Rev You are putting too much effort into this answer.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac May 25, 2006 9:14 AM EDT |
Rev -- The old Marine bulldog in you is working too hard. The right answer is: I don't have a position on OpenXML because OpenXML doesn't matter. Microsoft was, and, I believe, still is, a member of the group that defined and refined ODF. As I understand things, they haven't been a very active member. Perhaps they gambled that Microsoft's market power would make ODF irrelevant. They are free to do that. There is a funny thing, however, about ISO standards. The world tends to embrace them and not let go. We seem to be on the verge of reaching that point, if we haven't alrready, with ODF. Once that happens, it will not matter how good, bad, or ugly OpenXML is. It could be so much better than ODF that tears flow for the terrible mistake that has been made in adapting ODF. Won't matter any more than the superiority of some all-new RedMondttp over http. The world uses what the world uses. |
| jimf May 25, 2006 11:01 AM EDT |
> As I understand things, they haven't been a very active member Doesn't matter, they were given the opportunity to contribute/change. If they failed to act on that , well, tough tacos... > about ISO standards. The world tends to embrace them and not let go. You got it. Once you've got an ISO accepted, OpenXML is just another 'also ran'. |
| dinotrac May 25, 2006 11:31 AM EDT |
jimf: >Doesn't matter, they were given the opportunity to contribute/change. > If they failed to act on that , well, tough tacos... Absolutely. Although...I don't appreciate your maligning tacos. Touch s -- oh wait! This is a mildly somewhat leaning a bit in the direction of being a family friendly, presuming a seriously dysfunctional family, site. |
| dek May 25, 2006 12:37 PM EDT |
I tend to agree that Mr Parris is putting a lot of effort and "shining a great light" on a subject that Mr. Titch may not want a lot of light on. I have enjoyed the debate immensely!! What Mr. Titch is trying to do is obfuscate the debate by bringing up spurious objections amd he will continue to do that (or some other M$ flunky will start up a whole new thread). I do not anticipate that Mr. Titch will ever admit to being wrong headed. He will probably fade away into the dusty corridors of those who have traveled the same path before him. Thanks, Mr. Parris!! Your efforts are appreciated. Don K. |
| dcparris May 25, 2006 12:41 PM EDT |
> The old Marine bulldog in you is working too hard. Ahhh... You're probably right about that. It really is pretty simple. Microsoft was asked to offer an open standard. They refused. Massachusetts chose another standard, which hurt Microsoft's feelings. Microsoft told a bunch of lies to get everyone to think that the real issue is "open source procurement" - whatever the heck that is. I've never procured a source - is that anything like curing a sow? Anyway, Microsoft wants their non-standard format(s) to become *the* standard, so they can continue locking competitors out and customers in. |
| tuxchick2 May 25, 2006 12:41 PM EDT |
I agree with Dek. You sure don't see any debunking of this nonsense happening in the mainstream press, do you. |
| jimf May 25, 2006 12:47 PM EDT |
dino, I love tacos, just not the tough ones. Apparently those at MS don't treat them right. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 25, 2006 1:04 PM EDT |
The mainstream press has been useless for anything resembling news for a long time. They report what they are told to report, we know it, they know it, the people who tell them what to report know it. For my part, I hope the old Marine boots still fit and if they do then kick him while he's down Don! Kick Hard! |
| jdixon May 25, 2006 1:29 PM EDT |
> You sure don't see any debunking of this nonsense happening in the mainstream press, do you. > The mainstream press has been useless for anything resembling news for a long time. They report what they are told to report, Even if the mainstream press could be trusted to cover the subject, most of them don't understand technology well enough to do so. :( |
| Scott_Ruecker May 25, 2006 5:08 PM EDT |
jdixon: Your right, all it takes to be a news authority is good looks. Not good brains. You realize that in a half hour news program they spend more time on famous people, telling you what they are going to tell you and commercials than anything 'news' related. It makes me sick to think that most of this planet gets its 'news' from the T.V. There is less than ten minutes of 'news' in just about any news program, regardless of how long it is. |
| gemlog May 25, 2006 9:55 PM EDT |
>jdixon: Your right, all it takes to be a news authority is good looks. Not good >brains. In my youth (I mean very young) I perceived that parent, teacher, policeman, politicians, journalists etc. were all 'good'. Probably because I imagined they held some fiduciary responsibility towards me. This is just not how it works. In the particular case of 'The News' their job is *not* to inform or report. Their job is simply to gather eyeballs for the ads. Period. Point final. Print or video -- the medium doesn't matter, it's the same economics. Just give the appearance of doing the job. Heck, sometimes they do it by accident. News is entertainment. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 26, 2006 4:01 AM EDT |
You absolutely right. News is there only to focus your attention long enough to make it through the ads that come before and after they tell you what they are going to tell you. Because you really don't want to miss what's coming up, trust us. Its important! Really, its about someone famous even! |
| dcparris May 26, 2006 6:05 AM EDT |
JDixon:
> Your right, all it takes to be a news authority is good looks. Not good brains. I'm in BIG trouble then. Exit! Stage Right, even! Off to submit my resumes elsewhere... Scott: >You absolutely right. News is there only to focus your attention long enough to make it through the ads that come before and after they tell you what they are going to tell you. Don't forget the ever important analysis as well. After they finish telling us what they are going to tell us, they have to tell us what it means because we are too stupid to figure out what they told us. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 26, 2006 6:35 AM EDT |
Touche! Don! I forgot about that, I usually have the ice-pick buried up to the hilt in my temple by that point. I only watch T.V. when I am feeling despondent and want to off myself..:-) It doesn't work though, I just get mad and walk away. |
| dcparris May 26, 2006 7:26 AM EDT |
> I only watch T.V. when I am feeling despondent and want to off myself..:-) What's T.V.? Is that anything like STD? If so, I sure don't want it. Actually, my parents have told me my Kindergarten teacher thought something was wrong with me because I had no clue who the Sesame Street characters were. We did not own a T.V. at the time, and all I really know is that my parents bought a T.V. pronto. Little did anyone realize my teacher was onto something. ;-) |
| Scott_Ruecker May 26, 2006 9:18 AM EDT |
