It does seem like dag is right -- this only works on this scale for famous people who already have a fanbase.

But the internet works for "the little folk" too -- can't get signed with a big company? See if you can win the internet lottery and then maybe you'll get a deal. Some kind of deal. I'm thinking OK Go as an example.

Piracy is piracy, however you justify it. You can so you do. As I have done, albeit only through jumping on things quick on YouTube before they get shut down. No skills to do anything else.

1. Do not equate jobs. I was a public education teacher for four years, and I've been an IT pro for seven years, now as a senior consultant for AD, Exchange, VMware, and storage, with too many certifications to list them all off the top of my head. I just want to make this clear. Even with all the learning I've done to get all those certifications, it wouldn't take me the five years it took me to get a master's degree in education. Even with "summers off", without a doubt, I worked more hours in a year as a teacher than I have as an IT pro with 2-3 weeks paid vacation. Even in the most demanding IT jobs I've had (one was Premier Support for Microsoft Support Services), I have never been more stressed out than I was as a teacher, and I got paid half as much to teach.

2. You get better with experience as a teacher, but the ability to teach is also a gift. You must have some innate ability for it to actually be a good teacher. Not only do you have to know your subject matter, but you must also be able to relate it to an audience with completely different backgrounds, styles of learning, while managing a classroom of immature people by their very nature. Dismissing it as an "acquired skill just like anything else" shows an dizzying amount of ignorance about what the job entails.

3. You're half right about this. Teachers in my experience fell into 3 categories - great teachers, slackers, and those who tried really hard but failed because of a lack of talent. Of the slackers, the overwhelming majority were people who got the idealistic burning desire to teach beaten out of them by the system. They didn't move on or weren't fired because they simply didn't want to start over, and the system was short of teachers anyway. I moved on because my wife had medical issues, so I needed to earn enough for both of us, and there was no way I could do that by teaching. It took me 2-3 years to fully transition into IT. By the second year, I realized I didn't want to be a teacher anyway because of how screwed up public education was. I still believe in public education, but it's the external factors that prevent you from doing your job, whether it be woeful funding, bad salary, unsupportive parents, ludicrous insistence that standardized multiple choice tests accurately measured knowledge and understanding of a subject, etc.

Here's the problem with "getting rid of those bad teachers" - we don't have enough teachers as is, so you want less teachers? Can't wait to see those classes of 37 go to 45 or 50. Until you address the problem of attracting and keeping teachers, all that stuff is moot.

As for merit pay, I'm fine with that as long as something can be devised that accurately measures the teacher's performance. Standardized test scores won't do that because, nor absolute values on grades, etc.

5. See above. Most teachers' unions are against merit pay because no one has come up with a fair evaluation of a teacher's performance.

As for the arts, exposure to arts help students beyond the specifics of the art, assisting with learning and comprehension of every other subject. Ridding art from schools is a big mistake. Major advancements in science for example is derived by creative thinking, which art helps to develop. And this isn't just some psychological BS.

>> ^RedSky:

1. So is every other job.
2. It's an acquired skill like anything else. Also, let's not equate private tutoring with teaching a class, they are different things entirely and while some teachers certainly fill that role it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that most students will either demand this kind of attention or that most teachers will provide it (outside of what their job entails). I should probably disclose that my mother is a teacher too.
3. I'm not sure what you mean here. What I'm saying is people who don't want stress in their job and potentially don't want to put in a great deal of effort work in more secure positions, typically government related. I am not saying that all government employees are lazy and unmotivated, I'm simply saying that the obvious and apparent perks they provide attract certain kinds of people disproportionately.
4. This is why I would argue there needs to be a way to evaluate performance and reward teachers that do well. Rewarding them will allow the wages of teachers who are good at what they do rise and encourage more talented individuals who want to teach into a field they would otherwise not consider. As I said in my previous comment as far as I'm concerned the primary skills that schools should be teaching are reading, comprehension and rudimentary maths. These are also easily able to be evaluated with standardised tests. The same standardised tests that determine university enrollment. As far as I'm concerned I see no reason a test like this cannot evaluate a teacher's capability in improving year upon year results of students. Yes, it cannot be a primary measurement and it is certainly not perfect, but if your intention to increase the standards of teaching and you accept the impractically/implausibility of vastly increasing the teaching budget, you have to accept that improvements have to come from improved efficiency and effectiveness. You can't begin to address that unless you have some way of measuring it.
5. No skilled or academically minded industry is a factory. Yet everything from engineering to consulting to scientific research companies thrive in a competitive economy. Am I suggesting privatising and cutting funding? Not at all. I think poor neighborhoods need to be subsidised to encourage good teachers to teach there. I have no particular issue with public schools although I see no reason charter schools should not receive eligible to such government assistance and what currently exists where the funding is there to serve the common good of creating an educated and knowledgeable society. My problem is entrenched union interest groups who by virtue of the campaign contributions they endow to their elected representatives, block any capacity to reward good teachers and who in effect keep teacher wages depressed and a whole bunch of talented individuals who would have otherwise genuinely considered teaching out of schools.
My point is not that I don't think art/music/drama are valuable aspects of schooling. Rather that schools in poor neighbourhoods are failing to endow students with the basic skills they need to enter a skilled job or for that matter to enter university. I think when people make arguments like this (which if I recall one of the people in this video did), they fly in stark contrast to reality that many simply do not even grasp the basics of education.
Schooling at it's base is not rooted in wishy washy concepts of creativity, expressing individuality or character, they are part of growing up but not the function of school at its core. Math and reading skills are ultimately rooted in effective teacher instruction followed by repetition. No amount of related activities will dress up the fact that if you want to function in modern society you need to go through these trials and tribulations. Until all schools can do that, the last thing I want to listen to is some guy at a rally preaching about abstract skills.

Planking the White House lawn, no skill but lots of balls.

1. So is every other job.

2. It's an acquired skill like anything else. Also, let's not equate private tutoring with teaching a class, they are different things entirely and while some teachers certainly fill that role it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that most students will either demand this kind of attention or that most teachers will provide it (outside of what their job entails). I should probably disclose that my mother is a teacher too.

3. I'm not sure what you mean here. What I'm saying is people who don't want stress in their job and potentially don't want to put in a great deal of effort work in more secure positions, typically government related. I am not saying that all government employees are lazy and unmotivated, I'm simply saying that the obvious and apparent perks they provide attract certain kinds of people disproportionately.

4. This is why I would argue there needs to be a way to evaluate performance and reward teachers that do well. Rewarding them will allow the wages of teachers who are good at what they do rise and encourage more talented individuals who want to teach into a field they would otherwise not consider. As I said in my previous comment as far as I'm concerned the primary skills that schools should be teaching are reading, comprehension and rudimentary maths. These are also easily able to be evaluated with standardised tests. The same standardised tests that determine university enrollment. As far as I'm concerned I see no reason a test like this cannot evaluate a teacher's capability in improving year upon year results of students. Yes, it cannot be a primary measurement and it is certainly not perfect, but if your intention to increase the standards of teaching and you accept the impractically/implausibility of vastly increasing the teaching budget, you have to accept that improvements have to come from improved efficiency and effectiveness. You can't begin to address that unless you have some way of measuring it.

5. No skilled or academically minded industry is a factory. Yet everything from engineering to consulting to scientific research companies thrive in a competitive economy. Am I suggesting privatising and cutting funding? Not at all. I think poor neighborhoods need to be subsidised to encourage good teachers to teach there. I have no particular issue with public schools although I see no reason charter schools should not receive eligible to such government assistance and what currently exists where the funding is there to serve the common good of creating an educated and knowledgeable society. My problem is entrenched union interest groups who by virtue of the campaign contributions they endow to their elected representatives, block any capacity to reward good teachers and who in effect keep teacher wages depressed and a whole bunch of talented individuals who would have otherwise genuinely considered teaching out of schools.

My point is not that I don't think art/music/drama are valuable aspects of schooling. Rather that schools in poor neighbourhoods are failing to endow students with the basic skills they need to enter a skilled job or for that matter to enter university. I think when people make arguments like this (which if I recall one of the people in this video did), they fly in stark contrast to reality that many simply do not even grasp the basics of education.

Schooling at it's base is not rooted in wishy washy concepts of creativity, expressing individuality or character, they are part of growing up but not the function of school at its core. Math and reading skills are ultimately rooted in effective teacher instruction followed by repetition. No amount of related activities will dress up the fact that if you want to function in modern society you need to go through these trials and tribulations. Until all schools can do that, the last thing I want to listen to is some guy at a rally preaching about abstract skills.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^RedSky:
Pretty much all their answers are half truths or platitudes. They're impassioned rather than particularly fact backed.
1 - It is hard to get a teacher fired in a private school in the US, the job security is markedly better than in other private jobs.
2 - Not all teachers go into teaching because they are necessarily passionate about it. The work hours are only long if you put in the hours to prepare for classes. The mandated aren't very long, yes you have to cover supervise sports, participate in events which all adds up but they're still undoubtedly shorter than the 8-6 + every other weekends I'm doing now.
3 - A portion of all professions are bad at what they do, and yes it is more likely that with increased job security that there are more lingering in teaching than other professions.
4 - Teaching is not free and the amount of taxpayer money it is apportioned at least partially depends on the reputation it has for delivering results. Particularly given the mood in most rich economies right now of debt reduction that's a terrible attitude if you want to improve the results of students with limited money.
As far as I'm concerned, schools should be focused primarily on teaching the skills that will enable them to achieve in a workplace. Yes arts/music are great, but only if the school is already achieving good standards on the core learning that is required in most jobs like reading, comprehension and rudimentary maths. Having these core skills will ultimately allow them, coming from either a rich or poor background to make a living comfortably and ultimately spend money on developing any number of those skills later in life.

1. I'm not Usasian, I don't know. What I do know is that teaching is immensely stressful. Having to worry about your position would only add to that.
2. Imagine having the responssibility of teaching 30 different, growing individuals per class times the amount of classes you have, correct and test 30 times x people on sth different every week/month. This is no job in which you have to do routine. Routine is easy.
3. Why would they want to work an insecure underpaid job? Isn't it more likely that the benefits outweigh the lingerers?
4. True. American education needs an overhaul. Which will cost money, which is why it doesn't happen.
5. Schools are not factories which educate to produce workforce robots. They impart the whole cultural knowledge of a society. Art helps your brain to think abstractly and understand what you are reading. Music gives you a sense of aesthetics. Would you play computergames which are badly written, have horrible graphics and have no music? No? Well, then you need a culture which teaches these things.
Why do I even have to tell this to someone? Have you painted your profile picture yourself?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

whoa dude. what an incoherent and terrible comparison.
football and boxing are sports that require skill.
The goal is to be skillful. Not to concuss someone for laughs.
This prank is pointless, stupid and murderous - not to mention it requires no skill or thinking.
It's in no way funny to watch that guy's skull bounce off the concrete.
If you're gonna be a weirdo sadist. As least be upfront about it.


Sports and pranks. Both are society-induced entertainment meant simply to solicit a response (I.e., watch me! Or pay for me!) from people. So yeah, they can be compared. I think you used the generic--"They cannot be compared"--justification more for your own comment than anything else. That has become way too prevalent these days.

When in doubt, just say those words and the comparison-poster (me) seems like he/she has no clue what they are talking about.

You mention skills? What about skills makes a dumbass sport--like punching someone in the head until he cannot stand--any less dumbass? Chess has skill too, but I didn't compare that with pranks. Because that would have been a incoherent and terrible comparison. I compared VIOLENT sports to dipshit pranks.

Here is another comparison that works. This is not a smart ass comment--I am using this to prove a point by example. Apples to oranges. Both are foods, both are fruit, both have vitamins, both are good for you...

So, just because you cannot understand a comparison doesn't mean you're right.

Btw, I can understand your downvote if you can understand my point of view.

whoa dude. what an incoherent and terrible comparison.

football and boxing are sports that require skill.
The goal is to be skillful. Not to concuss someone for laughs.

This prank is pointless, stupid and murderous - not to mention it requires no skill or thinking.

It's in no way funny to watch that guy's skull bounce off the concrete.

If you're gonna be a weirdo sadist. As least be upfront about it.

>> ^raverman:

Music as an 'art form' requires artistic talent and skill to be considered "good". The various skills necessary to be a talented singer are well known and documented.
This can only be classed as Entertainment... people are entitled to enjoy it much as they would America's funniest home videos, a bad pun, or a children's clown act.
But it's not Musical Art as it includes no skill or talent.


If we were to only talk about singing then you could say the same about Bob Dylan, Jimmi Hendrix, Lou Reed, or hundreds of other obviously talented people.

Her singing is not the best in the world, but it's certainly good enough to be a part of a music project of some kind.

Music as an 'art form' requires artistic talent and skill to be considered "good". The various skills necessary to be a talented singer are well known and documented.

This can only be classed as Entertainment... people are entitled to enjoy it much as they would America's funniest home videos, a bad pun, or a children's clown act.

But it's not Musical Art as it includes no skill or talent.

I always have mixed feelings about these kinds of PSAs. On the one hand, yes traveling slower shortens your stopping distance. On the other hand, there are a whole bunch of factors that go into the speed you travel at on any given road. The issue above was straight-line braking and I have avoided accidents due to being able to maneuver my vehicle. Also, I noticed that the faster car hit the side edge of the tail bumper which would cause massive damage, while the slower car hit the side safely panel on the truck. Pretty sure the faster car wouldn't have had so much damage if it had hit the same panel. I think they did this intentionally for dramatic effect. I think this actually takes away from their message.

What is the posted speed limit? What is the commonly understood speed limit? Highway 2 south of Edmonton is posted as 110 km/h (~68 mph). Common speed that most people travel at is 130 km/h (~80 mph). Is that a problem? No, not really. Everyone going at around the same speed works fine. People going 90 or 150 are the problem. The RCMP don't even pull you over unless you are traveling unsafely (fast lane changes or traveling over 130). I have driven through about 20 speed traps on Highway 2 at 130 and have never been pulled over.

Am I a good driver? Sorta. I know of a handful of friends who are better than me, including my wife. I am attentive and I know how to spot danger and how to avoid it. I maintain my vehicle and make sure that all steering, braking and yes, acceleration systems are in good working order. I have rarely used my cell phone when driving and when there are complicated road sections I usually stop talking and ignore any passengers to focus on the driving. I believe that this is why I haven't had a traffic accident in 15 years, but have avoided many. Speed is always a factor in accidents, but it is rarely the sole cause.

The vehicle is also a factor. I have driven down a 4 lane road marked 60 km/h and have checked my speed in my car and I am doing 80. That speed felt safe to me. I have driven that same road in my parent's van and have checked my speed at it felt like I was speeding at 55. I know that van accelerates, brakes and steers much worse than my car.

I believe that one of the biggest factors is driver training. I hate the fact that it takes almost no skill to get a driver's license and that there are no re-tests or other requirements. When I worked at a big chemical plant, long ago, fork lift drivers had all kinds of training and driving tests and re-tests to make sure they were operating safely. Almost all accidents had a root cause in a lack of training or experience and corrective action was taken. Drivers on the road? Whatever, just let them answer 10 multiple-choice questions and give them a plastic card with no follow-up. Drive safely!

Thefreak, firecracker seem to be pretty unstable, also the fuses themselves are easy to burn and when they burn, they emit a shower of sparks guaranteed to set off more fuses. Infact it looks like the center mass was started by a firecracker that had blown itself into the mess.

frankly though this setup takes no skill and is just a smoking mess... what I wanna see is 320,000 Firecrackers..at once!

And more to the point, big pharma is only indirectly related. It is akin to yellow mustard sales in relation to spicy mustard sales. If you can't get yellow mustard, then most likely spicy mustard may go up. That is an indirect relationship. Conversely, the illegality of drugs directly affects all those other groups. In addition, in other talks, he mentions big pharma as they do, as you mention, indirectly benefit from the illegality of drugs. His views, if you do more digging than just this video, are more in line with a centrist position as he does advocate high taxation which is a depart from a more libertarian philosophy.


>> ^entr0py:

>> ^Taint:
This guy must be from the right wing since he manages to make a list of who profits from illicit drugs without citing private industry!
Sure, drug dealers, the government, and terrorists, but certainly not an unkind word toward our precious corporate America!
Dow chemicals, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and etc etc. The companies who fill up your commercial breaks with people wandering wistfully through fields with vacant smiles on their faces. Sure you could vaporize some marijuana harmlessly to combat your crippling depression, but then we'd lose the billion dollar industry of selling you laboratory created pills to do the same thing.
Funny thing about a weed is that it takes virtually no skill to grow some of it, and thus makes a difficult product to package and sell. For Judge Gray here to make his comprehensive list without including the people who stand the MOST to lose from removing prohibition is either amazingly narrow or entirely suspect.

I never know what I should make of claims like that. Pharmaceutical companies often cherry pick the studies that show efficacy, and ignore the ones that don't, especially when it comes to anti-depressants. But I would expect pot supporters to do the same. Meta analysis of available studies doesn't seem to show any clear consensus.
It seems like the biggest problem is the lack of double-blind, placebo controlled, studies set up to prescribe marijuana to non-users as a treatment for depression. All I've ever seen are observational studies, and those can only show correlation. It would take proper experiments to begin to demonstrate causality.

