Slashdot Mirror


Obama Wants Broadband, Computers Part of Stimulus

damn_registrars writes "President-elect Barack Obama announced in his radio address that his administration's economic stimulus package will include investing in computers and broadband for education. 'To help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.' He also said it is 'unacceptable' that the US ranks 15th in broadband adoption." No doubt with free spyware and internet filtering. You know... for the kids.

901 comments

  1. China by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, sure will provide a ton of jobs to the Chinese who manufacture these things.

    Not that I believe investing in education is bad, but passing it off as an economic stimulus is disingenuous.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:China by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You can't pay money to Intel, AMD, ATI, Dell or Microsoft without buying some hardware to Asian manufacturers because this is their business model to have manufactures in Asia. In today's world, it is hard to stimulate one country's economy without stimulating another one. There are some fields where it is possible (construction, restaurants...) but most are tied to foreign manufacturers.

      Note that if giving job to China is an issue, one could prefer Taiwanese makers. I believe the difference is more important than it seems : one is a democracy, the other is not.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One is a country, the other is not.

    3. Re:China by skudenfaugen · · Score: 2, Funny

      I choose Taiwan, but only if we get to see another cool fight in parliament. Honestly who throws a shoe?

    4. Re:China by msgtomatt · · Score: 1

      What is amazing is that this is coming from someone who just yesterday said that congress' day's of pork as a strategy are over. I guess he was not referring to his own pork. "You know, the days of just pork coming out of Congress as a strategy, those days are over."

    5. Re:China by Theoboley · · Score: 0

      The henchman at the end of Austin Powers does...

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    6. Re:China by TheLink · · Score: 3, Informative

      But the Taiwanese may still pass the jobs to China.

      After all they have lots of factories in China[1].

      [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1181993.stm

      --
    7. Re:China by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      I think I'd rather look at it from the perspective that, in the long term, stupid people aren't going to be doing much for our economy.

    8. Re:China by dingo8baby · · Score: 1

      The idea is to EDUCATE our kids with better technology, therefore making our next generation more equipped to fill the technology sectors and such, hopefully keeping us on top of the technology sector. This has nothing to do with stimulating the economy by buying computers or broadband. This is a long-term solution to help the economy, not a quick band-aid. Way to let the issue fly over your head.

    9. Re:China by AlanS2002 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Not that I believe investing in education is bad, but passing it off as an economic stimulus is disingenuous.

      So US schools are going to have better net connections how exactly? This is not going to be the result of paying companies in the US to make it so? And individual school networks are going to be set up by whom exactly? Who's going to administer them?

      --
      Not all conservatives are stupid,
      but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
      - Hume
    10. Re:China by KeithJM · · Score: 1

      There are some fields where it is possible (construction, restaurants...) but most are tied to foreign manufacturers.

      An awful lot of American food (especially fruit and vegetables at different times of the year) and building materials come from other countries. Really, I'm just questioning the exception you brought up to your own statement, not disagreeing with your point.

    11. Re:China by Hadlock · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There are some fields where it is possible (construction, restaurants...)
       
      Here in the south (Dallas, TX south to Houston, Austin and San Antonio), almost all construction and restaurant jobs are held by illegal immigrants, who send most of the money home to Mexico

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    12. Re:China by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Why can't we provide subsidies to those who build using US made parts, thereby encouraging the creation of a domestics electronics industry?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:China by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Of course, one could potentially reopen the factories and labs where this technology was invented in the first place.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    14. Re:China by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
      "it is hard to stimulate one country's economy without stimulating another one"

      Here's an idea how to. Rather than do stimulus...rather than do bailouts to companies. Why not give to every US taxpayer (read, payer of taxes, not non-payers) over the age of 18, about $25K-$100K or whatever. And let them loose. Now THAT would stimulate the economy. People not sunken in debt can spend...people in trouble with mortgages can pay them off, etc. Hell, people could invest in the mkt again.

      How about serious money back to the taxpayers of the US, and let us choose where to spend those dollars in our economy.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:China by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      What exactly is it that makes you think that the only way to boost one economy is to fuck over another one? Economics is not a zero sum game. There can be gains for everyone.

      In my opinion (as a computer scientist, not an economist), the biggest problem with todays global economy is the belief that the only way to gain wealth is to take it from someone else.

      It's not that big of a stretch to think about. Look at how the entire global economy just fell on its ass. In a healthy global economy, every country rises and falls together. Unless (god forbid) a mutual hostility is declared, what's good for China is good for the US, and vice versa.

    16. Re:China by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Informative

      Officially they're both one country with two systems.

    17. Re:China by Poppler · · Score: 1

      I don't see how building useful infrastructure is "pork".

      --
      What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
    18. Re:China by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because US workers are way, wayyy more expensive.
      This is of course, because they have a higher living standard.
      And it it because of that crazy system, where everybody has to have as much loans as possible.

      And most of all, it is, because neither customers nor companies seem to act on anything other than (very) short-term profit maximization.
      I think, anyone who thinks and acts in the long term nowadays, will rule them all in the future.

      The worst thought is, that I once heard some expert say, that China is a slow giant, that does think in terms of 50 to 100 years. And that they don't care about the highs or lows of today.

      I for one, will not welcome them. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    19. Re:China by Asic+Eng · · Score: 5, Informative

      "One country two systems" has been proposed by China for Taiwan. The Taiwanese - having had de-facto independence for over 50 years - would prefer to stay independent, rather than being someone's colony again. (It's described in the link you gave, btw.)

    20. Re:China by basicio · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do realize that a 700 billion bailout divided by 300 million people is still only $2,333 per person in the US? Even assuming that were only to be spread over a quarter or so of the total population, the absolute maximum you're talking about is $10,000.

      And quite frankly, I think US taxpayers are, by and large, morons. Giving every adult US citizen $10,000 might alleviate some temporary debt problems, but it's likely to cause at least as many problems as it solves, and will have little long-term benefit.

      I think that bailouts of failing industries are equally stupid. What needs to happen is investment in business models and industries that are sustainable in the long term and will make the US more competitive globally. Given the way in which our world is moving, universal computer literacy and national fast broadband are two things which very definitely need to happen to keep the United States competitive in the world.

    21. Re:China by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of Hong Kong. Taiwan is not governed by the PRC in any way.

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    22. Re:China by EdtheFox · · Score: 1

      Since you asked... The shoe represents the lowest part of the body (the foot) and displaying or throwing a shoe at someone or something in Arab cultures denotes that the person or thing is "beneath them." Showing the bottom of one's feet or shoes (for example, putting one's feet up on a table or desk) in Arab cultures is considered an extreme insult. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_tossing

    23. Re:China by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Please name any area of the economy that isn't globalized in one way or an other right now. Even national defense top secret projects will some how have money leaving the United States.

      Except for going into a panic for each dollar that leaves the US. You should focus more on how to bring those foreign money back into the U.S. I find it hard to believe that a country that spans a continent and has a unique culture doesn't have any competitive advantage over the rest of the world.
      Not funding education would be a larger disadvantage then putting money to other countries.
      Look at it this way. There is a million dollars sent to China to do low paid low education jobs. While we get to educate our children to do the high paid high education jobs. We get the better deal out of it. As China will see their competitive focus should be in manufacturing thus putting more resources in there and less in education to compete with americans.

      Trying to stop globalization will have a harsh effect. Adapting to it will bring benefit. If we stop globalization in the United States everyone else will continue it and we will be left out in the benefits.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    24. Re:China by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Because democracy is perfect...?

      --
      Luke-Jr
    25. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your brilliant plan fails to take into consideration that the money has to come from somewhere...like, oh I don't know, the taxpayers? *cough*

    26. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you are not on board with our new Imperialist economy started by King Bush II. It is a zero sum game, and the only way to win is to conquer and enslave everyone else. Just like in video games. I thought computer scientists understood video games.

    27. Re:China by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Well essentially that means borrowing money in order to spend it on foreign-made consumer goods. You're relying on other countries still valuing the dollar, even though it's worth less and less. What would you say if Mozambique was trying to do the same thing? Eventually nobody would want Mozambique money anymore in exchange for their goods.

    28. Re:China by bconway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All you've done is raise inflation and lesson the value of a dollar by $25K-$100K per person. Welcome to $100 milk.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    29. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, that's completely unfair to the people who don't pay taxes. What's wrong with you, do you hate poor people or something?

    30. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it really appeal that much to your sense of self-righteousness to outsource jobs to a democracy rather than a consitutional republic?

      Most businesses don't have such a high horse.

    31. Re:China by SpasticWeasel · · Score: 1

      Why does this remind me of the guy with the tractor trailer truck full of smokes on the "Dave Chapelle Show" episode where reparations are paid to African Americans for slavery?

      --
      No sooner do I get over one, then you put a better one right next to me. Bastards.
    32. Re:China by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I don't see how building useful infrastructure is "pork".

      Lots of fat, some nitrates. Little protein. Which is why they call it 'bringing home the bacon'. Basically, lots of money spent quickly is unlikely to yield much "useful" infrastructure".

      Anybody remember the old Heinlein story where factory workers are building new "Eisenhower's" (cars) and then shipping them directly off to the scrap yard?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    33. Re:China by Airborne-ng · · Score: 1

      All you've done is raise inflation and lesson the value of a dollar by $25K-$100K per person. Welcome to $100 milk.

      Thankfully someone else understands this, I was on the verge of doubting the /. crowd.

    34. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not give to every US taxpayer (read, payer of taxes, not non-payers) over the age of 18, about $25K-$100K or whatever.

      But if all taxpayers were to receive money, where would that money come from?

    35. Re:China by mehemiah · · Score: 1

      what chinese manufacture broadband infrastructure (Mexicans maybe)? We are talking abut telephony jobs. Some one else pointed this out.

    36. Re:China by jtn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because to some "conservative" voters, pork is defined as any spending at all, especially any spending that doesn't directly enrich them personally.

    37. Re:China by saboola · · Score: 1

      What about chair tossing?

    38. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it would lead to one hell of inflation increase as people would not care as much on how much they spend on something.

    39. Re:China by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

      The net connections to schools may be provided by commercial suppliers, but the two school districts that I worked for did their own network setup (including wiring between buildings and the rest of the installation) and they had on-staff network admins.

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    40. Re:China by Flendon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Taiwan is not governed by the PRC in any way.

      That depends on whether you are asking a Chinese or a Taiwanese.

      --
      chown -R us ./base
    41. Re:China by rengav · · Score: 1

      Since we're on the subject of tossing things, how about salad tossing?

    42. Re:China by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      I'm Chinese, and I don't believe Taiwan is governed by the PRC in any way. I'm guessing you weren't trying to imply that the Taiwanese privately believe they're governed by the PRC.

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    43. Re:China by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I know your suggestion feels good in your gut, but it won't work very well.

      Tax refunds do not stimulate the economy. People either save the tax dollars or they pay of debts.

      Infrastructure spending, as suggested by the Obama team, stimulates the economy by paying people who are unemployed at this time to repair roads and schools and lay new broadband fiber-optic cable. Those people take those new paychecks to the grocery store, Wally-World, and even local establshments such as ice-cream parlors and pizza restaurants to give their kids a treat. This money in the local economy encourages those stores to stock their shelves with more items. If this happens across the country, manufacturers, both local and international, start to ramp up production. Hell, they might even invest in new technology to reduce their production costs or to beat a competitor to market. That is what is meant by economic stimulation. That is what Obama wants.

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
    44. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One is a country, the other is not.

      I thought the Great Firewall of China would be blocking Slashdot. I'll fix that, though...

      June 4, 1989!!!!

    45. Re:China by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >I think, anyone who thinks and acts in the long term nowadays, will rule them all in the future.

      But they won't because they will have been outcompeted by short-term interests.

      This is a fundamental problem with relying on amplification systems. The same thing is seen in evolution: the organisms or systems which reproduce with the highest gain overwhelm everything else.

      Your investor wants to make the highest income per unit time. That is the investor's only quality metric, and that's pretty much as it should be. Your company wants as many investors as possible so it has to give back the best return per unit time. Again, that's as it should be. The result is that long-term planning is not a natural result of marketplace action. As such it is probably the domain of government -- hence space programs being nationally funded.
      It doesn't matter how smart you are. If you're slow, you will be crushed.

      In my opinion, China isn't slow, at all, and their government is thinking long-term, directing all the short-term companies. That's a recipe for success.

      But it doesn't make sense to criticize companies for acting in their short-term interests. It is, unfortunately, the only rational way for them to behave.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    46. Re:China by gsgriffin · · Score: 1

      You are mostly correct, but even in restaruants and construction, many items still do come from other countries. Much of our lumber comes from Canada and a lot of food from mexico and beyond.

      --
      jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
    47. Re:China by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      Pretend you're predisposed to dislike anything the President elect says or does, then it will make sense.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    48. Re:China by billster0808 · · Score: 1

      I sure hope you're posting from the US

    49. Re:China by bendodge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The government does not have the solution. It is the problem. In the old days, back before the introduction of the Federal Reserve, stock market crashes happened on a regular basis, but nobody ran around for the next decade crying about it. The market just purged itself of bad assets and risky practices and recovered in a few months. The Great Depression was caused by Benjamin Strong's fiddly experimentation with his brand-new central bank and his scheming with European investors (Google benjamin strong Britain gold). The Fed overheated the economy for too long and then cooled it down too fast. It was made even worse by the explosive tax burden FDR introduced. (See Bernanke's admission of Fed guilt on Friedman's 90th birthday.)

      Nowadays, we make it far, far worse by trying to prevent the bad assets and insolvent businesses from failing by sucking solvent (good) assets out of the economy to prop up the insolvent (bad). The real solution is to simply let them fail. The Big Three auto mfgs. are in an impossible situation. They promised via union contracts to pay all their employees a comfortable sum for the rest of their lives. This is something that they simply cannot afford to do. What's the solution? Just let the company fail and the contracts dissolve. Someone else will buy the property and machines and start the company over.

      Now, it's true that this will be hard for those employees who were supposed to be taken care of, but unfortunately life isn't fair (my mother's favorite saying). The Bill of Rights does not guarantee happiness, only the right to pursue it (Google obama's bill of rights).

      If you really want to bail out struggling industries, try deregulating and cutting taxes. Now, I agree that some regulation is needed, but too much of it is just feel-good paperwork. The regulations that especially need to go are the ones regarding employment. I, as a high school student, ought to be able to go and flip burgers for a pittance. (Hey, I've an idea! Let's require computer techs to be licensed before they can run helpdesks or do house calls! That way we make sure people don't pay for bad work!) I also ought to be able to go and install a floor, furnace or pipe in someone's house, if they're willing to pay me. If I kill myself it's my own fault.

      If you want a better economy, get the government off of it. We used to have the best economy in the world. Somehow we've come to think that government as god is better. It isn't, and it never will be. Even if someone hopes we can.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    50. Re:China by Sinbios · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why, so the NSA could listen in on my lines and nail me for espionage?

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    51. Re:China by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      Oops, make that "terrorism".

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    52. Re:China by sjames · · Score: 1

      That was something I wondered about. If the problem is people defaulting on their mortgages, wouldn't helping them not default be a good way out? It wouldn't need to be a grant, just give them a way to actually convert their mortgages the way they were told they could before the ruinous payment hike at the end of the ARM wiped them out.

      To make it fair, offer similar terms to others so they can get out from under their credit cards.

      It's funny the way that stimulus packages and bailouts inevitably favor people who never have and never will wonder where the rent and grocery money is coming from while people truly in need get to jump through hoops and end up with assistance that barely lets them eat (but doesn't let them eat healthy) while they rent a place next to the crack den.

    53. Re:China by philspear · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure will provide a ton of jobs to the Chinese who manufacture these things.

      With how buisnesses work today, ANYTHING we do will be making jobs for chinese. Buy an american car or bail out american automakers: much of the car parts originate in China. Bailout the banks: some of it makes its way back to china, not to mention that we borrowed some of the bailout money from china in the first place. Don't give any economic stimulus to american buisnesses: they use it as an excuse to cut costs by shipping the jobs overseas to china. Do give an economic stimulus package to american industries: they find another excuse to cut costs by shipping the jobs overseas, and use the money you gave them to grease the way.

      I'm not communist, but it would at least be satisfying for a few moments to execute some CEOs. Right before a depression of massive scale.

    54. Re:China by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1

      As an interesting aside this is also true of Indian culture (not surprisingly). I was in Jaipur back in January and remember distinctly a moment where I forgot this little rule and pissed off many a passers-by when I put my feet up on a bench- showing the bottoms of my soles to the world. I kept wondering why I got dirty looks until I remembered.

    55. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax refunds do not stimulate the economy. People either save the tax dollars or they pay of debts.

      Somewhat true. But by saving, people make the money available to others to borrow (assuming they don't literally store it under their mattress - which few people do) -- this additional capital simulates the economy. By paying off existing debt, people are more likely to be able and willing to incur more debt in the near future so they will start buying more stuff -- if their monthly credit card payments drop, they are likely to spend the difference on something shiny.

      It matters not much if the money is poured into worker's pockets via jobs or via tax rebates - they will spend it about the same way. Of course, all that Federal debt and interest will have to be paid back in the future - and that will come at the expense of future infrastructure projects so perhaps it's a good idea to fix the infrastructure now since we won't be able to afford it later.

      Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that all this "infrastructure" spending is necessary. Putting newer computers and faster networks in a middle school where the students can't read isn't really going to help the students as much as a few well worn copies of text books, decent teachers, and parents who care and don't insist that their stupid misbehaving kid is a perfect little misunderstood angelic genius and all the problems are the school's fault.

      It's rather hard to see that spending on infrastructure during Obama's term is going to cause much net innovation or investment in new tech that pays dividends during his term -- at best it will be running more shifts/unshuttering shutdown factories at electronics assembly factories in China or firing up cement mills that are sitting idle - not much new technology.

    56. Re:China by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      Not that I believe investing in education is bad, but passing it off as an economic stimulus is disingenuous.

      Whatever he has to say to get it past the sheeple. I've felt for a long time that the USA has taken far too long to make broadband Internet available to the population at large. So maybe it won't stimulate the economy overnight, but a generation of kids that finally get a proper technology education is bound to have some effect in the future.

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    57. Re:China by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      *chuckle* It's interesting and sad how our government has taken away the moral high-ground in stuff like this. :-( I still think you have more freedom to say what you want here than in the PRC though.

    58. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, it's true that this will be hard for those employees who were supposed to be taken care of, but unfortunately life isn't fair (my mother's favorite saying).

      Absolutely. One of my mother's favorite sayings seems to apply here as well: "If it seems too good to be true, it is".

      I really can't feel too sorry for those workers who didn't see the handwriting on the wall by 1990 and adjust their planning, investment, spending habits to take into account the real possibility that their unique little scam created by union thuggery and corporate testicular deficiency was going to collapse around them.

    59. Re:China by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US is still operating under the 80's economic theories. Greed is good, no matter what, and look to get all the money you can today, because there's no guarantee for tomorrow. And the C?O's all still work on that principle.

      The problem we have is that a bunch of our businesses have sold off their capital and good reputations for short-term gains in the stock market.

      I should really learn Mandarin one of these days...

    60. Re:China by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      That depends on whether you are asking a Chinese or a Taiwanese.

      There's a fine line between believing that it is technically part of China and believing that the people there accept that it is part of China and follow China's laws. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    61. Re:China by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what your kids need is more muscle cars! :D

    62. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One is only a democracy as long as China lets them play around at it. You think anyone in the world is going to defend Taiwan? Learn a little history and you might understand why so many Chinese dislike Taiwan.

    63. Re:China by TheLink · · Score: 1

      It does lessen the effective value of the USD debt to Japan, China etc. And any country holding USD reserves.

      There is also a lag - it takes a finite time for prices of commodities traded in USD (oil, wheat, CPUs etc) to go up. So meanwhile you are indeed richer.

      Printing money is a way for a Gov to tax anyone holding its currency.

      For most countries, the amount of their currency held by "outsiders" is very little, so it just transfers wealth from residents in the country to the one printing the money.

      But in the case of the US, it also transfers wealth from other countries.

      At least until people start switching to the Euro or something else.

      So I do find it interesting that apparently lots of people are buying US treasury bonds at the moment.

      --
    64. Re:China by Bombula · · Score: 1

      $700 billion is 10 times what the poorest 50% of the entire US population pays in taxes each year: that's taxpayers representing 150 million people.

      Here's a different $700 billion stimulus package idea for ya: if you earn under $25k/yr (about half of all taxpayers), you don't pay ANY taxes for 10 years. Think that'd pep up the economy some? Helping turn tens of millions of people from poor to middle-class? Yeah, I'd say so.

      Give me that over Wall Street bailouts to buy golden parachutes for Leiman Brothers any day - and don't give me any crap about the bailout money not paying billions to shitbag execs, it's been all over the BBC for weeks.

      And before anyone starts whining about poor people having to pay their fair share, just go and ask anyone earning $25k/yr if they'd be willing to earn $100k/yr and pay a bit more in taxes. Think anyone making $100k/yr would wanna trade positions the other way? No? Then STFU.

      --
      A-Bomb
    65. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone has a mortgage contract that doesn't allow for a "ruinous payment hike at the end of the ARM" and they are being forced to pay one, they should call the police since the only thing that could force them to do so would be some criminal act. If someone forged their signature on a document, then they should pursue civil legal action against that person and the government should pursue criminal fraud and forgery charges against the forger as well.

      Oh, wait, they signed a contract that allowed for such a payment? If, as they hoped, housing prices had kept going up well in excess of salaries and inflation for another twenty years, do you suppose they would have sent the Federal Treasury a check for a substantial part of the gain just out of the kindness of their heart? Sorry, if you want to keep the gains from your gambling, don't expect me to pay your losses.

      At a minimum, if we are going to bail out people because they lost money on their homes, we need to fund this from future revenues levied on "homeowners" who seem to be confused about the difference between "a place to live" and "an investment"...

      Start with taxing gains on homes more aggressively. Allow rollover of gains into a more expensive home within two years (as in the "old days"). Eliminate all exclusions on gains not rolled over. Eliminate all step-up in tax basis on inheritance of a home unless the recipient of the home is living in the home full time at the time of the death (in which case, that/those person/s would retain the deceased's tax basis and, when the house is eventually sold, the gain could not be rolled over into another home but would be taxed immediately).

      Also, phase out the mortgage interest tax deduction over the next 20 years. This will help stabilize housing prices over time by removing the giant tax loopholes that have surrounded home "ownership" (aka, gambling) for decades.

      Of course, the real estate agents and the homebuilder goliaths will fight these common-sense tax reforms tooth-and-nail as they don't want their gravy train to be slowed down.

    66. Re:China by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Also you eventually don't gain anything from not stimulating the poorer countries economy to. Also how come most people agree that all people in the world should have the same chances, decent living standard and so on but as soon as it comes to sacrifice some of your own it gets really really hard?

      Sure if you build and buy things from another economy theirs get better and improve, but you have to remember that you also do precisely that because you get more for your money. If you get less money but still get more for the money you have what's the problem?

      Also distributing wealth over all people in the world is the real solution, not split it in "us" and "they."
      Why don't they have the same right to make some money and get better living conditions? Won't global development be much beneficial for all on average?

      There is an issue with very few people holding lots of wealth though, especially in Japan and USA, and those people will probably still have a lot of money no matter what happens in the rest of the world. Some would argue that they contribute a lot and thereby deserves it, personally I don't know. Atleast we have people like Gates which takes responsibility for his wealth and use it for doing good causes (while still trying to remain rich so he can do more good.)

    67. Re:China by aliquis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Chinese unsurveillanced guy 1 - Integrity breaching americans 0

    68. Re:China by sjames · · Score: 1

      Oh, wait, they signed a contract that allowed for such a payment? If, as they hoped, housing prices had kept going up well in excess of salaries and inflation for another twenty years, do you suppose they would have sent the Federal Treasury a check for a substantial part of the gain just out of the kindness of their heart? Sorry, if you want to keep the gains from your gambling, don't expect me to pay your losses.

      Same logic applies to the wealthy 'wizards of Wall street' that are being bailed out big time. I'm saying that if there is to be a bailout at all, it should be applied to those at the bottom for once. If the banks that worked so hard to convince people that they'd be OK and that housing would go up forever (in spite of being in a far better position to see that it was a lie) are worthy of a bailout, then so are the homeowners.

      Sorry, if you want to keep the gains from your gambling, don't expect me to pay your losses.

      Unless I'm "too big to fail"? (read "too rich to fail").

    69. Re:China by he-sk · · Score: 1

      For a high school student you seem to know an awful lot about the economy. I'd bet good money that your perspective will change once you have kids to support and the company you work for goes belly up because of management's mistakes.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    70. Re:China by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Probably because the people punished in your system most often actually is bad, whereas in China they may just have been people which was noticed.

    71. Re:China by tygt · · Score: 1

      I'd say that with chair tossing, the chair represents the "seat" of the body and by displaying or throwing a chair at someone you're denoting that you think that the person is no better than a seat and deserves to be sat on. Or, something that rhymes with "sat on" and is related to the same area....

    72. Re:China by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Alternately, these newly employed workers just use the paycheck to pay off debt (which likely racked up quite a bit while unemployed) and save money.

      What you propose (and Obama) is the same as FDR... but the New Deal didn't get the economy going again, WW2 did.

    73. Re:China by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Why not give to every US taxpayer (read, payer of taxes, not non-payers) over the age of 18, about $25K-$100K or whatever.

      Well, for one thing, everyone in the US, almost without exception pays taxes (federal taxes, even), its just a matter of which taxes.

      Second, that would have pretty much the same problem as giving it to corporations without controls, the only difference is that it would probably be a little more effective as stimulus because the propensity for each dollar to be spent in the domestic economy would be a little higher.

      (Those people who are saying it would have no effect but price inflation are either assuming you are printing the money, rather than expending it from some combination of revenues and borrowing, or they simply have no idea what they are talking about.)

      How about serious money back to the taxpayers of the US, and let us choose where to spend those dollars in our economy.

      Neither US consumers nor US banks and other large corporations are likely to prioritize spending in the ways that have the most short-term stimulative effect to high velocity of money in the domestic economy, or the most long-term stimulative effect due to making transfers more efficient (e.g., by improving infrastructure.)

      If the government wants to spend for stimulative purposes, it ought to assure that the use of money is carefully tailored to that effect, which means it probably ought to, largely, carefully target the spending. OTOH, bailouts, either of individuals or corporations, might conceivably have some stabilizing effects, and probably shouldn't be ruled out as tools for stabilization rather than stimulus per se.

    74. Re:China by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The regulations that especially need to go are the ones regarding employment. I, as a high school student, ought to be able to go and flip burgers for a pittance. (Hey, I've an idea! Let's require computer techs to be licensed before they can run helpdesks or do house calls! That way we make sure people don't pay for bad work!) I also ought to be able to go and install a floor, furnace or pipe in someone's house, if they're willing to pay me. If I kill myself it's my own fault.

      Argh... I was with you up until this nonsense. Please, go research what the 1800 and 1900s were like. What you propose is virtual slavery, where there's no motive for anyone to offer a job that doesn't needlessly risk the loss of my arm, or worse.

    75. Re:China by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Printing money is a way for a Gov to tax anyone holding its currency.

      Even the indication that you might do that, though, is a way to pretty instantly dry up the ability to borrow money -- either the government, or anyone else trying to borrow money denominated in your currency. Monetization of debt is a pretty poor policy choice in any case, and you can usually acheive any of the desirable effects by simply borrowing in the open market, as its the people that hold dollars now but aren't investing them in either your goods or capital markets because the short-term situation is bad for that that are going to be most likely to put money into government-issued debt, provided that things haven't gotten so bad that they perceive a serious risk of the debt being repudiated.

      In which case, you're in such deep trouble already that there's probably nothing you can do but hope for a miracle, and you can try monetization without any particular risk of killing your ability to borrow (since you've already lost that), but it probably won't help.

    76. Re:China by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      China is a continent. DUH!

    77. Re:China by Gablar · · Score: 1

      Not that I believe investing in education is bad, but passing it off as an economic stimulus is disingenuous.

      I strongly disagree. What he is proposing is not only education, but access to information. Before you can make any sort of business you need an idea to develop into a product or service that will hopefully fulfill a need. Further more before you can solve any problem you need the knowledge on how to solve the problem. Even trivial tasks like walking have to be learned.

      Humans are inherently social creatures. Drop one human in the middle of the amazon and he will be dead in a couple of days, drop a bunch of them together and the chance of survival increases tremendously. Every time there is a breakthrough in communication(information sharing), like the alphabet, the printing press, the phone, cars and the highway system, radio and the internet, there is an improvement on the quality of life of the civilization that can take advantage of that discovery. That is because more knowledge is shared thus problems are solved, and new ideas created. This are the very same ideas that are needed to create new business that generate jobs and improve the economic standing of a country. Not to mention the efficiency gained at solving problems that might seem trivial but when they are all added up have a huge impact on our quality of life.

      --
      It's all about finding better ways
    78. Re:China by operagost · · Score: 1

      Thanks the heads-up, President Hu!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    79. Re:China by operagost · · Score: 1

      Oops, make that "acting foolishly," and also change "NSA" to "my school Principal."

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    80. Re:China by operagost · · Score: 1

      I propose that henceforth, placing one's feet upon a piece of furniture be called "the Indian Moon."

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    81. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you are a fool.

    82. Re:China by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      American dissenters still alive and free MILLIONS, Chinese dissenters still alive and free 0.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    83. Re:China by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that your scenario is totally bogus, right? People earning 100K don't pay 75% in taxes, so of course they wouldn't want to earn 25K with no taxes. The reason conservatives and libertarians oppose graduated taxes is because most people who are "rich" had to work hard to get it, so acting as if they had it handed to them is ignorant. They're also the ones handing out BILLIONS to charities every year-- which is the right way to "redistribute wealth."

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    84. Re:China by worthawholebean · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about that "slow giant" characterization. Consider the one-child policy, which will have absolutely wrecked their demographics by 2021, 50 years afters its beginning.

    85. Re:China by operagost · · Score: 1

      Those people take those new paychecks to the grocery store, Wally-World, and even local establshments such as ice-cream parlors and pizza restaurants to give their kids a treat.

      Are you kidding? Pizza places and ice cream parlors will be outlawed in the New World Order (people are too fat), Wal-Mart will be seized for "windfall profits", and grocery stores will have 137 people lined up to buy the last roll of toilet paper.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    86. Re:China by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea how to. Rather than do stimulus...rather than do bailouts to companies. Why not give to every US taxpayer (read, payer of taxes, not non-payers) over the age of 18, about $25K-$100K or whatever

      Because they already tried that last summer with the tax rebates, and the impact was minimal. The problem is that everyone is so overextended that they just paid down debt. That's a bit nice for them, but to get a good stimulus you need people circulating money around the economy where it multiplies against itself, not stashing it in a bank (that is too afraid to lend any of it back out).

      The latest take I heard on a stimulus was that it would probably need to go to folks who are *sure* to spend it. That means the really poor, or the unemployed. Extending unemployment benifits seems to be the current popular idea.

    87. Re:China by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      As mentioned by another poster, but I'll repeat: wrong.

      "One country, two systems" does not apply to Taiwan. Even if Taiwan (re)unifies with Mainland China, the system will probably be a different beast altogether. Actually "One country, two systems" is more of a marketing ploy (for "propaganda" purposes) than a constitutional tool. The ingenuity is in the *idea* of allowing a (self proclaimed) socialist state to take within its borders a basically capitalist, western society. The implementation has been a bit rough at the edges in the past few years with a few controversial constitutional cases, and much of the "mundane details" haven't been figured out yet (and everybody now knows better than to poke the issues)

      As to what the official China-Taiwan status is... as far as I understand it, officially, there is one China, the disagreement is to who's the boss. In reality it's just an abysmally weird and delicate political situation where basically PRC doesn't have effective control over Taiwan, but the Taiwanese are not ready (for various reasons) to declare themselves independent (yet).

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    88. Re:China by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      What?

      I still hear from those student leaders in the Tienanmen Square incidents who fled to the USA.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei_Jingsheng
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Dan_(dissident)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling

      Well your point is registered, but it's not really zero.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    89. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep - I feel the same way about some of the "Wall Street" bailouts.

      However, the theory of those was (correctly or incorrectly) that they are a part of the teetering leveraged house of cards that must be kept partially standing or the resulting collapse will devastate nearly everyone - even those who have nothing to do with Wall Street directly (no loans, no investments etc) - i.e., people who did nothing risky. This is quite different than bailing out individuals who made bad investment choices - unless it can be shown that failing to do so will result in an intolerable collapse of the entire economy. I believe housing prices are still overinflated in most markets and the correction will be made -- just when is the question and this is not a problem that will cause a worse breakdown of the greater system if it happens earlier rather than later.

      Also, most of the "bailouts" have been loans. If the entities survive, the loans will be paid back (with interest). If the entities fail in the end, the shareholders of those companies will also have lost every penny of their investment (to the extent that their investments are worth anything now).

      Also, a LOT of people on Wall Street are losing their jobs (esp. the quants - the "wizards" I'm assuming you're referring to) in the consolidation and downsizing. They are not getting a free lunch here (just a discounted one).

    90. Re:China by setagllib · · Score: 1

      It was the US that gave Japan its economic stimulus decades ago. It seems kind of ironic having to apply the same strategy to itself just to catch up.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    91. Re:China by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      However, the theory of those was (correctly or incorrectly) that they are a part of the teetering leveraged house of cards that must be kept partially standing or the resulting collapse will devastate nearly everyone

      I would call that a rationalization rather than a "theory". It doesn't even begin to hold water. The form in which it was usually advanced was that, if the banks didn't have capital, everyone else would fail because without capital the banks couldn't make loans.

      Of course, if the problem is "capital needs to be available to make loans", rather than giving money to banks who had demonstrating they couldn't handle it well and rewarding failure, the government could just go out and use the same money and make the loans itself to prevent the rest of the economy from collapsing (as, it turns out, it appears likely to need to do anyway as the bank bailout doesn't seem to have done any good.)

      Also, most of the "bailouts" have been loans. If the entities survive, the loans will be paid back (with interest). If the entities fail in the end, the shareholders of those companies will also have lost every penny of their investment (to the extent that their investments are worth anything now).

      So what? Many of the institutions took bailouts and immediately declared dividends. So shareholders whose assets were looking like they might end up being worthless (and still have that look) just extracted the cash from the bailout, and face essentially zero downside risk. If the terms had required stockholder approval which included a waiver of the shield of individual stockholders from liability for the debt incurred by taking bailout loans, there might be some substance to that, but as it is, its been a bonanza for shareholders.

      Also, a LOT of people on Wall Street are losing their jobs (esp. the quants - the "wizards" I'm assuming you're referring to) in the consolidation and downsizing. They are not getting a free lunch here (just a discounted one).

      The workers aren't getting a free lunch. OTOH, the capital holders (who extracted all the benefit on the upside of the economy) are getting a free lunch at the hands of the government (sure, its not as good a living as they've extracted from the market in the past, but its still a free lunch; the only thing they even risk giving up in exchange is something they wouldn't have without the handout, and might not even have with the handout.)

    92. Re:China by ryguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      40% of americans already do not pay income taxes. The only taxes they pay are payroll taxes. (SS medicare...)

    93. Re:China by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Shatner on? Why. That does. Sound Awful...

    94. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The regulations that especially need to go are the ones regarding employment. I, as a high school student, ought to be able to go and flip burgers for a pittance. (Hey, I've an idea! Let's require computer techs to be licensed before they can run helpdesks or do house calls! That way we make sure people don't pay for bad work!) I also ought to be able to go and install a floor, furnace or pipe in someone's house, if they're willing to pay me. If I kill myself it's my own fault.

      Argh... I was with you up until this nonsense. Please, go research what the 1800 and 1900s were like. What you propose is virtual slavery, where there's no motive for anyone to offer a job that doesn't needlessly risk the loss of my arm, or worse.

      How about to get the better ones to stick around? Or to keep client's good blood stain free? That's gotta be important to the wedding dress crowd...

    95. Re:China by Bombula · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Total bollocks. The vast majority of people who are wealthy are so because of background, family support network and education - all privileges not available to the poorest folks in our country. You really think lawyers and dentists and computer programmers work harder than truck drivers and construction workers and plumbers and career waitresses? It's easy to think so, if you've never worked a shit job.

      The whole point of the scenario I described is that if you make a lot of money it's not because you're an especially hard worker, it's because you're an especially lucky worker - lucky not to be born in sub-Saharan Africa, lucky to have two parents, lucky to grow up in a safe neighborhood, lucky to get braces and go to college, lucky to get a car at 16, lucky, lucky, fucking lucky. And so you shouldn't bitch about having to pay a little more in taxes than people making minimum wage, since they'd trade places with you in a heartbeat. Instead, you count yourself lucky, which you fucking are, and don't complain about 'fairness' and 'fair share' of the tax burden.

      In a civilized country, if you have more, you should pay more. Don't want that miserable burden? Fine, switch from dentistry to waiting tables.

      --
      A-Bomb
    96. Re:China by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Subsidies frequently run afoul of trade agreements and treaties, and generally piss people who aren't getting them off.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    97. Re:China by aliquis · · Score: 1

      As if I don't know China suck? It was just me saying "score!" because he happened to find a flaw :)

    98. Re:China by sjames · · Score: 1

      However, the theory of those was (correctly or incorrectly) that they are a part of the teetering leveraged house of cards that must be kept partially standing or the resulting collapse will devastate nearly everyone - even those who have nothing to do with Wall Street directly (no loans, no investments etc) - i.e., people who did nothing risky.

      Whenever capital needs to be injected, it can happen either at the top or the bottom of the economy. I'm saying it never seems to be done at the bottom. Yes, the bailout is loans. Why not provide those loans to people facing eviction so that they don't default? Keep in mind, many of these people acted on the advice of 'experts' who should have known better (and probably DID, but figured they could be long gone before the bubble burst).

      While no individual homeowner defaulting causes the collapse, a great many in aggregate DO. No individual homeowner needs billions in loans to not default either.

      The net economic result of applying the help at the bottom is roughly the same except that people would be a lot less resentful of the bailout and a lot less people would be foreclosed on. Of course, a lot less bankers would be able to continue jet-setting everywhere spending the bailout money on anything and everything but getting the economy moving again.

    99. Re:China by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      yes, because spending money to repair crumbling infrastructure that threatens lives and the economy is the same as throwing money down a hole to get votes from vocal minorities. There is a difference between "Pork," "Fiscal stimulus" and "public goods."

    100. Re:China by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      You are incorrectly assuming many manufacturers still remained in Taiwan. good luck finding them there.

      Seriously, though, "Made in China" is really more appropriately called "Assembled in China" because most of the valued components and material in "Made in China" products are really imported from US and other western countries. The design and more importantly, the brands, belong to U.S. companies. Finally, for most products, much of the retail values go to pay rents and sale people; the products themselves have little values. If those products are assembled in the U.S., they will assembled by workers whose salaries not better than fast food restaurant workers. Why, in most people's mind, that assembling jobs have high prestige than fast food servers? I don't understand.

      Finally, why you complain about junk products "Made in China," in Chinese forums, many many users were questioning why China exports all those products for junk U.S. debts 9and they ask their government not to bail out the U.S.) hmm... junk products exchange for junk debts. No doubt the two countries are the best trading partners!

    101. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I kill myself it's my own fault.

      What about if you kill them ?

      What about if you charge for a $1000 job, but only do a $100 job because you're incompetent ? How does the customer have any way of assessing whether you can do the job you say you can ?

    102. Re:China by drinkonlyscotch · · Score: 1

      I think US taxpayers are, by and large, morons.

      I think US CEOs are, by and large, morons as well.

    103. Re:China by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure charity donations count as a deduction on your taxes.

      --
      No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
    104. Re:China by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You really think lawyers and dentists and computer programmers work harder than truck drivers and construction workers and plumbers and career waitresses? It's easy to think so, if you've never worked a shit job.

      If they aren't doing a more difficult job than the construction workers/plumbers/waitresses, then why don't those who want to make more money just become dentists, lawyers, and physicians? Because you don't know the first damn thing about work ethic, ambition, economics, job economics, education or hard work. If your job doesn't pay you enough, you are in a country that allows you to choose to apply for a better job.

      What you want is theft. "What they earned, I deserve!" is the attitude that keeps people like you poor for the rest of their lives. You never work for what you want. You simply sit back and demand it while you do the least amount of work possible to get through your 9-to-5. You can take a rich man, put him in a trailer park and take everything away from him, and watch him become rich again within a year. Why? How? Because he knows that if he wants money, he has to earn it. He knows that spending money begins with having money, and having money is not a product of sitting on your ass wishing that the world was kinder to you.

      So shut the hell up if all you want to do with your voice is ask for handouts. Put your mind to work if you want to make more money. Your attitude and ambition are a thousand times more powerful than an heirloom career choice.

      Or enjoy being poor for the rest of your life, no matter how many government handouts you get.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    105. Re:China by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...Start with taxing gains on homes more aggressively....

      So our great government makes the money worth less and less making the price of real estate more in terms of those dollars. Then they turn around and tax the inflated money in addition. You are essentially advocating communism, where nobody is allowed to sell a commodity for more than they paid for it, by taking away a gain, which is really a loss, since the money will buy less and less. Real Estate is just another commodity bought and sold, like any other. Why should that commodity be singled out for extra taxes? You are basically advocating the outlawing of profit, which is at the core of a free economy.

      --
      All theory is gray
    106. Re:China by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The problem with subsidies is that they cost too much. If you were to subsidize every industry, you would in essence be taking all the free money someone has and then giving it back if they buy certain products.

      They are wonderful when the industry is your food or something to help establish a market that is better for the environment or something. But they suck for common everyday things like electronics.

    107. Re:China by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Total bollocks. The vast majority of people who are wealthy are so because of background, family support network and education - all privileges not available to the poorest folks in our country. You really think lawyers and dentists and computer programmers work harder than truck drivers and construction workers and plumbers and career waitresses? It's easy to think so, if you've never worked a shit job."

      But then...how do you explain people that get rich, that started from nothing? It isn't that far out of the ordinary. What about people that start out with all the perks...and fail?

      But I will concede..sure, everyone in life gets to start life from a different spot. But, then that is the story of humans since we've existed.

      It seems these days..that rich is now defined as MUCH lower than in the past. We're not talking millionairs that live solely off investments...today, rich is $250K-up...and yes I'd argue a large number of them got there mostly on their own. There are people that started from dirt...and yes, made sure they got educated...or some just had drive and everyone needs a few nice lucky breaks....you can't rule those out, it is part of life too, just as bad breaks are.

      In light of this...I'd argue that yes...the majority of people that are 'rich' by todays standards got there by hard work...and earned it. There are very few Paris Hiltons out there compared to the rest of us.

      And definition of hard work? Well..I think it depends on where/when you do your hard work. Do you do it early in life..sacrifice fun time and study to educate yourself? If so..you may have a physically easier job later than someone who goofs off, doesn't apply themselves, and later in life finds themselves in physical grind of a shit job. Now..that person still has a chance to make it, no doors are totally closed..but, the road is MUCH harder and the sacrifices are much more. So, it is a pay me now or pay me later type thing. When in your life do you want to make the sacrifices and work at hard for that level so that you make more $$ and have an indoor job?

      I'd go out on a limb, and say most people are good..those that make it are charity givers and don't mind helping out fellow, deserving people. They just don't like having it forced upon them b the govt. sucking money out of their pockets, and giving it to whomever is 'poor'...be it due to bad happenstance, or just lazy ass worthless leeches on the system.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    108. Re:China by Bombula · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your vitiol is laughable. It's obvious you've never spent 5 minutes talking to or working with people who are actually poor, who actually struggle, who actually dream of doing more, of having more, of being more, and who find that no matter how hard they work, no matter how hard they try, nothing makes any difference. Perhaps it has never occurred to you that it is possible to work like a dog with an IQ of 75? No, of course not, because you've never worked like a dog. Like so many other middle and upper class white people, you and I can blithely take for granted the ease with which we can simply choose to 'work hard' to become a doctor or dentist or banker or whatever else. Just turn up for class - not too hungover, if there's a test - and there'll be a 6-figure job waiting a few years down the road.

      It's also obvious you've never read so much a a single sentence of social justice theory, or you'd realize what a bourgois 17th Century aristocratic ponz you sound like. "Oh, Delilah, the peasants are poor because they're lazy - now pass me another crumpet, would you?"

      It's also obvious you've never been to a developing country and seen real poverty and anguish. You've obviously never helped a starving child or a person to whom a flush toilet is a marvel worthy of tears.

      Like so many others who are totally ignorant of the privilege of their birth class, you look at redistribution of wealth and opportunity to the poor and cry foul at the notion of undeserved entitlements, when it is you who have unwittingly and ungratefully reaped the rewards of privilege in an unfair and unjust world, and who would fight to maintain the status quo so that your children have those same advantages while the children of the poor grow your kids' food and clean up their shit - because of course they're too lazy to work hard enough to be rich...

      Time to wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

      --
      A-Bomb
    109. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assuming all the long term goals can be reached while maximizing short term profit. However, R&D is a classic example where it might take several years and several million to create a product that adds billions of dollars to a companies bottom line.

    110. Re:China by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Tax refunds don't work because they go to paying existing debt most of the time. You need to spend money in a specific way in order to get a refund. A tax cut spurs the economy because it instantly increases the value of investments which causes the investments to move.

      Lets say you have an investment and it makes you $100 in profit. Now, it is was a capitol gains, then the tax would be a flat 15% at the most. Suppose that was dropped to 10%. Instead of paying 15 dollars reducing your in pocket amounts to $85 it will now be a $10 tax leaving you with $90 to do something with. Now rich people don't sit on this money so they reinvest it. Cutting capitol gains is pretty much played out, lets look at regular income instead.

      Suppose you have a business or part ownership in one that pays you $100 a year on top of your normal salary (from anywhere). Now this isn't capitol gains, it is income and is taxes according to your income levels. Now suppose the maximum income tax rate is 35% You are going to keep $65 and pay $35. Now suppose that is dropped to 25%, you pay 25 and keep 75. So you invest that $75 instead of the $65. Now increase that $100 to $100,000, add the difference in the maximum taxable rates for their normal salaried incomes and in both scenarios and you will have the extra money going to areas of the economy that will spend the money as well as provide jobs for more then the "construction" workers and have an impact on more types of workers. A tax cut will effectivly increase the value of investment by the nature of the amounts not paid in taxes.

      With a tax refund, all your doing is giving the poor people back the money they couldn't afford to give in the first place so instead of it helping the economy, it will help pay bills owed in the economy creating a zero sum gain as far as the economy is concerned. Of course an across the board tax cut is the best way because it frees up money dedicated to repayal of debt in poorer people while increasing the investment infusions into all parts of the economy but it too has down falls when the increases in economic growth aren't enough to cover government expenditures.

      Infrastructure spending, as suggested by the Obama team, stimulates the economy by paying people who are unemployed at this time to repair roads and schools and lay new broadband fiber-optic cable. Those people take those new paychecks to the grocery store, Wally-World, and even local establshments such as ice-cream parlors and pizza restaurants to give their kids a treat. This money in the local economy encourages those stores to stock their shelves with more items. If this happens across the country, manufacturers, both local and international, start to ramp up production. Hell, they might even invest in new technology to reduce their production costs or to beat a competitor to market. That is what is meant by economic stimulation. That is what Obama wants.

      The problem with magic wand waving like this and the broken window fallacy is that it is a zero sum gain that doesn't provide the benefits you think it does. All money used in this way needs to be collected back which makes it a non-starter from the start if your willing to pay attention to both ends of the equation. It only effects a minority of people (those capable of doing certain types of construction work) and the only benefits it had in the past (FDR) was that it removed a sizable portion of the population from the economically impacted areas by creating the work camps near the construction zones. This was later exaggerated by WWII that ended up killing off the unemployed and poor people making it the only effective use in situations like this. It was the war that brought us out of the depression, not the public works projects.

      This is all despite that it does nothing to address the current problems that we are in. The problems aren't that people aren't working. Even though we have a record number of people unemployed, it isn't much compared to the total working

    111. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      faggot

    112. Re:China by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      Taiwan is not governed by the PRC in any way. That depends on whether you are asking a Chinese or a Taiwanese.

      How about we look at reality instead? Taiwan is de facto a country, and functions in a much more country-like manner than a UN-recognized countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo. If Taiwan were governed by China, then they probably wouldn't have public protests against Chinese human rights abuses or Falun Gong guys handing out pamphlets.

    113. Re:China by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Taiwan is not governed by the PRC in any way.

      That depends on whether you are asking a Chinese or a Taiwanese.

      No, it doesn't, it's a simple statement of fact. Similarly, Kosovo is not governed by Serbia, South Ossetia is not governed by Georgia, and Transnistria is not governed by Moldova.

      It's only the legal state of these entities that is under dispute.

    114. Re:China by master_p · · Score: 1

      The government does not have the solution.

      As opposed to you? which ones should I believe...the experts that are on the field for many years and have cut their teeth in it or you, the armchair economist?

      It is the problem.In the old days, back before the introduction of the Federal Reserve, stock market crashes happened on a regular basis, but nobody ran around for the next decade crying about it.

      The old days are not like the current days.

      The market just purged itself of bad assets and risky practices and recovered in a few months.

      The market then was the 1/10000000th of the today's market. Nowadays, there are hundreds of millions of people that have a job in the market. The social problems from the economy you describe would be *tremendous*....

      Nowadays, we make it far, far worse by trying to prevent the bad assets and insolvent businesses from failing by sucking solvent (good) assets out of the economy to prop up the insolvent (bad). The real solution is to simply let them fail.

      There is another solution: prevent the bad assets from happening in the first place. What we have today is, essentially, a Pyramid scheme:people 'sell' their houses to get a loan, banks 'sell' their loans to get investors, investors 'sell' their investments to other investors...all this money is just hot air.

      The Big Three auto mfgs. are in an impossible situation. They promised via union contracts to pay all their employees a comfortable sum for the rest of their lives. This is something that they simply cannot afford to do. What's the solution? Just let the company fail and the contracts dissolve. Someone else will buy the property and machines and start the company over.

      Yes, and let millions of people lose their jobs, starve to death, and have no money to buy the products of other companies. In other words, create a rippling effect that will truly destroy the economy.

      Now, it's true that this will be hard for those employees who were supposed to be taken care of, but unfortunately life isn't fair (my mother's favorite saying). The Bill of Rights does not guarantee happiness, only the right to pursue it (Google obama's bill of rights).

      Why should those employees pay for the risk their bosses took? their bosses are billionaires. It's the bosses that take the risk, the bosses should pay. That is truly fair. In case the bosses can't sustain their business, they should spend their own money investing in their own company and save it.

      Ford's owner will not have a problem living the rest of his life unemployed, because he has a vast fortune. Average Joe can't do this...

      If you really want to bail out struggling industries, try deregulating and cutting taxes.

      Cutting taxes is the worst thing that can be done when the economy does not go well. Taxes are a 'refund' to the society: cutting the taxes means more poverty.

      I, as a high school student,

      You, as a high school student, must go out there, try to maintain a decent job, try to raise a family, and then come back and talk about letting the market regulate itself or cutting taxes.

      If you haven't been in the battlefield, you can't talk about war.

      We used to have the best economy in the world.

      When exactly did you have the best economy?

      in the 19th century, there was a lot of exploitation of workers.

      In the first half of the 20th century, you had the great depression.

      In the middle of the 20th century, your economy was in great shape, but only thanks to World War II.

      In the late 20th century/early 21

    115. Re:China by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify my remark about printing money. You don't have to actually print money to create money.

      Say I'm the Federal Reserve. All I need to do is just suddenly lend people USD 2 trillion, and voila 2 trillion is created.

      Yes in theory they're supposed to pay it back, but the last I checked the Federal Reserve has been rather secretive about who got that 2 trillion, and what collateral they got for it ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY&refer=worldwide ).

      I don't see that drying stuff up. China et all are still buying US bonds, they're doing their part in helping to prop the whole thing up - I guess it's "Mutually Assured Financial Destruction" at the moment.

      Another example:

      Say I have just USD1.00. I buy something from you, and write an IOU that says I'll pay USD2.00 for it in 30 years time. You accept it.

      I take the stuff I bought from you, "add value" and sell it for USD2.50.

      You take that IOU and you sell it for USD1.10.

      Voila, money is being created :).

      Yet another example:

      Say I am a bank only allowed to lend up to 50% of deposits. You deposit USD1.
      I lend USD0.50 to someone.
      Say that someone deposits USD0.25 later on.
      I lend USD0.12 to someone else.
      And so on... Add up the money circulating and it's more than before.

      Then the Gov suddenly tells me I can lend more than 50% of deposits. Voila more money created :).

      --
    116. Re:China by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I also ought to be able to go and install a floor, furnace or pipe in someone's house, if they're willing to pay me. If I kill myself it's my own fault.

      How about if you kill them through your stupidity?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    117. Re:China by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      To a constitutionalist (which I am), pork may be defined defined as any spending that is not authorized by the Constitution, and, therefore, by the 9th and 10th Amendments, prohibited. Every constitutionalist understands that infrastructure not spanning multiple States is a State matter, not a federal one.

      To a libertarian (which I also am), pork may be defined as any spending not necessary for the protection of life, liberty or property. Every libertarian understands that infrastructure is too important to leave in the hands of a monopoly (whether government or any other kind), and tries to envision ways to build and maintain it with minimal impact to taxpayers or anyone else.

      To an anarchist (which I also am), pork may be defined as any spending that is not voluntary. Period. Doesn't matter how much or what it's for. Every anarchist understands that you have the right to spend YOUR money, not mine (at least not without my consent) and that I have the right to spend MY money, not yours, at least not without your consent. Every anarchist further understands that infrastructure, while important, does not justify the coercion or violence that is inherent in anything governments do, and both can and must be built and maintained through entirely voluntary and peaceful means.

      See the link in my sig for a more detailed and eloquent explanation of the above.

    118. Re:China by DeltaFour · · Score: 1

      You correctly point out what is seen, but you miss what is not seen. In order to pay for the infrastructure, the government must take money from my pocket (taxes). Thus I have less money to spend at

      the grocery store, Wally-World, and even local establshments such as ice-cream parlors and pizza restaurants

      Infrastructure must provide a sufficient return to compensate for my thinner wallet. Smart infrastructure spending does this; vacuous infrastructure spending accomplishes nothing more than moving money from A to B.

      We must consider both the benefits of the proposed infrastructure and also whether it should be funded by public dollars.

    119. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Vitriol". "Bourgeois". Oh, and let's not forget "AS" (I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to figure out where that one was). Geez, if you insist on using big important-sounding words you should at least learn to spell them properly.

      And what the hell is a "ponz"? Some weird spelling of "ponce"?

    120. Re:China by J-1000 · · Score: 1

      I would like to consider your argument, but you didn't really back it up. You said the Fed and taxes were partly to blame for the Great Depression, but you didn't really explain why or how it correlates to what's being done today. And everything else you said was merely a rehash of the standard conservative "hands-off" motto.

      How about considering the fact that, due to a *lack* of regulation, countless loans were given to people who couldn't pay them back, causing houses to be built but not paid for, sending our economy into a tailspin?

      Or how about the fact that, again due to a *lack* of regulation, we have companies so large that their success or failure has global economic implications?

      You assume things will bounce back if a company fails and sells its assets. You may be right but you haven't convinced me. And you haven't discussed the amount of *time* required for this bounce back. A few years might be acceptable. But what if it's 50 years? 100?

      Now, it's true that this will be hard for those employees who were supposed to be taken care of, but unfortunately life isn't fair.

      And hard for anyone with a contract. And hard for anyone working for those contracted companies. And hard for anyone selling items to those people working for those contracted companies. And on and on. Letting them dissolve may be the best option, but it's not the default solution.

