Attorney generals trying to shut down usenet?

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:50:44 GMT, James Arthur

[snip]

They run the schools, are themselves their own
administrators, set the standards for students and
teachers and teaching alike; award credentials, set
pay, promote, drive out newcomers.

They control the state's politics, endorse candidates,
run vicious political attack ads, consume more than
half the state's budget.

Yeah, you just don't see it.

It's not teachers exactly--there are great ones, and
they're treasures--it's what, overall, they've become.

Best regards,
James Arthur

Complain here about the school system by writing a
letter-to-the-editor and you'll get 6 or more responses all attacking
the messenger rather than answering the complaint.

Same response method if I ask leftist weenie liberals where does
ethanol or hydrogen fuels come from ;-)

Same as when I asked here why does the midwest not know how to build a
proper levee ;-)

...Jim Thompson

It is not so much the ability to build them in the first place, but
the impossibility of the political will to maintain them properly.

 

[krw]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:50:44 GMT, James Arthur

[snip]

They run the schools, are themselves their own
administrators, set the standards for students and
teachers and teaching alike; award credentials, set
pay, promote, drive out newcomers.

They control the state's politics, endorse candidates,
run vicious political attack ads, consume more than
half the state's budget.

Yeah, you just don't see it.

It's not teachers exactly--there are great ones, and
they're treasures--it's what, overall, they've become.

Best regards,
James Arthur

Complain here about the school system by writing a
letter-to-the-editor and you'll get 6 or more responses all attacking
the messenger rather than answering the complaint.

Same response method if I ask leftist weenie liberals where does
ethanol or hydrogen fuels come from ;-)

Same as when I asked here why does the midwest not know how to build a
proper levee ;-)

....and I told you why, though you didn't want to believe me. ;-)

 

[krw]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:54:08 GMT, James Arthur wrote:

[snip]

Punishment delayed and severe is way less effective than
one that's milder, but swift and sure. Any delay between
behavior and conditioning drastically reduces the
conditioning's effect.

[snip]

Only with animals...

So said Mr. Pavlov. Same with people...I'm sure I
could dig up some boring support if you insist.

children know and remember what they did.

...Jim Thompson

True, but that just changes the time-constants.

In the typical grocery-store melt-down scenario,
where some moms threaten, bribe, plead, and negotiate,
my dad would just rap us on the forehead with
his finger--in public, private, wherever--as
needed, before a big scene developed.

Instant feedback.

That quickly got us in line and everyone--small
and big--was happier.

A finger tap on the forehead. Minimum force,
maximum effect.

(My dad was a pediatrician--he *knew* how to
manage unruly tykes.)

Punish a 3 year-old a day after running into the street?
You'll have no effect.

Consistency is important, per Mr. Pavlov. If the conditioning
is inconsistent, the conditioning is relatively ineffective.

(We've all seen those parents.)

Another element is uncertainty...if you KNOW you'll get it,
you're a lot less likely to try. If murderers 100% knew
they'd be caught and executed that same day, murder would
be a lot less popular.

At least serial killings would be a lot less popular. ;-)

 

[JosephKK]

On Jun 16, 6:19 pm, James Arthur <[email protected]> wrote:

[...privately or home schooled ...]

You're passing a moral judgement here: you'd decide (or
have government decide) which parents are fit to raise
their own kids. That's monstrous. Can't you see that?

It defies imagination that any parent so motivated could
be worse than the public schools, even if they tried.

You have a *very* weak imagination or you have seen only a very small
section of mankind if you can't imagine parents doing far worse than
the public schools.

You must have much less experience with them than I do, and
much less faith in the basic goodness of the common man.

No, I'd say that you don't understand that the average says nothing of
the range. The common man is good is based on an average. The range
goes from extremely evil to extremely good.

Anyway, it's not for us to judge: when kids reach 18 they
can do as they wish; until then, parents rule.

As I said elsewhere: children are their charge not their possession.
Society have basically always reserved the right to remove children
from the control of a truly bad parent.

Oh no we don't.

Yes we do. feed "child protective services" complete with quotes into
the google.

O.J. Simpson still has his kids. All manner
of druggies, misfits, teenagers, etc., all have theirs. Why?
Because the courts have decided they have that right.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" includes "and
oh yes, an idiot government that'll confiscate your kids?"
Sheesh.

The government is us acting collectively. It is only "idiot
government" to the degree that we are idiots.

Obviously a small percentage. What's the high-school graduation
rate in your neck of the woods?

