maybe he should be sent to school so that he can get taught by qualified educators
Odds are, like most problems that children have, the problems lie in the parents. Either they overestimate their ability to educate, or overestimate the shool system's inability to do their job, or have some personal fear that prevents them from putting their child in exposure to ideas they find distasteful.
Fixing the problem in the parents for the benefit of the child is not a real option, the parents will first have to acknowledge that they have a problem, then fix it. By then the child might be much older, and the opportunity to fix an issue will be compounded by time.
Without the parent's acknowledgement that the situation needs changed greatly, the only means that seems parent friendly is to hire a local tutor or (preferably) school teacher to ammend the oversight. To make this most likely to succeed, I suggest that you direct the scheduling of the tutoring on the tutor's turf, preferably in a manner that prevents parental involvement. While certainly the parents most likely want their child to succeed, their ignorance, fear, or loss of face might prompt them to interfere with the remediation.
If concrete was so much cheaper than wood, we would definately be using more of it here in hurricane central. It isn't, so it doesn't really matter how simple or complex the process is, the prices would likely go up.
Any one person can live in a 150+ year old home built from wood, but everyone cannot find such a home, there aren't enough to go around. While your home still exists, do you really believe that every contemporary of that home is still housing someone?
The reason that you see cameras mounted to take front photos is so they can associate the crime (red light running, etc) with the person; because, our legal system doesn't have a means to provide service against a car, but they do have the means to provide service against a person. It also defeats the primary defense which is to argue that while it might be your car, you were not the person committing the crime. Unless the accuser provides evidence that the person commited the crime, the courts are quite happy to dismiss.
While ruleing out other agencies is useful, it doesn't mean that a certain agency did the work. It only narrows the field, and while you might be right; you might also have overlooked the party responsible.
Environments do sustain themselves; however, they do not always sustain the populations within the environment. That might seem like a fine distinction; but, please pay attention to it, as we humans are the largest (and therefore the most likely to be upset by change) consumers of the environment.
If wood disappears, housing costs will triple as we move to steel beam or concrete construction. The wood houses tend to disenigrate in 50 to 70 years, and economical concrete supplies are already limited, so a sustained loss of wood means massive disruption in building due to lack of traditional materials. New materials can be used, but there are not a lot of great options. If there were, we would already be using them.
If the environment creeps upwards a degree or two, vegatation will still suffer and rebound. During that transition, there will be a vegatation problem. Plants tolerate extreme temperature, but they cannot migrate; so, when a plant dies of heat or drought, it takes time before other plants that can handle the extremes can be estabilshed. The resulting loss of biomass directly translates into less plant respiration, which cools the earth crust by forcing evaoporation.
I live in Redneck Central, was raised here, and I have a Biology degree. I'll go out on a limb here and state that most Rednecks are quick to dismiss any argument that inconveniences them. That doesn't mean they are stupid, but they do have a tendancy to not invest much time in thinking about issues that extend beyond the self. The envrionment is funny, you can dismiss it when there is plenty of land that is not impacted, and that works well for Rednecks; however, when you run out of pristine environment, problems incurr. It is not any particular Billy Bob that is destroying the environment on a grand scale singlhandedly, it is that a few hundred million Billy Bobs are all assuming that their impact is so small, each with a centerist view of the world, that they cannot all understand that if they all act in unison to consume just a little less, it is hundreds of millions of fewer demand on an environment that is already providing them with more biomass and derivatives than nearly any other animal receives.
I too don't have a dog in the game. I'm not even on the same contient.
If BT wants to move into my neighborhood (which seems unlikely) then why should my neighborhood pay _anything_ to bring their equipment up to my existing standards? As long as my neighborhood's standards are not designed to foster unfair competition, it is up to BT to conform with the existing code.
If a home builder wants to build in a community, they don't get an "assistance" to bring their quality in line with the local code and regulations.
The market is not a zero sum game. A billion in losses is not a billion in someone else's gains. If it were so, who gains the value of something depreciating?
Until people stop believing in electrical genies that can hold vast amounts of power in a thimble, they can't think about the problem rationally because they believe electric is the portable power solution. Electricity is great, but even if you replaced the entire interior of your car with the best battery technology, it wouldn't be but a few percent of the energy stored in your gas tank.
Yes, it is getting better, and there is hope that one day it will be "good enough" for the task at hand; however, a 200% improvement of 3% is only 6%. We have a long way to go, and we're fighting physics.
Hearing of countless stories isn't the same thing as countless of nuclear power plants actually having issues with poor operational and maintenance attention. I mean, here is a plant in Japan, and it has ran like a top, and the containment in case of disaster did it's job. What part of lacklustre maintenance and attention played a part in creating the disaster, worsening its effects on the plant, or promoting the release of radation?
