If both parties are local they should indeed probably go to small claims court, but if they are in different regions then it quickly becomes cost prohibitive, esp since you have to escalate the case to something higher anyway if you want the decision to apply to someone in another county/state/country.
well, for starters, the concept behind NCLB as nothing to do with actually not leaving any children behind. In fact it sets up a system where schools have an economic incentive to find ways to rid themselves of children who are not doing well.
I agree much of the debate over it is philosophical since the majority of people outside education, economics, and psychology know very little about the relative effects of using a punishment/quantitative dynamic rather then a reward/qualitative one. I say people outside because in general the proponents of NCLB do not have any background in the field and used the legislation to test their private theories about how things should be done, including having a nice packaged up metric that is not really based on anything but they can point towards to say it is working.
Under this new system, children get left behind all the bloody time. Anything that does not contribute to getting that small set of numbers up is pretty much set aside in order to hyper focus on the one metric that determines what your budget is going to be like. There is no incentive for enrichment, no incentive for after school programs, no incentive to give the advanced students the tools that will help them succeed or to help the LD students since they absorb a disproportionate amount of resources relative to their score impact.
I agree, the stated goal of NCLB, the one used on the press package and political rhetoric is a good one, but that is where it ends. It was a law designed by amateurs who, like all armchair xyz, thought that they knew better then all those 'experts', and it was designed to be sold to an electorate that is also made up of people with no domain knowledge.
And of course when people who know what they are talking about raised objections, they can easily (politically) be written off as 'protecting the status quo' and 'just unions interested in fat paychecks'... and of course a couple years down the road you have a perfect mechanism for slashing budgets of poor schools (which fits in nicely with the 'poor people are poor because they are stupid and deserve it) and raise budgets of wealthy schools (which fits in nicely with the 'rich people are rich because they are smart and deserve it) and of course push more of our educational system into private hands (which strongly favors people with wealth, who have no interest in helping to fund the public system) so there is even less incentive to have a healthy public one.
Who is 'they'? It kinda depends on if they are the same people saying these things or not.
Though in general what urban planners want is balance, so yes, they are likely to raise alarm when things tip too far one way or the other. While I understand the appeal of 'If X is good, going to the extreme of X must be better', this rarely pans out very well in the real word.
True, it is not really a 'religion vs science' debate, but 'particular religious groups vs particular scientific disciplines', but it is still pretty significant since it effects not only economic issues but often cuts strait to the issue of government being used as a tool to settle dogmatic differences between denominations.. and of course the non-christians caught in the crossfire.
As others have said, he had some evidence, but not enough. He was not 'making stuff up', but he was making claims beyond what he could support at the time. He had a novel but implausible theory to explain certain facts that he had uncovered, but couldn't provide a mechanism to build a reasonably complete hypothesis.... so he jumped from A to C, which people were right to be skeptical of until enough pieces came together for a complete picture.
So like many things, the reality is somewhere between the two.... he was not just randomly or accidentally right, but nor was he an unsung genius who was being blocked by orthodoxy. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He made an extraordinary claim but only had mundane evidence. Such cases do not mean the person is wrong, but if they claim to be right right then scientists should be skeptical.
Thing is, even with those proved systems, no amount of security is going to stop a good social engineering attack. At some point all systems will have some mechanism for changing their functionality unless the whole thing is ROM and has a hardware enforced switch for being able to change things... and even then all you need is one careless tech or a corrupt contractor and poof, you are infected.
Technological solutions can improve the situation, but are not a panacea.
It could also be argued that the conservative media is not interested in reporting on them since it breaks with the 'Obama is an anti-military liberal' if anti-military groups are protesting him.
Come to think of it, most of the press such groups got was via conservative media....
Right now Apple bashing is kinda a hipster thing, though the people who do it bend over backwards to talk about how much they hate hipsters. People are always looking for the safe group approved way of showing their non-conformity. I always find it amusing ^_^
Beyond that, there is a rather prevalent attitude that if you have poor people skills you should 'get out of the way' in favor of people who do... or the attitude that people skills can not be learned.. that you are naturally good with people or you are not, so often people who have the skills are not interested (or able) to teach anything. I had to develop my people skills late and often encounter stigma or outright discouragement from doing so by people who developed them naturally when they were children.
*nods* since it is often MBAs doing the hiring, they tend to want people like themselves.. extroverted and people-centric.. the problem is people like that generally go get MBAs or other people oriented degrees rather then technical degrees. When engineers are in charge of hiring other engineers things tend to go smoother.
Part of the problem is that DA elections rarely focus on going after corporations... instead they win or loose based off violent crime stats or claims of how many sex offenders they put away. If people started voting for DAs who went after companies that defrauded customers then we would see the DoJ acting on these claims a lot more... at which point the taxpayer picks up the bill of justice rather then the victims having to pay for their day in court.
They might not net the consumer much, but they do punish the company, something small claims almost never does. Class action lawsuits do what the DoJ SHOULD be doing... bringing consequences to companies that misbehave by pooling enough people's resources to actually have a chance in court.
The courts (even SCOTUS) has not been terribly consistant in this regard, and it seems to currently be decided on a case by case basis. The few cases that have made it up to SCOTUS have generally been pretty narrow in their rulings and thus a universal answer has not been sorted out yet.
Yep. And in another 15 years we will go through it again.. and again.. and again. The pendulum between server-centric and workstation-centric stuff keeps going back and forth.
I think the frightening thing is, there are many people alive today that were around for when events like this WERE part of US history, and there are a non-trivial number of people who believe that things were better when women were property, minorities knew thier place, catholics and mormons were not christian, and the establishment clause outlived its usefulness and thus was ignored.
Though no good is going to come Goodwinning this early... ok, not 'this early', ever.
I would say it is not even a solution looking for a problem.. it is an old solution solving the same problems it did before, only rebranded and getting a lot more attention by consumers. Once the type settles down, I am guessing, not much will change. Use cases that lend themselves to this type of client/server system will continue to use them, while use cases that lend themselves to local computing will continue to use them.
Sad thing is all that sillyness was put in because people got worked up about 'corruption in government', and politicians selling the idea of reducing corruption at any cost tend to get elected.
*nods* people often get wrapped up in the enthusiasm for sexy new kit and forget that technology is a tool that does a job, not something that exists for its own sake.
They are unlikely to start 'demanding democracy'. The people actually getting rich are already party members (anyone who develops wealth outside the party is either invited in, or taken down), and unlike here protest is illegal there so demonstrations get cracked down on. So there is no incremental mechanism.
The whole theory you are running off of was something developed by neocon think tanks in the US to justify a position of non interference and economic interaction with China... if you talk to actual economists, political scientists, and historians they will tell you it is complete BS.. but it doesn't matter because it was designed to sound reasonable to people without significant knowledge in that domain. It is about on par with that antivaxx stuff.. it sounds logical and fits a narrative, but it doesn't actually hold up.
Slashdot Mirror
If both parties are local they should indeed probably go to small claims court, but if they are in different regions then it quickly becomes cost prohibitive, esp since you have to escalate the case to something higher anyway if you want the decision to apply to someone in another county/state/country.
well, for starters, the concept behind NCLB as nothing to do with actually not leaving any children behind. In fact it sets up a system where schools have an economic incentive to find ways to rid themselves of children who are not doing well.
I agree much of the debate over it is philosophical since the majority of people outside education, economics, and psychology know very little about the relative effects of using a punishment/quantitative dynamic rather then a reward/qualitative one. I say people outside because in general the proponents of NCLB do not have any background in the field and used the legislation to test their private theories about how things should be done, including having a nice packaged up metric that is not really based on anything but they can point towards to say it is working.
Under this new system, children get left behind all the bloody time. Anything that does not contribute to getting that small set of numbers up is pretty much set aside in order to hyper focus on the one metric that determines what your budget is going to be like. There is no incentive for enrichment, no incentive for after school programs, no incentive to give the advanced students the tools that will help them succeed or to help the LD students since they absorb a disproportionate amount of resources relative to their score impact.
I agree, the stated goal of NCLB, the one used on the press package and political rhetoric is a good one, but that is where it ends. It was a law designed by amateurs who, like all armchair xyz, thought that they knew better then all those 'experts', and it was designed to be sold to an electorate that is also made up of people with no domain knowledge.
And of course when people who know what they are talking about raised objections, they can easily (politically) be written off as 'protecting the status quo' and 'just unions interested in fat paychecks'... and of course a couple years down the road you have a perfect mechanism for slashing budgets of poor schools (which fits in nicely with the 'poor people are poor because they are stupid and deserve it) and raise budgets of wealthy schools (which fits in nicely with the 'rich people are rich because they are smart and deserve it) and of course push more of our educational system into private hands (which strongly favors people with wealth, who have no interest in helping to fund the public system) so there is even less incentive to have a healthy public one.
Who is 'they'? It kinda depends on if they are the same people saying these things or not.
Though in general what urban planners want is balance, so yes, they are likely to raise alarm when things tip too far one way or the other. While I understand the appeal of 'If X is good, going to the extreme of X must be better', this rarely pans out very well in the real word.
True, it is not really a 'religion vs science' debate, but 'particular religious groups vs particular scientific disciplines', but it is still pretty significant since it effects not only economic issues but often cuts strait to the issue of government being used as a tool to settle dogmatic differences between denominations.. and of course the non-christians caught in the crossfire.
Including the author, who is a supporter of NCLB and wants to paint it in as positive a light as possible.
