The word 'arrest' actually means you have been physically taken into custody by a police officer.
I would answer on job applications with that definition and I bet most people would too. If my potential employer wants to start asking questions about my speeding tickets, I'll tell them I'm not a lawyer and that when I was in high school that the term 'arrest' meant what most other people still know it to be.
So what you really mean that users should not be allowed to make their own purchasing choice and get music from Real if they so desire?
There is a baffling hypocrisy here.. I remember the same crowd of people, even some of the same exact users here, who bellowed about how "Micro$oft" is evil and a monopoly because they merely bundled MSIE with Windows.
Well guess what? Here we have Apple bundling their own music service - iTunes with their MP3 player. Not only do they BUNDLE their own music download service (I don't think that in itself is evil, but I am using the same logic that people here in the past have used), but they LOCK OUT OTHER MUSIC SERVICES. Lets not forget how people still to this day whine about Microsoft's undocumented API's that gives Microsoft's products an advantage over the competition.
How would you react if Microsoft decided to lock out all other browsers except MSIE? Oh you all would have a fit of rage and there would be protests all across America!
Anyways, it has been a nice discussion, but I suspect that we will both be here all day countering each other, so I'm going to wrap things up and let you have the last word (if you so desire) and get on with my normal routine.
Do you seriously think your average barely literate migrant from Mexico that is pouring the concrete for your next tollway or nailing in boards for the next housing project, who needs to support their family who lives in the barrio has a working knowledge of those subjects?
I'm not sure we're sharing the definition of child here. You mean when you started highschool, you were all about learning and expanding your horizons in education? If so, I applaud you - but you're certainly not the norm.
I was on computers when I was proably 4 or 5 and started using Linux when I was 11 (all on my own initative). I am sure there are plenty here who can share similar stories.
Why should we say that forced government schooling should be the way that people "make" themselves?
Before the spread of mass public schooling, the literacy rate in places like Massechuchets was at around 99%. Schooling was created to answer an economic need - the need of getting education (and I will admit that not everyone can learn or socialize without some type of structure, but I think its wrong to force a "one size fits all" onto everyone) but it has become bastardized into a more of a certification - a corrupt idea that one can only become literate by sitting between walls for 7 hours a day for 5 days a week.
I've learned far more outside of school than I have inside during my years as a student, and I suspect more people will admit to that if you asked them.
Well specialization obviously is required at a point, but the survey was talking 15 year olds. You support the idea that children decide on their vocation at that age, and pursue only education that directly effects it? I can only see that as unhealthy. Children need to be exposed to a variety of experiences and expand their general education at least to a point.
15 is a ripe age to figure out what one wants to do. The only reason why there are so many 18 year olds who still do not have a clue as to their own "identity" (being career choices and plans) in life is becuase they have been sheltered inside of school far too long.
Let me put it to you this way - I learned FAR more on trips with my dad at work to see what he does and field trips at school (i.e. something that involves getting out of the classroom) than I did by just submitting to boring multiple choice tests and essays in a classroom.
I use the phrase in relative terms. High schoolers who want to go to college will generally take calculus and trig, more "advanced" courses than say, "business" math that someone who wants to become a secretary might take.
Of course. I wholly agree. However, as a libertarian, I wholly oppose the ideas of many that we need to force upon society some ideals of how we should live our lives, whether it be the "liberal arts" education or whatever else people call for to "improve" society.
Success and accomplishment in life should be defined by the individual, not the state.
Well it's very difficult for a child to discover his passions at an early age unless they're atleast forced to experience it - just as a child doesn't know he loves history until forced to take a few classes in it.
What about kids who are self-motivated learners? There are plenty of us who like to open books, talk to other people, and explore the world beyond a classroom to gain new experiences and develop and further their own desires.
The practicality of life - the economic need to sustain one's self forces everyone to figure out who they are and what they need to become. A classroom can help, but to say its the only means is wholly incorrect.
Furthermore, moving to an economy where one's education is based upon the current need of the economy seems a little restrictive, and mostly communist.