We have had one plant truly mess up, one almost mess up, and one hit by a natural disaster so large it defies reason that the plant managed to contain. In response, it seems we reward these efforts with a nuclear scare story every fifteen minutes. I know I'm exaggerating, but it seems that the scales are tipped way too far in directions that don't foster actual improvement.
Clearly the best choice. It is so heavily optimized that even its name takes up only 40% of the required character of the second best contender, emacs.
Do you really think that a back scattering machine contains the energy back scattered from your body when it has two huge gaping holes aligned with the most common entry / exit paths? As far as I can tell, to the people standing in line, the only shielding is a few feet of air (and the bodies of those before them).
So take your pat down (if you're lucky to get it instead of a screening). But don't think you're getting off with no exposure. Note that the TSA people generally don't stand in front of the entrance / exit, I wonder if that's policy.
While it is an interesting idea, I am pretty sure that a "No Fly Zone" would have to be enforced by planes that were either under control of the United States Navy (most likely, they have more planes) or the United States Air Force.
There are very specific clauses in the Constitution which addresses the US Armed Forces (defined by the Army, Navy, and Marines (and extended to the Air Force as they branched from the Army) which bar service members from acting against US citizens. While the public may remain ignorant about the rules, the armed forces (who will quickly be judged under the harsher UCMJ) are much more aware of this aspect of the law.
Therefore, your interesting idea would not be legal under the Constitution unless the USA would declare that Texas was party to a civil war. Granted, Texas has a reputation (undeserved) of being a bunch of gun toting quick tempered cowboys, but a civil war must be based on something more than a reputation.
Whoa... for 120k/yr I'd write everything in stone with a chisel if they wanted.
That is what you think, but by the time you hit $120K per year, you realize that it's not enough money to put up with the truly asinine. Fortunately, there are plenty of good companies who value their developers, and while I never had a second monitor before, the current one practically pushed a second monitor on me.
Cash is cash, but in a mind related job, sanity is far more important, as it is required for all of the earnings today and tomorrow.
Giving my company full credit, I now do a lot less Alt-Tabbing, which in some ways allows me to concentrate more so on the task at hand.
I'm just waiting for them to re-release paper tape, the light pen, drum memory, and the toggle switch programming interface. We could call them cellulose ray, light sabre, wisdom vortex, and direct binary injection respectively.
It would work, if there wasn't already precedents that established "standard industry practice". It's the credit card companies who eventually set that bar, and Sony seemed to mistake the game for one of Limbo instead of Pole Vaulting.
Fiorina was CEO, that's true; however, never forget that it was the Board of Directors who put here there, and she remained with HP for so long because she pleased the Board. If you want to throw stones, save a few for the board that decided to ditch non-focus products (profitable or otherwise).
That said, it is hard to imagine calculators being a device with a large future. They are useful, but their biggest competitor is the simulated calculator which ships with every desktop operating system.
I had a college roommate who worked for Aarons as a manager.
He complained bitterly about that company, stating that his subsequent job at a dry cleaner's was much better (if not a lot more boring). Basically the complaints I remember included; selling / renting out reconditioned items as new, writing up sales plans which attempted to gain five to six times the value of the item during the terms of the lease / sale; attempting to use weasel clauses to regain near term items for maximizing profit by not allowing items to go to full sale; and preying on customers close to their terms for exchange to "upgrade" items which would reset the length of the lease.
And you're dead on about the collection "techniques", try talking down a bunch of 250+ lb 6ft+ guys with one goal in mind: to grab the item and get it in the truck before the police arrive. They'll first feed you a line of bull to delay your calling the police, but most of the time they don't even have proper paperwork to repossess the item.
Ok, so you think the Democratic Party was going to select out of a pool of qualified candidates the one candidate which would be categorically denied the presidency? It's not like they didn't have other alternatives. When you're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars backing a candidate, you don't skip the credentials. I'll bet they checked his age too!
Birthers are so wrapped up in their own certainty (or belief in uncertainty) that they think a political party the size of the Democratic Political Party could easily be duped out of doing due diligency before spending a few hundred million. That's evidence enough that the birther movement is based on stupid people having their fears played upon. Sure they might be smart enough when not emotionally manipulated, but the argument that sounds like "well, you have to disprove my unproven point to me for me to concede that my point my not be valid" is the argument of the ill prepared and ignorant.
I guess you apply to the school of thought that Universities are not institutions of learning, but "upper class" trade schools meant to get you a job.
That opens up the question, where is the place you go to learn?
