What's with all these garbage comments defending rights violations?
The government doesn't care about going after Joe Nobody.
Instead, they'll be able to harass anyone who does something they don't like. The goal is not and never has been to harass everyone.
Please take a minute of your time to read about what *real* tyrants do to their people in the rest of the world and then come back to complain.
"X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad." isn't valid logic. Just because there could be worse tyrants doesn't mean that these people aren't tyrants.
It's just leading to a dysfunctional government that can't get anything done.
I'd much rather have *that* than a government that infringes upon our individual liberties and the constitution, like what's happening now. This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, and free and brave people wouldn't sacrifice fundamental freedoms for safety or the ability of the government to get random things done.
but a government that is untrusted by its people (and by all accounts Americans don't trust any existing political party) cannot effect effective governance.
Hundreds of millions of people throughout history were abused or murdered by governments. In the US, we had/have slavery, Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow laws, free speech zones, the TSA, the NSA spying, stop-and-frisk, unfettered border searches, numerous unnecessary and unjust wars, and conscription. If you know even a bit about history, you know that trusting governments only leads to ruin. You must be cautious of everything they do and think about whether they really should have a certain power.
Excluding the phone metadata issue, nothing in these leaks suggests that the NSA hacked or spied upon American Citizens.
Why would you exclude the "metadata issue" (Which, by the way, is just **data**.) and then claim that they're not spying? That is the spying.
Oh the irony of saying this on a website that is notorious for being full of GroupThink while also espousing a bunch of GroupThink yourself.
Being part of a website where certain people think there's groupthink doesn't mean you yourself engage in groupthink. You're an illogical moron.
So easily manipulated...
He's not the one who's easily manipulated, if you're going to believe random nonsense. I don't even know why people talk about Snowden at this point; the leaks are what's relevant.
Riiiight, because your faith is magically better then his faith ???
Rather, my lack of faith is better than his faith.
Grow the fuck up and learn some respect for a different perspective / belief.
Grow the fuck up (Not necessary; just stop being an idiot.) and realize that people don't have to respect other people's bullshit perspectives/beliefs.
Also, I don't buy that reading a passage and then answering exactly how they want you to answer improves critical thinking skills; the questions are often subjective and have multiple answers, but they only want you to answer one way. So much for creativity.
I have read them. In practice, the problems are: Multiple choice, the ability to game the tests by merely memorizing information, useless questions that don't test one's understanding of the material, and the stated goal of preparing students for college and a career (that is not what education is about).
There was no such thing. Let me quote what I replied to: "No, we treat children in a certain way because they are children." That isn't an answer; it's just circular reasoning.
He started very immature, and gained maturity as he aged.
"maturity" is completely subjective to begin with, but it usually boils down to doing things that other people (or society in general) agree with, in a way that they agree with.
Since age is arbitrary, should I have treated him the same at 3 years old and 13, when he was much more responsible and self-controlled?
I don't know. What did he act like at 3 years old? You have your answer, then.
Really? I don't use Facebook, don't download shitty phone apps, don't give my credit card number out like this, and generally don't do anything that would get me into such a situation. Care to explain how I'm not better than the people falling for this, even when I've never put myself into a situation where it's even possible that I could?
You can't, because it doesn't fuckin' make sense.
As a former Con man you travel around in the 80s, I can assure you that you are just a stupid as the next person.
As a former con man, you're not very good are arguing. I say this because you have no idea who you're talking to, yet you pretend to know anything about me. Vanish, I say!
People who thought they were superior were always the biggest suckers.
Unless they actually were superior. Then you're screwed.
The quick way is to break out a calculator. Or are you going to say that people who aren't as fast as you'd like don't understand math?
In any case, I reject your conclusion. People who understand the hows and whys of mathematics aren't necessarily able to do random, useless arithmetic problems in their heads. That's because remembering all that information and calculating the result is irrelevant to understanding why it all works.
However, one of the most important steps in understanding math is to use it so solve problems.
Not really. When they asked me to do 30 problems that required me to use the Pythagorean theorem to find the missing side of a triangle, I didn't even bother doing them. All you're doing is repeating the same steps over and over again and working with different numbers; that won't lead to true understanding.
That's not to say that there should be *no* problem solving at all, but that one is able to determine how much is necessary for themselves. Solve a few problems to get a general idea of it, and then ponder why it works.
Moreover, if I had to choose between someone who "understood" math but couldn't solve problems with it
That person can't be said to understand it. We should be teaching kids the how & why.
I'd choose the latter.
Rote memorization drones don't tend to do a good job, anyway.
When I went to school "new math" was supposed to make kids "understand" math
That's because "new math" did no such thing. The stated goal may or may not have been to make kids understand math, but if you look at what they were doing, it did no such thing. I wouldn't recommend anything like it.
Because a college education is needed for a basic quality of life
No, it's not. I'm not going to deny that it can be difficult to find an employer who realizes that pieces of paper don't indicate that you know what you're doing, but it is, at least, possible. I'm one example of a person who found an employer willing to actually give me a chance and test my skills.
The quick way is to break out a calculator. Teach kids how and why the math works, stop making them solve repetitive problems that don't even test their understanding of the material, and then give them calculators or computers where necessary.
Right, so education never did anything for anyone.
Straw man.
That the situation could be worse does not mean it is good. I am saying that it could be vastly improved, and that, at the moment, while it serves some purpose, it's still bad.
If they fail to utilize it, they're not really better than the view many people have of children. But, I don't really believe that there are many intelligent people to begin with, so I'm not entirely convinced it's just a problem of not utilizing that ability.
I don't own this phone, nor do I randomly give away my credit card or download shitty apps. So, I think that's proof enough that I don't need such nanny-state consumer protection laws. Only idiots who use garbage like Facebook would be dumb enough to fall for this shit, and I'm not part of such a group.
My superiority to these morons isn't just imaginary.
You must not be a real parent. All parents think the same things, act the same way, and agree with exploder; if someone doesn't, they're not a True Parent.
Yes. You know what, you sound like you are either a child yourself, or someone who hasn't lived as an adult long enough
You sound like an illogical moron who assumes that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't a True Adult. Not sure how old you are, but I'm in my 40s (which has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments), and I just believe people should be treated differently based on their character, regardless of their age.
I simply can't stand stupidity or mindless drones. You can tell that someone is mindless when they discriminate based on irrelevancies, when they use circular logic like in the comment I replied to, etc.
to learn that rules are never perfect
No one worth considering believes that rules are perfect; such people only exist in your convenient fantasies. I strive for perfection in the rules, but that is a mere goal.
It's obvious to anyone with a brain that rules are never perfect, considering the fact that government thugs in every country constantly violate people's fundamental liberties, so you don't need to tell me.
But rather than making shit up (That I might believe in perfect rules.) or looking for convenient ad hominems, you should probably endeavor to respond to the arguments that the other person is actually making.
You're definitely going places with that attitude!
Yeah, people who have their own opinions are in short supply, or at least that's what some seem to think.
That's a compelling rebuttal
Your statement wasn't compelling to begin with.
If that process had to be followed for every criminal prosecution, every day, then yes, it would be utterly impractical.
Again, not really. To begin with, the justice system should be based entirely on rehabilitation, not punishment, so it's our "Tough On Crime" mentality that causes these problems in the first place. So we should be tailoring it to the individuals, anyway. I care more about real justice than anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
What's with all these garbage comments defending rights violations?
The government doesn't care about going after Joe Nobody.
Instead, they'll be able to harass anyone who does something they don't like. The goal is not and never has been to harass everyone.
Please take a minute of your time to read about what *real* tyrants do to their people in the rest of the world and then come back to complain.
"X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad." isn't valid logic. Just because there could be worse tyrants doesn't mean that these people aren't tyrants.
It's just leading to a dysfunctional government that can't get anything done.
I'd much rather have *that* than a government that infringes upon our individual liberties and the constitution, like what's happening now. This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, and free and brave people wouldn't sacrifice fundamental freedoms for safety or the ability of the government to get random things done.
but a government that is untrusted by its people (and by all accounts Americans don't trust any existing political party) cannot effect effective governance.
Hundreds of millions of people throughout history were abused or murdered by governments. In the US, we had/have slavery, Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow laws, free speech zones, the TSA, the NSA spying, stop-and-frisk, unfettered border searches, numerous unnecessary and unjust wars, and conscription. If you know even a bit about history, you know that trusting governments only leads to ruin. You must be cautious of everything they do and think about whether they really should have a certain power.
Excluding the phone metadata issue, nothing in these leaks suggests that the NSA hacked or spied upon American Citizens.
Why would you exclude the "metadata issue" (Which, by the way, is just **data**.) and then claim that they're not spying? That is the spying.
Oh the irony of saying this on a website that is notorious for being full of GroupThink while also espousing a bunch of GroupThink yourself.
Being part of a website where certain people think there's groupthink doesn't mean you yourself engage in groupthink. You're an illogical moron.
So easily manipulated...
He's not the one who's easily manipulated, if you're going to believe random nonsense. I don't even know why people talk about Snowden at this point; the leaks are what's relevant.
Riiiight, because your faith is magically better then his faith ???
Rather, my lack of faith is better than his faith.
Grow the fuck up and learn some respect for a different perspective / belief.
Grow the fuck up (Not necessary; just stop being an idiot.) and realize that people don't have to respect other people's bullshit perspectives/beliefs.
Also, I don't buy that reading a passage and then answering exactly how they want you to answer improves critical thinking skills; the questions are often subjective and have multiple answers, but they only want you to answer one way. So much for creativity.
I have read them. In practice, the problems are: Multiple choice, the ability to game the tests by merely memorizing information, useless questions that don't test one's understanding of the material, and the stated goal of preparing students for college and a career (that is not what education is about).
Non sequitur.
There was no such thing. Let me quote what I replied to: "No, we treat children in a certain way because they are children." That isn't an answer; it's just circular reasoning.
He started very immature, and gained maturity as he aged.
"maturity" is completely subjective to begin with, but it usually boils down to doing things that other people (or society in general) agree with, in a way that they agree with.
Since age is arbitrary, should I have treated him the same at 3 years old and 13, when he was much more responsible and self-controlled?
I don't know. What did he act like at 3 years old? You have your answer, then.
They'd be considered treasonous if we had a sane legal definition of the word.
"It is not and never was "pretty-functional"; it is and was abysmal, like every education system."
That could be interpreted in a few ways.
Ye sit is, get over yourself.
Really? I don't use Facebook, don't download shitty phone apps, don't give my credit card number out like this, and generally don't do anything that would get me into such a situation. Care to explain how I'm not better than the people falling for this, even when I've never put myself into a situation where it's even possible that I could?
You can't, because it doesn't fuckin' make sense.
As a former Con man you travel around in the 80s, I can assure you that you are just a stupid as the next person.
As a former con man, you're not very good are arguing. I say this because you have no idea who you're talking to, yet you pretend to know anything about me. Vanish, I say!
People who thought they were superior were always the biggest suckers.
Unless they actually were superior. Then you're screwed.
The quick way is to break out a calculator. Or are you going to say that people who aren't as fast as you'd like don't understand math?
In any case, I reject your conclusion. People who understand the hows and whys of mathematics aren't necessarily able to do random, useless arithmetic problems in their heads. That's because remembering all that information and calculating the result is irrelevant to understanding why it all works.
You said every education system was abysmal, implying the lack of a system was better.
It implies no such thing, unless you took it to mean "Education systems are bad." rather than "Every education system thus far has been bad."
However, one of the most important steps in understanding math is to use it so solve problems.
