So students are constitutionally permitted to leave class to go hang out on the playground without permission I assume? That would be, after all, protected under the First Amendment right to free assembly.
Not to mention telling the teacher "you're a fuckhead" in class. That's not a detentionable offense because the First Amendment protects said speech?
Thirteen year olds should be allowed to take handguns to school under the Second Amendment?
The student has a right to jury trial before being put in detention under the Sixth Amendment?
You're forgetting that schools act in loco parentis, and thus, schools have certain authorities to limit a student's rights in the same way a parent can. A parent can punish without a jury. A parent can ground unreasonably.
Note that schools don't get 100% of the parental authority, but they clearly get some.
My public elementary (and maybe junior high? not high school, though) in Texas growing up required students to deposit meds with the school nurse, and a student had to go to the nurse to take his meds every time.
"Germany" in your example refers to the nation, not to the people. "Brazilians" is implicitly limited to those competing in the world cup within the sentence itself. "Japanese" refers to the people, but it's pretty damn near accurate (I've lived there).
I'm not sure about the "Greeks" one, though.
But when you say "Americans [are hypocrites]," you are directly attacking the entirety of the people with demonstrably false statements.
Distinguishable from "Germany" because you're not speaking of the sovereign or state, but rather its citizens; from "Brazilians" because the structure of your accusation does not implicitly limit "Americans" to only a subset; from "Japanese" because it's not close to being true.
This is due to who settled the areas of Texas: the border was settled by Catholics from Mexico (who got their religion from Spain); the center was settled by Germans who brought Lutheranism with them; I'm not sure of the history of Baptists in the US, so I can't explain why the north is Baptist majority in TX: it's likely similar to the Mormon migration west.
most christians remind me instead of children who know how quickly every car on the market does 0-60 but don't know how an internal combustion engine works.
It's always a car analogy with you people, isn't it?
[A law is] a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature. (emphasis added)
That does not cover evolution whatsoever. Your quoted definition of "scientific law" covers mathematical relationships between properties (e.g., Boyle's Law). Evolution is not a mathematical relationship or a mere observation. Evolution is a comprehensive model of how speciation came about from the first organism. From Wikipedia:
scientific theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena
From the US National Academy of Sciences:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
Finally,
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.
Basically, a simple (perhaps simplistic) way of remembering the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is that a law is an equation. A theory is much more: a model.
When high school science classes start encouraging kids to question the existence of gravity, or to look for alternative explanations for electricity, then we can talk about casting doubt on evolution as well.
I don't mean to be an ass, but my chemistry classes all through my primary and secondary school time focused on the constant revision and rejection of models of the atom.
Not to mention any class that talks about quantum mechanics or relativity (again, my Texas public high school in a regular district, not some rich or poor outlier) must necessarily include some discussion of how Newtonian physics is inadequate, and therefore not "correct."
High school science classes already do teach students to question certain doctrines, as I've hopefully elucidated.
That being said, I'm adamantly opposed to teaching ID in science class. It's not science. There are no falsifiable propositions.
I buy into the theory of evolution as a very good explanation for varied speciation. However, your blanket assertion that "evolution is a FACT" is erroneous.
To make that kind of assertion, you have to define "evolution." Otherwise, your statement has no meaning. You might as well be saying "blue is a fact."
Then, to explain what evolution is, you need an underlying theory. In your case, since evolution is "fact," the theory must have been proven true.
Unfortunately for you, the scientific method proves no theories true. It only disproves them and leaves scraps along the ground for scientists to assemble into a predictive model of the universe.
You do science a great disservice by making such statements.
In some scientific fields there are positions you can take that will effectively kill your chances at a tenure-track faculty position
Let's level our sights at the main culprit, shall we? String theory.
Lee Smolin's (a theoretical physicist with his Ph.D. from Harvard) book The Trouble with Physics describes how taking a contrarian view of string theory effectively kills your career.
For anyone interested in the book, it's important to point out that it's really got two main thrusts. One is an attack on academic homogeneity (which I agree with and think Smolin argues effectively that theoretical currently suffers from such homogeneity in this area without sufficient experimental results to justify the uniformity). The other is an attack on string theory and quantum physics themselves. This I'm not as concerned about (due to incapacity to comprehend and store for later retrieval), being merely an abstract mathematics student in a former life and currently a law student.
Every time someone invokes the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they're implicitly saying that the idea of a God is ridiculous. That is equivalent to the denial of the possibility of God, not a mere lack of belief.
