If you are in college then you're free to pay as much or as little attention as you want. No professor should be policing your activities so long as you aren't interfering with anyone elses ability to learn.
In a middle or high school the teachers supposedly have a greater responsibility to force you to learn. To that end locking down the PCs to some degree is beneficial. Even if it just requires a little effort to bypass it reduces the amount of policing that needs to be done by the teachers so that INSTEAD OF POLICING the kids the teachers can be educating them.
Am I the only one that thinks that everything in the classroom should attempt to make it easier to educate the kids instead of providing a greater variety of ways for them to avoid paying attention?
#33 I misread debt for deficit and so chose the wrong answer. #30 I missed due to apparent philosophical differences. I don't think increasing GOVERNMENT spending is a good way to stimulate the economy. #7 I missed because my historical speech/document memory is incredibly horrible. #13 for the same reason as #7. I simply have a difficult time equating people with their statements/speeches unless I've just recently been exposed to them. #8 I missed because I had never read anything about it and was under the impression that no Supreme Court justices were up for appointment at that time.
What's the point of having computers in the class rooms if 80% of the time the students aren't doing anything at all with them? Assuming you have the students turn and face you while you are lecturing, then once the assignment starts you roam from desk to desk there are still large blocks of time where 25/30 students are technically unsupervised. When I was in lab classes in school it was trivially easy to conceal my activities from supervising teachers even when they stood behind me for long periods of time. The teacher should be able to concentrate on TEACHING, not scurrying around making sure no student is doing anything inappropriate.
I got an 84.85% I missed the following: Question #7 - D. Gettysburg Address Question #8 - C. appoint additional Supreme Court justices who shared his views Question #13 - E. certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason Question #30 - C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending Question #33 - D. tax per person equals government spending per person
Considering that I have a terrible memory and most of the things on that quiz I haven't thought about in over a decade I find it unacceptable for anyone to score lower.
You clearly have never attempted to teach a group of people anything. Yes, if you are simply monitoring them then that works just fine. But a 30 person horseshoe is a pretty big area to cover and if at the same time you have to present your material in some fashion then you are splitting your attention 31 ways. That ADDS COMPLEXITY to the task for no good reason when a technological solution exists. Whitelisting and generally locking down of the PCs so that they do only what they need to do.
When my fiance was a teacher a big issue was school supplies, namely paper. Whenever she wanted to print something up for the kids she had to be careful about how much paper she used be cause she only had so much per year. Computers allow for paperless projects as one of the benefits. Create a worksheet, send it to each desktop have the kids fill it out and send it back.
30 students, 1 teacher. It is simply not possible for 1 person to continually monitor the actions of 30 people while still teaching anything. Physical impossibility. Computers in the classroom should help teachers do their jobs, not add more complexity to an already complex and thankless task.
I like how everyone who disagrees with you on any topic is filled with bias, while you are the one true observer. It's cute.
And to tag team this post as a reply to Csartanis below me: You'll notice that TFA quotes Susan Prouty, a former client of Ms. Drew who may or may not be reliable, have an axe to grind etc... Her testimony will come under examination soon enough. I still think that based on the actual evidence available that Ms. Drew is not the one who should be punished for this. If new evidence comes to light or the witness testimony is corroborated and validated then my opinion may change.
Maybe you should make sure you're putting the correct person on trial here. "The Woman" who actually typed the messages and talked the girl into killing herself is immune from prosecution because she agreed to testify against Lori Drew. Ms. Drew was not the originator of any of the messages from the fictional boy to the girl. Examining the available facts indicates that this was an activity which Ms. Drew's assistant and daughter engaged in.
You know, I remember a time when FidoNET was "The Net" and legions of individuals ran servers in their homes.
It's entirely possible to return to that in a highspeed manner. I've got wireless radios, I've got cantennae. I'm fairly certain that with a little bit of work I could get a gigantic wireless mesh network with SID of "TheInternet" put together in the city I work in. We would lose some commercial content, but I think plenty of people would be willing and able to mirror things onto our new internet from their uncapped connections to the commercial internet.
