Also let us not forget the last time Europe send somebody into the unknown. He stumbled upon a new continent. Look what mess that brought us in. Europe does not want to make that same mistake again.;-)
Yeah, Europe doesn't want to have some upstart criminals on some new continent to bail them out of two world wars that they couldn't solve themselves, do they?;)
Other things DO work. CERN is ione, wich brought us HTTP. Airbus is another example. The question remains if Europe wants it at this moment. It will naturaly be good footage on newsprograms. OTOH it will draw away money that could have been used better. I am not saying it would not be a good idea. I just wonder if the money spend can't be used better.
My guess is that Europe is putting to the test an unmanned space program. Here in the US a LOT of people criticize NASA for spending too much time and money putting men into space when they could be pursuing other things, and it looks like Europe is putting that to the test.
One thing's certain, from what I can see.:) It sure is nice to see different space exploration models cropping up besides NASA's. NASA may have gotten us to the moon, but they seem to have burned out sometime around SDI.
Titan is the only moon in our solar system with a thick atmosphere. It is believed it may be similar to that of Earth's millions of years ago.
Not to mention the little guys with the Masters on their backs... Luckily, though, they don't breathe oxygen, so we're safe from them if we go to Titan.
I thought the problem with getting instellar journey times down to a few years or decades had everything to do with the speed of light and very little to do with anything else?
You know, that is probably the most insightful post regarding religion I've ever read.:)
Generally speaking, though, most people I've known who've been raised in a hard core religious environment suffered lots of abuse. I wouldn't blame the religion, it's just as stupid as those freaks in the '80s that said that kids that played Dungeons and Dragons committed suicide, and of course it was TSR's fault. Same logic, just applied differently. Having been on one side of that logic for so long (also a metalhead, the devil's music you know), thank you for pointing out that our side isn't always right either.:)
Dude, I'm not a lawyer, but I read about your stuff, and it looks like you really screwed up. Sorry.:(
Not sure if it's really covered by Fair Use doctrine, although I tend to agree that it should. I wonder if I'll get a cease and desist letter because I posted a cover of Anarchy in the UK on my own site? (It's not that good, but I have heard some tell me they like it better than the original) At least in my case I can say I performed it, and since I don't make any money off it there's no royalty required.:)
In that case, I owe you thanks.:) With any luck, the mods will up your correction, but since you capitalized 'abridged' in your subject line, and you won't get modded down, I think people will manage to see it.
Maybe next time I decide to quote the constitution, I'll spend the 3 seconds googling to get the right quote.;)
I actually memorized the Bill of Rights, but that was something like 15 years ago.
Also, Article I of the constitution is NOT the first amendment. It's the first article, the one that appears after the preamble. Too often we focus on the Bill of Rights and forget that the constitution is a long document, and the Bill of Rights is just the first appendix, essentially.
I may not be too hot on the actual phrasing of individual passages in the constitution these days, but you'll be hard pressed to find someone outside the field of law who has studied it more than I have.;) Not to toot my own horn, or anything...
In any case, while my paraphrasing of something I memorized 15 years ago was wrong, I don't see how it changes the message of my post.:)
I think I know what you were trying to say. You just got to be the unlucky victim when I pointed out the particular flaw in the reasoning. Or rather, the danger.
See, it's one thing to acknowledge the internet and it's influence and try to work with it. It's another thing to acknowledge the internet and it's influence and try to fight it. I suspect you were suggesting the former, but I attacked the latter. No harm meant, you're probably just the unlucky victim, but I generally find at least one post like yours and attack, because the internet is the next thing.
The way I figure it, the bottleneck on human advancement at the end of the last century was the speed of knowledge, so to speak. How fast we can share information, how well we sort it, and how easily we can recall it. That's why search technology is so damned important. It's also why the internet was inevitable and it's not going away. The sooner we learn that and move on, the better. I'm not trying to say that change isn't needed. Revolution implies change, and some would say it requires change.
The #1 problem with Democracy is the same problem with your post.:)
Change always starts in a minority, for better or for worse. The American Revolution was led by a minority, and there were many colonists who opposed it. Many more were indifferent as long as it didn't hurt business. But when it comes down to it, all change starts in a minority, and when you allow the majority to decide what's acceptable, you block out change. Which leads to decline.
Heh, normally I don't grammar nazi my way around, I just found that particular mistake amusing, so I mentioned it.:) I failed to make the kind of joke I was trying to make, but I think my intent was clear, anyway.
If you're gonna screw up, at least screw up in a way that's funny, I say.;)
The US Bill of Rights does not "allow" you any rights. It recognizes specific rights that are never to be taken away.
NOt entirely true. It spells out a few rights, then says that any rights not spelled out there and not expressly delegated to the government are reserved by the states.
Personally, I'm a big fan of States' rights. Problem is, the Civil War taught us that states have no rights. So it's been over a hundred years since we needed a new constitution.:(
Aha! What is this 'discriminatory manor'? Is it like a house that shoots people that aren't the same color as the owner? Or is it just a house that yells "nigger" everytime someone darker than a certain shade walks past?
Most users browse at +1 or higher, so anything moderated below that is effectively censored (ACs have a default score of 0, but they choose to post at that level).
And who decides what score a post gets? The moderators, that's who! I chose not to moderate, because I prefer not to judge, but I do metamoderate some. I meta-mod friends and fans up, and that's it. Other than that, well, it's beside the point.:)
The point is, slashdot itself doesn't decide what to mod each post as, and osdn doesn't decide either. Occasionally something happens that appears to be slashdot editors censoring people through the mod system, but it's always controversial, and usually can go both ways depending on your point of view. In any case, the readers are the ones who decide, and it's very democratic.
Yeah yeah yeah. Courts come out with a lot of asenine decisions, don't they? Does not make it right. Those decisions fly right in the face of hundreds of years of jurisprudence and are from the so-called 'activist' courts which are results oriented rather than letter of the law and precedent oriented.
In a world where public gathering places like shopping malls aren't recognized as public gathering places, then whoever controls the public gathering places controls speech. Do you *really* want a collection of corporations whose sole purpose in life is to increase stock value to be the ones who decide what is spoken, and where?
Generally speaking, I'm on the side of the private owner of something. Individual shops in the mall, for example. To the extent that someone is speaking in a fashion that disrupts their business. For example, someone standing just inside the door telling everyone who comes in all about how evil abortions are. That's what is referred to as "public nuisance".:) In the shop owner's case, that's someone getting political and possibly scaring away potential business. Worse, by doing nothing about it, the shop will be determined to be anti-abortion, and the pro-lifers will scream boycott! So whether he wants to take a stand or not, he's got a serious problem on his hands. All he has to say is "you're disrupting my business. I'm not going to take a stand as a business on this issue because it's beyond the scope of my business. But you're disrupting my business." Sure, the same could be said about the mall itself, and I'll bet that the courts would ultimately decide that as long as someone's not disrupting business, they can spout their political agenda in the mall. Just like protesting with signs and crap outside the mall.
Anyway, point is, it does revolve somewhat on how strictly you interpret the constitution. The actual words are (quoted from memory:) ) :
Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of speech
Hm, I might have gotten them a little wrong. It's been awhile. Anyway, the sentence essentially means "Congress won't pass any laws banning speech". Says nothing of freedom of expression and so forth. Only talks about speech, and the intent was likely to have been not to prevent political speech, but to encourage it. Remember, the colonists had trouble with the King whenever they criticized him (say what you want, James II was a suck-ass King). The amendment doesn't even address corporations trying to control speech.
It's a fine line. I didn't RTFA, so I'm not trying to take a stand in relation to the article, just discuss the issue.:)
I agree with censorship when it is to protect someone, such as the president, or even to protect you or I from harm.
This is the ambiguity that causes the struggle surrounding censorship. What constitutes harm? Are you talking about yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater? Or are you talking about some kid reading a book called "365 ways to cook human flesh" when he's a kid and turning into a cannibal when he's older? What is "harm" exactly when you're talking about speech?
The issue is further complicated when you think that here in the US, most kids learn that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Censorship is the exact opposite of that statement that we all grow up with.
