Standardized tests measure very well the ability to solve standardized tests. The question is - can they measure anything else?
Of course they measure something else- your familiarity with the subject matter. (Duh, that's what they are designed to do!)
It's all fine and good to have "the ability to solve standardized tests", but if you don't know the subject matter, the best you can do is guess, which is usually rewarded with a poor score.
Now, if two equally 'smart' people take the same test, and one has more "ability to solve standardized tests", then they will do better thatthe person with no ability.
But a person who knows chinese (but has no 'testing-ability') can certainly get a higher score than an expert in test-taking who doesn't read chinese.
No, No, No. Any and all discontnuities with the established TOS/TNG/DS9/Voyager timeline are explained away by the TEMPORAL COLD WAR.
You see, eventually, there will be a story arc that includes several episodes of the last season of Enterprise. That arc will lead to a major temporal change that will result in:
1) the non-existance of the Suliban (which is why we never hear of them in the other series)
2) a change to Vulcan society, such that Mind-melds are no longer conidered 'abnormal'.
3) Changes to a LOT of other, "minor" things such that almost every episode of Enterprise we've seen up to that point never really happened. This fixes all the continuity problems.
The last few episodes of Enterprise will be Archer and/or the Enterprise Crew adjusting to the new existance, and deciding what to say/not say to their superiors about what they know/don't know.
The only people who beleive "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" are those who would be made blind under the rule. Not the victims (who would be blind no matter what punishment was given to the criminal) - the criminals.
So, what's YOUR answer to what to do with a thief? It's easy calling other people names (whether or not they fit), but hard to actually think yourself. ,
It's all well and good to sit back in your comfy chair (or whatever) and say that a judicial system based on brutality would only affect "them" and not "us," but it simply isn't true.
Yes it is. With "them"= 'those that hurt others' and "us"= 'those that don't'.
Ever exceeded the speed limit? Ever crossed a street against the light?
Both of those are victimless crimes. No victim 'blinded', no need for the one who broke the law to be 'blinded', either.
?But our society embraces the idea of proportionality. If every teenager who ever shoplifted a pack of gum from the bodega were to have his hands cut off, we'd be living in a world of amputees.
Firstly, that's not necessarilly so. *I* don't steal- do you? Secondly, this is a Strawman argument. The topic at hand is "an eye for an eye", not "lop off a hand for a pack of gum". YOU are the one ignoring proportionality. A teenage gum-pack theif should have to give back the gum (or pay for it), and then be penalized the equivelent of an extra pack of gum. A pack of gum for a pack of gum.
So unless you're prepared to be the first person to step up and accept your wildly disproportionate "eye for an eye" punishment, shut up.
YOU are the one who thinks "an eye for an eye" means "lop off the hands of theives", and you tell ME my ideas are "disproportionate"?!?
If I am or ever was a victim (ie- had my eyes poked out), I'm already blind. If I am or ever was an offender (ie- poked out someone elses eyes), I deserve to be blind.
And no, neither actually applies to me, so what's your point?
I absolutely HATE it when people say this. It is patently FALSE. The only groups who would be blind are the victims (who would be blind in any case) and the criminals. The rest of us (non-victims and non-criminals) would be just fine.
If the whole world acted upon "an eye for an eye" then everyone would be blind.
BULLSHIT!
I absolutely HATE it when people say this. It is patently FALSE. The only groups who would be blind are the victims (who would be blind in any case) and the criminals. The rest of us (non-victims and non-criminals) would be just fine.
This is beaming out EM waves at a frequency near or at what people use to cook food
RTFA:
"The technology works by converting direct current (DC) electricity into microwave power at the transmitting end in the same way that switching on a microwave oven converts electricity into waves using a device called a magnetron. Residents are unlikely to be baked as the frequencies in the two applications are entirely different."
if you're paying for a service where you're only supposed to connect one host
With NAT, I *DO* only have one host connected to their system. Of course, that machone is also connected to my other maches as well. But only one machine is connected to their system.
I don't care what is the reason sopmeone pumps the guy's head full of lead. Insane or sane. They need to be taken off the streets for everyone else's protection.
Not necessaarilly. If someone kills their spouse because the spouse cheated on them, that doesn't mean they are a threat to "everyone else".
I think insane criminals should be locked up for LONGER.
Think about it- if someone kills their spouse because the spouse cheated on them, that's one thing. The rest of society is not in danger from the spouse-killer. On the other hand, if a crazy person kills a stranger at random, the rest of society IS at risk.
Every cell phone carrier is required by Federal law to accept 911 calls, at no charge, from any cellular device, regardless of whether or not the calling device has a valid subscription or not.
Agreed. But the statement I was replying to was "In US, ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL cellphones dial 911".
Sure, technically, they may 'dial' 911, but if it doesn't go thru, it's worthless.
A wireless connection will never be as reliable as a landline
Exactly. So let's NOT remove payphones "because everyone has cell phones".
The sentence "So, even though "ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL" cell phones should be able to call 911, not all can. 4%? 12%? As the article says, we can never know for sure." should NOT be in the quote, but after it.
In US, ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL cellphones dial 911, especially those that don't have a service contract.
Sorry, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Check out the feature report on www.consumerreports.com:
So, even though "ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL" cell phones should be able to call 911, not all can. 4%? 12%? As the article says, we can never know for sure. Will your cell phone reach 911?
You can't be sure. Our research produced some disturbing results.
One in three people who own a cell phone say they bought it mainly for safety--to have if they need to call 911 from the side of the road or a dark street at night. And at least one-third of all 911 calls are now made on cell phones--just under 57 million calls in 2001, according to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA), a trade group.
As large as that number is, it's not the total. Some cellular calls to 911 never get through. The number of failures can't be known; a call that goes nowhere can't be tracked. Our research does give some dimension to the problem, however.
When we surveyed 11,500 subscribers to ConsumerReports.org last fall, 1,880 said they had tried to call 911 using a cell phone in the previous year. Some 15 percent of them, or 280 people, said they had trouble connecting; that includes 4 percent who never got through at all. For most of those, a weak signal, a bad connection, or some other phone-system problem seemed to have caused the trouble. Trouble for the remaining respondents apparently involved the emergency system: excessive rings, unanswered calls, or being left on hold.
Wireless 911 calls in California seem especially problematic, according to our survey. There, nearly 12 percent of calls to 911 never succeeded; one-third of our California respondents said they encountered some difficulty getting through to 911.
When we went into the field, we found problems with the system. With a significant number of the calls we made to real 911 centers, the phones did not do all we believe they could to make calls connect.
Slashdot Mirror
Dragging?
What, like these are impossible to hot-wire??
anything that you can misuse to kill someone should have such data recording abilities.
Good luck convincing Mother Nature to install "data recording abilities" on rocks, sticks, cliffs, water....
Standardized tests measure very well the ability to solve standardized tests. The question is - can they measure anything else?
Of course they measure something else- your familiarity with the subject matter. (Duh, that's what they are designed to do!)
It's all fine and good to have "the ability to solve standardized tests", but if you don't know the subject matter, the best you can do is guess, which is usually rewarded with a poor score.
Now, if two equally 'smart' people take the same test, and one has more "ability to solve standardized tests", then they will do better thatthe person with no ability.
But a person who knows chinese (but has no 'testing-ability') can certainly get a higher score than an expert in test-taking who doesn't read chinese.
After all, if someone steals your finger, at least they won't know your PIN!
Yeah- instead of beating you senseless to get your PIN, they beat you senseless to get your PIN, AND cut off oyur thumb.
biometric authentication - probably fingerprinting - would be a useful feature on these devices.
RTFA: "The device never leaves its user's pocket or handbag."
Kinda hard to put your fingers on something packed away in your briefcase or backpack, huh.
YOU might HAVE YOUR VERY OWN PDA shaped thing. Or laptop shaped thing.
Then this obviously isn't going to "replace PDAs and Laptops", is it???
And why have seperate storage? Just build it into the "PDA shaped thing. Or laptop shaped thing."
No, No, No. Any and all discontnuities with the established TOS/TNG/DS9/Voyager timeline are explained away by the TEMPORAL COLD WAR.
You see, eventually, there will be a story arc that includes several episodes of the last season of Enterprise. That arc will lead to a major temporal change that will result in:
1) the non-existance of the Suliban (which is why we never hear of them in the other series)
2) a change to Vulcan society, such that Mind-melds are no longer conidered 'abnormal'.
3) Changes to a LOT of other, "minor" things such that almost every episode of Enterprise we've seen up to that point never really happened. This fixes all the continuity problems.
The last few episodes of Enterprise will be Archer and/or the Enterprise Crew adjusting to the new existance, and deciding what to say/not say to their superiors about what they know/don't know.
If two file sharers each have the same 100 mp3's, what's the probability thay they will both be listening to the same file at the same time?
