alexx's Comments
Not tetris. Those are not tretris pieces.
How could you miss that?
How could you miss that?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
"But still."
As best I can tell, that means "I know that what I/you just said doesn't support my argument, and might even disprove it entirely, BUT I STILL think you should agree with my argument.
As best I can tell, that means "I know that what I/you just said doesn't support my argument, and might even disprove it entirely, BUT I STILL think you should agree with my argument.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@Alex
First, I didn't write "many years." Do a search on the this page for the work "many" and you will find that you used it three times, and I used it once ("too many principals"). If you have to make up quotes to make your point, you might not have a good point in the first place -- which in this case was that I was defending tenure or the tenure process. It happens that I agree that tenure is probably given too early nationally, and that it certainly is too early in California.
Second, there is a difference between ensuring a teacher keeps his/her job and defending his/her rights. Unions are legally bound to defend their members rights, and that is part of why unions can negotiate things that might be illegal in a non-unionized setting (e.g. age restrictions). The union may not sell out a member. The union MUST protect every members' rights, regardless of the accusation. Think of it as being like a right to an attorney in court, if that helps you. Every defendant is legally entitled to a zealous defense. Every union member is entitled to full representation by the union.
Third, if the commission is not doing its job well, that's not the union's fault. The commission is a product of state law, not of the union contract. If the board is set up improperly, talk to the state legislature and the state DOE and perhaps the LA school district. The commission does not work for the union. The union does not adjudicate these decisions.
I believe, and I think that most large teachers unions believe, that it is in the interests of their membership that the profession of teaching be held in high esteem. Heck, while students suffer in the long term if a teacher does a bad job, it is his/her fellow teachers that suffer most in the short term. Bad teachers set a tone, and the kids take that tone to other classrooms. Bad teachers leave kids underprepared for future classes, and those later teachers have to pick up their slack. Most large teacher unions know this. In New York City, for example, the local union has tried repeatedly to do what it can to speed up the process and even to offer training (I think) to principals in how to document teacher performance.
This is my core criticism of your post: You took a piece that tried to lay out why it is so hard to fire teachers -- a piece that looks at many factors -- and reduced it to simply blaming unions. That is not an accurate representation of the LA Times piece, a piece that itself has a couple of methodological issues. You didn't offer that your snippet was fair from representational of the whole piece. You also didn't mention that this piece only looked at LA, as opposed to an entire state or the entire country.
First, I didn't write "many years." Do a search on the this page for the work "many" and you will find that you used it three times, and I used it once ("too many principals"). If you have to make up quotes to make your point, you might not have a good point in the first place -- which in this case was that I was defending tenure or the tenure process. It happens that I agree that tenure is probably given too early nationally, and that it certainly is too early in California.
Second, there is a difference between ensuring a teacher keeps his/her job and defending his/her rights. Unions are legally bound to defend their members rights, and that is part of why unions can negotiate things that might be illegal in a non-unionized setting (e.g. age restrictions). The union may not sell out a member. The union MUST protect every members' rights, regardless of the accusation. Think of it as being like a right to an attorney in court, if that helps you. Every defendant is legally entitled to a zealous defense. Every union member is entitled to full representation by the union.
Third, if the commission is not doing its job well, that's not the union's fault. The commission is a product of state law, not of the union contract. If the board is set up improperly, talk to the state legislature and the state DOE and perhaps the LA school district. The commission does not work for the union. The union does not adjudicate these decisions.
I believe, and I think that most large teachers unions believe, that it is in the interests of their membership that the profession of teaching be held in high esteem. Heck, while students suffer in the long term if a teacher does a bad job, it is his/her fellow teachers that suffer most in the short term. Bad teachers set a tone, and the kids take that tone to other classrooms. Bad teachers leave kids underprepared for future classes, and those later teachers have to pick up their slack. Most large teacher unions know this. In New York City, for example, the local union has tried repeatedly to do what it can to speed up the process and even to offer training (I think) to principals in how to document teacher performance.
This is my core criticism of your post: You took a piece that tried to lay out why it is so hard to fire teachers -- a piece that looks at many factors -- and reduced it to simply blaming unions. That is not an accurate representation of the LA Times piece, a piece that itself has a couple of methodological issues. You didn't offer that your snippet was fair from representational of the whole piece. You also didn't mention that this piece only looked at LA, as opposed to an entire state or the entire country.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
It's too bad that Neatorama is propegating this kind of misinformation.
First, you've got to realize that tenure is not a contract thing. Tenure is a state law thing. It has existed since before teacher had the right to form unions and have union contracts.
Next, you need to understand that for teachers to get tenure they need years(!!!) of good evaluations form their principals. Without those, no tenure.
Next, a big problem is that it is hard to fire anyone with years of good evaluations, especially those with tenure. It's takes truly documenting poor performance, if there are all those good evaluations. Too many principals aren't willing to go through that work, so the follow the easier path of giving good evaluations.
