Organic chemistry is only hard when it is taught by rote. Memorization will get you about as far in chemistry as the memorization of a phrasebook will get you among the people of a foreign nation. When you get a real understanding of the way it works, you can derive any reaction you like.
They perform >30% better at academic subjects across the board: Dr. Brian Ray, Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America, National Home Education Research Institute, Salem, OR, 1997. They also do better in college, and are more likely to be active in the community and to vote as adults: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37242551/can-homeschoolers-do-well-in-college/
Wow, just wow. This is like condemning the public school system based on the performance of a single child with no point of reference. Was the child a genius? Was he profoundly mentally disabled? Or was he middle of the road average? Does he have behavioral problems? Does he have ADD? Does he have trouble seeing? You don't know the answers to ANY of these questions, but here you are laying on the judgement like you were fucking Mentok or something.
You make a lot of ASS-umptions, mate. As if home schooled children don't meet each other, or attend some classes at school (like music and gym), or as if ANY student gets more than a cursory science education prior to the 5th grade. The most I learned in PUBLIC school prior to the 5th grade was the names of cloud types. Actually had a genuine science class in the fifth grade. 6th and 7th--nothin'. Real science education didn't start until the 8th grade. Science that mattered didn't start until the 9th.
Actually, you are completely and totally wrong. They used to sell chemistry sets for surprisingly young audiences (I'm thinking 7 or 8). Further, you don't really need any other skills to learn chemistry. Chemistry is more like a language. The sooner you start learning, the better. The system of prerequisites we have built up in this country is foolish; nothing more than an attempt to curb liability in the case of accident.
I am a chemist, and for 90+% of chemistry (especially at that level), you don't need any math beyond fractions and the ability to count to eight.
Yes, it is better to be taught by someone that knows what they are doing, but the notion that you need advanced math to teach basic chemistry is ludicrous. The notion that biology is "helpful" is even moreso. The level where the two intersect is extremely advanced, and won't be taught to ANY homeschooled kid prior to at least the tenth grade.
That would imply that the government is ruled by law rather than the arbitrary decisions of a few "top men".
It doesn't take long for such attitudes to spread throughout society.
But hey, Obama said he would have, like, the totally most open presidency ever. Surely the new boss will prove himself different from the old boss in SOME way. Surely!
Provide evidence that that was ever a major reproductive strategy, or at least more so than it is today. It wasn't.
People do what they want to do regardless of whether or not it is illegal. The law might stop people from going faster than the speed limit, but if that speed limit weren't there do you really think you would go 200 mph through a residential neighborhood? Would you run out immediately and buy heroine to inject into your balls if that were suddenly legal?
Yup, exactly right. The only thing I have taken without paying since I got Netflix is Game of Thrones. If HBO had a service like Netflix, I would be paying for that now. I already pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus.
Yes, but the total contribution of that has only been something like 0.7mm/year, where the total contribution from global warming has been something like 1.2mm/year. The actual empirical measurements take all variables into account. If there is a tipping point, then we have bigger problems. If there isn't, then there is no need to be concerned with more development along the sea shore.
Honestly, even accounting for a continuation of the current trend is a little crazy. Extrapolation of linear or exponential trends always ends with the person doing the projecting looking like an idiot, sort of like the guys who were calling for 36,000 on the Dow Jones by 2007 back in 1998.
If that is how long it will be before there is an effect, why does ANYONE care? Our situation, economically and technologically, will be TOTALLY different by then, so making plans for eventualities that are not set in stone and that far off are pretty worthless.
If it was something that was clear and predictable, like aquifer depletion, then fine, but sea level rise from global warming? Come on. They didn't even take into effect the extraction of water from aquifers into their calculations. It is much better to use statistics from the past than half baked theories from people who keep getting it wrong.
Obese people actually cost less to care for than fit people. Why? They don't live as long, and they tend to die suddenly, rather than over a protracted period.
Russia wasn't Communist until their industrial revolution was over. Russia was full of heavy industry in 1917. Europe didn't go socialist until after theirs was finished.
China is one of the smallest governments in the world, only spending 20% of GDP, as opposed to our 40+%. Prior to 1913, we spent between 2 and 5% of GDP.
