Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:There is only one goal (Score 1) 555

This argument has always been the stupidest one by the anti-gun crowd. (And is really one of the dumbest studies ever funded)

"Having guns in your home makes you more likely to be shot"

You don't say!?! Thank you Captain Obvious!

In other news, having a car makes you more likely to die in a car accident. Having electricity makes you far more likely to get electrocuted, and eating food makes you more likely to be poisoned.

Comment Re:Already accomplishing (Score 2) 388

"You make it sound as though "liberty minded people" is some sort of code word for fascist."

Now days it _is_ 'code' for fascist, or for anti-government, or white militia, etc.

Anyone who even mentions Thomas Jefferson is one step away from being a racist, gun-toting, extremist radical according to the BBC.

Comment Re:You can't tell who the responsible buyers are (Score 1) 633

"Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever. I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens"

Actually, it happens multiple times every day. The thing is, unless someone actually dies or gets arrested, it doesn't make the evening news. And if nobody is hurt and the bad guy runs away, most people don't go calling the cops after the event is over and done, there's no point.

This is one from last night...

Comment Re:Different demographics (Score 2) 633

Unfortunately there have been 5 deaths hunting in Wisconsin this year.

3 of which have been during deer season:
One, a woman didn't unload her firearm before passing it up to her boyfriend in a tree stand (gun safety 101)
The other two were self-inflicted accidents of some sort, seemingly unsafe handling.

More hunters died from heart attacks and car accidents though.

Comment Re:Oh the Irony..... (Score 1, Insightful) 735

" Look no Western country allows to carry around guns and buy guns that easily."

And neither do most Eastern countries, or Southern countries, or Northern countries, etc. Yet many of them have murder rates far higher than the US.

The fact that you rely on some assumption that 'Western' countries are more moral/advanced/civil/whatever is bigoted to begin with, but it also torpedoes your argument that guns are the problem. Social structures and living conditions shouldn't matter if guns are the root cause of violence. Russia is on-par with the US in regards to technology, has strict firearm ownership restrictions, and the murder rate is 4x higher. Gun problem or people problem?

Additionally, randomly picking France or some other 'Western' country that is the size of Minnesota and has 1/8th the US population is simple cherry-picking. If you take all of Europe from Portugal to Moscow, which is far more equivalent to the size, population, and geographic disparities of the US, as well as income and education variations, the murder rates are far closer despite firearm ownership being so much less so as to be statistically none in comparison.

"And you have a mass shooting almost every day"

Only by a measure which includes 'shootings' in which nobody was killed, and the vast majority is gang violence in the inner city.

"Your ignorance (as a country) will be your undoing."

For most Americans (those born 1960 or later) it's never been safer. There are 10,000 less murders a year than 20 or 30 years ago. The murder rate is lower or equal to what it was in 1960. Rapes are down, assaults are down, etc.

You can't say the same for Europe. The incidence of rapes, assaults, hate-crimes, etc are all higher than the US. Now you have a refugee problem, how's that working out for Europe these days?

Comment So, Donald Trump had a good idea? (Score 4, Interesting) 69

The article below this one is full of 'Trump is an idiot' (and he is), but here in the next article we talk about using AI to cull posts.

'Closing up the internet in some way' would be akin to spotting and censoring a group of people's comments, yes? Effectively limiting their internet use, yes?

Potatoes, Potatos.

Comment Re:Free speech and private companies. (Score 1) 319

"Free speech concerns do not apply to private companies, and in fact forcing a company to carry some speech it does not want to carry would be a violation of its rights too"

It really should though, if the company in question gets a large percentage of their revenue from government.

personally I'm all more making the First Amendment viral in that sense - get government money, have to follow constitutional restrictions and/or allow for constitutional rights.

Comment Re:20 hours? That's nothing. (Score 1) 278

"It's pretty obvious you don't understand how pervasive the test material stuff has "infected" everyday teaching in many states.

You're talking about a different phenomenon of actual cheating on tests where teachers give students answers (or something close to it). That's not the kind of preparation that goes on in most classrooms."

Actually, I do, and that is exactly the 'prep' that is going. My father taught 5th grade for 30 years and I watched and listened how things changed over the years - and his complaints that his kids still did better than the teachers that broke open the packages and copied the tests, but the admins didn't give a shit. As a college instructor, I'm well aware that the kids haven't even learned to follow the most basic directions like where to put their name on their paper. With respect to you, most of the high-school and elementary students have been failing in their job because they'd rather be the 'cool' teacher than the 'tough' teacher. While part of that is because the ability to discipline was stripped from them, it's not all.

"In many states, the standardized tests are derived from state-approved "standards" that spell out specific exercise types which are likely to occur (particularly in basic subjects like math and reading). Teachers who have any experience with these tests over the years notice certain patterns of the types of questions that always show up. (This isn't just for normal "standardized testing" -- it goes for AP tests and such as well. When I taught AP physics, there were all sorts of "lore" passed down among AP teachers because all the previous tests were available, so you knew there was likely to be a question dealing with X, a question on topic Y would probably take a certain form, etc.)"

This is actually nothing new. There was always 'lore' about what was going to be on the test, why do you think the old question "A car is going 90 miles an hour one way..." was basically a meme from the 50s/60s/70s/80s? There were always, and are always going to be specific types of questions because those are relevant constructions of relevant knowledge. The point was always to SHOW YOUR WORK. (In a multiple choice, the answers to choose from were always so close that you needed to be right, not fudging, to get the question correct).

"For example, a disproportionate number (95%+) of math problems involving right triangles would involve either (1) the Pythagorean triple 3,4,5 or its multiples, or (2) the triple 5,12,13. (It's possible that 8,15,17 could show up too maybe... but I think it was just the first two which were common.)"

You seem to think that this is somehow new. The GRE and SAT doesn't go much farther (if at all) than this either. They're just testing to see if you know the theory and can apply it at it's basic level. Perhaps a math instructor's opinion of 'deep knowledge' is a bit more expecting.

Beyond math, reading comprehension is reading comprehension. You can't really 'boost' it without practicing, so that's again a moot issue.

There are issues with some of these new ways to do old problems - reinventing the wheel is always a stupid undertaking - but otherwise most of the problem is new teachers thinking the old ways need changing because of problematic social outcomes. It was never the ways of teaching, it was the teachers (and admin)

Comment Re:20 hours? That's nothing. (Score 0) 278

There shouldn't be any 'prepping'

If they're teaching to the test, it's corruption and fraud. They shouldn't know what's on it, and they sign agreements not to open/look at the tests in advance.

These are general knowledge tests, if the kids don't know who George Washington is, or that Germany is in Europe, then the teachings arn't doing their fucking job.

Slashdot Top Deals

Egotist: A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me. -- Ambrose Bierce