It's a sad, sad day when I have to admit that beating all 150 levels of Lode Runner is one of my real accomplishments in life. But I beat it on the Apple ][.
I think that in High School it is a lot easier to turn gifted kids loose and let them learn. I think the younger they are the more help they need.
Actually, now that I think of it, maybe the younger kids need help learning how to become self-taught, and the older kids need guidance in what would be good to learn.
I think it's probably because the low group has a stigma attached to it, and the 'normal' group doesn't. So the brainiacs who get lumped with everyone have no stigma, but the 'normal' kid who is thrown in the buzzard group does.
He didn't say anything about isolating gifted students from their peers. Many gifted programs utilize integration, they just have the gifted students doing different activities in the classroom.
I hope I didn't misunderstand you (or the GP). I think you are correct. I think that a gifted program should have freedom in a mainstream classroom.
Note that even this is not the best for each and every student. I kinda think that gifted students should have like an IEP or something.
As another responder already said, it has been called 'tracking,' though I don't know if it's illegal. My school district frowns most heavily upon it, and prefers to deal with it in-class. But what if a student is 'mis-tracked?' If it's a track in which the student is re-evaluated annually then that kid is going to be really messed up for a year. I have been toying with the idea of regrouping on a weekly basis. The problem with a weekly basis is that it's hard to make a week as meaningful as a year. It's a hard question, one teachers and administrators are trying to solve.
On a related topic, it's odd that if a student has an IQ of 70, that's like 2 standard deviations below the norm, and the student is identified as intellectually disabled. Failing to identify and serve this student's needs is going to get your school into an enormous amount of trouble.
Then you have another student with an IQ of 130. This student is no more normal than the other. He is intellectually gifted. Failing to identify or serve this student's needs will not even earn anyone a slap on the wrist.
This problem will get solved when a slashdotter decides he has enough money to take this comparison all the way to the Supreme Court.
Fidel Castro got a package from the CIA. He opened it and found inside a salt shaker, a small map of Cuba, and a photo of Michael Jackson. No one understood why the CIA would send him this, so they finally asked the entire country. They had everyone look at the 3 items and try to figure out what it meant. Finally an old woman from the mountains looked in the box and laughed. "It's easy!" she cried. "Sal de Cuba maricón."
While I think you make a good point (the whole "what is sight anyway" idea), I think you're wrong. I have seen an apple (I'm typing this response on one right now!), and I think everyone would agree that I've seen one. However, seeing a plaster cast of a coyote's pawprint is not the same as seeing a coyote. Seeing a computer representation of what traffic is like around San Fransisco as the cars are detected on the sensors built into the highway is not the same as being stuck in traffic in San Fransisco.
I think the pawprint cast and the traffic representation are good analogies of what I was trying to say in my other post. Naturally, (and fortunately) I have other sources of information than my eyes to learn about the world, and it sure is nice to see plaster coyote pawprints and traffic representations to help me understand what I haven't experienced.
I think it's safe to say that electrons are invisible. Thank goodness we have bubbles and detectors to help us understand more about their existence and behavior.
No, you haven't. The first link merely shows a bubble around the electron, not the electron itself. The second link appears to be a representation of the machine detecting electrons, not a photograph of any electrons.
So no, no you haven't, or if you have you still haven't shown us.
Someone please respond to this post with a verifiable example of a terrorist action that was stopped by using provisions of the Patriot act.
This page lists several instances in which the provisions of the Patriot act have helped fight terrorism. Several of the facts on the page have links to corroborating stories. The one I most wanted to read is on the uscourts.gov site and was timing out.
I had heard before that the Patriot Act had more to do with inter-agency cooperation than with anything else, but I don't know how to verify that short of reading the law myself.
Speaking of which, can someone please post a link to an example of an American locked up using Patriot Act provisions? I'm not talking about abuses like the one in the OP, but lockups.
Here is an interesting page about security clearance. It looks like it's specific to the Department of Defense. Look especially at the page on financial considerations.
Since when is having a bit of cash ("Unexplained affluence") a suspicious activity?
Since when is failing to bore people with every detail of your vacation ("failing to report overseas travel,") a suspicious activity?
Since when is curiosity ("showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope") a suspicious activity?
Since when is working a night job ("keeping unusual work hours") a suspicious activity?
Are you serious? This is how they catch people. These are the very first things the FBI (for example) looks into when granting security clearance.
It's like saying, "Since when is a high heart-rate bad for you? I work out all the time and have a high heart-rate every day!" and getting pissed when the nurse takes your pulse as soon as you walk into the clinic!
When I worked at the grocery store, part of my job was to catch shoplifters. An expert told me, "You can tell the shoplifters because they are watching you, not their shopping." Now does everyone that looks at the night manager a shoplifter? Of course not, and only a fool would believe it, and only a bigger fool would suggest it. But the idea that you can detect shoplifters by seeing what they are watching is still extremely useful. It's the unusual-ness that makes it suspicious. It's a judgment call in the grocery business, and I imagine it is in the industrial counter-espionage business as well.
Over the decades, people whose job it is to prevent espionage of all types have come to the conclusion that unexplained affluence, unusual interest outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, etc., etc., are good indicators of suspicious activities.
He did indeed edit the movie. We have no problem with him editing the movie. I'm proposing here that he twisted Heston's words for his own purposes, putting Heston's words in a light no one ever intended, taking what was supposed to be a conciliatory speech into a hate-filled diatribe. So compassion would be nice.
I'm not necessarily upset with your interpretation of the speeches. Moore's page says we should read the whole thing, and he regards the whole speech as ugly and upsetting. Maybe you do, too. Maybe you think Moore's edition of the speech maintains what he really thought Heston meant. If so, fine. But please don't simply discard my position as anger at Moore editing the movie.
I don't know of any unscheduled visits after shootings. The NRA planned the visit long before the tragedy. They plan their annual meetings years in advance, I think. You should read Heston's real speech. I felt it was trying to be conciliatory. In fact, in his speech (second paragraph), he announces that much of the NRA festivities had been canceled.
Slashdot Mirror
Go Warriors!
It's a sad, sad day when I have to admit that beating all 150 levels of Lode Runner is one of my real accomplishments in life. But I beat it on the Apple ][.
Did no one think of Battlestar Galactica's void before me?
I have leprosy, you insensitive clod!
Actually, now that I think of it, maybe the younger kids need help learning how to become self-taught, and the older kids need guidance in what would be good to learn.
I think it's probably because the low group has a stigma attached to it, and the 'normal' group doesn't. So the brainiacs who get lumped with everyone have no stigma, but the 'normal' kid who is thrown in the buzzard group does.
I hope I didn't misunderstand you (or the GP). I think you are correct. I think that a gifted program should have freedom in a mainstream classroom.
Note that even this is not the best for each and every student. I kinda think that gifted students should have like an IEP or something.
On a related topic, it's odd that if a student has an IQ of 70, that's like 2 standard deviations below the norm, and the student is identified as intellectually disabled. Failing to identify and serve this student's needs is going to get your school into an enormous amount of trouble.
Then you have another student with an IQ of 130. This student is no more normal than the other. He is intellectually gifted. Failing to identify or serve this student's needs will not even earn anyone a slap on the wrist.
This problem will get solved when a slashdotter decides he has enough money to take this comparison all the way to the Supreme Court.
Fidel Castro got a package from the CIA. He opened it and found inside a salt shaker, a small map of Cuba, and a photo of Michael Jackson. No one understood why the CIA would send him this, so they finally asked the entire country. They had everyone look at the 3 items and try to figure out what it meant. Finally an old woman from the mountains looked in the box and laughed. "It's easy!" she cried. "Sal de Cuba maricón."
I remember when I used FreeTranslation.com to help me translate an article about the hospitalization of Fidel I castrate.
Which check-cashing place do you go to?
The cops busted him outside a check cashing joint on payday.
I think you are correct. Please see this other post.
I think the pawprint cast and the traffic representation are good analogies of what I was trying to say in my other post. Naturally, (and fortunately) I have other sources of information than my eyes to learn about the world, and it sure is nice to see plaster coyote pawprints and traffic representations to help me understand what I haven't experienced.
I think it's safe to say that electrons are invisible. Thank goodness we have bubbles and detectors to help us understand more about their existence and behavior.
So no, no you haven't, or if you have you still haven't shown us.
How did I not know there was a Chronicles of Riddick game? For some reason (I still don't know why) I loved that movie.
Maybe you should submit some stories about Ratattoullie, Live Free or Die Hard, or Kraftwerk.
I had heard before that the Patriot Act had more to do with inter-agency cooperation than with anything else, but I don't know how to verify that short of reading the law myself.
Speaking of which, can someone please post a link to an example of an American locked up using Patriot Act provisions? I'm not talking about abuses like the one in the OP, but lockups.
Here is an interesting page about security clearance. It looks like it's specific to the Department of Defense. Look especially at the page on financial considerations.
It's like saying, "Since when is a high heart-rate bad for you? I work out all the time and have a high heart-rate every day!" and getting pissed when the nurse takes your pulse as soon as you walk into the clinic!
When I worked at the grocery store, part of my job was to catch shoplifters. An expert told me, "You can tell the shoplifters because they are watching you, not their shopping." Now does everyone that looks at the night manager a shoplifter? Of course not, and only a fool would believe it, and only a bigger fool would suggest it. But the idea that you can detect shoplifters by seeing what they are watching is still extremely useful. It's the unusual-ness that makes it suspicious. It's a judgment call in the grocery business, and I imagine it is in the industrial counter-espionage business as well.
Over the decades, people whose job it is to prevent espionage of all types have come to the conclusion that unexplained affluence, unusual interest outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, etc., etc., are good indicators of suspicious activities.
I'm not necessarily upset with your interpretation of the speeches. Moore's page says we should read the whole thing, and he regards the whole speech as ugly and upsetting. Maybe you do, too. Maybe you think Moore's edition of the speech maintains what he really thought Heston meant. If so, fine. But please don't simply discard my position as anger at Moore editing the movie.
I don't know of any unscheduled visits after shootings. The NRA planned the visit long before the tragedy. They plan their annual meetings years in advance, I think. You should read Heston's real speech. I felt it was trying to be conciliatory. In fact, in his speech (second paragraph), he announces that much of the NRA festivities had been canceled.