DeKalb County in Georgia has a program they've implemented which teaches students to differentiate between their home speech (AAVE) and school speech (Standard English). It doesn't try to extinguish AAVE speech (as traditionaly Standard English instruction has done, not so much by design as by labelling AAVE erroneous), but focuses on teaching the students to code-switch based on which setting they are in. By not devaluing the home dialect this approach has the advantage of not being inherently alienating to the children. Studies on the program have shown it to be much more effective than traditional standard english instruction.
Wikipedia also discuss the Bridge program methodology here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#In_education (about halfway down the section). That system is meant to implemented when children first start learning to read. Initial texts are entirely in AAVE, and once children have begun to master the basic written symbol to language connection, Standard English gradually replaces AAVE in the reading texts.
These programs are largely controversial, but it doesn't make sense for them to be. Bidialectalism is common throughout the world (as is bilingualism). There is nothing wrong with students speaking AAVE at home--I once had Indian roommates, and they spoke mostly Hindi in the apartment. Their English was fine, but they were more comfortable in the language they first learned to speak. Moreover, studies like the Taylor and Harris-Wright studies have shown that trying to extinguish AAVE entirely is counterproductive--students learn even less Standard English. If the goal is teaching Standard English, then the best method for that purpose should be chosen--which seems to be those methods liek Dekalb County's, ones which accept the legitimacy of AAVE as a home dialect and focus on teaching code-switching to the students so they are bidialectal.
As for California ESL, I have little familiarity with the methods they use, so I can't comment on that.
Yes, but if you are co-moving with the space station there is no effect in your reference frame--which is what matters in terms of biological processes.
A reference frame in free fall is indistinguishable from one in zero-g(also called the equivalence principle).
So yes, gravity still effects you--that is why you're in an orbit. But it doesn't have the effects it has on you when you are in the non-inertial reference frame that is the surface of the earth (in particular, it doesn't pull your organs towards your toes).
Humans have survived in space for extended periods without difficulty. Given a large enough breeding population there is absolutely no reason why a space-based species could not evolve. If you have no data, you're just pissing in the wind.
And if you're just making up bullshit that directly contradicts everything we've learned from fifty years of putting people in orbit, you're just an Anonymous Coward.
Secession is not a priori evil. Right to secession is an inherent part of political self-determination. Opposing secession a priori is supporting tyranny, by claiming that people in area A MUST submit to the political will of people somewhere else. You might even call it anti-American to believe secession is a priori evil (or did you think the American Revolution was anything other than an act of secession from the British Empire?).
What was evil was the south's motivation for secession, not the act of secession itself.
I think a lot of the lack of R&D goes back to decisions made many years ago by the government. At one point all employee salaries regardless of how outrageous they were were a deductible expense. Congress decided they wanted to tax high salaried people. Therefore companies found ways around those laws. In comes stock bonuses and stock options. The problem with that is that a highly paid employee (most likely a decision maker) will do what is best for them, which is kick up the stock price so that they get higher effective pay. Easy way to do that, kill long term R&D. In addition with companies hiring people with business BS degrees who then get an MBA to manage, instead of the engineers, everything is looked at on the current P&L statement, not the 10+ year roadmap.
The combination of the higher ups wanting short term profits due to changes in tax law, along with many fewer R&D companies (HP for example) having engineers and technical people making decisions has decimated R&D.
Pretty sure you're just making this up. Marginal income tax rates peaked in 1954 (under Eisenhower) and have been falling ever since. Even then, capital gains taxes were lower than income taxes (which is how the entire Beatles catalogue wound up getting purchased by Michael Jackson).
Corporations are not currently taxed on employee salaries at all (nor, AFAIK have they ever been)--they are taxed only on profits, which come after salaries and benefits.
The problem with the "more investment in commons" argument is that even the U.S. government wants to protect the fruits of its research with patents (to prevent other countries from free-riding on us).
This might just be the stupidest thing I've heard all day, given that those countries can just ignore our patents (and some do--just like we used to do to Britain).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they don't.
Legal Tender for All Debts, Public or Private
This is not a debt being referred to here.
Hope your employer doesn't mind this use of your "work" time, otherwise you might not be an engineer for long.
That's because he doesn't know how to use the oven to make proper toast.
You have the right of assembly, not the right of being a noise disturbance or consuming all available parking for several blocks.
There's no female companionship in the basement.
But you're still a mongoloid.
They are only homophonic in some accents. In general, they are not.
The less I know about most of them, the more I can pretend that I respect them. Management should leave well enough alone.
This is my policy on family members as well.
DeKalb County in Georgia has a program they've implemented which teaches students to differentiate between their home speech (AAVE) and school speech (Standard English). It doesn't try to extinguish AAVE speech (as traditionaly Standard English instruction has done, not so much by design as by labelling AAVE erroneous), but focuses on teaching the students to code-switch based on which setting they are in. By not devaluing the home dialect this approach has the advantage of not being inherently alienating to the children. Studies on the program have shown it to be much more effective than traditional standard english instruction.
