THEY are hypocrites who want to profit from the systematic enslavement of you and if you aren't willing to tar and feather the !%$!@#!'ers out of town, you aren't American.
No, but you may be Indian, which is what this is about.
The democrats also said various things about Iraq that turned out to be just as wrong as the info the republicans were spewing.
Sure, whatever. To people not in the US it's utterly irrelevant. What we saw was a US government determined to have a war, that blocked all UN efforts at continuing peace (including the weapons inspection programs) on flimsy (at best) evidence from dubious sources.
Folks in the UK, a million of whom marched against war, then saw their government betray them by falling into lockstep with the US.
No, the Iraq war was a hilarious misadventure all around, and if any of the US government actually believed the falsehoods they were selling then they were morons. Liars or morons, take your pick, everyone else saw through it.
I'm saying we need to make the populations of the western powers realise just how fucking nasty war is, so they resist it as much as possible in future,
We have been entering into wars far too lightly.
Also this -
If it was Taliban folks pissing on American corpses, do you think for a moment that other members of the Taliban would say they're being inhumane and demand shutting down the war? No, they'd cheer.
Do you think so? Are they cold and dead to the core of their black hearts? Or do you think perhaps you have a cartoon villain picture in that head of yours?
Without a doubt they are screwed up terribly, and have encouraged and perpetrated atrocities against their own and other people, but I'm not sure I'd jump to the conclusions you're jumping to. Besides which, and I'm getting tired of saying this, aren't we supposed to be better than them?
The fact that these things happen with mind-numbing regularity has never served to prevent anyone from going to war.
No, but we can hope that as these things become more public we will realise that, this being part of war, war is a dreadful thing. War should not be entered gladly.
And the problem with the Afghanistan and Iraq situations is that the people of these countries are not supposed to be enemies! That's why you don't behave like an animal in their country, because you're allegedly there simply because you love them so damned much.
No they aren't. Americans suffer from 'presenteeism', people coming to work for more hours than is necessary and achieving no more than folks working half the time in other countries. It's a sickness. It puts appearance over output and it does nobody any real good.
As an example - I work for a huge multinational. A couple of years back several thousand Americans were laid off, while the workforce was held static in Europe and Australia, despite the generally higher costs in these places.
Of course other people here can do my job, we're all C programmers. If one of us goes on vacation then productivity in the department drops a little for the week or two. If there's some sort of crisis situation then the other 15 can pick up a little extra, on a temporary basis. That doesn't demonstrate that we could cut out that person's effort entirely.
I now work for a city government. I work 40 hours and get vacation. And for the record, yes, I do work hard. Time. Everything as about time.
In the UK I worked 37 hours a week and had five weeks paid vacation. In Australia I work 37 hour weeks and have 4 weeks paid vacation. In both countries I was allowed to 'buy' an extra week if I wanted.
I also work hard, the fact that your working conditions are the exception, not the rule, is the number one factor I would never even consider working in the US.
I didn't know much math or logic when I started fooling around with my C64 when I was a kid, didn't stop me enjoying it and making things that amused me.
History? Aside from a few key events (and even those are pretty vague), nothing. Geography? Again, not much. Languages? If you mean foreign languages, nothing (wasn't interested, and the classes weren't very good, anyway). Literature? Again, not much. Maybe I just have an awful memory, but it seems to be this way for everyone that I know (and they came from various schools).
Resent? I view it as a waste of time, but I feel nothing about it.
Wow, ok, so you really don't value any sort of general education, and you do value your ignorance. Just, wow.
I'll manage. I'm sure you manage being ignorant about a lot of things that you don't (and likely won't) use.
I use my grounding in languages when I come across them, to interpret words in the European languages I can still read, give me an idea of those I can't and give me an insight into the origins of the language I speak. I use my grounding in history to put the news I hear into historical context and better understand the world around me. I use my grounding in geography to understand natural features and the different countries of the world.
etc.
All of these help me every day of my life and make me a better, more knowledgeable person with more insight into the myriad facets of my world. I value the study of a wide range of subjects very highly, even those that I didn't follow to a higher level.
I thought it would be clear by now that I disagree with much of the current public education system. I don't see why there can't be electives. I also thought it was clear that I disagree with this as a mandatory class. You keep bringing up with the fact that they're ten years old, but I do not care. I think it should wait until high school, and be an optional class. The original post was about how it shouldn't be mandatory. I agree with that.
That post, and you, are pretty much wrong in the context of modern education systems (which you probably don't care about). That's fine. Personally I'm glad you don't get a say.
I've already said that I think that early on, they should be taught the essentials, and then in high school, they choose what to do. By essentials, I mean things that most people will use.
Most people won't directly use anything they learned in school except to read and write and add up. We could teach them that in a year.
OTOH most people use computers, by introducing basic computer programming the minister hopes that many more people will use this knowledge, even if they don't go on to study it further or get employed in the sector, the knowledge will help them the same way other knowledge in a broad-based educational system helps them.
I do not understand the objection to this *in the context of a broad education system*. The OP was objecting to this specific change (and was wrong) .
Further to this, objecting to this *specific* change is irrational if you really disagree with the entire system.
Only if it's not used by the majority.
So you really only believe in vocational training? Fine, let's drop everything past addition and subtraction. Kids can research and choose on their own if they want to do algebra, or division, who needs to do division every day?
Seriously, you're arguing for a nation of ill-educated morons. Let me guess - do you support the abolition of child labour laws too?
As I've said before, if they don't use it and don't care about it, it's unlikely that they'll remember it to begin with. Or, at least, that's the case with me and everyone that I know.
So you remember nothing of history, geography, languages, literature or anything else? And you resent being forced to study them?
Fair enough. Enjoy your ignorance.
Then they can do their own research. Again, I disagree with the fact that classes are being forced upon people when most people aren't going to use the knowledge just because people aren't sure if they are interested in the material.
THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER 10 YEAR OLD KIDS ARE UNSURE OF ANYTHING.
How many fukkin times?
It's about giving people a grounding in essential subjects which, sure, can enable them to make choices later on, but is valid in its own right.
If they really want to find their desired subject, then another alternative would be to take all of the usual classes.
They're 10, they don't get electives, they get given a broad knowledge base to work from that educators feel is useful. I get it ok, you disagree with teaching kids anything they haven't researched and come to demand for themselves.
How much research did you do into your own education when you were 10?
Forcing everyone to take classes just because they're unsure of what to do is not how I think things should work.
But it's not just because they're unsure, it's because we think it's useful to everyone to have at least some grounding in all of these things, not just basic arithmetic and reading/writing.
It's also because without a good depth of study (a class or two per week for a year or two before kids choose their subjects to carry on with) it's very hard to know if someone's interested in the subject or has the ability to carry on with it.
Either way, you and I fundamentally disagree on the nature of education systems, talking about computer classes in particular is not useful.
Forcing everyone to take classes just because they're unsure of what to do is not how I think things should work.
But it's not just because they're unsure, it's because we think it's useful to everyone to have at least some grounding in all of these things, not just basic arithmetic and reading/writing.
It's also because without a good depth of study (a class or two per week for a year or two before kids choose their subjects to carry on with) it's very hard to know if someone's interested in the subject or has the ability to carry on with it.
Either way, you and I fundamentally disagree on the nature of education systems, talking about computer classes in particular is not useful.
If you mean a "wide, forced general education for the young," then yes..... Above, I said that simpler things (basic math, etc) should be taught earlier on.
Then you disagree with the entire system of education in the UK.
In high school, you should (more or less) be able to choose what you want to do, aside from a few things that most everyone will need.
Indeed, and that is how it works.
I think this class should be available in high school, but optional.
It is.
What you miss out on is the period before specialisation, where kids are given education in a wide range, yes of mandatory subjects, so they get both a basic grounding in things we consider important in the world (geography, history, languages, and now technology), before they choose the direction they're going to take.
