bmags

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 02:45 PM) When crime is centralized as it is here in the City, it's not at all random. We know the groups that commit the vast majority of the murders. Entirely different from mass shootings like Sandy Hook or the Colorado theater shooting. Not my community to fix. What community? Why should someone from Rogers Park or Bronzeville go to Austin or Englewood.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 02:03 PM) Well that's pretty easy: motive. We know what the radical groups want to do and generally what types of people they want to attack. Random mass murders by crazy people can happen anywhere at anytime. You're less likely to be fearful of a totally random attack versus one that has been threatened before. But it's not "everything that is bad in the world." It's entirely local. It happens on their streets and in their communities. And after every tragic shooting of a kid the family comes out crying on the TV and asks for change and the Mayor is there at the podium saying how senseless the violence is (and get rid of guns!) and Pfleger is there inflaming a race war and around and around we go. Nothing major changes. There's not a collective "this is f***ed up and it needs to stop!" sentiment. But throw in a (white) cop shooting and it's big, big news. It's "we're tired of this, things need to change!" It's "let's protest and show people we want change!" The same type of message but delivered in a much different way. You need to re-read the first paragraph and bridge that analogy to what we are talking about. It's right there for the taking. The people who picket and march after especially bad violence in their neighborhood typically live in that neighborhood. That is not the critical mass you are looking for I guess. But I wonder why you are not there marching then, and why you think someone else should.

I'm not sure rioting after a funeral is any better. Preferably riots will not happen in either case. But, this idea that mass groups of people may act differently to different crimes isn't restricted to any one American group. Look at any school or mass shooting, and imagine if the same act were done by a Daesh affiliate, or Al Qaeda. The hypothetical scenario may mobilize a war, cause national panic. But if its just one random white guy it gets some hot topics on gun control and then people move on and are generally not scared for their lives. Why is the reaction so different? The violence done by a radical group can make people feel like they are under attack, have war declared on them. Where the other just seems kind of random and isolated. I get more freaked out by Paris than Sandy Hook. But there is much more likely chance that a sandy hook will happen again in the next 5 years than a Paris (in the US). So, I know I'm wrong, but I still feel that way. When applying that to police violence in the black community, its clear there is a different experience there, and I don't think the appropriate response is just deflecting the responses we've seen with "how come you don't act the same way for everything that is bad in the world". That's an impossible expectation.

Seems like a big group if they are restricting their menu (though their menu is huge).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 12:42 PM) 9 year old shot execution style and the community, including the father, does nothing about it. Adult on PCP wielding a knife gets shot and its greatest crime in Chicago history that will result in protests and probably some riot behavior. It's the lack of being upset at the former that bothers me. Not that some get more upset with the latter. http://homicides.suntimes.com/2015/11/10/f...its-conscience/ You switch in and out of community its hard to tell about what you are ever directing things at. I'm curious to know if you've ever thought about why police violence would mobilize so easily across neighborhoods and ages?

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 11:59 AM) Nuevo Leon on 26th is nice and has good food imo. Good call. I've had a mixed bag there but I'd still recommend for neighborhood/food.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) That came out wrong. Obviously we need bats and gloves alike and I wouldn't want to just fill the team with a bunch of Tyler Saladinos. But it will be easier to acquire gloves, and they'd synergize with the strong pitching staff a bit. No, I completely agree with your premise.

Shipps, you may just want to try out Xoco in wicker park. I've had much more success there. Also http://www.cantina-1910.com/menu/ opened in andersonville. I've also been a fan of d'noche (cafe con leche) in logan square but its better for brunch.

Hmm, the benefit of those places is they offer a nice sit down atmosphere. Is that important to you? Or do you just want to get some great dishes and it can be more casual and scattered. Edit: clearly missed your last line. Thinking.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 10:44 AM) I'll be there. Glad Rose should be playing. I don't get to go to a Bulls game but once a year these days. Let's have no repeat of the 2013 game. Awesome, I hope its a good one.

Also, the line that laroche isn't a great defender but is a plus bat....

