Evolutionary theory holds that changes in organisms occur as the result of random genetic mutations; if one of these changes confers an advantage that allows the organism to produce more offspring, the change is likely to be inherited by the offspring and may eventually become normal for the species. But when we look at the reptilian egg (or the mammalian eye or any number of other features and organs), we see that numerous events must have occurred simultaneously for the development to succeed. The shell, for instance had to be impermeable and strong enough to protect the embryo. But unless the embryo had at the same time developed some means of liberating itself from the shell, this durable egg would have become a tomb. In addition, the embryo had to develop a means of absorbing the nutrition while in the egg. But unless it had also developed some means of storing its own waste products safely, it would soon have created a poisonous environment.
Each of these developments - the durable shell, egg tooth, and so on - had to arise, according to evolutionary theory, as the result of random mutations. But between the mutations that produced the shell and those that produced the egg tooth there could have been no connection (they arose at random), nor between these concerning nutrition and waste disposal. And if there were no such connections, how was the whole process orchestrated? From this point of view, the reptilian egg must be seen as appearing without causal benefit and as representing the culmination of a series of wildly improbably coincidences.
It should just be a hiring requirement for science teaches that they accept evolution as fact.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
There are quite a few notable scientist who take issue with the way evolution is popularly understood. Take this example: Evolutionary theory holds that changes in organisms occur as the result of random genetic mutations; if one of these changes confers an advantage that allows the organism to produce more offspring, the change is likely to be inherited by the offspring and may eventually become normal for the species. But when we look at the reptilian egg (or the mammalian eye or any number of other features and organs), we see that numerous events must have occurred simultaneously for the development to succeed. The shell, for instance had to be impermeable and strong enough to protect the embryo. But unless the embryo had at the same time developed some means of liberating itself from the shell, this durable egg would have become a tomb. In addition, the embryo had to develop a means of absorbing the nutrition while in the egg. But unless it had also developed some means of storing its own waste products safely, it would soon have created a poisonous environment.
Each of these developments - the durable shell, egg tooth, and so on - had to arise, according to evolutionary theory, as the result of random mutations. But between the mutations that produced the shell and those that produced the egg tooth there could have been no connection (they arose at random), nor between these concerning nutrition and waste disposal. And if there were no such connections, how was the whole process orchestrated? From this point of view, the reptilian egg must be seen as appearing without causal benefit and as representing the culmination of a series of wildly improbably coincidences.
The great mistake being made here is that they need not be mutually exclusive. It may trouble people here to no end to know that some of the greatest scientific minds throughout history were also deeply religious. There are those of us with enough presence of mind to be able to separate our faith in god with our faith in science. We readily admit as scientists that we do not know the origin of life, the universe and everything, and at the same time we as Christians (at least me) readily admit I don't know what god is or who Jesus is, or how the whole god thing works. I take it on faith that both of these things will be true. I have the observable evidence of the universe around me to prove out, or at least not falsify, a lot of what science has taught me. I have the same observable evidence of the universe around me to prove out some of the stuff that Christianity has taught me. A lot of the stuff is pure bullshit, but the idea that we should all just get along is certainly not a purely scientific concept (and not exclusively Christian). That's not a bad idea. At the same time almost nothing that science has taught us has been bullshit, but the stuff that is bullshit is just about as bad as the worst Christianity, or religion in general has handed us. Stuff like eugenics and biological weapons, for some people GM foods and other "evil capitalist" ventures science has made. I can list the transgressions of science and religion all day long, but they are not interchangeable entities.
What if it turns out, as I suspect, that god is math. Most all of the attributes science applies to math the religious apply to god. What if the background radiation is god? As a scientist I know that these things, until falsified, can most certainly be true. Just as true as the almost near certainty that there is life on other planets. There's just too many planets for there not to be. I know this with just as much certainty as I know god exists, not 100% confidence. But wouldn't it be great if it turned out that the stuff in the bible was perhaps a superior being trying to talk to people who viewed his/her/it's form as a god? Do dogs and cats (ok, dogs) not look upon us as gods? All honest geeks know the saying "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (Google just told me it's one of Clarke's three laws). So who knows, maybe god isn't math but a super intelligent omnipotent uber begin.
My big hang up with people who just hate god/religion/whatever is that you have no proof these things do not exist and there is certainly proof, according to the conjecture put forth by the religious, that god does exist. And science doesn't work by "proving" things it works in the opposite way, you disprove things. So until god has been falsified, please stow the "god doesn't exist" talk because you sound very arrogant. People much smarter than you (not me) believe in god. You certainly don't know that with 100% certainty, so don't tell everyone else as if it was a proven fact.