      What is worse? Allowing big companies to drain federal resources for a time, or allowing our entire economy to slump for a time? Are they even mutually exclusive? Tough questions, and I don't think the conservative ideology is going to solve them by itself.

    121. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your entire post is a rant on how we should "save the economy" at the cost of the people. Why? What good is a strong economy if it's hurting people? It's just a pissing contest.

      The economy itself has very little relevance to most people. It's really easy to measure, but the economy is something for economists to worry about.

      The real issues for society are standard of living and quality of life. The economy is one of many tools for working towards better living. It is NOT the beginning and the end.

      There are plenty of things that are good for society that will hurt the economy. You have to put your priorities in order.

    122. Re:China by wilec · · Score: 1

      "employment. I, as a high school student, ought to be able to go and flip burgers for a pittance. (Hey, I've an idea! Let's require computer techs to be licensed before they can run helpdesks or do house calls! That way we make sure people don't pay for bad work!) I also ought to be able to go and install a floor, furnace or pipe in someone's house, if they're willing to pay me. If I kill myself it's my own fault."

      And when you burn the customers house down and possibly the neighbors as well and kill all the occupants? But the Geek Squad should be licensed? Well it fits with the rest of you dystopian logic I guess. I am a licensed master electrician and certified controls technician and have been around long enough to have a grasp of what licensing and certification is about, you are as clueless in this area as you are of history.

      If it where not for the efforts and sacrifices of liberal progressives and and workers unions you would not have many things you take for granted every day. The clean water piped to your home, the shit that gets piped away. The electrical grid, one of the FDR things you seem to hate that I don't think you have any idea what it would be like to do without. The banking regulatory system that even today still provides some protection to your assets, even though it and the SEC has had their nuts cut off by the last few Republican congresses, and populated by lackeys at the top by a Republican President. The Social Security - FDR again - system that would have seen to it children like yourself could stay warm and eat if you lost your family and hopefully will still ensure you parents will not have to beg off their children or suck theist ass in later life if worst comes to worst for them. The public school system that despite its many failings that lifted most of a a nation out of illiteracy, something which benefits us all. The telecom/internet systems that allow you to post your drivel for the entire world to read. The highways that allow movement of goods and services as well as you ass. The public health system that eliminated smallpox and TB and fights daily against new threats with organizations like the CDC and your local health dept. The medical emergency care system that ensure you will not be left to bleed to death on the sidewalk, though it is in a pretty piss poor state today thanks mostly to insurance companies. The national atmospheric and oceanographic organization that is at the root of every weather forecast and warning. The right the work reasonable hours with a base for wages only slightly less that what it really takes to live on. Regulatory agencys like the NFPA & services like the fire dept that might save the folks your amateur furnace installation could kill. I would include the police but they for a large part have been infected with a facist mentality.

      What continues to amaze me is the hypocritical nature of an ideology whose base denies physical evolution but embraces wholeheartedly a ruthless belief in a social survival of the fittest mentality.

      wabi-sabi
      matthew

    123. Re:China by KozmoKramer · · Score: 1

      --"There are some fields where it is possible (construction, restaurants...) but most are tied to foreign manufacturers."

      Construction - Much of the wood used in the US is cut down overseas and imported now.
      Restaurants - Checked the source of that South American Beef lately?

      --
      My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
    124. Re:China by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      The government does not have the solution. It is the problem.

      The ghost of Ronald Reagan posting from beyond the grave! Hold me, I'm scared!

      If you really want to bail out struggling industries, try deregulating and cutting taxes.

      What the hell are you talki....

      I, as a high school student,

      Oh.

    125. Re:China by bendodge · · Score: 1

      I agree that child labor regulations and safety regulations are necessary, but there's no reason to license so many types of manual labor. There's no reason to license tile-laying and roofing. But notice the glaring omission of electrical from my list. That is something that can seriously injure people and property if done wrong. We have to find a middle ground on these issues. I suspect most of the absurd licensing requirements exist because professional laborers want to discourage new competition, not because of safety.

      Also, the minimum wage is a very bad idea. If Congress raises the minimum wage, it doesn't make workers' lives better. They just get laid off.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    126. Re:China by bendodge · · Score: 1

      I admit to listing to Reagan speeches...

      --
      The government can't save you.
    127. Re:China by operagost · · Score: 1

      You really think lawyers and dentists and computer programmers work harder than truck drivers and construction workers and plumbers and career waitresses? It's easy to think so, if you've never worked a shit job.

      You don't know me, so I'll help you by pointing out that I planted on a farm, performed menial tasks for a contractor, stocked shelves, and worked a cash register. Those run the gamut from "shit" to "merely dull".

      Now that I've established my credentials, I'll point out that all of the jobs you listed in group A all require two to eight years of education and training to perform. That's unpaid time. Some of the jobs in group B require minimal training on the order of days or mere hours, usually while being paid. Spending two to eight years and thousands of dollars to pursue a career is taking on a burden of risk and is analogous to the apprenticeship and journeymanship of blue-collar skilled laborers such as electricians and plumbers... incidentally, those type of jobs in group B are also paid well because they worked hard and assumed risk in their careers, just somewhat less than in group A.

      In a civilized country, if you have more, you should pay more.

      Suppose we have a flat tax of 20%. I earn $58,000. Ignoring any deductions, I would pay $11,600 in taxes. Joe worker makes $30,000. He pays $6,000. Is this less than $11,600? A graduated tax is not a fair tax, and calling it that does not make it so. Just admit that you want government controlled redistribution of wealth and then we can confer truthfully.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    128. Re:China by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

      You've got it all backwards. I grew up working in industrial printshops, factories, and orchards. I've worked as an assembly line operator, printer, lumper, commercial painter, glorified janitor, and more -- and without exception, at every job, I was known as the tireless machine. I could build a misted greenhouse from nothing but a pencil, sheet of paper, and a few bucks to buy lumber, sheeting, and piping, in a single afternoon, by the time I was 16. I've carried and shoveled more concrete, peat, manure, gravel, sand, and bark than you even know exists...

      I've sat in African, Serbian, and Iranian refugee camps, speaking to people who actually DO have class divisions in their countries and/or were hunted by their governments for their political ambitions.

      Two years ago, I decided to uproot where I was, donated most of what I had (whatever didn't fit into my car, and all the money I had but $2,000), moved out of state to somewhere where I had no friends or family. I had no support system here at all. I arrived homeless. After I found a suitable apartment, I was penniless (month rent + security = $150 for food and an internet connection) with a breaking-down car.

      Now, I'm making three times what I was making 2 years ago, and drive a not-breaking-down Lexus, so the exercise not only interesting, but it was a success -- and it was no thanks to my non-existent "middle-to-upper class white people" advantage. If you want to talk class restrictions in America, why don't you go tell it to someone who will listen to your fairy tales. I've shovelled enough manure in my life to know bullsh*t when I see it.

      Maybe next time you can try to convince Jon Krakauer that he doesn't know the first thing about the dangers of hiking.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    129. Re:China by Bombula · · Score: 1

      Late, beer and laziness. Apologies to your fragile sensibilities.

      --
      A-Bomb
    130. Re:China by Bombula · · Score: 1

      Hurray for you. My story is similar. Of course, that obviously negates all of my points, since our two examples must obviously prove that the color of your skin, the quality of your upbringing, the wealth of your family and community, and your citizenship are irrelevant to your personal and financial success...

      Give me a break. You and I both know being a dentist or a lawyer is a pipedream for 99.999% of kids in the ghetto or trailer parks or those Serbian and Iranian refugees you supposedly sat with, and it has fuck-all to do with their work ethic. A study just last week showed that if your mom eats well during pregnancy your IQ can be up to 15 points higher for Christ's sake, and you're honestly going to tell me it makes no difference what hand you're dealt as a kid? Ridiculous.

      --
      A-Bomb
    131. Re:China by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

      Show me any healthy individual who can't become what they want to be, and I'll show you someone whose laziness exceeds their ambition. In this country, that is all there is to it.

      You don't think you're the pinnacle of human creation, do you? You think that you're so much better than everyone else that you can do what you want to do and they can't? You're not. If they want to be, people can be smart, determined, athletic, successful, pleasant to be around, and not give up as easily as you think. Get over yourself and realize that everyone else can be just as talented as you. Mix that talent with ambition, and you have ghetto kids becoming astronauts if they want to be, and if they never listen to anyone, like you, who tells them it's not plausible because of their parents' financial situation or the color of their skin.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    132. Re:China by Copid · · Score: 1

      Somewhat true. But by saving, people make the money available to others to borrow (assuming they don't literally store it under their mattress - which few people do) -- this additional capital simulates the economy.

      This is true in the general case, but we're not in one of those situations right now. At this point, anybody with extra money appears to be holding cash or government debt rather than private debt. The credit markets are frozen. The yield on the 4-week treasury dipped negative yesterday. Putting cash back into the hands of lenders isn't going to change that.

      The side effect of this frozen state is that the government can take up the slack by borrowing and spending. It can borrow at ridiculously low rates now, so while we would normally cut taxes and let private industry use the extra money to invest, in this case you'll probably get a significantly bigger bang out of pubic deficit spending.

      As I see it, the real problem is that there aren't many good infrastructure projects that are worth doing that could start *right now*. At least, not many when compared to the excess capacity that the slack in our economy has created.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    133. Re:China by Copid · · Score: 1

      What you propose (and Obama) is the same as FDR... but the New Deal didn't get the economy going again, WW2 did.

      I'm consistently amazed at the common refrain that World War II restarted the economy used as an argument that public spending can't restart a stalled economy.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    134. Re:China by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... as far as I know, they would have ended up like India, if they did not reduce their population's growth. But i think, two children would make more sense.

      When their number falls too fast, be sure that they will stop the policy, and "recommend" as much children as possible.
      They only have to have the resources for this first. Which seems to work pretty well, when you see how they practically bought the USA and the OPEC countries.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    135. Re:China by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Huh? A bad job roofing can certainly cause injury to people. At the very least, it shows that the person knows what they are doing.. or you'd rather have people just put shingles on roofs without nailing them down and run off with the money?

      Minium wage is not a very bad idea; McDs just can't lay off all its workers, or it won't be operating anymore. It wouldn't be needed if companies would pay fairly to begin with.

      Any regulation on a business is fair game; they give up any right against regulation when they get their legal fiction which shields them (the people owning / running the company) from much liability.

  2. No doubt with free spyware and internet filtering. by Chineseyes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Was that really necessary to get the story across?

    --
    I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

    --A wise old fart named SC0RN
  3. Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, we're behind in broadband. But with the size of our country, it costs a lot more to build the infrastructure than most of the countries ahead of us.

    1. Re:Size by pxlmusic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      exactly. but i remember hearing a story in the late 90s about the guy who founded Qwest was heir to a railroad company or something. basically, he sold off all the land around the tracks except for a certain number of feet on either side of the tracks. the trains were then outfitted with something that would automatically lay fiber.

      this could be total crap, but i don't know.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    2. Re:Size by bdcrazy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not sure about trains outfitted with automatic fiber laying machinery, but I know about specially made train cars that lay fiber. The nice thing about railroads and fiber is that at the turn of last century, railroads were giving large swaths of right of way for running tracks from town to town. So the railroads usually connect towns together, the same towns that are perhaps wanting digital connectivity. Also, many lines used to have multi track routes, and these have been reduced to reduce maintenane and then you have wide areas where you can lay fiber without much fear of running into many obstacles. This allows easier connections of towns by running cables along the railroad right of way.

      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
    3. Re:Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're thinking Southern Pacific Railroad International...aka SPRINT.

  4. No. by m0s3m8n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is a fallacy that you need computers in schools. Teach the kids reading, writing and math skills, the rest can come later. Computers are a drain on schools with already tight budgets. We went to moon with engineers and scientists who did not have computers.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
    1. Re:No. by m0s3m8n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Edit: We went to moon with engineers and scientists who did not have computers - when they were in school.

      --
      Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
    2. Re:No. by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      They don't need paper and pens either, the engineers and architects that built the Empire State Building and the Hoover Dam used slates and chalk at school.

      Actually you don't need slate and chalk either...

    3. Re:No. by 0racle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Computers in schools have been a colossal waste of money. In the 'computer lab' you spend years upon years 'learning Word' and typing. In the classrooms, teachers don't know what to do with the systems so they sit there, the faculty to scared to touch them.

      The school system is broken, throwing magical boxes at the problem won't fix it.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:No. by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you know how hard it is to get any sort of job in an office without any typing skills? I'm not talking something that requires a degree, but something as simple as fetch-the-coffee-for-the-boss to write-an-email-to-reschedule-a-meeting. Typing is a valuable skill that will give you the option between an office job and digging ditches.

      Maybe I was really friggin lucky growing up and going to school in Fairfax County, but we had a class on HTML. We had plenty of Pascal, BASIC, and C classes. As a matter of fact, knowing enough BASIC to program your mandatory TI-82 calculator for calculus class was a MUST. We used computers in Physics, Astronomy, hell, even Economics.

      Don't hate because you didn't get the opportunity. Love the fact that our children will have it.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    5. Re:No. by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Back in my day, we wrote on each other's naked backs with our bloody-stumped fingers. And we didn't have all your fancy letters either — we had to get by with three.

    6. Re:No. by neokushan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not a problem with computers in schools, that's a problem with the teaching syllabus. All too often, the computer classes are just passed off onto general teachers who have, at most, some worthless Microsoft Certificate in Word 97.

      If we taught them more about proper usage of computers, such as basic maintenance (defrag, virus scan, etc.), emails (And the dangers of random attachments), etc. we'd probably save billions on tech support costs just a few short years down the line. I dread to think how much money is wasted on trivial calls to the Tech support line that could have been avoided with some simple, basic knowledge such as this.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    7. Re:No. by joggle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on your profession. I was fortunate to attend a school that had a computer lab that allowed me to learn how to program on my own time (my family couldn't afford a computer at home at the time).

      If you come from a poor family having computers at school is a real boon. I don't think studious kids should be punished by not being allowed access to computers due to the majority not using them for educational purposes.

      I also don't think the school system is broken. There's nothing stopping kids from going to school and being productive except their own lack of discipline and work ethic.

    8. Re:No. by KindMind · · Score: 1

      Were those three letters I, B, and M?

      --
      Politicians complicate life - logic is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
    9. Re:No. by lilomar · · Score: 3, Funny

      We used to DREAM of having three letters. When I went to school, we only had one letter, and we only used that on exam days. Every other day, we drew pictures on the ceiling with our bloody toes, which we had to gnaw off ourselves.

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    10. Re:No. by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Computers in schools have been a colossal waste of money. In the 'computer lab' you spend years upon years 'learning Word' and typing.

      In school, using computers I learned BASIC programming, Logo, the relation between frequency and musical notes, binary arithmetic, and quite a lot else -- and that's just 4th through 6th grade, in the 1980s, without the internet (or any other kind of net.) The problem's I've seen in recent years in schools with computers is that we've vastly expanded the number of computers in schools and the percentage of students that have access to them -- but eliminated most of the idea of a coherent, meaningful use of computers to teach anything, other than the use of computers as generic office tools.

      Of course, the way public school teachers are compensated or treated, if they had the skills to do anything else, they could make four times as much money with much better non-financial working conditions outside of the schools, so I'm not really surprised; there are still some people out there doing better, but the number of people with both the skills and the willingness to suffer through the environment that school teachers have is small. More computers in more schools won't help without dealing with that issue, and more broadband penetration will only help a little (it'll help some of the places that are doing good in this respect do better).

    11. Re:No. by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      What did the architects of the Egyptian pyramids use?

      I think bringing technology into schools is a good thing. You can still teach kids the basics (math, reading, writing, etc) on computers, and also plenty of new things as well.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    12. Re:No. by internerdj · · Score: 1

      We didn't have any programming courses. We had typing and computer literacy. Until high school, I wanted to be a chemist but I changed my mind the first day we were handed our TI-82s and haven't looked back. I love to program, and although I was really bad at it in high school because I couldn't get any training that was where I got the bug. And my typing class has been invaluable, and I'm sure that is the case for more than just the two of us that have gone on to develop software. We learned on typewriters cause we couldn't afford to have that many computers. I think it made us better, but we spent alot of time on things like how to properly use whiteout that is really worthless for most modern offices.
      To the GP,
      Do you think it is a waste to have chemicals and equipment for chemistry students? Seriously how many of those kids are really going to use chemistry hands on? Now how many are going to have to touch a computer sometime? If you don't think the chemistry equipment is expensive, then why do you have lab partners? I know in my school it was because we couldn't afford enough equipment to go around, in fact some times we had several groups rotating through a particular apparatus.

    13. Re:No. by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 1

      We used to DREAM of having three letters. When I went to school, we only had one letter, and we only used that on exam days. Every other day, we drew pictures on the ceiling with our bloody toes, which we had to gnaw off ourselves.

      You try and tell young people of today that, and they won't believe you.

    14. Re:No. by Marc+Desrochers · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed. Simply putting a computer in a classroom has no effect. Without incorporating it's use as part of the curriculum, what is most likely to happen is that it will sit there unused. There also has to be the support in place to maintain them.

    15. Re:No. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I agree. I don't want our children to grow up dependent on computers. I want all children to be able to figure out problems like this:

      given the following 275 gallon fuel oil tank (assuming the top and bottom are semicircular along the length of the tank), how much oil is in the tank for each inch of depth? You never know when you'll be called on to figure out things like this. The area between a chord of a circle and it's circumference isn't something generally taught, but it can be derived from trig or geometry.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    16. Re:No. by jimbobborg · · Score: 1

      Where did you go, Thomas Jefferson HS? When I went (MVHS) we were the last class to use MANUAL typewriters. No white out, we had to use typing erasers. Programming was taught in Algebra or this one programming business class.

      Of course, now my daughter is in Prince William County, and she has computer use as part of some of her classes. No programming, just basic word processing. We had to get her a USB key.

    17. Re:No. by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Informative

      IMO, this is exactly the issue. We should figure out our education problem before we spend money and put more distractions into the schools. Yes, distractions. If you can't READ and you graduate from high school, having a computer isn't going to help you. And, by the way, paying a bureaucratic school system more money isn't going to help education either. Nor is making homeschooling illegal (California has been trying for a long time), making it harder for private schools, putting even more emphasis on arts, music, etc.

      And, by the way, this coming from a homeschooled, private schooled, music and computer science major. I was very involved in music and even I think that arts/music/sports/extra-curricular activities are way too focused on in schools.

      Oh, and we should start flunking kids that get to their senior year of high school and can't read. A high failure rate in a grade is better than a high passing rate of ignorant students. Stop making excuses for the kids and actually expect them to learn. After that, maybe we can talk about putting in broadband and computers.

    18. Re:No. by megamerican · · Score: 1

      My class had a class close to that, which was aimed at A+ certification. Most of the people in that class with me knew their way around a computer already and spent most of the time playing games on the internet. I was kicked off the school computers for the last month and a half at school (don't ask) and had to sit in a room by myself during that period. They had one book for the class, which I read out of boredom. When I took the A+ test I got 100%, whereas most of my class barely passed with only two others getting 90+%.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    19. Re:No. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      How is writing an important skill? This year, I wrote, maybe, 1000 words with a pen. If that. I type more per day than I write per year.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re:No. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I know some computer programmers ,well if you can call them that, that didn't have computers as kids.

      I also know some old people who didn't have computers as kids.

      Do they have problems, are they missing out on quite a lot of valuable information. what do you think?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    21. Re:No. by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      I went to Herndon High School. My stint was from 1993-1997. There was a single room full of typewriters for "typing" class. However, there were probably 20+ rooms full of computers, plus a handful of computers in just about every room. We had a shared T1 link to George Mason University for internet access (before most people ever even heard of it) and personal dedicated shares (and global shares) for our work.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    22. Re:No. by scientus · · Score: 1

      agreed computers are importand, but its not like the schools have any idea on how to use them.

      The networks are so tied down that you cant do anything. Schools should allow each student to have a VM and have root access, and secure the net so that they cant do enormous harm, then the students can hack etc, and i guess the schools can still put in content filtering through firewalls, etc.

      The only way to actually learn anything about computer in todays schools besides "learning word" (the type of stuff which students already know but teachers really don't) is to hack them, and schools don't like that--it should be the other way, hacking should be encouraged, and any really important stuff should be segregated + quality backups, and imaging ready for when the smart kid figures something out.

    23. Re:No. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      I agree. My college just finished renovating its science building, and instead of a bunch of shiny machines, I was surprised at how *little* technology they actually use. They still use blackboards, still require students take notes on paper, and still do the math the "old fashioned" way of using your brain.

      We need more of that type of teaching at the middle school and high school level, not a bunch of pretty gadgets.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    24. Re:No. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Oh, and we should start flunking kids that get to their senior year of high school and can't read.

      They should have been flunked a long time before high school if they can't read......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    25. Re:No. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      No not really.

      Most people use their computers like they were televisions - and they resemble the classic couch potato as well. I'm sorry but I don't see the need to spend trillions in taxpayer dollars just to encourage more sloth in front of a flickering screen (TV, computer, or otherwise).

      See my previous post about colleges making using of BRAINS rather than technology to teach kids.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    26. Re:No. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      I learned typing on a $50 typewriter. You don't need a $3000 PC.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    27. Re:No. by Slacksoft · · Score: 1

      We're still teaching kids with the same books as those engineers and scientists who took us to the moon. Unfortunately the textbooks are in such disrepair they look as if they were taken to the moon and brought back tucked nicely in a bag full of moon rocks. At least with computers, with books loaded on them hopefully (not kindle sorry), they'd be able to do work in other classes. That way kids can share text, and be able to not have to haul seriously outdated heavy books room to room. My back is still hunched from doing that for all of high school.

    28. Re:No. by amram9999 · · Score: 1

      Shiny new boxes won't fix the problem, but putting useful software on the machines would help. For example, Sugar has lot of useful software that will challenge kids intellectually. The Sugar community is working on bootable Live USB images with persistent data storage, so that you can keep your OS and data on a flash drive, and run it on whatever computer is available to you (at school or home).

      Changing teacher's attitudes would also help. Many teachers are intimidated by technology, but I think they are more intimidated that their students know more than they do about it. Learning technology requires some humility on the part of teachers.

    29. Re:No. by amram9999 · · Score: 1

      Or we could teach kids about Linux which doesn't normally require defragmenting or virus scanners.

      But more to the point, kids should be learning a lot more than Word or computer maintenance. The computer should be a tool to help students learn whatever is in the curriculum, whether it be English, Math, or Computer Science.

    30. Re:No. by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      > What did the architects of the Egyptian pyramids use?

      Joke answers:
      1) They used the aliens' computers.
      2) They outsourced their computing needs to the Stonehenge facility.

    31. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then all those tech guys would be unemployed.

    32. Re:No. by TuaAmin13 · · Score: 1

      I bet that made taking multiple choice tests easy. Only one letter that is.

    33. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are paying $3000 for a PC, you are doing it wrong.

    34. Re:No. by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're still teaching kids with the same books as those engineers and scientists who took us to the moon.

      I don't know about your community, but in mine, the majority of people felt it was more important to install stadium lighting and artificial turf than to get new text books, so I can't take complaints about old books too seriously.

    35. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took a year long class that was typing first semester, then Access, Excel, PowerPoint, and Photoshop the next semester. This was an elective. You had to take typing first before they'd consider letting you program. When I was finally able to fit programming in my schedule (Java and HTML), the programming teacher decided to move to Savannah to open an Irish pub with her sister, husband, and sister's husband.

    36. Re:No. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      It is a fallacy that you need computers in schools. Teach the kids reading, writing and math skills, the rest can come later. Computers are a drain on schools with already tight budgets. We went to moon with engineers and scientists who did not have computers.

      I completely agree with teaching the basics first. Without those, you're just another idiot behind a keyboard.

      Not to mention the average household already has at least one computer, and usually has some form of Internet access, so it doesn't necessarily have to "come later" for most.

    37. Re:No. by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Funny

      No it is not. It's a fallacy that I still have to tell high school students to "click on the start button" or "read the error", just like I do with their grandparents.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    38. Re:No. by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      I was lucky enough to have come from a school district that invested heavily in technology. It's not just about learning to type, it's about learning modern research, communication, and collaboration methods.

      Computers cost less than text books these days, and the Internet provides a bottomless wealth of information to feed a child's curiosity.

      Upgrading computers falls right in line with using updated textbooks. It's true that some smart people 50 years ago used 50 year old research tools to thrive in the workforce from 50 years ago. That doesn't mean that a student today would be able to get anything out of 50 year old research materials.

    39. Re:No. by Kaboom13 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. In middle school(aka Junior high), I had the pleasure of going to a brand new school, part of a pilot project that gave it a massive budget for technology compared to the rest of the district. Each classroom had 4 state of the art computers, and we had multiple computer labs with 30+ brand new computers. The buildings were linked with fiber and a "state of the art" network. A computer "expert" was hired, at a salary large enough to hire 2-3 teachers, to administrate it.

      What was the result of all of this?
      The cabling for the network was done so poorly it had to be completely torn out and redone 3 months after the school opened (creating headaches and disruptions for teachers actually trying to teach). The computers sat in classrooms still in boxes, waiting for lawsuits with the company contracted to install and set them up to be resolved (they charged the district 2x the market value of the computers, did not deliver all the computers they charged for, and never fulfilled their contractual obligation to set them up).

      The computer "expert" was a blowhard without a clue. He was unable to solve simple problems, and was completely clueless. As the resident "computer kid", I wound up fixing and troubleshooting most of the computers, and doing his job. They let me take computer apps as my elective every semester, and I would go around fixing computers and helping the handful of teachers who attempted to use them for various projects. While I was gone on a multi-day field trip, the "expert" (who claimed to have a Doctorate in C.S.) tried to setup a new computer lab without me, and hooked all the brand new iMacs up to the ethernet network with the phone cables included in the box.

      Things came to a head my 8th and final year at that school. The expert had been forced to arrange a training class on a weekend for a group of administrators in the school system. This class included top people in the county school system. When, in front of all these people he could not get the very software he was supposed to be training them on to work, he was very embarrassed. He needed a scapegoat, so he claimed to have evidence the presentation was "hacked" and the attack came from a computer I used to host various repair software on the network. Although he provided 0 evidence, I was hauled into the office the following day. A sheriff's deputy was brought in and told me I had committed computer crimes and could be arrested. I was suspended 7 days and expulsion proceedings started.

      Several teachers and guidance counselors came to my defense, and my parent's began consulting with an attorney (because there was no evidence to support his claims). Eventually they realized they had 0 proof I had done anything wrong, besides the word of said expert, and the expulsion was dropped and the suspension purged from my permanent record.

      So, in trying to be helpful, and learn about computers, I wound up framed by the professional they hired (making in excess of $100k a year) to cover his own incompetence. In their ignorance about all things technology, the administration over reacted, then tried to cover-up, then lied about the entire incident.

      From there I moved on to a high school that had a special magnet program for computers. There we used the computers to hone our Quake and Starcraft skills, and not much else.

      I graduated HS in 2003, so the average level of computer knowledge has greatly increased since then, but the reality is giving school systems computers accomplishes nothing. In order to make them effective at all as learning tools, you need to build an infrastructure from top to bottom. That means you
      A. Need kids that can read well, do basic math, and exercise critical thinking and problem solving. Without these skills, computer use is an exercise in rote memorization, which accomplishes nothing. Most public schools do not impart these skills on a majority of their students.

      B. Need an administration aware of the advantages and disadvantages of t

    40. Re:No. by SunnyDaze · · Score: 1

      You would think so, but alas do to cutbacks we never got to find out what letter it was.

    41. Re:No. by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Computers in schools have been a colossal waste of money. In the 'computer lab' you spend years upon years 'learning Word' and typing. In the classrooms, teachers don't know what to do with the systems so they sit there, the faculty to scared to touch them. The school system is broken, throwing magical boxes at the problem won't fix it.

      If you have staff to afraid to touch the "magical boxes", then hire more competent staff. Damn, hire some young teachers who actually grew up with computers and tech and are proficient enough with them to at least not be afraid to USE them.

      And for all you teachers sitting around dreaming about the good old days when you used to be able to use a paper gradebook instead of this "newfangled online thing", wake up. You need to learn to use technology just as bad as your students. If you refuse, then don't be surprised when you get replaced by someone who is willing to adapt.

    42. Re:No. by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 2, Informative

      good luck trying to fail students. Government loves padded stats that make them appear to be doing their job. Pass more kids means everyone's getting smarter right?

      There is this kid i know going back to school for his diploma and the questions are so ridiculously easy. I could have passed them in 3rd grade and i'm a high school dropout.

      One part was the difference between a mountain, a valley and a plain. This is the bar being set for your children? You've gotta be f***ing s***ing me!

      Please, Please, Please people tell government in california to stay out of our schools. The "results" they want are stats, not smart children.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    43. Re:No. by sorak · · Score: 1

      Edit: We went to moon with engineers and scientists who did not have computers - when they were in school.

      And if they had to do it again today, they would use computers. The fact is that there are plenty of examples throughout our history of self-taught men who never spent a day in school. Does that mean we should just close down the schools and buy our kids a copy of "hooked on phonics"?

    44. Re:No. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we taught them more about proper usage of computers, such as basic maintenance (defrag, virus scan, etc.), emails (And the dangers of random attachments), etc. we'd probably save billions on tech support costs just a few short years down the line.

      On the other hand, if we taught them to be less passive when it comes to acquiring and using knowledge to solve problems, we wouldn't have to teach them about system janitorial tasks that are apt to be obsolete in a few years.

      For example, if you teach them to question the information they receive, to think about it critically, then you protect them not only against email scams, you protect them against future forms of scamming. Such critical thinking skills might have undesirable political consequences, I suppose.

      Likewise if you teach students to take initiative in solving problems, they will be able to handle whatever the equivalent of "defragging a hard drive" is in 2050.

      The way I see it, too much of school reform is focused on "things kids should know". While by in large this is a good thing, students ought to have some experience of setting the fact finding agenda themselves. I don't think everybody should get out of high school with a working knowledge of electronics, but it should be possible that any student might acquire such a knowledge in the process of pursing other educational goals.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    45. Re:No. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      SCHOOL? Back when I was that age, we hadn't even invented school! Now get of my lawn, you young punk!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    46. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And neither when they first got there. They had slide rules. My uncle was an engineer that worked in NASA and he always complains how pissed they were that the first moon lander was 10ft off where it was supposed to land. All they had for the calculations was paper, pencils (lots of them in their pocket protectors...), slide rules, and their brains.

    47. Re:No. by n0084ever · · Score: 0
      IMO, it's not at all about the technology that's used. it's about the quality of education students get. that is not dependent upon technology but rather upon those teaching class.

      IMO, what is needed to really "fix" education is something like school choice and merit pay for teachers. we have so many choices in other areas, but granted not all. but, in those where choice is available, the provider witht he best overall product/service usually wins out, because of competition. why is there no competition among schools for the best and brightest students based on school performance?

      allow school choice for parents and students. that will show which schools are doing well, and which are not. maybe then, someone will get motivated to improve the quality of the service they provide.

    48. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do to cutbacks

      ...they saved money by replacing "ue" with "o".

    49. Re:No. by Tatsh · · Score: 1

      A job essentially created by Microsoft's crappy software gone. Yay.

      'Tech guys' should manage important things, sites, DBs, servers, etc. And I am talking whether it is Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, anything server-ish. They should not be fixing someone's 'I've got popups coming up like crazy now' problems. These problems could have been avoided (by the user and the software vendor)!

    50. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? We should be teaching kids how to cope with MS's software failures (defrags, virus scans, etc...) instead of teaching them how to be productive with a computer?

      I'm not sending my kids to THAT school.

    51. Re:No. by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      "Or we could teach kids about Linux which doesn't normally require defragmenting or virus scanners. "

      Exactly. I (a Mac user) was about to make a funny quip about that too, but it's becoming sad and pointless any more.

      Instead of wasting your time on this kids, it's better to waste your time on that...

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    52. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also nothing stopping kids from staying home and being productive except their own lack of discipline and work ethic. Willpower is not some inviolate law that anyone can invoke, and the entire reason we have teachers is to make up for the fact that people in general don't have a whole lot of it.

    53. Re:No. by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

      How about a $300 PC?

      Technology isn't as horrible as you think. Sure, kids should know how to do math and other basic skills without a computer, but if we keep teaching in the 20th century, how are we going to make any real progress?
      I am sure that some people protested the use of books in education, when they first became widely available, citing the fact that the advancements up to that time were made with very few people every owning books! Not only that, but if kids get books they might go off reading fictional stories when they could be working!

      Just because people can learn with less, doesn't mean that it is better. Why not teach kids to use all the tools they need, including their brains? It doesn't make sense to purposefully handicap them.

    54. Re:No. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      It's doubtful whether Computers can help you learn other subjects. However in today's industry you need to have computer skills. Even low-level jobs require that you understand spreadsheets, word processors etc. So you need computers in school in order to teach kids about computers.

      Also it might be interesting to consider using computers to reduce costs. Along the lines of the "one laptop per child" idea - rather than paying for textbooks, it could make sense in the future to pay for the development of text books, which can then be freely distributed and read on computers. The money saved could be used to improve schools, hire more teachers etc. I don't think the current textbook industry business model is the well suited for today's needs.

    55. Re:No. by slapout · · Score: 1

      "Government loves padded stats that make them appear to be doing their job"

      Replace Government with Teacher's Unions in that sentence.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    56. Re:No. by Targon · · Score: 1

      Computers do not take the place of thinking and understanding, but they do free the mind to work on higher level tasks. If children do not have access to computers, how can they work in a world where the use of the computer is used for 99 percent of the work out there? Basic skills are important, but at the same time, computers have become a basic skill in many or most work environments.

    57. Re:No. by scuba0 · · Score: 1

      You missed the point, typing != able to send an e-mail. And who talks about PCs for $3000? Today a school in the us could probobly get 7-8 computers for that price.

      Even better, install a terminal server and use thin clients.

    58. Re:No. by Targon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The exact issue is that the school system is modeled after the one room schoolhouse. The entire concept of grades K-12 needs to be thrown out, and instead just have each student advance in each subject at his/her own pace. In this way, a student who is good in English but needs math help does not get held back or even looked at strangely.

      Every student will have strengths and weaknesses, so it should be the norm to be several "grades" higher in one or two subjects, and possibly one or two grades lower in one or two subjects. When there is no stigma to having difficulty with a given subject, students will no longer have to hide the fact, and their needs can be addressed.

      With this sort of system, the school system can finally improve. Throwing more money at a system that is clearly broken will not help, but replacing the system with something that will work and then moving students into that new system WOULD.

      It is a sad thing when most people are more willing to replace an old but working computer than they are to replace a clearly broken system. The same applies to Social Security, health care, and everything else. Everyone keeps trying to fix something that is broken beyond repair instead of trying to figure out what to replace these old broken systems with.

    59. Re:No. by profBill · · Score: 1

      The recurrent cry of "we need more technology in the classroom" is nothing more than a panacea for all things labeled education. Instead of focusing on educational issues, technology is a convenient place to thrown money and "address" the problem. A computer does not make you smarter, does not make you more job worthy, does not make you a better problem solver. It is just a big lump of junk unless someone can teach you how to use it as a tool. Few presently can. Instead, the fact that young people "use" their computers makes educators feel like they are making big progress.

      What do young people do with their computers? Read Systems Software is Irrelevant by Rob Pike. Written in 2000 and somewhat dated, the "Grandma" effect is still clear. People, read young people, typically use computers for three things: networking (blogs, web pages, chat, twitter, ...), entertainment (music, videos, games) and maybe, MAYBE, word processing.

      I teach introductory computer science and encourage students to bring their laptops. For the small percentage, it works great. Everyone else is off playing around. They may be "literate", but they are not better educated. They are, however, much more distracted. That is what computers have brought this generation

    60. Re:No. by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      We went to moon with [E&S...]

      Unless you add "the", "our" or "\bM" somewhere, it sounds like we and our friends are doing tax-free nighttime labor.

    61. Re:No. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Pff... that's easy.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    62. Re:No. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Interesting thought. As it is, though, you CAN advance quicker and be somewhat higher in some subjects, can't you? I wasn't in the public school system, so I odn't know firsthand, but isn't that sort of what AP classes are?

      Being homeschooled, I WAS allowed to do it at my own pace. Or finish really quickly in the day and move on to other things like music, computers, etc.

      In this way, a student who is good in English but needs math help does not get held back or even looked at strangely.

      On the other hand, if you can't add, subtract, multiply, and divide... well, that's an issue. If you're talking about algebra, calculus, etc., that's different. But I think there SHOULD be a baseline level of knowledge. I've met people that really hate math and get confused, but they can learn multiplication tables.

      Oh, but addition, subtraction, and multiplication tables aren't taught in school anymore, to my knowedge... I guess making kids recite stuff and memorize is too hard for them. They don't like it. Their attention spans run out. So let's change education.

      Goodness, how do you EXPECT to learn algebra if you don't know what 2*5 is in the first place and have to work it out, or do it on a calculator? Not that I'm against calculators, but I am definitely glad I learned multiplication tables. Or, rather, was "made" to learn them. I didn't WANT to, either.

    63. Re:No. by Cowmonaut · · Score: 1

      "Or we could teach kids about Linux which doesn't normally require defragmenting or virus scanners. " I'm all for our future generations learning about Linux and stuff. But you just stay the hell away from the curriculum.

    64. Re:No. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Do they have problems, are they missing out on quite a lot of valuable information. what do you think?"

      Well, debatable. I mean, as another poster alluded to...we have kids in schools today that cannot read...what good will a computer do them?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    65. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That still ignores the point that they aren't really needed in the 1st place.

    66. Re:No. by philspear · · Score: 1

      It is a fallacy that you need computers in schools. Teach the kids reading, writing and math skills, the rest can come later. Computers are a drain on schools with already tight budgets. We went to moon with engineers and scientists who did not have computers.

      It's a fallacy to use logic and anectodal evidence instead of controlled studies when coming to conclusions about education. You obviously don't NEED computers to teach, but they might improve a system that is clearly not where we need it.

      Moreover, learning how to use computers is in and of itself important, not just as a teaching tool. I've heard korean schools teach their students programming while they're in high school. The internet as you know is useful and is already the standard for research and communication. Computer operation is already a basic skill that is needed for jobs.

      It's absurd to say we don't need to be teaching kids to use computers because 20 years ago we weren't: the marketplace and our educational needs have changed rapidly. Kids in public schools who are unable to use computers aren't going to be competitive, we may as well eliminate public education and start handing kids shovels or mops if we're not going to give them the skills they'll need to get real jobs.

    67. Re:No. by visualight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, but they also had a much richer school environment. They did not have to suffer through this back to basics, three R's crap that started in the 80's. Creative problem solving, critical thinking, you don't get that with a 'stick to the reading writing and math' regimen.

      When I grew up in the 70's we were always told the Japanese will never be as innovative as we are, in part, because their schools did not teach kids to think creatively while ours did.

      Now, after 25 years of budget cuts and "back to basics" we have to import skilled people because not enough Americans want to be engineers. Am I the only one that looks at that whole picture and thinks "well no shit, look what you did to the schools..."

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    68. Re:No. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Heck, if you're just learning typing, you can probably find an adequate garage-sale PC for $50...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    69. Re:No. by eht · · Score: 1

      You have never seen what a school has to go through to acquire equipment. Unless it is under 50$ and the teacher can pay it out of pocket it almost invariably goes through an approved vendor list that has a 100%+ markup on everything. Yes, this approved vendor then turns right around and buys stuff from Dell.

    70. Re:No. by sjames · · Score: 1

      All too often, the computer classes are just passed off onto general teachers who have, at most, some worthless Microsoft Certificate in Word 97.

      That reminds me of my algebra teacher many years ago. He was told that he would be teaching a class in Pascal programming. They picked him because they figured computers and programming are kinda like math (Read, filled with funny symbols they don't understand). They did NOT give him a budget for even one copy of a Pascal compiler however (and this was before Borland made compilers affordable).

      IIRC he ended up 'pirating' a copy from another school in the system that had itself 'pirated' a copy. Some students who were into computers helped him learn Pascal quickly.

      Most of the computers spent most of their time being used for typing class.

      These days, more fundamental computer instruction is in order. Not how to use Word, but how to install and uninstall software, how to do basic troubleshooting, and at least something about how they work in the first place. If enough of that is taught, how to use Word will be painfully obvious.

      More advanced classes (which really should exist) should teach scripting and simple programming. Simple shell scripting skills would probably save billions in lost productivity. I have seen people in offices spend hours on end systematically renaming files in a directory when a 3 line or less script could have accomplished it in 10 minutes including the time to craft the script.

      Other options might include simple HTML or image manipulation (not a particular software, but more in general).

      In cases where a tool is needed, Free tools should be selected. That saves the school money now and assures that later the student will always be able to have whatever tool they're accustomed to without having to cost justify it first. Since they should also have no problems installing software, they'll be set.

      Even minimum rage jobs are starting to require at least basic computer use. How can schools claim to prepare students to assume a role in society without teaching those skills?

    71. Re:No. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      That's not a problem with computers in schools, that's a problem with the teaching syllabus.

      Amen. Even here in Canada, I remember getting teachers for a "multimedia" course in high school that barely knew what they were talking about, and freaked out when I used a version of the software higher than what the school had.

      Computers are necessary in that some of the students may want to learn how to do things on them, and in any case, they are a tool used in practically every business today. Kids will need to know how to use them, and not having them in schools will give those families who are too poor to afford them at home a disadvantage.

      Fix the problem of the teachers, don't just say "there aren't any good classes on computers, thus we shouldn't have them at all". It's a similar argument used to defend the current private healthcare system in the United States -- and it doesn't hold water.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    72. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does everyone seem to assume we're talking about elementary school? If you can't read, write, and do arithmetic by high school your simply SOL.

      Your second comment is just flat out wrong. They used quite a few computers, they might be ancient by comparison, but they were computers and they were much more difficult to use in comparison. In fact, Apollo 11's guidance computer was considered one of the first modern examples of an embedded system.

      Computers don't have to be as big a drain on budgets as they currently are. Unfortunately the way the system works isn't very conducive to saving a buck.

    73. Re:No. by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      we have kids in schools today that cannot read...what good will a computer do them?

      omgwtf? ru srius?

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    74. Re:No. by gamefreak1450 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. A complete education, which students need to be globally competitive, includes computer training. You can no more expect students to graduate ready for work without basic math skills than basic computer skills. I suspect if you were going through High School now, as I am, you would have a very different opinion on this topic.

    75. Re:No. by cpicon92 · · Score: 0

      They had computers, just not very advanced ones.

    76. Re:No. by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Now who are we going to find to teach the teachers how to use computers correctly?

    77. Re:No. by SoupGuru · · Score: 1

      Whoa whoa... let's teach them instead to open every email attachment, that every website that wants to install an extension should be allowed, and to download as many **FREE SMILEYS** as they can. It's job security.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    78. Re:No. by raddan · · Score: 1

      Using computers is a great way to teach our kids how to be critical of information. After all, the Internet has no shortage of total bullshit. Wikipedia itself is a beautiful example of the pros and cons of an information society-- using it for, say, a research project on hot-button issues would give students a perfect introduction on how information can be manipulated, and what strategies you can employ to find facts. These are skills that everyone needs.

      Computers themselves aren't the problem. They're just a[n extremely powerful] tool. Utilizing them properly in the classroom is the problem.

    79. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If we taught them more about proper usage of
      > computers, such as basic maintenance (defrag,
      > virus scan, etc.), emails (And the dangers of
      > random attachments),

      That is _NOT_ 'proper usage', it is peripheral stuff that is required solely because of Microsoft products.

      'defrag' is required because of poor file systems based on 1980s floppy disks.

      'virus scan' is required because Windows has a poor security model that allows arbitrary code to execute.

      'email attachments' are only a risk in poorly designed systems that allow arbitrary code to execute (see above).

      If 'proper usage' was taught then it would first teach 'don't use Windows' because otherwise you would have to care about 'defrag, virus scans, spyware, email attachments, etc'.

    80. Re:No. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      And you did that without a computer? Cheater!!!! I chose that particular problem because I actually had to do that calculation. My old house had oil heat, and I wanted to make a calibrated dipstick for it.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    81. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see ... an average teacher already teaches for about 5 hours a day, which by any reasonable metric, requires about 5 hours of prep time. They also have to do about 2 hours of bullshit babysitting of students, parents, administrators, local, state and federal government, and somewhere in there also grade papers. Now, you think they should also be IT professionals. You're fucking retarded.

      The best thing my wife learned getting her masters degree in education was "fuck this." She now has a masters degree, and realizes that we have just the same amount of money at the end of the month since she quit teaching. Her school district buying computers for all of the students was actually a major factor pushing her to quit. There is nothing a computer can teach. It's all regurgitated material that teachers create. They have demonstrated there that computers interfere with education. Now, her colleagues have an extra half an hour a day of computer stuff to babysit, and the kids spend time breaking computers instead of pencils. There's very little in AP calculus that can't be taught with a graphing calculator. Some of the animations are nice, but the calculator did those just fine, and provided much less of a distraction.

      Rather then throw money at the problem, the problem needs to be fixed. I strongly recommend you read Left Back, A Century of Battles over School Reform by Diane Ravitch.

    82. Re:No. by joggle · · Score: 1

      "and the entire reason we have teachers is to make up for the fact that people in general don't have a whole lot of it."

      I disagree. If you look at countries like Japan the students are much more studious generally speaking (at least until college). There is a lot of societal pressure there that keeps students motivated. I certainly don't think the Japanese students perform better because they have better teachers, they simply work much harder.

      If there's no pressure on the students to perform at home there's really not much the teachers can do to make them do their homework and excel in class.

    83. Re:No. by cparker15 · · Score: 1

      In other words, stop teaching our children what to think, and start teaching them how to think.

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    84. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      indeed... but with that same argument we should not have drivers ed, until you have first mastered the horse and buggy.

    85. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a fallacy that you need computers in schools. Teach the kids reading, writing and math skills, the rest can come later. Computers are a drain on schools with already tight budgets.

      We went to moon with engineers and scientists who did not have computers.

      You are a prime example of why I'm so happy to have technology (and humorously enough, why you're wrong and Obama is right). Every part of your opinion is factually incorrect.
            When we went to the moon, assuming it ever actually even happened, we had computers. We had technology not too far behind our current tools. It may not have been the same representation you recognize in our modern era, but we certainly had machines and technology to do the science for us. Additionally, using the moon as a comparative milestone is moot and has been for decades. The moon was a tiny feat and to even consider it an accomplishment at this point in time is to place offensive constrictions on the American ambition and dream.
            Furthermore, to consider computers anything less than integral in the education of future Americans is lunatic. Nearly every country on this planet is surpassing us in every element, whether it be mathematics, science, athletics, technological innovation, political experimentation, or anything else. Learning to manipulate and innovate technology are blatantly two keys to the future of America.
            If you sincerely believe the words you typed on this page, I can't help but question your business on a website focused entirely around technology.
          Throwing computers at the problem does not fix it - no, they are not magical boxes. Without the proper training and qualifications computers will help us no more than an abacus in schools. You cannot possibly be so incompetent as to believe training is not part of his plan. Even Obama isn't computer literate, he knows better than that.

    86. Re:No. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      My mom is a speech therapist who teaches kids to rea--who for one reason or another got left behind by the system.

      What does she recommend kids read? The internet. Comic books. Magazines. ANYTHING that interests them.

      I read *maybe 4 books a year. But I am reading half my waking hours at home. Because I was encouraged as a kid to read whatever I could. I wasn't corked into some reading program reading books my teachers thought I would like.

      The internet is also like real life. You don't get a text book with all the answers. You have to go research. Maybe wikipedia is right... maybe it's wrong. I know a lot of my textbooks had errors or misleading passages. You should trust any one source. The internet teaches you that too. Teaching kids research abilities is far more important than teaching them when Columbus made land fall in the Carribean.

      Also our means of teaching kids to read is archaic and completely outdated. Our schools are also severely understaffed. How do you teach a kid to read if they have a minor learning ability when you have 30 other students?

      Will internet solve all our problems in the educational system? No. But it will solve some.

    87. Re:No. by Brian.Kirby · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Computers are a form of technology that is becoming prevalent in the world we live in. Computer skills are relevant skills to be learned, just the same as reading, writing, or mathematics. Mathematics, for example, wasn't always around either. The subject was developed, and even today there is new research happening in math. If teachers from historical times found it unnecessary to teach the "newfangled" principles of mathematics, many of the current developments that we have today would have likely been delayed. The same probably goes for reading and writing. Computer skills are relevant to be learned, just as other subjects. It is how the teaching is done that is important. But moving along with technology is a good thing.

    88. Re:No. by raind · · Score: 1

      We went to moon with engineers and scientists who did not have computers.

      That's a great point. !

      --
      Get up!
    89. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post should be labeled the absolute opposite of insightful.

      A computer is a tool.. like a pen and paper it can be used well or not.. it depends what you do with it! Teachers need to learn how to teach properly using computers, but once they do then it will provide a great number of benefits over the current methods (and they never will if you don't provide them with computers in the first place).

      You are basically regurgitating the same old argument against change that `what was good enough for you should be good enough for anyone'.. without realizing that you could improve education with better tools, so that the next generation of children brought up learning on computers can utilize them fully and instead of aiming for the moon, can get us to Mars or another solar system.

    90. Re:No. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Eh, I was going to, but there wasn't a clear enough diagram showing the dimensions. 'Course there was that link, which kind of made the calculations unnecessary...

      Reminds me of the time several years back when somebody was trying to come up with a formula to get the volume of water in an elliptical water tank from the height of the water in it. I used cylindrical coordinates and did the triple integral. He was impressed...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    91. Re:No. by holywarrior21c · · Score: 1

      Computers in schools have been a colossal waste of money.

      Yes, indeed. As a college student, i rather have 1 more professor per X amount of student, instead of having big flat screen TV or projection each classroom or even campus wide computer upgrades every so often. (exception to research labs of course) Same thing goes for K12 schools. Hire more teachers, educators, lecturers, and put them together to make better textbooks, create more effective curriculum, tutor students after school, etc. Computers are still a big distraction and i spend far more time reading the textbook and writing things on my paper notebook than i do on my computer(exception to my CS major classes). Despite being a CS major, i still use a laptop from 4 yrs ago(ibook g4). New computers won't make everything better. I rather have hours of free tutoring from experts than somewhat faster internet.

    92. Re:No. by holywarrior21c · · Score: 1

      I do believe that there are certains things that we can do and things we need right away than having new computers, faster internet, big screens, etc. I am more inclined to think that tech companies somehow lobbied the government out of this to get them purchase all those lcd projecters, new computers. That might actually be better than bailing out failing banks. But still, we could use some money to hire people who actually meet the qualification to teach. i hear from Newsweek mag, that some schools don't even have lab materials and some schools have English teacher who is clueless about science teaching chemistry. I think hiring people comes first than spending on the material that we are okey without one.

    93. Re:No. by master_p · · Score: 1

      Here is another idea: put all teaching material on the internet, in the form of presentations. Let people access this material from anywhere (their home, their school), and replace the black/white board with a screen, letting the teachers present their stuff and interact with it in an electronic way.

    94. Re:No. by Targon · · Score: 1

      AP classes are/were intended to let high school students get SOME college education, but to get to that point, the students need to be at or near the college level in that subject. What I was suggesting is that from the very earliest levels, each student advances in each subject individually, with certain prereqs needed for classes, but generally replacing the current "grade/year" system.

      For example, the student can be in fifth level math while still only being at a level 3 in English, and a level 4 in history. Yes, some students can currently skip a grade, but until the high school level, you almost never see a different level of progression for each subject.

      Algebra is in the mathematics side of things, so students don't end up in algebra without the basics, but those bad at algebra might be advanced to a college level in English or history or some other subject. Knowing how to read and write will be a requirement for just about all other subjects, but those who are slow or limited in their English won't be held back in other subjects in my system.

      People are constantly talking about the education system falling behind in the USA compared to other countries. A part of this is an entrenched system that needs a significant overhaul, not just some minor changes with extra funding.

      When I hear education, I hear how the system needs more money, as if that is the only problem. I propose that the problem is that the system itself needs a change. The teachers are also not the problem(in most cases), but this idea that they need to teach students in a way that may not be the best, but without the freedom to find something that works. So, why NOT change the system, and transition all the current teachers and students over to it?

    95. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking the same thing. I felt lucky to be able to learn Qbasic in school long before my family could afford their own pc (and at the time, pcs really were not particularly affordable). I'm a computer engineer now.

      That said, I'm not sure we need to spend a bunch of money for high-end PCs every few years. In most cases, a usable infrastructure is already in place. The teachers' ability to use the tools they have is what is really in question.

    96. Re:No. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      so your argument is that because they cannot read the other kids that can read shouldn't be able to also learn computers?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    97. Re:No. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      so because most people do, should the people that don't not be given the best advantage possible. Because some people are dumb should you make everyone dumb.

      Also those 'sloths' may actually get of their ass and do something if they knew a little more about it. Computers are interactive, t.v. isn't (well unless your shouting at it, or it's a vote them off show in which case people stop being sloths and actually start doing something.).

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    98. Re:No. by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      Right, but they also had a much richer school environment. They did not have to suffer through this back to basics, three R's crap that started in the 80's. Creative problem solving, critical thinking, you don't get that with a 'stick to the reading writing and math' regimen.

      Um, no. The reason that "three R's crap" is emphasized is because we found we had entire graduating classes full of kids who were never taught reading, writing, or simple math skills. Largely because the teachers and admins were infatuated with peripheral subjects and trendy new teaching methods that simply didn't work very well when put into practice.

      Creative problem solving is very important, but it's hard to be creative without basic skills kids need to make their way in life. If you can't read well, you're dramatically limiting the scope of your complex critical thinking. If you don't understand numbers, then your personal finances and your taxes are a complete mystery. If you lack language skills then you can't effectively communicate your thoughts and ideas, however clever they may be. If you can't do these things then you're not a functioning citizen, you're a serf. Some people like serfs, but no one wants to be one.

      Unfortunately we still have a long way to go. Take a look at the enrollment stats for your local colleges and see how many freshly graduated adults (they're not kids anymore at 18) have to spend a substantial part of their first years at college in remedial classes. Why? It's not because they're mentally deficient. It's not because it's all that hard to teach this stuff. And it's not because the students skipped "creative problem solving" class one too many times. It's because they've endured 12 years as pawns in an inefficient, ineffective, and self-indulgent educational system that largely wasted their time. But if we give them more money and bandwidth I'm sure they'll do much better.

    99. Re:No. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I agree, why not change the system... I'm all for that. I also do think, though, that the emphasis in schools is wrong. It has shifted from "teach the students reading, writing, arithmetic [and science]" to "make sure the students are enjoying themselves and are happy."

      I don't know about you, but being "happy" wasn't what my parents were most interested in when it came to education. I think it was education that they were most interested in. If it's possible to do both, great. But if Joey doesn't WANT to learn English, Math, and Science, and just wants to do sports... well, too bad, that's not what public school money is for, is it?

      When I hear education, I hear how the system needs more money,

      Which, IMO, isn't a problem except that schools waste what they already have. It's just like the auto bailouts. You don't get a better company by covering up their mistakes by giving them more money to waste. Usually, with most businesses, if your product stinks, you lose money and are forced - based on your lack of money - to change the way you work. With government funded programs, unfortunately, that tends not to be the case.

    100. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I normally like to read, but that hurt my eyes... and no, I'm not just trolling.

      My mom is a speech therapist who teaches kids to read — kids who, for one reason or another, got left behind by the system. What does she recommend kids read? The internet. Comic books. Magazines. ANYTHING that interests them.

      I read maybe 4 books a year, but I'm still reading half my waking hours at home – because I was encouraged as a kid to read whatever I could. I wasn't corked into some reading program reading books my teachers thought I would like.