Again, if you disagree with that you disagree with the philosophy behind British education. TFA is simply about recognising that computers are now a major part of the world we live in, and that the current pre-specialisation classes are inadequate.
But I'm sorry, that's the best they're going to get. They can do their own research, or if they feel it's the slightest bit interesting to them (or if they're curious), they can take the classes. This really isn't enough of a reason for me to say that people should be forced to take these classes just because some people are uncertain or ignorant.
Then you disagree with the idea of a wide, general education for the young, which I said several posts up. If you disagree with this fundamental then we have no common ground to argue from and this conversation is pointless.
Obviously not what I'm talking about. I think it should be obvious that I disagree with this decision.
It's obvious you disagree with something, but it seems to be the entire idea of teaching kids a variety of fields and skills, in favour of having very narrow, self selected learning for 10 year olds!
I thought I've already answered something similar? "Not that difficult, really. Informing someone of the existence of something doesn't require forcing them to take a mandatory class (not even to show them what it's like). Not to mention that that could be said about anything."
You did, but the answer is inadequate.
Hey kids - look! Physics! Is not anywhere near adequate to introduce kids to it properly, you need a couple of years.
I'm mainly talking about high-school, by the way.
Then you're an idiot because TFA is talking about much younger kids.
I don't believe I've revealed any such thing. I believe all I've revealed is the fact that I'm against mandatory classes that teach subjects that the majority of people won't use. If they want to take them, then the classes should be there for them to take (optional).
And yet if we don't introduce kids to these things, how will they get a taste of them and know if they want to learn?
If I hadn't had physics, mathematics and chemistry classes when I was younger, how would I have known to take the option when a little older?
And we're talking about kids aged around 10-12 years old here, they don't tend to be doing electives at that time either (but they are studying trigonometry!)
Earlier than this age why are children being taught anything about computers really?
Because they're all around them, and the kids are likely using them already.
Especially if the person teaching it is going to dumb it all down to the point where the student has to be untaught later on.
Why would anything have to be untaught? Learning languages and frameworks aren't really like teaching kids about fundamental particles and then later having to explain wave/particle duality and probability clouds, IMHO.
I wasn't suggesting CMOS. But boolean algebra should be step 1 no matter where you go. AND and OR and NOT gates don't require knowing CMOS, but are fundamental concepts probably worth knowing before you even do "Hello World".
I respectfully disagree.
Sure, it becomes part of it when you teach the *why* of it, but a hands on intro is going to get far more kids actually interested. Basic chemistry was much the same. Do some experiments on iron and sulphur, then heat them together to get a reaction and repeat the experiments. Afterwards we'll talk about why and how.
Educate the students instead of just churning out a labor force, and just like all other subjects this means learning stuff that may never actually be used in later life.
I absolutely agree, but I disagree with your way to get there. Starting out computer science as a dry, boring, theoretical subject is the best possible way to turn kids off it.
1) Equating the moving of a few things round a screen in an educational language with "advanced math" is just flat-out wrong.
What?
"Advanced Math" is in no way equivalent to a few logic puzzles and some animation using a teaching language/toolkit, as has been suggested.
Logarithmic regressions, partial differentiation, complex factorisation and fourier transforms (for example) are an order of magnitude more difficult than drawing a circle on the screen.
I agree. Why not just leave them ignorant of those subjects (unless they need them/want to take them)?
Oh dear, I was hoping to shame you into seeing my point, instead you've basically revealed that you don't believe in education. It's pretty pointless discussing this further with you.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but you may be Indian, which is what this is about.
It's not always about America!
LOL @ snopes link.
The democrats also said various things about Iraq that turned out to be just as wrong as the info the republicans were spewing.
Sure, whatever. To people not in the US it's utterly irrelevant. What we saw was a US government determined to have a war, that blocked all UN efforts at continuing peace (including the weapons inspection programs) on flimsy (at best) evidence from dubious sources.
Folks in the UK, a million of whom marched against war, then saw their government betray them by falling into lockstep with the US.
