Hence banning mobile phones may be not the cause of the better results. Correlation is not causation. Causation needs specific, strong supporting evidence.
Who cared more? This was studied in schools that changed their policies, not a comparison between schools that had the ban and those that didn't. From TFP: "We compare the gains in test scores across and within schools before and after mobile phone bans are introduced. "
Um, they do have lockers in NYC don't they? Wouldn't that be logical place to store a phone?
Yes, but they are generally INSIDE the school, past the metal detectors. The old rule banned the phones on school grounds period. They were not allowed in the door.
Then seriously have the phone locked up at the front office or something. What they should be doing is making the ability to store the phone during school hours more equal, rather than just giving in and allowing them to be carried during the day.
It will be up to each school to determine their own rules. If they don't, then a set of default rules will be used (phones put away during class, can be used during lunch, etc. It's in the article in TFA I believe).
If that's really what lifting the ban does, then I'm fine with it. I just don't see how allowing phones will accomplish this (ie - I have an iPhone 6 and you're stuck with a hand-me-down MicroTac).
Lower-income schools tend to have more security such as metal detectors and bag searches in NYC. This caused an odd business to pop into existence where students would pay private businesses (usually vans that stopped outside the schools in the mornings and afternoons) to store the phones during the day. Public schools in more affluent areas don't have these security measures, so students there could get away with just carrying the devices into the school. Keep in mind a lot of kids walk to school in NYC so the worse the neighborhood, the more you probably want your kid to have a phone to call home in case of emergency, and yet due to the increased school security and the blanket ban on cell phones, they are more likely to be the ones forced to either not do so or pay for storage during the day.
If you have a 10 year old washing machine, the likelihood is that a new one will pay itself back in energy + water savings in a few years. The efficiency improvements in white goods over the last decade have been astounding.
Depends. In 2005 HE front loaders were all the rage. My 2006 washer & dryer are still up to snuff when compared to the efficiency of most of the stuff on the market today. They have also almost worked flawlessly for the 9 years I've owned them. Had to replace a thermostat on the dryer a few years back but still, $20 in maintenance over 9 years isn't bad.
Looking at the latest from the same manufacturer at the same size/feature/pricepoint it would actually use a tiny bit less water and more power per cycle than my current washer. Dryer is almost the same power use (off by a few watts). So it would actually cost me money to get something new.
It's funny, when you reach a certain age your concept of things like "last decade" gets subconsciously stuck on a certain time period. For me it's the 90's. I have to remind myself sometimes that it's the 2010's and not the 2000's anymore. Just one of those things that's not in the manual
But the blood in your brain will keep you alive another 5-7 seconds of agonizing pain as you watch your headless body slump to the floor. Not exactly humane.
As far as I'm aware no one has ever mentioned any pain from being guillotined.
Seriously, 4k is already overkill in most situations. 8k is just fetishism. And it may well be worse, as all those pixels have to be controlled somehow.
Seriously. No PC users needs a resolution above 1024x768!
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis
