The fact that education is expensive does not mean its quality is high. Boring and un-engaging lectures will put a student to sleep regardless of how much they pay and whether or not they believe they "should" be awake. Putting responsibility on students in this situation is asking them to react in a non-natural way to the circumstances.
Lecture-based education is inefficient and broken by design.
"Gamifying" unnecessarily boring material does not make it better and tries to address the wrong issue.
Ideally college engages discussion and critical thinking, rather than demanding listening to a monotone voice reciting facts which can be easily referenced and never remembered.
"An epic tale of freedom and slavery, love and war, and the potential futures of humankind tells of a twenty-first century California clan caught between two clashing worlds, one based on tolerance, the other on repression."
The description does not do it justice... this is a post-apocalyptic fiction at its finest, addressing the dividing forces of our society and looking at the possibilities presented by our political structures, values, technologies and attitude towards nature and magic.
> If they have something to hide, which they don't want revealed in court, they need to find some other line of work.
That would be nice. In reality, they use the power entrusted in them to smash phones, charge innocent citizens with false charges, physically and verbally abuse innocent women, children and men, including tazing for pleasure and shooting to kill for no reason.
So it seems that what they think they need is legal protection for the illegal actions they are already taking.
Given that the 2nd photo in FOX's slideshow shows the driver looking into a laptop screen WHILE DRIVING, all I have to say is give me my tax money back!
Oh, and nice choice of propaganda photos, Fox "News"
I agree with your post up to the point where you say politicians suck. I think they are doing an excellent job. They just work, collectively, for themselves and serve the 1-10% percent of wealthiest individuals who practically own them.
Understand? If you are talking of the details of a specific religion... Too many imaginary friends, too little time.
If you are talking of the essence of "religion," it's easy: Evil old men drunk on power burning everyone and everything in their way, getting off on raping children, corrupting as many innocent souls as possible.
Where would the devil hide if not in church. What would the devil have you believe about god if not that it's separate from you?? What would the devil have you believe about yourself if not that there's something wrong with you?
Anyone who tries to stand between you and your divinity is selling you shit.
U.S. 16 year olds != trained/brainwashed jihad "warriors."
I tend to think "the people who flew the 4 airplanes on 9/11" are a. not very well known to us (in fiction vs. fact kind of way) and b. they were probably feeling like warriors sacrificing for a "just cause"... as they were programmed to. After all they gave their lives... so they must've believed something was more important.
P.S. All soldiers are programmed/brainwashed in order to be able to kill fellow human beings without immediate severe emotional trauma.
doesn't deserve source protection because 'it IS journalism, with the potential of revealing some very, very dirty laundry and because it interrupts the regular programming that keeps the sheep sleeping"
It wouldn't take too long before you'd have a sizable underclass which would have no rights, but still be able to do various manual labour jobs. It wouldn't very much different than slavery.
How is usury not creating slavery? How does most of the land being property of a very few people not lead to slavery? You are born and must work in order to have a place to live, for the right to occupy space. Then you borrow money for something and must return more for what you borrowed, so you must work more.
So I guess in your mind "liberal" == "someone who's paying attention".
Could very well be the case... in many minds.
Also, I would suggest "liberal" == "someone who questions practices based on cruelty and power over other people"
Choosing "Conservatism" is linked with experiencing harsh authority figures during childhood enforcing obedience by means of cruelty and torture (refusing children basic needs like connection, approval, attention, understanding as a means of enforcing obedience is emotional torture as many of these are linked to the sense of survivial. Using physical violence on children as a means of enforcing obedience is, well, just torture).
For "liberal mind" someone needing help == someone needing help == they ought to be helped. For "conservative mind" someone needing help == someone weak, undisciplined and therefore undeserving of what they need == they should be taught a "tough lesson." (which is how the "Conservative mind" was trained out of compassion and empathy after all, so the template is internalized)
One of the more common subject lines I get in an organization where email is the primary means of communication.
it'd probably be a simpler task to train people using almost your exact phrasing: the subject line is a one line summary of the email and the body is the details section.
You'd think. I usually just add a subject to the email when it comes my way but "training people"... not that easy.
We don't know the 16-year olds personally and we don't have a transcript of the class verifying that there was no mention or implication of the moral standing of such undertaking.
I have a problem with presuming that 16-year olds have to be specifically educated on the harmfulness of a terrorist attack. It implies their being sociopaths separated from carrying out of such an attack by mere lack of know-how in the matter.
My stepson moved to the U.S. from Eastern Europe when he was in 4th grade. When he went to school here he found out that the curriculum was 3 years behind, so in 5th, 6th and 7th grade he was still going over material he had covered already. Just FYI, U.S. public schools were created and designed to spew blue collar workers capable of self-discipline and mundane tasks. They were never meant to encourage creativity. Just enduring long dull robotic workdays.
School is here mainly to teach obedience, to domesticate children.
"The secret of American schooling is that it doesn't teach the way children learn -- nor is it supposed to. Schools were conceived to serve the economy and the social order rather than kids and families -- that is why it is compulsory. As a consequence, the school can not help anybody grow up, because its prime directive is to retard maturity. It does that by teaching that everything is difficult, that other people run our lives, that our neighbors are untrustworthy even dangerous. "
Slashdot Mirror
So... Stanford: our education is so shitty that only the brightest and most committed retain anything!
The fact that education is expensive does not mean its quality is high. Boring and un-engaging lectures will put a student to sleep regardless of how much they pay and whether or not they believe they "should" be awake. Putting responsibility on students in this situation is asking them to react in a non-natural way to the circumstances.
Lecture-based education is inefficient and broken by design.
"Gamifying" unnecessarily boring material does not make it better and tries to address the wrong issue.
Ideally college engages discussion and critical thinking, rather than demanding listening to a monotone voice reciting facts which can be easily referenced and never remembered.
The application details are a formality. The 30+million users are the product.
Facebook is buying cattle fenced in by another app, and moving it within its world (where Google cannot reach :).
"An epic tale of freedom and slavery, love and war, and the potential futures of humankind tells of a twenty-first century California clan caught between two clashing worlds, one based on tolerance, the other on repression."
The description does not do it justice... this is a post-apocalyptic fiction at its finest, addressing the dividing forces of our society and looking at the possibilities presented by our political structures, values, technologies and attitude towards nature and magic.
It is awesome, intense, sexy and rewarding.
> If they have something to hide, which they don't want revealed in court, they need to find some other line of work.
That would be nice. In reality, they use the power entrusted in them to smash phones, charge innocent citizens with false charges, physically and verbally abuse innocent women, children and men, including tazing for pleasure and shooting to kill for no reason.
So it seems that what they think they need is legal protection for the illegal actions they are already taking.
1. Release free movie over BT
2. Sue everyone who downloads for $3k settlement
3. Profit!!!!
You don't have to let them do that.
How do I "don't let them do that?"
What are my legal, efficient means to initiate change and reverse the inertia of corrupt lawmaking?
(I hope you don't say "voting" and mean it seriously)
Given that the 2nd photo in FOX's slideshow shows the driver looking into a laptop screen WHILE DRIVING, all I have to say is give me my tax money back!
Oh, and nice choice of propaganda photos, Fox "News"
Imagine that you were just imagining that this might happen. Would you act on your imagination?
Also imagine that your wife sleepwalked to the kitchen drawer, picked up an pair of scissors and stabbed you in the eye while you slept.
Imagine your dog attacking you and killing you in front of your children.
I suggest you first take care of the clear and imminent danger presented by your wife and dog and maybe then consider wikileaks.
Still not convinced?
SUDO imagine you have a wife and a dog...
Criminalizing everyone is convenient.
Not even a mouse. A picture of a mouse.
I agree with your post up to the point where you say politicians suck. I think they are doing an excellent job. They just work, collectively, for themselves and serve the 1-10% percent of wealthiest individuals who practically own them.
Democracy! = Squirrel!
The point is it's not important who hosts the data. It's important who owns the subscribers.
"Owning" a large number of subscribers allows to manipulate what gets shown and how fast and therefore charge for it.
I'm sure it would be also possible to charge to "disappear" certain sites, indie media outlets etc. from the "internet" as seen by said subscribers.
Right now, AT&T can easily censor the internet for a huge number of iphones. Comcast, Verizon and Earthlink are not exactly beyond this either.
Guess where your tax dollars may go next.
Understand? If you are talking of the details of a specific religion... Too many imaginary friends, too little time.
If you are talking of the essence of "religion," it's easy: Evil old men drunk on power burning everyone and everything in their way, getting off on raping children, corrupting as many innocent souls as possible.
Where would the devil hide if not in church. What would the devil have you believe about god if not that it's separate from you?? What would the devil have you believe about yourself if not that there's something wrong with you?
Anyone who tries to stand between you and your divinity is selling you shit.
Fixed that for you. Slow day, eh?
U.S. 16 year olds != trained/brainwashed jihad "warriors."
I tend to think "the people who flew the 4 airplanes on 9/11" are a. not very well known to us (in fiction vs. fact kind of way) and b. they were probably feeling like warriors sacrificing for a "just cause"... as they were programmed to. After all they gave their lives... so they must've believed something was more important.
P.S. All soldiers are programmed/brainwashed in order to be able to kill fellow human beings without immediate severe emotional trauma.
doesn't deserve source protection because 'it IS journalism, with the potential of revealing some very, very dirty laundry and because it interrupts the regular programming that keeps the sheep sleeping"
Here, fixed that for you.
Remember, "criminal" is a flexible label easily attached to anyone... even you.
Exactly. And just a reminder,
It wouldn't take too long before you'd have a sizable underclass which would have no rights, but still be able to do various manual labour jobs. It wouldn't very much different than slavery.
How is usury not creating slavery? How does most of the land being property of a very few people not lead to slavery? You are born and must work in order to have a place to live, for the right to occupy space. Then you borrow money for something and must return more for what you borrowed, so you must work more.
How is this not (wage) slavery for most?
You may want to see this for how slavery really works: http://bit.ly/economichitmanvideo
Yep. Despite used all over the place to redirect the ignorant masses' attention, ad hominem is not a real argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
So I guess in your mind "liberal" == "someone who's paying attention".
Could very well be the case... in many minds.
Also, I would suggest "liberal" == "someone who questions practices based on cruelty and power over other people"
Choosing "Conservatism" is linked with experiencing harsh authority figures during childhood enforcing obedience by means of cruelty and torture (refusing children basic needs like connection, approval, attention, understanding as a means of enforcing obedience is emotional torture as many of these are linked to the sense of survivial. Using physical violence on children as a means of enforcing obedience is, well, just torture).
For "liberal mind" someone needing help == someone needing help == they ought to be helped.
For "conservative mind" someone needing help == someone weak, undisciplined and therefore undeserving of what they need == they should be taught a "tough lesson." (which is how the "Conservative mind" was trained out of compassion and empathy after all, so the template is internalized)
For more see George Lakoff's lecture on Moral Politics: http://bit.ly/moralpoliticsvideo
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One of the more common subject lines I get in an organization where email is the primary means of communication.
it'd probably be a simpler task to train people using almost your exact phrasing: the subject line is a one line summary of the email and the body is the details section.
You'd think. I usually just add a subject to the email when it comes my way but "training people"... not that easy.
We don't know the 16-year olds personally and we don't have a transcript of the class verifying that there was no mention or implication of the moral standing of such undertaking.
I have a problem with presuming that 16-year olds have to be specifically educated on the harmfulness of a terrorist attack. It implies their being sociopaths separated from carrying out of such an attack by mere lack of know-how in the matter.
My stepson moved to the U.S. from Eastern Europe when he was in 4th grade. When he went to school here he found out that the curriculum was 3 years behind, so in 5th, 6th and 7th grade he was still going over material he had covered already. Just FYI, U.S. public schools were created and designed to spew blue collar workers capable of self-discipline and mundane tasks. They were never meant to encourage creativity. Just enduring long dull robotic workdays.
School is here mainly to teach obedience, to domesticate children.
"The secret of American schooling is that it doesn't teach the way children learn -- nor is it supposed to. Schools were conceived to serve the economy and the social order rather than kids and families -- that is why it is compulsory. As a consequence, the school can not help anybody grow up, because its prime directive is to retard maturity. It does that by teaching that everything is difficult, that other people run our lives, that our neighbors are untrustworthy even dangerous. "
More here.
Feeling crazy in such an environment is normal reaction.
I would look into getting help for kids who DO like public school.