http://www.physorg.com/news3376.html
Should we applaud Bush"s administration?
Not to say that bush is without sin, you really can't pin this all on him. it's been a long time coming.
the problem is the same as any other. the American Public education system.
America used to be the land of Free thinkers but in the effort to improve education and make things equal for all, we've been turned into a nation of test takers.
kids are no longer encouraged to Excel, in fact many schools now discourage it because it makes the dumb kids feel bad.
we need to bring competition back to the schools and back to america. though it's probably to late. I'm thinking east asia is the next super power.
But europe survived the transistion well enough. I supose we could do the same, so long as China doesn't decide try to take over the world.
the problem is the same as any other. the American Public education system.
America used to be the land of Free thinkers but in the effort to improve education and make things equal for all, we've been turned into a nation of test takers.
kids are no longer encouraged to Excel, in fact many schools now discourage it because it makes the dumb kids feel bad.
we need to bring competition back to the schools and back to america. though it's probably to late. I'm thinking east asia is the next super power.
But europe survived the transistion well enough. I supose we could do the same, so long as China doesn't decide try to take over the world.
I don't want to get into a political flamewar here, but it's not like this just suddenly happened within the last few years. This has been a long time in coming. Decades, I'd say.
While Bush may not exactly be bolstering the US economy, we can't just assign blame to one man. The potential of a nation is also the combined result of the efforts of its populace. Personally, I think we're just getting lazy and complacent. We're not the hegemony we were after WW2 anymore. Countries that we helped up out of the dust have been gaining on us ever since. They learned the lessons we taught them, and then turned around and built on that, rather than following suit and resting on their laurels. They've shown that our own accomplishments in the past 200 years, while respectable, are no longer very unique or impressive.
At any rate, we have the ability to address this, if we so desire. If we can recognize that our era of "entitlement" is over, and we once again need to work hard for prominence and superiority of economy, technology, and information. It's competition, people. It's what capitalism is all about. Step up to the plate or warm the bench, it's up to all of us.
While Bush may not exactly be bolstering the US economy, we can't just assign blame to one man. The potential of a nation is also the combined result of the efforts of its populace. Personally, I think we're just getting lazy and complacent. We're not the hegemony we were after WW2 anymore. Countries that we helped up out of the dust have been gaining on us ever since. They learned the lessons we taught them, and then turned around and built on that, rather than following suit and resting on their laurels. They've shown that our own accomplishments in the past 200 years, while respectable, are no longer very unique or impressive.
At any rate, we have the ability to address this, if we so desire. If we can recognize that our era of "entitlement" is over, and we once again need to work hard for prominence and superiority of economy, technology, and information. It's competition, people. It's what capitalism is all about. Step up to the plate or warm the bench, it's up to all of us.
Don't you hate it when you carefully write up a thoughtful post, and when it's perfect and complete you submit it, only to find out that someone else already made your main points while you were tweaking your wording?
All I can say is this:
All I can say is this:
if it matters, I think you said it better.
I'd just like to add that the article that dirak linked to is much more entertaining if you skip the intro paragraph and pretend that "Hicks" refers not to a researcher, but to a group of people. 
Back on the serious side...
Japan? Germany?
seriously though, if you find out where let me know. it's not the rich suburb just north of Indianapolis as near as I can tell.
so long as you come to school and pass your ISTEPs, you can flunk every class in 8th grade and still move on to highschool.
hell you can even bring a pocket knife to school, take it out in the middle of the gym, Hand it off to a friend when you see kids running to theteacher, lie to the teacher and the principle, even after they recover the knife, get arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and expeled for a year, and still get into highschool. (true story BTW, I'm thinking if selling my nephew to gypsies over it)
QUOTE (Matt+)
kids are no longer encouraged to Excel, in fact many schools now discourage it because it makes the dumb kids feel bad.
we need to bring competition back to the schools and back to america. though it's probably to late. I'm thinking east asia is the next super power.
This is disturbingly accurate. I have a few close friends who are pursuing degrees in education right now, and the stories they tell are really frightening. The amount of coddling that is encouraged (or demanded in some cases) makes the teaching process completely ineffectual for anyone but the most self-driven child. There is little to no encouragement to correct oneself, because the concept of "right" and "wrong" answers is gradually vanishing from schools.
The fact is that people grow and mature by overcoming adversity. A challenging educational environment is a necessity if we expect our youth to equal and eventually surpass our own achievements. How can we expect our youth to expand upon the horizons we've explored if we lead them all the way on training wheels and padded sidewalks? They need to be taught to stand on their own, and this cannot be done with words alone. They need to be taught that barriers are not indestructible, and this cannot be done unless they run into some on their own. The desire to overcome is driven by dissatisfaction with the status quo. But with all the coddling and psychological protectionism that goes on in schools today, we are training them all the way to be satisfied with what they are given.
The world is a harsh and competetive place, and our youths are shaping up to be little, gooey furballs of emotion and foundationless self-esteem. I just saw the new computer-animated movie "Robots" (which by the way is very funny and clever). It features a little encouraging slogan: "You can shine no matter what you're made of." It's a nice little thing that we should be teaching our kids: Everyone has an ability; find yours and make the most of it. But instead what are we teaching them? That there's no need for self-improvement, and everything is going to be okay, so don't worry about it.
We've taken away the encouragement to "shine", and all we're left with is the "no matter what you're made of" part. Which allows our youth to remain a bunch of dull, uninspired, mentally and psychologically flabby pseudo-adults. We should instead be encouraging them to shine themselves up and contribute, expand, and improve the world.
Granted, not all schools or school systems have fallen victim to this philosophy. There are places yet where teachers have faith in the strength of their students' minds and egos, and are willing to drive them to improvement. Anyone care to take a guess where? I'll give you a hint: they'll be hard to find in places like LA, New York, Chicago, or Milwaukee. I'm not taking political sides here. I've got equal ire for all Republicrats, because there are big problems on both sides of "the aisle". I judge by issues, not platforms, and so usually find myself undecided. But if we were to set this issue to stand alone, one side loses big in my opinion.
we need to bring competition back to the schools and back to america. though it's probably to late. I'm thinking east asia is the next super power.
This is disturbingly accurate. I have a few close friends who are pursuing degrees in education right now, and the stories they tell are really frightening. The amount of coddling that is encouraged (or demanded in some cases) makes the teaching process completely ineffectual for anyone but the most self-driven child. There is little to no encouragement to correct oneself, because the concept of "right" and "wrong" answers is gradually vanishing from schools.
The fact is that people grow and mature by overcoming adversity. A challenging educational environment is a necessity if we expect our youth to equal and eventually surpass our own achievements. How can we expect our youth to expand upon the horizons we've explored if we lead them all the way on training wheels and padded sidewalks? They need to be taught to stand on their own, and this cannot be done with words alone. They need to be taught that barriers are not indestructible, and this cannot be done unless they run into some on their own. The desire to overcome is driven by dissatisfaction with the status quo. But with all the coddling and psychological protectionism that goes on in schools today, we are training them all the way to be satisfied with what they are given.
The world is a harsh and competetive place, and our youths are shaping up to be little, gooey furballs of emotion and foundationless self-esteem. I just saw the new computer-animated movie "Robots" (which by the way is very funny and clever). It features a little encouraging slogan: "You can shine no matter what you're made of." It's a nice little thing that we should be teaching our kids: Everyone has an ability; find yours and make the most of it. But instead what are we teaching them? That there's no need for self-improvement, and everything is going to be okay, so don't worry about it.
We've taken away the encouragement to "shine", and all we're left with is the "no matter what you're made of" part. Which allows our youth to remain a bunch of dull, uninspired, mentally and psychologically flabby pseudo-adults. We should instead be encouraging them to shine themselves up and contribute, expand, and improve the world.
Granted, not all schools or school systems have fallen victim to this philosophy. There are places yet where teachers have faith in the strength of their students' minds and egos, and are willing to drive them to improvement. Anyone care to take a guess where? I'll give you a hint: they'll be hard to find in places like LA, New York, Chicago, or Milwaukee. I'm not taking political sides here. I've got equal ire for all Republicrats, because there are big problems on both sides of "the aisle". I judge by issues, not platforms, and so usually find myself undecided. But if we were to set this issue to stand alone, one side loses big in my opinion.
Just watched the movie Napoleon Dynamite last night. While it is funny enough, it is pretty scary given the article for this post. We've been on a long slide the last few decades, but I'm worried we are accelerating. (Someone older tell me if my fears are well placed.)
QUOTE
Anyone care to take a guess where?
Japan? Germany?
seriously though, if you find out where let me know. it's not the rich suburb just north of Indianapolis as near as I can tell.
so long as you come to school and pass your ISTEPs, you can flunk every class in 8th grade and still move on to highschool.
hell you can even bring a pocket knife to school, take it out in the middle of the gym, Hand it off to a friend when you see kids running to theteacher, lie to the teacher and the principle, even after they recover the knife, get arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and expeled for a year, and still get into highschool. (true story BTW, I'm thinking if selling my nephew to gypsies over it)
I'm not at all concerned about the Asians being more studious in their education. I've worked with many Asians in the engineering fields and they always seem to have taken their education much more seriously then most Occidentals. This is not to condemn our education system here in the West, I have worked with some brilliant engineers and scientists that received their education here. However, as in all instances I prefer quality and not quantity. It's one thing to have an excellent education, it's another to actually do something with it. Although a good number of our well educated engineers and scientists do wind up working for companies that design military and space hardware can any nation even come close to our expertise? We have robots wandering around on Mars. We have satellites orbiting other planets. We have satellites in orbit that can 'see' X-ray and Gamma ray radiation from events that happened over 12 billion years ago. We have drone aircraft that can stay aloft for days without being detected. Our latest fighters and bombers look like a sparrow to any type of radar. The VHS was originally developed by an American.
One needs to remember that the Asians have always been very well educated people, it's their governments that hold back any original thought processes.
One needs to remember that the Asians have always been very well educated people, it's their governments that hold back any original thought processes.
QUOTE (Matt+)
seriously though, if you find out where let me know. it's not the rich suburb just north of Indianapolis as near as I can tell.
Nope, it's in the low-to-mid-middle-class areas outside the sprawl of bigger towns and cities. It's not universally true, but there it's easier to find teachers who teach for value, rather than just to make a living. (They tend to be "Red" areas. They may not have the higher-education stuff down, but at least they lay their foundations right.) The rich suburbs, on the other hand, are usually even worse than the urban areas I mentioned.
And every now and then you'll stumble upon a truly great and dedicated teacher in the bigger public school systems. But usually they are older, on their way out after a career of good work, toiling in obscurity.
Nope, it's in the low-to-mid-middle-class areas outside the sprawl of bigger towns and cities. It's not universally true, but there it's easier to find teachers who teach for value, rather than just to make a living. (They tend to be "Red" areas. They may not have the higher-education stuff down, but at least they lay their foundations right.) The rich suburbs, on the other hand, are usually even worse than the urban areas I mentioned.
And every now and then you'll stumble upon a truly great and dedicated teacher in the bigger public school systems. But usually they are older, on their way out after a career of good work, toiling in obscurity.
QUOTE (steve+)
The VHS was originally developed by an American.
Great, but who invented CD, and DVD, and HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray? These things that are replacing VHS and cassette.
The point of the article is not that suddenly the US is not making any more progress. The point is that new innovation is happening less often in the US. The progress is slowing, and becoming less significant.
Great, but who invented CD, and DVD, and HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray? These things that are replacing VHS and cassette.
The point of the article is not that suddenly the US is not making any more progress. The point is that new innovation is happening less often in the US. The progress is slowing, and becoming less significant.
QUOTE (steve+)
We have robots wandering around on Mars. We have satellites orbiting other planets.
Great, we're in space. Wonderful. Let me know when I can arrange a Martian vacation through Expedia or Travelocity, and then we can pat ourselves on the back. In the meantime, Japanese technology is in the hands of the vast majority of Americans. How much technology does Japan import from the US, I wonder? (Besides maybe the X-Box, in very limited numbers, and which now has to be marketed to Japan by a Japanese native.)
Innovation is what this is about. We're not mediocre, as a nation, yet. But we're making great headway on getting there. Complacency will only speed the process.
Great, we're in space. Wonderful. Let me know when I can arrange a Martian vacation through Expedia or Travelocity, and then we can pat ourselves on the back. In the meantime, Japanese technology is in the hands of the vast majority of Americans. How much technology does Japan import from the US, I wonder? (Besides maybe the X-Box, in very limited numbers, and which now has to be marketed to Japan by a Japanese native.)
Innovation is what this is about. We're not mediocre, as a nation, yet. But we're making great headway on getting there. Complacency will only speed the process.
We have become lazy and we glorify wealth to much which translates into a society no longer fixated on self-improvement (not the bank account kind) or working for a greater good (not the tree hugging kind) but just on what gets them the most money and phD degrees generally do not fill that desire.
As a senior in high school I can honestly say everyone is correct their is no competion in the most of high school. Only the top one percent in my school actually care and strive to do good and worry about their grades and not where the next party is going to be at.
it's not japanese technology that we're importing though. it's just japanese products.
what powers the Playstation? AMD, INtel, IBM, ATI, NVIdia. (ok, ATI looks to be canadian) but again all japan does is take our technology and sell it back to us.
James Russell in 1965, first mass produced by phillips in 1980.
James Russell in 1965, first mass produced by phillips in 1980.
and DVD, and HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray? These things that are replacing VHS and cassette.
of course all of this is just a fancier cd but....
I think what he was trying to say is that America is competitive. we accomplished a lot when we were competing with the Soviet Union.
hopefully we will recapture that when a new rival steps up.
what powers the Playstation? AMD, INtel, IBM, ATI, NVIdia. (ok, ATI looks to be canadian) but again all japan does is take our technology and sell it back to us.
QUOTE
Great, but who invented CD,
James Russell in 1965, first mass produced by phillips in 1980.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Great, but who invented CD, |
James Russell in 1965, first mass produced by phillips in 1980.
and DVD, and HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray? These things that are replacing VHS and cassette.
of course all of this is just a fancier cd but....
QUOTE
o single company "owns" DVD. The official specification was developed by a consortium of ten companies: Hitachi, JVC, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Philips, Pioneer, Sony, Thomson, Time Warner, and Toshiba. Representatives from many other companies also contributed in various working groups. In May 1997, the DVD Consortium was replaced by the DVD Forum , which is open to all companies, and as of February 2000 had over 220 members. Time Warner originally trademarked the DVD logo, and has since assigned it to the DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corporation (DVD FLLC). The written term "DVD" is too common to be trademarked or owned. See section 6.2 and visit Robert's DVD Info page for links to Web sites of companies working with DVD.
Thanks for the correction, Matt. That's what I get for spouting off.
I'll shut up now.
I'll shut up now.
All empires fall and USA is no exception.
I talk to many asians on MSN who live in america, its asian culture for the child to surpass excellently. Which explains the acceleration of asian science knowledge and contribution.The longer a country is safe the more it becomes complacent,
I whole heartedly agree that schools dont put enough challenges into things to keep the retards happy.
Unfortunately that wont get us anywhere, equality annoys me....
We spend AGES teaching everyone is unique then go and contradict it all and spend years doing all this equality crap
Lets face it-someone is always going to be more stupid than someone else, its not a nice fact especially for someone who wants to be the best 9which many do) but thats life, and we learn from that, and as i said before-the longer a country(works with people too) is safe (the best at something) the more complacent they become
I've seen smart students get grade A's and because they think theyre great they grow and ego lose loads of friends because of their arrogance then fail the next syllabus because they think theyre too good to study or revise.
Same is happening with america, its used to being top dog so it doesnt have that same "we must get this far ahead of russia" as a classic example.
As for eastern asia becoming the next super power...oh dear...
Theyre not exactly famous for being nice people now are they.
I wouldnt exactly worry though about scientific dominence...theyre making the article sound as if asias on the brink of super galactic destructic weapons or something and theyre going to pummel us with their AMAZING technology, I dont think theyre going to get THAT far ahead, i just think theyl have more going on in the field and might have prototypes of certain technologies in the mold etc.
Theyl need to invent something truly amazing to defeat america, as even with superior technology-Another country could still put up a good fight...or get bored and launch a nuke...
I wouldnt worry anyway, the way americas government works is wonderful(sarcasm)-
If another country is doing something it doesnt like, it either makes it stop it-or takes it for itself.
So all that technology will be americas in the end anyway
I whole heartedly agree that schools dont put enough challenges into things to keep the retards happy.
Unfortunately that wont get us anywhere, equality annoys me....
We spend AGES teaching everyone is unique then go and contradict it all and spend years doing all this equality crap
Lets face it-someone is always going to be more stupid than someone else, its not a nice fact especially for someone who wants to be the best 9which many do) but thats life, and we learn from that, and as i said before-the longer a country(works with people too) is safe (the best at something) the more complacent they become
I've seen smart students get grade A's and because they think theyre great they grow and ego lose loads of friends because of their arrogance then fail the next syllabus because they think theyre too good to study or revise.
Same is happening with america, its used to being top dog so it doesnt have that same "we must get this far ahead of russia" as a classic example.
As for eastern asia becoming the next super power...oh dear...
Theyre not exactly famous for being nice people now are they.
I wouldnt exactly worry though about scientific dominence...theyre making the article sound as if asias on the brink of super galactic destructic weapons or something and theyre going to pummel us with their AMAZING technology, I dont think theyre going to get THAT far ahead, i just think theyl have more going on in the field and might have prototypes of certain technologies in the mold etc.
Theyl need to invent something truly amazing to defeat america, as even with superior technology-Another country could still put up a good fight...or get bored and launch a nuke...
I wouldnt worry anyway, the way americas government works is wonderful(sarcasm)-
If another country is doing something it doesnt like, it either makes it stop it-or takes it for itself.
So all that technology will be americas in the end anyway
All empires fall and USA is no exception.
I agree
but i dont think many americans would like to admit that, and im sure were going to get someone post a lot of politicial flaming because of this, or my post about americas wonderful government note.
Bush has denied EU army increases, read it in the papers.
Bush i think is worried about Europe coming together and i think hes worried about asia working together a lot too.
If these countries do form another superpower it will be very interesting
Because its american custom to beat an opposing country like russia
I just want to see what happens if america tries beating europe and asia....
Not only that but asia likes europe better, im not gonna beat around the bush...thanks to bush (pardon the pun) america has become very unpopular
I wouldnt be very surprised if europe and asia started working together
And then of course theyl be top dog
for x amount of years
and then the empire crumbles
and we restart all over again with a new empire...
all empires do indeed fall.
I agree
but i dont think many americans would like to admit that, and im sure were going to get someone post a lot of politicial flaming because of this, or my post about americas wonderful government note.
Bush has denied EU army increases, read it in the papers.
Bush i think is worried about Europe coming together and i think hes worried about asia working together a lot too.
If these countries do form another superpower it will be very interesting
Because its american custom to beat an opposing country like russia
I just want to see what happens if america tries beating europe and asia....
Not only that but asia likes europe better, im not gonna beat around the bush...thanks to bush (pardon the pun) america has become very unpopular
I wouldnt be very surprised if europe and asia started working together
And then of course theyl be top dog
for x amount of years
and then the empire crumbles
and we restart all over again with a new empire...
all empires do indeed fall.
Trying to blame this on Bush is silly, and would be indicative of the sort of intellectual decline -- the inability to face up to the real problem -- this sort of article underscores.
We've clearly got the ability to respond. We've had similar trends in the past (notice they look back to the late 80s for comparisons, which happens to be about the time we ended our last fat-and-lazy period and generated a decade and a half of performance that put even more distance between ourselves and our major competitors), and responded to them all. If we want to, we will. If we insist on looking at things as being the fault or glory of some short-term partisan thing, we're in trouble.
Yes, China will become an economic superpower. America, even if it remains in its fat-and-lazy mindset (and honestly, we're not nearly as fat-and-lazy as we have been at times in the past, we're simply in a transition period where the broader public has not yet adjusted to what business and the government did long ago - which was to shift focus from Europe to Asia) it is in no danger whatsoever of losing its own superpower status, its status as a full-spectrum superpower (economic, political, military, cultural). Even the EU is an single-spectrum superpower, an economic superpower.
We've clearly got the ability to respond. We've had similar trends in the past (notice they look back to the late 80s for comparisons, which happens to be about the time we ended our last fat-and-lazy period and generated a decade and a half of performance that put even more distance between ourselves and our major competitors), and responded to them all. If we want to, we will. If we insist on looking at things as being the fault or glory of some short-term partisan thing, we're in trouble.
Yes, China will become an economic superpower. America, even if it remains in its fat-and-lazy mindset (and honestly, we're not nearly as fat-and-lazy as we have been at times in the past, we're simply in a transition period where the broader public has not yet adjusted to what business and the government did long ago - which was to shift focus from Europe to Asia) it is in no danger whatsoever of losing its own superpower status, its status as a full-spectrum superpower (economic, political, military, cultural). Even the EU is an single-spectrum superpower, an economic superpower.
"Not only that but asia likes europe better"
Not sure someone who talks of "Asia" and "Europe" as single entities should really be preaching about international relations.
Perhaps all empires fall, but America is not an empire - at least not in the traditional sense. When empires "fall" they lose their influence, they fall apart, they lose holdings, wealth, their fundamentals. There is no remote comparison between empires of the past and the United States today.
Past "empires" had small domestic populations, and vast submissive external populations paying tribute and materiel, held in check by military power that cost the central power significant portions of its economy, and which lost their wealth by giving it over to the central power. The global economy was little more than a static pie. When my share got bigger, your share got smaller.
Today the US has a vast internal population, one that will continue to balloon as the population of Europe shrinks. The US spends a tiny portion of its GDP on its military. The US is enriched by its trading partners; when their slice gets bigger, our slice gets bigger as well. Witness trade with, say, the EU or Canada, each of which has become wealthy and affluent post-WW2 and which has benefitted our economy enourmously.
<i>Bush has denied EU army increases, read it in the papers.</i>
1. Bush has "denied" no such thing.
2. There is no "EU army," there was the Rapid Reaction Force (which was abandoned because the EU does not have the money or equipment to maintain a 60,000-strong force capable of multi-month deploymeny). Now there will be fast-response battalions of a few thousand troops each, capable of being deployed for several weeks at a time. This is what the EU has money for, not what America "permits."
"Because its american custom to beat an opposing country like russia"
American custom? You got that from the Cold War? Lots of Cold Wars, were there? That's a profoundly bizarre statement given America's history of isolationism until WW2. (And please be accurate, it wasn't beating "Russia" it was beating the "Soviet Union," and that was the goal of Europe as well in case you didn't notice.) There are ideological differences between America and Europe, but they are not remotely like those between the US and the Soviet Union. Differences between China and the US are different as well.
Not sure someone who talks of "Asia" and "Europe" as single entities should really be preaching about international relations.
Perhaps all empires fall, but America is not an empire - at least not in the traditional sense. When empires "fall" they lose their influence, they fall apart, they lose holdings, wealth, their fundamentals. There is no remote comparison between empires of the past and the United States today.