Right here it is about 95%. The worst in the bay area is about 75%.

Cheers,
James Arthur

You may find this data interesting:

http://www.epi.org/books/rethinking_hs_grad_rates/rethinking_hs_grad_rates-FULL_TEXT.pdf

 

[JosephKK]

we learned the basics in health class
[...]concerned parents' kids could opt out

We're seeing what the opt-out nonsense gets us
with the idiots who won't vaccinate their kids.

I saw some of those loonies interviewed on PBS. Except
they were wealthy residents of some super-exclusive island
off Seattle, Democrats.

Choose to be a member of this society or find another.
Being a member comes with obligations.

"Obligations" meaning you want to enforce your morals
on others. IOW, exactly what you accuse conservatives
of doing, except you really mean it.

Morals like Thou shalt not murder,thou shalt not commit adultery,thou shalt
not bear false witness,etc.?
IMO,those NEED enforcing.IMO,they are not optional.
"Morals" are a critical and basic part of civilized society.

To me, "liberal" means generous, inclined toward the
common good; free of bigotry; tolerant of the ideas
and behavior of others.

Well,then you are behind the times.
and "Gay" -used- to mean carefree and happy.

What you describe is dictating, imposing your values,
my-way-or-the-highway.

Societies MUST impose "values" on their members.

That is a quite erroneous understating of natural laws. The society
must train their members in the values. They must enforce the values
to the point of complete exclusion from that society those would
change or defy those values without understanding from whence they
came. The societies values are voluntary by social contract or they
are worthless.

 

[James Arthur]

They learned from Nawlins?

Thanks,
Rich

Which reminds me, where are all the Katrina race-conspiracy theorists
these days ?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:17:17 -0700, Jim Thompson

Joerg wrote:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html

:"N.Y. attorney general forces ISPs to curb Usenet access"
:
:Cuomo announced[...]that Verizon Communications,
:Time Warner Cable, and Sprint would
:"shut down major sources of online child pornography."
:[. . .]
:Time Warner Cable said it will cease to offer customers access
:to any Usenet newsgroups,
:a decision that will affect customers nationwide.
:
It's not clear if they will just take their own NNTP servers offline
or will if they will block Port 119.

:Sprint is cutting off the alt.* hierarchy, Usenet's largest[...]
:
:A Verizon spokesman said he didn't know details,
:saying "newsgroups that deal with scientific endeavors"
:will stick around but admitted that
:all of the alt.* hierarchy could be toast.
:
Between the OMG-kiddie-porn hand-wringers
and Google Groups (whatever their motives are),
Usenet sure has been taking a beating.

:The Internet service providers should not be blocking
:whole sections of the Internet, all Usenet groups
:said Barry Steinhardt,
:director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program.
:
aka "The Voice of Sanity".

:"That's taking a sledgehammer to an ant."
:
The USA is doomed. Stupidity has taken over.

Leftist weenies :-(


Rightist ass-wipes more likely.


At least we're not queer ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Who was that Senator that was harassing the pages?

IMO,it's not "harassment" until the person speaks up and lets the
"harasser" know that their behavior is not wanted nor acceptable.
If it then continues,then it's "harassment".

But they did. Wasn't that ex-Congress member Mark Foley?

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Which reminds me, where are all the Katrina race-conspiracy theorists
these days ?

I don't know, but the way I understand it, when white people went looting,
they called it "foraging", but when the black people went foraging, they
called it "looting". >:-[

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard Henry]

17:17 -0700, Jim Thompson
Joerg wrote:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html
:"N.Y. attorney general forces ISPs to curb Usenet access"
:
:Cuomo announced[...]that Verizon Communications,
:Time Warner Cable, and Sprint would
:"shut down major sources of online child pornography."
:[. . .]
:Time Warner Cable said it will cease to offer customers access
:to any Usenet newsgroups,
:a decision that will affect customers nationwide.
:
It's not clear if they will just take their own NNTP servers offline
or will if they will block Port 119.
:Sprint is cutting off the alt.* hierarchy, Usenet's largest[...]
:
:A Verizon spokesman said he didn't know details,
:saying "newsgroups that deal with scientific endeavors"
:will stick around but admitted that
:all of the alt.* hierarchy could be toast.
:
Between the OMG-kiddie-porn hand-wringers
and Google Groups (whatever their motives are),
Usenet sure has been taking a beating.
:The Internet service providers should not be blocking
:whole sections of the Internet, all Usenet groups
:said Barry Steinhardt,
:director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program.
:
aka "The Voice of Sanity".
:"That's taking a sledgehammer to an ant."
:
The USA is doomed.  Stupidity has taken over.
Leftist weenies :-(
Rightist ass-wipes more likely.
At least we're not queer ;-)
                                       ...Jim Thompson
Who was that Senator that was harassing the pages?
IMO,it's not "harassment" until the person speaks up and lets the
"harasser" know that their behavior is not wanted nor acceptable.
If it then continues,then it's "harassment".

