Rote memorization is the only way to learn the fundamentals, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, but those aren't taught any more.
An understanding of the concepts is much better; otherwise, they might as well just use calculators, which are much faster, since that's what you seem to care about.
but if they're busy counting on their fingers to subtract 7 from 13, more complex problems will never sink in.
That is completely false. As long as they're capable of performing such basic operations one way or another, the fact that they can't subtract numbers as quickly as some would like does not mean they're not capable of understanding the problems. Do you know what we have right now? A system that encourages rote memorization. A system where understanding is not required or valued. A system that produces products who do not understand any of the material they memorized en masse.
No kids are required to memorize math tables unless it's done by a parent.
Could you point out some country governed by a party that takes no actions to protect its citizens from attack?
I doubt anyone has any problems with a country trying to protect itself, but when doing so infringes upon people's rights or costs too much money for too little gain, any free country should reject such a 'solution.' You do not want a free country, as you have made clear.
that's not naive. what massive power? they have no power over me in knowing the contents of the emails i send, even if you think they do. exactly what ramifications, what real quantifiable damage are you suggesting exists here? its a great conspiracy theory but nothing more.
You are naive. Information is power, and when they have all sorts of information about you, they can come after you when you say something they do not approve of. When has there ever been a government throughout history that was made up of perfect angels? None. All governments have abused their powers, and you are foolishly suggesting that they cannot use the information you send against you.
no, you are part of the problem and a naive fool, use of gmail is 100% voluntary and an explicit option too.
Your response is so simple-minded that I saw it coming from a mile away after I noticed your complete lack of intelligence from your other replies. Yes, technically using Gmail is optional, but I was referring to the ability to be able to turn off spam filters.
no you are just a naive fool to think that the problem you perceive to exist only exists at one level whilst being willfully ignorant of the fact that it exists at many levels.
It seems you don't have a brain and cannot tell the difference between searching through content for one's own gain or to go on a fishing expedition while hunting for so-called "criminals."
you didnt, what i am asking is are you consistent in your logic, it appears you are not.
I am fairly consistent; you're just attacking straw men and misinterpreting just about everything I write.
do you also suggest that people continue using these technologies at the same time?
I never suggested that people stop. What I attacked was the fact that he said he was "perfectly fine" with the surveillance. The instant you become a caveman because of evil is the instant evil wins, and that shouldn't happen in any free country (talking about government surveillance here).
so your use of technology for communication makes you a naive fool and part of the problem, continuing to use it whilst claiming you don't like it makes you even more of a problem and detracts from the actions of people who legitimately don't like it enough to actually back their position with action. you advocate only limp-wristed action that is easily ignored and ultimately you continue to dance to the corporate tune of spying and thuggery, you just say that you oppose it.
I don't actually use many of the mentioned services, but you are attacking a straw man. I never once suggested that people stop using all technology simply because they could be spied on, so you're an imbecile for trying to make it seem as if that's the message I was intending to convey. No one should ever be "perfectly fine" with surveillance, and while exercising caution is a good idea, you shouldn't have to be paranoid of the government in any free country.
Now, how are you going to misconstrue my statements now? If it wasn't perfectly clear from my first comment that I took issue with him being "perfectly" fine with surveillance, it should be now, so there's no excuse for you to be attacking straw men at this point.
Well, I don't. We have all sorts of government organizations that routinely and openly violate the constitution, yet little is ever done about that. I don't see more and more people voting for other parties (to at least give someone else a chance). Instead, I see people voting for the same party (I doubt they even care about the individuals they're voting for all that much) over and over again simply because they don't want the [Hated Party] to win, which just ensures that no message ever gets sent to the two largest parties and that nothing ever changes.
I participate in protests, write (perhaps pointless, but I try) to the people who supposedly represent me, and vote for third party candidates who I agree with. You could argue that that's not much, but most people don't seem to do anything at all, which definitely will doom us. In fact, I see many people who support the nonsense our government is doing.
I've never seen anything that caused me to believe the majority of people are even remotely intelligent.
The fact that he's perfectly fine with it. Why would you be perfectly fine with giving government thugs such massive power over you? Information is power.
and who exactly is reading it? it is machines parsing it for patterns
The fact that machines are scanning it does not make the situation any better, but nice try.
by the same token are you upset about spam filters? packet inspection? phone companies? ISPs? how do you communicate?
Spam filters? Fine as long as it's 100% voluntary and an explicit option. Same with everything else. What I oppose is pointless corporate surveillance and government surveillance in general, but again, nice try for making it seem as if I'm trying to say you shouldn't use technology to communicate with others at all.
The distinction is obvious to anyone with a brain.
why? i know phone calls can be listened in to but that doesnt mean we should all avoid talking on the phone
Where did I say that? I did not suggest that we abandon technology. I suggest that we reign in on these government thugs and regulate businesses where necessary. Abandoning technology to escape from government surveillance is not something that should happen in any free country.
i know full well that communications can be intercepted at any point in the chain, it seems the naive one here is you.
So do I... so what's your point?
or is it enough for you if i just continue to communicate however i like but just say i'm not fine with surveillance?
If you can't even be bothered to write to politicians or protest, you could change your vote, at least.
no i am wondering if you consider yourself to also be a naive fool and part of the problem.
I called him a naive fool because he said he was perfectly fine with the surveillance, not because he merely used some services (which certainly isn't helping, but I still don't believe that's as bad as being perfectly fine with it all).
perhaps there is nothing particularly private in there, perhaps you treat email like you would postcards with the expectation that anybody could read it.
Such an attitude indicates that you are part of the problem. The email was intended for certain parties and that's it; the fact that it's possible for people other than the intended recipients to read the emails does not mean that it's moral for them to do so, or that emails aren't private. It is, after all, possible for someone to install surveillance equipment in your home. Does that mean your home is not a private place?
This attitude is something government and corporate thugs love to see, as it contributes to the erosion of our privacy. Sure, the reality is that our emails are being read and that you should encrypt as much content as possible, but that doesn't mean we should just accept that.
but he didnt say it cant be abused, he just implied that the potential damage is acceptable. what exactly is your concern?
My concern is that there's a naive fool who said he's perfectly fine with being spied on by thugs. That's not a good attitude to have.
Except Google doesn't actually read your emails - it's just machines parsing data.
Well, the guy above is the one who mentioned it, but the fact that it's "just machines" changes nothing; a lot of the NSA surveillance is automated, too, but I'm still fiercely opposed to that.
If I weren't "perfectly fine" with knowing that Google reads my mail and potentially shares it with the government. If I weren't, then I wouldn't use their services.
Incorrect. That just means that you don't care enough to stop using those crappy services, not that you are perfectly fine with it.
And if you think that the Government can't use its police power to access that info also then you really are naive.
Where did I say or imply that they can't? All I implied was that it is wrong. All I implied was that it's wrong for them to do so.
For one thing, even if I said what you apparently thought I said, it's a logical fallacy to say that I'm wrong because I'm a hypocrite, if that's the message you were intending to convey.
But really, read what I quoted. He said that he is perfectly fine knowing that Google reads his email and potentially shares it with the government. Why would anyone be fine with that? It is just naive to think it couldn't be abused. No one is saying you shouldn't use any technology, or some other such nonsense.
It is a wasted vote because there are no viable third parties.
I wouldn't call sending a message a wasted vote.
But that wasn't the point, anyway. Lots of people do believe it is a wasted vote.
And there are no viable third parties because no one gives enough of a fuck to form them.
What do you mean by "viable"? Systems like ours produce two party systems almost without fail, so I don't see how forming yet another third party would change much.
Yes, it does. If you consider the fact that many people believe that voted for third parties is a wasted vote and will vote for a certain party just to keep the other party from winning, it becomes clear that just because someone voted for one of the two main parties, that doesn't mean they agreed with the bailouts. Now, they might not care enough to change their votes and stop voting for corrupt individuals, but that doesn't mean they truly consented to the bailouts in any meaningful way.
Have the attorneys selected by the leadership of some well-established liberty-focused organizations, like the ACLU or EFF, swear them to secrecy, and have them act as opposing counsel.
There is a much better option; scrap the NSA and this pathetic court completely.
Slashdot Mirror
Internet anonymity is another bane of existence and contributing to the downfall of society as a whole
It's not contributing to any such thing.
Rote memorization is the only way to learn the fundamentals, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, but those aren't taught any more.
An understanding of the concepts is much better; otherwise, they might as well just use calculators, which are much faster, since that's what you seem to care about.
but if they're busy counting on their fingers to subtract 7 from 13, more complex problems will never sink in.
That is completely false. As long as they're capable of performing such basic operations one way or another, the fact that they can't subtract numbers as quickly as some would like does not mean they're not capable of understanding the problems. Do you know what we have right now? A system that encourages rote memorization. A system where understanding is not required or valued. A system that produces products who do not understand any of the material they memorized en masse.
No kids are required to memorize math tables unless it's done by a parent.
Try telling that to my brother's child.
Students are expected to learn more, quicker than ever before.
People expect them to learn more, but in practice, they just memorize more and then later forget it all.
As you say, we are spending more money per student than anyone and it just isn't working.
Change is difficult and expensive, so why fix something that is completely broken?
Math was taught and learned just fine for over 2000 years.
It wasn't. Rote memorization is not ideal, and I do not consider it "just fine." Our entire education system is pretty much broken.
They're not only apathetic; they're complete imbeciles who lack a great amount of intelligence.
Really? The Republicans seem to be the same.
Could you point out some country governed by a party that takes no actions to protect its citizens from attack?
I doubt anyone has any problems with a country trying to protect itself, but when doing so infringes upon people's rights or costs too much money for too little gain, any free country should reject such a 'solution.' You do not want a free country, as you have made clear.
that's not naive. what massive power? they have no power over me in knowing the contents of the emails i send, even if you think they do. exactly what ramifications, what real quantifiable damage are you suggesting exists here? its a great conspiracy theory but nothing more.
You are naive. Information is power, and when they have all sorts of information about you, they can come after you when you say something they do not approve of. When has there ever been a government throughout history that was made up of perfect angels? None. All governments have abused their powers, and you are foolishly suggesting that they cannot use the information you send against you.
no, you are part of the problem and a naive fool, use of gmail is 100% voluntary and an explicit option too.
Your response is so simple-minded that I saw it coming from a mile away after I noticed your complete lack of intelligence from your other replies. Yes, technically using Gmail is optional, but I was referring to the ability to be able to turn off spam filters.
no you are just a naive fool to think that the problem you perceive to exist only exists at one level whilst being willfully ignorant of the fact that it exists at many levels.
It seems you don't have a brain and cannot tell the difference between searching through content for one's own gain or to go on a fishing expedition while hunting for so-called "criminals."
you didnt, what i am asking is are you consistent in your logic, it appears you are not.
I am fairly consistent; you're just attacking straw men and misinterpreting just about everything I write.
do you also suggest that people continue using these technologies at the same time?
I never suggested that people stop. What I attacked was the fact that he said he was "perfectly fine" with the surveillance. The instant you become a caveman because of evil is the instant evil wins, and that shouldn't happen in any free country (talking about government surveillance here).
so your use of technology for communication makes you a naive fool and part of the problem, continuing to use it whilst claiming you don't like it makes you even more of a problem and detracts from the actions of people who legitimately don't like it enough to actually back their position with action. you advocate only limp-wristed action that is easily ignored and ultimately you continue to dance to the corporate tune of spying and thuggery, you just say that you oppose it.
I don't actually use many of the mentioned services, but you are attacking a straw man. I never once suggested that people stop using all technology simply because they could be spied on, so you're an imbecile for trying to make it seem as if that's the message I was intending to convey. No one should ever be "perfectly fine" with surveillance, and while exercising caution is a good idea, you shouldn't have to be paranoid of the government in any free country.
Now, how are you going to misconstrue my statements now? If it wasn't perfectly clear from my first comment that I took issue with him being "perfectly" fine with surveillance, it should be now, so there's no excuse for you to be attacking straw men at this point.
Well, I don't. We have all sorts of government organizations that routinely and openly violate the constitution, yet little is ever done about that. I don't see more and more people voting for other parties (to at least give someone else a chance). Instead, I see people voting for the same party (I doubt they even care about the individuals they're voting for all that much) over and over again simply because they don't want the [Hated Party] to win, which just ensures that no message ever gets sent to the two largest parties and that nothing ever changes.
I participate in protests, write (perhaps pointless, but I try) to the people who supposedly represent me, and vote for third party candidates who I agree with. You could argue that that's not much, but most people don't seem to do anything at all, which definitely will doom us. In fact, I see many people who support the nonsense our government is doing.
I've never seen anything that caused me to believe the majority of people are even remotely intelligent.
what is naive about that?
The fact that he's perfectly fine with it. Why would you be perfectly fine with giving government thugs such massive power over you? Information is power.
and who exactly is reading it? it is machines parsing it for patterns
The fact that machines are scanning it does not make the situation any better, but nice try.
by the same token are you upset about spam filters? packet inspection? phone companies? ISPs? how do you communicate?
Spam filters? Fine as long as it's 100% voluntary and an explicit option. Same with everything else. What I oppose is pointless corporate surveillance and government surveillance in general, but again, nice try for making it seem as if I'm trying to say you shouldn't use technology to communicate with others at all.
