Yeah, that's their lock-in. And that's not counting all the history (comments, statuses) and photos you might want to take with you.
Yes, there is some lock-in. However, my argument was that their primarily "lock-in" was the network of friends itself, and that this particular "lock-in" can be overcome, if users get angry enough, and if there is a viable alternative. Yes, they won't have their history or posts on their new service, but those things will still exist on Facebook. I would argue that the social network itself is transferrable across different services if a critical mass is reached.
Facebook does not have a locked in market. Its primary asset is the friend network of its members. But that friend network is not owned by them. I am perfectly able to move my friends over to, say, Google+ if I choose, and if my friends choose. Admittedly this doesn't look likely right now, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of a mass exodus. All we have to collectively do is to say to each of our friends, "hey, let's meet over on that other network".
Interesting post. I don't think you are necessarily implying this, but I think that there is a danger in writing off humans as "irrational". I think we have the potential to be rational, if we try. Even if rationality is in essence an "impossible goal", we can still move towards it. Having an ideal, even if it is not absolutely achievable is "useful", in that it will likely result in a better society.
I have done a fair amount of thinking about classical Greek civilisation. It is often (mistakenly I believe) that the Greeks assumed that humans were inherently rational. What is often left out of descriptions of Greek thought is their mythology, their gods. I believe that to Greek philosophers the various gods were allegorical descriptions of the irrational forces inside us (Aphrodite - eros, Ares - war like impulses, Bachus, etc). To the Greeks our "souls" were rational entities being buffeted by irrational forces. Given recent scientific thought on human rationality or lack thereof, this seems a good description of the human condition.
We find that the average US citizen is willing to pay US$162 per year in higher electricity bills (95% confidence interval: US$128–260), representing a 13% increase
And yet the average US citizen has been "willing" to pay for a 200% increase in gasoline costs over recent years.
Don't act as if purchasing decisions by the average consumer are based on calm deliberation and rational thought, because most often they are not. Most purchasing decisions are based in large part on subconscious impulses and emotions. Basing public policy on how consumers make purchasing decisions will result in irrational policy.
As for American football versus rugby, I find rugby more impressive, since all the players have to be able to run and pass. You don't get 450 lb rugby players because they would be useless, coughing up a lung as the play surges ahead of them down the field. And of course there's the lack of padding in rugby, so that the players have to take the full impact of hits.
Exactly. Your actual influence over the government is not significantly greater in a Democracy than in a Dictatorship, but if you happen to live in in a Democracy people will happily blame you for the actions of "your" government anyway, while those in a Dictatorship are merely victims.
When I see this type of fashionable shallow cynicism, I remember a quote from Winston Churchill:
Democracy is the worst system of government... except for all the other systems of government.
Seriously. Look back at the Roman Empire. Consider that during certain periods, most emperors did not die natural deaths...they were killed in some way, either by the sword or by poison. Consider that the well being of the public was almost entirely dependent on the psychological health of a single individual. Read a little about Caligula. Or Nero. Or Commodus. Consider that the Praetorian Guard would often execute "good emperors" if the emperor threatened their own power. They even sold the emperorship for an amount of gold once.
I'm not saying the system is perfect. Far from it. Too many voters make their decisions based on what they see on TV, and the TV spots are far too expensive, ensuring that politicians are enslaved to those who hold the purse strings. However a system where all politicians would be given equal access to the public airwaves would mostly fix this.
Angle of attack indicators are a customer option in the A330. From what I've heard from A330 pilots, they are not necessarily all that helpful.
Perhaps they might not be helpful in general use, but in the case of the crashed AF447 the data would have indicated an disastrous 36 degree angle of attack. If that data had been clearly available to the pilots, I don't see how the pilot would have pulled back the stick. Remember that these devices are different than an attitude indicator. Angle of attack indicators give the angle that the air is actually passing over the wings.
I've done a little researching on the A330's sensor system, and here is what I have found. Firstly, this article describes pilot union concerns about the official report, and details some interesting facts about the stall warning system. Specifically, the stall warning system on the A330 sounded for 50 consecutive seconds before ceasing. This was apparently due to the computer system automatically turning off the warning once the plane had dropped below 70 miles per hour, since that speed was supposed to be far outside the operating parameters of the plane. When the pilots finally pointed the nose down and gained airspeed, the stall warning began to sound again.
Here is another very interesting and authoritative article on the specifics of the A330 stall and angle of attack systems. The A330 does in fact use an angle of attack vane as pictured in the linked article. Interestingly, according to the article, the angle of attack is not actually displayed clearly or at all in the cockpit. This seems to me to be a gross design deficiency in the A330.
So, here is how I see it. The airspeed pitots were almost certainly frozen, causing the pilots and the computer to lose knowledge of the speed of the air over the aircraft. However, the angle of attack indicator was based on different system, a vane, which was likely not affected by ice. The stall warnings in the aircraft were likely based largely on the computers sensor inputs from the angle of attack indicators. Thus, the pilot should probably have known, based on the stall warnings that the airplane had a high angle of attack, which was resulting in a stall. They should probably have suspected their pitots were iced, and known that the stall system was based on different sensor inputs. However, the fact that the stall warnings stopped due to low airspeed, and the fact that the angle of attack reading was not easy or possible to see contributed to the pilots' mistaken control inputs. In other words, the pilots likely should have known better, but the design of the instrument display and warning system had significant flaws.
I'm not sure how the airplane decides it is in a stall, and when to give a stall warning. I suspect that it uses a different system to decide than the pitots that give airspeed information, perhaps some measurement of airflow over the wing or some proxy for it. The posited cause of the accident was pitot icing, causing loss of airspeed data. If it is true that the stall warnings are set off via a separate system than the airspeed pitot system, then shouldn't the pilots have realized that they were in fact in a stall, that the stall warnings were for real? Should they not have realized that it was one system, the pitot system that was not working, but that the stall warning system was separate, and thus more reliable?
If anyone has more information on the stall warning system on Airbus airplanes, I'd be curious to know how it works.
I am sure they have heard the theory that coercion does not produce useful intelligence. I'd assume they have in mind some kind of truth serum rather than a big basement with torture implements.
Picture this. It happened a few years ago, and was likely perpetrated by British agents. You and your husband are grabbed by masked men and stuffed into a truck. You are held in a dark tight cell and have no idea why you have been imprisoned or when or even if you will be released. You are then strapped to a board. Duct tape is wrapped around your feet. Then around your legs. Then upwards, pinning your arms. Upwards to your chest. Then over your face. One eye is taped open, so you can't blink, while the other is taped closed. You are carried into an airplane. You have no idea where you are going. On the airplane you hear what you think is your husband screaming, so you know he is with you. Before that, he could have been dead. You fly for many hours, land, and then take off. After many hours you arrive in a warm place (which is actually Libya, though you don't know this at the time). In the Libyan jail, you are kept in cramped conditions, poorly fed, beaten, tortured.
Enhanced interrogation my ass. Orwell knew what could happen. New Speak. Torture.
agreed, its only a matter of 'which year' is the actual death of the free internet
Many people make statements like this like they are forecasting the weather, as if this is just something that is "happening" to us, something that is completely out of our control. In fact, we have the true power in society. When we realize it. When we choose to use it.
Making it look like a Flash install is sneaky - because they pop-up uninvited. I've got everyone I know to not install Flash on Safari, and only use the one packaged with Chrome.
Ah so. The trojan actually presents an install dialogue? Funny how this isn't mentioned in TFA, which to me sounds like it is tinged with propaganda. Macs aren't perfect, but the simple feature of asking the user for his or her password at the right time is likely worth more for security than many of the subtle kernel protections referred to here.
"Is a system that could save millions of lives without infringing on our freedoms worth it? Yes. How could anyone think otherwise."
I seriously doubt a missile defence system is practical. Aside from the problem of in essence hitting a bullet with a bullet, there is the problem of decoys. It would be rather simple to build into a missile system a splintering ability where similar looking objects emerge from the missile at some point. Of those splintered objects an unknown number would be nuclear devices. Assuming that missiles are cheaper than thermonuclear bombs, it wouldn't be that difficult to flood the sky with decoy missiles, or with decoy splintered objects.
Sheesh. Read my post. I said it put us on the ROAD to losing these things. Try to save for retirement working at Walmart. Have you noticed that when you leave for vacation on most private sector jobs, you literally have to do all the work you would have done while on vacation.
Once the tariff regimes of the 1960's and 1970's were dropped, we began competing directly against India, China and the rest of the "undeveloped" world. Once that happened, we were put on the road to the disappearance of Middle Class "luxuries" such as vacation pay, good working conditions, comfortable retirements, and job security. The gradual increase in the work week mentioned in the article is only a small manifestation of the larger trend of Middle Class disintegration. We are slowly but steadily becoming a two class neo-feudalist society.
If you really want to fight this, you must realize the magnitude of what you are up against. You won't be able to win this battle by just leaving a your bad job and finding another. To change things, you will have to work with others.
I think most of these conversations should start with a clear explanation of what "privacy" means in each context.
Fair enough. There is a spectrum. If company X gets your phone number or email address, they might spam you...who really cares since I can filter them out. Here is the problem as I see it: while company X getting your information may not really seem harmful, the fact that company X can so easily get your information exists in a broader societal pattern where privacy is valued less. Structures get built and habits develop where privacy is an afterthought. As our lives exist increasingly online, the personal details of our lives become less and less private. Those structures, those patterns, those habits could make it rather easy for an authoritarian government to covertly spy on its citizens. History, recent and otherwise has shown that authoritarian governments often quietly draw up lists of "problem citizens" before their true intentions become known. Examples exist from Nazi Germany through to Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador. So while we likely agree that giving personal information out to individual companies is likely benign in isolation, I would assert that the broader pattern is more dangerous.
"The Average Consumer Thinks Data Privacy Is Worth Around 65 Cents"
The average "consumer" usually has little or no knowledge of the true risks of losing privacy, especially in the context of various authoritarian regimes in the past, present and future. The average "consumer" has little knowledge of history, of politics, or of philosophy, or at least does not usually use that knowledge as a basis for buying decisions. The decision to buy a product is usually not a result of any deep thought, but is instead an instinctive and quick decision based on immediate wants or needs versus other wants or needs in the short or medium term.
The first step in solving the "education problem" is to realize that there are no simple answers to solving the "education problem". If anybody claims they have a simple solution, they are probably trying to sell something. The problems of education go back many centuries. Plutarch, 2000 years ago said that "a mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled". Aristotle said that "the purpose of education is to teach us to love beauty". Our addiction to simple ideological solutions to our problems is I believe at the heart of much of our modern malaise.
I bought my Nexus S unsubsidized for a reasonable price. It is unlocked and portable. I even bought from a different mobile provider, and dropped in the chip from my current provider. My plan is minimalist but very cheap ($20/month). My provider does sell phones on what amounts to a payment plan...you are charged the full price, and then every month you pay a certain amount off your tab...there is no contract tying you to the provider, except that if you leave you must pay off your tab. It is a much more honest way of showing the true price of the phone.
The summary asserts that changing the way the market functions is unworkable. If consumers knew that their paltry $500 discount on their smartphone actually cost them $1500 in extra billing over three years, I would expect that would be a little less willing to fall for the tricks. What it will take is one company to take the plunge, possibly on the model I described above. Allow customers to get their "free" phone, but make it clear they are actually making payments on it.
Where those things came from is interesting for those interested in discovering where they came from, but not necessary to know.
The idea of the Middle Class (i.e.. the three class society) came from the Greeks. It is interesting that as we have largely abandoned study of the Greeks, we also seem to be abandoning the Greek idea of a strong and chauvinistic Middle Class as the dominant force in society. I'm not saying that the Middle Class is gone, but that it is dwindling in the US.
You'd have a point if a "traditional education" didn't include bullshit like Ancient Greek. There is more diversity in the filler, but that's about it.
What do you know about Ancient Greek literature? Seriously? I would learn Attic Greek just to be able to read Plato and Aristotle in the original. How can you write off the civilization that gave us private property, money, justice and the rule of law? Or did I miss your subtle sarcasm.
The State has dramatically increased its spending for decades, gobbling up the advances in the private sector... and for what? Most of it has gone to waste feeding the political power structure, buying votes with destructive social welfare programs, crony capitalism corporate subsidies, and making war.
Your chart gives a list of debt to GDP ratios for the US government. I would argue that the growing debt to GDP ratio over the last few years does not necessarily indicate a massive surge in government spending, but instead a massive decrease in tax revenues. I would speculate that that decrease is in large part due to a massive decrease in tax rates on the most wealthy. As anecdotal evidence, I give Warren Buffet's statements that he pays 17% income tax while the tax rate on his secretary is 35%. As further evidence, I remind you that the US income tax rate on individuals from 1942 to 1963 for money earned over $200000 was 92%. This was in fact a time of economic prosperity. I would also argue that the economic decline of the US has accelerated since the enacting of neo-conservative/neo-liberal economic policies since the 1980's. Even the Democrats followed these policies under Clinton.
You mention the problem of crony capitalist subsidies. Well I'll agree with that, with the caveat that many or most of those subsidies come in the form of differential tax breaks, where large corporations end up paying little or no tax. I think that falls in with the picture I am painting of an increasingly regressive taxation system. The costs of making war are an example of the government acting more for the private interest, in taking money from the broad population and giving it to a narrow group of individual organizations.
I believe that the current system of government in the US is profoundly corrupt, and I suspect you agree. The system has been captured by the most wealthy and powerful, and they use it to their own private ends. They cause the government to enact legislation that serves largely their own ends, and not the Public Good (SOPA for example). Where we digress from you I suspect is that I believe the Middle Class should be, must be the dominant economic and political influence in the nation. I believe that we must do everything we can to support the well being of the Middle Class, including enacting truly progressive income tax rates, and using tax revenues from the wealthy to build public work projects that support the Public Good. I believe that if you give the most wealthy too much economic and political power, that they will not use that power for the good of society, but instead for the good of themselves. That includes the removal of their money from the nation to other countries who will help to enrich them even more. They will use their money and power to further corrupt the government away from acting for the Public Good.
You obviously misunderstand the relationship between tax policy, economic growth, and tax revenues. You've bought the line that increased tax percentage means higher tax receivables. You don't understand that high taxes destroy economic growth, drive businesses overseas and end up lowering tax revenues.
I understand the theories referred to above quite well actually, possibly better than you do. I just don't agree them. I believe that the economic theories espoused by for example the Chicago School of Economics are deeply logically flawed, starting from their most basic assumptions. The "Efficient Market Hypothesis" is at the core of modern economics. It implies that market actors are rational, an assumption that has been deeply shaken after the recent housing and stock market crash. If the core assumption of a neoliberal economics is only true sometimes, how probable is the truth of its predictions and conclusions?
Slashdot Mirror
Not really sure...here is an article in Physical Review Letters by Blum about Kaons. Not sure if this is the one though.
Yeah, that's their lock-in. And that's not counting all the history (comments, statuses) and photos you might want to take with you.
Yes, there is some lock-in. However, my argument was that their primarily "lock-in" was the network of friends itself, and that this particular "lock-in" can be overcome, if users get angry enough, and if there is a viable alternative. Yes, they won't have their history or posts on their new service, but those things will still exist on Facebook. I would argue that the social network itself is transferrable across different services if a critical mass is reached.
Facebook does not have a locked in market. Its primary asset is the friend network of its members. But that friend network is not owned by them. I am perfectly able to move my friends over to, say, Google+ if I choose, and if my friends choose. Admittedly this doesn't look likely right now, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of a mass exodus. All we have to collectively do is to say to each of our friends, "hey, let's meet over on that other network".
Interesting post. I don't think you are necessarily implying this, but I think that there is a danger in writing off humans as "irrational". I think we have the potential to be rational, if we try. Even if rationality is in essence an "impossible goal", we can still move towards it. Having an ideal, even if it is not absolutely achievable is "useful", in that it will likely result in a better society.
I have done a fair amount of thinking about classical Greek civilisation. It is often (mistakenly I believe) that the Greeks assumed that humans were inherently rational. What is often left out of descriptions of Greek thought is their mythology, their gods. I believe that to Greek philosophers the various gods were allegorical descriptions of the irrational forces inside us (Aphrodite - eros, Ares - war like impulses, Bachus, etc). To the Greeks our "souls" were rational entities being buffeted by irrational forces. Given recent scientific thought on human rationality or lack thereof, this seems a good description of the human condition.
From TFA
We find that the average US citizen is willing to pay US$162 per year in higher electricity bills (95% confidence interval: US$128–260), representing a 13% increase
And yet the average US citizen has been "willing" to pay for a 200% increase in gasoline costs over recent years.
Don't act as if purchasing decisions by the average consumer are based on calm deliberation and rational thought, because most often they are not. Most purchasing decisions are based in large part on subconscious impulses and emotions. Basing public policy on how consumers make purchasing decisions will result in irrational policy.
As for American football versus rugby, I find rugby more impressive, since all the players have to be able to run and pass. You don't get 450 lb rugby players because they would be useless, coughing up a lung as the play surges ahead of them down the field. And of course there's the lack of padding in rugby, so that the players have to take the full impact of hits.
Exactly. Your actual influence over the government is not significantly greater in a Democracy than in a Dictatorship, but if you happen to live in in a Democracy people will happily blame you for the actions of "your" government anyway, while those in a Dictatorship are merely victims.
When I see this type of fashionable shallow cynicism, I remember a quote from Winston Churchill:
Democracy is the worst system of government...
except for all the other systems of government.
Seriously. Look back at the Roman Empire. Consider that during certain periods, most emperors did not die natural deaths...they were killed in some way, either by the sword or by poison. Consider that the well being of the public was almost entirely dependent on the psychological health of a single individual. Read a little about Caligula. Or Nero. Or Commodus. Consider that the Praetorian Guard would often execute "good emperors" if the emperor threatened their own power. They even sold the emperorship for an amount of gold once.
I'm not saying the system is perfect. Far from it. Too many voters make their decisions based on what they see on TV, and the TV spots are far too expensive, ensuring that politicians are enslaved to those who hold the purse strings. However a system where all politicians would be given equal access to the public airwaves would mostly fix this.
Angle of attack indicators are a customer option in the A330. From what I've heard from A330 pilots, they are not necessarily all that helpful.
Perhaps they might not be helpful in general use, but in the case of the crashed AF447 the data would have indicated an disastrous 36 degree angle of attack. If that data had been clearly available to the pilots, I don't see how the pilot would have pulled back the stick. Remember that these devices are different than an attitude indicator. Angle of attack indicators give the angle that the air is actually passing over the wings.
I've done a little researching on the A330's sensor system, and here is what I have found. Firstly, this article describes pilot union concerns about the official report, and details some interesting facts about the stall warning system. Specifically, the stall warning system on the A330 sounded for 50 consecutive seconds before ceasing. This was apparently due to the computer system automatically turning off the warning once the plane had dropped below 70 miles per hour, since that speed was supposed to be far outside the operating parameters of the plane. When the pilots finally pointed the nose down and gained airspeed, the stall warning began to sound again.
Here is another very interesting and authoritative article on the specifics of the A330 stall and angle of attack systems. The A330 does in fact use an angle of attack vane as pictured in the linked article. Interestingly, according to the article, the angle of attack is not actually displayed clearly or at all in the cockpit. This seems to me to be a gross design deficiency in the A330.
So, here is how I see it. The airspeed pitots were almost certainly frozen, causing the pilots and the computer to lose knowledge of the speed of the air over the aircraft. However, the angle of attack indicator was based on different system, a vane, which was likely not affected by ice. The stall warnings in the aircraft were likely based largely on the computers sensor inputs from the angle of attack indicators. Thus, the pilot should probably have known, based on the stall warnings that the airplane had a high angle of attack, which was resulting in a stall. They should probably have suspected their pitots were iced, and known that the stall system was based on different sensor inputs. However, the fact that the stall warnings stopped due to low airspeed, and the fact that the angle of attack reading was not easy or possible to see contributed to the pilots' mistaken control inputs. In other words, the pilots likely should have known better, but the design of the instrument display and warning system had significant flaws.
I'm not sure how the airplane decides it is in a stall, and when to give a stall warning. I suspect that it uses a different system to decide than the pitots that give airspeed information, perhaps some measurement of airflow over the wing or some proxy for it. The posited cause of the accident was pitot icing, causing loss of airspeed data. If it is true that the stall warnings are set off via a separate system than the airspeed pitot system, then shouldn't the pilots have realized that they were in fact in a stall, that the stall warnings were for real? Should they not have realized that it was one system, the pitot system that was not working, but that the stall warning system was separate, and thus more reliable?
If anyone has more information on the stall warning system on Airbus airplanes, I'd be curious to know how it works.
I am sure they have heard the theory that coercion does not produce useful intelligence. I'd assume they have in mind some kind of truth serum rather than a big basement with torture implements.
