Patricius Maximus

A bomb disarmament kit and an ECM unit.

For having the Obama '08 logo in your sig.

The Department of Transportation has been contacted by the Mayor recently. Some land is being set aside for future freeways. Freeways probably will come into consideration when we get inter-city traffic, which we don't right now. The DOT does not advise placing tolls on roads that are not limited access highways. Since there is not any inter-city traffic and many roads to each location, the citizens will simply find an alternate route around the tolls. The DOT will consider building limited access toll roads when Virgin Shores expands and inter-city traffic gets going. Remember that this is all speculation in future developments. There is no need for freeways of any kind in Virgin Shores at this time. Also, I have a new development to propose. Here is a diagram of it: You could call it "Patricius Corner" or something like that. I was looking through the archives and I thought that this would be the best location. I don't care what specific buildings grow there. I'd just like it zoned. As far as I know, it is in compliance with City Ordinance 1.a (the zoning codes). If there are any complications to this request, let me know. Patricius Maximus, Head of the Department of Transportation

Mine is now 640 MB. I've downloaded a lot lately.

I'll state my case in detail. As I stated previously, a definition of any object in science should have criteria that are natural phonomena that can be observed empirically. The latest IAU definition lacks this, instead adding the subjective term "clearing the neighbourhood". This marks a streak of geocentrism among the IAU, since the status of planet, which Earth has, would often be decided by a select group, thus making Earth part of a club with special status. It also shows blatant heliocentrism because the word "Sun" was used instead of "star". The definition I mentioned in my last post is logical, and has it's criteria as natural phonomena that can be observed empirically, rather than decided by a select group of people. The argument that the IAU definition is objective is baseless. How can the opinions of a select group be objective? Natural phonomena are undisputable because no one can deny that they exist. Example. This object is spherical. No one can argue with that: This object is not spherical. Again, this fact is undisputable: Now, can you tell if any of these objects have "cleared the neighbourhood"? I can't. This criterion cannot be observed empirically, and it is not a natural phonomenon. Therefore, it is not an objective criterion, and therefore is not scientific. Which looks like a planet to you? I know which one I'd pick. Do these objects look like planets? How about this one? For the record, the first picture was Pluto, the second one was 433 Eros, the third one was three "dwarf planets", and the fourth was Eris. Now the merit of the criterion comes into view. It cannot be observed objectively and without opinion, so it is not a good definition. The criteria in the logical definition I stated can be observed objectively and without dispute. You can observe objectively whether an object is orbiting a star or not. You can observe objectively if an object is spherical or not. You can observe objectively if an object is not a star. You can observe objectively if an object is not the satellite of a planet. You cannot observe objectively if an object has "cleared the neighbourhood" or not. Pragmatism and Organization is part of Science, and categorization of objects is essential. That is why planets must be categorized also, but not on subjective criteria. Some examples of planet categories are, Oceanic, Terrestrial, Gas Giant, and Ice Dwarf. These can have objective criteria just as a planet definition can. Lastly, just because a certain body "represents" a group and decides something it does not mean that it is the correct decision. Just look at the US Congress or any other "represenative" body for evidence. - Patricius Maximus

A machine gun.

For disseminating little-known information.

That's all, sounds objective to mequote> Since "clearing the neighbourhood" cannot be observed empirically or objectively, it has to be deferred to the IAU. The IAU members will give their subjective opinions and it will be accepted by the astronomical community. Sound objective to you? It doesn't to me. The definition I mentioned does not rely on the subjective opinions of people, only natural phonomena that can be observed objectively. I don't see arguments about "teaching planets to children" anywhere, btwquote> I did not state that the IAU definition had that in it. I stated that it was a common argument in favor of the IAU definition. Also, it was cited as a reason that some astronomers voted that way. Not very scientific of them, was it? Also, the vote was held on the last day of the assembly, and only a small minority of actual IAU members voted on it. So, the entire IAU did not agree on it. I still maintain my position that the 2006 IAU definition is illogical and not objective, and the definition I stated is more logical, objective, and scientific. - Patricius Maximus

No, wait, I'll explain it better, when "dumbs" are put in "dumb" classes, they have 0 chances of being promoted to other classes, even if they improve greatly. Even worse, as they are "dumb" (teachers loved to repeat it) they "need" slower classes, so their level keeps worsening until they release them in nature (they won't even be asked to pass the graduation exams, of course)without even knowing the basics. Being put there means 100% failure guaranteed. Instead of helping the students with problems to reach the standard level, they wrap them in what looks like preschool classes....quote> I did not state that all dumb people are like that. I was stating an example. The schools must work with the student to help them get up to standard level. If they are incapable of it, then it is best to turn them loose. If they are capable, then the school should work with them to improve their knowledge. I think that I wasn't as specific as I should have been. I was using an example of a person that is incapable beyond reasonable doubt of finishing high school and college. There are a few people like that, and it is best to let them do what they can (fulfilling their full potential).