But they did.  Wasn't that ex-Congress member Mark Foley?

And then there's Barney Franks, operating a homo prostitution shop in
his basement... and he wasn't even reprimanded ;-)

Are you referring to this incident? [from wikipedia]

In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that
Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him
through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort
service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home. Frank had
dismissed Gobie earlier that year and reported the incident to the
House Ethics Committee after learning of Gobie's activities. After an
investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank
had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity.[2]
Regarding Gobie's more scandalous claims the report by the Ethics
Committee concluded, "In numerous instances where an assertion made by
Mr. Gobie (either publicly or during his Committee deposition) was
investigated for accuracy, the assertion was contradicted by third-
party sworn testimony or other evidence of Mr. Gobie himself."[3]

 

[James Arthur]

Which reminds me, where are all the Katrina race-conspiracy theorists
these days ?

I don't know, but the way I understand it, when white people went looting,
they called it "foraging", but when the black people went foraging, they
called it "looting". >:-[

Whatever color, heisting a plasma TV isn't foraging. "Heist" sounds
judgmental though, so I suppose p/c demands we call it something else.

How 'bout "undocumented shopping" ?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Which reminds me, where are all the Katrina race-conspiracy theorists
these days ?

I don't know, but the way I understand it, when white people went looting,
they called it "foraging", but when the black people went foraging, they
called it "looting". >:-[

Hey, it flooded like this in 1993, in Clinton's time. Think
we'll hear a media outcry of what Bill should've done, how
was all preventable, and his fault the levees failed?

Or lengthy, divisive diatribes and exposes bemoaning how it's
a particular color or class of people who were deliberately
targeted / erradicated / innundated / etc. ?

Naah, I don't 'spect so neither. 'Least I hope not.


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joerg]

James Arthur wrote:
[...]

This needs clarification. Traditionally young kids first learn the
alphabet, learn letters' sounds, then parse words letter- by-letter,
then learn pronunciation.

Not the right approach IMHO.

In English yes...

But in languages like Chinese and Japanese you have no choice ultimately
but to learn to recognise whole words (and completely different phonetic
readings of the same character according to context) it has to be that
way. You also have to learn to draw them with the right stroke order.

My favourite Japanese nonsense rhyme uses various characters for "ni"
and "wa". And translates roughly as "there are 2 chickens in the yard".

I believe the only effective method to learn a language well is full
immersion. In full immersion there is no piecing together of letters,
syllables, words and so on. It just pours down on you and you try to
make sense of chunks of that barrage. Every day there'll be more chunks
that begin to make sense.

Personally I learned two languages that way and it worked. Tried another
(Spanish) where only the classical method of letters -> sounds ->
vocabulary -> grammar was taught. Did not work for me at all. The
result: I can understand some Spanish but cannot speak it, consequently
unable to communicate in it.

Think of it this way: How did we learn to understand and speak as
toddlers? Certainly not letter by letter. The only letters I had as a
toddler came in the form of ginger bread and I ate them all ;-)

Or this way: How do we design circuits? Certainly not starting with
"Here we have some 10K resistors and some 2N3904, let's make a circuit
now". Good engineering starts at the top, with the specs the final
design is expected to live up to.

[...]

 

[Joerg]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:54:08 GMT, James Arthur

[snip]

Punishment delayed and severe is way less effective than
one that's milder, but swift and sure. Any delay between
behavior and conditioning drastically reduces the
conditioning's effect.

[snip]

Only with animals... children know and remember what they did.

So do animals. When our Rottie was young and a digger/chewer he
sometimes had that "Oh s..t!" expression in his eyes when we came home.
That plus a tucked tail and you could almost bet you'd find some chewed
up piece somewhere.

 

[James Arthur]

James Arthur says...

At least serial killings would be a lot less popular. ;-)

I guess they'd have to go parallel.

--James

 

[James Arthur]

James Arthur wrote:
[...]

This needs clarification. Traditionally young kids first learn the
alphabet, learn letters' sounds, then parse words letter- by-letter,
then learn pronunciation.