Reading, writing are prerequisites and I assumed you would understand that engineering and science would require that. Geography I wouldn't mind having, and I'm sure there are others I've omitted that deserve to be included. I'm not so keen on having history and government taught at school, they seem to muck it up all the time, your parents or the internet are probably better at teaching that.
Children only have so much time to be educated, better we spend that time on stuff that matters than stuff that they can find out on their own very easily. Besides, how many high school graduates do you think can name the 3 branches of government? Show you where Pakistan is on a map? If we're going to teach kids, best we actually teach them, instead of whatever it is we're doing now in government and geography.
I'm replying to myself because some people thought I meant close the DoE at the state level. I was talking about at the federal level only. I think school should remain free and paid for with tax dollars but attendance should be at the option of the parent of the child. This would keep undisciplined children out of the classroom and make class sizes smaller. If half of the kids don't graduate anyway, I don't see what the big downside is. Teachers will only have to deal with parents who care about their kids education and unruly, and unaccountable, children that disrupt the classroom would be gone.
The DoE doesn't employee a single teacher. It gives out edicts from on high and expects every school system in the nation to fit its cookie cutter view of what school should be like. School K-12 should ONLY be about math, engineering and hard science, if you want to learn about all that hippy shit you can do it on your own dime.
I guess for you to understand you'd have to read a little bit. Changes in science happen all the time. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions. Thomas Kuhn is the guy who created the idea, not me. People that hold to the old scientific paradigm do so out of belief in their paradigm. They continue to use science to give more credence to their theory long after it has been falsified. These are reasoned and logical highly intelligent scientists, yet they ignore falsification. If you don't call that belief I don't know what is.
If you find Kuhn too heavy just read up on the history of caloric or phlogiston. Both of these theories were held up as "scientific fact" by the majority of scientists long after they were falsified. Adherents to the thermodynamics paradigm where laughed at.
Huh? Ever hear of a paradigm shift? There's a gestalt moment there where it's all about your perception of the problem. I.e.: what you believe to be so.
Just curious, I hear this critique all the time. What was in 7 that wasn't in Vista that made you want to adopt 7 and not Vista? Please, no emotional responses, just the facts.
Than how do you explain this:http://microsofttaxdodge.com/
It was pretty widely reported recently, I'm surprised you didn't see it here on Slashdot. So ya, MS is in Washington as a way to not pay as much in tax. Were they to be in another state their tax receipts would look a bit different.
Maybe cheap broadband helped?
Like most other government boondoggles, there is no metric for success. There is only "I'll bet that helped!". All for emotion, and nothing for measured success. Maybe it did. That's a big ass maybe for so much money spent. And maybe they would do better without it. Computers in a non-computer related class are nothing but a distraction. I can tell you what kids do with computers, I was once a kid with a computer: they goof off. So I'm not at all sold that it was helpful. I think it's just the opposite. A big waste of time and money.
What could they have done with the money? Dunno, grow more potatoes?
So flippant about other people's money. So many individuals who are going broke, out of a job, barely making ends meets. SORRY WE NEED FIBER BITCHEZ!
What will they do with the money: They can pay their mortgage and avoid being kicked out of their house? Avoid closing their business and putting people out of work. Put food on their table. And here's the super just part: it's their money that they earned and should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it without the government coming in and confiscating half or more it.
And I'm not sure why I'm from a tea rally. I've never seen/heard any tea anything. It's called libertarianism and it's been around a lot longer than the tea party. Read this and let me know which part you disagree with: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/the_law.html. That's libertarianism in a nutshell. If you're a logical person, I'l bet you cannot bring yourself to honestly disagree with a single thing. Go ahead and read it, it's very short.
That's fine, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China? If I see the government burning money I'm going to point it out in every instance, not just when it agrees with my politics. Profligate war spending is evil. When and where it is proven heads should roll, until then, realize that it costs money to wage war. No matter your political opinion on the war(s) we are in them and I for one think that given a choice it would be better that we win the war(s) than lose the war(s). And I'm speaking of actual wars, not proverbial wars like "the war on drugs" or whatever. We should totally give up on the war on drugs, another government boondoggle with no metric for success. How domestic spending impacts the fact that we're at war seems rather irrelevant to me.
In my opinion the federal government has proven to be very poor stewards of our education system. The DoE contains not a single teacher. The education system at the federal level should be done away with. Their illogical and onerous mandates put undo pressure on local school systems that are struggling to get by. School K-12 ought not be compulsory, that would trim the ever increasing educational expenditures and give room for students who are actually interested in going to school to use the facilities their tax paying parents payed for. And not to learn some left wing drivel about the first gay native american activist, but to learn math and hard sciences. So much of school is full of diversity training and political indoctrination in order to get the almighty federal dollar, any real education is left out.
I'm just curious, do you have any citation on the stat you gave? Seems fishy.
Sounds like a lot of words for "government boondoggle" and then you continue to provide proof.
Grand Coulee, doesn't even have T-Mobile service but the tire store has 100Mb service
And what, pray tell, does a tire store need with 100mbit service? Are you so happy to see taxpayer money wasted? Just imagine what could have been done with that money if it were to stay in the pockets of people who actually earned it. It may finance new businesses, jobs, growth, more tax revenue, inventions, individual happiness, chari- NO it will be spent running 100mbit fiber to a fucking tire shop.
And then you call it desirable. Wasting so much money, money that came from actually people, shit money that came from you! Ever calculate what your cost on that line was? I'm sure you pay thousands in taxes, 100mbit internet service to a tire shop is useless, does it make you feel good you're subsidizing a useless service? Great plan guys, great plan.
I guess it worked since Microsoft just built a huge ass data center in Quincy, WA.
I'm not sure I buy your cause and effect there. It may have more to do with WA having such a lenient tax code. Just a guess.
I assure you if children are under educated it will have very little to do with the lack of an internet connection. The more you shove all this technology down the throats of students the more you shove out the actual lesson. We're going from "turn to page 25" to "1) Power on computer, 2) logon to system, 3) logon to school WAN, 4) logon to CMS providing school with textbooks 3a) visit http asdfasdfadsfadsfasdf$$%%!!@@ 4) scroll down to the middle of the page 4a) if you have a lower resolution screen you may need to sroll further. And oh, you can watch this video. Which by the way we were perfectly capable of watching prior to having computers on every desk! And what when there are more than 1 videos running? Head phones? More than 1 video conference? What then? Are you seeing this insanity? Who the fuck are they even talking to!?!?
Heck, by your logic, we don't even need society either. What is the bare essentials for life anyway? Probably none of the luxuries society provides.
Nothing like having an honest broker to make my thoughts for me. Yes, yes, don't blow money on a technology until it is proven to be useful is the same as blow away all society. You have yet to prove to me that laptops on every kids desk is anything but a gigantic distraction from actual learning. I'm telling you it's harmful and you seem to think I'm some sort of Luddite. I'm a professional computer programmers so I assure you I am anything but anti technology, I'm just anti-bullshit boondoggles. As a child, if someone put a computer on my desk during class, I would spend 100% of my time playing/hacking the computer and 0% of the time learning whatever it is the teacher was teaching. Give me a break! How much education do you think would get done if you put a gyroscope on a kids desk? And you wana stick a computer there? Think about it.
Meanwhile, there seems to be nowhere that has 100Mb/s Internet in the US that isn't sat on a university WAN.
Have you been living under a rock? In the U.S. every major city has 100mbit+ net service offered by many providers to residents and business alike. It would more difficult to not find 100mbit in a major urban area than it would be to find it. Even one of my several detractors on this thread offered a link to <$50/mo 100/100. I got FIOS as do many people. Cox and Charter offer 100mbit.. So.... There's that for ya.
Oh, and in Belgum or Japan or Sweeden or wherever, what's it cost to get a colocated machine on the backbone of every major network in the world? Becuase, ahh, here in Los Angeles we sort of have THIS.
Hold on. He says that in Belgum he pays less than $100 for 100/100 connection. That's about on par with what I pay in California LA area. I have FIOS and pay $75/mo for 80/80. So our urban areas, at least my urban area, pays about the same rate. As you go away from major urban areas the cost increases. In Belgium one can only get so far away from the capitol before entering into France or whatever.
Schools, just like business pay more for internet service, I'm sure you know that. And I looked up the price for 1000mbit connections and it's about $2000-$5000/mo depending on the provider. 100mbit is about 1/5th the price. But it's quite a lot all the same. And it doesn't cost anywhere near what I pay.
You gota realize that the government doesn't seem to care to much about individual situation so I'm sure any mandate will disproportionately harm rural and poor schools and provide them with a service that is of questionable cost/benefit return. At the same time we're laying off teachers due to budget shortfalls and already have classes with more than 50 kids per classroom. Tell me, if you just found out you're getting a pay cut, would that be the time to upgrade your internet service?
If I was "king for the day" I would declare that all schools stop teaching all this extraneous bull shit and double down on math and hard sciences. Nobody needs to know about the first gay native american activist. As fascinating as that is it really has no place in the classroom. Learning about math and sicence at its earlyest stages (thru highschool) need not involve a single computer. I'm fine with tablets-in-place-of-textbooks. So long as that's ALL they can do, no facebook, web access etc..