For all intents and purposes I quit watching T.V. about four years ago and that alone has done more to separate me from society than anything else I have done. |
| dinotrac May 26, 2006 9:45 AM EDT |
Scott: Wow! And I thought we were being radical for refusing to get cable! |
| tuxchick2 May 26, 2006 9:49 AM EDT |
Don, I think there is a typo in "Little did anyone realize my teacher was onto something." I think you meant "Little did anyone realize my teacher was on something." |
| jdixon May 26, 2006 10:00 AM EDT |
> I quit watching T.V. about four years ago... Yeah, I pretty much quit watching anything but the Sci-Fi and Cartoon networks several years ago, and we dropped them this spring, so we're effectively off TV. We can still get anything that's in the clear on C-Band, but that's it. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 26, 2006 10:09 AM EDT |
I seriously have a hard time talking to family even! All anyone ever talks about is what they watched on T.V.!! AAAHHHH!! OK, I'm better. Its had its affect on my 'prospects' as well, if you know what I mean. How can I date someone who has never read any books! How? What would we have in common? AAAHHH!!! Sorry :-) |
| tuxchick2 May 26, 2006 10:36 AM EDT |
Books?? How quaint. Haven't they all been ported to podcasts yet? |
| Scott_Ruecker May 26, 2006 11:14 AM EDT |
Your KILLIN' me! Books on poscast? What's a Podcast? ;-) "hee hee, I don't like to read" - every girl I meet. |
| jimf May 26, 2006 11:30 AM EDT |
You know Scott, 'Podcast'.... Like the alien seeds that fall from the sky. Then everyone starts to change into podpeople. And when they point at you, better run, or you'll become one too... Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.... Oh... you mean the're just a MAC storeage device?.... But the're all pointing...... Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.... |
| dcparris May 26, 2006 12:13 PM EDT |
Books?? How quaint. Haven't they all been ported to podcasts yet? Well, some are still only available as plain ASCII text. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 26, 2006 12:18 PM EDT |
All the people..have the white wires coming out of their ears...Eeeeeeeeeeeeee Why do they all dress cooler than me?...Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee thwap! I-POD, I-POD... |
| jdixon May 26, 2006 12:44 PM EDT |
> "hee hee, I don't like to read" - every girl I meet. My wife just is busy downloading various ebooks to her Nokia 770 as we speak. At last count, she had about 700 on it and another 300 ready to load. This amounts to approximately 1/5 of our existing library. Unfortunately, Scott, she's taken. :) |
| Scott_Ruecker May 26, 2006 1:09 PM EDT |
Its ok, they all are. I don't treat them bad enough to make up for the looks I don't have. :-) You gotta be a looker if your going treat them the way they like it. Like dirt, that is. Never let your son grow up to respect women, they don't like it when you think more of them than they think of themselves. :-( |
| tuxchick2 May 26, 2006 1:10 PM EDT |
Semi-literate Barbie says "reading is hard!" |
| dcparris May 26, 2006 2:19 PM EDT |
> Never let your son grow up to respect women, they don't like it when you think more of them than they think of themselves. :-( Women only thought they wanted panzies for hubbies. They still need us to be what we are - men. :-) I heard someone say Jim Belushi has a new book about men, kind of along those lines. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 26, 2006 2:29 PM EDT |
Sorry about the sleeve..Thank you Don, your right of course. So, any response yet? If you left it here you would be doing him a favor. In 1984 they were taking words out of the dictionary, but why bother when you can just give words multiple meanings. Just make any word you want mean anything you want. Like the word 'open' as a painfully easy example. :-) There's other words too, I just didn't feel like saying them. ;-) |
| dcparris May 26, 2006 3:25 PM EDT |
> So, any response yet? If you left it here you would be doing him a favor. You didn't see the new thread I started about that? He's supposed to revisit the issue next week. |
| Bob_Robertson May 27, 2006 12:07 PM EDT |
> Semi-literate Barbie says "reading is hard!" After seeing the thrice-damned ways the public schools pretend to teach reading, "Look-Say" for an example, anything short of "reading is impossible!" is a miracle. Some attribute this to a deliberate conspiracy to create a large, compliant worker/soldier class, with those few geniuses who escape the youth-prison camps intact used to provide scientific and infrastructure support for the rulers. |
| jdixon May 28, 2006 6:23 AM EDT |
> Some attribute this to a deliberate conspiracy to create a large, compliant worker/soldier class, with those few geniuses who escape the youth-prison camps intact used to provide scientific and infrastructure support for the rulers. Well, a review of the objectives of the founders of modern educational methods largely supports this view, though it can be more accurately stated as a laborer/manager division. I'm more inclined to attribute it the problems to normal government incompetence myself though. It was a mistake to ever let governments anywhere near the educational system. |
| dinotrac May 28, 2006 7:21 AM EDT |
jdixon: > It was a mistake to ever let governments anywhere near the educational system. I've always viewed it as six of one and half-dozen of the other. I've spent more money than I would like on private schools (and no, I am not rich -- we have suffered mightily to do it), but my middle daughter went to public school last year, and my youngest will go to public school next year. Fingers crossed. What has always amazed me is that the private schools we can find money for (as apposed to afford) don't have nearly the resources that the local public schools do, yet manage to exceed them in many aspects of education. The original idea -- public education being a local government responsibility -- always seemed best to me. The feds have a serious penchant for botching things, and the state isn't too far behind. Trouble, of course, is that some lack the resources to provide a decent education, and all American children should have that right. I consider it to be a truly Libertarian right: if each individual is to be held accountable for their own success, the fundamental tools to succeed must be made available. At any rate, I'm digressing into politics and there are far too many rights and wrongs for a forum like this. Suffice it say, if kids actually get well-educated, it's a good thing, no matter how they get there. |
| jimf May 28, 2006 7:22 AM EDT |
> Some attribute this to a deliberate conspiracy to create a large, compliant worker/soldier class, with those few geniuses who escape the youth-prison camps intact used to provide scientific and infrastructure support for the rulers. I've got to agree with this. > more accurately stated as a laborer/manager division. At that point, you're just dealing with semantics. |
| jdixon May 28, 2006 3:02 PM EDT |
> At that point, you're just dealing with semantics. Largely, yes. There's precious little difference between the two descriptions. |
