I'll need maybe 20-30 days a year (only 2 or 3 days a month away), so that's 600-900. Assuming I find completely free electricity for the EV, I'll be "saving" around 600-700 in commuting fuel costs. Oops.
There are a lot of assumptions here. One that you're going to travel more than 500 miles one way at least 20 and up to 30 times a year. Also, that gas prices will remain fairly constant. And that any incentives for buying a zero emissions vehicle for some reason don't augment the fuel cost savings. I'm ok with that, since this theoretical 500 mile per charge EV may come with a premium price tag, or maybe any incentives just offset the cost of electricity, whatever.
Fixed (by the tax man) per-mile rate for car travel.
In your own car. Doesn't apply to the cost of renting a vehicle for work.
YMMV - thinking around my extended family, friends, and work colleagues I can't think of any car driver who _never_ drives 100miles away.
On the other hand, I can think of several people who wouldn't even consider a car trip of more than say, 200-300 miles-- that's why airplanes were invented, they opine. However, I did not say people. I said cars. You may find a different result among your family and friends if you ask how often each of their vehicles make 100, 200, 500 mile trips. Lots of cars are owned by multi-car families that typically use one car (the biggest or most comfortable, whatever) on their long trips. Census data from http://factfinder.census.gov/ show that about 55% of households have 2 or more vehicles. So again, while it may not quite work for you, there are lots of people for whom an EV -- even with perhaps as little as 100 or 200 mile range -- would work just fine.
Our federal government mandated testing is done on one day, for one single class. It is never repeated. There is no "November vs March" comparison. The students are tested once, and are never tested again.
Good to know, but not related to my point. My point was along the lines of short term vs. long term memory, i.e. if you only can recall a set of facts or concepts long enough to pass the test (in class test, not the standardized test) at the end of the week they're covered in class, you haven't really learned it.
We take one single test in November, and compare the raw average, ignoring any variance or standard deviation, to the raw average of the students who took it last year. (Yes, a completely different population of students!) It is truly a single data point.
By that logic, any study/survey/data collection only done once contains only a single data point regardless of how many questions/assays and/or respondents/subjects there are.
One year on one test, my school pulled something like 1107, when the state cutoff was 1110. Due to this, we were placed in the "below average" category. Never mind that the test error bars are like 30-50 pts.
Your assumption seems to be that the error bars are not considered when setting the cutoff. I don't know that that assumption is any more valid than the assumption that they are.
My Master's thesis looked at the fact that 3 zeros could push us from passing to failing. Three kids could blow off the govt mandated test which didn't affect them, and because we only report a raw average with no error, they could cause us to fail.
If that's true, then the way scores are aggregated and used is bad. No-shows for the test should be counted as NULLs, not zeros since those scores are unknown. I can see having some penalty (administratively to the school, not against the actual test scores) if some percentage of students don't take the test, but mixing non-scores with actual test scores doesn't make sense.
To be fair, it seems like we may be arguing somewhat different points. My point is that there is utility in standardized testing-- it allows you to control for subjective factors, etc.... The more I read you, the more I see that you're arguing against the way scores are used rather than against standardized testing itself. With that in mind, I don't think we really disagree that much.
At first glance, the commute would be ideal for EV, but if I still need the other car to cover the long trips it just doesn't add up. The fixed costs on the car (tax, insurance, servicing & repairs) are actually _more_ than the fuel costs of my commute over a year
Except that you don't have to buy the second car. Rental rates are not that steep. Or as Rei suggested, just rent a towable generator for your EV. If the trip is for work, expense it.
For me, a viable EV needs to do practically everything a current ICE car can do so it can replace it.
Fixed that for you. But seriously, to replace a particular ICE car with an EV, the EV only has to do what the ICE car does, not what it can do. Contrary to your opinion, I suspect most cars never travel more than 100 miles from home, nevermind 500 miles in a day. And unless you're single, being a 1 car family would be the exception rather than the rule.
You make some good points, but I'd like to nit pick a few things.
1) Mostly agree. School boards, though, are local. Some are going to do well, others poorly. And their power varies too.
2) Agree, but I don't think multiplication is a good example.