Note that Havana was situated on a much larger island with much more in the way of natural resources. Also, Hong Kong was effectively embargoed by China just the same as Cuba was by the US.
Also note that I'm not the one who created the island scenario. That was the fool I was replying to.
Not really. You are clearly thinking of Ethiopia, which was an Empire. The legal system of Somalia has been dominated by Xeer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer) since the 7th century. You don't hear much about it in the West because it is so antithetical to our concept of law, and Europeans tended to dominate and impose their will over the cities where their armies could more effectively enforce their will.
As for Europe, what, you think that Europe was always the way it is today? Europe NEVER, not even today had "heavy handed centralized planning", save under the regimes of people like Marco, or the Communists, or the WWII losers. Rampant socialism didn't emerge until AFTER WWII. How do you think they developed BEFORE WWII? Magic? You think their industrial base just poofed into existence? Or what, that their governments just mandated their existence? No, they ALSO had libertarian economic policies--low or not taxes, zero regulation. Taxes were imposed at the borders and ports, for the most part, just like in the US. Go read some Sherlock Holmes and compare his London to modern day London. A bit weird that they could carry around pistols and such, being a private detective and all, isn't it?
If you don't care to learn anything about history other than what your second grade homeroom teacher taught you, then fine, but you will always look like an idiot. You know, like you did just there, in your post.
The non-existent government needs an army to enforce rules against itself?
The corporation is a government invention. Without a government, corporations are just companies. Any shareholder can be sued just the same as any partner in a company can be sued.
Slashdot Mirror
Organic chemistry is only hard when it is taught by rote. Memorization will get you about as far in chemistry as the memorization of a phrasebook will get you among the people of a foreign nation. When you get a real understanding of the way it works, you can derive any reaction you like.
Probably some time before your public school. Especially since they don't teach that in public school.
They perform >30% better at academic subjects across the board: Dr. Brian Ray, Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America, National Home Education Research Institute, Salem, OR, 1997. They also do better in college, and are more likely to be active in the community and to vote as adults: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37242551/can-homeschoolers-do-well-in-college/
Wow, just wow. This is like condemning the public school system based on the performance of a single child with no point of reference. Was the child a genius? Was he profoundly mentally disabled? Or was he middle of the road average? Does he have behavioral problems? Does he have ADD? Does he have trouble seeing? You don't know the answers to ANY of these questions, but here you are laying on the judgement like you were fucking Mentok or something.
You make a lot of ASS-umptions, mate. As if home schooled children don't meet each other, or attend some classes at school (like music and gym), or as if ANY student gets more than a cursory science education prior to the 5th grade. The most I learned in PUBLIC school prior to the 5th grade was the names of cloud types. Actually had a genuine science class in the fifth grade. 6th and 7th--nothin'. Real science education didn't start until the 8th grade. Science that mattered didn't start until the 9th.
Actually, you are completely and totally wrong. They used to sell chemistry sets for surprisingly young audiences (I'm thinking 7 or 8). Further, you don't really need any other skills to learn chemistry. Chemistry is more like a language. The sooner you start learning, the better. The system of prerequisites we have built up in this country is foolish; nothing more than an attempt to curb liability in the case of accident.
I am a chemist, and for 90+% of chemistry (especially at that level), you don't need any math beyond fractions and the ability to count to eight.
Yes, it is better to be taught by someone that knows what they are doing, but the notion that you need advanced math to teach basic chemistry is ludicrous. The notion that biology is "helpful" is even moreso. The level where the two intersect is extremely advanced, and won't be taught to ANY homeschooled kid prior to at least the tenth grade.
He wasn't. Home schooled people are generally successful. When they aren't, they are basket cases.
They do actually. I would say that rabbit meat is probably the most tasty of any mammal.
That would imply that the government is ruled by law rather than the arbitrary decisions of a few "top men".
It doesn't take long for such attitudes to spread throughout society.
But hey, Obama said he would have, like, the totally most open presidency ever. Surely the new boss will prove himself different from the old boss in SOME way. Surely!
They can't be more delicious than they are cute.
Fuck that. When I die, that is what I'm going to have them do to me.
Provide evidence that that was ever a major reproductive strategy, or at least more so than it is today. It wasn't.