There are those who would prevent you from reading any material on any religion other than Christianity, because they fear for your soul. In their eyes, it is harmful to consider other religions as valid representations of reality because to do so could bar you from Jesus's august presence in your afterlife! So for them, using your statement, it's perfectly OK to ban the Torah, the Koran, the Satanic Bible, the Compleat Witch, anything on astrology, and anything that even remotely represents any of those books and any others in a positive light. Is that a world you want to live in?
As far as this whole online censorship deal in role-playing games, I don't think the government should get involved. If they really feel the need, then just rate them periodically, just like we have with movies, and let the parents decide. Or let the kids decide for themselves, if you must. If the government gets involved and starts telling us what we can and can't say in an online role-playing game, then we've got big trouble. But what about the corporations?
Consider this: Some Disney dude goes into Pixar and says "You can't use the word feces in this stupid cartoon, find a better word." Is that censorship? Or is it quality control? So Disney sets up an online gaming world. They tell the gamers "You can't use the word feces in this stupid online game, find a better word." Is that censorship? Disney tries to appeal to stupid kids (not smart kids) and stupid parents (not smart parents). If a bunch of h4xx0rs show up in their game and start saying "Fuck you!" to everyone they meet, then Disney can't sell their game to their target demographic anymore. So I say those h4xx0rz should go pick a different game, or a different server, or something.
The only time this becomes a real problem is when there's only one online gaming setup. And we deal with that through regular free market tactics, right?;)
I say we get some standardized testing in place. If you don't know who the first president was, you are lacking important knowledge and the H.S. should not issue a degree. People complain about standardized testing, but education needs to be a science. And without some way to test your educational theory, you have no idea if it's accurate. I don't trust teachers and their theories, especially when the teachers have no way to their theories against those of other teachers. If you have a problem with a standardized test than change it, but to argue that we should abolish all measurement of progress seems rediculous.
Measuring the success of delivering an education is directly contrary to the goals of the politicians who hold the strings on the coinpurse of public education. Their goals are to get re-elected, and if they show lower drop-out rates and higher overall GPAs, people think they did great! Nevermind that we now have a generation of kids that can't read the freeway signs. I don't personally think our existing standardized test structures in the places I went to school are bad, just not good enough. Ultimately, I think the problem is much deeper, and much more insidious. If standardized test scores were the only way we measure the success of the education system, then I think most of the existing tests would satisfy that requirement and result in better-educated kids. Then we can make the tests harder...;)
The problem is in the other metrics, that frequently have little or nothing to do with how well the education system itself did. High School drop-out rate has jack and shit to do with how good the teachers are. It has more to do with family than school, although I'll freely admit that school is a part of it. But I don't know a single drop-out (and I've known plenty) that dropped out because of anything any teacher did. My wife dropped out because she preferred to smoke pot and run around with 'gangstas'. She went back after we were married, and they basically said "You poor thing, here's your diploma". She still can't write, and while she can do quick math, she can't handle complex problems. So much for educaiton. (I love her anyway:) . Love doesn't require education)
Your point that you sort of addressed about the teachers, though, is dead-on. Too many different educational theories among the teachers, no standardization. So there's a drastic difference in how kids perform just from one teacher to another. I talked about a math teacher I had in High School that let me cheat the class because I learned the material damn well, maybe it was in a different thread. Anyway, he graduated the most kids with high grades than any other teacher in the school. His kids went on to outperform other kids in college math courses, at least the ones that went on. He's a great teacher, don't get me wrong. I would, of course, advocate standardizing on his methods.:) IN any case, the fact that there was such variance from his class to the others is testimony to all these different educational theories every teacher has. Why can't they just say "Well, this works, let's all do this for awhile." Then check their test scores and re-evaluate. Ultimately, how well we parents judge the school is going to be based on the aggregate of all the teachers' performance, one way or another, so it's in their best interests to get together and work something out.
Heh, I hope you get modded as funny. That was pretty entertaining.
I'd like to point out that locking up exams and so forth is healthy paranoia, because you *know* that some small percentage of students will go after it, given the opportunity. The ones that won't go after it, well, they don't need that stuff in the first place. That is the difference between what you're suggesting and what the article is about.