3) Yeah, testing is hard. But unless the tests are one question now, it is not one data point. And while it is one day a year, it is designed to test what you've learned. If you "knew" some set of facts in November when they were being covered, but you don't know them for the test in March, did you really learn them? Standardized tests are for measuring what students know on an even playing field. They're not perfect, but standardized tests do control for weak curricula, teachers who grade easy (or hard), and similar factors.
4) Mostly disagree here. Hundreds of years ago, your career was mostly determined by what your father did, but we don't really do things that way anymore. I'm a fan of giving kids a well rounded education (trying, anyway). Maybe senior year you specialize if you know you want to go a particular way. Lots of schools have vo-tech programs that address this.
5) If you're talking about better ways of teaching math, I'm in favor. Most high schoolers seem to have fairly limited grasp of solidly useful, basic math concepts like area and volume, angles, the Pythagorean theorem, etc... so we certainly don't need less math. But I'm intrigued by the idea of integrating it into other subjects.
You're on the right track. This rule is simply an extended version of ones that prohibit recording or photography at concerts and other live performances. And if the SEC finds that an unacceptable number of fans (whatever that may be) are violating the rule, the next step is not a lawsuit. It would be a ban on bringing recording devices -- including camera phones, etc... -- into the stadium for games. Whether it would go as far as a ban on all mobile devices probably depends on the (perceived) negative impact on the conference's broadcast partners of text or voice/audio updates by fans.
The US Military prides itself on never leaving their people behind. Shame the US can't apply the same principles to their civilian "casualties".
Are you assuming that because there are people who don't avail themselves of public housing and other public welfare programs, that none exist? While they may have their flaws, there are many resources --both government and private -- available to the homeless or otherwise disadvantaged. I am curious about your perception of homelessness in the U.S. and the public assistance available (or lack thereof) for those who fall on hard times.
Joint Strike Fighters show up on sale at Wal-Mart.
3. US borrows a ton of money from China, and goes on a Wal-Mart buying spree.
4. This economic stimulus, along with a sudden surge in correspondence courses for "Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft Mechanic" pulls the US out of the current recession.
Nice try. Being rude to obscure your lack of a cogent argument won't work on me. Red Hat offers a number of products and services (the solutions they charge money for would more properly be described as services). A product is "a thing produced by labor". Is it your contention that the free versions of Red Hat products are produced without labor? Or that the definition cited is invalid?
As so many people are fond of saying, RedHat's product is not Linux, but rather support for Linux, which they charge for.
No, their revenue generating products are support, training, etc....
You seem to be trying to change the definition of the word product (a thing produced by labor; a person or thing produced by or resulting from a process, as a natural, social, or historical one; result; etc...) to include a revenue component and/or implying that a company can only produce one (or one type of) product.
Really you can get basic coverage for 10K per year for a family of four.
So, if you're take home is $12,000 a year, your gross should be around $15K, assuming that's wages. If it is scholarship money or a stipend of some kind, I'm not sure how that's taxed, but it is still going to be a pretty low income. Either way it's well below poverty for a family of 4. You should qualify for all kinds of public assistance like welfare, food stamps, AFDC, Medicaid... oh, there we go. Problem solved. Now, if you misunderstood the post you were responding to, and don't have a spouse and kids, you'll be looking at much, much less than 10 grand a year. And you might even still qualify for Medicaid at $12K a year. And many colleges and universities have basic health services available at little or no cost to students.
There are other unsaid/unseen aspects here too. I have a good friend who is a teacher. He's smart and likes helping the kids, but he's always talking about quitting for basically the opposite of what we see in this article. He will have someone disrupt his class and have little to no authority to remove or punish the student. If he sends the kid to the office, the kid comes right back and the teacher later gets told by the administration to "deal with it" even though all he really has the authority to do is send a kid to the principal's office. Once the kids figure out that there are no consequences, the teacher is pretty much SOL.
In the case in the article, the administration is at least supporting the teacher's authority. It sounds like the officer is permanently assigned to the school, and therefore effectively part of the staff normally involved in keeping the school secure and dealing with unruly or disruptive students. Now, whether the student should have been cited (not arrested as the article falsely claimed) for disorderly conduct is debatable. Was she disrupting the class by trying to covertly text? It was obviously a distraction to the teacher. Could be that the district's policy calls for that level of consequence before a student can be searched.... just speculation though. Could also be that this was a second, third, fifth, nth offense and the school/officer are just continuing to escalate the consequences. The police report is public, but the students school disciplinary record is not, so we can't tell if this is just the next step in a progression of attempts to deal with the student.
Again, no. A swindle, at least IMO, requires intentional deception. There's none of that here. The OS is listed right along with all the other features. No fine print. If she's not competent to understand the features, she should probably have someone to help her order, then set up the machine.
If Dell has any fault here, it is that the Rep should have either 1) given the girl a Windows laptop (along with the additional charges that likely would have been due); or 2) Given her enough information to do what she needed, rather than just (apparently) telling her it would work for her. #1 is probably the better choice, given the customer's apparent lack of tech skills or knowledge.
That's called bait and switch, and it's a swindle.
Um, no. Nothing here suggests that she ordered a Windows machine and got Ubuntu instead. She either didn't pay close enough attention, or did not understand enough about computers to know the difference. That's not a swindle. That's user error.
The line in question is the "so help me god" at the end of the swearing in speech for new presidents, which is in the constitution.
No it's not. At least, not on my copy, or the copy in the national archives, or any copy I can recall seeing.
There is a reference to the Official motto of the U.S. ("In God we trust") in the (rarely used fourth verse of the) national anthem. But The Star-Spangled Banner was written (with that line included) in 1814. So, no, it was not added later. Not in the 1950s or any other time. This page has an image of Francis Scott Key's original manuscript of the poem which became the anthem. Incidentally, the motto was not made official until 1956, though it began appearing on US currency in the 1860s.
Fixed that for ya. Seriously? 100 hours is more than 14 hours a day, 7 days. Even if you really love your job (and if you did, it would just be a busy week, not a "bad week"), that's excessive.
Something like this, maybe? Or are those quite rare in the UK? Every home I've been in (in the US) that has a long pointy kitchen knife has one or more of that type of tool as well.
On one hand, with somewhere around 2 billion adherents (per Wikipedia), Christianity is bound to have its share of nutters and peculiar branches with cult-like behavior (Jehovah's Witnesses and a few others come to mind). On the other hand, that's a bit like calling the United States a cult because there are probably "patriotic" organizations that are cults or have cult-like practices.
Many of them [branches of Christianity] to [sic] apply some sort of force when you try to leave.
Examples?
Catholics: Full of Brainwashing techniques.
Such as?
To the GP's points that: 1. Cults initially hide the true nature of their beliefs/goals... The Bible is one of the most widely published texts ever. Additionally, some branches of Christianity publish their specific interpretations/doctrines (e.g. the Catholic Catechism). 2. Leaders are motivated by personal gain... Impossible. Christianity as a whole doesn't have leaders. Some branches have organized hierarchies, but others are much less structured and exercise little control over individual churches. 3. Use of coercion to retain members... might happen in isolated incidents, but not common enough to call any major branch, let alone Christianity as a whole, a cult on that basis.
A couple definitions, to clarify: brainwash: a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas indoctrination: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments; or to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
Where you are claiming brainwashing, I suspect you mean simple indoctrination.
I'm with you there. Brilliantly conceived world, decent characters (to start out), but then Jordan started telling the same story over and over, and letting the characters blend together.
Although I've rarely laugh so hard from reading something as I did going through some of the Wheel of Time humor/parody sites.
Please understand that racism and racial bias really are two different things
I think I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're doing a good job of expressing it. I believe what you mean when you say "racial bias" is really "likeness" bias. People tend to prefer others who are most like themselves. That includes race. But it also applies to age, style of dress, apparent socio-economic status, geekiness, education, marital status, parenthood... anything by which you can group or classify people.
Here's an experiment I'd like to see: put three people together... two guys in polo shirts and khakis with golf tans and expensive watches and another guy dress more like a grunge rocker type. I expect that the two guys dressed alike would be more likely to strike up a conversation. Seems pretty obvious, but then see what kind of results you get when polo guy #2 is black, asian, arab, whatever. Maybe it has been done. Would be interesting to see if choices like taste in clothing plus perceived socio-economic status outweigh race or other differences.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll need maybe 20-30 days a year (only 2 or 3 days a month away), so that's 600-900. Assuming I find completely free electricity for the EV, I'll be "saving" around 600-700 in commuting fuel costs. Oops.
