"When you've only got one provider, who makes the rules? The provider makes the rules."
When you've got a hundred providers, who makes the rules? The provider. I suspect Mr Wheeler is being disingenuous here. He wants to be the one to make the rules. Central rule making by government has never been shown to be a way to encourage "more providers" of a service. If anything it has the opposite effect. Mostly this comes through the increase regulations' cost to startups. More intense regulatory burdens, from administrative to functional, nearly always benefit the larger companies. This works against a desire to increase options and competition. Plus, from a regulatory commission standpoint, the fewer, and larger, players you have the better it is for you because that means more lobbying.
"the question becomes, will giant companies be able to exploit their monopoly position?"
Monopoly abuses is not part of your job, Mr. Wheeler. We already have laws for that, and a means to enforce them. If your concern is abuse of monopoly, talk to the FTC. The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for dealing with that, not the Federal Communications Commission.
"Who is going to stand up for consumers? Who is going to stand up for innovation? And who is going to stand up for the most important network for determining our future in the 21st century?"
Not the FCC. The FCC can't stand for innovation, it moves too slow and enshrines technological choices into law/regs which are too slow to be corrected, and the penalties of them are applied nationally rather than locally. The FTC has the role of "standing up for consumers", not the FCC. The "most important network of our future" is still people, so the FCC would be stretching very heavily to even attempt to "stand up" for that.
Basically, if he wants to feel like he is standing up for consumers, he needs to transfer to the FTC.
A quick glance at the card, she saw and read the title.
The last bastion is the human reading it. Let not poor typography or color choices excuse not taking caution to read the whole thing before announcing. There were several failure points here, not just one. If we are going to rightly lay some fault at the accountant for not handing out the right card envelope due to being not paying proper attention, then Faye also rightly deserves some for not paying proper attention. Perfect typography won't prevent someone from reading part of the text and ignoring the rest.
As far as the content - why would people around the country want to be locked into The Daily's content when they could aggregate content from multiple sources - including Fox or other Murdoch publications if they wish to.
So you are saying that by using The Daily, people find their iPads have all other news sources deleted and you can't install any other news apps? Wow. Quite the leap there.
Seems pretty arrogant to me to assume that anyone wanting to or being willing to pay for news content has zero other options, or are somehow precluded from doing so.
This is no more nefarioius then a restauranteur eating at a competitor's restaurant on a Saturday night and noticing what other patrons are ordering. You find out what the people want then give them what they want.
No, it isn't. The restaurant owner seeing what is popular still has to go and actually come up with a dish to satisfy the demand. Chefs an owners do in fact visit other places. They do it openly. And often they chat with the competition.
It would be more like me giving you a flower to pin on your lapel and saying it will tell me where you go, but really it also records and tells me what you order to eat and where you ordered it at. Then imagine me doing that to thousands of people - people who don't like my restaurant but like my competitor's and you'd be getting warmer.
What you are describing would be more like MS doing searches on Google's site directly, and incorporating those results into their own rankings. Or more like a portal realizing people want to search for things on the Internet and get useful results, and then making a search engine to do that.
... but where it fails is the business model. It assumes that people are willing to pay to access a single aggregation service when so many already exist free of charge.
Personally, it depends on the price and the actual user experience. Most of the "free" stuff makes you pay in other ways, such as painful UI decisions and ugly intrusive advertising. If the price is right I'd take a single-source that works *well* and doesn't abuse my senses. Particularly since having one does not preclude the others.
Walking freely and an expensive sports car can both get me from home to work. But that doesn't mean the experience is the same, and the fact that more people choose buying a car (even a cheap one) over walking illustrates that we do in fact place a value on each of those and act based on our own valuations. However, despite the fact I bought the sports car, I still walk some places.
With a reported 500,000/week to support it, it only takes 500,001 people in the world to choose the 99c/week option to make it a net (yet tiny) profit. Sure, if Apple gets half, that means News Corp has to get 1,000,001 subscribers. This assumes there is no in-app advertising they get money from as well. Will they get that? I'd say absolutely - provided the app itself is a quality one (unlike the Safari Books app O'Reilly put out -and pulled- last year). Succeeding in business doesn't necessarily mean outrunning the bear. Sometimes it just means outrunning the other hikers. News Corp. doesn't need all iPad owners to subscribe, just a portion of them.
It's my phone and my apps. I don't like apple deciding what apps get offered.
Yes, it is your phone. And once on your phone the apps are ostensibly yours. On the other hand, it is Apple's Store and Apple's infrastructure supporting the distribution of those apps. Apple pays the bandwidth for the store
Macy's decides what goes in their store and under what conditions. So does Walmart and local Mom & Pop stores. You knew going into the phone purchase what the Apple Store did, or you should have.
As you said, it's a genuine problem, both for Apple and users, and there is no ideal solution. However it is ultimately Apple's problem to solve how they see fit because it is their store. If Amazon (which has rules of their own for their store) doesn't like the rules, they don't have to put apps in Apple's store. Just as you can't buy everything "home related" at Walmart, you won't be able to get everything in the Apple store as not everyone agrees to the terms.
In a sense, apps that exist solely to be advertising and marketing routes to websites to sell stuff are a pollutant to the iTunes ecosystem. Consider an analogue. Consider what would be the effect of say Walmart, Sears, or a Mall, charging companies a percentage of sales to set up a booth selling things on their premises. Happens quite often actually. And we don't gripe about that. Now consider what would happen if those kiosk stores instead were giving out boxes that were nothing more than a collection of advertisements. For Free.
Now, we have the same situation. The company that owns/manages the premises is getting nothing in return for the services they provide. Of course we'd be saying that it would be their own fault for not charging a minimum fee and that's tough luck for them being stupid. On the other hand, here we have Apple *not* making that mistake (any longer) and instead we want to blame them and label them the bad guys. Really, they are just enforcing the rules int eh SDK anyway.
If Amazon wanted in app purchasing in their Kindle app, they could, and would, have done it. That they didn't is good on them because they read the SDK agreement and abided by it. Of course, that is the reason I don't use the kindle app so much because I have to go to their website and deal with it's idiosyncrasies to buy an eBook. So that means I won't be affected by this. I'd wager the Kindle app isn't affected at all since it does not do in-app purchasing anyway.
Neither Apple nor Amazon are the idiots being made out here on/.. Unlike most of the posters here today, Amazon knew that doing in-app purchasing in the Kindle app would subject them to Apple percentage requirements. So they didn't implement it (to my annoyance but w/e). Apple doesn't expect Amazon to suddenly start paying them because the Kindle doesn't fit the criteria.
Perhaps Amazon's Windowshop app lets you purchase items directly, I've not tried. I'd be suprised if it didn't simply take you to the website when you wanted to purchase. Mostly because as I read it that would be a violation of the SDK agreement. So even that app would not likely be affected here.
Well sort of. Since 11.3 applies to *physical* goods, then yeah the hardcopy book you bought through the imaginary IAP Amazon Kindle app that let you buy physical books could not be read on your Kindle, PC, or Mac.
