The allegations were already repeated in The Times in April. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education /article1600686.ece The Guardian also reported it: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2 048161,00.html They were also repeated in the Telegraph in April http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2007/04/02/nschools02.xml Look also at the Evening Standard in April http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2339118 8-details/Teachers+drop+the+Holocaust+to+avoid+off ending+Muslims/article.do The BBC also report on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/65173 59.stm
The purpose of teaching about the Holocaust is not to let it happen again. It is precisely those who have antisemitic cultural influences (some Muslims) who need to know about it the most. It's precisely the people who get the most offended who need to hear about it the most. Secondly, history is about learning uncomfortable truths - indeed this is part of what it means to receive an education. If you never feel uncomfortable while learning, you probably aren't doing it.
I would like to see some definitive studies that show just how dangerous the use of cell phone are. I would like to know why they are so much more dangerous than changing the radio station or talking with a passenger. One law after another is passed making more and more things illegal on the road. It just makes it easier to be pulled over and that is something that is abused by the police. Accidents in recent years have decreased. Funny that - in light of all these cell phone conversations. These anti cell phone laws take away too much liberty.
I buy a CD. It's mine.... That means I should be able to sell it without hassle. Fingerprinting for buying a second hand cd is another step to fascism. It always amazes me that these right wing republican nut jobs go on and on about fucking freedom but then they themselves keep passing laws taking away peoples freedoms. Talk about double speak....
This is just another example of intellectual copyright law run a muck. The RIAA and MPAA are way way too powerful. The DMCA is another example of way over the top ideas. So here are some suggestions:
1. You get 25 years for Copyrite. That's it. After that tough luck. Ie any book or piece of music from before 1982 is automatically public domain. 2. When you sell software, you don't get to sell just a license etc... which means you cant in turn resell it. If I buy a piece of software I can resell it (so long as I don't keep a copy for myself). And no crazy restrictions on what I can do with it. 3. Trademarks only last for 50 years and no loopholes for disney etc. 4. No loony patents - ie no one click shopping patent for amazon etc. Anything that is remotely obvious cannot be patented. No patents on human genes. 5. If taxpayer money goes into paying for research and then gets published in an journal, then we don't have to pay again to see it. 6. EXPAND FAIR USE- ie make it much easier to use copyrighted materials for educational reasons, make it easier to quote larger sections from passages, make it easier to reprint various images.....
We forget that IP is NOT natural. We have it for the good of society. But its over ubuiquitious nature is now detrimental. So it has defeated its intended purpose.
As someone who has personally experienced the IT job market and having met so many others looking for IT jobs this complaining about a lack of candidates is plain false. There are so many IT people still working jobs where they are over qualified because they cant find anything any better. And it's still quite hard to get an IT job - they grill you through rounds of endless interviews and expect you to relocate ASAP and that's for the few lucky ones that even get an interview. If these businessmen believe in a capitalist supply and demand model then let wages rise. I bet you if wages rose by 25% in real terms in one year they would suddenly find all sorts of 'qualified candidates' popping out of the woodwork. But they refuse to pay for quality. They want low wages and low job security in the industry so they can ride roughshod over their employees. Simply put: If you want workers in your industry - pay them well and the market will take care of the rest.
If you are going to say "Wikipedia (being user created and edited) did not represent a credible or reliable source of information for schools..." you might as well say that school boards should also be banned from making decision since they are user created and edited and are composed of a bunch of windbags making unsubstantiated claims. Indeed so many educational decisions are made in a presence of a lot of peer reviewed literature showing their policies to be failed ones. But of course no-one challenged them there.
Did they do a study to show that Wikipedia is so much worse than other sources of information at the school?
As someone who has used Wikipedia a lot I can say that it is a valuable source of information. There are not too many other websites that you can use as a starting point to research a topic. A lot of the time there is way more information than Encyclopedia Britannica or anywhere else. Firstly you can corroborate the claims it makes. There is a great effort going on to cite sources that you can check. Secondly when there are errors they tend to get cleared up. Articles are constantly edited. In fact you might call Wikipedia the Most Peer Reviewed journal in the world. Thirdly quite often one finds out information from Wikipedia that one would not have been aware of because being aware of it would require having done a PhD in the subject. Yet some important details can put a whole subject into perspective.