Is it moral for a University to deny or thwart one's interest in English because the market place doesn't need many English majors? The person is willing (and will) invest time and money; yet, the university will punish their efforts with additional expenses? Warning individuals is obviously moral, but overcharging them? There are those who make it in flooded fields. How is the university going to vet the wheat from the chaff? If they find an ideal would-be English Major, are they going to offer that person the true rate (or overcharge them due the pressure of lesser candidates existing and fewer jobs)? Should the University's role as a director to fill the market place be upheld, how could the morally charge ideal candidates for flooded fields a higher rate?
How do you even state that English majors aren't in demand, considering that English is one of the most acquired degrees, and as a direct result, probably consists of a larger percentage of the degreed workplace. From the demographics, it would seem that English is in high demand, just not so for the "upper crust" jobs.
I suppose it would be a wonderful world if everyone was above average; but, such logic doesn't hold up because average is a moving target.
it sounds like a lot of people have replaced ethics with capitalism. It is not ethical to remove
Universities are businesses. They'll charge were the money is; because, that's where the money is.
The reason you don't ask your local pan-handler for a loan is because it's not likely to happen, even if loans would improve the pan-handler's revenue stream.
The only way a university can justify charging certain majors more is to punitively charge above the current rate. Call it an Educational Morality Tax, or a "We want to mould the workplace demographics tax". If you think that Universities are not institutions of learning, but rather job training centres, then you won't have an issue with it. However, if you want to learn Spanish, take courses not intending to obtain a degree, or just focus your efforts on a Degree with a flooded market, why should you have to pay more based on the availability of others with your knowledge? For goodness sake it could make English the most expensive degree in the U.S.A.
I'm not going to run out and replace my $100 2TB external backup with one of these any time soon.
I am not going to run out and replace my minivan that I use to ferry my four kids and wife with a two seater sports car any time soon!
The analogy falls apart when your two seater sports car can make 80 round trips in the time the minivan makes one. Once you realize the true speed differences, you will start thinking of that two seater sports car as a minivan with seating capacity for 81, or one that can shuffle a "mere" four people around in seconds instead of minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe he should be sent to school so that he can get taught by qualified educators
Odds are, like most problems that children have, the problems lie in the parents. Either they overestimate their ability to educate, or overestimate the shool system's inability to do their job, or have some personal fear that prevents them from putting their child in exposure to ideas they find distasteful.
Fixing the problem in the parents for the benefit of the child is not a real option, the parents will first have to acknowledge that they have a problem, then fix it. By then the child might be much older, and the opportunity to fix an issue will be compounded by time.
Without the parent's acknowledgement that the situation needs changed greatly, the only means that seems parent friendly is to hire a local tutor or (preferably) school teacher to ammend the oversight. To make this most likely to succeed, I suggest that you direct the scheduling of the tutoring on the tutor's turf, preferably in a manner that prevents parental involvement. While certainly the parents most likely want their child to succeed, their ignorance, fear, or loss of face might prompt them to interfere with the remediation.
If concrete was so much cheaper than wood, we would definately be using more of it here in hurricane central. It isn't, so it doesn't really matter how simple or complex the process is, the prices would likely go up.
Any one person can live in a 150+ year old home built from wood, but everyone cannot find such a home, there aren't enough to go around. While your home still exists, do you really believe that every contemporary of that home is still housing someone?
The reason that you see cameras mounted to take front photos is so they can associate the crime (red light running, etc) with the person; because, our legal system doesn't have a means to provide service against a car, but they do have the means to provide service against a person. It also defeats the primary defense which is to argue that while it might be your car, you were not the person committing the crime. Unless the accuser provides evidence that the person commited the crime, the courts are quite happy to dismiss.
While ruleing out other agencies is useful, it doesn't mean that a certain agency did the work. It only narrows the field, and while you might be right; you might also have overlooked the party responsible.
Environments do sustain themselves; however, they do not always sustain the populations within the environment. That might seem like a fine distinction; but, please pay attention to it, as we humans are the largest (and therefore the most likely to be upset by change) consumers of the environment.
If wood disappears, housing costs will triple as we move to steel beam or concrete construction. The wood houses tend to disenigrate in 50 to 70 years, and economical concrete supplies are already limited, so a sustained loss of wood means massive disruption in building due to lack of traditional materials. New materials can be used, but there are not a lot of great options. If there were, we would already be using them.
If the environment creeps upwards a degree or two, vegatation will still suffer and rebound. During that transition, there will be a vegatation problem. Plants tolerate extreme temperature, but they cannot migrate; so, when a plant dies of heat or drought, it takes time before other plants that can handle the extremes can be estabilshed. The resulting loss of biomass directly translates into less plant respiration, which cools the earth crust by forcing evaoporation.
