public schools themselves are under no obligation to have things like Art Classes or Music Classes (at least at the High School level). Private schools usually have these classes and more.
Public schools usually have these classes too. So you describe a situation where neither public nor private schools mandate something, but both typically have it anyway - so what is the difference you were trying to describe here?
Private schools are the answer to those who want prayer in school
As a supporter of the separation of church and state, I agree fully.
But you close with: even if your an atheist you still have somethings that you go on by hunches (on faith....). That cannot be donein public school nor should it.
What? So you claim that faith is something everyone MUST have, while simultaneously claiming it CAN'T be done in public school. So which statement is true? They cannot both be true since the only way for that to be the case is for public schools to have nobody attending them.
There are many arguments on both sides, but any educational system that puts sports programs on such a pedestal if not push it as the most important thing s horribly broken.
On that I will agree with you, even though I don't agree with the above stuff. The school I went to really pissed me off because this sports-comes-first attitude was so strong that the jocks had that capacity to beat up non-jocks without getting into legal trouble, but the inverse was not true.
(Think basic data gathering and analysis techniques). Sure, it's nice to share the latest findings, but that can be done through handouts and direct lecturing.
Kids in highschool aren't doing research. The basic data gathering and analysis techniques don't come into play. (This should be changed, by the way. A basic lack of understanding how the scientific method actually works is a big problem. Too many people grow up with the misunderstanding that scientific knowlege is handed down from on high like religious "knowlege". I'm not agreeing with the situation as it exists, just pointing out that that's not what these textbooks cover. The stuff they cover *IS* the conclusions.)
Mostly, all the hubbub about new texts is just bouncing from one latest teaching fad to the next.
It also reflects changes in the language and culture, which impinges on every subject, even math and science, simply because they are written using words that change.
As for History - it doesn't change, but our perception of it most certainly does. Things which are believed to be true today can be discovered to have been false tomorrow.
The topic doesn't matter too much, though, because the budget for books is a very minor part of a school's cost anyway. (I don't like the idea of used textbooks anyway. I figure kids should own their books like the do in college. Simply borrowing them for the year ends up training them that it's wrong to write notes in books, and that is so, so, wrong.)
It is not possible to steal something multiple times unless you keep getting it back again. The scenario you describe uses a bogus meaning of the word "steal". The unethical behavior you are describing is actually plagerism. Theft includes the implication that the original owner doesn't have the item anymore. Therefore to steal intellectual "property" would require that you have a way to cause amnesia in the original owner.
Don't believe the bullshit being fed to us by the software industry and the recording industry. Plagerism is a problem, but it is a *DIFFERENT* problem than theft. To conflate the two is very unfair, much like confusing a speeding ticket with manslaughter.
Private schools don't do better than public because of the school itself. They do better because of the population of the student body goes through some strong filters that weed out the kids that bring the averages down for public schools. Firstly, a private school is under no legal obligation to *have* to teach every student like the public schools are - they can just drop any problem students and therefore the problem kids do not contribute to the degredation of the average, and also do not disrupt classes. Secondly, the kids they have are all kids who's parents obviously care about education enough to pay for it out of pocket, and this is going to be a VERY strong filter against parents who are apathetic about their kid's education. (Unfortunately it also is a strong filter against the poor, but that's not the reason for the higher grades. In addition to cutting out the poor, it also cuts out all the families that are rich but don't care about education.)
Yes, private schools turn out better students as output. But it's not because of the school itself. It's because they have better students, on average, as input.
Another common statement, "We need new books." I hate to say it, but math hasn't changed much. Neither has reading or writing.
But history, social studies, and physics are always changing. I went to school quite a few years ago, and the books were fine, but it would be really stupid to be teaching about geography or modern history from a book that still says the Soviet Union exists.
Kids equate money with education. You said this many times, but repeating a lie doesn't make it true. This trait about money for schools is purely an adult thing. Kids don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about money period.
