There's a big difference between the soldiers who actually put their asses on the line and the commanders who decide the hand-wave the realities of war with a video game for recruitment purposes.
Yawn.
I know several Iraq War veterans, still in the service, who carry the equipment in and set up booths very similar to this, bringing recruitment efforts to job fairs, conventions, and yes, malls.
On their behalf - since also I've seen and met the sort of "protesters" that show up at these places, trying to goad them into a fight so they can cry and lie about "the military" infringing on their "right to protest" (even while they're doing their damndest to not allow the troops THEIR own right to speak freely) - a very sincere FUCK YOU.
You have no clue what the protesters were really protesting for but you hate them.
I wonder what the opinion of a veteran would be to someone like you, lamely ra-ra'ing everything into a "think of the troops". That sort of knee-jerk objectification of a soldier as this hero-object you send overseas and who dies gloriously for freedom, even if they're sent into an unjust war under false pretenses, seems pretty offensive to me. It's the same kind of handwavism towards the reality of war that the protesters were protesting.
I know the type of loonie who shows up at this sort of "protest" quite well. I also know first-hand the type of person who goes into the military - they're my FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
You're the fucking liar, because you obviously have no fucking clue what the goddamn fuck you are talking about.
But to remove them for expressing a reasonable opinion against the government, in a very relevant manner and location, simply because it's private property - that is unreasonable.
On the other hand, to remove them because they (a) are breaking noise ordinances, (b) are blocking traffic through the business, (c) refused to leave when told by the owner of the property they were unwelcome (they could easily have stood on the PUBLIC SIDEWALK and picketed the mall, but no, they had to go inside) and (d) are trying to provoke a fight with the cops, is plenty. And the video shows all of the above.
Perhaps you should pay attention to what really happened, retake 4th grade civics, grow the fuck up, and go fuck yourself.
There is no restraint on my "liberty" if I am required to do the honest thing and ensure, to the best of my ability, that the protest I'm organizing will be put on with enough emergency personnel and planning so as not to get anyone killed.
There are laws for dealing with obstruction of traffic and disturbing the peace; but that's something to be done/after/ they begin to cause a problem.
Unfortunately, the difference between a minor scuffle, and a riot, is having proper precautions already in place.
Prior restraint is tantamount to censorship, and requiring 'permission' to speak your mind is exactly that.
Bullshit. "Prior restraint" is telling you that you can't say something. Requiring permission and forewarning before you assemble 300 people into a certain location, so that we can have proper emergency personnel and equipment on hand in the statistical likelihood (which increases with every warm body participating in the protest, no matter how "peaceful" your intentions) that something will go wrong and injury or confrontation will result, is public safety.
It's not about "Prior Restraint." It's about trying to make sure nobody gets fucking killed. Now get over yourself and go retake the civics class you should have taken in 4th grade.
I don't have to have "mindless obedience to authority" to have a dislike of people whose response to getting a traffic ticket, or being told that they need to prove their ability to safely handle a vehicle before we'll let them control 2 tons of steel at 75 MPH, is to shout "burn the government."
Permits for protesting are a matter of public safety. Large gatherings of people, especially in spots/situations that can lead to counter-protesters, means an appreciable risk of fights, bodily harm, and property damage.
The "Right to free speech", as well as the right to peaceably assemble, are not absolute "anytime, anywhere, any reason including I just fucking felt like it" rights. They are accompanied by the responsibility to ensure that there is adequate protection and planning to ensure that the protest STAYS peaceful and non-destructive.
And yes, if the government judges too great a risk - like the risk that you're going to have a bunch of anarchists tossing molotovs or breaking windows, especially based on past performance of similar "protests" - then the government has the responsibility, for the safety of yourselves and the general population, to tell you "No."
Don't like it? Tough. Prove to the government you can put on an actual peaceful protest, which includes not blocking the right of traffic of other citizens and not doing stupid shit to deliberately get yourself arrested and we'll talk.
If the owner of the mall doesn't want to allow protestrs to gather in front of spaces he's leased to the government, then he can elect not to lease space to the government.