There are a lot of assumptions here. One that you're going to travel more than 500 miles one way at least 20 and up to 30 times a year. Also, that gas prices will remain fairly constant. And that any incentives for buying a zero emissions vehicle for some reason don't augment the fuel cost savings. I'm ok with that, since this theoretical 500 mile per charge EV may come with a premium price tag, or maybe any incentives just offset the cost of electricity, whatever.
Fixed (by the tax man) per-mile rate for car travel.
In your own car. Doesn't apply to the cost of renting a vehicle for work.
YMMV - thinking around my extended family, friends, and work colleagues I can't think of any car driver who _never_ drives 100miles away.
On the other hand, I can think of several people who wouldn't even consider a car trip of more than say, 200-300 miles-- that's why airplanes were invented, they opine. However, I did not say people. I said cars. You may find a different result among your family and friends if you ask how often each of their vehicles make 100, 200, 500 mile trips. Lots of cars are owned by multi-car families that typically use one car (the biggest or most comfortable, whatever) on their long trips. Census data from http://factfinder.census.gov/ show that about 55% of households have 2 or more vehicles. So again, while it may not quite work for you, there are lots of people for whom an EV -- even with perhaps as little as 100 or 200 mile range -- would work just fine.
Our federal government mandated testing is done on one day, for one single class. It is never repeated. There is no "November vs March" comparison. The students are tested once, and are never tested again.
Good to know, but not related to my point. My point was along the lines of short term vs. long term memory, i.e. if you only can recall a set of facts or concepts long enough to pass the test (in class test, not the standardized test) at the end of the week they're covered in class, you haven't really learned it.
We take one single test in November, and compare the raw average, ignoring any variance or standard deviation, to the raw average of the students who took it last year. (Yes, a completely different population of students!) It is truly a single data point.
By that logic, any study/survey/data collection only done once contains only a single data point regardless of how many questions/assays and/or respondents/subjects there are.
One year on one test, my school pulled something like 1107, when the state cutoff was 1110. Due to this, we were placed in the "below average" category. Never mind that the test error bars are like 30-50 pts.
Your assumption seems to be that the error bars are not considered when setting the cutoff. I don't know that that assumption is any more valid than the assumption that they are.
My Master's thesis looked at the fact that 3 zeros could push us from passing to failing. Three kids could blow off the govt mandated test which didn't affect them, and because we only report a raw average with no error, they could cause us to fail.
If that's true, then the way scores are aggregated and used is bad. No-shows for the test should be counted as NULLs, not zeros since those scores are unknown. I can see having some penalty (administratively to the school, not against the actual test scores) if some percentage of students don't take the test, but mixing non-scores with actual test scores doesn't make sense.
To be fair, it seems like we may be arguing somewhat different points. My point is that there is utility in standardized testing-- it allows you to control for subjective factors, etc.... The more I read you, the more I see that you're arguing against the way scores are used rather than against standardized testing itself. With that in mind, I don't think we really disagree that much.
At first glance, the commute would be ideal for EV, but if I still need the other car to cover the long trips it just doesn't add up. The fixed costs on the car (tax, insurance, servicing & repairs) are actually _more_ than the fuel costs of my commute over a year
Except that you don't have to buy the second car. Rental rates are not that steep. Or as Rei suggested, just rent a towable generator for your EV. If the trip is for work, expense it.
For me, a viable EV needs to do practically everything a current ICE car can do so it can replace it.
Fixed that for you. But seriously, to replace a particular ICE car with an EV, the EV only has to do what the ICE car does, not what it can do. Contrary to your opinion, I suspect most cars never travel more than 100 miles from home, nevermind 500 miles in a day. And unless you're single, being a 1 car family would be the exception rather than the rule.
You make some good points, but I'd like to nit pick a few things.
1) Mostly agree. School boards, though, are local. Some are going to do well, others poorly. And their power varies too.
2) Agree, but I don't think multiplication is a good example.