But since that would be obvious and a non-issue, and no Kindle iPhone app has in-app purchasing (be it physical or electronic books), it's rather a pointless statement.
Garibaldi: Think they'll ever find that transmitter you slipped G'Kar? Sinclair: No. because there isn't one. Garibaldi: There isn't? Wait— Sinclair: I lied. I figured if there were a transmitter, sooner or later they'd find it and remove it. But if I just told them there was, they'd keep looking. Indefinitely. Garibaldi: Commander, do you have any idea of the tests they'll put him through, the things they'll do to him trying to find a transmitter that's not there? Sinclair: Yes.
Actually, it was designed with the intention of taking humans up. The big hurdle in humans is the vibration and "physical displacement of occupants" for launch to space. The engines were designed and built with that in mind, and Musk intends to strap the engines onto larger rockets configurations (Falcon X and Falcon X Heavy IIRC). Musk's goal is Mars and he asserts that the Falcon 9H could, if assembled and launched from LEO, take us there. Last I ran the numbers base don estimated lift tonnage, it could do with a multiple launch mission profile and be launched from Earth.
A few years ago when I was running the numbers on an orbital "assembly" mission profile, it would certainly work just fine for taking us to Mars.
And while it does take more to go to the Moon than Mars (you actually need a bigger rocket to go to the Moon), the Falcon 9 heavy could probably do the same for going to the Moon.
It is these days. And why not? Open science is better than "protected" science, or "sanitized" science. The Science Establishement letting the people see what science is really like, and doing it in the open, is one of the best things we can do for science.
I hate how cynical and ignorant mods mod people like you up.
First off, you are engaging in the fallacy of idealizing the past, a particular popular fallacy on slashdot. I find the more recent NASA accomplishments a lot more impressive than just lobbing meatbags onto the nearest satellite. Robotic rovers on mars, stardust mission, all manner of flybys and good space science, planetary probe hubble and webb in 2014, etc, Heck, we just had a god damn comet flyby last month.
So "just lobbing hunks of metal into orbit" > "just lobbing meatbags to the nearest satellite"??
Talk about a perversion of difficulty and complexity. Successfully placing people on other celestial bodies and bringing them back is far more difficult than some measly hunks of metal, rubber, and electronics. After putting people on the moon and bringing them back, lobbing satellites is well.. just lobbing satellites. It's like winning the Indy 500 and then spending the next several decades bragging about driving 5 MPH over the speed limit. In town. In a school zone.
The reality of it is, NASA could well send people to Mars and back, and on it's current budget. The reason they don't? They are a federally funded bureaucracy. I'll elaborate a bit.
When NASA was about space exploration, and specifically human space exploration, they were focus on it. As the political will for it diminished they PtB looked for something else they could include so they could continue to exist. So they expanded their definition of what space exploration meant. This continued over the course of the last several decades to the extent that NASA doing "research" in terrestrial lakes is included in it.
Let that last bit sink in some more. Conducting research on terrestrial lakes is considered "space exploration". That certainly fits my criteria for a bloated agency. The reality is that NASA has a lot of "wasted" funding. If they focused their efforts on space exploration instead of "anything science related" they could actually get some real accomplishments under their belt instead of floundering in Low Earth Orbit for 30 years. If they put actual efficiency as a higher priority than "spreading the wealth among the congressional candidates" they could recapture the imagination, and dare I say hearts and minds, of the voters.
No, the reality is that objectively NASA's "performance" has plummeted. The rovers? They did not massively outlive their expected life. They outlived their requested mission duration. And it was stated back then the rovers were capable of far more than their window. And really, what was NASAs "science" in that? They were a carrier. They lobbed those hunks of metal and electronics to the "next satellite" of the sun. Oh and they provided some people to monitor them. We have automated rovers here on this planet, so the whole autonomous robot aspect is nothing new, and hence not an accomplishment to be proud of anymore than a team that wins the Superbowl can consider a victory over a high school team an accomplishment. Terrestrial weather research is not an aspect of space exploration.
NASA has shown year over year, time and again, that they -as an organization- are not interested in doing real space exploration work, just getting the money for it. They've had plans by experts (their own people even) that they themselves determine would be an order of magnitude cheaper, and many times safer. Yet hey turn them down because they don't constitute a large enough budget increase to appeal to a wide state selection of senators. Anytime the bigger ticket is the "preferred" option to a less expensive but safer journey with a higher ROI you've got a classic case of "just give us money so we can push pencils around". And we the people have seen it.
That isn't to say there aren't good scientists at NASA, they do exist. But they are held into a form of bondage by the bureaucracy that NASA has become.
And given NASAs *full* track record, don't count on anyth
Yeah, violating someone's privacy is wrong. But does it deserve a year in prison? That is what people are objecting to...the overly harsh penalties assigned to crimes regarding computers.
No, slashdotters are reacting so strongly because, being slashdotters, they didn't RTFA and see that he didn't get a year in prison, nor did he get a year's sentenced for violation someone's privacy. The incarceration is for "obstruction of justice". This felony provides for a maximum of 20 years incarceration, yet the guidelines applied to this case recommend 15-18 months. The *total* term sought by the prosecution was 18 months. How is either the request or the result out of the range in the guidelines? Neither the notoriety of the case nor the perp can be credited with affecting the incarceration term. In this case the guy outright posted his goal was to "disrupt her campaign". The breach of privacy was merely a vessel to his goal, and the end punishment of a felony was for destroying evidence during a federal investigation of his criminal activity.
The misdemeanor penalty he got for the computer offense is apparently too small to be reported on, and/or is "rolled into" the 18 month request.
Another source would include the possibility of freeze/thaw cycles. There is also another method suggested last year involving radiolytic H2reacting in a non-bioligic manner with CO2 dissolved in water. That process would be neither biological nor geological. There are other atmospheric/radiological possibilities too (such as UV interacting with the atmosphere).
Yet another method is one you throw out sarcastically. Last year, as I recall, there was a hypothesis put forth that meteorites released methane as they burn up on entry. They do, in fact. However, the problem with that hypothesis is that this source is not significant enough to account for the large volumes of Methane required to support the cycles shown in the data this report discusses (10kg/year compared to a couple hundred tons/year). Subsurface deposits melting were also proposed as a source.
So yes, that actually does narrow it down. It narrows it down very significantly, and further if you accept the hypothesis that Mars is a 'dead' planet geologically. "Geological processes" are not as broad as you seem to believe. Geology is a rather specific field. Mars is considered dead geologically. Thus, if you accept that all other sources of Methane have been eliminated you are left with the following two possibilities: 1) Biological - life of some sort 2) Mars isn't geologically dead, and it is a geological process.
Either result is pretty damned important. Though technically it could be a third option: Both.
Further, the bigger quandary isn't so much *how* it is produced, but why does the Martian air "lose" so much methane so quickly? It is removed from the atmosphere faster than the usual suspects.