Picture this. It happened a few years ago, and was likely perpetrated by British agents. You and your husband are grabbed by masked men and stuffed into a truck. You are held in a dark tight cell and have no idea why you have been imprisoned or when or even if you will be released. You are then strapped to a board. Duct tape is wrapped around your feet. Then around your legs. Then upwards, pinning your arms. Upwards to your chest. Then over your face. One eye is taped open, so you can't blink, while the other is taped closed. You are carried into an airplane. You have no idea where you are going. On the airplane you hear what you think is your husband screaming, so you know he is with you. Before that, he could have been dead. You fly for many hours, land, and then take off. After many hours you arrive in a warm place (which is actually Libya, though you don't know this at the time). In the Libyan jail, you are kept in cramped conditions, poorly fed, beaten, tortured.
Enhanced interrogation my ass. Orwell knew what could happen. New Speak. Torture.
agreed, its only a matter of 'which year' is the actual death of the free internet
Many people make statements like this like they are forecasting the weather, as if this is just something that is "happening" to us, something that is completely out of our control. In fact, we have the true power in society. When we realize it. When we choose to use it.
Making it look like a Flash install is sneaky - because they pop-up uninvited. I've got everyone I know to not install Flash on Safari, and only use the one packaged with Chrome.
Ah so. The trojan actually presents an install dialogue? Funny how this isn't mentioned in TFA, which to me sounds like it is tinged with propaganda. Macs aren't perfect, but the simple feature of asking the user for his or her password at the right time is likely worth more for security than many of the subtle kernel protections referred to here.
"Is a system that could save millions of lives without infringing on our freedoms worth it? Yes. How could anyone think otherwise."
I seriously doubt a missile defence system is practical. Aside from the problem of in essence hitting a bullet with a bullet, there is the problem of decoys. It would be rather simple to build into a missile system a splintering ability where similar looking objects emerge from the missile at some point. Of those splintered objects an unknown number would be nuclear devices. Assuming that missiles are cheaper than thermonuclear bombs, it wouldn't be that difficult to flood the sky with decoy missiles, or with decoy splintered objects.
Sheesh. Read my post. I said it put us on the ROAD to losing these things. Try to save for retirement working at Walmart. Have you noticed that when you leave for vacation on most private sector jobs, you literally have to do all the work you would have done while on vacation.
Once the tariff regimes of the 1960's and 1970's were dropped, we began competing directly against India, China and the rest of the "undeveloped" world. Once that happened, we were put on the road to the disappearance of Middle Class "luxuries" such as vacation pay, good working conditions, comfortable retirements, and job security. The gradual increase in the work week mentioned in the article is only a small manifestation of the larger trend of Middle Class disintegration. We are slowly but steadily becoming a two class neo-feudalist society.
If you really want to fight this, you must realize the magnitude of what you are up against. You won't be able to win this battle by just leaving a your bad job and finding another. To change things, you will have to work with others.
I think most of these conversations should start with a clear explanation of what "privacy" means in each context.
Fair enough. There is a spectrum. If company X gets your phone number or email address, they might spam you...who really cares since I can filter them out. Here is the problem as I see it: while company X getting your information may not really seem harmful, the fact that company X can so easily get your information exists in a broader societal pattern where privacy is valued less. Structures get built and habits develop where privacy is an afterthought. As our lives exist increasingly online, the personal details of our lives become less and less private. Those structures, those patterns, those habits could make it rather easy for an authoritarian government to covertly spy on its citizens. History, recent and otherwise has shown that authoritarian governments often quietly draw up lists of "problem citizens" before their true intentions become known. Examples exist from Nazi Germany through to Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador. So while we likely agree that giving personal information out to individual companies is likely benign in isolation, I would assert that the broader pattern is more dangerous.
"The Average Consumer Thinks Data Privacy Is Worth Around 65 Cents"
The average "consumer" usually has little or no knowledge of the true risks of losing privacy, especially in the context of various authoritarian regimes in the past, present and future. The average "consumer" has little knowledge of history, of politics, or of philosophy, or at least does not usually use that knowledge as a basis for buying decisions. The decision to buy a product is usually not a result of any deep thought, but is instead an instinctive and quick decision based on immediate wants or needs versus other wants or needs in the short or medium term.
The first step in solving the "education problem" is to realize that there are no simple answers to solving the "education problem". If anybody claims they have a simple solution, they are probably trying to sell something. The problems of education go back many centuries. Plutarch, 2000 years ago said that "a mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled". Aristotle said that "the purpose of education is to teach us to love beauty". Our addiction to simple ideological solutions to our problems is I believe at the heart of much of our modern malaise.
