Really?
The budget deficit is through the roof, economy is declining, jobs are being lost and the presidents main concern should be legalizing drugs?
Think of all the money that could be saved by stopping the war on drugs (law enforcement, prisons). Think of the potential productivity of all those people in jail convicted of victimless "crimes". Think of all the tax income from the legal sale of drugs.
All in all, legalization is a simple step that helps address the problems you bring up.
This is why you get pedagogical experiments being carried out in a wholesale manner, rather than innovation in education being driven by diversity and competition.
...welcome a Jobsian stab at remaking the television. Right now, what good is a sleek flat panel set if you need all those wires to connect it for power, Bluray player, amp...? Perhaps a two-element design (like the last Pioneer Kuro) with a single cord connecting the panel to a separate box?
This boy is clearly a genius with unlimited potential. How extraordinarily sad that he is applying all that potential to something as fucking idiotic as counter-terrorism.
Well, there's not much potential use for a fusor in investment banking, so I guess counter-terrorism is where the money is.
Nothing has changed our lives over the past decade more than technology innovation. It opens new business sectors, creates additional wealth that didn't exist before. That means we have greater efficiencies, which just means that we have more money left over for other things.
Schools today are far too structured and thus impede innovative thinking - which is key to the artistic side of technology.
At issue are rules that tell each student exactly what they should be studying and when.
And without public money? I'm all for it. (...) But if you want to give people public money to teach myths as facts and other sorts of kookery, I'm all against it.
Of course without 'public' money (no such thing, just private money extorted or counterfeited by the government). As for 'myths', 'facts' and 'kookery' (mmm, chocolate covered bacon--delicious), that should be up to the parents. If you want your kids to learn about 'global warming', the 'food pyramid', or the patriotism of the draft, or whatever, go for it, just not on my dime.
there's your social darwinism playing out, picking the best approach to education curriculum. and guess what? the countries with strong control on education policy are churning out intelligent minds
Citation? BTW, sounds like you had a Jesuit education. Congrats!
if you load a kid up with a bunch of bad ideas, he's not going to be able to compete with the kid who was given effective ideas.
That's the entire rationale behind giving schools the freedom to set their own curriculum: to find out what the effective ideas are. Or do you trust Mr. Bureaucrat to know what those are?
Yeah, and then the poor could not afford to send their kids to school. Fix the poverty problem first, redistribute the wealth, and maybe then I could agree with you.
Public spending per K-12 student is around $10,000 a year. A possible redistribution scheme could be to pay this directly to the parents and let them decide what they want their kids to learn.
This whole debate has everyone asking the wrong questions.
The problem is public education in the first place. Allow people to create schools however they want (without being crowded out by public education) and let the fittest survive.
Slashdot Mirror
of "Baa Baa Black Sheep".
Really? The budget deficit is through the roof, economy is declining, jobs are being lost and the presidents main concern should be legalizing drugs?
Think of all the money that could be saved by stopping the war on drugs (law enforcement, prisons). Think of the potential productivity of all those people in jail convicted of victimless "crimes". Think of all the tax income from the legal sale of drugs.
All in all, legalization is a simple step that helps address the problems you bring up.
Eyeglass frames have been made from keratin for a long time.
There are some things AI is good at without being annoying, such as suggesting URL's as you type them, or suggesting the temperature so you don't burn your food. Good AI tries to prevent human error by suggesting alternatives.
So you voted for Gore, get over it already.
Tell me, Sherlock, how do I determine that I shouldn't read a post?
Up yours.
This is why you get pedagogical experiments being carried out in a wholesale manner, rather than innovation in education being driven by diversity and competition.
I was just wondering about the word choice. Why "skeptic" instead of "denier" or just the neutral climate "scientist"?
I guess "flamebait" now means "intersting" but provocatively so.
According to Merriam-Webster
Near Antonyms: chump, dupe, gull, pigeon, sucker
...welcome a Jobsian stab at remaking the television. Right now, what good is a sleek flat panel set if you need all those wires to connect it for power, Bluray player, amp...? Perhaps a two-element design (like the last Pioneer Kuro) with a single cord connecting the panel to a separate box?
"Method to increase of inhibitory assemblies across the brain's cortex using an imaging technique"
aka 'C-SPAN'
This boy is clearly a genius with unlimited potential. How extraordinarily sad that he is applying all that potential to something as fucking idiotic as counter-terrorism.
Well, there's not much potential use for a fusor in investment banking, so I guess counter-terrorism is where the money is.
No, this is the Grand Uncanny Quad-Amputee Friggin' Canyon!
It's excellent on the iPad. No force feedback, but if you mount it on a gooseneck, the iPad does a reasonable imitation of a yoke.
Too much money riding on it. Corporations will win. Always
Aren't ISPs corporations too?
I hope this applies to food as well.
Nothing has changed our lives over the past decade more than technology innovation. It opens new business sectors, creates additional wealth that didn't exist before. That means we have greater efficiencies, which just means that we have more money left over for other things.
Schools today are far too structured and thus impede innovative thinking - which is key to the artistic side of technology.
At issue are rules that tell each student exactly what they should be studying and when.
Yours in SNW, Woz
And without public money? I'm all for it. (...) But if you want to give people public money to teach myths as facts and other sorts of kookery, I'm all against it.
Of course without 'public' money (no such thing, just private money extorted or counterfeited by the government). As for 'myths', 'facts' and 'kookery' (mmm, chocolate covered bacon--delicious), that should be up to the parents. If you want your kids to learn about 'global warming', the 'food pyramid', or the patriotism of the draft, or whatever, go for it, just not on my dime.
ok, the marketplace has decided: regimented school curriculum. as per the countries that crank out the best educated students.
Wrong tense. The marketplace is constantly deciding.
case closed
Indeed.
a well informed populace was vital to a democracy, and so provisioned for public education for all.
Let the M1911 vs Glock 17 debate begin (no disrespect intended to Walthers, Lugers or AKs).
there's your social darwinism playing out, picking the best approach to education curriculum. and guess what? the countries with strong control on education policy are churning out intelligent minds
Citation? BTW, sounds like you had a Jesuit education. Congrats!
if you load a kid up with a bunch of bad ideas, he's not going to be able to compete with the kid who was given effective ideas.
That's the entire rationale behind giving schools the freedom to set their own curriculum: to find out what the effective ideas are. Or do you trust Mr. Bureaucrat to know what those are?
"Slashdotter creates 'worth saving' index for endangered habitats."
who named this thing "hairy-nosed wombat".
It's like naming your kid "Gaylord" and being surprised he grows up to be a male nurse.
Yeah, and then the poor could not afford to send their kids to school. Fix the poverty problem first, redistribute the wealth, and maybe then I could agree with you.
Public spending per K-12 student is around $10,000 a year. A possible redistribution scheme could be to pay this directly to the parents and let them decide what they want their kids to learn.
This whole debate has everyone asking the wrong questions.
The problem is public education in the first place. Allow people to create schools however they want (without being crowded out by public education) and let the fittest survive.