We might have played different versions. Mine required the tool (now, the command DID work without explicitly mentioning the tool if you happened to have it on you at the time. It would be like so:
] take common sense (with the whatsahoozit thingymajob) Taken.
]
But if whatsahoozit thingymajob was not in your inventory at the time, it did not work and would ask "with what"?
I would very much like to put this quote up on my wall, but before I do so I would like to verify that it isn't made up. Can you cite a written source I can look up?
You have more faith in the inability of people to tamper than I do.
There isn't any such thing as making something that cannot be tampered with. It's like making a computer system on a network that can't be hacked - not possible. It is only possible, at most, to make it very, very difficult to tamper with it.
Detecting tampering after it has already occurred is too late.
Re:Portable nuke? Cool!
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Not every country has that, so they have to contact their government directly
You're not making sense. Contacting your representative *IS* contacting your government directly. Your statement sounds like "Instead of doing X they have to do X."
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
The floruescent bulbs of which the poster speaks require nothing more complex for the consumer than just buying a different bulb. They are designed to fit into the same exact screw fixture as a common incandescent bulb, so no fixture replacement is needed. Basically, they're just flourescent tube lights, like the old fashioned kind, but the glass is shaped into a small tube that twists around in a compact spiral and fits within the dimensions of a traditional incandescent bulb, using the same screw-in contact technique.
They are more expensive than incandescent bulbs, but they last a longer time before burning out, such that in the long run they are just as cheap if not cheaper than incandescents if the cost is figured over several years.
I agree that often conservation "solutions" are based on conveiniently ignoring less blatant forms of waste. This isn't one of those cases, though.
Only for objects in relatively low orbits that swim through the molecules leaking from the upper atmosphere. Something out in geosynchonous orbit would not have this problem, nor does that really big satellite - the moon. (Technically it would eventualy slow down from random tiny friction too, but not before the sun goes nova.)
Re:Portable nuke? Cool!
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I don't know of *any* country where the citizens have a choice as to whom their UN representative is. It's an appointed position, just like any ambassadorship. (Thats one of the strongest arguments against the UN having more authority on things - despite the rhetoric that tries to paint them as being representative of world opinion, they are not a democratically elected governing body.)
Re:Asimov's Foundation
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Those books were written well before the full dangers of exposure to radiation were well known, when soldiers were being asked to sit in bunkers and put on goggles and watch nuclear test blasts. Back then, the notion that a portable reactor on your belt would have to be very heavily shielded to be kept that close to you was unknown.
It makes the books kind of fun to read today. I'm imagining people walking around with belt-buckle nuclear reactors, rendering them sterile the moment they turn them on.
The decision to break up germany was decided long before the end of the war. The location of the various allied armies merely ended up deciding *where* the line of demarkation would be. The fact that there would be such a line was a decision already made. (Churchill would have preferred that the area previously known as "Prussia" be the only piece cut off, with the rest being one big piece. In his mind, Prussia is where all the militaristic might-makes-right attitude that Germany had been famous for was rooted, but the rest of the country was where all the industrial and technological might that Germany was famous for was rooted, so if you separate the two, then the militarists aren't in the same country as the industries, and thus they are rendered impotent.)
The effect that actually happened from where the armies stood was very similar to that, but with east Germany ending up a little bigger than planned.
Just how "sealed" can the reactors be? There must be some way to break through with concentrated effort. The goal wouldn't be to blow up the reactor. The goal would be to get at the fuel and carry it off to somewhere else. The theory behind preventing nuclear proliferation is that the technology and science to make a nuclear bomb is too simple and obvious to contain it (you can learn what you need to from college physics). So instead you contain the spread of the fuel source, which is much more rare than the knowlege of how to use it. The reason there is so much scrutiny over nuclear power programs is that a controlled, sustained nuclear reaction such as exists in a power plant is precisely how you make fissionable fuel for a bomb.
Re:Third World does NOTqual terrorist!