Your analogy would work if rocks could be formed atmospherically, biologically, or radiologically.
So you get to buy a bunch more mercury-laden CFLs, yay for you!
I've spent the time to test out a variety of brands at various prices in real-world usage patterns. In the majority of use patterns, CFLs blow out 2-4 times faster than Incandescents. If you want to get real savings, step up to full on fluorescent bulbs. The ones in my garage ran for over a decade. But they matched the usage profile for FLs. Every internal light (especially bathrooms and hallways) Incandescents have outlasted CFLs by very large margins. Even if the CFLs were priced as low as incandescents, they'd still be far more expensive.
Banning Incandescents is stupid, wasteful, and nothing more than a special interest gimme. If you really want to cut your energy costs, nothing beats turning off lights that aren't needed. Second to that is matching the lighting to the task. Perhaps a lower wattage bulb right where you need it (or even an LED right there) instead of the "big room light" that has to be brighter because it is trying to fulfill every role.
This latter point is the single biggest problem in home (and office) lighting. The notion that one light is all you need for a room is generally false and wasteful. That is why we see a trend toward more lights - and why more "upscale" homes have dozens of lights in the main room, the kitchen, and sometimes the dining room. So now, I expect that we will not see a reduction in electricity demand form lights, because we will have even more lights per room. Just like low-calorie drinks leads to people drinking more of them - and resulting in consuming more calories because the human mind tricks itself.
But don't take my word for it, or the OP's word either. Do the math on your own home and usage.
Of course, that will likely lead to having a mix of light types (LED, CFLs, Tubes, Incandescents, etc.) in your house. And that is partly why the neoliberals don't want you to have the option.
Funny how Mercury is so bad for you (which it is) that you can't possibly be allowed to have it anywhere. Except for lighting your home where you are clearly not getting enough of it and Mommy NeoLib has to force you to use it.
There are two basic ways for us to lower pollution output: stop living our modern high energy lifestyles or have an extreme technological breakthrough. I doubt the latter is going to occur anytime soon, even if it was discovered today there would be no way we could mass produce it enough to effectively change over our lifestyles and infrastructure (and it would have to be massive gains for it to most likely be worth the energy cost of the constructions of the new technology and recycling the waste from the old).
The facts bely your claim. The facts are that in the US at least, our pollution out has been decreasing for a very long time. Not that it makes news (until a politician of any stripe wants to claim he or she is responsible for it), pollution has in fact gone down significantly over the last 40+ years. Same with water pollution. Meanwhile, energy per-capita has increased. Not suprising given that cleaner technology usually requires more energy (most recycling consumes more energy than it "saves" for example), and that we as a group mus thave enough "excess" energy available to use the cleaner technology.
Advances don't generally happen suddenly, a point you make. However you seem to forget the fact that advances incrementally over time lead to more improvement than single one-shot advances, Further, not all improvements are the result of improving technology. Often they are ways of being smarter about things. For example, carrying more cargo per trip reducing the energy use of the cargo over taking two trucks to deliver it. Indeed, as some research shows more efficient technology can lead to an increase in net energy use. The effect is similar to reduced-calorie foods. Cut the calories in half and many people eat more than double what they were previously.
As to the latter part of your statement, again the history of technological changes proves your statement false. As I've heard said "We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks". Nor the Bronze Age for want of bronze, nor Iron Age for lack of iron. We as a species and civilization do in fact continuously replace prior technology. The problem we face now is government distortion of costs through mandates and subsidies. These actions cloud the needed information of relative supply and demand, as well as the incentive to produce lower cost versions of "better" technology.
"I know, you'd think any kind of team like this would need a demo man, but in fact, at least 80% of the time, high explosives are not the correct answer to your IT woes."
"That server over there is spreading a virus" - C4.apply() "We can't upgrade to HW that meets our needs when the existing HW is still mostly functional" - C4.apply() "MS wants us to pay for each server that might be running Windows" - C4.apply() "No need for Business Continuity Planning, our data center will never..." C4.apply() "...fail" "the printer still isn't working" - C4.apply() "We've hired an intern for you, we'll need you to train him on everything you do. You know, just in case something happened to you." - C4.apply() "The DDOS won't stop" - findOffendingRouter() && C4.apply() "Hey, who put IIS on our public network?" - C4.apply() Anytime sledgehammers haven't solved the problem - C4.apply() "How will we get that rack through the too-small door?" C4.apply() Someone keeps swiping your keyboard or mouse - C4.apply()
I dunno, seems explosives are a valuable tool that can solve problems at least half the time.
Even if we accepted your assertion that we'd only need high explosives 1 time in 5, that is still grounds for a demo spec. Remember, not all high-explosives make big explosions. A well shaped small HE charge can do wonders. If that isn't enough to convince you, know that my team includes a demolitions expert... and someday our paths may cross. <evil grin>
His statement is simple fact. If you want privacy, you do have something you want to hide, or know you might. That isn't a problem. The problem lies in thinking that having_something-to_hide == being_bad. Everyone has something to hide, and that is good. Quite frankly some of us have things the rest of us want you to hide. Remember, "Spandex is a privilege,not a right".
As long as the mindset that wanting to hide something is by nature bad, privacy will have a bad rap.
Actually given the predictions claiming it is essentially unstoppable even if we brought all emissions to zero, it make MUCH more sense to invest in means of limiting or avoiding the consequences through a stronger economy for all and better technology and reducing regulations that stifle or hamper these things. Stop subsidizing building in the alleged high-risk areas Start rebuilding coastal cities to handle floods better (hint: wealth countries in monsoon regions have been doing this for years). Increase the amount of energy available for things such as A/C and better insulation of houses and commercial buildings.
While I'm no fan of excessive building codes, the fact is that you could raise the bar on hurricane or flood prone areas (or tornado prone) leading to a price increase on par with the increased cost of disaster management preparation for the area. I choose these areas specifically because frankly these are problem areas with or without global warming (man made or not). The government should stop re-building people's houses in these *known risky areas*. Have a sliding percentage that is higher for lower risk areas, and lower yet the more times you've "cashed in" on it. But only available for low income people, say 400% or lower of the poverty line.
Over time people will move out of those areas, or not move into them, in as high numbers thus reducing both the risk and cost should it happen. If the prophets of doom are wrong, we haven't spent trillions of dollars on something that would be more damaging than doing nothing.
As to your question of how "working to increase efficiency and reduce pollution" can make it worse, I am almost stunned by your lack of knowledge or imagination.
First, new technology is expensive. Very. Expensive. Hell, even old technology is. Solar cells, for example. By all rational definitions a mature technology. Yet it is horribly expensive. Sure, it may be efficient in one measurement, but that ignores the rest of the system. The "ecosystem" surrounding solar is horribly inefficient. The costs to replace the existing system with houses and businesses power by the sun are, pardon the phrase, astronomical. Mandating such a change, even say as little as 5%, would destroy the housing market. New construction would be priced dramatically out of the current range, leading to a drastic drop in demand for it combined with a drastic increase in demand for existing homes. As a result we'd have a big housing bubble, or we'd have a long term bubble that would price a significant percentage out of the market. Since this would apply to business facilities too, the price of all goods and services go up. Unnatural inflation is a ten ton anchor on a rowboat to the economy.
