Admittedly, I haven't been putting this issue under a microscope. But, I had the distinct impression that it wasn't the CRTC that was attempting regulation, but rather the politicians that were trying to push that through. History supports this as the CRTC has always been reasonable (with few exceptions) overall.
So, in reality, what this more than likely was, was a bunch of corps/etc and politicians trying to do something unreasonable. Then the CRTC went and looked into it (because they would have to) and decided to uphold the reality that the internet cannot be regulated (yes, this has come up before).
The sad thing is that you don't know what you're talking about yet don't know it. Another sad thing is you are using half-truths and, at best, sophistry to support your point of view i.e. comparing apples to oranges is not valid.
But, since you bring up the gay thing, I would ask you, under what circumstances do you think might happen in the next decades, that would make people becoming so depressed that they commit suicide ok? Really, what would happen that would make that normal? How about mania? Or psychosis? Bipolar isn't something that makes someone feel icky that is against some peoples morals. It's something that is morality independent. And that shatters your little "gay argument."
Btw, I was in a similar thing to DARE when I was a teenager. There IS a difference between cocaine/meth/etc and Olanzapine or Lithium or Valproate, or... you know. The former being used for recreation with the latter being used to correct problems.
My brain doesn't work properly; it goes wacky from time to time. Many other people have similar issues whether it's Bipolar or otherwise. Our brains need correcting and drugs are the only thing that can do that. You not liking that doesn't make it any less true.
But, I really cannot tell you how asinine your opinion is. Because, by using your logic, diabetes isn't an illness. And that's just so wrong it isn't funny.
Oh, and if you decide to reply again, it'd be nice if you'd have an actual argument. Because, I gotta say, anecdotes and repeating your opinion over and over again, do NOT constitute an argument.
The key word being most. What about the others? In my opinion, therapy, *possibly* meds *temporarily*. But, dealing with shit is more about life than chemical imbalances. A crutch might be fine for a little bit, but not really a solution in and of itself.
Ok, so using a popular blogger in the mad'o'sphere as an example, what should she do about not being able to wash herself because she's so depressed. Sometimes being that way for significant lengths of time.
What you don't seem to realise, is that sometimes those electro-chemical reactions can get wacky to the point of some seriously fucked up shit. Things that not only can significantly interrupt life, but can actually be life threatening.
Having a mental illness isn't an excuse for undesirable behaviour, it's a reason. Does that mean one doesn't have to take responsibility? Fuck no! There is a difference between a reason for the actions and not having to take responsibility for them you know.
By manics, I'm assuming that you mean people during a manic episode, yes? If so, that's not necessarily happy. It's really about the energy level of the person. And that can come not only in the form of happiness, but also rage and productivity among other things. But, assuming that someone does suffer from (euphoric) manias, that's Bipolar type I. So, already classified.
You don't understand what we're dealing with. Let me give you an example. Every once in a while when I'm under normal levels of stress (going to school, work, etc), I go manic. What that means for me is I get an abnormal "boost" of energy where I don't have to sleep, people can't keep up with me, regularly can't understand me because I'm talking to fast and/or slurring my speech too much because I'm talking too fast, my brain is going so much faster than my mouth that my mouth can't keep up so people can't follow my seemingly completely illogical constant stream of words, etc, etc, etc. And that's only if it's a pure manic episode. I can go so far off the rails that sometimes I go psychotic. What that means for me is that I think I can write a book on a topic well beyond me, write an MMO within in a year by myself, among other obviously impossible tasks and there's nothing that anyone can say that will pop reality back in my brain. For me, this lasts for 3 days like clockwork, but I'm not typical. Type NOS exists for people like me. But, by definition, manic episodes last a minimum of 7 days. At any rate, I could give other examples but I think I've made my point.
When it comes to management, it's drugs. Period. If you have a diagnosis that according to the DSM contains the word Bipolar, you are severe enough to *need* them (though some lucky bastards with Cyclothymia can get away with not needing meds). But, it'd be stupid to think that drugs are the only answer. Therapy and stress management are needed *as well*, as although Bipolar is about brain chemistry, there needs to be a trigger to cascade the vulnerable state into an episode. Also, sometimes episodes, if caught early, can be lessened in severity or even avoided altogether through the various techniques learned in therapy.
It really is a balancing act. How much can one do on his/her own and how much meds are needed. Also, which meds? Because, different meds are good for different symptoms and that's assuming the the person can tolerate the drug (some people just can't handle even the smallest amounts of some of them). It's all about a cost/benefit analysis.
