One of our local school (Evans High School, Orlando, FL) has an amazing football/basketball/general athletic program.
They've also received an F grade for the last three years, based on standardized testing.
Putting aside the fact that it's a standardized test, WHY is this school allowed to continue focusing its resources on sports when it is turning out crop after crop of failed students? Please spare me the lecture about socialization, if school were REALLY about learning, the athletic programs would get nuked, and the resources turned to more/better teachers.
And no, I DON'T care that some students wouldn't go to school without having sports to look forward to. That's NOT what school is for.
"That doesn't address the question at all, namely why students don't use the available computers."
I can't answer as to why all students don't use them, but I CAN address why MY students don't use them.
Many of my students are poor. Their access to computers is spotty at best (often only at school) so it is not only useless to try to use them, it may hamstring them.
"... Mostly because of a bad business model. They only built a handfull of planes running on a select route."
I love that you blame the business model for the business being a failure.
Quick economics lesson, if enough people wanted the routes you speculate about, they would have been created. The fact that they weren't is a result of lack of interest.
"Regarding this issue, though, my opinion is that computers are being used as a crutch in classrooms; teachers are letting the program teach the kids. Teachers are becoming hardware babysitters (software if you include the kids.)"
Examples please. In my class we have 3 computers, one for me to do work for the class (grading, attendance, email to parents, research) and 2 for the students who have problems with english to use for assistance.
The system is the same everywhere in my school (3500 students, 300 teachers) and it has been consistently emphasized that the computers are to be used as a companion to the teaching, not in place of it.
I imagine you were simply exaggerating for effect, because I have yet to see a single school that would support your claims.
"Calling Concorde a fiscal failure is a little deceptive"
Didn't make money. Nothing deceptive there.
"Sometimes you have to look beyond simply making a profit."
Um, isn't making a profit what "fiscal" success is? Did you bother to look it up before you posted?
Yes it's cool, yes it's a great research endeavor, but is WAS a fiscal failure, no way around that.
Well, I am sick and tired of asshats (you) making up things to argue about.
Life, in the CONTEXT of my post (you do know what context is?) means an INDIVIDUAL'S life. Not the origin of life, but when a single individual begins living.
Do you understand the difference? If not, then please try to let us more sophisticated individuals discuss this without your blathering.
Re:I know what Borderline Personality Disorder is
on
Is Your Boss a Psychopath?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No, they wouldn't, and since I do this kind of thing EVERY day, I have some experience.
More importantly, I suggested it as a MISDIAGNOSIS, which it could very easily be.
Linking to indicatiors has no bearing on how a patient presents, and if you had any experience, you'd know patients often intentionally hide their symptoms, leading to EXACTLY SUCH MISDIAGNOSES.
Also, if you knew anything about personality disorders, you'd realize that professionals are loathe to diagnose more than one at a time.
"if women were truly psychopathic, they would be diagnosed as such alongside the diagnosis of BPD"
This is just WRONG. Again, symptoms (especially in BPD and PPD) are INTENTIONALLY MASKED. I've seen many competent professionals fooled. Suggesting that they would figure out the correct diagnosis and apply it is incredibly naive.
I believe your rudimentary understanding of personality disorders could use some polishing.
Slashdot Mirror
You bring up an excellent point.
One of our local school (Evans High School, Orlando, FL) has an amazing football/basketball/general athletic program.
They've also received an F grade for the last three years, based on standardized testing.
Putting aside the fact that it's a standardized test, WHY is this school allowed to continue focusing its resources on sports when it is turning out crop after crop of failed students? Please spare me the lecture about socialization, if school were REALLY about learning, the athletic programs would get nuked, and the resources turned to more/better teachers.
And no, I DON'T care that some students wouldn't go to school without having sports to look forward to. That's NOT what school is for.
"That doesn't address the question at all, namely why students don't use the available computers."
I can't answer as to why all students don't use them, but I CAN address why MY students don't use them.
Many of my students are poor. Their access to computers is spotty at best (often only at school) so it is not only useless to try to use them, it may hamstring them.
"... Mostly because of a bad business model. They only built a handfull of planes running on a select route."
I love that you blame the business model for the business being a failure.
Quick economics lesson, if enough people wanted the routes you speculate about, they would have been created. The fact that they weren't is a result of lack of interest.
"Regarding this issue, though, my opinion is that computers are being used as a crutch in classrooms; teachers are letting the program teach the kids. Teachers are becoming hardware babysitters (software if you include the kids.)"
Examples please. In my class we have 3 computers, one for me to do work for the class (grading, attendance, email to parents, research) and 2 for the students who have problems with english to use for assistance.
The system is the same everywhere in my school (3500 students, 300 teachers) and it has been consistently emphasized that the computers are to be used as a companion to the teaching, not in place of it.
I imagine you were simply exaggerating for effect, because I have yet to see a single school that would support your claims.
"Calling Concorde a fiscal failure is a little deceptive" Didn't make money. Nothing deceptive there. "Sometimes you have to look beyond simply making a profit." Um, isn't making a profit what "fiscal" success is? Did you bother to look it up before you posted? Yes it's cool, yes it's a great research endeavor, but is WAS a fiscal failure, no way around that.
"To the point that you'd pay a significant surcharge to already be at your destination, asleep in your hotel room."
Then why didn't it work?
Oh right, because people WOULDN'T pay the surcharge.
Kind of blows your theory out of the water there...
No, the AUTHOR'S target audience was the LKML.
Linus was not the author, so you fail.
Nice try at pedantry though.
"Did you miss the part about opinions given whether they are "informed or not"? You made his point pefrectly ;-)"
What does that mean, exactly? Please try to be less arcane (I'm sure YOU thought you were witty, but well, you weren't) when answering.
"You are buying protection." You mean like "protection money" protection? Hmm, sounds familiar somehow...
In other words, he doesn't listen to the people in his target audience, because he thinks their opinions are uninformed.
Smacks of arrogance, and frankly, he can kiss my ass.
"It's all about whether someone wants or need protection"
Shouldn't that be left to the individual or company?
"2. The Linux Name has integrity and is not watered down"
or alternately
2. The Linux name is RESTRICTED, not necessarily by someone who you agree with, or even beleive should have such oversight.
"Once you own a trademark, the next phase (at least in the US) is to make sure it stays protected by policing the use."
That's only one option. The another option is to allow it to become public domain.
Much closer to the spirit of OSS in my opinion, but I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying so.
And that in a nutshell displays how much respect he has for his target audience.
Well, I am sick and tired of asshats (you) making up things to argue about.
Life, in the CONTEXT of my post (you do know what context is?) means an INDIVIDUAL'S life. Not the origin of life, but when a single individual begins living.
Do you understand the difference? If not, then please try to let us more sophisticated individuals discuss this without your blathering.
"I used to think that life and a soul began at fertilization. I don't believe that anymore. Happy?"
No, because you're lying.
Nice try though.
Is that one side refuses to listen.
Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone say "you know what, you're right, life DOESN'T begin at conception".
If you plan to debate a subject, you should try to keep an open mind.
"because this study is a study of studies. It's a look at the preponderence of evidence in all studies done up to this point."
That's known as a Metastudy, and is generally considered useful only for measuring trends which need to be watched.
I think it's ironic that you can't see a joke when it's in your face.
Oh wait that's not irony, you're just dumb.
Funny, I don't see ANYTHING about schools anywhere in there.
Unless you're trying to say China and school are the same thing. Now that you mention it, you may have something there...
"Microsoft gives schools the software, takes a tax break for it, and then locks the schools down to using only their software,"
So, what's to stop the schools from refusing BEFORE they are locked in.
MS doesn't force anyone to use anything. I don't understand why you try to paint the picture that they do, apart from an irratioanl hatred of MS.
They do enough crappy things that you shouldn't try to make up new ones to bitch about.
"And where can I read up on on both the studies that have examined the rates of misdiagnosis of ASPD for BPD"
I suggest the psychinfo database.
"and the assertion that psychopaths are split 50/50 between the sexes?"
No such assertion was ever made. Why are you in such a screaming rush to invent straw men to argue with?
No, I suspect the percentage is actually higher.
No, they wouldn't, and since I do this kind of thing EVERY day, I have some experience.
More importantly, I suggested it as a MISDIAGNOSIS, which it could very easily be.
Linking to indicatiors has no bearing on how a patient presents, and if you had any experience, you'd know patients often intentionally hide their symptoms, leading to EXACTLY SUCH MISDIAGNOSES.
Also, if you knew anything about personality disorders, you'd realize that professionals are loathe to diagnose more than one at a time.
"if women were truly psychopathic, they would be diagnosed as such alongside the diagnosis of BPD"
This is just WRONG. Again, symptoms (especially in BPD and PPD) are INTENTIONALLY MASKED. I've seen many competent professionals fooled. Suggesting that they would figure out the correct diagnosis and apply it is incredibly naive.
I believe your rudimentary understanding of personality disorders could use some polishing.
"That doesn't mean that screening is worthless though."
Sounds like somoeone who has never used such screenings. They aren't worthless, as they make vast amounts of money for the company who makes them.
They are however, USELESS for screening purposes, and you can call bollocks all you want, it doesn't change reality.