Why the **** do you need to know about his family? Their identities probably aren't relevant. You can get by with just descriptions.
Example: If you want to know how my interest in music developed, all you really need to know is that my parents are band directors. You don't need to know their names, their schools, or even what city they live near.
The guy who writes the check, maybe. But I have doubts about those other two.
Also, in response to another post, the votes in Congress don't reflect the idea that the bottom 50% has no representation.
And you can wiggle all you want, but it's quite clear where people's priorities are when they think it's just as bad (or even worse) to lie about one's personal life than it is to lie about public policy.
You still have yet to give an example of how this is security measure is more effective than just using monocular cameras. If you close one eye, it doesn't really get appreciably harder to tell whether or not a person has a weapon. If you can't see it with one eye, you probably can't see it with two either.
We're not talking about assassinating a politician, let's stick to the subject
That was a response to a statement you made. It's not off topic unless your statement (that the "I could break through easily, so it's not secure" argument is invalid) is also off topic.
Since I'm not an expert in this field I'd take a guess that my not knowing what that reason is is no reason for me to doubt that there is one that is valid.
Having been on both sides of a security camera, I'll let you in on a little secret. The only thing you can detect with two cameras that you can't detect with one is whatever is in the second camera's field of vision but not in the first camera's field of vision. And I'll tell you something else too. You don't need to be an expert to be able to recognize some really stupid stuff.
The people who put together this tool must have some reason why they feel it's useful.
The people who bought it did so because it looks cool. Image is worth a lot in most markets. Ever heard of "feel-good" policies?
The people who sold it did so because they'd profit from the sale. Money, not quality, is what matters most to corporations.
Perhaps it's not a matter of finding more threats but processing subjects faster to find known threats
Yes, that's an important possibility to consider, but it wouldn't speed things up either.
this certainly doesn't seem as bad as say Ketchup Viscosity Testing ... Yeah, that's about as bad as it gets.
In that situation, depth perception is used to avoid hitting things. These camera operators don't need to know if the threat is ten feet away or thirty feet away; they just need to know if there's a threat. Even so, size-based judging allows one to establish some degree of depth perception with monocular vision. A sober camera operator could tell the difference between ten and thirty feet.
How many more threats can be found this way than would be found by older (cheaper) methods? And the "I can defeat their measure, it's a waste" is really something to consider. If I, with what little relevant ability I have could assassinate some politician, then that politician is not well protected.
cesspool of corrupt cronyism and union featherbedding
This sounds like the thing to focus efforts on. Pulling money out just means that the cronies get less money, not that the students get a better education.
Schools which teach children will thrive, and schools which do nothing but provide cushy sinecures for lazy, overpaid union educrats will fail.
This certainly does sound like the way to go. I'm just a bit uncomfortable with gov't money going to a religious school.
It would also be interesting to see the distinction between "public" and "private" schools slowly start to disappear.
A legislator's duty to represent his people has been replaced with the goal of being reelected. There is little incentive to follow the constituents' views on most issues because the constituents won't vote based on them. Unless it looks likely that anyone in Congress is likely to lose their seat because of their actions regarding granting monopolistic power to telecoms, they'll keep doing it because that's where they can get money (to fund their election campaigns, thus helping them achieve their real goal). The new balance of power may help, but I'd say term limits would be more effective (due to the elimination of most of the "career politicians").
I have yet to see teachers oppose standardized testing as a concept. Perhaps you mean the resistance to NCLB. The reason for the opposition is not that it requires standardized testing, but that the standards are unrealistic (for example, students with learning disabilities are expected to perform up to the same standards as honors students). A disturbing number of successful schools have been labelled as "failing" because of the standards. I went to a high school which earned the US Dept of Education Blue Ribbon award four times, but the school could easily be marked as failing if the wrong student (yes, only one student) fails to meet standards on the test.
Also, the solutions for fixing failing schools are not effective. Restructuring the Chicago Public School system will only get you so far without putting more money towards improving it. Unfortunately, NCLB calls for the eventual removal of federal funding from schools which don't meet standards. Eventually, they'll have to become charter schools. While I don't think there's anything special about charter schools that should make them inadequate, results from the past few years have shown them to be so.
And the problem with this is?
Why should my taxes go to pay for someone else to be taught pseudoscience?
Now, if there were stricter standards for the private schools, it wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw the movie! It's comedy, and shouldn't be marked troll!
You're damn right about that. It should be marked "Offtopic."
No, I mean, "they think." I choose my pronouns carefully.
Why the **** do you need to know about his family? Their identities probably aren't relevant. You can get by with just descriptions. Example: If you want to know how my interest in music developed, all you really need to know is that my parents are band directors. You don't need to know their names, their schools, or even what city they live near.
The guy who writes the check, maybe. But I have doubts about those other two.
Also, in response to another post, the votes in Congress don't reflect the idea that the bottom 50% has no representation.
And you can wiggle all you want, but it's quite clear where people's priorities are when they think it's just as bad (or even worse) to lie about one's personal life than it is to lie about public policy.
If Congress hadn't kept him from acting as necessary, bin Laden would be dead.
Translation: Tough-guy Bush is afraid to attack North Korea because it might fight back.
Not much point in going after a terrorist firebrand's estranged family members.
Because every person has complete control over his situation and surroundings, right?
You still have yet to give an example of how this is security measure is more effective than just using monocular cameras. If you close one eye, it doesn't really get appreciably harder to tell whether or not a person has a weapon. If you can't see it with one eye, you probably can't see it with two either.
... Yeah, that's about as bad as it gets.
We're not talking about assassinating a politician, let's stick to the subject
That was a response to a statement you made. It's not off topic unless your statement (that the "I could break through easily, so it's not secure" argument is invalid) is also off topic.
Since I'm not an expert in this field I'd take a guess that my not knowing what that reason is is no reason for me to doubt that there is one that is valid.
Having been on both sides of a security camera, I'll let you in on a little secret. The only thing you can detect with two cameras that you can't detect with one is whatever is in the second camera's field of vision but not in the first camera's field of vision. And I'll tell you something else too. You don't need to be an expert to be able to recognize some really stupid stuff.
The people who put together this tool must have some reason why they feel it's useful.
The people who bought it did so because it looks cool. Image is worth a lot in most markets. Ever heard of "feel-good" policies?
The people who sold it did so because they'd profit from the sale. Money, not quality, is what matters most to corporations.
Perhaps it's not a matter of finding more threats but processing subjects faster to find known threats
Yes, that's an important possibility to consider, but it wouldn't speed things up either.
this certainly doesn't seem as bad as say Ketchup Viscosity Testing
In that situation, depth perception is used to avoid hitting things. These camera operators don't need to know if the threat is ten feet away or thirty feet away; they just need to know if there's a threat. Even so, size-based judging allows one to establish some degree of depth perception with monocular vision. A sober camera operator could tell the difference between ten and thirty feet.
How many more threats can be found this way than would be found by older (cheaper) methods? And the "I can defeat their measure, it's a waste" is really something to consider. If I, with what little relevant ability I have could assassinate some politician, then that politician is not well protected.
And is this system more likely to detect that?
Too many politicians are like that. That's probably why kimvette always votes against incumbents.
cesspool of corrupt cronyism and union featherbedding
This sounds like the thing to focus efforts on. Pulling money out just means that the cronies get less money, not that the students get a better education.
Schools which teach children will thrive, and schools which do nothing but provide cushy sinecures for lazy, overpaid union educrats will fail.
This certainly does sound like the way to go. I'm just a bit uncomfortable with gov't money going to a religious school.
It would also be interesting to see the distinction between "public" and "private" schools slowly start to disappear.
A legislator's duty to represent his people has been replaced with the goal of being reelected. There is little incentive to follow the constituents' views on most issues because the constituents won't vote based on them. Unless it looks likely that anyone in Congress is likely to lose their seat because of their actions regarding granting monopolistic power to telecoms, they'll keep doing it because that's where they can get money (to fund their election campaigns, thus helping them achieve their real goal). The new balance of power may help, but I'd say term limits would be more effective (due to the elimination of most of the "career politicians").
And it's interesting that the average annual income for an employee in the USA is less than the USA's per capita GDP...
What's the worse they can do? The worst is to fire you.
When student loans have to be paid off, that's pretty bad.
They would be stupid to fire you when they need your hours so much.
I wouldn't guarantee that they aren't stupid.
I imagine lots of supervisors/managers don't seem approachable, especially to a recent college graduate.
He may want to actually keep doing well at this job while he still has it so that he has a positive reference in the future.
Well, there's always WINE :-P
I have yet to see teachers oppose standardized testing as a concept. Perhaps you mean the resistance to NCLB. The reason for the opposition is not that it requires standardized testing, but that the standards are unrealistic (for example, students with learning disabilities are expected to perform up to the same standards as honors students). A disturbing number of successful schools have been labelled as "failing" because of the standards. I went to a high school which earned the US Dept of Education Blue Ribbon award four times, but the school could easily be marked as failing if the wrong student (yes, only one student) fails to meet standards on the test.
Also, the solutions for fixing failing schools are not effective. Restructuring the Chicago Public School system will only get you so far without putting more money towards improving it. Unfortunately, NCLB calls for the eventual removal of federal funding from schools which don't meet standards. Eventually, they'll have to become charter schools. While I don't think there's anything special about charter schools that should make them inadequate, results from the past few years have shown them to be so.
And the problem with this is?
Why should my taxes go to pay for someone else to be taught pseudoscience?
Now, if there were stricter standards for the private schools, it wouldn't be as much of a problem.
I have a lot of trouble believing this to be the norm.
Proponents of school vouchers generally seem to want to spend public money on religious education.