Not really. When they asked me to do 30 problems that required me to use the Pythagorean theorem to find the missing side of a triangle, I didn't even bother doing them. All you're doing is repeating the same steps over and over again and working with different numbers; that won't lead to true understanding.
That's not to say that there should be *no* problem solving at all, but that one is able to determine how much is necessary for themselves. Solve a few problems to get a general idea of it, and then ponder why it works.
Moreover, if I had to choose between someone who "understood" math but couldn't solve problems with it
That person can't be said to understand it. We should be teaching kids the how & why.
I'd choose the latter.
Rote memorization drones don't tend to do a good job, anyway.
When I went to school "new math" was supposed to make kids "understand" math
That's because "new math" did no such thing. The stated goal may or may not have been to make kids understand math, but if you look at what they were doing, it did no such thing. I wouldn't recommend anything like it.
Because a college education is needed for a basic quality of life
No, it's not. I'm not going to deny that it can be difficult to find an employer who realizes that pieces of paper don't indicate that you know what you're doing, but it is, at least, possible. I'm one example of a person who found an employer willing to actually give me a chance and test my skills.
The quick way is to break out a calculator. Teach kids how and why the math works, stop making them solve repetitive problems that don't even test their understanding of the material, and then give them calculators or computers where necessary.
But being able to follow a bunch of steps to solve a problem doesn't mean you understand it, so the focus *should* be to make kids understand it.
Right, so education never did anything for anyone.
Straw man.
That the situation could be worse does not mean it is good. I am saying that it could be vastly improved, and that, at the moment, while it serves some purpose, it's still bad.
If they fail to utilize it, they're not really better than the view many people have of children. But, I don't really believe that there are many intelligent people to begin with, so I'm not entirely convinced it's just a problem of not utilizing that ability.
It's everything. While it would be fairly difficult to make the education system even more abysmal without trying to do just that, this isn't helping.
When it's used on the already pretty-functional US education system
It is not and never was "pretty-functional"; it is and was abysmal, like every education system.
Your argument is based on the assumption someone will only learn what is in the program, which is not necessarily the case.
99% of the time, that's the case. You and I are the exceptions.
I don't own this phone, nor do I randomly give away my credit card or download shitty apps. So, I think that's proof enough that I don't need such nanny-state consumer protection laws. Only idiots who use garbage like Facebook would be dumb enough to fall for this shit, and I'm not part of such a group.
My superiority to these morons isn't just imaginary.
I have kids of my own
You must not be a real parent. All parents think the same things, act the same way, and agree with exploder; if someone doesn't, they're not a True Parent.
Yes. You know what, you sound like you are either a child yourself, or someone who hasn't lived as an adult long enough
You sound like an illogical moron who assumes that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't a True Adult. Not sure how old you are, but I'm in my 40s (which has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments), and I just believe people should be treated differently based on their character, regardless of their age.
I simply can't stand stupidity or mindless drones. You can tell that someone is mindless when they discriminate based on irrelevancies, when they use circular logic like in the comment I replied to, etc.
to learn that rules are never perfect
No one worth considering believes that rules are perfect; such people only exist in your convenient fantasies. I strive for perfection in the rules, but that is a mere goal.
It's obvious to anyone with a brain that rules are never perfect, considering the fact that government thugs in every country constantly violate people's fundamental liberties, so you don't need to tell me.
But rather than making shit up (That I might believe in perfect rules.) or looking for convenient ad hominems, you should probably endeavor to respond to the arguments that the other person is actually making.
You're definitely going places with that attitude!
Yeah, people who have their own opinions are in short supply, or at least that's what some seem to think.
That's a compelling rebuttal
Your statement wasn't compelling to begin with.
If that process had to be followed for every criminal prosecution, every day, then yes, it would be utterly impractical.
Again, not really. To begin with, the justice system should be based entirely on rehabilitation, not punishment, so it's our "Tough On Crime" mentality that causes these problems in the first place. So we should be tailoring it to the individuals, anyway. I care more about real justice than anything else.
to the detriment of the rest of us.
Yes.