| jdixon May 28, 2006 3:03 PM EDT |
> You gotta be a looker if your going treat them the way they like it. > Like dirt, that is. You don't read Vox Day by any chance, do you? :) |
| jdixon May 28, 2006 3:07 PM EDT |
> The original idea -- public education being a local government responsibility -- always seemed best to me. Agreed. The problem with the fed's getting involved is that they're going to wind up mandating the teaching of "big government is good for you". Which it demonstrably isn't. The same is largely true, though not as dangerous, at the state level. > if kids actually get well-educated, it's a good thing, no matter how they get there. Agreed. |
| dek May 28, 2006 5:41 PM EDT |
>Agreed. The problem with the fed's getting involved is that they're going to wind up mandating the teaching of "big government is good for you". Which it demonstrably isn't. I'm going to propose an "either or" question which kind of assumes a black and white answer. Which is worse for you: big business or big government? What I'm thinking is that if you have or allow big business then I think the corollary is that you need big governenet to keep it in check. Bush and Co are pushing for smaller government except in the area of military growth. What that means to me is there is no kind of a vision or will to keep big business (ie MS or big oil) from attempting to take over our life. Now. I realize I'm piggy backing this question on top of another question about education and the federal government but I think there are related issues. If it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people and not a government of the people, by the business and for the business (as it seems to be now) then how do we regulate businesses from taking over an aspect of our life with like say DRM? It's quite apparent that our government has no will to regulate business in that area of our life. How do we hold them accountable for the regulation of that if they don't have the power to do it? Similarly, historically the problem with education has been that some states put a lot of value on education and some didn't. How do you set minimum standards for education with out a strong central govenerment? Just throwing the question out there for you folks to think about. I think there are areas in which our government has sided with business and trampled all over people rights. At the same time, how do we force them to regulate that behavior if they don't have the power to do it? I realize this isn't typical fodder here on LXer and if you wish me to moderate this comment I will do that. Just let me know. Don K. |
| dinotrac May 28, 2006 5:59 PM EDT |
>I'm going to propose an "either or" question which kind of assumes a black and white answer. Which is worse for you: big business or big government? Apples and oranges. You can have big business with small government, you can have small business with large government. They operate in different spheres. Government has powers that business does not, most specifically the power to arrest you and throw you into jail. Democratic government tends to move slowly, and to require compromise. Not all bad with government, not always a good idea in business. The only businesses that thrive working like government tend to be monopolies. AT&T, once it shed its protected monopoly status, crapped all over itself. I still consider it the winner of "stupidest ad compaign ever": Those early ads that compared MCI with AT&T, that showed MCI was almost always cheaper. Right now, Big oil has a near stranglehold on much of the country's energy needs. However, the uptick in oil prices, if it continues, will shake a pile of alternative technologies -- some of them involving distributed generation -- out of the woodwork. It'll be like Detroit getting it's butt kicked in the 70s and 80s when the Japanese unleashed a flood of well-made and reasonably efficient vehicles into increasingly upscale market niches. Big business responds or it dies. Big government just gets fustier and more expensive. |
| jdixon May 28, 2006 6:52 PM EDT |
> Which is worse for you: big business or big government? Dino's response was excellent. However, I'll add another point. Without the incorporation rules granted business by government, most of the problems of big business go away. The primary ones of these being the limited liability of stockholders and the treatment of the business as an individual under the law. [The latter (IMNSHO) is major mistake. For starters, I don't think corporations should be allowed to own copyrights. Patents make far more sense, but even they can be argued, as can many other such "rights".] One of the greatest, and (as far as I know) almost never used, powers the govenment has over a business is the power to dissolve its incorporation. |
| jimf May 28, 2006 7:14 PM EDT |
> The primary ones of these being the limited liability of stockholders and the treatment of the business as an individual under the law. [The latter (IMNSHO) is major mistake. Whoever came up with that one should be shot... Probably the same idiot who thought that giving corporations the right to lobby made sense. |
| jdixon May 28, 2006 7:17 PM EDT |
> Whoever came up with that one should be shot... Probably the same idiot who thought that giving corporations the right to lobby made sense. Well, without the former, you don't get the latter. Freedom of speech only applies to individuals after all. I believe it was the same type of court decision that gave us software and business method patents. |
| dinotrac May 28, 2006 7:54 PM EDT |
jdixon - Sadly, my legal chops (to whatever extent I ever had them) have diminished over time, but there are some differences between a "person" -- which can be a corporation -- and a "natural person" -- which cannot. The example that comes most readily to mind is that a natural person can vote and receive a number of government benefits that a corporation cannot. Not to mention the fact that a corporation can dissolved with paperwork whereas a natural person requires strong acid. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 28, 2006 10:23 PM EDT |
jdixon: I can honestly say that until this very moment, I have not. Is it a magazine or is that someones name? As far as the education system conversation going on, here's my take. Our system of public education is at once a reaction to private and religious education that actually taught children to think and the idea that if everyone was educated the same way, it becomes much easier to control them. That issue aside, the real problem that education in any form has, is the inherent bias that any normal human has. It is impossible for a teacher to teach and not espouse his or her beliefs in some way. Please understand that I am pointing out a trait that all humans have. It is not a flaw but a part of the human condition. The 'problem' is that there are very few people involved in the process of deciding what biases are permissible and which are not. Once the 'few' who are always in power were able to mandate what is to be taught, it was all over. Another problem is who is ultimately responsible for the child's education. As an undergraduate in Special Education I have found out that basically parents are not accountable in any real way. They drop off their kids to school and that's it. If their child doesn't learn it is the teachers fault. Now I understand that Teachers must be accountable for the quality of their instruction but it should not include having to actually raise them. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen teachers have to do all of the things that parents should be doing. I think I should say that this is my problem with the education system today. I can understand keeping Teachers to a standard but what about parents? The U.S. is the only country I know of where Teachers are considered second class and not looked up to in any way or fashion by our society at large. If you go to ANY other country, Teachers are treated with respect and used as examples to measure up too. Why don't we? One word, Money. Who can respect a Teacher when they don't make any money? What's to look up too? My own Father asked me these very questions when I told him that I wanted to become a Teacher. The first words out of his mouth were, "Well, I guess I don't have to worry about you ever having any money." He has no idea how much it hurt me to hear him say that. |
| grouch May 28, 2006 10:49 PM EDT |
I have trouble believing that anyone who is at least semi-literate, and has any clue whatsoever about history, would seriously advocate a return to an educational system that is utterly dependent upon local communities fending for themselves. Shall we return to the days when the quality of a basic education was solely determined by the number and wealth of the citizens whose children attended any given school? My wife taught for 27 years. Contrary to the bizarre theories of governmental and corporate mind-control put forth in this thread, she educated children; she did not propagandize nor train drones for worker/management. Whatever country or alternate universe contains such brainwashing factories as described in this thread, it is not my country nor universe. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 28, 2006 10:57 PM EDT |
Please understand that for my part I was only talking about basic human bias, nothing more. I think that schools that are locally accountable are much more effective than having to adhere to some ambiguous standard. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2006 2:41 AM EDT |
grouch - >My wife taught for 27 years. Your wife was probably a teacher. These days, they prefer educator. From what I can tell, it's so they won't have to teach. Snide comment made, good teachers are where you find them. This past year, my daughter in public school had an excellent teacher at a school run by a committed and caring principal. It was very good for her. In the past, I have run into administrators who considered parents to be an intrusion into their fiefdom. I have seen wretched educational experiments (Can you spell see-say? How about the introduction of calculators to low-level arithmetic and near-abandonment of basic skills drills?) foisted on bright and eager minds. > Contrary to the bizarre theories of governmental and corporate mind-control put forth in this thread Speaking of snide Mr. Grouch, you might ask your school teacher wife what federalism is and why we have a federal system. There is nothing bizarre about the concept that local government is the level most responsive to and understanding of local needs. As a parent, I have much more influence on my mayor and my local school board than I do on Congress. That's part of the reason why my daughter's school does not have the same administration that it used to. If you want a bizarre theory, how about the notion that turning educational policy formation over to teachers' unions will benefit the children? |
| hkwint May 29, 2006 5:31 AM EDT |
>As a parent, I have much more influence on my mayor and my local school board than I do on Congress Free tip: Start a think tank. Funny you mention the educators: My mom is studying to be a teacher, but teacher are not allowed to teach anymore in my country, they are only meant to 'steer the independent learning process of children'. It's that bad, that most people at higher education (especially the level just below university) are taught less then ten hours a week, the rest they should study for themselves. On some schools, the students even don't get lessons unless they ask for them (and surprisingly, they never do).The politicians say it's to improve their independence in the learning process, I say it's just cheaper not to teach them anything. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2006 5:36 AM EDT |
hkwint - >Free tip: Start a think tank. Would I have to do any thinking? From what I've seen so far, it's optional. |
| hkwint May 29, 2006 5:39 AM EDT |
>Would I have to do any thinking? From what I have seen so far, it's not even optional. The best answer is: Rather not. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2006 5:41 AM EDT |
>The best answer is: Rather not. Sounds perfect. I always get a little steam out of the ears when I have to think. |
| grouch May 29, 2006 5:50 AM EDT |
dinotrac: >"In the past, I have run into administrators who considered parents to be an intrusion into their fiefdom. I have seen wretched educational experiments [...]" Likely, you can imagine the range of administrators my wife encountered during her teaching career. She gave up tenure to change schools with only 3 years left before her retirement, just because of the administration of one school. Your short list of "wretched educational experiments" should also include the thankfully short-lived theory of teaching reading by "skills" rather than by actually reading. When you combine local, state and federal fads and fashions for educating, teachers must often be creative in satisfying paperwork and their real goals at the same time. Teachers' unions are just one more cog in the machinery. Among federal, state, and local governments, the purse strings of schools are well tangled. As Scott_Ruecker pointed out earlier, becoming a school teacher is not the path to riches. Voters, taxpayers and parents always demand more for less. Their demands are pushed by the various levels of government, from the local school boards to the federal layer. Individual teachers have little power to counter such influences. Teachers' unions are just like any other taxpayer group, lobbying for their constituents. The only really good thing about so many layers of bureaucracy in the educational system is that each acts as a flywheel, opposing sudden changes by any other layer. Even so, none can oppose fads forever. The demands of taxpayers will get through, eventually, whether sensible or not. This leads to multiple waves and pulses of influence passing through various educational systems. There was the "back to the basics" reactionary lunacy in opposition to the previous lunatic fad that had resulted in such things as "ebonics". At any given time, there is a multitude of large and small influence waves, at various levels of waxing or waning, moving through any given school system at various levels of harmony or discord. Taxpayers get what they demand. Just as often as not, it turns out they don't like it once they get it. |
| hkwint May 29, 2006 5:50 AM EDT |
About the education: My country suffers from the 'federal' government setting high standards, after which the schools and students cannot reach the high standards, and time and time again, the schools gets more freedom themselves, without being obliged to justify oneselve to anybody. As a relsult, Dutch children are starting to get dumber and dumber, they know less and less (but that's just my humble opinion). The problem is not the federal/local problem, the problem is, the people who make the rules, never have been in front of a classroom. Especially higher education is 'on demand' of companies, and that's a very flawed system. Year after year, the companies asked for broader educated students. Therefore, I got 15 subjects in the last three years of my secondary education, and all 15 had their exams and homework. To allow so much subjects, they cut back (in time and subjects) on the most important subjects, like math, languages (for which my country is famous, but that will be over in ten years from now, almost nobody in my country can understand three languages like people in my country used to). Now, it's about ten years later, and universities complain students know nothing about math anymore, and are nowhere without their calculator. As a result, they cut on the subjects again, and on goes the wave, back and forth between less content of the subjects and more subjects, and more content of the subjects and less subjects. The problem is, the laws of 'supply demand' do not work for things which take a long time between change and result, like education. |
| hkwint May 29, 2006 5:54 AM EDT |
Grouch: >should also include the thankfully short-lived theory of teaching reading by "skills" rather than by actually reading. Sad to hear the same crap is happening in your country. It's also the way they teach children foreign languages in my country. They don't even give that much grammar anymore, students should learn by reading an listening a lot. Knowledge is a dirty word these days, it's all about skills. But when people are full of skills but know nothing, what can they do with their skills? They suffer from a lack of knowledge when searching for a job, that's sure. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2006 6:01 AM EDT |
>Your short list of "wretched educational experiments" should also include the thankfully short-lived theory of teaching reading by "skills" rather than by actually reading. I've never heard of that, and, as a former home-schooler, I've seen an awful lot of curricula. That was the problem with "see-say": it ignored skills, based on research into the way adults read, forgetting that adults didn't start out as...well adult readers. I get the impression that you don't believe reading skills (note -- no quotes) should be taught. That's more than goofy -- in practice, it is child abuse. Learning skills (phonics, etc) are an important part of the reading process. Our daughters have all read well beyond their grade level, and all have been taught with a phonics and skills-based approach. From the very start, they read books appropriate to their capabilities. Reading becomes fun. Getting better at it makes it more fun. Finding books with good stories encourages more reading and more skill development. It's a good thing. |
| dcparris May 29, 2006 6:15 AM EDT |
So, to see if I can summarize this thread aptly: The ever-changing educational methodologies combine with the (non) interactions of government, teachers unions, and parents to provide the basis for independent thinkers to become well-paid researchers for independent research institutes, such as The Heartland Institute, the Pacific Research Institute, and others. Put another way, our present educational system is preparing a large quantity of students for future careers at think tanks. I think that's what y'all are trying to say here. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 29, 2006 6:24 AM EDT |
Federalism: In the U.S. it is the idea that Political authority is divided between the states and the Federal Government or 'Center'. Even though most U.S. citizens believe that they live in a Democracy it is not technically true. We live in a Republic. The states give authority and funds to the Federal or 'center' entity. In a true democracy everyone votes directly on issues. In a Republic the citizens that are allowed to vote do not vote on most issues themselves. They vote to elect someone else to vote for them. They are represented in the political sphere by those they elect. When the U.S. was first created the only people that were allowed to vote were men(white) who owned land. The fourteenth and fifteenth amendments in confirming the right of citizenship to all men born in the U.S. no matter what race they were. The nineteenth amendment, giving Women the right to vote was up to that point almost unheard of. Women in England could vote but they had to be 30 years old while Men could vote at 21. As unequal as our 'equal rights' are, they are closer to equal than just about any other country on earth. History Lesson over Now that almost all real authority has been transferred to the Federal Government and more specifically the Executive Branch, the 'balance' that the writers of the Constitution envisioned has been undermined. When the Constitution was being debated the big issue of the day was the overwhelming power that existing 'federal' governments wielded. England being the obvious example. The whole reason that the Constitution had to be ratified by the states and all representatives sent to the federal government had to be elected in the states was to keep federal power in check. So much for that. |
| grouch May 29, 2006 6:43 AM EDT |
dinotrac: >"I've never heard of that, and, as a former home-schooler, I've seen an awful lot of curricula." [...] "I get the impression that you don't believe reading skills (note -- no quotes) should be taught. That's more than goofy -- in practice, it is child abuse. Learning skills (phonics, etc) are an important part of the reading process." Be glad you never heard of it. It was some kind of strange dissection of letter groups, but devoid of reading, and only peripherally related to phonics. Your fortune in not having encountered it is likely the reason for your mistaken impression that I oppose such things as phonics. The elementary school I attended, (no comments about stone tablets, please) was a pilot school for a DoEd program to experiment with teaching phonetics. As the students from that pilot program moved through the school system, their above-average grades in reading were a noticeable bubble. Some significant part of that bubble was due to the teaching of phonics. Another significant part was due to the policy the school had, which required that each class be given at least one period per week in the school library, and each student required to check out at least one book per week. It is my firm belief that the combination of the teaching of phonics, and the forced exposure to implementation in books chosen by each student, that led to the above average reading scores. |
