What are you demanding be measured? You measure enjoyment of the subject, and some general (low pressure, and non binding) tests on subject matter.
Come on, people. Science works. Things that work are...testable. If you're advocating some educational strategy, but reject the notion that it's testable, you're rejecting basic science.
I think you are confusing things. What are you wanting to test? The end of the year, high-pressure tests to measure "understanding" of the material, even if it crushes the spirit of the students?
You'd happily harm the education of the students, so long as it gives you a number that makes you feel better?
If that describes you, kindly keep your hands off education policy.
I think you are the one that needs to keep your hands off education.
Oh, and if you think what I suggested isn't "testable" then you are dumber than the chair I'm sitting on. I can think of 100+ ways to test it. They just don't work well as mass standardized tests given every quarter.
There are a large number of proven false flag operations, but even suggesting it's possible is insane? By that measure, rainbows are insane. I can't see one now, so they are obviously uncommon enough that anyone who claims to see one must be lying, right?
How was your childhood where at age 5 your idea of nirvana was hookers and coke?
Most children are naturally curious. Feed that curiosity in a fun way gets much better results than desks, "teaching" (that's really lecturing) and worksheets. Even if the rote memorization and stiffling environment will raise performance the next quarter. When the schools follow the corporate model of "next quarter" results, then the schools will fail. 6th grade is for making the best 25 year old possible, not the best 7th grader possible.
Why do you require some increase in a number of some multiple-choice test to consider it's success?
The number-1 predictor of student achievement is "how much they like school". If students hate school, they hate learning, and grow into dumb adults for whom everything is "hard". But students that like school, even if they don't learn much in any particular year, will associate learning with fun, and will continue to do so long after school is done.
I registered my domains at an address that's no longer valid (I moved, and it was "safer" to not give a proper forwarding address, and let some things lapse). I've never gotten any of the letters, but then, my official address is a place I haven't lived in years.
Hydrogen is the better option because once the energy problem is solved, electrolysis will be "free" and H2 will be much easier to get. H2 doesn't care about source. It's just that right now, we make H2 in a more energy efficient but carbon-involved process.
Then you known dumb accountants. I bet I could hide $10,000,000 and move it (or a large portion of it) to anyone you wanted. And you could never trace it back to the source.
Prove me wrong. Name a person you want me to pay $10,000,000 to, and give me $10,000,000.
. Forensic accounting and accountants have been around a long time, and they've seen everything you describe.
And they've admitted that they can't track online gambling sites and such (not my method).
The reason most laundering fails to protect the source is that they don't like paying 3-4 sets of income taxes on it. You have to move it to hide it, and if you move it, it's "income" to the person receiving it, and if you don't declare it and pay on it, then you broke the law, even if they can't prove that $ came from the undesirable source.
Both entered the Ukraine at the same spot. Maybe weather caused an issue? I have no idea what the conditions were. I'm sure this will be analyzed many times in the near future.
For who? Do you want random people getting in your car without any supervision and doing who knows what in there?
No, said "use it like a taxi" not "hire it out as a taxi". A taxi picks you up where you want and drops you off where you want whenever you want (in an ideal world). Now imagine that, with a car that you own.
I didn't say 99% did live in big cities. I said that, of those in big cities, the majority there could not make use of this.
I'm quite certain that parking is free for employees at the vast majority of employment sites.
Parking isn't "free" for anyone but CEOs in NYC. Parking is rare in NYC. The employers expect you to find your own way to work. I was at "30 Rock" and was headed home, and I couldn't find a single person who could drive me home. There were a few that paid for their own parking, but were headed the wrong way. Almost nobody in there drove. Those who are high enough to get a free space are high enough to not drive themselves (they have people to do that).
So do you want to optimize them for NYC? Or those outside NYC?
You seem to pick the worst case for every case and generalize that in a lying attempt to make the most practical solution seem impractical.
there's a higher likelyhood of tolls exceeding the cost of gas
Again, NYC only. And if you are anywhere but NYC, then there would be a toll-free option, even if it took longer.
Again, it looks like you are stretching to lie about how impractical they are, rather than objectively looking at them.
Most accidents do not result in an unconscious driver,
And most people have a garage at home, but you are ignoring "most" to lie about edge cases to make up insane lies to justify you irrational hatred of self-driving cars.
If a driver is there, even if unconscious, you have immediate access to their ID and, likely, their contacts (via their phone). Driverless car - it's just going to sit there and clog up the road way until the tow truck comes.
It's a shame the police have no way to identify a car if the driver isn't here. Oh, more lies by you?
Quit lying. Just tell us why you hate them so, and move on. Lying about them to make them look worse just makes you look like a lying asshole, and makes self-driving cars look better by comparison.
Personally, I'm willing to bet that automated cars will suffer from similar accident statistics, they will just be shifted to things like software bugs, automated network down (solar flares, weather, etc.), failed sensors, hacking, etc.
I think that the statistics will show them to be much better, but that people will hate them because people like breaking the law. 75 in a 65 is "safe enough", and I know people who deliberately fail to signal because they don't want to "warn" other drivers because they expect to get blocked.
The self-driving cars will be too polite. They will yield when a human would have floored it to cut someone off. Those lost 2 seconds will piss off any watching passenger, and they'll hate self-driving cars. People will have the (mistaken) belief that they can get there faster driving themselves. That will be the downfall of self-driving cars. That and pricks who want "control" but don't know what to do with it when it's given to them.
In places where it'd make the most sense to have it drop you off at work (big cities, where parking is both limited and expensive), it won't work for 99% of the local population anyway.... where does the car park when it gets home?
99% of the population doesn't live in Manhattan. LA, Chicago, Atlanta, and many others have people drive in from Long Island (or Jersey), where people do have houses on land with driveways and (often) garages.
Using my car like a Taxi would be great. And the fuel to get it home is less than the cost of parking.
What happens when the car breaks down with no one in it?
Depends on the "break down". Most people would take that to mean the engine lost power. The car would coast onto the shoulder and wait for assistance.
What happens when it's in an accident? (where's the owners? who is responsible? how to get it off the road? etc)
The answer to all of those is the same as any other accident where the driver is incapacitated. We managed to solve it for an unconscious driver. But you are too stupid to solve it for a missing (benevolant) driver? We've even solved it for driverless cars now (hit and runs with the car left behind).
Why do people get stupid when something new happens?
what's the point of having it?
To get places faster, safer, and more efficiently, while freeing up time for other activities. You are just looking for down sides when there are none.
Nope, anything you say that prevents them from being hired can be held against you, even if true. Eligible for rehire (or not) is one of the few facts specifically protected.
There is no storage problem. There are a dozen solutions to that "problem" already in use around the globe. I've visited a hydro storage facility. There are thermal, chemical, and kinetic storage facilities you can buy and build now.
A number of places do leases where you are cash-positive day-1. But if you use no power and live super-far north, it's probably not available for you. Look up solar leases.
Where I live, more than 50% of electricity is from renewals, wind being one of the larger sources.
Solar doesn't need density. For a small increase in cost, it can be built into roofs. The amount of building space in the US is sufficient to power the grid. No need for central industrial generation.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you plan to measure this, exactly?
You don't measure it "exactly".
What are you demanding be measured? You measure enjoyment of the subject, and some general (low pressure, and non binding) tests on subject matter.
Come on, people. Science works. Things that work are...testable. If you're advocating some educational strategy, but reject the notion that it's testable, you're rejecting basic science.
I think you are confusing things. What are you wanting to test? The end of the year, high-pressure tests to measure "understanding" of the material, even if it crushes the spirit of the students?
You'd happily harm the education of the students, so long as it gives you a number that makes you feel better?
If that describes you, kindly keep your hands off education policy.
I think you are the one that needs to keep your hands off education.
Oh, and if you think what I suggested isn't "testable" then you are dumber than the chair I'm sitting on. I can think of 100+ ways to test it. They just don't work well as mass standardized tests given every quarter.
There are a large number of proven false flag operations, but even suggesting it's possible is insane? By that measure, rainbows are insane. I can't see one now, so they are obviously uncommon enough that anyone who claims to see one must be lying, right?
How was your childhood where at age 5 your idea of nirvana was hookers and coke?
Most children are naturally curious. Feed that curiosity in a fun way gets much better results than desks, "teaching" (that's really lecturing) and worksheets. Even if the rote memorization and stiffling environment will raise performance the next quarter. When the schools follow the corporate model of "next quarter" results, then the schools will fail. 6th grade is for making the best 25 year old possible, not the best 7th grader possible.
Why do you require some increase in a number of some multiple-choice test to consider it's success?
The number-1 predictor of student achievement is "how much they like school". If students hate school, they hate learning, and grow into dumb adults for whom everything is "hard". But students that like school, even if they don't learn much in any particular year, will associate learning with fun, and will continue to do so long after school is done.
Unless it was done as a false flag action to blame on the separatists and rally the world to Ukraine's side.
There's a reason the USSR state propaganda device was called Pravda. Go on, look it up, unless the Russian's edited it first.
I registered my domains at an address that's no longer valid (I moved, and it was "safer" to not give a proper forwarding address, and let some things lapse). I've never gotten any of the letters, but then, my official address is a place I haven't lived in years.
Also, what connection is there between Brandon Gray’s resellers and Domain Registry of America?
It requires research to figure out what the summary means. That means it's a bad summary
Hydrogen is the better option because once the energy problem is solved, electrolysis will be "free" and H2 will be much easier to get. H2 doesn't care about source. It's just that right now, we make H2 in a more energy efficient but carbon-involved process.
The US isn't doing this because the US makers don't have a qualifying vehicle. We only subsidize our own.
Truth is an affirmative defense to slander or libel,
Slander and libel are separate actions than the employment actions allowed for interfering with someone's employment (or aspirations thereof).
So now a number is magically an "asset" ???
Anything with "value" is magically an asset. That's what assets are.
Then the room the temperature is being measured in is on Pluto?
Prove me wrong. Name a person you want me to pay $10,000,000 to, and give me $10,000,000.
. Forensic accounting and accountants have been around a long time, and they've seen everything you describe.
And they've admitted that they can't track online gambling sites and such (not my method).
The reason most laundering fails to protect the source is that they don't like paying 3-4 sets of income taxes on it. You have to move it to hide it, and if you move it, it's "income" to the person receiving it, and if you don't declare it and pay on it, then you broke the law, even if they can't prove that $ came from the undesirable source.
tl;dr Laundering is easy, but criminals are dumb.
Both entered the Ukraine at the same spot. Maybe weather caused an issue? I have no idea what the conditions were. I'm sure this will be analyzed many times in the near future.
So why do all the media call the SU-25 a fighter?
Because all combat planes are "fighters"? (at least to anyone who isn't a military geek)
For who? Do you want random people getting in your car without any supervision and doing who knows what in there?
No, said "use it like a taxi" not "hire it out as a taxi". A taxi picks you up where you want and drops you off where you want whenever you want (in an ideal world). Now imagine that, with a car that you own.
I didn't say 99% did live in big cities. I said that, of those in big cities, the majority there could not make use of this.
I'm quite certain that parking is free for employees at the vast majority of employment sites.
Parking isn't "free" for anyone but CEOs in NYC. Parking is rare in NYC. The employers expect you to find your own way to work. I was at "30 Rock" and was headed home, and I couldn't find a single person who could drive me home. There were a few that paid for their own parking, but were headed the wrong way. Almost nobody in there drove. Those who are high enough to get a free space are high enough to not drive themselves (they have people to do that).
So do you want to optimize them for NYC? Or those outside NYC?
You seem to pick the worst case for every case and generalize that in a lying attempt to make the most practical solution seem impractical.
there's a higher likelyhood of tolls exceeding the cost of gas
Again, NYC only. And if you are anywhere but NYC, then there would be a toll-free option, even if it took longer.
Again, it looks like you are stretching to lie about how impractical they are, rather than objectively looking at them.
Most accidents do not result in an unconscious driver,
And most people have a garage at home, but you are ignoring "most" to lie about edge cases to make up insane lies to justify you irrational hatred of self-driving cars.
If a driver is there, even if unconscious, you have immediate access to their ID and, likely, their contacts (via their phone). Driverless car - it's just going to sit there and clog up the road way until the tow truck comes.
It's a shame the police have no way to identify a car if the driver isn't here. Oh, more lies by you?
Quit lying. Just tell us why you hate them so, and move on. Lying about them to make them look worse just makes you look like a lying asshole, and makes self-driving cars look better by comparison.
Personally, I'm willing to bet that automated cars will suffer from similar accident statistics, they will just be shifted to things like software bugs, automated network down (solar flares, weather, etc.), failed sensors, hacking, etc.
I think that the statistics will show them to be much better, but that people will hate them because people like breaking the law. 75 in a 65 is "safe enough", and I know people who deliberately fail to signal because they don't want to "warn" other drivers because they expect to get blocked.
The self-driving cars will be too polite. They will yield when a human would have floored it to cut someone off. Those lost 2 seconds will piss off any watching passenger, and they'll hate self-driving cars. People will have the (mistaken) belief that they can get there faster driving themselves. That will be the downfall of self-driving cars. That and pricks who want "control" but don't know what to do with it when it's given to them.
In places where it'd make the most sense to have it drop you off at work (big cities, where parking is both limited and expensive), it won't work for 99% of the local population anyway.... where does the car park when it gets home?
99% of the population doesn't live in Manhattan. LA, Chicago, Atlanta, and many others have people drive in from Long Island (or Jersey), where people do have houses on land with driveways and (often) garages.
Using my car like a Taxi would be great. And the fuel to get it home is less than the cost of parking.
What happens when the car breaks down with no one in it?
Depends on the "break down". Most people would take that to mean the engine lost power. The car would coast onto the shoulder and wait for assistance.
What happens when it's in an accident? (where's the owners? who is responsible? how to get it off the road? etc)
The answer to all of those is the same as any other accident where the driver is incapacitated. We managed to solve it for an unconscious driver. But you are too stupid to solve it for a missing (benevolant) driver? We've even solved it for driverless cars now (hit and runs with the car left behind).
Why do people get stupid when something new happens?
what's the point of having it?
To get places faster, safer, and more efficiently, while freeing up time for other activities. You are just looking for down sides when there are none.
Nope, anything you say that prevents them from being hired can be held against you, even if true. Eligible for rehire (or not) is one of the few facts specifically protected.
The worst you can say about someone is "I can confirm their dates of employment and that they are not eligible for rehire.
It's common usage from those who don't like SCOTUS.
There is no storage problem. There are a dozen solutions to that "problem" already in use around the globe. I've visited a hydro storage facility. There are thermal, chemical, and kinetic storage facilities you can buy and build now.
Why "solve" a problem that doesn't exist?
http://www.solarcity.com/resid...
http://us.sunpower.com/homes/h...
A number of places do leases where you are cash-positive day-1. But if you use no power and live super-far north, it's probably not available for you. Look up solar leases.
Where I live, more than 50% of electricity is from renewals, wind being one of the larger sources.
Solar doesn't need density. For a small increase in cost, it can be built into roofs. The amount of building space in the US is sufficient to power the grid. No need for central industrial generation.