In most states of the union, teachers in in the top half of earners yearly, and in the top 75% hourly. If you are assuming that Slashdot readers are going to be dramatically higher than average earners, then your statement about income may be valid. Otherwise, you are off base. Oddly enough, I have found a higher than average number of teachers and relatives of teachers that seem to fail at the grade school level of math required to put a greater than or less than symbol next to a teachers salary.
Absolute BS. The vast majority of kids graduating from public schools have no better than a 7th grade education. This is irrelevant of religion, wealth, or race. Our public schools are broken. You might not like the reform this people are aiming for, but a lack of reform is already a failure.
Remember, asking what is legal in the US is a little like asking what is legal in the EU. Like Europe, the US is a bunch of (at least theoretically) independent governments that have another government with (theoretically) limited governance over them. In practice, the US Federal Government has siezed far more power than the EU, but the concepts are still the same, and the EU is still pretty new.
Subduing an attacker often requires that you be a DRAMATICALLY better fighter than the person doing the attacking. Being bigger and a better fighter alone will frequently not do it.
Yeah. Much better to punish them mentally. That produces WAY better people. Or even better yet, don't give them any negative repercussions for their bad behavior.
Exactly. If parents threatening the school worked, the zero tolerance policy wouldn't. In fact, it would lead to many cases where the victim gets punished, and the attacker gets off.
Yes, because the goal is to not leave a mark. If you don't leave a mark, it must not be abuse. Are you one of those people that prefer mental punishment, or are you one of the people that think humans are dumber than worms, and thus do not learn to avoid negative stimuli?
If the schools would have expelled the problem students, and not worked off the idea that social promotion was good and everyone is equally smart, then maybe you wouldn't have been board, and high school wouldn't have been a waste of time.
I am more concerned about the half dozen kids down the street that instead of becoming doctors 20 years later, end up with 7th grade educations because the schools have decided to tailor the curriculum to the kid you are hoping can be 'saved'.
While I will agree that most parents are crappy being parents, you should also acknowledge that a parent that properly disciplines their child could very well end up in jail for it. Parents who want to raise their kids properly must often do so in secret. Even letting a child under the age of 18 stay in their own home alone can get you arrested and raked through the system.
And you could score decent grades if you just tried.
You say that like it's a good thing. It's not. It is a total and complete failure of the system. If you can't read, you shouldn't be graduating. Period. The vast majority of people don't have better than a 7th grade education, yet our schools hold them until they are 18 or 19, and give them a piece of paper telling them that they tried hard, and that is what counts.
Don't leave out the fact that it is an actual crime to raise a properly well adjusted and educated child in the US. Just so that does sound too cryptic, I will give leaving a child at home alone at the age of 10 as an example. Where I live, that is an actual crime, and you can be arrested for it. Oddly enough, if you want to go to the store without your child, it is legal to lock them out of the house while you go. It just isn't legal to let them stay in the house.
I agree. This is also why I say that we have the "child abuse" issue all wrong. The current thinking among most "Child Behavior Experts" is that corporal punishment is totally ineffective and actually gets negative results. Many go so far as to claim ANY punishment is ineffective and doesn't change behavior. Apparently, they believe that humans are dumber than worms.
Punishment is highly effective at modifying behavior, but as you say, it must be consistent. Contrary to popular opinion, a spanking for bad behavior isn't abuse. Spanking for bad behavior one day while letting the same behavior slide on another is. By the same token, putting your child in "time out" one day for bad behavior, and not the next for the same behavior is just as abusive. Heck, scolding your child for a behavior, and laughing about the same behavior on a different day is also abusive.
I can honestly say that I have know far more people who have been screwed up far worse due to mental abuse, and inconsistent punishments, than I have people who have been screwed up by physical abuse.
Punishment has only one reason. That is behavior modification. Any other reason for it is abuse. Claiming that punishment doesn't work for children makes about as much sense as claiming that punishment doesn't work for adults, and to make that claim, one would have to advocate getting rid of all laws and law enforcement. Both criminal and civil.
#1 also fails when you consider that Google can just price their new super phones at a price that keeps them from wiping out the Android ecosystem. If Motorola has 30% of the Android phone market today, Google just prices their phones at a point that no more than 30% of the people buying Android phones will purchase them. The extra bonus in this is that solving it increase profit margins. The more people want Motorola phones, the more Google can increase their profit margin while maintaining the same market share.