No, the Iraq war was a hilarious misadventure all around, and if any of the US government actually believed the falsehoods they were selling then they were morons. Liars or morons, take your pick, everyone else saw through it.
I was going to argue with you, then I read the other responses to your comment. Sorry you have to put up with that.
OTOH I don't think the sorts of assholes that rage about the intellectual credentials of a dead 16 year old are picky about gender.
You're sure it's one loonie and not a whole community of people who hate you?
Because you are a bit of an asshole...
Who's demanding shutting down anything?
I'm saying we need to make the populations of the western powers realise just how fucking nasty war is, so they resist it as much as possible in future,
We have been entering into wars far too lightly.
Also this -
Do you think so? Are they cold and dead to the core of their black hearts? Or do you think perhaps you have a cartoon villain picture in that head of yours?
Without a doubt they are screwed up terribly, and have encouraged and perpetrated atrocities against their own and other people, but I'm not sure I'd jump to the conclusions you're jumping to. Besides which, and I'm getting tired of saying this, aren't we supposed to be better than them?
No, but we can hope that as these things become more public we will realise that, this being part of war, war is a dreadful thing. War should not be entered gladly.
My kingdom for a mod point.
The problem is that you have enemies.
And the problem with the Afghanistan and Iraq situations is that the people of these countries are not supposed to be enemies! That's why you don't behave like an animal in their country, because you're allegedly there simply because you love them so damned much.
Page not found :(
Not that I was seriously going to build one, but I may like to read about it.
I'll just stop you there.
No they aren't. Americans suffer from 'presenteeism', people coming to work for more hours than is necessary and achieving no more than folks working half the time in other countries. It's a sickness. It puts appearance over output and it does nobody any real good.
As an example - I work for a huge multinational. A couple of years back several thousand Americans were laid off, while the workforce was held static in Europe and Australia, despite the generally higher costs in these places.
No, that's bullshit.
Of course other people here can do my job, we're all C programmers. If one of us goes on vacation then productivity in the department drops a little for the week or two. If there's some sort of crisis situation then the other 15 can pick up a little extra, on a temporary basis. That doesn't demonstrate that we could cut out that person's effort entirely.
In the UK I worked 37 hours a week and had five weeks paid vacation.
In Australia I work 37 hour weeks and have 4 weeks paid vacation.
In both countries I was allowed to 'buy' an extra week if I wanted.
I also work hard, the fact that your working conditions are the exception, not the rule, is the number one factor I would never even consider working in the US.
Do you work in a heroin factory or something?
I know people that get varying degrees of satisfaction from what they do, but I've never even heard of that sort of behaviour before.
I didn't know much math or logic when I started fooling around with my C64 when I was a kid, didn't stop me enjoying it and making things that amused me.
Wow, ok, so you really don't value any sort of general education, and you do value your ignorance. Just, wow.
I use my grounding in languages when I come across them, to interpret words in the European languages I can still read, give me an idea of those I can't and give me an insight into the origins of the language I speak.
I use my grounding in history to put the news I hear into historical context and better understand the world around me.
I use my grounding in geography to understand natural features and the different countries of the world.
etc.
All of these help me every day of my life and make me a better, more knowledgeable person with more insight into the myriad facets of my world. I value the study of a wide range of subjects very highly, even those that I didn't follow to a higher level.
That post, and you, are pretty much wrong in the context of modern education systems (which you probably don't care about). That's fine. Personally I'm glad you don't get a say.
Most people won't directly use anything they learned in school except to read and write and add up. We could teach them that in a year.
OTOH most people use computers, by introducing basic computer programming the minister hopes that many more people will use this knowledge, even if they don't go on to study it further or get employed in the sector, the knowledge will help them the same way other knowledge in a broad-based educational system helps them.
I do not understand the objection to this *in the context of a broad education system*. The OP was objecting to this specific change (and was wrong) .
Further to this, objecting to this *specific* change is irrational if you really disagree with the entire system.
So you really only believe in vocational training? Fine, let's drop everything past addition and subtraction. Kids can research and choose on their own if they want to do algebra, or division, who needs to do division every day?
Seriously, you're arguing for a nation of ill-educated morons. Let me guess - do you support the abolition of child labour laws too?
There's not much English countryside left south of Manchester is there?
And I've never been north of Manchester...
So you remember nothing of history, geography, languages, literature or anything else? And you resent being forced to study them?
Fair enough. Enjoy your ignorance.
THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER 10 YEAR OLD KIDS ARE UNSURE OF ANYTHING.
How many fukkin times?
It's about giving people a grounding in essential subjects which, sure, can enable them to make choices later on, but is valid in its own right.
They're 10, they don't get electives, they get given a broad knowledge base to work from that educators feel is useful. I get it ok, you disagree with teaching kids anything they haven't researched and come to demand for themselves.
How much research did you do into your own education when you were 10?
Eeek, bad formatting. Let's try again
But it's not just because they're unsure, it's because we think it's useful to everyone to have at least some grounding in all of these things, not just basic arithmetic and reading/writing.
It's also because without a good depth of study (a class or two per week for a year or two before kids choose their subjects to carry on with) it's very hard to know if someone's interested in the subject or has the ability to carry on with it.
Either way, you and I fundamentally disagree on the nature of education systems, talking about computer classes in particular is not useful.
If you mean a "wide, forced general education for the young," then yes. ....
Above, I said that simpler things (basic math, etc) should be taught earlier on.
Then you disagree with the entire system of education in the UK.
Indeed, and that is how it works.
It is.
What you miss out on is the period before specialisation, where kids are given education in a wide range, yes of mandatory subjects, so they get both a basic grounding in things we consider important in the world (geography, history, languages, and now technology), before they choose the direction they're going to take.
Again, if you disagree with that you disagree with the philosophy behind British education. TFA is simply about recognising that computers are now a major part of the world we live in, and that the current pre-specialisation classes are inadequate.
Then you disagree with the idea of a wide, general education for the young, which I said several posts up. If you disagree with this fundamental then we have no common ground to argue from and this conversation is pointless.
It's obvious you disagree with something, but it seems to be the entire idea of teaching kids a variety of fields and skills, in favour of having very narrow, self selected learning for 10 year olds!
You did, but the answer is inadequate.
Hey kids - look! Physics! Is not anywhere near adequate to introduce kids to it properly, you need a couple of years.
Then you're an idiot because TFA is talking about much younger kids.
And yet if we don't introduce kids to these things, how will they get a taste of them and know if they want to learn?
If I hadn't had physics, mathematics and chemistry classes when I was younger, how would I have known to take the option when a little older?
And we're talking about kids aged around 10-12 years old here, they don't tend to be doing electives at that time either (but they are studying trigonometry!)
Because they're all around them, and the kids are likely using them already.
Why would anything have to be untaught? Learning languages and frameworks aren't really like teaching kids about fundamental particles and then later having to explain wave/particle duality and probability clouds, IMHO.
I respectfully disagree.
Sure, it becomes part of it when you teach the *why* of it, but a hands on intro is going to get far more kids actually interested. Basic chemistry was much the same. Do some experiments on iron and sulphur, then heat them together to get a reaction and repeat the experiments. Afterwards we'll talk about why and how.
I absolutely agree, but I disagree with your way to get there. Starting out computer science as a dry, boring, theoretical subject is the best possible way to turn kids off it.
"Advanced Math" is in no way equivalent to a few logic puzzles and some animation using a teaching language/toolkit, as has been suggested.
Logarithmic regressions, partial differentiation, complex factorisation and fourier transforms (for example) are an order of magnitude more difficult than drawing a circle on the screen.
Oh dear, I was hoping to shame you into seeing my point, instead you've basically revealed that you don't believe in education. It's pretty pointless discussing this further with you.
No, it really doesn't.
That's what the formal GCSE and A-Level courses are for, this is an intro into IT and some basic programming fits in there nicely.
Boring 11 year-olds with explanations of CMOS is not a great place to start.