It would make it harder to form a class action, as the lawyers would not want it, of course republicans would love it
class action is not about making you whole, it is about punishing the entity that did it. If you do not punish them enough they will keep doing it, the lawyer fees are unfortunately the way to get the needed people on board.
Tax man, hahahahahahahaahahahahahahha, that is so funny. Silly AC didnt you know they have that on hand because the tax man does not come for corperations, only us peons.
Umm, incorrect again. It says if you put any google app on there you must put all the apps on there, there is no restriction to put them on all the phones. It has nothing to do with andriod itself, and if you dont want to put google search on there just dont use google anything. Simple enough.
Being part of the OHA does not require you do use google search, agreeing to the MADA does, which is not a requirement of the OHA, so I am not seeing where your misdirection is going. IF a requirement of joining the OHA was also the signing of MADA then you would have a point.
In what way? Google search is in no way tied to the OS at a core level like IE was. You can ensure that you never have google search on your machine without any issues.
What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?
That's not really a good description of common core - it doesn't really do that. States can impose certain testing requirements on top of it, optionally, like Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL), but you won't find any kind of requirement for "knowing" any objective facts in the Common Core.
So you are stating that is not what it does, and then as evidence state something that is part of the implementation, not the standards themselves, which was exactly the point I was making... The standards dictate what should be learned, not the how they learn and how they evaluate what they learn..
But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES? And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves.
That's a pretty big topic. The Common Core advocates seem to do a lot of marketing around their process for creating the standards, which includes taking a lot of existing standards (really bad ones), and pretending they're worthy of expanding upon.
Which bad ones? Really hard to debate something if you are being vague possibly intentionally
I'll bring up a few of the basic issues and let you research more yourself.
Seventy-two CEOs hailing from corporations that usually like to stay out of the political fray, including Harley-Davidson, General Mills and Xerox, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times claiming that the curriculum will meet the “business community’s expectations.” That should tell you something right there: Are these companies interested in educating Americans to pursue their highest potential, or in creating a workforce beholden to the Corporate ladder?
correlation/causation issue with your statement. It does not really tell me anything on its own, however on the flip side what those companies are interested in has little baring on it, however the purpose of the schools is to prepare you for work/higher ed when you graduate
The fundamental theme of Common Core’s English language arts (ELA) standards is a focus on non-fiction “informational texts.” The ELA standards were fashioned so that elementary students read no more than 50 percent classic literature and high school students may read only 30 percent classic literature. The other 70 percent is comprised of informational texts.
and what is the problem with this? On the face it does not really seem to be a problem. However just like before THIS IS IMPLEMENTATION
The curriculum advocates a “close reading” of a text in which students are asked to analyze what they’ve read strictly from the available text without a whiff of historical context. This method teaches students to accept the information that they are given without question. It's an indoctrination technique writ large, through years of barraging students with lesson plans produced by government bureaucracies.
You mean like how we were required to say the pledge of allegiance every day, without being allowed to opt out, while growing up is indoctrination?
What you claiming is indoctrination is not necessarily so. It is also used to be able to break apart the grammar to pick out subject, verbs, nouns, and the like as it was when we were kids. There is no evidence that I have seen to point to indoctrination, and seeing how this is part of the IMPLIMENTATION, not seeing how it is part of the standard itself.
You can also check out some of the writing by Carol
What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?
If I wanted to use the mirror to your logical fallacy I might say you just want students to be passed up no matter what they know?
But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES?
And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves
How is a flat tax fair? I used to think it was, but then realized how it actually hurts the poor even more than the current tax structure. I am all for lower taxes, but the problem is neither side wants to give up their toys to make it happen, they just want the other sides toys to go away.