If a small group of asswad shithead anarchists want to kick the gov't out of any rented space, all they have to do is show up, block the entrance, and the "option" for the property owner is not to kick out the shithead anarchists, but instead to kick out the government employees who are actually doing their jobs?
Fuck you. That's not how it works, and you know it. Your entire argument is bullshit.
A government agency is using a private entity to protect itself from free speech.
Bullshit. This would have been the exact same scenario were it a government building where this had been set up - say, the front of a public libary. The protesters would still have gotten themselves arrested, because their goal as morons was to get themselves arrested "for their cause."
According to you, the government has no right to rent space anywhere. That's bullshit.
The gov't has the right to rent space where people go (e.g. a mall).
The mall has the right to evict anyone, at the choosing of the mall owner or their delegated authority such as security guards, from the property.
What is so hard to understand about this? The mall chose to remove a bunch of lunatics from their property. The lunatics refused to go, so police arrested them under the law for trespassing.
Stop trying to make this more than it is. A bunch of fucking loonies decided they hate the military today (the same military, might I add, that goes and fights and dies for their freedom to express their opinion and peacefully protest in the first place). So they go, do something stupid, refuse to obey a lawful order by the property owner to leave, and get their stupid asses arrested.
The gov't can't boot out citizens.
Yes, the government can. The people have the right to "peaceful assembly" and "petition the government for redress of grievances." These rights are not Absolute; the Supreme Court has routinely held that reasonable restrictions - such as requirements to get a permit, to adequately prepare for possible problems, and to disperse when ordered to by police - are completely enforceable.
If you go out of your way to get arrested, you're gonna get arrested. It's really that simple.
We can't let the military hide behind private business and vice versa. It breeds contempt for the military and the gov't.
They follow the rules same as everybody else. What breeds contempt for the gov't is fuckers who pull "protests" like this and have no grasp on reality.
We need to make it HARDER for companies to outsource and EASIER to work in the US.
One common example: there was a saw going around about how it would be "bad" to close the border w/ Mexico (even trying to stop all the fucking illegals) because certain circuitry for medical ventilators is only made... in a plant in Mexico.
Why is it only made there? Turns out right after NAFTA (which Comrade Obama promised to do something about... where is he on that anyways?) the company making the ventilator parts picked up and moved all their manufacturing to Mexico because the taxes and labor are cheaper there.
And of course, now it's biting us in the ass. This kind of change is long overdue.
The simple fact is that your "reply" was so full of half-baked lies, misinformation, and outright untruths that it needs no refutation.
Liberalism has never, not for a moment, been considered a "centrist" label. The fact that you spent that many words sticking your own foot in your mouth, lying about that premise, is proof enough of your insanity.
There have been times at which Liberalism has been connotated as "left wing" or "right wing", depending on the particular philosopher quoted, but the modern-day groups which claim to be "Liberal" are the rabid Soros-funded left-wing types like Moveon.org.
A good example was a kid who cheated on an exam but was allowed to be on National Honor Society and graduate because his mom was active on the school board. The kid deserved to fail and possibly be expelled, but wasn't because the administration was buddy buddy with mom and pulled strings.
Just to point out an opposite example: in my (private) high school, there was a "mock election" held for the 1996 presidential campaign. This in itself is unsurprising - after all, the point of school is to educate, and the "current event" of a national Presidential election year is a very good time to educate the kids about the importance of being good citizens and the voting process.
Oddly enough, however, all the kids - no matter how good a candidate they were otherwise, and there were several who were better candidates than those who did get in (three Eagle Scouts, regular volunteers for local homeless shelters, high GPA, etc) - who were on the Perot and Dole "election teams" were blackballed from NHS membership that year. Un-coincidentally, the "faculty sponsor" for NHS just so happened to also be the faculty member who'd been the sponsor of the Clinton "election team."
When it came to the in-class material, she wasn't a bad teacher, but the school administration fucked up in letting her get away with influencing the NHS admittance every year. A number of good kids missed out on scholarship opportunities thanks to her behavior.
Children not only need to learn material, far more imortantly, especially in younger kids, is that they learn social interaction, group discipline, experience varied environments, work in groups, experience physical activities and sports, work in teams, compete, etc. NO home schhol environment can offer this.
By educating your children at home you are stunting their social and psychological growth.
Yeah. By not subjecting them to mental abuse, physical abuse, and the roundabout torture by the sons and daughters of shithead breeders who've had 12 kids on a 40 IQ and government handouts, you're doing "immense harm" to your kids.
Oh, wait, it doesn't sound the same when I put it like that, huh.
Sure, at home you can teach them math, science, writing, etc, but I seriously doubt there is a single home school parent out there who can provide a dynamic environment for education at home, who can perform all the lab expereiments required, afford to take their child on trips to experience the world outside their books, who can bring performances and programs into the house, and who can provide the social environment to allow their child to excel to more than simple smarts in life.
Dude, fuck you. Have you even SEEN a public school lately?
Public schools do not do ANY lab experiments any more. Most of them don't even have a gas hookup at the teacher's desk in a science classroom. Hell, bring in a couple tabs of alka-seltzer to demonstrate the process of effervesence and you're likely to get dragged off under some "zero tolerance" medications policy.
Home schooling with truly dedicated parents who not only educate, but also discipline their child, continually bring them to exhibitions, theatre, museums and the like, and who involve their children in social systems and team sports are a rarity, but with lots of time and money it can be successful. But the harsh reality is very few of the 1.1 million children being legally homeschooled will receive such treatment, and many enter into lives of crime or violence(reaction to isolation and strict rule, or heavily religious environments), or become socially isolated and fail to compete in the workplace.
Again, fuck you for being a retard. Every homeschooling parent I have known has gone FAR above and beyond the "minimums" of what they need to do, and their kids have benefited greatly as a result. They've gone the extra mile to ensure their kids get to participate in clubs and sports when the kid had a genuine interest (as opposed to forcing their kids into little league or something else merely because it's summertime and school isn't providing the free day care). They've gone out of their way to see that the kids have REAL exposure to what is going on in the world around them. They take the time to make sure the kids understand not just the "basics", but everything that goes on around them - the family budget, taking care of your house and clothes and possessions, appreciating what you have rather than thinking you have to have "the newest thing" merely because someone else does. Every one of these kids was either an Eagle Scout or Girl Scout with the Gold Award. Every one of them was polite, courteous, well-spoken, smart, and more adept in critical thinking than any product of the Edjamacashun Factery that I've ever seen.
You are doing your child a great disservice by not allowing them to have at least some experience in public schools.
They have done the best possible thing they could, by NOT inflicting the horrors of the pure shithole of American public schooling upon them.
Problem about ILLEGALS who are getting government benefits? Dude, they broke the law and have no legal right to be in the country and yet demand monetary benefits from the taxpayers? Fuck them!
Tyrell is a heavily used redneck name. LaShawna is a typical black name. Chiquita is typical latina-sounding. Are you asserting I'm "racist" because I didn't write in a typical asian name to balance it out or something?
Or are you just a loser who couldn't come up with a real response, so had to throw the "racist" card? Fuck you, go godwin yourself and get it over with.
Word of advice about Missouri: the southwestern part of the state is horrifyingly conservative. If you like more liberal, open-minded types
"Liberal" and "open-minded" are two terms that in my experience are completely contradictory. "Liberals" are people who are (at least) just as hateful and malicious towards anyone who doesn't fit their chosen groupthink, as what you probably would claim "conservatives" are like.
If you're going to be "open minded", you're willing to see the argument and the objective positive and negative points from multiple sides of any argument. Liberals, by definition, come at their argument pre-biased to the left and are therefore never "open minded."
Now, if you want to find an open minded area, you need to find someplace centrist. Given the way that both political parties have been fucking around with districts and going around trying to polarize debate whenever possible, those are becoming harder and harder to find.
But I'm guessing - based on your phrasing above - that what you really are looking is for someplace that will blindly reinforce your own groupthink, rather than challenging you to actually examine your own beliefs and ideas with, say, an open mind.
I think it's high time those who downmod on Slashdot ought to be required to write a minimum 50-word statement explaining what they find objectionable, especially when they're downmodding something that someone else upmodded.
I'm looking at the "reactions" to this one, and I can only assume the downmodders happen to be people who slid through the educational system and are precisely the sort of moron I'm describing!
Do you have an example of a nation without compulsory education that has a standard of living greater than ours?
No, but I know of several nations with better standards of living that, not un-coincidentally, have a "compulsory" education system that properly rewards excellence and punishes failure, rather than letting the kids simply slide through and come out the other end uneducated due to their own stupidity and misbehavior.
The movie Idiocracy also comes to mind for some reason...
Part of the problem is, what metric are you using to judge the teacher?
If you judge by student performance, you run into two problems: stupid/unmotivated kids, and "teaching the test" issues. If you judge by observers, what method do you use to observe?
I work in higher ed - we regularly get kids coming in that I am flabbergasted that they EVER got through high school. Unfortunately, in TexAss, the "top 10%" of each high school is automatically required to be able to enter any state College.
So since we aren't a "top tier" university, we are forced to take the "top 10%" of kids from Redneckistan, Mexishithole, ElBarrio, MiniAfrica, and NewZimbabwe High Schools - you know, the kids who "graduated with a 4.0 GPA" and yet have NO writing skills, NO speaking skills, and barely can manage 3rd-grade mathematics and english equivalence. They expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter - after all, they were socially promoted for 12 grades beforehand, their education paid for completely (and will continue to be so, even the ILLEGALS who shouldn't even be in this country might be getting tuition waivers and in-state rate soon, which is fucked up beyond belief when the kids on our military bases don't get that), the test standards constantly lowered for them, the curriculum altered, the language taught not the language they need to use in this country, and of course, the standardized tests removed because it was easier to stop testing than try to explain why there was a "racial disparity" between black/white/asian/hispanic/etc in the results every year.
You know what? We get feedback from the people we send out every year, the new teachers out there. What do they tell us?
- The parents WILL NOT help discipline the kids. - The parents WILL NOT make sure the kids are doing the work. - The parents will start screaming "lawsuit" if you suggest that little Tyrell, LaShawna, or Chiquita needs to go back a grade because they can't keep up with the expected standard. - The school administrations WILL NOT back the teacher up if there is a discipline problem - let alone the drug and gang problems they are dealing with. - The school administrations WILL NOT back up the teacher on giving a kid poor grade once the parents scream - doesn't matter if they never do a bit of work, never turn in homework, and even if they were in the bathroom doing crack during test time, the TEACHER gets blamed for the kid's performance.
I know there are "bad teachers" out there. You know what? There are EVEN SHITTIER KIDS OUT THERE.
The MafiAA is running around, jurisdiction-shopping wherever they think they can get a favorable verdict, after the fact that they bought off the judge in the Swedish trial was quickly discovered and there's a dead certainty that it'll get overturned on appeal.
#1 - Pull up to parking lot. #2 - Sniff advertised name of network #3 - Put up your AP, set name to clone network's name #4 - Record authentication attempts #5... #6 - Profit!
Downsides of Wireless: - It is slower than Wired, unless you've somehow got an old 10-Mbit connection through the wall and an 802.11g AP in 30 feet of your location.. - It is inevitably more finicky than wired. - It is inevitably more power-consumptive than wired. - It is much more vulnerable to interference - and JUST ABOUT EVERY HOUSEHOLD DEVICE puts out interference. I get a lousier wireless signal (yeah, I have an 802.11g station in my house because I have a laptop and Wii to hook through it) whenever someone turns on the washer or dryer, or the microwave. In both spectra that 802.11 specs use, there are "cordless phones" and cell phones interfering as well. And like parent poster said, if someone else sets up an AP on the same channel you use, even more problems can result.
I ran a 100ft length of Cat6 from my gigabit switch upstairs, through the ductwork and into my living room, for a reason. Between the Xbox360, PS3, and my home DVR box, I'm not about to try to leave things to the unreliability of "wireless."
Slashdot Mirror
There's a big difference between the soldiers who actually put their asses on the line and the commanders who decide the hand-wave the realities of war with a video game for recruitment purposes.
Yawn.
I know several Iraq War veterans, still in the service, who carry the equipment in and set up booths very similar to this, bringing recruitment efforts to job fairs, conventions, and yes, malls.
