The main problems with common core aren't the standardized testing, though that is a problem.
Put on your developer hats and think about it like a software project:
The problem with common core is the requirements were written by people who have no idea about requirements development. Not only didn't they know how to write the requirements that had no input from any stakeholders, or users.
These fatally flawed requirements were then implemented by publishers of curriculum that do not know how to do a requirements traceability, nor how to fulfill requirements.
These massively fatally flawed curriculums are being implemented on the students by teachers who cannot follow the badly written code that is the curriculum.
Everyone who was involved in this massive failure to develop a working product should be fired and barred from working on anything similar ever again.
If you don't believe me go and read the math requirements for the what is to be taught. The guys who developed the requirements were complaining to a journalist a while back that it wasn't their fault, and that the publishers just didn't correctly meet the requirements. But upon reading the requirements anyone who's done requirement based development will see that they were a soup sandwich.
National Security Letters are not court orders they are administrative subpenas. And that is what are used. Further they can't be a warrant because it would be a general warrant and that is unconstitutional. The Government's position is that any papers of yours that are not in your control you have no right to privacy for them, thus doesn't require a warrant( Smith v. Maryland, 422 U.S. 735 (1979)). That is how come a subpena can be used to compel and no warrant. But they are still your letters. If they were the papers of the telco then the telco could refuse short of anything but a warrant. They could squash the subpena under the business's fourth amendment rights. That this can't happen shows who's papers they are.
Depends on what kind of blackmail the NSA has on him. If its as much as they had on Obama; damn fast. If he's had a squeaky clean life; then probably take a near death experience like Reagan's.
Just because it's illegal or not authorized doesn't mean that they will stop. They'll simply continue and do their best to keep it hush hush
This is true. It also severely erodes the rule of law. As more mundane average productive Americans realize that they're following the rules but the government isn't, and get screwed by it, they'll start to realize they should only follow the rules when they would get caught. This is a recipe for an uncivil society leading to a societal collapse.
Or to paraphrase a saying from communist countries; They pretend to enforce the law and we'll pretend to follow the law.
Your information about your phone calls that the phone company keeps is your papers. The phone company has it but it really belongs to you. We know this because the phone company can't refuse to give it to them without a warrant because it is ruled its not their papers to withhold. We know this because the phone company only receives a subpena for this in the form of a national security letter.
The biggest issue with converting a vehicle to an electric vehicle is getting light relatively inexpensive batteries. These might just be the ticket to that problem for DIY electric vehicle. Previously getting and making a LiON pack was either more expensive or harder to source the cells. This may solve the battery and charger issue and allow people to make decent ranged electric conversions for a lot less money.
The real issue, is the grid tie in inverters. You'll go through a few of them in the life of the panels, and they are expensive. If they get those down to a couple hundred dollars, the rest will fall in place. Installation and power electronics is over half the installed system cost. This also makes it not financially feasible to buy a couple panels and roll out more as you save money; the price difference between the whole system and the two panel system designed to be upgraded is negligible.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Any warrant that doesn't list the particular; one that authorizes a general collection is unconstitutional and illegal regardless of what the Judge says. In this case the Judge ruled they could generally collect any electronic phone data in range of the stingray. Judges can and do make illegal orders. They just have ruled that they're immune from punishment for their illegal actions, and we let them. Note that in the United States, judicial immunity is not by any statute passed by a legislature. Its by Judicial order. Its just another brick in the tyranny we live under.
If they do this, they're going against the magnuson moss act.
In a just world they would lose copyright when they stop warranting the product. You want copyright of that ecu? You give a permanent warranty on it and replace them every time they fail, for free. Don't want to have to replace it? then you give up copyright to the code on it because user needs to fix it. I'm not holding my breath though.
Oil is not the complete set of fossil fuels. It may be that we have run the oil age too long and it would be hard to get to oil again, but lets look back 100 years ago and notice that it was the coal age then. We switched from coal to oil not because we ran out of coal; we did it because the oil was more efficient. If we needed to reboot it would go back to coal, and there are still vast easily exploited coal fields. We could coal power civilization until we got back to petroleum; but really we're already changing over to a natural gas age, just like 100 years ago they were changing to petroleum. And we could just skip petroleum, do coal, and then gassified coal and go on towards whatever we have next, which really could be fusion.
1.5Million crimes per year prevented in the United States by guns.
