Gyros can detect motion, so I'd say your post is incorrect. After all, if it can detect tilt - then it can detect varying degrees of tilt over time. Varying degrees of tilt over time equals motion.
Uhhh, what makes it "far out" in any sense? It uses pretty low-tech, easily available technology, and does something that authorities would like to do. So, what's so unbelievable about it?
Because students would have choice. Not just choice of school, but all kinds of choices within the school. Most parents want their children to be well-educated, even if the parents might not be willing to spend time on their kids themselves. These parents can make demands for better education by voting with their dollars, which works much faster than voting through 5 levels of political indirection
That's not really the way it works with private education now - the good schools choose the students, not the other way around. Also, where are all these school choices going to come from? Most people can't just move to another town, and to have more choices, they'd have to build schools all over the place. Many parents don't have dollars to vote with, so the poor would be even more screwed than they already are - it would exacerbate the current problem of the wealthy being able to buy good education, and poorer people with more talent being underserved. When many have problems paying for the costs of raising their child with the help of a government shcool, how are they going to cope if they have to pay all the costs of education?
Probably the biggest immediate result will be that bad teachers will be fired very easily, and good teachers will be in very high demand and get a good salary.
Which would either raise prices if all the good teachers were kept - or more likely, schools would hire more bad teachers, because they are cheaper. Remember, the "free market" seeks profits, not excellence.
The First Amendment does not require that no money is ever spent on anything associated with religion. For instance, police will protect those within a church from violence.
But that's not spending money on the religious goals of the church, it's protecting the citizens, not their religion.
Public utilities also serve churches. To interpret the First Amendment to mean that all religious activity is shunned by all levels of government is the opposite of freedom of religion.
But I never interpreted it that way. It does mean that the government should not be allowed to fund religious institutions, like religious schools.
The school would be forced to teach certain concepts (and be accountable with independent testing, probably) even if the concept might be at odds with some religion or another.
Which then just brings us back to the problems that others were complaining of - government bureaucracy and interference.
Why not allow public schools to stay open? Then, just allow anyone to take the money allocated to them to a private school instead. I think you'll find the public schools will have little or no demand.
Except that the private schools wouldn't be interested in the piddling amount per student that the government would offer. And it ignores things like infrastructure planning and economies of scale. It basically wouldn't work. So, people would still have to go to those schools. It's not like there are enough private institutions for parents to have a choice. Back to the first point - it would be the good schools choosing students, not students or parents choosing schools.
It would be much easier, fairer, more workable, and cost effective just to bring public schools up to a higher standard.
Life isn't fair. For most of the smart kids, things will be OK anyway, but for
the others, a lot depends on parental involvement.
No, life isn't fair, but that's not a good argument for getting rid of public education. Just because life isn't fair, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help those people who have been dealt an unfair hand.
You're assuming that everyone is born with the same abilities.
The poor will still be able to go to school, but the schools are no longer government owned.
So, how would the ownership being private make any difference to the quality of education? It would probably just end up costing the government a lot more money, and a bunch of shonky institutions would spring up to suck off the government teat, with little concern for quality education.
It also raises problems - like government money being spent on schools which might violate separation of Church and State, for example. What's wrong with improving government schools? I don't see why the concept of the government owning schools is bad in itself. Privatization is also not a guaranteed cure for poor education. There are plenty of terrible private schools out there.
A. No, I'm not assuming that it isn't in a proprietary database B. No, I'm not assuming the original authors were good DBAs. C. No, I never said it would be free.
I'm not sure why you assume that I assume these things, as none of them are mentioned in my post. Even with these three factors, conversion from one electronic system to another is most likely to be easier and quicker than going from a card system to an electronic system.
My mother's parents couldn't afford to send her to Kindergarten (in 1950's Texas, Kindergarten cost extra), so they sent her to a caretaker's instead. It was cheaper than kindergarten, in that it allowed her mother to work full time.
A lot of families don't even have the opportunity to do that, these days.
With a little help from some slightly older children, she taught herself to read. But she learned a much more important lesson: If there was anything at all she wanted to learn, it was her responsibility to teach herself.
But she obviously had access to stimulus - like actually having books around to read. Having an environment where she could do that.
Government schools hurt children because they teach children that all knowledge comes from a higher authority.
>
I went to a government school, and they never taught me that. Do you have any examples of schools teaching this?
Gatto gives examples of notable americans who educated themselves in an early chapter in his Underground History.
I educated myself a great deal before I was old enough to go to school. But the fact that some people can do it, is not a very good argument against government schools. Again, where are underprivileged kids going to get access to materials and mentorship? Do you really think that "oh, people can just teach themselves" is a workable solution that will give better results for the average (and below average)person than government schooling?
Those links (at least the first couple of pages) don't contain instructions on how to get out of a paper bag. They are just sites that refer to paper bags, or use the phrase "couldn't $$$$$ his/her way out of a paper bag." So, what is the magic Google-fu required to Google one's way out of a paper bag?
Maybe if I hadn't wasted all that time in the government's schools my analogy would be more coherent. John Gatto [johntaylorgatto.com] is very articulate in his trashing of the government school concept.
So, we trashh the government schools. What then? Who educates the people who can't afford a private education?
and everything to do with whether the parents culture is one of reading and teaching, and the parents career is one that allows for that.
So, there's no way to help a child that didn't grow up in a household with such a culture? How are parents who weren't educated supposed to create such a culture?
Something sounds fishy about this idea, because there was a time when there was no such thing as reading and writing. So clearly, someone had to learn to read and write without being raised by parents who did.
Most GNU/Linux distros do exactly what you want, they have a local start page which is a file on the system.
Why is that what I want? I often open the browser as a means to check that I have HTTP access. Opening up a local page is pretty useless. Of course, it's trivial to change.
If so many people don't even bother with the trivial task of changing their homepage to something less annoying, or are incapable of it, we are doomed as a species. I wonder if these people also use the Microsoft page to search for Google?
Slashdot Mirror
Is friendship worth anything to you, though?
Gyros can detect motion, so I'd say your post is incorrect. After all, if it can detect tilt - then it can detect varying degrees of tilt over time. Varying degrees of tilt over time equals motion.
Uhhh, what makes it "far out" in any sense? It uses pretty low-tech, easily available technology, and does something that authorities would like to do. So, what's so unbelievable about it?
CMD-W works in nearly every Mac application, and certainly Safari.
That's not really the way it works with private education now - the good schools choose the students, not the other way around. Also, where are all these school choices going to come from? Most people can't just move to another town, and to have more choices, they'd have to build schools all over the place. Many parents don't have dollars to vote with, so the poor would be even more screwed than they already are - it would exacerbate the current problem of the wealthy being able to buy good education, and poorer people with more talent being underserved. When many have problems paying for the costs of raising their child with the help of a government shcool, how are they going to cope if they have to pay all the costs of education?
Probably the biggest immediate result will be that bad teachers will be fired very easily, and good teachers will be in very high demand and get a good salary.Which would either raise prices if all the good teachers were kept - or more likely, schools would hire more bad teachers, because they are cheaper. Remember, the "free market" seeks profits, not excellence.
The First Amendment does not require that no money is ever spent on anything associated with religion. For instance, police will protect those within a church from violence.But that's not spending money on the religious goals of the church, it's protecting the citizens, not their religion.
Public utilities also serve churches. To interpret the First Amendment to mean that all religious activity is shunned by all levels of government is the opposite of freedom of religion.But I never interpreted it that way. It does mean that the government should not be allowed to fund religious institutions, like religious schools.
The school would be forced to teach certain concepts (and be accountable with independent testing, probably) even if the concept might be at odds with some religion or another.Which then just brings us back to the problems that others were complaining of - government bureaucracy and interference.
Why not allow public schools to stay open? Then, just allow anyone to take the money allocated to them to a private school instead. I think you'll find the public schools will have little or no demand.Except that the private schools wouldn't be interested in the piddling amount per student that the government would offer. And it ignores things like infrastructure planning and economies of scale. It basically wouldn't work. So, people would still have to go to those schools. It's not like there are enough private institutions for parents to have a choice. Back to the first point - it would be the good schools choosing students, not students or parents choosing schools.
It would be much easier, fairer, more workable, and cost effective just to bring public schools up to a higher standard.
But I don't see any fnords!
Doo wah diddy diddy dah-dit-dit dit-dit-dah dah-dah dah-dit-dit dit-dit dah-dit-dit dah-dit-dit dah-dit-dah-dah dah-dit-dit dit dit
But this is the real world, where things don't actually work that way.
No, life isn't fair, but that's not a good argument for getting rid of public education. Just because life isn't fair, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help those people who have been dealt an unfair hand.
You're assuming that everyone is born with the same abilities.No, I'm not. Where did I imply that?
So, how would the ownership being private make any difference to the quality of education? It would probably just end up costing the government a lot more money, and a bunch of shonky institutions would spring up to suck off the government teat, with little concern for quality education.
It also raises problems - like government money being spent on schools which might violate separation of Church and State, for example. What's wrong with improving government schools? I don't see why the concept of the government owning schools is bad in itself. Privatization is also not a guaranteed cure for poor education. There are plenty of terrible private schools out there.
Gosh, I guess you must be Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out.
B. No, I'm not assuming the original authors were good DBAs.
C. No, I never said it would be free.
I'm not sure why you assume that I assume these things, as none of them are mentioned in my post. Even with these three factors, conversion from one electronic system to another is most likely to be easier and quicker than going from a card system to an electronic system.
A lot of families don't even have the opportunity to do that, these days.
With a little help from some slightly older children, she taught herself to read. But she learned a much more important lesson: If there was anything at all she wanted to learn, it was her responsibility to teach herself.But she obviously had access to stimulus - like actually having books around to read. Having an environment where she could do that.
Government schools hurt children because they teach children that all knowledge comes from a higher authority.>
I went to a government school, and they never taught me that. Do you have any examples of schools teaching this?
Gatto gives examples of notable americans who educated themselves in an early chapter in his Underground History.I educated myself a great deal before I was old enough to go to school. But the fact that some people can do it, is not a very good argument against government schools. Again, where are underprivileged kids going to get access to materials and mentorship? Do you really think that "oh, people can just teach themselves" is a workable solution that will give better results for the average (and below average)person than government schooling?
Those links (at least the first couple of pages) don't contain instructions on how to get out of a paper bag. They are just sites that refer to paper bags, or use the phrase "couldn't $$$$$ his/her way out of a paper bag." So, what is the magic Google-fu required to Google one's way out of a paper bag?
The problem with that method is that you miss the midget porn.
I've never seen an alien on campus. If you are seeing them, perhaps you should alert Mulder and Scully?
So, we trashh the government schools. What then? Who educates the people who can't afford a private education?
So, there's no way to help a child that didn't grow up in a household with such a culture? How are parents who weren't educated supposed to create such a culture?
Something sounds fishy about this idea, because there was a time when there was no such thing as reading and writing. So clearly, someone had to learn to read and write without being raised by parents who did.
Do you have a link to instructions for getting out of a paper bag? I couldn't find any through Google.
CMD-W is much quicker for closing tabs and pages than mousing around for a close button.
Yeah, that's so much more convenient than using the search field. Why would a tech-savvy user waste time on a redundant task?
Why is that what I want? I often open the browser as a means to check that I have HTTP access. Opening up a local page is pretty useless. Of course, it's trivial to change.
If so many people don't even bother with the trivial task of changing their homepage to something less annoying, or are incapable of it, we are doomed as a species. I wonder if these people also use the Microsoft page to search for Google?
Why shouldn't friendliness be a part of the criteria? Great search results might not be worth the effort if it's a real pain in the ass to use.
dit-dit-dit-dit dit-dah dah-dah.