That problem is easily solved by pricing the unit so that it takes only the amount of market share that works in their favor. They can make the absolute best phones AND made sure that they didn't drive out the competitors. What would have been REALLY interesting is if Google had bought T-Mobile. Sure it is a little over 3 times what they paid for Motorola, but owning a nation wide cell network would have completely changed the cellular landscape over night.
#1 would be a good option. Although if Google is smart, they will position themselves at the premier phone maker, and charge accordingly. Through proper pricing, they can keep the Android ecosystem in place and keep HTC, ZTE and Samsung happily selling units, just as they do now. At the same time, they can keep from having a race to the bottom on features. They can produce phones that show Android at it's very best. This will encourage other vendors to improve thier phones, while still leaving them plenty of space to sell cheap phones.
Basically Google can use Motorola to tell other vendors, "We are going to sell AWESOME phones at a price that is higher than you could sell a similar phone. You can take our market share on the high end AND sell stripped models on the low end." If the market pushes to the higher end, Google wins by improving faster than MS or Apple can hope to, and we see the same thing happen to MS and Apple that happened in the PC arena to Commodore, Atari and Apple.
If the market does not push to the high end, Motorola sells fewer phones at a higher margin, and Google gets to use high end phones for comparison with Apple and MS for marketing.
Of course, you missed #5. Let Motorola run exactly as it does now, but have access to their war chest of patents.
I think the first approach is their best bet. If Motorola is profitable, let them continue to be profitable. It also gives Google the ability make sure there is at least some hardware made for whatever software they dream up.
If anything, it would be more likely to out a teacher behaving inappropriately than encourage it. It seems silly to suggest that it is OK to send your kid off to hang out in person with someone, but that it is a problem if they leave semi-public messages to each other? It must be because it it is "On A Computer", it is eeevvviillll.
That is a good point. Given that Corporations are already 70% our government, and we are moving to a government that is 100% corporate controlled, it would make sense to start treating the corporations as such, and hold them to the standards of a government.
Slashdot Mirror
No one has said that violence in always the answer. You, on the other hand are implying that violence in never the answer. Do you really believe that?
In most states of the union, teachers in in the top half of earners yearly, and in the top 75% hourly. If you are assuming that Slashdot readers are going to be dramatically higher than average earners, then your statement about income may be valid. Otherwise, you are off base. Oddly enough, I have found a higher than average number of teachers and relatives of teachers that seem to fail at the grade school level of math required to put a greater than or less than symbol next to a teachers salary.
Absolute BS. The vast majority of kids graduating from public schools have no better than a 7th grade education. This is irrelevant of religion, wealth, or race. Our public schools are broken. You might not like the reform this people are aiming for, but a lack of reform is already a failure.
Remember, asking what is legal in the US is a little like asking what is legal in the EU. Like Europe, the US is a bunch of (at least theoretically) independent governments that have another government with (theoretically) limited governance over them. In practice, the US Federal Government has siezed far more power than the EU, but the concepts are still the same, and the EU is still pretty new.
Subduing an attacker often requires that you be a DRAMATICALLY better fighter than the person doing the attacking. Being bigger and a better fighter alone will frequently not do it.
So, if your daughter gets violently raped, she must be at fault too? Since it takes two to tango? You are one sick puppy.
Yeah. Much better to punish them mentally. That produces WAY better people. Or even better yet, don't give them any negative repercussions for their bad behavior.
Well said.
Exactly. If parents threatening the school worked, the zero tolerance policy wouldn't. In fact, it would lead to many cases where the victim gets punished, and the attacker gets off.
Yes, because the goal is to not leave a mark. If you don't leave a mark, it must not be abuse. Are you one of those people that prefer mental punishment, or are you one of the people that think humans are dumber than worms, and thus do not learn to avoid negative stimuli?
If the schools would have expelled the problem students, and not worked off the idea that social promotion was good and everyone is equally smart, then maybe you wouldn't have been board, and high school wouldn't have been a waste of time.
I am more concerned about the half dozen kids down the street that instead of becoming doctors 20 years later, end up with 7th grade educations because the schools have decided to tailor the curriculum to the kid you are hoping can be 'saved'.
Ahhh....Modern phrenology.
While I will agree that most parents are crappy being parents, you should also acknowledge that a parent that properly disciplines their child could very well end up in jail for it. Parents who want to raise their kids properly must often do so in secret. Even letting a child under the age of 18 stay in their own home alone can get you arrested and raked through the system.
