I disagree. There's no reason that someone should be at a protest if they need rules to follow while there. The point of a protest is to show your support and determination for the subject at hand, that's all. Maybe the rules could be this:
1) stay until there is change
2) do not violate any human right
Another thing to keep in mind is that just because other people are there protesting at the same time you are, they are by no means there "with" you in the sense that you should be affected by their decisions/actions. If we all stand for the same thing, then it'll show. If officers try to act like idiots, whether they're wearing street clothes or a police uniform should make no difference. It should not affect what you're doing.
I never said anything about honor or a goal. You're basically telling me that surfers that say "Dude, sometimes you slam into the coral and get cut, but that's all part of it", are not surfers, but rather they are seeking honor, and slamming into the coral is the goal.
No. All I was saying is that if you're out there protesting, then it should be something that you feel strongly about. So strong, that you are willing to go to jail for a few hours, at the very least. Protests only "work" when the powers that be change something. All else is not protesting, but simply hanging out. I'm not suggesting rioting, or anything like that, but you've gotta do more than sit around waiting to be pepper-sprayed by people that have no respect for you anymore - because you're such a pansy (this would be their mentality).
No, the reason for a protest is to inspire those in power, to change something. The only time that the powers that be change things that they don't want to change, is when they have to change them. A really large group of people, acting in accordance with protest laws, are merely standing around with signs. Unless everyone in the country was out there standing around (not working, not allowing the system's wheels to turn) then the powers that be can simply look at the crowd and think, "there's all the idiots in the world" and go about their normal routine.
I hate to bring race into the subject, however (in America) only black people have successfully protested since I've been born. But they did it in another (to me, wrong) way. They were actually called riots rather than protests. MLK protested a lot, and got arrested a lot. And in the end, achieved something.
Right. So if that's the case, if people do not feel their cause is important enough to go to jail for 24 hours, then it's more likely that they're protesting in order to "have been there maaan", or something cheaper. In that case, the police take a different mindset, and that mindset is the scary one (probably because the police don't have respect for them at that point).
Protesting is supposed to be an event that brings to light the truth behind logic and order's place in society.
I've never understood why protesters obey the rules and regulations of protests. I understand protesting, but for god's sake people, staying behind the line, or really keeping up any fabricated reason not to go to jail, is silly. The whole reason for a protest is to go to jail. It's not just to go to jail, but to have so many people go to jail that there is no feasible way that they can house them all. In the end, the point should be to overwhelm not only the people that you are protesting against, but to also overwhelm the police that have to look each person in the eye and arrest them. All protests should carry on without violence, without resistance, until the jails are filled.
"Fight the power" means just that, however there are 2 pieces of the power - law-makers, and law-enforcers.
Don't forget, that when a country is working on firsts, especially in a space program, it unites the country. India is already united (aside from religious problems that plague the entire planet) in it's still recent independence from British rule, and so this must be very exciting for Indians.
I was thinking about death, just as you were. I also know that I was once 'the Linux guy' where I worked, and ended up being in charge of all of the Linux servers. Some of the clients needed the servers to serve mail, and some wanted web; they were few and far between. However I set up the servers and users and passwords. That was years ago. I have since quit that job, and I have no idea what the passwords are (can't remember). What if that company called me, requesting those passwords? I wonder what the law says about time limits on this bizarre law. I mean, after all, I now work for myself, doing IT work for locals. What if one of my clients 'fire' me but then realize that they need me for the big boss' email password?
Also, I wonder if they have to pay you for your time, as you give them the passwords. As in, if I have to spend time driving over to their site, or even sending them an email with the password(s), I'm using my time, and as far as I know, should be able to charge my standard rate for work done. As a free American, I also have the right to raise my rate at will. Could I suddenly charge $500/hr with a minimum of 5 hours? That would be how I would play it.
A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Hydrogen is the most common fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are sometimes used. Fuel cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen/air to sustain the chemical reaction; however, fuel cells can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied.
So it's better to have the fuel cell at your place, rather than the fuel cells be at some electric company that then sells you the electricity at a higher price than you would pay for the "inputs".
Ahhh. Well now that it's explained, it's clear that I was misunderstanding the point of the article. Thanks for clearing that up. Also, you got +5 interesting, and you should have +5 informative.
So the helmet is providing these signals throughout the whole flight, that they're up to 1,000 mph never has any weight in the article. I don't get it. It's a helmet, why test it in Florida if you're going to use it in England? And why scrap a project based on such a small problem? Much like the helmet, the article isn't clear. Maybe I'm blinded, too.
Question #1 asks "What is another good title" not "Which title best fits the story". In your defense, perhaps the teacher vocalized the question additionally to what was written on the test itself, but that wasn't the case here, I checked. You're obviously not an artist if you've limited your scope of thought to such an extent. My child is quite artistically inclined, and has much success with it, and all other aspects of school, which is why I looked over the 2 wrong answers to begin with. If we identify that in my child, then great! But if we identify that in my child, and tell her "Wrong!" then that's going against the teaching method, no? It'd be much the same if I gave your child a piece of paper and told him/her to make it fly, but I give no instructions, and I'm looking for a paper airplane. Then when they come back to me with a helicopter, that does indeed work, and I tell them "Wrong!", what then? You'd tell me to be more specific, and that's all I'm saying too.
Question #2 is asking for information to be assumed. And this assumption (like any other assumption) is based on a group of known information, and a group of associated information (aka what's normal in your world). Since the story had no mention of socks (other than putting on dry ones) it's silly to assume that the kid was wearing socks in sand.
In the south, we all agree that it's hot. We also all agree that sand is extremely hard to get out of shoes/socks, due to sweat. We also all agree that this question is based on the experiences of Northerners. To anyone that lives where it's hot most of the year, the idea of shoes and socks only arises during the winter. I know it sucks in the south, but you can go to Hawaii if you need to figure it all out.
Having said all that, I do agree that these questions are in the right direction. I just think that the answers for such questions will vary from state to state and country to country. That's why they're great questions. To get the personal experience of the child, and see why they chose that reasoning, is, to me, the best way to gauge if the child is using their mind, or a set of logic given to them.
You're forgetting that governments use fake technology all the time, just to get in the front door. If they suspect that you're doing something that they classify as wrong, then they can simply tell a judge that "...$Technology told us that these people are doing bad stuff, we need a warrant..." Don't believe that this is true? See here
You don't really think that any judge is going to take the time to look over the evidence before signing a warrant, do you?
HAHAHA!!! Americans? Revolt? HAHAHA!!! Did you mean for them to revolt in the same way they did on Wall Street? HAHAHA!!! You're killing me! I can only imagine how it'd go:
Americans are all in the streets, prepared to storm the gates of the white house. They have mustered up all the defiance possible, and are about to make their move. But then Facebook comes out with a new upgrade to the $SmartPhoneApp and each person's $smartPhone beeps, requiring the user's attention for the upgrade. After 2 minutes of downloading, and 3 minutes of looking at the new Facebook interface, no one can remember why they're standing out in front of the white house, and they simply go home, eyes to the phone the whole way.
Seriously, who in their right mind would sanction the US? That'd be like candy factories petitioning Halloween.
I don't think that Google is after smarts here. No, in fact I think they're depending on the owners of businesses (most business owners are not very technically inclined) to simply think that Google knows what it's doing, and hiring folks based on pure belief in Google as a know-it-all. And therefor if you're "high up" the ladder of Google+, then you must know your shit.
Google is doing anything it can to boost Google+ numbers. It's got to be due to investors. BTW, for those that are trying to have a YouTube channel without a Google+ account, then set up your channel to have a different name than the one that you log into Google with. In doing so, you are essentially creating a YouTube user that controls YouTube, but logging into YouTube (Google) as your Google user.
BTW, I hate Google now that it's so obvious that they're doing anything they can to cook the books on Google+. They depend on people depending on Google. I can't imagine what they'll do with Google fiber. Probably something like, "No internet until you log into Google+".
It's a system full of good intentions, but the people that come up with the questions appear to be gearing things toward a certain way of thinking. I'm all about the system, it is designed to show the children how they think, and how they work out problems naturally, in their mind's eye as it were.
