From looking at the chart referenced in your link, it would seem to me that our youngest school age kids should get into school the latest, and teenagers the earliest. If we extend this logic, college age kids should be having classes even earlier (try to read that without chuckling).
Yet most of the news/research I read is about appeasing groggy teenagers. Why aren't we focusing on elementary and middle schoolers? One of my other replies in this thread was about how locally they've shifted high schoolers to a later start time and as a result the younger kids are forced into an earlier time schedule. Makes no sense if we're using the data referenced.
Substitute football for "ballet" and pep rallies for "debate team practice" and drop the completely non-relevant (and severely biased) quote about head trauma and see if you get the same reaction.
I know it's fun to pick on Football and jocks in general but I don't think we can have a serious debate on the subject when the bias is so obvious.
What about we make athletics part of the school day? Shocking I know, but if we recognize athletics as an important key to youth development and not something that has to happen after "real school" than maybe we might be able to tackle this issue of kids being so overwhelmed and having to stay up late just to stay afloat.
I don't think it's fair to make every student wake up unnaturally early for the sake of those with any kind of extracurricular activity, not just sports.
Harming school performance and sleep depriving developing children in the time that they need sleep the most, just to give a self-selected portion of the student body extra time for sports, debate team, student council, etc. makes absolutely no sense to me.
>What about we make athletics part of the school day?
"gym" is a joke on many different levels ... but that's a different debate altogether. Also I take issue with the term "extracurricular" as it implies something separate from "actual" schooling. Maybe if these activities weren't tacked on after school like an afterthought more kids would be apt to take them up.
Unnaturally early? If we really want to go that route we should consider that our ancestors, until very recent times, were generally well awake before 8:00 AM on any given day. Also they generally didn't stay up late by our current standards, generally in bed an hour or two after sundown. So the issue isn't 8:00 am is unnaturally early, it is most likely staying up unnaturally late that is the culprit.
I wish I could have gotten up at 8 or even 7AM when I was in school. We're talking about school starting hours, not wakeup times. You can't wake up just before the bell rings and teleport into class. Depending on how far you live from school, what transportation method you use (whether you ride a school bus, regular public transportation, are a spoiled brat that can get mommy to drive you, etc), what your responsibilities are outside of school, and so on, you may need to wake up a considerable amount of time before the school day officially begins.
My school started at 7:30AM, which required I get up just before 6AM, from middle school onward. I don't think that's a natural time to require growing teenagers to wake up at. It was still dark outside then, where I lived. Even amongst grown adults, those that can wake up that early and function without incurring a sleep debt are rare.
>So the issue.. is most likely staying up unnaturally late.
Kids naturally begin staying up and waking up later after they hit puberty. Trying to fight that is stupid and harmful.
We are not our ancestors ;) In all seriousness, sometimes we cannot look into the past to guide us as we as humans and culture have evolved to develop many new behaviors and biological traits. Our ancestors lived much shorter lives, in a vastly different world, doing vastly different type of work/schooling, I don't think it's fair to compare everything so literally.
You don't get straight out of bed into a classroom. As for the end of the day, you can either spend the rest of the daylight hours doing homework indoors and then go straight to bed, or you can go outside and do the homework later, after dark (requiring less than 8 hours of sleep). Which is the healthier lifestyle?
Can't say I'm a fan of this as the father of two elementary school students. The push to accommodate sleepy teenagers means my 5 and 7 year old have to wake before 6 AM to be on the bus by 7:00 AM. If any segment of school age kids are better equipped for an early start it's teenagers who can fully understand the concept of getting a good nights sleep. That kind of reason/logic isn't quite fully developed in a... 5 year old.
Seriously get off the damn cell phone, shut down your Mac and go the fuck to sleep. The more of a routine this becomes the easier it is to drag your ass out of bed early in the morning. Don't force little kids to be in bed at dinner time just because your teenagers are ...cranky.
Maybe I'm showing my old-age here but I think most of this is bull.
I am guessing it is because of buses; the same bus has to take the highschool kids and the elementary kids. It used to be the highschool kids went first, and then the elementary school kids.. now they are reversing it, so the younger kids have to get up earlier.
The same set of buses is used for elementary, middle, and high schools, so elementary schools in most places tend to start later (like 9am) and the high schools earlier (like 730). The district in the article probably just reversed those times.
