On 19 Feb 2004 13:18:38 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
There's enough hollering about local schoolboards having
to submit to state mandates requirements and standards.
Having to do this on a federal level will rightly have
individual states screaming. There is *no* part of the
constitution that says, "the federal govenment is in
charge of setting education standards." Nope, none.

Nothing in the Constitution says we can have a federal
Department of Education, or a "No Child Left Behind"
federal law, either. But we have both.

Gary

On 20 Feb 2004 16:03:09 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...

Want me to give you a long list ..

Nope. Just a short list of states that have already
put vouchers into effect, and have demonstrated that
education there is 'better' and cheaper now that
they are in use.

Could be even *one* state.

Maybe someplace in the south. Florida perhaps?

Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and
the District of Columbia all have, or are starting, pilot
voucher programs. Wisconsin's is the oldest, and
has had positive measurable results in terms of
improved test scores for Milwaukee children in the
program.

Gary

On 19 Feb 2004 13:14:28 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...

Ah..no Supreme court of Mass.

No, I was getting at the fact that the prohibition
against giving tax money to religious schools flows
down from the USSC.

Wrong. See http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/sc...hool.vouchers/

"We believe the program challenged here is a program of true private choice,"
wrote Chief Justice William Rehnquist. "The Ohio program is neutral in all
respects toward religion. It is part of a general and multifaceted undertaking
by the State of Ohio to provide educational opportunities to the children of a
failed school district."

Note the Cleveland plan had been challenged because the majority of
families taking advantage of vouchers were sending their kids to Catholic
schools. The Supremes said that was Ok, because students weren't
*required* to attend religious run schools by the state. There were other
choices available to them.

Gary

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:40:04 +0100, Jan Nielsen wrote:
For those wondering what "Peak Oil" is all about:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

You can look at it as yet another doomsday site, but it does
raise (and answer) some pretty sobering questions.

It asks many of the right questions, but it gives wrong answers
to several of them.

Gary

Ed Huntress wrote:

"hamei" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:


These things are the result of the infusion of ROM (Results-Oriented
Management) that came from '80s business models and that were

transferred to

state school boards and to other government agencies and bureaus. It's a
crock of baloney. It started at the same time as the movement for

uniform

standards-testing and the general worship of business management theory

by

right-wing politicians and bureaucrats.


Exactly. I think that to a great extent it was a reaction to the
"New Math" that none of the right-wingers could understand. Rather
than teaching the rote memorization that was plenty good enough for
grampa, some groups of teachers were trying to introduce more advanced
concepts earlier. Reactionary parents and school boards freaked. Alas,
the stupid school boards and parents have *far* too much power in the
US. Look at the entire "Creation Science" scandal :-(


Now they're bitching about the results of what they themselves created.


Hmm. I think you're overreaching a bit, because it is true that public
schools in other countries have been outperforming ours, and a lot of adults
are frustrated in trying to find out why.

However, you're right that their "solutions," like an excessive focus on
standards-based testing, are more an expression of that frustration than
anything else. They're grasping at straws. They should be grasping at the
parents' throats. Where parents are parenting and where they're involved,
the kids are doing quite well.

Ed Huntress


Teacher competency..... Overheard on the Showroom floor of a Toyota
Dealership in Palm Beach County, Florida.... A large woman was screaming
at a man who was apparently the Manager...... ....."HE DIDN'T TELL
ME THAT THIS FINANCE CONTRACT WAS FOR 5 YEARS" the manager answers...
"but Ms Johnson you acknowledged that you knew you were signing in for
60 months financing" the woman "YEAH BUT HE DIDN'T TELL ME THAT WAS FOR
5 YEARS"..... the manager "but Ms Johnson you list your occupation on
the credit application as a School Teacher for the Palm Beach County
School system".... the woman..... "YEAH BUT I AIN'T NO MATH TEACHER!".......
Pat Landy

In article , Gary Coffman says...

No, I was getting at the fact that the prohibition
against giving tax money to religious schools flows
down from the USSC.

Wrong. See http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/sc...hool.vouchers/

Well I stand corrected Gary. It *would* have been renquist, too.

I guess I am guilty of not following the USSC news on a
day by day basis! All I can say is, the fat is in the fire
now and we shall see if voucers really *do* improve matters.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gary Coffman says...

Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and
the District of Columbia all have, or are starting, pilot
voucher programs. Wisconsin's is the oldest, and
has had positive measurable results in terms of
improved test scores for Milwaukee children in the
program.

Thank you. And I guess they've been blessed by the
nine as well.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

I already posted a listing and an article

Ah but you *missed* the CNN link that gary
provided. The nine wise guys have decided

*ta* *da*

"Vouchers Are OK"

So from now on I must roll over on that issue.
submissive gesture

I think the jury is still out if they actually
work, in the long run. That will probably take
about five years to figure out.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

rcm only

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 05:00:34 -0500, Gary Coffman
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:40:04 +0100, Jan Nielsen wrote:
For those wondering what "Peak Oil" is all about:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

You can look at it as yet another doomsday site, but it does
raise (and answer) some pretty sobering questions.

It asks many of the right questions, but it gives wrong answers
to several of them.

Aren't you going to tell us which?

I love his statement on page 4: "Keep in mind that these are the
same people who give us a color coded chart, a roll of duct tape,
and a video of a bearded, homeless guy getting a free dental exam
as solutions to terrorism. In other words, were[sic] on our own."

And I'm certain that we're headed for the fascist police state
that he refers to. I hope it doesn't happen (continue happening?)
in my lifetime.

I almost cried when I was living in PRK during the electricity
crisis. Their solution to the lack of oil was to switch to another
Texican product, natural gas, to power their newly built power
stations. We'd already had a glimpse of problems there when the
El Paso effers shut us off/delayed our gas due to pipeline
timeshare problems. Then they wanted to build a new pipeline to
Mexico so they could store the gas down there.