In order to actually make the difference the global disasterbators say is coming, we'd have to completely stop almost all industrial development in the third world. Assuming it would be possible, it would prove disastrous for the very people they say are at the highest risk. History shows quite clearly that the more wealthy and healthy a society and economy is, the better we the people can handle disasters.
Claiming that "any" effort to accomplish the goals is beneficial is akin to saying that the local economy is better off if we have a bunch of people paid to keep breaking windows so the window replacement industry can hire more people to replace the windows and the manufacturers have more orders. It just ain't true.
Which should demonstrate the sever disservice our "driver's ed" programs and expectations are. Mechanized units in the military are the same way. We could eat, navigate rough terrain, pay attention to up to four radios plus the other people in the car and be on the lookout for the enemy all at the same time. Sometimes you'd add engaging the enemy into that. Talking on a phone while driving a car in traffic? Pfft. Child's play.
We have these things called "reckless driving" laws. When you are being reckless, you get busted. It used to be you could go to court and either prove you were not being reckless (good luck) or fail to or admit to it and pay your fine.
But no, now we want things so simple that we have to specify things that are not always reckless, while ignoring things that are. We don't make a law that says "doing cookies (sometimes known as doughnuts) in parking lots or in traffic is dangerous and thus banned", we have the cop cite or arrest for reckless driving. If a cop can't tell the difference between being reckless and not being reckless either it isn't reckless or the cop needs better training and experience.
I did a year long experiment where I kept the radio off in my car. Did I drive better? Well I can't quantify it because I didn't get into accidents or such activities before or during. I did feel more aware of my surroundings however. I bet money there are studies that show that your impairment while listening to the radio is "more dangerous". Indeed I've seen them claiming we should be listening to calm music because "active" music makes us drive faster. And studies that show that listening to soft music makes us more sedate and less alert and responsive.
How about we raise the level of ability of our species and train our drivers (of all ages) better? And leave situational things to the people on the street, as it were?
Several of your assertions are unfounded, despite the argument itself being near-sound.
First, I am one of those you speak of. We *are* the ones trying to be involved. To the extent that that has expressed as a "reason" against vouchers - we will not be in the public schools anymore being involved and that will make them even worse than they already are. However, we run into a problem many here can identify with. We are fighting against a well funded and legally entrenched and protected class - the (so called) teacher's unions. Said groups are supported by not only tax dollars (a travesty on it's own IMO) but by the companies that make products that could go into the mandated schools if supported by the teachers unions they then fund - much like politicians only messier.
Yes we are taking our ball and going home. And while it may shock you, that i snot only a valid tactic, it is working. I'm in a state with a high and still growing percentage of home-schooled children. As upset parents *in* the system, we were isolated and marginalized "dissidents". Now, as a separate group no longer participating, we are a distinct demographic. Plus, the school system a couple decades ago decided that schools will get funded based on the student-days - the number of students per-day and the cumulative total. So a school with 180 days of perfect attendance of 100 students would have 18000 days of student attendance.
By us taking our collective balls and going home, we wind up in fact "taking" money from the school we leave - and it is having an effect. Schools are beginning to realize they do in fact need to perform better and several are. As a result those schools are now among the "nice" schools.
This is key, and key to vouchers causing positive improvement. Do you think McDonalds would care about your complaints regarding their service (or lack thereof) to quality (or lack thereof) if they were still going to get your money anyway? If you do, feel free to change your name to Pollyanna.;)
Now, onto your false assertions. The widespread belief that schools are paid for via property tax is false not only in my state but in many. Income and sales taxes account for the majority of funding for schools, and a majority portion of the remainder is from the federal government - which is not collecting property tax (yet). Funding from property tax is a small portion of school system funding. Thus, your assertion that it is "shared equally" is false on the face. Thus, it really is the "rich" paying for it.
Even if it were, the assertion would be irrelevant. We do not benefit equally from it. It is rather disproportionate in outcomes because so far at least the powers that be have not managed to provide the same outcomes.
We don't want to harm the public schools, and they don't need any help in that department anyway. It is hypocritical (and possibly mean-spirited) to say that those who want to pay for their kids' education are just trying to have more money but those who want their kids' education to paid for by other people are somehow virtuous.
The existing system is broken, completely. By way of example, in my state our budget doubled over the course of a few years. The "reason" trotted out was that kids in school doubled in that time. It was a lie. Our system is require to publish those numbers, and they hide it well on the site - and post after the political season is over. Yet the numbers show that the net increase in kids attending school had increased by under 200. In an entire state. That isn't even ONE school. The number of school-age children did climb quite a bit in that period of time, but the actual enrollments barely rose - barely a percentage. Certainly a couple hundred wouldn't justify the hundreds of millions of increase that was blamed on student enrollment increases.
If a private system did such things they would be sued, and would lose. But the courts have held so far that despite requiring your kids to be there for "an education" the state doesn't
I presume you were in favor of nuclear power? That would put you at odds with the vocal left-extremists. I suspect that will change in about a decade. It seems to take around that long for such ideas to bubble-over to one of the extreme sides.
The simplest voucher system is almost precisely what you stated. I'd just add "or home-school", though in a few years I'd bet the home-schooler contingent will reverse curse and shrink since they'll have affordable schools to choose from at their disposal. Any stipulations on it and you create an inherent inequality to the system. The remaining tricky bit is how do you classify a school? I'd say same as any other business.They file their business paperwork to do a specific thing. Creating a "school" that really exists to collect voucher money is fraud and should be prosecuted as such - nothing more, nothing less.
And I fully agree that getting the nutbags into their own schools is a definite bonus.
Google definitely did something stupid. If they made the decision to auto-include everyone with a Gmail account in Buzz because they thought it was the only way to catch up with Facebook and Twitter in a reasonable amount of time then what they did could arguably be considered Evil as well.
Not exactly. Evil requires intent. No "accidental evil" exists. Doing something stupid != being evil. For your scenario to be evil they would have to have *known* what they were doing was evil, which is not even shown. Wrong != Evil either.
For them to include all of the gmail userbase in Buzz by default to be evil it would have to be evil w/o regard to catching up to Facebook or Twitter, and to support your hypothesis the motive would also have to be evil. While you may not have intended it, you asserted that catching Facebook or Twitter quickly is evil. I'm not sure I buy that argument, just as I'm not sure you intended it that way.
I suspect from the limited knowledge I have, that it was a story failure in a complex system. We all know that happens. If you "accidentally" publish something, YOU did that. If it is done for you, that is a different story. In the first case you were being stupid. We also know that you can't protect people from being stupid either. The question in my mind would be what allowed those flaws to get through testing, and how can it be prevented. So by all means have an investigation - to determine if people's data was intentionally exposed. If it was unintentional, they can and should be sued in civil court for *actual damages*. People should pay for their mistakes and make restitution. But punitive measures should be reserved for intentional acts.
Regarding lawmakers, they will ALWAYS pull the "TotC" card because it pre-emptively demonizes anyone that disagrees with them. After all, who would be against the children? We have politicians, not statesmen
Slashdot Mirror
"When you've only got one provider, who makes the rules? The provider makes the rules."
When you've got a hundred providers, who makes the rules? The provider. I suspect Mr Wheeler is being disingenuous here. He wants to be the one to make the rules. Central rule making by government has never been shown to be a way to encourage "more providers" of a service. If anything it has the opposite effect. Mostly this comes through the increase regulations' cost to startups. More intense regulatory burdens, from administrative to functional, nearly always benefit the larger companies. This works against a desire to increase options and competition. Plus, from a regulatory commission standpoint, the fewer, and larger, players you have the better it is for you because that means more lobbying.
"the question becomes, will giant companies be able to exploit their monopoly position?"
Monopoly abuses is not part of your job, Mr. Wheeler. We already have laws for that, and a means to enforce them. If your concern is abuse of monopoly, talk to the FTC. The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for dealing with that, not the Federal Communications Commission.
"Who is going to stand up for consumers? Who is going to stand up for innovation? And who is going to stand up for the most important network for determining our future in the 21st century?"
Not the FCC. The FCC can't stand for innovation, it moves too slow and enshrines technological choices into law/regs which are too slow to be corrected, and the penalties of them are applied nationally rather than locally. The FTC has the role of "standing up for consumers", not the FCC. The "most important network of our future" is still people, so the FCC would be stretching very heavily to even attempt to "stand up" for that.
Basically, if he wants to feel like he is standing up for consumers, he needs to transfer to the FTC.
A quick glance at the card, she saw and read the title.
The last bastion is the human reading it. Let not poor typography or color choices excuse not taking caution to read the whole thing before announcing. There were several failure points here, not just one. If we are going to rightly lay some fault at the accountant for not handing out the right card envelope due to being not paying proper attention, then Faye also rightly deserves some for not paying proper attention. Perfect typography won't prevent someone from reading part of the text and ignoring the rest.
Written by someone who clearly has never actually done this, since the Kindle App does not do in-app purchases at all, but redirects to a browser.
So you are saying that by using The Daily, people find their iPads have all other news sources deleted and you can't install any other news apps? Wow. Quite the leap there.
Seems pretty arrogant to me to assume that anyone wanting to or being willing to pay for news content has zero other options, or are somehow precluded from doing so.
No, it isn't. The restaurant owner seeing what is popular still has to go and actually come up with a dish to satisfy the demand. Chefs an owners do in fact visit other places. They do it openly. And often they chat with the competition.
It would be more like me giving you a flower to pin on your lapel and saying it will tell me where you go, but really it also records and tells me what you order to eat and where you ordered it at. Then imagine me doing that to thousands of people - people who don't like my restaurant but like my competitor's and you'd be getting warmer.
What you are describing would be more like MS doing searches on Google's site directly, and incorporating those results into their own rankings. Or more like a portal realizing people want to search for things on the Internet and get useful results, and then making a search engine to do that.
Personally, it depends on the price and the actual user experience. Most of the "free" stuff makes you pay in other ways, such as painful UI decisions and ugly intrusive advertising. If the price is right I'd take a single-source that works *well* and doesn't abuse my senses. Particularly since having one does not preclude the others.
Walking freely and an expensive sports car can both get me from home to work. But that doesn't mean the experience is the same, and the fact that more people choose buying a car (even a cheap one) over walking illustrates that we do in fact place a value on each of those and act based on our own valuations. However, despite the fact I bought the sports car, I still walk some places.
With a reported 500,000/week to support it, it only takes 500,001 people in the world to choose the 99c/week option to make it a net (yet tiny) profit. Sure, if Apple gets half, that means News Corp has to get 1,000,001 subscribers. This assumes there is no in-app advertising they get money from as well. Will they get that? I'd say absolutely - provided the app itself is a quality one (unlike the Safari Books app O'Reilly put out -and pulled- last year). Succeeding in business doesn't necessarily mean outrunning the bear. Sometimes it just means outrunning the other hikers. News Corp. doesn't need all iPad owners to subscribe, just a portion of them.
Yes, it is your phone. And once on your phone the apps are ostensibly yours. On the other hand, it is Apple's Store and Apple's infrastructure supporting the distribution of those apps. Apple pays the bandwidth for the store
Macy's decides what goes in their store and under what conditions. So does Walmart and local Mom & Pop stores. You knew going into the phone purchase what the Apple Store did, or you should have.
As you said, it's a genuine problem, both for Apple and users, and there is no ideal solution. However it is ultimately Apple's problem to solve how they see fit because it is their store. If Amazon (which has rules of their own for their store) doesn't like the rules, they don't have to put apps in Apple's store. Just as you can't buy everything "home related" at Walmart, you won't be able to get everything in the Apple store as not everyone agrees to the terms.
In a sense, apps that exist solely to be advertising and marketing routes to websites to sell stuff are a pollutant to the iTunes ecosystem. Consider an analogue. Consider what would be the effect of say Walmart, Sears, or a Mall, charging companies a percentage of sales to set up a booth selling things on their premises. Happens quite often actually. And we don't gripe about that. Now consider what would happen if those kiosk stores instead were giving out boxes that were nothing more than a collection of advertisements. For Free.
Now, we have the same situation. The company that owns/manages the premises is getting nothing in return for the services they provide. Of course we'd be saying that it would be their own fault for not charging a minimum fee and that's tough luck for them being stupid. On the other hand, here we have Apple *not* making that mistake (any longer) and instead we want to blame them and label them the bad guys. Really, they are just enforcing the rules int eh SDK anyway.
If Amazon wanted in app purchasing in their Kindle app, they could, and would, have done it. That they didn't is good on them because they read the SDK agreement and abided by it. Of course, that is the reason I don't use the kindle app so much because I have to go to their website and deal with it's idiosyncrasies to buy an eBook. So that means I won't be affected by this. I'd wager the Kindle app isn't affected at all since it does not do in-app purchasing anyway.
Neither Apple nor Amazon are the idiots being made out here on /.. Unlike most of the posters here today, Amazon knew that doing in-app purchasing in the Kindle app would subject them to Apple percentage requirements. So they didn't implement it (to my annoyance but w/e). Apple doesn't expect Amazon to suddenly start paying them because the Kindle doesn't fit the criteria.
Perhaps Amazon's Windowshop app lets you purchase items directly, I've not tried. I'd be suprised if it didn't simply take you to the website when you wanted to purchase. Mostly because as I read it that would be a violation of the SDK agreement. So even that app would not likely be affected here.
