Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Keeping Up With IT Developments In Education?

Posted by timothy on from the ear-to-the-rail dept.

antgiant writes "I work for a college in the IT department, and I've been having a hard time finding quality resources that cover IT topics with relationship to education. So I ask you: outside of Slashdot, what listservs, newsgroups, fourms, etc. should I be participating in? In particular, I am interested in resources that tend to cover more legal topics such as the now-approved anti-peer-to-peer law."

9 of 32 comments (clear)

  1. Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Could change the course of US history. How could you not vote for him ?

    1. Re:Obama by PFI_Optix · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Not all changes are good.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    2. Re:Obama by Rinisari · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Easily.

      Vote for Real Change in 2008. Vote third party.

      --
      Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
    3. Re:Obama by gujo-odori · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      How could I not vote for him? Uhhh, let's see. Wants to raise taxes? Check. Wants to institute socialized health care? Check. Is probably the most leftist member of the Senate, a guy so far to the left that he makes Joe Biden look like Ronald Reagan? Check.

      Oh, yeah, and even Joe Biden didn't think Obama was qualified to be president back when BO (gotta love those initials) and Hillary were duking it out. Then, when he gets asked to be BO's running mate, he throws integrity to the winds and jumps on the band wagon. Joe Biden would have impressed me if he'd told BO to shove it and publicly repeated what he said during the Democratic primaries.

      Not that McCain exactly gives me goose bumps, but the Mutt mail client tagline is "All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less." McCain sucks less than Obama, so I'm voting for him. It's not so much a vote for McCain so much as it is a vote against BO and for Sarah Palin. The best thing about McCain winning is that it will give her a good chance at the presidency in her own right down the road. America is ready for a woman president, but not Hillary.

    4. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I guess you haven't noticed that we're in a financial crisis created by the rich, for the rich. Shouldn't the rich - those making over $250,000 per year - cough up a little?

      Ever heard of "investment"? Or, maybe investing in your children's and grandchildren's future just isn't your style. It does get in the way of your fabulous retirement, and who cares anyhow if there's anything left for them.

      And yes, if by "socialized" medicine you mean everyone is guaranteed basic care, I'm all for it. I actually give a damn about the people around me who didn't get lucky enough to land in a high paying profession with benefits.

      God I am SICK of greedy assholes sucking this nation dry.

    5. Re:Obama by Retric · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      44% of all health care in the US is paid for by Federal, State, or Local tax dollars. Yet, I don't hear people complaining they want to cut back on medicare funding. Either government should get out of the heath care business or we should cover everyone trying to straddle the line just makes for more waste.

      PS: We are spending 260billion a year on national debt interest and John McCain want's to just pile on more debt. When you look at total government taxation those who are most able to pay handover less than a family of four living off of 40k / year. But hey let's give the rich an even bigger tax break because it's hard to have a lot of money but having more will help them out.

    6. Re:Obama by oni · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      those who are most able to pay handover less than a family of four living off of 40k

      Do you really believe that's true? You should take a look at this:
      http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

      I'm not sure who you mean by, "those most able to pay" but if you mean the top 1% of income earners, they make a lot of money, no doubt about that, but they pay a larger percentage of taxes than the percentage of income they earn. They make 20% of income and pay 40% of taxes. You may not think that's enough. I'm willing to debate that, but it's certain not the way you described it.

    7. Re:Obama by oni · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      we're in a financial crisis created by the rich, for the rich.

      far be it from me to defend Bush, but his administration offered up legislation 12 times to reform/regulate fannie mae source (and be brave, don't stop reading just because it shatters your preconceived notions)

      Shouldn't the rich - those making over $250,000 per year - cough up a little?

      I don't know, why don't you provide a source showing how much they're paying now? How can you possibly have an informed answer to that decision if you don't even know how much they're paying now? Surely your opinions aren't based on ignorance... right? Here's a source to get you started in your self-education (and be brave, don't stop reading because it shatters your preconceived notions)

      I actually give a damn about the people around me who didn't get lucky enough to land in a high paying profession with benefits.

      some people got lucky, but I stayed up late at night studying. I have friends who partied and flunked out. Please explain to me why I should be forced to give my lazy friends anything. I'm not suggesting that I'm against universal healthcare, I'm simply asking you to moderate your opinion with the recognition that some people are poor because of choices that they made, and it's not fair for your to post as if everyone who worked hard and got a good job is simply lucky.

    8. Re:Obama by gujo-odori · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Obama wants to pile on more debt, too. You don't think his spending initiatives are *really* funded by tax revenues, do you? Not even with his tax hike plan. Obama will not cut spending anywhere, and he will increase it just about everywhere except probably military spending. Even there, some external force may leave with no choice but to spend more on the military. The only thing worse than a Republican when it comes to spending money is a Democract, and the farther left they are, the more they spend. It's hard to be left of Obama.

      A family of four making 40K a year will pay little or no income tax, even if they don't own a home. If they do own a home and have a mortgage on it, the interest and property tax deductions will almost certainly get them to zero.

      It's pretty hard for those "most able to pay" to pay less than that.

      We need to also keep in mind that there are parts of the country where $40K goes pretty far. In the SF Bay area, where I live, that's practically the poverty line for a family of four, but it's not that way everywhere.

      But I think I'll just have to torch your "most able to pay" straw man. Whether someone is able to pay more has nothing to do with it. By "it" I mean, first of all, fairness. The fact that someone is smart, successful, and therefore has more discretionary income is no reason to confiscate (more of) that discretionary income. By "spread the wealth around" Obama is talking about class envy (class struggle is what the socialists and communists call it, and like as not what he really means), and punishing people for success. Read that again. Punishing people for success. His plan is that if you become more successful, the government will take a larger percentage of what you have.

      If you want to take people fairly, we could wipe out most of the tax code by taxing income at a flat rate TBD (but I suggest not more than 10% for Federal and a lot less for State and Social Security), and wipe out all, or nearly all deductions and credits. A reasonable floor could be set, below which there is no tax, and a reasonable ceiling should also be set, above which there is no tax.

      The second thing I mean by "it" is economic sense. It is very well established that taxes are harmful to economic activity. The more tax, the more harm. Cutting taxes can actually result in revenue increases via increased economic activity. It is also well-established that so-called progressive income taxes are the among most harmful to economic activity because they are a disincentive to making more money.

      A lot of very smart people believe that we should abolish corporate income tax completely, and they are right. First of all, because corporate income tax isn't really paid by corporations, anyway. It is folded into the price of their products and paid for by we, who by them. Because that's how it works, corporate income tax makes products more expensive, thus reducing sales, and thus reducing economic activity. If we abolished corporate income tax, the lower cost of products would have an immediate and great effect on our economy. There would also be a long-term knock-on effect: without corporate income tax, the United States would become a tax haven for corporations, bringing a lot of businesses (and jobs) to the United States. The economic activity boost would be huge and offset the perceived loss of revenue caused by the abolition of corporate income tax.

      Another knock-on effect would be that much of the IRS would become redundant, thus saving us some government expenditures as those jobs were phased out.

      Finally, it is also well-established that the taxes that have the worst effect on an economy are ones that more heavily tax those who make more money, because they are the ones who provide the jobs and investment. Money that goes into tax coffers is money flushed down the toilet, from the perspective of producing jobs. An economy with a high tax burden is like driving your car with one foot on gas and the other on the brake. That's where we're at right now. An Obama presidency would throw on the parking as well.