Who ARE these people?

And the idiot predecessor to the Governator gave the power
syndicate ghastly overpriced contracts which bent over all
Kalifornians for years to come. (I'm glad I left.)

How do such complete idiots get into power in the first place?
Because of Mr. Savinar's statement above, I know I'm -not- the
only one who is thinking these thoughts.

-
Interpreted Interpolations Done Dirt Cheap.
-----------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

On 21 Feb 2004 08:18:22 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gary Coffman says...

No, I was getting at the fact that the prohibition
against giving tax money to religious schools flows
down from the USSC.

Wrong. See http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/sc...hool.vouchers/

Well I stand corrected Gary. It *would* have been renquist, too.

I guess I am guilty of not following the USSC news on a
day by day basis! All I can say is, the fat is in the fire
now and we shall see if voucers really *do* improve matters.

Jim

Renquist wrote the majority opinion..G

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On 21 Feb 2004 08:40:56 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

I already posted a listing and an article

Ah but you *missed* the CNN link that gary
provided. The nine wise guys have decided

*ta* *da*

"Vouchers Are OK"

So from now on I must roll over on that issue.
submissive gesture

I think the jury is still out if they actually
work, in the long run. That will probably take
about five years to figure out.

Jim

Some have been in operation for almost that long. So far..looks good.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

In article , Gunner says...

Renquist wrote the majority opinion..G

Exactly. Scalia was right there fighting for the chance
though.

I myself kind of liked the minority opinion. But it
*was* a fairly narrow case.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

A city wide blackout at Sun, 15 Feb 2004 05:59:08 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


Jim, find some data to support your assumption. Id be happy as hell to
check it out, and compare the failures of home schooling with the
failures of public education.

No one said home schooling is the universal cure all, but only that as
a whole, home schooled kids do better than public schools kids on the
whole. And for a hell of a lot cheaper.

And the student Teacher ratio is far better than anything the union bosses of
the NEA can dream of in public.

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

patlandy wrote in message .. .

Teacher competency..... Overheard on the Showroom floor of a Toyota
Dealership in Palm Beach County, Florida.... A large woman was screaming
at a man who was apparently the Manager...... ....."HE DIDN'T TELL
ME THAT THIS FINANCE CONTRACT WAS FOR 5 YEARS" the manager answers...
"but Ms Johnson you acknowledged that you knew you were signing in for
60 months financing" the woman "YEAH BUT HE DIDN'T TELL ME THAT WAS FOR
5 YEARS"..... the manager "but Ms Johnson you list your occupation on
the credit application as a School Teacher for the Palm Beach County
School system".... the woman..... "YEAH BUT I AIN'T NO MATH TEACHER!".......




Signs of the time

Signs

On a Septic Tank Truck in Oregon:
Yesterday's Meals on Wheels


On a Septic Tank Truck sign:
"We're #1 in the #2 business."
**************************

Sign over a Gynecologist's Office:
"Dr. Jones, at your cervix."
**************************

At a Proctologist's door
"To expedite your visit please back in."
**************************

On a Plumber's truck:
"We repair what your husband fixed."
**************************

On a Plumber's truck:
"Don't sleep with a drip. Call your plumber.."
**************************

Pizza Shop Slogan:
"7 days without pizza makes one weak."
**************************

At a Tire Shop in Milwaukee:
"Invite us to your next blowout."
**************************

On a Plastic Surgeon's Office door:
"Hello. Can we pick your nose?"
**************************

At a Towing company:
"We don't charge an arm and a leg. We want tows."
**************************

On an Electrician's truck:
"Let us remove your shorts."
**************************

In a Nonsmoking Area:
"If we see smoke, we will assume you are on fire and take appropriate action."
**************************

On a Maternity Room door:
"Push. Push. Push."
**************************

At an Optometrist's Office
"If you don't see what you're looking for, you've come to the right place."
**************************

On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."
**************************

In a Podiatrist's office:
"Time wounds all heels."
**************************

On a Fence:
"Salesmen welcome! Dog food is expensive."
**************************

At a Car Dealership:
"The best way to get back on your feet -- miss a car payment."
**************************

Outside a Muffler Shop:
"No appointment necessary. We hear you coming."
**************************

In a Veterinarian's waiting room:
"Be back in 5 minutes. Sit! Stay!"
**************************

At the Electric Company:
"We would be delighted if you send in your payment.
However, if you don't, you will be."
**************************

In a Restaurant window:
"Don't stand there and be hungry, Come on in and get fed up."
**************************

In the front yard of a Funeral Home:
"Drive carefully. We'll wait."

**************************
At a Propane Filling Station,
"Thank heaven for little grills."
**************************

And don't forget the sign at a Chicago Radiator Shop:
"Best place in town to take a leak."

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 03:21:07 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:26:12 -0800, John Ings
wrote:


The key to an alternative reading of the verse 1 Kings 7:23 is to be
found in the very ancient Hebrew tradition (see, e.g., [Britannica
1985], [Banon 1987, pp. 52, 53]) to differently write (spell) and read
some words of the Bible; the reading version is usually regarded as a
correct one (in particular, it is always correct from the point of
view of the Hebrew grammar, and this is why it could be easily either
remembered or reconstructed from the written version), whereas the
written version slightly deviates from the correct spelling. (Another
approach, involving the comparison between written forms of the same
words in 1 Kings 7:23 and Chronicles 4:2 is cited in [Posamentiern,
Gordan 1984]; see more about this version of the exegesis in 4).

1 Kings 7:23 Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits
from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would
encircle it completely.

7:26 Its thickness was a handbreadth; its brim was made like the brim
of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held two thousand baths.


2 Chonicles 4:2Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits
from rim to rim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would
encircle it completely.

4:5 Its thickness was a handbreadth; its rim was made like the rim of
a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held three thousand baths.


The letters of the Hebrew alphabets were traditionly used (well before
the building of the First Temple [Guitel 1975]) for numerical purposes
and, thus, have had numerical values . Using these values, one can
calculate values of words (as sums of values of letters, but also in
several other, less obvious and/or more involved ways); these methods
became later known as gematria [Michael Munk 1983, p. 163],
[Britannica 1985]. Here are the standard numerical equivalents of the
letters of the Hebrew alphabet: cm = cmti8 scaled 0

Aleph=1, Beth=2, Gimel=3, Daled=4, Hea=5, Vav=6, Zain=7, CHet=8,
Tet=9, Yod=10, Caf=20, Lammed=30, Mem=40, Noon=50, Samech=60,
Aiin=70, Pea=80, TSadik=90, Qof=100, Reish=200, Shin=300, Tav=400.


In particular, the numerical equivalent of the written version
,``QVH'', is Qof+Vav+Hea=100+6+5=111, whereas the numerical equivalent
of the reading version, ``QV'', is Qof+Vav=106.

Using these numerical equivalents, one defines as follows:

[...] (1)

Thus the Hebrew pi = 3.1415094

(1)See http://www.math.ubc.ca/people/facult...l/bpi/bpi.html
for math calculations whose formulas I can't reproduce in a newsgroup
post.




Ok.. nice try.. but irrelevant.. the dimensions are the same as I
have posted in the past.. the History of the Jews doesn't matter
except for Cliffy's little swipes at the Jews and the claims Cliffy
makes that the Jews taught that PI = 3.000... which of course they did
not.. hmm..

Later,
Mike

Cliff's Homework for this year: Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch
outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5
unit/inch depth. The diameters have a .005 inch tolerance. And no
Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl?

EXODUS 3:14. And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: And he said,
Thus shalt thou say unto the childern of Israel, I AM hath sent me to
you.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:52:28 GMT, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 05:00:34 -0500, Gary Coffman
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:40:04 +0100, Jan Nielsen wrote:
For those wondering what "Peak Oil" is all about:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

You can look at it as yet another doomsday site, but it does
raise (and answer) some pretty sobering questions.

It asks many of the right questions, but it gives wrong answers
to several of them.

Aren't you going to tell us which?

I really don't feel up to addressing all of the points raised on that
site today. But I will try to hit a few high points.

While Peak Oil is a real issue, it isn't clear that it is as near or as
dire as the website states. The 2000 dip wasn't unusual, there
have been a number of production dips throughout the 20th century
(and cries that we were immanently running out of oil as far back as
the 1920s Standard Oil scandals).

The USGS has been maintaining recently, based on the best currently
available information, that the oil production peak will occur between
2040 and 2050. But the date has been a running target all throughout
the 20th century, being pushed further into the future with every new
forecast.

The USGS prediction is also based on the conventional biological
theory of oil and gas formation. There's increasing evidence that
theory is at least partly incorrect. As I've mentioned here before,
Dr Thomas Gold has been a proponent of a different theory which
says that oil and gas are primarily of nonbiological extraterrestrial
origin (ie the result of non-organic processes involving the primordial
constituents present when the Earth was formed), and that the
quantities deep in the Earth are far vaster than a theory based
on biological origin would permit.

There is a growing body of evidence that Dr Gold's theory is the
correct one, at least for natural gas (for example deep test wells
have found large quantities of natural gas where no biological
process could explain its presence). For more information on this,
see Dr Gold's book "Power From the Earth". If Dr Gold is correct,
at least the dire predictions about natural gas aren't true.

Whether Dr Gold is correct or not (and it is hard to argue he is
wrong when you look at the gas giant planets or the hydrocarbon
seas of Titan), lets now address some of the claims about other
alternatives.

The big gaff I spotted immediately was the notion that nuclear
fuels would reach their "Peak Uranium" point in 25 years. The
actual number is around 200 years for U235, but that assumes
we won't do reprocessing, and completely ignores the well proven
breeder technologies we have in hand.

With reprocessing and breeder technology, we can use plentiful
U238 and Thorium as our raw materials. Using technologies we
have on the shelf today, we can confidently predict that nuclear
fission could economically supply all of our energy needs for the
next 100,000+ years. The issues surrounding nuclear power are
not primarily technical or economic, they are political and emotional
(ie nuclear hysteria).

The website is essentially correct about hydroelectric. We've tapped
nearly all the economic sites for that already in the US. So we can't
expect a large increase in the amount of hydroelectric power available
to us.

The website is also essentially correct about solar and wind power.
While the potential amount of energy is vast, it is dilute, it isn't
scheduleable or throttleable, and can't become a large proportion
of the grid without introducing stability problems which are intractable.
Most credible analyses of this issue say that such non-scheduleable
sources can't exceed about 5% of grid capacity without introducing
intractable grid stability problems.

Several of the things said about hydrogen are misleading or untrue.
It is true that hydrogen isn't a primary energy source. It needs to be
considered as a way of *transporting* energy from generation sources
to consumption sinks, particularly mobile consumption sinks. It basically
frees us to use any primary energy source we like to supply energy for
mobile uses.

The big advantage of the hydrogen economy is that efficiencies
can be high. Electrolyzers can approach 100% efficiency, fuel cells
already exceed 50% efficiency and there's good reason to believe
80 to 90% efficiency is not out of reach. This means we may be able
to use up to five times less energy for mobile power sources than is
the case with burning oil in internal combustion engines. Also, if
you're concerned about greenhouse gases, there are none produced
by the hydrogen economy.

The big disadvantage of hydrogen is that it is a low density energy
transport medium. That means bulky tanks, large pipelines, and
high pumping costs. Those issues aren't intolerable for most uses,
but they do mean that hydrogen isn't likely to be a viable mobile
energy transport medium until oil hits about $40 a barrel (in constant
year 2000 dollars) and stays there. That should occur sometime
after 2040 barring unforseen political events.

Note that for all but agricultural and construction uses, an alternative
to the hydrogen economy for land based transport could be use
powered roadways. The necessary technological pieces are rapidly
falling into place to make externally powered self-directed roadway
vehicles a reality.

This would solve a number of difficult problems associated with our
current transportation systems. The costs associated with upgrading
the roadway infrastructure would be huge, of course, on the order of
the costs (in constant dollars) of the original interstate highway system.
The benefits are great, however, and this is something we should be
considering seriously, even if Peak Oil weren't hanging over our heads.

Some of what the site says about coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc
is right on target. Some of it ignores newer technologies. There
is a huge readily available supply (several thousand years worth
if we consumed it for energy generation), but there are heavy
environmental costs associated with it. IMHO the best use of
this resource is as feedstocks for the chemical and agricultural
industries. This BTW negates most of the concerns expressed
about running out of cheap oil for such uses.

What the site says about biomass and other renewables is
mostly on target. With current practices, they are net energy
sinks rather than sources. With foreseeable technical advances
and practices, they're still uneconomic on the scale required
to meet our primary energy needs.

The sticky issue with renewables is that we have to replace
the nutrients we take from the soil when we harvest and burn
biomass. Otherwise it isn't renewable. The primary way we do
that today is with oil based fertilizers. That won't be an option
after Peak Oil.

The social, political, and economic issues surrounding running
out of cheap oil are so potentially complex that the simplistic
doomsday scenario painted by the website, while possible, is
not incredibly likely.

What society will look like in 100 years when the cheap oil is
mostly gone is sheer guesswork at this time. The large die offs,
and the collapse of industrial civilization is *one* possibility, but
it is far from the only one. There is at least one known viable
alternative to oil (nuclear power and the hydrogen economy),
there are very probably several others.

The only scarey thing is that we might wait too long to start
utilizing alternatives to oil. But I'm not as pessimistic as the
author of the website that will be the case. There are already
clear and viable economic and environmental reasons to be
starting down the road to implementing alternatives to oil.

The USGS and other credible sources also say that the
decline following Peak Oil won't be so rapid that there won't
be time or resources available to accommodate the decline
with crash programs. It isn't the best or most efficient way
to deal with the issue, but such crash programs are a viable
method of avoiding the die off and collapse of industrial
civilization.

Gary

A city wide blackout at Sun, 15 Feb 2004 05:55:16 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Vouchers are an interesting case. You still pay the same amount of
property taxes (which are used for schools) but your kids education
money is spent at the shool of your choice. The present system is
similar to being told you have to buy a house for X dollars, but the
powers that be tell you which house you have to purchase. It may be a
rat and roach infested shack or a nicer low income home. Wouldnt you
rather have the ability to pick which home you have to spend your
money on?

As I put it to a friend: you can have any car you want, but first you are
going to pay for this Trabat (at Mercedes prices.) Vouchers merely let you
take the payments for the Trabat and put them towards the car you really want.
(The flaw in this analogy is that everybody is paying the Mercedes price
["school taxes"] whether they are in the market for a car or not. But that is
another storey.)


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

A city wide blackout at Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:13:16 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 19 Feb 2004 14:13:11 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

See above. There is NO free market when ones educational dollars are
locked into payments to public schools.

Ever hear of the Company Store?

That's such crap. There is no reason that folks can't vote
with their money and they do so ever single day. Sure they
have to pay taxes for public schools. They can't get out
of that.

Jim


Jim , when you are taxed to within an inch of your life or low income,
there is NO extra money for private school. You are locked into the
public school. No hope of getting a new and improved version. Same
with the Company Store. You either spend your money there, or starve.

Vouchers use that same money and allow you to spend it in a better
store, where you are not paying inflated prices for shoddy goods.

Like I said elsewhere, the current "public education" system is comparable
to paying for a Mercedes and getting a Trabat. Those who can afford to, can
purchase a Mercedes and ignore the Trabat, but they are going to pay for that
first car whether they like it or not. Unless you are one of those people who
dings up their shins tripping over the gold bars in the living room, getti9ng a
working car is out of reach.
All vouchers do is say "here is a voucher for a 'car' payment, up to X
dollars" which the purchaser can then take to what ever dealer they want and
get the 'car' they want. They can spend less than X, they can make up the
difference between X and the tuition, but event the poorest single mom can now
afford to send her kid to a "better" school.

The caveat I have on vouchers is that they can be restricted to
"accredited" schools, meaning schools very little different than the unionized
closed shops of the public school system.
But as for me, if thirteen wiccans want to form an Education Coven, as long
as the kids can read, write and cipher, they've met the minimum standards for
schooling. But don't mistake "schooling" for "education".
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

like I said elsewhere, the current "public education" system is comparable
to paying for a Mercedes and getting a Trabat.

Well, around here, you pay for a trabat, and you get one.

Unless you live in a community that requires decent schools,
in which case you pay for a mercedes and you get one.

Basically public education is a trabat club. Everyone pays for
a trabat, and most folks get one. Some kids cost like a
mercedes to school however.

If you can figure a way to give everyone a fancy car at
cheap prices, more power to you. But somehow that sounds
like the old, 'lower taxes, cut the deficit, and increase
spending' scam.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:29:48 -0500, Gary Coffman
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:52:28 GMT, Larry Jaques wrote:
Aren't you going to tell us which?

I really don't feel up to addressing all of the points raised on that
site today. But I will try to hit a few high points.

Okie doke. Thanks.