For keeping your island in Chains!

The IAU definition is completely illogical. "Clearing the neighbourhood" is a subjective term that cannot be empirically observed, thereby giving special powers to the IAU. This is not scientific at all. Whether something is a planet or not is something that should be determined by observations of natural phonomena. Not some criteria created by the IAU. This was the original definition proposed. It is more logical, and I personally use it: A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.quote> According to this criterion, there would be anywhere from 20 to 60 planets. And the common argument that we cannot teach the names of hundreds of planets is groundless. The number of planets taught is entirely a curriculum issue, and they could only teach the ones perhaps bigger than Pluto at first. Under this criteria, Ceres would be a planet, and Pluto-Charon would be considered a double planet. Also, Eris, Orcus, Ixion, and Make-make would be planets as well. Not only would this be a better and more logical definition, it would also give astronomers more incentive to discover new objects, since they would be credited with the discovery of a planet instead of a plutoid, asteroid, or dwarf planet. Lastly, the analogy between the asteroids and KBO's is not correct. Only Ceres (and possibly Vesta) meet the criteria to be planets under the above definition. The reason that all asteroids are not planets is because they are not all of them are spherical. Many KBO's are spherical, and as such, meet the criteria, unlike most asteroids. The KBO's that are not spherical are asteroids. Now isn't that better than the 2006 definition? Astronomers can determine the status of their discoveries by themselves and then publish it, instead of deferring it to the IAU and their opinions.