Show me the numbers. I'm going to remain skeptical until I see a need for this. So far they say "textbooks" and I'm not buying it in a really big way. I think the library and computer labs need computers, every teacher should have a computer. If students MUST have computers they should get a CHEAP DURABLE tablet with all the text books the school provides flashed on the device. The device should be so locked down that they can't do anything but open text books. The internet is nothing but a waste of time for students ( and me apparently ). They should get an offline copy of wikipedia and a few other sites. If space on the device is an issue the content can be installed on the schools server and wifid into the device on demand. As far as video conferencing goes, that shouldn't be a daily thing for every classroom, so when it does happen, just make sure there isn't more than 2 or 3 happening at once. If cost was no object, we should just build auditoriums for every classroom. But cost matters and there are such things as boondoggles. Just schedule video conferences so faculty can share the bandwidth amicably. I don't think it's a great idea to blow millions of dollars on highly questionable solutions while we're laying off teachers to avoid budget shortfalls and have classrooms with 60+ students per teacher.
What is this link you've provided? Where does it say they install fiber cables across cities?
Alaska has metro fiber in all major cities (in AK a major city is one with more that 10,000 people) and they are all connected on an MPLS backbone. I remember setting up circuits on it back in 2002.
And how far along are they in getting their fiber setup to rural schools? Or are they not going to be getting the cheap fiber? Even cheap fiber isn't that cheap. It's cheap in relation to the same connection on traditional lines.
I don't understand your comment. Are you saying if you live in a rural part of the U.S.A. then go to hell? I'm not sure about the 90% figure, but the other 10% are going to pay more for internet service and infrastructure in rural areas is going to cost a lot more. Is there something I'm saying that is contradictory? Rural areas in tiny countries are never far away from the capitol and benefit from that.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Right now for most people 100mbit service residential is about $100/mo if you live in an urban area, much higher if you live in a rural area. But that's why, it's a lot more line to maintain. So rural schools can expect to pay a lot more than the $42 you're parading around. Your argument is disingenuous, but it illustrates my point perfectly. Because the U.S.A. is so much larger it costs orders of magnitude more to create infrastructure for. In tiny countries even the rural areas aren't too far from the capitol city.
How far is Leggett, California from the nearest urban center? My sister lives there now, it's a real city! Middle of nowhere. I think you would need to travel the width of Japan to even get to a major urban area. People living in Leggett don't expect to get cheap internet service anytime soon, and that's their choice, they want to be out in the middle of nowhere. But now they're being used as pawns in this weird statistics game. Ya, they don't have 100mbit service, and why the hell would they, it's of no use to them, when it becomes needed it will show up in the form of Verizon or Cox peddling flyers "FIOS is coming to your area!" or what not. That's pretty much how capitalism naturally works. Supply and demand. It's a indefatigable law of nature. There is plenty of high speed service in the urban areas, and very little in the rural areas.
No, go ahead, I'll give you some time. I'm sure you'll find some metric upon which you will tie all your lofty Marxist augments too. Oh wait. You did. You have declared that internet service is the metric by which all countries should be judged "forward thinking" or not. I know that it doesn't matter that the U.S.A. invented the internet and paved virtually all of the technical roads before these other countries had their very first dial up modem so creating their infrastructure was far easier and less expensive. I'm sure it doesn't matter to you that the U.S.A. continues to lead in developing the internet and provides internet service to more people in just a fraction of its huge territory than the entire population of Japan or Belgium or Sweden etc.. No, none of that can be taken into account. Only the per capita number. All other metrics are disallowed.
Computers in computer classes are fine with me. It's a requirement. You still don't need gbps to use them. I don't care what it is you're programming. I'm a professional computer programmer. You don't need that kind of bandwidth to write computer programs. Actually, I can't think of any reason you would need a lot of bandwidth while teaching programming, let alone teaching hardware. This is what I'm talking about. Does everyone think everyone else is just stupid? I know perfectly well that 1-5mbps is plenty for anyone unless you start talking about specific applications: video chat, bittorent, watching videos. All of which have no place on a students desktop. And what about the potential for abuse? Aren't you concerned that students will become distracted by the computers and not pay any attention to the lesson ( he asks knowing the answer yes ).
Is there some cost/benefit analysis you have that I'm not privy to? I declare computers in a classroom are a distraction, and you just ignore that part. I'm saying, unless it's a computer class you shouldn't be using a computer. You don't need a computer to learn math, English etc., they are not helping anything. They are nothing but a huge distraction. Just read some of the anticdotal data in the comments to this story. Kindergarteners logging into a CMS to view textbooks? You seriously think that's educational? I guess they'll learn crappy CRM authentication systems.
And now you're talking about schools mantling their own fiber! I'm sorry, are they going to employ their own lien men and NOC operators? You also gota realize that the UK is like the size of California. No sorry, quite a bit smaller. And that's just 1 of 50 states that need to be interconnected. Ever hear of alaska? Ya, it's like the size of France, who thinks that'll be cheap to fiber up? I'll bet that it should cost the same to cross 20,000 miles of roads as it does to cross 2,000 miles. Maybe you can find me a single citation for the cost your talking about. I've looked up the prices, my estimate is quite conservative. Your price of "virtually nothing" is a laughable as it is fantastic. As in: it only exists in your fantasy.
