People have left behind the good Christian religion in favor of the religion of Science. It's like when L. Ron Hubbard wrote all that scifi stuff, and some crazy people made a religion of it; we came up with the Scientific Process, and now the unwashed masses who fancy themselves intellectuals bow down and worship Science as if it were some sort of religion, right down to attacking others for their false gods.
People want space flight because space flight is sciencey. They'll talk about colonizing Mars and saving ourselves from extinction, but that's really fancy talk. They want to live in Star Trek, end of story.
It's why, when I point at our limited resources and say we could shift some of NASA's budget away to a socialized medical research institute, people stamp their feet and claim NASA is integral for developing future innovations like satellite television, cool Nikes, and Tempurpedic beds--all things the private sector would have developed, save for satellite TV (which the military probably would have developed anyway, by way of spy satellites). Joint cooperation for a space station has been useful; a lot of everything else has been.. mosty a circle jerk.
The truth is NASA is the ultimate image of a public effort to develop new techie gadgets. Nobody cares about space; they just want space ships that can take them to the ISS for a pointless and non-productive vacation tour.
they can choose "facebook" I can choose "facebookcorewwwi" and feed it 0 bits to get my hash.
I was assuming they had HASH(seed) = 0xDEADBEEF and they were trying to HASH("FACEBOOK" + whatever) and get 0xDEADBEEF. To do this, you would feed your hash function--which iteratively generates a hash based on a stream--"FACEBOOK", and then start appending 40-bit strings.
There was some assertion that the full length of the identifier is 80 bits, and that Facebook only brute forced 40 bits. This is how you find a hash collision with a known prefix: you hash the prefix, then continue computing the next 40 bits in brute force, rather than running the full 80 bits repeatedly. There is always the danger of not finding a collision, of course, even if your hash function is smaller than 40 bits.
It's an SHA-1 hash, but in square root of the time. Facebook wanted to work out facebook*.onion, so they only had to sha-1 'facebook' and then store that state. After that, feed 40 sha-1 bits to the sha-1 function to generate a bunch of different hashes, keeping the ones that match.
This works all the time, as long as there are collisions in that space that match your hash.
My new tax bill will completely eliminate planetary homelessness by creating an intergalactic market opportunity providing dwarf stars to the most poverty-stricken of planets at a viable profit.
Sikh are awesome, though. They're bound by the tenants of their religion to intervene when somebody is in need of aid. Think about that: they have a religion that specifically damns them for wandering by a murder or rape and deciding it's not their business.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, actually. He had a Ph.D., and Luther was not his first name. Can you get any simple facts right?
I see someone who starts sentences with 'I see...' way too much.
You really aren't familiar with speech-writing literary devices, are you? Repetition in structure is a well-known method of keeping a reader's or listener's mind engaged and attended to what is being said, thus saving them the strain of interpretation. The polar opposite is mismatching of clauses in a list, such as "with honor, dignity, and by doing the right thing" (i.e. "with honor, with dignity, and with by doing the right thing"--you can see the error). Reduction is used in compact, technical explanations: "I see the poor, the abused, the forgotten"; expansion is used in persuasive arguments: "I see the poor; I see the abused; I see the forgotten."
Perhaps you could learn something from an education.
Liberal Democrats are not simple social progressives. The country is run by Liberals and Radicals, even Liberals calling themselves Conservative, and even those who have forked off those such false Conservatives and become Radicals. There are at least half a dozen readily visible political sentiments here, and they fly under but two banners, to say nothing of the third parties which espouse a variety of incongruous positions.
In England circa 1900, the Tori party began its cut through the Liberals and Radicals in parliament to begin England's progressive era. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives were very progressive, although both had made political campaigns out of old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, and worker's compensation. When no such things appeared, a new political opinion arose, and the progressives stepped between these calling themselves Liberal and Conservative, and then begun a steady, conservative, progressive movement to actually implement such things.
I see more than the packaged deal. I see more than two parties where the two names are used. I see more than two positions active in our government and in our politics. I see society's sentiments, behaviors, and moods. That you wish to ignore these occludes the reality of our recent history and our modern struggles to your view.
I am familiar with the concept of unintended consequences. I do, however, take poorly to people purporting to know what the Constitution is meant to provide for, whilst standing in stark opposition to the behaviors and actions of the people who actually wrote it.
The peak of Affirmative Action was in the 90s, when arguments over Affirmative Action were made, when Family Guy was mocking reparations, when fears over quotas of how many black people to hire were coming out of the woodwork, when such quotas or similar systems of selecting X from the black/women pool and the rest from the general pool were actively done so as to avoid potential "you have an awful lot of white guys working here..." EEO litigation, and so on.
I got my liberal Democrats from high school. Had a friend whose mom baked the class Democrat Cookies with asses on them; the kid campaigned in the middle of class for a gubernatorial election, and also told us that one of our classmates got into a good college because she was black. Said black chick had a better SAT score than me, initially, by 20 points; but I retook the test because my statistics teacher scored 1330 on his SATs, and he was similarly fucking head-up-ass politically retarded, and went on 40 minute rants about how gay marriage would lead to people marrying tables and animals, and then was fired after 3 months for gross incompetence. I scored a 1340 on my second round, 10 points higher than black chick who "got into a good college because she's black", so my response to that argument is an enormous middle finger.
Amusingly, the anti-gay-marriage ranting teacher was a firm Democrat, and would rant about bush a lot, too. The guy campaigning for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend also used to comment that Shirley Temple was a bright actress because she was a Democrat, while talking about how fucked up gays are and how they all carry diseases and HIV. Never have I experienced such a confused mixture of politics and social vitriol as I had in the presence of these people. How they managed to hold a firm stance against gay marriage and yet a firm stance against all things conservative politics I will never quite understand, considering the way partisan politics are held as a fashion statement here in the United States.
The more conservatives I was surrounded by did not seem to care much. We had such people as William Donald Schaffer once, a moderate Democrat whose behavior was more becoming, and who speaks to me of what the country should be more like; alas, in my time, he had taken a more minor governmental office and was no longer governor. The modern Conservative has disappeared, as well, in favor of the right-wing radical: some politicians appear as caricatures of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. These are such sad times, but familiar to me: it is as when the Tori of the English cut down the center of Parliament to bring progressive politics in where there was only the barren wasteland between the Liberal and the Radical politicians, and I hope soon we shall see similar senses brought among the House of Representatives and the Senate of our nation.
I wrote my PIN on the back of the chip-n-pin card. Chip-n-Sign forever!
Remember when retailers wanted people to run debit, and nobody would do it? That was because retailers get charged for credit transactions, and don't want to pay that; while individuals have to enter their PIN for debit, and are too lazy for that. As we can't be strong-armed into using debit over credit, we'd just say, "Credit!" and swipe and sign.
Well then, let me enlighten you about the United States education system. Sit back and enjoy a bit of history.
Back in the early 20th century, it was discovered that faculty education theory does not hold. This is to say: the brain is not a muscle. Faculty education purports to strengthen the brain by flexing, such that repeated memory drilling makes memory work better, and the learning of Latin and Greek make the mind's ability to process language sharper and firmer. Such things are a complete falsehood.
As reaction, John Dewey lead a progressive education renaissance, replacing this with a sort of student-centric education by experience. Rather than studying from biology textbooks, memorizing times tables, and reciting historical events, students would grow plants from seed, perform mathematics from word problems, and read historical stories and enact plays and games. This would replace "I know" with "I have experienced", creating a life of experiences as education.
There are obvious faults in this. From an unstructured and unknowledgeable view, one could easily comment on Latin and Greek providing the basis of English and other European languages, thus providing strength in English. This argument is fluffy and makes no notable contribution; it is, however, correct for other reasons, which I shall expand upon.
To start with, the ideals of John Dewey imply that "experience" is all-important and, directly and explicitly, damn the concept of "memorization". According to this new progressive education method, memorization is wrong, is toxic, and is damaging. Memorization is painful, difficult, detracting, and dull; it distracts the student from the pleasure and enjoyment of learning by his experiences, and provides no real benefit. This view is patently false.
All learning, all knowledge, predicates on memory. A person cannot learn what he cannot remember. Experience forms a type of memory, and forms it more strongly than rote drilling. I will agree that the rote memorization of facts is dull and toxic; but this is not the only form of memorization, and it is not reason to eschew memorization entire as a damaging or even an unimportant aspect of education.
What faculty learning misinterpreted--and what its detractors completely missed--was the improvement of the mind by *technique*. Memory, for example, improves by mnemonics such as acrostics, the method of Loci, rhymes, and visualization. The learning of Latin and Greek provides a familiar base on which to derive English and other European languages, easing the learning and use of such, at least in terms of vocabulary. These are not matters of the brain getting stronger, but rather of it having knowledge of ways to approach these things more effectively--in the same way that a crowbar does not make you stronger, but it does allow you to rip the side of a house clean off.
The many skills we need for a strong education system include mnemonics, study systems, mental mathematics, problem analysis systems, decision making systems, and the like. I will expand on each in brief here; I will trade a strong and complete argument for brevity and structure.
Mnemonics form the foundation: what is not remembered cannot be known, and what is not known cannot be learned. Mnemonics allow for quick, efficient memory of things, at least temporarily, so that they may be recalled in the course of learning or applying without carrying a reference. Such recall allows learning and doing to apply freshly-introduced concepts which may otherwise be promptly forgotten, which allows for understanding of further explanation, and thus allows for more solid learning. These techniques thus increase learning and thinking efficiency.
Study systems closely relate to mnemonics. SQ3R and SQW3R propose a method for examining new material (largely, written material) and preparing to meet it in learning. The general mode of these and other study systems is to Survey the headings, pictures, introductory sentences
I have the greatest understanding for anyone who wishes to excise such views and the people possessing them from their lives.
To break it down to English:
[Subject](I) [Verb](have) [Direct Object](the greatest understanding) [Indirect Object](for anyone who wishes to excise such views and the people possessing them from their lives).
And to break down the Predicate Nominative:
[Subject](anyone [Gerund](who wishes|=wishing)) [Verb](to excise) [Conjunctive List]([Direct Object](such views) [Conjunction](and) [Direct Object](the people possessing them)) [Indirect Object](from their lives).
English is quite complex, but you can see how it all lays out. The predicate direct object is one giant noun clause ("anyone wishing...from their lives."), which, being a noun clause, could also become a subject. For example:
Anyone wishing to excise such views and those possessing them from their lives is wholly justified.
This starts with the same noun clause, followed by the copula verb "is", and a predicate of "wholly justified".
I believe the correct verb would have been "evict" rather than "excise", however ("excise" means "tax"). Either case does not imply execution, nor does it fit into a sentence structure suggesting anything be done directly to such a person at all; the sentence structure suggests more nothing than nothing be done with the person. Given that such fault does not lead to an interpretation involving any form of bodily harm, nor would the structure suggest such a thing, it seems you are at fault for reading what you wish to read rather than what is stated.
Yeah, we see how free trade has solved education in America.
Our education system has tumbled down to the bottom of what a civilized education system can be. It is practically an indoctrination system. It doesn't teach people how to think; it just shoves things on kids, in hopes of keeping them busy.
Well, you're wrong. The original Executive Order commanded that GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS hire without regard to race, religion, or national origin (i.e. you can't refuse to hire foreigners). Nothing about higher education.
That was way back in the 60s. In the 90s, it was fashionable to place college students by non-statutory racial quotas--they were non-statutory because such quotas are, and always have been, illegal--and so it was suggested that more women and blacks would be taken into college on the basis of being women and blacks. There was much argument for this, and much political theater against this. About this time, the term "reparations" begun to appear, with blacks and non-black civil rights advocates demanding cash payment for the suffering of their ancestors, or some such nonsense; these such things are simply the result of political hysteria, and are mirrored by white country singers sparking white Americans to kick the shit out of anyone with a beard and turban shortly after 9/11.
At a point, the social institution of affirmative action had been the leaning toward bringing in at least some candidates for employment and college admissions based on "some of them are black and women, so we should chose some of those specifically to get a good balance". This institution was not formalized by statute--indeed, was illegal--but was engaged in nonetheless, and was talked about openly and argued for as a social institution which many desired to codify into formal statute.
Try thinking from a view of everything, instead of from a narrow view. It helps to understand not just legal statute and origins, but the progression, the implicit social institutions which came and went, the arguments people had made, the media behavior over time, misconceptions of various people, forward-theory, and human psychology in general.
What you mean to say is that SoCaS does not mandate a complete division between state action and any religious entity.
The term "separation of church and state" is shouted loudly, sometimes bluntly and without context, by those who wish to appeal that the state is not allowed to dirty its hands by contact with any religion in any way. It is often used as an argument to discriminate against religion, for example by pointing to a thing which could gain funding under statute, but then saying, "Oh, but it has a religious attachment, and therefor funding, legally provided by statute, should be denied on the grounds of religion here."
Your faith may require you to build a rocket ship out of elephant tusks and diamonds, but that doesn't mean the state is obligated to fund such an endeavor.
On the other hand, your state may fund the building of space technology; this does mean your state is obligated to judge your funding qualifications by the exact same standards as every other business, even if your business is "Rocketry of the Holy Lord Jesus Our Savior". As long as statute provides State grant for those businesses involved in the production of rocketry, and your business is legitimately engaged in the production of rocketry as such, the denial of State grants because "you can't wave the Jesus flag everywhere" would be an immense violation of religious non-discrimination, a potential violation of statute, and possibly a Constitutional crisis.
We're not supposed to make laws and Government policy which excludes things based on their entanglement with religion.
I would say discriminatory employment practices should be illegal in full. Would not a Muslim, being of sound mind and of an educated sort, have interest in exploring the views of others? Therefor, perhaps a Muslim would like to work at such an attraction. Were he to espouse his faith and criticize his employer's views and the message the attraction attempts to convey, he could be terminated for inappropriate behavior harming the business by detracting from its primary value as a themed attraction; in the same way, I would expect a business to hire gays, but to fire those gays which begin to push gayness onto others, as some are wont to do, as that would be the last thing I want to deal with whilst trying to order a sandwich from Arby's.
Shrug. I am only concerned with being correct. If there is a problem with the correct and accurate view of the situation, then it appears to me we have legislatures which may pass laws to redress such problems.
I did also mention that the Incorporation interpretation would make it patently illegal for a state to refuse to fund something based on it being religious, if it otherwise qualified for some form of funding. In other words: if the state has provision for government grants to tourist attractions, then the state cannot deny those grants to *religious* tourist attractions on the grounds of them being religious; that would be akin to legally excluding a religion from participating in the benefits of society.
You are making veil threats about killing liberals for their views
To excise something or someone from your life is to remove it, by avoidance of contact. For example: you may excise your parents from your life by moving to Japan and not telling them.
I will now make explicit commentary about your lack of intelligence and your failure of reading comprehension.
Also, affirmative action is defined as discrimination. It is defined as "positive discrimination", in which you enforce favoritism on a certain population, and thus handicap other populations.
It follows like this: your project, would it be in the theme of clean energy or of protecting us from Global Warming or of the theme of old art or culture or sea life or space technology or medicine or humanity or the Jungle, would qualify for an $18 million grant; however, as your project, being wholly qualified in all other respects, is of a theme of a *religion*, you are disqualified.
In the above, we have made religion a reason to withhold the rightful funding that a business is entitled to under statute. It is as if we have written a law to include all kinds of benefits of a certain Government service (a grant, in this case), but excluded a class based on religion. This is a similar behavior to excluding Muslims and Catholics from receiving welfare benefits due to their religion.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This clause says that all persons born in the US are citizens of the US and the State in which they reside, and subject to the rights and privileges of such citizens.
Precedent behavior of the Federal Government has been the swearing of oaths on the Catholic Bible in court, the funding and supplying of bibles to schools, and the great reliance on the words of God (however you get those). These things were common in the founding of the country and in the decades following, up until relatively recently, and indicate a Federal and State involvement in religion without the Governmental power to compel by force of law.
The largest argument has always been and will always be that the Government was founded on a "wall of separation", that this country was built to "keep the Government away from Religion", and so on. History shows this to not be true. Clean Sun Energy Corp gets a $200B grant, raising applause from Americans everywhere; but then Clean Sun Energy Corp announces its great gratitude to the American taxpayers in helping it to bring the power of God which shines down upon us all from the Heavens into our homes, freeing us from the debilitating effects from Coal and Oil pulled from the depths of the ground as the poisonous offering sent by Lucifer, and those same Americans start shrieking that the Government can't give these people money because of *religion*.
It seems to me no such thing were ever in the minds of the Framers, and that they simply sought to prevent religious persecution. Now, ironically, the people clamor for religious persecution, screaming that religions, religious functions, and non-religious functions which are run by those with deeply-held religious beliefs who dare to espouse them publicly should be given *no* *aid* by the Government at all, left to rot if they cannot hold themselves up, regardless of if they would otherwise have merit for such aid had they kept their mouths closed about their religion.
Next, we'll start talking of denying welfare to people of any faith, as the Government should not provide funding to keep Christians and Muslims alive.
Slashdot Mirror
People have left behind the good Christian religion in favor of the religion of Science. It's like when L. Ron Hubbard wrote all that scifi stuff, and some crazy people made a religion of it; we came up with the Scientific Process, and now the unwashed masses who fancy themselves intellectuals bow down and worship Science as if it were some sort of religion, right down to attacking others for their false gods.
People want space flight because space flight is sciencey. They'll talk about colonizing Mars and saving ourselves from extinction, but that's really fancy talk. They want to live in Star Trek, end of story.
It's why, when I point at our limited resources and say we could shift some of NASA's budget away to a socialized medical research institute, people stamp their feet and claim NASA is integral for developing future innovations like satellite television, cool Nikes, and Tempurpedic beds--all things the private sector would have developed, save for satellite TV (which the military probably would have developed anyway, by way of spy satellites). Joint cooperation for a space station has been useful; a lot of everything else has been.. mosty a circle jerk.
The truth is NASA is the ultimate image of a public effort to develop new techie gadgets. Nobody cares about space; they just want space ships that can take them to the ISS for a pointless and non-productive vacation tour.
And Anteres blew up.
That looks like plausible words; random letters can form words. How often have you found "ass" and "dicks" in word searches?
they can choose "facebook" I can choose "facebookcorewwwi" and feed it 0 bits to get my hash.
I was assuming they had HASH(seed) = 0xDEADBEEF and they were trying to HASH("FACEBOOK" + whatever) and get 0xDEADBEEF. To do this, you would feed your hash function--which iteratively generates a hash based on a stream--"FACEBOOK", and then start appending 40-bit strings.
There was some assertion that the full length of the identifier is 80 bits, and that Facebook only brute forced 40 bits. This is how you find a hash collision with a known prefix: you hash the prefix, then continue computing the next 40 bits in brute force, rather than running the full 80 bits repeatedly. There is always the danger of not finding a collision, of course, even if your hash function is smaller than 40 bits.
It's 80 bits.
It's an SHA-1 hash, but in square root of the time. Facebook wanted to work out facebook*.onion, so they only had to sha-1 'facebook' and then store that state. After that, feed 40 sha-1 bits to the sha-1 function to generate a bunch of different hashes, keeping the ones that match.
This works all the time, as long as there are collisions in that space that match your hash.
My new tax bill will completely eliminate planetary homelessness by creating an intergalactic market opportunity providing dwarf stars to the most poverty-stricken of planets at a viable profit.
Sikh are awesome, though. They're bound by the tenants of their religion to intervene when somebody is in need of aid. Think about that: they have a religion that specifically damns them for wandering by a murder or rape and deciding it's not their business.
But they're still brown, and this is America.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, actually. He had a Ph.D., and Luther was not his first name. Can you get any simple facts right?
I see someone who starts sentences with 'I see...' way too much.
You really aren't familiar with speech-writing literary devices, are you? Repetition in structure is a well-known method of keeping a reader's or listener's mind engaged and attended to what is being said, thus saving them the strain of interpretation. The polar opposite is mismatching of clauses in a list, such as "with honor, dignity, and by doing the right thing" (i.e. "with honor, with dignity, and with by doing the right thing"--you can see the error). Reduction is used in compact, technical explanations: "I see the poor, the abused, the forgotten"; expansion is used in persuasive arguments: "I see the poor; I see the abused; I see the forgotten."
Perhaps you could learn something from an education.
Liberal Democrats are not simple social progressives. The country is run by Liberals and Radicals, even Liberals calling themselves Conservative, and even those who have forked off those such false Conservatives and become Radicals. There are at least half a dozen readily visible political sentiments here, and they fly under but two banners, to say nothing of the third parties which espouse a variety of incongruous positions.
In England circa 1900, the Tori party began its cut through the Liberals and Radicals in parliament to begin England's progressive era. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives were very progressive, although both had made political campaigns out of old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, and worker's compensation. When no such things appeared, a new political opinion arose, and the progressives stepped between these calling themselves Liberal and Conservative, and then begun a steady, conservative, progressive movement to actually implement such things.
I see more than the packaged deal. I see more than two parties where the two names are used. I see more than two positions active in our government and in our politics. I see society's sentiments, behaviors, and moods. That you wish to ignore these occludes the reality of our recent history and our modern struggles to your view.
I am familiar with the concept of unintended consequences. I do, however, take poorly to people purporting to know what the Constitution is meant to provide for, whilst standing in stark opposition to the behaviors and actions of the people who actually wrote it.
The peak of Affirmative Action was in the 90s, when arguments over Affirmative Action were made, when Family Guy was mocking reparations, when fears over quotas of how many black people to hire were coming out of the woodwork, when such quotas or similar systems of selecting X from the black/women pool and the rest from the general pool were actively done so as to avoid potential "you have an awful lot of white guys working here..." EEO litigation, and so on.
I got my liberal Democrats from high school. Had a friend whose mom baked the class Democrat Cookies with asses on them; the kid campaigned in the middle of class for a gubernatorial election, and also told us that one of our classmates got into a good college because she was black. Said black chick had a better SAT score than me, initially, by 20 points; but I retook the test because my statistics teacher scored 1330 on his SATs, and he was similarly fucking head-up-ass politically retarded, and went on 40 minute rants about how gay marriage would lead to people marrying tables and animals, and then was fired after 3 months for gross incompetence. I scored a 1340 on my second round, 10 points higher than black chick who "got into a good college because she's black", so my response to that argument is an enormous middle finger.
Amusingly, the anti-gay-marriage ranting teacher was a firm Democrat, and would rant about bush a lot, too. The guy campaigning for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend also used to comment that Shirley Temple was a bright actress because she was a Democrat, while talking about how fucked up gays are and how they all carry diseases and HIV. Never have I experienced such a confused mixture of politics and social vitriol as I had in the presence of these people. How they managed to hold a firm stance against gay marriage and yet a firm stance against all things conservative politics I will never quite understand, considering the way partisan politics are held as a fashion statement here in the United States.
The more conservatives I was surrounded by did not seem to care much. We had such people as William Donald Schaffer once, a moderate Democrat whose behavior was more becoming, and who speaks to me of what the country should be more like; alas, in my time, he had taken a more minor governmental office and was no longer governor. The modern Conservative has disappeared, as well, in favor of the right-wing radical: some politicians appear as caricatures of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. These are such sad times, but familiar to me: it is as when the Tori of the English cut down the center of Parliament to bring progressive politics in where there was only the barren wasteland between the Liberal and the Radical politicians, and I hope soon we shall see similar senses brought among the House of Representatives and the Senate of our nation.
I wrote my PIN on the back of the chip-n-pin card. Chip-n-Sign forever!
Remember when retailers wanted people to run debit, and nobody would do it? That was because retailers get charged for credit transactions, and don't want to pay that; while individuals have to enter their PIN for debit, and are too lazy for that. As we can't be strong-armed into using debit over credit, we'd just say, "Credit!" and swipe and sign.
That was, uh, EVERYONE.
Well then, let me enlighten you about the United States education system. Sit back and enjoy a bit of history.
Back in the early 20th century, it was discovered that faculty education theory does not hold. This is to say: the brain is not a muscle. Faculty education purports to strengthen the brain by flexing, such that repeated memory drilling makes memory work better, and the learning of Latin and Greek make the mind's ability to process language sharper and firmer. Such things are a complete falsehood.
As reaction, John Dewey lead a progressive education renaissance, replacing this with a sort of student-centric education by experience. Rather than studying from biology textbooks, memorizing times tables, and reciting historical events, students would grow plants from seed, perform mathematics from word problems, and read historical stories and enact plays and games. This would replace "I know" with "I have experienced", creating a life of experiences as education.
There are obvious faults in this. From an unstructured and unknowledgeable view, one could easily comment on Latin and Greek providing the basis of English and other European languages, thus providing strength in English. This argument is fluffy and makes no notable contribution; it is, however, correct for other reasons, which I shall expand upon.
To start with, the ideals of John Dewey imply that "experience" is all-important and, directly and explicitly, damn the concept of "memorization". According to this new progressive education method, memorization is wrong, is toxic, and is damaging. Memorization is painful, difficult, detracting, and dull; it distracts the student from the pleasure and enjoyment of learning by his experiences, and provides no real benefit. This view is patently false.
All learning, all knowledge, predicates on memory. A person cannot learn what he cannot remember. Experience forms a type of memory, and forms it more strongly than rote drilling. I will agree that the rote memorization of facts is dull and toxic; but this is not the only form of memorization, and it is not reason to eschew memorization entire as a damaging or even an unimportant aspect of education.
What faculty learning misinterpreted--and what its detractors completely missed--was the improvement of the mind by *technique*. Memory, for example, improves by mnemonics such as acrostics, the method of Loci, rhymes, and visualization. The learning of Latin and Greek provides a familiar base on which to derive English and other European languages, easing the learning and use of such, at least in terms of vocabulary. These are not matters of the brain getting stronger, but rather of it having knowledge of ways to approach these things more effectively--in the same way that a crowbar does not make you stronger, but it does allow you to rip the side of a house clean off.
The many skills we need for a strong education system include mnemonics, study systems, mental mathematics, problem analysis systems, decision making systems, and the like. I will expand on each in brief here; I will trade a strong and complete argument for brevity and structure.
Mnemonics form the foundation: what is not remembered cannot be known, and what is not known cannot be learned. Mnemonics allow for quick, efficient memory of things, at least temporarily, so that they may be recalled in the course of learning or applying without carrying a reference. Such recall allows learning and doing to apply freshly-introduced concepts which may otherwise be promptly forgotten, which allows for understanding of further explanation, and thus allows for more solid learning. These techniques thus increase learning and thinking efficiency.
Study systems closely relate to mnemonics. SQ3R and SQW3R propose a method for examining new material (largely, written material) and preparing to meet it in learning. The general mode of these and other study systems is to Survey the headings, pictures, introductory sentences
Doesn't work that way. This is a clear statement:
I have the greatest understanding for anyone who wishes to excise such views and the people possessing them from their lives.
To break it down to English:
[Subject](I) [Verb](have) [Direct Object](the greatest understanding) [Indirect Object](for anyone who wishes to excise such views and the people possessing them from their lives).
And to break down the Predicate Nominative:
[Subject](anyone [Gerund](who wishes|=wishing)) [Verb](to excise) [Conjunctive List]([Direct Object](such views) [Conjunction](and) [Direct Object](the people possessing them)) [Indirect Object](from their lives).
English is quite complex, but you can see how it all lays out. The predicate direct object is one giant noun clause ("anyone wishing...from their lives."), which, being a noun clause, could also become a subject. For example:
Anyone wishing to excise such views and those possessing them from their lives is wholly justified.
This starts with the same noun clause, followed by the copula verb "is", and a predicate of "wholly justified".
I believe the correct verb would have been "evict" rather than "excise", however ("excise" means "tax"). Either case does not imply execution, nor does it fit into a sentence structure suggesting anything be done directly to such a person at all; the sentence structure suggests more nothing than nothing be done with the person. Given that such fault does not lead to an interpretation involving any form of bodily harm, nor would the structure suggest such a thing, it seems you are at fault for reading what you wish to read rather than what is stated.
Organisations that flicker back and forth between commercial venture, charity and church according to legal convenience and expedience.
Sounds like Verizon, but with "religion".
So it makes it better, then makes that better?
Yeah, we see how free trade has solved education in America.
Our education system has tumbled down to the bottom of what a civilized education system can be. It is practically an indoctrination system. It doesn't teach people how to think; it just shoves things on kids, in hopes of keeping them busy.
It appears to produce people like you.
I'll be amused when Wired comes out to report about this, welcoming them to the field.
Well, you're wrong. The original Executive Order commanded that GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS hire without regard to race, religion, or national origin (i.e. you can't refuse to hire foreigners). Nothing about higher education.
That was way back in the 60s. In the 90s, it was fashionable to place college students by non-statutory racial quotas--they were non-statutory because such quotas are, and always have been, illegal--and so it was suggested that more women and blacks would be taken into college on the basis of being women and blacks. There was much argument for this, and much political theater against this. About this time, the term "reparations" begun to appear, with blacks and non-black civil rights advocates demanding cash payment for the suffering of their ancestors, or some such nonsense; these such things are simply the result of political hysteria, and are mirrored by white country singers sparking white Americans to kick the shit out of anyone with a beard and turban shortly after 9/11.
At a point, the social institution of affirmative action had been the leaning toward bringing in at least some candidates for employment and college admissions based on "some of them are black and women, so we should chose some of those specifically to get a good balance". This institution was not formalized by statute--indeed, was illegal--but was engaged in nonetheless, and was talked about openly and argued for as a social institution which many desired to codify into formal statute.
Try thinking from a view of everything, instead of from a narrow view. It helps to understand not just legal statute and origins, but the progression, the implicit social institutions which came and went, the arguments people had made, the media behavior over time, misconceptions of various people, forward-theory, and human psychology in general.
What you mean to say is that SoCaS does not mandate a complete division between state action and any religious entity.
The term "separation of church and state" is shouted loudly, sometimes bluntly and without context, by those who wish to appeal that the state is not allowed to dirty its hands by contact with any religion in any way. It is often used as an argument to discriminate against religion, for example by pointing to a thing which could gain funding under statute, but then saying, "Oh, but it has a religious attachment, and therefor funding, legally provided by statute, should be denied on the grounds of religion here."
Your faith may require you to build a rocket ship out of elephant tusks and diamonds, but that doesn't mean the state is obligated to fund such an endeavor.
On the other hand, your state may fund the building of space technology; this does mean your state is obligated to judge your funding qualifications by the exact same standards as every other business, even if your business is "Rocketry of the Holy Lord Jesus Our Savior". As long as statute provides State grant for those businesses involved in the production of rocketry, and your business is legitimately engaged in the production of rocketry as such, the denial of State grants because "you can't wave the Jesus flag everywhere" would be an immense violation of religious non-discrimination, a potential violation of statute, and possibly a Constitutional crisis.
We're not supposed to make laws and Government policy which excludes things based on their entanglement with religion.
I would say discriminatory employment practices should be illegal in full. Would not a Muslim, being of sound mind and of an educated sort, have interest in exploring the views of others? Therefor, perhaps a Muslim would like to work at such an attraction. Were he to espouse his faith and criticize his employer's views and the message the attraction attempts to convey, he could be terminated for inappropriate behavior harming the business by detracting from its primary value as a themed attraction; in the same way, I would expect a business to hire gays, but to fire those gays which begin to push gayness onto others, as some are wont to do, as that would be the last thing I want to deal with whilst trying to order a sandwich from Arby's.
Shrug. I am only concerned with being correct. If there is a problem with the correct and accurate view of the situation, then it appears to me we have legislatures which may pass laws to redress such problems.
I did also mention that the Incorporation interpretation would make it patently illegal for a state to refuse to fund something based on it being religious, if it otherwise qualified for some form of funding. In other words: if the state has provision for government grants to tourist attractions, then the state cannot deny those grants to *religious* tourist attractions on the grounds of them being religious; that would be akin to legally excluding a religion from participating in the benefits of society.
You are making veil threats about killing liberals for their views
To excise something or someone from your life is to remove it, by avoidance of contact. For example: you may excise your parents from your life by moving to Japan and not telling them.
I will now make explicit commentary about your lack of intelligence and your failure of reading comprehension.
Also, affirmative action is defined as discrimination. It is defined as "positive discrimination", in which you enforce favoritism on a certain population, and thus handicap other populations.
It follows like this: your project, would it be in the theme of clean energy or of protecting us from Global Warming or of the theme of old art or culture or sea life or space technology or medicine or humanity or the Jungle, would qualify for an $18 million grant; however, as your project, being wholly qualified in all other respects, is of a theme of a *religion*, you are disqualified.
In the above, we have made religion a reason to withhold the rightful funding that a business is entitled to under statute. It is as if we have written a law to include all kinds of benefits of a certain Government service (a grant, in this case), but excluded a class based on religion. This is a similar behavior to excluding Muslims and Catholics from receiving welfare benefits due to their religion.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This clause says that all persons born in the US are citizens of the US and the State in which they reside, and subject to the rights and privileges of such citizens.
Precedent behavior of the Federal Government has been the swearing of oaths on the Catholic Bible in court, the funding and supplying of bibles to schools, and the great reliance on the words of God (however you get those). These things were common in the founding of the country and in the decades following, up until relatively recently, and indicate a Federal and State involvement in religion without the Governmental power to compel by force of law.
The largest argument has always been and will always be that the Government was founded on a "wall of separation", that this country was built to "keep the Government away from Religion", and so on. History shows this to not be true. Clean Sun Energy Corp gets a $200B grant, raising applause from Americans everywhere; but then Clean Sun Energy Corp announces its great gratitude to the American taxpayers in helping it to bring the power of God which shines down upon us all from the Heavens into our homes, freeing us from the debilitating effects from Coal and Oil pulled from the depths of the ground as the poisonous offering sent by Lucifer, and those same Americans start shrieking that the Government can't give these people money because of *religion*.
It seems to me no such thing were ever in the minds of the Framers, and that they simply sought to prevent religious persecution. Now, ironically, the people clamor for religious persecution, screaming that religions, religious functions, and non-religious functions which are run by those with deeply-held religious beliefs who dare to espouse them publicly should be given *no* *aid* by the Government at all, left to rot if they cannot hold themselves up, regardless of if they would otherwise have merit for such aid had they kept their mouths closed about their religion.
Next, we'll start talking of denying welfare to people of any faith, as the Government should not provide funding to keep Christians and Muslims alive.