3) Yeah, testing is hard. But unless the tests are one question now, it is not one data point. And while it is one day a year, it is designed to test what you've learned. If you "knew" some set of facts in November when they were being covered, but you don't know them for the test in March, did you really learn them? Standardized tests are for measuring what students know on an even playing field. They're not perfect, but standardized tests do control for weak curricula, teachers who grade easy (or hard), and similar factors.
4) Mostly disagree here. Hundreds of years ago, your career was mostly determined by what your father did, but we don't really do things that way anymore. I'm a fan of giving kids a well rounded education (trying, anyway). Maybe senior year you specialize if you know you want to go a particular way. Lots of schools have vo-tech programs that address this.
5) If you're talking about better ways of teaching math, I'm in favor. Most high schoolers seem to have fairly limited grasp of solidly useful, basic math concepts like area and volume, angles, the Pythagorean theorem, etc... so we certainly don't need less math. But I'm intrigued by the idea of integrating it into other subjects.
Online job applications at the NSF are up sharply.
They do. Here's where they got the idea that these will be unhackable: http://xkcd.com/528/
You're on the right track. This rule is simply an extended version of ones that prohibit recording or photography at concerts and other live performances. And if the SEC finds that an unacceptable number of fans (whatever that may be) are violating the rule, the next step is not a lawsuit. It would be a ban on bringing recording devices -- including camera phones, etc... -- into the stadium for games. Whether it would go as far as a ban on all mobile devices probably depends on the (perceived) negative impact on the conference's broadcast partners of text or voice/audio updates by fans.
Better check your math. I'm pretty sure 0 times 2 is still zero, not one.
The US Military prides itself on never leaving their people behind. Shame the US can't apply the same principles to their civilian "casualties".
Are you assuming that because there are people who don't avail themselves of public housing and other public welfare programs, that none exist? While they may have their flaws, there are many resources --both government and private -- available to the homeless or otherwise disadvantaged. I am curious about your perception of homelessness in the U.S. and the public assistance available (or lack thereof) for those who fall on hard times.
China steals plans.
Joint Strike Fighters show up on sale at Wal-Mart.
3. US borrows a ton of money from China, and goes on a Wal-Mart buying spree.
4. This economic stimulus, along with a sudden surge in correspondence courses for "Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft Mechanic" pulls the US out of the current recession.
5. ????
5. profit?
Nice try. Being rude to obscure your lack of a cogent argument won't work on me. Red Hat offers a number of products and services (the solutions they charge money for would more properly be described as services). A product is "a thing produced by labor". Is it your contention that the free versions of Red Hat products are produced without labor? Or that the definition cited is invalid?
No, their revenue generating products are support, training, etc....
You seem to be trying to change the definition of the word product (a thing produced by labor; a person or thing produced by or resulting from a process, as a natural, social, or historical one; result; etc...) to include a revenue component and/or implying that a company can only produce one (or one type of) product.
So, if you're take home is $12,000 a year, your gross should be around $15K, assuming that's wages. If it is scholarship money or a stipend of some kind, I'm not sure how that's taxed, but it is still going to be a pretty low income. Either way it's well below poverty for a family of 4. You should qualify for all kinds of public assistance like welfare, food stamps, AFDC, Medicaid... oh, there we go. Problem solved. Now, if you misunderstood the post you were responding to, and don't have a spouse and kids, you'll be looking at much, much less than 10 grand a year. And you might even still qualify for Medicaid at $12K a year. And many colleges and universities have basic health services available at little or no cost to students.
There are other unsaid/unseen aspects here too. I have a good friend who is a teacher. He's smart and likes helping the kids, but he's always talking about quitting for basically the opposite of what we see in this article. He will have someone disrupt his class and have little to no authority to remove or punish the student. If he sends the kid to the office, the kid comes right back and the teacher later gets told by the administration to "deal with it" even though all he really has the authority to do is send a kid to the principal's office. Once the kids figure out that there are no consequences, the teacher is pretty much SOL.