If I want to know about some subject quite often simply googling it provides very little. I have often gone into a library and asked a librarian for some books on some subject and unless I can tell them the title they are very often unable to recommend me one. Recently I was looking for information on public ownership of the airwaves. Well Wikipedia helped to start the project rolling. It often helps to index a lot of information on the Internet.
I also winder what is so great about allowing newspaper access. The press exaggerates or misunderstands things all the time. Why don't we ban them? Is Britannica peer reviewed? Nope it isn't. Neither is the New York Times. The schools should be teaching students how to critically analyze information. When they see a claim so they see an argument justifying it? Is the argument internally consistent? Does it source its information? Can you look up the source? Is there contradictory evidence elsewhere? Indeed if schools could use Wikipedia to home such skills further enhancing students' education.
To me this represents an attack on authority. The Schoolboard and indeed many other institutions need the façade of authority to get by. Wikipedia represents a meritocracy as opposed to arbitrary authority. And schools quite often despite what they say do not want free thinking students questioning everything.
This is why unions exist. I agree with people who say that no-one owes me a job. If they want they can fire my ass just because they want to, to cut costs if they want. They can they agree to rehire me later for less money. However I do not have to work for some company either. I can get together with a bunch other employees and form a union. We can insist on better pay and treatment and insist that we aren't treated like shit. They company doesn't have to listen to us. It can ignore us and fire us all and go out of business if it wants.
Then maybe the employees will perhaps get some better health benefits and better pay and contracts that stop the company from abusing its workers.
Bottom line: whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are gonna insist its a dog eat dog world then sometimes the company get to be bitten too and it too will suffer. So no wining about abusive unions....circuit city asked for this.
HDVD is also a competing format and that family of companies is just as intransigent as the Blueray in refusing to compromise in the creation of a single format. So intransigence is on both sides here. Secondly I don't understand why people oppose this format because of prior format problems. Judge this one on its merits. Thirdly I try to look at what are the technological advantages of one format over another. Of course cost and availability of DVDs matter a lot too. But I never heard that mentioned as a negative yet for blue ray. Its not like there are such a plethora of movies on one format and not in the other yet.
As far as betamax goes, it was the better technology. We would have been better off had it won.
Bottom line: This one is way to early to call.
Seriously is there no civil liberty that we are allowed to keep. I know DC and Chicago want CCTV on all their streets and many other cities are following. The feds want to be able to phone tap at will. Trial by jury is sinking away. Defendants rights are also going south. We will never get these rights back. Once gone nobody will return them..... I fume every time I hear another one of these stories.
There also seems to be another sinister subtext: That the constitution is just a bit of paper. And no longer will it really provide de fefacto protections.....
I am a double major in Chem and physics with a minor in math. No-one disourages anyone from doing the sciences. The departments go out of their way to get female students. However the more mathematical/analytical (ie sheer logic) the subject the fewer the females. In my math classes its about 60 - 70 %% male. In physics its 80 - 90% male. The less analytical/logical the more female. Thus chemistry is about equal. Biochem is 55-60% female. Bio is about 75 % female. Psych is about 85 % female. These figures speak for themselves.
Its quite frequent that I see female students dispraportionately struggle in math and physics.
Also if you want more evidence as to genetic differences see this study:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003390.html
Look, the bottom line is that anyone in the trenches such as myself sees overwheleming evidence of what females excell in and what males excell in. To be, or to have been in an accademic environment and to deny this is IMHO just denying the obvious because it conflicts with ones own political beliefs. I could imagine that 100 studies could be done in 100 different ways and they would all show genetic differences and still people would deny it. If you are determined to believe the earth is flat I cant 'force' you to believe it is round!