I bought my Nexus S unsubsidized for a reasonable price. It is unlocked and portable. I even bought from a different mobile provider, and dropped in the chip from my current provider. My plan is minimalist but very cheap ($20/month). My provider does sell phones on what amounts to a payment plan...you are charged the full price, and then every month you pay a certain amount off your tab...there is no contract tying you to the provider, except that if you leave you must pay off your tab. It is a much more honest way of showing the true price of the phone.
The summary asserts that changing the way the market functions is unworkable. If consumers knew that their paltry $500 discount on their smartphone actually cost them $1500 in extra billing over three years, I would expect that would be a little less willing to fall for the tricks. What it will take is one company to take the plunge, possibly on the model I described above. Allow customers to get their "free" phone, but make it clear they are actually making payments on it.
Where those things came from is interesting for those interested in discovering where they came from, but not necessary to know.
The idea of the Middle Class (i.e.. the three class society) came from the Greeks. It is interesting that as we have largely abandoned study of the Greeks, we also seem to be abandoning the Greek idea of a strong and chauvinistic Middle Class as the dominant force in society. I'm not saying that the Middle Class is gone, but that it is dwindling in the US.
You'd have a point if a "traditional education" didn't include bullshit like Ancient Greek. There is more diversity in the filler, but that's about it.
What do you know about Ancient Greek literature? Seriously? I would learn Attic Greek just to be able to read Plato and Aristotle in the original. How can you write off the civilization that gave us private property, money, justice and the rule of law? Or did I miss your subtle sarcasm.
Homeopathic economics...LOL
The State has dramatically increased its spending for decades, gobbling up the advances in the private sector... and for what? Most of it has gone to waste feeding the political power structure, buying votes with destructive social welfare programs, crony capitalism corporate subsidies, and making war.
Your chart gives a list of debt to GDP ratios for the US government. I would argue that the growing debt to GDP ratio over the last few years does not necessarily indicate a massive surge in government spending, but instead a massive decrease in tax revenues. I would speculate that that decrease is in large part due to a massive decrease in tax rates on the most wealthy. As anecdotal evidence, I give Warren Buffet's statements that he pays 17% income tax while the tax rate on his secretary is 35%. As further evidence, I remind you that the US income tax rate on individuals from 1942 to 1963 for money earned over $200000 was 92%. This was in fact a time of economic prosperity. I would also argue that the economic decline of the US has accelerated since the enacting of neo-conservative/neo-liberal economic policies since the 1980's. Even the Democrats followed these policies under Clinton.
You mention the problem of crony capitalist subsidies. Well I'll agree with that, with the caveat that many or most of those subsidies come in the form of differential tax breaks, where large corporations end up paying little or no tax. I think that falls in with the picture I am painting of an increasingly regressive taxation system. The costs of making war are an example of the government acting more for the private interest, in taking money from the broad population and giving it to a narrow group of individual organizations.
I believe that the current system of government in the US is profoundly corrupt, and I suspect you agree. The system has been captured by the most wealthy and powerful, and they use it to their own private ends. They cause the government to enact legislation that serves largely their own ends, and not the Public Good (SOPA for example). Where we digress from you I suspect is that I believe the Middle Class should be, must be the dominant economic and political influence in the nation. I believe that we must do everything we can to support the well being of the Middle Class, including enacting truly progressive income tax rates, and using tax revenues from the wealthy to build public work projects that support the Public Good. I believe that if you give the most wealthy too much economic and political power, that they will not use that power for the good of society, but instead for the good of themselves. That includes the removal of their money from the nation to other countries who will help to enrich them even more. They will use their money and power to further corrupt the government away from acting for the Public Good.
You obviously misunderstand the relationship between tax policy, economic growth, and tax revenues. You've bought the line that increased tax percentage means higher tax receivables. You don't understand that high taxes destroy economic growth, drive businesses overseas and end up lowering tax revenues.
I understand the theories referred to above quite well actually, possibly better than you do. I just don't agree them. I believe that the economic theories espoused by for example the Chicago School of Economics are deeply logically flawed, starting from their most basic assumptions. The "Efficient Market Hypothesis" is at the core of modern economics. It implies that market actors are rational, an assumption that has been deeply shaken after the recent housing and stock market crash. If the core assumption of a neoliberal economics is only true sometimes, how probable is the truth of its predictions and conclusions?