In the case in the article, the administration is at least supporting the teacher's authority. It sounds like the officer is permanently assigned to the school, and therefore effectively part of the staff normally involved in keeping the school secure and dealing with unruly or disruptive students. Now, whether the student should have been cited (not arrested as the article falsely claimed) for disorderly conduct is debatable. Was she disrupting the class by trying to covertly text? It was obviously a distraction to the teacher. Could be that the district's policy calls for that level of consequence before a student can be searched.... just speculation though. Could also be that this was a second, third, fifth, nth offense and the school/officer are just continuing to escalate the consequences. The police report is public, but the students school disciplinary record is not, so we can't tell if this is just the next step in a progression of attempts to deal with the student.
Again, no. A swindle, at least IMO, requires intentional deception. There's none of that here. The OS is listed right along with all the other features. No fine print. If she's not competent to understand the features, she should probably have someone to help her order, then set up the machine.
If Dell has any fault here, it is that the Rep should have either 1) given the girl a Windows laptop (along with the additional charges that likely would have been due); or 2) Given her enough information to do what she needed, rather than just (apparently) telling her it would work for her. #1 is probably the better choice, given the customer's apparent lack of tech skills or knowledge.
Um, no. Nothing here suggests that she ordered a Windows machine and got Ubuntu instead. She either didn't pay close enough attention, or did not understand enough about computers to know the difference. That's not a swindle. That's user error.
No it's not. At least, not on my copy, or the copy in the national archives, or any copy I can recall seeing.
There is a reference to the Official motto of the U.S. ("In God we trust") in the (rarely used fourth verse of the) national anthem. But The Star-Spangled Banner was written (with that line included) in 1814. So, no, it was not added later. Not in the 1950s or any other time. This page has an image of Francis Scott Key's original manuscript of the poem which became the anthem. Incidentally, the motto was not made official until 1956, though it began appearing on US currency in the 1860s.
Fixed that for ya. Seriously? 100 hours is more than 14 hours a day, 7 days. Even if you really love your job (and if you did, it would just be a busy week, not a "bad week"), that's excessive.
Something like this, maybe? Or are those quite rare in the UK? Every home I've been in (in the US) that has a long pointy kitchen knife has one or more of that type of tool as well.
Probably, and with good reason. Research such as this and similar indicate that gender identity is more biological than cultural.
On one hand, with somewhere around 2 billion adherents (per Wikipedia), Christianity is bound to have its share of nutters and peculiar branches with cult-like behavior (Jehovah's Witnesses and a few others come to mind). On the other hand, that's a bit like calling the United States a cult because there are probably "patriotic" organizations that are cults or have cult-like practices.
Examples?
Such as?
To the GP's points that:
1. Cults initially hide the true nature of their beliefs/goals... The Bible is one of the most widely published texts ever. Additionally, some branches of Christianity publish their specific interpretations/doctrines (e.g. the Catholic Catechism).
2. Leaders are motivated by personal gain... Impossible. Christianity as a whole doesn't have leaders. Some branches have organized hierarchies, but others are much less structured and exercise little control over individual churches.
3. Use of coercion to retain members... might happen in isolated incidents, but not common enough to call any major branch, let alone Christianity as a whole, a cult on that basis.
A couple definitions, to clarify:
brainwash: a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
indoctrination: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments; or to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
Where you are claiming brainwashing, I suspect you mean simple indoctrination.
I'm with you there. Brilliantly conceived world, decent characters (to start out), but then Jordan started telling the same story over and over, and letting the characters blend together.
Although I've rarely laugh so hard from reading something as I did going through some of the Wheel of Time humor/parody sites.
I think I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're doing a good job of expressing it. I believe what you mean when you say "racial bias" is really "likeness" bias. People tend to prefer others who are most like themselves. That includes race. But it also applies to age, style of dress, apparent socio-economic status, geekiness, education, marital status, parenthood... anything by which you can group or classify people.
Here's an experiment I'd like to see: put three people together... two guys in polo shirts and khakis with golf tans and expensive watches and another guy dress more like a grunge rocker type. I expect that the two guys dressed alike would be more likely to strike up a conversation. Seems pretty obvious, but then see what kind of results you get when polo guy #2 is black, asian, arab, whatever. Maybe it has been done. Would be interesting to see if choices like taste in clothing plus perceived socio-economic status outweigh race or other differences.
Almost!
No, wait... switch the first and last ones.