I was in a class where somebody got an F for getting 88%. Luckily, I got 98%. People got Ds for over 90%. Just so some teacher could maintain their precious curve... (My precious...)
I was in a class where the teacher was terrible and the class average was 28%. He gave As to people with 40% and Ds to people with 26% instead of 28%. Utterly ridiculous. How about teaching and then finding out if we learned it?
All the long-time professors that I talk to, including one I had who is still teaching 20-some-odd years later and my uncle who recently retired say that students are getting dumber every year. There's no denying that their selective memory only remembers the best students, but they report being completely unable to have the sorts of class discussions that they used to have only 10-20 years ago. And they can tell students exactly what will be on the test including the exact question in statement form and still half the students will fail the test, whereas 10-20 years ago 80% or more would pass easily.
I taught Pascal programming at a university as an adjunct professor. I had 7-8 students in my class at a time. There was nobody to fail because they each semester they mastered the material well enough for at least 5-6 students to get A's in the class. They wrote programs that worked and accomplished the stated goals and they turned in their homework and did well on tests.
So I'm supposed to arbitrarily fail somebody that succeeded just to match some inane curve? No, I taught them a difficult subject and helped them until they succeeded. Now, every student I have has been involved in the computer industry (despite this being a small Christian university known most for ministry, teaching and psychology/counseling) either in software training, QA, high school programming teachers, technical writing, etc. Because I taught them something hard, helped them succeed and gave them the A they deserved when they worked their tails off for a 100-level class.
I actually got asked for my college GPA once. Good thing I changed schools (away from a place that gave me Ds and Fs for 3 years) and I graduated Magna Cum Laude. Both my maturity and the professionalism of the small, private school contributed to the change. So even looking at grades can be meaningless.
I know you think so, but recently we had mold in our house. The "EPA approved" method of mold remediation was complete overkill for what was actually necessary to remove the mold. No we don't need to tear down half our house to get rid of 2 square feet of mold. We got another guy who just cut out the moldy parts and washed everything with a mold-killer, dried it and then painted it with Kilz. The mold hasn't returned and we saved over $10,000.
What part of the science says that the only way to kill mold is to tear down half my house? When in fact, it has been completely removed and has not returned for over 3 years.
I, for one, give people the benefit of the doubt when they say, "OK, WE HEARD YOU!" There's plenty of time for another boycott the next time they try to turn off Classic if beta still doesn't have the features we want.
This assumes that Intelligent Design is the model with less observational evidence and more fairy tales. In reality, it's the other side where you often find stuff like this video. http://www.answersingenesis.or...
No, it's not. Science is very political these days in every area. There is a lot of science that is easily reproducible that cannot be taught in a school science classroom because it came from a "creationist". Like you, I demand that ALL science should be uncensored. We should keep (and teach) ONLY that which can be reproduced and we should reject all explanations that cannot. It's the only way to find the truth.
He was already long on his way to going to jail when he arranged the hits on people. The feds had been watching him for almost a year already gathering evidence.
And it's even MORE infuriating when a commenter tells us about these supposed differences with no quick way to see what they are. Come on, man, inform us.
They already took billions to get internet to rural areas and then didn't do it anyway. We're done playing that ridiculous game. If you want to live out in the boonies, it's up to you to get your own internet (through satellite or whatever means necessary).
Hey Prop 8 in California doesn't BAN anything either. It just defines the word marriage as being between a man and a woman. Yet it has been reported 10,000 times by the media as a "ban". Is that a fair characterization or not?
Maybe not enough people promised to sign up with them. Maybe they see that it's a low-income area where few people would even get broadband. Maybe everyone sees that.
Slashdot Mirror
I was in a class where somebody got an F for getting 88%. Luckily, I got 98%. People got Ds for over 90%. Just so some teacher could maintain their precious curve... (My precious...)
I was in a class where the teacher was terrible and the class average was 28%. He gave As to people with 40% and Ds to people with 26% instead of 28%. Utterly ridiculous. How about teaching and then finding out if we learned it?
All the long-time professors that I talk to, including one I had who is still teaching 20-some-odd years later and my uncle who recently retired say that students are getting dumber every year. There's no denying that their selective memory only remembers the best students, but they report being completely unable to have the sorts of class discussions that they used to have only 10-20 years ago. And they can tell students exactly what will be on the test including the exact question in statement form and still half the students will fail the test, whereas 10-20 years ago 80% or more would pass easily.
And let's face it. How many of us could even hope to pass this exam today: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/p...
(Although I have since learned that it was a week-long open-book test.)
I taught Pascal programming at a university as an adjunct professor. I had 7-8 students in my class at a time. There was nobody to fail because they each semester they mastered the material well enough for at least 5-6 students to get A's in the class. They wrote programs that worked and accomplished the stated goals and they turned in their homework and did well on tests.
So I'm supposed to arbitrarily fail somebody that succeeded just to match some inane curve? No, I taught them a difficult subject and helped them until they succeeded. Now, every student I have has been involved in the computer industry (despite this being a small Christian university known most for ministry, teaching and psychology/counseling) either in software training, QA, high school programming teachers, technical writing, etc. Because I taught them something hard, helped them succeed and gave them the A they deserved when they worked their tails off for a 100-level class.
I actually got asked for my college GPA once. Good thing I changed schools (away from a place that gave me Ds and Fs for 3 years) and I graduated Magna Cum Laude. Both my maturity and the professionalism of the small, private school contributed to the change. So even looking at grades can be meaningless.
Actually, it started in 1803 and was fairly common by the time the telephone was invented.
Yes. The Supreme Court just said so.
I know you think so, but recently we had mold in our house. The "EPA approved" method of mold remediation was complete overkill for what was actually necessary to remove the mold. No we don't need to tear down half our house to get rid of 2 square feet of mold. We got another guy who just cut out the moldy parts and washed everything with a mold-killer, dried it and then painted it with Kilz. The mold hasn't returned and we saved over $10,000.
What part of the science says that the only way to kill mold is to tear down half my house? When in fact, it has been completely removed and has not returned for over 3 years.
I, for one, give people the benefit of the doubt when they say, "OK, WE HEARD YOU!" There's plenty of time for another boycott the next time they try to turn off Classic if beta still doesn't have the features we want.
Is this the hypocrisy in your comment? Have you even gone here and viewed the scientific evidence? Even once? http://www.answersingenesis.or...
So, you support a view the creation/evolution debate under the same standards? Or do you want to continue the current censorship?
This assumes that Intelligent Design is the model with less observational evidence and more fairy tales. In reality, it's the other side where you often find stuff like this video. http://www.answersingenesis.or...
No, it's not. Science is very political these days in every area. There is a lot of science that is easily reproducible that cannot be taught in a school science classroom because it came from a "creationist". Like you, I demand that ALL science should be uncensored. We should keep (and teach) ONLY that which can be reproduced and we should reject all explanations that cannot. It's the only way to find the truth.
Just get a VPN for 10 bucks and watch the Canadian broadcasts.
Yep. I'm so stupid to increase my money by 4X in less than a year...
Why do you think they won't give out shower curtains? Because they block the camera of course.
C'mon mods. This is hilarious. Mod this up.
The budget chips have grown up and are now capable.
He was already long on his way to going to jail when he arranged the hits on people. The feds had been watching him for almost a year already gathering evidence.
And it's even MORE infuriating when a commenter tells us about these supposed differences with no quick way to see what they are. Come on, man, inform us.
Mod this up. This is the solution to the problem.
They already took billions to get internet to rural areas and then didn't do it anyway. We're done playing that ridiculous game. If you want to live out in the boonies, it's up to you to get your own internet (through satellite or whatever means necessary).
Hey Prop 8 in California doesn't BAN anything either. It just defines the word marriage as being between a man and a woman. Yet it has been reported 10,000 times by the media as a "ban". Is that a fair characterization or not?
Maybe not enough people promised to sign up with them. Maybe they see that it's a low-income area where few people would even get broadband. Maybe everyone sees that.
How does this differ from credit cards or bitcoins?