are failing to understanding what he is saying with this metaphor. He is just saying that the law makes them an extreme liability to any male that decides to have a relationship with then.
No it is not misogynistic, it is only true, not because there is something intrinsically wrong with the women in question, but because the law make them a disease. On contact you will be contaminated and if ever you want to break with her you will end being accountable to pay for her child care.
You can defend whatever you wish, but other people have other beliefs. I for one think proprietary software is ok, but open source should be mandatory. If I buy a program from you I have the right to know exactly what it is doing in my machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignore both GPA AND Class Rank. Let the graduation schools apply entry tests. Problem solved.
Parents don't need to understand differential equations. By the time their children need to understand differential equations they will be more than ready to decide which college they want to go themselves.
And that is a huge fallacy in the ends. Parents can and do consult specialists to help their children. That happens every time they take their children to the doctor, for example, they don't need to be medics themselves to be able to provide medical care to their children.
Governments on the other hand try to apply the same formula based on prejudices, technocracy, political views and mediocrity to all children in the public school system, and care very little if the results are really beneficial to these children.
They accept anyone willing to pay, and enforce rules. Rich kids are not a guarantee of better grades, my friends. Intelligence distribution does not match money distribution. Your excuses are just that: excuses.
Private schools are better because they are more efficient, like private companies, private health care, or anything at all that is not controlled by the government.
I am not against universal education paid by the government, but I am certainly against of education controlled and managed by the government.
But seriously, the teacher's unions around here do not make the arguments that you claim yours do, but if yours does, ok, however it seems you're also making that same argument. So if we can't trust them, how can we trust you when you're doing the same thing you say not to trust in others?
Teacher's unions anywhere use this argument. It is the argument used against charter schools anywhere charter schools exist. They try to detract charter school quality anyway they can. They preach that privatization of all schools would make education worse because it would be a commercial and ruled by market laws, ignoring that private schools are better. They use the students supposed "well being" to leverage their position all the time, in US and everywhere else where there is threat to their jobs.
And you don`t need to trust me. Trust is irrelevant. Arguments stand on their own regardless of who makes them. And in this case it is even more irrelevant if you trust me or not, because the ones you should decide to trust or not are the parents, and it is simply stupid not to trust them with this, as we already trust them with much more important things, like the lives and physical integrity of the children in question
Parents have been making a mess of raising their children for several millennium, while the survival of the human race has not been threatened by any such individual decision, many children have paid the price for their actions.
Only in your distorted view. Most parents do aquite a good job, and that is the only motive why we have a functional society. Governments on the other hand made huge messes and disrupted society with wars, genocides, massacres, mass surveillance,, indocrinnation, etc.
Whatever can we do, apparently neither side can be trusted to do things right! Let's go for the nihilistic solution!
Perfection does not exist in this world, but imperfections vary greatly. Nobody is talking about nihilistic solution, just about putting the decision in the hands of parents, because they are the least imperfect solution for this problem, being better than the government by far.
They are making decisions that impact me, and I don't agree with them, yet my ability to effect change is limited. You seem to be in the same situation. Whatever shall we do?
Easy, we should fight for our freedom to make our decisions and have control over any aspect of our lives that are not a government business to dictate, like the education of our children.
Governments work by coercion through threat of violence. They are a necessary evil to keep society working, but they are an evil. Exactly because there is no consensus about most human endeavors we should keep coercion over people that disagree with most of us to the minimum necessary. that is the moral thing to do. Or do you think that if 70% of the people suddenly decide that we should exterminate the other 30% it would be ok to do so?
I've never heard the teacher's unions around here make that argument.
Not my fault if you have been isolated in a cave for the last 50 years or so .
The parents are both interested in their children's best welfare and that they are informed enough to make the right choice
Between the parents and government bureaucrats I will bet in the parents every time. Parents are responsible for many other critical decisions regarding their children and considering the human race haven't been extinct yet I think they are doing a reasonably good job. Bureaucrats on the other hand have very little interest in creating a society that does not need their "guidance".
Oh, and regarding your last silly remarks, many did not vote for the current government, and even those who did are not voting for people so these people can run their lives for them. They are voting for people to fill executive and legislative positions in the government. How much of their lives this government should be in charge is open to debate and certainly it is not a consensus between those who voted for it much less between those that did not.
