We know for the experience every society has had with it going back to the start of the written word, that once you start censoring it never stops.
Patently false. We should continue to be vigilant, but your position suggests that there was leas censorship in the fifties than there is now. Obviously that isn't true. The truth is there has always been censorship and most likely always will be. The question we needare to continyou ask istoday when is it appropriate to for the larger good. Right now scientists are debating releasing information on a strain of the flu because of the potential downside of sharing the information with the world. And scientists are generally very averse to censorship. My point being it can be a complicated issue. Simplifying the issue to a level of absurdity only muddies the water of a very important social conversation.
I knew browsers were getting fast, but faster than light?
I downloaded the nightly build last night and was getting frustrated as it kept returning pages I didn't request. I felt better this morning though, I needed those pages today.
Irony is a wonderful part of humor. The trouble is that if someone misses it, then the comedian and the observer both end up looking like jerks to someone.
This is not a story about vaccine trials, just a "wouldn't it be great if..."
The title is a bit misleading, but the content isn't. Knowing how to disarm the virus is a significant development. It's certainly not the same thing as a cure, but it is more than hype.
Not every parent needs to come to open house. Typically only the ones who don't come need to come.
I agree completely. And we usually finish the adage with and the ones that don't need to come do. They come because they value their children's education. For us, open house is at night, so we don't have as large of a problem with parents being unable to come. There are still some that can't, and that's okay from my perspective.
My underlying point is that students with parents who value education will do better in any of the environments discussed. Public schools have the responsibility, and one we gladly shoulder, to teach even the students whose parents don't care at all about their children's education. This discrepancy, in my opinion, skews the results of standardized tests in favor of private and homeschooled children where the parents have in one way or another already shown they have a vested interest in their children's success.
Again, I'm Johnny Come Lately to a discussion about education, but this is important enough to mention even if it is late.
I readily admit that I have only anecdotal evidence for this idea, but as a public high school teacher, I am willing to put my students up against homeschoolers and private school students any day, as long as I only have to count the students whose parents come to Open House each year.
I think the primary indicator for a student's success is the value his or her parents put on education. Homeschool parents and private school parents have all shown that they value education either with time or money, respectively.
In public school, we don't have that luxury. Many of our parents value education, and they show it by coming to Open House for their kids. Many don't even take the time to come that one night. Obviously, they can't always come, but if they show a level of commitment by simply meeting the teachers, their students tend to do much better than their peers.
Like I said though, I don't have data on this, but I'd love to see it.
That's a good point. I should have been more specific. 95% of the students at my school have access.
I will take a moment to say though, that we need to make sure that kids who don't have access at home still find a way to work with technology, or else we just increase the digital divide. One of the ways to do this is to increase the number of computers in the schools that students can use on a regular basis. I am from an affluent school. We have a lot of computers, but they are covered up all day.
You are correct in pointing out that access is not universal, and we should do what we can to remedy that issue.
Many teachers use Facebook as a means of communicating with clubs, teams, and even classes. Since ninety-five percent of the students (a guesstimate) are on FB, it's an easy form of communication. Even more students have email accounts, but they never check them.
This wouldn't be such an issue if the term wasn't "Friend," but rather something without the same connotative value. But then, it wouldn't make us feel as warm and fuzzy if I had 5,000 associates instead of 5,000 friends.
Frankly, I'm glad there's some kid taking interest in this stuff and possibly even trying to *gasp* think critically. It seems our school system doesn't much foster that kind of thought anymore (as has been discussed over and over on/.).
I know this conversation is all but dead, but as a teacher I always want to come back to these things. The term school system is ambiguous, and I'd like to make sure you know it's the bureaucrats and politicians running schools that are killing critical thinking. Good teachers everywhere are pushing back against that movement and working hard to ensure that our kids get the critical thinking skills they need to perform highly in school and out.
At my school, the teachers agreed to teach an additional class period, to give our students a chance to explore a non-graded academic seminar. These range from poetry slam seminars to introductions to quantum physics.
Teachers know (an article by three of my colleagues) there is a problem with the education system. It's the community that puts the politicians in charge that are pushing for more standardized tests.
Since Gopher existed before the web we know it as of today there was prior art.
Isn't the point of this sort of mental gymnastics to illustrate how insane the patent system has become? How many times do we see the most inane idea get a patent, even if there is a tremendous history of prior art?
I haven't RTFA, but my guess is the intent is to say, if TBL had done the same thing, it would have tremendously altered the world we live in, especially if he vigorously defended his patent against the other protocols that threatened his patent. Then it's just a small leap of the imagination to wonder how many new "Internets" have been stifled because of software patents.