| grouch May 29, 2006 6:50 AM EDT |
dcparris: >"Put another way, our present educational system is preparing a large quantity of students for future careers at think tanks. I think that's what y'all are trying to say here." I say it is also preparing a large quantity of students who will forcefully debunk the disinformation spread by future "think tanks". Our educational system is at once exceptionally good, bad, and mundanely mediocre. We keep trying to push it to perfection, but we often push based on current fads of politics. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2006 7:06 AM EDT |
grouch: Whew!! Good to know you're not a loony-toon (kind of already knew that). I get emotional about reading because I believe that reading is the passport to everything else. It breaks my heart to see children who are not fluent readers because nearly all of them can be. |
| grouch May 29, 2006 7:17 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Hey now, I worked hard to get my looney rep. >"I get emotional about reading because I believe that reading is the passport to everything else." I'm with you on that, 100%. Without reading, all studies become guild-like, dependent on direct contact between mentor and student for knowledge to be passed along. With reading, the whole world and its history opens up for exploration. Your daughters are fortunate to have been given that. If they haven't already, someday they will recognize and acknowledge your gift. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2006 7:20 AM EDT |
grouch: >If they haven't already, someday they will recognize and acknowledge your gift. Once they make it through the teen years, that is. ;0) |
| grouch May 29, 2006 8:10 AM EDT |
dinotrac: >"Once they make it through the teen years, that is. ;0)" Heh. I told each of mine as they reached teen status, "You'll be going through a physical, emotional, and societal metamorphosis for the next 5 or 6 years. You will be insane during this time and it's my job to protect you and the rest of the world from your insanity. I hope we can meet on the other side, still friends." hkwint: >"My mom is studying to be a teacher, but teacher are not allowed to teach anymore in my country, they are only meant to 'steer the independent learning process of children'." That kind of crazy fad goes through school systems here, too, every now and then. It alternates with the other extreme, which is to reduce teaching to rote drills in reading, writing, and arithmetic. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2006 8:12 AM EDT |
Grouch et al : Lest I forget, happy Memorial Day! It seems fitting that today is a day of barbecue, baseball, picnics, yard-work, road-trips, parades, family, as much as it is a remembrance of brave sacrifice because all of those things represent the essence of what millions of brave men and women gave their lives to protect. Foolish and greedy politics may needlessly waste those lives, but no leader's evil, no matter how egregious, can erase the individual courage embodied in the many answers to duty's call that we remember today. |
| jdixon May 29, 2006 6:07 PM EDT |
> I can honestly say that until this very moment, I have not. Is it a magazine or is that someones name? Vox Day is the pen name of one of the writers on WND. He has his own blog called Vox Popoli. He considers himself a "Christian Libertarian", which many people seem to think is an oxymoron. Your earlier comments echo some of his, which is why I asked. I find him, hmm..., entertaining. http://voxday.blogspot.com/ |
| jdixon May 29, 2006 6:11 PM EDT |
Grouch: > Shall we return to the days when the quality of a basic education was solely determined by the number and wealth of the citizens whose children attended any given school? Over today's heavily federalized system? Yes. Fortunately, those are two ends of a spectrum, and there's lots of room in the middle. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 29, 2006 6:45 PM EDT |
He considers himself a "Christian Libertarian"? and I sound like him? Cool. I'll admit that I have some conservative opinions and a liberal outlook towards others, is that what you mean? As long as he is not a Fundamentalist its not an oxymoron. You can be Christian and Liberal as long as you do not take your religion too literally. I believe that if there is a God, whatever Man thinks he knows about it is way off. Any real God does not play favorites between men and women, or care what color they are. I believe that it is not what you are that matters to God, but how you are. That said, I checked out the link and yes I do agree with some if not most of what he says but I just don't find politics to be entertaining in any way shape or form. Too much negativity, that's why I quit watching T.V., I'm much happier now, yes MUCH HAPPIER CAN'T YOU TELL!!! :-) |
| Bob_Robertson May 30, 2006 1:36 PM EDT |
Hmmm. Big Business *or* Big Government? What surprises me is that no one has yet pointed out that the two very much go together. With big Government comes big Business to exploit the carefully placed loop-holes, with big Government comes a source of power to crush competition which is just begging to be purchased, corrupted, "campaign contributed". As has been mentioned, the existence of "limited liability" corporations is because of laws (by government) creating the basis for their existence. The biggest, most abusive businesses have always been the government mandated monopolies: AT&T years ago, and now again since SBC bought the name, even through the "baby bell" period never lost their regional mandated monopoly status. The government "contractors", Haliburton, Carlisle Group, Morton Thiacol(sp?), Lockheed Martin, etc. How about the big drug companies and their FDA todies, their bought-and-paid-for politicians who enact huge new laws like the "Medicare Drug Benefit" without even reading it. And let's not forget the e$teemed Senator from Disney. I can recommend the articles on the Ludwig von Mises Institute web site, and a quick search for "big business" brought up this gem: http://blog.mises.org/archives/004152.asp Eliminate big Government, big Business ceases to be a problem. ---------------- As far as public school verses private, keep in mind that most private schools are bound just as much by the laws of the state which certifies them, which defines the "standardized" testing. Indeed the vast majority of "private" schools far surpass the quality of their comparable "public" counterparts, and the public school advocates will tell you it's only because the private schools get to pick and choose their students. However, home schoolers surpass most private schools with ease. At the same time, some actual teachers exist in the public schools, and I credit the three that I met, in my entire 13 years of forced labor for the crime of being young, for saving my life. Do I sound angry? Indeed. To make my bias perfectly clear, until every public school is razed to the ground, no stone left standing upon another and salt sown into the ground where they once were, I will not be satisfied. The fate of Troy is too good for them, for even Troy was able to be rediscovered. Vin Sprynowicz said it well by entitling one of his chapters "Burn The Schools" in _The Ballad of Carl Drega_. Highly recommended, even if you disagree. Especially so, since I would be surprised if someone could read his books and not be moved. Links available upon request. It seems that Grouch was lucky enough to have at least one such actual teacher, and I wish that John Stossel had found one in his 20/20 show on the subject. Just one would have been nice. Also, especially since Stossel interviews Dutch students, it might be of interest to the other posters in this thread to see the video. Those outside the copyright reach of the US can use this link: http://www.mininova.org/tor/199080 I can also suggest anything and everything by John Taylor Gatto, whose experience as a public school teacher aught to be required course material to become a professional teacher at all. Mininova lists some of his works, as well as http://www.johntaylorgatto.com Scott, I stopped watching "broadcast" tv too. Maybe some "Americas Funniest Home Videos", some small quantity of "History Channel" although it does tend to be sanitized pap. Teaching my 3-year old to read and write has been a pleasure, phonics makes it possible. I cannot imagine how anyone can be expected to read without the simple recourse to "sound it out". Hell, there are words *I* "sound out" at 43 and I out-read my "grade" from the very beginning! |
| jimf May 30, 2006 1:55 PM EDT |
> Hmmm. Big Business *or* Big Government? What we see now is that Big Business and Big Government are both ignoring the individual Citizen pretty much at will. This has been getting worse throughout my lifetime, and I don't see any signs of it getting better. We know that a true 'Democracy' has a limit as to how large the thing becomes before it stops working. What worries me is that we may have outgrown the 'Republic'. We may be able to extend the thing by giving more power to Local government, but I begin to think that's only a patch. |
| Bob_Robertson May 30, 2006 4:59 PM EDT |
JimF, America is now an Empire, no doubt. When Lincoln crushed the last peaceful secession effort, it was no longer a Republic, but it took the Spanish American war to gather territories by military victory. The rest has been a long slide into fascism. Fascism is the so-called "third way", titular ownership of private property, but under strict government regulation. Such as you "own" a car, but your use of it is strictly limited by licensure, registration, speed limits, etc. I really don't see any way out of this without another revolution. I don't mean "civil war", because a "civil war" is two or more factions fighting over the same political power structure. I mean revolution as the overthrow of the power structure in place. Preferably a war of Independence, at least the independence of the individual states from the Empire that has grown out of their so-called "limited" Federal government. |
| jimf May 30, 2006 5:59 PM EDT |
Well Bob, Jefferson said as much. I simply don't see a way to do that now. |
| dcparris May 30, 2006 6:18 PM EDT |
I failed miserably in public schools, but thrived when sent to a private military school for the last two years of high school. I didn't have to worry about bullies at the private school, and our 2-1/2-hour study hall was monitored by faculty and cadet officers alike. I needed both, the safety and the discipline in those days. The quality of the teachers was better as well, but I think that was secondary to the first to issues. |
| grouch May 30, 2006 6:49 PM EDT |
dcparris: Sounds like some public schools had a budget problem. Maybe fewer truckloads going to Bill's retirement fund would mean a teaching job could compete with private enterprise offerings. We threw an incredible amount of money at the cold war. We wasted an incredible amount, too, but that's the inefficient nature of government. Somehow, though, the same ones in government who tried to excuse $600 toilet seats for the military (which became an $1800 toilet seat 16 years later) are the same ones who scream loudest that throwing money at education or health care problems won't help. How much does our government waste on our favorite monopolist, anyway? |
| jdixon May 30, 2006 7:23 PM EDT |
Bob: > until every public school is razed to the ground, no stone left standing upon another and salt sown into the ground where they once were, I will not be satisfied. The fate of Troy is too good for them, for even Troy was able to be rediscovered. OK. I thought I was the only one here who felt that way. Nice to know I'm not alone. I don't know if I've mentioned here before, but you may want to check out my wife's page: http://www.ravendays.org/ |
| jdixon May 30, 2006 7:26 PM EDT |
jimf: > Well Bob, Jefferson said as much. I simply don't see a way to do that now. Oh, the ways are simple and well known. Unfortunately, they mean killing a significant portion of the population. That's not a step I'm willing to take. I only have a handful of decades more to live, and we don't have any children. If the US citizenry wants to vote themselves into totalitarianism, they're welcome to do so. |
| jdixon May 30, 2006 7:28 PM EDT |
Grouch: > the same ones who scream loudest that throwing money at education or health care problems won't help. Well, with education at least, it won't. We already fund education at a level far above the world average. Unfortunately, our students don't achieve at a rate equal to the funding. |
| dinotrac May 31, 2006 12:24 AM EDT |
grouch:
> Sounds like some public schools had a budget problem. Maybe fewer truckloads going to Bill's retirement fund would mean a teaching job could compete with private enterprise offerings. Smug, easy, and, quite possibly, wrong answer. It's entirely possible that the Rev's local public schools were far better funded than the private school he attended. The private schools I've been able to muster, like most private schools, have had to do the job on far less money than the local public schools. Very few parents can afford to match public school spending. Median (not average) teacher salary in 2004 was low to mid 40s. More people were entering the field in response to demand, generally in indication that compensation is not too low. Teacher salaries vary incredibly, depending on district, experience, advanced degrees, subject matter, etc. In some of the suburban school districts around here, teachers with more than five years of experience and an advanced degree can earn more than I could make working a similar schedule, and far more when benefits are taken into account. Per capita spending in the US has doubled over the last 30 years, adjusted for inflation, and compares well with other G-7 countries. |
| grouch May 31, 2006 5:08 AM EDT |