Last, the big differences between teachers with and at-will employees in other fields are that 1) teachers know their their rights (because the union makes sure they know) and 2) rather than sue after being fired they are able to try to settle it BEFORE being fired, with the union representing them. That makes it easier and cheaper for them to challenge poorly documented decisions without have to paying lot of money or dealing with the courts. (That makes it cheaper for the school district, too.)
As for the content of this particular situation. Well, firing a long time employee for *alleged* anything is probably a bad idea. You really ought to investigate to see whether they did it or not. And I don't think that that the charter school teachers were easier to fire because they were not in a union. They were easier to fire because they didn't have tenure -- which, remember, is not a contract thing.
First, you've got to realize that tenure is not a contract thing. Tenure is a state law thing. It has existed since before teacher had the right to form unions and have union contracts.
Next, you need to understand that for teachers to get tenure they need years(!!!) of good evaluations form their principals. Without those, no tenure.
Next, a big problem is that it is hard to fire anyone with years of good evaluations, especially those with tenure. It's takes truly documenting poor performance, if there are all those good evaluations. Too many principals aren't willing to go through that work, so the follow the easier path of giving good evaluations.
Last, the big differences between teachers with and at-will employees in other fields are that 1) teachers know their their rights (because the union makes sure they know) and 2) rather than sue after being fired they are able to try to settle it BEFORE being fired, with the union representing them. That makes it easier and cheaper for them to challenge poorly documented decisions without have to paying lot of money or dealing with the courts. (That makes it cheaper for the school district, too.)
As for the content of this particular situation. Well, firing a long time employee for *alleged* anything is probably a bad idea. You really ought to investigate to see whether they did it or not. And I don't think that that the charter school teachers were easier to fire because they were not in a union. They were easier to fire because they didn't have tenure -- which, remember, is not a contract thing.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
1) It's not a virus, Dru. It's just not. Sorry.
2) The installer is attached to pirated installers for other commerical products. In other words, only those who are attempting to install stolen software will be infected.
That means the the smug Mac users who believe in paying content producers for their work are just fine.
2) The installer is attached to pirated installers for other commerical products. In other words, only those who are attempting to install stolen software will be infected.
That means the the smug Mac users who believe in paying content producers for their work are just fine.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Some corrections and a comment.
1) It is subject to debate whether or not fois gras is torturous to the geese or ducks. Some believe that, as they don't have gag reflexes and do not shy away from their feeders, that it does not hurt them. Other believe that forcing feeding at rates at which they normally only eat when getting ready to migrate obviously/must hurt them. The answer is not clear.
2) Anyone who says that "Canard à la Rouennaise (Duck in Blood Sauce)" can cost up to $1000 a plate is being ridiculous. That's like saying thar houses can cost up to $50 million, cars can cost up to $200,000 or Americans have net worts as high as $50 billion (they can, but those are not any where near typical cases). This dish, at the restaurant cited as the source, is less than 1/10 that. It's less than $100 (depending on the exchange rate). I know because I've had it there. And I also know that a main reason why the dish is so expensive there is that everything is expensive there -- because the entire restaurant has this amazing view of the Notre Dame (the Cathedral in Paris). Tour D'Argent.
3) You claim that pressed duck can cost $1000, and then are impressed with a $30-$100 soup? On that same trip to France, (by the way my wife and I went to to France to spend too much money on food) we went to Chez Bocuse -- one of the great restaurants in the world. There, we saw a $80 (80 euro?) bowl of soup, a specality of the restaurant. "Truffle soup V.G.E." Excellent soup, but not crazy exotic or anything. (And we wouldn't order it again, at that price.)
1) It is subject to debate whether or not fois gras is torturous to the geese or ducks. Some believe that, as they don't have gag reflexes and do not shy away from their feeders, that it does not hurt them. Other believe that forcing feeding at rates at which they normally only eat when getting ready to migrate obviously/must hurt them. The answer is not clear.
2) Anyone who says that "Canard à la Rouennaise (Duck in Blood Sauce)" can cost up to $1000 a plate is being ridiculous. That's like saying thar houses can cost up to $50 million, cars can cost up to $200,000 or Americans have net worts as high as $50 billion (they can, but those are not any where near typical cases). This dish, at the restaurant cited as the source, is less than 1/10 that. It's less than $100 (depending on the exchange rate). I know because I've had it there. And I also know that a main reason why the dish is so expensive there is that everything is expensive there -- because the entire restaurant has this amazing view of the Notre Dame (the Cathedral in Paris). Tour D'Argent.
3) You claim that pressed duck can cost $1000, and then are impressed with a $30-$100 soup? On that same trip to France, (by the way my wife and I went to to France to spend too much money on food) we went to Chez Bocuse -- one of the great restaurants in the world. There, we saw a $80 (80 euro?) bowl of soup, a specality of the restaurant. "Truffle soup V.G.E." Excellent soup, but not crazy exotic or anything. (And we wouldn't order it again, at that price.)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
1) We have not spent it, yet.
2) The problem was never a falling stock market, nor is the solution a rising stock market.
The market is collectived wisdom, at best. It is not technical knowledge, and it is not the outcome.
We want more jobs. We want more higher wages for workers. We want more output from factories, and more work for service and/or white color workers. We want more profit from companies, too.
The stock market -- and the Dow Jones average of 30 aribtrary stocks -- are not any of that.
2) The problem was never a falling stock market, nor is the solution a rising stock market.
The market is collectived wisdom, at best. It is not technical knowledge, and it is not the outcome.
We want more jobs. We want more higher wages for workers. We want more output from factories, and more work for service and/or white color workers. We want more profit from companies, too.
The stock market -- and the Dow Jones average of 30 aribtrary stocks -- are not any of that.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
They proved no such thing.
In fact, they DISproved the the six degree theory.
If the average chain is 6.6 people, then half the population needs MORE than six people (five links). In fact, nearly a quarter (22%) needed more than seven people (six links).
22% of time, two people could NOT be linked with six links or fewer.
Some pairs took as many as 29(!!!) links.
Six Degrees is just wrong.
In fact, they DISproved the the six degree theory.
If the average chain is 6.6 people, then half the population needs MORE than six people (five links). In fact, nearly a quarter (22%) needed more than seven people (six links).
22% of time, two people could NOT be linked with six links or fewer.
Some pairs took as many as 29(!!!) links.
Six Degrees is just wrong.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
This doesn't make iPods more expensive at all. Rather, it makes some accessories for iPods more expensive.
Moreover, the story actually states, "In fact, licensing fees, such as the one for the ubiquitous “Made for iPod” sticker, account for the bulk of the so-called 'Apple tax.'"
So,
1) This piece has nothing to do with the price of iPods or iPhones.
2) The required chip -- and it is only requires for particular kinds of accessories -- is a minority of the "Apple Tax."
3) The rest of the "Apple Tax" is an entirely voluntary marketing program, wherein accessory manufacturers can put the symbol and label of Apple's "Made for iPod" program.
This is, by far, the most misleading labeling/framing of a Neatorama piece that I've ever seen.
Moreover, the story actually states, "In fact, licensing fees, such as the one for the ubiquitous “Made for iPod” sticker, account for the bulk of the so-called 'Apple tax.'"
So,
1) This piece has nothing to do with the price of iPods or iPhones.
2) The required chip -- and it is only requires for particular kinds of accessories -- is a minority of the "Apple Tax."
3) The rest of the "Apple Tax" is an entirely voluntary marketing program, wherein accessory manufacturers can put the symbol and label of Apple's "Made for iPod" program.
This is, by far, the most misleading labeling/framing of a Neatorama piece that I've ever seen.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
FIrst, waiting for a long piece is a sucker's game. Eventually, you WILL go too long without one. If your are not playing a timed version, then then key to a high score is to play for as long as possible. So, take it when it is there, but don't force it.
Second, I've got to agree with #5. I don't know the arcade version, but it didn't look to me like s/he was actually controlling it. How was he rotating and dopping? His/her hand motions did not seem to match that. I think that someone can play nearly that fast, and can even process it that fast, but there are physical constraints.
(The key to playing that fast is not to look at the board. Instead, you focus on the next piece and keep a representation of the board in you head. When you are in the zone, all you can see in the your is possibilities for where each kind of piece can go, without real awareness of what is going on more than 4 rows down. Or at least that is how it is for me.)
Second, I've got to agree with #5. I don't know the arcade version, but it didn't look to me like s/he was actually controlling it. How was he rotating and dopping? His/her hand motions did not seem to match that. I think that someone can play nearly that fast, and can even process it that fast, but there are physical constraints.
(The key to playing that fast is not to look at the board. Instead, you focus on the next piece and keep a representation of the board in you head. When you are in the zone, all you can see in the your is possibilities for where each kind of piece can go, without real awareness of what is going on more than 4 rows down. Or at least that is how it is for me.)
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Your definition of 'tool' is a little off.
For these purposes, 'tool' refers to something that is built/modified. So, dropping shellfish on rocks to break their shells does not make the rock a tool. Using a rock to bash nuts does not make the rock a tool. Hitting a little brother with a stick does not make the stick a tool.
There is some primate that picks up sticks, strips twigs and the bark and then uses the stick to get ants or termites out an anthill. The stick has been modified, and so is a tool.
The dolphin story above does not sound like a tool, but it might be. I don't have enough details. I don't think that bait counts as a tool, either. Unless they are building flies.
This dog is using found objects without modifying them. Not tools, as intended in that expression.
For these purposes, 'tool' refers to something that is built/modified. So, dropping shellfish on rocks to break their shells does not make the rock a tool. Using a rock to bash nuts does not make the rock a tool. Hitting a little brother with a stick does not make the stick a tool.
There is some primate that picks up sticks, strips twigs and the bark and then uses the stick to get ants or termites out an anthill. The stick has been modified, and so is a tool.
The dolphin story above does not sound like a tool, but it might be. I don't have enough details. I don't think that bait counts as a tool, either. Unless they are building flies.
This dog is using found objects without modifying them. Not tools, as intended in that expression.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
"No. Dumb plus," she answered.
Ha!