One problem that I have had with it in the past is that the way the questions allow for assumptions. For instance, I'm from Alabama. In Alabama it's generally hot and humid. When we take our kids to the park, they generally are wearing sandals or flip-flops. Any time they're playing in the sand, they're going to be bare-footed, or at the most, sandals/flip-flops. They give the kids a story to read about a kid that goes to the park. The story is basically this:
Story title: 'A day at the park'
Timmy goes to the park. He plays in the park. He plays in the sand. It starts to rain, so Timmy has to leave. Timmy goes home and puts on dry socks. Timmy then takes a nap. When Timmy wakes up, the sun is out. He goes back to the park. Timmy likes the sun. Timmy smiles.
Then the questions that they ask are something like this:
1) What's another good title for this story?
a) The sun
b) Timmy goes to the park
c) Rain and sun
d) Timmy takes a nap
2) Why did Timmy put on dry socks?
a) Because Timmy was home
b) Because his socks were wet
c) Because he was sleepy
d) Because Timmy wanted to go back to the park
So question #1 is asking for an opinion, and question #2 is asking about something that's not mentioned in the story. After my kid missed both questions, I asked the teacher why, and her answer was that the questions are introducing higher learning. Higher learning? An opinion is higher learning? Asking questions that are full of assumptions not mentioned in the story, is higher learning?
So in that way it needs to be improved upon. But for math, they allow the kids to express the algorithm in any way, and as long as they get the answer correct, and the algorithm that they use is logical, then they're credited with learning. And I think that's way better than, "Here is an algorithm, learn it, and use it." Because if you don't understand how that algorithm came to be, you will not be able to use it in real life. Whereas if you came up with the algorithm yourself, you cannot explain how or why you came up with it, but you understand how to use your brain in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. There's no reason that someone should be at a protest if they need rules to follow while there. The point of a protest is to show your support and determination for the subject at hand, that's all. Maybe the rules could be this:
1) stay until there is change 2) do not violate any human right
Another thing to keep in mind is that just because other people are there protesting at the same time you are, they are by no means there "with" you in the sense that you should be affected by their decisions/actions. If we all stand for the same thing, then it'll show. If officers try to act like idiots, whether they're wearing street clothes or a police uniform should make no difference. It should not affect what you're doing.
Well said.
I never said anything about honor or a goal. You're basically telling me that surfers that say "Dude, sometimes you slam into the coral and get cut, but that's all part of it", are not surfers, but rather they are seeking honor, and slamming into the coral is the goal.
No. All I was saying is that if you're out there protesting, then it should be something that you feel strongly about. So strong, that you are willing to go to jail for a few hours, at the very least. Protests only "work" when the powers that be change something. All else is not protesting, but simply hanging out. I'm not suggesting rioting, or anything like that, but you've gotta do more than sit around waiting to be pepper-sprayed by people that have no respect for you anymore - because you're such a pansy (this would be their mentality).
Oh, and what good does that do?
No, the reason for a protest is to inspire those in power, to change something. The only time that the powers that be change things that they don't want to change, is when they have to change them. A really large group of people, acting in accordance with protest laws, are merely standing around with signs. Unless everyone in the country was out there standing around (not working, not allowing the system's wheels to turn) then the powers that be can simply look at the crowd and think, "there's all the idiots in the world" and go about their normal routine.
I hate to bring race into the subject, however (in America) only black people have successfully protested since I've been born. But they did it in another (to me, wrong) way. They were actually called riots rather than protests. MLK protested a lot, and got arrested a lot. And in the end, achieved something.
Right. So if that's the case, if people do not feel their cause is important enough to go to jail for 24 hours, then it's more likely that they're protesting in order to "have been there maaan", or something cheaper. In that case, the police take a different mindset, and that mindset is the scary one (probably because the police don't have respect for them at that point).
Protesting is supposed to be an event that brings to light the truth behind logic and order's place in society.
Exactly my point. This man would not say that.