The one thing that the shrinks really hate is when someone like me comes along. You know, the person that has actually read the PI sheets, the DSM, the ICD, CANMAT Guidelines, etc, etc, etc and demands to be in control of treatment. Yah, they really hate that. Here's a very brief version of a conversation of me and my second Shrink (including a sit down and voice mails):
Me: I've decided this drug by process of elimination. I've also decided on this titration and the target dose is whatever works. I'm aware it's slow to a level of paranoia. But, that's because... Shrink: That's too slow, the slowest I'm willing to go with target dose X is... Me: Absolutely not! Shrink: Let's compromise. Here's another titration. If you need something slower then do it through your GP. Me: My GP isn't comfortable with anything but another drug that I refuse to be on. The GP won't do it. Shrink: If we do it that slow, then we really aren't doing anything. I won't treat you. Me: I cannot abide people trying to manipulate me. I'm firing you as my Shrink.
So yah, shrinks may suck, but that doesn't mean that the ailments don't exist. It also might be scary to think that something can go wrong with the brain. But, let's be honest here. The brain is an organ just like the liver. Thinking that nothing can go wrong with the brain is just plain stupidity.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
When I was in University studying Physics, I had a little incident with the department. The 3rd year lab was about radiation, etc (like pretty much all of them). So, lots of sources. Well, I wasn't exactly impressed as the lab was basically, here's compton scattering! Here it is again... and again...
It was essentially, here's how to write something up lab. But, the problem is obvious: why expose people to radiation needlessly, regardless of if one is well within yearly exposure safety limits when something else could go wrong. Especially, when proper radiation safety procedures weren't being followed. There's nothing like having your lab instructor grab the source with his bare hand and say, "Here it is" and expect you to grab it with your bare hand.
Politics ensued, nothing changed, and I switched to Maths. But, I was out of that lab and away from that instructor.
Needless to say, this story doesn't exactly surprise me.
...that most of the things that this guy is talking about would be better implemented below the sockets API. As in, how the OS handles things. Making things transparent is a good thing.
I'll also point out that having a fail over interface so that the client doesn't lose the connection has already been done in OpenBSD's pf called CARP. It is a free alternative to VRRP and HSRP. In other words, this doesn't have to be implemented in the API when another avenue already exists that does it.
""" The teacher said "I don't care if I get fired." """
Quoting someone where they are not in the state of mind to make rational decisions isn't exactly valid.
""" She was combative, threatening children with scissors, and clearly not fit to teach. """
At that particular point in time. Cherry picking.
""" Oh, and the class was a special education class. """
Moot point. What you're doing here is called emotional appeal. That's a logical fallacy.
""" The only safe thing to do, is not allow someone in the classroom that can possible have that reaction, regardless of medication. """
Then no-one would teach. Go ahead and check the headlines. You'll see a tonne of people freaking out at work and actually shooting there co-workers. Etc, etc, etc. And those people aren't mentally ill. They are normal Joe Shmo. Also, see below.
""" There already was a safety issue. She threatened students with scissors. She ransacked her own classroom. """
When something went wrong. From the article THAT YOU LINKED TO: "All I can tell you is that she took medication that had an adverse reaction, and it affects all of us differently, and with her it had a bad reaction."
So, it wasn't necessarily even a mental illness. But, rather a bad reaction to medications. Which could have been for anything. Hm, now who could have a bad reaction to meds again? Oh, that's right, ANYONE!
""" This was a case where, clearly, she wasn't fit for the classroom. (there are no labor laws that protect people who put children in danger where they work). """
In that instance. But, with mitigating circumstances. Cherry picking.
Btw, labour laws DO protect people in situations like this. Go ahead and look it up if you want to. But, continually saying otherwise doesn't make you right.
""" That's like saying that a pedophile can be a teacher because he's in treatment for his mental illness. No Fucking Way. """
This comparison isn't remotely valid. And again, is emotional appeal. I'd recommend taking a class on logic at your local Universities Philosophy department. Because, you're really not making any sense.
""" And no fucking way this lady should be anywhere near kids. The simple fact that she's on medication which can result in an episode like this disqualifies her for teaching in my book. """
Well, then your book doesn't mean much and is wholly irrational. Let's go over some stuff that can cause this sort of thing to happen:
And a whole host of other common or not so common illnesses including, the flu or the mumps. And no, I'm not joking about that.
So, are we going to prevent people from teaching with the above ailments? Because, I can't begin to tell you how asinine what you're proposing really is.
Except that education in many countries is near 100% public and are vastly superior to the education system in the US. Germany is a great counter example. In fact, they are now starting to follow your path (god knows why) and are starting to have the same problems.
The problem isn't really public v.s. private. It's whether quality teachers are able to teach in a quality way. Which in North America, they aren't because of all the asinine laws and policies. God forbid a student isn't told they are awesome on a daily basis.
""" I don't have any experience of the US high school system but it seems to have fallen apart for the majority of kids. Is this, sadly, the case? """
Essentially, yes.
""" Or have teachers been singled out as a scapegoat for the failings of US society? """
Essentially, yes.
The 'no child left behind' thing is a tragedy. Seriously, look into it. It's nothing but obscene. But, what also happens is that students don't study or pay attention in class and of course fail or get poor grades. Then the teacher gets blamed. Which isn't exactly fair as the teacher can't exactly force someone to learn if they don't want to.
So, the effect this has is that everyone starts looking out for themselves and gets very defensive. There's no giving or taking of criticism, even if constructive, because, it all could lead to getting blamed for something that isn't the teachers fault. And so on.
Essentially, the entire situation is a gigantic cluster-fuck. One in which, at this point, isn't able to be untangled because every party involved in pointing there fingers at everyone else, completely unable to admit even the most innocent failings on there part regardless of how much proof there is that it happens.
And what happens to those districts that largely have welfare families? They don't pay taxes, they get "benefits." And what happens if what you suggest becomes wide spread? Then those schools I mentioned will get screwed! All that will really happen with your idea is a furthering of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, problem. Or do you not think that richer neighbourhoods will pay more taxes in this regard enabling those kids to get an even better education than they are getting now?
The issue with funding is about non-uniform funding. And that can be addressed in a variety of way other than the horrid idea that you're suggesting.
1) Tenure is good as long as it is appropriately given out. As in, not like candy. Though, arguably it isn't appropriate for high school teachers.
2) That psychotic (no not delusional, you clearly don't know what you're talking about) episode was the result of mental illness (or rarely another medical condition). Though you (among others) might not be comfortable with someone who is mentally ill teaching kids, as long as it is treated (yes, this can and most of the time is successfully treated) there really isn't any problem. And I can tell you now that you wouldn't even have the faintest clue about whether that is going on when the illness is properly treated.
3) She was able to keep her job, not because of the union, but because of labour law. There are many a law to protect the ill and that includes mental illness. The only problem would be if this teacher refused treatment, then there would be a safety issue. That would allow the school to take further action.
4) She would have changed schools not because of the outburst, but because of its social repercussions. As in, it would be *very* difficult, if not impossible, to control those kids after something like that happened. Never mind similar things beyond that classroom.
5) In case you haven't gotten the theme here, there is a difference between a bad teacher and someone who is ill. There is a difference. You should get to know it.
Not get what you pay for. Get what the system allows. Seriously, just take a look at what these teachers are allowed and allowed to do legally speaking. It's amazing just how much there hands are tied.
A couple examples:
- Where I went to school the law stated that no matter what the circumstance, the teacher cannot strike a student. So, if the student is beating the crap out of the teacher, the teacher can't do anything about it if (s)he wants to keep his/her job and/or stay out of jail.
- If two students are fighting, all the teacher can do is get between them. They cannot separate them, or anything. Just get between them. Because, touching them is an absolutely no no.
- Want to make English actually interesting? Can't. Because, there is an approved list of reading materials and that only includes literature that only the most rare student likes. Similarly, for other subjects.
It's the whole system from top to bottom that is the tragedy. And it has lead to obvious results.
That's an idealistic bunch of garbage. My wife is currently teaching at *University* and those kids can be absolutely vindictive. If they don't get the A that they think that deserve, then she gets a poor review. It doesn't matter that her office hours are more than most and is available to see students outside of them even without an appointment. None of that matters. Because, her students aren't getting a free ride and god forbid if they can't get away with taking a piss all year like they did in high school. Hell, they even flatly lie about what has happened. It's quite shocking.
Seriously, student evaluations are pretty much meaningless. Especially, for any class before 3rd/4th year.
These students today are all about the quick fix. And they'll go to get it and damn morality and ethics. Seriously, we should stop thinking of these kids as angels with halos over there heads. Because, for the most part, they are self serving little bastards.
