Sounds like a job to me. Good motivation for being picky about your employer down the road - what you describe is the dominant condition in the workplace. The hard workers support the rest - management gets in the way - and you pay for everyone else's mistakes. See also, Congress of the United States.
That's basically just admitting the truth that teachers cannot teach anything beyond a basic level of knowledge. At some point in life - before college level courses - you have to either accept that you are responsible for your own education, or put up with a hap-hazard and shoddy education. Isn't that what defines the meritocratic system - you earn your place in life by putting in the time and/effort/ to push above the rest.
This may be a philosophical difference - but I have no problem _at_all_ telling a student that they are responsible for their own education.
Yes - the teacher has to know what they're talking about and the students have to want to learn. Motivation and qualification are an obstacle to any system.
for students that take less time this means getting short changed on lectures
If you choose not to give your education priority while paying for college - that's your choice. You eat the result. If you don't take the time to do the reading and homework, you will not do as well - this is not different.
You're not doubling anything. You are already/supposed/ to be doing homework and reading assignments -- those happen between classes. If you eliminate some of the homework and replace it with the lecture - there is no change in time. This class apparently eliminated homework. So -- not a bad swap. I don't agree that you cannot remember something you heard in the morning and still effectively participate in a discussion of the same 10 hours later (6am to 4pm). How is that any different than taking an 8am class with a full schedule and the doing the homework at 6pm?
Uhm -- I guess if you look at education as putting in the least amount of effort possible to pass a class - sure - it doesn't do that. But then, that view of a 3 credit hour course/ignores/ the fact that you are supposed to actually do your homework and out of class reading - which is expected to take at least as much time as the time in class. So -- yeah -- your position confuses me.
That's basically the socratic method (still beloved in law schools). You go read the assignments, then come in and the teacher just asks the class questions / walks them through a case. When the class is confused or stupid (we all are sometimes) the teacher lectures on the finer points. Since the text is the primary lecturer, the teacher's role is just to know then law (best if they have their own opinions which are slightly skewed from the text's view) and to plan out a series of readings in the syllabus - not too much work.
Now.. the only problem is most lawyers I know (myself included) felt like we didn't actually/learn/ much in law school - that's what the barbri courses were for - to cram the law down your throat as hard and fast as possible. Law school mostly teaches how to think like a lawyer (break down a set of facts or statements into its component parts, look for inconsistencies, apply past conclusions of law to a present set of facts, etc).
Section 1983 liability, it is essential to emphasize, punishes only purposeful "deprivations" of constitutional rights. If a case involves only the negligent infliction of a legal wrong by a public official, administrator, employee, or agency, the action is governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act or a comparable state statute, which may create an exception (that is, a "waiver") to the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity.
There are other remedies under Section 1983 (e.g. injunctions - an order of court directing the government to stop violating your rights), but damages only come from a knowing violation of your rights. And again, as here, where it takes an appeal to decide the law (note that the appeal actually overturned the ruling of the judge below - hence - showing the state of the law was genuinely in doubt) then the individual gov't agents are probably home free.
Remember, I'm not your lawyer. Your issue (if any) may have specific facts or circumstances that should be reviewed by an attorney retained for that purpose. I'm including this text to make it clear that I'm not giving you legal advice, just stating my view of the law. My state bar association recommends doing so to avoid giving the impressionism that I, as an attorney, have given you specific advice.
I just noticed that the renderer ate my special ascii character for Section in my post above -- should read "You might bring a civil liberties claim (Section 1983) but that's . .." my bad.
No. As I said above, you may bring a civil liberties claim under Section 1983, but that's going to have to be a claim against the agents (see Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesk) - not the NSA - and its going to have to show that they knowingly violated your rights. This is dead in the water.
The Federal Government is only susceptible to a civil action against it if the Government creates a specific exception to sovereign immunity. You might bring a civil liberties claim (1983) but that's going to require proof that the agent or agents knew what they were doing was unconstitutional - the law must be well established - generally anything that requires an appeal to decide the state of the law is going to auto-fail there.
(1) I am in Court and want to know what new mail I've received without getting whacked by the bailiff for taking out my phone. (2) I am on my bike and my cell phone is in my bag, I want to know what the address of my next meeting is - watch provides. (3) I am at dinner and want to look at the score on the game / text message I just received / e-mail, but do not want to be rude to the other folks at the table by taking out my phone. (4) I am walking around and my pocket buzzes, I glance at watch to see who's calling to decide if its worth answering.
There are no world changers here - but it can be useful if it works. Will it work? I don't know. Someone go buy the thing and tell me if its worth my money.
(a) it's not first. (Google: Pebble) (b) at $300.00, it's barely present on the watch market - that's fossil and sears store run-off watch territory (c) sooner or later you have to stake out a position on what the fucking thing should look like - at least apple can't claim they stole the look and feel this time... maybe... oh, crap, who am I kidding - of course they will.
Bias much? You're using Microsoft's fairly specious ad campaign as the basis for this article? I hope you at least got some advertising money out of it.
Are you telling me a dental drill spins at 600,000 RPM? I seriously doubt that. That's ridiculous, it would burn your teeth and anything else it touched. You wouldn't even be able to hear the high pitch whine of the drill at that speed.
I guess that depends who you ask Wikipedia the speed of a modern dental drill is up to 800,000rpm - but the source cited only supports up to 400,000 rpm. these guys say somewhere around 350,000rpm and 400,000rpm - which seems to agree with the other product results turned up by a google of "dental drill rpm."
So -- if you're looking for a quick fake fact and you accept wikipedia as gospel truth - yeah, dental drills operate at over 600,000rpm - apparently the folks that sell dental drills say 300,000rpm to 400,000rpm is more realistic - still in the range of 1/1000th - off by a factor of 33% - but its PR speak.
A) what the fuck does that have to do with my post? Its not a rebuttal to go "well here is an even shitier program" does that mean you think Medicare part D does something positive, or are you just such a knee jerk partisan that any alight to Bush requires an insult to Obama?
B) I do not think the mandate is a wise policy (or frankly, moral) but, those articles are so carefully parsed it is insane. Yes, if you currently pay for catastrophic coverage only (e.g 10,000 deductible plans) then your cost is going to go waaay up, because the minimum plan provides a lot more coverage - but if 100 to 200 dollars a month sounds expensive to you for healthcare - dude, my group plan is almost 2000 a month - that's just my contribution, my employer picks up the rest. Note: that's a high deductible plan, the cheapest my firm offers, and the rate is the same for all group members. 240 a month... shit. Sign me up.
My point is that even with the third party doctrine you cannot issue a warrant for "everything relevant in your possession" it has to identify particular things. The right isn't in the individual who made the calls / etc, but in the company that the warrant is served upon - they have grounds to contest the validity of the warrant under the 4th amendment.
You mean like the Medicare Part D that was passed by a Republican House, Senate, and President? You are right, that would never happen.
Medicare Part-D isn't healthcare, its a funnel for pouring cash from the federal coffers into the accounts of insurance companies - and very little more than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Cite your source? Or would that be homework?
He'd have to get a job somewhere other than Walmart for that - which would require more education - which is evil, natch.
Sounds like a job to me. Good motivation for being picky about your employer down the road - what you describe is the dominant condition in the workplace. The hard workers support the rest - management gets in the way - and you pay for everyone else's mistakes. See also, Congress of the United States.
That's mostly because they didn't start getting the sweet sweet medications they expected to flow immediately.
we'll ask them to learn it on their own.
And . . .?
/effort/ to push above the rest.
That's basically just admitting the truth that teachers cannot teach anything beyond a basic level of knowledge. At some point in life - before college level courses - you have to either accept that you are responsible for your own education, or put up with a hap-hazard and shoddy education. Isn't that what defines the meritocratic system - you earn your place in life by putting in the time and
This may be a philosophical difference - but I have no problem _at_all_ telling a student that they are responsible for their own education.
You fail at knowing things. Go read a wiki.
Yes - the teacher has to know what they're talking about and the students have to want to learn. Motivation and qualification are an obstacle to any system.
for students that take less time this means getting short changed on lectures
If you choose not to give your education priority while paying for college - that's your choice. You eat the result. If you don't take the time to do the reading and homework, you will not do as well - this is not different.
You're not doubling anything. You are already /supposed/ to be doing homework and reading assignments -- those happen between classes. If you eliminate some of the homework and replace it with the lecture - there is no change in time. This class apparently eliminated homework. So -- not a bad swap. I don't agree that you cannot remember something you heard in the morning and still effectively participate in a discussion of the same 10 hours later (6am to 4pm). How is that any different than taking an 8am class with a full schedule and the doing the homework at 6pm?
Uhm -- I guess if you look at education as putting in the least amount of effort possible to pass a class - sure - it doesn't do that. But then, that view of a 3 credit hour course /ignores/ the fact that you are supposed to actually do your homework and out of class reading - which is expected to take at least as much time as the time in class. So -- yeah -- your position confuses me.
That's basically the socratic method (still beloved in law schools). You go read the assignments, then come in and the teacher just asks the class questions / walks them through a case. When the class is confused or stupid (we all are sometimes) the teacher lectures on the finer points. Since the text is the primary lecturer, the teacher's role is just to know then law (best if they have their own opinions which are slightly skewed from the text's view) and to plan out a series of readings in the syllabus - not too much work.
/learn/ much in law school - that's what the barbri courses were for - to cram the law down your throat as hard and fast as possible. Law school mostly teaches how to think like a lawyer (break down a set of facts or statements into its component parts, look for inconsistencies, apply past conclusions of law to a present set of facts, etc).
Now.. the only problem is most lawyers I know (myself included) felt like we didn't actually
I wonder how this works for, say, history.
