jaaska

Finland: No national tests The curriculum has only bigger concepts etc - every single teacher has a freedom to choose how they teach; as long as the teaching includes the stuff from national and city curriculum. In short; there is no external control; of course if you are doing a lousy job the principle will learn about it sooner or later. Seems to work here...

It's pretty much the idea here in Finland, too. And yes, this survey did not test just the honor students - if you read how it's done, you'll see that it includes all the pupils in that age class (15 years old). That's before they leave the comprehensive school (something similar to your primary and secondary school) - which is mandatory to everyone... You are right in a way - we don't have the same high school system than you do (we've got an upper secondary school). Pupils will choose at the age of 16 whether they'll go to the upper secondary (a bit like high school - students are a year older and will probably (in average) study a bit further academic wise) OR vocational school (where you'll get a "trade"). Whether you choose the one or the other does not, however, "close any doors". If you choose the vocational school, you may still end up having a Ph D - the route would be just a bit different. (see the chart http://www.oph.fi/english/SubPage.asp?path=447,4699) About 50 % of the pupils will choose the upper secondary school; this of course means that there are less students in the upper secondary school that would slow down the others - it's not mandatory; if you don't dig it, you may leave. As I said, these surveys were done BEFORE the split to vocational training / upper secondary school - thus they include the whole age class.

Yeah, I know - it's some what strange...

In Finland the constitution states that all the citizens (among other rights) have right to "physical immunity" - that is, no one should be physically (in any way) harmed. There's also criminal law against physical violence. You become citizen when you are born; you stop being one when you die. No exceptions... People seems grow up to pretty decent adults anyway... (even without corporal punishment). Of course spanking happens in Finland, too. I'm not naive. The truth is though, that it's easier to act in the case of abusive parents when the law is clear and there is no "gray zone". I have a son and no, I have not spanked him. I don't normally even raise my voice that much - if I do (if he does something stupid and I get scared he hurts himself etc.) he really gets it - the tone and the volume will stop him at once. If you raise your voice all the time, the effect wears out - if you beat your children all the time... something similar to a degree, will happen. As someone said - excluding some of your basic rights from your most sensitive and defenceless citizen is a weird double standard. Trying to convince some one on this subject one way or the other is quite pointless though, the studies show that we are bound to are own childhood experiences - if you were beaten, you are likely to beat your own children and you will justify it. Of course this could be turned other way around; since I was not beaten, I won't beat my children. One could say that both ways work - they probably do. The real question is of course is: if the non-violent way works, why would you use the other one?

No private schools (to speak of) in Finland... See the link: OECD Programme for International Student Assessment http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/8/39700724.pdf Finland has been number one before as well (language and math skills) - this time they tested the science skills. Every now and then there's a post about the level of primary and secondary education in the USA. There's always a group of people that blame public education for the under the average performance (USA didn't do that well this time either). In Finland, all the schools are public ones (somewhere around 99 %) - even the hard line conservatives are not trying to change this; why fix something that's working so well... So - blaming the educational system being bad because it's public is BS... Of course one can have good private schools and good public schools - same applies other way around, too... I think it's safe to say (this is the third time they did this survey and Finland has been on the top one every single time) that the problems might just lay elsewhere than in matter of whether the schools are privately or publicly funded.

Source: The Sun That'll sure teach those air gun criminals a lesson! Because the best way to stop criminals, is to punish the innocent. Hellos John! It would be a nice change to have a different country on your topic. Like: SWEDEN BANNED EVERYTHING or CHINA did this and that or South HonxBorough did this! or FINLAND: They go to public places w/o any clothes (saunas) It's just that this thing about you going always after the English (as in England) stuff is getting PRETTY boring. You could of course try to blame some other countries, but that would be too much of a change, would it not?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070327-security-scanner.html http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63809 http://www3.vtt.fi/uutta/2007/20070507.jsp The last link is in Finnish. Basically it's about the same thing. Also, the Finnish site says that they will have a working model up and running in 2008 after which they are looking forward to make commercial models. The scanner (as of now) works up to 30 feet and is about 1 by 2 meters in size (3 by 6 feet). The scanner is "passive" in a sense that it does not emit any rays etc. I wonder how much does the commercial version cost? If they start to sell them in thousands/10000 etc. the price will go down. I think that not in too distant future we'll have these "scanners" in a same manner as we have CCTVs... They are (VTT and NIST) are currently working on similar scanner for bomb etc.