The article is about a rule that accuses every kid of cheating until proven otherwise, and on every single paper. You're talking about safety measures that are targetted at the cheaters only, and do not actually accuse anyone of anything. So, that's the difference.
Colleges have a duty to certify an education. If you're cheating, you should be kicked out of at least the class, if not the college. My degree means nothing if you got yours by cheating, so it's unfair to me.
I'd call into question the credibility of any degree from any university in which it was possible to acquire a degree by cheating. If you attend such a university, you should probably consider looking for a different one.
In any case, the real world is a cutthroat place, not the sedentary university environment, like it or not. It's sink or swim out here in the real world, and cheating will sink you. So you don't have to worry about the guy cheating, because you'll have his job and more.
Assuming, of course, that your university hasn't developed a reputation for graduating cheaters because it was too easy. Checking for cheaters isn't the way to solve this problem. Make the course work hard enough that you *gasp* actually have to learn the material to get a degree. The point of college, and high school for that matter, is to get an education. If you can get a degree without getting an education, then the college failed. It's a fact that those folks running the college don't want to face up to, if they resort to forcing students to run their papers through a website before they can be graded.
As I've indicated in other posts in this article, it's my opinion that High School is ultimately to blame for this. Millions of kids every year are graduating HIgh School without the ability to read, write, and do basic math. Many of those kids go on to college, somehow. High School should've filtered them out, or provided them enough of an education that they didn't need to seek college education to do their jobs. College is supposed to be a place you go to learn a specialization, the depth of knowledge of which is required by the field is beyond the scope of High School. That's the purpose of college. If kids have to go to college to finish their basic education, then HIgh School has failed.
Slashdot Mirror
Also let us not forget the last time Europe send somebody into the unknown. He stumbled upon a new continent. Look what mess that brought us in. Europe does not want to make that same mistake again. ;-)
Yeah, Europe doesn't want to have some upstart criminals on some new continent to bail them out of two world wars that they couldn't solve themselves, do they? ;)
Other things DO work. CERN is ione, wich brought us HTTP. Airbus is another example. The question remains if Europe wants it at this moment. It will naturaly be good footage on newsprograms. OTOH it will draw away money that could have been used better. I am not saying it would not be a good idea. I just wonder if the money spend can't be used better.
My guess is that Europe is putting to the test an unmanned space program. Here in the US a LOT of people criticize NASA for spending too much time and money putting men into space when they could be pursuing other things, and it looks like Europe is putting that to the test.
One thing's certain, from what I can see. :) It sure is nice to see different space exploration models cropping up besides NASA's. NASA may have gotten us to the moon, but they seem to have burned out sometime around SDI.
Xenon? I love that game!
Titan is the only moon in our solar system with a thick atmosphere. It is believed it may be similar to that of Earth's millions of years ago.
Not to mention the little guys with the Masters on their backs... Luckily, though, they don't breathe oxygen, so we're safe from them if we go to Titan.
Now, if they come here, that's a different story.
I thought the problem with getting instellar journey times down to a few years or decades had everything to do with the speed of light and very little to do with anything else?
*sigh* Time for bed.
I had to read your post three times before I placed the lyrics, and then I had to read it three MORE times to figure out how it was relevant.
I must be sleepy. There's no other explanation.
You know, that is probably the most insightful post regarding religion I've ever read. :)
Generally speaking, though, most people I've known who've been raised in a hard core religious environment suffered lots of abuse. I wouldn't blame the religion, it's just as stupid as those freaks in the '80s that said that kids that played Dungeons and Dragons committed suicide, and of course it was TSR's fault. Same logic, just applied differently. Having been on one side of that logic for so long (also a metalhead, the devil's music you know), thank you for pointing out that our side isn't always right either. :)
Dude, I'm not a lawyer, but I read about your stuff, and it looks like you really screwed up. Sorry. :(
Not sure if it's really covered by Fair Use doctrine, although I tend to agree that it should. I wonder if I'll get a cease and desist letter because I posted a cover of Anarchy in the UK on my own site? (It's not that good, but I have heard some tell me they like it better than the original) At least in my case I can say I performed it, and since I don't make any money off it there's no royalty required. :)
There is a supermarket chain called "Wegmans" in New York, and a supermarket chain called "Schwegmans" in Louisiana.
