So... you are still refusing to cite a nation of comparison between the US thus conceding the argument because you have no contrasting reference.
Why? Did you change your mind about the UK after I proved all your lies wrong? You brought up the UK first, and nobody ever objected to it. You are just furthering your rhetorical games, and lying about facts, and lying about what I've said.
Are you going to cite which country you're representing as your model or can I safely conclude that you've conceded the argument to me?
Ah yes, someone gives up arguing with you, so you declare that you "won". What did you win? You obviously didn't convince anyone of anything. Bill Gates will send you a check for $1,000,000 for winning the Internet. Just post your SSN and DOB so he can send it to you.
The greasy texture of milk was known. It was just belived that fat, like some spices, activates the primary tastes, not that it had a separate taste. Just because it didn't have its separate category (sensors) doesn't mean they thought it had no taste.
Still not a hail. The regulated Taxi I got added a "booking fee" when I called in, and held the line while the taxi came, which is almost exactly what you described. When the Taxi companies state such an action isn't a hail, why can't Uber agree with them?
Because you have literally no value besides as a dehumanized punching bag if you decide to conduct yourself with no integrity at all.
Then stop lying you lying asshole. I was sticking to facts, and you didn't like them, so you launched into a personal attack that you haven't let up on . And it looks like you aren't planning on letting up on.
All to cover for the fact that you know you are a lying idiot, but you want to pretend nobody else can tell.
You are arguing about anything that distracts from your arguments. You know you are wrong, so you attack the person. Health care in the UK (your example, not mine) is cheaper and "better" than the US. It's mostly free for the users, and cheaper for the government. We spend more in the US and get less. That's prima facie proof that the US system is inferior. And that's the point you claim is "nuanced" or whatever your lame excuses are to not discuss the facts.
You attack me, my heritage, or whatever because your example of the UK shows how wrong you are in your opinions on health care.
Yes, you said that you didn't like my answer, so you consider the question unanswered. Then started ranting how I don't ever answer questions because I've answered all your questions. Just not with the answer you wanted to hear.
Yes. You could have stopped there, after you described the entire content of your post in a single word.
So I am locked to the US and you can cite any socialist medical system collectively without a problem. But if I reference any of them specifically for comparison then I'm a liar?
Oops. You are lying again. I never evaded anything. I never "locked you in" to any system.
I simply pointed out your lie when you stated I was in (or from) England.
That's a lie. You can talk about the UK all you want. But stop asserting that I'm there, and I'm defending it because it's "my" system.
In other words, stop lying, and I'll stop calling you a liar.
If you're not following a given rule. If I don't think I need to follow the rule.
Ah yes. So you'll lie to prove a point, and it's my fault for being lied to. I'm glad that you don't feel bound by any rules, such as "politeness" or "basic decency".
You are lying again. I didn't do that. You just go bat-shit insane if someone disagress with you. I gave an opinion that contradicts yours, and you went off your meds.
So you want to cut those are did you accidentally blow your leg off by stepping on another rhetorical land mine?
That's you sticking to facts, and not going into strawmen or ad hominem. You have never discussed facts. You just insanely rant about how I'm wrong and you are right, without referencing why, or even the topic at hand.
[becktaxi.com] has an app which allows you to hail cab in the same manner as Uber,
Uber does not allow "hail". You must pre-book and request a private car pickup. This is not a hail. A hail is a street-side pickup from real-time signal based on the hailer seeing a taxi and signaling a stop.
For that reason, Uber is explicitly not a taxi in most jurisdictions (though, many don't separate taxi rules from private car/limo rules that Uber should be following). I don't know Canada law enough to say for there. But Uber manages to win some and lose some, so it's not as clear-cut as you assert.
They are a budget limo service. In some places limos are almost unregulated, in others, limos are very taxi-like.
You brought up UK. I never did. Don't blame your error of stupidity and assumption on me not giving my home address when applying for the right to respond to your inane and stupid lies.
Either cite the country you're representing or I can pick any of the socialized countries at will for you.
Talk about whatever country you want to. I never have, nor would want to constrain you in any way. That would just give you another excuse to "win" the argument without have even said a single coherent thing about it.
I'm just saying that you shouldn't tell me where I live. That's irrelevent to the discussion at hand, anyway. Keep to the facts, and don't make it personal. That's what your lie was.
You are defending the socialized systems and saying they're better.
You wrongly stated that I lived in the UK. Since you can't tell the truth for that point, how can we believe you can do it for any other?
I'll just point out that you didn't answer my question or show any deeper thinking.
Just glancing to the most recent (not to look through all posts on this and other threads), you asked no question. As such it would be silly for you to expect an answer. And "deeper thinking" indicates "agrees with me". For it looks like that's what you mean.
If you want to have a discussion then you have to be prepared to actually answer questions and demonstrate good faith to the extent that you are legitimately trying to give reasonable responses.
You don't ask questions, then complain I don't answer them. I ask them of you, and you don't answer them. That's how you have a discussion. You are also very adept at hinting at an obvious opinion, then claiming "strawman" if someone points to it and says you look like you are supporting it.
You are playing rhetorical games, and not discussing anything.
And from this you presume superiority?
A question? I'll answer all your questions (though some with answers you don't like, so you'll later assert they were never answered). I presume superiority from the fact that you have implied (not stated, as you never state anything, in your pointless rhetorical games) that you've only experienced one system your entire life, so all you know of the other systems is what you've picked up through assumption. I've lived under multiple different systems. My demonstrably greater experience is what I base my superiority on. What do you base your superiority on?
Now, go back and read my initial post in this thread, where I quoted ShanghaiBill and whoever it was he was responding to. The statement from SB was that tests (for history) aren't based on curriculum. That is an absurd statement. Either the tests are absurd, or the schools are for not changing the curriculum to match.
You stated that the test for an American History or British History curriculum could be a test on World History. That may work once, the first time. But when the kids come out of the test and report that 1/2 the questions were on Greek and Roman history (what I found in my World History standardized tests, with nothing on Africa outside Egypt, nothing on Asia or Oceania), would you think that the "American History" class the next year would follow the previous year's curriculum? Or would it change to teach to the test, even if the test is unrelated to the name (and presumably subject) of the class?
You'd break the class to not test on the supposed subject matter of it. If the test for Computer Science were to write Annabel Lee verbatum, and the teachers were graded on test results, do you think it would change the class at all?
Would a "standardized test" of testing on a Poe poem improve or harm the Computer Science learned in the class?
That is why your assertion that a test needn't follow the curriculum to be accurate is silly. At best, it's "fair" once and only once, when nobody is expecting it. But that's rarely the case with standardized tests, so in practice, it'd be fair (or accurate, or useful, or whatever adjective you prefer) never.
The teachers being evaluated also have weeks to prep for the announced visit. So the class is remarkably different for those two hours. One even literally scripted those two hours, with prompted questions and answers given to questions that will be asked in class, to make it look like the students are more engaged and enlightened than reality.
When I was in those jokes of performances, I thought the answer was to have a camera in each class, that was randomly monitored for performance, so the evaluation was unannounced and unobtrusive. But I heard teachers don't like that.
What they should do is have separate classes for "teach the test" that teaches how to best perform on standardized tests. So often, I heard the same generic (and mostly useless) standardized test tips, that ignoring the test in subject classes and having a separate full class on "how to take tests" would have saved time, lead to more learning, and increased performance. Guess on the ITBS, don't guess on the SAT (unless you've narrowed the answer down to one of two choices). Mark all questions with guesses as you go, but mark them in the test booklet for review, if you have time at the end. Guess answers based on "feelings" and don't change unless you are sure you were wrong. If you are going to guess, guess fast, and move on. Take practice tests. I've heard tips like this hundreds (or thousands) of times, wasting class time and often not given consistently or correctly.
What I find works is to have 10,000 metrics, with each worth a varying value. Fatality rate? 5% of the total. Time from first visit to last visit? 1% Difficulty of case? 3%
Repeat until the equation is too complex to be optimized for. The metric should reflect "do the most good" in the best way possible. A simple single KPI almost never gets the desired result.
Currently, the best metric for measuring the success of the students is student evaluations. But if that were the only measure, it would be quickly gamed. Sadly, the only measures that work are the ones that aren't shared. The moment the measure of a person is given, they optimize for that. It works great for measuring salesmen, but not so well for a complex outcome, like teachers.
If the tests are not standardized, then there is no way to compare results, which makes them meaningless for improving the schools through accountability.
IQ tests are not "standardized" (in the definition used in US education), but are comparable.
If the standardized tests for history are based on a specific curriculum...
They are not.
Then they aren't comparable. If you test two people on American History, one who took American History, and the other took History of Britain, would the tests accurately reflect the level of competency of students or teachers from the two classes? No? That's because curriculum matters.
Why can't the student's knowledge of logical fallacies be tested?
Because knowledge of rhetoical games is not a good measure of thinking. It'd be like a test of the rules of football and claiming it measures the ability to play the game.
Slashdot Mirror
So... you are still refusing to cite a nation of comparison between the US thus conceding the argument because you have no contrasting reference.
Why? Did you change your mind about the UK after I proved all your lies wrong? You brought up the UK first, and nobody ever objected to it. You are just furthering your rhetorical games, and lying about facts, and lying about what I've said.
Are you going to cite which country you're representing as your model or can I safely conclude that you've conceded the argument to me?
Ah yes, someone gives up arguing with you, so you declare that you "won". What did you win? You obviously didn't convince anyone of anything. Bill Gates will send you a check for $1,000,000 for winning the Internet. Just post your SSN and DOB so he can send it to you.
reprocessing has nothing to do with the low grade waste.
When you don't even understand the question, your answer doesn't seem too useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... like that?
The greasy texture of milk was known. It was just belived that fat, like some spices, activates the primary tastes, not that it had a separate taste. Just because it didn't have its separate category (sensors) doesn't mean they thought it had no taste.
I'd like to have the discussion but there are apparently no people here to have it with.
You try to drive off anyone who disagrees. You get what you aim for, then complain about it. Must be a Republican.
Still not a hail. The regulated Taxi I got added a "booking fee" when I called in, and held the line while the taxi came, which is almost exactly what you described. When the Taxi companies state such an action isn't a hail, why can't Uber agree with them?
Because you have literally no value besides as a dehumanized punching bag if you decide to conduct yourself with no integrity at all.
Then stop lying you lying asshole. I was sticking to facts, and you didn't like them, so you launched into a personal attack that you haven't let up on . And it looks like you aren't planning on letting up on.
All to cover for the fact that you know you are a lying idiot, but you want to pretend nobody else can tell.
You are arguing about anything that distracts from your arguments. You know you are wrong, so you attack the person. Health care in the UK (your example, not mine) is cheaper and "better" than the US. It's mostly free for the users, and cheaper for the government. We spend more in the US and get less. That's prima facie proof that the US system is inferior. And that's the point you claim is "nuanced" or whatever your lame excuses are to not discuss the facts.
You attack me, my heritage, or whatever because your example of the UK shows how wrong you are in your opinions on health care.
Yes, you said that you didn't like my answer, so you consider the question unanswered. Then started ranting how I don't ever answer questions because I've answered all your questions. Just not with the answer you wanted to hear.
Evasion.
Yes. You could have stopped there, after you described the entire content of your post in a single word.
So I am locked to the US and you can cite any socialist medical system collectively without a problem. But if I reference any of them specifically for comparison then I'm a liar?
Oops. You are lying again. I never evaded anything. I never "locked you in" to any system.
I simply pointed out your lie when you stated I was in (or from) England.
That's a lie. You can talk about the UK all you want. But stop asserting that I'm there, and I'm defending it because it's "my" system.
In other words, stop lying, and I'll stop calling you a liar.
If you're not following a given rule. If I don't think I need to follow the rule.
Ah yes. So you'll lie to prove a point, and it's my fault for being lied to. I'm glad that you don't feel bound by any rules, such as "politeness" or "basic decency".
So you want to cut those are did you accidentally blow your leg off by stepping on another rhetorical land mine?
That's you sticking to facts, and not going into strawmen or ad hominem. You have never discussed facts. You just insanely rant about how I'm wrong and you are right, without referencing why, or even the topic at hand.
[becktaxi.com] has an app which allows you to hail cab in the same manner as Uber,
Uber does not allow "hail". You must pre-book and request a private car pickup. This is not a hail. A hail is a street-side pickup from real-time signal based on the hailer seeing a taxi and signaling a stop.
For that reason, Uber is explicitly not a taxi in most jurisdictions (though, many don't separate taxi rules from private car/limo rules that Uber should be following). I don't know Canada law enough to say for there. But Uber manages to win some and lose some, so it's not as clear-cut as you assert.
They are a budget limo service. In some places limos are almost unregulated, in others, limos are very taxi-like.
Either cite the country you're representing or I can pick any of the socialized countries at will for you.
Talk about whatever country you want to. I never have, nor would want to constrain you in any way. That would just give you another excuse to "win" the argument without have even said a single coherent thing about it.
I'm just saying that you shouldn't tell me where I live. That's irrelevent to the discussion at hand, anyway. Keep to the facts, and don't make it personal. That's what your lie was.
You are defending the socialized systems and saying they're better.
You wrongly stated that I lived in the UK. Since you can't tell the truth for that point, how can we believe you can do it for any other?
I'll just point out that you didn't answer my question or show any deeper thinking.
Just glancing to the most recent (not to look through all posts on this and other threads), you asked no question. As such it would be silly for you to expect an answer. And "deeper thinking" indicates "agrees with me". For it looks like that's what you mean.
If you want to have a discussion then you have to be prepared to actually answer questions and demonstrate good faith to the extent that you are legitimately trying to give reasonable responses.
You don't ask questions, then complain I don't answer them. I ask them of you, and you don't answer them. That's how you have a discussion. You are also very adept at hinting at an obvious opinion, then claiming "strawman" if someone points to it and says you look like you are supporting it.
You are playing rhetorical games, and not discussing anything.
And from this you presume superiority?
A question? I'll answer all your questions (though some with answers you don't like, so you'll later assert they were never answered). I presume superiority from the fact that you have implied (not stated, as you never state anything, in your pointless rhetorical games) that you've only experienced one system your entire life, so all you know of the other systems is what you've picked up through assumption. I've lived under multiple different systems. My demonstrably greater experience is what I base my superiority on. What do you base your superiority on?
Now, go back and read my initial post in this thread, where I quoted ShanghaiBill and whoever it was he was responding to. The statement from SB was that tests (for history) aren't based on curriculum. That is an absurd statement. Either the tests are absurd, or the schools are for not changing the curriculum to match.
You stated that the test for an American History or British History curriculum could be a test on World History. That may work once, the first time. But when the kids come out of the test and report that 1/2 the questions were on Greek and Roman history (what I found in my World History standardized tests, with nothing on Africa outside Egypt, nothing on Asia or Oceania), would you think that the "American History" class the next year would follow the previous year's curriculum? Or would it change to teach to the test, even if the test is unrelated to the name (and presumably subject) of the class?
You'd break the class to not test on the supposed subject matter of it. If the test for Computer Science were to write Annabel Lee verbatum, and the teachers were graded on test results, do you think it would change the class at all?
Would a "standardized test" of testing on a Poe poem improve or harm the Computer Science learned in the class?
That is why your assertion that a test needn't follow the curriculum to be accurate is silly. At best, it's "fair" once and only once, when nobody is expecting it. But that's rarely the case with standardized tests, so in practice, it'd be fair (or accurate, or useful, or whatever adjective you prefer) never.
Yes. Was that a trick question?
And no application in science, where logic and arguments don't apply. Data isn't an argument. Reality trumps logic.
And science commits piles of logical fallacies regularly. Appeal from Authority is encouraged. And begging the question is the norm.
The teachers being evaluated also have weeks to prep for the announced visit. So the class is remarkably different for those two hours. One even literally scripted those two hours, with prompted questions and answers given to questions that will be asked in class, to make it look like the students are more engaged and enlightened than reality.
When I was in those jokes of performances, I thought the answer was to have a camera in each class, that was randomly monitored for performance, so the evaluation was unannounced and unobtrusive. But I heard teachers don't like that.
What they should do is have separate classes for "teach the test" that teaches how to best perform on standardized tests. So often, I heard the same generic (and mostly useless) standardized test tips, that ignoring the test in subject classes and having a separate full class on "how to take tests" would have saved time, lead to more learning, and increased performance. Guess on the ITBS, don't guess on the SAT (unless you've narrowed the answer down to one of two choices). Mark all questions with guesses as you go, but mark them in the test booklet for review, if you have time at the end. Guess answers based on "feelings" and don't change unless you are sure you were wrong. If you are going to guess, guess fast, and move on. Take practice tests. I've heard tips like this hundreds (or thousands) of times, wasting class time and often not given consistently or correctly.
What I find works is to have 10,000 metrics, with each worth a varying value. Fatality rate? 5% of the total. Time from first visit to last visit? 1% Difficulty of case? 3%
Repeat until the equation is too complex to be optimized for. The metric should reflect "do the most good" in the best way possible. A simple single KPI almost never gets the desired result.
Currently, the best metric for measuring the success of the students is student evaluations. But if that were the only measure, it would be quickly gamed. Sadly, the only measures that work are the ones that aren't shared. The moment the measure of a person is given, they optimize for that. It works great for measuring salesmen, but not so well for a complex outcome, like teachers.
If the tests are not standardized, then there is no way to compare results, which makes them meaningless for improving the schools through accountability.
IQ tests are not "standardized" (in the definition used in US education), but are comparable.
If the standardized tests for history are based on a specific curriculum ...
They are not.
Then they aren't comparable. If you test two people on American History, one who took American History, and the other took History of Britain, would the tests accurately reflect the level of competency of students or teachers from the two classes? No? That's because curriculum matters.
Why can't the student's knowledge of logical fallacies be tested?
Because knowledge of rhetoical games is not a good measure of thinking. It'd be like a test of the rules of football and claiming it measures the ability to play the game.