Which of course is not what we were talking about. The facts still remain that the lower expenditure per pupil places pump out more graduates and more that go to college than the higher expenditure levels. There is little or no correlation between money spent and educational outcomes.
I bet that they store this info with your name and license number, and will refuse to rent to you in the future if you previously violated your rental contract - e.g. took a rental into Mexico or drove it off-road, in violation of the contract terms.
jc
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:42:17 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote in :
Some do; some do not. You've failed to show any correlation, and control for other variables.
Patently not true. It's trivial to show that more money spent does improve outcomes.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Then do it for the first time ever. Studies show that things like parental involvement, single parent households and socio-economic status have much bigger impact than money spent per pupil.
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:35:04 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote in :
I've already proved the point. As I wrote, it's patently true. You can (and probably will) argue about bang for the buck, but there's simply no real question that there's a direct and strong correlation between spending and educational outcomes.
And in fact there have been many such studies; e.g., "Examining the Relationship between Educational Outcomes and Gaps in Funding: An Extension of the New York Adequacy Study" [Peabody Journal of Education, v81 n2 p1-32 2006]:
We find that for a majority of districts significantly higher levels of spending are required if the state wishes to provide a sound basic education to all public school students. FURTHERMORE, THE RESULTS SHOW A CLEAR NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DISTRICT-LEVEL SHORTFALL IN SPENDING AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES ACROSS VIRTUALLY ALL STUDENT SUBPOPULATIONS. [emphasis added]
They all have impact, which is why it's sweeping statements like yours are no more than meaningless and misleading sound bites.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Yep. For example:
Just about every business I work with (fixing computahs) has some kind of customer blacklist. The way I read the law, the rental company cannot use GPS data to tack on added charges, but seems to be allowed to use it for many other things, including running a blacklist. Break the rules, and we can't legally soak you. Just don't come back. Yep, that works.
Incidentally, I think I may have violated the off-road part. The road to my house would have probably qualified as off-road or 4wd accessible. It might also have triggered an accelerometer limit. I didn't drive it off-road. Them were speed bumps. Also, GPS doesn't work very well in the hills and tall trees.
Total hogwash, but I know better than to engage in a discussion with you, so go ahead by yourself.
I'm pretty sure that dirt driveways aren't an issue. They would be much more inclined to blacklist someone for doing something like going miles on logging roads in the mountains, miles off-road into the desert on a road-trip to Vegas, or driving off-road into Black Rock City.
Back-in-the-day you could rent an RV and say you were going camping near Tahoe but today you need to disclose that you *are* taking it to Burning Man and pay a surcharge for cleaning after you return it.
jc
John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Education,
Yep...and here's another one that counters your study....
-American spending on public K?12 education is at an all-time high and is still rising.
-Continuous spending increases have not corresponded with equal improvement in American educational performance.
-Increasing federal funding on education has not been followed by similar gains in student achievement.
-Education reform efforts should focus on improving resource allocation. Instead of simply increasing funding, efforts to improve education should focus on improving resource allocation.
There's even a chart entitled...Low Graduation Rates Common in Well- Funded City School Districts........
" Don't think it will happen? Well, the automated traffic camera " system has about a 5-10% error rate, but continues to generate " revenue for its municipal customers. The FCC currently issues such " fines where the recipient is first presumed guilty. For example: "
" Do you see any investigation? Nope. " " In my conspiratorial paranoia, this is not about law enforcement, " privacy violations, or constitutional rights. It's about revenue " enhancement by creating a law that is guaranteed to be broken, and " which has a fairly neat collection system available. A clue is that " Mueller does not want the ISP's to collect any content information, " which is exactly what one would need to defend oneself.
Jeff, thank you for pointing out the dangerous directions this can go in. I am going to agree with parts of what you said and use your consideration of potentials as its own point of discussion.
I think in both cases of red light camera and ISP tracking, a genuinely errored accusation can be properly fought in court.
For instance, the right to question witnesses extends to all the programmers of the red light system. Money-grubbing governments the world over probaly bend over backwards to not pay for Australian programmers to testify in court for "traffic fine cases" as the government probably sees it, but as criminal accusations, either those cases must be thrown out, dismissed, charges unpressed, or the people presented to testify, even if the governments are so stupid as to hire someone so far away as Australia.
Any step in the process of deciding to accuse that is errored needs to be able to be properly questioned with proper effect, and any portion of that decision making process that is created/designed/written/programmed must let the creation/design/writing/programming and creator/designer/writer/programmer be scrutinized. Furthermore, since creations/designs/writings/programs are often complex, just because other people have scrutinized it/them doesn't mean you don't get to scrutinize it yourself. Many errors/bugs are found by people who look for errors/bugs after others have already looked for errors/bugs and not found said errors/bugs.
A judge can claim that the accused must suffer a greater bear of guilt because it is "difficult" for an Australian to show up to court or that programmers live in India or that a design is made by a high paid individual with a weird name, but that judge does not support the validity of the government and people which they serve, and one way or another, that judge's jurisdiction of such will be obviated. There is no need to farm out accusors to people so different from us that a judge cannot reconcile the differences, and especially no need to let a judge use that as an excuse to let the accusations go unverified in any way whatsoever.
For all the cries from baby boomers that we our losing our freedoms and proper court challengability, they seem to skim quickly or skip over the truths of our still being able to assert our still existing rights. I don't doubt that there are horrendous signs of danger; I agree that there often are such signs. Nor do I say that because there is still the right of defense that everything is ok. But, to simply claim that at some point people are wholy giving up en masse because of a poor direction of governance, doesn't in itself state the absolute failure of all pieces. If nothing else, any sole individual who does not give up themselves has not failed, despite the cow-herd death-march mentality of the aging populations that led much of the sway in that direction. More importantly, before it becomes an occasional single person, I recommend people use their individualities and commonnesses to assert their rights when convenient AND when necessary even when not convenient.
Perhaps you can take a false accusation in your stance, but suppose someone with a lot to loose from a conviction of a false charge does fight that charge: they ought to be able to, no matter how many others gave up, or even no matter how many times that particular individual gave up in the past.
Brad Allen
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:15:26 -0600, DanS wrote in :
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. You'll have to do a lot better than that.
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:26:19 -0600, Char Jackson wrote in :
In other words, you have nothing persuasive to say in rebuttal.
" In theory, but in practice at least some of these cameras are going off " at the wrong times, deliberately or accidentally. After noticing a " particular camera in San Francisco go off more than once at odd times, " I spent some time monitoring it, and it's definitely sometimes firing " when the light is _not_ red, what percentage of the time I cannot say " for sure.
Some are programmed that way for legitimate reasons, from what I've read. That doesn't mean that the overall programming is correct.
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:11:18 -0600, DanS wrote in :
I discard it because it's biased.
John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
FURTHERMORE,
BS. You only discarded it because it doesn't agree with you.
I suppose the other two sources I linked were biased too ?
Reductio ad absurdum. Certainly no one is advocating reducing funding to 0. The point is that *increasing* funding does not necessarily increase educational outcomes.
Jerry
No John, you don't listen to the rebuttals.
Jerry
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:50:04 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters wrote in :
Quite a few people actually are. They call it privatizing.
Of course not, but that statement is quite different from "absolutely no correlation between money spent on education and outcomes".
"Stay on target, Luke, stay on target!" ;)
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:52:59 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters wrote in :
No Jerry, I'm just not impressed by unsupported claims.
Waitaminute, the king of unsupported claims isn't impressed by unsupported claims? I'm shocked, but I guess you make an exception when it comes to yourself. (See above)
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.