I live in Redneck Central, was raised here, and I have a Biology degree. I'll go out on a limb here and state that most Rednecks are quick to dismiss any argument that inconveniences them. That doesn't mean they are stupid, but they do have a tendancy to not invest much time in thinking about issues that extend beyond the self. The envrionment is funny, you can dismiss it when there is plenty of land that is not impacted, and that works well for Rednecks; however, when you run out of pristine environment, problems incurr. It is not any particular Billy Bob that is destroying the environment on a grand scale singlhandedly, it is that a few hundred million Billy Bobs are all assuming that their impact is so small, each with a centerist view of the world, that they cannot all understand that if they all act in unison to consume just a little less, it is hundreds of millions of fewer demand on an environment that is already providing them with more biomass and derivatives than nearly any other animal receives.
I too don't have a dog in the game. I'm not even on the same contient.
If BT wants to move into my neighborhood (which seems unlikely) then why should my neighborhood pay _anything_ to bring their equipment up to my existing standards? As long as my neighborhood's standards are not designed to foster unfair competition, it is up to BT to conform with the existing code.
If a home builder wants to build in a community, they don't get an "assistance" to bring their quality in line with the local code and regulations.
The market is not a zero sum game. A billion in losses is not a billion in someone else's gains. If it were so, who gains the value of something depreciating?
But they already have 'troll' and 'flamebait' for 'I disagree.'
For some, they can never disagree enough. I'm surprised there arent more tags to say "You're wrong!"
Until people stop believing in electrical genies that can hold vast amounts of power in a thimble, they can't think about the problem rationally because they believe electric is the portable power solution. Electricity is great, but even if you replaced the entire interior of your car with the best battery technology, it wouldn't be but a few percent of the energy stored in your gas tank.
Yes, it is getting better, and there is hope that one day it will be "good enough" for the task at hand; however, a 200% improvement of 3% is only 6%. We have a long way to go, and we're fighting physics.
Hearing of countless stories isn't the same thing as countless of nuclear power plants actually having issues with poor operational and maintenance attention. I mean, here is a plant in Japan, and it has ran like a top, and the containment in case of disaster did it's job. What part of lacklustre maintenance and attention played a part in creating the disaster, worsening its effects on the plant, or promoting the release of radation?
We have had one plant truly mess up, one almost mess up, and one hit by a natural disaster so large it defies reason that the plant managed to contain. In response, it seems we reward these efforts with a nuclear scare story every fifteen minutes. I know I'm exaggerating, but it seems that the scales are tipped way too far in directions that don't foster actual improvement.
vi
Clearly the best choice. It is so heavily optimized that even its name takes up only 40% of the required character of the second best contender, emacs.
Do you really think that a back scattering machine contains the energy back scattered from your body when it has two huge gaping holes aligned with the most common entry / exit paths? As far as I can tell, to the people standing in line, the only shielding is a few feet of air (and the bodies of those before them).
So take your pat down (if you're lucky to get it instead of a screening). But don't think you're getting off with no exposure. Note that the TSA people generally don't stand in front of the entrance / exit, I wonder if that's policy.
While it is an interesting idea, I am pretty sure that a "No Fly Zone" would have to be enforced by planes that were either under control of the United States Navy (most likely, they have more planes) or the United States Air Force.
There are very specific clauses in the Constitution which addresses the US Armed Forces (defined by the Army, Navy, and Marines (and extended to the Air Force as they branched from the Army) which bar service members from acting against US citizens. While the public may remain ignorant about the rules, the armed forces (who will quickly be judged under the harsher UCMJ) are much more aware of this aspect of the law.
Therefore, your interesting idea would not be legal under the Constitution unless the USA would declare that Texas was party to a civil war. Granted, Texas has a reputation (undeserved) of being a bunch of gun toting quick tempered cowboys, but a civil war must be based on something more than a reputation.
Whoa... for 120k/yr I'd write everything in stone with a chisel if they wanted.
That is what you think, but by the time you hit $120K per year, you realize that it's not enough money to put up with the truly asinine. Fortunately, there are plenty of good companies who value their developers, and while I never had a second monitor before, the current one practically pushed a second monitor on me.
Cash is cash, but in a mind related job, sanity is far more important, as it is required for all of the earnings today and tomorrow.
Giving my company full credit, I now do a lot less Alt-Tabbing, which in some ways allows me to concentrate more so on the task at hand.
After a few minutes of using it, you're applying a lot of force against your monitor.