On their behalf - since also I've seen and met the sort of "protesters" that show up at these places, trying to goad them into a fight so they can cry and lie about "the military" infringing on their "right to protest" (even while they're doing their damndest to not allow the troops THEIR own right to speak freely) - a very sincere FUCK YOU.
You have no clue what the protesters were really protesting for but you hate them.
I wonder what the opinion of a veteran would be to someone like you, lamely ra-ra'ing everything into a "think of the troops". That sort of knee-jerk objectification of a soldier as this hero-object you send overseas and who dies gloriously for freedom, even if they're sent into an unjust war under false pretenses, seems pretty offensive to me. It's the same kind of handwavism towards the reality of war that the protesters were protesting.
I know the type of loonie who shows up at this sort of "protest" quite well. I also know first-hand the type of person who goes into the military - they're my FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
You're the fucking liar, because you obviously have no fucking clue what the goddamn fuck you are talking about.
But to remove them for expressing a reasonable opinion against the government, in a very relevant manner and location, simply because it's private property - that is unreasonable.
On the other hand, to remove them because they (a) are breaking noise ordinances, (b) are blocking traffic through the business, (c) refused to leave when told by the owner of the property they were unwelcome (they could easily have stood on the PUBLIC SIDEWALK and picketed the mall, but no, they had to go inside) and (d) are trying to provoke a fight with the cops, is plenty. And the video shows all of the above.
Perhaps you should pay attention to what really happened, retake 4th grade civics, grow the fuck up, and go fuck yourself.
Yawn.
There is no restraint on my "liberty" if I am required to do the honest thing and ensure, to the best of my ability, that the protest I'm organizing will be put on with enough emergency personnel and planning so as not to get anyone killed.
There are laws for dealing with obstruction of traffic and disturbing the peace; but that's something to be done /after/ they begin to cause a problem.
Unfortunately, the difference between a minor scuffle, and a riot, is having proper precautions already in place.
Prior restraint is tantamount to censorship, and requiring 'permission' to speak your mind is exactly that.
Bullshit. "Prior restraint" is telling you that you can't say something. Requiring permission and forewarning before you assemble 300 people into a certain location, so that we can have proper emergency personnel and equipment on hand in the statistical likelihood (which increases with every warm body participating in the protest, no matter how "peaceful" your intentions) that something will go wrong and injury or confrontation will result, is public safety.
It's not about "Prior Restraint." It's about trying to make sure nobody gets fucking killed. Now get over yourself and go retake the civics class you should have taken in 4th grade.
I don't have to have "mindless obedience to authority" to have a dislike of people whose response to getting a traffic ticket, or being told that they need to prove their ability to safely handle a vehicle before we'll let them control 2 tons of steel at 75 MPH, is to shout "burn the government."
Bullshit.
Permits for protesting are a matter of public safety. Large gatherings of people, especially in spots/situations that can lead to counter-protesters, means an appreciable risk of fights, bodily harm, and property damage.
The "Right to free speech", as well as the right to peaceably assemble, are not absolute "anytime, anywhere, any reason including I just fucking felt like it" rights. They are accompanied by the responsibility to ensure that there is adequate protection and planning to ensure that the protest STAYS peaceful and non-destructive.
And yes, if the government judges too great a risk - like the risk that you're going to have a bunch of anarchists tossing molotovs or breaking windows, especially based on past performance of similar "protests" - then the government has the responsibility, for the safety of yourselves and the general population, to tell you "No."
Don't like it? Tough. Prove to the government you can put on an actual peaceful protest, which includes not blocking the right of traffic of other citizens and not doing stupid shit to deliberately get yourself arrested and we'll talk.
If the owner of the mall doesn't want to allow protestrs to gather in front of spaces he's leased to the government, then he can elect not to lease space to the government.
If a small group of asswad shithead anarchists want to kick the gov't out of any rented space, all they have to do is show up, block the entrance, and the "option" for the property owner is not to kick out the shithead anarchists, but instead to kick out the government employees who are actually doing their jobs?
Fuck you. That's not how it works, and you know it. Your entire argument is bullshit.
Because it results in construction of shitty ventilators that break and have to be replaced more often, and put lives in jeopardy!