>> ^Taint:

This guy must be from the right wing since he manages to make a list of who profits from illicit drugs without citing private industry!
Sure, drug dealers, the government, and terrorists, but certainly not an unkind word toward our precious corporate America!
Dow chemicals, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and etc etc. The companies who fill up your commercial breaks with people wandering wistfully through fields with vacant smiles on their faces. Sure you could vaporize some marijuana harmlessly to combat your crippling depression, but then we'd lose the billion dollar industry of selling you laboratory created pills to do the same thing.
Funny thing about a weed is that it takes virtually no skill to grow some of it, and thus makes a difficult product to package and sell. For Judge Gray here to make his comprehensive list without including the people who stand the MOST to lose from removing prohibition is either amazingly narrow or entirely suspect.


I never know what I should make of claims like that. Pharmaceutical companies often cherry pick the studies that show efficacy, and ignore the ones that don't, especially when it comes to anti-depressants. But I would expect pot supporters to do the same. Meta analysis of available studies doesn't seem to show any clear consensus.

It seems like the biggest problem is the lack of double-blind, placebo controlled, studies set up to prescribe marijuana to non-users as a treatment for depression. All I've ever seen are observational studies, and those can only show correlation. It would take proper experiments to begin to demonstrate causality.

This guy must be from the right wing since he manages to make a list of who profits from illicit drugs without citing private industry!

Sure, drug dealers, the government, and terrorists, but certainly not an unkind word toward our precious corporate America!

Dow chemicals, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and etc etc. The companies who fill up your commercial breaks with people wandering wistfully through fields with vacant smiles on their faces. Sure you could vaporize some marijuana harmlessly to combat your crippling depression, but then we'd lose the billion dollar industry of selling you laboratory created pills to do the same thing.

Funny thing about a weed is that it takes virtually no skill to grow some of it, and thus makes a difficult product to package and sell. For Judge Gray here to make his comprehensive list without including the people who stand the MOST to lose from removing prohibition is either amazingly narrow or entirely suspect.

Hey Genji,
Judging from your comment, seems im not the only one who shares my thoughts!

I remember when UFC first started in one form or another and guys would wear karate gear and the big sell was this guy is a boxer fighting a wrestler or this guy is a karate expert fighting a boxing guy.
But the "sport" seems to have evolved into an organized school brawl. The fights look amateurish and often dont go beyond 2 rounds, cause lets face it, not matter how big and muscly you are, skin is skin and easily cuts. The term "ground and pound" comes up often.

Dont get me wrong, I like a good fight just like the next guy... but im not seeing the skill in UFC. Where are the Tyson's, Ali's, Zhu's, etc.

Im keen to learn more, point me in the right direction

later bro


In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Goddamnit. Why do we always have this discussion?

First.
The only person who's struggling after two minutes is Lesnar.

He's a transplant from "professional" wrestling. Which is why he sucks.
He has no skill. No Endurance. And no clue what to do inside an octagon.

Lesnar was only the champion cause he's built like a grizzly bear/tank/meat shield hybrid.

He is essentially baby huey.

Shane Carwin almost beat him. Frank Mir did once before. He sucks and everyone knows it.

Second.
Of course it's a sport old fogey.

Are you really gonna sit there and try to tell everyone that
- FIGHTING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING FOR 15 TO 25 MINTUES STRAIGHT! -
doesn't take any athleticism, technique, training or endurance?

Fer cereal? = /

>> ^GuyFawkes:

I dont get this "sport", give me boxing anyday. For "professional" athletes they sure struggle after 2mins. Maybe its a gen y instant gratification thing... maybe im old.

Goddamnit. Why do we always have this discussion?

First.
The only person who's struggling after two minutes is Lesnar.

He's a transplant from "professional" wrestling. Which is why he sucks.
He has no skill. No Endurance. And no clue what to do inside an octagon.

Lesnar was only the champion cause he's built like a grizzly bear/tank/meat shield hybrid.

He is essentially baby huey.

Shane Carwin almost beat him. Frank Mir did once before. He sucks and everyone knows it.

Second.
Of course it's a sport old fogey.

Are you really gonna sit there and try to tell everyone that
- FIGHTING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING FOR 15 TO 25 MINTUES STRAIGHT! -
doesn't take any athleticism, technique, training or endurance?

Fer cereal? = /

>> ^GuyFawkes:

I dont get this "sport", give me boxing anyday. For "professional" athletes they sure struggle after 2mins. Maybe its a gen y instant gratification thing... maybe im old.