I'm 31, have lived in Southern California my whole life, and have yet to get a driver's license let alone a personal auto.

It weirds some people out and they just can't believe it's possible.

You and I, I think, have a similar opinion, but I don't think we agree on the root problem. We both think that schools are not performing to our expectations, but you seem to think it's because teachers want to teach poorly. I assert that many teachers must teach poorly (rote memorization, teaching to the test) because they have too much to do in such little time with very high expectations. They're not conflicting opinions, but related.

You'd be surprised just how many teachers **don't like** teaching to the test but are required to do so to preserve school funding, to cement certain check boxes in their yearly reviews, and to make sure their students aren't dropped into "lesser performing" classes in the following year. Most teachers would love to have free reign over their curriculum, but when they find a fantastic topic or method to use in their classes, they often look to the standards and have to say, "Well this would be nice, but it doesn't meet the curriculum standards. Maybe we can squeeze it in after the testing in May."

They teach to the test because we (adults) don't like paying taxes but expect education to be uniform, efficient, and ever-increasing measurable performance-- just like on a factory floor.

But those are words (efficiency, performance) best used in manufacturingâ"a system of creation or development that takes uniform resources and assembles them into new uniform products. Manufacturing allows for performance and efficiency measurements because the same processes occur time and time again with a single expected outcome being a benchmark.

Education, however, requires teachers take materials (students) of severely different qualities, origins, and properties, treat them equally (apply curriculum) in batches, measure reactions, re-treat them as necessary, and pass on whatever the resulting product may be to the next teacher. The next teacher must assume that the product has been treated to specifications, but if the product has not been treated appropriately (or if the product did not take to the treatment as expected) the teacher must re-apply treatment yet again while, or before, applying his/her own treatment.

How is that possible with minimal resources? Well, you teach to the test, of course.

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.