Education is in no way an entirely local matter. It needs local direction and focus, yes, but not without a national framework to ensure there's a standard to education. Letting the private sector handle it introduces financial barriers that should never be there and gives absolutely no guarantee of providing a better education. The free market is lovely, but you'd have to be criminally naive to think you can use it like a box of magical fairy dust that will cure all that ails ya. If the public system is failing it needs to be overhauled, not abandoned to the private sector. When your tv breaks you buy a new one, you don't start filling your evenings by sitting in a corner and punching yourself in the face.quote> The American system in terms of public and private education is good. Most people go to public schools, but you can go to a private one if you want to and if you can afford it. That isn't the problem. The problem is to make sure that the public school system is the best that it can be. Furthuring the interests of smarter students and making everyone realizing their full intellectual potential, no matter how high or low that may be. ...so why in the name of everything decent keep around a system that maintains the farce that everyone is the same? Being equal does not mean being the same. Giving kids equal chances means giving them the opportunity to do the best they can with what they have. That means sorting them by drive and ability, and specializing schools. That means teaching and testing them on a level that is on par with their abilities. You can't just round kids up, stick them in a classroom and hope they all come out okay.quote> You put it well. Equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcome. In other words, everyone has an equal chance at the beginning, but what they do with it is up to them. Pedagogy ideologists will tell you that students shouldn't "suffer" or be "stressed" while studying being in school. Ok they just won't find a decent job after that. No wonder why universities are worried about the decreasing number of students entering each year.... Now, instead of improving the level, they plan on dumbing down everything, thy'll allow people to graduate even failing several courses, for instance. Which means a total massacre when trying to enter in european-levelled universities.quote> The mission of the public schools are not just to make kids find jobs. It is to teach them things. Also, if a dumb person can't graduate in high school and couldn't finish college, it's better to let him fail sooner than later, instead of dragging him through school. That way they can get out of school and find some work that they can do. don't american public schools seperate their classes in secondary?. like the dumb class, then the slow class, then the average, then the bright classes ? and then every class has it's standard set for the ability of it's students.quote> Not in my experience. In the school I went to in America, they put everyone in the same class with the exception of two subjects, which were split into "regular" and "advance". the problem with that is the lower class will be even lower than their actual level if that class is disorderly.quote> Same thing goes for any group of students. The intelligence level in schools is measured in work, tests, and report cards. When a kid can't do the tests because of disruptions, then the score will be lowered. That is why that there is only a weak correlation between report cards and intelligence. I'll give some examples from my experience. 1. "Well-Behaved", regular girl who had great interest in her work -- all A's 2. An intelligent boy that got in trouble and had moderate interest in his work -- mixture of A's, B's, and C's. 3. A "Well-Behaved" boy that had moderate interest in his work -- A's and B's 4. A "Well-Bhaved" boy that had great interest in his work -- all A's Based on these examples, actual intelligence across the board is roughly equal when you are comparing a group that has similar disruption patterns. Since boys, by nature, are more disruptive than girls, then studies would make it appear that they are more stupid. Well, one leads to the other. If you're not interested in something, you're not going to pay as much attention or study as hard, and thus won't be as good at it. And there certainly is a clear gender gap in interests. Ever notice how the guy nerds tend to be more the math/science nerds while the girl nerds tend to be more the history/literature nerds? Now, those are of course not absolutes. But in general that's the pattern. There was a nerd test I found which broke things down into multiple intelligences and this is what I came out asquote> Well put. I have found the same thing in my experiences. Some of the students in my 7th grade math class were getting C's (sad, isn't it?), and my math teacher often refuses to teach new things because she was too focused on the dumb students. One time I found a very easy and quick way to check your algebra answers and I told my math teacher about it. She then told all of the math students and explained it to them in my class. However, one of the students asked, "How do exactly plug in the answer to check if it is correct?" I was thinking, "OMFG, how hard is it to use your brain and your common sense?!?!" One time, a student got a D- on his math test, and he didn't care... One of the reasons why dumb students choose to be dumb because they are lazy. I really hate the U.S. education system how it is mainly focused on teaching the dumb and lazy students, not caring about the regular and the smart students.quote> Exactly when I thought in my Algebra class. Some smart people are smart because they actually remember what they are taught. A quarter of the year is spent re-teaching what most people forgot, and meanwhile the smart people are bored because they already know it. I have found that some dumb people are lazy or have no interest, but that's not the entire problem. Some of them are just born that way. It may sound harsh, but some people are born dumb. But schools must still help them to their full potential, however low that may be. the "bell diagram" is deceptive it means X number of students MUST fail and usually it ends up with standards lowering gradually with more overhauls during bad years the standard must be set at a level that employers would like employees to have i.e. literate,numerate and competent which is no longer the lowest standard people can get.quote> I agree. The bell diagram is not a good model for education since it says there must be as many dumb ones as smart ones. What they should do is try to make more people smart and less people dumb. Geniuses are born as geniuses. No classroom can make dumb people into geniuses. However, as stated previously, they must make sure that students reach their full potential. I was shocked at her stupidity when Nancy Pelosi said at her podium, "Innovation begins in the classroom." If she had done her research on great inventors and geniuses, she'd find that the majority of them did not go to formal schools. This proves that geniuses will find a way to realize their potential no matter if they are in a classroom or not. And a few times going to a classroom would have hurt their activities because of the amount of time school requires. Thomas Edison, a person that is widely admired by educators and others, only went to school for a 1/3 of a year. John Dalton did not go to 13 years of school, but he began teaching at age 12. Those are just a few examples. On the issue at hand, I agree with Duke's assessment: no one wants to admit we aren't all equal. The unfortunate problem is that we aren't all equal. Consider this: How many parents on this forum have told their kids that everyone has certain skills and aptitudes? How many teenagers on this forum have had their parents say that? Right there, people are acknowledging that individuals are all different (even if they don't want to admit that). For everyone to be equal like society wants to suggest, we'd all have to be perfect clones. Because we're not, we're naturally unequal. Each person has their strengths and their weaknesses. It would show wisdom on the part of society to accept that fact and stop trying to assert that everyone is equal.quote> No. Everyone is not equal. People are different, and some people do better in areas that other people don't. However, the basic idea is to give equality of opportunity, hence the phrase, "all men are created equal". Notice it does not include that people die equally. In simpler terms, give everyone an equal chance. I know this is tantamount to blasphemy, but has anybody actually considered that the teachers are just as much as fault as the system for which they work? I mean, the quality of teachers in a lot of places is piss-poorquote> I've seen that many teachers don't know anything but the standards and what they've been taught in their teacher courses. After all, shouldn't a Science teacher be a person that is knowledgeable about science? What about English? Math? History? Classes are more successful when the teacher knows a lot about the subject. That is a conclusion that is derived from simple logic. True enough. However, there are certain things that have been deemed (rightly or wrongly) as the 'norms' that everyone needs in order to function successfully in today's society.quote> I have noticed that that is the reason that teachers give (no offense intended ). But what people need to do is figure out the most basic things required to function anywhere, then teach the other things. The fundamentals are knowing how to read, write, and do basic math (add, subtract, multiply, divide). Those are required to function in any sector, be it skilled or unskilled. I have autism too But everyone calls me the smart kid... so... hmm Everyone should be treated equally no matter what dumb kids are dumb we cant make them into geniuses!quote> That's what I think. You can't make a dumb person into a genius. It is impossible. Whether you are dumb or a genius is in your genes, but what education is supposed to do is make everyone realize their full intellectual potential. Standardized tests are a joke. These are the tests the Federal, State and Local politicians use to determine funding for public education. These tests do not take the division of public school students by academic/motivational criteria into account. By which I mean, "Special ed" students take the same test that "gifted" students take which is the same test that "regular" students take.What's worse, teachers will often "teach the test" with the specific intent of raising overall Standardized Test scores. This sort of teaching leads directly to the imbalance Duke87 refers to in his first post. There is more wrong with the Standardized Test system than I want to address right now.quote> Exactly. Frankly, the execution of it is awful. No matter how many tests you give people, they are not going to get smarter. This is a touchy thing for me because I did terrible in grade school and was a "dumb kid" as you seem to want to call them.(I am doing well in college but that's a different story) Funny though I always aced standardized tests. The bar for those really is set pretty low.... Anyways it seems like having different levels of classes is the best way, and in high school it generally is like that. To me the big problem seems like it would exist at the middle school level when kids are just learning algebra and science.quote> Obviously grade-school was not the right thing for your interests and personality. I'm glad you're doing well in college. Your situation is better than vice versa (acing gradeschool, failing college).