Not the right approach IMHO.

In English yes...

But in languages like Chinese and Japanese you have no choice
ultimately but to learn to recognise whole words (and completely
different phonetic readings of the same character according to
context) it has to be that way. You also have to learn to draw them
with the right stroke order.

My favourite Japanese nonsense rhyme uses various characters for "ni"
and "wa". And translates roughly as "there are 2 chickens in the yard".

I believe the only effective method to learn a language well is full
immersion. In full immersion there is no piecing together of letters,
syllables, words and so on. It just pours down on you and you try to
make sense of chunks of that barrage. Every day there'll be more chunks
that begin to make sense.

I favor a hybrid approach.

If you already know at least one language you can
bootstrap 1000% faster by learning some basic words /
symbols / ideas in the new one first, then immersing.

OTOH if you just listen to Chinese broadcasts on
the shortwave you'll never learn a darn thing.

Or if you just up and go to Chile, you'll find
sentences thunder so quickly by you'll be left
dumbstuck at the crossing gawking at the
caboose, wondering where all the cars went.

As opposed to Thailand, where with a book's
handy jumpstart I could shop within the week,
or Italy, where I could make sailors blanch &
won the love of a marriageable lass in two.

Personally I learned two languages that way and it worked. Tried another
(Spanish) where only the classical method of letters -> sounds ->
vocabulary -> grammar was taught. Did not work for me at all. The
result: I can understand some Spanish but cannot speak it, consequently
unable to communicate in it.

Study briefly, then immerse. Just being able to
delineate the words is a big head start.
And, optionally, study some more. Repeat.

Works for me, anyhow.

Think of it this way: How did we learn to understand and speak as
toddlers? Certainly not letter by letter. The only letters I had as a
toddler came in the form of ginger bread and I ate them all ;-)

Sure, kids learn from zero. But it takes them years of
someone patiently teaching one-to-one, all day, every day.

Reading's a little different: the kid already knows how to
speak the language. One natural step then, is to learn to
connect the letters (which are new) with sounds he already
knows.

Or this way: How do we design circuits? Certainly not starting with
"Here we have some 10K resistors and some 2N3904, let's make a circuit
now".

We first learned the components, right? What they did & how
to draw them.

And before that, what electricity was, and things it could do
(like flow, heat, magnetize, spark, BURN !).

Good engineering starts at the top, with the specs the final
design is expected to live up to.

I go at it from both ends. I figure out what I want to do,
consider the tools, parts, and techniques available,
figure out how it's to be done, identify trouble spots,
then forge ahead.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joerg]

Joerg wrote:
[...]

I believe the only effective method to learn a language well is full
immersion. In full immersion there is no piecing together of letters,
syllables, words and so on. It just pours down on you and you try to
make sense of chunks of that barrage. Every day there'll be more
chunks that begin to make sense.

I favor a hybrid approach.

If you already know at least one language you can
bootstrap 1000% faster by learning some basic words /
symbols / ideas in the new one first, then immersing.

OTOH if you just listen to Chinese broadcasts on
the shortwave you'll never learn a darn thing.

You'll have to live there to really learn it. A Chinese girlfriend will
help, too, but not for me. I am married ...

Or if you just up and go to Chile, you'll find
sentences thunder so quickly by you'll be left
dumbstuck at the crossing gawking at the
caboose, wondering where all the cars went.

It was the same for me in the Netherlands. Had to repeatedly tell people
to slow it down some which they gladly did. They weren't used to
foreigners wanting to learn the language of such a tiny country.

As opposed to Thailand, where with a book's
handy jumpstart I could shop within the week,
or Italy, where I could make sailors blanch &
won the love of a marriageable lass in two.

So did you marry her?

Study briefly, then immerse. Just being able to
delineate the words is a big head start.
And, optionally, study some more. Repeat.

Works for me, anyhow.

That's the thing, everyone has a different concept. That is why home
schooling can be really good.

Sure, kids learn from zero. But it takes them years of
someone patiently teaching one-to-one, all day, every day.

I've met quite a few orphans who had to grow up without such individual
attention and they are all fluent, some in several languages.

Reading's a little different: the kid already knows how to
speak the language. One natural step then, is to learn to
connect the letters (which are new) with sounds he already
knows.


We first learned the components, right? What they did & how
to draw them.