Well sort of. Since 11.3 applies to *physical* goods, then yeah the hardcopy book you bought through the imaginary IAP Amazon Kindle app that let you buy physical books could not be read on your Kindle, PC, or Mac.
But since that would be obvious and a non-issue, and no Kindle iPhone app has in-app purchasing (be it physical or electronic books), it's rather a pointless statement.
Garibaldi: Think they'll ever find that transmitter you slipped G'Kar?
Sinclair: No. because there isn't one.
Garibaldi: There isn't? Wait—
Sinclair: I lied. I figured if there were a transmitter, sooner or later they'd find it and remove it. But if I just told them there was, they'd keep looking. Indefinitely.
Garibaldi: Commander, do you have any idea of the tests they'll put him through, the things they'll do to him trying to find a transmitter that's not there?
Sinclair: Yes.
Actually, it was designed with the intention of taking humans up. The big hurdle in humans is the vibration and "physical displacement of occupants" for launch to space. The engines were designed and built with that in mind, and Musk intends to strap the engines onto larger rockets configurations (Falcon X and Falcon X Heavy IIRC). Musk's goal is Mars and he asserts that the Falcon 9H could, if assembled and launched from LEO, take us there. Last I ran the numbers base don estimated lift tonnage, it could do with a multiple launch mission profile and be launched from Earth. A few years ago when I was running the numbers on an orbital "assembly" mission profile, it would certainly work just fine for taking us to Mars. And while it does take more to go to the Moon than Mars (you actually need a bigger rocket to go to the Moon), the Falcon 9 heavy could probably do the same for going to the Moon.
It is these days. And why not? Open science is better than "protected" science, or "sanitized" science. The Science Establishement letting the people see what science is really like, and doing it in the open, is one of the best things we can do for science.
I hate how cynical and ignorant mods mod people like you up.
First off, you are engaging in the fallacy of idealizing the past, a particular popular fallacy on slashdot. I find the more recent NASA accomplishments a lot more impressive than just lobbing meatbags onto the nearest satellite. Robotic rovers on mars, stardust mission, all manner of flybys and good space science, planetary probe hubble and webb in 2014, etc, Heck, we just had a god damn comet flyby last month.
So "just lobbing hunks of metal into orbit" > "just lobbing meatbags to the nearest satellite"?? Talk about a perversion of difficulty and complexity. Successfully placing people on other celestial bodies and bringing them back is far more difficult than some measly hunks of metal, rubber, and electronics. After putting people on the moon and bringing them back, lobbing satellites is well .. just lobbing satellites. It's like winning the Indy 500 and then spending the next several decades bragging about driving 5 MPH over the speed limit. In town. In a school zone.
The reality of it is, NASA could well send people to Mars and back, and on it's current budget. The reason they don't? They are a federally funded bureaucracy. I'll elaborate a bit.
When NASA was about space exploration, and specifically human space exploration, they were focus on it. As the political will for it diminished they PtB looked for something else they could include so they could continue to exist. So they expanded their definition of what space exploration meant. This continued over the course of the last several decades to the extent that NASA doing "research" in terrestrial lakes is included in it.
Let that last bit sink in some more. Conducting research on terrestrial lakes is considered "space exploration". That certainly fits my criteria for a bloated agency. The reality is that NASA has a lot of "wasted" funding. If they focused their efforts on space exploration instead of "anything science related" they could actually get some real accomplishments under their belt instead of floundering in Low Earth Orbit for 30 years. If they put actual efficiency as a higher priority than "spreading the wealth among the congressional candidates" they could recapture the imagination, and dare I say hearts and minds, of the voters.
No, the reality is that objectively NASA's "performance" has plummeted. The rovers? They did not massively outlive their expected life. They outlived their requested mission duration. And it was stated back then the rovers were capable of far more than their window. And really, what was NASAs "science" in that? They were a carrier. They lobbed those hunks of metal and electronics to the "next satellite" of the sun. Oh and they provided some people to monitor them. We have automated rovers here on this planet, so the whole autonomous robot aspect is nothing new, and hence not an accomplishment to be proud of anymore than a team that wins the Superbowl can consider a victory over a high school team an accomplishment. Terrestrial weather research is not an aspect of space exploration.
NASA has shown year over year, time and again, that they -as an organization- are not interested in doing real space exploration work, just getting the money for it. They've had plans by experts (their own people even) that they themselves determine would be an order of magnitude cheaper, and many times safer. Yet hey turn them down because they don't constitute a large enough budget increase to appeal to a wide state selection of senators. Anytime the bigger ticket is the "preferred" option to a less expensive but safer journey with a higher ROI you've got a classic case of "just give us money so we can push pencils around". And we the people have seen it.
That isn't to say there aren't good scientists at NASA, they do exist. But they are held into a form of bondage by the bureaucracy that NASA has become.
And given NASAs *full* track record, don't count on anyth
No, slashdotters are reacting so strongly because, being slashdotters, they didn't RTFA and see that he didn't get a year in prison, nor did he get a year's sentenced for violation someone's privacy. The incarceration is for "obstruction of justice". This felony provides for a maximum of 20 years incarceration, yet the guidelines applied to this case recommend 15-18 months. The *total* term sought by the prosecution was 18 months. How is either the request or the result out of the range in the guidelines? Neither the notoriety of the case nor the perp can be credited with affecting the incarceration term. In this case the guy outright posted his goal was to "disrupt her campaign". The breach of privacy was merely a vessel to his goal, and the end punishment of a felony was for destroying evidence during a federal investigation of his criminal activity.
The misdemeanor penalty he got for the computer offense is apparently too small to be reported on, and/or is "rolled into" the 18 month request.
But would it have electrolytes?
Another source would include the possibility of freeze/thaw cycles. There is also another method suggested last year involving radiolytic H2reacting in a non-bioligic manner with CO2 dissolved in water. That process would be neither biological nor geological. There are other atmospheric/radiological possibilities too (such as UV interacting with the atmosphere).
Yet another method is one you throw out sarcastically. Last year, as I recall, there was a hypothesis put forth that meteorites released methane as they burn up on entry. They do, in fact. However, the problem with that hypothesis is that this source is not significant enough to account for the large volumes of Methane required to support the cycles shown in the data this report discusses (10kg/year compared to a couple hundred tons/year). Subsurface deposits melting were also proposed as a source.
So yes, that actually does narrow it down. It narrows it down very significantly, and further if you accept the hypothesis that Mars is a 'dead' planet geologically. "Geological processes" are not as broad as you seem to believe. Geology is a rather specific field. Mars is considered dead geologically. Thus, if you accept that all other sources of Methane have been eliminated you are left with the following two possibilities:
1) Biological - life of some sort
2) Mars isn't geologically dead, and it is a geological process.
Either result is pretty damned important. Though technically it could be a third option: Both.
Further, the bigger quandary isn't so much *how* it is produced, but why does the Martian air "lose" so much methane so quickly? It is removed from the atmosphere faster than the usual suspects.
Your analogy would work if rocks could be formed atmospherically, biologically, or radiologically.
So you get to buy a bunch more mercury-laden CFLs, yay for you!
I've spent the time to test out a variety of brands at various prices in real-world usage patterns. In the majority of use patterns, CFLs blow out 2-4 times faster than Incandescents. If you want to get real savings, step up to full on fluorescent bulbs. The ones in my garage ran for over a decade. But they matched the usage profile for FLs. Every internal light (especially bathrooms and hallways) Incandescents have outlasted CFLs by very large margins. Even if the CFLs were priced as low as incandescents, they'd still be far more expensive.
Banning Incandescents is stupid, wasteful, and nothing more than a special interest gimme. If you really want to cut your energy costs, nothing beats turning off lights that aren't needed. Second to that is matching the lighting to the task. Perhaps a lower wattage bulb right where you need it (or even an LED right there) instead of the "big room light" that has to be brighter because it is trying to fulfill every role.
This latter point is the single biggest problem in home (and office) lighting. The notion that one light is all you need for a room is generally false and wasteful. That is why we see a trend toward more lights - and why more "upscale" homes have dozens of lights in the main room, the kitchen, and sometimes the dining room. So now, I expect that we will not see a reduction in electricity demand form lights, because we will have even more lights per room. Just like low-calorie drinks leads to people drinking more of them - and resulting in consuming more calories because the human mind tricks itself.
But don't take my word for it, or the OP's word either. Do the math on your own home and usage.
Of course, that will likely lead to having a mix of light types (LED, CFLs, Tubes, Incandescents, etc.) in your house. And that is partly why the neoliberals don't want you to have the option.
Funny how Mercury is so bad for you (which it is) that you can't possibly be allowed to have it anywhere. Except for lighting your home where you are clearly not getting enough of it and Mommy NeoLib has to force you to use it.
The facts bely your claim. The facts are that in the US at least, our pollution out has been decreasing for a very long time. Not that it makes news (until a politician of any stripe wants to claim he or she is responsible for it), pollution has in fact gone down significantly over the last 40+ years. Same with water pollution. Meanwhile, energy per-capita has increased. Not suprising given that cleaner technology usually requires more energy (most recycling consumes more energy than it "saves" for example), and that we as a group mus thave enough "excess" energy available to use the cleaner technology.
Advances don't generally happen suddenly, a point you make. However you seem to forget the fact that advances incrementally over time lead to more improvement than single one-shot advances, Further, not all improvements are the result of improving technology. Often they are ways of being smarter about things. For example, carrying more cargo per trip reducing the energy use of the cargo over taking two trucks to deliver it. Indeed, as some research shows more efficient technology can lead to an increase in net energy use. The effect is similar to reduced-calorie foods. Cut the calories in half and many people eat more than double what they were previously.
As to the latter part of your statement, again the history of technological changes proves your statement false. As I've heard said "We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks". Nor the Bronze Age for want of bronze, nor Iron Age for lack of iron. We as a species and civilization do in fact continuously replace prior technology. The problem we face now is government distortion of costs through mandates and subsidies. These actions cloud the needed information of relative supply and demand, as well as the incentive to produce lower cost versions of "better" technology.
"I know, you'd think any kind of team like this would need a demo man, but in fact, at least 80% of the time, high explosives are not the correct answer to your IT woes."
"That server over there is spreading a virus" - C4.apply() ..." C4.apply() "...fail"
"We can't upgrade to HW that meets our needs when the existing HW is still mostly functional" - C4.apply()
"MS wants us to pay for each server that might be running Windows" - C4.apply()
"No need for Business Continuity Planning, our data center will never
"the printer still isn't working" - C4.apply()
"We've hired an intern for you, we'll need you to train him on everything you do. You know, just in case something happened to you." - C4.apply()
"The DDOS won't stop" - findOffendingRouter() && C4.apply()
"Hey, who put IIS on our public network?" - C4.apply()
Anytime sledgehammers haven't solved the problem - C4.apply()
"How will we get that rack through the too-small door?" C4.apply()
Someone keeps swiping your keyboard or mouse - C4.apply()
I dunno, seems explosives are a valuable tool that can solve problems at least half the time.
Even if we accepted your assertion that we'd only need high explosives 1 time in 5, that is still grounds for a demo spec. Remember, not all high-explosives make big explosions. A well shaped small HE charge can do wonders. ... and someday our paths may cross. <evil grin>
If that isn't enough to convince you, know that my team includes a demolitions expert
His statement is simple fact. If you want privacy, you do have something you want to hide, or know you might. That isn't a problem. The problem lies in thinking that having_something-to_hide == being_bad. Everyone has something to hide, and that is good. Quite frankly some of us have things the rest of us want you to hide. Remember, "Spandex is a privilege,not a right".
As long as the mindset that wanting to hide something is by nature bad, privacy will have a bad rap.
"what's the opposite of "privatize"? "
Bailout.
Actually given the predictions claiming it is essentially unstoppable even if we brought all emissions to zero, it make MUCH more sense to invest in means of limiting or avoiding the consequences through a stronger economy for all and better technology and reducing regulations that stifle or hamper these things. Stop subsidizing building in the alleged high-risk areas Start rebuilding coastal cities to handle floods better (hint: wealth countries in monsoon regions have been doing this for years). Increase the amount of energy available for things such as A/C and better insulation of houses and commercial buildings.
While I'm no fan of excessive building codes, the fact is that you could raise the bar on hurricane or flood prone areas (or tornado prone) leading to a price increase on par with the increased cost of disaster management preparation for the area. I choose these areas specifically because frankly these are problem areas with or without global warming (man made or not). The government should stop re-building people's houses in these *known risky areas*. Have a sliding percentage that is higher for lower risk areas, and lower yet the more times you've "cashed in" on it. But only available for low income people, say 400% or lower of the poverty line.
Over time people will move out of those areas, or not move into them, in as high numbers thus reducing both the risk and cost should it happen. If the prophets of doom are wrong, we haven't spent trillions of dollars on something that would be more damaging than doing nothing.
As to your question of how "working to increase efficiency and reduce pollution" can make it worse, I am almost stunned by your lack of knowledge or imagination.
First, new technology is expensive. Very. Expensive. Hell, even old technology is. Solar cells, for example. By all rational definitions a mature technology. Yet it is horribly expensive. Sure, it may be efficient in one measurement, but that ignores the rest of the system. The "ecosystem" surrounding solar is horribly inefficient. The costs to replace the existing system with houses and businesses power by the sun are, pardon the phrase, astronomical. Mandating such a change, even say as little as 5%, would destroy the housing market. New construction would be priced dramatically out of the current range, leading to a drastic drop in demand for it combined with a drastic increase in demand for existing homes. As a result we'd have a big housing bubble, or we'd have a long term bubble that would price a significant percentage out of the market. Since this would apply to business facilities too, the price of all goods and services go up. Unnatural inflation is a ten ton anchor on a rowboat to the economy.