I can see some problems with oversease connections, but not ones that are insurmountable.
There's not really any way for "The Government" to screw with "the internet", we can always move it.
You imply that occasional irrational market swings are inherently undesirable. I don't agree.
Market fluxuations of that nature are not in and of themselves destructive. They can be opportunities for people to become wealthy, or they can not affect you at all. Or they can bankrupt you. There is ALWAYS risk in a free market.
The relevant sections are from the 1992 legislative changes.
While this was not the sole cause of the financial collapse it was definitely a one of the largest. It led directly to the securitization of those mortgages and the improper rating of them. Which led to people willing to insure those securities which normally would not have. It also led to things like school districts and city municipalities investing their money into those securities because they were improperly rated because they were generated by companies that were ostensibly backed by the Feds.
So yes, that particular piece of federal regulation contributed heavily to the financial issues we are currently facing.
Impairment is why DOING THINGS under the influence is illegal. For example, getting doped up on cough syrup and tylenol PM, both of which are totally legal, and driving around town will get you in serious trouble. That makes perfect sense, I'm endangering other people.
But doing a line of coke and throwing beer bottles against the side of my house isn't endangering anyone but myself, yet will get me in at least as much trouble.
The action that should result in punishment is the one that endangers other people or infringes on their rights. Drinking a bottle of Nyquil and doing a line of coke are equally infringing (which is to say not at all) and should be equally legal or illegal.
You may not need 9oz of meat a day, but I require 4000 plus calories to maintain my weight at 140lbs at my current activity level. And since my weight goal is 155lbs I'm looking at over 5k calories a day if I want to stay in shape. Show me 5k calories worth of vegetables...
Numbers are courtesy of MY ASS. And serve only to demonstrate that it is entirely possible to get usable electricity out of garbage without breaking any laws of physics.
Well, it could be "not sane" because said person drives their Humvee into the side of random red cars and kills people, whearas a believe in angles rarely results in me swinging a baseball bat around a crowded subway trying to swat them....
If their belief that they are being stalked doesn't appear to harm anyone else then they are welcome to believe anything they want. But if they start attacking the people they think are persecuting them then there is a problem.
Only to the point at which the harm to the environment becomes a burden on humanity. Existence is going to "harm" the environment to some degree or other. Is the benefit of a meat based diet worth the level of "harm" that it requires to the environment? Well, since there is a good amount of evidence linking increased brain capacity and intelligence to the increased amount of meat in our diets over the last few hundred years then I would say yes. And quite frankly most of my meat comes from pigs, goats, and rabbits raised on less than 5 acres of farmland. Those 5 acres provide more than enough meat to feed 7+ people. In fact, we could probably feed twice that many with no trouble. If we wanted to replace our pasture with corn or carrots or something we would first have to cut down all of the forestland that our goats currently graze on, then till it up and destroy the native vegetation, then replace it with whatever genetically engineered Mosanto seeds can be bought on the market, then dump fertilizer all over it, etc... etc...
There are plenty of people and plenty of ways to have an environmentally friendly meat based diet. Estate Farming, look into it.
All it really takes is for people to realize that creationism could be 100% correct and it still WOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER because the observable world matches Evolutionary Theory and that's all we really care about.
I'm one of the rare people that believes that there is a God, that He created the universe and everything in it, and that evolution is 100% correct. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas and in fact they never need to even be involved with each other. I can even maintain that belief while asserting my continued faith in the Big Bang theory as well.
The two have nothing to do with each other and the sooner that fanatical anti-intellectual Christians GTFO out scientific endeavor and stop treating Scientists like "The Enemy" the better off everyone will be.
