This is the most important post in this Slashdot discussion. The situation isn't a symptom of "fascism" as many are asserting above. It's an issue of *best* protocol not being followed.
Such errors in training and follow-through are going to happen in *any* form of government where people are involved.

This is an HR and policy issue, not a macro-governmental philosophy issue.

Schools are designed to use as little money as possible to do some of the most dynamic tasks known to man-- teach, counsel, and inspire young humans to become informed, involved, analytical, creative, and curious older humans regardless of biology or background.

Do not be fooled. This is no easy task and doing it right is not cheap.

If there was more money to hire more teachers and make more (and smaller) classrooms, your rare genius 10-year-old that wants to tackle calculus out of boredom could get his class of 5 similarly-minded children from the county and a sufficiently prepared educator to make that happen. But given the massive task at hand, it's just not fiscally rational.

It's not designed punishment. It's doing the best with what is had. Which isn't much,

I've been one of the few people Slashdot railing against the massive social investment and expectations that are being hyped by the purveyors of MOOCs.

I think they're great for those who are simply seeking casual education, but they should never, EVER be expected to be a substitute for concentrated education as our K-12 and higher education systems are intended to function.

With that in mind, then the massive failure rates shouldn't be considered a bug or feature but simply "expected". It's expected that people will sign up and learn some stuff, but if they're neither sufficiently engaged nor forced to attend, learn, and prove learning, they'll just quit. Or cheat to whatever end.

MOOCs are good. Heck, they're great. Just don't expect them to replace our classic education structure. Educating the masses per the needs of our society takes hard work, time, space, and money. MOOCs won't change that, but they will help those with sufficient intrinsic motivation to learn even more.

Yes, they searched travleres bags for agricultural items, were wrong about their findings, and destroyed many flutes. That's why the Gestapo and STASI were so hated and feared-- their prejudice against woodwinds.

OR... Or they were the shady underbelly of genuinely oppressive megalomaniac regimes.

Totally the same thing.

This is not fascism. This is poorly trained workers with insufficient procedures to remedy concerns.

To call this fascism is to diminish the horrors that actually come with fascism.

We all know that playing Starcraft shouldn't be considered a sport... but who puts forth a rubric for judging what's what? I do, that's who!

**Sport** (Rugby, Tennis, etc.)
--Competitive (against an opponent)
--Directly oppositional (opponent attempts to prevent one's success)
--Non-subjective scoring (ball through a hoop, player passes line, etc. Disagreeing with the referee doesn't imply subjectivity)
--Requires excellent physical condition to achieve excellence in the sport

**Race** (NASCAR, Horse Racing, Marathon)
--Competitive
--Oppositional (opponent performs at the same time and may or may not actively attempt to prevent one's success)
--Non-subjective timing
--May or may not be a test of human strength/speed. Could be a test of human control over another being or machine (auto racing).

**Competition** (Gymnastics, Dance)
--Competitive
--Can have subjective scoring

**Game** (Board and video games, Golf, etc)
--Competitive
--No particular physical requirements to achieve success
--No subjective scoring

**Endeavor** (Ex. Setting records, Mountain climbing without time limits)
--Not necessarily competitive
--Goals may vary (points, time, etc.)

In all likelihood, they probably just needed new vehicles, wanted things that would take a beating, and needed a little extra spin to get the approval. The vehicles were not purchased JUST to catch texting drivers, but the type or spec of the vehicle was chosen to validate that spin and "prove" that their use will be used to bring in additional revenue.

They say they have 215 million monthly users. To me, a user is a person. An account is one of many identities that a person can set up. I can believe 215 million accounts (spam!), but users?

If they're suggesting that 215 million unique people use Twitter every month and there are about 7.2 billion people on Earth today, they're saying that one in every 34 people in the world sign on to Twitter every month.

According to this (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm), about 2.4 billion people have access to the internet in one way or another. So if that's the population from which Twitter users come from (mustn't it?), that would mean that 1 in 12 people with internet access log onto Twitter monthly.

Is that really believable? That (globally) 1 in 12 people with internet access log into Twitter at least once a month?

I don't really like flying due to my height, but I *love* when this happens. I know, it's kinda cruel, but sometimes I just like seeing simple requirements enforced on those who are too cool to otherwise follow the rules.

Indeed -- Another expansion just launched. Level max. is 100. As an avid player, I'm fairly surprised it's still kicking myself!

Here's an article from 2 years ago by someone in the same county: http://cerritos.patch.com/groups/opinion/p/is-trick-or-treating-down-halloween-trends-decline-in3eafc90da4

"Over the past few years Iâ(TM)ve noticed a similar trend in the decline of trick-or-treaters going around the neighborhood. At first I thought maybe this was just me, and maybe everyone else had different experiences, but after talking to many residents from Cerritos, Artesia, and other surrounding cities most had similar experiences on Halloween."

I live in one of the safest cities in America. It's extremely clean, too. And no one trick-or-treats. The significant other and I did up our entry way and had candy on hand for 3 years running before we just gave up.

It's the safest city partially because everyone is so afraid of everyone else. We've never known our neighbors and we've lived in this city for 13 years. Neighbors just come and go. It's "nice", but it's weird, too.

So, to answer the question, we're doing nothing special. We'll likely have some wine, watch a movie, and spend some time in Norrath.

Frozen.

A chore? How do YOU install new Firefox releases? All I do is go to Help->About Firefox->Check for Updates->Install.

It's not exactly spring cleaning.

This article is very, very typical of someone who knows enough about cycling to ask questions, but not enough to answer them. I work in the transportation industry. I live car-free. I teach bicycle education. I work with regional transportation agencies, police departments, city planners/councils, and universities to facilitate the use of non-driver-only transportation.

The title of the article should be more direct to the reader: "How Likely Am I to be Injured While Riding My Bike?" That's what people want to know, after all. "How likely am *I* to be hurt?" Most people are concerned with the risks associated with bike commuting or running errands on two-wheels, so let's focus on that. So, let's omit all recreational mountain biking and all competitive (and "training") rides from the data for now. Next, we must differentiate between collisions and solo falls. Most importantly, differentiate between those who have received official bicycle education and those who have not.

Make all those controls and you'll find that an educated cyclist riding on a road where the average speed is 40mph or lower with a small variety of visibility tactics will have an injury only very rarely. And it will likely be due to environmental hazards.

A preferred list of questions for every bike injury logged:

Has the injured bicyclist received bicycle-specific education? (League of American Bicyclists Traffic Skills 101, Cycle Savvy, Other)

Why kind of riding prompted the injury?
Recreation Paved (roadways, sidewalks, off-street paths)
Recreation Off-Road (dirt, etc.)
Recreation Mixed Terrain (Bike Touring)
Competitive Paved (including training)
Competitive Off-Road (including training)
Utility Paved (Commuting, Errands)
Utility Off-Road

What caused the injury to the cyclist?
Collision (automobile)
Collision (bicycle)
Collision (pedestrian)
Collision (animal)
Collision (mixed)
Solo-Fall (road condition)
Solo-Fall (other)
Strain/Sprain/Other Condition (torn ligament, seizure, etc.)

Which visibility tactics/items were implemented by the bicyclist?
Central/Left of Center Lane Position
High Visibility Colors
All Legally Required Reflectors
Reflectivity Beyond Requirements
Tail Light
Headlight ("see me")
Headlight ("see you")

Which of the following faults were performed by the cyclist?
Neglect to Yield to Right of Way
Inappropriate Lane Position
Travel Against Traffic
Speeding
Other
None

Which of the following faults were performed by others involved?
Neglect to Yield to Right of Way
Inappropriate Lane Position
Travel Against Traffic
Speeding
Other
None

Where did the injury take place?
On-Road, in an intersection
On-Road, within 200 feet of an intersection
On-Road, 200 feet or farther from an intersection
Off-Road
On a Sidewalk
On an Off-Street Path

What is the average speed on the road at the point of injury?
5-20
21-40
41+