My issue is mostly that there's a lot of seeing the forest for the trees and injecting modern politics into history in a confusing way. When teaching about the triangular trade, the specific aspects of life of "the workers" may not be quite as important as the flow of money and goods. It's important to understand how the economy worked and what a balance sheet might have looked like. The focus should have been on economics. It should be pretty dry, but it should be immediately clear how very profitable this all was. Slavery paid for that, absolutely, and that would be clear in studying the balance sheet. The most important things to note I think, is who revolted. The slaves? No. The colonists first. Then the plantation owners. For some reason these guys were most upset. I think studying the balance sheet is the answer, along with some human nature (i.e. those who stand to lose fight first, those who seek to gain may not fight).
We want to focus on slavery because it is morally repugnant today (and many back then thought so too, but didn't take it up...because of that balance sheet). But in terms of hitting the high points of US history for junior high or high school? It wasn't really the most important thing to understand in great detail immediately. The bill for the slaves came due in the mid-20th century. Talking about slavery is historically more important, I think, when talking about more recent US history. Just where did all these black people come from and why are they pissed off? Ah, now we should talk about who paid for the triangular trade and what the cost of that cheap labor really was. If nothing else, our children should be taught that actions have consequences and that nothing is free, even if it doesn't complain immediately. We can then let them participate in politics on indentured servants (H-1B, etc.), and our economic relationship with China and why it is like it is and just who is likely to fight if we don't manage that relationship carefully...
This is fought tooth and nail by big teacher union big government types to like to spout memes like hey you selfish jerk with privilege
No, others disagree too. Primarily we take the funding away form the public school, then also add our own private money, and send our kid to a better funded school. Great for those of us who can afford it, very bad for those who cannot afford it. Generally speaking I think public schools have been a tremendous success, so I don't want to see that system dismantled.
What we're failing at is delivering a very high quality education to more capable children, and losing our superstars to mediocrity.
I know at least 3 children (including my next door neighbor's child) who left public schools for affordable private alternatives and returned 3 or 4 years later. These children ended up way behind the students who stayed in public schools.
The reality is that there are a few really good private schools that most middle-class families can't afford (unless your child is exceptional, can demonstrate it on paper, and would be considered an asset to the school to offset the rich-but-dumb kids), and a whole lot of "schools" that will take your money but offer very little. They won't even kick out losers, which is really the best reason private schools exist.
Texas public schools are terrible, but the text books aren't even the worst part. Saddest, Texas public schools aren't even close to the worst they're pretty good by red state standards.
He watched a few episodes of "Law and Order" and since McCoy once managed some form of spiritual victory, so he thinks he can pull it off.
I think a) he should have avoided NASCAR in general because it has connotations, and just said "people watch too much sports and not enough science" (probably true), and not necessarily insulting a particular demographic, except the exact one he wanted to insult and b) his point is probably that it's an absolutely pointless, valueless diversion and not about advancing human knowledge or ability...it's about a bunch of guys trying to beat each other on a race track to no good end. However much science or engineering they apply to it, appears to be for no useful purpose. That's the definition of a sport really, although a harder point to defend is that nothing good can come out of it.
Basically, he thinks we fuck off too much and spend too much money on it. Which I think is probably a fact, although unprovable. I think we would definitely be better off if people's diversions had at least a pretense of being constructive... but I think this message is lost on an audience that is never going to get it or contribute anyway.
You forgot to mention the precise angles of left turns the vehicles can make.
It would have been exciting is Microsoft Visual C was open sourced, and we can once and for all end the tyranny of that wretched piece of shit and bring it in line with other build tools used everywhere else. I am tired of all the hoops I have to jump through to make code that compiles on linux (clang and gcc), os x (clang) and cygwin (gcc) compile under msvc, and I'm not even talking about the lack of posix support. That would make me hate microsoft a little less.
But no this is some silly editor I never heard of that doesn't have to do with the price of tea in china. This is creating a problem to a solution I did not have a problem for.
for a measly $10 account credit?
In the Microsoft store. Not a thing in there anyone wants, I don't think I've ever seen anyone in there but employees.
At least give em a starbucks gift card or something that has street value.
All such opinions are subjective, until the point we can directly examine customer neurons in action, or at least have objective surveys
No, I am agreeing with you, thus sentence should have been deleted from TFS, even TFA: Open source programmers can usually build better code faster, often because they have bosses who pay them to build something that will pay off next quarter, not next century.
Not because they are opinions, because it is senseless for the objective of the summary and article and distracts the reader with a highly objectionable and contentious statement that is not relevant to the primary value of the article: good university projects that are succeeding in spite of academia's focus on the upper levels of the ivory tower. If you are going to make a statement like that, you can't just leave it in there like a big turd, you have to defend it.
Also I'm talking about code, I won't argue with you on UIs or user experience in general. open source does not do that well. And if you want a design-in, or build a platform around open source, you better be ready to pay money. OSS devs will fix bugs they recognize (i.e. they see as their problem, not as your problem) and if they need to re-architect and change the plumbing & API it will be done, so you better have someone on the line to keep your platform up to date. Academia may or may not do this for you, depending on the size of your project and how interesting it is to the staff.
That entire sentence should have been deleted. It is senseless and highly subject to point of view. In my opinion (doing this for a living, in several different corporations), the absolute worst code is proprietary corporate generated code: from bosses who want something that works next month and doesn't give a shit about next year. Even bad open source, by comparison, is frequently better.
That'll make for some angry birds.
You don't even have to pick the phone up anymore. The average person has no fewer than 4 recording devices (two with video) within 6' of him while he's at home, and 0 true "off" buttons.
Only if black.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer