There is no way the Earth could possibly support 7 billion hunter gatherers.
Tomorrow as you head to work, take a look around at the people you pass. I'd venture to say, the process of hunting and gathering would cull about 99.7% of those you see. Hunting and gathering is a lot of work.
Let's just shut down every piece of modern technology and revert to a hunter-gatherer civilization. Will that make the enviornmentalists finally shut up?
Nope. Then we'd be eating the animals, and that is not okay.
I'm with you, but it's practically an impossibility, without a complete overhaul of the educational system. Even then it would be extremely difficult.
To be candid, we have students who don't have the intellectual capacity to be successful. We might be able to dedicate huge amounts of time and resources for these students, but still the odds are we won't ever reach 100%.
I sometimes feel the pangs of grammar errors, but I try to remember that almost all the people here are 10 times smarter than me. If I can't write an algorithm like they can, or build a nuclear fission reactor, I'll give them a little leeway.
No Child Left Behind eventually calls for all schools to have a 100% pass rate.
A clear example of the problem with involving politics in schools. It sounds great to have all students excel in school, but the practicality of such a goal is silly, leading, as you say, to lower and lower standards for the exams.
I'm an English teacher at a good school, but even here, we are forced, not just from administration, but more diffused social pressure, to make sure our scores are good, even though we know the tests are flawed.
The problem with education is it has become a political issue, which means we keep slathering nice pretty paint on a school building that's rotting away from the inside.
I'm afraid the whole system will have to collapse before we begin actually fixing it.
The way Yahoo uses Google ads is to place them on pages where there aren't many Yahoo ads available for the space. So advertising with Ad Sense won't ensure that you get your ads on Yahoo! pages. You would only have the chance of it.
So if you want to be sure your ads show up on Yahoo!, you must advertise with Yahoo, through their ad service.
You are absolutely right, but most of what you are referring to isn't the fault of public education, but rather higher education. Most of the duplication of material is because of the carnegie unit. That isn't the fault of public schools, but rather the expectations of colleges.
Just to clarify, I think there is a lot wrong with public schools, including this situation, but our hands are tied until colleges abandon or modify their expectations of the carnegie units.
I'm a public school teacher like your friend. I tend to agree. I've recently been promoted to department chair and get to see even more of the stubbornness he's feeling. Part of the problem though is the schools of education at Universities are just as flawed as the schools themselves. Many of the new methods are simply reworking of old ones that justify a PhD's dissertation.
I was (un)fortunate enough to have someone study my class for a book, because many of the things I was doing were similar to the concept she was putting forth in her book. Well, I finally got a copy of it, with the chapter marked that focused on my classroom. I'm glad she marked it because I wouldn't have recognized it if she hadn't.
She blatantly manipulated the situations in the classroom to justify her own ideas. After speaking with some professors that I trust, and to other older colleagues, I found this behavior to be rampant in educational schools.
The result, a system that doesn't trust itself. Higher learning scoffs at what is going on in the classrooms, and classroom teachers scoff at professors of education, because they are only trying to justify their own existence.
But overall your friend is right. The systems are too entrenched. Really most teachers need to learn to be reflective. If something works, keep doing it. If it doesn't, try something else, and repeat.
My favorite was when a professor taught a class on innovative teaching techniques at my grad school. He used an overhead projector and talked at us for two and a half hours...Yikes.
There was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about how Finland's education system is remarkably efficient considering that kids have a much smaller homework burden than in the U.S.
Not untrue, but there's a lot of history with the US education system that needs to be corrected. Since its inception, public schools in the states have been given a lot of jobs to do. Create knowledgeable citizens, strong workers, informed participants in the electorate and a whole slew of other goals. One of the reasons our public schools struggle is because of the many roles we place on it. Other countries don't seem to have this same issue. Their curricula tend to be more succinct. Tell your political leaders to quit spread educators so thin, and give us a mandate as to our major role.
Do things right at school, and perhaps there won't be any need to get the parents involved.
This statement might be true, but I get nervous when people put the primary role of raising children, of which formal education is one part, on schools. NCLB has done this to public schools in many ways, and it let's parents, who often actively undermine the lessons taught in school get off with no responsibility. I think we are going too far, when we place the burden squarely on the schools' collective shoulders.
Disclaimer: I'm a teacher at a public high school.
I've always been surprised they don't use one sponsor per ad. I'm a soccer fan...football for all you non-Americans out there...and I've always loved the early attempt at having few commercial interruptions by getting the occasional flash of "This program is brought to you by..." across the bottom of the screen. That would seem like a simpler ad model to me, and relatively unobtrusive.
But hey, I'm not the kind of guy they tend to advertise too. I don't buy stuff.
The tone you use is somewhat attacking, but that's okay, this is a serious issue. Notice that I haven't implied the issue isn't a serious one.