Not me. First project: Got grandma's radio, dead. Wrote to the
manufacturer and lo and behold they really did send me the schematic.
Sat in front of the radio and schematic and began to disect it. Now how
does this work? Then I built a signal injector and had at it. Many days
later I figured out that the plate transformer for the EL84 final stage
tube had croaked. Scrapped one out of an old TV set, roached it in
there, somehow, and proudly presented the now working radio to my
grandparents. They had already bought a new transistorized set :-(

Sure, it took a long time but I understood the concept of a radio. And
that set is still here with us and works, more than 30 years later.
Except that the longwave band won't work because that isn't used here in
the US.

And before that, what electricity was, and things it could do
(like flow, heat, magnetize, spark, BURN !).

Yep. I still remember that huge crack in a dresser door that was the
result of me being flung against it with full force after discovering
that capacitors really do hold energy.

I go at it from both ends. I figure out what I want to do,
consider the tools, parts, and techniques available,
figure out how it's to be done, identify trouble spots,
then forge ahead.

True. Sometimes I study the datasheet of a new part and then sit down
and ponder where it might find a profitable use. The first time I did
that was when dual-gate FETs came out.

 

[Richard Henry]

Which reminds me, where are all the Katrina race-conspiracy theorists
these days ?

http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2008/06/06/rove_katrina/index.html

 

[James Arthur]

Multiple choice questions often are a problem. You have to be terminally
stupid to score less than 20% in a five way multiple choice test.

He's talking about a quality-assurance testing program
passed under Mr. Bush "No Child Left Behind," NCLB.

Kids are basically sample-tested to make sure they're
learning.

Teachers blame NCLB for wrecking the schools. Everything
was fine before, you see, so if results are rock-bottom abysmal
it can't be their fault...must be the tests. Those slips
of paper with the five fill-in bubbles per question, erasing
young minds.

So many are gaming the system, teaching nothing BUT
the tests. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they
got and shared advance copies.

That is a bit too strong. If the test is so weak that it is amenable to
simple rote training then it is a clear measurement fault.

There is an old maxim. What you measure gets controlled and the
corollary is that everything else goes to the wall.

As above, it's supposed to be a Q.A. sample, and for
a very worthy, important goal.

Should we ship electronics unpopulated save for the
portions we know Q.A. checks?

And if their careers and bonuses depend on getting the best out of their
class - what then? Hedge fund managers see nothing wrong with shorting a
weak bank to deliberately drive its share price down for a quick profit
or speculating on oil futures to drive them ever higher...

a) We expect better from teachers,
b) the existence of the test in no way compels or
requires cheating. They're simple, basic competence
tests. Kids should learn that material normally as
part of any competent instruction.

Results are compared between schools. If the tests
are flawed, the comparisons make them fair.

c) careers aren't ruined over the results--teachers can't
be fired.

Big bonus and career progression or integrity you choose.

No, that's not it. No big incentives, nor can teachers
ever really be penalized for poor performance.[1] It's
an attempt to assess, then improve schools.

[1] Of course the worst dullards among them rightly
afraid being exposed, which might change that.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Richard Henry]

He's talking about a quality-assurance testing program
passed under Mr. Bush "No Child Left Behind," NCLB.

Kids are basically sample-tested to make sure they're
learning.

Teachers blame NCLB for wrecking the schools. Everything
was fine before, you see, so if results are rock-bottom abysmal
it can't be their fault...must be the tests.  Those slips
of paper with the five fill-in bubbles per question, erasing
young minds.

So many are gaming the system, teaching nothing BUT
the tests.  It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they
got and shared advance copies.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out you don't know what you are
talking about.

As above, it's supposed to be a Q.A. sample, and for
a very worthy, important goal.

Should we ship electronics unpopulated save for the
portions we know Q.A. checks?

QA sample? Where did you get that nonsense? Every student is tested.

a) We expect better from teachers,
b) the existence of the test in no way compels or
    requires cheating.  They're simple, basic competence
    tests. Kids should learn that material normally as
    part of any competent instruction.

    Results are compared between schools.  If the tests
    are flawed, the comparisons make them fair.

c) careers aren't ruined over the results--teachers can't
    be fired.

OK, I'm convinced. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[James Arthur]

James Arthur wrote:

Several faddish methods to teach English have been and gone. But the guy
you have described may well have some kind of perceptual problem.

I'm quite sure he doesn't.

Over a few years I just saw him go through exactly the
same process I did as a kid learning to read. Not
surprising since, in fact, umm, we taught him.

Except I was four, and he's in college.

Wasn't much of a problem before since high school didn't
require much reading.

He's up to snuff now.

Cheers,
James Arthur