In order to actually make the difference the global disasterbators say is coming, we'd have to completely stop almost all industrial development in the third world. Assuming it would be possible, it would prove disastrous for the very people they say are at the highest risk. History shows quite clearly that the more wealthy and healthy a society and economy is, the better we the people can handle disasters.
Claiming that "any" effort to accomplish the goals is beneficial is akin to saying that the local economy is better off if we have a bunch of people paid to keep breaking windows so the window replacement industry can hire more people to replace the windows and the manufacturers have more orders. It just ain't true.
Which should demonstrate the sever disservice our "driver's ed" programs and expectations are. Mechanized units in the military are the same way. We could eat, navigate rough terrain, pay attention to up to four radios plus the other people in the car and be on the lookout for the enemy all at the same time. Sometimes you'd add engaging the enemy into that. Talking on a phone while driving a car in traffic? Pfft. Child's play.
We have these things called "reckless driving" laws. When you are being reckless, you get busted. It used to be you could go to court and either prove you were not being reckless (good luck) or fail to or admit to it and pay your fine.
But no, now we want things so simple that we have to specify things that are not always reckless, while ignoring things that are. We don't make a law that says "doing cookies (sometimes known as doughnuts) in parking lots or in traffic is dangerous and thus banned", we have the cop cite or arrest for reckless driving. If a cop can't tell the difference between being reckless and not being reckless either it isn't reckless or the cop needs better training and experience.
I did a year long experiment where I kept the radio off in my car. Did I drive better? Well I can't quantify it because I didn't get into accidents or such activities before or during. I did feel more aware of my surroundings however. I bet money there are studies that show that your impairment while listening to the radio is "more dangerous". Indeed I've seen them claiming we should be listening to calm music because "active" music makes us drive faster. And studies that show that listening to soft music makes us more sedate and less alert and responsive.
How about we raise the level of ability of our species and train our drivers (of all ages) better? And leave situational things to the people on the street, as it were?
Several of your assertions are unfounded, despite the argument itself being near-sound.
First, I am one of those you speak of. We *are* the ones trying to be involved. To the extent that that has expressed as a "reason" against vouchers - we will not be in the public schools anymore being involved and that will make them even worse than they already are. However, we run into a problem many here can identify with. We are fighting against a well funded and legally entrenched and protected class - the (so called) teacher's unions. Said groups are supported by not only tax dollars (a travesty on it's own IMO) but by the companies that make products that could go into the mandated schools if supported by the teachers unions they then fund - much like politicians only messier.
Yes we are taking our ball and going home. And while it may shock you, that i snot only a valid tactic, it is working. I'm in a state with a high and still growing percentage of home-schooled children. As upset parents *in* the system, we were isolated and marginalized "dissidents". Now, as a separate group no longer participating, we are a distinct demographic. Plus, the school system a couple decades ago decided that schools will get funded based on the student-days - the number of students per-day and the cumulative total. So a school with 180 days of perfect attendance of 100 students would have 18000 days of student attendance.
By us taking our collective balls and going home, we wind up in fact "taking" money from the school we leave - and it is having an effect. Schools are beginning to realize they do in fact need to perform better and several are. As a result those schools are now among the "nice" schools.
This is key, and key to vouchers causing positive improvement. Do you think McDonalds would care about your complaints regarding their service (or lack thereof) to quality (or lack thereof) if they were still going to get your money anyway? If you do, feel free to change your name to Pollyanna. ;)
Now, onto your false assertions. The widespread belief that schools are paid for via property tax is false not only in my state but in many. Income and sales taxes account for the majority of funding for schools, and a majority portion of the remainder is from the federal government - which is not collecting property tax (yet). Funding from property tax is a small portion of school system funding. Thus, your assertion that it is "shared equally" is false on the face. Thus, it really is the "rich" paying for it.
Even if it were, the assertion would be irrelevant. We do not benefit equally from it. It is rather disproportionate in outcomes because so far at least the powers that be have not managed to provide the same outcomes.
We don't want to harm the public schools, and they don't need any help in that department anyway. It is hypocritical (and possibly mean-spirited) to say that those who want to pay for their kids' education are just trying to have more money but those who want their kids' education to paid for by other people are somehow virtuous.
The existing system is broken, completely. By way of example, in my state our budget doubled over the course of a few years. The "reason" trotted out was that kids in school doubled in that time. It was a lie. Our system is require to publish those numbers, and they hide it well on the site - and post after the political season is over. Yet the numbers show that the net increase in kids attending school had increased by under 200. In an entire state. That isn't even ONE school. The number of school-age children did climb quite a bit in that period of time, but the actual enrollments barely rose - barely a percentage. Certainly a couple hundred wouldn't justify the hundreds of millions of increase that was blamed on student enrollment increases.
If a private system did such things they would be sued, and would lose. But the courts have held so far that despite requiring your kids to be there for "an education" the state doesn't
I presume you were in favor of nuclear power? That would put you at odds with the vocal left-extremists. I suspect that will change in about a decade. It seems to take around that long for such ideas to bubble-over to one of the extreme sides.
The simplest voucher system is almost precisely what you stated. I'd just add "or home-school", though in a few years I'd bet the home-schooler contingent will reverse curse and shrink since they'll have affordable schools to choose from at their disposal. Any stipulations on it and you create an inherent inequality to the system. The remaining tricky bit is how do you classify a school? I'd say same as any other business.They file their business paperwork to do a specific thing. Creating a "school" that really exists to collect voucher money is fraud and should be prosecuted as such - nothing more, nothing less.
And I fully agree that getting the nutbags into their own schools is a definite bonus.
Not exactly. Evil requires intent. No "accidental evil" exists. Doing something stupid != being evil. For your scenario to be evil they would have to have *known* what they were doing was evil, which is not even shown. Wrong != Evil either.
For them to include all of the gmail userbase in Buzz by default to be evil it would have to be evil w/o regard to catching up to Facebook or Twitter, and to support your hypothesis the motive would also have to be evil. While you may not have intended it, you asserted that catching Facebook or Twitter quickly is evil. I'm not sure I buy that argument, just as I'm not sure you intended it that way.
I suspect from the limited knowledge I have, that it was a story failure in a complex system. We all know that happens. If you "accidentally" publish something, YOU did that. If it is done for you, that is a different story. In the first case you were being stupid. We also know that you can't protect people from being stupid either. The question in my mind would be what allowed those flaws to get through testing, and how can it be prevented. So by all means have an investigation - to determine if people's data was intentionally exposed. If it was unintentional, they can and should be sued in civil court for *actual damages*. People should pay for their mistakes and make restitution. But punitive measures should be reserved for intentional acts.
Regarding lawmakers, they will ALWAYS pull the "TotC" card because it pre-emptively demonizes anyone that disagrees with them. After all, who would be against the children? We have politicians, not statesmen