Because they use the same school buses for elementary high school, but not at the same time. The routes are based on where the students actually are, so combining them would make transit time significantly longer for each student, plus I'm sure there are other concerns about having rowdy teenagers on the same buses as kindergarten students.
They shifted the bus schedule to better accommodate the older kids which means the younger kids had to catch a bus over an hour earlier. My point is "all kids" drag ass in the morning, but IMHO teenagers are better equipped to deal with it than a child under the age of 10.
Your old age is certainly showing. Younger children typically go to bed before older children be it their choice or their parents forcing bedtimes. Its only logical the older children should have a later wake-up time.
I would let my kids stay up much later (and they would gladly take me up on the offer) if I didn't have to get them up at 6AM. They aren't newborns who need to go to bed at 5PM, they would bounce of the walls until 10 or 11 if I could let them. This isn't logical, it's the result of the decisions made regarding school start time.
My wife/business partner also uses one and (begrudgingly) convinced me to ditch my $300+ leather office chair for one.
I'm sold. It's the best option short of sitting on just the ball part (which engages more balance muscles)
The best part is your can't "slump" into the chair if you're feeling tired. The best option at that point it to get up and do something else as opposed to fighting your body and relying on a Lazy-Boy approach.
What I like especially is that when listening to music, or when you're feeling energetic you (subconsciously at times) tend to bounce and roll your butt around on the ball which exercises even more muscles in your back/lower body.
Sitting on just the ball I got pretty good at "slumping", if you grasp it with your thighs and roll backward you can perfectly balance your weight between your torso and legs. No correct posture needed.
Nope, my seat/ball and desk height is correct making that a non-issue for both typing and mouse control (I do more mouse clicking than typing) As long as you measure everything correctly you won't have issues. Also keep in mind the height and depth of your monitor placement. You don't want to be leaning in, or looking down/up all day. Pretty basic ergonomic stuff.
Yeah I fail to see the problem. When I left my salaried job to start my own business I applied for our state provided healthcare (MA) as my income was almost non existent. As my income increased I got bumped from plan to plan adding cost along the way. If you actually have $0 in income, Medicaid or the like sounds appropriate.
Didn't the Affordable Health Care Act essentially roll out nationally a model similar to the successful state models (like Massachusetts) making this a universal method? I claim ignorance here but was under the impression the systems worked similar.
Amazon's streaming video is useless to me. It doesn't work on any of my devices (android, linux, or chromecast), while Netflix does.
I made 2 online movie rentals within the past few weeks, and both times I checked amazon, but then remembered that it doesn't work on my devices, and ended up getting it from Google Play. They're missing out on purchases, and getting people used to using other services - not a great way to set yourself up for the future...
Yep and that's how you alienate your existing user-base who signed up when it was all about the shipping.
If they wanted to run a streaming/media service they should have done just that. They have definitely lost me as a customer by switching me from one service to another without even asking for confirmation (I found out in hackernews). Even if I was interested in the media streaming service which I'm absolutely not, I would still be upset about the way they have dealt with it.
Is it? I'd rather they split this into 2 plans and let me have just the fast shipping for $79 (or less) and people who want streaming can pay $99.
Netflix still has the better offering IMO. Not only content, but the video interface is better too. Initially Amazon's video player worked on Linux out of the box, but now it's just as hacky to get running as Netflix.
Due to this price increase, I'm going to reevaluate how important fast shipping is to me.
It's not just fast but free shipping. For someone who orders from Amazon regularly throughout the year, that's the real value.
Also, Amazon has way more content on their video streaming service with the caveat that you have to pay to rent/own a lot of it. Agreed about the interface though, Amazon's app offerings for PS3/SmartTV have been subpar in comparison to Netflix though.
Interesting. In DE those services were just unlocked (and the price increased for renewals accordingly). So far it was JUST for fast shipping.
I subscribed for faster/cheaper shipping and canceled now, after a couple years. The streaming services are of no use to me. Most content in Germany is .. German (dubbed). I don't see a streaming client on Android or a way to stream from my XBMC. Inaccessible + expensive -> No prime for me anymore.
Well, as I said: For me it is the combination of these things.