I find it amazing that so called, smart people, still confuse idealised systems with reality. Point of fact, the human is a complex system that will exhibit non-linear behaviour. Expecting people to always behave like an idealised system is just plain retarded. We forget things and/or don't fully understand things and/or... which can profoundly alter the end decision.
And what about the mentally ill? Do they have more QM in them? How about women with PMS? Do they have intermittent bouts of more QM?
In all seriousness, I think that any time we see "researchers" try to apply QM to medicine, etc, we should all get a rolled up newspaper and bat them on the nose and say, "NO. NO."
Now, I know this thought might be new to some people. But, how about try to understand how the hormones, etc, effect mood, decision making, etc,/before/ we go after explanations like this. Because, I gotta tell you, having people that don't have a clue about QM and/or biology isn't going to lead to a good place. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should work on understanding one before we go and try to meld the two. Because, we still don't have a clue about the how/why the brain works even on the macro level.
Why is it that the US is a major target of Amnesty International again? What about your warrentless wire-tapping? Exceedingly low voter turn out. Etc, etc, etc.
Seriously, if you want to spread democracy, then the first step would be to actually have one.
""" How long until an indie developer creates an MMO that has different interfaces for PC and mobile? """
The Buffy MMO that's being made on the Multiverse platform is going to do this. Or at least that was the announcement... a *while* ago. As in, a Flash interface that will have certain abilities and a typical PC game interface that will have others (probably some overlapping features as well).
Uh, wait to take a comment out of context. We aren't talking about drawing a picture. We're talking about A GAME. Something that is FAR more complicated/complex than a mere picture.
I'm sorry, but you haven't a clue about what you're talking about.
1) Intelligence is only "universally reviled" in the US and is becoming more common in Canada as well. The rest of the world take *far* more kindly to the actually intelligent.
2) SyFy is NOT "the modern nomenclature" for Sci-fi. It is a marketing gimmick from the Sci-fi network as an attempt to widen its viewing audience.
3) Fantasy is more popular because it is more accessible. As in, everyone knows about wizards, knights, etc as that has pervaded society for a *long* time. But, not many people know about sci-fi and its trappings. So, it's "weird" to many.
Seriously, you're attempting to trivialise fantasy to horny teenaged "geeks". And that's just so wrong it isn't funny.
I'm going to correct your 'worth $40' to 'costs $40'. Because, 'worth' is a subjective term and this game WILL be WORTH *a lot* more (or a lot less depending) than $40 to many people (that is assuming it is $40 where you are).
That said, I wouldn't necessarily say that this is a micro-payment system. But, rather that this game has been (partially) separated into its components. So, for people like me that don't play on-line, this game just got cheaper because I wasn't *forced* to purchase this component.
Quite frankly, I would like to see that type of model continue on this path. I mean, not having to purchase parts of a game that I'm not going to use would save me money.
Stereotypes aside, that's basically true. Except for the programmers being poor spellers, etc. It's not programmers. It's really pretty much everyone that's graduated in the past decade or so. That might be some hyperbole, but it's not far from the truth. I mean, just look at how the 30+ crowd writes, and then compare that to today's high school graduates. It's chilling.
You need to look up what the word manual means in the context you're *attempting* to apply it to.
But, regarding the arrogance, etc, I'd rather say that it is the non-coder that has the issue with anyone smarter and/*or* more knowledgeable/skillful in any way, regardless if it has any applicability to there own specific job/tasks. Because, I've been attacked for being condescending/etc when *they* asked for the explanation and told me to explain it as simply as possible because they were clueless. I've also been attacked for just pointing out when someone was factually incorrect in a discussion.
Point of fact, people, especially those that are intellectually challenged, especially when they are in management or "above" you, really *really* can't take it when they are wrong. And god forbid if someone points it out. Because, if the person pointing it out isn't brown nosing to the point where they are tickling the managers/etc throat, then they are just arrogant/etc and will be attacked.
In other words, it's not really about communication. It's about the PERCEPTION of what the coder is saying rather than what (s)he is actually saying. And that PERCEPTION cannot be controlled by the coder. That is the problem of the non-coder and there own, likely, inferiority complex.
Slashdot Mirror
Admittedly, I haven't been putting this issue under a microscope. But, I had the distinct impression that it wasn't the CRTC that was attempting regulation, but rather the politicians that were trying to push that through. History supports this as the CRTC has always been reasonable (with few exceptions) overall.