Slashdot Mirror
Patently false. We should continue to be vigilant, but your position suggests that there was leas censorship in the fifties than there is now. Obviously that isn't true. The truth is there has always been censorship and most likely always will be. The question we needare to continyou ask istoday when is it appropriate to for the larger good. Right now scientists are debating releasing information on a strain of the flu because of the potential downside of sharing the information with the world. And scientists are generally very averse to censorship. My point being it can be a complicated issue. Simplifying the issue to a level of absurdity only muddies the water of a very important social conversation.
I don't use Facebook ironically.
I downloaded the nightly build last night and was getting frustrated as it kept returning pages I didn't request. I felt better this morning though, I needed those pages today.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand that $10 a month is a lot of money for some people.
Or having a kid with a fifteen percent chance to live, while I have an 85% chance of making it. Any human would know to save the child.
Irony is a wonderful part of humor. The trouble is that if someone misses it, then the comedian and the observer both end up looking like jerks to someone.
Shh...I am listening to an anti-government rant here...keep it down would ya?
Now that would be an episode of Repo Dudes I wouldn't mind watching.
NASA: Hey, you want your money back, just repo the damn thing.
I worked it out half way.
Then I worked out half of the remaining math.
Then I...
You need to practice.
No kidding...all this sensationalist stuff will be the end of us all.
The title is a bit misleading, but the content isn't. Knowing how to disarm the virus is a significant development. It's certainly not the same thing as a cure, but it is more than hype.
+1 sane
Are we really that cynical/lazy/ADD that we have to criticize one small phrase in the summary? Relax.
I agree completely. And we usually finish the adage with and the ones that don't need to come do. They come because they value their children's education. For us, open house is at night, so we don't have as large of a problem with parents being unable to come. There are still some that can't, and that's okay from my perspective.
My underlying point is that students with parents who value education will do better in any of the environments discussed. Public schools have the responsibility, and one we gladly shoulder, to teach even the students whose parents don't care at all about their children's education. This discrepancy, in my opinion, skews the results of standardized tests in favor of private and homeschooled children where the parents have in one way or another already shown they have a vested interest in their children's success.
Again, I'm Johnny Come Lately to a discussion about education, but this is important enough to mention even if it is late.
I readily admit that I have only anecdotal evidence for this idea, but as a public high school teacher, I am willing to put my students up against homeschoolers and private school students any day, as long as I only have to count the students whose parents come to Open House each year.
I think the primary indicator for a student's success is the value his or her parents put on education. Homeschool parents and private school parents have all shown that they value education either with time or money, respectively.
In public school, we don't have that luxury. Many of our parents value education, and they show it by coming to Open House for their kids. Many don't even take the time to come that one night. Obviously, they can't always come, but if they show a level of commitment by simply meeting the teachers, their students tend to do much better than their peers.
Like I said though, I don't have data on this, but I'd love to see it.
Something tells me you aren't a politician.
Absolutely not. Full stop.
That's a good point. I should have been more specific. 95% of the students at my school have access.
I will take a moment to say though, that we need to make sure that kids who don't have access at home still find a way to work with technology, or else we just increase the digital divide. One of the ways to do this is to increase the number of computers in the schools that students can use on a regular basis. I am from an affluent school. We have a lot of computers, but they are covered up all day.
You are correct in pointing out that access is not universal, and we should do what we can to remedy that issue.
Oh, having big circles is something else entirely.
Many teachers use Facebook as a means of communicating with clubs, teams, and even classes. Since ninety-five percent of the students (a guesstimate) are on FB, it's an easy form of communication. Even more students have email accounts, but they never check them.
This wouldn't be such an issue if the term wasn't "Friend," but rather something without the same connotative value. But then, it wouldn't make us feel as warm and fuzzy if I had 5,000 associates instead of 5,000 friends.
A perfect example of an ambiguous pronoun.
I know this conversation is all but dead, but as a teacher I always want to come back to these things. The term school system is ambiguous, and I'd like to make sure you know it's the bureaucrats and politicians running schools that are killing critical thinking. Good teachers everywhere are pushing back against that movement and working hard to ensure that our kids get the critical thinking skills they need to perform highly in school and out.
At my school, the teachers agreed to teach an additional class period, to give our students a chance to explore a non-graded academic seminar. These range from poetry slam seminars to introductions to quantum physics.
Teachers know (an article by three of my colleagues) there is a problem with the education system. It's the community that puts the politicians in charge that are pushing for more standardized tests.
You did notice the fact that he is in the seventh grade right?
Isn't the point of this sort of mental gymnastics to illustrate how insane the patent system has become? How many times do we see the most inane idea get a patent, even if there is a tremendous history of prior art?
I haven't RTFA, but my guess is the intent is to say, if TBL had done the same thing, it would have tremendously altered the world we live in, especially if he vigorously defended his patent against the other protocols that threatened his patent. Then it's just a small leap of the imagination to wonder how many new "Internets" have been stifled because of software patents.