Even if the content would be awesome: I cannot access it. Unless I own a particular brand of TVs, a weird Amazon tablet, an iOS device (all negative and no interest in any of these things) - how am I supposed to get that stuff on my TV (which happens to BE a 'smart' TV with optional internet connectivity, but it's offline for a very good reason)?
I've been paying for Prime for a couple years (and will continue at $99/year), but I couldn't care less about the video. If there were a shipping-only Prime for $79, I wouldn't think twice about dropping the video.
I'd say that is a personal opinion. I say that as my own personal opinion is quite the opposite. I rarely use Prime streaming and prefer Netflix simple based on ease of use. Of course Netflix seems determined to screw that up, but that's a different story.
To be fair, you're talking about a distant 4th place provider that most in the US understand will not work great outside of major population areas. I would understand if you had issues with one of the big two (VZ/ATT). Also to be fair, Sweden is about the size of California.
> Case in point, Texas (because of it's size) is #1 in almost every economic category.
Texas is neither the largest state by area (that's Alaska, Texas is #2) nor population (that's California, Texas is, again, #2). Nor is it #1 in most economic categories (e.g., by GDP California is #1 and Texas, again, #2 ; by GDP per capita, Texas is #19 -- #20 if DC is included as a "state" -- and Delaware -- or, if DC is included, DC -- is #1. )
> #1 per capita energy consumption
Size doesn't really justify being #1 in per capita anything, but then again, according to the US Dept. of Energy , Wyoming is #1 per capita energy consumption overall, and Texas is #6.
EDIT to add:
> but also #1 in green (wind) energy.
Texas is actually #1 in wind energy (probably not #1 in "green" energy, which normally means renewables; Texas has a very high ratio of wind to total renewables.)
Uhg, I should have chosen my words more carefully. Thanks for the reference links, and the point by point break down of my anecdotal comment (I love HNers...really)
If we take a breather, and look at the parent comment, it was about how large America is and how in this one area things might be very wrong, but many other areas of the US there are things that are going very right. The American dream is not tied completely to the drilling for gas in ND.
My point was not to debate the specific points (which is why I didn't provide reference URLs), only illustrate that the US is physically large, and has many different regional economies. Even contradicting economies within the same state. Your point about CA only reenforces this.
But I get it, CA is awesomely green in every way... great for them. I'm not fan of Texas but the shear size of the state and population means they have several economic "identities".
Every article I read about this topic focuses on 3 things; strippers, housing shortages and ..strippers (I'm only half joking). I get the idea of writing an article that will attract clicks and views but I'd like to read more articles that focus on why we're drilling for gas here and what it means for the country in the long term.
Boom towns are full of all kinds of awful, I would imagine many similar articles were written about the gold rush and other mass movements of workers but that situation is only temporary and in the grand scheme of things not very important.
Does America want to be an energy producer? If not are we willing to do business with countries that do, that might also have problems with Americans? Also, ss this the kind of energy America wants to produce?
To me it boils down to national security (or terrorism if you must) and prices. Having the security of energy in your backyard comes with tradeoffs. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but could we all stop focusing on the strip clubs and instead look at the bigger picture?
Alternately, we are more secure as a nation state because oil is a global market. Then, as countries become more reliant on each other for crude, revenue, and finished petroleum products they are less likely to upset the balance. Additionally, in 2012, we imported ~40% of our oil (lowest it's been in a long time), and our biggest import country, by far, is Canada. Here's an EIA link: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
Terrorism can be a problem of course, but I would be more concerned about the grid than our access to oil.
"countries become more reliant on each other for crude"
If the country that is selling you oil/energy is doing bad things this reliant nature of our relationship also ties our hands when it comes to calling them on their shit. See the Ukraine or pretty much any geo-political matter.
Isolationism isn't the only solution, but inter-dependance has it's own drawbacks.
There was a coal boom on the high plains about 1980. Rock Springs, Wyoming, had been nothing much to notice a few years earlier and suddenly was a boom town. Some very odd stuff happened about then. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Cantrell
Very good comment. It also boils down to geopolitical economic power. If the US starts exporting LNG to Europe, that completely changes the power dynamic regarding Russia in general and Ukraine / Crimea in particular. Gazprom has always strived for a monopoly on European energy supplies, and the politicians in Brussels would rather not be dependent on one (somewhat abusive) supplier.
They (US & EU politicos) will talk big about climate change in public of course, but their strategy and calculations in private can go a very different direction.