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.

144 of 901 comments (clear)

  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 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

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

      Officially they're both one country with two systems.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.)

    8. 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.

    9. 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?
    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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!
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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
    16. 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...

    17. 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.

    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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...)

    21. 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
  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. 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 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.
    9. 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).

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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.

    15. 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
    16. 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.
    17. 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.

    18. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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!

  6. 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);
  7. 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 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.

  8. 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)

  9. 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

  10. 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 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.
    5. 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!
  11. 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 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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...

    9. 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.

  12. 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."
  13. 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.
  14. 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 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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!
    7. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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 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
  21. 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!")

  22. 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: 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.

  25. 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 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).

  26. 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.

  27. 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
  28. 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.

  29. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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 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).

  32. 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.

  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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
  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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
  39. 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....

  40. 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/
  41. 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 ...

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.
  45. 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 mhall119 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    2. 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.
  46. 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
  47. 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.
  48. 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...
  49. 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!

  50. 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.

  51. 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
  52. 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.

  53. 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?

  54. 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.
  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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
  58. 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.
  59. 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.

  60. 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
  61. 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.

  62. 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.