So, in reality, what this more than likely was, was a bunch of corps/etc and politicians trying to do something unreasonable. Then the CRTC went and looked into it (because they would have to) and decided to uphold the reality that the internet cannot be regulated (yes, this has come up before).
Good on the CRTC.
If I ever put out a game, I am definitely putting you on the blacklist. Seriously, it was a fucking dollar!
Then again, maybe that bitterness thing those shrinks have come up with has veracity after all...
The sad thing is that you don't know what you're talking about yet don't know it. Another sad thing is you are using half-truths and, at best, sophistry to support your point of view i.e. comparing apples to oranges is not valid.
But, since you bring up the gay thing, I would ask you, under what circumstances do you think might happen in the next decades, that would make people becoming so depressed that they commit suicide ok? Really, what would happen that would make that normal? How about mania? Or psychosis? Bipolar isn't something that makes someone feel icky that is against some peoples morals. It's something that is morality independent. And that shatters your little "gay argument."
Btw, I was in a similar thing to DARE when I was a teenager. There IS a difference between cocaine/meth/etc and Olanzapine or Lithium or Valproate, or... you know. The former being used for recreation with the latter being used to correct problems.
My brain doesn't work properly; it goes wacky from time to time. Many other people have similar issues whether it's Bipolar or otherwise. Our brains need correcting and drugs are the only thing that can do that. You not liking that doesn't make it any less true.
But, I really cannot tell you how asinine your opinion is. Because, by using your logic, diabetes isn't an illness. And that's just so wrong it isn't funny.
Oh, and if you decide to reply again, it'd be nice if you'd have an actual argument. Because, I gotta say, anecdotes and repeating your opinion over and over again, do NOT constitute an argument.
The key word being most. What about the others? In my opinion, therapy, *possibly* meds *temporarily*. But, dealing with shit is more about life than chemical imbalances. A crutch might be fine for a little bit, but not really a solution in and of itself.
Ok, so using a popular blogger in the mad'o'sphere as an example, what should she do about not being able to wash herself because she's so depressed. Sometimes being that way for significant lengths of time.
What you don't seem to realise, is that sometimes those electro-chemical reactions can get wacky to the point of some seriously fucked up shit. Things that not only can significantly interrupt life, but can actually be life threatening.
Having a mental illness isn't an excuse for undesirable behaviour, it's a reason. Does that mean one doesn't have to take responsibility? Fuck no! There is a difference between a reason for the actions and not having to take responsibility for them you know.
By manics, I'm assuming that you mean people during a manic episode, yes? If so, that's not necessarily happy. It's really about the energy level of the person. And that can come not only in the form of happiness, but also rage and productivity among other things. But, assuming that someone does suffer from (euphoric) manias, that's Bipolar type I. So, already classified.
You don't understand what we're dealing with. Let me give you an example. Every once in a while when I'm under normal levels of stress (going to school, work, etc), I go manic. What that means for me is I get an abnormal "boost" of energy where I don't have to sleep, people can't keep up with me, regularly can't understand me because I'm talking to fast and/or slurring my speech too much because I'm talking too fast, my brain is going so much faster than my mouth that my mouth can't keep up so people can't follow my seemingly completely illogical constant stream of words, etc, etc, etc. And that's only if it's a pure manic episode. I can go so far off the rails that sometimes I go psychotic. What that means for me is that I think I can write a book on a topic well beyond me, write an MMO within in a year by myself, among other obviously impossible tasks and there's nothing that anyone can say that will pop reality back in my brain. For me, this lasts for 3 days like clockwork, but I'm not typical. Type NOS exists for people like me. But, by definition, manic episodes last a minimum of 7 days. At any rate, I could give other examples but I think I've made my point.
When it comes to management, it's drugs. Period. If you have a diagnosis that according to the DSM contains the word Bipolar, you are severe enough to *need* them (though some lucky bastards with Cyclothymia can get away with not needing meds). But, it'd be stupid to think that drugs are the only answer. Therapy and stress management are needed *as well*, as although Bipolar is about brain chemistry, there needs to be a trigger to cascade the vulnerable state into an episode. Also, sometimes episodes, if caught early, can be lessened in severity or even avoided altogether through the various techniques learned in therapy.
It really is a balancing act. How much can one do on his/her own and how much meds are needed. Also, which meds? Because, different meds are good for different symptoms and that's assuming the the person can tolerate the drug (some people just can't handle even the smallest amounts of some of them). It's all about a cost/benefit analysis.
The one thing that the shrinks really hate is when someone like me comes along. You know, the person that has actually read the PI sheets, the DSM, the ICD, CANMAT Guidelines, etc, etc, etc and demands to be in control of treatment. Yah, they really hate that. Here's a very brief version of a conversation of me and my second Shrink (including a sit down and voice mails):
Me: I've decided this drug by process of elimination. I've also decided on this titration and the target dose is whatever works. I'm aware it's slow to a level of paranoia. But, that's because...
Shrink: That's too slow, the slowest I'm willing to go with target dose X is...
Me: Absolutely not!
Shrink: Let's compromise. Here's another titration. If you need something slower then do it through your GP.
Me: My GP isn't comfortable with anything but another drug that I refuse to be on. The GP won't do it.
Shrink: If we do it that slow, then we really aren't doing anything. I won't treat you.
Me: I cannot abide people trying to manipulate me. I'm firing you as my Shrink.
So yah, shrinks may suck, but that doesn't mean that the ailments don't exist. It also might be scary to think that something can go wrong with the brain. But, let's be honest here. The brain is an organ just like the liver. Thinking that nothing can go wrong with the brain is just plain stupidity.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
When I was in University studying Physics, I had a little incident with the department. The 3rd year lab was about radiation, etc (like pretty much all of them). So, lots of sources. Well, I wasn't exactly impressed as the lab was basically, here's compton scattering! Here it is again... and again...
It was essentially, here's how to write something up lab. But, the problem is obvious: why expose people to radiation needlessly, regardless of if one is well within yearly exposure safety limits when something else could go wrong. Especially, when proper radiation safety procedures weren't being followed. There's nothing like having your lab instructor grab the source with his bare hand and say, "Here it is" and expect you to grab it with your bare hand.
Politics ensued, nothing changed, and I switched to Maths. But, I was out of that lab and away from that instructor.
Needless to say, this story doesn't exactly surprise me.
...that most of the things that this guy is talking about would be better implemented below the sockets API. As in, how the OS handles things. Making things transparent is a good thing.
I'll also point out that having a fail over interface so that the client doesn't lose the connection has already been done in OpenBSD's pf called CARP. It is a free alternative to VRRP and HSRP. In other words, this doesn't have to be implemented in the API when another avenue already exists that does it.
"""
The teacher said "I don't care if I get fired."
"""
Quoting someone where they are not in the state of mind to make rational decisions isn't exactly valid.
"""
She was combative, threatening children with scissors, and clearly not fit to teach.
"""
At that particular point in time. Cherry picking.
"""
Oh, and the class was a special education class.
"""
Moot point. What you're doing here is called emotional appeal. That's a logical fallacy.
"""
The only safe thing to do, is not allow someone in the classroom that can possible have that reaction, regardless of medication.
"""
Then no-one would teach. Go ahead and check the headlines. You'll see a tonne of people freaking out at work and actually shooting there co-workers. Etc, etc, etc. And those people aren't mentally ill. They are normal Joe Shmo. Also, see below.
"""
There already was a safety issue. She threatened students with scissors. She ransacked her own classroom.
"""
When something went wrong. From the article THAT YOU LINKED TO: "All I can tell you is that she took medication that had an adverse reaction, and it affects all of us differently, and with her it had a bad reaction."
So, it wasn't necessarily even a mental illness. But, rather a bad reaction to medications. Which could have been for anything. Hm, now who could have a bad reaction to meds again? Oh, that's right, ANYONE!
"""
This was a case where, clearly, she wasn't fit for the classroom. (there are no labor laws that protect people who put children in danger where they work).
"""
In that instance. But, with mitigating circumstances. Cherry picking.
Btw, labour laws DO protect people in situations like this. Go ahead and look it up if you want to. But, continually saying otherwise doesn't make you right.
"""
That's like saying that a pedophile can be a teacher because he's in treatment for his mental illness. No Fucking Way.
"""
This comparison isn't remotely valid. And again, is emotional appeal. I'd recommend taking a class on logic at your local Universities Philosophy department. Because, you're really not making any sense.
"""
And no fucking way this lady should be anywhere near kids. The simple fact that she's on medication which can result in an episode like this disqualifies her for teaching in my book.
"""
Well, then your book doesn't mean much and is wholly irrational. Let's go over some stuff that can cause this sort of thing to happen:
- brain tumour
- severe psychosocial stress
- sleep deprivation
- multiple sclerosis
- Lyme Disease
- Parkinson's Disease
- hypoglycemia
- lupus
- malaria
And a whole host of other common or not so common illnesses including, the flu or the mumps. And no, I'm not joking about that.
So, are we going to prevent people from teaching with the above ailments? Because, I can't begin to tell you how asinine what you're proposing really is.
Except that education in many countries is near 100% public and are vastly superior to the education system in the US. Germany is a great counter example. In fact, they are now starting to follow your path (god knows why) and are starting to have the same problems.
The problem isn't really public v.s. private. It's whether quality teachers are able to teach in a quality way. Which in North America, they aren't because of all the asinine laws and policies. God forbid a student isn't told they are awesome on a daily basis.
"""
I don't have any experience of the US high school system but it seems to have fallen apart for the majority of kids. Is this, sadly, the case?
"""
Essentially, yes.
"""
Or have teachers been singled out as a scapegoat for the failings of US society?
"""
Essentially, yes.
The 'no child left behind' thing is a tragedy. Seriously, look into it. It's nothing but obscene. But, what also happens is that students don't study or pay attention in class and of course fail or get poor grades. Then the teacher gets blamed. Which isn't exactly fair as the teacher can't exactly force someone to learn if they don't want to.
So, the effect this has is that everyone starts looking out for themselves and gets very defensive. There's no giving or taking of criticism, even if constructive, because, it all could lead to getting blamed for something that isn't the teachers fault. And so on.
Essentially, the entire situation is a gigantic cluster-fuck. One in which, at this point, isn't able to be untangled because every party involved in pointing there fingers at everyone else, completely unable to admit even the most innocent failings on there part regardless of how much proof there is that it happens.
And what happens to those districts that largely have welfare families? They don't pay taxes, they get "benefits." And what happens if what you suggest becomes wide spread? Then those schools I mentioned will get screwed! All that will really happen with your idea is a furthering of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, problem. Or do you not think that richer neighbourhoods will pay more taxes in this regard enabling those kids to get an even better education than they are getting now?
The issue with funding is about non-uniform funding. And that can be addressed in a variety of way other than the horrid idea that you're suggesting.
Wow, are you cherry picking your data.
1) Tenure is good as long as it is appropriately given out. As in, not like candy. Though, arguably it isn't appropriate for high school teachers.
2) That psychotic (no not delusional, you clearly don't know what you're talking about) episode was the result of mental illness (or rarely another medical condition). Though you (among others) might not be comfortable with someone who is mentally ill teaching kids, as long as it is treated (yes, this can and most of the time is successfully treated) there really isn't any problem. And I can tell you now that you wouldn't even have the faintest clue about whether that is going on when the illness is properly treated.
3) She was able to keep her job, not because of the union, but because of labour law. There are many a law to protect the ill and that includes mental illness. The only problem would be if this teacher refused treatment, then there would be a safety issue. That would allow the school to take further action.
4) She would have changed schools not because of the outburst, but because of its social repercussions. As in, it would be *very* difficult, if not impossible, to control those kids after something like that happened. Never mind similar things beyond that classroom.
5) In case you haven't gotten the theme here, there is a difference between a bad teacher and someone who is ill. There is a difference. You should get to know it.
Not get what you pay for. Get what the system allows. Seriously, just take a look at what these teachers are allowed and allowed to do legally speaking. It's amazing just how much there hands are tied.
A couple examples:
- Where I went to school the law stated that no matter what the circumstance, the teacher cannot strike a student. So, if the student is beating the crap out of the teacher, the teacher can't do anything about it if (s)he wants to keep his/her job and/or stay out of jail.
- If two students are fighting, all the teacher can do is get between them. They cannot separate them, or anything. Just get between them. Because, touching them is an absolutely no no.
- Want to make English actually interesting? Can't. Because, there is an approved list of reading materials and that only includes literature that only the most rare student likes. Similarly, for other subjects.
It's the whole system from top to bottom that is the tragedy. And it has lead to obvious results.
That's an idealistic bunch of garbage. My wife is currently teaching at *University* and those kids can be absolutely vindictive. If they don't get the A that they think that deserve, then she gets a poor review. It doesn't matter that her office hours are more than most and is available to see students outside of them even without an appointment. None of that matters. Because, her students aren't getting a free ride and god forbid if they can't get away with taking a piss all year like they did in high school. Hell, they even flatly lie about what has happened. It's quite shocking.
Seriously, student evaluations are pretty much meaningless. Especially, for any class before 3rd/4th year.
These students today are all about the quick fix. And they'll go to get it and damn morality and ethics. Seriously, we should stop thinking of these kids as angels with halos over there heads. Because, for the most part, they are self serving little bastards.
I find it amazing that so called, smart people, still confuse idealised systems with reality. Point of fact, the human is a complex system that will exhibit non-linear behaviour. Expecting people to always behave like an idealised system is just plain retarded. We forget things and/or don't fully understand things and/or ... which can profoundly alter the end decision.
And what about the mentally ill? Do they have more QM in them? How about women with PMS? Do they have intermittent bouts of more QM?
In all seriousness, I think that any time we see "researchers" try to apply QM to medicine, etc, we should all get a rolled up newspaper and bat them on the nose and say, "NO. NO."
Now, I know this thought might be new to some people. But, how about try to understand how the hormones, etc, effect mood, decision making, etc, /before/ we go after explanations like this. Because, I gotta tell you, having people that don't have a clue about QM and/or biology isn't going to lead to a good place. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should work on understanding one before we go and try to meld the two. Because, we still don't have a clue about the how/why the brain works even on the macro level.
Bitter = Bias
Sorry, but you *story* wreaks of it.
Why is it that the US is a major target of Amnesty International again? What about your warrentless wire-tapping? Exceedingly low voter turn out. Etc, etc, etc.
Seriously, if you want to spread democracy, then the first step would be to actually have one.
"""
How long until an indie developer creates an MMO that has different interfaces for PC and mobile?
"""
The Buffy MMO that's being made on the Multiverse platform is going to do this. Or at least that was the announcement... a *while* ago. As in, a Flash interface that will have certain abilities and a typical PC game interface that will have others (probably some overlapping features as well).
Uh, wait to take a comment out of context. We aren't talking about drawing a picture. We're talking about A GAME. Something that is FAR more complicated/complex than a mere picture.
I'm sorry, but you haven't a clue about what you're talking about.
1) Intelligence is only "universally reviled" in the US and is becoming more common in Canada as well. The rest of the world take *far* more kindly to the actually intelligent.
2) SyFy is NOT "the modern nomenclature" for Sci-fi. It is a marketing gimmick from the Sci-fi network as an attempt to widen its viewing audience.
3) Fantasy is more popular because it is more accessible. As in, everyone knows about wizards, knights, etc as that has pervaded society for a *long* time. But, not many people know about sci-fi and its trappings. So, it's "weird" to many.
Seriously, you're attempting to trivialise fantasy to horny teenaged "geeks". And that's just so wrong it isn't funny.
I'm going to correct your 'worth $40' to 'costs $40'. Because, 'worth' is a subjective term and this game WILL be WORTH *a lot* more (or a lot less depending) than $40 to many people (that is assuming it is $40 where you are).
That said, I wouldn't necessarily say that this is a micro-payment system. But, rather that this game has been (partially) separated into its components. So, for people like me that don't play on-line, this game just got cheaper because I wasn't *forced* to purchase this component.
Quite frankly, I would like to see that type of model continue on this path. I mean, not having to purchase parts of a game that I'm not going to use would save me money.
Stereotypes aside, that's basically true. Except for the programmers being poor spellers, etc. It's not programmers. It's really pretty much everyone that's graduated in the past decade or so. That might be some hyperbole, but it's not far from the truth. I mean, just look at how the 30+ crowd writes, and then compare that to today's high school graduates. It's chilling.
You need to look up what the word manual means in the context you're *attempting* to apply it to.
But, regarding the arrogance, etc, I'd rather say that it is the non-coder that has the issue with anyone smarter and/*or* more knowledgeable/skillful in any way, regardless if it has any applicability to there own specific job/tasks. Because, I've been attacked for being condescending/etc when *they* asked for the explanation and told me to explain it as simply as possible because they were clueless. I've also been attacked for just pointing out when someone was factually incorrect in a discussion.
Point of fact, people, especially those that are intellectually challenged, especially when they are in management or "above" you, really *really* can't take it when they are wrong. And god forbid if someone points it out. Because, if the person pointing it out isn't brown nosing to the point where they are tickling the managers/etc throat, then they are just arrogant/etc and will be attacked.
In other words, it's not really about communication. It's about the PERCEPTION of what the coder is saying rather than what (s)he is actually saying. And that PERCEPTION cannot be controlled by the coder. That is the problem of the non-coder and there own, likely, inferiority complex.