Okay, stories like THIS irritate me (emphasis mine):
Pittsburgh Public Schools officials say they want to give struggling children a chance, but the district is raising eyebrows with a policy that sets 50 percent as the minimum score a student can receive for assignments, tests and other work.
At the same time, they said, the 50 percent minimum gives children a chance to catch up and a reason to keep trying. If a student gets a 20 percent in a class for the first marking period, Ms. Pugh said, he or she would need a 100 percent during the second marking period just to squeak through the semester.
“We want to create situations where students can recover and not give up,” she said, adding a sense of helplessness can lead to behavior and attendance problems.
While some districts use “F” as a failing grade, the city uses an “E.”
“The ‘E’ is to be recorded no lower than a 50 percent, regardless of the actual percent earned. For example, if the student earns a 20 percent on a class assignment, the grade is recorded as a 50 percent,” said the memo from Jerri Lippert, the district’s executive director of curriculum…
This is just stupid! It lowers the value of a diploma and doesn’t prepare kids for real life… the harsh reality where people don’t care how you feel and performance is king. A quote by Albert Einstein in a RECENT POST of mine comes to mind:
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.”
James Duane, a professor at Regent University School of Law, gave an excellent talk in May about why you should never, under any circumstances, talk to the police… even if you are innocent. It sounds counter-intuitive at first, but it really does make sense.
In summary:
Everything you tell the police can be used AGAINST you, but it can NEVER be used to help you (because it’s hear-say at that point).
There is no way talking to the police can help you.
You may admit guilt (even if innocent) with no benefit in return.
Even if you are innocent, it is easy to get carried away and tell a small lie, which can destroy your credibility.
Even if you are innocent, and only tell the truth, you will always give the police information that can help convict you.
Even if you are innocent, only tell the truth, and say nothing incriminating, the police may not recall the conversation with 100% accuracy.
Even if you are innocent, and only tell the truth, mistakes in your answers can incriminate you (either by misspeaking or drawing simple conclusions).
Even truthful answers can be contradicted by mistaken or unreliable evidence, destroying you credibility.
(requires Adobe Flash plugin… click HERE to watch it on YouTube)
I found the second part of the lecture especially interesting, where a veteran detective (George Bruch) backs up Duane’s arguments. Definitely recommend this one to friends.
(requires Adobe Flash plugin… click HERE to watch it on YouTube)
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has just ruled that [emphasis mine]:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
This is a landmark ruling that the antigun lobby has been fighting against for many years. The argument was that the 2nd amendment didn’t apply to individuals; only a state run militia. If this argument prevailed, then it would have effectively prevented an individual citizen from owning a gun.
While the ruling is a victory for those of us who take responsibility for our own self-defense, it doesn’t give carte-blanche rights to own any type of gun you want. Nor does it allow an individual to carry a weapon outside the home without a license. Those issues are left up to the states (which I agree with since I’m a big states-rights guy). From the ruling:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…
Financial Sense has a great editorial on oil futures and the current price bubble driven by “paper oil”… oil futures that work beyond the realm of supply-and-demand. The irony about the current situation is that the higher prices are driving MORE supply… something counter-intuitive to a more traditional economic way of thinking. Current oil prices could be overpriced in excess of 60% simply because of futures speculation. From the article:
By purchasing large numbers of futures contracts, and thereby pushing up futures prices to even higher levels than current prices, speculators have provided a financial incentive for oil companies to buy even more oil and place it in storage. A refiner will purchase extra oil today, even if it costs $115 per barrel, if the futures price is even higher.
As a result, over the past two years crude oil inventories have been steadily growing, resulting in US crude oil inventories that are now higher than at any time in the previous eight years. The large influx of speculative investment into oil futures has led to a situation where we have both high supplies of crude oil and high crude oil prices.
In the most recent sustained run-up in energy prices, large financial institutions, hedge funds, pension funds, and other investors have been pouring billions of dollars into the energy commodities markets to try to take advantage of price changes or hedge against them. Most of this additional investment has not come from producers or consumers of these commodities, but from speculators seeking to take advantage of these price changes.
The large purchases of crude oil futures contracts by speculators have, in effect, created an additional demand for oil, driving up the price of oil for future delivery in the same manner that additional demand for contracts for the delivery of a physical barrel today drives up the price for oil on the spot market. As far as the market is concerned, the demand for a barrel of oil that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a speculator is just as real as the demand for a barrel that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a refiner or other user of petroleum.
Installing red-light cameras is supposed to discourage people from running red lights and increase safety. However, several cities were caught shortening yellow-light times to INCREASE the number of people running red-lights to make money. Doing this actually DECREASES safety, because more drivers are forced to slam on their brakes which promotes rear-end collisions.
The BBC has a report about the security of British nuclear bombs prior to 1998:
Newsnight has discovered that until the early days of the Blair government the RAF’s nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key. There was no other security on the Bomb itself. While American and Russian weapons were protected by tamper-proof combination locks which could only be released if the correct code was transmitted, Britain relied on a simpler technology
Papers at the National Archive show that as early as 1966 an attempt was made to impose PAL security on British nuclear weapons.
The Chief Scientific Adviser Solly Zuckerman formally advised the Defence Secretary Denis Healey that Britain needed to install Permissive Action Links on its nuclear weapons to keep them safe.
“The Government will need to be certain that any weapons deployed are under some form of ‘ironclad’ control”.
The Royal Navy argued that officers of the Royal Navy as the Senior Service could be trusted:
“It would be invidious to suggest… that Senior Service officers may, in difficult circumstances, act in defiance of their clear orders”.
Neither the Navy nor the RAF installed PAL protection on their nuclear weapons.
My wife and I were searching YouTube this weekend and found this compilation of George Bush video clips. I know it’s easy to make someone look stupid with 7 years of video clips in your hands, but Bush is a little over the top. Enjoy!
(requires Adobe Flash plugin… click HERE to watch it on YouTube)
Tom Distler is a senior software engineer at Pelco. He has a beautiful wife and a strapping baby boy. He enjoys playing the drums and writing about himself in the 3rd-person (not really :-)). Read more...
Okay, stories like THIS irritate me (emphasis mine):
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has just ruled that [emphasis mine]:
Installing red-light cameras is supposed to discourage people from running red lights and increase safety. However, several cities were caught shortening yellow-light times to INCREASE the number of people running red-lights to make money. Doing this actually DECREASES safety, because more drivers are forced to slam on their brakes which promotes rear-end collisions.
I love Mr. Buffett’s response to this interview question about stimulating the economy:
The BBC has a report about the security of British nuclear bombs prior to 1998:
