Slashdot Mirror

You have to look at sequestration in terms of discretionary spending because that's where the cuts are made. The $85 billion represents 12.1% of discretionary spending (source Congressional Research Service). I am sure that we can all agree that a 12.1% cut overnight is pretty significant. Also with regard to the deficit, it is falling dramatically as % of GDP. Here are the relevant articles which shows that government spending as a % of GDP is also at all time lows. http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/22/news/economy/deficits/ http://www.businessinsider.com/show-these-charts-to-anyone-who-thinks-debt-spending-and-taxes-are-at-all-time-highs-2013-4

Too true. Here is Apple, following Warren Buffet's advice, and the Slashdot crowd dumps on them for not knowing what to do with their money. Slashdot isn't what it used to be, and it never was.

How much money should we spend on education? Well, if our society invests $1 in tax money in a kid, and we get $2 back in social benefits, we should invest as much money as we can with those returns. Any business would. If we went back to the levels of investment in public education we had in the 1960s and 1970s, I think we'd have the same high rates of economic development we had in that time.

What makes you think the US spends less per child on education now than then? The US is still one of the leaders in per capita spending. As I understand it, if we went back to the spending of the 60s, we would be spending somewhat less at the K-12 level and about a factor of 3 or 4 less at the college level.

I think what's happening here is that we aren't getting that $2 of return on $1 of educational spending. And I'm deeply cynical of any society-wide effort such as public education that glibly transfers blame to "parents" when it fails.

And yet their uncle, who also lives in US and didn't have trouble integrating, called them idiots and losers, and said that "I respect this country. I love this country. This country gives chance to everybody else."

remember Richard Jewel. http://www.businessinsider.com/lessons-from-richard-jewell-2013-4

BTW: In 2012, Android moved more units than Windows.

This year it looks to best them by thrice.

Windows Mobile used to have 36% US market share. Now it has 3.

Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.

- Linus Torvalds, 2003

This is very easy to understand by looking at Korea. In South Korea, people protest against the government, the US, North Korea, or pretty much anything that they care to, and not much happens. In Communist North Korea, if you make a joke about the Great/Dear/New Leader, you and three generations of your family are likely to be sent to a prison camp where the one of the biggest questions you will face is will you be able to catch enough rats to eat, or pull enough kernels of corn from manure, to avoid death by starvation before death by overwork, abuse, or experimentation by North Korean scientists kills you.

Not as flashy as cartoons about robots and Richard Nixon's head, but a much more meaningful presentation of the question.

Sorry for the late reply, but if what you said is really what you believe:

If I make 1 billion dollars and pay 10% tax, and you make 50 dollars and pay 10% tax, the system would be fair.

Then the system we have is not fair, even with all those loopholes you referred to. Wealthy people pay far more than non-wealthy (please make sure to go all the way down the page to 'Average Tax Rate By Average Gross Income').

Tax laws are going to change (example proposal), because the govt. beast is insatiable as long as fiscal insanity reigns as it has for many decades, but the problems are a) not taxes as much as spending and b) the income spreads have gotten too great for any tax system to be 'fair' to anyone. Whatever tax system you want to return to (including 0%, at least with respect to income taxes), it would have a far greater chance of success if wage disparities were at a 1960's level instead of the tax system.

http://au.businessinsider.com/hp-private-jet-fleet-2012-7

1. To implement Blu-ray there are all sorts of secure video and audio paths you have to implement.

Yeah... HDCP.
Something Apple has had to support in OSX since they started selling HD video on iTunes (otherwise the studios would have never agreed to let them carry high-def movies from them).

2. If Apple cared that much about protecting its measly video sales from iTunes, why would they go out of their way to support Hulu and Netflix on the AppleTV?

Feel free to post a source for the "measley" comment. Apple traditionally doesn't separate the revenue figures for individual products and the iTunes Store combined revenue was $6.3 billion for 2011.

The reason they support them is because Netflix, and to a lesser extent Hulu, are must-have features on a streaming device. In 2011 Neflix became the largest online movie provider by passing the previous largest provider -- Apple (yes, the same year Apple made that $6.3 billion in iTunes content).

Compare feature sets on different brands of blu-ray players, Roku, etc. Even the lowest-end devices support at least Netflix streaming even if they don't support every streaming service and DLNA sharing like the upper tier players do. Apple would have sold hardly anything without those services being present on their box, because lots of Apple die-hards are Netflix users (Apple has no subscription all-you-can-watch video service, remember?). If the Apple TV didn't have Netflix those people would have still need a second set-top box (or third if you want to count the cable converter) and that device would have likely been a BD player or Roku, the devices AppleTV is in competition with, regardless of what Apple wants to say about it just being a "hobby" for them.

Gartner shows just how important the mobile market has become. According to the firm's estimates for 2013, Apple devices will outsell Windows devices for the first time this year.

Although Gartner isn't on top of my list when it comes to sources of reliable information, Microsoft's next strategy meeting will be heated to a degree. I guarantee that.

My advice to those who'll participate in that meeting:

Spare some energy to flee as the chair of previous such meetings has been known to throw furniture around. Some call it environmental destruction.

The NRA is a group of people, a large group composed of several million people.

While this may be true, the NRA is funded primarily by corporations [1], including many large gun companies. There is no way the gun companies live in fear of the NRA, they dictate what it does, because they fund it.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

US (and other developed, educated, industrialized countries) workers should not have to accept a drastic reduction of standard of living and safety of the workplace so that the owners of companies can make more money.

That's ok. Your acceptance isn't required.

Unfortunately in all probability you are right and people like you will continue to fuck up the American standard of living under the short sighted and narrow minded vastly mistaken belief that corporate profits and the right to carry guns are all that matters.

Like public education?

The US spends more per student adjusted for standard of living (PPP) than all but a handful of countries and it gets a relatively weak educational outcome for that money spent.

When you have a system that is necessary but doesn't work correctly you fix it..you don't just shut it off.

The US should be looking at the educational (and health) systems that work best and modeling itself after them...but oh wait..that would be socialist and therefore must be bad.

And what's the point of all your other nonsense, if the US doesn't have an economy to support all the stuff you want? My approach keeps and strengthens that economy. Your approach loses that economy and turns the US into another Ottoman empire, no called something like the "sick man of the west" that everyone would be waiting on to croak.

You haven't answered the vast majority of my 'nonsense' comments I made on your original post. It seems that you are very good at spouting right wing corporate republican bullshit but not very good at addressing individual points made against it.

Your approach results in an economy where only the major shareholders of corporations make money and the rest of the population slides into decline, eventually being unable to afford to buy the products and services being sold by the very corporations that you support so blindly.

You also need to consider the effect of outsourcing manufacturing on the companies that you love so well. Companies that give their designs and technology to competing countries who copy and sell the same product back for lower than what they're charging the original company to start with will eventually be driven out of business.

What is the long term effect on American companies where the CEOs sell off proprietary technology for great short term profits (resulting in huge bonuses for themselves of course)?

What is the benefit of increasing the profits of American companies who outsource R&D to India (for example), their manufacturing to China (for example) and their profits to the Bahamas (for example) ?

I for one am for protecting the standard of living that our recent forefathers fought for.

Then implement my suggestions. That what will work.

Your suggestions do not, in the long run, support any standard of living for anyone but the extremely rich. Your suggestions move us backward towards the middle ages with an ignorant working class and a privileged elite.

America has many problems that need to be fixed but reducing the vast majority of the population to serfs is not going to help anyone but the very small percentage of people at the very top.

I am a reasonably successful small business owner who was born into a very poor family that relied on the food stamps, welfare and free education that you scorn to enable me to avoid a life of unskilled labor to where I am today - paying taxes and supporting the society that made it possible for me to improve my situation in life and be in a position to argue against people like yourself who can't see further than their next paycheck and the taxes that would be taken out of it.

US (and other developed, educated, industrialized countries) workers should not have to accept a drastic reduction of standard of living and safety of the workplace so that the owners of companies can make more money.

That's ok. Your acceptance isn't required.

Like public education?

The US spends more per student adjusted for standard of living (PPP) than all but a handful of countries and it gets a relatively weak educational outcome for that money spent.

And what's the point of all your other nonsense, if the US doesn't have an economy to support all the stuff you want? My approach keeps and strengthens that economy. Your approach loses that economy and turns the US into another Ottoman empire, no called something like the "sick man of the west" that everyone would be waiting on to croak.

I for one am for protecting the standard of living that our recent forefathers fought for.

Then implement my suggestions. That what will work.

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-da-killing-is-unprecedented-2013-4

Although this is an unpopular view, my take on it is that if we abandon the legitimate means in our system of recalling these people, we weaken those means and force the debate into an unnecessarily volatile mode.