While Peak Oil is a real issue, it isn't clear that it is as near or as
dire as the website states. The 2000 dip wasn't unusual, there
have been a number of production dips throughout the 20th century
(and cries that we were immanently running out of oil as far back as
the 1920s Standard Oil scandals).

Don't you agree that we should be pursuing alternative fuels
much, much more than we are now? If nothing else, reliance on
fossil fuels makes us too dependent upon the external sources.
Add smog and toxic wastes to that and it's pretty clear.



With reprocessing and breeder technology, we can use plentiful
U238 and Thorium as our raw materials. Using technologies we
have on the shelf today, we can confidently predict that nuclear
fission could economically supply all of our energy needs for the
next 100,000+ years. The issues surrounding nuclear power are
not primarily technical or economic, they are political and emotional
(ie nuclear hysteria).

Nuclear waste disposal is a high-level ongoing problem.


The big disadvantage of hydrogen is that it is a low density energy
transport medium. That means bulky tanks, large pipelines, and
high pumping costs. Those issues aren't intolerable for most uses,
but they do mean that hydrogen isn't likely to be a viable mobile
energy transport medium until oil hits about $40 a barrel (in constant
year 2000 dollars) and stays there. That should occur sometime
after 2040 barring unforseen political events.

They also didn't mention that most vehicular hydrogen for use
today is produced with considerable amount of electricity being
passed through yet another fossil fuel source: natural gas.
There's a definite net loss of energy the way it's done now.


Some of what the site says about coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc
is right on target. Some of it ignores newer technologies. There
is a huge readily available supply (several thousand years worth
if we consumed it for energy generation), but there are heavy
environmental costs associated with it. IMHO the best use of
this resource is as feedstocks for the chemical and agricultural
industries. This BTW negates most of the concerns expressed
about running out of cheap oil for such uses.

I'm thinking we might be better off without many of the
chemicals and fertilizers being used nowadays, so downgrade
the need for oil in that use, too.


What the site says about biomass and other renewables is
mostly on target. With current practices, they are net energy
sinks rather than sources. With foreseeable technical advances
and practices, they're still uneconomic on the scale required
to meet our primary energy needs.

The sticky issue with renewables is that we have to replace
the nutrients we take from the soil when we harvest and burn
biomass. Otherwise it isn't renewable. The primary way we do
that today is with oil based fertilizers. That won't be an option
after Peak Oil.

Yes, BIG issue. Perhaps Soylent Green will become a reality.


The social, political, and economic issues surrounding running
out of cheap oil are so potentially complex that the simplistic
doomsday scenario painted by the website, while possible, is
not incredibly likely.

Perhaps it's not an accurate assessment of the risks, but it
does provide food for thought. Now to get more people thinking...


What society will look like in 100 years when the cheap oil is
mostly gone is sheer guesswork at this time. The large die offs,
and the collapse of industrial civilization is *one* possibility, but
it is far from the only one. There is at least one known viable
alternative to oil (nuclear power and the hydrogen economy),
there are very probably several others.

I'm a pessim^H^H^H^H^H^Hrealist and think TEOTWAWKI will take
far fewer than 100 years to happen. How does one more Shrub
term grab ya?



The only scarey thing is that we might wait too long to start
utilizing alternatives to oil. But I'm not as pessimistic as the
author of the website that will be the case. There are already
clear and viable economic and environmental reasons to be
starting down the road to implementing alternatives to oil.

Absolutely. I can't believe all these new car commercials
showing the new, improved 450hp Toyonkacedes SUV. Isn't
our gov't allowing the fuel efficiency requirements to be
nudged back year by year again? The commercials alone seem
to suggest that they're not seriously trying to make fuel
efficient cars yet. I like the little gas/elec hybrids
they've been introducing. The daily rush hour drones all
need them.


The USGS and other credible sources also say that the
decline following Peak Oil won't be so rapid that there won't
be time or resources available to accommodate the decline

The Big Q: How much do you trust govvy theoreticians?


with crash programs. It isn't the best or most efficient way
to deal with the issue, but such crash programs are a viable
method of avoiding the die off and collapse of industrial
civilization.

"Civilization" is highly overrated anyway.

Sign me: The Hermit

--
If it weren't for jumping to conclusions some of us wouldn't get any exercise.
www.diversify.com - Jump-free website programming

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 04:55:53 GMT, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:29:48 -0500, Gary Coffman
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:52:28 GMT, Larry Jaques wrote:
Aren't you going to tell us which?

I really don't feel up to addressing all of the points raised on that
site today. But I will try to hit a few high points.

Okie doke. Thanks.


While Peak Oil is a real issue, it isn't clear that it is as near or as
dire as the website states. The 2000 dip wasn't unusual, there
have been a number of production dips throughout the 20th century
(and cries that we were immanently running out of oil as far back as
the 1920s Standard Oil scandals).

Don't you agree that we should be pursuing alternative fuels
much, much more than we are now? If nothing else, reliance on
fossil fuels makes us too dependent upon the external sources.
Add smog and toxic wastes to that and it's pretty clear.

What alternatives would you propose? The website does a fair
job of explaining why alcohol, biodiesel, etc aren't viable. We've
known how to make synthetic gasoline from coal for 60 years,
but the costs, both in dollars and in environmental effects, make
that unattractive.

Bush is proposing $1 billion for the hydrogen economy, but we've
understood the chemistry and physics involved with that for nearly
a century. It is the daunting cost of switching over the infrastructure
that's the hold up there, and a billion won't begin to touch it. Besides
what we really need to make the hydrogen economy go is plenty of
nuclear power. That's not happening.

With reprocessing and breeder technology, we can use plentiful
U238 and Thorium as our raw materials. Using technologies we
have on the shelf today, we can confidently predict that nuclear
fission could economically supply all of our energy needs for the
next 100,000+ years. The issues surrounding nuclear power are
not primarily technical or economic, they are political and emotional
(ie nuclear hysteria).

Nuclear waste disposal is a high-level ongoing problem.

Only in the minds of those who already oppose nuclear power anyway.
If you took all the high level waste from every commercial nuclear reactor
since the beginning of the nuclear age and piled it up 3 feet deep, it
would barely cover one football field. Of course that would be a silly
thing to do, since reprocessing it will turn it into more fuel, but it gives
you a feel for the scope of the issue. If we desired, we could simply
pile it up in a desert somewhere, put a fence around it and walk away
for 500 years. At that point the radioactivity would have decayed to
the level of the original ores dug out of the ground.

Now there *are* large quantities of *low level* waste. But we've set
the standards for that so strictly that it makes no sense at all. The
concrete blocks in your foundation are more radioactive than most
of what is classified as low level waste. Yet the rules say we have to
entomb low level waste forever. Nonsense.

The big disadvantage of hydrogen is that it is a low density energy
transport medium. That means bulky tanks, large pipelines, and
high pumping costs. Those issues aren't intolerable for most uses,
but they do mean that hydrogen isn't likely to be a viable mobile
energy transport medium until oil hits about $40 a barrel (in constant
year 2000 dollars) and stays there. That should occur sometime
after 2040 barring unforseen political events.

They also didn't mention that most vehicular hydrogen for use
today is produced with considerable amount of electricity being
passed through yet another fossil fuel source: natural gas.
There's a definite net loss of energy the way it's done now.

No, hydrogen is not made by electrolysis of natural gas. Water
is the source of hydrogen using electrolysis. Hydrogen from
natural gas is produced by steam reforming over a hot iron
catalyst. We do need large quantities of electric power to make
hydrogen by electrolysis, that's why we need to be pushing nuclear
power plant construction in a big way.

Some of what the site says about coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc
is right on target. Some of it ignores newer technologies. There
is a huge readily available supply (several thousand years worth
if we consumed it for energy generation), but there are heavy
environmental costs associated with it. IMHO the best use of
this resource is as feedstocks for the chemical and agricultural
industries. This BTW negates most of the concerns expressed
about running out of cheap oil for such uses.

I'm thinking we might be better off without many of the
chemicals and fertilizers being used nowadays, so downgrade
the need for oil in that use, too.

Then you condemn the world to starvation.

Gary

(Dan Caster) wrote:

You may be right about a) b) and even c). But I do question whether
we need more teachers for a mix of public and private schools than we
do if there are only public schools.

If you want to reduce class size, you need more teachers. Any attempt
to improve education that doesn't reduce class size is a joke.

Fitch

(Dan Caster) wrote:

Now if you really want to cause hate and
discontent, consider importing teachers from some other countries. We
could grant visas to qualified teachers from countries as England,
Ireland, Australia, New Zealand. Maybe some of those from India that
speak well enough to do telephone support. What is the visa? H1B or
something.

Been to any colleges lately? G

Fitch

jim rozen wrote:

Those that cannot teach worth a
**** will be dumped in favor of those who can actually teach.

Still not obvious here. If Fitch were around, he would (did)
ask the biggie question: WHERE are you going to get those
teachers who can actually teach? All the teachers are already
employed. So how are you going to staff the extra, or larger,
private schools once vouchers permit portability?

Yup, that is a good question if I do say so myself. G

I gather you remember my post of a few years ago?

Fitch

Gunner wrote:

Psst..no big government control. Government mandated Standards. The
state and local systems must meet those standards (as they do now) to
be accredited. Someone has to set a national standard that each state
and local government must meet. Including teacher quality standards.

Or what? What is it about this grand plan of mandating "FEDERAL"
standards that will make teachers want to show up? Mandating standards
is less than half the process, way less. You need to supply a system
that will implement the standards or they won't happen. There is no
magic.

Post a speed limit, with out enforcement it is a joke. Post educational
standards with out providing for implementation is an equivalent joke.

You can't select portions of each HS class, or walk into businesses and
arrest employees, clap them in irons, drag them off to college and tell
them they "will be teachers or be executed!" Teaching is a voluntary
activity. Demanding good education, or else, with out providing for
meeting the demand is not a rational plan.

Fitch

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The irony of this always grabs me when this discussion comes up. Here is a
bunch of intelligent, knowledgable people who graduated (for the most part)
from public schools, talking about how dumb and ignorant the people are who
graduate from public schools.

It gives me whiplash just to think about it.

Bingo!

Fitch

Gary Coffman wrote:

Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and
the District of Columbia all have, or are starting, pilot
voucher programs. Wisconsin's is the oldest, and
has had positive measurable results in terms of
improved test scores for Milwaukee children in the
program.

And where was the equivalent control group, with similar selection
criteria, taken from in the public system?

You have to be careful about looking at data about comparing schools.
Saying the voucher system works by saying some select few that would
have done well anyway, did better than the average of those left behind
isn't much of a case.

Fitch

In article , Fitch R. Williams
says...

If you want to reduce class size, you need more teachers. Any attempt
to improve education that doesn't reduce class size is a joke.

I think the anti-public school folks will drag out the
'private schools do great, with large class sizes' theory.
This may be true, but the ability to cherry pick the
starting material for the process may have *something*
to do with it. Also the ability to jettison unruly
students.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:28:48 -0500, Gary Coffman
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 04:55:53 GMT, Larry Jaques wrote:
Don't you agree that we should be pursuing alternative fuels
much, much more than we are now? If nothing else, reliance on
fossil fuels makes us too dependent upon the external sources.
Add smog and toxic wastes to that and it's pretty clear.