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
All nuclear fuel sources in America have signifigantly more beurocracy and security guarding it than a passenger jet has, making your analogy rather idiotic.
Until you can provide some solid evidence that there was more to this than the normal level of error of such a program,
You are being a hypocrite, since your description of the motor-voter 'scam' is also just as attributtable to "the normal level of error of such a program".
I will continue to interpret such griping as sour grapes from a pack of losers.
I'm not a democrat nor a republican. I wish niether Gore nor Bush had won. I just don't tolerate lying (which is why I'm neither a democrat nor a republican), and the Florida 2000 fiasco, and the subsequent explanations for it, are filled with the kinds of slanderous lying (on both sides) that utterly piss me off. The truth of the matter is that they had a shitty vote recording system in place, that had a certain margin of error, and the problem is that the margin of the vote was smaller than the margin of error inherent in the system, so the outcome is (and always will be) unknown.
if your just about beating the game, or winning, or whatnot, you're doing it for the wrong reason.
No, I want to read the story, and the funny responses. But when you're stuck in the same damn place and can't get past it, the responses aren't funny anymore.
My goal was not to *beat* the game, but to finish *reading* the game, and to do one you have to do the other, duh.
So, once you check out a book from the library, and leave the building, you no longer have to abide by the rules the library puts on the book - go ahead and rip pages out and use them to start a campfire if you like, hey, it doesn't matter - you left the building...right?
The fact is that if you use someone's property, you follow their rules about it - whether that property is their building or their book or their RF transmitter. Sitting outside the library, he was still using their property when he used their RF transmitter.
If the terms of use did say that you have to use the signal only inside the building, then the scenario that played out would have been okay. But the article doesn't have that detail, so we don't know.
Read the article. They aren't telling them to stop using the format, which renders all your points completely moot. They're telling them to stop using a name that assocaties their show with MST3K.
Slashdot Mirror
public schools themselves are under no obligation to have things like Art Classes or Music Classes (at least at the High School level). Private schools usually have these classes and more.
Public schools usually have these classes too. So you describe a situation where neither public nor private schools mandate something, but both typically have it anyway - so what is the difference you were trying to describe here?
Private schools are the answer to those who want prayer in school
As a supporter of the separation of church and state, I agree fully.
But you close with:
even if your an atheist you still have somethings that you go on by hunches (on faith....). That cannot be donein public school nor should it.
What? So you claim that faith is something everyone MUST have, while simultaneously claiming it CAN'T be done in public school. So which statement is true? They cannot both be true since the only way for that to be the case is for public schools to have nobody attending them.
Your unverified anecdote is being ignored.
There are many arguments on both sides, but any educational system that puts sports programs on such a pedestal if not push it as the most important thing s horribly broken.
On that I will agree with you, even though I don't agree with the above stuff. The school I went to really pissed me off because this sports-comes-first attitude was so strong that the jocks had that capacity to beat up non-jocks without getting into legal trouble, but the inverse was not true.
(Think basic data gathering and analysis techniques). Sure, it's nice to share the latest findings, but that can be done through handouts and direct lecturing.
Kids in highschool aren't doing research. The basic data gathering and analysis techniques don't come into play. (This should be changed, by the way. A basic lack of understanding how the scientific method actually works is a big problem. Too many people grow up with the misunderstanding that scientific knowlege is handed down from on high like religious "knowlege". I'm not agreeing with the situation as it exists, just pointing out that that's not what these textbooks cover. The stuff they cover *IS* the conclusions.)
Mostly, all the hubbub about new texts is just bouncing from one latest teaching fad to the next.
It also reflects changes in the language and culture, which impinges on every subject, even math and science, simply because they are written using words that change.
As for History - it doesn't change, but our perception of it most certainly does. Things which are believed to be true today can be discovered to have been false tomorrow.
The topic doesn't matter too much, though, because the budget for books is a very minor part of a school's cost anyway. (I don't like the idea of used textbooks anyway. I figure kids should own their books like the do in college. Simply borrowing them for the year ends up training them that it's wrong to write notes in books, and that is so, so, wrong.)
