It's arguably more fair. At least purely random scoring doesn't incentivize cheating.
208 karma · joined June 4, 2013
I mean, there is an argument to be made there. If people are lashing out violently, they've probably run out of non-violent options and that's something that should be addressed. But I think it sets a horrible precedent to allow violence to shape political discussion.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-645-en...
To me, 'privacy' means that my actions performed at home (or in other places where I can reasonably assume to be alone or in private company) should not be under the scrutiny of others.
I should have the right to act how I want in public as well, so long as my actions do not affect other people. But I don't see how I could reasonably expect to have privacy in that case.
Do Europeans have a different view?
The reason someone's search results are considered 'objectionable' is because they consider those results private. The private citizen, in the case, is the censor. The french government is just the enforcing body behind that censorship.
Edit: large -> small
Just like we didn't need to know about the X' of Einstein's equations to know that the X gravity was the primary force holding you to the ground.
There very well may be an X' that effects observable biological features other than evolution, but that X' needs to be tested on an individual basis. So while it's productive to hypothesize an X' and test it, there's not much we can do to rule out all X' as a class.
"Technical debt" is the justification for process and development decisions that require more time up-front but will save time in the long run (especially as a term to communicate this to non-technical management). It only comes into play when you're talking relatively about two or more different choices.
Just as an example: when deciding to move ahead with less testing or to move more slowly and write unit tests for every function, you should consider the first to come with more technical debt. That doesn't mean it's the wrong decision, it just means that it should be a factor in your thought process.
Yes, there's a danger of personifying animals. But there's also a tendency for us to picture ourselves as special (Geocentrism being the obvious example).
Now, this would normally have been something trivial I would have just shrugged off. But my computer partner also got in trouble for "not stopping me". What was he going to do, knock me out of my chair before I pressed enter? This kid was the stereotypical teacher's pet who always did his homework and was quiet in class, so I felt particularly bad for getting him in trouble. I even offered to serve two days of ISS instead of him getting in trouble - of course that request was denied.
To this day, I still cannot understand that woman's reasoning. How is "you could have done something bad," grounds for punishment? What kind of person feels the need to punish a child who's showing enthusiasm for a subject they're teaching?
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/systematicreviews/Q39Teac...
The primary reasons for absenteeism seem to be personal/family health (which, granted, that could be bullshit if it was self-reported) and work related requirements (training, etc.)
Several studies showed correlation between poverty and absenteeism, which suggests to me that teachers who have less financial resources to deal with personal issues are going to miss work more often to go deal with those issues.
It was also noted that administrators were absent more often than teachers and the author suggested this as being a factor in teacher absenteeism.
So then the answer is certainly "yes" with the same level of certainty that algorias is claiming. Large, complicated solutions are inherently likely to have subtle flaws.