Makes me want to open up a supermarket in Washington called "Smegmans"
YOU could have watched Pulp Fiction and laughed with the rest of us, asshole.
In that case, I owe you thanks. :) With any luck, the mods will up your correction, but since you capitalized 'abridged' in your subject line, and you won't get modded down, I think people will manage to see it.
Maybe next time I decide to quote the constitution, I'll spend the 3 seconds googling to get the right quote. ;)
Hmm, while we're nit-picking...
I actually memorized the Bill of Rights, but that was something like 15 years ago.
Also, Article I of the constitution is NOT the first amendment. It's the first article, the one that appears after the preamble. Too often we focus on the Bill of Rights and forget that the constitution is a long document, and the Bill of Rights is just the first appendix, essentially.
I may not be too hot on the actual phrasing of individual passages in the constitution these days, but you'll be hard pressed to find someone outside the field of law who has studied it more than I have. ;) Not to toot my own horn, or anything...
In any case, while my paraphrasing of something I memorized 15 years ago was wrong, I don't see how it changes the message of my post. :)
I think I know what you were trying to say. You just got to be the unlucky victim when I pointed out the particular flaw in the reasoning. Or rather, the danger.
See, it's one thing to acknowledge the internet and it's influence and try to work with it. It's another thing to acknowledge the internet and it's influence and try to fight it. I suspect you were suggesting the former, but I attacked the latter. No harm meant, you're probably just the unlucky victim, but I generally find at least one post like yours and attack, because the internet is the next thing.
The way I figure it, the bottleneck on human advancement at the end of the last century was the speed of knowledge, so to speak. How fast we can share information, how well we sort it, and how easily we can recall it. That's why search technology is so damned important. It's also why the internet was inevitable and it's not going away. The sooner we learn that and move on, the better. I'm not trying to say that change isn't needed. Revolution implies change, and some would say it requires change.
I guess I'm done. :)
The #1 problem with Democracy is the same problem with your post. :)
Change always starts in a minority, for better or for worse. The American Revolution was led by a minority, and there were many colonists who opposed it. Many more were indifferent as long as it didn't hurt business. But when it comes down to it, all change starts in a minority, and when you allow the majority to decide what's acceptable, you block out change. Which leads to decline.
Heh, normally I don't grammar nazi my way around, I just found that particular mistake amusing, so I mentioned it. :) I failed to make the kind of joke I was trying to make, but I think my intent was clear, anyway.
If you're gonna screw up, at least screw up in a way that's funny, I say. ;)
Believe it or not, I was actually hoping to get modded funny for posting a goatse link. Oh well.
The US Bill of Rights does not "allow" you any rights. It recognizes specific rights that are never to be taken away.
NOt entirely true. It spells out a few rights, then says that any rights not spelled out there and not expressly delegated to the government are reserved by the states.
Personally, I'm a big fan of States' rights. Problem is, the Civil War taught us that states have no rights. So it's been over a hundred years since we needed a new constitution. :(
I thought it was your ass.
discriminatory manor
Aha! What is this 'discriminatory manor'? Is it like a house that shoots people that aren't the same color as the owner? Or is it just a house that yells "nigger" everytime someone darker than a certain shade walks past?
Most users browse at +1 or higher, so anything moderated below that is effectively censored (ACs have a default score of 0, but they choose to post at that level).
And who decides what score a post gets? The moderators, that's who! I chose not to moderate, because I prefer not to judge, but I do metamoderate some. I meta-mod friends and fans up, and that's it. Other than that, well, it's beside the point. :)
The point is, slashdot itself doesn't decide what to mod each post as, and osdn doesn't decide either. Occasionally something happens that appears to be slashdot editors censoring people through the mod system, but it's always controversial, and usually can go both ways depending on your point of view. In any case, the readers are the ones who decide, and it's very democratic.
I think Hamilton and company would have approved.
Convenient link provided
Have a nice day!