I've never understood why protesters obey the rules and regulations of protests. I understand protesting, but for god's sake people, staying behind the line, or really keeping up any fabricated reason not to go to jail, is silly. The whole reason for a protest is to go to jail. It's not just to go to jail, but to have so many people go to jail that there is no feasible way that they can house them all. In the end, the point should be to overwhelm not only the people that you are protesting against, but to also overwhelm the police that have to look each person in the eye and arrest them. All protests should carry on without violence, without resistance, until the jails are filled.
"Fight the power" means just that, however there are 2 pieces of the power - law-makers, and law-enforcers.
Don't forget, that when a country is working on firsts, especially in a space program, it unites the country. India is already united (aside from religious problems that plague the entire planet) in it's still recent independence from British rule, and so this must be very exciting for Indians.
I was thinking about death, just as you were. I also know that I was once 'the Linux guy' where I worked, and ended up being in charge of all of the Linux servers. Some of the clients needed the servers to serve mail, and some wanted web; they were few and far between. However I set up the servers and users and passwords. That was years ago. I have since quit that job, and I have no idea what the passwords are (can't remember). What if that company called me, requesting those passwords? I wonder what the law says about time limits on this bizarre law. I mean, after all, I now work for myself, doing IT work for locals. What if one of my clients 'fire' me but then realize that they need me for the big boss' email password?
Also, I wonder if they have to pay you for your time, as you give them the passwords. As in, if I have to spend time driving over to their site, or even sending them an email with the password(s), I'm using my time, and as far as I know, should be able to charge my standard rate for work done. As a free American, I also have the right to raise my rate at will. Could I suddenly charge $500/hr with a minimum of 5 hours? That would be how I would play it.
Money is the power mechanism of the poor. Debt is the power mechanism of the rich.
Woops, I meant to credit Wikipedia with the info regarding what a fuel cell is.
A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Hydrogen is the most common fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are sometimes used. Fuel cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen/air to sustain the chemical reaction; however, fuel cells can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied.
So it's better to have the fuel cell at your place, rather than the fuel cells be at some electric company that then sells you the electricity at a higher price than you would pay for the "inputs".
Ahhh. Well now that it's explained, it's clear that I was misunderstanding the point of the article. Thanks for clearing that up. Also, you got +5 interesting, and you should have +5 informative.
So the helmet is providing these signals throughout the whole flight, that they're up to 1,000 mph never has any weight in the article. I don't get it. It's a helmet, why test it in Florida if you're going to use it in England? And why scrap a project based on such a small problem? Much like the helmet, the article isn't clear. Maybe I'm blinded, too.
I disagree with both of your points.
Question #1 asks "What is another good title" not "Which title best fits the story". In your defense, perhaps the teacher vocalized the question additionally to what was written on the test itself, but that wasn't the case here, I checked. You're obviously not an artist if you've limited your scope of thought to such an extent. My child is quite artistically inclined, and has much success with it, and all other aspects of school, which is why I looked over the 2 wrong answers to begin with. If we identify that in my child, then great! But if we identify that in my child, and tell her "Wrong!" then that's going against the teaching method, no? It'd be much the same if I gave your child a piece of paper and told him/her to make it fly, but I give no instructions, and I'm looking for a paper airplane. Then when they come back to me with a helicopter, that does indeed work, and I tell them "Wrong!", what then? You'd tell me to be more specific, and that's all I'm saying too.
Question #2 is asking for information to be assumed. And this assumption (like any other assumption) is based on a group of known information, and a group of associated information (aka what's normal in your world). Since the story had no mention of socks (other than putting on dry ones) it's silly to assume that the kid was wearing socks in sand.
In the south, we all agree that it's hot. We also all agree that sand is extremely hard to get out of shoes/socks, due to sweat. We also all agree that this question is based on the experiences of Northerners. To anyone that lives where it's hot most of the year, the idea of shoes and socks only arises during the winter. I know it sucks in the south, but you can go to Hawaii if you need to figure it all out.
Having said all that, I do agree that these questions are in the right direction. I just think that the answers for such questions will vary from state to state and country to country. That's why they're great questions. To get the personal experience of the child, and see why they chose that reasoning, is, to me, the best way to gauge if the child is using their mind, or a set of logic given to them.