Who said anything about expecting one company to help another out? What I except is that when I am working with a company they are not going to actively stab me in the back.In this case MS told them what they APIs were, then pulled it out from under them at the last second, to intentionally sink their product. If they would not have not given them the APIs there would not have been an issue, as then MS would not have been working with them and they could have developed something else, however by working with them and then pulling the APIs they intentionally sabotaged the product. By itself that still would not have been an issue, except they intentionally planned that.
As for a monopoly, there certainly was in the desktop, and the current state, after losing the antitrust and having to change practices, is not proof that there was not at the time.
I am not sure it is fully about the company when it gets to that level, but society in general. They are sanctioning MS's action and it tells these companies they can do those things and just drag out the case long enough that it no longer matters, just because they have more money.
There was more to it than just not sharing its IP, such as deliberately misleading the company, and changing the APIs mid stream to break interoperability.
And you cannot generate all the electricity from that one source, and the upgrades to facilitate the 2 way flows are footed by the consumer already. But nice ending with a logical fallacy.
There is a lot of problems with that. Firstly it is 3x as much according to that, not 4x. Secondly it is comparing the price to one plant, not the market. The way electric generation works is that they start the lowest cost plants, then buy off the market after that or start up the higher priced plants. You are trying to compare the price of solar to that lowest price plant, that is just idiotic. Lastly this is a Koch brother site, not exactly independent..
You do not have to have "too much money" to have them. With subsidies from state and federal you can tend to only have to foot 33% of the bill, meaning that the lower middle class can afford them as well.
Where is the evidence of this 4x price you keep spouting? Or do you mean 4x the lowest wholesale price? You cannot use that type of number, as many parts of the distribution that energy companies chose to use cost that much as well.
Slashdot Mirror
It would make it harder to form a class action, as the lawyers would not want it, of course republicans would love it
class action is not about making you whole, it is about punishing the entity that did it. If you do not punish them enough they will keep doing it, the lawyer fees are unfortunately the way to get the needed people on board.
so because some unions do it all unions are bad?
Tax man, hahahahahahahaahahahahahahha, that is so funny. Silly AC didnt you know they have that on hand because the tax man does not come for corperations, only us peons.
I think he is talking about the people on here who are far right, the ones that are ok with the citizen united ruling and the like.
Umm, incorrect again. It says if you put any google app on there you must put all the apps on there, there is no restriction to put them on all the phones. It has nothing to do with andriod itself, and if you dont want to put google search on there just dont use google anything. Simple enough.
But that was not the statement. He said all were better.
Being part of the OHA does not require you do use google search, agreeing to the MADA does, which is not a requirement of the OHA, so I am not seeing where your misdirection is going. IF a requirement of joining the OHA was also the signing of MADA then you would have a point.
other than bing you mean?
It is not required however, it is a choice. When it is required, like IE was, then come talk to me.
Yea because MSs idea of default is tied to the OS at a level other browers cannot get to...
How does it make Android non-free?
It is still a choice they are making, which means the OPs point is still valid.
In what way? Google search is in no way tied to the OS at a core level like IE was. You can ensure that you never have google search on your machine without any issues.
How is bing and the others batter at anonymity?
What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?
That's not really a good description of common core - it doesn't really do that. States can impose certain testing requirements on top of it, optionally, like Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL), but you won't find any kind of requirement for "knowing" any objective facts in the Common Core.
So you are stating that is not what it does, and then as evidence state something that is part of the implementation, not the standards themselves, which was exactly the point I was making... The standards dictate what should be learned, not the how they learn and how they evaluate what they learn..
But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES? And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves.
That's a pretty big topic. The Common Core advocates seem to do a lot of marketing around their process for creating the standards, which includes taking a lot of existing standards (really bad ones), and pretending they're worthy of expanding upon.
Which bad ones? Really hard to debate something if you are being vague possibly intentionally
I'll bring up a few of the basic issues and let you research more yourself.
Seventy-two CEOs hailing from corporations that usually like to stay out of the political fray, including Harley-Davidson, General Mills and Xerox, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times claiming that the curriculum will meet the “business community’s expectations.” That should tell you something right there: Are these companies interested in educating Americans to pursue their highest potential, or in creating a workforce beholden to the Corporate ladder?
correlation/causation issue with your statement. It does not really tell me anything on its own, however on the flip side what those companies are interested in has little baring on it, however the purpose of the schools is to prepare you for work/higher ed when you graduate
The fundamental theme of Common Core’s English language arts (ELA) standards is a focus on non-fiction “informational texts.” The ELA standards were fashioned so that elementary students read no more than 50 percent classic literature and high school students may read only 30 percent classic literature. The other 70 percent is comprised of informational texts.
and what is the problem with this? On the face it does not really seem to be a problem. However just like before THIS IS IMPLEMENTATION
The curriculum advocates a “close reading” of a text in which students are asked to analyze what they’ve read strictly from the available text without a whiff of historical context. This method teaches students to accept the information that they are given without question. It's an indoctrination technique writ large, through years of barraging students with lesson plans produced by government bureaucracies.
You mean like how we were required to say the pledge of allegiance every day, without being allowed to opt out, while growing up is indoctrination?
What you claiming is indoctrination is not necessarily so. It is also used to be able to break apart the grammar to pick out subject, verbs, nouns, and the like as it was when we were kids. There is no evidence that I have seen to point to indoctrination, and seeing how this is part of the IMPLIMENTATION, not seeing how it is part of the standard itself.
You can also check out some of the writing by Carol
What is wrong with saying a 2nd grader should know x before moving on to the 3rd grade, and a 3rd grader should know y, before moving to the 4th grade, and so on?
If I wanted to use the mirror to your logical fallacy I might say you just want students to be passed up no matter what they know?
But I wont, ill just ask you, what is wrong with the STANDARDS THEMSELVES?
And please do not come up with the usual list of proven incorrect statements, such as teachers not being involved in the standards themselves
How is a flat tax fair? I used to think it was, but then realized how it actually hurts the poor even more than the current tax structure. I am all for lower taxes, but the problem is neither side wants to give up their toys to make it happen, they just want the other sides toys to go away.
Who said anything about expecting one company to help another out? What I except is that when I am working with a company they are not going to actively stab me in the back.In this case MS told them what they APIs were, then pulled it out from under them at the last second, to intentionally sink their product. If they would not have not given them the APIs there would not have been an issue, as then MS would not have been working with them and they could have developed something else, however by working with them and then pulling the APIs they intentionally sabotaged the product. By itself that still would not have been an issue, except they intentionally planned that.
As for a monopoly, there certainly was in the desktop, and the current state, after losing the antitrust and having to change practices, is not proof that there was not at the time.
There is no problem with common core itself, just with some of the implementation of it in some areas.
I am not sure it is fully about the company when it gets to that level, but society in general. They are sanctioning MS's action and it tells these companies they can do those things and just drag out the case long enough that it no longer matters, just because they have more money.
There was more to it than just not sharing its IP, such as deliberately misleading the company, and changing the APIs mid stream to break interoperability.
And you cannot generate all the electricity from that one source, and the upgrades to facilitate the 2 way flows are footed by the consumer already. But nice ending with a logical fallacy.
There is a lot of problems with that. Firstly it is 3x as much according to that, not 4x. Secondly it is comparing the price to one plant, not the market. The way electric generation works is that they start the lowest cost plants, then buy off the market after that or start up the higher priced plants. You are trying to compare the price of solar to that lowest price plant, that is just idiotic. Lastly this is a Koch brother site, not exactly independent..
You do not have to have "too much money" to have them. With subsidies from state and federal you can tend to only have to foot 33% of the bill, meaning that the lower middle class can afford them as well.
Where is the evidence of this 4x price you keep spouting? Or do you mean 4x the lowest wholesale price? You cannot use that type of number, as many parts of the distribution that energy companies chose to use cost that much as well.