How so? Do you have any understanding of the economy or markets? A market economy demands of its employees what people demand to be avaliable of goods and services. Why do you think we have culinary schools, tech schools, or other vocational schools? Becuase the people who go through them know that when they come out they will have (hopefully) obtained a skill that is in demand in the marketplace that they can capitalize on.
Agreed. However, the idea that we should shovel more math (or more anything) on students to solve this problem will not work.
Americans are more college bound than they were many years ago. Our population will simply adapt to the needs of a changing economy - no need to throw our hands in the air and say "oh no, our kids are being beat by the Czechs!" when Americans themselves don't care in the first place and have no economic need to change.
The example of an athelete is just a practical example. It exists in plenty of other instances.
But if you're instead saying kids don't *need* to learn math because it's only needed in specific instances - that leads to a more job based education system.
So? What is wrong with an education system that tailors itself to the needs of its population and economy? Show the kids what they can do if they study hard, learn math, and become scientists or engineers.
Let kids find out their strengths and weaknesses, their passions and desires, and let them chart out their own educational path.
Where did I say that? Compare the economies of the nations and see the breakdown of occupations. In America, its easy to slack off, do the minimum, and get a job to live a fair standard of life. In other nations, to succeed beyond basic subsistence, you have to do alot to make it. Look at countries like India - why do you think there is such a high percentage of programmers, engineers, and mathematicians there?
Of course. I am not arguing against math. I am simply saying that large numbers of Americans do not see an economic advantage to do so, and choose not to.
However, just as much as you can argue for more math, I can argue for more philosophy, more creative writing, and more science. Lets not assume that what is good for some people will always be the best thing for others.
You are taking a specific situation and going into a broad generality. Look at our productive economy. A large pecentage of our occupations do not demand high math. This is a simple matter of economy - why should a star athelete bother to take calculus if he knows he has a promising career ahead of him? Does this mean that no math is good for anyone? Of course not. Don't put words into my mouth.
Taken away? We pump in millions and millions more into our schools every year and our schools are not getting better. Do you seriously believe that if we took the billions spent on Iraq and put it into education that it would get any better?
Not all occupations demand good mathematical skills. Secretaries, truck drivers, construction workers, basketball players, etc. do not need advanced math. It so happens that America is a nation where a large number of our occupations are not highly intellectually demanding. Apples and Oranges here.
I think the problem with all these studies and statisitics is the fact that kids are all jammed into a room together, taught the same things, and tested the same way. I hardly call myself an expert on these issues, but going through this education myself and knowing lots of other "misfits", I can vouch for the fact that school itself is what impedes their learning.
For myself, computers gave me access to knowledge, information, and people that I could not otherwise get at school. Going online, I could learn what I wanted to learn at the speed I wanted to. Did this negatively impact my school learning? I would probably say yes. I was more interested in playing with computers, parts, electronics, than I was with reading children's books, coloring in boring worksheets, and other misc. assignments they had us do in school.
In high school, it became even worse for me. I was hardly interested in the state mandated courses (Biology, World History, etc. etc.) but I was more than happy to learn various programming languages, start using Linux back in its early days, philosophy, sociology, and etc., all things I've learned about by just reading things online and meeting people online who held similar interests as I did.
So when anyone talks about judging kids based on grades and other statistics, I cannot take it very seriously. There are plenty of ways to look at a person's intelligence and knowledge other than by just looking at how well they perform in school.
So in short, I would say comptuers were a total boon to my education, but lets not get off on the idea that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to anything in human life. Access to computers will not be the best thing for all people, nor will denial of it either. Education is going to have to get away from the desire to turn students into "units" that need stanardized "teaching" to them.
If you really want to improve education, find a way to balance the need to make a literate population with the need to give us the freedom to pursue our own interests and goals.
Slashdot Mirror
No it does not. Consult a dictionary before thowing around ad-hominems.
The word 'arrest' actually means you have been physically taken into custody by a police officer.
I would answer on job applications with that definition and I bet most people would too. If my potential employer wants to start asking questions about my speeding tickets, I'll tell them I'm not a lawyer and that when I was in high school that the term 'arrest' meant what most other people still know it to be.
So what you really mean that users should not be allowed to make their own purchasing choice and get music from Real if they so desire?
There is a baffling hypocrisy here.. I remember the same crowd of people, even some of the same exact users here, who bellowed about how "Micro$oft" is evil and a monopoly because they merely bundled MSIE with Windows.
Well guess what? Here we have Apple bundling their own music service - iTunes with their MP3 player. Not only do they BUNDLE their own music download service (I don't think that in itself is evil, but I am using the same logic that people here in the past have used), but they LOCK OUT OTHER MUSIC SERVICES. Lets not forget how people still to this day whine about Microsoft's undocumented API's that gives Microsoft's products an advantage over the competition.
How would you react if Microsoft decided to lock out all other browsers except MSIE? Oh you all would have a fit of rage and there would be protests all across America!
I just checked. "Temporarily unavaliable".
IRC?
Anyways, it has been a nice discussion, but I suspect that we will both be here all day countering each other, so I'm going to wrap things up and let you have the last word (if you so desire) and get on with my normal routine.
Do you seriously think your average barely literate migrant from Mexico that is pouring the concrete for your next tollway or nailing in boards for the next housing project, who needs to support their family who lives in the barrio has a working knowledge of those subjects?
I'm not sure we're sharing the definition of child here. You mean when you started highschool, you were all about learning and expanding your horizons in education? If so, I applaud you - but you're certainly not the norm.
I was on computers when I was proably 4 or 5 and started using Linux when I was 11 (all on my own initative). I am sure there are plenty here who can share similar stories.
Why should we say that forced government schooling should be the way that people "make" themselves?
Before the spread of mass public schooling, the literacy rate in places like Massechuchets was at around 99%. Schooling was created to answer an economic need - the need of getting education (and I will admit that not everyone can learn or socialize without some type of structure, but I think its wrong to force a "one size fits all" onto everyone) but it has become bastardized into a more of a certification - a corrupt idea that one can only become literate by sitting between walls for 7 hours a day for 5 days a week.
I've learned far more outside of school than I have inside during my years as a student, and I suspect more people will admit to that if you asked them.
Well specialization obviously is required at a point, but the survey was talking 15 year olds. You support the idea that children decide on their vocation at that age, and pursue only education that directly effects it? I can only see that as unhealthy. Children need to be exposed to a variety of experiences and expand their general education at least to a point.
15 is a ripe age to figure out what one wants to do. The only reason why there are so many 18 year olds who still do not have a clue as to their own "identity" (being career choices and plans) in life is becuase they have been sheltered inside of school far too long.
Let me put it to you this way - I learned FAR more on trips with my dad at work to see what he does and field trips at school (i.e. something that involves getting out of the classroom) than I did by just submitting to boring multiple choice tests and essays in a classroom.
I use the phrase in relative terms. High schoolers who want to go to college will generally take calculus and trig, more "advanced" courses than say, "business" math that someone who wants to become a secretary might take.
Of course. I wholly agree. However, as a libertarian, I wholly oppose the ideas of many that we need to force upon society some ideals of how we should live our lives, whether it be the "liberal arts" education or whatever else people call for to "improve" society.
Success and accomplishment in life should be defined by the individual, not the state.
You did not read what I said (I will refrain from making comments about reading skills), did you? I never said they did not need math.
The vast majority of them do not need calculus, trig, or geometry.
Well it's very difficult for a child to discover his passions at an early age unless they're atleast forced to experience it - just as a child doesn't know he loves history until forced to take a few classes in it.
What about kids who are self-motivated learners? There are plenty of us who like to open books, talk to other people, and explore the world beyond a classroom to gain new experiences and develop and further their own desires.
The practicality of life - the economic need to sustain one's self forces everyone to figure out who they are and what they need to become. A classroom can help, but to say its the only means is wholly incorrect.
Furthermore, moving to an economy where one's education is based upon the current need of the economy seems a little restrictive, and mostly communist.
How so? Do you have any understanding of the economy or markets? A market economy demands of its employees what people demand to be avaliable of goods and services. Why do you think we have culinary schools, tech schools, or other vocational schools? Becuase the people who go through them know that when they come out they will have (hopefully) obtained a skill that is in demand in the marketplace that they can capitalize on.
Agreed. However, the idea that we should shovel more math (or more anything) on students to solve this problem will not work.
Americans are more college bound than they were many years ago. Our population will simply adapt to the needs of a changing economy - no need to throw our hands in the air and say "oh no, our kids are being beat by the Czechs!" when Americans themselves don't care in the first place and have no economic need to change.
The example of an athelete is just a practical example. It exists in plenty of other instances.
But if you're instead saying kids don't *need* to learn math because it's only needed in specific instances - that leads to a more job based education system.
So? What is wrong with an education system that tailors itself to the needs of its population and economy? Show the kids what they can do if they study hard, learn math, and become scientists or engineers.
Let kids find out their strengths and weaknesses, their passions and desires, and let them chart out their own educational path.
Where did I say that? Compare the economies of the nations and see the breakdown of occupations. In America, its easy to slack off, do the minimum, and get a job to live a fair standard of life. In other nations, to succeed beyond basic subsistence, you have to do alot to make it. Look at countries like India - why do you think there is such a high percentage of programmers, engineers, and mathematicians there?
Of course. I am not arguing against math. I am simply saying that large numbers of Americans do not see an economic advantage to do so, and choose not to.
However, just as much as you can argue for more math, I can argue for more philosophy, more creative writing, and more science. Lets not assume that what is good for some people will always be the best thing for others.
You are taking a specific situation and going into a broad generality. Look at our productive economy. A large pecentage of our occupations do not demand high math. This is a simple matter of economy - why should a star athelete bother to take calculus if he knows he has a promising career ahead of him? Does this mean that no math is good for anyone? Of course not. Don't put words into my mouth.
Taken away? We pump in millions and millions more into our schools every year and our schools are not getting better. Do you seriously believe that if we took the billions spent on Iraq and put it into education that it would get any better?
The jobs I listed do not require a college education. Try again.
Not all occupations demand good mathematical skills. Secretaries, truck drivers, construction workers, basketball players, etc. do not need advanced math. It so happens that America is a nation where a large number of our occupations are not highly intellectually demanding. Apples and Oranges here.
I think the problem with all these studies and statisitics is the fact that kids are all jammed into a room together, taught the same things, and tested the same way. I hardly call myself an expert on these issues, but going through this education myself and knowing lots of other "misfits", I can vouch for the fact that school itself is what impedes their learning.
For myself, computers gave me access to knowledge, information, and people that I could not otherwise get at school. Going online, I could learn what I wanted to learn at the speed I wanted to. Did this negatively impact my school learning? I would probably say yes. I was more interested in playing with computers, parts, electronics, than I was with reading children's books, coloring in boring worksheets, and other misc. assignments they had us do in school.
In high school, it became even worse for me. I was hardly interested in the state mandated courses (Biology, World History, etc. etc.) but I was more than happy to learn various programming languages, start using Linux back in its early days, philosophy, sociology, and etc., all things I've learned about by just reading things online and meeting people online who held similar interests as I did.
So when anyone talks about judging kids based on grades and other statistics, I cannot take it very seriously. There are plenty of ways to look at a person's intelligence and knowledge other than by just looking at how well they perform in school.
So in short, I would say comptuers were a total boon to my education, but lets not get off on the idea that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to anything in human life. Access to computers will not be the best thing for all people, nor will denial of it either. Education is going to have to get away from the desire to turn students into "units" that need stanardized "teaching" to them.
If you really want to improve education, find a way to balance the need to make a literate population with the need to give us the freedom to pursue our own interests and goals.