I am against an industrial zone near the coast, since it will disrupt the coastal view and pollute the environment. However, I would support industry furthur inland. I like the Daily News. It adds as much to Virgin Shores as the Chronicles does to Franklin.

Ah, so that's that avenue-road transition texture I saw in your other CJ. It does look better than the regular transition, and I'll be looking forward to furthur developments.

Total Population: 8,228,681 Half of that is in older regions that I am preserving for reconstruction. My current and best region, Patian County, has just over 4 million. Interesting thread. I'll post an update sometime in the future.

For caring if someone is loyal or not.

I certainly did notice the roundabout. My 700th post? I didn't even notice. Thanks for notifying me .

I know about the American education system. The tests are geared towards the lower end of intelligence, instead of the middle. There is little opportunity for anyone that is smarter to test themselves or find out more unless they do it themselves. All that the No Child Left Behind Act has done is pushing the dumber kids, and leaving the smarter ones behind instead. No school system can turn a dumb child into a genius. It is possible if the person works at it of his own will. The geniuses are the ones they should focus on because they are the future of scientific innovation that the government wants to promote. In other words, the US government's intent is good, but the execution is terrible. - Patricius Maximus

Part IV? Bring it on! I love the new revamped downtown and all the new developments. Keep up the good work, un1. I'll be back... - Patricius Maximus

The road upgrades look good. I'm glad they "worked like a charm". I assume that there are no more congestion problems, the DOT has nothing to report. Patricius Maximus, Head of the Department of Transportation

A NEW ERA BEGINS FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY REPLIES: un1: Thanks. It sure does mark a new beginning. psander5: Thank you. deathtopumpkins: Thanks. I stated I had plans for the area in the first update . crazyarchitect: It does seem so. It's also very interesting. jmoats3: A friendly welcome to Franklin County, and Simtropolis. I'm glad you commented. If you need help planning, I suggest you also look at the Greater Terran Region and my own Patrician Showcase. Long-term planning can do wonders for a region. Here is today's issue of the Franklin Chronicles. You can read the news in both Virgin Shores and Franklin County. The speech transcript is also included. As always, please post your comments, suggestions, and questions.

For being a Patriot.

A good design for the central part of a region. I would advise a beltway on the periphery of the city tile. Outside of the Beltway, I think the avenues should transition to a fused grid in some areas, and a classic grid in major spots. In the suburbs, I'd advise a big fused grid layout with mass transit, preferably GLR or Rail. In the Exurbs, I would sugest a looping cul-de-sac arrangement with major arteries spread out. Lastly, I would advise that freeways be built as needed in the suburbs. Those are my suggestions. If you zone the CBD with commercial, and the suburbs with residential with smaller commercial centers, you will have a very nice region.