"I already have 50Mbps at home, going to 100Mbps sometime soon, with probably a 20Mbps backup - all for me."
I'm sure that makes it easy to download all those text books. But seriously, what the hell are you doing with 50mbps? Oh I'm sure you have a really good reason to need to double that bandwidth too. 20mbit backup? Give me a break! What are you Warren Buffet? You keep a fucking backup internet connection you pay a monthly fee for? Oh wait! You must work for the government!
Slashdot Mirror
Evolutionary theory holds that changes in organisms occur as the result of random genetic mutations; if one of these changes confers an advantage that allows the organism to produce more offspring, the change is likely to be inherited by the offspring and may eventually become normal for the species. But when we look at the reptilian egg (or the mammalian eye or any number of other features and organs), we see that numerous events must have occurred simultaneously for the development to succeed. The shell, for instance had to be impermeable and strong enough to protect the embryo. But unless the embryo had at the same time developed some means of liberating itself from the shell, this durable egg would have become a tomb. In addition, the embryo had to develop a means of absorbing the nutrition while in the egg. But unless it had also developed some means of storing its own waste products safely, it would soon have created a poisonous environment.
Each of these developments - the durable shell, egg tooth, and so on - had to arise, according to evolutionary theory, as the result of random mutations. But between the mutations that produced the shell and those that produced the egg tooth there could have been no connection (they arose at random), nor between these concerning nutrition and waste disposal. And if there were no such connections, how was the whole process orchestrated? From this point of view, the reptilian egg must be seen as appearing without causal benefit and as representing the culmination of a series of wildly improbably coincidences.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
There are quite a few notable scientist who take issue with the way evolution is popularly understood. Take this example: Evolutionary theory holds that changes in organisms occur as the result of random genetic mutations; if one of these changes confers an advantage that allows the organism to produce more offspring, the change is likely to be inherited by the offspring and may eventually become normal for the species. But when we look at the reptilian egg (or the mammalian eye or any number of other features and organs), we see that numerous events must have occurred simultaneously for the development to succeed. The shell, for instance had to be impermeable and strong enough to protect the embryo. But unless the embryo had at the same time developed some means of liberating itself from the shell, this durable egg would have become a tomb. In addition, the embryo had to develop a means of absorbing the nutrition while in the egg. But unless it had also developed some means of storing its own waste products safely, it would soon have created a poisonous environment.
Each of these developments - the durable shell, egg tooth, and so on - had to arise, according to evolutionary theory, as the result of random mutations. But between the mutations that produced the shell and those that produced the egg tooth there could have been no connection (they arose at random), nor between these concerning nutrition and waste disposal. And if there were no such connections, how was the whole process orchestrated? From this point of view, the reptilian egg must be seen as appearing without causal benefit and as representing the culmination of a series of wildly improbably coincidences.
The great mistake being made here is that they need not be mutually exclusive. It may trouble people here to no end to know that some of the greatest scientific minds throughout history were also deeply religious. There are those of us with enough presence of mind to be able to separate our faith in god with our faith in science. We readily admit as scientists that we do not know the origin of life, the universe and everything, and at the same time we as Christians (at least me) readily admit I don't know what god is or who Jesus is, or how the whole god thing works. I take it on faith that both of these things will be true. I have the observable evidence of the universe around me to prove out, or at least not falsify, a lot of what science has taught me. I have the same observable evidence of the universe around me to prove out some of the stuff that Christianity has taught me. A lot of the stuff is pure bullshit, but the idea that we should all just get along is certainly not a purely scientific concept (and not exclusively Christian). That's not a bad idea. At the same time almost nothing that science has taught us has been bullshit, but the stuff that is bullshit is just about as bad as the worst Christianity, or religion in general has handed us. Stuff like eugenics and biological weapons, for some people GM foods and other "evil capitalist" ventures science has made. I can list the transgressions of science and religion all day long, but they are not interchangeable entities.
What if it turns out, as I suspect, that god is math. Most all of the attributes science applies to math the religious apply to god. What if the background radiation is god? As a scientist I know that these things, until falsified, can most certainly be true. Just as true as the almost near certainty that there is life on other planets. There's just too many planets for there not to be. I know this with just as much certainty as I know god exists, not 100% confidence. But wouldn't it be great if it turned out that the stuff in the bible was perhaps a superior being trying to talk to people who viewed his/her/it's form as a god? Do dogs and cats (ok, dogs) not look upon us as gods? All honest geeks know the saying "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (Google just told me it's one of Clarke's three laws). So who knows, maybe god isn't math but a super intelligent omnipotent uber begin.