dinotrac: >"Smug, easy, and, quite possibly, wrong answer." Smug reply, but no refutation. Without numbers to the contrary, I will continue to assume school expenditures associated with MS software are significant, based on anecdotal stories from people working in schools. >"Median (not average) teacher salary in 2004 was low to mid 40s. More people were entering the field in response to demand, generally in indication that compensation is not too low." Has the private sector been suppressed that much? It hasn't been very many years ago that I tried to convince my son not to become a teacher, using the example of another family member whose starting salary in a medical device engineering company, with a fresh BS degree, was equivalent to my wife's salary at the time as a teacher with experience of 20 years and "rank one" (a certain number of hours of study beyond a master's degree; highest recognized in my state for teachers). The total cost of employee is roughly twice the salary, so every $80K in license fees paid to MS amounts to another teacher or support staff member. MS uses site licensing for schools. Every computer that is merely capable of running MS Windows requires a license fee. Audits and threats of audits are used to keep schools in line with MS's saturation goals. It's the same old OEM per cpu licensing from the consent decree, just moved outward one layer in the monopoly. People demanded that schools teach "computer literacy". Did the tons of money spent on such a nebulous fad really benefit anyone? Going back to when it started, how many adults are living better lives because they learned how to use VisiCalc in school? Maybe fixing the roof or HVAC or the wiring in a school building would be a better way to spend money than entering a no-exit contract with MS. (One room my wife taught in had an electrical outlet duct-taped in the wall, while down the hall there was a full computer lab with every computer running MS Windows with MS Office. "Overflow" students were taught in a pair of mobile homes rented and parked beside the school.) >"Teacher salaries vary incredibly, depending on district, experience, advanced degrees, subject matter, etc." Salaries also vary incredibly due to the varied funding in districts. In my own state, funding is closely tied to property taxes, which makes the educational opportunity of a child roughly dependent on the market value of land where the child grows up. It doesn't make sense, to me. The requirements for becoming a teacher are also incredibly varied. Many times these requirements depend on how vocal parents are about overcrowded classrooms. It's a political see-saw that jerks and jars the children and the local educational system according to the latest craze in the news. |
| Bob_Robertson May 31, 2006 6:54 AM EDT |
JDixon, you really will enjoy the articles and books by Vin Sprynowicz, here's a link to his newspaper's editorial section: http://www.reviewjournal.com/columnists/suprynowicz.html I can also suggest L. Neil Smith, he can be a bit course at times. Direct, unvarnished opinions are usually course, but they're also quite a bit easier to decypher than page-long parenthetical asides. http://www.lneilsmith.org/lns_lever.html Grouch, no kidding about the political turmoil. An inevitable result of making "education" a political issue. Now about that idea of throwing money at the "problem". Look up that 20/20 episode by Stossel called "Stupid In America". He features the effort that took place in Kansas City, where a judge ordered an additional $Billion/year spent on their schools. Test scores decreased. Also, "education" is the largest employer in the US, 50 state and federal education departments, administrators, janitors, oh and teachers. The NEA is the largest union in America as well. There is no lack of money, it's a simple fact of bureaucratic verses entrepreneurial management. In a bureaucratic management structure, there is no motivation to produce. "Success" is measured by larger staffs and bigger budgets, and in a government situation the most efficient way to have your budget increased and get more staff is to _fail_ at your stated goals. The lower the test scores, the more teachers, principals assistants, administrators and facilities get funded. The "failing" public schools are succeeding wonderfully at their actual purpose: Perpetuating The Bureaucracy. Under entrepreneurial management, if an effort fails it is changed or eliminated. If a teacher fails to teach a child to read, that teacher is in danger of losing their job. That's why such private efforts such as Sylvan Learning Centers can do in a few weeks what a public school cannot do in year after year: teach basic skills. Two articles, please let me know what you think after reading them: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-16-Sun-2006/... http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-23-Sun-2006/... |
| dcparris May 31, 2006 8:45 AM EDT |
It's also possible a move to another city would have made a difference, but I still needed the additional discipline that the private school offered. I consider that the crucial element. The safer environment supported the additional discipline. I think a number of the teachers in both schools cared and were fairly interested in teaching. But there's nothing quite like getting motivated at the private school by the football coach to study for US/State Political history. ;-) I'm just not certain it was a matter of the money each school had. I think it's safe to say the private school had better funding - the public school didn't even have those early laptop-looking "computers" that were just coming out. I mean, in 1985, we didn't have computers in school. It didn't have a cafeteria, or a swimming pool. The private school had some sort of early computer (I have no idea what they were) that looked like an electronic word processor. At any rate, I think the difference lies in the fact that my parents didn't do so good in the "make sure I did my homework" department. The private school cured that. |
| Bob_Robertson May 31, 2006 2:57 PM EDT |
DC, variety is more important than money. No two students will respond best with the same curriculum. And what do computers have to do with teaching reading, writing and mathematics anyway? There's far more to be learned with just pencils and paper. I taught myself Basic programming from a book a year before I owned a computer (TRS-80 Mod 1, christmas 78). As I've told my 3-year old many times, once you can read you can learn anything. |
| dcparris May 31, 2006 3:40 PM EDT |
Bob:
> As I've told my 3-year old many times, once you can read you can learn anything. You know, reading is what got me here. That coach is the one who taught me Knowledge is Power. I forget the origins of that phrase, but I know it's true. And I bought "Running Linux" before I got the P-II/350 I was going to install it on. Anyway... I went from technophobe to Editor-in-Chief of a tech news site - the best confounded tech news site on the whole Internet, far as I'm concerned - because I know how to read. |
| jdixon May 31, 2006 4:14 PM EDT |
Bob: > you really will enjoy the articles and books Bookmarked for later perusal. Thanks. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!