In UK most home robberies are home invasions when the victims are home. In the United States, that is rare. Most home robberies are done when people aren't home.
So we Americans also price these benefits against guns and find that they are a net positive.
Moving the goalpost I see. From "No courts have ruled that way" I found that the 7th circuit did in fact rule that way, and they based it on a Supreme Court Ruling as well(that would be the second quote). So I said that courts recognize that Atheism is a religion. The courts agree.
My viewpoint is that the government should not favor one religion over another religion. I, like the courts, have a broad construction of what a religion is. This after all being a legal argument.
You think that theistic religions should be disadvantaged, and that Atheism and Secular Humanism should be advantaged in government, to protect that separation of church and state, changing their definition to suit your argument. Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't protects against all kinds of offense. It doesn't protect based on sexual orientation. And that is what the nexus of this Indiana law is about. So no bullshit about that ending action at the cash register. That's false.
I'm done with this goal post moving and your rhetoric. If you want to come back with some logic and facts have at it, but quit calling me a liar when you don't have a clue what the fuck your talking about.
IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").
KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY, 7th Circuit, rules Atheism is a Religion. But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).
Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.
So tell me about this "aTooth-Fairyist" religion of yours.
Are you sure you're not the ignorant one here?
But I will contend the state is become atheistic. So the state is acting on behalf of atheists constantly and it is disadvantaging all other religions. This is because while courts do in fact acknowledge that Atheism is a religion, they are applying a Separation of Church and State doctrine to prevent any religion or mention of God from the state. And no God is Atheism. Thus my problem with the courts ruling based on a nonexistent separation of church and state in the constitution rather than the clear freedom of religious express and prohibition of the establishment of a state religion(which the courts have established defacto instead of dejure, re atheism.)
Since you haven't actually read the first amendment to the constitution, let me break it down for you:
.. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So there is "freedom of speech" right in the Amendment. Right next to the prohibition on congress to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, Which is right next to the prohibition of Congress to create a Federal Government's officially established religion(i.e. a state religion). No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion. In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.
As for things grownups understand; they understand the difference between violence which is not protected and being an asshole, which is protected by the aforementioned freedom of speech. So your law preventing someone from being an asshole to people they don't like is oppressing not only their religious rights but their speech rights as well. Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.
Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.
Having trouble finding it? Here is a link to the constitution I'm still waiting for where "separation of church and state" in the constitution. When you find it let me know how that is more clear than "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the second. Oh you think its in the Bill of Rights well go look and let me know where. Show me the quote.
Conversely you can let me know how respecting the religious views of others (i.e. not " prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
If you ask very nicely I may actually tell you where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from, but if/when I do the whole quote will undermine your beliefs.
They will constantly be replaceing because of the number of packs in a large system and the fact the packs are on the downside of their cycle life, and thus why they were removed from cars. NiFe doesn't really have a cycle life like LiOn does. These will be cycling daily for night discharge; this will be an issue. Why not install a low maintenance system to start with rather than be replacing battery packs constantly, or at least several times, throughout the 30 year( 10,000cycle) life of the system?
They're going to be constantly replacing LiOn packs on any appreciable sized system. Why not go with a NiFe battery system that will last for fifty years? The price won't be much different, especially over the life of the system, or is the system life that short? Its not like you need to keep weight and size down in a building. Also who wants the fire risk that LiOn's pose in their business or home?
I've been intrigued by the Spark EV since it hit Car and Drivers list of best cars under $30k, but It seems only available in very select markets. How can I get one in the southeast US?
The reason it changes is with the sequential system the MPG when running gasoline was very disappointing with the engines that would allow full electric power. Going to the parallel allowed for better fuel economy when in that mode, and note people still complained about that economy.
I like the way the volt fixes range anxiety by allowing serial hybrid/generation. That makes it the only electric vehicle for sale that can easily be taken on long travel. I wonder if some people don't get into one because the electric only range is a bit longer than their commute. So the question is: Could GM have an option for the volt to add battery storage in the trunk to boost electric range? Then the owner could remove it for long trips but it would boost the range for normal commute and driving. You could possibly get the same range as a Tesla like this, but the advantage is that when traveling you could remove it and use the trunk space for suitcases and rely on the gas engine for the travel, whereas the Tesla would have to add a motor and generator to get similar travel performance, and that would limit its space/weight.
Slashdot Mirror
The main problems with common core aren't the standardized testing, though that is a problem.
