1. a 3year old isn't running 20 applications at once, each having complex interfaces and workflow. he's running one application at a time.. metro wasn't called 'fisher price' for nothing. 2. a 3year old also doesn't have 25 years invested in learning ways of doing things to do complex tasks. 3. rote memorization sucks, but it is a component for basic skills, esp at that age. rote memorization in highschool/college should be kept at a min however. also, a 3year old neurology is more flexible. this is why most adults resent having to learn (and can't really learn) a new spoken/written language (also, see #2).
Too bad all these supposedly smart people aren't spending their time creating solutions for this society's problems instead of playing with popularity contests like infantile highschoolers.
argument from authority.. having a bunch of awards bestowed by society doesn't make someone a genius. Usualy, geniuses are the forgotten ones who die penniless. many times they are pariahs of the societies they were raised into. The people who get all the awards and trappings of 'intellectual achievement' are called 'overachievers.' they bust their asses and/or are politically well-connected and have wealthy parents.. The problem is that many of these trappings are not really based on merit. All they require is an average effort from a well connected person.
if I vote gary johnson, at least I influence the next election.. if I vote obama or romney, I vote against what it is I want.. it doesn't matter if johnson doesn't have a chance of winning this time. It would be nice if he did of course, but if we don't vote rationally and by conscience, then what the fuck is the point of elections?
debates aren't meant to be 'entertainment'.. if you want reality tv, go watch the next snooki get knocked up yet again.. if you care about the issues, those 'yawnfests' should be interesting to you.
as opposed to watching the 'winner' jock/douchebag/ivy league fast track/preps 'debate' by trying so hard to sound smart that they sound even dumber than their average intellects suggest they should.. and yet everyone votes for them anyway because they're more popular?
people like you who insist on voting for who they think will 'win' are worse for democracy than the worst tyrant..
keyboard/mouse context switches are time consuming.. GUIs should do what needs doing with the minimum of clicks, leaving the keyboard stuff to the keyboard. They should offer hotkeys as well. Having to type stuff out in some stupid search box is a crutch for a shitty ui design.
Romney is a NEO-conservative. Republicans support almost none of this.
1. A libertarian would never impose a state religion, state funding for or special tax breaks for religious institutions. 2. He would most likely support some spending for defense, but he would not waste the money on useless 'police actions' that lack congressional oversight. 3. he would also not hesitate to declare war to defend ourselves but he would do it by the book (as a congressman or senator). 4. A libertarian would not impose restrictions on healthcare for ideological reasons (such as abortion) but would also oppose state funding for it. 5. he would demand heavy restrictions on self-instancing of state power. 6. he would defend our constitutional rights, even if their use makes insecure control freaks butthurt.
We pay for it somehow.. It might not be noticed, but we do. The money has to come from somewhere.. in lower wages, higher costs in goods/services, higher taxes..
You do realize that these two things are not directly compatible, right? They're actually quite contradictory.
Sure it is, if you cut spending and get the people who benefited from the handouts to pay the bill. If this is not possible then we're fucked. The only way this gets resolved is when society becomes too top heavy and collapses not unlike the roman empire.
Wrong, because that means they mean nothing, whereas tax policy often has specific intentions.
'They'? if you mean taxes, well a lot of what's on the books is meaningless, passed under circumstances that no longer apply. Then there are the ones intended to modify behavior. Those should go if for no other reason that they piss people off and make them anti-tax in general. There are A LOT of these on the books. What's left depends on the situation. For example, I don't mind some public education, but the system needs serious resharpening. It's loaded with ineptitude, apathy, and wasteful spending (kids don't need wifi for their state purchased ipads, they need quality teachers in buildings that don't smell like latrines). In many cases, schools are run more like prisons than educational institutions. Until this is fixed, I see little reason to throw more money its way. It gets enough, but the expenditures need to be reprioritized.
Good luck getting any conservatives behind that idea.
or liberals, if the organization is left wing. I mentioned this. The elite are not interested in paying back society. The democrats put up a good front, but they're just as full of shit as the republicans are. This has to happen. it's the only place the money exists. The bottom 90% or so will NEVER be able to level off, nevermind pay off the debt.
Let's say that we have schools that teach students. Who benefits from that?