Think with your logic, not your emotions :)

...is that the Federal Government allowed Microsoft to hand over source code for the NT kernel not so long ago...

http://www.informationweek.com/software/operating-systems/china-gets-a-peek-at-microsoft-source-co/225400063

...and look what happened!

http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-china--microsoft-source-hack-google-2010-12

Oh dear.

OK, so you don't care about efficient allocation of resources.

I don't get it. Why do you think it's not more efficient?

I question this pithy assumption, big-time. And even if it were true, it would still limit education on the basis of access to capital, so it doesn't solve the problem, it simply shifts it a little.

It shifts it to the potential students themselves where it has always belonged. They're quite capable of paying for their own education. And honestly, what other explanation is there for college costs going up much faster than regular inflation
for the last twenty years.

I did the calculation based on that table for the period 1958-1979 (took the 1958-2001 period and divided out by the 1979-2001 period). Tuition inflation (which you might not necessarily consider inflation) was about 6.6% increase per year for the period. "Normal" inflation was 4.6%. That's significantly higher tuition than normal inflation, but nothing compared to the 1979-2001 period which saw 7.37% increase per year for tuition, but only 3.96% normal inflation. The subsidized student loan program started kicking in after a 1965 law. So a portion of the 1958-1979 period is before the start of the federal student loan programs. And there were expansions of the loan programs apparently around 1986.

I've tried looking for better data, but I can say is that there has been a remarkable increase in tuition costs relative to regular inflation at a time when student loans were kicking in. That fits my model of subsidy-driven price increases in education.

Which just reinforces my point that public college education is necessary, and useful, both to individuals and to employers.

Unless it's not up to the task. The US spends considerable sums per student on K-12 education and gets poor results comparable to developed world countries that spend much less per student. I think it's because too many things have higher priority than what the students actually learn.

Now, what's going to keep the same dynamics from screwing up college level public education as well? For example, if in twenty years everyone is required to have a high school diploma and a college degree, yet most such graduates are only comparable in education ability to a high school student who graduated in 1960, how is that a good use of public funds or the time of the students?

This is why I don't buy into the public education thing. It's not working now. So how will extending it, that is, creating the same problem over for college level education, make it better?

Have you seen the actual numbers? Who owns the US national debt?

- China 8%

US gov't and pension funds 46,1%:

- The Federal reserve 11,3%
- Social Security fund 19%
- US households 6,6%
- State & local gov't 3,5%
- State, local pensions funds 2,2%
- Private pension funds 3,5%

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-us-debt-2011-7?op=1

* Wear Gold - Seriously, this is extremely common...

Good point: Indian Businessman Dazzles The World With His $230k Shirt Made Of Real Gold

People aren't outraged by it because it's not true. The DHS did not purchase 1.2 billion hollow point bullets this year. Domestic police forces use hollow point ammunition because they are less prone to ricochet and over-penetration, which are important considerations for a police force. Also, the DHS did not buy 1,300 armored vehicles. You are talking about the MRAP. The DHS has sixteen MRAPs they use to serve high-risk warrants. These DHS MRAPs were given to them by the military. The 1,300 armored vehicle figure is a hoax. It refers to MRAP upgrades by the US military.

The facts are easily accessible due to the Internet, but conspiracy theorists are always unable to find that information out of willful blindness. You make good points on warrantless wiretaps and the erosion of our rights in light of the USA PATRIOT ACT. But when you start talking about tanks and billions of rounds of ammunition, which simply isn't true, you paint yourself as a conspiracy theorist, which dilutes your point.

Actually, they have to say it three times (just like Beetlejuice).

I said "Microsoft" three times and was hit by a flying chair.

Linky #1
Linky #2
Are you too dumb to use google?

HTC bought a 50.1% share (controlling interest in the company) for 309 million dollars, then sold back 25% for 150 million dollars. HTC only lost ~4.5 million dollars plus the cost of the acquisition. Not a great business move, but they could have done far worse. However, they still have some control of Beats Electronics because of it (the 25% in stock).
http://www.businessinsider.com/htc-just-sold-back-half-of-its-holdings-in-beats-electronics-2012-7

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-working-on-a-smart-watch-of-its-own-2013-1

This is clearly commercial activity. How'd they get around the FAA ban?

http://www.businessinsider.com/faa-ban-on-commercial-drones-2013-3

"However, the FAA currently bans all commercial use of drones pending regulatory rules scheduled to be published sometime in 2015."

That is a low-impurity source of carbon that is going to end up getting incorporated into the steel itself - it is a raw material, not a fuel.

The coal they are shipping there will be converted into coke in China and that is a rather dirty process that hasn't changed much since 1920s. Or in fact, 1800s.
And as they don't have to care about various environmental regulations over there, they can turn all that coking coal into coke a lot cheaper than what it would cost them to do that in the USA.
Also, if a couple of dozen guys "expire" way before their due date cause they've been inhaling arsenic vapors during quenching of the coke... Whose gonna notice that when there are 1.3 billion more of them?

During the coking process, you are basically releasing in the air all those wonderful impurities (like arsenic, mercury, nitrogen, sulfur etc.) from the cooking coal, without burning up the carbon.
What are you using to heat up the coking coal? More coal.
Naturally, any of those byproducts that can be used do get used - like the coal gas, which is usually used either to produce ammonia or is burned to produce electricity for the coking plant, or both.
Both also release carbon into the air.

THEN, you take the coke you made, and use it to fire up the smelting furnaces (i.e. you burn more coal) during which it is also used as a reducing agent.
That's when you release most of the carbon in the coke into the air as CO and CO2. The rest gets burned out of pig iron when you heat it up with oxygen to produce steel.
Anything more than 2% of carbon in steel classifies that steel as cast iron. Pig iron is 4-5% carbon.

So basically... All coal is very dirty and it is primarily a fuel, not a raw material.

Our property is our property [...]

Apparently the EU disagrees with your statement

... which has had all female CEOs since 2001.

Xerox is not as exciting as HP, but its CEOs have not done large, showy reorganizations that destroyed once-proud solid engineering traditions, so there's that.

Um, what? You really don't know what you're talking about do you... Ursula Burns took over Xerox and then took a wreaking ball straight to engineering.

Ursula Burns sold off large portions of engineering based in the USA to HCL, an Indian outsourcing company, then proceeded to dismantle or outsource everything related to product engineering.

But hey, at least she's hiring call center employees to replace the engineering positions that have been moved to India.

Ursula Burns is the number one most hated CEO in the tech industry. I wonder why?

I see people discussing the video, but where is it? Here are a few screen shots of the rocket, it's not obvious that this rocket went up and down, however even if it does, I don't think it means that the rocket is reusable completely, but if it can get up and get back to Earth safely before it reaches certain height in case if something goes wrong with the launch, that's a big deal. However what can go wrong with a launch that would allow the rocket to be so well controlled and balanced that it's not tipping over and blowing up in the first place? Why bring down a rocket if it is in normal operation this way? Is it theoretically possible for a launch vehicle to make it all the way to orbit and back? Probably, but it's extremely inefficient! It's a circus trick, by the time the rocket is up in space, it has no fuel left, that's why multistage parts are jettisoned in the first place, the only valuable parts in them for the launch was the fuel and it gets burned up completely for the rocket to get to space.

Musk can achieve partial reusability, with the engines parachuting to earth and being reused, that already would be great, having a rocket that can go to space as a single stage and all the way back means it has to lift huge amount of fuel into space, not burn it all up and then use the remaining fuel to get back to earth in an inefficient manner (not just fall back but slowly descent on a column of fire) and that's crazy expensive and inefficient! If you can lift enough fuel into space to do that trick, you shouldn't be lifting fuel, you should be lifting useful cargo.

Now this is domination. And this is starting to look like domination. Looks like embedded still has a way to go, though Linux overall looks healthier than ever.

It's also pretty obvious that Samsung is astroturfing social web sites. After all, their marketing budget is bigger than Apple & Sony combined.

.... [Citation needed] ..?

Have no idea if Samsung is bribing /. posters to astroturf, seems like a waste of money since half the people on this forum would do that for free. He was right about Samsung's ad budget though, it appears to be bigger than Apple's, HP's, Dell's, Microsoft's and Coca Cola's budgets combined: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-samsungs-massive-marketing-budget-2012-11.

Okay, let's put it this way: has the effective tax rate increased or decreased since the year 1995? How about the early 1900's?
Here's an interesting link from Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1 discussing that.

The history of tax rates IS indeed fascinating to study. But irrelevant to the discussion of whether the increase of FICA tax from 4.2% to 6.2% was actually an increase, or a decrease, or a sustainment. (Honestly, I'm not sure what else it could be than one of those three. It's a number and it changed, so the description of the change must fit one of those three terms, right? Obviously it neither decreased nor stayed the same, so I'm mystified about the justification of those who also claim it's not an increase.) Anyway, the important aspect in the discussion is the comparison of the tax rate now to its most recent different rate. One could bring up that 65 million years ago the tax rate was zero, but that's not really informative. Similarly, the descussion on whether the FICA tax increased starting Jan 1 2013 doesn't have anything to do with the tax rates of 1900 or 1995.

Okay, let's put it this way: has the effective tax rate increased or decreased since the year 1995? How about the early 1900's?
Here's an interesting link from Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1 discussing that.

Not sure where you got the "double negatives" idea from so can't really respond to it, but your logic statement is a bit shaky. If you are partying by definition you are not sleeping. However, if you are not sleeping you could be engaged in any manner of activities, not just partying. P implies not S, but not S does not imply P.

A couple of reasons the deal didn't work out: http://www.businessinsider.com/groupon-google-deal-turn-down-2012-6 Supposedly, a break up fee of $800 million dollars wasn't enough for groupon to want the deal, and Google was afraid of being in antitrust court for years over whether the deal would actually go through. I was also told by a source somewhat close to the matter that Google wanted to groupon to offer a "break up fee" as insurance in case groupon's books weren't on the up and up. Some say that "insurance fee" sealed the fate of the deal as groupon didn't want Google to see their accounting procedures.

Not at all. Read this: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-marissa-mayer-told-remote-employees-to-work-in-an-office--or-quit-2013-2

- Many of these people "weren't productive," - A lot of people hid. There were all these employees [working remotely] and nobody knew they were still at Yahoo.

You do have to wonder how you could 'loose track' of your employees in this day and age...

And I have to wonder how people still can't tell the difference between "lose" and "loose" in this day and age...

Then Napster and MP3 players appeared. Suddenly the industry was in a panic. The MPAA began an aggressive attack on downloaders, and sued anyone they could find as a scare tactic. Even though past history showed that sharing was a form of viral marketing, they wanted to kill it - perhaps because they have little control over it.

I found this nifty little chart that illustrates the matter very well. http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-music-industry-sales-2011-2 (The chart is flawed, however because it is a tally of shipments to stores, not retail sales to customers)

Napster launched in June of 1999 and shutdown in July of 2001. It operated throughout the peak of music sales and it's closing predated the period of rapid decline. ITMS launched in April of 2003 before the market went into a tailspin. ITMS and other legal online music sales probably caused the overall sales decline because the music is too cheap and people are so much more likely to buy a track or two online than to buy an entire album, and I'm not the first person to say it.

The Constitution is pretty clear that "unreasonable searches" cannot be performed "without probable cause". We can deduce the government is intercepting every electronic communication through various leaks and investigations. I think any average American would agree that these searches are unreasonable and lack probable cause. Certainly there would have been no American independence if King George had this technology.

As for personal harm, the mere knowledge that the government is monitoring everyone's communications creates a chilling effect on the free flow of knowledge and ideas. Does anyone really want to associate themselves with political movements like Occupy Wall Street, even if they identify with their values, when they know the government is actively infiltrating and monitoring them? Has know one suffered mental anguish over expresing an opinion that may put them on a political watch list?

These so-called conservative judges, who are protecting the use of these tools of tyranny that Stalin and Hitler would have salivated over, will be remembered in history for their inaction to combat totalitarianism is America.

From the Business Insider: The tablet market is the future of computing. PC sales are declining while tablet sales are growing. When HP, the biggest PC maker in the world, decides the best angle to approach the consumer tablet market is to use Android, it's not good for Microsoft.

Captcha: Prepare :)

Not at all. Read this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-marissa-mayer-told-remote-employees-to-work-in-an-office--or-quit-2013-2

- Many of these people "weren't productive,"
- A lot of people hid. There were all these employees [working remotely] and nobody knew they were still at Yahoo.

You do have to wonder how you could 'loose track' of your employees in this day and age...

"Lose track"?? This seems less about managers railing against remote employees and more about a company in its death throes.

This article is obviously a reaction to Yahoo's actions, stopping the ability to work remotely.

But it's ignoring the real reason why Yahoo did so. Over time, Yahoo has grown vast and has accumulated a number of freeloaders who possibly were not even working, but were still being paid.

By pulling everyone in to work for a year or so, Yahoo can evaluate who they really have working. In technical terms, you can think of it like a garbage collector spinning up and cleaning out useless nodes...

In about a year after Yahoo has everything settled up, they'll probably re-introduce remote working.

More details on Yahoo here (my apologies for linking to a BusinessInsider article, a website that usually has little to do with business).

Not at all. Read this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-marissa-mayer-told-remote-employees-to-work-in-an-office--or-quit-2013-2

- Many of these people "weren't productive,"
- A lot of people hid. There were all these employees [working remotely] and nobody knew they were still at Yahoo.

You do have to wonder how you could 'loose track' of your employees in this day and age...

On September 10th, 2001 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the pentagon could not track 2.3 trillion dollars. To this day, the Pentagon cannot be accurately audited For an institution with organization and discipline as its creed this is laughable. If Congress mandated that they would not receive one penny in funding until they got their house in order this problem would be solved overnight. Unfortunately the power of fear, obstinate Militarism, and the federal reserve corporations ability to manufacture unlimited debt provides no impetus for Congress to take the necessary corrective action.

"Think about it. Nationmaster ranks France as #18 in terms of GDP per capita, at $36,500 per person, yet France works much less than most developed nations. Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-08-20/markets/30087051_1_capita-france-s-gdp-work#ixzz2LamkO7rg"

per captia is a red herring. look at the in/outflows (aka exports/imports), France has a lot of old money, as well as a political power with its banks and such. It's a HUGE advantage over a 3rd world country, unless they have something... like Uranium.

So what? The french are the most productive people in the world while working less hours, and morons call them lazy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-grizz-mauls-lazy-french-workers-over-threehour-day-8503804.html - stupid traditional business thinking more hours = more productivity

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-08-20/markets/30087051_1_capita-france-s-gdp-work - some facts and figures

http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-versus-wages

Everybody thinks Ballmer has dropped the ball. According to Joachim Kempin, it's more likely that he's dropped the bat.

Steve Ballmer Roams The Halls Of Microsoft Swinging A Baseball Bat

Microsoft's history is filled with stories about its rough culture, from it's "stack-ranking" employee reviews to how Bill Gates used to yell, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard." Here's another one: Six-foot-two Steve Ballmer sometimes brings a baseball bat with him into meetings, and that's if he's feeling happy...

http://www.businessinsider.com/ballmer-roams-halls-with-baseball-bat-2013-2

P.S. according to this article, Google's self-driving car is probably considerably more expensive at around $250000 (£160000), although G don't release figures.

I am a university professor.

Your answer has left no doubt.

What you are witnessing is the disintegration of American secondary education. We have seen a dramatic decline in the preparation of incoming freshman. Even strong students who are very prepared on paper have major and substantial gaps in their education. Professors are struggling to manage this situation. Do you teach to the students in a way that will maximize their learning? Or do you teach the course content at a level consistent with your own notion of academic integrity and what the course catalog lists as the content of the course? Do you somehow split the difference, or if so, how? These are the questions we are trying to answer.

Yes, in other words. Standards are dropping.

Typically educrats use these discussions as an opportunity to claim poverty; not enough public money. I applaud you for not doing that. For the record we're #4 in in the world in spending per student in elementary and secondary education. Way up the high side of the spending histogram. The NEA will say otherwise but they are lying; "percent of GDP" is a misleading calculation.

It's about parenting. Parents have dropped their standards to zero. They do, however, have expectations of schools; don't you dare fail Shaniqua... she showed up every day just like all the other kids.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-russian-drivers-have-dash-cams-2012-12
has some useful in on dashcams

Wow! Looks like some Koch Brother's fans have mod points on Slashdot, my comment (see below) got modded -1, Troll.

Interesting:

Assault rifles are good, they supported by the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny.

Church is fine, I mean if you believe in that sort of thing. I think it's a little silly, given that clown in the Vatican, but whatever floats yer boat.

Destroying the planet? Oh, I doubt he believes deliberately destroying Tesla will have much impact either way.

However, Tea Party rallies?

    Ok, now you are getting somewhere. No, he probably doesn't attend the rallies, but the Tea Party is just an astro-turf organization funded by Big Oil and specifically the Koch brothers. The Koch Brothers are probably bribing either Broder or the NYT as an organization as well.

As T. Boone Pickens has stated, "The biggest deterrent to an energy plan in America is Koch Industries, They do not want an energy plan for America because they have the cheapest natural gas price they've ever had, and they're in the fertilizer business and they're in the chemical business. So their margins are huge. And they do not want you to have an energy plan, because if you had a plan, then natural gas prices would come up."

With the kind of economic resources the Brothers grim can bring to bear, getting a test scuttled in a major newspaper is nothing. At any rate, someone decided to skew the test, and I doubt it was because Broder has a personal grudge against electric cars or Tesla motors.

As always, follow the money and ask, "who benefits?"

I mean really, Big Oil had the New York Times help start a war with Iraq, skewing the results of an electric car test are nothing compared to that.