"And why not spend those many billions on the healthcare system and traffic safety?"
Americans traditionally distrust government programs. Right up until the Great Depression, the majority of Americans viewed the government as a means for the defense from foreign powers and regulation of certain economic matters. The average American believed in the Horatio Alger concepts and was expected to deal with his own problems. If things got bad, you went to a good friend. If things got desperate you went to the Salvation Army.
When the Great Depression first struck, President Hoover first attempted to get the private sector involved in relief efforts and only used governmental programs as a last resort and even then to a minimal extent. FDR's social welfare programs created a huge backlash in the South, which was a historically Democratic voting block. A good chunk of Southern Democrats defected to the Republican party due to issues with FDR's policies.
Americans (especially the South) still hang onto those pre-Depression notions. The government is viewed as a means for defense and making buisness thrive, rather than a means for social welfare. The argument I've heard is something along the lines of "Good economics and a booming economy will create prosperity. The prosperous ones can then help the needy, eliminating the need for government assistance." America as a country still believes in the Horatio Alger phenoenom and want to leave welfare to the private sector.
Wow, that was long and rambling and barely connected to the article. Ugh, I need more coffee.
Scribus is what you get when engineers try to design software; typical of most open-source applications.
By all means, my friend, write your own and shows us all how it should be done!
Dull is not neccesarily the outcome. Sometimes you get outright crazy. Consider my friend for instance who grew up in a very strict Fundy-Christian home. Upon leaving home he started up on drugs and booze, and flunked most of his classes. He had relied on his parents to discipline him and give him any kind of focus whatsoever. They had so forcefully attempted instilling discipline, that he had never gained any discipline for himself, simply relying on the guidance around him.
I'm not hallucinating the trend. It exists. Family Guy does not define the trend, though Peter Griffin is a part of the trend. I don't watch Family Guy regularly, but you cannot deny Peter Griffin is a bumbling dumb guy. No two ways about it, regardless of how even-handed the show is in the treatment of genders. So quit getting hung up on the Family Guy bit.
This isn't about man/woman jokes. Somewhere along the line, the good intentions of the feminists (and I do believe women's rights) became warped into an excuse for male-bashing. Degridation of either sex is wrong. Not all women are dumb, sex-object, submissive, houewives. Not all men are stupid child-molesting lazy bastards.
I've got karma to burn, so hell with it. Mod me whatever you want. The situation you describe is part of a larger picture. Men are being degraded. Watch your typical sitcom. I cite King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, The Simpsons, King of the Hill, Family Guy as evidence. The man of the house is portrayed as dumb/passive/lazy/shifty. Contrast that to the smart, hard-working, quick-witted wife, always saving Dad from his own mistakes.
Personally I blame modern feminists. They have preached for so long that men are evil that even men are starting to believe it. They're not after equality, they're after power.
This claim is simply untrue Granted, it's a broad generalization, but when was the last time you where in a public school? How long has it been since you've seen the machine doing it's thing? It's not the lawsuit, it's the threat of the lawsuit. To borrow the quote: "Yeah, but he's threatening to smoke it!"
Expulsion still happens Yeah, until Mommy and Daddy come complaining to the school board and the decision is overturned. I've seen it happen time and again, to people I went to school with.
You missed my point. Teacher have lost their ability to discipline in any form what-so-ever. Parents raise so much hell, with complaints and lawsuits, over punishments their child might receive, that the punishments are often rescended by the school principal. Instead of taking responsibility for their child, parent's blame the school, the system, the teacher, some supposed mental/learning disorder (though in some cases, disorders really are the problem), anything but their darling child. Teachers aren't allowed to dole out punishment of any kind, because nothing is ever the child's fault. Products of a suit-happy McDonald's generation
But since you brought up corporal punishment, I'll answer. When the measures you mentioned have no effect, what recourse do you have? Corporal punishmen is not the first and certainly not the best choice for discipline, but at times it might be neccesary. I'm not advocating beatings, or flogging 40 lashes with Teacher's trusty cat-of-nine-tails, but for some kids a couple of shots to the ass with a 2x6 (or the threat thereof) might prove an effective atitude adjuster.
The point of is that achieving discipline in a public school is damn near impossible, because teachers (at least in the US) have been stripped of their ability to punish disruptive students, because punishment "is damaging to student's fragile sense of self-esteem" or some other pyschobabble crap like that.
Yes I know, many slashdotters pride themselves on questioning authority or sticking it to the man, but a teacher deserves at least some modicum of respect.
Warning: Keep out of reach of children. Slashdot may contain flamebait, trolls, and sheer nonsense. Slashdot may cause sleep deprevation, procrastination, or eye strain if used excessively. Use at own risk.
Mod parent up.
In first world nations (for example, the USA), the average worker can work less hours and still maintain a decent standard of living. Granted, this is not the always the case in places such as South Texas, or certain regions of Applachia, but the majority of the working class does not have to choose between working those extra hours or starving. In third-world/developing nations, such as the Honduras or Haiti, that extra two or three hours of work can literally be the deciding factor on whether or not you eat that day. In an economic situation like that, programming goes by the wayside.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, we're just trying to imitate Dear Leader Bush and his approval ratings...
*runs for cover*
In general terms, that depends on your religion.
Software is free, but hardware still costs
[facetious]Sun should welcome MS support. Sun will undoubtably come out on top![/facetious]
Yes sir! Because you said to, I'll blindly believe! Evidence be damned!
I am a mechanical engineer / fluid dynamicist ...
All that college and they never taught you to properly format what you write. So sad....
dons tinfoil hat
One step closer to a global government, Time to clean up the bomb shelters....
"And why not spend those many billions on the healthcare system and traffic safety?"