Slashdot Mirror
The allegations were already repeated in The Times in April. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education /article1600686.ece2 048161,00.htmle ws/2007/04/02/nschools02.xml8 8-details/Teachers+drop+the+Holocaust+to+avoid+off ending+Muslims/article.do3 59.stm
The Guardian also reported it: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,
They were also repeated in the Telegraph in April http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
Look also at the Evening Standard in April http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-233911
The BBC also report on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6517
The purpose of teaching about the Holocaust is not to let it happen again. It is precisely those who have antisemitic cultural influences (some Muslims) who need to know about it the most. It's precisely the people who get the most offended who need to hear about it the most. Secondly, history is about learning uncomfortable truths - indeed this is part of what it means to receive an education. If you never feel uncomfortable while learning, you probably aren't doing it.
I would like to see some definitive studies that show just how dangerous the use of cell phone are. I would like to know why they are so much more dangerous than changing the radio station or talking with a passenger. One law after another is passed making more and more things illegal on the road. It just makes it easier to be pulled over and that is something that is abused by the police. Accidents in recent years have decreased. Funny that - in light of all these cell phone conversations. These anti cell phone laws take away too much liberty.
I buy a CD. It's mine.... That means I should be able to sell it without hassle. Fingerprinting for buying a second hand cd is another step to fascism. It always amazes me that these right wing republican nut jobs go on and on about fucking freedom but then they themselves keep passing laws taking away peoples freedoms. Talk about double speak....
This is just another example of intellectual copyright law run a muck. The RIAA and MPAA are way way too powerful. The DMCA is another example of way over the top ideas. So here are some suggestions:
1. You get 25 years for Copyrite. That's it. After that tough luck. Ie any book or piece of music from before 1982 is automatically public domain.
2. When you sell software, you don't get to sell just a license etc... which means you cant in turn resell it. If I buy a piece of software I can resell it (so long as I don't keep a copy for myself). And no crazy restrictions on what I can do with it.
3. Trademarks only last for 50 years and no loopholes for disney etc.
4. No loony patents - ie no one click shopping patent for amazon etc. Anything that is remotely obvious cannot be patented. No patents on human genes.
5. If taxpayer money goes into paying for research and then gets published in an journal, then we don't have to pay again to see it.
6. EXPAND FAIR USE- ie make it much easier to use copyrighted materials for educational reasons, make it easier to quote larger sections from passages, make it easier to reprint various images.....
We forget that IP is NOT natural. We have it for the good of society. But its over ubuiquitious nature is now detrimental. So it has defeated its intended purpose.
As someone who has personally experienced the IT job market and having met so many others looking for IT jobs this complaining about a lack of candidates is plain false. There are so many IT people still working jobs where they are over qualified because they cant find anything any better. And it's still quite hard to get an IT job - they grill you through rounds of endless interviews and expect you to relocate ASAP and that's for the few lucky ones that even get an interview. If these businessmen believe in a capitalist supply and demand model then let wages rise. I bet you if wages rose by 25% in real terms in one year they would suddenly find all sorts of 'qualified candidates' popping out of the woodwork. But they refuse to pay for quality. They want low wages and low job security in the industry so they can ride roughshod over their employees. Simply put: If you want workers in your industry - pay them well and the market will take care of the rest.
If you are going to say "Wikipedia (being user created and edited) did not represent a credible or reliable source of information for schools..." you might as well say that school boards should also be banned from making decision since they are user created and edited and are composed of a bunch of windbags making unsubstantiated claims. Indeed so many educational decisions are made in a presence of a lot of peer reviewed literature showing their policies to be failed ones. But of course no-one challenged them there.
Did they do a study to show that Wikipedia is so much worse than other sources of information at the school?
As someone who has used Wikipedia a lot I can say that it is a valuable source of information. There are not too many other websites that you can use as a starting point to research a topic. A lot of the time there is way more information than Encyclopedia Britannica or anywhere else. Firstly you can corroborate the claims it makes. There is a great effort going on to cite sources that you can check.