Past "empires" had small domestic populations, and vast submissive external populations paying tribute and materiel, held in check by military power that cost the central power significant portions of its economy, and which lost their wealth by giving it over to the central power. The global economy was little more than a static pie. When my share got bigger, your share got smaller.
Today the US has a vast internal population, one that will continue to balloon as the population of Europe shrinks. The US spends a tiny portion of its GDP on its military. The US is enriched by its trading partners; when their slice gets bigger, our slice gets bigger as well. Witness trade with, say, the EU or Canada, each of which has become wealthy and affluent post-WW2 and which has benefitted our economy enourmously.
<i>Bush has denied EU army increases, read it in the papers.</i>
1. Bush has "denied" no such thing.
2. There is no "EU army," there was the Rapid Reaction Force (which was abandoned because the EU does not have the money or equipment to maintain a 60,000-strong force capable of multi-month deploymeny). Now there will be fast-response battalions of a few thousand troops each, capable of being deployed for several weeks at a time. This is what the EU has money for, not what America "permits."
"Because its american custom to beat an opposing country like russia"
American custom? You got that from the Cold War? Lots of Cold Wars, were there? That's a profoundly bizarre statement given America's history of isolationism until WW2. (And please be accurate, it wasn't beating "Russia" it was beating the "Soviet Union," and that was the goal of Europe as well in case you didn't notice.) There are ideological differences between America and Europe, but they are not remotely like those between the US and the Soviet Union. Differences between China and the US are different as well.
QUOTE
"Because its american custom to beat an opposing country like russia"
American custom? You got that from the Cold War? Lots of Cold Wars, were there? That's a profoundly bizarre statement given America's history of isolationism until WW2. (And please be accurate, it wasn't beating "Russia" it was beating the "Soviet Union," and that was the goal of Europe as well in case you didn't notice.) There are ideological differences between America and Europe, but they are not remotely like those between the US and the Soviet Union. Differences between China and the US are different as well.
American custom? You got that from the Cold War? Lots of Cold Wars, were there? That's a profoundly bizarre statement given America's history of isolationism until WW2. (And please be accurate, it wasn't beating "Russia" it was beating the "Soviet Union," and that was the goal of Europe as well in case you didn't notice.) There are ideological differences between America and Europe, but they are not remotely like those between the US and the Soviet Union. Differences between China and the US are different as well.
I think what he was trying to say is that America is competitive. we accomplished a lot when we were competing with the Soviet Union.
hopefully we will recapture that when a new rival steps up.
I just read a news article about robot and AI technology in Japan that kind of describes some of the difference between the U.S. and Japan:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/technology/050...tech-114940.htm
The key lines:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/technology/050...tech-114940.htm
The key lines:
QUOTE (from the article+)
In the quest for artificial intelligence, the United States is perhaps just as advanced as Japan. But analysts stress that the focus in the United States has been largely on military applications. By contrast, the Japanese government, academic institutions and major corporations are investing billions of dollars on consumer robots aimed at altering everyday life
yeah that is pretty Key, and it's one of the reasons we are falling behind as well.
America kind of took it upon itself to protect the free world from the not so free world.
Japan living under that umbrella, was able to focus it's entire national effort on making cool things to sell to others.
though at the same time, we still get the benifit of that research and technology, for a price. that is one thing different now than before when there were local emipres.
today, there really is just one world. no one country has to go it alone. We send up cassini, and the ESA attaches Hyeugens to it. we both get the data and human kind benifits.
America kind of took it upon itself to protect the free world from the not so free world.
Japan living under that umbrella, was able to focus it's entire national effort on making cool things to sell to others.
though at the same time, we still get the benifit of that research and technology, for a price. that is one thing different now than before when there were local emipres.
today, there really is just one world. no one country has to go it alone. We send up cassini, and the ESA attaches Hyeugens to it. we both get the data and human kind benifits.
QUOTE (Matt+)
America kind of took it upon itself to protect the free world from the not so free world.
Not trying to start a flamewar, but I've always kind of been curious what other nations would do if the U.S. completely stopped going on new campaigns. You know, just finish the stuff we've started, but going forward kind of let everyone worry about their own problems. If the UN wanted us to participate in a campaign, then fine, but no more US lobbying for UN involvement, no more self-appointed coalition-leading, no more trying to architect diplomacy between other conflicted nations.
I'm not saying I necessarily think this would be a great idea, I just wonder what the result would be. Would our standing with other countries improve? Would terrorists ease back on targeting America and Americans? Would we be able to focus more money on our economy instead of military, yet still feel and be safe? Or would the opinions stay the same, while the reasons changed?
Basically, kind of a non-involvement stance, except when it's really a big deal. But not isolationism like before the WW2. Economically, we'd be working for global integration.
Just random thoughts...
Not trying to start a flamewar, but I've always kind of been curious what other nations would do if the U.S. completely stopped going on new campaigns. You know, just finish the stuff we've started, but going forward kind of let everyone worry about their own problems. If the UN wanted us to participate in a campaign, then fine, but no more US lobbying for UN involvement, no more self-appointed coalition-leading, no more trying to architect diplomacy between other conflicted nations.
I'm not saying I necessarily think this would be a great idea, I just wonder what the result would be. Would our standing with other countries improve? Would terrorists ease back on targeting America and Americans? Would we be able to focus more money on our economy instead of military, yet still feel and be safe? Or would the opinions stay the same, while the reasons changed?
Basically, kind of a non-involvement stance, except when it's really a big deal. But not isolationism like before the WW2. Economically, we'd be working for global integration.
Just random thoughts...
America is becoming a bunch of entertainers> football, baseball, musicians, actors> entertainers. Not that it is bad that there are entertainers, but it seems there is to much of this conversion. It actually makes me sick to think when I am around kids who want there career being a football player or musician. It is more rare to hear someone say they want to be a physicist,
or LASER spectroscopist, or astronaut, or computer programmer,
anything that brings scientific innovation.
or LASER spectroscopist, or astronaut, or computer programmer,
anything that brings scientific innovation.
Anyone reading these posts should also try:
1984 by George Orwell
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel Huntington
The Lexus and The Olive Tree by Thomas Friedman
not that any of these books will tell us what's necessarily to come, but they seem like distinct possibilities.
In addition check out http://www.cia.gov/nic for what the government thinks might be on the way at "Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project"
1984 by George Orwell
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel Huntington
The Lexus and The Olive Tree by Thomas Friedman
not that any of these books will tell us what's necessarily to come, but they seem like distinct possibilities.
In addition check out http://www.cia.gov/nic for what the government thinks might be on the way at "Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project"
QUOTE (Guest_QuantaConcious+Mar 15 2005, 01:29 PM)
America is becoming a bunch of entertainers> football, baseball, musicians, actors> entertainers. Not that it is bad that there are entertainers, but it seems there is to much of this conversion. It actually makes me sick to think when I am around kids who want there career being a football player or musician. It is more rare to hear someone say they want to be a physicist,
or LASER spectroscopist, or astronaut, or computer programmer,
anything that brings scientific innovation.
Are you a US native? I only ask because it strikes me that people outside the US would be more inclined to believe this than those within, because they largely have to go by what they see on TV, radio, or in papers.
Back in the 50's everyone wanted to be a cowboy (think Roy Rogers), or a space-alien hunter (think Tom Swift style science-fiction), and these were no less realistic or "worthwhile". The fact remains it takes a great deal of skill to become a professional athlete or artist, and it takes a certain combination of qualities to become an actor, so those who fulfill these dreams are limited. Also we should not dismiss the morale value of sports entertainers, or the cultural importance of artists.
I do agree that these are largely "disposable" professions, and aren't directly contributing to the advancement and competitiveness of the U.S. And their current incarnation and popularity can only harm our global reputation. But only a very small percentage of these child dreamers actually go into those professions. Most find more practical (and IMO, grander) dreams as they mature. And these are the ones they pursue and fulfill.