Americans traditionally distrust government programs. Right up until the Great Depression, the majority of Americans viewed the government as a means for the defense from foreign powers and regulation of certain economic matters. The average American believed in the Horatio Alger concepts and was expected to deal with his own problems. If things got bad, you went to a good friend. If things got desperate you went to the Salvation Army.
When the Great Depression first struck, President Hoover first attempted to get the private sector involved in relief efforts and only used governmental programs as a last resort and even then to a minimal extent. FDR's social welfare programs created a huge backlash in the South, which was a historically Democratic voting block. A good chunk of Southern Democrats defected to the Republican party due to issues with FDR's policies.
Americans (especially the South) still hang onto those pre-Depression notions. The government is viewed as a means for defense and making buisness thrive, rather than a means for social welfare. The argument I've heard is something along the lines of "Good economics and a booming economy will create prosperity. The prosperous ones can then help the needy, eliminating the need for government assistance." America as a country still believes in the Horatio Alger
phenoenom and want to leave welfare to the private sector.
Wow, that was long and rambling and barely connected to the article. Ugh, I need more coffee.
I read that as "SG-1 files chapter 11 bankruptcy." I was wondering how a TV show could go bankrupt
I'm not a sofware engineer either. GP was snippy in his replies, I thought I'd return the favor.
Scribus is what you get when engineers try to design software; typical of most open-source applications. By all means, my friend, write your own and shows us all how it should be done!
[text color="pink"]OMG!!! PONIES!!!!![/text]
Dull is not neccesarily the outcome. Sometimes you get outright crazy. Consider my friend for instance who grew up in a very strict Fundy-Christian home. Upon leaving home he started up on drugs and booze, and flunked most of his classes. He had relied on his parents to discipline him and give him any kind of focus whatsoever. They had so forcefully attempted instilling discipline, that he had never gained any discipline for himself, simply relying on the guidance around him.
I'm not hallucinating the trend. It exists. Family Guy does not define the trend, though Peter Griffin is a part of the trend. I don't watch Family Guy regularly, but you cannot deny Peter Griffin is a bumbling dumb guy. No two ways about it, regardless of how even-handed the show is in the treatment of genders. So quit getting hung up on the Family Guy bit.
This isn't about man/woman jokes. Somewhere along the line, the good intentions of the feminists (and I do believe women's rights) became warped into an excuse for male-bashing. Degridation of either sex is wrong. Not all women are dumb, sex-object, submissive, houewives. Not all men are stupid child-molesting lazy bastards.
I'm not saying that feminists are running the world or that dumb guys aren't funny. I'm just pointing out a trend concerning male characters in shows.
I've got karma to burn, so hell with it. Mod me whatever you want.
The situation you describe is part of a larger picture. Men are being degraded. Watch your typical sitcom. I cite King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, The Simpsons, King of the Hill, Family Guy as evidence. The man of the house is portrayed as dumb/passive/lazy/shifty. Contrast that to the smart, hard-working, quick-witted wife, always saving Dad from his own mistakes.
Personally I blame modern feminists. They have preached for so long that men are evil that even men are starting to believe it. They're not after equality, they're after power.
I imagine it might earn you a Darwin Award
Damn Goa'uld, leaving their pyramids everywhere...
When beatings don't work? I'm torn between having the student bound and gagged or having the student transferred so, say, Paraguay.
This claim is simply untrue Granted, it's a broad generalization, but when was the last time you where in a public school? How long has it been since you've seen the machine doing it's thing? It's not the lawsuit, it's the threat of the lawsuit. To borrow the quote: "Yeah, but he's threatening to smoke it!"
Expulsion still happens Yeah, until Mommy and Daddy come complaining to the school board and the decision is overturned. I've seen it happen time and again, to people I went to school with.
You missed my point. Teacher have lost their ability to discipline in any form what-so-ever. Parents raise so much hell, with complaints and lawsuits, over punishments their child might receive, that the punishments are often rescended by the school principal. Instead of taking responsibility for their child, parent's blame the school, the system, the teacher, some supposed mental/learning disorder (though in some cases, disorders really are the problem), anything but their darling child. Teachers aren't allowed to dole out punishment of any kind, because nothing is ever the child's fault. Products of a suit-happy McDonald's generation
But since you brought up corporal punishment, I'll answer. When the measures you mentioned have no effect, what recourse do you have? Corporal punishmen is not the first and certainly not the best choice for discipline, but at times it might be neccesary. I'm not advocating beatings, or flogging 40 lashes with Teacher's trusty cat-of-nine-tails, but for some kids a couple of shots to the ass with a 2x6 (or the threat thereof) might prove an effective atitude adjuster.
The point of is that achieving discipline in a public school is damn near impossible, because teachers (at least in the US) have been stripped of their ability to punish disruptive students, because punishment "is damaging to student's fragile sense of self-esteem" or some other pyschobabble crap like that.
Yes I know, many slashdotters pride themselves on questioning authority or sticking it to the man, but a teacher deserves at least some modicum of respect.
Fact: God hates fanboys. Especially rabid fanboys.
Warning: Keep out of reach of children. Slashdot may contain flamebait, trolls, and sheer nonsense. Slashdot may cause sleep deprevation, procrastination, or eye strain if used excessively. Use at own risk.
Mod parent up.
In first world nations (for example, the USA), the average worker can work less hours and still maintain a decent standard of living. Granted, this is not the always the case in places such as South Texas, or certain regions of Applachia, but the majority of the working class does not have to choose between working those extra hours or starving. In third-world/developing nations, such as the Honduras or Haiti, that extra two or three hours of work can literally be the deciding factor on whether or not you eat that day. In an economic situation like that, programming goes by the wayside.