I don't do research for folks that are not my clients (and no, you are not my client); however, many scholars do. See, for example, The Personal Liability of the Public Sector Administrator Pursuant To 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
Section 1983 liability, it is essential to emphasize, punishes only purposeful "deprivations" of constitutional rights. If a case involves only the negligent infliction of a legal wrong by a public official, administrator, employee, or agency, the action is governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act or a comparable state statute, which may create an exception (that is, a "waiver") to the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity.
There are other remedies under Section 1983 (e.g. injunctions - an order of court directing the government to stop violating your rights), but damages only come from a knowing violation of your rights. And again, as here, where it takes an appeal to decide the law (note that the appeal actually overturned the ruling of the judge below - hence - showing the state of the law was genuinely in doubt) then the individual gov't agents are probably home free.
Remember, I'm not your lawyer. Your issue (if any) may have specific facts or circumstances that should be reviewed by an attorney retained for that purpose. I'm including this text to make it clear that I'm not giving you legal advice, just stating my view of the law. My state bar association recommends doing so to avoid giving the impressionism that I, as an attorney, have given you specific advice.
I just noticed that the renderer ate my special ascii character for Section in my post above -- should read "You might bring a civil liberties claim (Section 1983) but that's . . ." my bad.
No. As I said above, you may bring a civil liberties claim under Section 1983, but that's going to have to be a claim against the agents (see Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesk) - not the NSA - and its going to have to show that they knowingly violated your rights. This is dead in the water.
Sovereign Immunity. See Wiki article.
The Federal Government is only susceptible to a civil action against it if the Government creates a specific exception to sovereign immunity. You might bring a civil liberties claim (1983) but that's going to require proof that the agent or agents knew what they were doing was unconstitutional - the law must be well established - generally anything that requires an appeal to decide the state of the law is going to auto-fail there.
(1) I am in Court and want to know what new mail I've received without getting whacked by the bailiff for taking out my phone.
(2) I am on my bike and my cell phone is in my bag, I want to know what the address of my next meeting is - watch provides.
(3) I am at dinner and want to look at the score on the game / text message I just received / e-mail, but do not want to be rude to the other folks at the table by taking out my phone.
(4) I am walking around and my pocket buzzes, I glance at watch to see who's calling to decide if its worth answering.
There are no world changers here - but it can be useful if it works. Will it work? I don't know. Someone go buy the thing and tell me if its worth my money.
(a) it's not first. (Google: Pebble) ... maybe ... oh, crap, who am I kidding - of course they will.
(b) at $300.00, it's barely present on the watch market - that's fossil and sears store run-off watch territory
(c) sooner or later you have to stake out a position on what the fucking thing should look like - at least apple can't claim they stole the look and feel this time
Still use my Xoom every day - thing's built like a tank and I talk it up at every opportunity. (oh, hello there).
Bias much? You're using Microsoft's fairly specious ad campaign as the basis for this article? I hope you at least got some advertising money out of it.
Unlikely -- if they were really masters of spin we wouldn't accuse them of spinning things.
Are you telling me a dental drill spins at 600,000 RPM? I seriously doubt that. That's ridiculous, it would burn your teeth and anything else it touched. You wouldn't even be able to hear the high pitch whine of the drill at that speed.
I guess that depends who you ask Wikipedia the speed of a modern dental drill is up to 800,000rpm - but the source cited only supports up to 400,000 rpm. these guys say somewhere around 350,000rpm and 400,000rpm - which seems to agree with the other product results turned up by a google of "dental drill rpm."
So -- if you're looking for a quick fake fact and you accept wikipedia as gospel truth - yeah, dental drills operate at over 600,000rpm - apparently the folks that sell dental drills say 300,000rpm to 400,000rpm is more realistic - still in the range of 1/1000th - off by a factor of 33% - but its PR speak.
Use less drugs maybe?
A) what the fuck does that have to do with my post? Its not a rebuttal to go "well here is an even shitier program" does that mean you think Medicare part D does something positive, or are you just such a knee jerk partisan that any alight to Bush requires an insult to Obama?
B) I do not think the mandate is a wise policy (or frankly, moral) but, those articles are so carefully parsed it is insane. Yes, if you currently pay for catastrophic coverage only (e.g 10,000 deductible plans) then your cost is going to go waaay up, because the minimum plan provides a lot more coverage - but if 100 to 200 dollars a month sounds expensive to you for healthcare - dude, my group plan is almost 2000 a month - that's just my contribution, my employer picks up the rest. Note: that's a high deductible plan, the cheapest my firm offers, and the rate is the same for all group members. 240 a month... shit. Sign me up.
My point is that even with the third party doctrine you cannot issue a warrant for "everything relevant in your possession" it has to identify particular things. The right isn't in the individual who made the calls / etc, but in the company that the warrant is served upon - they have grounds to contest the validity of the warrant under the 4th amendment.
You mean like the Medicare Part D that was passed by a Republican House, Senate, and President? You are right, that would never happen.
Medicare Part-D isn't healthcare, its a funnel for pouring cash from the federal coffers into the accounts of insurance companies - and very little more than that.