Yeah yeah yeah. Courts come out with a lot of asenine decisions, don't they? Does not make it right. Those decisions fly right in the face of hundreds of years of jurisprudence and are from the so-called 'activist' courts which are results oriented rather than letter of the law and precedent oriented.
In a world where public gathering places like shopping malls aren't recognized as public gathering places, then whoever controls the public gathering places controls speech. Do you *really* want a collection of corporations whose sole purpose in life is to increase stock value to be the ones who decide what is spoken, and where?
Generally speaking, I'm on the side of the private owner of something. Individual shops in the mall, for example. To the extent that someone is speaking in a fashion that disrupts their business. For example, someone standing just inside the door telling everyone who comes in all about how evil abortions are. That's what is referred to as "public nuisance". :) In the shop owner's case, that's someone getting political and possibly scaring away potential business. Worse, by doing nothing about it, the shop will be determined to be anti-abortion, and the pro-lifers will scream boycott! So whether he wants to take a stand or not, he's got a serious problem on his hands. All he has to say is "you're disrupting my business. I'm not going to take a stand as a business on this issue because it's beyond the scope of my business. But you're disrupting my business." Sure, the same could be said about the mall itself, and I'll bet that the courts would ultimately decide that as long as someone's not disrupting business, they can spout their political agenda in the mall. Just like protesting with signs and crap outside the mall.
Anyway, point is, it does revolve somewhat on how strictly you interpret the constitution. The actual words are (quoted from memory :) ) :
Hm, I might have gotten them a little wrong. It's been awhile. Anyway, the sentence essentially means "Congress won't pass any laws banning speech". Says nothing of freedom of expression and so forth. Only talks about speech, and the intent was likely to have been not to prevent political speech, but to encourage it. Remember, the colonists had trouble with the King whenever they criticized him (say what you want, James II was a suck-ass King). The amendment doesn't even address corporations trying to control speech.
It's a fine line. I didn't RTFA, so I'm not trying to take a stand in relation to the article, just discuss the issue. :)
I agree with censorship when it is to protect someone, such as the president, or even to protect you or I from harm.
This is the ambiguity that causes the struggle surrounding censorship. What constitutes harm? Are you talking about yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater? Or are you talking about some kid reading a book called "365 ways to cook human flesh" when he's a kid and turning into a cannibal when he's older? What is "harm" exactly when you're talking about speech?
The issue is further complicated when you think that here in the US, most kids learn that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Censorship is the exact opposite of that statement that we all grow up with.
There are those who would prevent you from reading any material on any religion other than Christianity, because they fear for your soul. In their eyes, it is harmful to consider other religions as valid representations of reality because to do so could bar you from Jesus's august presence in your afterlife! So for them, using your statement, it's perfectly OK to ban the Torah, the Koran, the Satanic Bible, the Compleat Witch, anything on astrology, and anything that even remotely represents any of those books and any others in a positive light. Is that a world you want to live in?
As far as this whole online censorship deal in role-playing games, I don't think the government should get involved. If they really feel the need, then just rate them periodically, just like we have with movies, and let the parents decide. Or let the kids decide for themselves, if you must. If the government gets involved and starts telling us what we can and can't say in an online role-playing game, then we've got big trouble. But what about the corporations?
Consider this: Some Disney dude goes into Pixar and says "You can't use the word feces in this stupid cartoon, find a better word." Is that censorship? Or is it quality control? So Disney sets up an online gaming world. They tell the gamers "You can't use the word feces in this stupid online game, find a better word." Is that censorship? Disney tries to appeal to stupid kids (not smart kids) and stupid parents (not smart parents). If a bunch of h4xx0rs show up in their game and start saying "Fuck you!" to everyone they meet, then Disney can't sell their game to their target demographic anymore. So I say those h4xx0rz should go pick a different game, or a different server, or something.
The only time this becomes a real problem is when there's only one online gaming setup. And we deal with that through regular free market tactics, right? ;)
I say we get some standardized testing in place. If you don't know who the first president was, you are lacking important knowledge and the H.S. should not issue a degree. People complain about standardized testing, but education needs to be a science. And without some way to test your educational theory, you have no idea if it's accurate. I don't trust teachers and their theories, especially when the teachers have no way to their theories against those of other teachers. If you have a problem with a standardized test than change it, but to argue that we should abolish all measurement of progress seems rediculous.