I think if you compare the Google results of "sup dawg i herd you like" and "yo dawg i herd you like," you'll find that the "yo" usage trumps the "sup" usage in popularity by an order of magnitude. In memery, you must use popular usage as the metric of correctness.
Personally, I'm just disappointed there aren't any Geordie jokes on/. at all! I shall remedy that:
Geordie and his marra Tucker Johnson had a big win on the pools. So they decided to go on a World Cruise. After a week at sea, the Captain called the Purser into his cabin to ask what influential people were on board, so he could invite them to his table. "Sir", said the Purser, "we have four film stars, three M.P.'s and two strange gentlemen from the North, who seem to be very wealthy". The Captain bade him to go round with invitations. Knocking on Geordie's cabin door, he was greeted by "Howay in Bonny Lad". When he entered; there was Geordie and Tucker, feet on the table, four bottles of Broon Ale, eating fish and chips. The Purser saluted, "Begging your pardon gentlemen", he said, "The Captains compliments. He requests your company at his table tonight. "Ye must be joking", says Geordie, "Ye divvent think Tuckers and me's gan te spend aal this money to eat with the bloody crew".
One more for grins
The pit where Geordie worked was made redundant and Geordie lost his job. Reading the papers the next day, he sees an advert: Miners wanted in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., One Hundred Pounds per week, house and car supplied! So, fastening his furniture on the tail of a kite he emigrates to the U.S.A. First day at the pit, going down the cage, the cage stops.
Geordie says to an American, "How lad, is this where we start work, is this the coal fyce?"
"Say are you the guy from England" asks the Yank.
"I'm from Backworth son" says Geordie.
"Well, Buddy! Ya don't start here, ya wait here, a lil old diesel train comes along, ya git on, ya have a two and a half hours ride".
Geordie has the two and a half hours ride. Says to the Yank, "De we myke a start noo hinney?"
"No Bud", says the Yank, "You stand here, another train comes, you have another two hours ride".
This goes on all day, 8 o'clock in the morning till 5 p.m. at night. Geordie nivor struck a bat. He couldn't stand it no more, "Bonney lad", he says to the Yank, "I've had enough of this, its worse than working, I'm gannin back hyem the morn".
"Tarnation, Geordie", says the Yank, "Ya can't leave us now, we are at war with Vietnam!"
"Yev'e a bloody good reet", says Geordie. "Yer pinchin thor coal!".
When confidentiality is at issue, the suit shouldn't be for libel. It should be on some other grounds--breach of contract, trade secret, invasion of privacy, something by estoppel.
Defamation law exists to protect the injured from statements that would injure his reputation. Truth should be a defense against that sort of claim. However, it shouldn't necessarily be a defense against some other tort.
Slashdot Mirror
So students are constitutionally permitted to leave class to go hang out on the playground without permission I assume? That would be, after all, protected under the First Amendment right to free assembly.
Not to mention telling the teacher "you're a fuckhead" in class. That's not a detentionable offense because the First Amendment protects said speech?
Thirteen year olds should be allowed to take handguns to school under the Second Amendment?
The student has a right to jury trial before being put in detention under the Sixth Amendment?
You're forgetting that schools act in loco parentis, and thus, schools have certain authorities to limit a student's rights in the same way a parent can. A parent can punish without a jury. A parent can ground unreasonably.
Note that schools don't get 100% of the parental authority, but they clearly get some.
My public elementary (and maybe junior high? not high school, though) in Texas growing up required students to deposit meds with the school nurse, and a student had to go to the nurse to take his meds every time.
Vietnam did pretty fucking well for themselves.
Quite easily distinguishable.
"Germany" in your example refers to the nation, not to the people. "Brazilians" is implicitly limited to those competing in the world cup within the sentence itself. "Japanese" refers to the people, but it's pretty damn near accurate (I've lived there).
I'm not sure about the "Greeks" one, though.
But when you say "Americans [are hypocrites]," you are directly attacking the entirety of the people with demonstrably false statements.
Distinguishable from "Germany" because you're not speaking of the sovereign or state, but rather its citizens; from "Brazilians" because the structure of your accusation does not implicitly limit "Americans" to only a subset; from "Japanese" because it's not close to being true.
It depends on where you are: http://www.utexas.edu/depts/grg/huebner/Spring2004/grg325/maps/religion.gif Near the border, you have Catholic majorities. In the north, you have Baptist majorities. In the center, you have no majority but with a Lutheran plurality.
This is due to who settled the areas of Texas: the border was settled by Catholics from Mexico (who got their religion from Spain); the center was settled by Germans who brought Lutheranism with them; I'm not sure of the history of Baptists in the US, so I can't explain why the north is Baptist majority in TX: it's likely similar to the Mormon migration west.
Depending on which definition of "proven" you are using, it might be more correct to refer to scientific theory as "undisproven" rather than "proven."
It's always a car analogy with you people, isn't it?
Well, the square root of negative one was set as the Flying Spaghetti Monster years ago because he is, after all, imaginary.
That does not cover evolution whatsoever. Your quoted definition of "scientific law" covers mathematical relationships between properties (e.g., Boyle's Law). Evolution is not a mathematical relationship or a mere observation. Evolution is a comprehensive model of how speciation came about from the first organism. From Wikipedia:
From the US National Academy of Sciences:
Finally,
Basically, a simple (perhaps simplistic) way of remembering the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is that a law is an equation. A theory is much more: a model.
I don't mean to be an ass, but my chemistry classes all through my primary and secondary school time focused on the constant revision and rejection of models of the atom.
Not to mention any class that talks about quantum mechanics or relativity (again, my Texas public high school in a regular district, not some rich or poor outlier) must necessarily include some discussion of how Newtonian physics is inadequate, and therefore not "correct."
High school science classes already do teach students to question certain doctrines, as I've hopefully elucidated.
That being said, I'm adamantly opposed to teaching ID in science class. It's not science. There are no falsifiable propositions.
I buy into the theory of evolution as a very good explanation for varied speciation. However, your blanket assertion that "evolution is a FACT" is erroneous.
To make that kind of assertion, you have to define "evolution." Otherwise, your statement has no meaning. You might as well be saying "blue is a fact."
Then, to explain what evolution is, you need an underlying theory. In your case, since evolution is "fact," the theory must have been proven true.
Unfortunately for you, the scientific method proves no theories true. It only disproves them and leaves scraps along the ground for scientists to assemble into a predictive model of the universe.
You do science a great disservice by making such statements.
Let's level our sights at the main culprit, shall we? String theory.
Lee Smolin's (a theoretical physicist with his Ph.D. from Harvard) book The Trouble with Physics describes how taking a contrarian view of string theory effectively kills your career.
For anyone interested in the book, it's important to point out that it's really got two main thrusts. One is an attack on academic homogeneity (which I agree with and think Smolin argues effectively that theoretical currently suffers from such homogeneity in this area without sufficient experimental results to justify the uniformity). The other is an attack on string theory and quantum physics themselves. This I'm not as concerned about (due to incapacity to comprehend and store for later retrieval), being merely an abstract mathematics student in a former life and currently a law student.
Hard atheism is not subscribed to? Bull.
Every time someone invokes the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they're implicitly saying that the idea of a God is ridiculous. That is equivalent to the denial of the possibility of God, not a mere lack of belief.
I think if you compare the Google results of "sup dawg i herd you like" and "yo dawg i herd you like," you'll find that the "yo" usage trumps the "sup" usage in popularity by an order of magnitude. In memery, you must use popular usage as the metric of correctness.
"Pornography" can mean anything depicted in unnecessary detail or "sensational material."
It's sad to see words lose their secondary meanings :(
Personally, I'm just disappointed there aren't any Geordie jokes on /. at all! I shall remedy that:
One more for grins
Good times, good times.
Is there a difference?
See the hands reaching for boy-junk.
Well shit. Brilliant joke? Check. Fuck up in the middle of the post ruining the whole thing? DOUBLE CHECK.
You can't convert metric tonnes to LoCs easily or precisely (the cesium. Rather, it is more easily coverted to Bibliotheques nationales.
A sketch site that is likely also trafficked by pre-teen and teen girls looking to pirate some Jonas Brothers.
If Bermuda-London is a 1 hour flight for you, I want your jet badly.
I'm with tyleroze: Your entire post can be summed up like this
OH MY GOD I'M SO FREAKING AWESOME (psst young people suck).
What I'm confused about is how you were lying awake and having either dreams or nightmares.
When confidentiality is at issue, the suit shouldn't be for libel. It should be on some other grounds--breach of contract, trade secret, invasion of privacy, something by estoppel.
Defamation law exists to protect the injured from statements that would injure his reputation. Truth should be a defense against that sort of claim. However, it shouldn't necessarily be a defense against some other tort.
"Absolute defense" is a legal term of art. It does not mean what you think it means.