A government agency is using a private entity to protect itself from free speech.
Bullshit. This would have been the exact same scenario were it a government building where this had been set up - say, the front of a public libary. The protesters would still have gotten themselves arrested, because their goal as morons was to get themselves arrested "for their cause."
According to you, the government has no right to rent space anywhere. That's bullshit.
The gov't has the right to rent space where people go (e.g. a mall).
The mall has the right to evict anyone, at the choosing of the mall owner or their delegated authority such as security guards, from the property.
What is so hard to understand about this? The mall chose to remove a bunch of lunatics from their property. The lunatics refused to go, so police arrested them under the law for trespassing.
Stop trying to make this more than it is. A bunch of fucking loonies decided they hate the military today (the same military, might I add, that goes and fights and dies for their freedom to express their opinion and peacefully protest in the first place). So they go, do something stupid, refuse to obey a lawful order by the property owner to leave, and get their stupid asses arrested.
The gov't can't boot out citizens.
Yes, the government can. The people have the right to "peaceful assembly" and "petition the government for redress of grievances." These rights are not Absolute; the Supreme Court has routinely held that reasonable restrictions - such as requirements to get a permit, to adequately prepare for possible problems, and to disperse when ordered to by police - are completely enforceable.
If you go out of your way to get arrested, you're gonna get arrested. It's really that simple.
We can't let the military hide behind private business and vice versa. It breeds contempt for the military and the gov't.
They follow the rules same as everybody else. What breeds contempt for the gov't is fuckers who pull "protests" like this and have no grasp on reality.
I do not suffer fools gladly, or long.
Consider yourself no longer suffered.
No shit.
We need to make it HARDER for companies to outsource and EASIER to work in the US.
One common example: there was a saw going around about how it would be "bad" to close the border w/ Mexico (even trying to stop all the fucking illegals) because certain circuitry for medical ventilators is only made... in a plant in Mexico.
Why is it only made there? Turns out right after NAFTA (which Comrade Obama promised to do something about... where is he on that anyways?) the company making the ventilator parts picked up and moved all their manufacturing to Mexico because the taxes and labor are cheaper there.
And of course, now it's biting us in the ass. This kind of change is long overdue.
No.
The simple fact is that your "reply" was so full of half-baked lies, misinformation, and outright untruths that it needs no refutation.
Liberalism has never, not for a moment, been considered a "centrist" label. The fact that you spent that many words sticking your own foot in your mouth, lying about that premise, is proof enough of your insanity.
There have been times at which Liberalism has been connotated as "left wing" or "right wing", depending on the particular philosopher quoted, but the modern-day groups which claim to be "Liberal" are the rabid Soros-funded left-wing types like Moveon.org.
I would write a response, but you're too busy chewing on your own foot to listen.
Well, they lay around in bed, smoked a few cigarettes, and then the next morning... at least, that's according to Eccentrica Gallumbits.
Sadly, Zaphod is only number 2, having merely been described as the best bang since the big one.
So, when exactly did you stop raping your daughter?
A good example was a kid who cheated on an exam but was allowed to be on National Honor Society and graduate because his mom was active on the school board. The kid deserved to fail and possibly be expelled, but wasn't because the administration was buddy buddy with mom and pulled strings.
Just to point out an opposite example: in my (private) high school, there was a "mock election" held for the 1996 presidential campaign. This in itself is unsurprising - after all, the point of school is to educate, and the "current event" of a national Presidential election year is a very good time to educate the kids about the importance of being good citizens and the voting process.
Oddly enough, however, all the kids - no matter how good a candidate they were otherwise, and there were several who were better candidates than those who did get in (three Eagle Scouts, regular volunteers for local homeless shelters, high GPA, etc) - who were on the Perot and Dole "election teams" were blackballed from NHS membership that year. Un-coincidentally, the "faculty sponsor" for NHS just so happened to also be the faculty member who'd been the sponsor of the Clinton "election team."
When it came to the in-class material, she wasn't a bad teacher, but the school administration fucked up in letting her get away with influencing the NHS admittance every year. A number of good kids missed out on scholarship opportunities thanks to her behavior.