Salary for teachers is a bigger slice of the pie.
So censoring someone doesn't count as censoring so long as you run a story were you talk about having censored them?
If you owned something that people kept stealing,
It is not possible to steal something multiple times unless you keep getting it back again. The scenario you describe uses a bogus meaning of the word "steal". The unethical behavior you are describing is actually plagerism. Theft includes the implication that the original owner doesn't have the item anymore. Therefore to steal intellectual "property" would require that you have a way to cause amnesia in the original owner.
Don't believe the bullshit being fed to us by the software industry and the recording industry. Plagerism is a problem, but it is a *DIFFERENT* problem than theft. To conflate the two is very unfair, much like confusing a speeding ticket with manslaughter.
Private schools don't do better than public because of the school itself. They do better because of the population of the student body goes through some strong filters that weed out the kids that bring the averages down for public schools. Firstly, a private school is under no legal obligation to *have* to teach every student like the public schools are - they can just drop any problem students and therefore the problem kids do not contribute to the degredation of the average, and also do not disrupt classes. Secondly, the kids they have are all kids who's parents obviously care about education enough to pay for it out of pocket, and this is going to be a VERY strong filter against parents who are apathetic about their kid's education. (Unfortunately it also is a strong filter against the poor, but that's not the reason for the higher grades. In addition to cutting out the poor, it also cuts out all the families that are rich but don't care about education.)
Yes, private schools turn out better students as output. But it's not because of the school itself. It's because they have better students, on average, as input.
Another common statement, "We need new books."
I hate to say it, but math hasn't changed much. Neither has reading or writing.
But history, social studies, and physics are always changing. I went to school quite a few years ago, and the books were fine, but it would be really stupid to be teaching about geography or modern history from a book that still says the Soviet Union exists.
Kids equate money with education.
You said this many times, but repeating a lie doesn't make it true. This trait about money for schools is purely an adult thing. Kids don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about money period.
We might have played different versions. Mine required the tool (now, the command DID work without explicitly mentioning the tool if you happened to have it on you at the time. It would be like so:
] take common sense
(with the whatsahoozit thingymajob)
Taken.
]
But if whatsahoozit thingymajob was not in your inventory at the time, it did not work and would ask "with what"?
I would very much like to put this quote up on my wall, but before I do so I would like to verify that it isn't made up. Can you cite a written source I can look up?
has to be done by a government or a large organization (like a church).
True. Now explain to me how Clear Channel doesn't count as a big organization.
the article didn't exactly make it clear what was being asked for
Exact quote from the article:
"We just want them to stop using our name," he says.
You have more faith in the inability of people to tamper than I do.
There isn't any such thing as making something that cannot be tampered with. It's like making a computer system on a network that can't be hacked - not possible. It is only possible, at most, to make it very, very difficult to tamper with it.
Detecting tampering after it has already occurred is too late.
Not every country has that, so they have to contact their government directly
You're not making sense. Contacting your representative *IS* contacting your government directly. Your statement sounds like "Instead of doing X they have to do X."
The floruescent bulbs of which the poster speaks require nothing more complex for the consumer than just buying a different bulb. They are designed to fit into the same exact screw fixture as a common incandescent bulb, so no fixture replacement is needed. Basically, they're just flourescent tube lights, like the old fashioned kind, but the glass is shaped into a small tube that twists around in a compact spiral and fits within the dimensions of a traditional incandescent bulb, using the same screw-in contact technique.
They are more expensive than incandescent bulbs, but they last a longer time before burning out, such that in the long run they are just as cheap if not cheaper than incandescents if the cost is figured over several years.
I agree that often conservation "solutions" are based on conveiniently ignoring less blatant forms of waste. This isn't one of those cases, though.
Remember, "what goes up, must come down."