Here's a google books link that gives a brief over view of the studies: http://books.google.com/books?id=VvrpUSttLAwC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=bidialectal+DeKalb+County&source=bl&ots=-M9gV9j1Pw&sig=dBam36tam2qeBdtQE9vGBaL6zBs&hl=en&ei=LVmfSr-PFpTuswP06Yn-Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=bidialectal%20DeKalb%20County&f=false
I can't find the text of the Taylor or Harris-Wright studies themselves, but google scholar offers: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:YFxPgs-MEhUJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en
Wikipedia also discuss the Bridge program methodology here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#In_education (about halfway down the section). That system is meant to implemented when children first start learning to read. Initial texts are entirely in AAVE, and once children have begun to master the basic written symbol to language connection, Standard English gradually replaces AAVE in the reading texts.
These programs are largely controversial, but it doesn't make sense for them to be. Bidialectalism is common throughout the world (as is bilingualism). There is nothing wrong with students speaking AAVE at home--I once had Indian roommates, and they spoke mostly Hindi in the apartment. Their English was fine, but they were more comfortable in the language they first learned to speak. Moreover, studies like the Taylor and Harris-Wright studies have shown that trying to extinguish AAVE entirely is counterproductive--students learn even less Standard English. If the goal is teaching Standard English, then the best method for that purpose should be chosen--which seems to be those methods liek Dekalb County's, ones which accept the legitimacy of AAVE as a home dialect and focus on teaching code-switching to the students so they are bidialectal.
As for California ESL, I have little familiarity with the methods they use, so I can't comment on that.
A fate worse than driving 12 hours in a diaper so you don't have to stop when you wet yourself?
We're not all CommanderTaco, you know.
1) Stop giving them ideas.
2) Do not, ever--I fucking repeat--EVER top post.
3) Learn how to use quote tags.
What if they lost a bet?
Pun intended.
Really? I never would have guessed.
The answer that question is a function of your political ideology.
As we learned courtesy of the Lisa Nowak incident, there's a fair amount of hanky-panky already going on between the astronauts.
Yes, but if you are co-moving with the space station there is no effect in your reference frame--which is what matters in terms of biological processes.
A reference frame in free fall is indistinguishable from one in zero-g(also called the equivalence principle).
So yes, gravity still effects you--that is why you're in an orbit. But it doesn't have the effects it has on you when you are in the non-inertial reference frame that is the surface of the earth (in particular, it doesn't pull your organs towards your toes).
Humans have survived in space for extended periods without difficulty. Given a large enough breeding population there is absolutely no reason why a space-based species could not evolve. If you have no data, you're just pissing in the wind.
And if you're just making up bullshit that directly contradicts everything we've learned from fifty years of putting people in orbit, you're just an Anonymous Coward.
What? Insightful strawman?
Secession is not a priori evil. Right to secession is an inherent part of political self-determination. Opposing secession a priori is supporting tyranny, by claiming that people in area A MUST submit to the political will of people somewhere else. You might even call it anti-American to believe secession is a priori evil (or did you think the American Revolution was anything other than an act of secession from the British Empire?).
What was evil was the south's motivation for secession, not the act of secession itself.
They took place within a day's walk from D.C., an hour's car drive.
They got confused about the alphabet soup. It was the ATF he had to check with.
Nah, West Virginia seceded from Virginia so they could stay in the Union. Those aren't rebs at all.
I think a lot of the lack of R&D goes back to decisions made many years ago by the government. At one point all employee salaries regardless of how outrageous they were were a deductible expense. Congress decided they wanted to tax high salaried people. Therefore companies found ways around those laws. In comes stock bonuses and stock options. The problem with that is that a highly paid employee (most likely a decision maker) will do what is best for them, which is kick up the stock price so that they get higher effective pay. Easy way to do that, kill long term R&D. In addition with companies hiring people with business BS degrees who then get an MBA to manage, instead of the engineers, everything is looked at on the current P&L statement, not the 10+ year roadmap.
The combination of the higher ups wanting short term profits due to changes in tax law, along with many fewer R&D companies (HP for example) having engineers and technical people making decisions has decimated R&D.
Pretty sure you're just making this up. Marginal income tax rates peaked in 1954 (under Eisenhower) and have been falling ever since. Even then, capital gains taxes were lower than income taxes (which is how the entire Beatles catalogue wound up getting purchased by Michael Jackson).
Corporations are not currently taxed on employee salaries at all (nor, AFAIK have they ever been)--they are taxed only on profits, which come after salaries and benefits.
And trivial, uninnovative patents.
The problem with the "more investment in commons" argument is that even the U.S. government wants to protect the fruits of its research with patents (to prevent other countries from free-riding on us).
This might just be the stupidest thing I've heard all day, given that those countries can just ignore our patents (and some do--just like we used to do to Britain).
BTW only big well-established acts can realistically support themselves this way
Thousands of not big well-established acts would disagree with you.
Which they stopped doing 20 years ago.