This article is about as good a response as I could muster over the idea that the sox have "plenty of outfielders". We have 1 outfielder and a lot of DH's.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Nov 24, 2015 -> 09:34 AM) Kevin White to practice today per Rich Campbell whoa

Also, subscribe to travelzoo. 51 weeks out of the year itis not applicable then 1 week it aligns perfectly. But also we've just been using the regular kayak/bing flights etc and its just been pretty cheap in general.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to respond today.

The fall of Noah has been more heartbreaking to me than the fall of Rose.

What are they supposed to do when they ask every day on a player with day to day status, and then all the sudden they get info that their out for season?

Charter high schools, which the math gains were seen after 1 year, were 2% vs. 4% for pilot high schools.

Honestly, I feel for them. If you follow any of them on twitter its clear that they are frustrated and receive nothing, and if you remember from training camp had significant restrictions placed on them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 02:53 PM) "Accept my questionable conclusions about fundamentally changing public education because research is hard" isn't an adequate answer. That's not what I'm saying. Every study is going to have its limitations, but there hasn't been a single study with charter education. There have been lots and lots and lots, and frankly since 2012 more and more they have been showing that gains for the students you would want to see gains for improving. Almost all of the input gaps you speak of actually have been accounted for, and are showing gains for charters. There are bad networks. Ohio especially (as stated in the article). But in well regulated areas the gains for the students you would want to see gains from have been tremendous. Speaking of ESL students, its odd that charters would outperform pilot schools with similar numbers of ESL students. Pilots, after all, have full control over curriculum, so you would expect similar outcomes. http://users.nber.org/~dynarski/BostonQJE.pdf http://users.nber.org/~dynarski/KIPP.pdf - significant math increases after 1 year. If all of what you said was true, you would expect pilots to perform equally to charters, yet that has not been the case. Its true that charters in suburbs do not tend to do anything more than their public peers (! inputs). But in urban areas with low-income students is where gains have been most significant. We saw the effects of the recession on HS grads and worse for HS dropouts. This has significant consequences and possibilities for improvement. I believed what you were saying 3 years ago, but if I had to put money on it, in 3 years, there will be no doubt. The studies are continuing and filling in these gaps.

Welcome to social science. Its very difficult to create perfect studies with live humans, yet these are pretty good representations that in any other topic would be enthusiastically received.

So it was 10/23 when he started running and there are a bunch of articles from 10/23-10/24 and since then zilch.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 02:17 PM) No, it just kinda hand-waived some of them away in a couple of paragraphs: Her research specifically has not addressed how non-lottery charters perform. It's also based on large, successful charters with oversubscribed lotteries and good archival records. In that regard, it's sort of circular--you'd expect the better charters to be oversubscribed, and if you're looking at just the oversubscribed schools, you'd expect to find the best results. The doesn't comment on the special-needs and ELL issue, but her paper acknowledges it (without commenting on the potential impact, from what I can tell): Lotteries themselves not truly randomized. The only part that is randomized is the selection itself, but everything before (who actually applies and who's encouraged to apply for the lotteries) and after (demotivational factors of not being selected, peer group factors) aren't. Her categorical statement that any differences can be attributed to a single variable, are, frankly, bulls*** (and her own paper doesn't make nearly as strong of a claim). If you follow some of the links to other research including her own, those studies seem to emphasize the "No Excuses" model that some charters follow as the model that has shown the gains. That model, which essentially relies on strict punishment and shame, is not without criticisms even if it can boost test scores. If it is also the magic bullet she believes it to be, it could be implemented in public schools as well. Her own research also points to class size being an important factor--public schools would love to reduce class size if the funding was there. The problem with you implying improving test scores are their only achievement therefore it must be due to teaching to the test, are the very real gains they are finding in secondary education.

From the article: Perhaps only the best charters are popular, and that’s why the lottery studies produce such positive estimates. We can’t use the lottery approach to assess a school that does not have high demand for its seats. In Boston, we used alternative statistical methods to examine the charters that are not oversubscribed. We found smaller but still positive results. A Stanford study examined student performance in 41 cities, and also concluded that their charters outperformed their traditional public schools. A caution: Without randomization, we can’t be as certain these nonlottery studies have eliminated selection bias.

The only moderately difficult part to a nest is taking off hte old thermostat and screwing the base into the wall. Everything else is impossible to screw up.