People do what they want to do regardless of whether or not it is illegal. The law might stop people from going faster than the speed limit, but if that speed limit weren't there do you really think you would go 200 mph through a residential neighborhood? Would you run out immediately and buy heroine to inject into your balls if that were suddenly legal?
Yup, exactly right. The only thing I have taken without paying since I got Netflix is Game of Thrones. If HBO had a service like Netflix, I would be paying for that now. I already pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus.
Yes, but the total contribution of that has only been something like 0.7mm/year, where the total contribution from global warming has been something like 1.2mm/year. The actual empirical measurements take all variables into account. If there is a tipping point, then we have bigger problems. If there isn't, then there is no need to be concerned with more development along the sea shore.
Honestly, even accounting for a continuation of the current trend is a little crazy. Extrapolation of linear or exponential trends always ends with the person doing the projecting looking like an idiot, sort of like the guys who were calling for 36,000 on the Dow Jones by 2007 back in 1998.
If that is how long it will be before there is an effect, why does ANYONE care? Our situation, economically and technologically, will be TOTALLY different by then, so making plans for eventualities that are not set in stone and that far off are pretty worthless.
If it was something that was clear and predictable, like aquifer depletion, then fine, but sea level rise from global warming? Come on. They didn't even take into effect the extraction of water from aquifers into their calculations. It is much better to use statistics from the past than half baked theories from people who keep getting it wrong.
But health care for fatties is less than health care for the fit, because fatties die early and suddenly, while the fit linger in nursing homes.
Further, the libertarians were and are fighting against socialized health care.
You assume that is the case, but I often make decisions using those nutrition information displays, when I can find them.
Obese people actually cost less to care for than fit people. Why? They don't live as long, and they tend to die suddenly, rather than over a protracted period.
Eating will be banned shortly after that. All nutrition will be provided by sanctioned health care workers only, via tube or IV.
Russia wasn't Communist until their industrial revolution was over. Russia was full of heavy industry in 1917. Europe didn't go socialist until after theirs was finished.
China is one of the smallest governments in the world, only spending 20% of GDP, as opposed to our 40+%. Prior to 1913, we spent between 2 and 5% of GDP.
Also of note is that Germany funded their social safety net while decreasing expenditures by almost 2/3rds: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/germany/ksr7190ec.html
Which allowed their GDP to EXPLODE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)
Note that the US, which had lower expenditures had twice as much growth during the same time period.
You wrong, dummy.
Ok, Hong Kong vs Havana GO!
http://cdn3.diggstatic.com/story/socialism_havana_vs_capitalism_hong_kong/o.png
Note that Havana was situated on a much larger island with much more in the way of natural resources. Also, Hong Kong was effectively embargoed by China just the same as Cuba was by the US.
Also note that I'm not the one who created the island scenario. That was the fool I was replying to.
The term "middle" must have been used quite loosely there. Compared to those living in 1913 America, they were impoverished bumpkins.
Uhh, Reconstruction ended in 1877, moron.
Militarism was supported by the bounty created by their libertarian economic policy, not the other way around.
Not really. You are clearly thinking of Ethiopia, which was an Empire. The legal system of Somalia has been dominated by Xeer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer) since the 7th century. You don't hear much about it in the West because it is so antithetical to our concept of law, and Europeans tended to dominate and impose their will over the cities where their armies could more effectively enforce their will.
As for Europe, what, you think that Europe was always the way it is today? Europe NEVER, not even today had "heavy handed centralized planning", save under the regimes of people like Marco, or the Communists, or the WWII losers. Rampant socialism didn't emerge until AFTER WWII. How do you think they developed BEFORE WWII? Magic? You think their industrial base just poofed into existence? Or what, that their governments just mandated their existence? No, they ALSO had libertarian economic policies--low or not taxes, zero regulation. Taxes were imposed at the borders and ports, for the most part, just like in the US. Go read some Sherlock Holmes and compare his London to modern day London. A bit weird that they could carry around pistols and such, being a private detective and all, isn't it?
If you don't care to learn anything about history other than what your second grade homeroom teacher taught you, then fine, but you will always look like an idiot. You know, like you did just there, in your post.
The non-existent government needs an army to enforce rules against itself?
The corporation is a government invention. Without a government, corporations are just companies. Any shareholder can be sued just the same as any partner in a company can be sued.