Anyway, from what I've witnessed, I think the U.S. is mostly a nation of farmers and "business-people".
or LASER spectroscopist, or astronaut, or computer programmer,
anything that brings scientific innovation.
Are you a US native? I only ask because it strikes me that people outside the US would be more inclined to believe this than those within, because they largely have to go by what they see on TV, radio, or in papers.
Back in the 50's everyone wanted to be a cowboy (think Roy Rogers), or a space-alien hunter (think Tom Swift style science-fiction), and these were no less realistic or "worthwhile". The fact remains it takes a great deal of skill to become a professional athlete or artist, and it takes a certain combination of qualities to become an actor, so those who fulfill these dreams are limited. Also we should not dismiss the morale value of sports entertainers, or the cultural importance of artists.
I do agree that these are largely "disposable" professions, and aren't directly contributing to the advancement and competitiveness of the U.S. And their current incarnation and popularity can only harm our global reputation. But only a very small percentage of these child dreamers actually go into those professions. Most find more practical (and IMO, grander) dreams as they mature. And these are the ones they pursue and fulfill.
Anyway, from what I've witnessed, I think the U.S. is mostly a nation of farmers and "business-people".
Don't forget the retail and service industries. Most of the people I know work in one of those industries. Unfortunately neither really progress the U.S as a country.
For some reason, I am reminded of one of the introduction to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", by the late, great Douglas Adams.
It contains the following lines:
It contains the following lines:
QUOTE (From the book+)
"This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy."
Inovation has been somewhat squashed with these long term patents and fear of law suits..... All we have to do is set a patent at first application 1) you have 3 years to implement your design and show some sales growth of 5%-10% of your revenue and you keep your patent for 10years only. If no implementation, then you lose your patent at the end of the initial 3 year mark...wow!!! what a technology explosion that could happen......
"Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress"-Thomas Alva Edison
"Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress"-Thomas Alva Edison
If I may add 2 cents. As much as the discussion is of the relative advantage of the US in R&D, the US education system I think is much less at fault than the serious failure of will of leadership which has left the US as the only remaining stronghold of the old "traditional" units-of-measure system v.s. the SI or metric, particularly in engineering and industry. I think this places US engineers at a huge disadvantage v.s. competing countries. eg. scientists (who all, even in US), work in metric, have a much more difficult time communicating with engineers when the engineers use the old "english" units, and I think it shows, e.g. US scientific research is still by far the strongest in the world, but in translating the results into meaningful substance, many other nations show disproportionate strengths v.s. the US.
And I know even the US auto industry is completely metric now, and that hasn't seemed to help the US auto industry. However I think there's a couple of factors there. First, having to deal with conversions at every interface to the infrastructure which supports the auto industry, and second, a significant delay effect of the benefits of conversion. My experience form Canada which converted in the 1970's is that the conversion process is quite painfull in the short term, while the benefits may take a generation to show up.
I would suggest to the US however, that the eventual conversion is inevitable, and the longer it is delayed and the more integrated things become worldwide, the worse become the downsides.
And I know even the US auto industry is completely metric now, and that hasn't seemed to help the US auto industry. However I think there's a couple of factors there. First, having to deal with conversions at every interface to the infrastructure which supports the auto industry, and second, a significant delay effect of the benefits of conversion. My experience form Canada which converted in the 1970's is that the conversion process is quite painfull in the short term, while the benefits may take a generation to show up.
I would suggest to the US however, that the eventual conversion is inevitable, and the longer it is delayed and the more integrated things become worldwide, the worse become the downsides.
<<We have satellites in orbit that can 'see' X-ray and Gamma ray radiation from events that happened over 12 billion years ago. >>
The US also has the Hubble, arguably the most important science research tool in space, but which is about to be abandoned, for reasons which neither scientists nor astronauts seem to understand or support.
I can't help wondering: could it be that one significant problem, bringing the Hubble into conflict with certain religious circles which have come into recent prominence in US decision making, is that this is a tool which science suggests can see, in a compelling way, into the pre-biblical past ?
I'm sorry if this seems to be wandering off the topic of this thread, but I wonder if perhaps there is an obscure link.
It seems to me that a resonance has developed in the US between fringe religious fundamentalism and mainstream social, political and educational thinking. This is showing signs of spreading elsewhere in the first world: increasingly decision makers and opinion leaders are locking on to answers rather than questions.
When you already know the answers, curiosity is the first casualty, and without curiosity, innovation withers on the vine.
The US also has the Hubble, arguably the most important science research tool in space, but which is about to be abandoned, for reasons which neither scientists nor astronauts seem to understand or support.
I can't help wondering: could it be that one significant problem, bringing the Hubble into conflict with certain religious circles which have come into recent prominence in US decision making, is that this is a tool which science suggests can see, in a compelling way, into the pre-biblical past ?
I'm sorry if this seems to be wandering off the topic of this thread, but I wonder if perhaps there is an obscure link.
It seems to me that a resonance has developed in the US between fringe religious fundamentalism and mainstream social, political and educational thinking. This is showing signs of spreading elsewhere in the first world: increasingly decision makers and opinion leaders are locking on to answers rather than questions.
When you already know the answers, curiosity is the first casualty, and without curiosity, innovation withers on the vine.
QUOTE (lengould+)
but in translating the results into meaningful substance, many other nations show disproportionate strengths v.s. the US
I think you are right on this, but I have a hard time believing that units of measurement would be the big reason.
It doesn't explain why, for example, the U.S. is pumping out microchips, ICs, etc. (though manufactured overseas, they are designed here), but yet, as Matt pointed out, Japan is the one doing great things with them. There may be much wonderful technology going into them, but the fact is they are still just a resource for other products, rather than an end product themselves. A microchip cannot stand on it's own; people don't go to the store and buy microchips. Microchips get bought in bulk by companies who use them to make the things people go to the store to buy.
I think you are right on this, but I have a hard time believing that units of measurement would be the big reason.
It doesn't explain why, for example, the U.S. is pumping out microchips, ICs, etc. (though manufactured overseas, they are designed here), but yet, as Matt pointed out, Japan is the one doing great things with them. There may be much wonderful technology going into them, but the fact is they are still just a resource for other products, rather than an end product themselves. A microchip cannot stand on it's own; people don't go to the store and buy microchips. Microchips get bought in bulk by companies who use them to make the things people go to the store to buy.
QUOTE (Augur+)
you have 3 years to implement your design and show some sales growth of 5%-10% of your revenue and you keep your patent for 10years only
What do you mean by sales growth? Do you mean strict growth from one year to the next, or do you mean being "in the black". AMD, for example, was "in the red" for quite a long time before they had a break-even year. I remember the excited announcement of this accomplishment about 5-or-so years ago. And yet now they are Intel's biggest competitor in the consumer market.
What do you mean by sales growth? Do you mean strict growth from one year to the next, or do you mean being "in the black". AMD, for example, was "in the red" for quite a long time before they had a break-even year. I remember the excited announcement of this accomplishment about 5-or-so years ago. And yet now they are Intel's biggest competitor in the consumer market.
QUOTE (Andrew Troup+)
bringing the Hubble into conflict with certain religious circles which have come into recent prominence in US decision making
Bush claims to be "Christian" for the same reason that any politician claims anything: It gets votes. I have yet to see him do much of anything that really panders to his "Christian base", except possibly his stance on gay marriage. And let's face it, it's not like he's going to really be a big obstacle when that issue finally finishes hitting the fan.
There just aren't that many hard-core, 6000-year-old-Eearth Christians out there.
For all that they may not be hugely numerous, they seem to punch considerably above their weight in certain circles, particularly education policy.
There aren't that many paedophiles out there, either, but they cast a big shadow on the Internet.
Fundamentalists of the young-Earth stripe similarly cast a big shadow, BUT it's not just on the Internet, which so notoriously makes it easy for fringe individuals to find others who validate their beliefs.
Partly because Fundamentalists are proactive and unabashed in promoting and evangelising their views, partly because they are often very good, nice, admirable people, partly because political correctness is so fashionable in educational circles, partly because their beliefs are often embarassing to others, and partly because they usually are so unsatisfying to engage, they encounter relatively little contradiction. Moreover, they don't seek out or carefully consider alternative points of view, usually quite the opposite.
They accordingly believe, and behave as though, they represent a mainstream force in society, and in occasional cases, this carries them to victory (as in several US states whose Boards of Education have mandated that "Creation Science" be taught as a viable alternative hypothesis to evolution.)
Add to this that the pre-eminent political establishment on the planet actively courts them, I don't think it would safe to assume that everyone who expresses concern is necessarily anxiety-prone, or Left-leaning, or falls into any identifiable sub-group.
Good point, however all the blame can't be laid on him alone. which is the point I was trying to make.
His policies certaintly aren't helping the situation. I think no child left behind is going to do more harm than good. An education should be something that you have to go out and get, not something that is forced down your throat.
Bush claims to be "Christian" for the same reason that any politician claims anything: It gets votes. I have yet to see him do much of anything that really panders to his "Christian base", except possibly his stance on gay marriage. And let's face it, it's not like he's going to really be a big obstacle when that issue finally finishes hitting the fan.
QUOTE (Andrew Troup+)
It seems to me that a resonance has developed in the US between fringe religious fundamentalism and mainstream social, political and educational thinking.
The fundies may be backing Bush, but like I said, he's not catering to them. They are a minority, even among the general Christian population.
But hey, I could be wrong. I'm not fond of either side of the aisle. But I really don't see a lot of the things that left-wingers seem so terrified of, the fear of fundamentalists being one of them. But if I'm wrong, then I guess we deserve what we get. I just don't see it coming to that. There just aren't that many hard-core, 6000-year-old-Eearth Christians out there.
The fundies may be backing Bush, but like I said, he's not catering to them. They are a minority, even among the general Christian population.
But hey, I could be wrong. I'm not fond of either side of the aisle. But I really don't see a lot of the things that left-wingers seem so terrified of, the fear of fundamentalists being one of them. But if I'm wrong, then I guess we deserve what we get. I just don't see it coming to that. There just aren't that many hard-core, 6000-year-old-Eearth Christians out there.
Just from my own experience, it's a real pain when I must specify anything from a US manufacturer, because I'm used to just being able to calculate most conversions automatically with only two important odd numbers to remember, eg. 9.8 N/kg and 101.3 kpa/bar (both close enough to even division by 10^n to do cross-checks mentally). I recently had to work out a coverage of an area with Mylar, and of cource DuPont is the only source. On their website, would you believe the only units of weight and price per area which were presented for their offerings were lb per ream and dollars per ream? For Mylar?
Working out reinforcing strand design is just as bad when super-high-tech manufacturers of specialty carbon fibers quote patterns in "deniers".
Quick now, how many sq meters in a ream? With customer service like that, I'd almost rather use any other supplier if there was one.
Working out reinforcing strand design is just as bad when super-high-tech manufacturers of specialty carbon fibers quote patterns in "deniers".
Quick now, how many sq meters in a ream? With customer service like that, I'd almost rather use any other supplier if there was one.
Hi All, I've been away for 2 days and missed all this. Lol at the two nearly identical posts earlier on - you are clearly on the same wavelength. We have similar problems here in UK as far as education goes and recently several universities have announced that they will not be running Physics degree courses in future. Whether we have too many higher education establishments now is another topic for debate - how can a nation function if 50% are educated to degree level?
I have no idea how to improve the situation, just saying you are not alone.
I have no idea how to improve the situation, just saying you are not alone.
QUOTE
There just aren't that many hard-core, 6000-year-old-Eearth Christians out there.
For all that they may not be hugely numerous, they seem to punch considerably above their weight in certain circles, particularly education policy.
There aren't that many paedophiles out there, either, but they cast a big shadow on the Internet.
Fundamentalists of the young-Earth stripe similarly cast a big shadow, BUT it's not just on the Internet, which so notoriously makes it easy for fringe individuals to find others who validate their beliefs.
Partly because Fundamentalists are proactive and unabashed in promoting and evangelising their views, partly because they are often very good, nice, admirable people, partly because political correctness is so fashionable in educational circles, partly because their beliefs are often embarassing to others, and partly because they usually are so unsatisfying to engage, they encounter relatively little contradiction. Moreover, they don't seek out or carefully consider alternative points of view, usually quite the opposite.
They accordingly believe, and behave as though, they represent a mainstream force in society, and in occasional cases, this carries them to victory (as in several US states whose Boards of Education have mandated that "Creation Science" be taught as a viable alternative hypothesis to evolution.)
Add to this that the pre-eminent political establishment on the planet actively courts them, I don't think it would safe to assume that everyone who expresses concern is necessarily anxiety-prone, or Left-leaning, or falls into any identifiable sub-group.
"Not only that but asia likes europe better"
Not sure someone who talks of "Asia" and "Europe" as single entities should really be preaching about international relations.
Perhaps all empires fall, but America is not an empire - at least not in the traditional sense. When empires "fall" they lose their influence, they fall apart, they lose holdings, wealth, their fundamentals. There is no remote comparison between empires of the past and the United States today.
Past "empires" had small domestic populations, and vast submissive external populations paying tribute and materiel, held in check by military power that cost the central power significant portions of its economy, and which lost their wealth by giving it over to the central power. The global economy was little more than a static pie. When my share got bigger, your share got smaller.
Today the US has a vast internal population, one that will continue to balloon as the population of Europe shrinks. The US spends a tiny portion of its GDP on its military. The US is enriched by its trading partners; when their slice gets bigger, our slice gets bigger as well. Witness trade with, say, the EU or Canada, each of which has become wealthy and affluent post-WW2 and which has benefitted our economy enourmously.
<i>Bush has denied EU army increases, read it in the papers.</i>
1. Bush has "denied" no such thing.
2. There is no "EU army," there was the Rapid Reaction Force (which was abandoned because the EU does not have the money or equipment to maintain a 60,000-strong force capable of multi-month deploymeny). Now there will be fast-response battalions of a few thousand troops each, capable of being deployed for several weeks at a time. This is what the EU has money for, not what America "permits."
Right, americas not an empire?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Empire
Bush hasnt denied EU increases?
Ugh il scan the newspaper if that will make you happy, i just hope i havent thrown it away
I dont think i have.
As to an EU army-I dont know much about politics, i find it in my personal opinion to be a useless subject to discuss considering everyone who fights about it is usually biased and talks crap and has propaganda everywhere, someone who wants to run a country ANYONE and i mean ANYONE has some form of megalomania, there have been VERY few politicians who really want to help the community.
And as Matt said i wasnt talking about the cold war i was talking about america being competative, i never mentioned the cold war, i just used russia as a (i do believe i said "classic" example, not common many timed example)
Youre one of them american lovers, dont get me wrong i like america, but its people like you who try to make it PERFECT, no country is perfect, because theyre run by humans, and very few humans are truly worthy or properly fairly capable of running a country.
Why do you think Bush is trying to befriend countries like turkey etc? BECAUSE THEY GET ON WELL WITH ASIA(to help with the Iraq war), ASIA HATES AMERICA, and considering your country dumped enough napalm on the place to kill more than WW1 and WW2 casualities put together (as long as all targets contained people) most probably they have a damn good reason to do so.
I dont think i should talk much about international relations either-as i said i dont really like politicis, it is full of fiction and propaganga, but i know enough to make a point, and i never make a point if i dont have an example to back it up...thats just suicide to make statements without examples, Now i know ive given turkey as an example, please dont get confused like you did with the russian thing and say how "oh so americas been trying to befriend turkey every day of the week eh?"
Its happening now
from what i know its only happened once, maybe twice if you count the original iraq war
Not sure someone who talks of "Asia" and "Europe" as single entities should really be preaching about international relations.
Perhaps all empires fall, but America is not an empire - at least not in the traditional sense. When empires "fall" they lose their influence, they fall apart, they lose holdings, wealth, their fundamentals. There is no remote comparison between empires of the past and the United States today.
Past "empires" had small domestic populations, and vast submissive external populations paying tribute and materiel, held in check by military power that cost the central power significant portions of its economy, and which lost their wealth by giving it over to the central power. The global economy was little more than a static pie. When my share got bigger, your share got smaller.
Today the US has a vast internal population, one that will continue to balloon as the population of Europe shrinks. The US spends a tiny portion of its GDP on its military. The US is enriched by its trading partners; when their slice gets bigger, our slice gets bigger as well. Witness trade with, say, the EU or Canada, each of which has become wealthy and affluent post-WW2 and which has benefitted our economy enourmously.
<i>Bush has denied EU army increases, read it in the papers.</i>
1. Bush has "denied" no such thing.
2. There is no "EU army," there was the Rapid Reaction Force (which was abandoned because the EU does not have the money or equipment to maintain a 60,000-strong force capable of multi-month deploymeny). Now there will be fast-response battalions of a few thousand troops each, capable of being deployed for several weeks at a time. This is what the EU has money for, not what America "permits."
Right, americas not an empire?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Empire
Bush hasnt denied EU increases?
Ugh il scan the newspaper if that will make you happy, i just hope i havent thrown it away
I dont think i have.As to an EU army-I dont know much about politics, i find it in my personal opinion to be a useless subject to discuss considering everyone who fights about it is usually biased and talks crap and has propaganda everywhere, someone who wants to run a country ANYONE and i mean ANYONE has some form of megalomania, there have been VERY few politicians who really want to help the community.
And as Matt said i wasnt talking about the cold war i was talking about america being competative, i never mentioned the cold war, i just used russia as a (i do believe i said "classic" example, not common many timed example)
Youre one of them american lovers, dont get me wrong i like america, but its people like you who try to make it PERFECT, no country is perfect, because theyre run by humans, and very few humans are truly worthy or properly fairly capable of running a country.
Why do you think Bush is trying to befriend countries like turkey etc? BECAUSE THEY GET ON WELL WITH ASIA(to help with the Iraq war), ASIA HATES AMERICA, and considering your country dumped enough napalm on the place to kill more than WW1 and WW2 casualities put together (as long as all targets contained people) most probably they have a damn good reason to do so.
I dont think i should talk much about international relations either-as i said i dont really like politicis, it is full of fiction and propaganga, but i know enough to make a point, and i never make a point if i dont have an example to back it up...thats just suicide to make statements without examples, Now i know ive given turkey as an example, please dont get confused like you did with the russian thing and say how "oh so americas been trying to befriend turkey every day of the week eh?"
Its happening now
from what i know its only happened once, maybe twice if you count the original iraq war
I have given this issue a great deal of thought over the last few years. I think I've distilled it down to 2 root causes/points.
1. Somewhere along the line we changed from:
Providing fair access to an education.
To
Guaranteeing a High School diploma.
Or to put it another way, citizens don't have a RIGHT to an education, they should have fair access to an education
Some people because of their innate abilities are unable to participate in the average educational track. Ideally they should be taught in an environment where the pace can be adjusted appropriately and where their peers are reasonably close to the same level of ability.
More importantly there are people who for whatever reason are unable to participate without active disruption of activities. Violence, refusal to participate, and/or inability or unwillingness to abide by the rules means you will be removed. Yes each case should be looked at to see if they can be rehabilitated but that isn't the problem or scope of the normal educational system.
2. Unfortunately we associate Job/Title/Degree/Wealth/Things with a persons innate worth. Worse we allow/encourage appearance over reality.
Competition is how people interact, even when working together for the same goals people compete on many levels. It's very much a trait of people and if properly managed it's one of the most powerful and effective mechanisms for improving productivity in both quality and quantity.
Winning, doing well, succeeding, completing a task, being the best. These are all things that make people feel good. They are things people should be encouraged to achieve. It's not bad to be the best, it's not wrong to do better than someone else.
However.
This doesn't mean that not being the best, failing to achieve a goal, or not completing a task is bad. If you have worked hard and/or tried your best then you are no less a person. I personally believe that those things I try and don't do as well as I had hoped are opportunities to learn. I usually learn more and faster in an environment where I'm not out in front. My own competitive nature responds best when I perceive myself as needing to catch up.
When it comes down to it. A parking lot attendant that does a good job is no better and no worse than a banker who does a good job, a programmer who does a good job, an executive who does a good job, a lifeguard who does a good job, a fireman who does a good job, a cop who does a good job, a housewife who does a good job, a househusband who does a good job, ... A good person is a good person without respect to their present station in life.
As an interesting side note:
The President is RESPONSIBLE, that's part of his job. If something in the policy of the country is going wrong on his watch it's his responsibility. His (or her) responsibility to try to correct it. This is true of Mr. Bush, it was true of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan, ..., it's true without regard to the political party or affiliations of whoever holds the position.
Ward
1. Somewhere along the line we changed from:
Providing fair access to an education.
To
Guaranteeing a High School diploma.
Or to put it another way, citizens don't have a RIGHT to an education, they should have fair access to an education
Some people because of their innate abilities are unable to participate in the average educational track. Ideally they should be taught in an environment where the pace can be adjusted appropriately and where their peers are reasonably close to the same level of ability.
More importantly there are people who for whatever reason are unable to participate without active disruption of activities. Violence, refusal to participate, and/or inability or unwillingness to abide by the rules means you will be removed. Yes each case should be looked at to see if they can be rehabilitated but that isn't the problem or scope of the normal educational system.
2. Unfortunately we associate Job/Title/Degree/Wealth/Things with a persons innate worth. Worse we allow/encourage appearance over reality.
Competition is how people interact, even when working together for the same goals people compete on many levels. It's very much a trait of people and if properly managed it's one of the most powerful and effective mechanisms for improving productivity in both quality and quantity.
Winning, doing well, succeeding, completing a task, being the best. These are all things that make people feel good. They are things people should be encouraged to achieve. It's not bad to be the best, it's not wrong to do better than someone else.
However.
This doesn't mean that not being the best, failing to achieve a goal, or not completing a task is bad. If you have worked hard and/or tried your best then you are no less a person. I personally believe that those things I try and don't do as well as I had hoped are opportunities to learn. I usually learn more and faster in an environment where I'm not out in front. My own competitive nature responds best when I perceive myself as needing to catch up.
When it comes down to it. A parking lot attendant that does a good job is no better and no worse than a banker who does a good job, a programmer who does a good job, an executive who does a good job, a lifeguard who does a good job, a fireman who does a good job, a cop who does a good job, a housewife who does a good job, a househusband who does a good job, ... A good person is a good person without respect to their present station in life.
As an interesting side note:
The President is RESPONSIBLE, that's part of his job. If something in the policy of the country is going wrong on his watch it's his responsibility. His (or her) responsibility to try to correct it. This is true of Mr. Bush, it was true of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan, ..., it's true without regard to the political party or affiliations of whoever holds the position.
Ward
QUOTE
As an interesting side note:
The President is RESPONSIBLE, that's part of his job. If something in the policy of the country is going wrong on his watch it's his responsibility. His (or her) responsibility to try to correct it. This is true of Mr. Bush, it was true of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan, ..., it's true without regard to the political party or affiliations of whoever holds the position.
The President is RESPONSIBLE, that's part of his job. If something in the policy of the country is going wrong on his watch it's his responsibility. His (or her) responsibility to try to correct it. This is true of Mr. Bush, it was true of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan, ..., it's true without regard to the political party or affiliations of whoever holds the position.
Good point, however all the blame can't be laid on him alone. which is the point I was trying to make.
His policies certaintly aren't helping the situation. I think no child left behind is going to do more harm than good. An education should be something that you have to go out and get, not something that is forced down your throat.
QUOTE (Matt+Mar 24 2005, 02:33 PM)
Good point, however all the blame can't be laid on him alone. which is the point I was trying to make.
His policies certaintly aren't helping the situation. I think no child left behind is going to do more harm than good. An education should be something that you have to go out and get, not something that is forced down your throat.
I've placed no blame, and to be quite honest I'm not interested in doing so. I don't believe it's necessary to correct the problems.
blame != responsibility
Note: had to edit this. The dictionary does indeed equate blame and responsibility. I personally disagree as I believe responsibility is something that is accepted and is a positive, whereas I think blame is negative. In addition, you may be blamed, by you can't be responsibled....
Ward
His policies certaintly aren't helping the situation. I think no child left behind is going to do more harm than good. An education should be something that you have to go out and get, not something that is forced down your throat.
I've placed no blame, and to be quite honest I'm not interested in doing so. I don't believe it's necessary to correct the problems.
blame != responsibility
Note: had to edit this. The dictionary does indeed equate blame and responsibility. I personally disagree as I believe responsibility is something that is accepted and is a positive, whereas I think blame is negative. In addition, you may be blamed, by you can't be responsibled....
Ward
I must be in the wrong place...
I thought this forum had something to do with physics and technology.
I thought this forum had something to do with physics and technology.
Kinda off topic but East civilized much faster than West. In time, East collapsed and West arose. I don't know the current situation now but it kinda looks like or seems like East is rising back up again but we don't know for sure.
As some political commentators aptly put it, China is already starting to surpass the US in industrial might, and the US just hasn't noticed because it's too preoccupied with the Middle East.
In all due time... mwahahahaha!
*rubs hands together evilly*
In all due time... mwahahahaha!
*rubs hands together evilly*
Hi -
Great thread. My first time visiting and posting.
Hopefully I contribute something worthwhile.
I don't dispute most of what I've read in this
thread. It shows up in my son and his friends
who seem to have ZERO aspirations of a
technical or scientific kind.
Nevetheless, I remain hopeful...
Anyway, check out this other thread from this
forum:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=1786
American innovation has a long way to go before
it can be counted out.
And so far, it's been a bad gamble to bet against
this country. Not saying that we win every
competition. Just that America has a pretty good
track record.
Regards,
Bal
Great thread. My first time visiting and posting.
Hopefully I contribute something worthwhile.
I don't dispute most of what I've read in this
thread. It shows up in my son and his friends
who seem to have ZERO aspirations of a
technical or scientific kind.
Nevetheless, I remain hopeful...
Anyway, check out this other thread from this
forum:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=1786
American innovation has a long way to go before
it can be counted out.
And so far, it's been a bad gamble to bet against
this country. Not saying that we win every
competition. Just that America has a pretty good
track record.
Regards,
Bal
QUOTE (Wardish+Mar 24 2005, 02:13 PM)
I have given this issue a great deal of thought over the last few years. I think I've distilled it down to 2 root causes/points.
1. Somewhere along the line we changed from:
Providing fair access to an education.
To
Guaranteeing a High School diploma.
Or to put it another way, citizens don't have a RIGHT to an education, they should have fair access to an education
Some people because of their innate abilities are unable to participate in the average educational track. Ideally they should be taught in an environment where the pace can be adjusted appropriately and where their peers are reasonably close to the same level of ability.
More importantly there are people who for whatever reason are unable to participate without active disruption of activities. Violence, refusal to participate, and/or inability or unwillingness to abide by the rules means you will be removed. Yes each case should be looked at to see if they can be rehabilitated but that isn't the problem or scope of the normal educational system.
2. Unfortunately we associate Job/Title/Degree/Wealth/Things with a persons innate worth. Worse we allow/encourage appearance over reality.
Competition is how people interact, even when working together for the same goals people compete on many levels. It's very much a trait of people and if properly managed it's one of the most powerful and effective mechanisms for improving productivity in both quality and quantity.
Winning, doing well, succeeding, completing a task, being the best. These are all things that make people feel good. They are things people should be encouraged to achieve. It's not bad to be the best, it's not wrong to do better than someone else.
However.
This doesn't mean that not being the best, failing to achieve a goal, or not completing a task is bad. If you have worked hard and/or tried your best then you are no less a person. I personally believe that those things I try and don't do as well as I had hoped are opportunities to learn. I usually learn more and faster in an environment where I'm not out in front. My own competitive nature responds best when I perceive myself as needing to catch up.
When it comes down to it. A parking lot attendant that does a good job is no better and no worse than a banker who does a good job, a programmer who does a good job, an executive who does a good job, a lifeguard who does a good job, a fireman who does a good job, a cop who does a good job, a housewife who does a good job, a househusband who does a good job, ... A good person is a good person without respect to their present station in life.
As an interesting side note:
The President is RESPONSIBLE, that's part of his job. If something in the policy of the country is going wrong on his watch it's his responsibility. His (or her) responsibility to try to correct it. This is true of Mr. Bush, it was true of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan, ..., it's true without regard to the political party or affiliations of whoever holds the position.
Ward
ya ,great stuff!!but what screws it all up is they dont get "PAYED" the same even though they all want ther same "THINGS"!!hehe!!
1. Somewhere along the line we changed from:
Providing fair access to an education.
To
Guaranteeing a High School diploma.
Or to put it another way, citizens don't have a RIGHT to an education, they should have fair access to an education
Some people because of their innate abilities are unable to participate in the average educational track. Ideally they should be taught in an environment where the pace can be adjusted appropriately and where their peers are reasonably close to the same level of ability.
More importantly there are people who for whatever reason are unable to participate without active disruption of activities. Violence, refusal to participate, and/or inability or unwillingness to abide by the rules means you will be removed. Yes each case should be looked at to see if they can be rehabilitated but that isn't the problem or scope of the normal educational system.
2. Unfortunately we associate Job/Title/Degree/Wealth/Things with a persons innate worth. Worse we allow/encourage appearance over reality.
Competition is how people interact, even when working together for the same goals people compete on many levels. It's very much a trait of people and if properly managed it's one of the most powerful and effective mechanisms for improving productivity in both quality and quantity.
Winning, doing well, succeeding, completing a task, being the best. These are all things that make people feel good. They are things people should be encouraged to achieve. It's not bad to be the best, it's not wrong to do better than someone else.
However.
This doesn't mean that not being the best, failing to achieve a goal, or not completing a task is bad. If you have worked hard and/or tried your best then you are no less a person. I personally believe that those things I try and don't do as well as I had hoped are opportunities to learn. I usually learn more and faster in an environment where I'm not out in front. My own competitive nature responds best when I perceive myself as needing to catch up.
When it comes down to it. A parking lot attendant that does a good job is no better and no worse than a banker who does a good job, a programmer who does a good job, an executive who does a good job, a lifeguard who does a good job, a fireman who does a good job, a cop who does a good job, a housewife who does a good job, a househusband who does a good job, ... A good person is a good person without respect to their present station in life.
As an interesting side note:
The President is RESPONSIBLE, that's part of his job. If something in the policy of the country is going wrong on his watch it's his responsibility. His (or her) responsibility to try to correct it. This is true of Mr. Bush, it was true of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan, ..., it's true without regard to the political party or affiliations of whoever holds the position.
Ward
ya ,great stuff!!but what screws it all up is they dont get "PAYED" the same even though they all want ther same "THINGS"!!hehe!!
QUOTE (wastehl+May 22 2005, 10:28 PM)
I must be in the wrong place...
I thought this forum had something to do with physics and technology.
your right!your wrong,beat it!
I thought this forum had something to do with physics and technology.
your right!your wrong,beat it!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.