The point of the law, I assume, is to make it difficult to commit the crimes you mention. Your assertion is a lesser degree of saying, well, carrying an assault rifle into the post office shouldn't be a crime because attempted murder is already a crime. The intent is to remove the means of perpetrating a crime.
Is this a minor case? Someone died. Is that less a crime than your colleague not getting a promotion?
I wasn't referring to my example but to the case mentioned in the article.
I agree that being accused of a crime is certainly a horrible thing, especially in the cases you mention, but I would argue being charged with a crime and then convicted is worse than just being charged.
This is bad precedent, bad application of marginal law.
I absolutely agree. My point is to say, let's argue this as it actually is. The GP stated that this girl is getting fifteen years for the crime. I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy of that statement, and trying to illustrate that there needs to be leeway in the range of punishment for any crime.
Because, you know, signing up to a website under a fake name is entirely justified with 15 years of prison time. Maybe you'd like the death penalty to anyone who steals a snickers bar or crank calls you as "I P Freely".
Whoa! Slow down cowboy...
I agree there are some real concerns here, but it doesn't serve the cause to overstate the consequences of her actions. So to be clear, the sentence is up to five years. The lower end of the sentencing is definitely much lower. Now you might argue that even the low end is too high, but you're assuming the worst.
Laws are set with a range of consequences so they fit the severity of the crime. As an example, what if this lady faked her name to gain access to a colleague's pages, and then post doctored pictures to the site to slander the colleague so the impersonator can get a promotion. That is a serious crime right? But probably not fifteen years worth. But say, it was to impersonate a person's friend, in order to lure them to a location to kill them, then maybe fifteen years isn't enough.
Granted, you can probably counter my hypothetical with another, but the point is, this is a sliding scale. Few, if any, judges would impose the highest sentence for a minor case.
Also, there is a significant difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted of one. Prosecutors are general more zealous than judges.
Better yet, I should request that Viacom give me recorded history of everyone that works for them and all the footage they've ever produced to ensure that they haven't violated any of my copyrights.
Hey there's an idea. Can we all take Viacom to small claims court claiming pain and suffering from our fear of them knowing about all the naughty sites we've visited? We wouldn't win, but at least we could tie em up a bit...
Well, you could sign up for a free GMail account and then transfer your other email to that account.
I would guess you are only one of the few people who would want to see that sort of thing with Apps. Remember, Apps is for businesses, where most people aren't going to want to play around with new features until they are stable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why we're trying to warm the place up...I say, Google away, so we won't have to worry about cold winters anymore.
Just because you don't have mad gaming skillz like me, doesn't mean I don't want a controller that could keep up with my moves to the Planck length.
Tomorrow as you head to work, take a look around at the people you pass. I'd venture to say, the process of hunting and gathering would cull about 99.7% of those you see. Hunting and gathering is a lot of work.
Nope. Then we'd be eating the animals, and that is not okay.
I'm with you, but it's practically an impossibility, without a complete overhaul of the educational system. Even then it would be extremely difficult.
To be candid, we have students who don't have the intellectual capacity to be successful. We might be able to dedicate huge amounts of time and resources for these students, but still the odds are we won't ever reach 100%.
I sometimes feel the pangs of grammar errors, but I try to remember that almost all the people here are 10 times smarter than me. If I can't write an algorithm like they can, or build a nuclear fission reactor, I'll give them a little leeway.
No Child Left Behind eventually calls for all schools to have a 100% pass rate.
A clear example of the problem with involving politics in schools. It sounds great to have all students excel in school, but the practicality of such a goal is silly, leading, as you say, to lower and lower standards for the exams.
Nice Post. I couldn't agree more.
I'm an English teacher at a good school, but even here, we are forced, not just from administration, but more diffused social pressure, to make sure our scores are good, even though we know the tests are flawed.
The problem with education is it has become a political issue, which means we keep slathering nice pretty paint on a school building that's rotting away from the inside.
I'm afraid the whole system will have to collapse before we begin actually fixing it.
Six inches...that means from space, you'll finally be able to see my...wait...I meant at twelve inches.
The way Yahoo uses Google ads is to place them on pages where there aren't many Yahoo ads available for the space. So advertising with Ad Sense won't ensure that you get your ads on Yahoo! pages. You would only have the chance of it.
So if you want to be sure your ads show up on Yahoo!, you must advertise with Yahoo, through their ad service.
What can I say...I'm just an interesting guy.
Sorry, hit overrated instead of funny. I'm going to post to cancel the mod.
You are absolutely right, but most of what you are referring to isn't the fault of public education, but rather higher education. Most of the duplication of material is because of the carnegie unit. That isn't the fault of public schools, but rather the expectations of colleges.
Just to clarify, I think there is a lot wrong with public schools, including this situation, but our hands are tied until colleges abandon or modify their expectations of the carnegie units.
I'm a public school teacher like your friend. I tend to agree. I've recently been promoted to department chair and get to see even more of the stubbornness he's feeling. Part of the problem though is the schools of education at Universities are just as flawed as the schools themselves. Many of the new methods are simply reworking of old ones that justify a PhD's dissertation.