You're forgetting that governments use fake technology all the time, just to get in the front door. If they suspect that you're doing something that they classify as wrong, then they can simply tell a judge that "...$Technology told us that these people are doing bad stuff, we need a warrant..." Don't believe that this is true? See here
You don't really think that any judge is going to take the time to look over the evidence before signing a warrant, do you?
"...how about reacting to what people DO with software?"
And what would the correct reaction be? Civil war? No one wants that.
"How about jailing the people who actually abuse the tools to violate other people's rights, instead of trying to outlaw them?"
Who'd jail them?
HAHAHA!!! Americans? Revolt? HAHAHA!!! Did you mean for them to revolt in the same way they did on Wall Street? HAHAHA!!! You're killing me! I can only imagine how it'd go:
Americans are all in the streets, prepared to storm the gates of the white house. They have mustered up all the defiance possible, and are about to make their move. But then Facebook comes out with a new upgrade to the $SmartPhoneApp and each person's $smartPhone beeps, requiring the user's attention for the upgrade. After 2 minutes of downloading, and 3 minutes of looking at the new Facebook interface, no one can remember why they're standing out in front of the white house, and they simply go home, eyes to the phone the whole way.
Seriously, who in their right mind would sanction the US? That'd be like candy factories petitioning Halloween.
I don't think that Google is after smarts here. No, in fact I think they're depending on the owners of businesses (most business owners are not very technically inclined) to simply think that Google knows what it's doing, and hiring folks based on pure belief in Google as a know-it-all. And therefor if you're "high up" the ladder of Google+, then you must know your shit.
Google is doing anything it can to boost Google+ numbers. It's got to be due to investors. BTW, for those that are trying to have a YouTube channel without a Google+ account, then set up your channel to have a different name than the one that you log into Google with. In doing so, you are essentially creating a YouTube user that controls YouTube, but logging into YouTube (Google) as your Google user.
BTW, I hate Google now that it's so obvious that they're doing anything they can to cook the books on Google+. They depend on people depending on Google. I can't imagine what they'll do with Google fiber. Probably something like, "No internet until you log into Google+".
It's a system full of good intentions, but the people that come up with the questions appear to be gearing things toward a certain way of thinking. I'm all about the system, it is designed to show the children how they think, and how they work out problems naturally, in their mind's eye as it were.
One problem that I have had with it in the past is that the way the questions allow for assumptions. For instance, I'm from Alabama. In Alabama it's generally hot and humid. When we take our kids to the park, they generally are wearing sandals or flip-flops. Any time they're playing in the sand, they're going to be bare-footed, or at the most, sandals/flip-flops. They give the kids a story to read about a kid that goes to the park. The story is basically this:
Story title: 'A day at the park' Timmy goes to the park. He plays in the park. He plays in the sand. It starts to rain, so Timmy has to leave. Timmy goes home and puts on dry socks. Timmy then takes a nap. When Timmy wakes up, the sun is out. He goes back to the park. Timmy likes the sun. Timmy smiles.
Then the questions that they ask are something like this:
1) What's another good title for this story? a) The sun b) Timmy goes to the park c) Rain and sun d) Timmy takes a nap
2) Why did Timmy put on dry socks? a) Because Timmy was home b) Because his socks were wet c) Because he was sleepy d) Because Timmy wanted to go back to the park
So question #1 is asking for an opinion, and question #2 is asking about something that's not mentioned in the story. After my kid missed both questions, I asked the teacher why, and her answer was that the questions are introducing higher learning. Higher learning? An opinion is higher learning? Asking questions that are full of assumptions not mentioned in the story, is higher learning?
So in that way it needs to be improved upon. But for math, they allow the kids to express the algorithm in any way, and as long as they get the answer correct, and the algorithm that they use is logical, then they're credited with learning. And I think that's way better than, "Here is an algorithm, learn it, and use it." Because if you don't understand how that algorithm came to be, you will not be able to use it in real life. Whereas if you came up with the algorithm yourself, you cannot explain how or why you came up with it, but you understand how to use your brain in the real world.
He didn't drive through Florida.
Yeah, well, had he wrecked or hurt anyone else, I seriously doubt we'd hear about the attempt at all.
Wrong, that's the very reason some people are in court in the first place.
It's called a conspiracy charge.