I'm just waiting for them to re-release paper tape, the light pen, drum memory, and the toggle switch programming interface. We could call them cellulose ray, light sabre, wisdom vortex, and direct binary injection respectively.
It would work, if there wasn't already precedents that established "standard industry practice". It's the credit card companies who eventually set that bar, and Sony seemed to mistake the game for one of Limbo instead of Pole Vaulting.
Sony, how low did you go?
Fiorina was CEO, that's true; however, never forget that it was the Board of Directors who put here there, and she remained with HP for so long because she pleased the Board. If you want to throw stones, save a few for the board that decided to ditch non-focus products (profitable or otherwise).
That said, it is hard to imagine calculators being a device with a large future. They are useful, but their biggest competitor is the simulated calculator which ships with every desktop operating system.
I had a college roommate who worked for Aarons as a manager.
He complained bitterly about that company, stating that his subsequent job at a dry cleaner's was much better (if not a lot more boring). Basically the complaints I remember included; selling / renting out reconditioned items as new, writing up sales plans which attempted to gain five to six times the value of the item during the terms of the lease / sale; attempting to use weasel clauses to regain near term items for maximizing profit by not allowing items to go to full sale; and preying on customers close to their terms for exchange to "upgrade" items which would reset the length of the lease.
And you're dead on about the collection "techniques", try talking down a bunch of 250+ lb 6ft+ guys with one goal in mind: to grab the item and get it in the truck before the police arrive. They'll first feed you a line of bull to delay your calling the police, but most of the time they don't even have proper paperwork to repossess the item.
Ok, so you think the Democratic Party was going to select out of a pool of qualified candidates the one candidate which would be categorically denied the presidency? It's not like they didn't have other alternatives. When you're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars backing a candidate, you don't skip the credentials. I'll bet they checked his age too!
Birthers are so wrapped up in their own certainty (or belief in uncertainty) that they think a political party the size of the Democratic Political Party could easily be duped out of doing due diligency before spending a few hundred million. That's evidence enough that the birther movement is based on stupid people having their fears played upon. Sure they might be smart enough when not emotionally manipulated, but the argument that sounds like "well, you have to disprove my unproven point to me for me to concede that my point my not be valid" is the argument of the ill prepared and ignorant.
I guess you apply to the school of thought that Universities are not institutions of learning, but "upper class" trade schools meant to get you a job.
That opens up the question, where is the place you go to learn?
Is it moral for a University to deny or thwart one's interest in English because the market place doesn't need many English majors? The person is willing (and will) invest time and money; yet, the university will punish their efforts with additional expenses? Warning individuals is obviously moral, but overcharging them? There are those who make it in flooded fields. How is the university going to vet the wheat from the chaff? If they find an ideal would-be English Major, are they going to offer that person the true rate (or overcharge them due the pressure of lesser candidates existing and fewer jobs)? Should the University's role as a director to fill the market place be upheld, how could the morally charge ideal candidates for flooded fields a higher rate?
How do you even state that English majors aren't in demand, considering that English is one of the most acquired degrees, and as a direct result, probably consists of a larger percentage of the degreed workplace. From the demographics, it would seem that English is in high demand, just not so for the "upper crust" jobs.
I suppose it would be a wonderful world if everyone was above average; but, such logic doesn't hold up because average is a moving target.
it sounds like a lot of people have replaced ethics with capitalism. It is not ethical to remove
Universities are businesses. They'll charge were the money is; because, that's where the money is.
The reason you don't ask your local pan-handler for a loan is because it's not likely to happen, even if loans would improve the pan-handler's revenue stream.
The only way a university can justify charging certain majors more is to punitively charge above the current rate. Call it an Educational Morality Tax, or a "We want to mould the workplace demographics tax". If you think that Universities are not institutions of learning, but rather job training centres, then you won't have an issue with it. However, if you want to learn Spanish, take courses not intending to obtain a degree, or just focus your efforts on a Degree with a flooded market, why should you have to pay more based on the availability of others with your knowledge? For goodness sake it could make English the most expensive degree in the U.S.A.
perhaps that's why he's still looking for it.
This is not even last decade. It was called peapod back then.
Zeus: Release the Drosophila melanogaster!
I'm not going to run out and replace my $100 2TB external backup with one of these any time soon.
I am not going to run out and replace my minivan that I use to ferry my four kids and wife with a two seater sports car any time soon!
The analogy falls apart when your two seater sports car can make 80 round trips in the time the minivan makes one. Once you realize the true speed differences, you will start thinking of that two seater sports car as a minivan with seating capacity for 81, or one that can shuffle a "mere" four people around in seconds instead of minutes.