What alternatives would you propose? The website does a fair
job of explaining why alcohol, biodiesel, etc aren't viable. We've
known how to make synthetic gasoline from coal for 60 years,
but the costs, both in dollars and in environmental effects, make
that unattractive.

Nearly all alternatives are efficient and viable in small
quantities. But solar electricity/hot water should be part
of all new homes (+5% cost, 2-5 yr ROI, cheaper than building
more dam/nuke/natgas plants), electric/gas hybrid cars should
be put out by every mfgr by now, and new buildings should be
made semi self-sufficient.

What can all of us do to make this happen? Dare we even
contact our congresscritters nowadays?


Bush is proposing $1 billion for the hydrogen economy, but we've

Quick Q: Where will he get it?


understood the chemistry and physics involved with that for nearly
a century. It is the daunting cost of switching over the infrastructure
that's the hold up there, and a billion won't begin to touch it. Besides
what we really need to make the hydrogen economy go is plenty of
nuclear power. That's not happening.

IDAGS for "hydrogen production" and found some new ideas out
there, including algae. http://tinyurl.com/2yr9r


Nuclear waste disposal is a high-level ongoing problem.

Only in the minds of those who already oppose nuclear power anyway.
If you took all the high level waste from every commercial nuclear reactor
since the beginning of the nuclear age and piled it up 3 feet deep, it
would barely cover one football field. Of course that would be a silly
thing to do, since reprocessing it will turn it into more fuel, but it gives

What percentage/type of nuclear waste can be/is reprocessed?


you a feel for the scope of the issue. If we desired, we could simply
pile it up in a desert somewhere, put a fence around it and walk away
for 500 years. At that point the radioactivity would have decayed to
the level of the original ores dug out of the ground.

Oops, most uranium is deadly enough right out of the ground.
So is the less powerful radon gas in large enough quantities.
And what about dirty military and scientific waste, with much
longer half-lives? But we could put all of it in Arizona or
Nevada. They wouldn't mind. Who needs those states? They both
have desert, too. Now. But in 500 years, it (and every other
square foot of dirt on Earth) will be full of people if things
go on as they have. I'm betting on a bigass (highly scientific
lingo there, wot?) turn of events which will slow things down
shortly. I just hope the Shrub doesn't start it. (WWIII)


Now there *are* large quantities of *low level* waste. But we've set
the standards for that so strictly that it makes no sense at all. The
concrete blocks in your foundation are more radioactive than most
of what is classified as low level waste. Yet the rules say we have to
entomb low level waste forever. Nonsense.

Yeah, some of the regs are pretty stiff. Perhaps a new look
should be taken.


No, hydrogen is not made by electrolysis of natural gas. Water

I did some personal fuel-cell research a couple years ago and
according to several sites I visited, their source was natural
gas. Perhaps they've changed, but that was the soup du jour back
then. YMMV
http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/hydrogen_production.html
shows a few methods, including those I remembered.


is the source of hydrogen using electrolysis. Hydrogen from
natural gas is produced by steam reforming over a hot iron
catalyst. We do need large quantities of electric power to make
hydrogen by electrolysis, that's why we need to be pushing nuclear
power plant construction in a big way.

I wonder if nuke power might be better in the long run than
all the coal/gas/oil we're burning to produce electricity
now. And I saw how much damage was done in the hydroelectric
producing states a few years ago when the PRK was in trouble.
It affected the cycle of fisheries and many other systems.
I have a copy of "The Ultimate Resource" by Simon on hold at
the library. It may prove to be interesting.


I'm thinking we might be better off without many of the
chemicals and fertilizers being used nowadays, so downgrade
the need for oil in that use, too.

Then you condemn the world to starvation.

We don't really NEED all these people, now do we?
(Only half kidding.) snort Vive Malthus!
-
News Flash: We have more food than we use now and half the
world still starves due to POLITICS. There are many tens of
thousands (maybe more) starving in this country, too, yet
we throw food away, recycling a teeny percent of a percent.

Properly nourished plants don't get eaten by bugs, so once we
go back to organics, there will be enough. Add more hothouses,
hydroponics, home gardens, etc. and food will be plentiful.

Removing many of the fertilizers and pesticides would stop
other problems from occuring, such as poisoned wells/streams,
algae blooms from the fertilizers, human/animal deaths, etc.
Saaay, you're not a ADM investor, are you?

While I'm definitely not a Global Warming believer, I do feel
that we should be reducing our burden on the planet.


..-.
Life is short. Eat dessert first!
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

In article , Larry Jaques says...

... electric/gas hybrid cars should
be put out by every mfgr by now,

Interestingly the difference in mileage between one
of the new hybrids, and a civic with a few minor tweaks,
is pretty darn small. The hybrid is around 50, the
civic I think about 45 or so.

The problem is not building fuel efficient cars.
It's convincing consumers to buy them.

Nuclear waste disposal is a high-level ongoing problem.

Only in the minds of those who already oppose nuclear power anyway.
If you took all the high level waste from every commercial nuclear reactor
since the beginning of the nuclear age and piled it up 3 feet deep, it
would barely cover one football field. Of course that would be a silly
thing to do, since reprocessing it will turn it into more fuel, but it gives

What percentage/type of nuclear waste can be/is reprocessed?

Hee hee, you would not have asked that question unless you knew
the answer, which if course is:

All spent reactor fuel (with some very small experimental exceptions)
that has been run through all commercial reactors in the US, is
still presently at each site where it was used. None of it has
ever even been *moved* offsite, ever.

This has to do with the economics of 'storage' (ie, simply
sticking it in a swimming pool full of water with a rent-a-cop
watching it) vs. the political and technical nightmare of
a) moving it someplace, somehow, and b) doing something with
it once it gets there.

It's a *hell* of a lot cheaper to purchase a rent-a-cop
than it is to buy a congresscritter.