And you could score decent grades if you just tried.
You say that like it's a good thing. It's not. It is a total and complete failure of the system. If you can't read, you shouldn't be graduating. Period. The vast majority of people don't have better than a 7th grade education, yet our schools hold them until they are 18 or 19, and give them a piece of paper telling them that they tried hard, and that is what counts.
Don't leave out the fact that it is an actual crime to raise a properly well adjusted and educated child in the US. Just so that does sound too cryptic, I will give leaving a child at home alone at the age of 10 as an example. Where I live, that is an actual crime, and you can be arrested for it. Oddly enough, if you want to go to the store without your child, it is legal to lock them out of the house while you go. It just isn't legal to let them stay in the house.
I agree. This is also why I say that we have the "child abuse" issue all wrong. The current thinking among most "Child Behavior Experts" is that corporal punishment is totally ineffective and actually gets negative results. Many go so far as to claim ANY punishment is ineffective and doesn't change behavior. Apparently, they believe that humans are dumber than worms.
Punishment is highly effective at modifying behavior, but as you say, it must be consistent. Contrary to popular opinion, a spanking for bad behavior isn't abuse. Spanking for bad behavior one day while letting the same behavior slide on another is. By the same token, putting your child in "time out" one day for bad behavior, and not the next for the same behavior is just as abusive. Heck, scolding your child for a behavior, and laughing about the same behavior on a different day is also abusive.
I can honestly say that I have know far more people who have been screwed up far worse due to mental abuse, and inconsistent punishments, than I have people who have been screwed up by physical abuse.
Punishment has only one reason. That is behavior modification. Any other reason for it is abuse. Claiming that punishment doesn't work for children makes about as much sense as claiming that punishment doesn't work for adults, and to make that claim, one would have to advocate getting rid of all laws and law enforcement. Both criminal and civil.
Pixar always was a subsidiary of Disney. They just did the paperwork in a way that made it look like it wasn't.
#1 also fails when you consider that Google can just price their new super phones at a price that keeps them from wiping out the Android ecosystem. If Motorola has 30% of the Android phone market today, Google just prices their phones at a point that no more than 30% of the people buying Android phones will purchase them. The extra bonus in this is that solving it increase profit margins. The more people want Motorola phones, the more Google can increase their profit margin while maintaining the same market share.
That problem is easily solved by pricing the unit so that it takes only the amount of market share that works in their favor. They can make the absolute best phones AND made sure that they didn't drive out the competitors. What would have been REALLY interesting is if Google had bought T-Mobile. Sure it is a little over 3 times what they paid for Motorola, but owning a nation wide cell network would have completely changed the cellular landscape over night.
#1 would be a good option. Although if Google is smart, they will position themselves at the premier phone maker, and charge accordingly. Through proper pricing, they can keep the Android ecosystem in place and keep HTC, ZTE and Samsung happily selling units, just as they do now. At the same time, they can keep from having a race to the bottom on features. They can produce phones that show Android at it's very best. This will encourage other vendors to improve thier phones, while still leaving them plenty of space to sell cheap phones.
Basically Google can use Motorola to tell other vendors, "We are going to sell AWESOME phones at a price that is higher than you could sell a similar phone. You can take our market share on the high end AND sell stripped models on the low end." If the market pushes to the higher end, Google wins by improving faster than MS or Apple can hope to, and we see the same thing happen to MS and Apple that happened in the PC arena to Commodore, Atari and Apple.
If the market does not push to the high end, Motorola sells fewer phones at a higher margin, and Google gets to use high end phones for comparison with Apple and MS for marketing.
Of course, you missed #5. Let Motorola run exactly as it does now, but have access to their war chest of patents.
I think the first approach is their best bet. If Motorola is profitable, let them continue to be profitable. It also gives Google the ability make sure there is at least some hardware made for whatever software they dream up.
If anything, it would be more likely to out a teacher behaving inappropriately than encourage it. It seems silly to suggest that it is OK to send your kid off to hang out in person with someone, but that it is a problem if they leave semi-public messages to each other? It must be because it it is "On A Computer", it is eeevvviillll.
It's a new millennium. Don't judge.
That is a good point. Given that Corporations are already 70% our government, and we are moving to a government that is 100% corporate controlled, it would make sense to start treating the corporations as such, and hold them to the standards of a government.
On what planet does Apple gloss over new product models. Here on Earth, they throw major events for every single model upgrade.