My big hang up with people who just hate god/religion/whatever is that you have no proof these things do not exist and there is certainly proof, according to the conjecture put forth by the religious, that god does exist. And science doesn't work by "proving" things it works in the opposite way, you disprove things. So until god has been falsified, please stow the "god doesn't exist" talk because you sound very arrogant. People much smarter than you (not me) believe in god. You certainly don't know that with 100% certainty, so don't tell everyone else as if it was a proven fact.
Reading, writing are prerequisites and I assumed you would understand that engineering and science would require that. Geography I wouldn't mind having, and I'm sure there are others I've omitted that deserve to be included. I'm not so keen on having history and government taught at school, they seem to muck it up all the time, your parents or the internet are probably better at teaching that.
Children only have so much time to be educated, better we spend that time on stuff that matters than stuff that they can find out on their own very easily. Besides, how many high school graduates do you think can name the 3 branches of government? Show you where Pakistan is on a map? If we're going to teach kids, best we actually teach them, instead of whatever it is we're doing now in government and geography.
Only an moron would use the very phrase he was trying to refute to make his point. And you sir, are that moron. And I shall say good day to you!
You're pretty insightful, if only I had seen your reply before making my own.
I'm replying to myself because some people thought I meant close the DoE at the state level. I was talking about at the federal level only. I think school should remain free and paid for with tax dollars but attendance should be at the option of the parent of the child. This would keep undisciplined children out of the classroom and make class sizes smaller. If half of the kids don't graduate anyway, I don't see what the big downside is. Teachers will only have to deal with parents who care about their kids education and unruly, and unaccountable, children that disrupt the classroom would be gone.
The DoE doesn't employee a single teacher. It gives out edicts from on high and expects every school system in the nation to fit its cookie cutter view of what school should be like. School K-12 should ONLY be about math, engineering and hard science, if you want to learn about all that hippy shit you can do it on your own dime.
I guess for you to understand you'd have to read a little bit. Changes in science happen all the time. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions. Thomas Kuhn is the guy who created the idea, not me. People that hold to the old scientific paradigm do so out of belief in their paradigm. They continue to use science to give more credence to their theory long after it has been falsified. These are reasoned and logical highly intelligent scientists, yet they ignore falsification. If you don't call that belief I don't know what is.
If you find Kuhn too heavy just read up on the history of caloric or phlogiston. Both of these theories were held up as "scientific fact" by the majority of scientists long after they were falsified. Adherents to the thermodynamics paradigm where laughed at.
Huh? Ever hear of a paradigm shift? There's a gestalt moment there where it's all about your perception of the problem. I.e.: what you believe to be so.
1) Close the DoE
2) Make going to school non-compulsory
Just curious, I hear this critique all the time. What was in 7 that wasn't in Vista that made you want to adopt 7 and not Vista? Please, no emotional responses, just the facts.
It was pretty widely reported recently, I'm surprised you didn't see it here on Slashdot. So ya, MS is in Washington as a way to not pay as much in tax. Were they to be in another state their tax receipts would look a bit different.
Like most other government boondoggles, there is no metric for success. There is only "I'll bet that helped!". All for emotion, and nothing for measured success. Maybe it did. That's a big ass maybe for so much money spent. And maybe they would do better without it. Computers in a non-computer related class are nothing but a distraction. I can tell you what kids do with computers, I was once a kid with a computer: they goof off. So I'm not at all sold that it was helpful. I think it's just the opposite. A big waste of time and money.
So flippant about other people's money. So many individuals who are going broke, out of a job, barely making ends meets. SORRY WE NEED FIBER BITCHEZ!
What will they do with the money: They can pay their mortgage and avoid being kicked out of their house? Avoid closing their business and putting people out of work. Put food on their table. And here's the super just part: it's their money that they earned and should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it without the government coming in and confiscating half or more it.
And I'm not sure why I'm from a tea rally. I've never seen/heard any tea anything. It's called libertarianism and it's been around a lot longer than the tea party. Read this and let me know which part you disagree with: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/the_law.html. That's libertarianism in a nutshell. If you're a logical person, I'l bet you cannot bring yourself to honestly disagree with a single thing. Go ahead and read it, it's very short.
That's fine, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China? If I see the government burning money I'm going to point it out in every instance, not just when it agrees with my politics. Profligate war spending is evil. When and where it is proven heads should roll, until then, realize that it costs money to wage war. No matter your political opinion on the war(s) we are in them and I for one think that given a choice it would be better that we win the war(s) than lose the war(s). And I'm speaking of actual wars, not proverbial wars like "the war on drugs" or whatever. We should totally give up on the war on drugs, another government boondoggle with no metric for success. How domestic spending impacts the fact that we're at war seems rather irrelevant to me.