For fucks sake. They don't have to get out more energy than they put in damnit. They are putting in TONS OF GARBAGE. They are liberating a percentage of the energy that went into CREATING THAT GARBAGE. So while they might feed in the equivelant of 1000MW of electricity in garbage and only get back 100MW of usable electricity that they can send over the grid it's STILL an energy "profit" because otherwise the garbage will just slowly liberate its energy as it rots. This does not have to violate the laws of thermodynamics to be an awesome and profitable way to get energy from garbage.
And yet somehow 1lb of steak has so many more calories than 1lb of carrots.
So yes, while I might only be getting a fraction of the calorie content of the 100lbs of veggie matter that it took to make my 1lb steak, I'm still getting more than if I ate an equivalent amount of veggie matter. And since I'm not capable of eating more than about 2 lbs of food at a time, even when I'm trying really hard. I'm better off letting the Cow do the harvesting and processing for me and then getting the condensed calorie load of a delicious steak.
Food is not the only factor. Do you know how much waste is produced by 350 million people? Imagine 10 times that. And I don't mean soda cans and candy wrappers.
Well to be honest there are about 15 stories contained in the series. If you made a movie of Just the most interesting story (That would be Matrim Cauthon for those of you who didn't read the books, not the main character Rand Al'Thor who is a whiny dipshit) you could knock it down to a good trilogy. In fact, since Mat is the one who is supposed to blow the Horn of Valere you could do the whole thing with him as the Hero and have him blow the horn and fight the last battle without ever even involving Rand and his self pitying bullshit.
He's also the character that takes the least shit from the overly controlling and obnoxious female characters in the series since for the majority of the series he's immune to most forms of magic.
You could make a decent single movie about Perrin as long as you concentrated primarily on him meeting Faile and returning to defend the Two Rivers.
And you could probably get one movie out of Rand if you cut out all of his whiny bullshit. If you kept the whining in you could get 4 movies....
Slashdot Mirror
If you are in college then you're free to pay as much or as little attention as you want. No professor should be policing your activities so long as you aren't interfering with anyone elses ability to learn.
In a middle or high school the teachers supposedly have a greater responsibility to force you to learn. To that end locking down the PCs to some degree is beneficial. Even if it just requires a little effort to bypass it reduces the amount of policing that needs to be done by the teachers so that INSTEAD OF POLICING the kids the teachers can be educating them.
Am I the only one that thinks that everything in the classroom should attempt to make it easier to educate the kids instead of providing a greater variety of ways for them to avoid paying attention?
#33 I misread debt for deficit and so chose the wrong answer.
#30 I missed due to apparent philosophical differences. I don't think increasing GOVERNMENT spending is a good way to stimulate the economy.
#7 I missed because my historical speech/document memory is incredibly horrible.
#13 for the same reason as #7. I simply have a difficult time equating people with their statements/speeches unless I've just recently been exposed to them.
#8 I missed because I had never read anything about it and was under the impression that no Supreme Court justices were up for appointment at that time.
Frankly I would rather my government employees being doing their damned jobs instead of standing around doing photoshoots.
What's the point of having computers in the class rooms if 80% of the time the students aren't doing anything at all with them?
Assuming you have the students turn and face you while you are lecturing, then once the assignment starts you roam from desk to desk there are still large blocks of time where 25/30 students are technically unsupervised.
When I was in lab classes in school it was trivially easy to conceal my activities from supervising teachers even when they stood behind me for long periods of time.
The teacher should be able to concentrate on TEACHING, not scurrying around making sure no student is doing anything inappropriate.
I got an 84.85%
I missed the following:
Question #7 - D. Gettysburg Address
Question #8 - C. appoint additional Supreme Court justices who shared his views
Question #13 - E. certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason
Question #30 - C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending
Question #33 - D. tax per person equals government spending per person
Considering that I have a terrible memory and most of the things on that quiz I haven't thought about in over a decade I find it unacceptable for anyone to score lower.
You clearly have never attempted to teach a group of people anything.
Yes, if you are simply monitoring them then that works just fine. But a 30 person horseshoe is a pretty big area to cover and if at the same time you have to present your material in some fashion then you are splitting your attention 31 ways. That ADDS COMPLEXITY to the task for no good reason when a technological solution exists. Whitelisting and generally locking down of the PCs so that they do only what they need to do.
When my fiance was a teacher a big issue was school supplies, namely paper. Whenever she wanted to print something up for the kids she had to be careful about how much paper she used be cause she only had so much per year.
Computers allow for paperless projects as one of the benefits. Create a worksheet, send it to each desktop have the kids fill it out and send it back.
30 students, 1 teacher. It is simply not possible for 1 person to continually monitor the actions of 30 people while still teaching anything. Physical impossibility.
Computers in the classroom should help teachers do their jobs, not add more complexity to an already complex and thankless task.
Are we playing circular posting games now?
For response please reference http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1037825&cid=25848391
I like how everyone who disagrees with you on any topic is filled with bias, while you are the one true observer. It's cute.
And to tag team this post as a reply to Csartanis below me:
You'll notice that TFA quotes Susan Prouty, a former client of Ms. Drew who may or may not be reliable, have an axe to grind etc... Her testimony will come under examination soon enough. I still think that based on the actual evidence available that Ms. Drew is not the one who should be punished for this. If new evidence comes to light or the witness testimony is corroborated and validated then my opinion may change.
Maybe you should make sure you're putting the correct person on trial here.
"The Woman" who actually typed the messages and talked the girl into killing herself is immune from prosecution because she agreed to testify against Lori Drew. Ms. Drew was not the originator of any of the messages from the fictional boy to the girl.
Examining the available facts indicates that this was an activity which Ms. Drew's assistant and daughter engaged in.
You know, I remember a time when FidoNET was "The Net" and legions of individuals ran servers in their homes.
It's entirely possible to return to that in a highspeed manner.
I've got wireless radios, I've got cantennae. I'm fairly certain that with a little bit of work I could get a gigantic wireless mesh network with SID of "TheInternet" put together in the city I work in.
We would lose some commercial content, but I think plenty of people would be willing and able to mirror things onto our new internet from their uncapped connections to the commercial internet.
I can see some problems with oversease connections, but not ones that are insurmountable.
There's not really any way for "The Government" to screw with "the internet", we can always move it.
You imply that occasional irrational market swings are inherently undesirable. I don't agree.
Market fluxuations of that nature are not in and of themselves destructive. They can be opportunities for people to become wealthy, or they can not affect you at all. Or they can bankrupt you. There is ALWAYS risk in a free market.
They weren't?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Legislative_changes_1992
The relevant sections are from the 1992 legislative changes.
While this was not the sole cause of the financial collapse it was definitely a one of the largest. It led directly to the securitization of those mortgages and the improper rating of them. Which led to people willing to insure those securities which normally would not have. It also led to things like school districts and city municipalities investing their money into those securities because they were improperly rated because they were generated by companies that were ostensibly backed by the Feds.
So yes, that particular piece of federal regulation contributed heavily to the financial issues we are currently facing.
Impairment is why DOING THINGS under the influence is illegal. For example, getting doped up on cough syrup and tylenol PM, both of which are totally legal, and driving around town will get you in serious trouble.
That makes perfect sense, I'm endangering other people.
But doing a line of coke and throwing beer bottles against the side of my house isn't endangering anyone but myself, yet will get me in at least as much trouble.
The action that should result in punishment is the one that endangers other people or infringes on their rights.
Drinking a bottle of Nyquil and doing a line of coke are equally infringing (which is to say not at all) and should be equally legal or illegal.
That's 100% of the maximum possible output of the generator. Not 100% of the energy that comes into it being converted into electricity.
The words, they MEAN things.
You may not need 9oz of meat a day, but I require 4000 plus calories to maintain my weight at 140lbs at my current activity level. And since my weight goal is 155lbs I'm looking at over 5k calories a day if I want to stay in shape. Show me 5k calories worth of vegetables...
