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.

Comments

China

[religious freak]

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.

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

One is a country, the other is not.

Re:China

[Hurricane78]

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. ;)

Re:China

[basicio]

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.

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

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*

Re:China

[bconway]

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

Re:China

[jtn]

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

Re:China

[Flendon]

Taiwan is not governed by the PRC in any way.

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

Re:China

[CyberLord Seven]

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.

Re:China

[bendodge]

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.

Re:China

[PitaBred]

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...

Re:China

[plague3106]

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.

Re:China

[operagost]

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

Re:China

[operagost]

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."

Re:China

[Bombula]

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.

Re:China

[CorporateSuit]

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.

Re:China

[Bombula]

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.

No doubt with free spyware and internet filtering.

[Chineseyes]

Was that really necessary to get the story across?

No.

[m0s3m8n]

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.

Re:No.

[m0s3m8n]

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

Re:No.

[0racle]

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.

Re:No.

[TheRealMindChild]

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.

Re:No.

[neokushan]

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.

Re:No.

[Belial6]

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.

Re:No.

[geekmux]

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.

Re:No.

[hey!]

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.

Re:No.

[visualight]

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..."

ummm why?

[larry bagina]

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.

Re:ummm why?

[fm6]

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.

Are filters in schools that bad?

[cowscows]

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.

Re:Are filters in schools that bad?

[cowscows]

Kids aren't that dumb. They understand that school is a different environment from home.

Re:Are filters in schools that bad?

[Deanalator]

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?

Re:Are filters in schools that bad?

[JesseMcDonald]

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 .com plan to fix the economy.

[fredmosby]

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.

Re:The .com plan to fix the economy.

[gad_zuki!]

>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.

Re:The .com plan to fix the economy.

[WiglyWorm]

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.

Re:The .com plan to fix the economy.

[pete-classic]

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

Re:The .com plan to fix the economy.

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Public transport

[Nursie]

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.

Re:Public transport

[brian0918]

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.

Re:Public transport

[MrMarket]

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.

Re:Public transport

[brian0918]

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.

Re:Public transport

[DragonWriter]

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.

Re:Public transport

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Public transport

[SydShamino]

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.

Re:Public transport

[CyprusBlue113]

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.

Don't confuse the issue.

[GNUChop]

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.

Re:Don't confuse the issue.

[AoT]

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.

Re:Don't confuse the issue.

[fbjon]

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.

Re:Don't confuse the issue.

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:Don't confuse the issue.

[wclacy]

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.

Re:Don't confuse the issue.

[theaveng]

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.

It doesn't work that way

[crucini]

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.

Here's an idea

[PeeAitchPee]

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.

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

We Get What We Deserve

[pete-classic]

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

Re:We Get What We Deserve

[Geoffrey.landis]

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.

Re:21st Century Schools

[Erwos]

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.

Re:School is a great way to waste time and money.

[King_TJ]

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!")

Why arent we just given everything?

[tripdizzle]

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??

Re:Who's paying for all this?

[Erwos]

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.

Interstate High Speed Rail Network

[sp3d2orbit]

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

Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri

[MindlessAutomata]

If this was a story about Bush no one would be complaining. But Messiah Obama, on the other hand... he's untouchable.

China Ohio

[fm6]

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.

Re:China Ohio

[0100010001010011]

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.

Re:School is a great way to waste time and money.

[Jason Levine]

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.

Defending Obama...

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Defending Obama...

[khallow]

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).

Re:market intervention

[Geoffrey.landis]

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!

Re:Who's paying for all this?

[larry bagina]

You forgot #3: let the market correct itself and move on.

Re:Who's paying for all this?

[Geoffrey.landis]

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.

Before you give *ME* more computers for my room...

[HockeyPuck]

...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....

Schools teach more that just math, reading and...

[jopsen]

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 ...

Re:21st Century Schools

[im_thatoneguy]

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.

Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri

[FatherOfONe]

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.

cant we just teach them the basics first?

[night_flyer]

we cant even seem to do that right... BTW basics include reading, math, history, and civics...

Have you no FAITH!1?

[Quiet_Desperation]

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!

Inefficient bureaucracy?

[StevenMaurer]

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.

Re:Mexico (Re:China)

[mhall119]

What makes you think they're only working 40 hours per week?

Re:No doubt with free spyware and internet filteri

[moosesocks]

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.

Re:why? so humans can move forward.

[avandesande]

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.

Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room

[tsstahl]

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.

That's dogmatic...

[tjstork]

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.

Let's play point-counterpoint

[jonaskoelker]

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.

Then explain NYC.

[Chris Burke]

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.

Obama is conservative

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Before you give *ME* more computers for my room

[tsstahl]

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.

how do we educate Obama and crew on Edubuntu

[Locutus]

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

we don't really excel at those, though

[Trepidity]

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.