      The internet is also like real life. You don't get a text book with all the answers; you have to go research. Maybe wikipedia is right... but then again, maybe it's wrong. You should never trust any one source anyway... I know a lot of my textbooks had errors or misleading passages. The internet teaches you that too. Teaching kids research skills is far more important than teaching them when Columbus made landfall in the Carribean.

      Our means of teaching kids to read is archaic and completely outdated. Our schools are also severely understaffed... how does a teacher with 30 other students manage to teach the one kid who has a minor learning ability?

      Will internet solve all our problems in the educational system? No, but it will solve some.

      *puts red pen away*

    101. Re:No. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I misread your sig:

      What doesn't kill you only prologues the inevitable

      ...and I actually think I like it better this way.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    102. Re:No. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      We went to moon with engineers and scientists who did not have computers.

      Yeah, but when they were in school, they were taught how to read, look up information, use the Dewey Decimal system -- all the things you would need to find information in the culture that they lived in.

      Nowadays kids are growing up in an age with the internet, google, and wikipedia. Do you really want them *not knowing* how to use them? Of course, the wealthy kids will have them at home. But the poor kids, no. They could graduate high school never having sent an email. I know because I help get free computers to them. Will that really prepare them for college?

      My mom grew up on a farm. She says she loved going to school because they had exciting books, posters, lessons, etc. I hated school for the those same books, posters, lessons, etc. They weren't half as cool as what I could get at home, on TV, or at the library.

      I remember walking through Home Depot a while ago, looking for something I wasn't sure existed, and of course, I didn't know the name of it. I asked a few sales people, but of course, they weren't any help. I walked down the isle again for the 20th time, wondering if I would find my mystery object*, and suddenly I realized, "Of course! I'll google it!" Now, I've been online since the days of BBSes and FIDOnet. I'm fairly web savvy. But, I grew up in a time where there wasn't information ubiquity. It just wasn't part of the paradigm that my mind created for itself. Kids these days need never really waste time in the library, asking unhelpful sales people questions. They need to be comfortable expecting information and knowing how to find it. How redundant would school seem if the very institution of learning didn't have access to the greatest information resource created thus far?

      We need to make school competitive for kids attention these days. If it isn't; they will spend their time texting each other about the latest you tube videos, etc. They will tune out from school, to their detriment, and to ours, as we will in turn rely on them to run society when we are old.

      Think of Donald in Mathemamagic land, or any really great PBS series. That's what we need more of. Multi-media, multi-sensory learning situations. And they're fun and interesting, too! I love watching Donald in Mathemagic Land because it's a great cartoon.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    103. Re:No. by Malkin · · Score: 1

      As long as we've had microcomputers, this strange fallacy has persisted that if you just put enough computers and kids in the same room together, somehow, magical learning will ensue. In a way, both m0s3m8n and neokushan are right. Computers are a horrendous waste, if they aren't being used in effective ways. We can't expect their mere presence to enrich students through osmosis. They are only useful if they are integrated into the curriculum in some kind of meaningful way.

      That said, I think things are getting better. I know a 12-year-old who just went through a class on assembling desktop computers from parts. That's a far cry from the idiotically useless 30-minutes of typing tutor software that was waved in front of me, when I was her age. Yay, homerow! Bye!

    104. Re:No. by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      should have != did *ducks*

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    105. Re:No. by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      A guy from Bulgaria says: no. BTW, say hello to our immigrant engineers for me. Not only is high-school FUBAR here, uni is too. But we've got shitloads of smart people here going somewhere, usually abroad. Just another POV.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  5. that's the last thing I need by netsavior · · Score: 4, Funny

    "To help our children compete in a 21st century economy"

    It's bad enough that I have to compete with cheap "offshore" labor, now I gotta compete against someone willing to work for pokemon cards??

    1. Re:that's the last thing I need by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd work for Pokemon cards. Apparently you haven't seen the exchange rate lately.

    2. Re:that's the last thing I need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd work for Pokemon cards. Apparently you haven't seen the exchange rate lately.

      Really, 7 pikachus for 1 charizard?! The economy is going downhill.

    3. Re:that's the last thing I need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Will work for charmander card"

  6. Great by LilGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    It would be great if the local cable or phone company could run their lines just 1 block further from my nearest neighbor so I could get broadband.

    Maybe Obama can make it happen!

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
    1. Re:Great by Spazztastic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It would be great if the local cable or phone company could run their lines just 1 block further from my nearest neighbor so I could get broadband.

      Maybe Obama can make it happen!

      Or Obama can help find where that 200 billion dollars went.

      http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    2. Re:Great by slyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've always wondered if there was some way that consumers could "get back" at the telecoms for sucking so hard.

      Can someone file a class action lawsuit or something along those lines for the telecoms failing to serve the taxpayer/consumer despite being given so much aid from the government? Maybe throw in some analogy of how the banks over-sold the consumers with loans which led to a real estate crash and how the telecoms are over-selling the consumers with bandwidth which could potentially lead to an infrastructure crash. Add in a last quip about how their lazyness is what is causing the whole discussion of all protocols/websites/whatevers being equal in the idea of net neutrality and how if they just did their jobs the way they were supposed to the first time.

      Could solve all our problems in one fell swoop!

    3. Re:Great by KindMind · · Score: 1

      Yeah, exactly. The last time, the telcos took the money and ran. That seems to be the usual with the big gov't programs.

      --
      Politicians complicate life - logic is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
    4. Re:Great by 0racle · · Score: 0

      Obamas administration won't have to look. They'll be given their part of it in order not to. You don't have to look for what is simply given to you.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    5. Re:Great by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      That doesn't seem to be a problem with government programs. It seems to be a problem with monopolistic telecoms (who may or may not have been giving out large donations to politicians to help the government look the other way).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Great by theaveng · · Score: 0, Troll

      I really wish people would READ THE 1996 COMMUNCATIONS ACT. Most of the money was earmarked to upgrade phone lines from analog to digital, and increase speeds from ~19k to ~56k. The end.

      Now if you think that sounds like a stupid way to spend money, blame the politicians in Congress, not the telcos.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    7. Re:Great by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Don't pay your bill when you move out of your house.
      Don't leave a forwarding address so the Telco can't find you.
      That's how you "get back" at them for their theft of your dollars.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    8. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cable company was willing to run a line from my neighbor down the street. For $3000. And not $3000 deposit for services, but straight up $3000 plus monthly fees. It's about a quarter mile along a county highway, the current use of the lad is a soybean field. That's over $2 per foot.

      Amusingly, the other side of the street has the fiber optic cable handling the video for the cable company. You have to love the irony. Instead, I have now gone with our ILEC which delivers video over copper, VOIP plus 10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up internet.

      In the last laugh department, in just over 1 year, the land will go from the town to the city, and since Time-Warner did not claim this land, it will become Charter territory. The 1/4 mile of soybean fields and the area behind us will have about 70 homes when the subdivision gets done. That's 70 homes Time-Warner won't get to serve.

    9. Re:Great by KindMind · · Score: 1

      Yeah, true enough, but there seems to be a pattern of this - I think of the defense budget as another place where this seems to happen a lot. Think back a few years ago with the scandal with $600 toilet seats, etc. I think your point about the monopolistic telecoms with the "large donations" is well taken, but other industries seem to behave the same way, and always with gov't money. I'm just suspicious anytime the gov't announces another "big program that will do X". Too often, you read later about how big chunks of "program X" money went to line somebody's pocket, and didn't really accomplish the original goals of "program X".

      --
      Politicians complicate life - logic is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
    10. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to rack up a $2,000 bill before you leave... that's supposedly the amount each American was taxed for the telecom industry's power grab.

      Oh, and forget about getting anything on credit for the next 10-12 years (yeah, 7 years, right. That's why the DSL modem I 'didn't pay for' from BellSouth 7 years ago is still on my credit report, with an estimated removal date of 2012 - oh, and don't forget the extra $500 in "penalties and interest" - my $50.00 DSL modem is apparently worth about $700.00, thanks to my cancelling my service and moving across the country).

    11. Re:Great by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      The same happened with the supercar project, a joint venture with the big three US auto makers in the US to create an affordable 80mpg car. And, in part, it's a result of the Bush Administration that the project failed.

      Ironically, the supercar project likely would have saved the big three US auto makers. Instead, they went for the short-term, big-sale of gas-guzzling SUVs. Such very much seems to be the hallmark of the reign of Bush, in companies who are big enough to easily make quick cash but who don't care or don't think well enough about long-term viability; or perhaps it's true of all companies, but the bigger a company is, the less nimble it is to change and the ability to exploit every new cash flow for the short term it's profitable.

      Perhaps if the Americans weren't so self-centered, all of the above would be a non-issue: businesses could fail, even those directly or indirectly employing millions, and people would gladly accept taxes going up to support those millions under welfare until new companies formed to fill the glut of cheap labor. Realistically, of course, regulation is considered a more acceptable form of stability even if it's not necessarily as efficient*. Unfortunately, regulation is pretty worthless if it's not followed (enforcement hopefully helps with that). And that just leads to the worst of both worlds.

      But, then, nearly 50% of the voting public is for dismantling regulation and leaving the unemployed to starve. I think it all goes back to Americans being so self-centered. Maybe the rest of the world will learn from this and enforce sanctions against the US to force them to change. Certainly, attempts to enlighten the population haven't been working.

      *It might lead to more efficient outcomes, due to externalities, but that whole discussion is really besides the point.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    12. Re:Great by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know, the telecoms will turn that into a rationale for a federal bailout.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    13. Re:Great by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      I really wish people would READ THE 1996 COMMUNICATIONS ACT. Most of the money was earmarked to upgrade phone lines from analog to digital, and increase speeds from ~19k to ~56k. The end.

      Now if you think that sounds like a stupid way to spend money, blame the politicians in Congress.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    14. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought this spool of copper wire... is it analog or digital wire?

  7. According to the article... by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Informative

    He also wants to use broadband for health care facilities.

    Since I know that most of you don't RTFA and the summary is lacking that point, I figured I'd point it out.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:According to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, because hospitals don't have insane bandwidth right now. Oh wait, they do.. what?

  8. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by Justin+Hopewell · · Score: 1

    Well... you are on /. after all.

  9. GARBAGE by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Computers are a huge distractions and in many cases reduce productivity.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:GARBAGE by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Computers are a huge distractions and in many cases reduce productivity.

      It's reducing yours. Step away from the computer.

    2. Re:GARBAGE by e4g4 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more - as a full time software developer, I find that I spend far, far too much time in front of a computer screen. As a direct result, I never get any work done...

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
  10. ummm why? by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In grade school, we had a handful of Apple IIs (for AppleWorks, Oregeon Trail, Reader rabbit, and a few other educational titles). In high school, the library had a couple computers for the card catalog and CD-ROM encyclopedia, and there were a couple GW Basic/word processing rooms. So why do students need the internet for learning? Wikipedia is nice, but most schools are (rightfully) banning it. Instead of teaching math, should they just give out calculators and provide training for how to press the buttons on a McRegister? If people are graduating high school with a 6th grade level education, all the broadband in the world won't help them.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:ummm why? by OutSourcingIsTreason · · Score: 1

      Think of the internet as part of the school library, except that the internet is many times the size of the Library of Congress, and kids can have the keys to that library 24 hours per day.

      --
      "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
    2. Re:ummm why? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      Why ban wikipedia? There is nothing wrong with it. I've been writing research papers for a friend the last few weeks using mostly Wikipedia + the sources linked from the pages to write the majority of them, and gotten A's on all of them so far while trashed. These are college papers for a history degree. The wealth of knowledge on wikipedia is great if you fact check / have an ounce of common sense which is all that's required to tell if they are fake or not.

    3. Re:ummm why? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you see "educational computing" as playing Oregon Trail and using a CD-ROM encyclopedia, then I guess it is no big deal. But that assumes that students just have access to a couple of non-networked computers at the back of the room that they get to use for a couple of hours a week. That approach stopped making sense about the time the Apple II was discontinued. Real educational computing means that students use computers in every single class. In the hard sciences, they use them to do complex calculations and run simulations. In social sciences, they use them to do research and gather data. In all classes (but especially the humanities) they use them for writing.

      That last use should be obvious. Writing is a lot easier on a computer. Students who get to write their assignments on a computer enjoy it more and work harder.

      But why are we even debating this? America has a horrible shortage of technically savvy people. I work for a computer manufacturer, and less than half the people I work with were born in the U.S. And why is this? Because it's easier to get proper technical training in Bangalore or Chengdu then it is in Cleveland. That's got to change.

    4. Re:ummm why? by MicktheMech · · Score: 1

      Think of the internet as part of the school library, except that the internet is many times the size of the Library of Congress, and kids can have the keys to that library 24 hours per day.

      You forgot the part where the library is 90% porn...

    5. Re:ummm why? by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Biology 101.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    6. Re:ummm why? by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      Are *you* suggesting that we shouldn't use calculators in schools either? Sure, you still teach addition, but you're allowed to use calculators on most tests be the time you get to Higher Math. Sure, we should still teach people to do things the old fashioned way... but once they can do it, I don't see any reason not to let them use the tools they'll use in real life.

      Obviously you shouldn't just be learning to google your research paper - but learning to use a proper academic database would certainly be positive. It'd be nice if every freshman and sophomore college class didn't have to assume half the class was used to writing research papers using a few decade old books from their highschool library.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    7. Re:ummm why? by PresidentEnder · · Score: 1

      Why ban wikipedia? ... I've been writing research papers for a friend the last few weeks using mostly Wikipedia + the sources linked from the pages to write the majority of them, and gotten A's on all of them so far while trashed.

      You just answered your own question.

      --
      I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
    8. Re:ummm why? by philspear · · Score: 1

      If people are graduating high school with a 6th grade level education, all the broadband in the world won't help them.

      Or... maybe there is more than one problem with education, and fixing one problem at a time while refusing to make any other improvements because they'll increase our tax burdens by about ten dollars will never solve anything.

    9. Re:ummm why? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "Wikipedia is nice, but most schools are (rightfully) banning it."
      Your editorialization provides a perfect jumping-off point for discussing why I think you're so very wrong.

      Let's start by recognizing that the internet - particularly to those under-20's - is no longer a novelty item. More likely than not, it's going to be their PRIMARY source for information; most grade-schoolers I know would find any information FAR more quickly with google than in a library. (Me being 41, there's something that feels very wrong with that...)

      Yet what do schools do? They BAN the use of Wikipedia. This is simply absurd. In the first place, the huge bulk of factual information there is perfectly accurate, and presented with no more inherent bias than that presented in the Encyclopedia Britannica. President Garfield's birthplace? The wavelengths of visible light? Not a lot of controversy there, thus the information is fairly reliable.

      But more importantly, when we're talking about an information source (the internet) which will so obviously and universally be used, wouldn't it perhaps make more sense to DEAL with it as a possible learning opportunity?

      Perhaps explore WHY Wikipedia is or isn't reliable? Is there a way to tell which subjects are/aren't factually dependable? Perhaps a creative teacher could expand the discussion into the internet generally, and analyze the various 'classes' of information one can find out there, discussing the interpretation of 'facts' as presented by blogs, by forum sites like DailyKOS or Littlegreenfootballs, by amateur newsies like Drudge or Wonkette, or even the value of news as presented by professional media organizations like NYT, MSNBC or Fox? (I'd even include the Onion and Jon Stewart as relevant too.)

      Or go even further, and explore critical thinking, critical reading, and the value of multiple source review in ALL media - newspaper, radio, magazines, tv, and books. Is the information presented in your local paper more or less reliable than at Reuters.com? Why or why not?

      Yeah, I guess you're right. There's no POSSIBLE value in using Wiki as a source; better to just ban it and hope the kids just go back to using the tattered encyclopedias in the media center that the district paid so much for.

      --
      -Styopa
    10. Re:ummm why? by znerk · · Score: 1

      If people are graduating high school with a 6th grade level education, all the broadband in the world won't help them.

      Hell, I'd love to see some of these yokels graduating high school with a 6th grade education... unfortunately, the school system just doesn't seem to be up to the task. Perhaps we should try lowering the bar again, so no children get left behind?

      Or, we could, you know, like, educate. I know a 12-year-old who doesn't know her multiplication tables. Ask her what 6 times 7 is and she starts counting on her fingers. I wish this were a rare occurence, but to be honest, I think the education system in this country is fucked, pardon my language. No, on second thought, my language is justified. We need to scrap the current curriculum, stop paying administrators absurd amounts of money to play MMO's in their gold-gilded offices instead of doing their jobs, pay teachers a decent salary for doing a job that most parents wouldn't have half a clue how to even begin, much less carry out successfully, and start concentrating on teaching the kids.

      Duh.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    11. Re:ummm why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why are we even debating this? America has a horrible shortage of technically savvy people. I work for a computer manufacturer, and less than half the people I work with were born in the U.S. And why is this? Because it's easier to get proper technical training in Bangalore or Chengdu then it is in Cleveland. That's got to change.

      It's certainly not that they're paid less than Americans with equivalent backgrounds who had to pay more for their education through US taxes and otherwise...

      Oh wait, it is.

    12. Re:ummm why? by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      And if they're graduating with a 12th grade education in every subject except how to use modern technology properly, that's going to be a problem, too.

      Sure, they can all surf Facebook and type 80 WPM using T9Word and their thumbs, but that's not going to get us ahead in science and technology.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    13. Re:ummm why? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Go crawl back under your rock. These folks hold jobs with the same requirements and the same pay as native U.S. citizens. In fact, many of these immigrants are now U.S. citizens, though of recent vintage. They didn't get their jobs by working cheap — these are highly-skilled engineers, not chicken-pluckers.

      If you think India is ripping us off by paying for the education of our professionals, then you need to learn a little basic math.

  11. Eh? by Yunzil · · Score: 4, Funny

    No doubt with free spyware and internet filtering. You know... for the kids.

    Slashdot: News For Nerds (That Can Never Be Happy About Anything)

    1. Re:Eh? by jamesmcm · · Score: 0

      Yeah I hate it when people feel the need to attach their own misery to news stories.
      It's like STFU, we only live once and it's not like we get extra karma at the end if we didn't enjoy a second of it.

    2. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back to skewl fer U, monkey boy. S/B ". . .Who Can Never. . ."

    3. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt with free spyware and internet filtering. You know... for the kids.

      Slashdot: News For Nerds (That Can Never Be Happy About Anything)

      It's Who can never be happy about anything...

      (Quick, someone fix this)

  12. Who's paying for all this? by Tarmus · · Score: 1

    I thought he was going to keep our taxes low. Bring the troops home, like you said you would. THEN we'll talk about some big government spending.

    1. Re:Who's paying for all this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude,

      We are going into a freaking depression. Supply side economics will not help us here so we need demand side policies. Stimulating the economy before we get into an intractable economic situation is nessisary, and spending is thus, nessisary.

      We will be out of Iraq, he will lower the taxes on teh middle class, and he will let the tax cuts on teh rich expire, but he also needs to FIX problems, and that requires spending.

      high contrast world view is bad for the thought process.

    2. Re:Who's paying for all this? by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1
      There are two ways out of a recession as large as what we are facing:
      1. We can have a World War.
      2. We cam have a massive Public Works program

      Which would you prefer? To me, cost is not an issue. It will pay for itself in the long term by boosting our economy and keeping the recession shallow/eventually lifting us out of it.

    3. Re:Who's paying for all this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are already in #1. Just ask Blackwater and chums how may trillions they're making from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al. Instead of given trillions to companies in bailouts as is vogue, send $20k to each person in the country. We'll be out of the recession within three weeks.

    4. Re:Who's paying for all this? by ormico · · Score: 0

      Which are you refering to, The World War or the Public Works Program?(joke)

    5. Re:Who's paying for all this? by Erwos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you familiar with the term "false dichotomy"? Besides, using the obvious FDR comparison, the only way out of is war - the public works programs, contrary to what you read in your erroneous grade school textbooks, simply didn't work all that well in terms of recovery.

      Instead, let's use the Japan comparison. In that case, we should do:
      3. Let all these firms fail, take the hit quickly, and move on.

      The Japanese did:
      4. Never acknowledge you have a problem, let recession/stagnation go on for 10 years.

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    6. Re:Who's paying for all this? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      The New Deal of Roosevelt's day did NOTHING to help the economy. It merely dragged the depression out into the 50's. You can't fund massive building projects when...holy shit...you have to borrow all the money to fund them! Look into the facts sometime and you will see that Roosevelt did nothing to help the economy other than force it to submit to government intervention when it would have fixed itself within a few years had it been left alone, just as the economy would do in this current crisis. This current crisis is a direct result of Clinton signing NAFTA as well as his policies.

    7. Re:Who's paying for all this? by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I must not have heard you right. Just to clarify, you're blaming the housing bubble on NAFTA, right?

    8. Re:Who's paying for all this? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot #3: let the market correct itself and move on.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    9. Re:Who's paying for all this? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are two ways out of a recession as large as what we are facing:

      1. We can have a World War.
      2. We cam have a massive Public Works program

      That's a myth. War is not good for an economy.

      What the Second World War did for the U.S. economy was to turn the nation into a place of shortages and rationing-- food rationing, gas rationing, even tire rationing... a lot of things didn't have to be rationed, because nobody had money to buy things like new cars.

      The one "good" thing that the war did for the U.S. was to give people a rationalization for the shortages and ration-coupons: they were sacrificing to win the war. The economy was terrible, but people felt good about scarcity, because it was for a cause.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    10. Re:Who's paying for all this? by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

      And I would be all for this, it would be by far the quickest way out. However, politicians have to think of their careers, and it would be political suicide.

    11. Re:Who's paying for all this? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      No, on Clinton and the Dems forcing the banks to give loans to everyone as it is the 'right of every american' to own a home, and they didn't care if the people couldn't pay the loans back, cause god damnit, it's their right to own a home.

    12. Re:Who's paying for all this? by scientus · · Score: 1

      what most people fail to see is most our economical situalion is not dictated by the amount of spending but the quality of spending.

      The government has an infinite money bucket, we all know that, but if they dip into it we get massive inflation and we start looking like germany before WW2. We also cant just stop spending or we will end up in anarchy and roads wont work etc...

      The thing is is that the more each doller creates, if every doller actually leads to someone doing something, then no matter how much the government spends it will always work. B/f WW2 in germany the government refused to stop paying people who went on strike, and therefore these people could consume without producing. Now getting rid of social programs does not neccicarily make people do more. If the social programs are providing services to people, and by being healthy people are able to work, then you did good. If the road dont work and people cant get from place to place, then the economy halts as trade cant take place. The importand thing is that all economic transactions should encourage production.

      This is largely summed in says law: (from wikipedia)

      recession does not occur because of failure in demand or lack of money. The more goods (for which there is demand) that are produced, the more those goods (supply) can constitute a demand for other goods. For this reason, prosperity should be increased by stimulating production, not consumption. In Say's view, creation of more money simply results in inflation; more money demanding the same quantity of goods does not represent an increase in real demand.

      If the money given out to help the economy actually creates work then it helps the economy, but if it does not create work it will destroy it. Most public works projects are very good at this, especially if they can break out of the union-like mindset of the public sector. A war does it too but only if the war is of the type of WW2 where people actually care, people work more, and they dont have to be bribed or tricked into doing things, and corruption/war-profiteering is low. (like what is happening with contractore, etc in Iraq) The first (public projects) leads to surpluses down the road and a stronger overall economy, war leads to the opposite. (unless you would be conquered otherwise)

      Public projects that involve a new US labor force should go foward, and be the best thing the government can do. They must also stop sending on things that dont produce anything, (like the Iraq war) and clean up SS medicaid medicare, doing more with the same funds. It leads to a more efficient, cheaper medical system that does more for less. If the government isnt spending on on medicine than people are spending, and private insurance is more costly for less than public for the same thing.

    13. Re:Who's paying for all this? by WiglyWorm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh, okay. That makes sense. Too bad those law changes were very much bipartisan. Also, it's likely inconvienent to your argument that nearly every rule change that played a part in the ecenomic downturn happened in the 2000s, which republicans have been in power for all but 3 of now.

    14. Re:Who's paying for all this? by Azh+Nazg · · Score: 1

      You do realise that that all happened on Bush's watch, right?

      --
      Azh nazg durbataluk, azh nazg gimbatul, Azh nazg thrakataluk agh burzum ishi krimpatul! This sig blocked by Slashdot.
    15. Re:Who's paying for all this? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      Presidential econ policies take years to come about, Clinton rode on the success of Reagan/Bush Sr's policies, and Bush staved off a recession with his 02 tax cuts, but congress failed to act to eliminate the majority of the damage that was on the way.

    16. Re:Who's paying for all this? by WiglyWorm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I love this line of reasoning. "Oh the recession was brewing for years before my guy took over!". Years before your guy took over, clinton was in office with a republican house and congress. So... still looks like the free-market republicans to me.

    17. Re:Who's paying for all this? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      The republican party hasn't been about the claimed ideals for a long time, I thought this was common knowledge? Bush isn't my guy by any stretch, but facts are facts.

    18. Re:Who's paying for all this? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Presidential econ policies take years to come about.

      Perhaps, though the rest of your post applies this rather inconsistently, in a way which shows a lot more partisanship than economic analysis.

      Clinton rode on the success of Reagan/Bush Sr's policies.

      I suppose you blame the severe 1990-1991 recession on Carter, rather than Reagan/Bush policies.

      and Bush staved off a recession with his 02 tax cuts

      So Bush's policies get credit for immediately "staving off" a recession (even though Bush's Presidency saw the shortest period between two succeeding recessions in half a century), despite your claim that "Presidential econ policies take years to come about"?

    19. Re:Who's paying for all this? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      A big thing the second world war did for the US, was decrease the importance of Britain, and forced Britain to sell a lot of its US assets, including large amounts of land, to help fund the war. It swapped it US assets for arms manufactured in the US, and put the nails in the coffin for UK as a super power. It left Britain poor for many years, as well as the rest of Europe. The only two countries that did really well out the war were Germany and Japan, who had a lot of money spent on the them to rebuild- the Marshall plan.

    20. Re:Who's paying for all this? by Phantasmate · · Score: 1

      Ironically, war is good for the US economy. In the short-term anyway. Why? Over 80% percent of the industry is devoted to war manufacturing.

  13. The "whys" of broadband by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    I saw an interview on CSPAN this morning with a representative of the Entertainment Software Association. Aside from the predictable anti-piracy, DRM stuff one thing he was calling for surprised me--increased broadband deployment. But the more I thought about it, the more it makes sense. Deploying software via broadband instead of old-fashioned discs means that you not only have something theat's more piracy resistant, but also can't be resold (eliminating the secondary market completely, long the dream of the various entertainment industries).

    So I'm a little wary of the true motivations of Obama's call here. After all, some of his biggest fundraisers were from the Hollywood studios. I would hate to see increased broadband merely serve as a precursor to the end of physical media sales, where to consumer no longer "owns" their movies/music/software.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:The "whys" of broadband by Helios1182 · · Score: 1

      It could also be that broadband is needed for online play and distributing new content. If you product relies on those ideas you need customers with broadband.

    2. Re:The "whys" of broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as data continues to get passed in bits and bytes, someone will figure out a way to copy it and use it. It will be more difficult for about 3 days, then someone will "crack" the code, record the stream, set it up to run offline, and pass it out over the net.

      Its amazing how all this could so easily be solved by spending that money on making better media, that people actually want to buy.

    3. Re:The "whys" of broadband by theaveng · · Score: 1

      If that ever happens then I'll probably stop buying games, movies, et cetera.

      The way I can afford these things is by buying them, playing them, and then passing them on to someone else. Overall I end-up spending 0 dollars, although in some cases of a rare item, I will make a small profit. If the time comes when I can't resell my products because they are electronic instead of physical, I'll no longer be able to afford the initial purchases.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  14. 21st Century Schools by MosesJones · · Score: 1

    The only problem with this is that according to the OECD ratings on where the best 21st Century Schools are its mainly around Finland and Scandinavia, South Korea and Japan none of which leave education in the hands of back-water local folks who can dictate "no evolution" or its ilk.

    Education isn't a federal problem and giving people laptops won't solve it. Unless Obama is planning on shifting to Federal control of education then this really is just lipstick on a pig. Broadband adoption is at least some way federally regulated via the FCC but throwing money at the Cable Cabal won't mean better competition an thus better value it will just mean better profits.

    Fix the basics, then throw the money.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:21st Century Schools by Erwos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMHO, it's teacher's unions. The complete resistance towards standardized measures of their members' expertise in _doing their jobs_ is appalling, to say the least. Combine that with exorbitant retirement benefits weighing down on school budgets, and it's no wonder the current public schools can't do their job.

      Want to reform education in this country? Take back the schools from the unions, or at least provide vouchers for school choice and competition.

      I also think we waste too much money on the lowest-performers and don't spend enough on the highest-performers, but that's a different problem.

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    2. Re:21st Century Schools by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reason american schools struggle is because WE TAKE EVERYBODY.

      If you're a vegetable who can't feed yourself. You go to school.
      If you can't read by the age of 12 you go to school.
      If you are incapable of speaking to another classmate. You go to school.

      In every other country they take you out of school and put you into programs not called 'school'. So when the testing people come around lo and behold the students test better.

      We don't cream our our results like most other countries. Also I would hardly call the retirement benefits of the school system "exorbitant". Most teachers retire well into their 60s. And most teachers make less money and receive substantially less retirement benefits than a plumber.

      Teachers are often masters degree holders. They're the most highly educated and under payed segment of our population.

      So let's standardize... How? States rights advocates don't want the government nosing into their curriculums. And do you really think that a government mandated school curriculum with government designed tests and government assigned work is going to create a great education system?

      How do we hold teachers accountable? So much of it is dependent on the abilities of the students. So much of it is constrained by politics and emotion. I would love to hear how to make teachers accountable. What's your idea? I went to a private school and half the teachers were terrible a few were great. They were fully 'accountable' and ununionized. That's just the way the world is. Some are good some are bad. Good luck finding an empirical way to determine the "goodness" of a teacher.

    3. Re:21st Century Schools by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      I don't like the teachers' unions.

      Then I moved to a "right to work" state that didn't have unions. The difference in the level of expertise and professionalism in the faculty was astonishing (thanks to the fact that they were paid shit, mistreated on the job, and not given a voice to object to all this)

      Until we figure out how to treat workers fairly without unions, they're still necessary.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    4. Re:21st Century Schools by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

      As a former teacher, I have to agree that teachers unions are part of the problem. No where else do you see so many self-serving initiatives sold as "for the children." And teachers unions are practically a byword for resistance to change and accountability.

      Of course you're going to have some difficulty determining who is doing a good job. But that's true in a lot of places--there's no objective measure of trumpet playing, but the New York Phil seems to be able to reward their first chair trumpeter in an appropriate fashion. Does the fact that something is difficult mean we throw up our hands and say "it can't be done" without looking for an answer?

      I don't have a perfect solution for our educational problems. One of the reasons that I gave up teaching after three years is that I believe that most of them stem from underlying societal problems that are uncorrectable. Things like the complete breakdown of personal responsibility, the modern focus on self esteem (little Johnny can't get a failing grade, because he might not feel good about himself) and the inability of parents to accept the truth about their children (Oh, little Suzy would never do that! It must have been someone else).

      Whatever the solution is, I don't think that throwing computers are the problem is going to be it.

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  15. Are filters in schools that bad? by cowscows · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many people here are truly opposed to some sort of filtering in computers in school? While the idea of some sort of imposed filter on my internet connection at home is very bothersome to me, I don't have a problem with attempts to keep inappropriate material off of computers in schools.

    My biggest concern about it would be that generally the filtering systems aren't that hard to work around, so hopefully the school systems won't waste money buying into a really expensive product that ends up not working any better than a cheaper alternative.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    1. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by cowscows · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kids aren't that dumb. They understand that school is a different environment from home.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by Deanalator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, I am fine with pornography being blocked. As long at it is actually pornography, and not "pornography" like art/planned parenthood/occult/hacking websites etc. All of which I have heard referred to as pornography for some reason..

      What I am really opposed to is when they start blocking research, communication, and collaboration tools, such as wikis, chat rooms, and social networks etc.

      These are the tools that successful companies in the real world use today to get stuff done, and if kids don't learn how to use these tools today, how are they going to be able to learn to effectively use the next generation of research, communication, and collaboration tools?

    3. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not opposed to filtering school computers, provided no children are forced to attend, and no adults are forced to pay. So long as either of those attributes remains in place, it doesn't really matter what else they do.

      The first lesson taught by any tax-funded, mandatory-attendance school is that coercion is a legitimate way to achieve one's goals. Beside that, all else is insignificant.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    4. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by dweller_below · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do IT and network security for a university. One of my big concerns is deprogramming all the proto hackers that are coming to us from the secondary schools.

      You need filters in elementary ed. You still need some filters in secondary ed, but you have to be very careful how you do it. Teenagers start off smart and rebellious. From that starting point, it is easy to turn a high school into a factory for creating talented hackers.

      Every semester, a university has to deprogram these people. It is well worth the effort. They turn into our most valuable thinkers. And, if you can't get them back, you end up in a world of hurt.

      Every time, it's the same thing:
      - Honest! We have no filters.
      - No, we don't care what you look at. Just be ethical and don't hurt others.
      - Yah, you can look at pron. But it doesn't get the homework done. And it is not as satisfying as going out with people or creating stuff.
      - Yah we detected your attempt to hack the routers or do IP MITM. Honest! You don't need to do this crap to get to the internet here.

      This used to be easier. But lately the kids are getting more paranoid.

      Miles

    5. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is coddling in the extreme. If you teach kids that they don't ever have to do anything unpleasant then how will they hold down a job? "We can't force Junior to do his homework because that will teach him that coercion is legitimate." Give me a break.

    6. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you from personal experience, they may understand its different, but many sure as hell dont respect that difference.

    7. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it time for the older generation to start realizing that kids with internet connections have probably seen a whole lot more "bad/immoral/unethical/sexual/perverted" stuff on the internet then they can imagine, so when they start whining about some swearwords or some tits or something they really just make an ass of themselves and won't be taken seriously by ANY members of the intended audience. Seriously, protect your kids from harm all you like but you cannot keep reality out of their lives forever no matter how hard you try, or if you do succeed you've probably fucked up your kids WAY more than any of the aforementioned things could ever do

    8. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      While I'm not opposed to filtering pornography or games in schools, or even known major time wasters like myspace. Ihere are other things that need to be considered, such as the general inability of filters to notice that a newspaper article about pornography shouldn't be blocked (really, the word 'pornography' should be a major tipoff that a site isn't pornographic), or, a major problem in my state, the government (filters are controled by the state of Utah, not districts or individual schools), using the filters to block access to information on birth control, homosexuality, any religion that they deem unacceptable, even blogs that criticize filters (that one was done by a filter company, not the state, I don't know if it was the same filter Utah uses).

      It's not an aspect of the filter software itself either, the libraries don't block access to non porn gay sites or planned parenthood, someone made a deliberate decision to limit kids access to information they felt was 'bad', much of this information was already determined by the courts to not be acceptable to censor as well.

      Filters that work for the purpose they claim to could be made, but nobody is really interested in using them, they'd rather buy the same stuff Iran uses (yes, really)

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    9. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      It's not so much about shielding kids from the whole world, and more about the fact that school isn't the place for that sort of thing. Making at least a basic effort to restrict access to that sort of content helps reinforce to kids that it's not appropriate in a school setting.

      Also it shouldn't be the responsibility for random teachers to be put on the spot to have to deal with stuff like that. In high school it's probably not such a big deal, but for younger children I pity a teacher who has a student bring up a porn website and share it with kids who have not been exposed to that sort of stuff before. Is it going to damage those children and ruin their lives? Probably not, but it's not the job of a third grade teacher (nor should it be) to introduce their students to that, particularly via random porn sites.

      You're right that sooner or later kids are going to find that stuff, but that doesn't mean that efforts to control their access to it on a school computer are wrong or worthless.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    10. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's certainly not an easy problem. Although the view on it that I would take is that you find a filter than basically bans the really blatant stuff, and what gets through gets through. At the same time you make sure that it is made very clear to the students that certain types of material are unacceptable for accessing with the school's computers, and that there will be consequences to purposefully accessing that content.

      The filter is there, more than anything, just to add a layer of seriousness to the rule. Sort of like while the yellow caution tape that they put up around crime scenes isn't a particularly effective barrier against people entering the site, it does create a situation where someone ducking under it and walking around where they shouldn't cannot reasonably claim to be unaware that they were doing something wrong.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    11. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filter systems are pointless and generally annoying in school settings. As a high school student, our school filters the most random things. For instance, I can't use the search function on the United Nations website or look up information on the website for Cornell University. The filters don't work well enough to be effective and block things that are useful to students. Even with filters, the constant generation of new proxies and other caches also make filtering inherently pointless.

    12. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Me. If you don't want a kid to access naughty things on the internet, don't allow them access to the internet. No amount of filtering, even whitelisting, will shield all children from all things considered provacative and unacceptable by parents.

      The real issue is a lack of responsibility. Kinergarteners and grade schoolers shouldn't be on the internet, period (that doesn't mean the teacher can't make a presentation showing them web pages). Middle-schoolers shouldn't be left on computers to be babysat and taught by them any more than they should be babysat and taught by TV; teachers should be there to guide students and to punish those looking up inappropriate/indecent things. And once you get to high-school, the only real issue is whether a student is being a disturbance to his education or the education or others; at that age, the issue should be about respect others and understanding that living in society one should try to be sensitive to the possible over-sensitivities of others; but, that doesn't mean there should be a whole clusterfuck over students trying to find reputable information about sex (yea, those sorts of places do exist online even if they're greatly outnumbered by rumor/social and porn sites), even if it does piss some parents off.

      Trying to reduce the whole discuss down to whether to filter or not avoids the real issues. That's not surprising because it's much easier to push a binary position when it comes to voting and being elected from a local all the way up to a national level. But, it's a disservice to students to treat kindergarteners like high school seniors. And, it's a disservice to society to unleash such seniors upon the world.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    13. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      wikis, chat rooms, and social networks etc.

      How in gods name will children learn how to waste time at work without these valuable tools!

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    14. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is that around the world, there is all kinds of new "filtering" legislation, most of which is geared towards crushing free speech! Look at what happened in 1930 Germany. This is the start of a free (so no one will say no) and filtered internet. We must resist that, nothing is free, i do not want to trade my freedom for some free internet. There is too much to lose, we have already lost NNTP for the most part. It is always in the name of protection, in the end it is used to oppress. Such as the 20,000 troops being deployed in the US, to quell "Civil unrest". Look in to this, we are under attack by the very people who are sworn to protect us (and the constitution, but we know how that's been going, *cough* Patriot Act). Wake up everyone, things are not as they should be, it is up to us, as the citizens, to educate ourselves, which means going beyond just reading the headlines on our beloved Slashdot. ...trueworldhistory.info, infowars.com

      --geefy

    15. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      I'm absolutely opposed to filtering. It doesn't need to be filtered - it needs to be observed and discussed.

      Putting a filter or other bar to access out there will just encourage kids to try to get around the filters and will set up an oppositional relationship where it's Us vs. Them and each side pointlessly tries to get ahead of the other. That does nothing but waste resources and valuable learning opportunities for something that you acknowledge is so easy to circumvent.

      Instead, activity should be observed and discussed. Kids browsing for porn in the lab? So that's a good time to have a discussion about puberty, sex education, ask thought provoking questions that might get the kids to think - like, what do you think about the people who act in those movies? What about the people who pay to see them? And so on. Make it a math lesson coupled with research - porn is a business, what are the numbers behind it? Or to talk about social responsibility and the idea of rights - does their having porn on their screen make another student uncomfortable? Is it right that they should disregard someone else's feelings and do what they want? Is it right that they should restrict their own viewing habits out of deference to the wishes of someone else? Or even a meta discussion - some people say we should restrict what kids can see, other people don't, some people who think we should restrict things disagree on what should be restricted, etc.

      One of these approaches teaches kids to attempt to thwart an arbitrary and (usually) incompetent authority system that wants to punish them for being curious. The other helps kids learn to think about things from multiple perspectives and to think of their teachers as allies rather than foes. If we're going to really re-make the educational system in this country, changing the whole dynamic between kids and their teachers is an EXCELLENT way to start.

      The problem I see is that for the most part, people who are REALLY smart and REALLY want to work with kids go into teaching thinking they can actually make a difference, only to get burnt out when they realize that they're working with people who are, essentially, trying to run a minimum security prison for children. If we want to get smart and motivated teachers, paying them more isn't the only part of the answer - in fact, I suspect it's a very small part of the answer. Instead, we should allow those smart, motivated people to actually *teach* rather than using them as little more than prison guards who hopefully will get kids to (if they're lucky) occasionally do some math.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    16. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      You're okay with blocking porn, as long as it's actually porn? Do you have a simple, unambiguous definition for it?

      What about violence? And what constitutes violence? Are graphic pictures from the Holocaust too much, or is that okay because it's "History?" What about pictures of skate-borders getting badly injured on youtube? What about the Zapruder film? What about pictures from surgical procedures? How about pictures of self-mutilation?

      How about chemistry texts? Should we not allow kids to have access because they can figure out things that will go boom, or do we only restrict things like how to make pipe-bombs?

      What about hate speech? Should a kid be allowed to visit Stormfront, or should they be blocked? Should a child be allowed to read Mein Kampf or speeches given by other genocidal sorts, or shall we restrict that, too?

      You say you're opposed to blocking research, communication and collaboration tools - well, what if a kid wants to write a paper on sex and sexuality? What's considered a research tool and what's considered out of bounds? How old should a kid be before they're allowed to write a paper on sex? Should each kid have to get parental consent? If the kid gets parental consent, how do you keep them from sharing their stuff with other kids?

      It's not so simple as "block some of it, we all know what needs to be blocked" because, obviously, by the fact that there's any discussion at all, it shows that people will disagree.

      As I said in another post, the only solution that would actually *be* a solution and would actually enhance learning is to have the activity monitored and open for discussion, not filtered and punished. Treating kids like intelligent human beings rather than like criminals would go a LONG way to salvaging our educational system.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    17. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      That's true - but they will come to see school as a system for the arbitrary use of laughably ineffective authority, and that's not a very good situation, either.

      Why not use schools as places to inculcate a sense of intellectual curiosity where their interests can be explored safely and with people who genuinely care about their well being and helping them become informed, critically thinking adults?

      I notice that nobody who's said there should be filtering has offered anything close to a definition of what should be filtered that isn't so wildly ambiguous as to allow anything under the sun to be blocked or even said what they think the benefit of filtering the kids' access would be...

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    18. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 1

      I'm opposed to filtering in schools, because there's no reason to restrict that liberty. I'm not opposed to strict monitoring -- or monitoring for a "block list". Kids that step outside the rules should be swiftly, strictly, and publicly punished or humiliated.

      For most things in life, there's no such thing as a "block list". Teaching them that they are accountable for their OWN actions is one of the biggest missing pieces of today's education puzzle.

      Also, I can't believe all the anti-technology-for-schools ranting going on here. Sure, it can be a waste of time, and just adding computers isn't a panacea -- but come on, computers will play a HUGE part of any child's future life. How about teaching kids how to find and dissect useful information, evaluate sources, and educate THEMSELVES? Education today is becoming a force feeding, not a buffet. How did YOU learn about the things that fascinate you? Was it because that's what you were FORCED to do? I doubt it.

      Let's give kids the tools they need to learn about stuff their teachers may never know, or never want to know. When I was 10-12, I read five full years of back issues for Aviation Week & Space Technology. Without a doubt, I possessed an understanding of modern aviation technology far surpassing any of my teachers -- not because they were incapable of knowing it, but because there was nobody interested in it -- or in a million other subjects. Without the ability to find my own information (thanks Dad!), I would have had zero recourse to learn something that I love knowing about, to this day. If I'd had the Internet then? I would have read about unending fascinating subjects.

      Educationally, we misuse technology fantastically. There is so much potential for education. Just by doing math problems, for example, a computer program can easily determine your approximate math competency, and provide problems and explanations that will help you address SPECIFIC problems. It's hard to get that kind of specific attention from overworked teachers who don't have adequate time, resources, or focus to understand a kid's competencies, let alone how to address them.

      --
      -----[0_o]-----
      We are not amused.
    19. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't work at a school. I assure you they are that dumb, though dumb isn't really the word I'd choose. I can provide weeks of squid logs and sarg reports if you like.

      Personally I don't spend anything on our schools filter squid/squidGuard/shallalist works plenty good and is free. Sure, more web proxies come out every day, but I can add things as they come. It's not supposed to be perfect, more a deterrent than anything else.

    20. Re:Are filters in schools that bad? by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      Ya, I would say the main giveaway of it being a porn site is the big notification that says "this is a porn site, you must be 18 to enter" that all porn sites are required to have.

      If a website does not advertise itself as a porn site that sells porn to people, then it's not a porn site by my definition.

      To revise my original idea slightly, I wouldn't mind if the school districts blocked any websites that require their users to be 18+. If the creators of the website don't think that it is appropriate for children to view, then it probably isn't.

      Also, I learned how to make pipe bombs from a school computer. Interesting stuff, but not particularly useful. Of course mein kampf and stormfront should not be blocked. One important task for schools it to train children to be bullshit resistant, and hiding them from radical thinking does not help anyone.

  16. Failure is the only possible result by brian0918 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hoover tried big spending to fix a recession. That recession became a depression. When will politicians learn that increased govt spending and employment do not stimulate production and advance the economy, but in fact have the opposite effect? They are sacrificing the future for the present (the next 4 years). This is a clear sign of political pragmatism: help those who complain the loudest now, without regard for anyone else. Those other people who will be harmed by increased govt. spending - employers who could have had more employees (now working for the govt), producing goods that could have existed (supplanted with unnecessary bridges to nowhere), bought with the additional money that could have been in the pockets of consumers (now taxed to pay for these jobs) - will be the ones complaining tomorrow.

    1. Re:Failure is the only possible result by ValuJet · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your a idiot.

      Hoover tried protectionism. Look up the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It wasn't increased spending... it was protectionism and the dustbowl that made the Global recession so bad.

    2. Re:Failure is the only possible result by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hoover Dam, anyone? You may want to check out The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. She lists in detail with quotes the big spending projects of Hoover and FDR meant to stimulate the economy, and the result these projects had on the economy.

    3. Re:Failure is the only possible result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Your a idiot. Hoover tried protectionism. Look up the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It wasn't increased spending... it was protectionism and the dustbowl that made the Global recession so bad.

      No, YOU'RE an idiot :-)

    4. Re:Failure is the only possible result by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hoover tried big spending to fix a recession.

      Well, viewed generously, not until fairly late in the 1929-1933 recession, in the immediate wake of the 1929 crash he didn't do much, in 1930 he favored fairly moderate federal stimulus while asking state and local government to provide more stimulus, later he tried more significant stimulus (though still focussed on direct aid to capital with some public works), but the recession that started in 1929 didn't turn around until after Roosevelt began truly massive stimulus combined with more aggressive bank regulation to restore confidence in institutions. (Though, at least arguably, the more significant stimulus of the Hoover attempted toward the end, did play a big role, since the trough wasn't far into Roosevelt's efforts.)

      One might expect that people now would prefer not to have a four year recession that even another four subsequent years of strong top-line growth will still leave overall conditions so bad that it'll be called a "depression".

      When will politicians learn that increased govt spending and employment do not stimulate production and advance the economy, but in fact have the opposite effect?

      They will probably never learn that because nothing so simple is true. Whether government spending has a stimulative effect or not depends on whether the spending is in an area where the funds will have a higher velocity in the domestic economy than wherever the funds were taken from (whether taxed, borrowed, or transferred from other government spending.)

      If wealthy Americans have a low marginal propensity to spend, and are investing largely overseas, then taxing them and spending on labor intensive projects in the domestic economy that have their own economic utility and where most of the workforce will have a high marginal propensity to spend on goods that are supplied domestically (at least in the immediate sense, e.g., at retail) is likely to have a stimulative effect. Even more stimulative, if economic conditions have driven down direct foreign investment in US private capital markets, is borrowing money from abroad for the same purpose.

      OTOH, taxing people with a higher marginal propensity to spend and transferring funds to Americans with a lower marginal proposenity to spend (as, in effect, the massive bank bailouts with little control on use have done) is exactly the opposite of stimulative.

    5. Re:Failure is the only possible result by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Hoover Dam was first proposed, by Hoover, granted, in 1922. His predecessor as President, Calvin Coolidge, signed the bill authorizing it in 1928; it was never a depression recovery project per se, the money had already been allocated before there was a Depression.

      Contra Amity "You're all a bunch of whiners" Shlaes, who's work has been effectively discredited by anyone who cared to think about it for five minutes.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    6. Re:Failure is the only possible result by brian0918 · · Score: 1
      The Dam became popularly accepted (and approved) once it was trumpeted as a means to stimulate the economy, around the end of 1928 into 1929. It remains true that the spending actually occurred when the dam was built, and they could have stopped the plan at any time and returned the money to the consumers.

      who's work has been effectively discredited by anyone who cared to think about it for five minutes.

      And I can say the same for Paul "Have Your Cake And Eat It Too" Krugman.

    7. Re:Failure is the only possible result by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      they could have stopped the plan at any time and returned the money to the consumers.

      Consumers? Maybe you mean the lenders, who didn't want their money back, they wanted the interest payments on the coupon and in their passbooks, because FDR was out BEGGING people to put their money back into banks so that the banks could put the money into paper to help re-liquify the economy. If you want a liquidity crisis and deflationary spiral, by all means stop government spending. In order for your argument to make sense you'd have to establish that the burden of the cost of the Boulder Dam was upon people who were in a position to consume more than the construction of the dam would have, and then furthermore that they would have indeed consumed, instead of simply hoarding the cash. With prices dropping throughout the country, and people hoarding cash due to the collapsing banking system, this is dubious.

      I prefer eating the cake and paying for it later, which is what we did in the '30s, to eating the Iraq, er, cake and expecting the Chinese to loan us out of it because "Deficits don't matter", without considering what would happen if we actually DID need to borrow money for fiscal stimulus at some point.

      The Krugman/Keynesian argument is that you have deficits when you need to stimulate the economy, and that you pay them back with higher taxes during cyclical upswings. For the last 8 years, while we were relatively flush, we haven't been paying back our debts, so now when we really need to borrow we're screwed.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    8. Re:Failure is the only possible result by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      The Krugman/Keynesian argument is that you have deficits when you need to stimulate the economy

      Unfortunately their plan for how to stimulate the economy has the exact opposite effect.

    9. Re:Failure is the only possible result by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Do you have any substantive response to the arguments? Can you demonstrate that their plan has "the opposite effect," and what does that mean? Does their plan cause deflation, because in general it's meant to intentionally induce inflation, and historically it succeeded. Does it cause an increase in unemployment, or decrease in real wages, or a decrease in liquidity, or interest rates, because none of these things happened historically.

      I was thinking, if this whole mess had happened in 2002, and Bush had kept the Clinton budgets until that time, the war would probably make a lot of sense in strictly economic terms. Big outlay of cash, put people to work, borrow against future gains in resource control in the middle east. Woulda rocked, and Bush would have been lauded as a sort of genius that saved the economy, just like FDR. Being a spendy politician can pay off if you time it right, and being a austere one can too, as Clinton discovered.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    10. Re:Failure is the only possible result by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      the war would probably make a lot of sense in strictly economic terms.

      Ahh, yes, the old fallacy that destruction brings prosperity. As for your questions, see the two links in my original post.

    11. Re:Failure is the only possible result by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I've read the screed you linked to, it's bizarre, like timecube bizarre. It's just a bunch of assertions about how people behave when X and Y happen, without ever citing an example of it actually happening. It's all in his head, and utterly truthy and moralistic and "common sensical" without once dirtying itself with evidence.

      Example: The argument that taxation and government spending decreases production depends on the assumption the the US tax system, in aggregate, is on the right side of the peak of the Laffer curve, which is what Hazlitt is essentially arguing in so many words, but at no time does he offer evidence that people are slacking in their production at higher rates of taxation. Obviously people will eventually, but where, and how is this affected by marginal tax rates? The highest earners were taxed over 90% on their highest bracket through the 1950s, and there was no "Atlas Shrugged" style revolt of investors and economic elites.

      You also have to consider the opportunity cost; gobs of that money was going to Europe under the Marshall plan. If we didn't spend that money, would we have had a Soviet France, and Germany, and Italy threatening Britain? So many things to take into account, but no, Taxes are Evil and nothing could justify them.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    12. Re:Failure is the only possible result by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I did, and you can see my response above. He makes a bunch of claims, but nowhere does he show anything actually happening. If taxation lowers productivity, show me the chart, with real numbers of real people making real transactions.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    13. Re:Failure is the only possible result by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      If taxation lowers productivity, show me the chart, with real numbers of real people making real transactions.

      Of course no such chart could ever be produced. It would be like asking me to draw you a picture of "consciousness" using nothing but neurons. This is part of the appeal of your heroes' arguments. They assume that things will work themselves out in the end so long as something is done immediately. What is not seen, what cannot be charted, is the economic growth that *did not happen* because of increased taxation. They would have us continually struggling to survive a recession, and pay it back during prosperity, with the implicit assumption that the end result is a better economy. But they have nothing to compare to. Meanwhile, Hazlitt's argument makes sense in theory. Krugman wants you to panic. Hazlitt says there's nothing to worry about.

    14. Re:Failure is the only possible result by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Of course no such chart could ever be produced. It would be like asking me to draw you a picture of "consciousness" using nothing but neurons.

      The chart has Tax rate on the X-Axis and Productivity on the Y-Axis. These are both empirically determinable. Sample a bunch of people paying different tax rates and determine their productivity. The Congressional Budget Office has done studies like this one where the effect of a tax cut is assumed, and then all the economic feedbacks are accounted for based on current productivity and trends. You can't read the future, but if you can't even make forecasts, there is no such thing as economics.

      This is part of the appeal of your heroes' arguments. They assume that things will work themselves out in the end so long as something is done immediately. What is not seen, what cannot be charted, is the economic growth that *did not happen* because of increased taxation.

      The problem with your hero's argument is that he has no evidence to back up his claims. Show me that people work less when taxed at a certain rate. The fact is, there isn't very much evidence that this happens; it seems like common sense that it would, but it also is common sense that the sun travels around the Earth. History is full of examples where a country turned to austerity and all of the metric we measure an economy by went down. I give you history, Hazllitt gives you homilies.

      It's telling that at no time does Hazlitt even claim that New Deal programs have hurt the economy. He says that they should, and that they can in ways that are, essentially, impossible to know. This is not science, this is gnosticism. This is religion.

      They would have us continually struggling to survive a recession, and pay it back during prosperity, with the implicit assumption that the end result is a better economy. But they have nothing to compare to.

      Aside from the US economy during the 1950s and 1960s, when America used its vast investments in assets like bridges, highways, dams and a secure Europe to exploit new markets and drive economic growth.

      Meanwhile, Hazlitt's argument makes sense in theory.

      That isn't enough.

      I guess my point is that economic decisions have to be evidence-based and if you think action A will cost money, you have to be able to say how much and why. You do it when you get a mortgage, and governments do it when they raise revenue. That's what economists do. Economics in One Lesson only works if you accept that economics is mainly moral or philosophical, and that decisions regarding taxation, borrowing and spending must be informed by the way a certain small-L liberal value system regards property rights, and the ordering of a man's estate.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    15. Re:Failure is the only possible result by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      History is full of examples where a country turned to austerity and all of the metric we measure an economy by went down. I give you history, Hazllitt gives you homilies.

      Your second link didn't work, but the first one points to the results of a manipulated economy, in which the government induces a bubble, is suddenly popped. What is your point? The bubble would not have existed in the first place without government intervention. Your assumptions are that the bubble could have been sustained without further government intervention.

      This is not science, this is gnosticism. This is religion.

      There is no theory in science? Enough with the drama please.

      economic decisions have to be evidence-based and if you think action A will cost money, you have to be able to say how much and why.

      I agree that they should be evidence-based, but in economics it's difficult to be sure that the evidence is in support of theory X or opposing theory Y. There is no shortage of people claiming to have evidence supporting their theories, and there is no shortage of fanboys such as yourself accepting those claims at face value.

      For me, the underlying concern is individual rights. So long as the government intervenes in the economy, rights are violated. No matter how commonplace rights violations become, they still occur nonetheless. Krugman and like-minded economists have not shown the cause for concern that justifies rights violations. It's just assumed that something must be done, and that the only solution involves the government.

    16. Re:Failure is the only possible result by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      For me, the underlying concern is individual rights. So long as the government intervenes in the economy, rights are violated.

      Yeah, I just don't believe in that. I primarily don't believe that a holding in government-issued currency constitutes "property" in the same sense as a house, or capital. "Dollars" are just a service provided by the government by fiat in order to facilitate transactions. If you keep them as cash, or use their numerical value to determine your "wealth," you're ultimately abusing their purpose. Thus...

      Krugman and like-minded economists have not shown the cause for concern that justifies rights violations.

      I suspect, my good fellow, that there is no evidence of any kind, than any person could produce, that would justify the taking of a right by your lights. And that's probably as it should be; rights should not be bought. I believe in a iron right to property, but "Dollars" are not property in the sense that this computer is, or my house is. They're a mechanism by which the government provides people with the service of buying and selling; they have zero intrinsic value, and thus the government isn't really taking anything tangible when they relieve you of them. Clearly, if they take too many you won't bother working for them, and if the government doesn't give you enough when you build a bridge for dollars, you won't want to use dollars, so its important to keep a balanced monetary policy and currency market, where people can come to an agreement on what a dollar is worth openly. But, since the US left the gold standard, money qua money is worthless. If you want to know what you have, ask your self "What of mine can I lay my hands on?," don't look at your balance sheet-- it's a fiction.

      The existence of currency is a profound intrusion of the government into the private sector-- they'll shoot you for stealing little pieces of green cloth. But without it, chaos, unless you want to go back to a gold standard, but even then, all you have is a note that can be exchanged for gold, a metal that is merely rare, and not very useful in general, except in barter for goods and services.

      So, yeah, I think taxation is justified because I live in a free, first-world nation state where my house or food cannot be stolen by armed thugs, and where I can go on a computer and interact with people thousands of miles away without having to worry about conveying specie to my phone company every month. They may tax me, but as long as we all bear the burden and we all enjoy the fruits, and as long as I'm free to call the system garbage and demand it changed if I see fit to complain, and as long as I receive a just wage for hard work, what's the big deal? If you think the principle is profoundly unfair, you may leave it, but I think you're better off with us, and we with you. I would personally concern myself more with those among us who benefit from what we as a people have created, but don't put in their fair share.

      Now, if they took away my life savings in order to build an Obama monument, I'd be pissed and would demand action. But, of course, they propose no such thing. If they use this stimulus to build the LACTMA Expo Line to pass by my house, it will save me more in gasoline than the total tax probably ever would, ten times over.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    17. Re:Failure is the only possible result by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      That's sorta risible on its face isn't it? Since real property and money are fungible. Hmm... must think more.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    18. Re:Failure is the only possible result by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      More to the point...

      Your assumptions are that the bubble could have been sustained without further government intervention.

      My point is that a deflationary economy was hobbled in both cases by contracting government spending, and you haven't demonstrated that the outcome would have been any different.

      There is no theory in science? Enough with the drama please.

      There is theory, but nobody took Einstein very seriously until Special relativity was proved with experimental evidence. You can say that reducing government spending produces better economic outcomes for a country, and offer a lot of really good reasons why, but you have to show it happen, too, before you can expect policy makers (at least the incoming batch) to take you seriously.

      I agree that they should be evidence-based, but in economics it's difficult to be sure that the evidence is in support of theory X or opposing theory Y.

      This statement is a solipsism. You should be able to define a proposition in such a way that it's provable true or false, otherwise there is no science here. Does expansion in government spending stop deflation, "yes." Does it create employment, "yes." Does it do these things as well as spending contraction? No. Would the outcome be different 10 years down the line? Gotta do cost-benefit analysis, byt the question is answerable. I guess the rub is, What is the proposition that we're trying to prove? I say that expanding government spending increases employment and liquidity in the near term and ultimately shortens the length of a recessionary cycle.

      Don't call me a fanboy, we have an honest disagreement.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    19. Re:Failure is the only possible result by mc6809e · · Score: 1

      The problem with your hero's argument is that he has no evidence to back up his claims. Show me that people work less when taxed at a certain rate.

      My wife quit a part-time job simply because our combined income meant she'd be working at a miserable effective hourly rate after taxes. It just wasn't worth it to her.

      Sure, it's a personal example, but she can't be the only one.

    20. Re:Failure is the only possible result by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      This does happen, but is the action taken by your wife consequence of your famiy's rate of taxation, or the fact that two married people are taxed as one entity? It's really about the iniquity of a marriage penalty. And also, in order to really answer this question, we'd have to figure out what her productivity at home is, and if that isn't actually more than on the job -- considering a homemaker's work can be valued in the 6 figures, this isn't so ridiculous, and she might be more productive in the home than at a bad job.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    21. Re:Failure is the only possible result by master_p · · Score: 1

      The site you posted is totally wrong. The best economies and societies to live in have heavy taxation: Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, etc.

    22. Re:Failure is the only possible result by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      I primarily don't believe that a holding in government-issued currency constitutes "property" in the same sense as a house, or capital.

      You're claiming that the government has found a loophole in property rights. You'll need some more explanation than "I don't believe that" to back up your claim.

      "Dollars" are just a service provided by the government

      That has been the case since the government granted itself total control over the currency, and then detached it from any finite standard. Before then that was not the case. What right does the government have to grant itself that control? (be careful not to appeal to authority/tradition here)

      But without it, chaos

      You'll have to provide some explanation for this.

      a metal that is merely rare

      Rarity is not the issue. It just makes it easier to measure. The issue is finiteness. The amount of gold (or any other heavy element) is for the most part finite. You can dig and find some more gold, but you'll have to do work to make that happen, and even so you're not bound to affect the value of gold that much. With government fiat, they can spam the economy with as much or as little currency as they want, and suddenly your bank account only exists if the federal government decides it is so.

      So, yeah, I think taxation is justified because I live in a free, first-world nation state where my house or food cannot be stolen by armed thugs

      And you do not think people would be willing to donate money to the police, courts, and military if they had more of their own money to work with, in this country where so much goes to charity?

      If you think the principle is profoundly unfair, you may leave it

      Or I could persuade public opinion to shift in my favor to get politicians elected who will uphold individual rights - my purpose here.

      I suspect, my good fellow, that there is no evidence of any kind, than any person could produce, that would justify the taking of a right by your lights.

      As individual rights are a fundamental principle, that is for the most part correct, however emergency situations may have cause for rights violations (such as disease quarantine).

      If they use this stimulus to build the LACTMA Expo Line to pass by my house, it will save me more in gasoline than the total tax probably ever would, ten times over.

      Throughout your entire post, all you're saying is that the ends can justify the means, which means we have no basis for an ethical system. How can you ask "what should I do" if you're not 100% sure that the outcome will go as planned? Do you really want to live in a society where you'll be punished for doing what you believed was the right move, if your action inadvertently leads to something worse? This sort of punishment happens all over the world and is a result of the faulty belief that only the ends matter - the belief you are trumpeting in your post.

  17. The .com plan to fix the economy. by fredmosby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Take a bunch of money out of the economy.

    2. Shuffle it though an inefficient bureaucracy .

    3. Put what remains back into the economy.

    4. ???

    5. Economic recovery.

    1. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Shuffle it though an inefficient bureaucracy .

      Wait, so AT&T and Comcast are efficient non-bureaucracies? Hahaha. Sounds like you've never worked for a big business.

      Lets see, on top of all the handouts and monopolies they are granted they still cant build out capacity. In fact, the US is the world leader on filtering out and curbing torrent packets! So when the government FINALLY decides to move in and do something about it, we get more whining from slashdotters. Sigh.

    2. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by WiglyWorm · · Score: 5, Insightful
      1. Take money out of the top of the economy where it just curculates around buying luxury yahts, private jets, etc.
      2. Put money in to the bottom of the economy where it buys things like houses, cars, TVs, and flows back up to the top
      3. Economic Recovery

      As much as people like to bash "tax and spend liberals" the economy and stock market historically does better when one is in office.

    3. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, because overweight, cigar smoking, filthy rich Republicans build yachts and fuel private jets.

      It would be neat if your understanding of economics was less . . . cartoonish.

      -Peter

    4. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      All that plan requires is a restructuring of the tax code, not an increase in government spending. Also, I'm a little unclear as to why changing what money gets spent on will increase overall employment.

    5. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      1. Increase debt to foreign nations and/or print money out of thin air, devaluing the dollars saved by responsible Americans

      2. Shuffle it though an inefficient bureaucracy .

      3. Put what remains back into the economy.

      4. ???

      5. Economic recovery.

      There, fixed that for you. There's no money for the government to take out. Remember, Obama is planning to cut taxes, which means the government has even less revenue than it does now (and we're already running large deficits). Less revenue, more spending. That's the formula for success, apparently.

    6. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cartoonish? The rich aren't going to suddenly become poor and stop buying yachts... and even if they stopped buying yachts, no one is going to cry for the loss of a yacht company. They're a small market with very few employees and high high profit margins (which go into the pockets of the yacht company owner); the same amount of money spent on things that aren't yachts would employ MORE people.

    7. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by maxume · · Score: 1

      It takes an awful lot of pretending to believe that responsibility is sliced and diced that neatly.

      For one thing, the sitting president usually has to contend with a hostile Congress (ooh, so it's the tax and spend liberals who send things sideways when a Republican is president).

      Another thing that makes it hard to do is that there are all sorts of one time events that have nothing to do with the sitting President. Take the last 20 years. The Gulf War probably would have gone about the same with a Democrat in the big chair, but you are crediting Bush I will the economic consequences. Government spending contributed to the success of the internet, but things really took off because computers reached a certain performance/price level, not because Bill was in office. And so on, in either direction.

      Another major factor is that Presidential policy doesn't take effect immediately, so decisions made in previous administrations end up having impacts on current administrations.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by maxume · · Score: 1

      An Obama tax cut will almost certainly result in a drop in revenues, but it is not a tautology that a tax cut results in a drop in revenues (take the case of a 100% tax, no one would bother working, or at least, they wouldn't tell the government about it).

      As long as they are paid for with tax increases in reasonable order, tax cuts can be a prudent way to stimulate the economy (this part has largely been ignored since WW2 was paid off)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

      As was pointed out in a reply to a different comment:

      A yacht company is a small afair with few employees, low demand, and huge margins. They do not buy much, and they do not disperse much money to their help.

      If a 1.2 million dollar yacht was not bought and say, 1.2 million dollars worth of middle-class houses were built, you would be employing dozens of workers for the contractor. You would be orddering lumber which keeps saw mills and logging companies in business, you would be ordering nails which would benefit the employees of the factory, the foundry, and the mining company, shingles which would employee the shingle manufacturer, and more mines (shingles are made from asphault usually), fiberglass insulation, windows, concrete, not to mention the trucking companies that deliver all these things.
      Dollar for Dollar, the house, the TV, car, or just about anything the middle class will buy is far better for the economy than things the upper class are going to spend their money on.

    10. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Kyle3om · · Score: 1

      How did government spending contribute to the sucess of the internet? Other than the fact that al gore built it of course. The gov rarely contributes to the economy, the best they can do is stay out of its way.

    11. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) Who do you think builds Yachts, Jets etc?

      I remember way back when (10-15 years ago), a certain Bill Clinton Administration passed a "Luxury Tax" on such things. The logic was that the rich will just keep buying these things even if they taxed them to death. Reality was that they had to rescind the tax when the workers for the companies making those thing lost their job. Not a single rich person lost their job. Taxes only hurt the poor, regardless of who you think you're punishing.

      2) The Top of the economy buys things from the bottom of the economy, and hires them to service the rich.

      The problem isn't the rich, in spite of Obama and the left. The poor will always be with us. Looking around here in the USA, Most of those called "poor" aren't really "poor", especially when compared to the truly impoverished in the rest of the world.

      I care more about opportunity than I care about people being poor. Opportunity to succeed and be successful. To that end, each and every regulation government imposes limits the ability of one to succeed. True economic justice doesn't punish success (taxes, regulation), True economic justice means the little guy has as much opportunity to succeed as the big guys. Let me know when a true startup or small mom/pop company can make a car, without being regulated to death before they even start.

      3) Economic Recovery can only happen when we start imposing the same restrictions on imported goods as found on goods produced in the US (or where ever you are). The reason we offshore is because there is economic advantage to. When we can't make electronics in the US because of environmental, worker safety, and wage laws make it non-feasible to do so, but China has no such problems, of course all of our stuff will be made in China.

      AND as long as Walmart and others only want "cheap" goods, it will remain so. Neither the (R) or (D) understand this. Because both want more regulation.

      And before you start saying "evil corporations", corporations are neither evil or good. They are built to make money for their owners, which often times are you (Stocks, bonds, pension funds, 401K etc). And you are buying their products. People are evil or good.

      Choose Good .... everytime.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      devaluing the dollars saved by responsible Americans

      Time to take that savings and buy a house. No, seriously, have you seen prices lately?

      Saving is good, but too much saving, and you get deflation and a Japanese-style "lost decade" recession.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    13. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

      ... If it weren't for government spending from DARPA, there would be no internet.

      What Al Gore meant when he said he invendted the internet was that he was one of the primary names on the bill that turned ARPANET into the Internet as we know it.

    14. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

      I just bought a house myself... This house is easily worth 140,000-$150,000 (in my market, that's a nice family sized house)... 4 bedrooms, 1,600+ square feet, 2 baths, 2 car garage, near a half acre of property... I'm getting it for $95,000.

    15. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually we tried this with Bush 41 (Luxury tax-remember?). The rich DID QUIT buying yachts (from US companies), putting them out of business.

      Also, the 1.2 million paid tot he small yacht business would be spent within the US, instead of buying cheap imported stuff for your new house built with cheap imported illegal labor.

      Dollar for dollar, the yacht companies are far better for the US economy......

    16. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by imamac · · Score: 1

      That's because it doesn't really matter who is president when the stock market is concerned. It is more affected by congress.

    17. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. Another fine graduate of the Hanna-Barbera School Of Cartoon Economics.

    18. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >Shuffle it though an inefficient bureaucracy .

      Wait, so AT&T and Comcast are efficient non-bureaucracies? Hahaha. Sounds like you've never worked for a big business.

      Sounds like you've never worked for - or intimately with - the Federal Government. Compared to that institution, Comcast, AT&T, IBM, and even GM are nimble and highly responsive entities!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    19. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      So you're saying: Ban the import of goods manufactured in facilities which would not meet US safety and environmental regulations, were they located here?

      I like this. Bring your idea to some industrial labor union. Draft it into a bill. Have their lobbyists push it through.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    20. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by artsrc · · Score: 0, Redundant

      1. Take a bunch of money out of the economy.

      It is not clear much money will be coming out of the economy.

      The plan is to borrow (deficit) and print (low interest rates) money rather than tax it.

      This seems to be working well, with inflation staying low, and 30 year bond yields at 3%.

      When confidence is low people choose to spend less and save, so even if we chose to tax this would not take that as much money out of the economy as was spent.

      2. Shuffle it though an inefficient bureaucracy .

      3. Put what remains back into the economy.

      4. ???

      4. Jobs, income, confidence.

      5. Economic recovery.

      The whole thing hinges on what people decide to do, so it is not a simple or predictable thing to manage. Even if you can just convince people it will work then it might.

    21. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      No.

      Congress critters, unions and lobbyists are part of the problem. It would be much easier to require foreign goods to be manufactured for import by US standards, required of US companies.

      This means that companies wanting to import products would voluntarily agree to ALL the standards, regulations and controls, AND inspection, or else their products won't be allowed import.

      We shouldn't allow products that don't comply with our standards into our country. If it is good enough for us, it should be good enough for everyone.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    22. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for a 2 bedroom condo in LA to approach $300,000, but I get the idea :)

      Everyone should read about the Japanese deflation, it was an absolute mess. It would appear that the Obama folks are taking Krugman's advice:

      So never mind those long lists of reasons for Japan's slump. The answer to the country's immediate problems is simple: PRINT LOTS OF MONEY. But won't that be inflationary? Well, remember that the Bank of Japan is supposed to be impotent: if it prints more money, people will simply hoard it rather than save it. But printing money is only inflationary if people spend it, and if that spending exceeds the economy's capacity to produce. You cannot first argue that monetary policy is ineffective as a way to increase demand, then reject a proposal to print more money on the grounds that it will cause inflation.

      Japan's problems were compounded by people saving and then not ever spending. I heard, anecdotally, that it wasn't unusual for people in average jobs to have the equivalent of over $100,000, or several multiples of a years salary in their savings account. Since there was deflation this made sense, since freezing your money into a purchase would cause it to lose value, but if people didn't spend, demand would never drive price appreciation, thus investments lose money, thus don't buy, thus investments lose money, thus don't buy...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    23. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      What you are saying is true, if we aren't running deficits, increasing the national debt, and increasing the money supply unnaturally.

      "...sometime between 2030 and 2040, mandatory spending (primarily Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt) will exceed tax revenue"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

      Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Budgetary_Treatment_of_Interest_Expense

    24. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Is 0% too much savings?

      http://www.saschameinrath.com/2008/sep/08/united_states_personal_savings_rate_freaks_me_out
      http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/sav/20060308a1.asp

      Spend spend spend. Wealth is not spending. Cheap debt and depressed savings interest rates cause malinvestment, ruin market insight from cost-benefit analysis, and ultimately result in the formation of economic bubbles.

    25. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the "ideal capitalist economy"

      1. Let the rich leach the poorer dry through monopolies, price fixing and lobbying for lower taxes on capital gains/rich bracket

      2. ?????

      3. The "twinkle down" economics make the poor's standard of living higher!

      It is amazing to me how the "conservatives" and "the right" keep kicking themselves in their asses with respect to tax policy. Prime example is the fake "Joe the Plumber" in the last elections. Not only he did not have millions to buy a business that would generate $350k/year for him, but he owned tax money to the state!

      Then again, I think these people do not live in a real world but in a fantasy. They honestly *believe* that they *will* be making that much money and hence do not want to screw their future them over with high taxes. They would rather pay high taxes *now*, not when they are rich!

      Sadly (maybe for myself as well as these people :), this reminds me of Ferengi in Star Trek.
          - Why do you put up with people exploiting you?
          - It's not that we like it, but we strive so one day *we* can become the exploiters, not the exploited
        --- Deep Space 9, I think.

      As to parent, there is only one thing that fixes the economy and that is time. Time for people to forget and start spending.

      And where are the *fiscal conservatives*????? WTF are you doing sitting on your collective asses with 10+ trillion debt and just getting worse? Or maybe you are extinct species now?

    26. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Absent manipulation of the money supply, price appreciation is caused by... wait for it... an increase in value! When you manipulate the market with inflationary actions, you cause people to invest in things they would not otherwise invest in. Why would they not otherwise invest in them? Because they don't have a likelihood of increasing in value. So, you want people to invest in things that won't increase in value by forcing price appreciation? And then people will turn around and say the housing bubble was created by dirty money grabbers looking for more and more appreciation. Well, isn't that what you wanted?!

      At some point, what goes up must come down. Consistent price appreciation absent any value creation is NOT SUSTAINABLE. I do not understand how mainstream economics can be so short-sighted.

      Even your quoted article admits it was only a solution to immediate problems.

    27. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by ari+wins · · Score: 1

      1. Take money out of the top of the economy where it just curculates around buying luxury yahts, private jets, etc.
      2. Invest most of it into failing business models, so the Government can take over when they bottom out.
      3. Put rest of the money in to the bottom of the economy where it buys things like houses, cars, TVs, and flows back up to the Government
      4. Welcome our new Socialist Overlords

      Fixed that to look like my uneducated opinion about current trends.

      --
      Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
    28. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Take money out of the top of the economy where it just curculates around buying luxury yahts, private jets, etc.
      2. Put money in to the bottom of the economy where it buys things like houses, cars, TVs, and flows back up to the top
      3. Economic Recovery

      As much as people like to bash "tax and spend liberals" the economy and stock market historically does better when one is in office.

      I thought that the "top economy" buying luxury yachts, private jets, etc put money back into the "bottom economy"? Wait I forgot we can just give it to the bottom and so they don't have to work for it-sounds like calculators in math classes-let something/someone solve the problem for you, yeah!

    29. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      1. Take money out of the top of the economy that hires people to build yachts, fly private jets, etc.
      2. Give money to people that once worked for someone that needed a yacht built, flew a private jet so they can buy things made in china from Wal-Mart.
      3. Stagflation.

      Carter was one of the worst presidents ever, and Clinton was just riding the wave (so was bush JR.).

      The truth is that presidents have very little impact on an economy. Those of us investing income, and making, and consuming goods have a huge affect on the economy.

      I don't know about you guys, but I yanked everything I had in the stock market into bonds when it looked like a dem would take office in December 07, and apparently everyone else did too. I'm also building as large of a cash security fund as I can right now instead of hiring someone to work in my business which I really need because I'm not sure what the hell the tax situation is going to be, but I know if it gets cranked up like Obama promised (and I'm thinking he might not now), then I want to have enough cash on hand to feed my 4 kids and wife on my single income. Not only that I don't want to buy things that I can use as write offs if the tax code goes comrade on me.

      Right now if Obama would just come out and say he's putting a 2 year moratorium on increased taxes then it would have as large of a boost to investing as all this bailout crap. Granted, it wouldn't fix the economy, but at least maybe then we could focus on what matters. Investing, hiring, and buying stuff for our businesses. Maybe then the paralysis would subside a little.

    30. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by insllvn · · Score: 1

      1) Who do you think builds Yachts, Jets etc?

      I remember way back when (10-15 years ago), a certain Bill Clinton Administration passed a "Luxury Tax" on such things. The logic was that the rich will just keep buying these things even if they taxed them to death. Reality was that they had to rescind the tax when the workers for the companies making those thing lost their job. Not a single rich person lost their job. Taxes only hurt the poor, regardless of who you think you're punishing.

      Which is why sales taxes are foolish, because they come with too many unintended consequences. The government should take, or rather we should be expected to contribute to the maintenance of our communities, an amount commensurate with our personal annual income.

      2) The Top of the economy buys things from the bottom of the economy, and hires [the poor] to service the rich.

      The problem isn't the rich, in spite of Obama and the left. The poor will always be with us. Looking around here in the USA, Most of those called "poor" aren't really "poor", especially when compared to the truly impoverished in the rest of the world.

      I agree with you that poor and rich are amorphous and relative terms of little value in serious discussion. The important part is how big a gap separates those at the bottom from those at the top. The reason this is important is because strong countries, countries that last and even prosper, have a large middle class. Countries with a few rich elite and a large group of relatively impoverished folk, folk who live paycheck to paycheck, tend to wind up oligarchies or embroiled in rebellion. Society shouldn't punish the most productive and successful members of society, but they should be obliged to contribute in greater amounts to the welfare of the nation. Taxes aren't about punishment, they are about running a government.

      I care more about opportunity than I care about people being poor. Opportunity to succeed and be successful. To that end, each and every regulation government imposes limits the ability of one to succeed. True economic justice doesn't punish success (taxes, regulation), True economic justice means the little guy has as much opportunity to succeed as the big guys. Let me know when a true startup or small mom/pop company can make a car, without being regulated to death before they even start.

      What is justice? How does it relate to the economy? Remember, justice is neither freedom nor equality, those are clear cut and well defined virtues. If you study political theory, you will discover that man has been divided on the subject of what justice is since the field was developed some 2000 years. You seem to equate justice with equality of opportunity and freedom of action. This is one possible approach. It really comes down to your definition of opportunity. Is opportunity merely a lack of governmental interference, or is it a lack of morally arbitrary limits? Are you morally responsible for your skills? What I am saying is what percentage of success, in America, is because of hard work, and what percentage is a result of innate skills, luck and having sprung from the correct womb?

      3) Economic Recovery can only happen when we start imposing the same restrictions on imported goods as found on goods produced in the US (or where ever you are). The reason we offshore is because there is economic advantage to. When we can't make electronics in the US because of environmental, worker safety, and wage laws make it non-feasible to do so, but China has no such problems, of course all of our stuff will be made in China.

      As I understand you here, you are not proposing we lift environmental/worker safety/minimum wage laws here, but rather create a product categorization that denotes sustainable production, and safe conditions for workers paid a livable wage. This, it seems to me, is one of those proposals that is so brilliant, it is obvious when it is spelled out. I can't believe no one (that I have heard of) is suggesting it. It skirts the entire issue of appearing anti-free trade, while making any who appose it align themselves with pollution and worker cruelty in a much more direct way.

    31. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Who do you think builds Yachts, Jets etc?

      I remember way back when (10-15 years ago), a certain Bill Clinton Administration passed a "Luxury Tax" on such things. The logic was that the rich will just keep buying these things even if they taxed them to death. Reality was that they had to rescind the tax when the workers for the companies making those thing lost their job. Not a single rich person lost their job. Taxes only hurt the poor, regardless of who you think you're punishing.

      This is actually a variation of the broken window fallacy. We should build yatchs and other rich people toys so that the the yatch (glass) maker gets work. The taxes are there explicity because we don't want people to waste societies resources on luxuries. (although if they want they still can, just at a penalty)

    32. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To that end, each and every regulation government imposes limits the ability of one to succeed."

      "Economic Recovery can only happen when we start imposing the same restrictions on imported goods as found on goods produced in the US (or where ever you are)."

      Isn't imposing restrictions a form of regulating? Are you against economic recovery, or are you just contradicting yourself?

    33. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Taxes only hurt the poor, regardless of who you think you're punishing.

      Well the problem is in making sure that finances don't get hoarded... Hoarding of finances leads to a lot of problems.

      The Top of the economy buys things from the bottom of the economy, and hires them to service the rich.

      Not the absolute truth. The end result is usually, the poor are pushed to lower their prices. Since most of the rich and most others want to have better returns on their investments, and will not settle for something like 5-10%...

      can make a car

      Well... Not all things should be equally easy. And we give away those elements to increase our own safety. Would you like to buy a car that could potentially explode at any given time?
      You should remember that safety is NOT in the interests of private enterprises, income is...

      People are evil or good.

      People are greedy en masse.

    34. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      "Taxes only hurt the poor, regardless of who you think you're punishing."

      That's utter bs.

      What you are preaching is a good old fashion 'trickle down' theory.

      Trickle down assumes that the rich will not hoard. It assumes that those rich owning businesses will always devote increased earnings into growing the business and expanding their employee pool.

      It assumes that there is a linear relationship between a wealthy spender/business owner's income, and the money that is fed back into the economy, in a useful way.

      How does Bill Gates buy the Mona Lisa help the enconomy? Once you amass a certain wealth, more and more of that is either not spent, or spent only on luxuries, which are NOT drivers of the economy (yachts, for instance).

      *Some* taxation is good. Where you want to draw the line is tricky, but take a look at tax rates on the wealthy over the last 50 years, and overlay the gap between the wealthy and poor, and then note that major recessions occur when the rich get too rich.

    35. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

      3) Economic Recovery can only happen when we start imposing the same restrictions on imported goods as found on goods produced in the US (or where ever you are)

      Are you advocating for a 2009 version of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff? If so, I wish you the best of luck on that one.

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    36. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let me fix that for you...

      1. Print money out of nothing.

      2. Shuffle it though an inefficient bureaucracy filled with your buddies.

      3. Put what remains back into the economy (filled with your friends).

      4. Make $500k per hour giving speeches, all expenses paid for the rest of your life.

      5. Economic recovery? Who cares? Me and mine have ours.

    37. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Absent manipulation of the money supply, price appreciation is caused by... wait for it... an increase in value!

      High demand? Low supply?

      When you manipulate the market with inflationary actions, you cause people to invest in things they would not otherwise invest in. [..,] Even your quoted article admits it was only a solution to immediate problems.

      Well yeah, that's what we're talking about, right? Our immediate problems. The goal isn't to get people to buy houses in a bubble, the goal is to to prevent a deflationary spiral. Bubbles are bad, but better than decades-long deflation.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    38. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Right, because overweight, cigar smoking, filthy rich Republicans build yachts and fuel private jets.

      You know, it's funny how GP didn't even mention Republicans. He only talked about "the top of the economy ... buying luxury yahts, private jets, etc." - which is certainly a correct assessment for the top 1%. Somehow, you made a mental slip and substituted it for "Republicans". Perhaps you should consider why you did that - it may be enlightening.

    39. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I care more about opportunity than I care about people being poor. Opportunity to succeed and be successful. To that end, each and every regulation government imposes limits the ability of one to succeed. True economic justice doesn't punish success (taxes, regulation), True economic justice means the little guy has as much opportunity to succeed as the big guys.

      This is all well and good. The problem is that without at least some degree of regulation, the big guys (the ones who succeeded earlier) will try to block those trying to succeed now by price fixing, forming cartels, and otherwise monopolizing the market and abusing that monopoly - because, from a purely egoistic rational business standpoint, they want as few competitors as possible.

    40. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      It's funny, he didn't mention cigars either, but you fixated on the word "Republicans". I find hyperbole to be a useful rhetorical tool. I take it that you disagree.

      Also, regarding your sig, you might want to reconsider your definition of "civilization". A substantial portion of your tax dollars are spent on offensive weaponry and curtailing civil liberties.

      -Peter

    41. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Also, regarding your sig, you might want to reconsider your definition of "civilization". A substantial portion of your tax dollars are spent on offensive weaponry and curtailing civil liberties.

      I'm not a citizen of the United States of America.

      That said, offensive weapons are a requirement for any civilization that wants to survive, so I don't see a problem there in general (though the levels of military spending in the US specifically are certainly over the top).

    42. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking around here in the USA, Most of those called "poor" aren't really "poor", especially when compared to the truly impoverished in the rest of the world.

      If that's your benchmark, you've got pretty low standards.

      Look at the "poor" in other developed countries such as Australia and you'll find America is lagging WAY behind.

      Let me know when a true startup or small mom/pop company can make a car, without being regulated to death before they even start.

      Damn those safety laws! I want to drive a car with seatbelts that explode when I turn the wheel.

    43. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      > High demand? Low supply?

      No, supply-demand curves cannot explain bubbles. Real estate is in far oversupply, hence the devaluation, yet prior to the market fully realizing that real estate was overvalued, the prices continued to appreciate. This is a behavioral/psychological effect of the market factoring expected future appreciation into the current asset pricing. It was set forth by the monetary policy which showed consistent (but unexplainable) asset appreciation in real estate over long periods of time.

      > Well yeah, that's what we're talking about, right? Our immediate problems.
      > The goal isn't to get people to buy houses in a bubble, the goal is to to
      > prevent a deflationary spiral. Bubbles are bad, but better than decades-long
      > deflation.

      Unfortunately, your view is common. A bubble is a mis-valuation, meaning that the market value should be $x, but the assets were valued at $x+y. There is no inflationary action one can take in order to keep pressure from bringing the valuation down to its proper value of $x. What you and others are talking about is propping up prices above $x, but all this does is prolong the agony. Your presentation of a bubble-or-deflation view is ill-conceived at its very premise.

    44. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I don't think any responsible people are suggesting propping up housing prices (or any other prices) above $x.. Nobody is saying "cause a bubble or suffer deflation." I think it requires more than a bald assertion to say that government deficit spending, in the current climate, will automatically cause an asset-price bubble. And then further, even if it did, that the outcome of this scenario would be significantly worse than allowing the deflation to run its course.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    45. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      > I don't think any responsible people are suggesting propping up housing prices

      Actually, that is what they are all saying! Their thinking is that the problem is that borrowers are "upside down" (because they owe more than their homes are worth), and the way to keep the problems from growing is to keep prices from continuing to fall down to what the market would otherwise value them at.

      I didn't say deficit spending would prop up home prices (though, it probably would, because the whole point is to increase demand). I said the manipulation of the market through interest rates causes price appreciation without associated value increase. This is a bubble. To continue to artificially depress interest rates absolutely does intend to prop up prices above $x. Do you see what I'm saying?

    46. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Copid · · Score: 1

      At some point, what goes up must come down. Consistent price appreciation absent any value creation is NOT SUSTAINABLE. I do not understand how mainstream economics can be so short-sighted.

      I think you're misreading the mainstream economics position on inflation. Consistent increases in the overall price level are completely sustainable. Consistent increases in one sector (e.g. housing) are not. The problem with bubbles is a misallocation resources because the players in the market did a bad job of assessing risk and predicting future prices of that asset. I can't think of a rational argument that could make a good causal relationship between uniform price increases and an asset price bubble.

      That's not to say that the Fed acted correctly here. The credit expansion clearly allowed the misallocation of money to the housing market to grow far larger than it would have otherwise. I'm just suggesting that misallocation of investments are not a necessary consequence of consistent monetary policy.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    47. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      I think you're misreading the mainstream economics position on inflation. Consistent increases in the overall price level are completely sustainable.

      Inflation is not price increases. Prices increase as a result of inflation, which is why it is often used as one measure of inflation.

      The problem with bubbles is a misallocation resources because the players in the market did a bad job of assessing risk and predicting future prices of that asset. I can't think of a rational argument that could make a good causal relationship between uniform price increases and an asset price bubble.

      That's because I didn't make that argument. I am not sure what gave both you and the other responder the impression that I was talking about inflation. It is the manipulation of interest rates and the legislative obsession with increasing home ownership that kicked off the price appreciation. Then, once there was consistent price appreciation, investors jumped in looking for those same high returns. That continued to fuel the bubble.

      I'm just suggesting that misallocation of investments are not a necessary consequence of consistent monetary policy.

      What is "consistent monetary policy"? The Fed is manipulating the cost of capital at its will. How is that consistent or predictable?

      http://mises.org/story/3130

      How can you realistically value an asset if the Fed can change interest rates tomorrow and completely invalidate your valuation? The Fed's policies create unnatural volatility and unnatural volatility causes bubbles.

      How can you do a proper cost-benefit analysis to determine if an investment is a good investment by market standards if the cost of capital is x% one day and y% the next day? The Fed manipulations alter cost-benefit analysis and result in businesses investing in things they would otherwise not invest in -- OR NOT investing in things that they otherwise would have invested in -- if the cost of capital was at the market valuation.

      I can respond more precisely if you can clarify what you meant by "consistent monetary policy", as I genuinely don't know what that means when it comes to closed-door government intervention in the market.

    48. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Copid · · Score: 1

      Inflation is not price increases. Prices increase as a result of inflation, which is why it is often used as one measure of inflation.

      The problem here is the overloading of the word. You're probably referring to monetary inflation. That's not totally out of left field, but most economists are talking about a general increase in price levels when they use the word.

      That's because I didn't make that argument. I am not sure what gave both you and the other responder the impression that I was talking about inflation.

      Because you can't talk about manipulating interest rates and their effect on asset prices (local or global) and not talk about inflation. The subjects are inherently intertwined.

      It is the manipulation of interest rates and the legislative obsession with increasing home ownership that kicked off the price appreciation.

      I'd agree with that to some extent, but it assumes that low interest rates will necessarily cause those malinvestments. That's what I'm quibbling with. I would say that assuming a malinvestment is going to occur, low interest rates increase the incentive to pour money into it, especially if the malinvestment is though to be low risk.

      Then, once there was consistent price appreciation, investors jumped in looking for those same high returns. That continued to fuel the bubble.

      Sure.

      What is "consistent monetary policy"? The Fed is manipulating the cost of capital at its will. How is that consistent or predictable?

      A consistent monetary policy is one that produces relatively predictable price inflation.

      http://mises.org/story/3130 [mises.org]

      Let me pretend to be surprised that the link is from mises.org. I don't think that most of mainstream economics will disagree with the idea that the Fed's credit expansion enabled the housing credit bubble. I take issue with the Austrians' assumption that it was a necessary consequence of credit expansion. The question is, why housing, specifically?

      Under normal circumstances, a credit expansion would cause an increase in capital investment across the board. Eventually, we would have seen an uptick in the overall price level and the Fed would have taken its foot off the gas. In this case, we saw a largely isolated bubble. That reeks of poor risk assessment rather than a bad call on future interest rates. The money shot in your link is here:

      Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, mortgage-backed securities, and credit derivatives were simply the conduit that made all these bad loans and investments seem less risky than they really were. In this manner the Federal Reserve can fool the market, at least temporarily. In the end the market always reasserts itself.

      I'd argue against FM/FM being a major player in the low grade debt bubble, but the key here is that rather than a uniform expansion in investment and consumption of big ticket items as expected, we saw a bubble because the financial industry had managed to find a way to create an asymmetry in risk premiums for home loan backed assets. The last sentence makes no sense as the "fooling" and reversion to reality were with regards to risk and not the discount rate. He points it out himself. If the "government intervention" theory is to be borne out, it has to explain this asymmetry.

      How can you realistically value an asset if the Fed can change interest rates tomorrow and completely invalidate your valuation?

      You can't, assuming the Fed moves things willy nilly all over the place with no connection to reality. If it did that, I imagine it would be abolished fairly quickly. As it stands, most investors seem to have a pretty easy time predicting the general direction of the Fed's actions over time. If t

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    49. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      > That's not totally out of left field, but most economists are talking
      > about a general increase in price levels when they use the word.

      Price "inflation" is not very interesting. It's like saying global warming is the increase in average temperature. That's true, but it's just a measure of the underlying phenomenon.

      > Because you can't talk about manipulating interest rates and their
      > effect on asset prices (local or global) and not talk about inflation.
      > The subjects are inherently intertwined.

      ??? This is only true if you're saying that "inflation" is any increase in price. But again that isn't a meaningful statement.

      > it assumes that low interest rates will necessarily cause those
      > malinvestments. That's what I'm quibbling with.

      How? You keep talking about risk and how investors didn't assess risk properly. Well, that is what interest rates are! Interest rates index risk. I will lend you $x for your investment in Y, and I will charge you z% because I believe your investment has a w% chance of failure, which will impact my ability to get paid.

      I don't know how you can say that fixing interest rates outside of market valuation won't cause malinvestment. Think of the individual business decision. Should I invest in widgets? It will cost me $1 billion over the lifetime of the loan, and I will reap $900 million from it. I should not make the investment. The market is indicating that it is too risky. Let's now rewind and assume the Fed, in efforts to increase spending levels higher than they otherwise would be, depressed interest rates such that it will only cost me $850 million over the lifetime of the loan. I would now decide to make the investment, even though absolutely nothing about how the market would accept the investment has changed.

      > A consistent monetary policy is one that produces relatively predictable
      > price inflation.

      Relatively predictable based on... our understanding of the personality and economic philosophy of the regulator in charge? Or relatively predictable based on our understanding of market fundamentals?

      > Let me pretend to be surprised that the link is from mises.org

      Actually, I only meant to point to the historical rate chart to point out that it's not very predictable. I'm not trying to suggest that page explains the housing bubble.

      > I'd argue against FM/FM being a major player in the low grade debt bubble

      Really, because I've heard that argument before, have never bought it, and now seems to be a bit moot: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/10fannie.html?ref=business

      > You seem to be under the impression that this cycle of volatility didn't
      > exist before the Federal Reserve. I'm not sure why.

      I didn't say volatility didn't exist. I said the Fed creates unnatural volatility. Volatility in interest rates is a natural part of the market changing its willingness to lend money when risk changes. You can't separate interest rates from risk and then wonder why interest rates are no longer regulating risk.

      If there was no risk in an investment, the cost of capital would be zero.

      > The cost of capital has always fluctuated.

      Not the point!

      > One thing that has never made sense to me about the Austrians' business cycle
      > theory is that they attribute deep wisdom to investors when dealing with new
      > information unless that new information is Fed policy. Gold price shock? No
      > problem. The Fed made a relatively predictable change in the interest rate?
      > Total meltdown.

      The point is that interest rates are a key indicator and provide extremely valuable insight into the worthiness of an investment. The Fed's manipulation divorces interest rates from their cause, so they are no longer a valid measure.

      > > The Fed manipulations alter cost-benefit analysis and result in businesses
      > > inves

    50. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Copid · · Score: 1

      How? You keep talking about risk and how investors didn't assess risk properly. Well, that is what interest rates are!

      No, that's not true at all. A *part* of the interest rate is a risk premium. If risk goes to zero, interest rates don't go to zero.

      I don't know how you can say that fixing interest rates outside of market valuation won't cause malinvestment.

      I think that the more fundamental question is why it necessarily follows that they do. It seems to be based on the assumption that real interest rates don't reassert themselves over time or that the market interest rate at any given time will somehow produce the most successful investments.

      Think of the individual business decision. Should I invest in widgets? It will cost me $1 billion over the lifetime of the loan, and I will reap $900 million from it. I should not make the investment. The market is indicating that it is too risky. Let's now rewind and assume the Fed, in efforts to increase spending levels higher than they otherwise would be, depressed interest rates such that it will only cost me $850 million over the lifetime of the loan. I would now decide to make the investment, even though absolutely nothing about how the market would accept the investment has changed.

      Exactly how was this a malinvestment? You invested $850M and got $900M back. It would only be a malinvestment if it turned out to return less than you expected it to. The market wasn't necessarily indicating that it was too risky. In fact, there was no risk premium implicit in your description.

      Relatively predictable based on... our understanding of the personality and economic philosophy of the regulator in charge? Or relatively predictable based on our understanding of market fundamentals?

      Relatively predictable based on historical norms. A savy investor should be able to look at long term yield curves and decide on an investment that minimizes exposure to interest rate risk.

      Actually, I only meant to point to the historical rate chart to point out that it's not very predictable. I'm not trying to suggest that page explains the housing bubble.

      Well, the article purports to. But I agree with you that it doesn't.

      Really, because I've heard that argument before, have never bought it, and now seems to be a bit moot: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/10fannie.html?ref=business [nytimes.com]

      I'm not suggesting that the GSEs didn't invest in risky securities. I'm pointing out that attempting to scapegoat them for the bubble is quantitatively wrong. There are a few problems with the theory that the GSEs drove the bubble, the two most obvious being that their portfolios didn't underperform the national average and that they were losing market share through the worst excesses of the market. It's blaming the canary for the mine explosion.

      I didn't say volatility didn't exist. I said the Fed creates unnatural volatility. Volatility in interest rates is a natural part of the market changing its willingness to lend money when risk changes. You can't separate interest rates from risk and then wonder why interest rates are no longer regulating risk.

      Suggesting that volatility has increased since the Federal Reserve system came into effect is somewhat historically tone deaf. But more importantly, you're not drawing the distinction between the risk premium portion of an interest rate and the interest rate as a whole. If the "risk free" interest rate (let's say, good quality US government debt) drops, other interest rates will drop with it, but their spreads will still reflect the relative risk. Nothing about the change of the "risk free" rate should change those s

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    51. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      > No, that's not true at all. A *part* of the interest rate is a risk premium.
      > If risk goes to zero, interest rates don't go to zero.

      Zero is the theoretical floor. Given supply and no risk, interest rates will fall to zero, since a lender will lend as long as return is equal or greater than cost. You are right that it is in reality never going to be zero because we have a finite supply of dollars at any given time (but not over time); so I guess I should have said "absent risk, interest rates are nearly zero". It doesn't really change the point though, and even the money supply factors into risk calculations.

      > based on the assumption that real interest rates don't reassert themselves
      > over time

      How could they? It is the Fed who is controlling interest rates, not the market.

      > You invested $850M and got $900M back. It would only be a malinvestment if it
      > turned out to return less than you expected it to.

      You only made money because the Fed depressed interest rates below market. There was not enough value in the investment itself to make it worthwhile in its own right. You should have kept the liquidity for a more worthy investment.

      > Suggesting that volatility has increased since the Federal Reserve

      *STILL* did not say this.

      > Anybody trying to explain the housing bubble has to explain the sudden
      > shift toward mortages.

      We already covered this. Interest rate manipulation + legislative obsession with increasing demand on homes.

      > the risk premium that the market puts on a given investment does not
      > necessarily reflect actual risk.

      That's like saying that prices don't reflect market value. Yes they do, if government is out of the way.

      > More to the point, this is all a bit of a red herring as monetary policy
      > shouldn't affect risk spreads at such a fine granularity, only overall
      > investment patterns. An individual whose behavior is changed by a change
      > in interest rates is not usually changing because of a change in
      > perceived risk but because of a real change in opportunity cost.

      That is an oversimplification. When the money supply increases, the banks must find a way to lend it out or let it sit. In almost all environments, they will find a way to lend it out.

      Increase money supply. Increase housing demand through legislation and policy. Housing becomes outlet for money supply. Housing bubble. And if you look at where that demand had to increase (people who weren't already in the housing market), you begin to understand the focus on the subprime market.

    52. Re:The .com plan to fix the economy. by Copid · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really change the point though, and even the money supply factors into risk calculations.

      I assume you mean that assumptions about future changes in the money supply factor into risk calculations.

      How could they? It is the Fed who is controlling interest rates, not the market.

      Nominal interest rates don't reassert themselves. Real interest rates tend to. In fact, that's one of the points of the Austrian critique of interest rate manipulation.

      More importantly, individual interest rates on different investments will move out of concert with Fed activity depending on perceived risk (risk which is calculated *entirely* independently of, say the federal funds rate).

      You only made money because the Fed depressed interest rates below market. There was not enough value in the investment itself to make it worthwhile in its own right. You should have kept the liquidity for a more worthy investment.

      If there was a more worthy investment, you would have made it. The fact that you made the investment indicates that there was no worthy investment, and you were keeping the money because you simply preferred liquidity. Nothing in your example shows that you were "right" to prefer liquidity. The problem is that you're defining the "right thing to do" as "the thing I would have done in the absence of Fed activity." With that definition, of course you're going to show that the Fed causes mistakes. The problem is that those don't actually appear to be mistakes by any other objective measure.

      If interest rates are high and nobody is lending because they fear that all debts will be erased during the imminent alien invasion and government action somehow gets lending to start, was it the "wrong" thing to do? Only if they were right about the invasion and the market was wrong.

      To chose a more realistic example, if we reach a dead end in which it is rational for the market to lend as a whole and irrational for each individual lender to lend, we're going to be stuck in a credit freeze for a very long time until somebody in the market does something irrational or some external player changes the incentives.

      *STILL* did not say this.

      So your position is that the Federal Reserve does not contribute to excess volatility, but this time they screwed the pooch? I'd say that's reasonable. Over the long haul, central banking has been good for the business cycle. In this case, I'd argue that they misread the market because their normal indicators (eg core inflation) were confounded by a housing bubble and they decided incorrectly that it would be easier to clean up the mess than to pop the bubble.

      We already covered this. Interest rate manipulation + legislative obsession with increasing demand on homes.

      No, you've already *asserted* this. In fact, *I'm arguing with you* that interest rate manipulation *cannot* explain the preference for sub-prime lending over any other risky lending in the absence of another mitigating factor.

      As for the legislative obsession with increasing home demand, I'm against it, but I also disagree that it explains a bubble. Let's take an example: You're allowed to write off interest on your mortgage. OK, that causes house prices to go up across the board. Is that a bubble or irrational? No, it simply increases the market valuation of the homes forever. If they allowed an interest write off and then removed it 10 years down the road, that would be a contributor, but that's not what happened. The same thing goes for the GSEs and any number of other activities designed to inrease home ownership. The would drive up home prices above their natural market level, but that by itself doesn't constitute a bubble.

      That's like saying that prices don't reflect market value. Yes they do, if government is out

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  18. Public transport by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the same argument folks in the US use to justify the lack of public transport.

    The fact is that the US is 80% urban and suburban, so getting decent services to those folks (in both broadband and public transport) shouldn't be a problem. What is the problem, with internet connectivity anyway, is the deeply entrenched telecoms companies with their local monopolies.

    1. Re:Public transport by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is the problem, with internet connectivity anyway, is the deeply entrenched telecoms companies with their local monopolies.

      Agreed. The only thing that can break up their monopoly is for the local governments to permit competitors to lay competing parallel lines.

    2. Re:Public transport by MrMarket · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would take it a step further and allow local governments to lay the lines. We have public highways and roads. Why can't we have public fiber? I'm sure they could have some type of usage tax structure where the ISPs rent the public fiber and re-sell it.

    3. Re:Public transport by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why can't we have public fiber? I'm sure they could have some type of usage tax structure where the ISPs rent the public fiber and re-sell it.

      So the public would be taxed to pay for the city to lay the fiber, and then the increased tax on ISPs would be passed on to the same public to pay for service? This is your plan?

      I have a better plan. If a company comes along and wants to lay parallel lines. Let them. Don't stop them in any way. Don't fine them. Remove all possible hindrances, anything that could turn them away. It'll start out small and slowly expand at the same time that the demand for cheaper service drives prices down. More and more people will have better and better service.

    4. Re:Public transport by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact is that the US is 80% urban and suburban, so getting decent services to those folks (in both broadband and public transport) shouldn't be a problem.

      Broadband, perhaps. For public transport, though, US cities and, particularly, suburbs are deliberately laid out in a way which is very good for individual transport via cars and very bad for public transit. This is not an accident, its a deliberate choice. You can't just overlay public transit on top of that and expect it to be efficient, you've got to do a lot of work (on the order of several decades and, I would guess, trillions of dollars) in transit-oriented redevelopment of communities before public transit will be anything like efficient.

    5. Re:Public transport by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      This has been done in many places, and doesn't require any weird tax schemes. It's the same as any other utility cooperative. You raise the money, lay the infrastructure, then use the fees generated to maintain the system.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    6. Re:Public transport by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the city would lay fibre and then rent it out to service providers with a non-discriminatory policy to recoup costs. You don't need every company digging up the roads and disrupting everything, and you don't even want this since it adds massive barriers to entry for new ISPs - when you start, you may only have one or two customers in a neighbourhood and laying fibre to them is prohibitive unless you have massive up-front capital.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Public transport by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

      I would take it a step further and allow local governments to lay the lines. We have public highways and roads. Why can't we have public fiber? I'm sure they could have some type of usage tax structure where the ISPs rent the public fiber and re-sell it.

      Yuck, I don't know about where you live, but I live in Indianapolis and the local government sucks at handling the roads. I do not want this same government to handle my broadband wiring and the maintenance of making sure it's reliable. Companies, even if they have a monopoly granted by the government, are much better at this than a government will ever be.

      --
      -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    8. Re:Public transport by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      No, the city would lay fibre and then rent it out to service providers with a non-discriminatory policy to recoup costs

      When have you ever known a Government to do anything in a non-discriminatory manner? Let me make a prediction: The company that knows the right people on the city council/city engineer's office/mayor's office/etc will be the one that gets the cheapest rate to access that fiber.

      You don't need every company digging up the roads and disrupting everything

      Who cares about digging up roads? If some company wants to dig up roads to run fiber to my house I'd be out on the front lawn offering coffee to the workers. They are bringing me a useful service and will repave those roads after they are done -- why should I care?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Public transport by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 1

      It may have escaped your notice, but regardless of internet connectivity inside cities, you still need to lay down massive trunks to move from city to city across all of the interesting continent spanning terrain. A 10000 gigazilion MBs link does you no good if it's limited by some pygmy link connecting to everyone else.

    10. Re:Public transport by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have a better plan. If a company comes along and wants to lay parallel lines. Let them. Don't stop them in any way. Don't fine them. Remove all possible hindrances, anything that could turn them away. It'll start out small and slowly expand at the same time that the demand for cheaper service drives prices down. More and more people will have better and better service.

      Sorry bud. The first time they tear up my street, I'll live with it. The second time, I'll bitch. The third time, I'll have my city passing a law banning parallel lines when there's existing fiber, and pushing for city maintenance of a common resource.

      Some things just don't work when left to the free market. Now maybe my city doesn't need to do it; I'd be fine if my neighborhood association paid for the common fiber instead.

      So the public would be taxed to pay for the city to lay the fiber, and then the increased tax on ISPs would be passed on to the same public to pay for service? This is your plan?

      You think this would be more expensive than it is now? I pay for the cost for AT&T to lay the lines. Then I pay every month in increased costs because they have a monopoly. (Cable company here sucks; no HD yet and internet was lossy.) I'd love my city to lay fiber, then let ISPs compete to provide service over the common wire.

      That's litte different than my electricity service, where the lines are owned by a regulated monopoly, but the suppliers compete on the free market.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    11. Re:Public transport by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      No, the city would lay fibre and then rent it out to service providers with a non-discriminatory policy to recoup costs.

      And whichever company gives the most money to the campaigns of incumbent city officials will be granted monopolies in return. The only means for a monopoly to be sustained is through force - forcing the consumer to buy an unwanted service, at an undesirable price; forcing out competition through selective taxation and comparable restrictions - and the only entity legally permitted to apply force in this country is the government, at the local, state, and national level.

    12. Re:Public transport by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      I have a better plan still: have the city government run and maintain lines from many houses/buildings to a few central offices throughout the city but nothing more. If you're an ISP and you want to offer services to a neighborhood, you only have to pay for high capacity lines to a few COs rather than tons of houses and you pay the city a bit to co-locate your equipment in the COs.

      That reduces all of that unnecessary construction and redundant lines and massively reduces an ISP's cost to start doing business in an area.

    13. Re:Public transport by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Sorry bud. The first time they tear up my street

      Your street was paid for with money taken from people on the other side of town who will never drive down your street.

      The third time, I'll have my city passing a law banning parallel lines when there's existing fiber, and pushing for city maintenance of a common resource.

      And thus you'll be supporting the violation of individual rights to your own detriment. Local monopolies will thrive, consumer prices will be inflated, future technological developments will restricted from application.

      Some things just don't work when left to the free market.

      Am I supposed to accept you at your word? First, define "work", then define "free market". Maybe then we'll get somewhere. Until then we'll just continue talking past eachother.

      I pay for the cost for AT&T to lay the lines. Then I pay every month in increased costs because they have a monopoly.

      That monopoly, and those inflated costs, are only being maintained by government restriction on the existence of competition. Plain and simple.

    14. Re:Public transport by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes because this is working great for rural areas which do not show profit for secondary companies.... oh wait. It's called a natural monopoly for a reason. Treating connectivity like the highway system is EXACTLY what we need, not cherry picked competition.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    15. Re:Public transport by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Why? Technically there'll be no difference between connections, so it's kinda hard to justify discriminatory pricing.

    16. Re:Public transport by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Yes because this is working great for rural areas which do not show profit for secondary companies.... oh wait.

      And if you drive up the taxes in those rural areas to pay for this progress, everyone in those areas will have less money to spend, and productivity will go down. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      It's called a natural monopoly for a reason.

      Natural monopolies can come into existence. However, they cannot thrive while providing bad service. The only way that can be maintained is through government restriction on competition.

    17. Re:Public transport by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It's kind of hard to justify a lot of things that the Government does. Why not just do as the GP suggests? Remove the barriers preventing other companies from running their own lines.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:Public transport by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not as easy as you think...

      For example, in my native city (in Russia) various providers at first tried to lay down their own cables. But it soon proved that very often there's just no capacity in the cable canalization and no way to dig new channels.

      So they worked out agreement - all providers have equal access to a shared core network and exclusive 2-year access to the cables they lay down themselves.

      It worked out just fine in the end...

    19. Re:Public transport by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Your street was paid for with money taken from people on the other side of town who will never drive down your street.

      Actually my street was paid for by the private developers of my neighborhood, who passed the cost on to the lot buyers, who passed it on to me and the other residents. Then they donated the street to the city.

      The rest of your reply is just babble. Do you want private enterprise laying competing road networks to my house, too? What about 7, 8, 12 different water mains being pulled in? I'm sure no one would mind their flower beds being torn up for the 5th sewer system.

      Mediums work better if developed as a shared resource. Services work better in a free market, relying on those shared mediums. If you don't see that, I don't think I can say anything to convince you; I'll just be happy that you're the minority and I'm not.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    20. Re:Public transport by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is the same argument folks in the US use to justify the lack of public transport.

      Funny how it works that way. Cell phones too. I see that your website is hosted in the UK. You happen to have any experience with small US cities? Or are you another slashdotter speaking authoritatively about things you don't understand.

      The fact is that the US is 80% urban and suburban, so getting decent services to those folks (in both broadband and public transport) shouldn't be a problem. What is the problem, with internet connectivity anyway, is the deeply entrenched telecoms companies with their local monopolies.

      No. You probably are using US Census "metropolitan statistical areas" which are not necessarily fully urban. These are regions which the US Census has decided to group into economic areas of influence with one or two big cities at the core. For example, here's a map of the state of New Mexico showing how the state is divided into economic regions by the US Census Bureau. It uses the boundaries of counties. The Albuquerque metropolitan statistical area covers four counties and a lot of rural land. Albuquerque is a city of roughly three quarters of a million crudely in the center of Bernalillo county.

      My weak understanding is that the US is somewhat over 50% urban, including "suburban" areas. Further, US cities are notorious for low density "urban sprawl", vast areas of buildings on postage stamp lots with no more than a couple of stories to them. It's a lot harder to provide broadband services to such areas than the dense cities more typical of Europe.

    21. Re:Public transport by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Actually my street was paid for by the private developers of my neighborhood, who passed the cost on to the lot buyers, who passed it on to me and the other residents. Then they donated the street to the city.

      Unless your street is made of 6-foot-thick stainless steel, it must be maintained. Who pays for that maintenance?

      The rest of your reply is just babble.

      You've characterized my reply as such, but have not shown your characterization to be accurate.

      What about 7, 8, 12 different water mains being pulled in?

      A minute ago it was too costly to invest in these projects. Now it's so cheap that a dozen different companies can afford to lay competing services. Which is it?

      Obviously privatization is the right answer as it is the only means that avoid individual rights violations.

    22. Re:Public transport by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Remove all possible hindrances, anything that could turn them away.

      Like the HUGE barrier to entry of having to lay fiber in the whole city and a competitor that'll sell below profit in that city while you're alive, just to squeeze you out of the market?

      If you go back to economics 101, you learn why the free market is optimal at serving society. You also learn that it's under some very big assumptions: all transaction costs are zero, and everybody knows everything.

    23. Re:Public transport by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Like the HUGE barrier to entry of having to lay fiber in the whole city and a competitor that'll sell below profit in that city while you're alive, just to squeeze you out of the market?

      For them to sell requires buyers. If they are providing poor service, people are not as likely to accept their cheaper service. As for the huge barrier, it is chump change to large companies that already provide similar services in other areas. If we're talking about a small company, obviously they would only be servicing a small community, probably a local community, making it all the easier for them to afford it, and easier to convince members of the community to switch to their services.

      If you go back to economics 101, you learn why the free market is optimal at serving society. You also learn that it's under some very big assumptions: all transaction costs are zero, and everybody knows everything.

      And then in economics 102 you learn why the conclusions of 101 were incomplete and thus wrong.

    24. Re:Public transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just be happy that you're the minority and I'm not.

      Unfortunately, stupid people like him aren't in the minority...

    25. Re:Public transport by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, tax the public to build the lines, then tax the ISPs to maintain them and then a bit more to pay back the build costs. In that phase, the public gets it's initial investment back in reduced general taxation.

      Keep in mind that parallel lines laid out just means more subsidies in the form of eminent domain, and more costs to pass on to the consumer not to mention more waiting around for huge corporations to finish milking their crappy existing infrastructure before they will even think about expanding their offering.

      Given that telecoms with no intention of building out an area are suing to stop the local government from doing it instead, what are the odds of the free market solving this?

      We already tried removing all possible hindrances to get corporations to build out a telecoms infrastructure (including outright subsidies and grants). We got a huge telecom with an even larger sense of entitlement. The courts tried lopping it's head off and chopping it up and then we got an oligarchy of huge corporations with an even larger sense of entitlement.

      You may or may not know this, but for decades we connected computers with modems because the telecoms companies outright refused to provide affordable data services to ANYONE. If not for modems doing an end run around their 19th century thinking, we'd still be primarily sneakernetting.

    26. Re:Public transport by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, But you might not be so eager to bring them coffee if it takes you an extra 40% longer on your commute because vital traffic ways are conjested ..

      --
      No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
    27. Re:Public transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does that money come from thenif not from increased prices on products or services sold to consumers?

      You try to go through the government initiative like it is a bad way to go, and then advocate the exact same system!

    28. Re:Public transport by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      I live in Indianapolis... Companies, even if they have a monopoly granted by the government, are much better at this than a government will ever be.

      I think your problem is that you live in Indianapolis, not government incompetence.

    29. Re:Public transport by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Name one city where people are, as a majority, happy with their roads. They all suck, there's little to no innovation being applied. Plenty of universities (Purdue being the leader) are innovating, but no government implements these new things. In this age of ultra high tech materials that are strong, flexible, able to withstand huge temperature swings, why are we still subject to potholes, cracking, loud surface road design? There's only one explanation, where's the incentive to apply these new innovations when the government has a monopoly on implementing roads?

      I agree though that if all governments suck implementing roads, Indianapolis's implementation is near the bottom.

      --
      -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    30. Re:Public transport by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Unless your street is made of 6-foot-thick stainless steel, it must be maintained. Who pays for that maintenance?

      So far, no one, since in eight years it hasn't received any maintenance at all. In the mean time, I've been paying property taxes that contribute to maintenance of other streets in my city. When the time comes, my street will receive a portion of taxes as well, though most likely I'll never get back as much on my street as I've paid. (I do, of course, use other streets in my city, including ones that have had recent improvement.)

      A minute ago it was too costly to invest in these projects. Now it's so cheap that a dozen different companies can afford to lay competing services. Which is it?

      What? Again, you speak nonsense. What should be free market or regulated has nothing to do with the cost in this case. It has to do with the rights of the residents to band together to protect their property from disruption while gaining the maximum effect of competition on services.

      Obviously privatization is the right answer as it is the only means that avoid individual rights violations.

      Except, of course, for the rights of the residents to minimize the disruptions to their neighborhood, which you clearly care nothing for.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  19. School is a great way to waste time and money. by mosb1000 · · Score: 0, Troll

    If he just want's to throw it all away, I would suggest buying each American a sports car, at least then we could have fun while we're pissing away everything we have.

    Public school never helped anybody. Am I the only one who noticed that? I guess Obama wouldn't know, since he never attended public school.

    1. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be honest, *private* school didn't help me. (I don't think I'm qualified to speak for everyone else who attended my school. I'm not that familiar with how the rest of their lives worked out for them.)

      I attended a private school between 7th. grade and sophmore year of high school. Today, looking back, I can safely say those were 4 of the worst years of my life. The combination of faculty who insisted on running things in a fascist military style, while often doing a questionable job of teaching the material, plus the abundance of "spoiled, rich kids" did nothing for me. Switching to a public school, after MUCH begging and pleading to my parents, was the BEST move I made.

      The school systems DO waste a lot of people's time and money. I just don't think it's always fair to single out "public schools" as the only problems. Private schools currently have the ability to make themselves look good "on paper" by refusing or kicking out anyone who doesn't help them keep an artificially good image. They also tend to hide behind their religious affiliations. (EG. "Come on now, Johnny. Your school can't be THAT bad! You're being taught by Catholic brothers!")

    2. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Public school never helped anybody.

      Growing up, I was greatly helped by the teachers in my public school. My third grade teacher for noticing how I aced the reading test and decided to give me the advanced reading test. I aced that one also. I credit her for putting me on a track where I enjoyed learning instead of being frustrated in school. It is quite possible that all of my success in life could be traced back to her in some form.

      Since public school helped me, I guess your "never helped anybody" claim is false.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Informative

      Public school never helped anybody.

      Ridiculous. You honestly think that every single person who went through the public school system is no better off than if they had received no education at all?

      I went to a private elementary school, public high school, and public university. The public university was by far the most useful of the three. The other two are on roughly equal footing as "somewhat decent". They both wasted enormous amounts of time but they did provide some useful things in return.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    4. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot. Public schools are excellent where there is money to fund them and good faculty. Where I grew up we had a lot of family contribution and it was spent wisely, we also had a 99.7% graduation rate where over 80% of students attended a four year college. However, not so far away in Oakland California schools spent a govt. check on $10,000 TVs for each and every room. It doesn't come down to how much money, but rather how it's spent. Better teachers, books, desks, spaces for students to be inspired, or TVs to tell kids to get rich or die trying and buy expensive stuff?

    5. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by cowscows · · Score: 1

      I was fortunate enough to grow up in an area that had solid public schools. I learned plenty from them, and generally had a positive experience.

      And then I guess I was lucky with my high school private school experience as well. While they were certainly more strict when someone got out of line, and there were a handful of the snobbish rich kids, overall I look back pretty fondly on the experience. I had decent teachers, including some who I think really genuinely cared about me as a student and a person, students were given an amount of personal freedom well beyond anything I ever had in public school(although to be fair, I never attended a public high school, so maybe it's more about age).

      I think the important point is that there are good schools and bad schools, and neither private nor public have a monopoly on any level of quality. One way or the other is not the solution.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    6. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by slyrat · · Score: 1

      I agree that private schools often can also be very badly run. I attended private school from k-7th grade. It was fairly decent until 7th grade in which I felt like everyone else was a year behind me. I then switched to public in 8th and it returned to a much better experience. It seems regardless of the type (public/private) it all depends on the particular teachers and somewhat how a school is run. So summarily assuming public schools are worse can always be shown to not always be true.

    7. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      It would be wrong to assume that in the absence of public schools, you would fail to interact with adults. Of course, most of my positive role-models came from the BSA, and I am thankful for that. Only a couple of my teachers helped me (and they were a big help) but those people would be working with kids anyway.

      And the public school system burns these well-meaning people out very quickly, because they are there to help people and make a difference, but the school bureaucracy and teachers unions and administration and parent groups get in the way and make it (mostly) impossible.

      What I should have said is the institution of public school never helped anybody. You can still have a positive experience in public school, as long as the school doesn't get in the way.

    8. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by mosb1000 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm sorry. I also attended private school (through the 6th grade), and I had a similar experience. The reason I single out public school is because of it's compulsory and publicity funded nature.

      Private schools do teach you more effectively, but they generally do so by trying to crush your will. Assholes.

    9. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by mosb1000 · · Score: 0

      "You honestly think that every single person who went through the public school system is no better off than if they had received no education at all?"

      Yes.

      "The public university was by far the most useful of the three."

      That has nothing to do with it being public, and everything to do with it being a university. Do you think it was worth all the time and money you spent? I spend 5 1/2 years earning my degree, and came out with $14,000 in student loans. Now I am earning $70,000/year doing a job that I was fully capable of (but not fully qualified? how does that work?) before I went to school. I'd rather have skipped the school step.

    10. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      So people are compelled to pay for schools that may or may not work? I don't want to throw my money away, much less use it to send children to schools which are actually damaging to them.

    11. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I will agree that good teachers tend to get burned out quickly. My wife is/was a teacher and she saw plenty of good first year teachers dropping out of the teaching profession in their second year. She's a stay at home mom now because we figured that her salary minus daycare for our two boys would mean she'd be taking home less than $4K per year. And for that $4K, she would need to work 10 hours per day, take work home with her (grading, lesson planning, etc) and would need to deal with administrators and parents making her life a living hell. Which is a shame because she was one of the good teachers. It just wasn't worth it financially for her to continue. She's have earned more per hour worked flipping burgers at McDonald's.

      For the record, she was in a private school. An all-girl's Catholic middle school. A year after she left (after our second son was born), she heard that a long-time teacher left the school. Then, during a visit, she heard some parents patting themselves on the back for forcing that teacher out and planning the next one to target. She concluded that she had left at just the right time.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because your private school experience sucked, doesn't mean that private schools are bad. That's the beauty of the free market, competition and diversity. If your parents were thinking in terms of better value for their money, they would have sought a better private school.

    13. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with it being public, and everything to do with it being a university.

      I never said otherwise. I am not claiming that "public" is somehow magically good, merely that it is not automatically bad.

      Do you think it was worth all the time and money you spent?

      Yes, absolutely. I learned a great deal that I never would have on my own.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    14. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by DrFalkyn · · Score: 1

      Switching to a public school, after MUCH begging and pleading to my parents, was the BEST move I made.

      I'm glad that you were able to have a good experience in one of America's public schools. Maybe you should tell your story to the president elect. Guess where he is sending (and has always sent) his kids?

      And before anyone screams "Security!" at the top of your lungs, I can't imagine the security problems in the D.C. public schools are any worse than the University of Texas, and both Bush girls graduated from there.

      I attended Catholic elementary schoo and was lucky enough to get a chance to to attendrom the top public high school in the country by some measures. It was a governor's school and there were admittance requirements so I was not guaranteed to get in. If I didn't, I would have went to the Catholic high school. I am obviously glad I made it in the governor's school.

      But my experience is probably exceptional. In many locations, the public schools are simply abysmal and no sane parent is going to send their kids there. The New Orleans area is particular example. And if you ask our president elect, I'm sure he would add Chicago and D.C. to that list. At least in hushed, private conversation.

    15. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually went to DC public schools, albeit a long time ago. There are certainly plenty of problems with the administration of the system. The biggest problem with them, however, is one which I think is almost impossible to solve. DC is a small geographic area, where most of the inner city problems of the much larger DC Metro Area are concentrated. No matter what you do, you're going to have a hard time teaching children who are being raised in poverty, with all the attendant problems. Most school systems will have more of a balanced student body; in DC, in general, the wealthy send their kids to private school, and the motivated parents who don't manage to get their kids into a charter school will move to MD or VA. The DCPS is left with the rest.

    16. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by rgviza · · Score: 1

      I went to both types of school, the private school was an overpaid babysitter, and horrible babysitter at that.

      I learned all about shooting spitballs, throwing spit-grenades and "racking" people up (think triangle hit in football, smashing victim between three bodies and a wall) at private school. We also learned a bunch of creationism in religion class. The "academic" subjects were roughly 3 grades behind where I was when I left public school.

      After one year of that I begged my parents to let me go back to public school. My mom couldn't believe it, my dad was more than happy to shed the expense and get me away from the catholic brainwashing.

      In public high school I learned algebra(geometry, II, trig), biology, chemistry, literature, English, Spanish, furthered my music training (started in public school, unavailable in private school), athletics, got into a lot less fights (outside of the bus ride home), and learned a lot more.

      It depends on what schools you are talking about. There are some great public schools and really crappy private schools.

      -Viz

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    17. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      It depends on what schools you are talking about. There are some great public schools and really crappy private schools.

      Yep, that's exactly it. "Public" doesn't automatically mean it's crap and "private" doesn't automatically mean it's great. There may be a better average for private schools, but that doesn't mean all public schools are terrible.

      I actually had a decent private school, although I was ill-suited for school in general. My public school was terrible, but still gave me a lot anyway.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    18. Re:School is a great way to waste time and money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That comment was so right-on with my own views that I had to check to make sure I hadn't sleep-posted it without realizing. :)

      I went to an inner-city Catholic grade school which, although fairly inexpensive, lagged behind in teaching because they simply didn't have the resources (maybe 80 kids spread throughout 9 grades). In high school I tested into higher classes but had problems because I had no idea what they were doing in science classes for some time. Tech was fairly well-provided thanks to grants and fundraising, however.

      My first two years of high school I went to a private male-only Catholic school, and while there were a few teachers who were definitely very learned and motivated in their work, I took far less useful classes and earned far fewer credits than when I transferred into the local, inner-city, tech-magnet public HS. There were few classes beyond the core (English, math, science, history, etc.) at the Catholic school, whereas at the public school I filled up all eight blocks by adding in networking, programming, and electronics courses. Given the information my Catholic-school friends passed to me after I left, their new scheduling system allows for even fewer courses -- particularly once you allow for the mandatory religion classes. (Disclaimer: I was raised Catholic, but am not anymore. Some parents might think them a good idea, but even as a Catholic, I was aware that the curriculum was mostly a waste of time and provided little actual information and insight into the faith.)

      I also gained the benefit of interacting with the people who couldn't necessarily spend money on private schooling, but yet I should be familiar with them because of where I live -- my neighborhood is about 50% African American, and I'd say maybe two dozen out of a thousand students at the Catholic high school were black. Not being isolated from the world around you is important.

      So leaving private for public school was an overwhelmingly positive move for me on all counts. It might work well for some people, at some private schools, but the important thing is not to rely on good name alone, because my former HS simply didn't deserve it anymore.

  20. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by jmyers · · Score: 1

    I think its a good idea to bring it up. You can bet any company that gets a contract to provide these services will try to sneak it in. Make it an issue before they start rolling it out.

  21. Just remember... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    ... government dollars come with government strings attached.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  22. internet filtering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should it be a bad thing to filter internet for kids in schools?
    You also don't hand them out some chemicals and then let them explore the possibilities on their own... their should be some guidance anyway.

    Of course it should not be too restrictive, but I really don't see a reason why a 12 year old boy should be able to reach youporn in school...

  23. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by anthonyclark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, despite being an Obama supporter (as am I), Taco is being pragmatic. Eric Holden could be his Attorney General, and he's all for net censorship. Plus this is the Democrats we're talking about; the old guard is salivating at the prospect of getting all their old nanny state legislation back on the plate.

    --
    ----- Documentation is worth it just to be able to answer all your mail with 'RTFM' - Alan Cox.
  24. Don't confuse the issue. by GNUChop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The goal should be to give one computer to each and every student and have a free network full of free information. China is not an excuse to avoid that. The economics of the result will be tremendous and dwarf the pety costs involved. It will create greater cultural wealth for everyone, greater oportunities and greater ability to exploit those oportunities.

    Such goals can only be achieved in freedom. Indiana shows that free software is cheaper and a free network is also required for knowledge to really flow. Napster showed that we can have any piece of culture available for the trivial cost of allowing people to share. Wikipedia and the internet archive show that people are ready, willing and able to create works and share them without the "protection" of copyright.

    1. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well said. Also thinks are not as bad as claimed.

      "the US ranks 15th in broadband adoption.""

      You know that saying about lies, damn lies, and statistics? This is an example of lying with statistics. The United States is not some podunk little nation like Korea, but a continent-spanning nation that takes 3 days to drive across, and therefore it makes sense to compare like-to-like:

      (1) Russian Federation - 6.9 megabit/s
      (2) European Union - 6.2
      (3) United States - 6.1
      (4) Canada & Australia - 4.4 (tie)
      (5) China - 2.1 ...
      .

      The U.S. is only slightly behind its Russian/European neighbors, and significantly ahead of its Canadian, Australian, and Chinese neighbors. That is not a bad position to be. By the way I got these stats from speedtest.net which is based upon actual measurement of the users, and therefore not distorted.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by AoT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      he United States is not some podunk little nation like Korea, but a continent-spanning nation that takes 3 days to drive across,

      Which is exactly why it makes sense to have the government work on a broadband project. A similar thing happened with electricity and phones. It wasn't viable for businesses to install the lines so the government took over and installed them out to the remote countryside.

      I hope the power grid gets reworked in all of the stimulus, we need that a lot. But having higher broadband penetration will be a good thing too.

    3. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by fbjon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know that saying about lies, damn lies, and statistics?

      You imply you know that saying, but then proceed to ignore it. Speedtest.net is nice, but what does it have to do with broadband adoption? Furthermore it is unreliable as an indicator of average speeds in a country, since the sample is self-selecting: only people who are interested in their speed will measure it, which would more likely be people with high-speed connections.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    4. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Which is exactly why it makes sense to have the government work on a broadband project. A similar thing happened with electricity and phones. It wasn't viable for businesses to install the lines so the government took over and installed them out to the remote countryside."

      I don't have a problem with the govt. helping to build the infrastructure....BUT, once done, I want them to hand it over to private business. I don't want the feds regulating the thing...content filters, etc....let them build it, but, put clauses in the law that say it MUST stay free and unencumbered...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the government interference with electricity/phones was a mistake. Phones were already ubiquitous with even the most remote cattle rancher being served (the companies often used the barbed wire to form a connection). Electricity had already reached 95% of the population by the 1930s. There was no need for that corporate welfare. (I detest corporate welfare.)

      Politicians often create a problem that either (a) doesn't exist or (b) used to exist but has already been solved via the free market. Obama saying the U.S. is falling behind is a manufactured problem that does not exist. We're already essentially tied with the EU and Russia.... we're NOT falling behind.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    6. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of population in US is concentrated in fairly compact settlements along the two coasts. They have higher population density than most of European countries.

      Yet.... Still lagging behind.

    7. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Screw giving away computers.

      put all the cash into finishing the Internet infrastructure and make it publicly owned. and any company can sell access on it. Eliminating the bullshit monopoly system we have now.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 0

      I didn't ignore the saying. I made the point that the statistics Obama is quoting are invalid, because they compare a continent-wide nation against little tiny countries that are no bigger than a subset of the U.S. (i.e. a state). If you're going to make comparisons, you don't compare apples to grapes. You compares apples to apples:

      That's why I chose to do continent-wide federations v. continent-wide federations. Like to like. And in that comparison the EU, Russian Federation, and U.S. are essentially tied, and significantly more-advanced the Canada, Australia, or China.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    9. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by Killer+Orca · · Score: 1

      Shhh! Be quiet, don't you want faster internet?

    10. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you brought that up, because when you compare the coastal region of the U.S., they are actually quite speedy:

      - Delaware - 10 megabit/s
      - Washington - 8.9
      - Rhode Island - 8.4
      - New Jersey - 8.1
      - Massachusetts - 8.0

      As comparison to the EU states you will note that the highly-populated U.S. states are as fast or faster:
      - Sweden - 10.6
      - Romania - 9.5
      - Bulgaria - 8.5
      - Netherlands - 8.2
      - Germany - 7.0

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    11. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      What are these megabits used in the comparison? Out here in the middle of nowhere (Nebraska), Cox provides 12 mbit/s cable...

      --
      Luke-Jr
    12. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      And now compare it with _capitals_ or big cities of these countries.

    13. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      > The goal should be to give one computer to each and every student

      Why? To make sure they all have myspace accounts and can watch youtube videos? That is, after all, what kids do with them. Households with computers often result in kids being less educated because they have more distractions from homework.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    14. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1

      Well, there is the difficulty. 'Handing over' the property to private interests is hardly fair.

      The free market does have the function of providing choice, and allowing the market to choose the best option. However, when have you had a choice of which power transmission line you want to connect to? There is (for most people) one transmission line that is nearby to connect to. It wouldn't make practical/economic sense to have multiple transmission lines.

      So, not everything translates well to a 'pure free market'. My personal opinion is that chasing and revering 'purity' is responsible for more evils in this world than anything else, though that's just a related matter.

    15. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the government interference with electricity/phones was a mistake. ... Electricity had already reached 95% of the population by the 1930s. There was no need for that corporate welfare. (I detest corporate welfare.)

      The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was created in 1933 and is the largest producer of electricity in the United States today.
      Not only that, but the TVA also has some of the cheapest and most reliable power too.
       
      /Unfortunately, most of their electricity is from coal

      Politicians often create a problem that either (a) doesn't exist or (b) used to exist but has already been solved via the free market.

      What free market are you talking about?
      Because if we're discussing telecoms and broadband, then the subject is a regulated and subsidized oligopoly, not a 'free' market.

      Entrenched business interests have been doing their damnedest since the 1920s and '30s to keep the government from ruining their gravy train.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    16. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by wclacy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every Student can have a computer they just have to pay for it!

      Why should Government provide a computer to each student?

      Are students now days too good to used a shared computer in a computer lab?

      I have never seen a Higher Education facility that didn't have enough Computers or a High speed internet connection.

      Has anyone mentioned that computers are an extremely bad investment? In most cases after 5 years they are worth next to nothing, and past five years they are usually a liability. If Colleges are going to buy computers they should be in a computer lab that allows them to get full usage, instead of buying them for each student that will not use them for Class work from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM.

      With most Government entities running short on money, why waste it? Why borrow money to buy computers. The computers will be in the trash before they get paid off.

    17. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by shermo · · Score: 1

      This must be the first time someone is proud that they're better than Australia at the internets. Australia is good at lots of things. Broadband penetration is not one of them.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    18. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      you still gave a meaningless statistic in your "new and improved" comparison.

      You also ignore the fact that size does not matter in this case since almost the entire population live in urban and suburban conditions. When you focus on those conditions, you see that our population density where most people in the country live is high enough that we should be at a much higher Broadband adoption rate than we are.

    19. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      you still are fucking comparing a meaningless metric! The metric we are looking at is ADOPTION and AVAILABILITY.

    20. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      I have electric choice. It works great because I was able to hook-up to a company that only uses Hydro, Wind, and Solar power instead of my previous company that used 90% coal power.

      And back to internet: There's no reason why we can't run multiple wires underground. I have choice there to: Comcast, Verizon, or Netscape. The advancement of technology is slowly but surely killing-off the old "natural" monopolies.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    21. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      And before the TVA there were private companies serving the area.

      There was absolutely no need to create the TVA, because electricity was already being supplied. Oh and I'm sorry to hear you have no choice in internet. I have Comcast, Verizon, Netscape, Dish, and DirecTV. Lots of options. I chose the cheapest at just $15 a month (Verizon) with the $7 provider (Netscape) for when I travel across the country. That's how it should be - power to the people to make their own choices.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    22. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      If population does not matter, why does Rhode Island have a 10 megabit/s connection (as do most of the Northeast states) while Montana and the Dakotas are only 2 megabit/s?

      The answer is obvious. Population density DOES matter. The European Union has a similar pattern with highly-populated states having fast speeds (12), while rural states like Greece barely get 2.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    23. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      You act as if they are mutually exclusive, but they are not.

      The average speed & availability are closely related. If I have 20 megabit/s broadband, but you're still stuck at 0.056 megabit/s dialup, then that will drag down the average speed for the whole U.S.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    24. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not if it's going to increase my taxrate.

      I'm already in the 35% tax bracket. I don't feel like moving into the 45% tax bracket just so President Whoever can spend a few trillion laying fiber to Wyoming. The government needs to stop spending so damn much money.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    25. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Um.

      Hello? A government monopoly is still a monopoly (including all the evils that implies).

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    26. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>> What are these megabits used in the comparison? Out here in the middle of nowhere (Nebraska), Cox provides 12 mbit/s cable...

      Is this some kinda joke? I don't get it.
      12 Mbit/s == 12 megabits/second

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    27. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      I am not talking about numbers, I am talking about the ability to make it available. There are not long runs out to one person in teh middle of no where. There is a high ROI on investing in services in urban and suburban areas because the length of cable run to number of available customers is very high.

      And thus.... I will mention this again................... AVERAGE SPEED IS MEANINGLESS. The providers are not making things like FIOS available to a wide enough audience and a reasonable enough price.

    28. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      if you did a complete survey of people in the area, then great... but you are quoting figures that require someone to know the survey exists and decides they want to take it. It is not statistically meaningful.

    29. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 1

      In Phoenix, AZ your neighborhood determines if you have SRP or APS. SRP, at least, gives you the option of buying your electricity from renewable sources, but you don't get to choose who your provider is.

      --
      No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
    30. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by fbjon · · Score: 1

      No, the answer is not obvious. Population density in the case of the US should not have any significant effect on broadband adoption . Speeds are a different matter altogether. You still haven't presented any case regarding broadband adoption , which is a matter unrelated to broadband speed, since speed is upgradeable most of the time using better equipment, but adoption is a matter of the infrastructure and incentive existing in the first place (and regulation not killing the competition).

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    31. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't think the point was "better then" as much as in line with.

      You see, he was making more of the point on comparing apples to apples not horses and dogs which is what it appears Obama is attempting to do by comparing the land mass of New york to the entire USA.

    32. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      Where did you get those numbers from?

    33. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indiana shows that free software is cheaper
      FREE is CHEAPER? Golly gee whiz, thanks for clearing that up!

    34. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If Russia is ahead EU on your stats, then I can tell you with certainty, as a Russian citizen, that your stats are bullshit. We have decent Internet connectivity, alright, but only in Moscow and a few other cities. In Moscow, you can get unlimited (real unlimited, no cap at all) 25Mbps both upstream and downstream for less than $40 - which is great. But elsewhere, well... in my home town (which is the capital of the administrative region), you have a choice of paying the same price for 1Gb cap at 512Kbps, or pay-per-minute dial-up. I know enough people from all over the country to confirm that this is not a single case, but is a recurring pattern. On the other hand, I also know a few people from several EU countries (UK, France, Germany, Finland, Netherlands), so I also know what their Internet infrastructure is like, and on the whole, it's certainly much better.

    35. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with the govt. helping to build the infrastructure....BUT, once done, I want them to hand it over to private business. I don't want the feds regulating the thing...content filters, etc....let them build it, but, put clauses in the law that say it MUST stay free and unencumbered...

      How about the sensible middle way, where the infrastructure remains common property, and any party who wishes to can make use of it for a fixed fee as a delivery service? Plenty countries already have asystem in place where the phone lines are under the control of party A and the services provided through those lines are offered by parties B through Z competing for customers. Same for other infrastructure that is simply too vital to leave it to the whims of public companies, such as power lines, gas pipes and water.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    36. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by Nursie · · Score: 1

      "I have electric choice. It works great because I was able to hook-up to a company that only uses Hydro, Wind, and Solar power instead of my previous company that used 90% coal power."

      Yup, and you had to have them come and lay new lines for that, right?

      Dunno about where you are, but in the UK we manage to have public ownership of power lines and still have competition at the consumer end of the market. Ought to work that way for broadband too.

    37. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by master_p · · Score: 1

      What does broadband speed have to do with broadband adoption? He said 'US ranks 15th in broadband adoption, not speed.

    38. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Every Student can have a computer they just have to pay for it!

      Ah, the old "anyone can dine at the Ritz" argument. The old ones are the best.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    39. Re:Don't confuse the issue. by wclacy · · Score: 1

      Ah, the old "Yes we can" argument.

      Why don't we just have Government provide a laptop and free Internet to all US citizens? Just think how smart everyone in the US would be if they all had a nice new shiny laptop with High speed Internet. And Who cares if some would like to have a Mac Book, and some would like to have a Dell, or HP. The Government knows best and will make those decisions for you. And oh by the way to make this possible you will only be asked to increase your Federal income tax contributions by $2,000 per year.

  25. Did you see Al Gore's latest commercial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had a bunch of union guys putting insulation in a building to save the earth from climate crisis.

    I love how pork stops becoming pork as soon as that money starts going to people who vote preferrentially for your party.

  26. stimulate this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my vote is to add automated handjob machines to the stimulus... because any package worth stimulating is worth stimulating right......

  27. It doesn't work that way by crucini · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I work with lots of good Chinese and Indian software engineers. Most never saw a computer before University. They did have a rigorous and old-fashioned education, with lots of math and logic.

    I also know talented hackers who got into programming as kids/teenagers, and benefited from the fast dev cycle of Apples, TRS-80s, etc.

    But giving kids the latest and greatest computers is not going to help anything. The important stuff can be learned on a 486.

    Chinese and Indian schools value the academic achievers, while American schools value the funny, the athletic and the socially gifted. That is why those countries are beating us.

    1. Re:It doesn't work that way by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The important stuff can be learned on a 486.

      Heck, I learned the important stuff on an 8088!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:It doesn't work that way by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Chinese and Indian schools value the academic achievers, while American schools value the funny, the athletic and the socially gifted. That is why those countries are beating us.

      The obvious thing to do is bribe alot of Indian and Chinese elementary and middle school teachers/principles to come over here and teach our kids. Might as well teach the little ones whatever Indians and Chinese speak and write as well in addition to English. Maybe we'd get that good old US work ethic back as well.

    3. Re:It doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit.

      Chinese schools use rote learning, not comprehension. Most Chinese kids don't know the why's, they just know the answers. There are some good smart people out here, but most have been trained not to think since school.

    4. Re:It doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beating "us" at what?? Cheap labor? Human rights violations? Mass poverty?

      Your experience is limited to dealing and interacting with Chinese/Indian/etc software engineers who are most likely members of the upper echelon of their country's respective caste systems. The ones with the opportunities to study abroad, attend universities, build careers, etc. Of course it will seem like the entire population values education as highly as you make it seem if that is all you deal with.

      I can assure you for the bulk of society that you have no interaction with, it's quite a different scenario. I can also assure you that many US schools value academic achievers.

    5. Re:It doesn't work that way by Ihmhi · · Score: 0

      For the Indians, it would primarily be Hindi - although there's also a mix of Pashtu, Arabic, Urdu, and other languages.

      As for the Chinese, they primarily speak Mandarin Chinese. Cantonese Chinese is also spoken in a smaller group of the population, and there are various even smaller dialects of Chinese throughout the mainland.

    6. Re:It doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only computers I was exposed to in school were Apple IIe and used only rarely for word processing. I actually preferred a Brother typewriter for such a simple task. I did not own my own home computer until I was 21 (same time as first job involving a computer).

      I am now currently a sysadmin and it was not having a computer at an early age that got me trained in this field. It was critical thinking and problem solving. They need to stop patching every education performance related problem with technology. Sure it could work if you had a dedicated staff of Computer Scientists that could teach the RIGHT skills needed and not some English graduate with a teaching certificate but come on that would be cost prohibitive.

    7. Re:It doesn't work that way by meson2439 · · Score: 1

      The problem is they know almost all answers including those that you have to think about. A minority of the chinese kids knows all the answer and also how to think (surprise). At least that is better than our students who cannot remember anything and fails at logical reasoning.

      The chinese are just used to remembering stuff. That has no relevance on their ability to think. Chinese letters are supposed to be memorized you know, but that doesn't stop them from making lively conversation, or to come up with a creative idea. Creative thinking especially are not suppose to be taught. Just think, how can it ever be creative if it was so widely taught. The current creative thinking taught currently is more like rote thinking for me.

    8. Re:It doesn't work that way by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      Well, the Chinese engineer population you've seen are most likely among the top 1% of all students (otherwise they wouldn't have a chance to work with a foreigner in their whole life). So using that to compare with the average American engineer isn't really fair.

    9. Re:It doesn't work that way by crucini · · Score: 1

      Beating "us" at what?? Cheap labor? Human rights violations? Mass poverty?

      Beating us at being a world power. Yes, we are still ahead. But the first derivative favors China.

      I just read a great article on Gao Xiqing, a Chinese official who oversees $200 billion of China's US investment. Studied and worked in the US. He probably has a better sense of where the US is heading than most of us.

      He criticized the tendency for the brightest Americans to pursue Law, MBA, and finance rather than engineering/science. (Caused by salary imbalance).

      In the long term, if a country full of lawyers, MBAs and financial wizards, with no industrial base, gets in a war with a country of engineers and scientists with a huge industrial base, what do you think will happen?
       

      Your experience is limited to dealing and interacting with Chinese/Indian/etc software engineers who are most likely members of the upper echelon of their country's respective caste systems. The ones with the opportunities to study abroad, attend universities, build careers, etc. Of course it will seem like the entire population values education as highly as you make it seem if that is all you deal with.

      That's a good point in general. But my co-worker's children are in school in China, because American school doesn't challenge them. I forget the exact delta in math education, but it's big.

    10. Re:It doesn't work that way by crucini · · Score: 1

      It is complex. Part of engineering is constantly evaluating what-if scenarios. In my group, the Indian engineers are so much faster at mental arithmetic that they can evaluate a possibility without "breaking stride". In practice, it means more ideas are considered.

      It's tempting to dismiss arithmetic as useless because we have electronic support, but having it on tap does change the dynamic of design meetings.

      Of course I know that power came at a price; many extra hours spent drilling arithmetic instead of learning an instrument, or hacking, or whatever.

  28. More Money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I recall, schools in CA already consume roughly 40% of the state budget. Moreover, the drop out rate at LA Unified School District is 50%. By the way, the parents don't give a crap.

    Spend more money? LMAO

    The government is about to default.

  29. Fixing the economy. by staryc · · Score: 1

    I would have to say that it is a nice turn around to start stimulating the economy in terms of creating more jobs rather than just throwing money at everyone. Connecting more schools, libraries, and hospitals to the internet will surely create more jobs. How will net neutrality opponents factor into this? Will there be more protection if the government forges its way into connecting everyone?

    --
    The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Nietzche
  30. He can get it without spending a dime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One key problem is the so-called "last mile". For DSL, this is all owned by the TelCo's.

    All Obama needs to do is to spin off the Central Offices, where all the lines come from. Make it so that ATT has to compete just the same as Speakeasy.net for CO space. That will level the playing field very quickly. Just like the days when everyone bought their own connection equipment (a modem) and hooked it up to the phone line, and called to their favorite ISP. That's what drove the widespread adoption of the Internet; it wasn't the big phone giants (who were opposed to it completely).

    And he'd better do it soon, as the small ISP's are about to lose out on the legal right to have access to the Central Office's. This is why Speakeasy.net is starting to turn themselves into a real TelCo. This access is going to run out in the next couple of years, from what I've heard. After that, it's all ATT for the Central Offices.

    Of course, if Obama had been against the Immunity deal for ATT last year, this might be a great bargaining point. But I have to wonder if he's now bought and paid for by the big TelCo's.

  31. Re:obama cleared his throat by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    1. You got the wrong guy, that's Bush Jr.
    2. You forgot to post anon.
    3. WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR MOVIE!*

    * In order of least-caring first:
    1. It's Filipino (why should I care? reverse racism?)
    2. in NYC (why does the location matter for such a film?
    3. Low Budget (why on earth would you advertise that?)

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  32. How about we decide for ourselves? by oneTheory · · Score: 1

    We have this thing called a brain. It helps us decide how to apply our resources (our time, money, etc) to what we value. Sometimes we're good at applying our resources and sometimes we aren't. Sometimes we are a little wasteful.

    We have this thing called a government. It's notoriously wasteful when applying our resources. And it is more and more defining the things that we should value for us. How about we get to keep our money and decide what is good or not good for our own families?

    1. Re:How about we decide for ourselves? by Moochman · · Score: 1

      Um, OK, you have the choice of having things *done for you* or having to do them yourself? And you choose doing them all yourself, regardless of whether you know what the hell you're doing? Why do you insist on turning down the aid of organizations that have the potential -- and (at the moment) the desire to help make your life easier?

      A key example of your way of thinking is the mess that is health insurance, due to President Bush's insistence on trying to privatize it all. As a result it's needlessly complex and expensive for the average U.S. citizen to get it, to the point that a large percentage of Americans just don't have it.

      Or take private college education. Also needlessly complex and expensive for the average U.S. citizen to get.

      So basically, we're left with a society where we have to devote ridiculous amounts of time in order to fight with millions of different private organizations (insurers, colleges, etc), not to mention ridiculous amounts of effort planning our own finances and saving up money our whole lives to pay for colleges and health care (I might mention that average people are notoriously bad at saving money)--and our lives are that much more stressful and complicated while our society is that much more split between its rich and poor sectors.

      Meanwhile, I've been living in Austria for a couple of years now. As a student, I pay around $2500 a year for my education, and around $30 a month for healthcare. When I want a doctor's appointment, I simply go to the doctor and give them my chip-card. I don't have to think any further about paying for it. And since the health providers are all networked together, they automatically have my medical records on hand, even when I've never been to that doctor before. Much more than I can say for my experience with American doctors' offices...

      Yes, I've had to go through quite a bit of government bureaucracy to get all my papers in order, but certainly nothing more than an EU citizen would face coming to America. And when I think about the amount of time, money and stress I save due to this *publicly financed system*, I hardly enjoy the thought of going back to the American way.

  33. Here's an idea by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Use that money to give cash payouts to the teachers (not the schools) whose kids have the greatest degree of improvement in their region, with "improvement" defined as a conrete metric. Here in Baltimore, for example, the city has a graduation rate of approximately 40%, and our literacy rate is also very low. Stupid investments in "broadband" and "computers" won't help these kids, but highly incented teachers just might. The teachers' unions would never stand for it (in fact they'd label it discriminatory), but you need highly skilled, motivated people to reach these kids on a one-on-one basis. If cash can attract the best folks for the job, I say go for it. They've tried everything else here for decades, including paying the students themselves for good grades, and nothing has worked.

    1. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why unions aren't working. Just ask the US automakers*. We need to break them up IMO.

      *Does this count as a car analogy??

    2. Re:Here's an idea by Janeshat · · Score: 2

      A department of education study came out in the late 1970s which concluded that the majority of high achieving students came from caring two parent households where one parent worked and the other stayed at home. This was an unpopular theory at the time though, so the report was buried and they decided to blame the teachers and throw money at the situation. Once you have been a teacher like I have, you start to realize that parents who blame the teachers are the ones that don't really care about their kids. They just want someone else to fix their kid and not worry about it themselves. Meanwhile, parents that are always there for there kids are more apt to blame their child for his failings than blame the teacher for theirs. I teach the same things to my A students as I do to my failing students. Is it my fault that some of them just don't give a crap about what I am teaching? I understand that social and economic issues are also at play, and that single moms and dads have to work and raise kids, but it will hurt the children's education if the parents are not their for them to make them study and learn. SO yes, teachers need more money, but more importantly they need to be trusted to do their jobs. If one student in the classroom learns what they are supposed to then the teacher is doing their job. The rest of the students just weren't paying attention. BTW don't ever become a teacher, it really sucks these days! If you do want to actually teach, teach at college level or above. Nobody ever accuses a college professor of not doing his job when a student fails his class.

    3. Re:Here's an idea by compasseng · · Score: 1

      No. You can't define "improvement as a concrete metric." That forces schools to fudge numbers and pass students who would otherwise fail. That is a horrible idea. Horrible.

    4. Re:Here's an idea by stupidflanders · · Score: 1

      And when the employees steal all of these computers, and then resell them, that'll help boost the economy!

    5. Re:Here's an idea by smudge · · Score: 1

      Your idea has some merit. But it also punishes those that are already high achievers. If I'm teaching a bunch of honor students, any improvement can only be marginal, since they are already at the top. Compare that to failing students ... they have much more room for improvement.

      This is a personal pet peeve of mine. I see many programs aimed at encouraging the below average and/or teaching to the middle. Meanwhile my straight A kids don't even get a pat on the back from school officials.

    6. Re:Here's an idea by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Any "concrete metric" can be gamed. If you want your awards to be meaningful, they need to be distributed subjectively.

      It's easy to raise graduation rates -- just lower the standards. It's easy to raise superficial literacy rates -- teach to the tests. Ensuring real improvement requires that one pay attention to a multitude of factors which cannot be determined in advance, nor without paying careful attention to the specifics of each situation.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    7. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Gah, please go make friends with some teachers. They will tell you how conflicted they are about firing teachers and the union and how stupid you are for thinking there are simple solutions like merit pay, or even thinking there are viable metrics for measuring improvement that aren't lies, damn lies, or statistics.

      I have several friends and family members who teach in public schools. The ones who teach in the inner-city say the schools are full of children who have parents that are at best equipped to raise and educating a kid, and at worst abusive manipulative and don't care. Kids come to school without breakfast, dirty, no coats, with parents who are illiterate in their native language, let alone english. Those students will not do as well as their middle to upper middle class neighbors in bordering towns no matter what the teachers are paid. By tieing the pay scale of the teachers at schools, you will actually create a dis-incentive to work at those schools with those children because at best they will leave highschool alive, literate, knowing how to write checks and work out compound interest, and maybe even going to a state university.

        At the same time, you will rob the better performing schools of their best teachers because the delta of "improvement" is too small to get paid market rates. Congratulations, you have effectively fucked the whole thing up.

        Schools only output educated children after many many teachers in a row were effective in assessing a child's problems and needs, and worked out strategies to help the kid learn. People have studied improving education for as long as education has existed, the simple metrics and solutions proposed from people on the outside won't work and do not further the discussion.

    8. Re:Here's an idea by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Use that money to give cash payouts to the teachers (not the schools) whose kids have the greatest degree of improvement in their region, with "improvement" defined as a conrete metric.

      So to heck with the teachers doing a good job today, because they won't have as much room for improvement.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:Here's an idea by photomonkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, definitely. Bonuses for teachers who can up standards according to concrete metrics is the way to go.

      Look at all the extremely high-paid and 'bonused' CEOs and executives out there at the helms of those successful retail, media, manufacturing, finance and technology firms out there lining up to suckle at the government's bailout teat.

      Oh, wait...

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
    10. Re:Here's an idea by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Cash won't do it. It isn't a matter of compensation - it's a matter of the intangibles. More money would probably encourage the *worst* kinds of people to become teachers rather than the best.

      I work at a university, do some instruction and like it. My pay is laughable compared to what I used to earn in technology, but I feel like what I do actually matters. Not all the time, but sometimes - definitely more often than I ever felt that way in the tech field. I'm pretty good at teaching, if I do say so myself (and my supervising faculty also agree), and one of the big reasons I'm good is because I have desire, motivation, etc., but also because I have the freedom to modify my lesson plan if it becomes desirable.

      I've got over a dozen friends and acquaintances who worked (note the past tense) in the public school system out here. None of them quit over the money - they all got into it knowing that the money was shit. Every one of them got into it because they foolishly thought that they'd be allowed to *teach*. Instead, they were really being turned into prison guards or forced to use a rigid curriculum that is dumbed down to meet the abilities of the least motivated teachers.

      Money will motivate some people (usually not the best or brightest) to do certain jobs - it's the intangible benefits that get the best. Money often comes to the best, but jeeze, there's much easier ways to make lots of money than teaching.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  34. Computers can help motivate High School students! by starglider29a · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Have them log into Monster.com, et al, and see what the salaries are for various fields, including jobs for those with a "mere diploma", and they will become more interested in College Prep and getting good grades.

  35. We Get What We Deserve by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, we go from a guy who cuts taxes and then over-spends to a guy who won't cut taxes but still over-spends. Time will tell, but I have a feeling that Obama's spending will exceed Bush's, just as George "Smaller Government" Bush's exceeded Clinton's. I have a feeling Obama's will be roughly in proportion to the difference in their tax policies. I suppose this is an improvement. Kinda.

    What will it take for the electorate to become too ashamed (or at least angry) to keep voting for these people? To paraphrase Penn Jillette, if we keep voting for the lesser of two evils and we're just going to keep getting evil.

    -Peter

    1. Re:We Get What We Deserve by tripdizzle · · Score: 1
      I have to say, that us that did vote for Bush were fooled into thinking he was a conservative, just as it seems many on the ultra-left have been fooled by Obama. The war in Iraq was his main selling point throughout the primaries and most of the general, then he appoints people to his staff that will continue the course that has been set by Bush.

      It seems more and more that us (Americans) have been being repeatedly fooled by Democrats and Republicans to believe that there is an actual difference in what they will actually do, but whenever either side gets elected, they just continue the status quo set by the previous administration, continually running up debts, and returning favors that were done for the candidate during the election (look at how many people in congress own stock in the big 3 automakers, no wonder they want to bail them out and have more ownership/power to line their own pockets).

      --
      "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    2. Re:We Get What We Deserve by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      It'll just be more money down a rat hole. Am I the only person left in the country who wonders where the existing spending on education actually goes? It's fraking sick, man. No one gives a shit anymore. They just want to pump more money into a broken system and think it'll magically get better even though you have the same useless shitheads in the positions of power in the bureaucracy. Rah rah rah! Spend spend spend! Fuck oversight. Fuck accountability! Yay!

    3. Re:We Get What We Deserve by kabocox · · Score: 1

      So, we go from a guy who cuts taxes and then over-spends to a guy who won't cut taxes but still over-spends. Time will tell, but I have a feeling that Obama's spending will exceed Bush's, just as George "Smaller Government" Bush's exceeded Clinton's. I have a feeling Obama's will be roughly in proportion to the difference in their tax policies. I suppose this is an improvement. Kinda.

      My wife and I both voted against Obama. We hate almost every single one of his policies. Our gas prices are now $1.56 so I don't care what else he does just being "different and the same" has been enough to half gas prices. If gas prices are like this for the next 4 years, he can go ahead and have orgies in the Oval office for all I care. Now, if gas prices go back to $3 or so... then he can burn in hell for bringing us the bad gas prices, but until then I'd give him free reign to do what ever he wants. There is a part of me wondering how much Obama is actually afraid of the change of gas prices. If they can stay down for the next year or so, he's got it made. He'd be re-elected as long he doesn't do anything obviously too stupid.

    4. Re:We Get What We Deserve by cowscows · · Score: 1

      If you think that there's much that even the president of the USA can do to swing the price of gas a couple bucks per gallon, then you've got no idea how the world works.

      Gas prices have come down because the economy is tanking so people are buying less gas. There's two ways that Obama could cause gas prices to seriously go up over the next few years. He could either somehow magically turn our economy around, but I don't think that would upset the people all that much, even if they do have to pay more for gas afterwards. He could also do something to further destabilize the middle east, like start a war with Iran. I don't expect him to do that, but it'd be an effective way of driving up oil prices quickly.

      There are a couple of other things that could happen that would push prices up, but they are outside of the control of the president of the USA, and Obama likely wouldn't take too much blame for them.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    5. Re:We Get What We Deserve by stupidflanders · · Score: 1

      That's alright
      that's OK
      the Mayans said
      we'd be dead
      in 2012, anyway!
      uh... Burma Shave.

    6. Re:We Get What We Deserve by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I have to say, that us that did vote for Bush were fooled into thinking he was a conservative,

      Well, if "conservative" to your means "smaller government and reduced spending, then Bush was not your man.

      just as it seems many on the ultra-left have been fooled by Obama.

      Odd. What I noticed in his campaign was continously repeated statements to the effect "look, I'm not a hard-left idealogue; I want to get people together and solve problems, not push an agenda." You're saying that the hard-left fooled themselves by ignoring what he actually was saying?

      The war in Iraq was his main selling point throughout the primaries and most of the general, then he appoints people to his staff that will continue the course that has been set by Bush.

      You seem to be predicting the future a little early. Where did you buy your crystal ball? I'm less concerned which people he's using then I am as to what he's going to use them to accomplish.

      It seems more and more that us (Americans) have been being repeatedly fooled by Democrats and Republicans to believe that there is an actual difference in what they will actually do, but whenever either side gets elected, they just continue the status quo set by the previous administration,

      Let's see, the last "previous administration," was the Clinton administration, which passed a budget reconciliation bill and actually balanced the budget. You know, if the Bush administration had actually continued that status quo, I'd be cheering him on.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    7. Re:We Get What We Deserve by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I have to say, that us that did vote for Bush were fooled into thinking he was a conservative

      No, you got exactly what you voted for. And any ignorance you can claim in 2000 was more than dispelled by 2004 - everyone knew he was an incompetent warmongering Constitution trampling jackass, as opposed to merely an incompetent jackass.

      Movement conservatism is much like Communism - it can never fail, it can only be failed. Or, as Digby noted:

      "Conservative" is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals.

      George W. Bush will not achieve a place in the Republican pantheon. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. (And a conservative can only fail because he is too liberal.)

      and Atrios:

      The interesting paradox is, as I've written before, that they'll dump Bush and transfer the cult onto the next Daddy figure that comes along.

      The next Daddy Figure was Fred Thompson, but he had more important things to do in the primary (taking a nap).

      Those who voted for Bush (and more importantly, those who re-elected him) own a large part of this mess.

    8. Re:We Get What We Deserve by tripdizzle · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a skewed view on what conservatism is. As I see it, it is that government should have limited power, and little or no influence on the lives of it citizens. Government is there for 3 purposes: Provide for the common defense, roads, and schools (I really wish the government had nothing to do with education). Other than those 3 aspects, they need to stay out of everyone's lives and let the people solve their own problems.

      --
      "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    9. Re:We Get What We Deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils and we're just going to keep getting evil."

      Everyone is evil to some extent. No one is pure good, and if that person existed they would never be accepted by the rest of us evil people.

    10. Re:We Get What We Deserve by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a skewed view on what conservatism is.

      Oh, I know exactly what movement conservatism is: an elitist backlash to the New Deal, and a racist backlash to the Civil Rights movement, wrapped up with pretty gun nut ribbons and religious bigotry.

      Other than those 3 aspects, they need to stay out of everyone's lives and let the people solve their own problems.

      Sorry Hoover, but we already tried it your way and it was an absolute disaster. Socialized medicine provides better care for less money. Public research gets more results than private for the same amount of money. Public utilities cost less money - Dennis Kucinich was tagged one of the worst mayors in the country for refusing to sell the cities power plant, forcing Cleveland into bankruptcy. But in the long term he saved the community hundreds of millions of dollars. The FDA ensures that people don't routinely die from contaminated food or bad medicine, and the lack of regulation is what has gotten us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

      Less government for the sake of less government is as asinine as more government for the sake of more government. The right question is, what is the right amount of government for the situation. We keep trying it your way until the the economy starts collapsing, when we re-learn the lesson that conservatism is a philosophy that has failed at every level on every issue.

    11. Re:We Get What We Deserve by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Our gas prices are now $1.56 so I don't care what else he does just being "different and the same" has been enough to half gas prices.

      Gas prices have gone down because the economic meltdown has caused a drop in demand for moving things (including people) around.

      Obama has nothing to do with it, and (while it is, itself, a nice thing for those of us still employed, for now) its a sign of how bad things are, not a positive sign.

      If they can stay down for the next year or so, he's got it made.

      The only way gas prices are going to stay down for the next year or so is if unemployment keeps climbing, in which case there are going to be fewer and fewer people who are happy about the gas prices.

    12. Re:We Get What We Deserve by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      What will it take for the electorate to become too ashamed (or at least angry) to keep voting for these people?

      About a billion dollars. If you can find someone who has an extra billion dollars lying around, who agrees with your political views, and is smart enough to know how to hire people who are smart enough to know how to spend a billion dollars on a campaign, then you've got something.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    13. Re:We Get What We Deserve by tripdizzle · · Score: 1
      Its not less gov't for the sake of less gov't, its less gov't because they have proven that they are inefficient at everything from building a visitors center:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102792.html

      to attempting to managing a restaurant:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html?hpid=topnews

      --
      "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    14. Re:We Get What We Deserve by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

      Please take into account that Obama and the Democrats will pursue deficit spending in the short term because we are in a recession.

      Basically, when GDP is shrinking, normal economic policies go out the window because stimulating the economy to get back to positive growth will over time outweigh any negative effects normally associated with running a public debt, such as increasing interest rates. When the recession is over, we can shift back to a more fiscally conservative model that we used in the 90s to balance the budget. Most economists agree on these things.

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    15. Re:We Get What We Deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Clinton administration, which ... actually balanced the budget

      This has been covered before. Clinton never balanced the budget: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    16. Re:We Get What We Deserve by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The government is inefficient, eh? Like when the government appointed CEO of General Moters presided over a loss of 70 billion dollars for the company? The government institutions of Enron and Worldcom that imploded earlier this decade, destroying tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions in shareholder revenue? How about the government financial firms like Citigroup, AIG and Bear Sterns that created a default credit swap market twice the size of the stock market with nothing to back it up?

      Oh, you mean those weren't government industries at all, but private business that have put trillions of dollars in the shitter? Huh, interesting.

    17. Re:We Get What We Deserve by tripdizzle · · Score: 1

      Those are private businesses and those were their private decisions. Its called survival of the fittest, good companies will continue to exist and bad ones will fail. Those who lost their jobs due to these decisions will bounce back and find new ones.

