Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: trickle down economics (Score 1) 223

Schools should not be funded with property taxes. That system was designed to keep the money in their own neighborhood, and jack the poorer who don't get to live there.

Poorer districts take EVERYone, including the hot messes, while the uber-schools firstly are located in districts without a lot of poor people and the mess that goes with it. So it costs more to educate EVERYone, instead of the select who live in a special neighborhood. The rich are not heroes. They made this system with the purpose of keeping out the poor - and so made inevitable the tsunami of the poor we see today. Concentrate the bad in hot zones, eliminate the jobs, shut down the factories, refuse to lend money to buy homes, and gosh, fifty years later the country is exploding with the stupid and the angry. Who knew?

Comment: Re:trickle down economics (Score 1) 223

The rich possess an all-consuming rage that people are paid too much for labor, hence their fierce concentration on destroying the teachers' unions. It's nearly impossible to discuss education in the US without talk of the bad, paid-too-much teachers, which must be replaced with corporate employees half the price who quietly have to get food stamps to survive.

The teachers in the poorly-performing schools are big damned heroes. They face the fallout of our rage against the poor and dark and any employee who uses collective bargaining to be paid enough to buy a home. They go to school and face the mess that suburban white flight caused, while being condemnded as lazy idiots who can't teach. The students are n-generation washouts, and will only get worse, because that's how America's race dynamics and school funding works. We're unique among nations in our two-level school system, and that's because slavery never really ended. We made this mess, not the teachers.

Comment: Re:trickle down economics (Score 1) 223

As with many things, the solution is obvious. As you say, fund all students equally, from general revenue, ideally Federal as the Constitution requires schools, instead of local property tax revenue. Schools would be flatly equal (other than the usual overclass bunching up in their own enclaves to keep out the poor and dark), rather than the ton spent on the students in the rich areas from local levies and the federal and state underfunding the poor schools, which of course leads to the "failure" of the average test scores we see (richer areas have high scores, poor dead flat ruined, and the "average" drops).

Schools work fine. We just concentrate wealth on some schools and let everyone else go to hell, in the name of freedom. Whose freedom is the question.

This is the fallout of slavery, and lately of quietly letting the country fill up with illegal immigrants to keep wages down. In essence, we've been screwed for over 300 years because businessmen wanted to pay zero to almost zero wages and keep the profits.

Comment: Re:summary as i understand it: (Score 1) 403

by Catbeller (#49629429) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

No, fraud would be publishing results that are not valid and claiming that they are. Right now, they are experimenting, and will continue to do so until they have something to publish. You are free to speculate on experimentation you have no access to, but your judgement is ill-advised and unwarranted. No one is claiming anything. All the noise is from non-scientists trying to be scientists and getting it wrong.

Comment: Re:summary as i understand it: (Score 1) 403

by Catbeller (#49629391) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

1. No.
2. Maybe.

And the author of the article is confusing two different experiments, the EMDrive tests and the Cannae drive investigation, so just discount the entire idiot debate. It all comes from wrong premises. Like the cold fusion debacle, it's mostly about high school lunch table character assassinaton and little about science. The cold fusion mess of the 80s was about a secretive experiment and scientists trying to cash in, not the science. Cold fusion by chemical bond compression is a possiblity, just not realized in experimentation, and it is a damned shame no one can go near it now because of the nattering childishness of human tribal shaming.

Comment: Re:Article asks an important question (Score 1) 403

by Catbeller (#49629241) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

The did mount it and move it in any direction to see if it worked. It did. Per the results. Also eliminated magnetic interference, microwave heating of the chamber to produce ions from the lining, thermal effects, and anything else they could think of. Ain't their first rodeo. There may be something no one thought of, and they are aware of that. They are well aware also that messing this up would ruin them. We are reacting to unpublished experimental results, aren't we?

Comment: Re:Bad title (Score 1) 403

by Catbeller (#49629187) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

People are listening to other people lose their shit, and then losing their shit, leading to even more shit losing. Sort of like the cold fusion meltdown, or the idiocy surrounding the "failure" of Biosphere 2. No one listens to the actual experimenters - they just jump into the echo chamber. Like high school, really, if you consider high school as a true representation of how humans interact when the brakes are off. Scarey that scientists act like kids jumping the nerd in the locker room.

Comment: Re:One Criterion Missing (Score 1) 403

by Catbeller (#49628823) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

The scientists involved are well aware of the need for controls, and are eliminating the factors as you indicate. When they are done, they will publish.
New science is not always required if something odd is noticed. Sometimes it comes down to a loophole no one thought of before. Even a loophole that never existed in the universe until bags of carbon, water and minerals twiddled things around a bit. Interferometric telescopy, for instance; when I was a wee sprite, they were talking about the impossibility of super large mirrors to observe planets around other stars. Then someone said, why not put two scopes far from each other and combine the images? No new physics, just a tweak. Gravitational lensing is another; took advantage of a loophole.

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -- William James

Working...