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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well I hardly think a star athlete is representative of our economy as a whole. If what you're saying is kids today have no *reason* to brush up on their cognative skills because they're encouraged to instead dream of the big leagues - I tend to agree. 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.
The jobs I listed do not require a college education. Try again....I know. That was my point. Listing those jobs and saying "see! No math is good, these people don't use it!" could just as easily have been "see! No college is good, these people don't use it!"
Unless the entire idea you were trying to convey is higher education is simply unnecessary?
I think most the problem is that parents don't care. If you have a parent who stresses to his child math and education altogether is important, he'll do much better. Parents just let kids get Ds and Cs and think it's fine though.
Then they complain and blame the government when their dead beat kid can't find a job.
Unless you're insinuating that our ability to adapt and get rid of annoying ads will completely destroy the revenue model for the internet - I don't see a problem.
Do you anticipate advertisement companies giving up anytime soon? Just saying "whoa, our banners aren't loading? WE'RE DONE. NOW WE INSTEAD WILL FOCUS OUR EFFORTS ON PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES."
Well, "no one" would use "Microsoft Windows" obviously is an overstatement. But the idea remains, especially when describing main stream OSes- just "Linux" won't do.
Red Hat's Linux is a perfectly acceptable way to indicate a version of software Red Hat has taken under their wing and modified for their use. Infact, I would submit that it's Linux's versatility that makes the "Red Hat" part of the comment necessary. No one would say "Microsoft's Windows" because it's redundant, but "Red Hat's Linux" is different than any other Linux and therefore the clarification is needed.
I'm not sure that anyone casually reading Slashdot is qualified to claim, based on their personal experience, that unreasonable detaining has never happened.
Infact, we know it happens - the government detains what it calls "enemy combatants" in Gitmo and justifies their detainment without a lawyer by claiming they're not US citizens. Whether that's right or not, who knows, but we know it happens. I do think recently a judge ruled they had to be given trials eventually, though.
How do you know? Under the PATRIOT Act, warrantless searches can be conducted against you and you might never know it.
I was under the impression that under the Patriot Act they could delay notification, up to a few months - but eventually you had to be notified if any searches made.
So you're of the opinion that running an intelligence agency of the magnitude that Tenet did lends him no unique outlook worth noting? I'd imagine he's very qualified to comment on a lot of things, and if his proposed solution to the world's problems don't make sense - well, that's why he was an information gatherer and not a policy maker.
Official figures on that kind of stuff are very hard to come by - so I'll admit I made an assumption (a reasonable one I think).
But then, if he ran the 2nd largest in the world, would his opinion suddenly become invalidated and have no merit?
A person can sustain himself on the same amount of bread almost all of his life. Corporations, especially publicly traded ones, require new and constant forms of income. It requires money to stay on top of innovation - and innovation is required to continue to make money.
Also consider this, would a man in a community of starving individuals take only enough bread to feed himself for one day, if given the option to take more to the detriment of others? At this point, the discussion becames a matter of human nature.
A company is a 'person' in the legal sense and when you ask a psychiatrist about what kind of person possesses the personality traits you will find in the average American corporation, he'll say: 'A psychopath'.
What if you explained to the psychiatrist that without money flowing in at a constant stream this "person" would falter and die?
As long as we're comparing people to corporations, what would a starving man do for bread - the item that sustains his very life? And money isn't nearly so easy to come by as bread.
Yes, the massive corporate interests in Korea and Vietnam!
I'd imagine the defeat of communism (an idea with a central tenent concerned with the destruction of capitalism) was of major interest to corporations in America. Not that it wasn't a noble cause - but it was firmly seated in our love for capitalism.
Does anybody else see a problem with a laptop you can't use outside of the office?
It's not like you'd buy a laptop so you could TAKE IT WITH YOU and work outside of the office, or anything..
As with any optional security feature, I imagine it would only be implemented under the assumption it should NOT be used out of the confines of the office. Would that not be an effective deterent? Same principal as a car stereo that doesn't work once taken out of the car - sure you have it, but what was the point?
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well I hardly think a star athlete is representative of our economy as a whole. If what you're saying is kids today have no *reason* to brush up on their cognative skills because they're encouraged to instead dream of the big leagues - I tend to agree. 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.
Unless the entire idea you were trying to convey is higher education is simply unnecessary?
By your logic most jobs in America don't require a college education either. I think that's probably inaccurate.
Then they complain and blame the government when their dead beat kid can't find a job.
Do you anticipate advertisement companies giving up anytime soon? Just saying "whoa, our banners aren't loading? WE'RE DONE. NOW WE INSTEAD WILL FOCUS OUR EFFORTS ON PHILANTHROPIC VENTURES."
I don't.
Well, "no one" would use "Microsoft Windows" obviously is an overstatement. But the idea remains, especially when describing main stream OSes- just "Linux" won't do.
Atleast it seems obvious to me.
Infact, we know it happens - the government detains what it calls "enemy combatants" in Gitmo and justifies their detainment without a lawyer by claiming they're not US citizens. Whether that's right or not, who knows, but we know it happens. I do think recently a judge ruled they had to be given trials eventually, though.
How do you know? Under the PATRIOT Act, warrantless searches can be conducted against you and you might never know it. I was under the impression that under the Patriot Act they could delay notification, up to a few months - but eventually you had to be notified if any searches made.
So you're of the opinion that running an intelligence agency of the magnitude that Tenet did lends him no unique outlook worth noting? I'd imagine he's very qualified to comment on a lot of things, and if his proposed solution to the world's problems don't make sense - well, that's why he was an information gatherer and not a policy maker.
Official figures on that kind of stuff are very hard to come by - so I'll admit I made an assumption (a reasonable one I think). But then, if he ran the 2nd largest in the world, would his opinion suddenly become invalidated and have no merit?
For 2 (3?) administrations he ran the largest and most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world.
Whatever his opinions are- they're worth noting.
Also consider this, would a man in a community of starving individuals take only enough bread to feed himself for one day, if given the option to take more to the detriment of others? At this point, the discussion becames a matter of human nature.
A company is a 'person' in the legal sense and when you ask a psychiatrist about what kind of person possesses the personality traits you will find in the average American corporation, he'll say: 'A psychopath'.
What if you explained to the psychiatrist that without money flowing in at a constant stream this "person" would falter and die? As long as we're comparing people to corporations, what would a starving man do for bread - the item that sustains his very life? And money isn't nearly so easy to come by as bread.
Yes, the massive corporate interests in Korea and Vietnam!
I'd imagine the defeat of communism (an idea with a central tenent concerned with the destruction of capitalism) was of major interest to corporations in America. Not that it wasn't a noble cause - but it was firmly seated in our love for capitalism.
Do we have a treaty for extradition with India that would allow it? What's the official reason the US gave for now allowing it?
Does anybody else see a problem with a laptop you can't use outside of the office? It's not like you'd buy a laptop so you could TAKE IT WITH YOU and work outside of the office, or anything..
As with any optional security feature, I imagine it would only be implemented under the assumption it should NOT be used out of the confines of the office. Would that not be an effective deterent? Same principal as a car stereo that doesn't work once taken out of the car - sure you have it, but what was the point?