      --
      "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    18. Re:We Get What We Deserve by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Translation: when some government fails somewhere on some issue, it's an indictment of the very concept of government. When corporations fail on a massive scale, it means capitalism is teh awesome. Sorry, but this argument was weak sauce the first time I heard it, when it was used against unions.

    19. Re:We Get What We Deserve by tripdizzle · · Score: 1

      It seems you do not have a concept of individual liberty and economic freedom. When there is one "company" (the gov't) running the rest, options evaporate and we are destined to live nearly identical lives. It is equality via bringing down the ones on top rather than assisting the ones on the bottom learn how to get themselves to the top. The only way to be successful within a system such as this is to get yourself elected/in power, or get a friend elected/in power so you can hopefully become a bureaucrat somewhere. This spits in the face of entrepreneurship and risk-taking to better your own life.

      --
      "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    20. Re:We Get What We Deserve by Copid · · Score: 1

      If gas prices are like this for the next 4 years, he can go ahead and have orgies in the Oval office for all I care. Now, if gas prices go back to $3 or so... then he can burn in hell for bringing us the bad gas prices, but until then I'd give him free reign to do what ever he wants.

      How will you vote next election if the weather gets really bad over the next four years? Or if we have more earthquakes than usual? Sunspots?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  36. why? so humans can move forward. by netsavior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Instead of teaching math, should they just give out calculators and provide training for how to press the buttons on a McRegister?

    No offense, but if you think that you can do Math on a calculator, your arguements for better education are kinda weakened. Calculators (yes even graphing ones) are a way to get around the tedium of simple arithmetic, a way to skip past the dark ages and get to the meat of critical, logical thinking.

    I analyze water flow patterns as it relates to insurance risk for a living... a mathematical job to be sure. When calculating the trajectory of a projected river overflow, I grab my scientific calculator, and I think back in sympathy for my 4th grade self, who was tortured by moronic ciriculum focused on creating mindless times table memorization, which I could not do...

    The main advantage humans have over other animals is that our history and our technology make it possible to learn in one lifetime what could not otherwise be possible in a hundred lifetimes. "Back to basics" is how humanity self-destructs. Give them a pile of computers, have them teach the teacher.

    1. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by Helios1182 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Instead of teaching math, should they just give out calculators and provide training for how to press the buttons on a McRegister?

      No offense, but if you think that you can do Math on a calculator, your arguements for better education are kinda weakened. Calculators (yes even graphing ones) are a way to get around the tedium of simple arithmetic, a way to skip past the dark ages and get to the meat of critical, logical thinking.

      I think that was his point. Teaching them to hit buttons on a calculator isn't math. Giving them a computer isn't learning.

    2. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by netsavior · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Teaching them to hit buttons on a calculator isn't math. Giving them a computer isn't learning.

      that is true, but I always get the impression people are implying that having a calculator is detrimental to the teaching of "math" whereas what they really mean is "Damn you, I had to learn my times tables, so you should too".
      I would argue that pen and paper arithmetic is just as much "not math" as punching numbers on a calculator, it is just slower, and therefore more of a waste of time.

    3. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Teaching them to hit buttons on a calculator isn't math. Giving them a computer isn't learning.

      No, but they need to be able to perform arithmetic before you can teach them calculus. If you don't teach them "to hit buttons on a calculator" then you have to teach them to perform the arithmetic manually instead, which takes longer and eats into the time and resources which could otherwise be spent on higher-level concepts.

      Computers are the same thing, but on a larger scale. You use them, and related resources like the Internet, to replace rote memorization and other tedious, repetitive processes. That way you can focus on training students in the sort of creative critical thinking which humans are uniquely skilled at.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    4. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by avandesande · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Talk to any great physicist or mathmetician and they will tell you that they have learned to visualize numbers and 'see' relationships between them on an intuitive level. Read Feynman's biography and he will describe how he could approximate and massage numbers much faster than anyone could use a calculator.

      This type of brain development is completly missed with calculators- sure I think an engineer or accountant should use one but not school children.

      Actually I have my son check his work with a caclulator, so now he is adapt with both.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Math is more than a process- it is a language that is universal to the entire world. I think many underestimate the advantage of math fluency at least on the level of a spoken language.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by Mao · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but I would still expect my children or students to be able to do simple arithmetic in their heads.

      One reason is that memorizing the multiplication table and applying it is a form of mental strength training. My analogy is that just because we have cars, running and walking are still healthy (if not essential) activities.

      Another reason is that, more important than being completely correct in, say, calculating 231 times 15.12, people need a basic sense of numbers. One should be able compare the sizes of 11/17 and 3/4 without pulling out a calculator. There is always a possibility (quite distinct in my case) of punching in the wrong numbers into the calculator. Having a general sense on what your answers approximately should be gives a level of insurance.

    7. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It also teaches you to keep your digits in straight columns, organize your work, keep track of parentheses and such, and correctly apply the various rules of algebra if you want to get the correct answer. Punching buttons on a TI isn't going to give kids that.

      I know from personal experience that a button-punching kid with a calculator might get the right answer, but they might also get a completely, obviously wrong answer because of a misplaced decimal or parenthesis or using the wrong function, and they won't even question it because the "calculator said so". If they even had some sort of basic idea of what was going on, they'd notice their answer was off by an order of magnitude or their function is decreasing when it should be increasing, but they're completely reliant on the machine.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    8. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly expect people to be able to do everything in their head?

      How about we just get rid of cars. I mean, people should walk everywhere!

    9. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by icebrain · · Score: 1

      The point is that, if the kids only ever learn to use a calculator, they will be completely and totally helpless without it. That's why you see those idiots standing behind the cash register who can't count out change without the register telling them how much. The calcluator becomes a magic box that spits out answers; if the kid screws up and puts something in wrong, he'll never know.

      I'm not saying kids can't use them, but they should learn to do stuff manually first--and honestly, there's nothing in the math curriculum before middle school that isn't just as fast by hand as it is with a calculator. You don't need calcluators to do 12 x 5, or to perform simple addition.

      I really just don't get this "every student needs a computer at his desk" thing. We need to make sure our kids can read and do basic math (both things that have been taught for centuries without electricity) before we start worrying about giving them computers. Spend that money on decent textbooks that aren't full of fluff instead.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    10. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by willy_me · · Score: 1

      I grab my scientific calculator, and I think back in sympathy for my 4th grade self, who was tortured by moronic ciriculum focused on creating mindless times table memorization, which I could not do...

      Memorizing mathematical tables is one of the most important things you can do in elementary school. It sticks with you your entire life and assists you is ways that you probably do not even realize. The vast majority of mathematical problems one faces on a day to day basis are of this type. From purchasing food to solving partial differential equations - it all involves simple addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

      In my experience, those who have not practised their basic mathematics are seriously effected in post secondary education. When in a lecture, if you waste your time verifying the basics you miss out on what is really being taught. The instructor goes to the next problem while you are still digesting the previous one. You spend all your time taking notes - hoping that it all makes sense when you review it.

      I am grateful that my mother used to sit me down from an early age and go over math tables. I would do them every day for ~5 min a day - a very small investment in time. A timer would tell me when to stop and the number of problems completed would be recorded. Every day I would compete against my previous results. While I hated it at the time, I now see why it was so important.

      The main advantage humans have over other animals is that our history and our technology make it possible to learn in one lifetime what could not otherwise be possible in a hundred lifetimes.

      Don't make the mistake of confusing learning with discovering. We are no more capable of learning now then we were thousands of years ago - despite our technology. Technology can help overcome some of the roadblocks to learning, such as accessibility of knowledge, but it does not magically make us better learners. The act of learning really has not changed in centuries; and so long as the human brain exists as it does now, it isn't going to.

      Technology provides us with tools that make our life easier. Wonderful tools that change the way we live our lives. It provides shortcuts - a way to get from point A to point B with less labour. This is great, but it doesn't help in learning how to get from point A to point B. If your goal is to learn (and not to do) then you don't want technology getting in the way.

      The problem with technology in schools is that it is used to simplify tasks that need to be done for the sake of learning. For example, using calculators to solve simple addition. But tasks with no value wrt learning make for good uses of technology. For example, a computer and text editor are great for learning how to write HTML. The goal is to learn HTML and the technology simply enables this. But using Dreamweaver would interfere with the goal of learning HTML.

    11. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely agree with this. There is something to be said for understanding beyond the process of math. Some of the most elegant proofs were done using a compass and a straight edge by the Greeks. Math is as philosophical as it is practical (even arithmetic, see peano's axioms for proof of that).

    12. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      pen and paper arithmetic is just as much "not math" as punching numbers on a calculator, it is just slower, and therefore more of a waste of time.

      The benefit I received from learning pen and paper arithmetic is that I understood what we were doing when we programmed multiplication with the primitive ALUs we designed in CS. If future generations' arithmetic knowledge is restricted to calculator use, then calculator/computer design will stagnate.

    13. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It also teaches you to keep your digits in straight columns, organize your work, keep track of parentheses and such, and correctly apply the various rules of algebra if you want to get the correct answer. Punching buttons on a TI isn't going to give kids that.

      Instead of giving them a calculator, how about we just teach them Python?

    14. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posted anonymously in case my gf ever googles my handle... She's done it in the past >.>

      The other day while helping my gf with some practice questions for a nursing exam, I discovered that she had no idea how to do long-division. She's 23, studying to be a nurse, and has a 3.875 GPA. And had no idea how to do long-division. Maybe you're different, but I found this to be pretty shocking. The explanation was simple: she never needed to know because a calculator was always available and allowed in class. I can understand being rusty, or slow, but to have zero concept of long-division because it went in one ear and out the other? My concern is that children will have the same attitude--that the final answer will become so easy to reach that they will not even bother to understand the underlying concepts.

    15. Re:why? so humans can move forward. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Do good mathematicians really have to visualize all the math they are capable of doing? Certainly some, if not most, can and do, but I always thought that some people were good at math because they could read equations like sentences.

      I've always been terrible at math. From long division up to algebra and calculus, I was straight Cs -- except for geometry. As I took it in high school, it was almost an art class. Mostly drawing, very few numbers. No equations. A lot of proofs, which I excelled at. At the time, I thought, "Damn, if only the rest of math could be like this".

      Anywho, I watch those physicists throw up equation after equation on the board, and I think, "Man, those guys can really read those things." -- and I mean read. Is it possible that there are some mathematicians who don't have to "convert to vision"? I can't imagine trying to explain or understand DeMorgan's Laws visually; it just seemed like pure reading to me.

      And, say it were true that people do math by converting writing to vision, understanding it, and then converting it back to writing to communicate it. Why do we write math in a style like written language? Why couldn't we do more drawing?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  37. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by D_Blackthorne · · Score: 1

    Was that really necessary to get the story across?

    Probably not. I was thinking the same thing. What, did subby vote for McCain? :p

  38. Why arent we just given everything? by tripdizzle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A student's diet and sleeping habits are much more important than having a computer with broadband. Can we get a stimulus that promises a well-balanced diet and a Posturepedic bed for all??

    --
    "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    1. Re:Why arent we just given everything? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't know, low income children get free / reduced priced breakfasts AND lunches at public schools.

      I'd go one step further, a student's parents are just as important to eating and sleeping as anything.

      But being hungry with bad parents doesn't stop kids from being successful in school. I know, I've seen it. Some people are made of incredible stuff.

      It just helps when kids get all the things they need to succeed. As they say, it improves their chances.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Why arent we just given everything? by tripdizzle · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I do, growing up in a rural area, most of us were considered low income and the school breakfast/lunch program was their biggest expenditure. Too bad most of that food was thrown away because no one wanted to eat that garbage. I remember seeing the vat of green beans back there: "Grade D, but edible"

      --
      "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    3. Re:Why arent we just given everything? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ahhh yes, Grade D .... Edible (for human consumption) ... that was the label for the chicken at the dorms. Seriously! My parents wouldn't believe me.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  39. Here we go by bukowski01 · · Score: 1

    There is nothing in here that will help anyone. The failure has only begun.

  40. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. Even if that was the case, who else would it be for if it's in schools? Chill out, Taco.

  41. Interstate High Speed Rail Network by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Obama announced that he was going to start the largest public works program since the Interstate system, I thought he might be talking about an interstate high speed rail network.

    Though, after looking through his proposal, I don't see anything about high speed trains. I think a train network would kill many birds with one stone:

    - it would provide a fast alternative to flying, which I hate.
    - it would cut down on carbon emissions since trains are much more efficient than cars or planes.
    - it could do for the country what the interstate system did in the last half of the last century.
    - it would create lots of jobs spread out across the country

    1. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Wrong on the last one. Mass transit consolidates population, it doesn't spread it out. Not that I'm totally against the suggestion, mind you, good trains are a GREAT thing.

    2. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by Moochman · · Score: 1

      That is indeed a fabulous idea.

    3. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      No, GP's right on the last point: Even if the people don't move to Peoria, the rail line still has to be built that goes through there.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's OK. I think everyone had some sort of glittering, shiny fantasy about what they thought Obama was going to do. The obamacotin is just starting to wear off and the country is coming off its high. Prepare for an ugly crash. Maybe even a freak out.

    5. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      yes yes yes yes please.

      Even if they only did a few major corridors (east coast, west coast, CA to FL), that would be awesome.

    6. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      When Obama announced that he was going to start the largest public works program since the Interstate system, I thought he might be talking about an interstate high speed rail network.

      Local/regional mass transit is more likely a focus (and one of the things that has been discussed as something they are looking at making money available tos state and local governments for), since there a more existing, well-developed proposals and it would take less time to get off the ground and people working on building rather than study and planning. I'm not saying that such a network is a bad idea from an infrastructure and long-term stimulus perspective, but from a short-term stimulus perspective its far from ideal.

    7. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      High speed trains in the United States are, unfortunately, non-starters for the following reasons:

      (1) NIMBYism: It is too easy here in the United States for special interests, and every neighborhood which might be negatively affected by high speed rail would become a NIMBY against it, to oppose projects with broad public appeal for narrow minded and selfish reasons. In countries with high speed rail which includes most of Europe and especially France, it is very difficult or impossible to stand in the way of public works projects because they "lower one's home value" or are "uncharacteristic for the neighborhood" or "have environmental impacts" (a favorite of no-growth and slow growth homeowner's associations to delay and kill undesirable projects).

      (2) Electricity: France and other nations which deploy high speed rail have lots of high power nuclear reactors to generate the necessary electricity and make the whole affair economical. Moving a train weighing several hundred tons at 250+ mph takes a lot of energy which would have to be in addition to all of the energy that we are currently using here in the United States (and we are already short or running close to our limits on the electrical grids). This infrastructure is, of course, subject to the same types of NIMBYism as described above.

      (3) Route Planning (too many stops): In order to be effective, a high speed train has to make as few stops as possible, thereby allowing extended stretches of high cruising speeds (as with airlines which is really the closest analogous form of travel). However, the political pressure on long distance routes here in the United States, to introduce more stops, is and would be tremendous since any city which has a stop stands to benefit enormously from being a stop on a high speed rail network with few stops (Los Angeles would be much smaller than it is today if not for its status as an rail stop and junction connecting California to important railroads throughout the American southwest).

    8. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing at all. But, if trains are a non-starter because of NIMBY, then so are solar and wind farms since both also require new transmission corridors.

      I doubt many environmentalists have thought through the consequences of wind and solar.

    9. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You deserve a great big fat "Eureka!" for that. It's about damn time we had a truly efficient interstate commuter rail system in this country.

      Only problem is, the airlines -- who are already in big financial trouble -- would close shop almost overnight. That would go against the interests of most of our legislators and executives in D.C.

    10. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh - you want to sit in a train that takes a few days to go from NY City to SF or 5 hrs on a plane?

    11. Re:Interstate High Speed Rail Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you forgotten "slow rail" or AMTRAK?! Maybe if we make the train faster, government supported train service will turn out better!

  42. FCC Stranglehold by sirroc · · Score: 1

    Until the FCC changes the definition of "broadband" to at the very least 100mbits; it won't matter how many billions we throw at the problem. By doing that; I can imagine you'd see companies like comcast rolling out DOCSIS 3.0 exponentially faster than they are doing now. Verizon as well would be forced to turn it up; or be forced to drop the all powerful "Broadband/High Speed Internet" from their marketing.

  43. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this was a story about Bush no one would be complaining. But Messiah Obama, on the other hand... he's untouchable.

  44. market intervention by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    He also said it is "unacceptable" that the US ranks 15th in broadband adoption.

    Why, because it hurts our ego? How come he isn't asking why we are 15th in broadband adoption? Is there an untapped market out there where the broadband companies are too stupid to realize the cost-benefit analysis says they should expand?

    And where are we getting the money for this, again?

    1. Re:market intervention by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And where are we getting the money for this, again?

      Given that the Iraq war has cost a bit over six hundred billion dollars so far, and is estimated to top out at over 1.2 trillion dollars, "from stopping the Iraq war" is a good start to answering the question where the money will come from. You know, you could do a lot with four hundred million dollars a day.

      Anybody here old enough to remember the candidates talking about what they were going to do with the budget surplus, back in 2000? Or is that just some forgotten ancient history? Surplus... what a concept!

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:market intervention by oneTheory · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

    3. Re:market intervention by tripdizzle · · Score: 1

      Your point is moot, he has appointees who are going to continue to run the war exactly the way Bush did, and for just as long (until our job is done). His whole anti-war "Bush lied people died" approach was just to get elected. I am now kinda wishing I would have voted for the guy.

      --
      "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    4. Re:market intervention by flydude18 · · Score: 1

      The one interesting thing to come out of the financial bailout is that people who try to point out the cost of the Iraq war in a dramatic fashion end up looking like Dr. Evil. Six... hundred... billion... dollars. What, only? Over five years? We spend that kind of money in single chunks these days.

      It's just not as impressive of a figure as it once was.

    5. Re:market intervention by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Given that the Iraq war has cost a bit over six hundred billion dollars so far, and is estimated to top out at over 1.2 trillion dollars, "from stopping the Iraq war" is a good start to answering the question where the money will come from. You know, you could do a lot with four hundred million dollars a day.

      Anybody here old enough to remember the candidates talking about what they were going to do with the budget surplus, back in 2000? Or is that just some forgotten ancient history? Surplus... what a concept!

      I don't worry about it at all. For the simple reason, that I have no clue where they get any of their money in the first place. Why not just build $100 billion in windmills, $100 billion in broadband projects, $100 billion in scooters, and a super cellphone/PDA for everyone with in the US (that should only cost 350 Million * 50 per month =17,500 Million so 17.5 Billion per month for everyone to have that toy.) Oh let's give every household a 50" LCD TV while we are at it.

      We'll end up with some of those toys despite the government not because of it.

    6. Re:market intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 years and 600 billion on the Iraq / Afghanistan Wars?

      How far does your entertainment and discretionary dollars go?
      --Excitement of WAR and all its exciting boom explosions flying bodies, just like Battlefield 42
      --Saddam's regime is gone; this stated goal of American foreign policy from the mid-1990s accomplished.
      --Libya's WMD program was revealed and dismantled.
      --Sanctions, which it was claimed were killing 50,000 Iraqi children a year (and presumably some additional number of adults), were ended.
      --The corruption of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program was exposed.
      --A democracy, albeit a fragile one, has been born in Iraq. Whether it survives, and whether this will end up being acceptable by the standards of Western values remains to be seen.
      --The United States military has had training in the form of warfare most likely to be seen in the next two decades. Advances are created in trauma medicine, which is useful and important.
      ---There have been no other terrorist attacks in the U.S by Al Qaeda; which constrained by very limited resources in trained personnel, has explicitly made the Iraq war the key theater of its operations against the U.S. It is possible though improvable that the U.S presence in Iraq had something to do with this.
      --Weaknesses of various nations major world intelligence services, has been exposed as all agreed Sadaam had WMDs
      --By involving Al Qaeda in Iraq and particularly in a form of warfare that had it visibly targeting Muslim civilians, Al Qaeda has lost a great deal of its earlier charms among disaffected Muslim populations.
      --Chance to steal tonnes of oil from Iraq-(muHahHahA).

      For the 700 billion bail-out spent in a few weeks the US is getting exactly WHAT?

    7. Re:market intervention by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      The government wouldn't have $400 million per day if it stopped the Iraq war. It would just not have to borrow or print as much. Certainly it wouldn't be able to spend it on other things.

    8. Re:market intervention by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >Anybody here old enough to remember the candidates talking about what they were going to do with the budget surplus, back in 2000? Or is that just some forgotten ancient history?

      Oh, I remember.
      I'm old enough to remember when one of the core planks of the Republican platform was "Balance The Budget!" and every Republican mentioned that repeatedly in their campaign literature.
      Right up until it became obvious that Bill Clinton was going to be the one to balance the budget and actually establish a surplus.
      Suddenly, that plank vanished as if it had never existed, and last eight years, we have almost doubled our budget deficit, from $5.7T to $10T.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    9. Re:market intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because we have been spending irresponsibly on the Iraqi War does not mean that continued spending at that level is prudent, nor does it mean that if we pull out of the Iraqi War that money will just be sitting there waiting to be spent. If you notice, we do not have 1.2 trillion handy to spend on whatever has become a "priority" for Obama.

    10. Re:market intervention by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      The government wouldn't have $400 million per day if it stopped the Iraq war. It would just not have to borrow or print as much.

      You say that almost like it's trivial: "just four hundred million dollars per day that the government wouldn't be borrowing."

      Well, yeah. Four hundred million dollars that we're not getting deeper into the hole by. Every day.

      Certainly it wouldn't be able to spend it on other things.

      And if we keep on spending that four hundred million dollars day?

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    11. Re:market intervention by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Clinton played an accounting trick by lumping social security into the general fund.

      There was no surplus.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    12. Re:market intervention by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      What is your point? The war in Iraq should be stopped. Done. Move on. But let's not act like it will have one single effect on our financial situation. To do that you have to attack Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security.

  45. Re:obama cleared his throat by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

    You replied to the wrong guy. I'm O('_')O_BUSH. You meant to send that reply to CTS (circletimessquare) who is a notorious troll here and on other sites.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  46. re: Qwest by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, I believe you basically heard correctly. I remember that being one of Qwest's competitive advantages at the time they got started. When everyone else was stuck negotiating for rights to use other people's land to place their fiber cabling, Qwest could usually just use the "right of way" land along the sides of the train tracks instead.

    I think in the end though, it didn't change much of anything for the "end user/customer". Eventually, the big telcos all found ways to get things cabled up where they wanted to cable them up. Qwest might have gotten it done for less money initially, but they all have similar costs of operation and pricing models today.

  47. engagement by bugi · · Score: 1

    The problem in US schools is engagement. Computers will not magically solve that.

    That's engagement by both students and parents, BTW.

  48. Re:Computers can help motivate High School student by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

    It might inspire some to continue education and work harder, but, quite honestly, most of the students won't even care. They will think (in typical human thought patterns), "I'm different. I *do* deserve to get paid more than all those other schmucks." Or, in a typical (irresponsible) pattern of your average high school student, they'll think, "Meh. It doesn't matter. I'll be fine. It always works out."

    Either way, I don't think your idea will work as well as it would appear at first glance.

  49. China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did you miss the (rather conspicuous) use of the word "broadband"? Our network infrastructure sucks quite badly, and if he's talking about upgrading it, that's a lot of domestic blue-collar jobs.

    If POBE is really serious, he'll look at giving us real broadband, like the premises fibre that Korean consumers enjoy. If he does that, Corning will have to de-mothball a factory or two, and a lot of people will be needed to dig ditches and pull cable. Sounds pretty stimulating to me.

    1. Re:China Ohio by theaveng · · Score: 1, Redundant

      The reason Korea has such rapid broadband is because it's like one giant city. You too could have Korean-like broadband if you moved to a major city (or tech center) like Seattle, L.A., New York, Philadelphia, or Boston. Even here in suburban PA I have access to 100 megabit/s broadband via comcast.

      Also the United States is not some podunk little nation like Korea, but a continent-spanning nation that takes 3 days to drive across (~2500 miles), and therefore it makes sense to compare like-to-like:

      (1) Russian Federation - 6.9 megabit/s
      (2) European Union - 6.2
      (3) United States - 6.1
      (4) Canada - 4.4
      (5) Australia - 4.4
      (6) China - 2.1 ...
      .

      The U.S. is only slightly behind its Russian/European neighbors, and significantly ahead of its Canadian, Australian, and Chinese neighbors. That is not a bad position to be.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:China Ohio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Obama Barack Elect?

    3. Re:China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The reason Korea has such rapid broadband is because it's like one giant city. You too could have Korean-like broadband if you moved to a major city (or tech center) like Seattle, L.A., New York, Philadelphia, or Boston. Even here in suburban PA I have access to 100 megabit/s broadband via comcast.

      Dude, I live in Silicon Valley. I tried to get 5 Mbs, but it wasn't supported, even though I live close to a major business district. I could spend a ton and get Comcast service (it would cost because I have no desire to get cable TV) but I don't believe that they really provide 100 Mbs reliably. If you do, I have a Nigerian prince who needs your help.

      And even if it were true, premises fiber is more than 10 times that fast.

      Speaking of which, I'm really tired of the density argument. The Seoul region is pretty dense, but not that dense. It has 20 million people in 2,000 square miles. Compare the New York/Newark agglomeration, which has 19 million people in 3,000 square miles. Almost as many people in 1 1/2 times the area. Is that enough to account for such a huge difference in fiber penetration? I don't think so.

    4. Re:China Ohio by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is why need to bring back the WPA.

      The ASCE's report card shows that our infrastructure sucks.

      By JUST redoing the bandwidth, we'll probably duplicate efforts later pulling up roads to run wire, etc. Reminds me of a story a friend told me about a town redoing main street. They had a big plan and sent out info to all of the companies with pipes/lines under it. They said if they needed to replace anything, do it now or if they need to replace it before X years, they would foot the entire bill. The center of town got a ton of new fiber, etc.

      I think Bailout and any bailout money we were going to give the Big 3 and rebuild Americas' infrastructure. Bridges, Dams, Power lines, roads. Quite a bit of stuff was built during the great depression putting people to work. After the MN bridge collapse inspectors are coming out of the wood work going "Yeah, these could fail at any time now too."

      Take all those 2.9M employees that are out of work and have them start building shiat. If they want to sit on their Union ass and do nothing, they get nothing. Turn off unemployment. There'll be no shortage of jobs. Pay them what they're actually worth as manual labor. Caterpillar & Deere, the big 2 domestic construction manufacturers would need to increase their workforce (Which is partially union). Truckers would get more work shipping construction supplies and equipment. Mobile home makers would need to up production for temporary housing. Concrete, asphalt, and steel industries would need to up employment to help keep up with demand.

      Along every road and every bridge run fiber, it costs nothing compared to what a new road does, so run a fat pipe to every town in America. The next Wozniak or Linus could be sitting at a place that currently just has 14.4 dial up. Maybe the smartest of the high school students could take part in remote learning at MIT or some where where they'll not be kept behind with the rest of their class.

      In addition, toss a rail line down the center of the interstates. Get a light rail connecting most large cities. Maybe even a 'ferry' service. Need to go to CA? Load your car up on a rail. Go sit in the comfortable seats and in a day. You're in CA.

      Just like all those roads and bridges helped spark the auto boom a decade or so later, in 10-20 years we could really see the economy back on its feet doing something else productive.

    5. Re:China Ohio by fbjon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the "USA is a large country"-argument has surfaced and been beaten dead a few times already here on slashdot. There are countries that are relatively poorer, more sparsely populated, but have higher broadband adoption.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    6. Re:China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 1
    7. Re:China Ohio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 megabit/s? Impressive. I see on Wikipedia that they are beginning to roll-out DOCSIS 3.0. I guess you are one of the lucky early costumers.

      You too could have Korean-like broadband if you moved to a major city (or tech center) like Seattle, L.A., New York, Philadelphia, or Boston.

      Really? Could you point me to such an ISP? The best I know of is Verizon's FiOS service which has woefully limited coverage... and does not claim higher than 50/20 anyway. As I hear it, most people, even in cities, are limited to 15/2 or so cable modems as the fastest consumer-priced internet access they are going to see and are going to get charged ~$40-$50/month for it.

    8. Re:China Ohio by theaveng · · Score: 1

      1 datapoint doesn't alter the big picture.

      California is in the top 10, with an average speed of 6.8 megabit/s. That's comparable to the average speed in Germany, and faster than your colleagues in France, England, or Italy.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    9. Re:China Ohio by khallow · · Score: 1

      Which is why need to bring back the WPA.

      Sure, as long as my pet projects get the subsidized labor. I really need billions of dollars in profit. Need.

    10. Re:China Ohio by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      Dude, I live in Silicon Valley. I tried to get 5 Mbs, but it wasn't supported, even though I live close to a major business district.

      I'm assuming you looked at AT&T U-Verse? I get a rock solid 10Mbps connection. It's actually a 25Mb connection but 15 of it is reserved for cable (sadly, but that's how it works).

      I also live in Silicon Valley, in Cupertino. I know U-Verse isn't available everywhere around here though.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    11. Re:China Ohio by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a person who has never driven across the United States. There are regions where you can drive for miles and never see anything except a couple random cows grazing. Comparing this 2500-mile wide federation versus a small country no bigger than Delaware makes ZERO sense. It's like comparing a pumpkin versus a pea... totally illogical.

      I prefer to compare one federation versus another, where the sizes are comparable. Like the US versus the EU versus Canada versus Australia, because only then can you draw conclusions of like v. like.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    12. Re:China Ohio by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Not only would nationwide broadband create lots of jobs (at least blue collar and technical jobs), but it also would help our economy in that companies are more likely to locate themselves and invest into areas with good infrastructure.

      Pretend your a modern company that shoves gigabytes of data around every day, and you have the choice of putting your offices in a country where 100Mbps internet access is ubiquitous and cheap, or you could locate yourselves where you have to pay thousands of dollars a month for a 10Mbps upload rate, if you can get that at all. What country are you going to move to?

    13. Re:China Ohio by fbjon · · Score: 1

      And who lives in those vast spaces of land? Nobody, it's mostly empty. Empty space doesn't need broadband.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    14. Re:China Ohio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      POBE

      WTF?

    15. Re:China Ohio by b3m87 · · Score: 0

      try again. I live in center city Philadelphia and I doubt I will be able to get a fiber connection by the end of the decade. Know why? Because 10 blocks southwest of me is a ghetto. Verizon has no desire to spend all that money to run fiber throughout Philadelphia and then have 25% of the people actually use it. The current wires in place are even a joke. When I signed up for comcast the guy came and climbed up a ladder disconnected and reconnected a bunch of cables until the internet started working. It looks like a spider web over on that pole. Maybe cities with more money such as NY/Miami, but just because a city is big doesn't mean it is good.

    16. Re:China Ohio by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Compare that to Japan, where you can get 100mb/s for $50 a month with a 900gb per month data transfer limit.

      And to think we're so happy with 6.8 and Comcast's 250 gig monthly limit...

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    17. Re:China Ohio by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      *and much higher taxes.

    18. Re:China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Your "big picture" sounds pretty cherry picked. And doing better than France when it comes to Telecom is not exactly ground breaking.

      If you find the current level of broadband availability in the U.S. acceptable, good for you. Most of us don't. Even if your figures are correct, and our penetration is "not so bad", the best you can say is that we're keeping up with a bunch of mediocre countries. Upgrading would drastically improve our competitiveness, and stimulate the economy — both things that badly need doing just at the moment.

    19. Re:China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Oooh, 10 Mbs. Be still my beating heart.

      No, AT&T U-verse is not available in my area. (Ironically, I work for the company that makes the computers that U-verse uses.) And even if it were, that hardly compares with the gigabit speeds available in some countries.

    20. Re:China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You're completely correct. But then, the same can be said about roads, bridges, railroads, all that stuff we've been neglecting. Instead we've been trying to be a "service economy", as if you can have service with everybody doing the serving and nobody doing the actual work.

    21. Re:China Ohio by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      Oooh, 10 Mbs. Be still my beating heart.

      No, AT&T U-verse is not available in my area. (Ironically, I work for the company that makes the computers that U-verse uses.) And even if it were, that hardly compares with the gigabit speeds available in some countries.

      You just said you were hoping to get 5Mbps earlier... 10Mbps, if you didn't know, is at least better than that. But yes gigabit would be nice.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    22. Re:China Ohio by shermo · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how the total size of the US has anything to do with the broadband penetration in its highly populated cities.

      The world is a sparsely populated space, and yet certain highly populated countries manage to set up efficient broadband networks.

      What's stopping, say, the state of Massachussets from implementing its own broadband network.

      Is there perhaps some sort of regulation that requires equal pricing accrss the country? I could understand how this would require higher profit areas (cities) to subsidize lower profit areas (rural areas).

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    23. Re:China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I cited my 5 Mbit failure as an example of how feeble U.S. Internet access is. I was arguing with a guy who claimed that 100 Mbit was widely available. Getting 10 Mbit would be nice, but even if it were widely available, it still would leave the U.S. lagging.

    24. Re:China Ohio by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yes, one of the reasons I'm a fan of Obama is that he has talked for years now about the need to invest in infrastructure, including roads, bridges, etc.-- but also that he recognizes that the Internet is also infrastructure.

      Lots of people think that the Internet is either an entertainment service or some kind of a teenage gossiping service, and therefore a luxury instead of a vital piece of infrastructure. However, there are a lot of businesses these days that can't survive without fast Internet access any more than they can survive without roads leading up to their building, water flushing through their toilets, or electricity lighting their offices. It's necessary, and yet another example of how the US has failed in recent decades to develop proper infrastructure.

    25. Re:China Ohio by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      I cited my 5 Mbit failure as an example of how feeble U.S. Internet access is. I was arguing with a guy who claimed that 100 Mbit was widely available. Getting 10 Mbit would be nice, but even if it were widely available, it still would leave the U.S. lagging.

      This is true. But really we need mobile broadband to get faster too. At 10Mbps I am well on my way to filling up my 3TB of HDD space on my desktop as it is. I really want a 10 or 20Mbps mobile connection so i can stream files from home.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    26. Re:China Ohio by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      In addition, toss a rail line down the center of the interstates. Get a light rail connecting most large cities. Maybe even a 'ferry' service. Need to go to CA? Load your car up on a rail. Go sit in the comfortable seats and in a day. You're in CA.

      Unlikely to ever work until politicians actually give a crap about you and me. Simple fact is, efforts like this have been proposed many times yet are almost always defeated because of airline lobbyists. Airlines don't want cheap, fast transport for the travelling public because that means they would be forced to compete. That means they could no longer afford to pay their unqualified executives 100x their fair salary and benefits. That in turn means less money in politician's pockets. The only people this helps is you and me. Do you really think this will happen? No likely in our lifetime.

    27. Re:China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 1

      That's a little more difficult. Wired capacity you can increase just by pulling more wires. The carrying capacity of the airwaves is fixed by God, and a lot of it is already being used.

    28. Re:China Ohio by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Personally, I would like to see an end to the protectionism governments seem to have for aviation. Allow ANY airline that meets safety rules and etc to fly from any airport to any other airport. Get rid of the quaint 20th century ideas that domestic airlines should be based in the US and let foriegn airlines compete against the dinosaurs.

    29. Re:China Ohio by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Massachusetts is actually the fifth fastest region in the world, just behind Sweden, Korea, Japan, and Rhode Island.

      That was probably a poor example. Instead choose a state like Montana... why does Montana have an average speed of only 2 megabit/s? Simply put, because this state is ~400 miles wide with only a few people, and it's too expensive to run miles of wire just to serve a single rancher living in the middle of nowhere.

      Population density DOES matter. It's cheaper to run a mile of wire that can serve 100 residents, than to run a mile of wire that serves 0.01 residents. That's self-evident. The denser the population, the more cost-effective it becomes to upgrade the speed. That's why the fastest regions in the U.S. are also those states with the highest populations (the Northeast and Great Lakes regions).

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    30. Re:China Ohio by shermo · · Score: 1

      The Massachussets/Montana comparison certainly makes sense.

      So you're saying that densely populated American states/cities don't lag beind the rest of the world? Serves me right for listening to people on Slashdot I guess.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    31. Re:China Ohio by theaveng · · Score: 1

      And pay 60% in taxes for the privilege, and an interest rate of 0.03% on your bank account or IRA. (Ahhh the joys of a fifteen-year-long recession.) No thanks; I don't think I would enjoy living in Debt-pan.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    32. Re:China Ohio by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>the best you can say is that we're keeping up with a bunch of mediocre countries.

      I'm sure our Russian and European Union friends just love being called "mediocre". ;-)

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    33. Re:China Ohio by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      The carrying capacity of the airwaves is fixed by God, and a lot of it is already being used.

      Seriously? You think we're reaching some physical maximum capacity of wireless transfer? Seriously? That is as silly as suggesting that 340k is more RAM than anyone will ever need, or whatever that original statement was. How many times have we said we are at the physical limit of something, only to come up with something better? I think there are physicists with PHDs 20 years ago that would have told you that current hard drive data densities were physically impossible, because of magnetic interference, etc. We are just cracking the surface on quantum interactions of things. Hell, we don't even know for sure how many dimensions there are in the universe. There will be many, MANY more advancements in physics in the future and i bet we will have gigabit wireless transfer in common hand held devices in the next 50 years, if not 10 or 20 years. Or think about tech a MILLION years from now? There is no physical maximum that we are even close to reaching. Data will be transferred in orders of magnitude never even conceived by man.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    34. Re:China Ohio by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>> that hardly compares with the gigabit speeds available in some countries.

      You mean available to a privileged few who just happen to live inside the correct neighborhoods. Most citizens in those countries, like you, linve in areas that have not been upgraded.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    35. Re:China Ohio by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      That's a little more difficult. Wired capacity you can increase just by pulling more wires. The carrying capacity of the airwaves is fixed by God, and a lot of it is already being used.

      *COUGH* http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/09/0018241 *COUGH*

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    36. Re:China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you assume the right kind of scientific breakthrough (or the existence of magic) you can do anything. But before you can build that gigabit cell phone, you're either going to have to find a flaw in the math behind information theory, on else make a fundamental change in the laws of physics. Neither is impossible. but there's no hint that is on the horizon.

    37. Re:China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Bored now. Go snipe-troll somebody else.

    38. Re:China Ohio by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Fine. Now persuade the FCC to let you have the bandwidth to do it in the field. Note that the existing users of that bandwidth will oppose you. Loudly.

    39. Re:China Ohio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone talks about how wonderful broadband in Korea is. I spent 2 months in Korea last summer, and it was not that great. My connection at home in the states (which is fiber, btw) is much faster than anything I used there. This is not the same thing as broadband penetration, but one of the worst things was the lack of free wifi. I worked at the top technical university in Korea, and I couldn't sit in the campus coffee shop and use the internet for free.

    40. Re:China Ohio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A recession, eh? Then how is it that the Japanese are still able to save and we're not?

    41. Re:China Ohio by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      As far as Internet connectivity is concerned, Russia is not "mediocre" - it's sucking like mad.

    42. Re:China Ohio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh... The United States is not some podunk little nation like Korea, ....

      What is terribly sad is that it is a BIG podunk nation, lardass.
      Big podunks are worse than small ones.

      Wake up, Decker.
      Time to die.

    43. Re:China Ohio by makomk · · Score: 1

      There's a fundamental law of information transmission, Shannon's theorem, that (together with physics) limits how much data you can transmit over a radio connection. True, you can transmit more data by using a wider band of frequencies, but the useful frequencies are limited - high frequencies just don't propagate well enough to be usable.

    44. Re:China Ohio by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't know how it can be beaten dead. The OECD report that puts the US in the 15th place only covers about 30 countries. Of those 22 are in the EU and of the ones in the EU, 8 of them are in the 15 above the US.

      But that isn't the really the issue. The study doesn't say anything to the coverage areas, it only counts the number of subscribers to broadband and ranks them as a portion of the population. The US makes up 29% of the connected users in the reporting but rank 15th because the 58 some odd million broadband subscribers make up a smaller percentage of the population then other populations like Japan's. Japan was ranked higher at 14th place with less then half of the broadband subscribers that the US has and also is the next closest country as all others have less then 15 million subscribers with most being less then 5 million. Japan comes in at just 25.7 million subscribers compared to America's 58.1 million. The leading country- Denmark, had only 1.7 million subscribers. and at least two countries ahead of the US in rankings, Luxembourg and Iceland, didn't even break 1 million.

      So you have to ask a few questions here. One is, is it harder to get broadband to 58 million people then it is less then a million people or 25 million? Another would be, how does this account for people who just don't think spending the money on more then dial up is worth it for what they do. I know there are at least 3 dial up ISPs operating profitably in my area and you can get broad band everywhere within a 2-5 mile radius of the city limits. This study says nothing about the availability, just about the amount of people subscribing to broadband connections.

      When you add all the connected countries that are part of the EU together, you end up with around 75,869,093 broadband subscribers. That is about 30% more people connected then the US. With a population of about 494,070,000 (according to wikipedia), this comes to about 15.3 connections per 100 people. The US has 19.6 subscribers which is a difference of 4.3. If you assume that it is more difficult to get more people to subscribe where there is a larger population, you will see that the 30% increase in population for the EU translates to a number that is roughly 30% (28.5) higher for the US connections. This actually seems to support the large country theory pretty well and it also pretty much reflects the same results when taking apples to apples.

    45. Re:China Ohio by fbjon · · Score: 1

      One is, is it harder to get broadband to 58 million people then it is less then a million people or 25 million?

      I see your point, but it may or may not be harder, I don't think population size as such should make any difference unless there are problems with scaling networks up. If it is harder, I think it's rather because something is wrong and needs to be fixed, not because it's inherently harder. One thing is sure, anyway: more people = larger base to extract profits from.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    46. Re:China Ohio by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well of course it will be more difficult in scaling networks but another problem is in getting the people to want it or spend money on it (subscribers). The study or report referenced only counts the number of people subscribing not the total number of possible connections.

      The costs overhead is much more when you more then double the users because not only do you have to run the extra cable, but you need the routers and servers to handle it too. This wouldn't be like putting a network inside a building either, you will have to find locations to house the routers and servers, ensure that location has adequate power sources and is within the limits for length and so one for the tech being deployed, then you have to get the right of way to run the cables and so on. Of course some of that is already done with phone lines and Cable TV lines but those need to be upgrades and so on to handle the new tech. That's something that has been going on in the US since the late 90's.

      Then after all that, you need to get people to use it. Like I mentioned before, there are at least 3 profitable dial up ISPs in my area that has served for quite a while and in an area that has been covered by broadband access for a while too. The fact that someone doesn't want to spend the money may point to the perception of value but it doesn't talk about availability at all or anything about the problems.

      If you looked at where I tallied up the numbers for the EU's total population instead of specific parts of it, you will see that the EU had about a 30% higher population. When you added their totally broadband subscribers together and represented it as a portion of the population, you see that 30% fewer people translated to about 30% more subscribers showing that the more the population, the less the subscribers. There is most likely a saturation point that dwindles when the population count rises. Like the Report shows, the US has the most connected people and the most broadband connections but is ranked 15th because of the percentage of the total population. And when we take the entire EU into the picture, they have a higher population that equated to a lower percentage making them worse off then the US under the same ranking system.

  50. Defending Obama... by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh my Gosh. Here I am the most right wing guy on slashdot and I'm about to go and defend Obama's proposals for infrastructure spending in general, and national broadband and school computing in particular.

    a. ubiquity creates new industries. If broadband is something nearly everyone has in the USA, then, you have a much easier time making a business case for a new kind of service. The USA has built railroads with federal help before, knowing that putting railroads would pump the economy, and it did. Then, roads did the same thing. Broadband won't be any different.

    b. computers in schools works. Yes, a lot of kids play games on school computers but there will be those kids who are not as well off but interested in learning to program that will use them. I know I'm grateful to all the computer stores and schools back in the 1980s that let me learn programming in the lab and I think that there's other kids like me out there.

    Note that I wouldn't restrict this to just computers. I would like to see schools have shop classes with real presses, CNC machines, and other tools of the art so that kids can get some hands on real things prior to joining the real world.

    c. My stock retort to other conservatives that would oppose this government spending would be, you had no problem spending 2.5T on building schools and broadband in Iraq, but why can't you support that in the USA?

    d. Hands on experience in computing and manufacturing is a national security issue. The USA needs to know how to manufacture its own goods. I would offer as exhibit A, World War II. It's handy for national security when you have a ton of manufacturing centers that can be quickly converted to produce for wartime needs. Indeed, has the USA had a better manufacturing base, maybe we wouldn't have had to wait for five years and four thousand dead to get decent armoured vehicles into combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    By extension, those who pine for the old cold war days with Russian and for a stronger NATO should also be reminded that a part of our military obligation to our alliance partners is to have an economy capable of sustaining manufacturing in the event our allied economies are destroyed. It benefits Europe if the USA is capable of manufacturing its own products as that know-how can be shared with the continent.

    So yeah, I think Obama's on the right track with a big infrastructure stimulus. I think Republicans would be better suited to argue what to build, rather than not to build at all, given that they already blew several times Obama's figure on rebuilding Iraq.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Defending Obama... by pin0chet · · Score: 0

      a. Ubiquity doesn't require massive taxpayer spending. The Internet, Windows, Google, ISO standards, all emerged without much government involvement.

      b. Sure, computers can play a useful role in schools, but anybody who attended public schools knows that they mostly just sit around and aren't often used for educational purposes. Money on education can be better spent on incentivizing good teachers, for one thing.

      c. My stock retort to tax-and-spend leftists: So we wasted 2.5T on an unnecessary foreign war in Iraq, that somehow justifies wasting even more taxpayer money on infrastructure boondoggles that largely amount to ditch-digging for ditch-digging's sake?

      d. Wow. This isn't 1939. The global economy is intrinsically intertwined, and the prospect of an all-out war that would seriously impair U.S. ability to acquire manufactured goods is incredibly remote. Besides, if other countries are busy building our goods in factories, that leaves American workers free to, you know, do the thinking that's required to make these products. There's a reason we have Intel, Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc all based right here in the U.S. And it isn't because of silly trade barriers in the name of "national security"

      Obama's on the wrong track on infrastructure spending. Yes, his plans will create jobs, but at the expense of other, more economically efficient jobs. Like FDR, Obama falsely assumes that government can create wealth, when in fact government can only redistribute wealth from productive uses to unproductive ones. Besides, the real gems of U.S. infrastructure--our telecommunications system, our electricity grid--are largely in private hands, anyway.

    2. Re:Defending Obama... by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh my Gosh. Here I am the most right wing guy on slashdot and I'm about to go and defend Obama's proposals for infrastructure spending in general, and national broadband and school computing in particular.

      I don't buy it. You say you are the most right wing guy on Slashdot. There are various trolls routinely claiming to belong to the Gay Niggers Association of America too. Voting for Obama may have been a good idea, but it wasn't an action consistent with conservative beliefs either of the social or financial kind. Not that that is a bad thing.

      c. My stock retort to other conservatives that would oppose this government spending would be, you had no problem spending 2.5T on building schools and broadband in Iraq, but why can't you support that in the USA?

      A real conservative would have had a real problem with paying 2.5 trillion USD for schools and broadband in Iraq much less in the US. Incidentally, I don't see any indication that that much money was spent on schools and broadband in Iraq. My bet is that we spent more like a few hundred million on the schools themselves (maybe with a few billion wasted on the cost plus contractors doing the work).

    3. Re:Defending Obama... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Oh my Gosh. Here I am the most right wing guy on slashdot and I'm about to go and defend Obama's proposals for infrastructure spending in general, and national broadband and school computing in particular.

      Sniff...I'm so proud of you, stork. But you do realize you're going to have to give up your wingnut merit badge for being rational, right?

    4. Re:Defending Obama... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it. You say you are the most right wing guy on Slashdot.

      Believe me, you can take his word for it - check his posting history. Stork definitely earned his wingnut merit badge for consistent irrationality and Kool Aid drinking. Too bad he's going to have that merit badge repoed for a moments rationality.

    5. Re:Defending Obama... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      There are various trolls routinely claiming to belong to the

      Racism is not exclusively a right wing thing. In fact, I would argue that people who say that they are not racist in some degree, as the left does, are probably the most racist people of them all.

      A real conservative would have had a real problem with paying 2.5 trillion USD for schools and broadband in Iraq much less in the US.

      Agreed but only Pat Buchanan in the conservative movement consistently opposed the war before it started. After that time, conservative columnists routinely cited various statistics about American lead reconstruction efforts to show that Bush's nation building was working.

      Paradoxically, the Surge has succeeded and in doing so conservatives might well make the argument that Bush has, in fact, won the war in Iraq. He's got a democracy in that survived a mass insurgency. The Iraqi standard of living has consistently been going up since the invasion, violence aside. All of those things point to the idea that federal intervention can actually work, if done properly. I mean, if Republicans could actually build a working democracy and an economy in a country that was functionally destroyed, why could it not be done in the USA?

      --
      This is my sig.
    6. Re:Defending Obama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who support the enormous Iraq war spending may have branded themselves conservatives, but Replublicans are only "socially conservative"... not fiscally or constitutionally. They might be described as "Christian Socialists" in any country other than the US. Ask a true conservative about the spending, be it on computers or Iraq, and they'd say to let the people make decisions with their own money. Education is the states' job and the federalists have hijacked it, much to its detriment (see: No Child Left Behind).

    7. Re:Defending Obama... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I see he goes around claiming he's right wing. Don't see the consistency though. Mentioning the act of spending 2.5 trillion on "schools and broadband" in Iraq as if it were no big thing, betrays a fundamental lack of understanding on what conservative means.

    8. Re:Defending Obama... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The great right-wing fraud to repudiate George W. Bush. Sorry, but movement conservatism has been proven to have no clothes. The problem conservatives have with Bush isn't that he's not a conservative, but that he's unpopular. Another problem they dodge is the fact that if Bush actually had succeeded in accomplishing more conservative goals (privatizing Social Security, banning abortion, eliminating Medicare and Medicade) he would be even more unpopular with the American public than he is now.

    9. Re:Defending Obama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consequently, I've just found a severe right-winger that I agree 100% with. Nice to meet you, good sir.

    10. Re:Defending Obama... by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Besides, if other countries are busy building our goods in factories, that leaves American workers free to, you know, do the thinking that's required to make these products. There's a reason we have Intel, Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc all based right here in the U.S. And it isn't because of silly trade barriers in the name of "national security"

      Umm ... China has a population of over a 1.3B people (versus the U.S. population of ~300M or .3B).

      Think of it this way. If someone is "One in a million" then, assuming that is correct, there might be 300 of them in the U.S. and 1300 of them in China. To think that the population of China is incapable of competing in an intellectual arena is the hight of Hubris.

      The easy example off the top of my head where China is disengaging from the Western World, and starting to utilize "home grown" resources is in in Red Flag Linux. They don't NEED MicroSoft anymore, so they are actively pushing to cut it off (even in a pirated form). I realize that MS probably doesn't see a lot of profit from China anyway, but realize that without that market, MS can no longer contribute toward a trade balance with China.

      Given the opportunity, China will continue to eliminate any (and all) "not made here" products from its economy. This is as much a cultural issue as it is a political issue, and the fact the the U.S. has scrapped its manufacturing capability in place of buying cheaper goods, and exporting whatever wealth we have to foreign countries, won't help our long term financial health.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    11. Re:Defending Obama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here I am the most right wing guy on slashdot

      That's kind of like being the blackest guy in Vermont.

    12. Re:Defending Obama... by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      Shop classes are an amazingly good idea, and it's really too bad they've largely gone away. I've heard an argument for bringing them back from a number of conservative family members. Your overall argument that Republicans should be trying to guide the discussion of where infrastructure is improved is very good.

      I think the reason we see fewer Americans interested in science is that we don't encourage those kids who are good at building things. If you're a good mechanic or machinist, it takes a surprisingly small amount of additional work to be a good scientist. Conversely, if you're simply good at math, it does not mean you have the personality to build and follow through on an experiment.

      I don't know that computer programming will ever be a generally popular high school class, but shop was at my high school. The one area all us geeks and jocks got along in high school was shop. There's always respect for good workmanship.

      A modern shop class would require good computers and software, and having access to the internet would be very helpful as well.

      It would cost ~$100M to put a basic CNC mill in every high school in the country (20000 schools x $5000 hobby style CNC mills) ... maybe double that to include a decent computer setup and software. The more important costs would probably be room space and teacher salary, which is where you really lose most of the Republicans.

    13. Re:Defending Obama... by znerk · · Score: 1

      Not to be dense, but... did you have a point?

      Having lived in Vermont, I see what you're saying... and having lurked on slashdot for quite some time, I can see the analogy. This is all fine and good, but... I seem to have missed the point, unless it was simply to show off your racist tendencies and ignorance of the subject matter.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    14. Re:Defending Obama... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Here I am the most right wing guy on slashdot

      Don't be so sure, Eleanor.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    15. Re:Defending Obama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Iraqi standard of living has consistently been going up since the invasion, violence aside.

      I don't know what you base your claim of a standard of living increase on so I won't dispute it (even though I know that unemployment in Iraq skyrocketed when the invasion fucked up all government institutions there). However, prior to the invasion, Iraq wasn't some third world country in which people starve and lack health care - their standard of living was certainly lower than in the West but random kidnappings, robberies, bombings etc. were virtually nonexistent. So it might not be such a good trade-off.

      Evidently you believe the bs. about them now having a "democracy" but only time will tell whether they will in practice get a good society and we'll never know if they could've gotten it at a lower cost in terms of human lives, if the regime had been toppled in a different manner - Saddam wasn't going to live forever anyway, you know.

    16. Re:Defending Obama... by khallow · · Score: 1

      movement conservatism has been proven to have no clothes

      Ah yes, the insipid cliche. Here's another one: "correlation does not imply causation".

    17. Re:Defending Obama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with pretty much everything you've written here but I want to add a little to encourage more shop classes. In my old middle school in the early 90's I took what they called technology courses in woodworking and some basic engineering (civic, aeronautical, and mechanical are what I remember). Most of the equipment was from the 70's except for a few computers that ran DOS and most didn't work. Working with the drill press was one of the most exciting parts of the school day for me. Later on in Highschool we had a CNC lathe and near the end of the year everyone rushed to learn CAD so they could figure out the exact requirements of what they wanted to build to give their parents for Christmas.

    18. Re:Defending Obama... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it. You say you are the most right wing guy on Slashdot.

      As a bit of a leftie myself, I can confirm that, having been caught in his flamebaits more than once in the past. As it had already been suggested by another poster, just check his posting history.

      By the way, he didn't say that he voted for Obama. Merely that this particular proposal is not as bad as it sounds, and particularly that Republicans are certainly not in a position to criticize spending after Bush, especially in a case where the spending is actually done within the USA and is actually directed at improving something in the country.

    19. Re:Defending Obama... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the insipid cliche. Here's another one: "correlation does not imply causation".

      Ah, the insipid cliche of the Red Herring. Just read the damn link - movement conservatives backed Bush to the hilt in the 2000 election, the run up to the Iraq War, his foreign policy, his re-election in 2004, and his trampling of the Constitution. As Greenwald points out, Bush's supporters and critics can agree on one thing - Bush does not change. What has actually changed? Bush's approval ratings, which plunged during Katrina and they've never recovered.

      Conservatism has failed America and the world at every level on every issue - by laying it's failures on Bush, conservatives are acting just like delusional Communists: conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

    20. Re:Defending Obama... by khallow · · Score: 1
      Here's the logical error. The author claims these people changed their minds based on polling numbers. That is, the pundits' change of mind on Bush was caused by a reaction to polling numbers. But all he gives as supporting evidence is correlation, namely that the change in beliefs among pundits and populace nosedive between 2003 and 2006. That's not good enough. That's why my observation is not a red herring and quite relevant to this thread.

