This is very sad indeed. As someone who was able to benefit from being in several gifted schools, I can definitely attest to the usefulness of such programs. The fact that these are among the first areas cut in order to divert money to the lowest-performing students infuriates me. It's the same in my district, with my daughter.

likewise. I learned cursive and was forced to use it all through middle school. I switched right back to printing as soon as I was able and all of my written notes all through college were printed. I haven't written cursive in, well, damn. I don't even remember. So yeah, nothing of value lost.

On 4chan, I believe the phrase is "tits or GTFO". Succinct and to the point.

This was indeed a big problem for me. I finally found one for my daughter but I am not in the habit of advertising on ./ so I won't name names.

The curriculum is very thorough, it's completely secular, heavy on research/writing assignments, math, and science, which is exactly what she wanted. The only thing I noticed was that her tutor offered to let her skip the section on Darwin and evolution because "it's a theory that has been proven wrong many, many times." However, it was just the instructors opinion and the Darwin segment of her biology studies was completely free of any mention of intelligent design or the like. So I simply chalked it up to it being both her opinion and her fear of offending religious wackos that have a problem with their kids learning science.

There, fixed that for ya.

Gonna call bullshit on this one. Exactly which life-skills do you need that can only be obtained in school?

Exactly. Many homeschool kids are very outgoing, gregarious, self-confident, and eager to speak their mind. This is because they haven't had to endure years of soul-crushing social conditioning in which they learn that differing opinions are mocked and intelligence is best kept hidden for fear of being too "nerdy". People in society are not used to seeing self-confident children and say, "Oh look, that kid is strange because he is able to articulate what he is thinking."

I just don't understand why we worship sports stars while we ridicule science and intelligence.

Mod parent insightful.

My 14 year old daughter realized on her own that as far as education goes, high school is completely useless. She begged us for months to allow her to homeschool and presented quite a few well-thought and well-researched arguments. Her mind is set on medical school with a determination that is astonishing to me, and she insists that there is no way she will get the education she needs in public school.

In the end, I could really only find one argument *against* homeschooling, and that is the whole 'social awkwardness' thing, where you are perceived to be some sort of weirdo because you don't go to parties on the weekends and do all of the other typical high school bullshit. But she still has a ton of friends that she talks to and there is no social problem there. After 4 months of a combination of internet homeschooling and private tutoring, she is probably half a year ahead of her classmates already, not to mention the fact that she is so much happier and easier to be around because she's not constantly frustrated by some high school drama.

Maybe if you never allow your kids the opportunity to experience public schools, they might grow up and resent you for having "robbed" them of the chance to go to school like a "normal" person. But for anyone who has experienced the hellish den of conformity and social conditioning that is public schooling, the opportunity to learn at home, at your own pace, is a fantastic idea. I wish I had had the opportunity.

I'd like to hear the anti-homeschool argument again. Pros: pretty much everything, if done correctly and you've already allowed your kid to socialize properly and build a group of friends with which she can maintain contact and socialize. Cons: um, nothing?

From the article:

No friggin' way. Marriott got hacked by Attila the Hun? Really? You can't make this stuff up.

Ok, let's get technical then.

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.


In purely mathematical terms, 1+1=2.

modded +2 informative. Welcome to slashdot. :)

Ah, no. The concept of 1+1=2 is an assumption, and that is Peano's opinion to boot. The underlying logic, that taking one instance of an object and another instance of an object and combining them together yields two instances of that object, is a fact. 1+1=2 is just the symbolism we use to represent that.

I don't follow this logic.

Let's take an irrefutable fact, such as 2+2=4. In the abstract, it doesn't matter if I'm talking about the theory of the math behind it, the symbolism of using numbers to represent concepts or actual objects, or the like. 2+2=4, simple as that. If I have two apples, and two more apples, I have 4 apples. So 2+2=4, and that's a fact.

Since I wrote it down, is it now my opinion? That would mean that, somewhere out there, someone has an equally valid but differing opinion on the matter, such as 2+2=potato. I don't buy that at all.

Facts are irrefutable, that is the nature of a fact.

This is a valid point, and not just for the space travel field.

The medical field is always evolving and learning new and improved methods, but is also rife with error. Look at the malpractice numbers for any state for any given year and they number in the thousands or tens of thousands. If even a small percentage of these result in a death, then we are easily 14 many times over. Just because someone dies quietly on an operating table instead of a spectacular fireball, doesn't make their death any less relevant.

I'd say 17 lives lost in 50 years is a stellar accomplishment, considering what we've achieved. Should the Challenger have flown that morning? Of course not. But NASA (hopefully) learned their lesson and an incident like that will never, ever happen again. Americans need to inure themselves to this sort of tragic loss for the sake of science and exploration, or they will be eclipsed by countries such as China, India, and Russia, that are willing to take those risks. The astronauts and explorers who do this sort of thing know what they are getting into. They weigh the possibility of dying on one hand with the possibility of being forever immortalized in the annals of history on the other. People have done that since the beginning of time, or we'd all still be huddling around campfires on a prairie somewhere.

Not to mention market saturation. In all seriousness, how many linux distributions is "too many"?