Since I can't delete my account, I thought I'd let this be known in this forum on the slight chance that anyone would notice -- because if I've had enough, others probably have had enough, too. I've had enough of socialist geekboys who mod everything they disagree with as either Flamebait or Troll. It's not funny any longer. You simply can't take criticism even as you pretend that you are more mature than those you disagree with. Can't you see that that's just an extension of the masturbatory universe you've created for yourself? You act as if you were still 15, angry because no girls will touch your penis, nursing passive-aggressive tendencies, and rant that your political enemies are somehow beneath you.
And the best I can hope for in response from those of your ilk is a snarky, sarcastic, 21st century version of: "I know you are but what am I?!"
At least for me, I'll get my news elsewhere. What a rotten site this is sometimes.
It was an arm of the government, that very government that the Left wants to see grow bigger and Bigger and BIGGER every year, that refused to be compassionate and waive a fee in a time of distress.
And some of you want to blame the Right for this? Seriously, put the Kool-Aid down and open your eyes!
"This is a voice that has earned the right to be listened to."
The military earns this right by its members being killed or maimed to protect their country, while the academic left earns this right by publishing papers cloaked in double-talk, rousing their students to protest some issue that they've helped to blow out of proportion, and yelling at anyone who dares to disagree with their views, their opportunity for tenure, or their parking space privileges.
I mean no disrespect to parents trying to raise a child who legitimately has ADHD or to teachers trying to teach such a child, but the idea of:
1) Segregating students by age 2) Expecting them sit all day
may work for girls, but it doesn't work for boys. I can remember clearly my first grade teacher (in the late 70s) talking with another teacher about which of us were quiet (=good) and which were loud (=bad). And she went through _each student by name as we were forced to listen_. And guess who was good? Nearly all of the girls and a minority of boys, the ones who were quiet by disposition. Why? Because those of us who were normal didn't want to sit still and be quiet all day.
As for age segregation, if boys see older boys modeling good behavior, they tend to do so as well, either because they 'want to grow up to be like them' or they know they'll get smacked if they don't.
Now, take an extreme version of a 'bad' kid coupled with the willingness to drug said kid for the sake of classroom harmony, and you have an obvious explanation for this report.
I'm with you. It used to be the norm that there were vineyards as far north as Sweden. It seems that that will be the norm again soon. Our choices are to adapt or die, not to whine and go all 'Chicken Little' when faced with the unavoidable.
As someone with a degree in math, all I can say is... he's right! Numbers are like... ikcy! And there's so many of them! Why waste our time? Get the plastic out so we can order the complete "Twilight" on DVD. (Read?! As if!!)
Still, I'm glad I have these math books. If the power ever goes out, I'll need something to keep me warm besides the thought of Prince singing "Batdance".
But the politicians who promote universal (i.e., federally run) education and health-care send their kids to private schools and have their own separate, premium health-care system (which we pay for, BTW). Just from a practical POV, there's no way that any federal run [insert program name here] will be worth its while when those who run it are not on it.
And the politicians know that they are being hypocritical and don't care (R's and D's). That's the first counterargument I think of when someone wants the government to take over more services, because the situation is practically omnipresent now, but it's rarely mentioned. So, honestly, if we are going to talk about top-down systems, there has to be a way to force every government official to participate in what they create with the threat of losing their job (even if that means impeachment) for even once going outside the system they created. And since politicians would have to enforce that system, this too would end up unworkable.
(Sorry for the doom & gloom. If this were a pub, I'd buy the next round.)
1. I recently taught an upper-level undergraduate math course with an exceptionally bright female math major and an above-average male math major. For a while, they both did less work than they ought to have (and knew it -- they both had advanced Senioritis); but in the end, the male kicked in to a higher gear and earned a high B. The female did some triage just before the end and earned a low B. This, and similar situations, has made me wonder if females by-and-large react differently to work-related stress than males, i.e., the male will allow the pressure to motivate him, while the female will attempt to escape. If this is true (and I freely admit it may not be), the opposite may occur domestically. Personally, I'd rather spend a 12-hour day "at the office" than spend eight cooking, washing, cleaning, child wrangling, etc.
2. My wife worked at a company that was, indeed, sexist. There were multiple instances of this, although it was mostly irritating rather than soul-destroying. At one point when we were discussing whether she should move on, I asked what she wanted. "To be treated as one guy treats another", she replied. I responded, "Machiavelli wrote a book on how guys should treat each other 'in the workplace'. Is that really what you want?" That turned the lightbulb on. In the end, she made the correct call and left, but she was no longer suffering from the effects of wearing rose-tinted glasses. I would not be surprised (although, again, I could be flat out wrong about this) if one reason for what's being reported in TFA is that women just don't enjoy working in a social setting where male rules of interaction dominate. I can't say that I blame them at times. But the male perspective has its advantages -- I've worked with female professors who are unable to distinguish between students who should go forward and students who should be encouraged to change their major. This is especially an issue when a bad student is an elementary education major.
That I can see, but not Ancient History. Even speculative ancient history (e.g., why is there water erosion on the Sphinx?) is not a part of most Ancient History curricula.
This reminds me of the/. post a few days ago about those who are ignorant of science and proud to be so. This is how I think some of them might perceive this situation:
Last week, a Normal would have been told by Those Who Do Science that a neutrino has no mass, and that is the end of the matter. A non-physicist has nothing to contribute to the discussion. Persistent disagreement amounts to sheer ignorance, so keep quiet.
But now, it would appear that either neutrinos have mass or the Standard Model is wrong. Science has revealed its own ignorance. Everyone who was wrong last week is right this week. But the message to the Normals remains the same: it doesn't matter that we were wrong last week; eventually, We Who Do Science get it right. You still have nothing to say. Keep quiet.
The Normals perceive the above and conclude that it's hypocrisy. Hence, they can ignore science and be proud that they are smart enough to avoid hypocritical know-it-all's.
BTW: Yes, this is post if Offtopic, but it's not Flamebait or Troll. I'm not agreeing with this POV; I'm passing on my perception of it. And how else can one discuss the interrelationship between topics without being regarded as Offtopic in regards to one post or the another?
I wish I had an answer of how to fix the above problem. Eliminating arrogant PhD's would be helpful, but that would leave all of the arrogant Normals -- and the rest of us aren't free from shocking amounts of arrogance at times, either. We could use another Sagan to highlight that math+science is a process that anyone can join in on once the ground-rules are mastered. However, it would me imperative that the next spokesperson not be hostile to religion -- the Normals are hypersensitive to this issue, and getting in their face about the matter only increases the alienation. [Not saying that Sagan was hostile to religion -- just saying then next spokesperson cannot be.]
No, I haven't RTFA, but there's plenty of evidence from the field (as it were) that those who are trained to think scientifically do not do so when their prestige (or even their chance of obtaining tenure) is on the line.
No freaking kidding. In 7th grade, I came to the conclusion that I had been sentenced to a 6 year prison sentence for no reason, because there was no way for me to either graduate early or, as a compromise, finish the 'general education' courses quickly so I could specialize. So, I "rebelled" by wasting my time.
Slashdot Mirror
Since I can't delete my account, I thought I'd let this be known in this forum on the slight chance that anyone would notice -- because if I've had enough, others probably have had enough, too. I've had enough of socialist geekboys who mod everything they disagree with as either Flamebait or Troll. It's not funny any longer. You simply can't take criticism even as you pretend that you are more mature than those you disagree with. Can't you see that that's just an extension of the masturbatory universe you've created for yourself? You act as if you were still 15, angry because no girls will touch your penis, nursing passive-aggressive tendencies, and rant that your political enemies are somehow beneath you.
And the best I can hope for in response from those of your ilk is a snarky, sarcastic, 21st century version of: "I know you are but what am I?!"
At least for me, I'll get my news elsewhere. What a rotten site this is sometimes.
It was an arm of the government, that very government that the Left wants to see grow bigger and Bigger and BIGGER every year, that refused to be compassionate and waive a fee in a time of distress.
And some of you want to blame the Right for this? Seriously, put the Kool-Aid down and open your eyes!
If there is a coming revolution, those buzzards need to be up against the wall, too.
"This is a voice that has earned the right to be listened to."
The military earns this right by its members being killed or maimed to protect their country, while the academic left earns this right by publishing papers cloaked in double-talk, rousing their students to protest some issue that they've helped to blow out of proportion, and yelling at anyone who dares to disagree with their views, their opportunity for tenure, or their parking space privileges.
http://www.irshadmanji.com/reformist-quran
I've bought one but have not read it yet. A free PDF is also available.
The works of Plato and Xenophon are direct evidence.
I mean no disrespect to parents trying to raise a child who legitimately has ADHD or to teachers trying to teach such a child, but the idea of:
1) Segregating students by age
2) Expecting them sit all day
may work for girls, but it doesn't work for boys. I can remember clearly my first grade teacher (in the late 70s) talking with another teacher about which of us were quiet (=good) and which were loud (=bad). And she went through _each student by name as we were forced to listen_. And guess who was good? Nearly all of the girls and a minority of boys, the ones who were quiet by disposition. Why? Because those of us who were normal didn't want to sit still and be quiet all day.
As for age segregation, if boys see older boys modeling good behavior, they tend to do so as well, either because they 'want to grow up to be like them' or they know they'll get smacked if they don't.
Now, take an extreme version of a 'bad' kid coupled with the willingness to drug said kid for the sake of classroom harmony, and you have an obvious explanation for this report.
Can't the military afford a sedan?
I'm with you. It used to be the norm that there were vineyards as far north as Sweden. It seems that that will be the norm again soon. Our choices are to adapt or die, not to whine and go all 'Chicken Little' when faced with the unavoidable.
As someone with a degree in math, all I can say is... he's right! Numbers are like... ikcy! And there's so many of them! Why waste our time? Get the plastic out so we can order the complete "Twilight" on DVD. (Read?! As if!!)
Still, I'm glad I have these math books. If the power ever goes out, I'll need something to keep me warm besides the thought of Prince singing "Batdance".
But the politicians who promote universal (i.e., federally run) education and health-care send their kids to private schools and have their own separate, premium health-care system (which we pay for, BTW). Just from a practical POV, there's no way that any federal run [insert program name here] will be worth its while when those who run it are not on it.
And the politicians know that they are being hypocritical and don't care (R's and D's). That's the first counterargument I think of when someone wants the government to take over more services, because the situation is practically omnipresent now, but it's rarely mentioned. So, honestly, if we are going to talk about top-down systems, there has to be a way to force every government official to participate in what they create with the threat of losing their job (even if that means impeachment) for even once going outside the system they created. And since politicians would have to enforce that system, this too would end up unworkable.
(Sorry for the doom & gloom. If this were a pub, I'd buy the next round.)
Aristotle was Plato's student. Socrates was Plato's teacher.
1. I recently taught an upper-level undergraduate math course with an exceptionally bright female math major and an above-average male math major. For a while, they both did less work than they ought to have (and knew it -- they both had advanced Senioritis); but in the end, the male kicked in to a higher gear and earned a high B. The female did some triage just before the end and earned a low B. This, and similar situations, has made me wonder if females by-and-large react differently to work-related stress than males, i.e., the male will allow the pressure to motivate him, while the female will attempt to escape. If this is true (and I freely admit it may not be), the opposite may occur domestically. Personally, I'd rather spend a 12-hour day "at the office" than spend eight cooking, washing, cleaning, child wrangling, etc.
2. My wife worked at a company that was, indeed, sexist. There were multiple instances of this, although it was mostly irritating rather than soul-destroying. At one point when we were discussing whether she should move on, I asked what she wanted. "To be treated as one guy treats another", she replied. I responded, "Machiavelli wrote a book on how guys should treat each other 'in the workplace'. Is that really what you want?" That turned the lightbulb on. In the end, she made the correct call and left, but she was no longer suffering from the effects of wearing rose-tinted glasses. I would not be surprised (although, again, I could be flat out wrong about this) if one reason for what's being reported in TFA is that women just don't enjoy working in a social setting where male rules of interaction dominate. I can't say that I blame them at times. But the male perspective has its advantages -- I've worked with female professors who are unable to distinguish between students who should go forward and students who should be encouraged to change their major. This is especially an issue when a bad student is an elementary education major.
Has anyone else had similar experiences?
Will the ID theories under discussion be those of Aristotle's? Will modern theories be introduced as well as Aristotle's?
That I can see, but not Ancient History. Even speculative ancient history (e.g., why is there water erosion on the Sphinx?) is not a part of most Ancient History curricula.
The definition of "overreaction" now includes the above post as an example.
This reminds me of the /. post a few days ago about those who are ignorant of science and proud to be so. This is how I think some of them might perceive this situation:
Last week, a Normal would have been told by Those Who Do Science that a neutrino has no mass, and that is the end of the matter. A non-physicist has nothing to contribute to the discussion. Persistent disagreement amounts to sheer ignorance, so keep quiet.
But now, it would appear that either neutrinos have mass or the Standard Model is wrong. Science has revealed its own ignorance. Everyone who was wrong last week is right this week. But the message to the Normals remains the same: it doesn't matter that we were wrong last week; eventually, We Who Do Science get it right. You still have nothing to say. Keep quiet.
The Normals perceive the above and conclude that it's hypocrisy. Hence, they can ignore science and be proud that they are smart enough to avoid hypocritical know-it-all's.
BTW: Yes, this is post if Offtopic, but it's not Flamebait or Troll. I'm not agreeing with this POV; I'm passing on my perception of it. And how else can one discuss the interrelationship between topics without being regarded as Offtopic in regards to one post or the another?
I wish I had an answer of how to fix the above problem. Eliminating arrogant PhD's would be helpful, but that would leave all of the arrogant Normals -- and the rest of us aren't free from shocking amounts of arrogance at times, either. We could use another Sagan to highlight that math+science is a process that anyone can join in on once the ground-rules are mastered. However, it would me imperative that the next spokesperson not be hostile to religion -- the Normals are hypersensitive to this issue, and getting in their face about the matter only increases the alienation. [Not saying that Sagan was hostile to religion -- just saying then next spokesperson cannot be.]
Every employee at FB ought to read that post.
No, I haven't RTFA, but there's plenty of evidence from the field (as it were) that those who are trained to think scientifically do not do so when their prestige (or even their chance of obtaining tenure) is on the line.
Woah!
This is exactly what will happen (up to isomorphism, of course).
In ancient Mayan sewers, the team comes face-to-face with the ghosts of Mayan Roto-Rooter men!
Ironic, true, but still a load of crap...
Great response.
Just use the transporter?
I thought we agreed not to tell the non-techies about this!!
No freaking kidding. In 7th grade, I came to the conclusion that I had been sentenced to a 6 year prison sentence for no reason, because there was no way for me to either graduate early or, as a compromise, finish the 'general education' courses quickly so I could specialize. So, I "rebelled" by wasting my time.
What a mistake.