      There is a reasonable alternate explanation. Namely, Bush and his administration's appalling conduct during the occupation of Iraq, the post-Katrina cleanup in New Orleans, the massive increase in the federal deficit, and other things has driven down approval poll ratings and alienated pundits who had supported Bush.

    21. Re:Defending Obama... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sorry, previous reply too mangled.

      Here's the logical error. The author claims these people changed their minds based on polling numbers. That is, the pundits' change of mind on Bush was caused by a reaction to polling numbers. But all he gives as supporting evidence is correlation, namely that the change in beliefs among pundits and populace nosedive between 2003 and 2006. That's not good enough. That's why my observation is not a red herring and quite relevant to this thread.

      There is a reasonable alternate explanation. Namely, Bush and his administration's appalling conduct during the occupation of Iraq, the post-Katrina cleanup in New Orleans, the massive increase in the federal deficit, and other things has driven down approval poll ratings and alienated pundits who had supported Bush.

  51. Unsupported Claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither you nor Taco provided any citation for this outlandish claim. Given that there is a lot of bad information floating around (such as the bogus slashdot story about how Eric Holder wants to censor the internet) people should always note the source of their information.

    To lead by example, I give you the wikipedia entry on Eric Holder, which makes no mention of any censorship. In fact it states the opposite, with Holder coming out against abuses of government such as domestic spying, the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo Bay.

    1. Re:Unsupported Claims by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      Neither you nor Taco provided any citation for this outlandish claim.

      Perhaps they assumed you read this when it was originally posted?

    2. Re:Unsupported Claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the bogus slashdot story I mentioned above. It was widely debunked by, for example, this analysis. This is why you should always cite your sources.

    3. Re: Unsupported Claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nowhere close to a debunking, and it specifically addresses the narrow scope of part of one piece of legislation (mostly subsection 2(A)) presumably referenced by Holder in his Face the Nation interview.

      That itself contradicts the article! If Holder was referencing this particular piece of legislation, then he wasn't referring to a broad internet censorship regime. Therefore the hysteria about him being "all for net censorship" is not supported by this particular interview.

      If you can find just one piece of evidence suggesting that Holder is "all for net censorship" then please present it. (You can't use the interview linked above, since we agree that it's about certain legislation and that "Holder's wider views on censorship are not salient to the discussion of that legislation". You said it yourself.)

  52. For fuck's sake. by copponex · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883617.html

    Please shut up. You have no clue what you're talking about. It's almost like you need an education. While education is part of the doctrinal system, the reality is that you have more chance of success at whatever you're doing whether the degree gets you a foot in the door or if you meet other people in your field and develop relationships. Even without all that, you typically make more money with a higher education. These facts escape you because you are too lazy to learn before speaking.

    Almost every single technological breakthrough has occurred where? In government or university research labs funded by the state. You would not be typing on a computer and sending a message through the internet without it. The Human Genome Project was a government research program. Every time you take a flight you're riding in a modified bomber, researched with government funds.

    So with all due respect, shut the fuck up. Really. Your ignorance is the problem, not spending money on education.

    1. Re:For fuck's sake. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      There are lots of important techs that were developed without government funds. The steam engine, the internal combustion engine, iron, steel, powered flight, guns, electric power transmission, the light bulb, most modern materials, most modern advances in computer hardware and software. . . That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a lot more.

      And furthermore, just because technologies were developed with government money doesn't mean they couldn't have been developed with different funding. Also, I can't think of a single major commercial airframe in use today that was originally designed for military use (not so say there isn't one, but certainly none of the Boeing 7X7 lines or the airbus A3X0 lines were).

      Meeting people and getting your foot in the door does not require an education. You can meet people in the field. Degrees serve primarily as a barrier to entry, since employers use them to weed out potential candidates. You will not be prepared for your job by your degree, and you will likely use less than 10% of what you learn (much less what you crammed before the test and promptly forgot afterward). There are much better ways to spend four years of your life.

    2. Re:For fuck's sake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to completely miss the point. The OP was referring to the public K-12 education system, not university level education.

      So it's your turn to shut the fuck up now.

    3. Re:For fuck's sake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you learn in college is how to do research and solve problems. If you walk into college knowing this you are wasting your time and money...

      I did spend 7 years in college tho, racking up debt trying to figure out what I wanted to do.

      Never did figure that one out, so I went into software engineering, which I was doing when I was 13 on a commodore 64, writing assembler, yes without a college degree. Indeed, all I had was the CPU documentation and a magazine subscription. I think it was called Computer Magazine or something like that(1983). I started off a little slower than someone with a masters might have, but like they say, the creme rises to the top and you can't stop it. I guess when it comes down to it, if you are interested in something, just focus on it and do it. Success will find you.

      If you have no interests or skills, go to college.

      It isn't about what you "know" it's what you've done, which is a much better indicator of what you know than a piece of paper. If dem knew it but dem can't do it, dem's useless. We have a joke about PhD's coming from academia, that's that you can't hire them because they'll spend 3 months coming up with a plan and doing research, then the project usually won't work, at least IRL. Almost without fail they don't know the 7 fallacies of network programming. It will work great on paper though! There are a few holes in my knowledge that a degree would fill, but none of them are important. I get stuff done.

      I've gotten _every_ interview I've gone for. I've also gotten every job I've interviewed for, except 1. I've only once been lowballed on salary. I just laughed and left without explanation, shaking my head like I'd just heard a great joke. See I didn't need the job and had 2 offers on the table. I just wanted to see if they would beat them. It was a newb recruiter with a degree fetish. I think she was 23 and had something against successful people that got that way without a degree.

      I got a WTF call from her later, and had to explain that she shouldn't joke with people like that about salaries. Then she told me that she wasn't joking and I'm never going to get a job making more than 30k (odd since I was making 65 at the time) and she was being kind to me. Then I asked her what she was doing for dinner (she was damn cute!) "because I dig spunky chicks", but she hung up on me. I wonder where she is today...

      I'm thinking about going back but doubt my credits are still good. I've already hit the median for a doctorate degree, but then again, I'm only 40.

      Average lifetime of a job for me is around 5 years. Once I got laid off by relocation, once I was bored and wanted something more challenging. I started a business with some friends and that didn't work out. Now I have a great job (almost 3 years in). I didn't start my professional career til I was around 25, which coincided with the offer I couldn't refuse which I got when I was 7 years into college and still hadn't figured out what to do with myself.

      Fokkit, I'z done. What's the point? About all I got out of college was a big debt, good time, and lots of strange.

      The only point in your post I don't agree with is the barrier to entry thing and weeding out. If you have a solid resume, they don't even get to the education part before calling you. Well maybe in Europe. In America, talk and paper are cheap. Results sell. You don't earn degrees, you buy them, then have to pass a bunch of tests before they'll give them to you.

      I have a buddy I used to game with who's 21 and he's writing embedded C professionally. He got sucked right out of college (and quit without paying for a degree) and is making 50k to start. Not bad for a 21 year old. Talent doesn't need paper to prove itself.

      In his case hes in a talent starved market and there simply isn't anyone else that can do what he does. He can just do it, it's a talent ;-)

      I was a lot like him back in 1993. I'm sure he'll be at 6 figures by age 30.

      -AC

    4. Re:For fuck's sake. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I was talking about K-12, but a lot of the same problems apply to universities.

  53. Competing in an economy... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

    Actually teach kids about business and how to balance their checkbooks and that credit cards =! income. Make business math a requirement in high school, not something you relegate the dumb kids to who cannot do calculus and need a credit. If we want our kids to learn how to compete in the 21st century economy, we have to teach them on what "compete" and "economy" mean.

  54. We tried this already by Erbo · · Score: 1
    Anyone remember the E-rate? Part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the same legislation that gave us the Communications Decency Act, telecom "deregulation" that was anything but, V-chips, and other such goodies), it was supposed to allow schools and libraries to get better Internet access. How's that been working out?

    My guess is that this initiative, should Obama get it enacted, will help pad the bottom lines of the current broadband monopolists (hey! Now they get their own government bailout!), but will have little effect otherwise.

    --
    Be who you are...and be it in style!
  55. Get rid of NCLB & Becca, push nat'l teacher ce by bADlOGIN · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My wife is a HS English teacher in Washington state. If Obama want to seriously help schools, priority 1 should be to put a bullet in Bush's collossal screw up that is "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB). It's too flawed to "fix" other than flat out removal. Bush has been too stupid to admit it's a failure and correct it (just like everything else he's done), so this is the only option.

    Next, in Washington state there's a bill called the Becca bill that requires the little monsters to be contained by the state in schools up until age 18 because some stupid brat ran away from school and got herself killed. Unfortunately, this also means that kids that would rather quit and go jockey a McRegister between times passing the bong are instead required to stay in school and suck up resources they don't care about. Get rid of this in Washington state (and similar laws in other states) and teachers can look the kids in the eye and tell them to leave and come back when (if) they care about learning something.
    Then, get back to helping the kids that are going to do something with themselves.

    Last but not least, get rid of the stupid state teaching certificates in all 50 flavors. There's a shockingly fantastic National Board Certification (federal gov't too... go figure!) program that uses a peer evaluation system to focus teachers on becoming good teachers IN PRACTICE in their own environment. My wife did this certification and is now contributing to the mentoring portion. Interestingly enough, teachers who can't "reach these keeds" don't cut it in these programs because it requires them to learn, grow, and be self-reflective about how they teach and continue to grow, unlike the the rubber stamp Master's degree (a.k.a "Masters in Ed.") programs that set teachers up for either a check-mark in the "has masters" box and unwarranted pay raise or a future as yet another worthless administrator (and a MUCH greater unwarranted pay raise).

    Bottom line, schools need more funding to train and retain good teachers. "Education" has a latin root word "educare" meaning "to bring out". It's not about throwing stuff at kids and hoping it sticks. It's about bringing out the best. You've never needed broadband or computers to do that.

    --
    *** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
  56. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  57. Re:Computers can help motivate High School student by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have them log into Monster.com, et al, and see what the salaries are for various fields, including jobs for those with a "mere diploma", and they will become more interested in College Prep and getting good grades.

    Gave up my mod points for this one

    That system would only work if you don't have the schools encouraging athletically gifted with free grades for good performances, and discouraging social responsibility by the staff and students.

    You can show all the statistics on what boring job X pays, but it won't do a lick of good when the major influences in the lives of children are hate-spewing "ballers" covered in bling, throwing cash at bikini-wearing "ho's"

    Posted anonymously because I'm sure this will be modded troll for "racist" comments, when I'm complaining more about the suburban wiggers than anything.

  58. What are THEY doing? by east+coast · · Score: 1

    Ok, so we're low on the list of the best educated. What are those high on the list doing? I'd really like to see where and how technology is entering the schools in other countries that are doing better than us. I know that social values count a lot towards a student's education and, frankly, ours sucks. We also need to get the parents involved again. Does this take the place of technology in the school room?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not sold on technology in the classroom. We never had computers in each classroom when I went to school (I'm a 1991 HS graduate) but I had one at home and I learned tons more from my home computing than my schooling. But I also think that was a mark of the times. I honestly don't know if that would work today.

    As for broadband? I see Obama's interest in getting broadband to everyone as a gateway to the government getting their fingers into every broadband connection nation wide. If there will be government money spent on the project that means that they will have some level of oversight. And with oversight comes the likelihood of the government writing in some clauses from which they will benefit in some fashion. Keep their actions on the radar if Obama does get a footing for this kind of thing on his budget and in the legislature.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  59. Re:obama cleared his throat by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    No, my parent is CTS. Rendering bug?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  60. This is an excellent basis for the future by grandpa-geek · · Score: 2, Informative

    Installing advanced broadband in schools and hospitals is similar to a plan being implemented in Canada for rolling out advanced broadband nationwide. (By advanced broadband, I mean gigabit or better, bidirectional.)

    Connecting public facilities provides an infrastructure that can later be extended to homes and small businesses. New York State, under a project that involved Cornell University, either studied or actually implemented a multi-school-district network that allows enriched and advanced courses to be taught remotely that could not be justified for an individual school.

    Broadband installation in hospitals enables telemedicine, in which expert remote consultation is available for difficult cases, and lays the groundwork for installing an advanced hospital information system network. Such a network would cut costs and improve performance in medicine. I've been told there are two excellent hospital information systems in existence, one developed by Kaiser and the other developed by the Veterans Administration and available as open source software.

    Finally, someone is listening to what has been discussed for many years and is working to get it done.

    1. Re:This is an excellent basis for the future by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      Gigabit or better? Bidirectional?

      Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. Re:This is an excellent basis for the future by grandpa-geek · · Score: 1

      I don't publish a newsletter. However, here are two relevant links on the subject:

      http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/broadband.asp

      http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccp/docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

  61. Computerized education by Aladrin · · Score: 1

    What software exists to provide good computerized education?

    I'm talking about software that does more than just replace pen and paper. Scantron-on-computer is -not- computerized education.

    As an idea of what I'm talking about, iKnow.co.jp provides Japanese vocabulary (plus English to Japanese, and other languages as well) in a format that would not work well with just pen and paper. It -could- be done with notecards and some strict rules about how to use them, but would take more time to organize and maintain. The scheduling of when to study would also be tricky on paper.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  62. Before you give *ME* more computers for my room... by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...why don't you give us teachers:

    --Money for books and basic school supplies (paper, binders, text books).

    --Salary budgets so we can have more than one specialist (Gym, Music, Art, reading) per 4 elementary schools. These specialists spend their lives going from one school to the next

    --Librarians. Most in our district were 'let go' due to budgetary reasons and now parents/volunteers are doing the work. Parents/volunteers are no replacement for someone with 20yrs of experience as a librarian.

    --Raises so we can live within 30miles of our school (same goes for Firefighters and Police officers).

    I don't need computers when I'm teaching YOUR kids how to read and write, when I barely have enough for books and have to buy school supplies (dry erase markers, paper, binders) out of my own pocket.

    Obama is talking about broadband because it's "Sexy". It wouldn't get any attention if he said, "I'm going to make sure all of our teachers have enough textbooks, paper and supplies to teach our kids how to read, write and do arithmetic." Why doesn't he say this, because schools are funded at the state level.... and the towns/states referendums for tax increases to pay for this equipment (books/pencils) are voted down, year after year. The only schools around here that have sufficient supplies are in the higher income towns because the parents are willing to donate $5000....

  63. Under Reagan, we only got free surplus cheese by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

    So y'all quit your yapping.

    Or does free government broadband smell and taste like free government cheese?

    Ick.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Under Reagan, we only got free surplus cheese by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Funny

      It will when you're living in a van down by the river!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  64. Bad Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary is misleading in that regard. Obama has proposed computers for education and broadband for health care facilities. (He also wants to increase broadband deployment in general.) There's nothing in the article about broadband for schools in particular.

  65. Oh, come on now by fataugie · · Score: 1

    Is there a school in the country that doesn't have computers and internet access?
    Do you really think that there's a public school somewhere that has one old 486 that the whole class crowds around to access the internet via a 1200 baud modem?

    I call BULLSHIT!

    --

    WTF? Over?

  66. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by R2.0 · · Score: 1

    "Eric Holden could be his Attorney General"

    One assumes you mean Eric Holder, and short of finding pictures of him fucking his dog, he's in.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  67. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

    Yeah, everyone always has a double standard. It's human. I do totally agree with you and I don't think your comment should be labeled as troll, Obama supporters are insecure.

    --
    -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
  68. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    Well, there was that whole thing about illegal wiretapping of US citizens bit... So it wouldn't be so much as a complaint but more of a "What? Again?!" would it?

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  69. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by fm6 · · Score: 0

    It doesn't really matter who's AG. The "think of the children" fanatics have a lot of clout, and no President this side of Ron Paul is going to go against them. (And before you say "We should have elected Ron Paul" consider the dude's totally pathetic primary results; hyperlibertarianism has no mass following.) POBE has to deal with the biggest economic crisis since WW II; two nasty wars; a bunch of other potential wars in places like South Asia, Africa, and the eastern med; fixing health care; and a bunch of other stuff.

    In that context, no leader with any intelligence is going to use up political capital on something like internet filters.

  70. National Infrastructure boost for broadband? by golodh · · Score: 1
    I'd say that's a very good idea. Our much-vaunted leave-it-to-the-market approach clearly isn't working in this specific area. Not if we're no. 15 in the world.

    So let the government lay down lots of "last mile" high-speed fiber connections to every home and business in the country and put multiplexers into the ground at street level (the most costly and diffuse part of the network). Existing telcos can then take care of traffic to and from those multiplexers.

    Oh yes, and let the government connect every last village and county to the data-communication grid by optical fiber. No matter how remote. How about being no. 1 again instead of no. 15?

    I think this would be one of the more worthwhile stimulation packages.

  71. Schools teach more that just math, reading and... by jopsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Schools teach more that just math, reading and writing...
    Schools needs to teach how to use computers too... Schools educates kids how to interact as a part of society. I think adults who can type on a keyboard, have bigger issues, than those who can't write an entire sentence grammatically correct...
    Today, you can't even get a monkey job at a factory unless you can count and type the number of totally identical items you've produced any given day ...

  72. And...? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    And this accomplishes what, exactly, for education? Have all the computers thrown at education in the past accomplished anything? What does the broadband do for the students? Am I the only one asking these questions?

    1. Re:And...? by DanJ_UK · · Score: 1

      Universal access to the largest information source on the planet can never be a bad thing.

      --
      - Dan
    2. Re:And...? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Of course that vast resource requires one to be able to read well, do basic sums and think critically enough to filter through the sea of bullshit for the gems. Are the schools doing that first?

    3. Re:And...? by DanJ_UK · · Score: 1

      If my mother in her old age and senile state can use a computer / the internet and figure it out, then I'm sure an illiterate kid can.

      --
      - Dan
  73. Getting back to basics doesn't require $$ by Envy+Life · · Score: 1

    Computers in schools have been a colossal waste of money.

    Perhaps the stimulus needs to be geared toward proper teachers because it's the curriculum that is important. One can learn critical thinking skills by learning programming algorithms with a BASIC language (pun intended), and typing proficiency rather than a particular word processor.

    As for computers, even as a CS major we used shared computer labs. Most schools today already have enough PCs spread around classrooms to make a substantial computer lab or two, and any PC older than 5 years old is perfectly good for both tasks, and are being given away for free everywhere.

    1. Re:Getting back to basics doesn't require $$ by Tatsh · · Score: 3, Informative

      As for computers, even as a CS major we used shared computer labs. Most schools today already have enough PCs spread around classrooms to make a substantial computer lab or two, and any PC older than 5 years old is perfectly good for both tasks, and are being given away for free everywhere.

      Agreed. My high school got brand new HP computers with new LCDs nearly every year while I was there. The entire network was locked down, no roaming accounts (yes it was all Windows), a terrible content filtering system (I disagree it is necessary! Give up already), and hardly enough space on the server for all those 'Windows Movie Maker' projects (120 GB). Half the time, students had no idea how to use WMM so they saved their work as a project, never encoded it, tried to bring it around and found out that does NOT work. The school taught no concepts which I had already learned (in this case, video encoding and what it does). Secondly, the school was a big Microsoft proponent as the classes it taught were almost all for Microsoft products, and the ONLY time they used free software was when they needed audio-editing software and could not find anything good that was cheap but also good. They chose Audacity (I give credit for this move). Schools generally do not trust free software as they do not think it will be quality software. THAT is a big problem. So they stick with licensing Windows (usually through a volume licence), Office (same as above), and all the rest of their software. What browser did the teacher have students use for what should be called 'HTML class'? IE, of course. Sure, MS gives incentives as always but parents need to understand the implications of being locked into MS software, which they never will because they have Windows at home, at work, everywhere nearly. Maybe even their phone and their console (Xbox/Xbox 360).

      If it were up to me, would have been desktops (for things like multimedia) and terminals (for small tasks like web browsing and typing documents) all connected to a Linux server with a large hard drive. That is cheaper than buying new PCs every year for literally no reason (the old computers were fine, what's not is running Windows).

      Also, if schools want to prevent students from running their games (EXEs), run Linux and do not install Wine.

  74. Mexico (Re:China) by mi · · Score: 2, Informative

    almost all construction and restaurant jobs are held by illegal immigrants, who send most of the money home to Mexico

    Most? Really? I don't think so... An immigrant construction worker I read about recently (in Economist, I think), was making $1000 per week, sending $600 per month to his wife and children back home. Hardly "most".

    (Because of the economic downturn, according to the article, the guy's last transfer was only $100.)

    Would you be able to substantiate your statement? Thanks...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $1000 per week? They pay immigrant construction workers $25 an hour in Texas?

    2. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by mhall119 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What makes you think they're only working 40 hours per week?

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    3. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A lot of the kids i went to high school with dropped out of school to take up jobs in construction with their parents (whom are only legal since their kids were born here) and typically sent back half of their income to their families across the border. One 16 year old kid i knew was on our track team and worked whatever the maximum number of hours a week you can at that age, and sent all but $100 a week (also about 50%) back to his family. $1000/wk for construction seems a little high. I know drywallers get paid about $20 an hour to do out of town work (dallas to san antonio) but $1000 a week? That seems a little high, is he a bilingual foreman or something? $600 a month may be all they can afford to send after rent, car payment, and gas for their truck (though gas prices have dropped recently). That's still $7,200 a year, plus whatever he spends in mexico while visiting family and buying them gifts there. Sorry to substantiate using my real life experience vs. your article you read in a magazine.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think they're only working 40 hour weeks?

    5. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I know drywallers get paid about $20 an hour to do out of town work (dallas to san antonio) but $1000 a week?

      Even that sounds high for my area (and my family has been in drywall for 3 generations - I did it as summer work in college until I graduated). The non-immigrant workers for hanging drywall typically pull in a starting rate of $8/hr and if they're experienced and have time in with the company then they might get as high as $12/hr. For finishing (applying and smoothing the putty that covers the nails/screws) the rate is a little higher, but not much. Most finishers around here pull about $10/hr starting and if you have years and years of experience it tops out at around $18/hr. Again that's mostly for legal workers. The illegals typically pull in a little less.

      Not sure how much of a markup the "out of town" qualifier warrants though. A lot of the guys here typically freelance on the side to pull in extra money, where they can charge a lot more for their services.

      This is going rates at at least 5 different construction companies I'm familiar with.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      I know drywallers get paid about $20 an hour to do out of town work (dallas to san antonio) but $1000 a week?

      Bingo, its a little less for unskilled local labor. But 12-14+ entry on most construction or labor intensive jobs. At least here in the Pacific Northwest... Course the market has all but evaporated with recent economic courses and a glut of homes and laborers :)

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    7. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by mi · · Score: 1

      $1000/wk for construction seems a little high.

      The article was talking about a Miami construction market — perhaps, the rates in Texas were lower. It may also be (in fact, it is likely), that he was working legally (or else he would've, likely, shied away from a reporter). Not sure.

      That's still $7,200 a year, plus whatever he spends in mexico while visiting family and buying them gifts there.

      Yes, but it is still far from "most" of what he is earning...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      The Miami construction market is based largely on hurricane damage and the (still) increasing property values there. Was this a mexican immigrant or a cuban immigrant? $600/mo goes a lot further in cuba than it does in Mexico, and the cost of living in Miami is on par with Boston and Washington DC; Dallas and Texas in general have some of the lowest costs of living in the US outside of rural mississippi and the rest of the gulf coast. Its likely he was sending $600/month home when he was only making $1200-2000/month in the Dallas area. What's the title of the article you got this from? i'm curious now.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    9. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      That's more than I make in San Antonio.

      Don't forget they get the maintenance jobs.

      1000 my ass. People hire them because they pay them off the books and can take advantage of them

    10. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So you have an illegal that lives on 40% of his income. In order to do that, he lives with 5 or 10 other illegals who do the same. Lets stay with 5 to be simple. So out of $5000 a month or 60k a year for a household, you have 2k (24k) staying and 3k (36k) going out of the country and you don't think that is most of the money.

      Well, despite your one anecdotal incident, I have one of my own where there was as many as 15 illegals living in a house who sent about 80% of their income to family outside of the country. This was a real tear jerker because someone had entered the home and shot all 15 illegals dead then torched the home and the local news ran stories about how their families in Mexico were having hard times without the money being sent to them. They stopped running the "poor little Mexicans having a hard time to survive" spot on the news when someone brought up the fact that the average daily wage in Mexico as of 2007 was the equivalent of about $4.00 US and the 15 or so illegals were making on the order of $800-$1000 a week a piece while each sending about $600 - $800 home. This put their send home income levels to roughly 140-170 times the daily minimum wage earners in Mexico times 15. In other words, they could have employed 300 to 360 some people per day with their send home income. ($600 /7 days /$4 * 15 people)

    11. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by mi · · Score: 1

      What's the title of the article you got this from? i'm curious now.

      I'm quite certain, it was in one of the recent Economists, but I'm too lazy to search for it.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by mi · · Score: 1

      So you have an illegal that lives on 40% of his income.

      Uhm, $1000 per week means just over $4000 per month. Of that he was sending a $600 back to his family. That's 15%, not 60%. And not "most" of his income. The rest of your rant is thus irrelevant.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Construction work is never more than 40 hours a week. Construction workers are always home by the time I get off work, and they're always out at the clubs on friday/saturday nights and at church on Sundays. That's just how construction works. Unless they're working food service in which case they're working 2 jobs while taking english classes at night school (most of the mexicans at the schlotski's i was working at in high school were doing this)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    14. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Sorry to substantiate using my real life experience vs. your article you read in a magazine

      It's always good to see the scientific method being propelry followed.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      How does the scientific method play into a debate on wages and immigration/foreign policy?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    16. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      making on the order of $800-$1000 a week a piece while each sending about $600 - $800 home

      $600 /7 days /$4 * 15 people

      How on earth do you figure he meant $600/month?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    17. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. I spent a summer laying concrete, and we never worked less than 45 hours a week, usually 50.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    18. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      In what housing market? What summer? Some markets were underserved in the recent housing boom. Did you ever work past 6 on a Friday, or on Saturday or Sunday? Did you work with more than one company? 45 hours is just a 9 hour day.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    19. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by mi · · Score: 1

      How on earth do you figure he meant $600/month?

      I read the article in the Economist — one discussing Miami's recent construction boom and the current bust. That's where the figures are from...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    20. Re:Mexico (Re:China) by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      Summer of '03, rural Midwest, grain silo pads, garages, bigass pig barn foundations, stuff like that. Just with the one company, we usually worked five 10-hour days. Sometimes the odd Saturday afternoon, other times maybe we get off a little early on Friday. God damn I have never worked that hard before or since.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  75. Look closely, twitter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you tell me the difference between your previous post and this one? And why the moderation is so different between them?

    You don't need 14 accounts to get your message across, all you need to understand is that people are turned off by abrasive advocacy, petty insults, lies and creative spelling. But do it intelligently, and these are the results.

    Sorry for what's coming next, but I think it's required:

    DO YOU FUCKING GET IT YET?

    1. Re:Look closely, twitter. by nschubach · · Score: 0, Troll

      Did you pay your weekly dues to the twitter conspiracy fan club yet?

      If you get your dues in, they'll send you the Real Action Sock Puppet with a knife in his back figurine. These are the high quality ones with Kung Fu Grip and Chop action arms that all twitter conspiracy trolls get upon joining.

      (So, why don't you post under your real account anymore? Trolling twitter finally got to your karma rating? The mods trying to keep you down? Still feel like your crusade remains uncared for?)

      The last line in your post seems so fitting here as well.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:Look closely, twitter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Look closely, twitter. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can fabricate a few IRC logs as well...

      Boy, you really got them now! Don't like the Microsoft bashing? You have some money on them or something? I don't understand why someone would dedicate so much time to making all this stuff up or tracking all this down to discredit a few accounts unless they had a financial stake in it. It's simply not worth the time.

      But go on, waste your time, hide behind the coward's mark... Eventually (we hope) you'll get sick and tired of it and grow up.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:Look closely, twitter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up already. You don't like ACs, but you'll defend a sock puppet army? Here's a hint, one is worse than AC and the other is trying to defend Slashdot. So complain about the GP "feeding the troll" if you must, but don't defend twitter in the process.

      Posting AC, to not get harassed or mod stalked by someone with lots of accounts.

  76. why stop there? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Haircuts? A chicken in every pot? Forty acres for every father? Since you're already giving the country away, why stop there?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  77. Original Game Plan by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    I'd be happy if Obama kept to his word. People voted him in on the premise that he would do certain things.

    I guess I shouldn't have expected any different from a politician.

  78. Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room by tripdizzle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obama is talking about broadband because it's "Sexy".

    I though the election was over?? Wait, never mind, he has already starting running for 2012.

    --
    "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
  79. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by FatherOfONe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then again there is that whole thing about leaving babies to die that somehow survived abortion....

    I know which one I think is worse.

    Now to be back on topic.

    HOW THE HELL CAN WE AFFORD THIS? This isn't the time to have more social programs? Does anyone here think that forcing this upon our kids and having the government run broadband is a good idea? Lets see, what operating system do you think they will all run? Think Apple, Linux LOL! So much for selection. This smells bad of payoffs.

    Last time I checked Obama has voted for a massive bailout of the banking system and now will "probably" vote to bailout the auto industry. So NOW he wants to start another social program? Do we really want to saddle ourselves with more debt? This looks like a solution in search of a problem. We do have massive problems with some of our public schools but throwing laptops at them isn't going to help them at all.

    I hope and pray Obama isn't that stupid to think that this idea would work, however I get the feeling this is only the beginning of bad ideas to come.

    --
    The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
  80. cant we just teach them the basics first? by night_flyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    we cant even seem to do that right... BTW basics include reading, math, history, and civics...

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    1. Re:cant we just teach them the basics first? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, it depends in part on your state. Assuming there is no perfect form of education, I know that in my state kids are getting much more challenging and rigorous training in math history and civics than kids did in the 1960s, when I went to school. This is at least progress.

      However, the reason to bring more broadband to school is not for technology training. More than modest bandwidth is unnecessary for technology training. The reason to bring more bandwidth into school is to create a large and efficient "market" for educational materials, and to allow educational institutions to pool resources together. A small high school that didn't have enough students to justify a calculus, or say a robotics course could offer that via high quality teleconferencing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:cant we just teach them the basics first? by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      I live in Oklahoma... We have 77 counties & 544 school districts, each with a superintendent making in excess of 60k a year, and many of those districts have less than 500 students enrolled. Until they fix the administrative bloat, I see no reason to give them more money for anything...

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    3. Re:cant we just teach them the basics first? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, 60 grand for a superintendent is just below the 25th percentile in all districts across all US districts, the median being $74,733. Even taking into account the low cost of living, you aren't exactly lavishing money on a position that minimally requires a Masters and normally a PhD preferred.

      I understand that a system with only 500 students probably doesn't need a superintendent, since it probably has only a high school and one or two elementary schools. In that case you want really, really good principals. Of course your state pays half the going rate for experienced principals. Also, even accounting for a lower cost of living, OK ranks 41st in the nation in teacher pay. It's probably not coincidence that OK ranks 41st in the nation in 4th grade reading proficiency and 39th in 4th grade math, and that these shameful results continue through the eighth grade.

      These results are pretty much in line with OK's total per pupil expenditure, including both line and administration expenses, which is smack in the bottom quintile. This means you aren't, overall, getting a worse deal per dollar spent. You're spending little and achieving little.

      All of which suggests to me that bureaucracy in OK is not the cause of your education problems. It is the result.

      The statistics suggest to me that OK enough about education. You get lousy education because you're too cheap to pay for quality. Then you throw your hands up in the air as if getting the same results most other states get is an unattainable goal. Having "bloated administration" is not like being born under an unfavorable astrological sign. All that takes to fix it is the will to improve education in the state.

      Getting pissed off isn't the same as getting involved. Getting pissed off and feeling cheap contempt is the basis of most of popular entertainment.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  81. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by Pascoea · · Score: 1

    It was weird. I read that and thought I had stumbled on to Fox News by mistake. My bad.

  82. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by geobeck · · Score: 1

    No doubt with free spyware and internet filtering

    Was that really necessary to get the story across?

    Of course. With only one small, relatively unobtrusive ad at the top of the page, it takes all of the trolling and flaming elicited by that baiting for /. to rake in the ad revenue. ;)

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  83. About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knowing the kind of people that read slashdot, I was very surprised with the responses I read on this topic. To me, it seems pretty short sited to just dismiss Obama's plan without using facts to analyze what kind of effect it's going have.

    Most of you are forgetting how much the internet has shaped our lives today. The internet, after all, is how the modern world communicates and it's played a large part in bettering our quality of life. Why not put money in this?! This is not spending money just to spend money. It's an investment. An investment in education, business, health/medicine/science (quality of life), the end result being a larger GDP. (by larger GDP, I mean that our economy is growing instead of shrinking, which it is currently doing) That's the purpose of an economic stimulus right?

    A way you can tell a stimulus package that will work, from one that will not, is by looking at whether or not it's an investment in some sort of tool used to support/increase our economy/GDP. All George W.'s stimulus did was increase our deficit. I don't know about you, but I used my $700 to pay bills/debt. That's about the smartest thing an individual could have done with that money. Now if everyone donated it to some tool we use to grow our economy, maybe that would of helped prevent our recession?

    A little off topic, but people tend to make good and bad decisions about their welfare. A way of filtering those bad decisions is to make educated guess about polices that would give us a better life. Then vote for policy makers to enforce them. In effect, saying, I know myself and others are gona screw up from time to time. I need someone there to keep me on track so I can have a better life.

    Information and energy are fundamental to the way we live. This part of Obama's stimulus will increase the rate at which we pass information around along with increasing the number of people receiving that information. How would this not be a good thing or our economy?!

  84. Who pays? by TonyXL · · Score: 1

    Who pays?

  85. more snowball effect by heroine · · Score: 1

    But the quotations & essays R 3x more than what he actually promised & what he promised hasn't happened.

  86. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama supporters are insecure.

    And gay. And islamic. Generalization is awesome.

  87. Re:obama cleared his throat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's been working on said movie for like 4 years now. It's bullshit and so are 90% of the shit he posts.

  88. Whew by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

    Thank God we can go back to the 90s when my money was taken from me and given to the administration's cronies 'for the children' - I've gotten so tired of the 00s and 'fight the terrorists'. Maybe we should go retro back to the 80s and 'the war on drugs' ...

    1. Re:Whew by argent · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should go retro back to the 80s and 'the war on drugs' ...

      I think the '80s never ended.

  89. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was all for 'net censorship ten years ago, and was probably just caught up in the hysteria at the time. Don't judge people by what they were at the time; judge people by what they are.

  90. Have you no FAITH!1? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But, but, but throwing more money and computers will magically fix the system, won't it? You mean all those administrators and unions who never seemed to give a shit about the students before will not suddenly start caring because Obama waved his +5 Charisma wand across the arc of the moral universe? The deuce you say!

  91. Computers in education is grossly overrated. by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

    Having a computer in the classroom adds nothing and makes things much more labour intensive than it simplifies. The only real task its suited for in lower classes is repetetive practice like geography, simple math and learning words for some languages. For languages with many different ways of bending words its utter useless. Its also a pretty expensive library if you add add up the cost of the computers for the whole school.

    In sweden many computers is nothing more than very expensive typewriters and libraries. Some old worn out applications for tutoring exists but they are very old and written mainly for win 3.11 and such fancy modern systems.

    The problem as i see it is that nobody has written anything even remotely able to substitute a good teacher in any field. As of today a computer can only be a tool for students once they already master pen and paper and other basic skills.

    The sad part is that nobody has done any extensive study in a computer aided classrooms and really found out if there infact are any benefits. Its a huge gamble with generations of kids without anyone knowing what they are doing.

    My view is that computers should come last on every list. In no way should computers be more important than good teachers, good study materials and a nice calm enviroment for the kids.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:Computers in education is grossly overrated. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Knowing how to use a computer to do research and formulate an academic paper are important skills for students; at my university, the library has extensive online databases of scholarly journal articles, and you can do research online much faster than you can at the brick & mortar library itself. Not to mention that access to this database is provided to several universities, and oftentimes you can find things online that you simply couldn't find in your brick & mortar library. This is especially true of recently issued scholarly journals as the library can only get them so fast; they're published online instantly.

      Using a computer for other tasks is important as well. Computer science studies aside, many people will need to know how to use spreadsheets (like Excel) in their professional careers; many high schools have classes that teach basic spreadsheet use. Computers can also be substituted for graphing calculators such as the ever-popular TI-83.

      And keep in mind that many high schools have computer classes; of course, not everyone takes these classes at the same time, and not everyone takes all of the classes (AP computer science, for instance).

      This means that you don't need a 1:1 computer-to-student ratio in order to provide these essential classes; to get everyone in-and-out of their computer-oriented courses, you probably need a much more conservative ratio like 1:10.

      If our students are educated on fax machines, filing cabinets and typewriters, they're going to be sorely under-equipped to deal with the challenges their adult life will throw at them. Computers are used in nearly every profession today.

    2. Re:Computers in education is grossly overrated. by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      I must have been unclear. Im talking about computers in the lower grades, not high school and up.

      Computers do have its place but before the student can write, read and do simple tasks manually they just make things harder than nessecary. Added complexity at no apparent benefit to the student.

      My own not so educated observations is that the younger students of today that has very good access to computers are also terribly bad at using them for anything advanced. If its short attention span or something else i dont know but it sure looks like unlimited access to computers dont by itself give students better knowledge in computers. For that you need targeted lessons by proffesional teachers.

         

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    3. Re:Computers in education is grossly overrated. by Locutus · · Score: 1

      for one thing, the teachers are not computer literate. Fresh new teachers out of the local university only know how to use Microsoft Office and have no other skills. So no wonder when some city counsel or school district does a pilot of laptops for every kid and finds out they didn't do any better than without the laptops.

      I don't think it'll catch on with proprietary software but there's hope that some open source stuff can build to the point of usefulness. There really needs to be some open curriculum web sites where not only is the software freely downloadable, the curriculum and notes from others who've implemented it should be downloadable and/or readable with it. Then those teachers with even a little computer skill can pull in computer based coursework which adds to what they are already doing.

      Even the OLPC needs some education on what the apps do and what can be done with them in a learning environment. Dropping truckload of computers on a school is not going to do anything helpful without alot of upfront work on what to do with them. IMO.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    4. Re:Computers in education is grossly overrated. by Locutus · · Score: 1

      I've heard a few local highschool kids say that they were taught "The Excel" and "The Powerpoint" in school. But when asked simple questions about a filesystem( where to find and store the school work ), they didn't understand. Asked about printing and what to do when a printer isn't connected, they didn't know and didn't know what a print spool was.

      They don't teach basic computer skills first so all they are doing is programming them to be afraid of the computer and to know only Microsoft Office products. I doubt they would even understand it if they were asked to put a spreadsheet together.

      It's really sad how computer illiterate students are even in 2008. I doubt many other countries have so many teachers who are so computer illiterate as here in the US.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  92. Someone needs to mod this up by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

    They really do.

  93. Inefficient bureaucracy? by StevenMaurer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The overhead of private health insurers averages 35%. The overhead of Medicare is 3%.

    The median tuition for their member private day schools in 2005-2006 in the United States was close to $14,000 for grades 1 to 3, $15,000 for grades 6 to 8 and $16,600 for grades 9 to 12. Public schools average cost per student is $13340, and they take everyone, including the very expensive special-needs kids.

    The problem with government run programs is not that they're inefficient. They're nearly always more efficient, because they don't have to make profit, and culturally it's unacceptable for the chief officers to self-deal like US CEOs do.

    The real problem with government programs is that they're inflexible and rarely innovative. Which means they should only be used for industries for which there is a known, steady, need: Libraries, Schools, Roads, Bridges, Power, Healthcare, a bare-minimum forced retirement savings program (Social Security). Everything else should be done privately.

    Oh, I know. Taco did his snark, and you were modded +5 Insightful, because of the Republican/Libertarian cult of the CEO. But just remember that if you're ideology actually worked, Obama wouldn't have to be working so hard to bail us out of the economic mess you got us into.

    1. Re:Inefficient bureaucracy? by khallow · · Score: 1

      The overhead of private health insurers averages 35%. The overhead of Medicare is 3%.

      If Medicare provided the services that private health insurers do, it's overhear would comparable, probably even larger. Then again, you seem to be making that same argument. I wouldn't push the "efficiency" argument. The absence of the profit motive means government typically is less efficient than an equivalent private bureaucracy.

    2. Re:Inefficient bureaucracy? by forceman130 · · Score: 1

      The median tuition for their member private day schools in 2005-2006 in the United States was close to $14,000 for grades 1 to 3, $15,000 for grades 6 to 8 and $16,600 for grades 9 to 12. Public schools average cost per student is $13340, and they take everyone, including the very expensive special-needs kids.

      I think you need to factor in the quality of the education you receive as well. I'm not saying private school is always better, but the difference between the private school I used to send my kids to and the public school they go to now is pretty dramatic.

      --
      Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
  94. that "master's degree" by r00t · · Score: 1

    Look, this isn't like a degree in science or
    engineering. If extremely lucky, you might get
    that for the undergraduate, but generally it's
    something lame.

    The "master's degree" is some wanking bullshit
    that involves teaching theory dogma, much of
    which has actually been proven wrong in proper
    scientific study.

    Teachers generally struggle to do something as
    simple as the addition of fractions with
    different denominators. A decent number of
    them are also unable to write properly.

    Teachers are the people who sucked too much to
    get good jobs. Thus they teach, which is a
    fairly bad job. (when your workplace has people
    who curse you and threaten you, it's NOT good)

    1. Re:that "master's degree" by I_want_information · · Score: 1

      Ummm, I'm embarrassed to admit that I HAVE one of 'those master's degrees' ... mostly because what you say of them is god's honest truth.

      Here's an actual textbook example of the teaching theory crap I got in my master's program:

      (1) What does it feel like be a tree?

      (2) What does it feel like to feel bias?

      (3) What does it feel like to be a tree that feels bias?

      Weelllllll.... (a) I don't give a shit, (b) I fail to see how this helps little Johnny learn to read/count/not beat up his classmates, and (c) we wouldn't be having this pointlessly stupid attempt to artificially kick-start the creative brain if we hadn't taken the arts out of the schools.

      I had to drink half a bottle of wine on an empty stomach to get through the weekly online discussions of crap like this.

  95. outliers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just read Outliers. After examining education system and Why Asians are good at math? in last few chapters, Gladwell concludes that we are looking at education problem backwards. How good the student is has everything to do with family and ethnic background, and opportunities. We don't need bigger better schools with high-tech equipment and better books.

    Use of computers/calculators before HS should be "banned" from math and science classes. We've started to evolve into stupider people! I learned math and science in HS (not in US) without ever touching a Calculator. This was back in mid-to-late-90s. I'm engineer now, and after working with computers everyday, I feel like I've become stupider (in math and science)... I rely on calculator to do simple math.

  96. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Short answer: We can't. We can't really afford anything at this juncture.

    Long answer: We can. There are certain things that private industry absolutely sucks at doing. This is simply the federal government stepping in to do for itself what it should've done a long time ago.

    I agree that the bailout sucks, though it seems like a necessary evil at this point. (If the banking system fails, we're really fucked.) Instead, try blaming the people who made the whole thing necessary in the first place.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  97. Re:obama cleared his throat by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

    Yea, I think so. :)

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  98. Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room by tsstahl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe you should talk to your administration and union before asking ME for more money.

    Why, in addition to my property taxes, do I have to provide a mandatory school supply list designed to keep the teacher in chalk AND kids who can't afford to buy their own crap? I give to charity in church. "charity" in public school is just a hidden tax.

    Four years ago when my local school board was crying for more money, I attended one of their open hearings. I asked quite simply, have you done any auditing internal or external of current spending. The answer was 'no'. The referendum didn't pass. Yet, the darn fire department got their first new truck in 20 years (ok, 18, but still).

    In exchange for higher pay, are you willing to work 8 hours a day doing community service in the summer? The union screamed high holy murder when this was suggested.

    In summary, look in before out. You might find a more receptive crowd around election time if you can demonstrate real belt tightening and real reform efforts aimed at the primary mission of educating children instead of bureaucracy growing and union power building.

    Of course, I know you specifically are not the root of evil, but as a poster child simply asking for more money is NOT the way to go.

  99. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then again there is that whole thing about leaving babies to die that somehow survived abortion....

    You raise an excellent point with that. On second thought, no you don't. Then you go on to acknowledge that it's completely off-topic. So why include it?

  100. repeat by shentino · · Score: 2, Informative

    Didn't we already give large wads of cash to the private sector for a backbone that never materialized?

  101. NCLB is fixable by r00t · · Score: 1

    The big problem is that states are allowed to
    set the testing content and standards. That's
    a giant hole. States can choose tests that are
    way too easy, and many have done exactly that.
    States can also choose tests that are unrelated
    to what kids need to learn.

    With proper tests, teaching to the test is
    equivalent to the best teaching. It's also
    measurable, allowing us to discard teachers
    who do a terrible job. (might also require
    making the union contracts invalid by law;
    firing a bad teacher is nearly impossible)

  102. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure the mindless hyperbole about salivating nanny state Democrats will further the discussion.

  103. That's dogmatic... by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that leaves American workers free to, you know, do the thinking that's required to make these products

    The flaw in your line of reasoning is that, you assume that somehow the American worker can think better than his Chinese counterpart. It's the height of hubris to build America into this "knowledge" economy and let manufacturing go to do it, because, Chinese people are just as smart as we are.

    when in fact government can only redistribute wealth from productive uses to unproductive ones

    That's actually not true. The government establishes an infrastructure which allows for wealth to be created. Microsoft could not exist without copyright law as applied to software, and it is the government that created that. Nor could Microsoft exist without a knowledgeable work force to build on... public education is also something government does, and, the government has, since the 1940s, supported the university system as part of a need to beat the germans and then the russians at the tech game. Government is the arteries on which the capillaries of commerce flow.

    --
    This is my sig.
  104. Re: Think of the Help Desk employees!! by BeansBaxter · · Score: 1

    we'd probably save billions on tech support costs just a few short years down the line. I dread to think how much money is wasted on trivial calls to the Tech support line that could have been avoided with some simple, basic knowledge such as this.

    Isn't it bad enough that our economy is struggling? Just think of all the phone engineers who won't have jobs if no one calls! Oh uh I guess most of them live in India so never mind.

  105. Gore Tax by rlp · · Score: 1

    I thought the "Gore tax" on telco land lines was supposed to be spent on computers and broadband for education?

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  106. Ideology versus evidence? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    Score:5, Insightful
    Here's an idea how to. [tax reductions to everybody]

    People not sunken in debt can spend...people in trouble with mortgages can pay them off, etc. Hell, people could invest in the mkt again.

    Interesting.

    I have an idea. Economics is a science. Come up with different action(able) plans [currently we have yours and Obama's]. Investigate, in a scientific way, what the outcomes of each plan are likely to be. Look at what evidence and theory suggests. Pick the one that, based on evidence and theory, would maximize public benefit. Let ideology be the tiebreaker.

    We're geeks, right? We understand science and the value of approaching things scientifically---in particular the value of following the evidence. Let us not let ideology overrule that.

    1. Re:Ideology versus evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is maximizing benefit over other things is ideology. Perhaps you believe that the government should be maximizing its benefit to everybody, whereas somebody else may believe the government's job is strictly to prevent one person from commiting an unjust act against another person.

    2. Re:Ideology versus evidence? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...Economics is a science...

      That is wishful thinking. A large percentage of economics is emotionally based. Our economic system is based on debt. At some point the debt is PERCEIVED by the borrower to be beyond the ability to pay back. If economics were based on a hard science like say physics, then formulas could be developed to consistently make money in the stock market. People's behavior cannot be predicted the same way as the laws of motion or electricity. If economics really were a true science, then recessions could be predicted.

      --
      All theory is gray
  107. Hudsucker Proxy reference! by professorguy · · Score: 1
    Norville Barnes's explanation of the hula-hoop is extremely apropos here. That phrase was used in the film "The Hudsucker Proxy" to justify a mad plan.

    .

    Let's hope this plan has the same unlikely happy result.

    You know... for kids.

  108. Do you really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...expect the average American to do jobs you people describe? Diggin ditches, building dams and roads, basically anything with physical labour involved? Hell no, they will stay in their trailer, sitting in a beanbag eating cheetos.

  109. End the Open Source Embargo! by micromegas · · Score: 1

    The cost savings associated with a move to Linux in schools should compel interest and acceptance by all levels of education. The monopoly that M$ and Apple have on education is a false and restricting clamp on the dollars and minds of our schools and students.

  110. Let's play point-counterpoint by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now for a game of point-counterpoint:

    The economics of the result will be tremendous and dwarf the petty costs involved. It will create [...].

    Really? Based in which economic theory and/or evidence do you state this?

    Such goals can only be achieved in freedom.

    Which freedoms are necessary? Freedom to trade however you like, or freedom from the formation of monopolies? Freedom to route customer packets however you like, or freedom of information?

    Napster showed that we can have any piece of culture available for the trivial cost of allowing people to share.

    Common sense argues that if we all stop paying musicians and actors, they'll get some other day jobs. A few will do their old job as a hobby, with hobbyist results.

    Wikipedia and the internet archive show that people are ready, willing and able to create works and share them without the "protection" of copyright.

    Would you be happy with only the works available under a license allowing their redistribution? Would they satisfy your needs?

    I want Guitar Hero. I want The Hobbit. I want The Grudge. I want Disturbed. I want a flash plug-in and fast video drivers.

    1. Re:Let's play point-counterpoint by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      The same economic theory that gives us the economic success of the interstate system?

  111. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    If you hadn't noticed, the original submission implied that Obama would use this for illegal wiretapping. The person I responded to implied that if the same accusation was made of the Bush administration, no one would complain.

    First: If that accusation was made of the Bush administration, it would have some basis.

    Second: There has been a lot of complaining about it.

    Now, about your post. The EVERYBODY PANIC! is much better when you use all caps. If you bother to RTFA:

    Obama's plan will include funds to make public buildings more energy efficient, repair roads and bridges and modernize schools. His plan for schools is to repair aging buildings, make them energy efficient and install new computers in classrooms, he said. "To help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools,"

    You ask how can we afford this and I ask you how can we not? You imply that more social programs will be made but from that statement it seems that he wants to bolster current programs to bring them up-to-date. From what part of that do you draw an conclusion that the money used will have more social programs rather than go to existing programs that already serve the purposes covered in the address? From what part of the address do you come to the conclusion that the government is going to run broadband?

    The address in question: President-elect Barack Obama lays out key parts of Economic Recovery Plan.

    This looks like a solution in search of a problem. We do have massive problems with some of our public schools

    So, do we or do we not have a problem?

    but throwing laptops at them isn't going to help them at all.

    So, how does "His plan for schools is to repair aging buildings, make them energy efficient and install new computers in classrooms" get morphed into "throwing laptops at them"?

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  112. Then explain NYC. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Spoken like a person who has never driven across the United States. There are regions where you can drive for miles and never see anything except a couple random cows grazing. Comparing this 2500-mile wide federation versus a small country no bigger than Delaware makes ZERO sense. It's like comparing a pumpkin versus a pea... totally illogical.

    First, I have driven many times across the US, and while there are huge regions where there's nothing, that's a complete and total red herring with regards to broadband deployment. The only thing those empty regions need is a big fat backbone crossing them to connect the population centers on either side. And our backbone is fine. A lot of it is lying dark simply because it isn't needed, so there's extra capacity there in case we ever fix the situation in the population centers. So the issue of us being a 2500-mile-wide federation is already solved.

    Second, we do have sections of the country where the area is as small and the density as high as whatever country you're thinking of, so then what's the excuse? Look at New York City. Here we have 20,000,000 people close enough together that the "wide federation" argument is completely irrelevant, yet still solely considering NYC broadband is pathetic compared to other countries. How could that possibly not be a big enough market? How could the size of the United States possibly be a reason for anemic broadband in New York? Or LA? Or Houston, Dallas, Chicago, and so on and so on.

    No. Country size or overall density is not the reason our broadband sucks. Because even when all those factors are resolved, it still sucks.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Then explain NYC. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      NYC is not pathetic. NYC's average speed is around 14 megabit/s which is faster than the national average of every country on this planet except Japan and South Korea. NYC is ABOVE average.

      I still maintain the U.S. is doing just fine. Our average is equal to that of the European Union. We Americans are no worse off than our European neighbors.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:Then explain NYC. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Unless you count things like adoption and availability. Then, even NYC is far behind.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Then explain NYC. by fbjon · · Score: 1

      You insist on looking at speeds, but speeds are not the issue.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  113. Taxes by AndyWit · · Score: 0

    the only reason democrats want broadband-for-everyone is to be able to tax it. Once a large majority of the population has it, the gov't will come in and tax it.

    1. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woo hoo! I smell bacon! Pork! Pork! Pork!

  114. My investment is worthless now... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    now I gotta compete against someone willing to work for pokemon cards??

    Dammit! I thought Black Lotus was a safe investment.

  115. Obama is conservative by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sniff...I'm so proud of you, stork. But you do realize you're going to have to give up your wingnut merit badge for being rational, right?

    I'll keep the wingnut merit badge. I actually wrote a letter to National Review entitled "Obama is more conservative than you are." The best tell tale proof of this is to go have a look at Reagan's 196x speech to the RNC, or even his 1980 convention speech, as compared to Obama's victory speech, and honestly, you'd find that they aren't really saying anything differently.

    Conservatism is supposed to about rationality and let you liberals get all dreamy eyed about the rosy world of the future. But, my friends in the conservative movement are married to a model of enterprise and trade that has, by any reasonably -conservative- standard of assessment, have failed. How can you defend the idea of global investment and free trade when it has so obviously failed, not once, but repeatedly, over the last few decades. This bank bailout is not the first the USA has had to do... remember RTC?

    I mean, the whole point of conservatism is a sort of a nationalism in disguise, but how can you be a nationalist when you favor an economic policy that leaves our cities torched so that you can drive a slightly better kind of imported car. Can't see the family values in families unemployed, can't see the patriotism in supporting the rights of foreign companies over american ones. Don't see the community in an economic policy that leaves communities devastated at the whims of investment banks.

    It's like, the most ridiculous thing I saw at the NRO was something to the effect of "free trade is the american way, so therefor, I will buy a japanese car and let detroit fend for itself."... like, woah... last time I checked, and i don't mean to pick on the japanese, but, its salient, that the UAW membership is far more likely to have Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan than the fraternity of MBA graduates on Wall Street. Like, I don't get how union guys get such a beating for asking for, gasp, $17/hour and health care, and that's the reason the USA is in trouble?

    If you are going to wave the flag, wave it for everyone in the land. That's what I say.

    --
    This is my sig.
  116. Re:No no no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your 'improved' syllabus is also wrong. Teaching those computer maintenance skills to the general student populace is like of limit value because technology is changing so fast and is also very Microsoft specific.

    A better skill they could acquire is to RTFM. And to do that they need learn how to read for comprehension...and you don't need a computer to teach that!

  117. Re:China - NO ( Time Warner - YES) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardware is very inexpensive when compared to the cost for five years of broadband connection.

    But then again, Time Warner is one of our most prodigious and productive manufacturers.

  118. American workers have excessive expectations by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Sure it is more expensive to make stuff in America, mainly because American workers have excessive expectations. They expect to be able to afford condos and vacations and Xboxes while elsewhere in the world people doing the same job live in simple dwellings with few luxuries.

    Spending on technology as a stimulus is a poor idea because it does not employ enough local people and sends too much money overseas. The stimulus programs of the 1930s did things like build dams and bridges - using huge amounts of labor and American made materials and machinery. That kick-started manufacturing, mining and other activitities. This caused earning and spending throughout the economy. Installing fibre into every school will involve far fewer people and send vast amounts of money overseas. Of course, the stuff could be built in USA, but that needs huge ramp ups in factory building and us a pointless exercise unless USA intends to restart its domestic electronic manufacturing industry and keep it producing for 10 to 20 years.