The distinction is obvious to anyone with a brain.
why? i know phone calls can be listened in to but that doesnt mean we should all avoid talking on the phone
Where did I say that? I did not suggest that we abandon technology. I suggest that we reign in on these government thugs and regulate businesses where necessary. Abandoning technology to escape from government surveillance is not something that should happen in any free country.
i know full well that communications can be intercepted at any point in the chain, it seems the naive one here is you.
So do I... so what's your point?
or is it enough for you if i just continue to communicate however i like but just say i'm not fine with surveillance?
If you can't even be bothered to write to politicians or protest, you could change your vote, at least.
no i am wondering if you consider yourself to also be a naive fool and part of the problem.
I called him a naive fool because he said he was perfectly fine with the surveillance, not because he merely used some services (which certainly isn't helping, but I still don't believe that's as bad as being perfectly fine with it all).
perhaps there is nothing particularly private in there, perhaps you treat email like you would postcards with the expectation that anybody could read it.
Such an attitude indicates that you are part of the problem. The email was intended for certain parties and that's it; the fact that it's possible for people other than the intended recipients to read the emails does not mean that it's moral for them to do so, or that emails aren't private. It is, after all, possible for someone to install surveillance equipment in your home. Does that mean your home is not a private place?
This attitude is something government and corporate thugs love to see, as it contributes to the erosion of our privacy. Sure, the reality is that our emails are being read and that you should encrypt as much content as possible, but that doesn't mean we should just accept that.
but he didnt say it cant be abused, he just implied that the potential damage is acceptable. what exactly is your concern?
My concern is that there's a naive fool who said he's perfectly fine with being spied on by thugs. That's not a good attitude to have.
The fact that he's "perfectly fine" with it being read by corporate and government thugs; I don't think anyone should ever be fine with that.
Except Google doesn't actually read your emails - it's just machines parsing data.
Well, the guy above is the one who mentioned it, but the fact that it's "just machines" changes nothing; a lot of the NSA surveillance is automated, too, but I'm still fiercely opposed to that.
If I weren't "perfectly fine" with knowing that Google reads my mail and potentially shares it with the government. If I weren't, then I wouldn't use their services.
Incorrect. That just means that you don't care enough to stop using those crappy services, not that you are perfectly fine with it.
And if you think that the Government can't use its police power to access that info also then you really are naive.
Where did I say or imply that they can't? All I implied was that it is wrong. All I implied was that it's wrong for them to do so.
For one thing, even if I said what you apparently thought I said, it's a logical fallacy to say that I'm wrong because I'm a hypocrite, if that's the message you were intending to convey.
But really, read what I quoted. He said that he is perfectly fine knowing that Google reads his email and potentially shares it with the government. Why would anyone be fine with that? It is just naive to think it couldn't be abused. No one is saying you shouldn't use any technology, or some other such nonsense.
You spoke as if the two were separate, though.
They produce two party systems precisely because most people limit a "third vote" to send messages via single issue parties
There are more than just single issue parties, though. But really, our entire voting system is geared towards creating a two party system.
or (mostly) just lazy fuckers who like to whine.
I'm not sure that's true, but it's still better than voting for known evil.
It is a wasted vote because there are no viable third parties.
I wouldn't call sending a message a wasted vote.
But that wasn't the point, anyway. Lots of people do believe it is a wasted vote.
And there are no viable third parties because no one gives enough of a fuck to form them.
What do you mean by "viable"? Systems like ours produce two party systems almost without fail, so I don't see how forming yet another third party would change much.
Err, no it doesn't.
Yes, it does. If you consider the fact that many people believe that voted for third parties is a wasted vote and will vote for a certain party just to keep the other party from winning, it becomes clear that just because someone voted for one of the two main parties, that doesn't mean they agreed with the bailouts. Now, they might not care enough to change their votes and stop voting for corrupt individuals, but that doesn't mean they truly consented to the bailouts in any meaningful way.
It is because I want change that I feel that's what must be done.
Have the attorneys selected by the leadership of some well-established liberty-focused organizations, like the ACLU or EFF, swear them to secrecy, and have them act as opposing counsel.
There is a much better option; scrap the NSA and this pathetic court completely.
Yes, but "plenty of people" still amounts to a minuscule portion of the population.
Why do you write as if the people in the government who are doing such things aren't criminals? I'd say they're the ones you need to fear most of all.
That assumes that people only vote for those they agree with 100%, which just isn't the case.
Can the state imprison 100% of its population?
Perhaps not, but then again, how many people would actually protest it? How many people actually care?