In theory everyone does, but like I said above, we should not just throw more money at organizations that are clearly incapable of change from within. We should freeze the education budgets until administrators quit blowing money on stupid shit like needless computer equipment, student tracking systems (like in texas), highly tangential extra-curricular programs (athletics, arts, multi language) until the core curriculum scores come back up. I have no problem with extra-curriculars, but they shouldn't be funded from the school budget. Schools are not day camps.
It's a complex problem, but for the government's role, the best thing it could do is reduce the deficit substantially and lower taxes. Anything that would bolster the dollar would help as well. Liberals like to talk about the middle class tax cuts they plan, yet I don't see details as to how beyond getting some bones thrown our way for the money they bilk from us. What I need is more of my money at my disposal, thanks. This is true of anyone in the 15-40k/year set. Right now, when all is said and done (fed, state, local, sales tax etc), about 1/3 of our income goes to the state. Meanwhile, how much of that really benefits that set? Most of it benefits the elite (bank bailouts, loans/preferential law to large corporates, funding for self-guilt ridden social programs for people based on their color and gender etc) and not the middle class as a whole. A single guy who is not married, has no kids, but who only makes 20k a year gets no breaks, so he doesn't buy that new car, that new house, or travel. meanwhile, the fools who pump out 3 kids before they realize they have no money for it, get subsidized by him. The programs pushed by the left only give certain castes a break while causing them to become more dependent (which creates more 'justification' for more funding next time ad nauseum). Tax breaks need to give almost EVERYONE a break for them to be worth anything! The organizations who took the money should pay it off. Here's a thought..
tally the amount of tax funding spent by wealth of organization.. this includes government departments, corporations, social/political movements etc who have taken substantial subsidies over the last 50 years. These subsidies aren't just limited to money, but also include law-backed false markets for specific entities that hurt the rest of us. These organizations should be the ones paying off the majority of the debt because they are the ones who've benefited the most from it. After all, they're what we've all been borrowing against the future for! You know, the incomes of people who haven't been born yet?
Obviously, the mitt romneys would love reaganomics.. it's in their interest, and this solves nothing either. it saddles the majority of the debt with the people who are least able to make a dent, and they are the ones running the organizations mentioned above. Corporate welfare is as bad for the economy as socialist mass-welfare citizenry.
Well, his language sounds pretty pugnacious to me.. People who think this way are common and are why authority gets away with what it does. If anything, they form one half of self-feeding system: they push for more invasive authority, which in turn demands more obedience training/indoctrination/learned helplessness, which spawns more of these people who then demand...
Yeah, why not grade on performance? Colleges used to dot his too, though now I think more of them are turning to attendance requirements for some odd reason.. Honestly, if you don't want to learn, there's nothing anyone can do for you and draconian prison rule doesn't encourage ANYONE to think much.
I wish people like you would leave the country.. or at least go live in a socialist country for awhile and see if you like that worthless sardine can lifestyle.
1. Tracking performance negates the need to track attendance.
2. It's just as likely that repressive, overcontrolling environments with extremely passive-aggressive authority structures are what CAUSE school shootings. The amount of pressure in schools grows every day, and most of it is artificially imposed.
3. Over litigiousness is the root problem here. It affects more than just schools. Maybe the answer is for society in general to roll this back and force people to fucking deal with the realities of life instead of constantly searching for a scapegoat, even at the expense of rational cause-effect and reasonable recompense.
4. Logical progression doesn't justify anything. It's a predictor. This is the same shitty argument used in law concerning 'precedent.' It's a fallacy when used to justify more of the same kind of action. It's a form of circular reasoning.
5. People aren't necessarily ignorant. They're just not machines meant to fit the cogs of your 'Great Society.'
6. define 'bad things' please. This is the 'if you've got nothing to hide' argument. The problem isn't whether people do 'bad things', it's what authority deems 'bad' and how unchecked they are in enforcing whims. During my years in the public system, faculty abused their privileges and power all the time. why would someone pay attention and abuse? BECAUSE THEY CAN! It's an axiomatic component of human nature I guess: unchecked power corrupts. The last thing I'd want is to give this mindset even more control over my location or any personal data. If the goal is to educate, then track performance, and don't worry quite so much about attendance. Of course, if the goal is to get kids used to this kind of shithole society, then by all means...
7. yeah I know. People need to fucking realize that with life, shit happens, and sometimes there's no one person to blame. Unfortunately, it seems like you're the one following the 'zomg terrorist' bandwagon, or at least using the word to label people you don't agree with so you don't have to listen to them. Since most people who side with tyrannical authority are often extremely timid and insecure, I wonder if that's not the case with you.
I guess it depends what long term lessons the kids get out of it. I think it's more important that they not learn that pervasive surveillance is acceptable because they will internalize this, and when they grow up, they'll demand this in ever greater contexts.
To me, if you have mass numbers skipping, you're doing it wrong. Forcing them into the building isn't the answer. If the school tracked performance instead of obsessing about attendance, this tracking wouldn't be needed.
it gets the kids used to the idea that pervasive electronic surveillance is ok. This invites several kinds of stunted development, such as not learning to hold oneself accountable. Like over protective parents, nanny authority encourage a permanent adolescent mindset in citizens. This kind of thing also invites zero-tolerance policies to go along with the pervasive power, which are no good for anyone. People are not robots. I would argue that tracking entering/leaving is bordering on not acceptable. your employer should be tracking your performance, not your attendance. Same thing with schools.
The answer to truancy is not to run the schools like prisons. The systems we have are good enough already. attendance is taken in each class. No need to get the kids used to pervasive electronic surveillance.
And so I shall decree that when the law says it's ok, then it must be ok! The kids needed to be protected from the terrible secret of space, and the only way to do that is to shove them down the stairs.. Now I know some of us here prefer pushing them down, but the pusherbots know that shoving is the answer! Therefore we have passed the law and its existence justifies our actions in turn! Circular reasoning is the backbone of sound policy!
Pervasive surveillance is detrimental to free societies, especially to the children that are supposed to take the reigns someday.. They will grow up used to this and will come to expect it in adult land in growing numbers of contexts. This 'solution' is not unlike the berlin wall and the impregnable borders that were designed to keep people in as much as to keep others out. If you can't keep the majority of kids in class, you're doing it wrong. If the majority are in class, this system isn't needed. The ones who skip regularly have some set of issues that need dealing with in an appropriate manner. Using a prison model to force it is not an answer, even if it makes things more convenient for faculty.
Slashdot Mirror
1. a 3year old isn't running 20 applications at once, each having complex interfaces and workflow. he's running one application at a time.. metro wasn't called 'fisher price' for nothing.
2. a 3year old also doesn't have 25 years invested in learning ways of doing things to do complex tasks.
3. rote memorization sucks, but it is a component for basic skills, esp at that age. rote memorization in highschool/college should be kept at a min however. also, a 3year old neurology is more flexible. this is why most adults resent having to learn (and can't really learn) a new spoken/written language (also, see #2).
Too bad all these supposedly smart people aren't spending their time creating solutions for this society's problems instead of playing with popularity contests like infantile highschoolers.
empathy for what? why exactly does he owe them empathy?
argument from authority.. having a bunch of awards bestowed by society doesn't make someone a genius. Usualy, geniuses are the forgotten ones who die penniless. many times they are pariahs of the societies they were raised into. The people who get all the awards and trappings of 'intellectual achievement' are called 'overachievers.' they bust their asses and/or are politically well-connected and have wealthy parents.. The problem is that many of these trappings are not really based on merit. All they require is an average effort from a well connected person.
no.. apples are for wannbe geniuses.. hipsters.
if I vote gary johnson, at least I influence the next election.. if I vote obama or romney, I vote against what it is I want.. it doesn't matter if johnson doesn't have a chance of winning this time. It would be nice if he did of course, but if we don't vote rationally and by conscience, then what the fuck is the point of elections?
debates aren't meant to be 'entertainment'.. if you want reality tv, go watch the next snooki get knocked up yet again.. if you care about the issues, those 'yawnfests' should be interesting to you.
to extend your analogy..
as opposed to watching the 'winner' jock/douchebag/ivy league fast track/preps 'debate' by trying so hard to sound smart that they sound even dumber than their average intellects suggest they should.. and yet everyone votes for them anyway because they're more popular?
people like you who insist on voting for who they think will 'win' are worse for democracy than the worst tyrant..
and the error liberals make with this statement is that bigger government is not always (if ever) the best way to go about helping others.
ah, no that is not the libertarian perspective. that is the libertarian perspective twisted by leftist wingnuts.
they'll call it firefox XP
keyboard/mouse context switches are time consuming.. GUIs should do what needs doing with the minimum of clicks, leaving the keyboard stuff to the keyboard. They should offer hotkeys as well. Having to type stuff out in some stupid search box is a crutch for a shitty ui design.
This could just as easily CAUSE an accident. Really, computers should be ASSISTING the driver, not making decisions for him.
of course, so we should vote The People's Party, right?
Romney is a NEO-conservative. Republicans support almost none of this.
1. A libertarian would never impose a state religion, state funding for or special tax breaks for religious institutions.
2. He would most likely support some spending for defense, but he would not waste the money on useless 'police actions' that lack congressional oversight.
3. he would also not hesitate to declare war to defend ourselves but he would do it by the book (as a congressman or senator).
4. A libertarian would not impose restrictions on healthcare for ideological reasons (such as abortion) but would also oppose state funding for it.
5. he would demand heavy restrictions on self-instancing of state power.
6. he would defend our constitutional rights, even if their use makes insecure control freaks butthurt.
We pay for it somehow.. It might not be noticed, but we do. The money has to come from somewhere.. in lower wages, higher costs in goods/services, higher taxes..
You do realize that these two things are not directly compatible, right? They're actually quite contradictory.
Sure it is, if you cut spending and get the people who benefited from the handouts to pay the bill. If this is not possible then we're fucked. The only way this gets resolved is when society becomes too top heavy and collapses not unlike the roman empire.
Wrong, because that means they mean nothing, whereas tax policy often has specific intentions.
'They'? if you mean taxes, well a lot of what's on the books is meaningless, passed under circumstances that no longer apply. Then there are the ones intended to modify behavior. Those should go if for no other reason that they piss people off and make them anti-tax in general. There are A LOT of these on the books. What's left depends on the situation. For example, I don't mind some public education, but the system needs serious resharpening. It's loaded with ineptitude, apathy, and wasteful spending (kids don't need wifi for their state purchased ipads, they need quality teachers in buildings that don't smell like latrines). In many cases, schools are run more like prisons than educational institutions. Until this is fixed, I see little reason to throw more money its way. It gets enough, but the expenditures need to be reprioritized.
Good luck getting any conservatives behind that idea.
or liberals, if the organization is left wing. I mentioned this. The elite are not interested in paying back society. The democrats put up a good front, but they're just as full of shit as the republicans are. This has to happen. it's the only place the money exists. The bottom 90% or so will NEVER be able to level off, nevermind pay off the debt.
Let's say that we have schools that teach students. Who benefits from that?
In theory everyone does, but like I said above, we should not just throw more money at organizations that are clearly incapable of change from within. We should freeze the education budgets until administrators quit blowing money on stupid shit like needless computer equipment, student tracking systems (like in texas), highly tangential extra-curricular programs (athletics, arts, multi language) until the core curriculum scores come back up. I have no problem with extra-curriculars, but they shouldn't be funded from the school budget. Schools are not day camps.
It's a complex problem, but for the government's role, the best thing it could do is reduce the deficit substantially and lower taxes. Anything that would bolster the dollar would help as well. Liberals like to talk about the middle class tax cuts they plan, yet I don't see details as to how beyond getting some bones thrown our way for the money they bilk from us. What I need is more of my money at my disposal, thanks. This is true of anyone in the 15-40k/year set. Right now, when all is said and done (fed, state, local, sales tax etc), about 1/3 of our income goes to the state. Meanwhile, how much of that really benefits that set? Most of it benefits the elite (bank bailouts, loans/preferential law to large corporates, funding for self-guilt ridden social programs for people based on their color and gender etc) and not the middle class as a whole. A single guy who is not married, has no kids, but who only makes 20k a year gets no breaks, so he doesn't buy that new car, that new house, or travel. meanwhile, the fools who pump out 3 kids before they realize they have no money for it, get subsidized by him. The programs pushed by the left only give certain castes a break while causing them to become more dependent (which creates more 'justification' for more funding next time ad nauseum). Tax breaks need to give almost EVERYONE a break for them to be worth anything! The organizations who took the money should pay it off. Here's a thought..
tally the amount of tax funding spent by wealth of organization.. this includes government departments, corporations, social/political movements etc who have taken substantial subsidies over the last 50 years. These subsidies aren't just limited to money, but also include law-backed false markets for specific entities that hurt the rest of us. These organizations should be the ones paying off the majority of the debt because they are the ones who've benefited the most from it. After all, they're what we've all been borrowing against the future for! You know, the incomes of people who haven't been born yet?
Obviously, the mitt romneys would love reaganomics.. it's in their interest, and this solves nothing either. it saddles the majority of the debt with the people who are least able to make a dent, and they are the ones running the organizations mentioned above. Corporate welfare is as bad for the economy as socialist mass-welfare citizenry.