Numbers are courtesy of MY ASS. And serve only to demonstrate that it is entirely possible to get usable electricity out of garbage without breaking any laws of physics.
Well, it could be "not sane" because said person drives their Humvee into the side of random red cars and kills people, whearas a believe in angles rarely results in me swinging a baseball bat around a crowded subway trying to swat them....
If their belief that they are being stalked doesn't appear to harm anyone else then they are welcome to believe anything they want. But if they start attacking the people they think are persecuting them then there is a problem.
Only to the point at which the harm to the environment becomes a burden on humanity.
Existence is going to "harm" the environment to some degree or other. Is the benefit of a meat based diet worth the level of "harm" that it requires to the environment? Well, since there is a good amount of evidence linking increased brain capacity and intelligence to the increased amount of meat in our diets over the last few hundred years then I would say yes.
And quite frankly most of my meat comes from pigs, goats, and rabbits raised on less than 5 acres of farmland.
Those 5 acres provide more than enough meat to feed 7+ people.
In fact, we could probably feed twice that many with no trouble. If we wanted to replace our pasture with corn or carrots or something we would first have to cut down all of the forestland that our goats currently graze on, then till it up and destroy the native vegetation, then replace it with whatever genetically engineered Mosanto seeds can be bought on the market, then dump fertilizer all over it, etc... etc...
There are plenty of people and plenty of ways to have an environmentally friendly meat based diet. Estate Farming, look into it.
All it really takes is for people to realize that creationism could be 100% correct and it still WOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER because the observable world matches Evolutionary Theory and that's all we really care about.
I'm one of the rare people that believes that there is a God, that He created the universe and everything in it, and that evolution is 100% correct. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas and in fact they never need to even be involved with each other.
I can even maintain that belief while asserting my continued faith in the Big Bang theory as well.
The two have nothing to do with each other and the sooner that fanatical anti-intellectual Christians GTFO out scientific endeavor and stop treating Scientists like "The Enemy" the better off everyone will be.
For fucks sake. They don't have to get out more energy than they put in damnit.
They are putting in TONS OF GARBAGE. They are liberating a percentage of the energy that went into CREATING THAT GARBAGE. So while they might feed in the equivelant of 1000MW of electricity in garbage and only get back 100MW of usable electricity that they can send over the grid it's STILL an energy "profit" because otherwise the garbage will just slowly liberate its energy as it rots.
This does not have to violate the laws of thermodynamics to be an awesome and profitable way to get energy from garbage.
And yet somehow 1lb of steak has so many more calories than 1lb of carrots.
So yes, while I might only be getting a fraction of the calorie content of the 100lbs of veggie matter that it took to make my 1lb steak, I'm still getting more than if I ate an equivalent amount of veggie matter.
And since I'm not capable of eating more than about 2 lbs of food at a time, even when I'm trying really hard. I'm better off letting the Cow do the harvesting and processing for me and then getting the condensed calorie load of a delicious steak.
Food is not the only factor. Do you know how much waste is produced by 350 million people? Imagine 10 times that. And I don't mean soda cans and candy wrappers.
Well to be honest there are about 15 stories contained in the series. If you made a movie of Just the most interesting story (That would be Matrim Cauthon for those of you who didn't read the books, not the main character Rand Al'Thor who is a whiny dipshit) you could knock it down to a good trilogy.
In fact, since Mat is the one who is supposed to blow the Horn of Valere you could do the whole thing with him as the Hero and have him blow the horn and fight the last battle without ever even involving Rand and his self pitying bullshit.
He's also the character that takes the least shit from the overly controlling and obnoxious female characters in the series since for the majority of the series he's immune to most forms of magic.
You could make a decent single movie about Perrin as long as you concentrated primarily on him meeting Faile and returning to defend the Two Rivers.
And you could probably get one movie out of Rand if you cut out all of his whiny bullshit. If you kept the whining in you could get 4 movies....