Secondly when there are errors they tend to get cleared up. Articles are constantly edited. In fact you might call Wikipedia the Most Peer Reviewed journal in the world. Thirdly quite often one finds out information from Wikipedia that one would not have been aware of because being aware of it would require having done a PhD in the subject. Yet some important details can put a whole subject into perspective.
If I want to know about some subject quite often simply googling it provides very little. I have often gone into a library and asked a librarian for some books on some subject and unless I can tell them the title they are very often unable to recommend me one. Recently I was looking for information on public ownership of the airwaves. Well Wikipedia helped to start the project rolling. It often helps to index a lot of information on the Internet.
I also winder what is so great about allowing newspaper access. The press exaggerates or misunderstands things all the time. Why don't we ban them? Is Britannica peer reviewed? Nope it isn't. Neither is the New York Times. The schools should be teaching students how to critically analyze information. When they see a claim so they see an argument justifying it? Is the argument internally consistent? Does it source its information? Can you look up the source? Is there contradictory evidence elsewhere? Indeed if schools could use Wikipedia to home such skills further enhancing students' education.
To me this represents an attack on authority. The Schoolboard and indeed many other institutions need the façade of authority to get by. Wikipedia represents a meritocracy as opposed to arbitrary authority. And schools quite often despite what they say do not want free thinking students questioning everything.
This is why unions exist. I agree with people who say that no-one owes me a job. If they want they can fire my ass just because they want to, to cut costs if they want. They can they agree to rehire me later for less money. However I do not have to work for some company either. I can get together with a bunch other employees and form a union. We can insist on better pay and treatment and insist that we aren't treated like shit. They company doesn't have to listen to us. It can ignore us and fire us all and go out of business if it wants. Then maybe the employees will perhaps get some better health benefits and better pay and contracts that stop the company from abusing its workers. Bottom line: whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are gonna insist its a dog eat dog world then sometimes the company get to be bitten too and it too will suffer. So no wining about abusive unions....circuit city asked for this.
HDVD is also a competing format and that family of companies is just as intransigent as the Blueray in refusing to compromise in the creation of a single format. So intransigence is on both sides here. Secondly I don't understand why people oppose this format because of prior format problems. Judge this one on its merits. Thirdly I try to look at what are the technological advantages of one format over another. Of course cost and availability of DVDs matter a lot too. But I never heard that mentioned as a negative yet for blue ray. Its not like there are such a plethora of movies on one format and not in the other yet. As far as betamax goes, it was the better technology. We would have been better off had it won. Bottom line: This one is way to early to call.
Seriously is there no civil liberty that we are allowed to keep. I know DC and Chicago want CCTV on all their streets and many other cities are following. The feds want to be able to phone tap at will. Trial by jury is sinking away. Defendants rights are also going south. We will never get these rights back. Once gone nobody will return them..... I fume every time I hear another one of these stories. There also seems to be another sinister subtext: That the constitution is just a bit of paper. And no longer will it really provide de fefacto protections.....
Metacritic is so buch better. Google cant compete here. www.metacritic.com Go to the film section
I am a double major in Chem and physics with a minor in math. No-one disourages anyone from doing the sciences. The departments go out of their way to get female students. However the more mathematical/analytical (ie sheer logic) the subject the fewer the females. In my math classes its about 60 - 70 %% male. In physics its 80 - 90% male. The less analytical/logical the more female. Thus chemistry is about equal. Biochem is 55-60% female. Bio is about 75 % female. Psych is about 85 % female. These figures speak for themselves. Its quite frequent that I see female students dispraportionately struggle in math and physics. Also if you want more evidence as to genetic differences see this study: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003390.html Look, the bottom line is that anyone in the trenches such as myself sees overwheleming evidence of what females excell in and what males excell in. To be, or to have been in an accademic environment and to deny this is IMHO just denying the obvious because it conflicts with ones own political beliefs. I could imagine that 100 studies could be done in 100 different ways and they would all show genetic differences and still people would deny it. If you are determined to believe the earth is flat I cant 'force' you to believe it is round!