Between feeding the students corporate propaganda and government propaganda I certainly prefer the former. At least there will be many corporations fighting for what to feed them and not a single one.
Teachers unions are all but direct in their interest being the representations of teachers. All their political arguments start and end with "for the students". Same thing about the public school system. The public servers that run it have exactly one interest, and that is keeping their jobs and their regulative power, but all their arguments also start and end with "for the students".
You are right in one assumption though: "You can't serve two masters.". That is exactly why giving parents the power to choose their children schools is the best way to solve the problem, because the only people who serve the right masters, the students, are the parents.
Do you mean exactly like the public school system and the teachers unions?
Then you suspect wrongly.
Yes, but the energy costs of printing real money is fairly low, and non-constant.
On the other hand the energy necessary to produce the paper and the ink used are significant, and the energy used to circulate this physical money is constant and several orders of magnitude higher than the energy necessary to circulate virtual money.
Sure it does.
That describes practically every data transaction we do involving money in this world, and it is still much better than printing paper and transferring it by truck, train or plane between one place and the other.
Sooner or later that chances. The exceptions are very very rare and usually end on the company dying and the IP going to obscurity where it is some times bought by a troll or another.
Sure it does. It increases the rate at which other companies can make proprietary software, by relieving them of some costs. Therefore it increases the number of proprietary software available to be bought by bigger companies, which given the patent system, increases the probability of an open source software step into a patented code owned by a big company.
How much it helps is arguable, but that it does help is undeniable.
Yes, but is that enough to justify the negative effects that the increasing concentration of copyrights, and worse, patents in the hands of the big? Personally I don`t think so.
Maybe, it would be different if there was no such thing as software patents in US, like in most of the world, and only copyright, and if copyright was not a lifelong and more right as it is today, but as it is I am forced to agree with him on this.
That is because most fathers only seek custody when mothers are dysfunctional and unfit for it. Usually fathers leave the custody at the hands of women, because that is the tradition. You and this study would ONLY have a point if every case of divorce ended in custody fights and the numbers were similar to this. Otherwise whatever point you are trying to make is just speculation.
It is inevitable. It is the result of competition. Either you sell to the big or you become big.
Computer games didn't reach so much as an equilibrium as you think. Except for very odd exceptions the only independents that keep being small are those that are unable to succeed and usually those end closing doors. Those that succeed eventually are either absorbed by the great labels, become big themselves, or, more commonly, both.
The one fantasizing is you. The fact that most democratic representatives are men is irrelevant. For the last decades they have consistently given more and more rights to women. Women didn't take arms and forced those in power to give them the right to vote, for example, or any right at all. They were given to them. Every single right women "conquered" in the last 50 years was given to them by those "evil men".
Your theory that because men writing laws couldn't possibly benefit women and marginalize men is ridiculous. Men have been used as cannon fodder and beasts of burden for most of human history, by women and by the other men in power. Men have died in mass to give women what they and their children need to survive. Men are hardwired to put women's interests above even theirs, and certainly above the interests of other men.
You talk about misogyny, but your misandry is appalling.
Incredible, isn't it? But the fact is they do, and that is undeniable. Maybe the reason is because men are used to protect and provide women with everything they want for millennia.
Oh, telling the truth can have horrendous consequences, my friend, and you can be the bad guy by doing it sometimes and quite spectacularly. Thinking otherwise is the extreme of naivety. Without lies our society would collapse very quickly.
He is not dehumanizing anyone. You are failing to understanding what he is saying with this metaphor. He is just saying that the law makes them an extreme liability to any male that decides to have a relationship with then.
No it is not misogynistic, it is only true, not because there is something intrinsically wrong with the women in question, but because the law make them a disease. On contact you will be contaminated and if ever you want to break with her you will end being accountable to pay for her child care.
Completely false. Judges give preference to women almost always, unless the women is proven unstable and a risk to the child in question.
The small are eventually and inexorably sold to the large. at least those that succeed...
You can defend whatever you wish, but other people have other beliefs. I for one think proprietary software is ok, but open source should be mandatory. If I buy a program from you I have the right to know exactly what it is doing in my machine.