And remember, there are 10's of thousands of files out there...
The only people who beleive "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" are those who would be made blind under the rule. Not the victims (who would be blind no matter what punishment was given to the criminal) - the criminals.
So, what's YOUR answer to what to do with a thief? It's easy calling other people names (whether or not they fit), but hard to actually think yourself.
,
It's all well and good to sit back in your comfy chair (or whatever) and say that a judicial system based on brutality would only affect "them" and not "us," but it simply isn't true.
Yes it is. With "them"= 'those that hurt others' and "us"= 'those that don't'.
Ever exceeded the speed limit? Ever crossed a street against the light?
Both of those are victimless crimes. No victim 'blinded', no need for the one who broke the law to be 'blinded', either.
?But our society embraces the idea of proportionality. If every teenager who ever shoplifted a pack of gum from the bodega were to have his hands cut off, we'd be living in a world of amputees.
Firstly, that's not necessarilly so. *I* don't steal- do you?
Secondly, this is a Strawman argument. The topic at hand is "an eye for an eye", not "lop off a hand for a pack of gum". YOU are the one ignoring proportionality.
A teenage gum-pack theif should have to give back the gum (or pay for it), and then be penalized the equivelent of an extra pack of gum. A pack of gum for a pack of gum.
So unless you're prepared to be the first person to step up and accept your wildly disproportionate "eye for an eye" punishment, shut up.
YOU are the one who thinks "an eye for an eye" means "lop off the hands of theives", and you tell ME my ideas are "disproportionate"?!?
If I am or ever was a victim (ie- had my eyes poked out), I'm already blind.
If I am or ever was an offender (ie- poked out someone elses eyes), I deserve to be blind.
And no, neither actually applies to me, so what's your point?
BULLSHIT!
I absolutely HATE it when people say this. It is patently FALSE. The only groups who would be blind are the victims (who would be blind in any case) and the criminals. The rest of us (non-victims and non-criminals) would be just fine.
If the whole world acted upon "an eye for an eye" then everyone would be blind.
BULLSHIT!
I absolutely HATE it when people say this. It is patently FALSE. The only groups who would be blind are the victims (who would be blind in any case) and the criminals. The rest of us (non-victims and non-criminals) would be just fine.
If it pisses the spammers off to the point they see the light and quit spamming, it sure as hell DOES benefit sosiety!
it's useless to have such power if it's not easily available each time you need it. I need to man find evey time I want to do this.
Well, if you're too stupid to remember the command....
This is beaming out EM waves at a frequency near or at what people use to cook food
RTFA:
"The technology works by converting direct current (DC) electricity into microwave power at the transmitting end in the same way that switching on a microwave oven converts electricity into waves using a device called a magnetron. Residents are unlikely to be baked as the frequencies in the two applications are entirely different."
It says in my service agreement (originally with @home, care to guess who now? :) ) that I will only hook up one computer
I don't see the problem. With NAT, THERE IS ONLY ONE COMPUTER hooked up to their network.
All the other computers are hooked to that one computer, true. But only that ONE is hooked to their network.
if you're paying for a service where you're only supposed to connect one host
With NAT, I *DO* only have one host connected to their system. Of course, that machone is also connected to my other maches as well. But only one machine is connected to their system.
I don't care what is the reason sopmeone pumps the guy's head full of lead. Insane or sane. They need to be taken off the streets for everyone else's protection.
Not necessaarilly. If someone kills their spouse because the spouse cheated on them, that doesn't mean they are a threat to "everyone else".
I think insane criminals should be locked up for LONGER.
Think about it- if someone kills their spouse because the spouse cheated on them, that's one thing. The rest of society is not in danger from the spouse-killer. On the other hand, if a crazy person kills a stranger at random, the rest of society IS at risk.
FP!
Every cell phone carrier is required by Federal law to accept 911 calls, at no charge, from any cellular device, regardless of whether or not the calling device has a valid subscription or not.
Agreed. But the statement I was replying to was "In US, ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL cellphones dial 911".
Sure, technically, they may 'dial' 911, but if it doesn't go thru, it's worthless.
A wireless connection will never be as reliable as a landline
Exactly. So let's NOT remove payphones "because everyone has cell phones".
Shit. My first (non AC) post, and I fuck it up.
The sentence "So, even though "ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL" cell phones should be able to call 911, not all can. 4%? 12%? As the article says, we can never know for sure." should NOT be in the quote, but after it.
Shit.
Sorry, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Check out the feature report on www.consumerreports.com: