Those "rules of thumb" only exist because a whole bunch of civil and structural engineers did a whole lot of research and then wrote them. Go look at the references in the building code sometime.
Again, the worst thing that happens with fuel injectors is they break, your car doesn't run, you pay a few hundred and get it fixed.
That's not true; excessively-out-of-spec injectors can destroy the whole engine. For example, a Diesel injector that fails to atomize the fuel (and instead releases it as a stream) can melt the piston, and a gasoline injector that gets clogged could make the mix too lean, causing detonation.
"His" would limit the scope to male programmers.
"Her" would limit the scope to female programmers.
"His/her" or other such bullshit is retarded.
"Its" is correct.
Bullshit. In English, "his" is the correct masculine and neuter pronoun!
Your rule doesn't apply to English; it applies to some kind of creole of English and politically-correct bullshit.
What I'm talking about is a about 10-20% of an apartment-style building being reserved for Section 8 or the like.
But even that -- which I did address, by the way -- creates problems. Namely, Section 8 invariably only accomodates a small fraction of the need; there are routinely waiting lists months or years long. And it allows apartment owners to build higher-end units than they otherwise would, screwing over people (like me) who would prefer to live more modestly (i.e., cheaply) but who do not qualify for assistance.
A few decades ago they demolished all of that housing because of the reputation that area had gained, and now we have a serious homeless population.
I think you actually agree with me, and just don't relize it. Consider this: if Section 8 worked, why do you have that homeless problem?
The only thing wrong with these units is there's no obvious place for a computer desk...
What's really wrong with them is that nstead of subdividing them into a bunch of tiny, useless rooms, they need to just make them studios. Then you'd be able to put a desk in them if you wanted, instead of having the space taken up by a wall or hallway.
The trouble is the subisdy itself, because you end up with the government telling people where to live, huge numbers of low-income people who get further disadvantaged because they end up on waiting lists, screwed up development patterns because investors have no incentive when rent controls exist, and other miscellaneous unnecessary problems.
And of course, the reason all that happens in the first place is that the apartments that get built are too big! If 400 ft^2 apartments were ever built around here then low-income people could afford them at market rates and everything would be fine, but they're not allowed to exist because of the damn zoning laws!
Even in Crysis people still have those stupid dough-heads and rubber mouths that don't even lip-sync properly. And Fallout 3 was just comedic in that regard.
And that's really too bad, since arguably games like Fallout (and TES, etc.) are even more character-driven than Half-Life is.
Yes: it's what the "Mozilla redesign" was in the two years between when it was announced and when the first beta of Phoenix (later renamed Firebird, then Firefox) came out. I'm a Firefox fan, but I know my history.
The article you cite says it was secret. How would the Russians have known about it? They would have had to know in order for you to reasonably expect it to affect their actions, after all!
To reflect on Patton's saying, it would seem that actual American wisdom in that war, at least in the European theatre, was "not to die for your country, but to make some other guy die for your country."
In that case, us Ameriacans sure sucked at carrying that wisdom out, considering that we did a heck of a lot of fighting in Europe despite the fact that the only direct threat we ever faced was in the Pacific theater!
No they don't. Most people who own guns own multiple guns, while most of the rest of the population doesn't own any at all -- it only averages out to one gun per person.
For one thing, instead of sending half the soldiers into battle unarmed, they could have just sent the armed half -- plus maybe a small unit to run around with the medics and collect the discarded weapons -- and then waited until they could arm the rest before sending them in too. They could have retreated into Siberia and let the weather kill the invaders, like they did with Napoleon. They could have used more guerrilla tactics. Etc.
The only reason the Russians and Chinese racked up so many casualties is that they used the "Zerg" strategy. Or maybe even the "Zapp Brannigan" one:
Zapp Brannigan: "How did I defeat the killbots? Simple: I sent wave after wave of my own men knowing full well that eventually the killbots would reach their kill limit and shut down."
Let me guess, you're one of those dumbasses who doesn't realize it's possible to be socially liberal while also fiscally conservative (or vice-versa), and who doesn't understand that in addition to "left" and "right" there's also "up" (libertarian) and "down" (authoritarian). Am I right?