In my opinion the federal government has proven to be very poor stewards of our education system. The DoE contains not a single teacher. The education system at the federal level should be done away with. Their illogical and onerous mandates put undo pressure on local school systems that are struggling to get by. School K-12 ought not be compulsory, that would trim the ever increasing educational expenditures and give room for students who are actually interested in going to school to use the facilities their tax paying parents payed for. And not to learn some left wing drivel about the first gay native american activist, but to learn math and hard sciences. So much of school is full of diversity training and political indoctrination in order to get the almighty federal dollar, any real education is left out.
I'm just curious, do you have any citation on the stat you gave? Seems fishy.
And what, pray tell, does a tire store need with 100mbit service? Are you so happy to see taxpayer money wasted? Just imagine what could have been done with that money if it were to stay in the pockets of people who actually earned it. It may finance new businesses, jobs, growth, more tax revenue, inventions, individual happiness, chari- NO it will be spent running 100mbit fiber to a fucking tire shop.
And then you call it desirable. Wasting so much money, money that came from actually people, shit money that came from you! Ever calculate what your cost on that line was? I'm sure you pay thousands in taxes, 100mbit internet service to a tire shop is useless, does it make you feel good you're subsidizing a useless service? Great plan guys, great plan.
I'm not sure I buy your cause and effect there. It may have more to do with WA having such a lenient tax code. Just a guess.
Nothing like having an honest broker to make my thoughts for me. Yes, yes, don't blow money on a technology until it is proven to be useful is the same as blow away all society. You have yet to prove to me that laptops on every kids desk is anything but a gigantic distraction from actual learning. I'm telling you it's harmful and you seem to think I'm some sort of Luddite. I'm a professional computer programmers so I assure you I am anything but anti technology, I'm just anti-bullshit boondoggles. As a child, if someone put a computer on my desk during class, I would spend 100% of my time playing/hacking the computer and 0% of the time learning whatever it is the teacher was teaching. Give me a break! How much education do you think would get done if you put a gyroscope on a kids desk? And you wana stick a computer there? Think about it.
Have you been living under a rock? In the U.S. every major city has 100mbit+ net service offered by many providers to residents and business alike. It would more difficult to not find 100mbit in a major urban area than it would be to find it. Even one of my several detractors on this thread offered a link to <$50/mo 100/100. I got FIOS as do many people. Cox and Charter offer 100mbit.. So.... There's that for ya.
Oh, and in Belgum or Japan or Sweeden or wherever, what's it cost to get a colocated machine on the backbone of every major network in the world? Becuase, ahh, here in Los Angeles we sort of have THIS.
Beat that Belgium.
Hold on. He says that in Belgum he pays less than $100 for 100/100 connection. That's about on par with what I pay in California LA area. I have FIOS and pay $75/mo for 80/80. So our urban areas, at least my urban area, pays about the same rate. As you go away from major urban areas the cost increases. In Belgium one can only get so far away from the capitol before entering into France or whatever.
Schools, just like business pay more for internet service, I'm sure you know that. And I looked up the price for 1000mbit connections and it's about $2000-$5000/mo depending on the provider. 100mbit is about 1/5th the price. But it's quite a lot all the same. And it doesn't cost anywhere near what I pay.
You gota realize that the government doesn't seem to care to much about individual situation so I'm sure any mandate will disproportionately harm rural and poor schools and provide them with a service that is of questionable cost/benefit return. At the same time we're laying off teachers due to budget shortfalls and already have classes with more than 50 kids per classroom. Tell me, if you just found out you're getting a pay cut, would that be the time to upgrade your internet service?
If I was "king for the day" I would declare that all schools stop teaching all this extraneous bull shit and double down on math and hard sciences. Nobody needs to know about the first gay native american activist. As fascinating as that is it really has no place in the classroom. Learning about math and sicence at its earlyest stages (thru highschool) need not involve a single computer. I'm fine with tablets-in-place-of-textbooks. So long as that's ALL they can do, no facebook, web access etc..
Show me the numbers. I'm going to remain skeptical until I see a need for this. So far they say "textbooks" and I'm not buying it in a really big way. I think the library and computer labs need computers, every teacher should have a computer. If students MUST have computers they should get a CHEAP DURABLE tablet with all the text books the school provides flashed on the device. The device should be so locked down that they can't do anything but open text books. The internet is nothing but a waste of time for students ( and me apparently ). They should get an offline copy of wikipedia and a few other sites. If space on the device is an issue the content can be installed on the schools server and wifid into the device on demand. As far as video conferencing goes, that shouldn't be a daily thing for every classroom, so when it does happen, just make sure there isn't more than 2 or 3 happening at once. If cost was no object, we should just build auditoriums for every classroom. But cost matters and there are such things as boondoggles. Just schedule video conferences so faculty can share the bandwidth amicably. I don't think it's a great idea to blow millions of dollars on highly questionable solutions while we're laying off teachers to avoid budget shortfalls and have classrooms with 60+ students per teacher.