I was (un)fortunate enough to have someone study my class for a book, because many of the things I was doing were similar to the concept she was putting forth in her book. Well, I finally got a copy of it, with the chapter marked that focused on my classroom. I'm glad she marked it because I wouldn't have recognized it if she hadn't.
She blatantly manipulated the situations in the classroom to justify her own ideas. After speaking with some professors that I trust, and to other older colleagues, I found this behavior to be rampant in educational schools.
The result, a system that doesn't trust itself. Higher learning scoffs at what is going on in the classrooms, and classroom teachers scoff at professors of education, because they are only trying to justify their own existence.
But overall your friend is right. The systems are too entrenched. Really most teachers need to learn to be reflective. If something works, keep doing it. If it doesn't, try something else, and repeat.
My favorite was when a professor taught a class on innovative teaching techniques at my grad school. He used an overhead projector and talked at us for two and a half hours...Yikes.
Not untrue, but there's a lot of history with the US education system that needs to be corrected. Since its inception, public schools in the states have been given a lot of jobs to do. Create knowledgeable citizens, strong workers, informed participants in the electorate and a whole slew of other goals. One of the reasons our public schools struggle is because of the many roles we place on it. Other countries don't seem to have this same issue. Their curricula tend to be more succinct. Tell your political leaders to quit spread educators so thin, and give us a mandate as to our major role.
This statement might be true, but I get nervous when people put the primary role of raising children, of which formal education is one part, on schools. NCLB has done this to public schools in many ways, and it let's parents, who often actively undermine the lessons taught in school get off with no responsibility. I think we are going too far, when we place the burden squarely on the schools' collective shoulders.
Disclaimer: I'm a teacher at a public high school.
Oops...you caught a Freudian slip. I guess I feel that the "programs," which is what I meant to say, are just long ads now...
I've always been surprised they don't use one sponsor per ad. I'm a soccer fan...football for all you non-Americans out there...and I've always loved the early attempt at having few commercial interruptions by getting the occasional flash of "This program is brought to you by..." across the bottom of the screen. That would seem like a simpler ad model to me, and relatively unobtrusive.
But hey, I'm not the kind of guy they tend to advertise too. I don't buy stuff.
This means the judge can charge the accused with a range of jail time. The top end of which is 5 years. That doesn't mean that's what she'll get.
You are arguing about how things should be. I was illustrating why the law is on the books.
I love it when people can discuss things, disagree about points, but still come to an amicable solution.
Eloquent points.
The tone you use is somewhat attacking, but that's okay, this is a serious issue. Notice that I haven't implied the issue isn't a serious one.
The point of the law, I assume, is to make it difficult to commit the crimes you mention. Your assertion is a lesser degree of saying, well, carrying an assault rifle into the post office shouldn't be a crime because attempted murder is already a crime. The intent is to remove the means of perpetrating a crime.
I wasn't referring to my example but to the case mentioned in the article.
I agree that being accused of a crime is certainly a horrible thing, especially in the cases you mention, but I would argue being charged with a crime and then convicted is worse than just being charged.
I absolutely agree. My point is to say, let's argue this as it actually is. The GP stated that this girl is getting fifteen years for the crime. I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy of that statement, and trying to illustrate that there needs to be leeway in the range of punishment for any crime.
Whoa! Slow down cowboy...
I agree there are some real concerns here, but it doesn't serve the cause to overstate the consequences of her actions. So to be clear, the sentence is up to five years. The lower end of the sentencing is definitely much lower. Now you might argue that even the low end is too high, but you're assuming the worst.
Laws are set with a range of consequences so they fit the severity of the crime. As an example, what if this lady faked her name to gain access to a colleague's pages, and then post doctored pictures to the site to slander the colleague so the impersonator can get a promotion. That is a serious crime right? But probably not fifteen years worth. But say, it was to impersonate a person's friend, in order to lure them to a location to kill them, then maybe fifteen years isn't enough.
Granted, you can probably counter my hypothetical with another, but the point is, this is a sliding scale. Few, if any, judges would impose the highest sentence for a minor case.
Also, there is a significant difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted of one. Prosecutors are general more zealous than judges.
Better yet, I should request that Viacom give me recorded history of everyone that works for them and all the footage they've ever produced to ensure that they haven't violated any of my copyrights.
Hey there's an idea. Can we all take Viacom to small claims court claiming pain and suffering from our fear of them knowing about all the naughty sites we've visited? We wouldn't win, but at least we could tie em up a bit...
Another company to purposely avoid.
Better than just avoiding them...let them know how shitty this is.
http://www.viacom.com/contact/Pages/default.aspx
Well, you could sign up for a free GMail account and then transfer your other email to that account.
I would guess you are only one of the few people who would want to see that sort of thing with Apps. Remember, Apps is for businesses, where most people aren't going to want to play around with new features until they are stable.