http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads2/box_480x376.mov

Now - that was funny... Not. To be honest - I'm a bit disappointed to your arguments Billvon. I guess I'm just used to get clear, rational answers from you. I just don't get what's the difference in this particular thread. To use your fine example: If you spank someone because of an adult S&M -session, you are right. It's perfectly legal. In fact there are thousands of people who love each other and S&M is just one way for them to show it to each other (I guess). Try spanking someone randomly in the supermarket or even better: Now. I don't know whether you are into S&M or not (neither do I care to know). Imagine (if you are not into S&M) that you spanked your partner all of the sudden (not necessarily while you are doing IT) - I don't think she would be to happy about it. Hit her so hard that she will start to cry. Try to explain that you did it because you love her... If you are lucky she will not call the police. Even though she is all grown up and everything this event will have an permanent impact on your relationship. Imagine doing this to an infant/toddler (0-2 years old). You spank them because you love them so much. Right. I'm sure that this much more fragile human being will understand your argument (if s/he can even yet understand the language) about love and everything... So - I haven't gotten clear answer from you: Would you spank your own child (0-2 years old)? If not, what's wrong with this law? PS. Did you look up those scientific articles about Early Childhood development and Corporal punishment? Or is it just that you know better than those academic nutheads? "This is common sense" - Right...

So, what do you think about this ban on spanking then? I mean, it concerns children from 0-2 years old - I would call children at that age infants/toddlers. Are you still against it? If so, why?

As I said - the law in hand concerns toddler and infants (0-2 years). If you [I]believe spanking will help (your) toddlers/infants to become better persons, fine. Since you are always so into to scientific data etc., I can point out couple of interesting scientific articles about this one. Or just look up your self: "early childhood development" AND "corporal punishment". I haven't (neither have any of my friends that I know have not received corporal punishment) burned/nearly killed/etc. myself/themselves. There are alternatives - spanking is a shortcut/easier way out. Most of the time we (as parents) act similarly to our own parents (in many situations - including corporal punishment). I'm just saying there is an alternative and it's not necessary to pass on all the family traditions down the line. The law in hand is about infants/toddlers (0-2 years old). Saying that this will lead to ever stricter laws may or may not be true. It's like the good old gun law debate... I just can not imagine raising my hand against a/an toddler/infant

You are probably right. J

Exactly! Human beings are very adaptable mammals. Giving a spanking to a child under 3 years old won't stop that individual from growing up to a decent fellow. All the studies I have read do suggest, however, that this kind of behavior (spanking) will have a permanent effect on the child's personality - not necessary a big one (human being are, after all, quite different from each other - some are stronger, some are more fragile), but still... The child's sense of basic security will have a small breach (or bigger one, if the child is more sensitive). As an adult, it's possible, this child may have less emotional intelligence than w/o the infantile spanking. People with less emotional intelligence will try to rationalize things that are not meant to be rationalized. Now - someone might think this is a good change. I mean, who wants to foster a son who is "emotionally intelligent"? Harden him up, some might say. I say: -No thanks!

I was thinking more in terms of spanking your wife/mother/sister/brother/friend for acting stupidly etc. S&M is a different story... I think it's a mixed breed - a bit over 100 lb (about 50 k's). The dog is very discipline - she told me that it has been made very clear to the dog that she and her husband (my brother) are the "alpha couple" so to speak and she does have quite strict rules how to behave when e.g. we go over there to visit them. We are not allowed to pay any attention to the dog when we get in before we have had time to properly greet her and my brother and take off our jackets etc. Also, we are not allowed to take any side steps (or dodge) the dog (even if we are about to step on it) but rather act as it was not there and even keep on walking straight and let the dog dodge before us. Only after all this can we pay attention to the dog, scratch him or what ever...

...you know... He does have a brother...

Hellos... This is the most rational answer I've seen on this topic. I don't know for the other EU-countries for sure, but at least in the nordic countries (Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) spanking has been outlawed some 30 years (or so), regardless of the victims age. I know that spanking (or physically harming/hitting/etc.) your wife was legal or at least not punishable when done in your own home (now this is just a guess) a hundred years a go or so. I'm sure the situation was quite the same over there in the states - how do you feel about it now? The best argument is that no human been should have live in a fear of violence (and believe me, physically punishing someone, whether this person is young, old, woman or man is in fact violence). I mean my friends sometimes do very stupid things - I would not try to teach them a lesson so that they would not do it again. One could even argue that a grown up could in fact cope with spanking better than a fragile (in this case under 3 years old, if I got it right) baby - thus if you want to keep spanking legally, it should apply the same rules to everyone in every age . Some dog owners believe in strict, physical harming type of training and yes, the dogs do get very obedient and (sometimes, not always) mentally disturbed. One of the best trained dogs I have seen belongs to my sister in law. Funny thing, she doesn't believe in violence so she trained the dog without it. I mean, if you can raise dogs without violence, one could think it's possible to do likewise when talking about human beings. Just my 5 (euro) cents...

I was told the same stuff you obviously were in school. I just don't necessarily buy into everything my college professor (or anyone for that matter) put out just b/c he had a PhD beside his/her name. There are plenty of others with that same title who have posed very real and critical problems with the theory. If you want to believe it, that's fine. Ok. So you talk about fish and then you think next step would be --- tzadaa ---- a land animal with fully developed lungs. You know there are (still living) fish there with lungs. There are animals that can get oxygen either from water or from the air. Oh... And about species becoming new ones. There are a lot of examples of these. Have you ever seen a horse? Have you ever seen a dunkey? Are they the same species? Can they reproduce? Can their offspring (say you mix the two) reproduce? This is just ONE simple example... You said that you don't automatically believe what Ph.D professors are saying. I say: I don't let an old (2000-4000 years old) mythology (the old testament) stop me from thinking with my own brains - guess what, many people and churches agree. Gee! Even the vatican (talking about a conservative church) thinks ID and creationism has nothing to do with science... But I guess you much rather believe "scientists" with an religious agenda. "Scientist" that have made a fairy tale to support their own belief system. Like I said - if you want to believe that the earth is flat or that the earth is the center of the universe, you are welcome to do so. However, we arë not talking about science at that point. If the vatican can separate the two, one would thing think that most of the christians would be able to do likewise... Let's be honest here. Try to picture yourself non-christian w/o any influence of the bible or your religion. Would you still feel that the theory of evolution is rubbish? - Come on, now! Be honest!

I guess that even if a nobel prize winner would try to explain to you things in simple english, you would not understand - or rather - you would not want to understand, if it was against your belief system.

No new information added - No new species. ?!? Ok - what do you mean "no new information added?" - I just don't get it, maybe I'm dumb or something... If there was no new information - that is, the species would share similar DNA, they would be the same species. Now, in my example that would not be the case. The two new species would in fact have different "information" (as you called it) to their common ancestor... So again, maybe I'm just dumb, but could you please explain your comment...?

Now, that's just funny! Micro-evolution in my... UPS... Now - suppose that a species "slowly adapted to the current environment". When did it know when to stop evolving? I mean - suppose this animal had a cousin, who moved elsewhere and "slowly adapted to the current environment", too. After a while (ok... so, after a while means closer to million years) this once same species had "micro-evolved" too far to procreate with the first one. TZADAA! We have new species - the tree of evolution has a new branch

Well. I thought the Vatican made it stand pretty clear about the creationism and ID: It's not real science! Do not mix science and religion! Now - and I don't want to be rude in any way - how is it possible that even the Vatican rejects all mambo jambo and people ask questions like: "Which is better - evolution or creationism?".... Gee! Grow up! Would it just be better to keep the faith stuff and the science stuff separated? 1) The evolution theory - theory of science -> science stuff 2) Creationism - based on bible -> faith stuff Do not mix them!

If my son can do it, why is it so difficult for some students? http://users.utu.fi/mhsalo/DSCF0042_web.JPG http://users.utu.fi/mhsalo/DSCF0043_web.JPG http://users.utu.fi/mhsalo/DSCF0044_web.JPG http://users.utu.fi/mhsalo/DSCF0045_web.JPG

and with a sniper 500 meters from there you could nicely pick out the hizbollah fighter without even damaging the scenery... but you do not know what was the tactic stance at the time and what was the availability of each type of ammunision there. you don't actually know when and where were hizbollah personnel in the area and what exactly they were doing there (beside the email stating they were usually there using the UN people as shields) you keep blaming who hurt the shield and not who picked up an innocent shield while shooting others behind it... So, you think the observers should have left and it's their own fault that they died? You don't think that IDF should have stopped firing after the UN contacted them? Or what...? Please tell me...

No, what I have said was that the IDF did not have to level down the Observation Post. The post it self was not under the control of H-bollah. They used very heavy weapons to totally level the place down. The post is a building, it hasn't got any other real "positions". Maybe the canadian ment their rutin turning points or something - I guess we will never no. What is the reason the UN cannot "drive the h-bollah away from the vicinity of the posts. Well... They don't have any leverage to do a shit, because the US opposes and vetoes everything down. Why is the UN so powerless - because US wants it to be...

Just forgat that one. Have you ever fired a mortar? Have you witnessed what a laser guided anti-armour missile is capable of doing? With a (light) mortar you can pretty nicely clean the area from any soft (non-armoured) targets. (say, men). Anti-armour stuff is different. The first one would have left the observers alive in their shelter (I'm still trying to locate the blue print - I'll just find the paper and take dig.photo if I don't find in the net). The second one clearly did not. I have use a ligh mortar (real rounds, not in war of course). I have seen the effect of an laser guided anti-armour missile.