Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/4/08 02:11 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

:: Israeli Air Force pilots for the win

The ability to fly an aircraft and perform aerial manuevers is no longer what determines who has the best Air Force. It is who has the longer ranged radar and missiles that make all the difference. The USAF/USN with our AWACS and F-15/F-22 radars would splash an IDF F-16 long before the Israelis could best us in manuevering.

At 2/3/08 11:13 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/3/08 07:02 PM, K-RadPie wrote: 18-45... That's a hell of a lot more than 10-20%.

I don't really count the older folk as able to serve... Probably below 40.

However, my point still stands that we would definitely not be able to arm 100,000,000 men.

Let's say America was invaded by China (hypothetically). I think it would be possible to arm about 100,000,000 "men". In such a dire situation we would pressing into service males aged 15/16-60. Furthermore, because of the 2nd Amendment much of this force could readily be armed from civilian stockpiles. My AK isn't full-auto and cannot fire in burst, but I don't think I'm the spray and pray type either. Everyone I grew up with has a hunting rifle...so we'd be pretty sniper heavy.

Also our values have been changing in regards to women in combat...so I could see the ranks of this hypothetical militia swelling with women. Especially the women in rural areas where if they do not know how to handle a gun...at least they don't have an unreasonable fear of them.

At 2/3/08 11:31 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/3/08 02:32 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: The standard rifle, I believe, is the AK-47, which again are cheap and - in this case - plentiful, so again the costs are lower than for the US and UK.

Yeah, if you want a cheap, piece of shit gun. Even if you bought the absolute cheapest AKs there are (about $300) for only one third of a 100,000,000-man army, it would cost 10 trillion dollars. Nobody has that kind of money.

The cost of producing an AK and arming your own military with it is probably about or less than $100 (in fact I think I'm being conservative here, it probably costs China around $50)...something China has the capability. Furthermore, the AK is in many ways superior to the M-16. In Somalia we were inflicting multiple gunshot wounds on people who were suffering from famine conditions and they were still getting back on their feet and continued fighting. However, their AK rounds took us out far more efficiently. Furthermore, an AK is far more suited to field conditions than American/Western firearms. As an American serviceman; I'd ditch my M-16 in heartbeat for an AK.

At 2/3/08 08:16 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/3/08 08:11 PM, TheMason wrote: So I guess fli is going to vote for Romney now that he's been told twice in like 10 minutes? lol

I didn't see your post.

That's cool, I just thought it was funny that we both him up at about the same time! :)

At 2/3/08 09:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I was reffering more in first world countries, but that is fine also.

Well then, by definition peasantry would be over in developed (first world) countries. While we do have poverty (relative to our own society rather than some universal standard), our poor are not what you'd call peasants by an stretch.

At 2/3/08 07:58 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/3/08 07:13 PM, fli wrote: Dido on that for me too--
I would NEVER EVER FOREVER vote for Romney because, he as an individula, is crazy as crazy can be with all this talk about changing the contitution to reflect his relgious beliefs without any thought about others...

Wow, Romney has never, ever said anything like that. That was Huckabee.

So I guess fli is going to vote for Romney now that he's been told twice in like 10 minutes? lol

In 1991 Samuel Hunting wrote a very important book called The Third Wave which detailed the third wave of democratization in which over 100 new democracies were formed from openly authoritarian regimes. However, since thena majority of these democracies have remained authoritarian in nature since elites are using elections to legitimize their rule.

One of the biggest reasons why is that in many of these countries the masses remain uneducated and poor...two of the largest stumbling blocks to popular support of democratic values beyond simple voting schemes.

SO in short; no the age of the peasant is not over. We still have a large proportion of peasantry in the world. Hopefully some day it won't be this way; but that day is a long ways away.

At 2/3/08 07:52 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/3/08 12:27 PM, TheMason wrote: The US has the World FIRST largest Navy (the US Navy) AND the world's SEVENTH largest Navy (the US Coast Guard).

Lol, yeah I remember reading that.

Except of course, the Coast Guard isn't really comparable to a blue water navy, even if it may be larger in terms of numbers of ships.

Very true! However, the USCG does deploy overseas to patrol the shores of the various countries we operate in. They patroled in Vietnam and I believe some USCG units are over in Iraq right now. So while they are not blue water; they still have a global reach that the Iranian, Indian or Chinese navies do not!

At 2/3/08 07:13 PM, fli wrote:

I would NEVER EVER FOREVER vote for Romney because, he as an individula, is crazy as crazy can be with all this talk about changing the contitution to reflect his relgious beliefs without any thought about others...

Ummm...I believe that was Huckabee who wants to change the Constitution to reflect his religious beliefs. If you have information to the contrary please share!

At 2/3/08 06:17 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/3/08 06:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/3/08 10:51 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Wasn't Social Security supposed to be universwal as well?

Yeah. And now it'll go bankrupt in the year 2030.

Which is why we should all start Roth IRA's so we don't have to rely on goverment.

And if we get Hill or Obama we will have very expensive healthcare reform. This will hasten the collapse of the entitlement programs, the budget and the economy. I just hope my non-social security retirement plan (the one teachers get instead of social security) survives...

At 2/3/08 08:34 AM, Al6200 wrote: Is there good protection for say president, congress in case of a nuclear attack? Bunkers in DC?

1) National Airborne Operational Center (NAOC) is a modified commericial acft similar to Air Force One except it is designed to be a mobile command post which means no press corps or other non-essential VIPs. In the movies Independence Day and Sum of All Fears this would've been the plane the President would've been boarding had those been real scenarios.

2) If they could not have been extracted from DC and our national command leadership there is the "shadow government" option.
(Shadow Govt operations after 9/11) Much of this is classified and I've heard some rumors that there are individuals appointed to high ranking cabinet posts (SECDEF, SECSTATE, etc) to "shadow" the real Cabinet Secretaries so that if a massive strike takes out the government (POTUS, VPOTUS, Cabinet) there are people who will become Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense automatically so there is not a break in government and someone able to take command. However, the CNN article seems to show a system where Cabinet members cycle in and out of secure locations outside of DC so it would be Sec Gates or Sec Rice who would take over and no "shadow"...

At 2/2/08 07:46 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/2/08 07:13 PM, Earfetish wrote: I don't think there's any doubt the USA is the most prominent military force in the world.

But Britannia rules the waves.

The US has a way, WAY bigger and more advanced navy than the UK does.

The US has the World FIRST largest Navy (the US Navy) AND the world's SEVENTH largest Navy (the US Coast Guard).

At 2/3/08 10:48 AM, Republican1235 wrote: If the presidentail election was Mitt Romney vs. Hilary or Obama, would you vote for him? explain your reason, because im wondering this myself.

I would vote for Romney or McCain over Hillary or Obama because I do not like the Dem's fiscal policies. However, I would probably vote for Obama or Hillary over Huckabee because I don't trust someone who wears their religion on their sleeve as much as he does (and in fact on economic issues appears to be worse than the Dems). In fact Romney isn't making a big deal of his religion...its his opponents who are trying to sow the message that Mormonism is a cult. Right now it is the primary; but in the general it will be the liberals who will use in an attempt to split the Republican evangelical base.

If you really are a Republican...don't let this hype about Romney's religion lead you to make a poor choice.

At 1/31/08 11:40 PM, pianxx wrote: TO ALL
Do consider Dr. Martin Bautista for the next elections obviously (a senatorial candidate of 'Ang Kapatiran' together with Adrian Sison and Zosimo Paredes). He's a 45-year-old gastroenterologist in the US who came home after 17 years.

Nope, don't vote for Doctors for office. My ex-wife is a doctor and I think that they make bad politicians because they think the MD certifies them as knowing everything.

Damn MDs.

At 1/30/08 10:05 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 1/30/08 09:45 PM, Christopherr wrote: I love you.

And did I mention they're fruit-flavored antibiotics?

Fruit-flavored you say? You know I've started to feel a little sick my self...<pathetic zoolander cough>

At 1/31/08 10:17 PM, KingPanther13 wrote: The whole deal with how the masses are infatuated with the media also pisses me off, but I guess that's just how it goes. I seriously don't see why the news tries to make her seem so important, and why people just blindly listen. It's mind numbing.

The media has become the opiate of the masses. I wonder if the Communists got it wrong; or whether media has just supplanted religion.

At 1/31/08 10:26 PM, oligarch wrote:

At 1/31/08 09:33 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
You could:
A. Not get Universal Health Care, and try to keep a balanced budget.
or
B. Tax and Spend.

You could keep a balanced budget with healthcare for all if raise eliminate the current tax cuts given to the ruling classes as well as raise their taxes and make major cuts to defence spending.

Debunking Myths You've Been Spoon-fed:

1) Tax cuts for the rich/ruling classes: Most of the tax revune comes from the middle class because there is simply more money there than in either the upper quartile of earners or the lower quartile of earners. Secondly, when Bush came into office I was getting back about $600-700 (out of about $1,200 paid) a year from my federal taxes. I was married with a child making less than $40K a year (total family income). I qualified for foodstamps and my ex-wife and daughter qualified for WIC. This was my rebate under Clinton. Under Bush's tax code I got back about $2,400 when my ex-wife and made $52K (she was a teacher and I was an E-4 in the USAF). When she quit and went back to school as a student our tax rebate jumped to about $4,000. I went from getting back about half of what I paid in to get about two-three times what I paid in. This was under Bush's tax cuts...and I was in the lower quartile of wage earners. In short; Bush's tax cuts was a boon to the poorest wage earners.

2) Tax the rich. In the 1940s the top wage earners were taxed up to 72% of their income. Did not work; they found ways to circumvent the tax system which would be all the more easy these days with the advent of Multi-National Corporations that fall outside national law. Again this CPUSA idea has been tried before and failed; remember what I originally said about the definition of insanity...

3) Defense Cuts to balance the budget. Pretty much we cut our military as low as we can during Clinton. Surprisingly under Bush the defense budget has not been increased all that much. It used to be 17-18% of the federal budget and now it is about 21%. You could get rid of the wars, but it would not be enough to balance the budget or fund UHC. Where we are loosing money is in entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare/aid. Social Security especially has been misused and mismanaged by both Republicans and Democrats from the very begining and they are the ones that will bankrupt us.

At 1/31/08 08:02 PM, oligarch wrote:

At 1/31/08 07:33 PM, TheMason wrote: stuff

The means of production are supposed to be controlled by the proletariat, not the government. The Bolivarian revolutionary workers who have seized factories from coup plotters recognize that that many reason that many 20'th century socialist states failed to achieve proletariat government was because the basis for the socialism was a legal basis and not the workers themselves and are run by democratic soviets.

The problem with Communism is the Utopian nature of proletarian ownership of the means of production. In an ever increasingly technological world there are more levels of production and therefore levels of ownership. The simple fact is that under proletarian ownership there is chaos out of which a social hierarchy would arise that would largely be based upon a "might makes right" paradigm which will only produce extremely painful failure.

Here's a dirty little secret about me; I've read Marx. In terms of theorizing about comparative political phenomenon Marxist theory regarding class in society has some very good and correct assumptions. However, the utopian notion of Communism has been discredited as a viable economic system time and time again. As for socialism; it helps to balance Classical Liberalism. It is not totally bad, but not something I think would be good for this country.

Socialism is an economic system but Communism is both economics and politics and healthcare is just as essential a service as police and fire fighters.

But if there is no money to pay for UHC...

At 1/31/08 06:31 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/31/08 10:02 AM, TheMason wrote:

Also, we're talking about applied science here for people who are not going to be using it. Basically, :science for the layman and would not be all that math intensive.

But for these sorts of trades, the physics they'd need would be applied and, oddly enough, the most math intensive of them all. Physics is very challenging without Trig, and is impossible without Algebra I.

When I was in the Air Force (enlisted) I was an avionics systems maintainer and the first half of my tech school consisted of physics training. Three of us had had algebra on the collegiate level, but the other 12 members of my class were just HS grads and they did just fine without anything more than Algebra I.

Plumbers, electricians, secretaries, dental hygenists do not need trig or the physics you're talking :about. Also very few schools have HS freshmen ready to do trig...especially the non-college bound :kids.

I think we could send freshman to take trig. The youngest I've seen is sophomores, but I really think that needs to change.

Yes, those who want to go onto math/science intensive fields. Those people who go into trades won't use it and would be a waste of education time, money and resources.

Again...no need for calc or game theory (which could be covered in economics) for this group of :students.

When Game Theory is studied it will probably use examples from poli sci, econ, and evolution.

Game theory was originally formulated in economics and does not have a broad enough application to warrant a class of its own at the HS level. A compromise here would be to teach economics before political and biology courses.

They need to be focusing on those things that will get them a good job after HS...nor do they want to :be taking those courses.

Knowing trig will get you a good job after HS. It is absolutely essential for craftsman. Actually, I'd say that anything up through calculus is very useful for workers.

Have you ever worked in a factory or been a tradesman? I've been both and have friends or family in most of the trades; I had calculus in HS and have used it very little since then. Now that I'm doing what I'm doing w/poli sci taking statistics would have had the most utility.

Good God man, what are you smoking? These kids don't want multi-variable calc and diff :equations...that is not something they need to be studying.

Differential Equations are more useful then you think. Same with multi-variable. Okay, what if you wanted to calculate the volume of a cow? Could you do it without multi-variable calculus? Could you? COULD YOU?

Again...are you a farmer? My best friend from HS raises cattle and is a trained accountant. He's never needed that skill in running his ranch.

They need to be focusing on classes particular to their choosen careerfields such as plumbing or :drafting or nursing...etc.

Both of our schedules dedicate the same amount of time to vocational classes.

Okay then, they need to be socializied into the society more than then they need such upper level math/science!

Yeah, but you don't really get something until you do the math. Nor would they be able to apply it or use it without doing the Math.

I've recently read Isaacson's biography of Einstein and he does a very good job of explaining physics without resorting to math and it was an enjoyable read. Drove my fellow poli sci grad students nuts during Philosophy of Science discussions...always bring up Einstein! :)

Besides, String Theory isn't really a theory, it's more of a philosophy.

Isn't it mathematically based? Even in political science what differentiates philosophy/historicism from formal theory is being mathematically based... :)

Ugh, but you have to remember that most kids would go on to take AP Biology their senior year, which is quite math-based (and it could be much, much more math intensive, especially with game theory in the mix). I doubt that Freshman Biology is essential for taking AP Biology.

Most kids on a Collegiate track. Vocational students (the majority of the work force) wouldn't need AP Bio. But you have a point for the college students.

:: : Again, way too much of a focus on math and too high of a level for high school students.

Nah, I've seen lots of HS students get pretty darn close to that. And there are private High Schools where most students do this:

And that is a key difference; public schools have regulatory and fiscal constraints we have to deal with that private schools don't. I'll be more than happy to have a Socratic conversation with you about the "ideal" or "utopian" educational system...but right now I'm talking about education as it exists in America today.

Nah, they'd be able to find teachers who could do it.

Unfortunately no. In April 2006 I was out of active duty in the Air Force and had my Masters in IR. I applied to be a HS teacher (government & history) as well as applying for a PhD program. In order to teach I would be required to take an additional 30-33 hours in education courses. Doing a cost/benefit analysis it was less work with more payoff to go for the PhD.

To allow for the type of teachers to enter HS you would have to: 1) increase teachers salaries to compete with better paying jobs and 2) de-regulate the teacher certification process (something I would go for). Neither are likely to happen anytime soon.

If you're just going to go one level above, the most important thing is definitely statistics. I use a lot of statistics in my day to day life. Very essential for a businessman. Trigonometry isn't so useful for business people or lawyers. Calculus is valuable because it comes in handy in court-room reasoning. Let's just look at one scenario:

Without calculus, that man would've gone to jail. Is that what you want? Is that what you WANT?!?

YES! (j/k) But seriously, you'd have to bring in experts to explain Rolle's law...increasing the monetary price of justice. :)

Finally, what you term "writing effectively" is what I term English I & II. You could also sprinkle it with :oral communication (just to shake things up).

It's certainly not the English 1/2 that I took. English 1 and 2 for me had nearly no essay writing, and all we read were English authors that needed to take "writing effectively 101"

Hey, another point we agree on!

At 1/31/08 06:53 PM, oligarch wrote:

At 1/31/08 06:44 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/31/08 06:39 PM, oligarch wrote:

In other words, you're trying to tie the definition of communist policy to its results in order to make the success or failure of communism impossible to falsify.

No, China wasn't communist, it was Maoist and Maoism has nothing to do with Marxism. If you think the CPUSA advocates Maoism then you are not qualified to form your own opinion on the subject.

Yes, China under Moa was Communist. Communism is not the opposite of Democracy. The former is an economic system while the latter is a governmental system. Communism involves the state or communal ownership of the means of production. Under Mao, the Chinese economy was nationalizied (taking ownership of production away from the private sector and placing it under the control of the government) which is the first step in becoming Communist. Same thing in North Korea; Communist economy but what is essentially a feudal government.

True Communism was tried in the early days of the USSR. Lenin did away with currency for several years and it was shown to be a huge mistake; resulting in famine.

I do understand that Webb is talking about European socialism and not Authoritarian socialism. However, I'm not for it. UHC will bankrupt the federal budget because the government has mismanaged Social Security and Medicare/aid. Until we fix those monetary hemorrages we're in no position to undertake more social spending programs.

At 1/31/08 06:05 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/31/08 11:42 AM, TheMason wrote: Again, where is your proof that his organization expressly prohibited this type of editorial discretion?

An action can be unethical even if it is not expressly forbidden by your organization. He FLAGRANTLY used his authority to circumvent proper procedure in order to promote a paper which he had a vested interest in publishing. This is unethical behaviour regardless of the exact rules of his specific organization.

Look I get what you're saying that "proper procedure" for the entirity of the academic publishing world is peer review. However, we're talking about academic publishing which introduces the issue of academic freedom. Furthermore, we're not talking about practicing medicine here where a life hangs in the balance. Therefore 1) academic freedom introduces ambiguity and 2) this does not rise to the level of requiring a universal ethical standard. This is evidenced by the fact that you do not require a license to edit an academic journal whereas one is required to practice law and medicine.

Morals, professional ethics, and company guidelines are all different things.

Very true, however in the case of an academic publication there really isn't such a thing as universal professional ethics...there are professional norms which Sternberg did violate and so his behavior was deviant (go ahead and attach value-laden meaning to this term) but not unethical. In this case what is or is not ethical is dictated by the organization's guidelines...or else he would have to obtain a license to edit an academic journal.

But also remember, ethics and morals are the same thing. Professional ethics is the study of what is or is not normative moral behavior for a professional in whatever profession we are talking about. Some of these are loose and subject to the rules and guidelines of individual institutions (ie: academic journals) or they are more universal and therefore individual institutions are subject to ethical standards set by an outside licensing organization (such as medicine).

Therefore, what Sternberg did was stupid and a deviation from normative expectations of behavior...but it was not unethical.

At 1/31/08 05:51 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/31/08 11:42 AM, TheMason wrote:

Almost as if you had a great alternative process that would insure "future" nobel loreates can publish whatever they want.

No, it's just we had this discussion last semester about publishing in academic journals and was peer review the best or only system. It is interesting to look at and think about; in 1905 would Einstein's papers have been published and if not would our physicists still be talking about the ether?

I still can't believe you're defending that dude who so clearly overstepped his bounds to publish a shitstirrer right before ditching the boat.

I actually never heard about this guy until this topic. I don't really care about the particulars of this case; what he did was dumb. ID is not Relativity and the paper probably did not deserve to be published in this manner. If three other people did say it deserved publication after a re-write...then he should've sent it out for a re-write and then published it.

It just gave me an opportunity to flesh out an argument on peer review and take an extreme view and bring up a larger issue.

At 1/31/08 05:47 PM, stafffighter wrote: I'm not going to put it in the same paragraph at him but look at the circus of Anna Nichole. I don't know if anything else happened those few weeks....

The thing saving us from this on this particular news day is that one of the most historical presidential debates since Lincoln vs Douglas (the only one that would come close would be Kennedy vs Nixon) starts in 2hrs 3min 29...28...27sec.

Okay so why the hell is someone as august as myself 1) posting about her and 2) posting this earth-shattering news in politics?

Well I just saw on CNN that overnight she was taken to the hospital to "get help", but what got my attention was the police escort. The police cars and pairs of motorcycle cops stretched 100-150 yards. My question; why the hell did she get a police escort that size? I understand concerns about the papparazzi (sp?) causing traffic problems and therefore public safety concerns. But is this too much? So the papparazzi slows down a non-life threatening ambulance in the middle of the night?

How much did that cost the LA tax-payer and/or how many cops were diverted from more important calls?

Should we have laws that keep municipalities from abusing their resources for celebrity "emergencies"?

At 1/31/08 03:38 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/31/08 10:02 AM, TheMason wrote:

Who's vocational? Does that mean HS straight to workplace, or does it include engineers and scientists?

Straight to work vocations such as plumbers, paralegals, secretaries, etc. Basically jobs that do no require a degree (inclusive, however, of nurses).

Vocational Path:
Freshman year

Get rid of English 1, and replace Chemistry with Physics. Chemistry is a jumble of non-sense without Physics. Chemistry makes much more sense after Physics, where a student understands forces/energy, etc.

English stays, especially if we're talking about paraprofessionals these student MUST know how to read and write on a higher than sixth grade level. Also, we're talking about applied science here for people who are not going to be using it. Basically, science for the layman and would not be all that math intensive.

Trigonometry (kids should already know algebra by the time they enter HS)
US History to 1865
Physics - Mechanics
Physics - Electromagnetism
Introduction to Geography
Technical Electives

Plumbers, electricians, secretaries, dental hygenists do not need trig or the physics you're talking about. Also very few schools have HS freshmen ready to do trig...especially the non-college bound kids.

Sophomore year
Algebra II
US History from 1865
English II
Practical Physics
Economics
2 Technical electives*

Calculus 1
Calculus 2
US history from 1865
Chemistry
Game Theory / Cellular Automata
2 Technical Electives

Again...no need for calc or game theory (which could be covered in economics) for this group of students. They need to be focusing on those things that will get them a good job after HS...nor do they want to be taking those courses.

Junior year
Geometry
Western Civilization
American Literature
Practical Biology
US Government
2 Technical electives*

Multi-variable Calculus
Differential Equations
Western Civilization
Geographic Dynamics
Government

Good God man, what are you smoking? These kids don't want multi-variable calc and diff equations...that is not something they need to be studying. They need to be focusing on classes particular to their choosen careerfields such as plumbing or drafting or nursing...etc.

Senior year
Applied Mathematics
Non-Western Civilization (choice of)
World Literature
Science elective
International Relations
2 Technical electives*

What's the point of taking math after physics? When they do Physics their freshman year without knowing algebra, will they just write about how gravity makes them feel. "Now kids, calculate the gravitational acceleration due to the moon. Express your answer by drawing a stick figure on the moon"

First of all, the math here would be specializied to their careerfield such as what's required for bookkeepers or plumbing or carpentry...etc.

And the physics/chemistry/biology would not be mathematically based but in laymen terms. For example, the PBS show Nova does a very good job of explaining string theory without resorting to mathematical formulas. You try and express these sciences to non-college bound kids in the way you and I learned...and you loose them. Therefore, math would not be necessary before taking those classes.

College Path
Freshman year

Not too much to object to there. Too early to teach Chemistry or biology though, since both require math.

I took Biology my freshman year while taking Algebra 1, it was the norm in my HS.

Trigonometry
Principles of Calculus
US History to 1865
Writing Effectively
Introduction to Geography
Foreign Language
Physics - Mechanics and Electromagnetism

Again, very few public schools will have even college bound students ready for trig and calc...and therefore physics.

Sophomore year

Calculus - Differentiation
Calculus - Integration
Computer Science - 1
Discrete Mathematics
US Government
Foreign Language - 2
US History from 1865

Again...you expect way too much.

Junior year

Multi-variable Calculus
Statistics
Game Theory
Evolutionary Dynamics
Western Civilization
Computer Science - II
Foreign Language III

Again...too high of expectation for math. Also, there is no reason for Game theory outside of an economics or political science class.

Senior year

Non-Western Civ elective
Differential Equations
Advanced Math Elective
Foreign Language IV
Classical History through primary sources and readings
Biblical Literature
Artificial Intelligence

Again, way too much of a focus on math and too high of a level for high school students.

Nice compromise?

I really think you expect too much out of students in terms of math. First of all, we don't have the teachers who could teach that high of math since our Federal and State governments require teachers to take about 30 hours in education classes outside of the subject they teach (basically a second major), this cuts down on their level of knowledge in these core areas.

Secondly, especially for the vocational students you're putting too much of an emphasis on math and you'd have them taking courses that would be useless to them either in a job or as a citizen. A plumber needs to have read Federalist #10 more than he needs to know how to do anything higher than algebra and geometry. The reason; he's going to vote and potentially even run for office (especially in rural areas) and will be running his own business so he'll be interacting with the government and dealing with governmental regulations.

Also, for the college bound student there should be two paths. If you're going to be an engineer or doctor then load up on math & science. If you're going into business or be a lawyer or intriguied about the humanities...you should only go one level above algebra (either statistics or calc/trig). However, for the same reason that historians and political scientists (we do really need statistics for the latter) need to be familiar with math and science...engineers and doctors are not good, full citizens until they have familiarity with a classical education.

Finally, what you term "writing effectively" is what I term English I & II. You could also sprinkle it with oral communication (just to shake things up).

At 1/31/08 11:11 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/28/08 11:34 PM, TheMason wrote: One problem with engineering is that while it teaches communication; it is of a technical nature that is often inaccessible to laymen.

Not true. We're also trained to write for things such as trade publications, popular magazines, press releases, etc. so as to be able to communicate with laymen.

The idea behind the communication courses is to be able to effectively and efficiently communicate the material to the target audience in a way they can understand, whether they're professionals or the public.

The problem with this is that after awhile writing for the New England Journal of Medicine or the American Political Science Review one's writing becomes jargonistic and stilted. And there is a difference between writing for a technical journal and wether or not a popular magazine is necessarily accessible to laymen depends on the mag...

At 1/31/08 10:39 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/31/08 03:42 AM, TheMason wrote:

Yes, thank you, I know how peer review works. Note that with this article, Sternberg claims it was submitted to four different academics for review, and he claims that they said that the article would, after some editing, have merit for publication.

However, of these four academics, one of them is himself, and he refuses to name the other three, and the list of all academics who performed peer review for the journal is missing for 2004, the year of the incident.

Here's a point on peer review that you seem t,o be in error about. To name the academics who accomplished the peer review remain anonymous. To give names without their consent would be blatantly unethical and quite possibly breach of contract. Furthermore, in light of the ensuing shit storm I can understand why the reviewers would want to stay out of the fight.

Now, there is some debate on whether every article that is published in academic journals should undergo peer review because this may suppress minority viewpoints which may exist outside of the mainstream of the discipline.

Debate between who, academics and non-academics? The point of peer review is that the people reviewing the paper are third parties, which is to say they don't know the people who wrote the paper and they don't have an agenda on the issue.

The debate is between academics; in fact that is one of the issues we talk about in our professionalization seminars in my program (I must admit I'm currently working on a paper to submit to a peer reviewed journal). Until now I've never had this conversation outside of grad school. And to say the blind nature of the process ensures people do not have agendas is frankly naive. The anonynimity of the process is aimed so that research from grad students, new PhDs or small institutions have an opportunity to publish.

Everyone has a bent, what if the results contradicts the reviewer's research? Everyone has an agenda. Talk to your professors and ask to see their rejection letters from journals; they can be brutal and in many cases an article is rejected because they prefer one methodology or theoretical framework over another.

Also editorial discretion does allow articles to bypass peer review in some cases based upon the author's credentials. For example, Einstein's work would be considered publishable just becuase he's Einstein and would go to the front of the line for publication.

There's a difference between rejecting an article because it's unpopular and rejecting an article because it is without scientific merit. What you are suggesting is that the majority of academics who perform peer review are rejecting articles for personal reasons and abusing the peer review system to suppress the minority.

That's a pretty strong accusation, and shows a blatant misunderstanding of scientific thought.

The problem is scientific thought is being accomplished by human beings with perspectives and agendas...not machines. You're argument is proof of that, your words are value-laden. I'm saying that articles that challenge dominate paradigm can be squashed because of unintentional bias that sneaks into ALL human behavior. A theoretical framework is a worldview. Scientific thought is not dispassionate and people are not uninvested in dominate paradigms in terms of time, money or reputation.

I review and discuss instances in which 27 future Nobel Laureates encountered resistance on part of scientific community towards their discoveries and instances in which 36 future Nobel Laureates encountered resistance on part of scientific journal editors or referees to manuscripts that dealt with discoveries that on later date would assure them the Nobel Prize. Although in some occasions the rejection of Nobel class papers could be justified, here I show that the danger that scientific journals disregard or delay important discoveries is real and it can be disastrous.

Study done by a Spanish Prof.

Also here's an article that appeared in the British paper the Guardian that shows there is little empirical evidence that peer review is effective.

The answer to this is editorial discretion where the editor in chief has the authority to not submit an article for peer review but instead make the call to publish it.

You still seem to be confused on this point. Sternberg's editorial discretion did not allow him to publish a paper without review, it allowed him to select the people who would review the article. He selected himself and published it just before leaving the journal.

Proof? Where are the Proceeding's editorial guidelines that Sternberg operated under? This would shed light on whether or not he actually breached his ethical obligations.

If Sternberg had this authority he did not act unethically because what he did was use this authority to publish an article he knew was highly controversial and his superiors would not like.

No, he used his authority to circumvent the peer review process in a way that was completely contrary to standard editorial practice.

Again, where is your proof that his organization expressly prohibited this type of editorial discretion?

At 1/31/08 03:27 AM, Ilych wrote:

At 1/31/08 03:17 AM, kulak wrote: Sam Webb is a communist idiot.

The former makes the latter impossible

Kept Russia at a developing nation status: FAIL
Keeping Cuba & Venezuala at a developing nation statys: FAIL
China was a failed economy before switching to capitalism: FAIL
Eastern Europe: MULTIPLE FAILS

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.

I'd seperate the vocational/technical path (trades & para-professionals) from the college path thusly:

Vocational Path:
Freshman year
Algebra I
US History to 1865
English I
Practical Chemistry
Geography
2 Technical electives*

Sophomore year
Algebra II
US History from 1865
English II
Practical Physics
Economics
2 Technical electives*

Junior year
Geometry
Western Civilization
American Literature
Practical Biology
US Government
2 Technical electives*

Senior year
Applied Mathematics
Non-Western Civilization (choice of)
World Literature
Science elective
International Relations
2 Technical electives*

*These technical electives would be a minimum of five courses in a choosen career path such as nurse, mechanic, plumber, carpenter, etc. The other three electives would be personal intellectual development.

College Path
Freshman year
Algebra I
Chemistry I
US History to 1865
English I
Geography
Foreign Language I
Biology I

Sophomore year
Algebra II
Chemistry II*
US History from 1865
US Government
English II
Foreign Language II
Geometry

Junior year
Algebra III
Western Civilization
Economics
Classical Literature I
Physics I
Philosophy
Foreign Language III

Senior year
Calc/Trig
Non-Western Civ elective
Classical Literature II*
Physics II*
Foreign Language IV
Logic
Independent study

*Those second level courses would be optional, allowing the student flexibility to choose either a liberal arts path or a math/science path.

At 1/30/08 11:16 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/30/08 09:32 PM, TheMason wrote: Ethics are actually fairly subjective and dynamic.

No, not really.

I apologize for the lack of cartoon dinosaurs.

Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well founded reasons.

Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based. [Emphasis mine]

Source

Also you cannot seperate ethics from morals and say that ethics are "less subjective than morals". To do so just shows that you do not know what ethics are. Here's the entymological definition/history of the term:

1602, "the science of morals," pl. of M.E. ethik "study of morals" (1387), from O.Fr. ethique, from L.L. ethica, from Gk. ethike philosophia "moral philosophy," fem. of ethikos "ethical," from ethos "moral character," related to ethos "custom" (see ethos). The word also traces to Ta Ethika, title of Aristotle's work. Ethic "a person's moral principles," attested from 1651.

Source

Point: Ethics are Subjective and Dynamic
IF: Morals are subjective and dynamic in nature.
AND: Ethics are the philosophy/study/science of morals.
THEN: Ethics are subjective and dynamic in nature.

What was the guidelines for editorial discretion that he was operating under? Was he relatively free to publish w/o peer review or did he directly contravine the journal's proceedures?

Let's make something clear: His editorial discretion was that of naming who was to review an article. He declared himself the sole editor and published the article without deferring to any of the other editors of the journal.

Do you have a copy of the rules he operated under as editor-in-chief at the Proceedings? How do you know what you're "making clear" is correct for this specific case? Editorial discretion can vary from pub to pub and can thus mean many different things. What if he had the authority to publish w/o peer review?

Remember, we need to see the pub's guidelines from then and not now because this controversy caused them to change their editorial guidelines from what it was then. The fact that this necessitated a change indicates that he may very well have acted within the bounds of his mandate as editor-in-chief.

Oh yeah, this isn't that major of a pub so chances are he was the only full-time editor and any other editors listed were just on there as an honorarium.

While this creates a loophole where the editor can publish things without proper review, that's certainly not the intent.

I don't think you understand peer review. An article going for peer review is not submitted to another editor but multiple professors/researchers in the field. These individuals receive a copy of the article without the author's name attached to it. They then report to the editor what they liked/disliked about the article along with suggestions to make it better and a yes or no on publication.

Now, there is some debate on whether every article that is published in academic journals should undergo peer review because this may suppress minority viewpoints which may exist outside of the mainstream of the discipline. The answer to this is editorial discretion where the editor in chief has the authority to not submit an article for peer review but instead make the call to publish it.

If Sternberg had this authority he did not act unethically because what he did was use this authority to publish an article he knew was highly controversial and his superiors would not like. Was it stupid? Yes. Was it career & reputation suicide? Yes. Was it unethical? No. He simply acted within his authority to publish something that his employers would not like and probably perceive as injurous to the reputation of the journal.

In short: to publish an article despite explicit policies that prohibit certain types of articles would be unethical. However, if one is operating in an ambigious environment and is publishing an article that he knows would be unpopular...that is not unethical.

Using editorial discretion to circumvent proper review procedure in order to promote a specific agenda is not an "ambiguous" situation. It is most certainly an abuse of the authority he was entrusted with.

Yes it is:

If he has the authority given to him to skip peer review by the governing board of the organization then he was not abusing his authority. An abuse of authority is when he exceeds his authority by acting outside of his mandate. Thus far I've seen nothing to indicate that he violated policy. In fact since this necessitated a change in editorial policy; it is probably safer to assume that he had the authority to bypass peer review and the Proceedings got burned.

The truth is my friend when it comes to exactly what his editorial discretion entails BOTH of us are speaking out of our asses because neither one of us has been able to produce a copy of the policies and guidelines that Sternberg worked under.