And how far along are they in getting their fiber setup to rural schools? Or are they not going to be getting the cheap fiber? Even cheap fiber isn't that cheap. It's cheap in relation to the same connection on traditional lines.
I don't understand your comment. Are you saying if you live in a rural part of the U.S.A. then go to hell? I'm not sure about the 90% figure, but the other 10% are going to pay more for internet service and infrastructure in rural areas is going to cost a lot more. Is there something I'm saying that is contradictory? Rural areas in tiny countries are never far away from the capitol and benefit from that.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Right now for most people 100mbit service residential is about $100/mo if you live in an urban area, much higher if you live in a rural area. But that's why, it's a lot more line to maintain. So rural schools can expect to pay a lot more than the $42 you're parading around. Your argument is disingenuous, but it illustrates my point perfectly. Because the U.S.A. is so much larger it costs orders of magnitude more to create infrastructure for. In tiny countries even the rural areas aren't too far from the capitol city.
How far is Leggett, California from the nearest urban center? My sister lives there now, it's a real city! Middle of nowhere. I think you would need to travel the width of Japan to even get to a major urban area. People living in Leggett don't expect to get cheap internet service anytime soon, and that's their choice, they want to be out in the middle of nowhere. But now they're being used as pawns in this weird statistics game. Ya, they don't have 100mbit service, and why the hell would they, it's of no use to them, when it becomes needed it will show up in the form of Verizon or Cox peddling flyers "FIOS is coming to your area!" or what not. That's pretty much how capitalism naturally works. Supply and demand. It's a indefatigable law of nature. There is plenty of high speed service in the urban areas, and very little in the rural areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA Area Total 9,826,675 km2 ( 3,794,101 sq mi )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan 377,944 km2 (145,925 sq mi )
Upon what metric do you declare the U.S.A. not a functioning economy compared to Japan? (or anywhere?)
What we earn?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan $5.869 trillion ( $45,920 per capita )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA $15.094 trillion ( $48,386 per capita )
Currency? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_yen 4% inflation rate (dollar is 2%). Exchanging at ¥78 to the dollar.
No, go ahead, I'll give you some time. I'm sure you'll find some metric upon which you will tie all your lofty Marxist augments too. Oh wait. You did. You have declared that internet service is the metric by which all countries should be judged "forward thinking" or not. I know that it doesn't matter that the U.S.A. invented the internet and paved virtually all of the technical roads before these other countries had their very first dial up modem so creating their infrastructure was far easier and less expensive. I'm sure it doesn't matter to you that the U.S.A. continues to lead in developing the internet and provides internet service to more people in just a fraction of its huge territory than the entire population of Japan or Belgium or Sweden etc.. No, none of that can be taken into account. Only the per capita number. All other metrics are disallowed.
BTW how's that Euro zone thing going?
Computers in computer classes are fine with me. It's a requirement. You still don't need gbps to use them. I don't care what it is you're programming. I'm a professional computer programmer. You don't need that kind of bandwidth to write computer programs. Actually, I can't think of any reason you would need a lot of bandwidth while teaching programming, let alone teaching hardware. This is what I'm talking about. Does everyone think everyone else is just stupid? I know perfectly well that 1-5mbps is plenty for anyone unless you start talking about specific applications: video chat, bittorent, watching videos. All of which have no place on a students desktop. And what about the potential for abuse? Aren't you concerned that students will become distracted by the computers and not pay any attention to the lesson ( he asks knowing the answer yes ).
One reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium Area Total: 30,528 km2 ( 11,787 sq mi )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA Area Total 9,826,675 km2 ( 3,794,101 sq mi )
Get a clue.
And now you're talking about schools mantling their own fiber! I'm sorry, are they going to employ their own lien men and NOC operators? You also gota realize that the UK is like the size of California. No sorry, quite a bit smaller. And that's just 1 of 50 states that need to be interconnected. Ever hear of alaska? Ya, it's like the size of France, who thinks that'll be cheap to fiber up? I'll bet that it should cost the same to cross 20,000 miles of roads as it does to cross 2,000 miles. Maybe you can find me a single citation for the cost your talking about. I've looked up the prices, my estimate is quite conservative. Your price of "virtually nothing" is a laughable as it is fantastic. As in: it only exists in your fantasy.
I'm sure that makes it easy to download all those text books. But seriously, what the hell are you doing with 50mbps? Oh I'm sure you have a really good reason to need to double that bandwidth too. 20mbit backup? Give me a break! What are you Warren Buffet? You keep a fucking backup internet connection you pay a monthly fee for? Oh wait! You must work for the government!