Measuring the success of delivering an education is directly contrary to the goals of the politicians who hold the strings on the coinpurse of public education. Their goals are to get re-elected, and if they show lower drop-out rates and higher overall GPAs, people think they did great! Nevermind that we now have a generation of kids that can't read the freeway signs. I don't personally think our existing standardized test structures in the places I went to school are bad, just not good enough. Ultimately, I think the problem is much deeper, and much more insidious. If standardized test scores were the only way we measure the success of the education system, then I think most of the existing tests would satisfy that requirement and result in better-educated kids. Then we can make the tests harder... ;)
The problem is in the other metrics, that frequently have little or nothing to do with how well the education system itself did. High School drop-out rate has jack and shit to do with how good the teachers are. It has more to do with family than school, although I'll freely admit that school is a part of it. But I don't know a single drop-out (and I've known plenty) that dropped out because of anything any teacher did. My wife dropped out because she preferred to smoke pot and run around with 'gangstas'. She went back after we were married, and they basically said "You poor thing, here's your diploma". She still can't write, and while she can do quick math, she can't handle complex problems. So much for educaiton. (I love her anyway :) . Love doesn't require education)
Your point that you sort of addressed about the teachers, though, is dead-on. Too many different educational theories among the teachers, no standardization. So there's a drastic difference in how kids perform just from one teacher to another. I talked about a math teacher I had in High School that let me cheat the class because I learned the material damn well, maybe it was in a different thread. Anyway, he graduated the most kids with high grades than any other teacher in the school. His kids went on to outperform other kids in college math courses, at least the ones that went on. He's a great teacher, don't get me wrong. I would, of course, advocate standardizing on his methods. :) IN any case, the fact that there was such variance from his class to the others is testimony to all these different educational theories every teacher has. Why can't they just say "Well, this works, let's all do this for awhile." Then check their test scores and re-evaluate. Ultimately, how well we parents judge the school is going to be based on the aggregate of all the teachers' performance, one way or another, so it's in their best interests to get together and work something out.
Heh, I hope you get modded as funny. That was pretty entertaining.
I'd like to point out that locking up exams and so forth is healthy paranoia, because you *know* that some small percentage of students will go after it, given the opportunity. The ones that won't go after it, well, they don't need that stuff in the first place. That is the difference between what you're suggesting and what the article is about.
The article is about a rule that accuses every kid of cheating until proven otherwise, and on every single paper. You're talking about safety measures that are targetted at the cheaters only, and do not actually accuse anyone of anything. So, that's the difference.
Colleges have a duty to certify an education. If you're cheating, you should be kicked out of at least the class, if not the college. My degree means nothing if you got yours by cheating, so it's unfair to me.
I'd call into question the credibility of any degree from any university in which it was possible to acquire a degree by cheating. If you attend such a university, you should probably consider looking for a different one.
In any case, the real world is a cutthroat place, not the sedentary university environment, like it or not. It's sink or swim out here in the real world, and cheating will sink you. So you don't have to worry about the guy cheating, because you'll have his job and more.
Assuming, of course, that your university hasn't developed a reputation for graduating cheaters because it was too easy. Checking for cheaters isn't the way to solve this problem. Make the course work hard enough that you *gasp* actually have to learn the material to get a degree. The point of college, and high school for that matter, is to get an education. If you can get a degree without getting an education, then the college failed. It's a fact that those folks running the college don't want to face up to, if they resort to forcing students to run their papers through a website before they can be graded.
As I've indicated in other posts in this article, it's my opinion that High School is ultimately to blame for this. Millions of kids every year are graduating HIgh School without the ability to read, write, and do basic math. Many of those kids go on to college, somehow. High School should've filtered them out, or provided them enough of an education that they didn't need to seek college education to do their jobs. College is supposed to be a place you go to learn a specialization, the depth of knowledge of which is required by the field is beyond the scope of High School. That's the purpose of college. If kids have to go to college to finish their basic education, then HIgh School has failed.