Eventually the utility simply sells the entire reactor site
to the state for one dollar, and walks away from the situation.
Instant SEP.

This is done once the operating costs for the aged plant
begin to cut into the ROI.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 27 Feb 2004 20:30:09 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Fitch R. Williams
says...

If you want to reduce class size, you need more teachers. Any attempt
to improve education that doesn't reduce class size is a joke.

I think the anti-public school folks will drag out the
'private schools do great, with large class sizes' theory.
This may be true, but the ability to cherry pick the
starting material for the process may have *something*
to do with it. Also the ability to jettison unruly
students.

I attended a private school, and they provided me with an outstanding
education. But they did it with small classes, and lots of money. The
whole school, with a couple of years of pre-kindergarten up through
8th grade had about 200 kids at most, and several of them had family
names you'd recognize.

There have been a number of studies showing that, at least in the
primary grades, kids do much better with smaller class sizes, up to
about 16 in a class. Above that, it doesn't seem to make much
difference how big the class is.

Another significant difference that has been reported is the degree of
autonomy the school has, with more autonomy corresponding strongly to
better education. A private school typically has a lot of autonomy. A
public school has to follow policies set by district and state, and,
if President Bush has his way, Federal government as well. That's the
opposite of autonomy, and counter to the President's _stated_ aims
with respect to public education. I won't comment on his actual aims.

Al Moore

On 27 Feb 2004 20:30:09 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

,;In article , Fitch R. Williams
,;says...
,;
,;If you want to reduce class size, you need more teachers. Any attempt
,;to improve education that doesn't reduce class size is a joke.
,;
,;I think the anti-public school folks will drag out the
,;'private schools do great, with large class sizes' theory.
,;This may be true, but the ability to cherry pick the
,;starting material for the process may have *something*
,;to do with it. Also the ability to jettison unruly
,;students.

AND the ability to fire teachers who are no longer interested in
teaching.

jim rozen wrote:

Also the ability to jettison unruly
students.

Jim


I wonder how long it will take before the public schools
are finally alowed to enforce some disipline? :-(

...lew...

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:28:48 -0500, Gary Coffman
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

only if you have as many mouths to feed as you have now, and continue
to add to that number.

We could all live like Kings, if only.....
Then you condemn the world to starvation.

Gary

************************************************** ** sorry

..........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Spike....Spike? Hello?

In article , Alan Moore says...

Another significant difference that has been reported is the degree of
autonomy the school has, with more autonomy corresponding strongly to
better education. A private school typically has a lot of autonomy. A
public school has to follow policies set by district and state, and,
if President Bush has his way, Federal government as well. That's the
opposite of autonomy, and counter to the President's _stated_ aims
with respect to public education. I won't comment on his actual aims.

This is what I *don't* get: why the anti-gummint folks are so
very eager to have federal control over a what has always been
a local matter.

It may just be that they know, the fastest way to screw something
up is to have the government do it. Or, it may be that most of
those 'central education authority' folks come from places where
public education is well below most states' norms. So they
want to equalize the playing field - by dragging the better
states down to their level!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:27:58 GMT, Lewis Hartswick
wrote:

jim rozen wrote:

Also the ability to jettison unruly
students.

Jim


I wonder how long it will take before the public schools
are finally alowed to enforce some disipline? :-(

...lew...

If the NEA has its way..never.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

I wonder how long it will take before the public schools
are finally alowed to enforce some disipline? :-(

...lew...

If the NEA has its way..never.

Gunner


You're implicating the wrong group, Gunner. It's your appointed, state board
of education (or its equivalent) that limits discipline, in conjunction with
your state legislature. Teachers would love nothing more than to have a
freer hand.

Ed Huntress

I do not agree that you need to reduce the average class size. I do
agree that some class sizes need to be reduced, but some can be
enlarged. As far as I know there has been no studies that prove that
smaller class sizes improve learning.

If you got rid of the poorest 5% of the teachers and spread the
children amoung the remaining better teachers, you would probably
improve learning. Poor teachers are much more of a problem than large
class size in grades above about the fifth grade.

Also computers have been very poorly used in schools. In public
schools there is no incentive to use computers to reduce the numbers
of teachers needed. But computers could be used to provide individual
instruction tailored to each student. They would not replace
teachers, but could be used to find out exactly how well each student
has grasped the lesson and provide additional coaching on exactly what
is not understood. A good teachers does this. Using computers this
way is not feasible if each teacher has to develop a program. But it
would be feasible for the federal government to develop programs which
could be used all over the country.

Dan


Fitch R. Williams wrote in message

If you want to reduce class size, you need more teachers. Any attempt
to improve education that doesn't reduce class size is a joke.

Fitch

"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m...
I do not agree that you need to reduce the average class size. I do
agree that some class sizes need to be reduced, but some can be
enlarged. As far as I know there has been no studies that prove that
smaller class sizes improve learning.

Then you must have missed 90% of education research over the past 20 years,
Dan. The studies show a direct relationship, and they're both consistent and
overwhelming, in private schools and public schools alike.

Go to ERIC and read to your heart's content.

Ed Huntress

A friend of mine tell a story about going to hear Ralph Nader speak.
Ralph went on and on about using solar collectors. Unfortunately he
was addressing an audience in the Puget Sound region. In this region
solar power works. But it works by having the sun evaporate water
from the Pacific ocean and using the rain and snow to power
hydroelectric plants.

Dan

Larry Jaques wrote in message


Nearly all alternatives are efficient and viable in small
quantities. But solar electricity/hot water should be part
of all new homes (+5% cost, 2-5 yr ROI, cheaper than building
more dam/nuke/natgas plants




But we could put all of it in Arizona or
Nevada. They wouldn't mind. Who needs those states? They both
have desert, too.