Put on your developer hats and think about it like a software project:
The problem with common core is the requirements were written by people who have no idea about requirements development. Not only didn't they know how to write the requirements that had no input from any stakeholders, or users.
These fatally flawed requirements were then implemented by publishers of curriculum that do not know how to do a requirements traceability, nor how to fulfill requirements.
These massively fatally flawed curriculums are being implemented on the students by teachers who cannot follow the badly written code that is the curriculum.
Everyone who was involved in this massive failure to develop a working product should be fired and barred from working on anything similar ever again.
If you don't believe me go and read the math requirements for the what is to be taught. The guys who developed the requirements were complaining to a journalist a while back that it wasn't their fault, and that the publishers just didn't correctly meet the requirements. But upon reading the requirements anyone who's done requirement based development will see that they were a soup sandwich.
And in unrelated news Jon Corzine hired a new 28 year old assistant with banking experience in Moldova...
It seems that if you use a sewer treatment plant as a spider farm you will get much better results.
National Security Letters are not court orders they are administrative subpenas. And that is what are used. Further they can't be a warrant because it would be a general warrant and that is unconstitutional. The Government's position is that any papers of yours that are not in your control you have no right to privacy for them, thus doesn't require a warrant( Smith v. Maryland, 422 U.S. 735 (1979)). That is how come a subpena can be used to compel and no warrant. But they are still your letters. If they were the papers of the telco then the telco could refuse short of anything but a warrant. They could squash the subpena under the business's fourth amendment rights. That this can't happen shows who's papers they are.
Depends on what kind of blackmail the NSA has on him. If its as much as they had on Obama; damn fast. If he's had a squeaky clean life; then probably take a near death experience like Reagan's.
This is true. It also severely erodes the rule of law. As more mundane average productive Americans realize that they're following the rules but the government isn't, and get screwed by it, they'll start to realize they should only follow the rules when they would get caught. This is a recipe for an uncivil society leading to a societal collapse.
Or to paraphrase a saying from communist countries; They pretend to enforce the law and we'll pretend to follow the law.
Your information about your phone calls that the phone company keeps is your papers. The phone company has it but it really belongs to you. We know this because the phone company can't refuse to give it to them without a warrant because it is ruled its not their papers to withhold. We know this because the phone company only receives a subpena for this in the form of a national security letter.
The biggest issue with converting a vehicle to an electric vehicle is getting light relatively inexpensive batteries. These might just be the ticket to that problem for DIY electric vehicle. Previously getting and making a LiON pack was either more expensive or harder to source the cells. This may solve the battery and charger issue and allow people to make decent ranged electric conversions for a lot less money.
The real issue, is the grid tie in inverters. You'll go through a few of them in the life of the panels, and they are expensive. If they get those down to a couple hundred dollars, the rest will fall in place. Installation and power electronics is over half the installed system cost. This also makes it not financially feasible to buy a couple panels and roll out more as you save money; the price difference between the whole system and the two panel system designed to be upgraded is negligible.
Looks like MS is going to kill McAfee's application control(used to be solidcore) product.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Any warrant that doesn't list the particular; one that authorizes a general collection is unconstitutional and illegal regardless of what the Judge says. In this case the Judge ruled they could generally collect any electronic phone data in range of the stingray. Judges can and do make illegal orders. They just have ruled that they're immune from punishment for their illegal actions, and we let them. Note that in the United States, judicial immunity is not by any statute passed by a legislature. Its by Judicial order. Its just another brick in the tyranny we live under.
If they do this, they're going against the magnuson moss act.
In a just world they would lose copyright when they stop warranting the product. You want copyright of that ecu? You give a permanent warranty on it and replace them every time they fail, for free. Don't want to have to replace it? then you give up copyright to the code on it because user needs to fix it. I'm not holding my breath though.
Oil is not the complete set of fossil fuels. It may be that we have run the oil age too long and it would be hard to get to oil again, but lets look back 100 years ago and notice that it was the coal age then. We switched from coal to oil not because we ran out of coal; we did it because the oil was more efficient. If we needed to reboot it would go back to coal, and there are still vast easily exploited coal fields. We could coal power civilization until we got back to petroleum; but really we're already changing over to a natural gas age, just like 100 years ago they were changing to petroleum. And we could just skip petroleum, do coal, and then gassified coal and go on towards whatever we have next, which really could be fusion.
1.5Million crimes per year prevented in the United States by guns.