As others have said, he had some evidence, but not enough. He was not 'making stuff up', but he was making claims beyond what he could support at the time. He had a novel but implausible theory to explain certain facts that he had uncovered, but couldn't provide a mechanism to build a reasonably complete hypothesis.... so he jumped from A to C, which people were right to be skeptical of until enough pieces came together for a complete picture.
So like many things, the reality is somewhere between the two.... he was not just randomly or accidentally right, but nor was he an unsung genius who was being blocked by orthodoxy. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He made an extraordinary claim but only had mundane evidence. Such cases do not mean the person is wrong, but if they claim to be right right then scientists should be skeptical.
Thing is, even with those proved systems, no amount of security is going to stop a good social engineering attack. At some point all systems will have some mechanism for changing their functionality unless the whole thing is ROM and has a hardware enforced switch for being able to change things... and even then all you need is one careless tech or a corrupt contractor and poof, you are infected.
Technological solutions can improve the situation, but are not a panacea.
It could also be argued that the conservative media is not interested in reporting on them since it breaks with the 'Obama is an anti-military liberal' if anti-military groups are protesting him.
Come to think of it, most of the press such groups got was via conservative media....
They still seem pretty active to me.... not sure where you are getting the idea that they are now silent.
Many insurance companies already have accepted global warming predictions. Though in this case it will depend on how they are regulated in NC.
The vast majority of MBAs do not go to 'top ten' schools.. and the people who are going to those schools generally do not get involved with hiring.
Right now Apple bashing is kinda a hipster thing, though the people who do it bend over backwards to talk about how much they hate hipsters. People are always looking for the safe group approved way of showing their non-conformity. I always find it amusing ^_^
I think this cycle is getting as predictable as death and taxes....
Beyond that, there is a rather prevalent attitude that if you have poor people skills you should 'get out of the way' in favor of people who do... or the attitude that people skills can not be learned.. that you are naturally good with people or you are not, so often people who have the skills are not interested (or able) to teach anything. I had to develop my people skills late and often encounter stigma or outright discouragement from doing so by people who developed them naturally when they were children.
*nods* since it is often MBAs doing the hiring, they tend to want people like themselves.. extroverted and people-centric.. the problem is people like that generally go get MBAs or other people oriented degrees rather then technical degrees. When engineers are in charge of hiring other engineers things tend to go smoother.
Part of the problem is that DA elections rarely focus on going after corporations... instead they win or loose based off violent crime stats or claims of how many sex offenders they put away. If people started voting for DAs who went after companies that defrauded customers then we would see the DoJ acting on these claims a lot more... at which point the taxpayer picks up the bill of justice rather then the victims having to pay for their day in court.
They might not net the consumer much, but they do punish the company, something small claims almost never does. Class action lawsuits do what the DoJ SHOULD be doing... bringing consequences to companies that misbehave by pooling enough people's resources to actually have a chance in court.
The courts (even SCOTUS) has not been terribly consistant in this regard, and it seems to currently be decided on a case by case basis. The few cases that have made it up to SCOTUS have generally been pretty narrow in their rulings and thus a universal answer has not been sorted out yet.
Yep. And in another 15 years we will go through it again.. and again.. and again. The pendulum between server-centric and workstation-centric stuff keeps going back and forth.
I think the frightening thing is, there are many people alive today that were around for when events like this WERE part of US history, and there are a non-trivial number of people who believe that things were better when women were property, minorities knew thier place, catholics and mormons were not christian, and the establishment clause outlived its usefulness and thus was ignored.
Though no good is going to come Goodwinning this early... ok, not 'this early', ever.
Geeks and nerds often care about education related issues, which 'we would rather kill our females then let them learn to read' falls under.
I would say it is not even a solution looking for a problem.. it is an old solution solving the same problems it did before, only rebranded and getting a lot more attention by consumers. Once the type settles down, I am guessing, not much will change. Use cases that lend themselves to this type of client/server system will continue to use them, while use cases that lend themselves to local computing will continue to use them.
Sad thing is all that sillyness was put in because people got worked up about 'corruption in government', and politicians selling the idea of reducing corruption at any cost tend to get elected.
*nods* people often get wrapped up in the enthusiasm for sexy new kit and forget that technology is a tool that does a job, not something that exists for its own sake.
They are unlikely to start 'demanding democracy'. The people actually getting rich are already party members (anyone who develops wealth outside the party is either invited in, or taken down), and unlike here protest is illegal there so demonstrations get cracked down on. So there is no incremental mechanism.
The whole theory you are running off of was something developed by neocon think tanks in the US to justify a position of non interference and economic interaction with China... if you talk to actual economists, political scientists, and historians they will tell you it is complete BS.. but it doesn't matter because it was designed to sound reasonable to people without significant knowledge in that domain. It is about on par with that antivaxx stuff.. it sounds logical and fits a narrative, but it doesn't actually hold up.