    Of course that's a dream. As soon as the economy stabilises it will be back to the old ways - sending the manufacturing to China or wherever.

    Measuring a country by broadband adoption is pointless. It is what people do with that broadband that is more important. If a country is just using their broadband for entertainment that's hardly building a strong economy.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:American workers have excessive expectations by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it's about being able to buy Xboxs as much as have health insurance, reasonable hours, reasonable working conditions, vacation and sick time, stuff like that.

  119. "Pork" by eleuthero · · Score: 1

    It would seem to me that all government spending must enrich somebody and thus in their opponents' eyes is going to be "pork" Maybe it would be best to note that not all pork is bad--bacon is delicious and so is all the subsidized farm produce in my state.

  120. More Magic from the government. by pseudorand · · Score: 1

    Saying that broadband internet access will help kids get smarter is like saying that giving money to over-leveraged banks and other companies will help America get richer or that eating nothing but fat and protein will make you healthier and skinnier.

    Want to be skinny and stay healthy? Eat a balanced diet of lean meats, whole grains and fresh vegetables. That's not the latest diet book, people have know that for centuries. No carbs is just starvation.

    What a stronger economy? Let those who made bad bets fail and make more useful products and services for less cost. More money in the system will just eventually devalue the dollar. Of course the banks haven't lent out Paulson's $350b. Who are they going to lend it to? Who's making stuff better for cheaper such that they can pay it back with interest?

    Want to make kids smarter? Get better teacher and parents who are involved in their kids' education. Leaving them to "learn" from the Internet instead of a real person will result in short attention spans and a gullible population that believes all the crap the read on the internet. Just look at me, I'm wasting my time ranting here on /.

  121. Start the stimulus with a patent law change by wkk2 · · Score: 1

    Make a product in the US and get 20 years of patent protection. Export the job and only get 10 years.

  122. Perhaps if they gut 90% of it... by bADlOGIN · · Score: 1

    There's still the "continuous improvement"
    problem. Where schools with 98% testing and
    content standards have no way to improve more and face funding cuts because they haven't shown year over year improvement. How the hell that bit of logic made it in the originally, I'll never understand..

    --
    *** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
  123. Re: Poor Education by znerk · · Score: 1

    I am absolutely amazed at the number of posts that suggest that public education does not need improvement. Or rather, I am in awe of the nerve required to stand up and categorically state "Of course edumacation is importance! We all need to lern stuff! I went to [public|private] school, and I'm more smarter than most poeple! Spellering is irreverent to the subjex at hand!"

    If you're going to argue that you don't need to be more intelligent than you already are, please try not to provide proof to the contrary in the same diatribe. I am not specifically attacking you, scientus, your post just happens to be the most recent one I've read that pushed the "I don't need no skoolin - I'm are to smarting already!" button, forcing me to finally say something about the trend I'm seeing.

    Again, please don't take this as a personal attack. I am simply boggled by an entire subset of posts on this subject that categorically disprove themselves by simply existing.

    --
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  124. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by philspear · · Score: 1

    the old guard is salivating at the prospect of getting all their old nanny state legislation back on the plate.

    I like how Obama hasn't even taken office or done much of anything, and already people are complaining about "nanny-state" policies.

  125. Yeahbut... If you divide 700 billion by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    by the top bank executives, they all make out like banksters. Sorry. Bandits.

     

    --
    Deleted
  126. Re: Poor Education by scientus · · Score: 1

    My spelling has nothing to do with schooling. I got great grades in school (2250/1570 SAT, etc) and was largely unchallenged but i was never good at spelling, just something i never liked, mainly because i don't memorize things. When i took German the spelling was easy. (although confusing English spelling) English spelling has no order and therefore i have never really liked to fallow it, i can spell if i want, and it was certainly jammed down my throat, but English spelling is certainly a waste of brain cycles and memory, and by corrupting the characters by having no rules, and having our names for our letter have no correlation to their sounds---and having vowels even spoken as diphthongs i.e. a= ae, e= ei, i= ai it just makes the characters meaningless. No other western language does this as much as English.

    Anyways that isn't much of an excuse but don't blame it on the education system, its not their fault.

  127. Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    First on supplies: Do you think that every kid should have to supply their own paints/crayons etc for art class? Do you think that every kid should have to bring in their own basketball/kickball? Should a elementary/middle/high school make kids pay for their own books every year just like students do in college?

    Also, do you think that while the cost of goods purchased has increased, AND the numbers of students attending our schools have increased, that by having us cutback on funding; we'll somehow people able to find sufficient money? Also, while I will complain about the salaries of administration, their salaries come out of a completely different budget than either my salary OR those used to pay for supplies and books?

    If you can read this, thank a teacher.

  128. A huge step in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a tremendous waste of money and it shows how out of touch he is with educators. We need to cover the basics before we start splurging on equipment. How about lockers that work, campuses with vandalism being cleaned up, modern textbooks, and materials provided by the administration instead of coming out of teacher's pockets. No teacher should have to buy books, paper, and calculators for their students, yet many do.

    The reality of "high tech" classrooms is that expensive HDTVs are used to watch standard definition material, and very infrequently at that. Once top-of-the-line PCs are lagging in the security updates, software updates, and are riddled with spyware. Nobody ever utilizes the podcasting/webcasting/anything that I've seen, which has no practical place in the classroom. In 2-3 years the cutting edge equipment is either unusable or unused.

    The administrators who run school districts love to divert money towards technology, but they never pay for upkeep and they always overspend, buying highly priced goods instead of carefully shopping for the best deals. This is a completely improper way to spend funds earmarked for education.

    If we want to spend, how about putting in funding to revive the elective courses like art, music, woodshop/metalwork. The after school programs and summer programs that have been cut. The free breakfast and lunch programs for poor children that have been cut.

    There are a million things we could be spending money on to improve schools, and essentially Obama has said he doesn't know anything about the matter by stressing the importance of technology of the classroom. I am very, very disappointed by this.

  129. Obama is bought and paid for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's only one question I want answered by Obama, how much longer will these needless wars for Israel continue? Will it 'change' under Obama? Highly doubtful. Israel already owns Obama after he picked Rahm Emanuel, the son of a terrorist, as Chief of Staff. Obama will probably let Mossad slide on their 9/11 involvement and Obama will continue Middle East wars. So who won the US election? Israel did, as always.

    1. Re:Obama is bought and paid for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cool story bro

  130. Red Herring [Was: Re: Unsupported Claims] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the bogus slashdot story I mentioned above. It was widely debunked by, for example, this analysis. This is why you should always cite your sources.

    Did you even read what you linked? It's nowhere close to a debunking, and it specifically addresses the narrow scope of part of one piece of legislation (mostly subsection 2(A)) presumably referenced by Holder in his Face the Nation interview. Holder's wider views on censorship are not salient to the discussion of that legislation (and his misguided views on gun control are out of context for that article and off topic here). This is why you should always cite sources which actually support your assertions.

    - T

  131. Macroeconomics 101 by yali · · Score: 1

    Do we really want to saddle ourselves with more debt?

    The counterintuitive but economically sound answer is yes.

    An economic downturn is precisely the wrong time to be balancing the federal budget. On a personal level, yes, right now individuals should absolutely be preparing for difficult times to come. But as a matter of government policy, the government should spend during bad times, to buffer the effects of a sluggish economy. The time to save (pay down the debt) is when things are going well in the private sector. (And if recession-era spending is done wisely -- for example, investing in infrastructure -- then the benefits will carry into later boom times without new money being spent.)

    It would be a little easier to stomach spending now if our current president had been following this advice and running surpluses during the boom (like his predecessor did). But that doesn't change the fact that balancing the federal budget right now will make things worse.

  132. arggh by BenphemeR · · Score: 1

    Stop spending money on nonsense!! Kids will learn how to use computers just fine in public schools!

  133. Technology is a Powerful learning Tool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technology is a tool a powerful learning to that can enhance learning and give further learning opportunities to disadvantaged, and special needs students.

    Technology can also enhance learning to remote communities and provide more learning opportunities.

    But I agree we don't do enough to teach the basic's when I went to school I learned how to effectively search the internet and learned that there is more than one search engine "Google". Kids don't know how to use the address bar, to goto facebook they goto Google. and type in Facebook and click on the link, instead of typing http://www.facebook.com into the address bar. And I agree somewhat with teaching effective troubleshooting but too much knowledge can be a dangerous thing Kids are bright. I work as a computer tech in a School District

  134. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by raddan · · Score: 1

    OTOH, the guy isn't even in office yet. I'm adopting the same wait-and-see attitude I did with Bush and Romney (I'm from MA). Bush-- well, he blew it pretty quickly; Romney-- he didn't actually do anything, so in some sense, he was the ideal politician.

  135. Korea had an easier job. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    If POBE is really serious, he'll look at giving us real broadband, like the premises fibre that Korean consumers enjoy.

    Korea had a much easier job. Virtually all of the population lives in giant apartment buildings, big enough to have their own telephone exchange in the basement utility rooms. When the "last mile" is a few hundred feet of indoor conduit and every building has enough customers to rate its own carrier-grade switch it's trivial to string fiber to every home.

    The US, on the other hand, is VERY spread out. There are states with counties bigger than many European countries. There are areas - with non-trivial population - where you never pass a gas station without filling up, because the next one may be more than half-a-tank away. There are places where nearly everybody is armed for their own defense (against both human and furry hazards) because the nearest lawman or Animal Control department may be a 5 hour drive away - in PERFECT weather - days if it's just snowed.

    Wiring an old city involves digging up a LOT of expensive stuff to get a FEW customers per building. Wiring a suburb requires strings a LOT of cable to get ONE customer per building. Wiring a rural area - where the houses are far enough apart that the phone lines were subsidized by ratepayers in cities - may cost far more than could ever be recovered by subscriptions (which is what WISPs are about.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Korea had an easier job. by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Dude, somebody else already made that comeback, and I already answered it. Short answer: we have metro areas that are almost as dense as anything in Korea. Density is not the issue.

    2. Re:Korea had an easier job. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Short answer: we have metro areas that are almost as dense as anything in Korea. Density is not the issue.

      There's a BIG difference between just being dense and having SINGLE BUILDINGS that are each the residence of all the people in a telephone exchange - with something like 95% of the population in such buildings - and a conduit already installed from the phone exchange rooms to each apartment.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Korea had an easier job. by fm6 · · Score: 1

      So why isn't fibre widely available in apartment buildings in big cities in this country?

    4. Re:Korea had an easier job. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Possibly because the tenants can't afford to pay what the ISPs are charging for super-high-speed internet?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  136. You think like a ReThuglican Jew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think like a ReThuglican Jew

    You are a racist.

  137. For fuck's sake, again. by copponex · · Score: 1

    There are lots of important techs that were developed without government funds.

    Here we go.

    The steam engine

    James Watt studied in London and settled at the University of Glasgow. He developed the steam engine at his leisure while at the University, which was founded at the request of King James II of Scotland.

    the internal combustion engine

    Credited to Benz. Who also studied mechanical engineering at a public University.

    iron, steel

    The refinement of iron manufacturing has been going on for thousands of years, mostly driven by warfare, which is usually paid for by the government.

    powered flight

    One exception, though the money to fund further development since then and until today continues to be from government coffers.

    guns

    Quite broad. The most difficult problems of firing naval guns were entirely solved by government investment, just like the development of early computers was entirely geared towards artillery math. The invention of the gun in China was probably done for war, paid by government. I hope you're seeing a pattern.

    electric power transmission

    Tesla studied at Technische Universitat Graz, a public university, though he didn't finish. You'll notice that almost everyone you read about in the history books went to some sort of university. The obvious exception would be art.

    the light bulb

    Humphrey Davy had the earliest lightbulb. He was a professor. Edison made it commercially viable.

    most modern materials

    NASA

    most modern advances in computer hardware and software.

    Really? Give me one. Be specific.

    That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a lot more.

    I'm sure that you haven't studied the subject, and you're full of shit.

    And furthermore, just because technologies were developed with government money doesn't mean they couldn't have been developed with different funding. Also, I can't think of a single major commercial airframe in use today that was originally designed for military use (not so say there isn't one

    You would not have any modern commercial airframes today without government subsidy, period. It takes an incredible amount of money and time and man hours to perfect jet engines and subsonic flight, money that no private company would dare spend without being a welfare client of a state.

    but certainly none of the Boeing 7X7 lines or the airbus A3X0 lines were

    Totally and completely false. Check the article above.

    Meeting people and getting your foot in the door does not require an education. You can meet people in the field.

    Sure, sure. And I can win the lottery too, or get rear ended by a millionaire. You want our next generation to have a good chance of success, not a crap shoot, right?

    Degrees serve primarily as a barrier to entry, since employers use them to weed out potential candidates. You will not be prepared for your job by your degree, and you will likely use less than 10% of what you learn (much less what you crammed before the test and promptly forgot afterward).

    I believe a good education in the basics of your field are essential in addition to apprenticeship. We have no formal apprenteceship program in the US, but for every job where you can ruin someone's life - doctor, lawyer, plumber, electrician, architect - there is required apprenticeship and required degrees for very, very good reasons. I'm not saying you need an EE degree to wire a house. But you do need one to build a datacenter.

    1. Re:For fuck's sake, again. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      The government touches everything. You can't just say that anything that ever received any type of government funding (or anything created by someone who attended a university) at all was created by the government. The mere fact that the government ever spent a single dollar would mean that the government created everything in your world. That's not a reasonable approach.

      None of the things I listed were the result of a government program intended to bring about their creation. So you can't reasonably say they were created by the government.

      "You would not have any modern commercial airframes today without government subsidy, period. It takes an incredible amount of money and time and man hours to perfect jet engines and subsonic flight, money that no private company would dare spend without being a welfare client of a state."

      You simply can not prove that. The government consumes an enormous amount of resources (nearly 1/3 today, even more during WW2) who knows how those would be expended if the government didn't spend them. Again, the particular airframes I mentioned were not developed for military purposes. That is what I meant.

      "I did not attend college"

      I did. So I do have some idea what I'm talking about when I say it's not that great.

      "I believe a good education in the basics of your field are essential in addition to apprenticeship."

      I believe a good education is important too. But I don't see what that has to do with college. . .

  138. Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room by tsstahl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First on supplies: Do you think that every kid should have to supply their own paints/crayons etc for art class?

    Whether I believe it or not does not change the fact that this is the reality in my district.

    Do you think that every kid should have to bring in their own basketball/kickball?

    The school board cut gym (PE outside the midwest) in their tit for tat spat when the referendum failed. Somehow that jeopardized some funding and it had to come back. In the interim, yes, there was a parent run physical activity program immediately after school.

    Should a elementary/middle/high school make kids pay for their own books every year just like students do in college?

    I pay a book rental fee which is actually quite reasonable. But this is still in addition to my taxes. I pay for the book, then pay for the upkeep of the stable with an additional 'hidden' tax.

    Also, do you think that while the cost of goods purchased has increased, AND the numbers of students attending our schools have increased, that by having us cutback on funding; we'll somehow people able to find sufficient money?

    Growing student population implies population growth in general, hence additional tax revenue.

    Cost of goods go up with inflation, but so do the property taxes. Point being there are a lot of things that can be done to remediate inflation like a buyer's consortium, or direct negotiation with vendors. Some school districts do very well in these matters.

    Traditionally, however, school districts suck at saving money because their capital and operations budgets have been turned into patronage by pols and apathetic/unknowledgeable constituency.

    Also, while I will complain about the salaries of administration, their salaries come out of a completely different budget than either my salary OR those used to pay for supplies and books?

    A 'budget' is just an arbitrary classification in an accounting system. The source of the money does not change depending on what column you put it in. There are specific exceptions that vary with geography, but they are usually well known. For instance, in my area new housing impact fees must go into a building fund that the districts cannot use for operations.

    Throwing money at problems does not solve them. Most private schools do a lot better with fewer dollars spent per child. They do this by putting the money directly 'into' the students. Public school can't model this directly because they do not have the option to cherry pick students and parents. What can be done is mimicking their penchant to cut out Stupid Stuff and focus on education.

    Computers in classrooms are fairly useless except for attendance, and solitaire during planning periods. Student access to computers and structured time with them is beneficial, but only as an adjunct to and in furtherance of the fundamentals of the three R's.

  139. Whoa, back up a little, to.. by zogger · · Score: 1

    ...this part here: "New DSL standards can extend the reach of DSL into more rural areas and...." What information do you have on that? What standards, where is it being done, and by whom, and what is this new longer distance DSL? I live a mile too far from the box, and with just a few homes down this line, they are NEVER going to run anything better that would allow DSL, and cable is also a no-go for the same reason and fiber is way out there in flying car land. At least I can get dialup, but that's it, and looks to be it forever..I mean forever, all the wireless broadband is line of sight to the towers, any hill in the way, tough luck, nogettum, already tried it here with the wireless guys, no signal, too many hills.. So what is this thing I never heard of with new DSL standards, would you have a link or two reference? Thanks in advance!

  140. Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was not aware reading was a specialty skill o.O ...but I cannot agree more with the essence of your post. The teachers I know end up paying for essential aids for their classroom out of pocket, as the school won't provide anything, and it's not like teachers get paid a decent amount in the first place.

  141. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No more so than the Bushitler meme ever did. But given that the Democrats are poised to take power and many /. posters like to bitch, you will hear a lot of such things.

  142. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked Obama has voted for a massive bailout of the banking system and now will "probably" vote to bailout the auto industry

    Wish people would call it what it is. It has a name. It's called a "loan." The auto industry is asking for large, low interest loans to allow them time to restructure. The banking system, on the other hand, is nothing but a hand out to the people who should be in jail. Yet, since these people are the uber wealthy of the US, these criminals will receive the largest transfer of wealth the planet has ever seen.

  143. You failed school, but managed to get a job there? by znerk · · Score: 1

    I work as a computer tech in a School District

    ... And you make me ashamed to be in the same industry. You have no spelling, grammar, or punctuation skills, nor can you effectively communicate your own ideas, and yet you will cheerfully spew your opinion of how the education system that so obviously failed you should be the standard everyone should hold themselves to.

    I'm not saying you're stupid, but the comment you left on the internet certainly makes it appear that way. Come back when you can spell, or at least finish a sentence properly - maybe then I'll consider something you have to say about the education system with more than disgusted contempt... at the moment, all I want to do is find out who you are so I can get you fired. Your position as part of our school system appears to me to be part of the problem, not the solution. Your apparent lack of education makes you appear more suited to be "the janitor" than "the IT guy".

    --
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  144. Re:Computers can help motivate High School student by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is of course, assuming that a teenager can think about life in a strategic frame of mind - most can't.

    Not even all adults seem to be able to think past day to day issues and look at the long term plan.

  145. Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    In exchange for higher pay, are you willing to work 8 hours a day doing community service in the summer? The union screamed high holy murder when this was suggested.

    That wouldn't be a bad idea, if you could reduce the hours that teachers have to work during the school year. As it is, teachers are severely overworked, and two months off in the summer is the only thing that keeps them from completely losing their minds.

    I don't mean that teachers are doing too much work relative to the money they're paid. Raising salaries won't fix the problem. Teachers are getting burned out because they have insufficient time to prepare lessons, insufficient classroom supplies (many teachers choose to pay for supplies out-of-pocket, because the school won't buy them), and insufficient support staff (the original poster mentioned that librarians are gone; custodians have also been replaced by janitors who barely speak English and know nothing about building maintenance).

    Often teachers get stuck teaching subjects they know little about; hiring someone who knows what they're doing would cost too much so you end up with the social studies teacher trying to teach a computer class. Many of us have seen how well that works.

    I completely agree, throwing more money at the problem is not the answer, but more money is definitely part of the solution. Adding more money without changing how we spend it won't make things better, but we can't fix the problems if there's no money available. So, the problems don't get fixed, because there's no money, because everyone knows if there were more money, the problems wouldn't get fixed.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  146. how do we educate Obama and crew on Edubuntu by Locutus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is absolutely no reason why any computer-education program should not be using computer setup with Edubuntu or some other GNU/Linux variant with all the open source education software pre-loaded. It's cheaper and there's massive amounts of free information for learning how to run it, keep it running, and even make it run better. Students who learn this stuff and use the same system to learn more and more and it's all free and fully accessible to them.

    Then, there's the various ways the systems can be implemented. There's LTSP for thin clients, there's standalone, networked fat clients, and there are multi-head single Chassis system feeding multiple users on the minimum additional hardware of an LCD, a keyboard, and a mouse.

    And learning the basics and not teaching an application means they know what a spreadsheet is, they know what a filesystem is, a wordprocessor, and they can know far far more about the system and software than other systems will let them.

    So, where can we kindly suggest to Obama that his people look long and hard at Edubutu and/or GNU/Linux and open source software?

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  147. Re:Computers can help motivate High School student by photomonkey · · Score: 1

    Generally I agree that kids should aspire to the highest levels, but let's not pretend that the value of a high school diploma was undervalued by the existence of people going to college.

    It was devalued in the workforce by the slipping level of education attained by the end of high school, and the relative ease-of-access to colleges and universities.

    I have a college degree, and did well in school. But I can tell you that my grandfather had nothing more than a high school diploma and did quite well as a machinist and later a shop manager. In fact, adjusted for inflation, he made significantly more WITHOUT a college education than I do with one. A college degree these days is like the high school diploma of 4-6 decades ago. It will qualify you for a bit more than an $40,000-year entry level job in cubedom. Thankfully, I no longer work in cubedom.

    We have lost nearly all the well-paying (admittedly, mostly trade) jobs that one used to get out of high school, and replaced them with under-paying consumer services (retail) jobs that anyone with an IQ greater than their own shoe size can tackle.

    Couple that with having high schoolers performing at middle school levels and colleges that have gone to 'vocational education' en masse, and you have a recipe for the pie we're presently learning to digest.

    Pass the pepto, please.

    --
    Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
  148. wait for inductrak to mature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inductrak maglev was invented in U.S. labs during the 90s. It is relatively cheap and has lower maintenance costs than conventional rail. Some of the bugs still have to be worked out, but if properly researched, it has great potential. With a superior technology so close, why invest in an old technology?

    Of course it does not help that US regulations require train cars to be real strong. Because of that, TGV trains used in America weigh twice as much as French trains.

  149. Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

    you willing to work 8 hours a day doing community service in the summer

    Really... You are forgetting that children are hard to deal with. I would say that teachers need to have 1 month per year for academic improvement and 2 months of daily psychologist visits after what those brats do every day in school.
    Remember, that children are only pearls in their own parents' eyes.

  150. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the Bush supporters here would be saying exactly the same thing. It's just like any article critical of Windows.

  151. Internet access should be part of core needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Access to the internet is the most important thing that could be accomplished by getting PCs AND Broadband access to each k-12 public school.

    I have three children in public school now (4th, K, and pre-school), and IMHO having access to the internet is as important in "today's world" as having basic Math, Reading and Writing textbooks.

    My kids are fortunate to have a "geek" father and to each have a PC at home to use when needed, with broadband internet access...but for many kids the only way they will get access to a computer and/or the internet is through school.

    jps

  152. Re:Get rid of NCLB & Becca, push nat'l teacher by jwhitener · · Score: 1

    "and teachers can look the kids in the eye and tell them to leave and come back when (if) they care about learning something."

    Dumb people cost society a tremendous amount of money. Far more than it would have cost to educate them.

    Perhaps stronger discipline is required, or more motivated teachers, or fines on parents. But education to a certain level has to be mandatory.

    Look up some studies. There are tons to pick from that will show that education, especially early edu, is the cheapest way to support a person in a society.

  153. Cutting through the BS by copponex · · Score: 1

    The bottom line is, you want to do something useful in any field, history has shown that the only places where a person is allowed to do real research is a university or government lab. By advising anyone to stay away from college, you are advising them to choose to have a disadvantage just because you didn't like college.

    Stop giving out that bad advice, unless you can bring me some interesting counter examples to what I wrote above.

    1. Re:Cutting through the BS by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      How about Thomas Edison? Also, neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates actually graduated college.

      I'm advising people to stay away from college because it's a waste of time. It's not bad advise. If no one went to college we'd all be better off. It's just a game we all play that does nothing to benefit any of us, but wastes a lot of time and money in the process. It's all about getting an advantage over your peers, and it has almost nothing to with learning and growing.

      When I was in college the single girl in my gradating class (she graduated at the top too) said she would make no effort to learn the material, since you learn everything on the job anyway. I told her she was crazy, because that would mean we were all just pissing away time and spending money for nothing. She was right. It's a game. You can play it if you want to, but it won't ever get you what you really want, and playing it hurts everybody.

    2. Re:Cutting through the BS by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Windows nor OS X were written by people who dropped out.

      citing a one in a few BILLION shot versus something that has a greater chance of success like, learning something about what everyone else knows in your field is a better alternative.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re:Cutting through the BS by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I personally know people who work as engineers and programmers who did not complete college. I think it is likely there are actually developers on those projects who didn't either.

      You don't learn much from others in your field while you are in college, because for the most part you will interact with students who are right out of high-school and haven't worked, and professors who work in academia. There are some students and professors who have industry experience, but most do not.

      The best way to be successful in your field is hard work. That doesn't mean working 16 hours a day. That means being willing to take initiative and to ask for help when you need it.

    4. Re:Cutting through the BS by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Yes, but to improve your likelyhood of scoring a job where you're writing kernel code for a living, going to school seems like a good idea.

      Also, I couldn't imagine other scientific fields having simialr kinds of hands off approach to education

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  154. not to mention by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    A lot of the money ends up going to other countries, including China, via materials. China produces approximately 35% of the world's steel, for example; the U.S. produces around 7%. Fixtures? Windows? Siding? Tiles? All mostly made abroad. Even elevators, a sort of high-end specialty thing, are imported from Germany more often than they're made in the U.S.

    1. Re:not to mention by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Informative

      Strangely enough almost all furniture in the us (IKEA exempted) is made here in the US. Commerical furniture is one of those strange animals that even with cheap gas it's cheaper to build it here and ship it straight from the manufacturer to the final location than it is to mass produce in china, warehouse and distribute. Certian types of banquet and folding chairs are imported, but imports don't even have 50% of the market here. Something to think about next time you're sitting at the doctor's office, at the DPS, school or church.
       
      Interesting you should mention windows - there's actually an active sit-in for a vinyl window plant in chicago right now. I know there's at least one vinyl window factory in washington state still active - my friend's dad owns it. Plywood is also produced locally in most cases. There are some rare hardwood plywood veneers made in china and india but most residential building materials (not including fasteners) are still produced here in the US.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  155. we don't really excel at those, though by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have many relatives in southern Europe, who are somewhat surprised by our high standards of living when it comes to materialism, which seem vaguely wasteful to them. Things like running A/C at 72 when you live in a climate that's typically 90s in the summer, living in homes that are on average 2350 square feet (all of which has to be air-conditions or heated, of course), driving inefficient cars, owning strangely large numbers of gigantic televisions, etc.

    When it comes to the things you mentioned, though, they're actually ahead. They work fewer hours on average than Americans, get better health care, much more vacation, more stringently policed working conditions, etc.

  156. Re:Computers can help motivate High School student by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It didn't help me, and I regret it now.

    However, at the time my home life was very negative and somewhat violent. Graduating highschool was the least of my worries because I wanted to take my own life. I never did homework because I could ace the tests and maintain a c average, developed very bad study habits, and poor social relation skills.

    The result? I'm a 20 something adult who is very uneducated and poorly disciplined.

    I realize this is off topic, but looking at my career options meant nothing to be because I didn't want it. Even now suicide is appealing because I have a very poor work ethic. Working hard for something sucks. Getting kids to desire success has a lot more to do with their frame of mind going into middleschool and highschool than monster.com can alter afterwards. IMO of course.

  157. More government sanctioned ignorance by prndll · · Score: 1

    People don't need computers or broadband from the government. They need to make the decision to learn how things are done and what NOT to do.

  158. Good god, not this crap again... by I_want_information · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but what's really 'unacceptable' is that, 10 years after the last failure of an administration's dumping millions of dollars into 'computers for the schools,' we STILL have teachers who either (a) are positively disinclined to use said computers and/or (b) haven't the foggiest of idea of what to do with them because all they know how to do is surf the web, send email, and use PowerPoint, that oh-so-useful K-12 app.

  159. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have yet to hear a story coming from the Obama camp where someone who is suppose to carry out his bidding undermines him. Look at the efficient campaign he ran, especially considering that he is a guy who doesn't have the strongest ties to the usual Washington foot soldiers.

    So while i like you am uncomfortable with some of his choices (Eric Holder, etc), until i see a story where someone he appoints begins to push their own agenda, i'm confidant in the message executed being the campaign messages of Barack Obama.

    And after the last 4 years, Washington is even more oriented to subverting individual consciences and free wills to faithfully work towards achieving the Administrations Centrally Planned goals(Really is ironic for free market fundamentalists and "leave me be" social conservatives to be so strongly inclined to group think and lining up behind such neatly crafted and market tested messages; really undermines their positions)

  160. Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And one more thing we could all appreciate....
    eliminate tenure for teachers.... I have met many "teachers" who chose the job because:
    1) 180 days work a year
    2) Job security..after tenure you can't get fired, unless you get caught molesting school children.
    3) and a major in business, science, math, foreign languages, psychology, sociology, English, communication,...or just about everything else was harder (flunked out of or not excepted into a different academic field)

    Any yes, I have met teachers who's life ambition was just that...to teach, but somehow, after tenure, they did not bother to keep up with current trend, tools and teaching theory.

    Don't start crying about how dedicated you are.... the current state of education in America reveals how dedicated "teachers" are not. Most teachers when put to the test, FAIL.

    Lets certify and re-certify teachers on a regular basis. Then we should reward those who care enough to do the job well, stay current in their field, and provide Americans with a better end product...and put the rest in the unemployment line.

  161. Not this again! by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    What's idiotic is when somebody swallows some mantra he/she heard on AM talk radio and figures it means something. Gubbmint is always bad, ain't it!?!?

    The government does not have the solution. It is the problem.

    Baw ha ha ha ha HAW! That old saw again! Hello Ditto-head! What scares me is how many people have bought this neocon crap that's been crammed down their throats who VOTE based on this idiocy.

    Yep, because some 10-15 years of deregulation have done us WONDER AFTER WONDER, hasn't it? Rules? Schmoolz! Let "the marketplace" deal with it! As it has done... right into the crapper.

    Economy is a product of government. Think about it: who prints the money? Who regulates what banks can do with it? Who determines its general value? Who determines what's legal to sell and what's not? Who/what passes laws to protect consumers from predatory marketing? Who busts monopolies that might distort the "free" marketplace?

    Far from being self-stabilizing, a free marketplace is a fiction, and keeping a marketplace in balance so it's "free" and liquid so that the laws of supply and demand can work is damned hard work! Be thankful that you've lived in an environment where we've had this gift, and thank your forefathers for being smart enough to put this whole system in place!

    You have, as a United States citizen, almost $500,000 in infrastructure already set aside JUST FOR YOU, (total value of infrastructure divided by citizen population) on which the average return on investment is about 8%. Investors tend to get excited by anything at/above 10%, so the numbers hold up pretty nicely...

    In the old days, back before the introduction of the Federal Reserve, stock market crashes happened on a regular basis, but nobody ran around for the next decade crying about it. The market just purged itself of bad assets and risky practices and recovered in a few months

    Oh, you mean the DECADES LONG DEPRESSION in the latter half of the 1800's? Or was that them good old days? Maybe they were later, say, the early 20th century? Oh, yeah, the decade-long 'great depression' happened then... Eh, when were these 'good old days' of which you speak?

    I'm reminded of a song:

    "The good old days weren't always so good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems, yeah yeah" - Keeping the Faith by Billy Joel...

    Nowadays, we make it far, far worse by trying to prevent the bad assets and insolvent businesses from failing by sucking solvent (good) assets out of the economy to prop up the insolvent (bad). The real solution is to simply let them fail. The Big Three auto mfgs. are in an impossible situation.

    Yeah. Like how in the early 1980s, the US Gubbmint lent a hand to Chrysler Corp which then went ballistic with their extremely popular "k-series" cars? Providing tax revenue on income to the US Gubbmint FAR in excess of the loan amount?

    Damned if I don't remember being driven around in a Dodge Caravan minivan for most of my childhood... we were one of the lucky ones, they were so popular that they had trouble keeping up with demand... SARCASM Yeah, that was good money thrown after bad, wasn't it? /SARCASM

    God, how could they have screwed up any more on that one? Or perhaps when they bailed out Lockheed in the early 1970's? To this day, damned fine employment for the GOBS of highly qualified aerospace engineers (many of them readers of /.!) that owe their employment to the fact that the "always the problem" gubbmint gave a 1.4 BILLION dollar contract to Lockheed...

    If you want a better economy, get the government off of it. We used to have the best economy in the world. Somehow we've come to think that government as god is better. It isn't, and it never will be. Even if someone hopes we can.

    Yeah, that great economy built largely in the 1950s and 1960s,

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  162. Snopes doesn't believe you either... by BancBoy · · Score: 1
    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  163. Re:Computers can help motivate High School student by LurkerXD · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not, at my high school we had a "Career Center" that each english class would visit 1-2 times each year and pretty much do exactly that: research prospective careers, and find out what that career entailed, what the average pay was, and what kind of academic prep we would need. Outside that they'd give out information on ROP classes and other neat career building stuff.

  164. Re:Mexico (Re:China) and USA lardasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $1000 per week? They pay immigrant construction workers $25 an hour in Texas?

      Get off your ass, lardo.
    Try workin' 72 hous a week like the rest of us.
    You fat overpaid overweight American.
    We Kick YOU in dee ass!

  165. At least some bacon tastes gooood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vincent: Want some bacon? Jules: No man, I don't eat pork. Vincent: Are you Jewish? Jules: Nah, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all. Vincent: Why not? Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals. Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood. Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got enough sense enough to disregard its own feces. Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces. Jules: I don't eat dog either. Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way. Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true? Jules: Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charming motherfuckin' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?

  166. Can't do anything right? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Good grief, Slashdotters, grow up already.

    Not long ago all I saw was people whining and grumbling that the government didn't develop broadband access and technology. Now Obama talks about addressing that very issue - and, by golly, suddenly everybody hates him for that. Do you guys actually know what you want? I mean, other than complain?

    Whatever else you may think and feel about the new president, he almost certainly wasn't behind the policies that have lead to all American manufacturers outsourcing to India and China. He has to play the hand he was dealt - we all have; let him at least make the attempt, since he has actually been elected, OK?

    We in the West simply aren't in a position to compete with China or India on prices for manufacturing; so investing in education and infrastructure is a very good idea. I mean, propping up the car manufacturers may save jobs in the short term, but they will be lost in the long term, because 1) India and China can do it cheaper and will soon do it better than us, and 2) energy shortage and climate change means that the traditional car industry will never actuallly recover, at least in the form it has now.

    What we need is innovation - and innovation very often mean that something will "die" to make room for something better. If previous governments had had the foresight, they could have helped this innovation happen in time, but they didn't, because they have always favoured the oil and car industry. And of course the same holds true for the other business sectors that are now foundering; and thus we now have to regroup in a somewhat desperate situation. We will get through eventually, but I suspect a lot of things will have changed when we emerge at the other end.

  167. All the ammo you'll ever need. by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1
    FWIW, I'm in Kutztown, PA (I'm a student at Kutztown University, home of the first google satellite image :) ). Just outside of Amish country. We've got cornfields everywhere (I'm about 10 feet from one at my apartment), and a few times a week you'll be stuck behind a horse and buggy on main street.

    The stats:
    • town size: 1.5 square miles
    • population: 5000 + 1800 students living in town('cept I think I'm the only one who sticks around for summer - the town is paradise!) + 8000 students on campus

    ... Oh, yeah, and we've got the entire town rigged with fiber, a six point bus topology backbone of multi strand fiber which branches off to each house. Also, automatic utility metering/monitoring, digital HDTV, VOIP, security, and wifi hotspots run over it. BTW, run by our local town government's created company, hometown utilicom. Fiber, 2mbit down/128k up, $25, 3mbit/3mbit $80, and take a cut off of that if you're a student or buy a phone/internet/tv package. Free digital HDTV with basic service, etc. They do web hosting, too. I'm sure you see what I'm getting at here. It's not just doable, it's being done and the service is exceptional.

    The best part is that the town put up fiber because none of the local telcos would provide service... now they're climbing over each other to get to our last mile. So much so that they lobbied for laws to be passed to make sure that towns can't do this kind of thing. Kutztown was grandfathered in after the law passed and now towns have to give the telcos 18 months to service them before they start their own projects.

    BTW, the entire infrastructure was paid for with 30 year bonds. We even generate our own electricity, too. Since the town provides everything the town needs and the community pays a reasonable price for it (economies of scale and all that), taxes haven't been raised in 70 years. Checking the link for hometownu, it appears they're testing 5/8mbit. Love this friggin' town!

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  168. Investing by tallredeye · · Score: 1

    Call it investing and it's all good...
    Isn't spending beyond one's means how we got into the subprime mess to begin with?

  169. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

    First: If that accusation was made of the Bush administration, it would have some basis.

    Second: There has been a lot of complaining about it.

    I don't care who made the accusation or who wants this it is still a horrible idea.

    You ask how can we afford this and I ask you how can we not?

    We can't afford it and it will do NOTHING to actually help children learn. It will also kill any competition in this space. Competition is what drives prices down and brings new and better ideas to market.

    Obama's plan will include funds to make public buildings more energy efficient, repair roads and bridges and modernize schools.

    Again, how is he going to pay for this? His idea is to make America more of a socialist country because he believes that by creating more government programs will create more jobs at this time. A Capitalist would let the market adjust and would NOT have things like government sponsored entities, (fanny and freddy) and would NOT create more social programs.

    So, do we or do we not have a problem?

    We do NOT have a problem that requires the Federal government to take the U.S.A. closer to socialism. However, we do have a problem with these types of solutions.

    Think about it, and take it to a personal level. You loose your job and then at that time you decide to spend money to put in a new energy efficient heater and buy a new computer. Yes in the long run that will probably save you money but the return on investment will be 10+ years. The additional computer, in all honesty is probably not an investment at all, and your old one (even if it was shared) will get the job done. However, in Obamas case he wants to take this time to increase spending here.

    Sorry but we can't afford it. He has mentioned many times before that his view of "high speed internet" is just a utility like service. In that his is yet another right that we should all have.

    His views are misguided at best and boarder on insane at worst.

    --
    The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
  170. Just FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Telling me to google obscure libertarian conspiracies hurts - not helps - your thesis.

    Especially when you confuse the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

  171. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    Think about it, and take it to a personal level. You loose your job and then at that time you decide to spend money to put in a new energy efficient heater and buy a new computer.

    That's comparison is a little distorted. The government did not loose it's job. If it did, I'd think we'd have bigger concerns. A more accurate comparison would be that the government had a pay cut. In that case, you look at cutting costs but doing so smartly. That means looking at the ROI. If the overall long term expenditure can be reduced by a initial investment, then doing so is the smart choice.

    Since you are using analogy, I think it was in "Guards! Guards!" by Terry Pratchett where the character Samuel Vimes, while looking at a hole in his shoe that he constantly fixes with a piece of cardboard, comes to the conclusion that it takes money to save money and not in the obvious way. Vimes knows that if he could invest an expensive pair of shoes that they would last much longer then all the cheap shoes he's been buying and, in the end, he would end up paying less for his shoes and save money.

    You may think the our Government is in the same position as the character Samuel Vimes, I do not.

    take it to a personal level

    I have and my friends have as well. We were all working landscaping. Often rooming together to save on rent and/or went back to live with parents because rent was too expensive. I was driving a clunker ( early 2000's and I'm driving around in a 75 Dodge Dart ). All of us living paycheck to paycheck. Most of the time working part-time jobs as kitchen help in addition to cutting lawns. We all came to the conclusion that it sucked and that the only way we were going to get out of it was investing money in our education.

    The surprising thing is this is not any new revelation. I cannot count the number of times this advice was given to me. "Invest in your education". Mostly by teachers in schools that by the general consensus are lacking ( "We do have massive problems with some of our public schools" ). So now a president actually makes this an issue and the response seems to be by some "PANIC! PANIC! Socialism is on the march!"

    And to sort of bring this full circle and ask you to do a little self examination, If McCain or Bush addressed the public on the same issues and said the same thing as Obama, verbatim, would you be complaining? Stripped of any association with Obama, would you support this statement alone? "We need to make a substantial investment in our education system to maintain U.S. competitiveness in the world economy."

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  172. Regarding value by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    Also regarding currency - if money has no value, then why do people exchange objects of value for it? Can't it be said that the value of a dollar is the number of hats, apples, cars, etc that people will agree to exchange for it? That is the whole definition of "value" - how much people want something, and what they're willing to exchange for it.

    Thus, if I ask you to give me all that "fictional" money in your bank account, and you seem unwilling to do it, I should not be surprised - your money has value to you and to people who will trade with you for it.

    1. Re:Regarding value by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Also regarding currency - if money has no value, then why do people exchange objects of value for it?

      People perceive currency has value because, in my opinion:

      • There's a controlled amount of it
      • The men in Blue Shirts with Badges will shoot you if you try to take it from someone else
      • The government has a bunch of laws that makes it easy for people to settle transactions with it

      What other value could it possibly have? I concede it's fungible with physical property, I don't think I got that right, but I don't think a fiat currency, like the US$, can be properly regarded as a "repository of value" in the sense that a possession can, since it's value with regard to goods and services can fluctuate. I don't regard inflation as a "hidden tax," simply because I don't think you have property rights to the "value" of a dollar, I just think you have property rights to the dollar, full stop, whatever it's exchange rate might be. If you don't like that, don't store wealth in dollars; if you keep your wealth in dollars, you essentially are extending a welcome mat to the government into your wallet, for storing "value" in their paper and subjecting yourself to their decisions w/r/t its value.

      That is the whole definition of "value" - how much people want something, and what they're willing to exchange for it.

      Exactly, but no one ultimately wants dollars, they want things dollars can buy.

      Thus, if I ask you to give me all that "fictional" money in your bank account, and you seem unwilling to do it, I should not be surprised - your money has value to you and to people who will trade with you for it.

      I guess that all depends on how much a dollar is worth when you ask :) You can't have the money in my account, not because it's valueless, which on my terms it is, but because it's my property. Property != valuable. I guess I'm using the word "value" in a strange way to argue my anti-monetarist viewpoint.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:Regarding value by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      People perceive currency has value

      Then it does have value! No?

      Exactly, but no one ultimately wants dollars, they want things dollars can buy.

      Nobody ultimately wants cows, pigs, or other such animals. They want the processed results that those goods permit you to produce and trade for other goods. Cows are a means to the end of milk. Money is the means to the end of other goods. There is no requirement that "property" can only be something that you ultimately want, or want "in the end". Property is regularly the means to other more ultimate ends.

      the US$, can be properly regarded as a "repository of value" in the sense that a possession can, since it's value with regard to goods and services can fluctuate.

      I agree. That is why a fiat currency is a horrible idea. It is a means to cause things of value to vanish in an instant (thus violating the rights of every victim in the process).

      I don't regard inflation as a "hidden tax," simply because I don't think you have property rights to the "value" of a dollar, I just think you have property rights to the dollar, full stop, whatever it's exchange rate might be.

      So long as the government enforces a monopoly on their currency, I'm fine with people considering it as such, although it'd be better to understand where exactly the fault lies. No other currency has a chance of getting started in the US with the fed's monopoly firmly and forcibly maintained.

      The only proper role of a government is to uphold and protect individual rights. Any other attempt to provide services of any kind can only result in economic manipulation and unjustifiable monopolies.

      if you keep your wealth in dollars, you essentially are extending a welcome mat to the government into your wallet, for storing "value" in their paper and subjecting yourself to their decisions w/r/t its value.

      Even if that were the case, it does not grant them the right to take in taxes however much they want from whoever they want, based on income, gender, race, or whatever other discrimination the government chooses.

    3. Re:Regarding value by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Then it does have value! No?

      Not by my definition, but I see your point.

      There is no requirement that "property" can only be something that you ultimately want, or want "in the end". Property is regularly the means to other more ultimate ends.

      That's why I don't think property and value are the same thing... In my opinion "value" is something you ultimately want, and property is the means. Money is property, as is a house, but only the house has value. I should come up with a different word, since I'm overloading value.

      I agree. That is why a fiat currency is a horrible idea. It is a means to cause things of value to vanish in an instant (thus violating the rights of every victim in the process).

      I dunno, it gives the monetary authority a lot of levers to control the money supply, and in particular to incentivize borrowing in situations where borrowing makes complete sense but people are herding away from it in fear, like at the current moment. Inflation is a only a tax on saving in the sense that it's a rebate on borrowing, too, and leverage is a good thing to have available, and its much more difficult for a government to gain leverage if it has to exchange gold for its notes.

      if you keep your wealth in dollars, you essentially are extending a welcome mat to the government into your wallet, for storing "value" in their paper and subjecting yourself to their decisions w/r/t its value. ... Even if that were the case, it does not grant them the right to take in taxes however much they want from whoever they want, based on income, gender, race, or whatever other discrimination the government chooses.

      It certainly is the case: you're not entitled to complain about government intrusion into the economy while you keep a your assets in paper with the government's name printed all over it. It's hypocritical in the extreme.

      As to the justification of taxes, I live in a country that only discriminates on income, and it's my personal opinion that the only reason a person has wealth at all is because of the order, safety and security a government provides, so aside from certain marginal arguments, I think progressive taxation is perfectly justified. We don't have rights because Sky Father breathed them into us. Men wrote them down, and gave police the power to protect them (and the people themselves the 2nd amendment just in case). Without government, there are no rights, and no money to be made, and no property to exchange for it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    4. Re:Regarding value by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Not by my definition, but I see your point.

      Then how do you define value? In order to have value, doesn't something have to be valued by someone? Value presupposes an entity capable of choosing alternatives - ie, free will.

      I dunno, it gives the monetary authority a lot of levers to control the money supply, and in particular to incentivize borrowing in situations where borrowing makes complete sense but people are herding away from it in fear, like at the current moment.

      What you call "incentive" I call "unjustifiable use of force". I can hold a gun to your head and "incentivize" you to give your money away (to me), but that doesn't make it right, even if I'm the one who printed the money in the first place. It is your property, and I am forcing you to make irrational decisions with your property, to further my goals. If you believe borrowing makes complete sense in a certain situation, you should obviously persuade as many people as you can to borrow. You should not, however, persuade the government to force people to borrow on threat of property loss.

      leverage is a good thing [for the government] to have available

      Why?

      you're not entitled to complain about government intrusion into the economy while you keep a your assets in paper with the government's name printed all over it.

      Of course I am. I am free to say whatever I want.

      It's hypocritical in the extreme.

      A choice forced upon you is not a rational choice.

      As to the justification of taxes, I live in a country that only discriminates on income

      Now. That was not the case in the past, and it is not necessarily the case in the future. It is still discrimination.

      it's my personal opinion that the only reason a person has wealth at all is because of the order, safety and security a government provides

      People have rights, regardless of the existence of a government to protect those rights. Back in the realm of context, a person has wealth because he produced something of value to others, and those other people traded goods or services for that product.

      Men wrote them down

      They exist regardless of whether men write them down. Man has rights as a rational being, capable of making decisions. Only man can ask, "what is the right action here?", and only man can then come up with what he believes is the right action, and then follow through on that action. If man chooses to live, he must use his reasoning mind to decide what are the right actions to further his life. So if you choose to live, it is right for you to use your mind to reach rational conclusions. The use of force prevents you from making rational decisions that further your life - you instead are forced to further someone else's contrived goals.

      Without government, there are no rights

      You may want to break out that Constitution again. It does not grant rights. It says man has inalienable rights - rights that exist regardless of the existence of the Constitution - and puts limitations on the government. Unfortunately four our rights, the founders did not limit the government completely to the role of supporting rights, most likely because they had no other examples to go by. Taxation has been the norm throughout history.

    5. Re:Regarding value by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Then how do you define value? In order to have value, doesn't something have to be valued by someone?

      Yeah, but I guess I only perceive value in things like goods and services. The money itself is strictly the means. Money is useless without a market for it to move in, so I think its silly to expect it to have value that endures a particular political regime. Cuz it won't.

      The use of force prevents you from making rational decisions that further your life - you instead are forced to further someone else's contrived goals.

      The natural state of man is to be dominated by powerful men and institutions, and then by his needs, I think (I could be wrong but I think I speak for a certain tradition of thought on the matter). This isn't a desirable thing, but that's no reason to try to deny it. Rights are a statement that domination must have limits, if we are all to realize our full potential. Without the force of government eliminating criminals who would harm you or steal your property, the "coercions" and the influence of "contrived goals" would encounter on a daily basis would only increase.

      leverage is a good thing [for the government] to have available
      Why?

      If a bridge provides $10 million dollars in value, would cost a million dollars to build, and you can borrow the money to build it for a total loan cost of 2 million, what the hell are you waiting for? Leverage to expand assets, assets that will help business on either side of the road, without having to wait 10 years to save the money, or 20 years for the businesses on either side of the road to negotiate a consortium to build the bridge, which they'll charge you $0.85 to cross if you aren't a steady customer. 20 years people lived without a bridge, they got by, but how much better could their lives have been?

      A choice forced upon you is not a rational choice.

      You consent to it, you obey, you do not rebel. Hannah Arendt: "Politics is not the nursery. Your obedience is your support." I profoundly believe that. If you go along with it you go along with it. "Voicing your objection" while following along is worthless.

      More practically, you could sidestep most of the whole inflation business by keeping your long term assets in gold and not keeping a lot of cash. You have that right. It might be more "rational," but that's sortof a red herring, as, clearly, rationality is no criteria for determining if someone has a right to behave in such a way.

      It says man has inalienable rights

      I don't think the Constitution says this, the Declaration does, and though they indulged in this rhetoric, and many of them truly believed it, I think they were mistaken. Tell a man in jail he has inalienable rights, or a man in the Army, or a Somali. This is how man truly regards his own condition, outside of this remarkably bourgeois conception of man you have outlined. Remove the police from your town and you would see. Men yearn to breathe free only when they have a good income, aren't terrorized by hooligans, and their children are fed; they are generally blind to the blessings and entails of their "rights" up until that point.

      And, generally, even when they are aware of their rights in full, as Europeans and Americans clearly are, they consent to have a more statist or directed economy than the one you aspire to. Their folly, perhaps, but also, individually, their "right" to consent to such things. Truly laissez-faire economies are the province of the 19th century and right-wing banana republics.

      Anyways, my guy won so you're getting a bridge and free broadband, and later maybe we can pay down this damn bill! Try to enjoy it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  173. Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    Cost of goods go up with inflation, but so do the property taxes. Point being there are a lot of things that can be done to remediate inflation like a buyer's consortium, or direct negotiation with vendors. Some school districts do very well in these matters.

    This is the single biggest problem we've got. You assume that while property values go up, the amount of property tax paid actually increases. However, in many states, hence districts, the owners property taxes are based upon the price they paid for the house when purchased and then can only go up a slight amount every year, if a tax assessor actually visits the house. A rate which does not keep up with inflation. Compare this with if the property is sold, then the property tax paid increased dramatically. I know plenty of people that have lived in their houses 15-20yrs, when the house was worth I pay a book rental fee which is actually quite reasonable. But this is still in addition to my taxes. I pay for the book, then pay for the upkeep of the stable with an additional 'hidden' tax.

    So this isn't a problem for those that can afford a "book rental fee" but now we have to set up programs for those that cannot afford it. Might as well add in a "kickball rental fee"; as we create a dichotomy between the haves and have-nots, as public schools are targeted for everyone, now we're going to tax those that want to actually use the public schools even more with additional fees. Are you OK with subsidized breakfasts or lunches for those that cannot afford it?

    As our population ages, and they will not have children currently in the public school system, we'll see them starting to vote down academic referendums. As the only people voting to increase taxes aimed at schools will be those that are directly involved in it, teachers or parents of students.

  174. $249 Dell Computer with LCD & full warranty by TKOED · · Score: 1

    If folks want to get serious about bridging the Digital Divide (putting computer equipment into the hands of those who cannot afford it OR in our education system), some OUTSIDE THE BOX thinking needs to take place, and it needs to take place SOON! Instead of assuming you have to go to Dell or HP or wherever else - these guys need to think like small business owners who have to think where EVERY dime is spent. Organizations like TKOEDucation.com specialize in the sale of professionally refurbished Dell computers (mostly the Dell Optiplex and Dell Latitude lines). These high-quality, computers come loaded with a LEGALLY pre-installed Windows XP PRO (MAR) license (with all the drivers installed). They include brand new Logitech Keyboards and new Optical Mice. Most importantly, they include a 3-year parts replacement warranty. As of December 2008 - for $249ea (http://store.tkopartsandpcs.com/gx21gb40xppr.html), you can get a fully-loaded Dell Optiplex GX260 Pentium 4-2.0GHz Computer with XP PRO (MAR) pre-installed on a 40GB Hard Drive and a full 1GB of DDR Memory is installed. The computer comes with CD and Floppy Drive, brand new keyboard and optical mouse, and a 3-year warranty. The kicker? A 15" DELL LCD Monitor is INCLUDED in the $249 price. *** THE WINDOWS XP PRO (MAR) is for "Eligible Recipients" only as defined by Microsoft. Essentially if the equipment goes to a school, non-profit, library, or a qualified low-income home or family ~ then it allowed. Schwarzenegger says Calif. faces $20 billion budget deficit. Yet the CMAS (California Multiple Award Schedule) contract won't let used Dell dealers compete with Dell. So, essentially, despite the fact that the equipment meets all the minimum standards - AND THE EQUIPMENT IS HALF THE PRICE OF NEW - because the CMAS contract excludes companies like TKOEDucation.com, these schools are essentially FORCED to spend $700 on brand new Dell computer bundles when a $249 solution (as noted above) exists. It is no wonder why our economy - both US and in California is in such trouble. OUTSIDE THE BOX people. OUTSIDE THE BOX!!! As just one example of one of the computer bundles that TKOED sells, expect to pay just $249 ~ that includes the Dell Optiplex computer with Intel Pentium 4 processor, a full 1GB of memory, and XP PRO (MAR) will come installed ~ LEGAllY

  175. Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri by dpilot · · Score: 1

    > Instead, try blaming the people who made the whole thing necessary in the first place.

    We will, as soon as we quit shoveling money at them.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  176. OMG! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    short of finding pictures of him fucking his dog, he's in.

    How much time do we have? Photoshop teams Alpha and Bravo are standing by!

    24 hours you say? We're on it.

    BEEP...BOOP...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  177. Re:Who needs public education? by wclacy · · Score: 1

    Laptops cost more and have a shorter life span.

    Until free software does everything needed by every department there will still be a need to purchase software for each laptop.

    1,000 laptops(1 per student) * $1000 = $10,000,000

    Laptops cost more not just for the initial hardware, but also for the increased strain on the wireless infrastructure, Shorter lifespan, increased support time, Replacement batteries, dropped, spilled on, etc.

    250 desktops * $1000 = $2,500,000

    For 10,000 students a savings of 7.5 million sounds pretty good to me. Sure you can buy cheaper computers but then you usually pay more in support costs. Also with Cheaper laptops you will have a lower quality smaller screen which will not work well for those who are visually impaired. Users generally get more work done with a full keyboard and mouse as apposed to a laptop keyboard and touch pad.

    There is still the need to manage Software, Antivirus, etc on the laptops that will be on your network. Unpatched laptops can spread viruses. Wireless networks would need to be upgraded. Most access points will not handle a hundred simultaneous connections. Many won't handle more than 16 without dropping packets.

  178. Filtering by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    "No doubt with free spyware and internet filtering. You know... for the kids."

    Naturally. How are they supposed to learn to outwit censorship and care about privacy if they take it all for granted?