Well, his language sounds pretty pugnacious to me.. People who think this way are common and are why authority gets away with what it does. If anything, they form one half of self-feeding system: they push for more invasive authority, which in turn demands more obedience training/indoctrination/learned helplessness, which spawns more of these people who then demand...
Yeah, why not grade on performance? Colleges used to dot his too, though now I think more of them are turning to attendance requirements for some odd reason.. Honestly, if you don't want to learn, there's nothing anyone can do for you and draconian prison rule doesn't encourage ANYONE to think much.
I wish people like you would leave the country.. or at least go live in a socialist country for awhile and see if you like that worthless sardine can lifestyle.
1. Tracking performance negates the need to track attendance.
2. It's just as likely that repressive, overcontrolling environments with extremely passive-aggressive authority structures are what CAUSE school shootings. The amount of pressure in schools grows every day, and most of it is artificially imposed.
3. Over litigiousness is the root problem here. It affects more than just schools. Maybe the answer is for society in general to roll this back and force people to fucking deal with the realities of life instead of constantly searching for a scapegoat, even at the expense of rational cause-effect and reasonable recompense.
4. Logical progression doesn't justify anything. It's a predictor. This is the same shitty argument used in law concerning 'precedent.' It's a fallacy when used to justify more of the same kind of action. It's a form of circular reasoning.
5. People aren't necessarily ignorant. They're just not machines meant to fit the cogs of your 'Great Society.'
6. define 'bad things' please. This is the 'if you've got nothing to hide' argument. The problem isn't whether people do 'bad things', it's what authority deems 'bad' and how unchecked they are in enforcing whims. During my years in the public system, faculty abused their privileges and power all the time. why would someone pay attention and abuse? BECAUSE THEY CAN! It's an axiomatic component of human nature I guess: unchecked power corrupts. The last thing I'd want is to give this mindset even more control over my location or any personal data. If the goal is to educate, then track performance, and don't worry quite so much about attendance. Of course, if the goal is to get kids used to this kind of shithole society, then by all means...
7. yeah I know. People need to fucking realize that with life, shit happens, and sometimes there's no one person to blame. Unfortunately, it seems like you're the one following the 'zomg terrorist' bandwagon, or at least using the word to label people you don't agree with so you don't have to listen to them. Since most people who side with tyrannical authority are often extremely timid and insecure, I wonder if that's not the case with you.
I guess it depends what long term lessons the kids get out of it. I think it's more important that they not learn that pervasive surveillance is acceptable because they will internalize this, and when they grow up, they'll demand this in ever greater contexts.
To me, if you have mass numbers skipping, you're doing it wrong. Forcing them into the building isn't the answer. If the school tracked performance instead of obsessing about attendance, this tracking wouldn't be needed.
it gets the kids used to the idea that pervasive electronic surveillance is ok. This invites several kinds of stunted development, such as not learning to hold oneself accountable. Like over protective parents, nanny authority encourage a permanent adolescent mindset in citizens. This kind of thing also invites zero-tolerance policies to go along with the pervasive power, which are no good for anyone. People are not robots. I would argue that tracking entering/leaving is bordering on not acceptable. your employer should be tracking your performance, not your attendance. Same thing with schools.
The answer to truancy is not to run the schools like prisons. The systems we have are good enough already. attendance is taken in each class. No need to get the kids used to pervasive electronic surveillance.
And so I shall decree that when the law says it's ok, then it must be ok! The kids needed to be protected from the terrible secret of space, and the only way to do that is to shove them down the stairs.. Now I know some of us here prefer pushing them down, but the pusherbots know that shoving is the answer! Therefore we have passed the law and its existence justifies our actions in turn! Circular reasoning is the backbone of sound policy!
Pervasive surveillance is detrimental to free societies, especially to the children that are supposed to take the reigns someday.. They will grow up used to this and will come to expect it in adult land in growing numbers of contexts. This 'solution' is not unlike the berlin wall and the impregnable borders that were designed to keep people in as much as to keep others out. If you can't keep the majority of kids in class, you're doing it wrong. If the majority are in class, this system isn't needed. The ones who skip regularly have some set of issues that need dealing with in an appropriate manner. Using a prison model to force it is not an answer, even if it makes things more convenient for faculty.
tell that to to the state bureaucracy that mandated these tracking systems.