In UK most home robberies are home invasions when the victims are home. In the United States, that is rare. Most home robberies are done when people aren't home.
So we Americans also price these benefits against guns and find that they are a net positive.
Moving the goalpost I see. From "No courts have ruled that way" I found that the 7th circuit did in fact rule that way, and they based it on a Supreme Court Ruling as well(that would be the second quote). So I said that courts recognize that Atheism is a religion. The courts agree.
My viewpoint is that the government should not favor one religion over another religion. I, like the courts, have a broad construction of what a religion is. This after all being a legal argument.
You think that theistic religions should be disadvantaged, and that Atheism and Secular Humanism should be advantaged in government, to protect that separation of church and state, changing their definition to suit your argument. Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't protects against all kinds of offense. It doesn't protect based on sexual orientation. And that is what the nexus of this Indiana law is about. So no bullshit about that ending action at the cash register. That's false.
I'm done with this goal post moving and your rhetoric. If you want to come back with some logic and facts have at it, but quit calling me a liar when you don't have a clue what the fuck your talking about.
IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").
KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY, 7th Circuit, rules Atheism is a Religion.
But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).
Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.
So tell me about this "aTooth-Fairyist" religion of yours. Are you sure you're not the ignorant one here?
But I will contend the state is become atheistic. So the state is acting on behalf of atheists constantly and it is disadvantaging all other religions.
This is because while courts do in fact acknowledge that Atheism is a religion, they are applying a Separation of Church and State doctrine to prevent any religion or mention of God from the state.
And no God is Atheism.
Thus my problem with the courts ruling based on a nonexistent separation of church and state in the constitution rather than the clear freedom of religious express and prohibition of the establishment of a state religion(which the courts have established defacto instead of dejure, re atheism.)
Since you haven't actually read the first amendment to the constitution, let me break it down for you:
.. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So there is "freedom of speech" right in the Amendment. Right next to the prohibition on congress to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, Which is right next to the prohibition of Congress to create a Federal Government's officially established religion(i.e. a state religion). No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion. In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.
As for things grownups understand; they understand the difference between violence which is not protected and being an asshole, which is protected by the aforementioned freedom of speech. So your law preventing someone from being an asshole to people they don't like is oppressing not only their religious rights but their speech rights as well. Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.
Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.
Having trouble finding it? Here is a link to the constitution I'm still waiting for where "separation of church and state" in the constitution. When you find it let me know how that is more clear than "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the second. Oh you think its in the Bill of Rights well go look and let me know where. Show me the quote.
Conversely you can let me know how respecting the religious views of others (i.e. not " prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
If you ask very nicely I may actually tell you where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from, but if/when I do the whole quote will undermine your beliefs.
I wish there were a rant+1 mod for this.
They will constantly be replaceing because of the number of packs in a large system and the fact the packs are on the downside of their cycle life, and thus why they were removed from cars. NiFe doesn't really have a cycle life like LiOn does. These will be cycling daily for night discharge; this will be an issue. Why not install a low maintenance system to start with rather than be replacing battery packs constantly, or at least several times, throughout the 30 year( 10,000cycle) life of the system?
They're going to be constantly replacing LiOn packs on any appreciable sized system. Why not go with a NiFe battery system that will last for fifty years? The price won't be much different, especially over the life of the system, or is the system life that short? Its not like you need to keep weight and size down in a building. Also who wants the fire risk that LiOn's pose in their business or home?
I've been intrigued by the Spark EV since it hit Car and Drivers list of best cars under $30k, but It seems only available in very select markets. How can I get one in the southeast US?
The reason it changes is with the sequential system the MPG when running gasoline was very disappointing with the engines that would allow full electric power. Going to the parallel allowed for better fuel economy when in that mode, and note people still complained about that economy.
I like the way the volt fixes range anxiety by allowing serial hybrid/generation. That makes it the only electric vehicle for sale that can easily be taken on long travel. I wonder if some people don't get into one because the electric only range is a bit longer than their commute. So the question is: Could GM have an option for the volt to add battery storage in the trunk to boost electric range? Then the owner could remove it for long trips but it would boost the range for normal commute and driving. You could possibly get the same range as a Tesla like this, but the advantage is that when traveling you could remove it and use the trunk space for suitcases and rely on the gas engine for the travel, whereas the Tesla would have to add a motor and generator to get similar travel performance, and that would limit its space/weight.