It would be silly to alter them, as this would risk breaking them, and there really is nothing wrong with Microsoft's formulas.
On the contrary, it does make sense to alter them because there is something wrong with Microsoft's formulas. For example, consider the MAX() function in Excel:
MAX(2.5,6.4,2.1,5.8)
Now consider the OO.o (and forthcoming ODF 1.2 standard) equivalent:
MAX(2.5;6.4;2.1;5.8)
OO.o uses semicolons instead of commas to separate parameters; so what? Well, let's what would happen if you were European, and tried to do the same thing in Excel:
MAX(2,5,6,4,2,1,5,8)
Uh-oh! Now, since Europeans use commas instead of periods to indicate decimals, Excel suddenly thinks that there are 8 integer parameters instead of 4 decimal ones! Excel is wrong! In contrast, here's how it looks in OO.o:
MAX(2,5;6,4;2,1;5,8)
Hey, whaddya know: still four decimal numbers! It works!
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you read previous posts in the linked blog, the guy points out how (for example) most of Excel's date and financial functions are wrong (not just because of syntax, but because they implement the wrong algorithms).
OOXML does not define a formula language either, you know.
Actually, it does -- 300-odd pages worth of one, in fact. But Excel doesn't follow that either!
In fact, those date and financial functions tend to give answers different from both the OOXML standard and the original financial standards they are supposed to be based on!
There is not a single part of Choir grading that is not subjective....
If that's the case, then what's the point of grading it to begin with?
Of course, that's not the case -- at the very least, you can still objectively grade whether the student showed up and sang (as in, whether sound was produced from his mouth). If that happened, he passed. If not, he failed. Simple. Any finer granularity in the evaluation is too subjective to be useful anyway -- at least, for a public gradeschool context (private schools specializing in the arts and professional performing company tryouts would obviously be different). And if the school insists on assigning a letter grade, make pass = A and fail = F. Still simple!
I gave the example of the stupid mother that believed her lying son as illustrative of the problems associated with letting the parents have too much say over whether or not the teacher is doing her job.
But so what? In your example, the teacher won! The teacher made his decision, was held accountable for it, and proved that it was justified. That's exactly how things should work! What's the problem?!
I agree that it's too hard to fire some teachers, but it's also too easy to fire teachers early on in their careers.
Fine, but that's a different issue than the one we were discussing originally.
Administrators have a lot of authority in schools. They may not be able to fire teachers after a certain point, but they can make things very difficult/uncomfortable for teachers.
So the teacher needs to document the administrator's discrimination.
As for having the authority to discipline the students. If the office decides that you are sending too many kids to the office, they'll just start sending them back. Now you've got to waste time sending them out, and then waste more time dealing with them when they get back to the class room.
If the student comes back without having been dealt with properly by the administrators, send them back out again! Or don't let them back in the classroom. It's not the teacher's problem, so the teacher should not allow it to become such.
Then you get the administrator stepping in and making things difficult for you when it comes to running your class. In my wife's case she was forced to get the Principals approval for purchasing of any music licenses for her choirs. Not a big deal on the surface, but when he started taking weeks to approve music she needed quickly...
Have the students sing public-domain music. If someone complains, refer them to the administrator who refused to approve purchasing requests.
...and then writing her up on her evaluations for using photocopies of the music instead of legal copies...
What, and getting "written up" is absolute with no recourse? Bullshit! The teacher should write the administrator up for his negligent delay and aforementioned discrimination, as well as explain the concept of academic fair use. And then send that to the same authority considering what the administrator wrote.
AS to whether or not my wife is out of a job come August, who's better situated to know? You or Me? She was given an ultimatum at the end of the 3rd quarter. Either turn in a letter of resignation by 7am the next day, or he would file the paperwork indicating that he was not going to renew her contract because she was lax in her job.
Then either she was lax at her job, or she capitulated to the (lazy, incompetent, and unethical) administrator's bullying! That's the bottom line. Period!
It would ultimately come down to her word against his.
How do you determine whether or not the complaint is from an unreasonable parent in a non-subjective way?
Easy: if they're complaining that the teacher's standards (for either academic performance or behavior) are too high, it's not reasonable. If they're complaining that the standards are too low, then it is reasonable. Additionally, if the teacher is objectively wrong (e.g. "2+2 = 5") or if his standards are arbitrary, capricious, or based on irrelevant metrics, complaints about that are reasonable too. (Yes, I realize that last bit is subjective -- you can't get away from it entirely -- but the previous criteria is a good start.)
My wife is a teacher, and she's had parents call her up on the war path because they made the mistake of believing their child....
And so what? Your wife didn't get fired, did she? The failing grade stood, didn't it? That's a successful outcome!
My grandmother taught in the Springfield, MA school system for 20+ years and was forced to retire early because she got beaten up by one of her students...She was told not to kick the child out of class, and to just pass the child at the end of the year like all of the previous teachers had.
It's hard for me to discuss this without insulting your grandma. It's commmon sense that she should have kicked the brat out and failed him anyway, even if she was told not to by an administrator! What's he gonna do, fire her?! Obviously not; the entire thesis of TFA is that it's too hard to fire teachers!
As a teacher, her job was to teach. And she should do whatever she needs to do to accomplish that, and not take any shit from anybody -- not the students, not the parents, and not even the administrators.
In many schools where you can fail the students that deserve to fail, you cannot kick them out of the class because the main office doesn't want to be bothered with them.
No, you can kick them out. If they end up wandering around the halls, it's the office's problem, not the teacher's!
...Each time my wife tried to remove this kid from the situation, so that the rest of the kids could learn, she was shot down by the administration....
You keep repeating this argument over and over, and it's demonstratively not true.
She had to bow to the administration becuase she was a 1st year teacher in that school corporation (4th year overall), and her job was on the line.
No, her job wasn't on the line. If it were, the article would be wrong. If the article were wrong, she'd have the power to effectively discipline the disruptive student.
...now she'll be out of a job come August 13st.
No she won't. She'll appeal to or sue the school board and win, just like the article says. If she doesn't bother, then that's her fault!
Basically, the problem here is that in every anecdote you've given the teacher in question has been completely spineless! In each case, the solution is always the same: quit letting the lazy, incompetent assholes running the place push the teacher around! Go to the school board. Go to the court! The administrators aren't doing their jobs, so take it up with the people that can hold them accountable! The bad teachers in the article managed to do it; there's no reason why the good teachers can't do it too!
In practice this obviously means (just 2 examples) :
-> teaching data denying global warming
-> teaching data agreeing with global warming
-> teaching against evolution
-> teaching for evolution
AND tolerating, without ridicule ANY conclusion any individual kid comes to.
Ah, I see you're a product of our public education system. ; )
Here's why you're wrong: there's a thing called the scientific method. You might have heard of it in passing; it's not really a big deal -- merely the fundamental basis of science. What it says, among other things, is that "scientific theories" make predictions, and that the validity of those predictions can be determined by observation. That, by itself, is why "teaching against evolution" (or more precisely, "teaching creationism," which is really what you meant) is not necessary, and why it's possible for the kid's conclusion to be wrong: they fail to be valid scientific theories.
All such arguments, especially when referenced, would have to be unquestionably accepted by the teacher...
That is exactly the OPPOSITE of science! What should be going on is that kids get taught to think of scientific hypotheses, evaluate all (all!) the data against those hypotheses, and then decide which hypothesis fits best (upon which the hypothesis becomes the theory).
If all this sounds new to you, well, now you know why our science curriculum is so fucked up.
And they would almost certainly get told to use LaTeX. What sort of shitty "college" (and I use that word loosely) mandates Mickey-Mouse junk like Word (or OO.o Writer) for theses anyway?!
"Liberal" and "open-minded" are two terms that in my experience are completely contradictory.
So are "conservative" and "open-minded." In fact, "independents" are the only open-minded folks, by definition -- everybody else just copped out and picked a label. (At least, in modern terms -- the classic definition of "liberal" literally was "open-minded" (or "open to change"), while the classic definition of "conservative" was the opposite; nowadays they're both just names for classically-conservative people with opposite ideologies.)
Of course, that's more-or-less what you're trying to argue yourself. The trouble is that everybody reading your post -- including me -- gets halfway through your first sentence and blows you off for being partisan.
Yeah, yeah... an educated citizenry is a cornerstone of a healthy, productive society. How's that working out, anyway?
In terms of producing obedient and unquestioning assembly-line workers for the manufacturing and (increasingly) service industries? It's working great!
If you thought "educated" meant "capable of thinking critically and understanding important scientific, social, and political issues" -- well, that was never what "public education" was for, anyway.
If you judge by student performance, you run into two problems: stupid/unmotivated kids, and "teaching the test" issues.
If you judge by observers, what method do you use to observe?
How about "judging by complaints?" If you get complaints about the teacher from parents (that aren't about the teacher being too difficult or strict -- i.e., not unreasonable or stupid on the part of the parents) then listen to them and fire the teacher. It's really that simple!
The parents WILL NOT help discipline the kids.
The parents WILL NOT make sure the kids are doing the work.
The parents will start screaming "lawsuit" if you suggest that little Tyrell, LaShawna, or Chiquita needs to go back a grade because they can't keep up with the expected standard.
The school administrations WILL NOT back the teacher up if there is a discipline problem - let alone the drug and gang problems they are dealing with.
The school administrations WILL NOT back up the teacher on giving a kid poor grade once the parents scream - doesn't matter if they never do a bit of work, never turn in homework, and even if they were in the bathroom doing crack during test time, the TEACHER gets blamed for the kid's performance.
In every single one of those cases, the teacher should just fail the student, or kick him out (to detention or elsewhere; it doesn't matter where as long as he's not disrupting class anymore), or do whatever needs to be done. It doesn't matter whether the dumbass administrators will "back up" the teacher or not, because the teacher will not get fired, no matter what (as per the article).
Either that, or the article is wrong. And if you're going to claim that, then you had better be able to prove it!
Slashdot Mirror
Those "rules of thumb" only exist because a whole bunch of civil and structural engineers did a whole lot of research and then wrote them. Go look at the references in the building code sometime.
That's not true; excessively-out-of-spec injectors can destroy the whole engine. For example, a Diesel injector that fails to atomize the fuel (and instead releases it as a stream) can melt the piston, and a gasoline injector that gets clogged could make the mix too lean, causing detonation.
Bullshit. In English, "his" is the correct masculine and neuter pronoun!
Your rule doesn't apply to English; it applies to some kind of creole of English and politically-correct bullshit.
But even that -- which I did address, by the way -- creates problems. Namely, Section 8 invariably only accomodates a small fraction of the need; there are routinely waiting lists months or years long. And it allows apartment owners to build higher-end units than they otherwise would, screwing over people (like me) who would prefer to live more modestly (i.e., cheaply) but who do not qualify for assistance.
I think you actually agree with me, and just don't relize it. Consider this: if Section 8 worked, why do you have that homeless problem?
Yes.
(What, is that news to you?!)
What's really wrong with them is that nstead of subdividing them into a bunch of tiny, useless rooms, they need to just make them studios. Then you'd be able to put a desk in them if you wanted, instead of having the space taken up by a wall or hallway.
The trouble is the subisdy itself, because you end up with the government telling people where to live, huge numbers of low-income people who get further disadvantaged because they end up on waiting lists, screwed up development patterns because investors have no incentive when rent controls exist, and other miscellaneous unnecessary problems.
And of course, the reason all that happens in the first place is that the apartments that get built are too big! If 400 ft^2 apartments were ever built around here then low-income people could afford them at market rates and everything would be fine, but they're not allowed to exist because of the damn zoning laws!
And that's really too bad, since arguably games like Fallout (and TES, etc.) are even more character-driven than Half-Life is.
Yes: it's what the "Mozilla redesign" was in the two years between when it was announced and when the first beta of Phoenix (later renamed Firebird, then Firefox) came out. I'm a Firefox fan, but I know my history.
The article you cite says it was secret. How would the Russians have known about it? They would have had to know in order for you to reasonably expect it to affect their actions, after all!
It'll never happen, because of the DMCA. CSS is completely broken, useless, and trivial, but it still counts as encryption under the law.
In that case, us Ameriacans sure sucked at carrying that wisdom out, considering that we did a heck of a lot of fighting in Europe despite the fact that the only direct threat we ever faced was in the Pacific theater!
No they don't. Most people who own guns own multiple guns, while most of the rest of the population doesn't own any at all -- it only averages out to one gun per person.
For one thing, instead of sending half the soldiers into battle unarmed, they could have just sent the armed half -- plus maybe a small unit to run around with the medics and collect the discarded weapons -- and then waited until they could arm the rest before sending them in too. They could have retreated into Siberia and let the weather kill the invaders, like they did with Napoleon. They could have used more guerrilla tactics. Etc.
The only reason the Russians and Chinese racked up so many casualties is that they used the "Zerg" strategy. Or maybe even the "Zapp Brannigan" one:
Let me guess, you're one of those dumbasses who doesn't realize it's possible to be socially liberal while also fiscally conservative (or vice-versa), and who doesn't understand that in addition to "left" and "right" there's also "up" (libertarian) and "down" (authoritarian). Am I right?
On the contrary, it does make sense to alter them because there is something wrong with Microsoft's formulas. For example, consider the MAX() function in Excel:
Now consider the OO.o (and forthcoming ODF 1.2 standard) equivalent:
OO.o uses semicolons instead of commas to separate parameters; so what? Well, let's what would happen if you were European, and tried to do the same thing in Excel:
Uh-oh! Now, since Europeans use commas instead of periods to indicate decimals, Excel suddenly thinks that there are 8 integer parameters instead of 4 decimal ones! Excel is wrong! In contrast, here's how it looks in OO.o:
Hey, whaddya know: still four decimal numbers! It works!
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you read previous posts in the linked blog, the guy points out how (for example) most of Excel's date and financial functions are wrong (not just because of syntax, but because they implement the wrong algorithms).
Actually, it does -- 300-odd pages worth of one, in fact. But Excel doesn't follow that either!
In fact, those date and financial functions tend to give answers different from both the OOXML standard and the original financial standards they are supposed to be based on!
If that's the case, then what's the point of grading it to begin with?
Of course, that's not the case -- at the very least, you can still objectively grade whether the student showed up and sang (as in, whether sound was produced from his mouth). If that happened, he passed. If not, he failed. Simple. Any finer granularity in the evaluation is too subjective to be useful anyway -- at least, for a public gradeschool context (private schools specializing in the arts and professional performing company tryouts would obviously be different). And if the school insists on assigning a letter grade, make pass = A and fail = F. Still simple!
But so what? In your example, the teacher won! The teacher made his decision, was held accountable for it, and proved that it was justified. That's exactly how things should work! What's the problem?!
Fine, but that's a different issue than the one we were discussing originally.
So the teacher needs to document the administrator's discrimination.
If the student comes back without having been dealt with properly by the administrators, send them back out again! Or don't let them back in the classroom. It's not the teacher's problem, so the teacher should not allow it to become such.
Have the students sing public-domain music. If someone complains, refer them to the administrator who refused to approve purchasing requests.
What, and getting "written up" is absolute with no recourse? Bullshit! The teacher should write the administrator up for his negligent delay and aforementioned discrimination, as well as explain the concept of academic fair use. And then send that to the same authority considering what the administrator wrote.
Then either she was lax at her job, or she capitulated to the (lazy, incompetent, and unethical) administrator's bullying! That's the bottom line. Period!
Not if she had been
Easy: if they're complaining that the teacher's standards (for either academic performance or behavior) are too high, it's not reasonable. If they're complaining that the standards are too low, then it is reasonable. Additionally, if the teacher is objectively wrong (e.g. "2+2 = 5") or if his standards are arbitrary, capricious, or based on irrelevant metrics, complaints about that are reasonable too. (Yes, I realize that last bit is subjective -- you can't get away from it entirely -- but the previous criteria is a good start.)
And so what? Your wife didn't get fired, did she? The failing grade stood, didn't it? That's a successful outcome!
It's hard for me to discuss this without insulting your grandma. It's commmon sense that she should have kicked the brat out and failed him anyway, even if she was told not to by an administrator! What's he gonna do, fire her?! Obviously not; the entire thesis of TFA is that it's too hard to fire teachers!
As a teacher, her job was to teach. And she should do whatever she needs to do to accomplish that, and not take any shit from anybody -- not the students, not the parents, and not even the administrators.
No, you can kick them out. If they end up wandering around the halls, it's the office's problem, not the teacher's!
You keep repeating this argument over and over, and it's demonstratively not true.
No, her job wasn't on the line. If it were, the article would be wrong. If the article were wrong, she'd have the power to effectively discipline the disruptive student.
No she won't. She'll appeal to or sue the school board and win, just like the article says. If she doesn't bother, then that's her fault!
Basically, the problem here is that in every anecdote you've given the teacher in question has been completely spineless! In each case, the solution is always the same: quit letting the lazy, incompetent assholes running the place push the teacher around! Go to the school board. Go to the court! The administrators aren't doing their jobs, so take it up with the people that can hold them accountable! The bad teachers in the article managed to do it; there's no reason why the good teachers can't do it too!
Ah, I see you're a product of our public education system. ; )
Here's why you're wrong: there's a thing called the scientific method. You might have heard of it in passing; it's not really a big deal -- merely the fundamental basis of science. What it says, among other things, is that "scientific theories" make predictions, and that the validity of those predictions can be determined by observation. That, by itself, is why "teaching against evolution" (or more precisely, "teaching creationism," which is really what you meant) is not necessary, and why it's possible for the kid's conclusion to be wrong: they fail to be valid scientific theories.
That is exactly the OPPOSITE of science! What should be going on is that kids get taught to think of scientific hypotheses, evaluate all (all!) the data against those hypotheses, and then decide which hypothesis fits best (upon which the hypothesis becomes the theory).
If all this sounds new to you, well, now you know why our science curriculum is so fucked up.
I think you mean "plain ," unless you think Spain is covered in aircraft or woodworking tools. Hoisted by your own petard, eh?
And they would almost certainly get told to use LaTeX. What sort of shitty "college" (and I use that word loosely) mandates Mickey-Mouse junk like Word (or OO.o Writer) for theses anyway?!
So are "conservative" and "open-minded." In fact, "independents" are the only open-minded folks, by definition -- everybody else just copped out and picked a label. (At least, in modern terms -- the classic definition of "liberal" literally was "open-minded" (or "open to change"), while the classic definition of "conservative" was the opposite; nowadays they're both just names for classically-conservative people with opposite ideologies.)
Of course, that's more-or-less what you're trying to argue yourself. The trouble is that everybody reading your post -- including me -- gets halfway through your first sentence and blows you off for being partisan.
In terms of producing obedient and unquestioning assembly-line workers for the manufacturing and (increasingly) service industries? It's working great!
If you thought "educated" meant "capable of thinking critically and understanding important scientific, social, and political issues" -- well, that was never what "public education" was for, anyway.
How about "judging by complaints?" If you get complaints about the teacher from parents (that aren't about the teacher being too difficult or strict -- i.e., not unreasonable or stupid on the part of the parents) then listen to them and fire the teacher. It's really that simple!
In every single one of those cases, the teacher should just fail the student, or kick him out (to detention or elsewhere; it doesn't matter where as long as he's not disrupting class anymore), or do whatever needs to be done. It doesn't matter whether the dumbass administrators will "back up" the teacher or not, because the teacher will not get fired, no matter what (as per the article).
Either that, or the article is wrong. And if you're going to claim that, then you had better be able to prove it!