Children not only need to learn material, far more imortantly, especially in younger kids, is that they learn social interaction, group discipline, experience varied environments, work in groups, experience physical activities and sports, work in teams, compete, etc. NO home schhol environment can offer this.
By educating your children at home you are stunting their social and psychological growth.
Yeah. By not subjecting them to mental abuse, physical abuse, and the roundabout torture by the sons and daughters of shithead breeders who've had 12 kids on a 40 IQ and government handouts, you're doing "immense harm" to your kids.
Oh, wait, it doesn't sound the same when I put it like that, huh.
Sure, at home you can teach them math, science, writing, etc, but I seriously doubt there is a single home school parent out there who can provide a dynamic environment for education at home, who can perform all the lab expereiments required, afford to take their child on trips to experience the world outside their books, who can bring performances and programs into the house, and who can provide the social environment to allow their child to excel to more than simple smarts in life.
Dude, fuck you. Have you even SEEN a public school lately?
Public schools do not do ANY lab experiments any more. Most of them don't even have a gas hookup at the teacher's desk in a science classroom. Hell, bring in a couple tabs of alka-seltzer to demonstrate the process of effervesence and you're likely to get dragged off under some "zero tolerance" medications policy.
Home schooling with truly dedicated parents who not only educate, but also discipline their child, continually bring them to exhibitions, theatre, museums and the like, and who involve their children in social systems and team sports are a rarity, but with lots of time and money it can be successful. But the harsh reality is very few of the 1.1 million children being legally homeschooled will receive such treatment, and many enter into lives of crime or violence(reaction to isolation and strict rule, or heavily religious environments), or become socially isolated and fail to compete in the workplace.
Again, fuck you for being a retard. Every homeschooling parent I have known has gone FAR above and beyond the "minimums" of what they need to do, and their kids have benefited greatly as a result. They've gone the extra mile to ensure their kids get to participate in clubs and sports when the kid had a genuine interest (as opposed to forcing their kids into little league or something else merely because it's summertime and school isn't providing the free day care). They've gone out of their way to see that the kids have REAL exposure to what is going on in the world around them. They take the time to make sure the kids understand not just the "basics", but everything that goes on around them - the family budget, taking care of your house and clothes and possessions, appreciating what you have rather than thinking you have to have "the newest thing" merely because someone else does. Every one of these kids was either an Eagle Scout or Girl Scout with the Gold Award. Every one of them was polite, courteous, well-spoken, smart, and more adept in critical thinking than any product of the Edjamacashun Factery that I've ever seen.
You are doing your child a great disservice by not allowing them to have at least some experience in public schools.
They have done the best possible thing they could, by NOT inflicting the horrors of the pure shithole of American public schooling upon them.
The fuck are you talking about?
Problem about ILLEGALS who are getting government benefits? Dude, they broke the law and have no legal right to be in the country and yet demand monetary benefits from the taxpayers? Fuck them!
Tyrell is a heavily used redneck name. LaShawna is a typical black name. Chiquita is typical latina-sounding. Are you asserting I'm "racist" because I didn't write in a typical asian name to balance it out or something?
Or are you just a loser who couldn't come up with a real response, so had to throw the "racist" card? Fuck you, go godwin yourself and get it over with.
Word of advice about Missouri: the southwestern part of the state is horrifyingly conservative. If you like more liberal, open-minded types
"Liberal" and "open-minded" are two terms that in my experience are completely contradictory. "Liberals" are people who are (at least) just as hateful and malicious towards anyone who doesn't fit their chosen groupthink, as what you probably would claim "conservatives" are like.
If you're going to be "open minded", you're willing to see the argument and the objective positive and negative points from multiple sides of any argument. Liberals, by definition, come at their argument pre-biased to the left and are therefore never "open minded."
Now, if you want to find an open minded area, you need to find someplace centrist. Given the way that both political parties have been fucking around with districts and going around trying to polarize debate whenever possible, those are becoming harder and harder to find.
But I'm guessing - based on your phrasing above - that what you really are looking is for someplace that will blindly reinforce your own groupthink, rather than challenging you to actually examine your own beliefs and ideas with, say, an open mind.
I think it's high time those who downmod on Slashdot ought to be required to write a minimum 50-word statement explaining what they find objectionable, especially when they're downmodding something that someone else upmodded.
I'm looking at the "reactions" to this one, and I can only assume the downmodders happen to be people who slid through the educational system and are precisely the sort of moron I'm describing!
Do you have an example of a nation without compulsory education that has a standard of living greater than ours?
No, but I know of several nations with better standards of living that, not un-coincidentally, have a "compulsory" education system that properly rewards excellence and punishes failure, rather than letting the kids simply slide through and come out the other end uneducated due to their own stupidity and misbehavior.
The movie Idiocracy also comes to mind for some reason...
Part of the problem is, what metric are you using to judge the teacher?
If you judge by student performance, you run into two problems: stupid/unmotivated kids, and "teaching the test" issues.
If you judge by observers, what method do you use to observe?
I work in higher ed - we regularly get kids coming in that I am flabbergasted that they EVER got through high school. Unfortunately, in TexAss, the "top 10%" of each high school is automatically required to be able to enter any state College.
So since we aren't a "top tier" university, we are forced to take the "top 10%" of kids from Redneckistan, Mexishithole, ElBarrio, MiniAfrica, and NewZimbabwe High Schools - you know, the kids who "graduated with a 4.0 GPA" and yet have NO writing skills, NO speaking skills, and barely can manage 3rd-grade mathematics and english equivalence. They expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter - after all, they were socially promoted for 12 grades beforehand, their education paid for completely (and will continue to be so, even the ILLEGALS who shouldn't even be in this country might be getting tuition waivers and in-state rate soon, which is fucked up beyond belief when the kids on our military bases don't get that), the test standards constantly lowered for them, the curriculum altered, the language taught not the language they need to use in this country, and of course, the standardized tests removed because it was easier to stop testing than try to explain why there was a "racial disparity" between black/white/asian/hispanic/etc in the results every year.
You know what? We get feedback from the people we send out every year, the new teachers out there. What do they tell us?
- The parents WILL NOT help discipline the kids.
- The parents WILL NOT make sure the kids are doing the work.
- The parents will start screaming "lawsuit" if you suggest that little Tyrell, LaShawna, or Chiquita needs to go back a grade because they can't keep up with the expected standard.
- The school administrations WILL NOT back the teacher up if there is a discipline problem - let alone the drug and gang problems they are dealing with.
- The school administrations WILL NOT back up the teacher on giving a kid poor grade once the parents scream - doesn't matter if they never do a bit of work, never turn in homework, and even if they were in the bathroom doing crack during test time, the TEACHER gets blamed for the kid's performance.
I know there are "bad teachers" out there. You know what? There are EVEN SHITTIER KIDS OUT THERE.
The MafiAA is running around, jurisdiction-shopping wherever they think they can get a favorable verdict, after the fact that they bought off the judge in the Swedish trial was quickly discovered and there's a dead certainty that it'll get overturned on appeal.
Steps to break a wireless network:
#1 - Pull up to parking lot. ...
#2 - Sniff advertised name of network
#3 - Put up your AP, set name to clone network's name
#4 - Record authentication attempts
#5
#6 - Profit!
No shit.
Upside of Wireless: no wire.
Downsides of Wireless:
- It is slower than Wired, unless you've somehow got an old 10-Mbit connection through the wall and an 802.11g AP in 30 feet of your location..
- It is inevitably more finicky than wired.
- It is inevitably more power-consumptive than wired.
- It is much more vulnerable to interference - and JUST ABOUT EVERY HOUSEHOLD DEVICE puts out interference. I get a lousier wireless signal (yeah, I have an 802.11g station in my house because I have a laptop and Wii to hook through it) whenever someone turns on the washer or dryer, or the microwave. In both spectra that 802.11 specs use, there are "cordless phones" and cell phones interfering as well. And like parent poster said, if someone else sets up an AP on the same channel you use, even more problems can result.
I ran a 100ft length of Cat6 from my gigabit switch upstairs, through the ductwork and into my living room, for a reason. Between the Xbox360, PS3, and my home DVR box, I'm not about to try to leave things to the unreliability of "wireless."