Only for objects in relatively low orbits that swim through the molecules leaking from the upper atmosphere. Something out in geosynchonous orbit would not have this problem, nor does that really big satellite - the moon. (Technically it would eventualy slow down from random tiny friction too, but not before the sun goes nova.)
Actually, I don't know of *any* country where the citizens have a choice as to whom their UN representative is. It's an appointed position, just like any ambassadorship. (Thats one of the strongest arguments against the UN having more authority on things - despite the rhetoric that tries to paint them as being representative of world opinion, they are not a democratically elected governing body.)
Those books were written well before the full dangers of exposure to radiation were well known, when soldiers were being asked to sit in bunkers and put on goggles and watch nuclear test blasts. Back then, the notion that a portable reactor on your belt would have to be very heavily shielded to be kept that close to you was unknown.
It makes the books kind of fun to read today. I'm imagining people walking around with belt-buckle nuclear reactors, rendering them sterile the moment they turn them on.
The decision to break up germany was decided long before the end of the war. The location of the various allied armies merely ended up deciding *where* the line of demarkation would be. The fact that there would be such a line was a decision already made. (Churchill would have preferred that the area previously known as "Prussia" be the only piece cut off, with the rest being one big piece. In his mind, Prussia is where all the militaristic might-makes-right attitude that Germany had been famous for was rooted, but the rest of the country was where all the industrial and technological might that Germany was famous for was rooted, so if you separate the two, then the militarists aren't in the same country as the industries, and thus they are rendered impotent.)
The effect that actually happened from where the armies stood was very similar to that, but with east Germany ending up a little bigger than planned.
Just how "sealed" can the reactors be? There must be some way to break through with concentrated effort. The goal wouldn't be to blow up the reactor. The goal would be to get at the fuel and carry it off to somewhere else. The theory behind preventing nuclear proliferation is that the technology and science to make a nuclear bomb is too simple and obvious to contain it (you can learn what you need to from college physics). So instead you contain the spread of the fuel source, which is much more rare than the knowlege of how to use it. The reason there is so much scrutiny over nuclear power programs is that a controlled, sustained nuclear reaction such as exists in a power plant is precisely how you make fissionable fuel for a bomb.
All nuclear fuel sources in America have signifigantly more beurocracy and security guarding it than a passenger jet has, making your analogy rather idiotic.
Until you can provide some solid evidence that there was more to this than the normal level of error of such a program,
You are being a hypocrite, since your description of the motor-voter 'scam' is also just as attributtable to "the normal level of error of such a program".
I will continue to interpret such griping as sour grapes from a pack of losers.
I'm not a democrat nor a republican. I wish niether Gore nor Bush had won. I just don't tolerate lying (which is why I'm neither a democrat nor a republican), and the Florida 2000 fiasco, and the subsequent explanations for it, are filled with the kinds of slanderous lying (on both sides) that utterly piss me off. The truth of the matter is that they had a shitty vote recording system in place, that had a certain margin of error, and the problem is that the margin of the vote was smaller than the margin of error inherent in the system, so the outcome is (and always will be) unknown.
if your just about beating the game, or winning, or whatnot, you're doing it for the wrong reason.
No, I want to read the story, and the funny responses. But when you're stuck in the same damn place and can't get past it, the responses aren't funny anymore.
My goal was not to *beat* the game, but to finish *reading* the game, and to do one you have to do the other, duh.
So, once you check out a book from the library, and leave the building, you no longer have to abide by the rules the library puts on the book - go ahead and rip pages out and use them to start a campfire if you like, hey, it doesn't matter - you left the building...right?
The fact is that if you use someone's property, you follow their rules about it - whether that property is their building or their book or their RF transmitter. Sitting outside the library, he was still using their property when he used their RF transmitter.
If the terms of use did say that you have to use the signal only inside the building, then the scenario that played out would have been okay. But the article doesn't have that detail, so we don't know.
Read the article. They aren't telling them to stop using the format, which renders all your points completely moot. They're telling them to stop using a name that assocaties their show with MST3K.