Yep I agree. It should be ram usage + low ram not just RAM usage. All I saw for settings was to completely disable that type of warning not exclude certain apps. So I'll live with it it is just a popup balloon every few days so not a big deal.
"dwarfed by its two superior competitors" Apple and Google. I'll give it to Apple because they actually build products but Google? How much does it matter how large they are they don't make the devices and it isn't either of those companies' only product so it isn't like they are dedicated to the market and that they wouldn't just pump their money elsewhere if it didn't work out.
I wasn't saying AVG was the problem. I'm aware of FF RAM usage because AVG tells me about it periodically. I'm not that much of a nerd that I check my RAM usage all the time even when my computer isn't behaving poorly. AVG IS suggesting that something might be wrong with the app because it is using so much RAM though. Not sure if it is a generic thing like anything using > X MB of RAM gets flagged, or if it is RAM usage growth over time that triggers the warning or what. Don't really care because I ignore it since I'm no where near my RAM limit.
Or is compression and quotas something that you'd want, or at least want to be able to do if you chose on a filesystem level for a server? I know when I was admin of a large SAN half of my work was figuring out who needed how much data and making sure they got it by putting a quota on the hosting array. How exactly you go about this without it at the filesystem level? Are you supposed to provision a LUN for each user that is the size you want? What exactly was the reason for depreciating this? Is there a measurable performance win?
I get warnings from AVG about every other day warning about FF memory usage looking suspicious. I'm pretty sure I'm not infected with anything. But having say 3-4 tabs open on Win 7 (might be the problem;-)) uses ~560MB of RAM. Not overly complex sites either,/., coding site, youtube say (not playing a video). That said I rarely hit 80% of RAM used overall so I don't really care how FF uses my RAM other than if more RAM implies slower because more stuff has to go back and forth to the CPU. It could just mean that FF preloads a bunch of stuff so it runs faster though (don't hear a lot of people say it is faster:-)) so tricky.
I still don't see how the poster was promoting a specific company by pointing out there mistakes but okay I'll give you that new accounts going off pushing a particular idea might be astro-turfing. One could argue a lot of new accounts get away with pushing No-Company (TM) products though as in it is okay to go off on Richard Stallman like rants of craziness as long as you are pushing FOSS without being labelled an astro-turfer. Techies have their preferred tech and likely will post about what they care about. So I'd say with something this subtle give the guy/girl the benefit of the doubt.
So pointing out that MS screwed up in the past and using concrete examples that another company is making the same mistake is somehow MS propaganda? MS did some crap (works, Vista, IE 7, patent crap threatening without stating exactly what is being infringed, etc), they did some good things (Win 95-8 (for it's day was really cool if not exactly that stable), Win 7,.Ne/VS I'd put in that list), but regardless saying someone other than MS is being stupid doesn't make you an MS shill.
Never heard of her until she died. Sad. Perhaps her case will help promote health care generally in India. Would be nice if losing a clearly large potential helps put the focus on curing disease (especially the more exotic ones that the west doesn't focus much on).
That said though I've heard that prodigies often fail to reach their potential. Ie do amazingly well and get into Harvard Law at 15 and than... nothing. Their career is just like the rest of the Joe Smoes that got their degree when they were 25. I guess as two examples of ones that succeeded: Beethoven and Bobby Fischer. Any others? I guess what I'm saying is they have the intelligence of an adult extremely early but often they don't continue to develop. That is the nature of human development in general from what I understand. 0-4 or so really rapid development. Than more from 14-30 or so. In between and afterwards nothing that special. You learn but your reasoning doesn't improve at a great rate (might even decrease later on even not counting senility. So sad, but one good thing is she'll be remembered for what she was excellent at not as a 70 year old that had a hoo hum career and "oh yeah was the first MS MCP, you know that company from back in the 2010's?".
I think (stats?) that there is a heck of a lot more piracy now because it is so convenient. Before you had to buy your buddy a VHS tape or whatever and have him make a copy for you. That required both a willingness to spend some money and knowing someone with what you want. Now I download a few GBs of stuff a day that I might want but if I don't I delete it. It costs me next to nothing and I don't have to know anyone personally that likes the same things I do. So going back to pre-internet days at least for me would mean near 0 piracy versus several rips a day with the internet.
Mah just move to a country that doesn't enforce copyrights from downloaded stuff, problem solved:-) Kind of weird I can't get sued for copyright infringment but the government still allows ISPs to throttle connections based on protocol so: free but slow. Still 3Mbps with no worries of cops knocking on the door is nice. 3Mbps is fast enough to get new content faster than I can watch it anyways.
It's the same thing with drug dealers but that doesn't stop the police from trying. There are a lot of novice users out there. I have friends that stopped downloading things once Kazaa stopped having a lot of stuff. Sure a search and an hour learning about torrents could have made it possible for them to start downloading again but once it wasn't dirt simple, or even just "use the thing I always use" they just gave up and started hoping things would show up on You Tube and the like (not in the US so no hulu and netflix sucks here).
A more scary thing would be if they start making search engines filter out sites that are and sites that link to p2p networks. I guess kind of the same battle as taking the sites down but a simple check when crawling the site if it has links to magnet or.torrent files would do a huge amount of the work. Sure it would kill some legitimate uses but when has that stopped Big Brother?
Yep and they have nice things like the ability to set limits on the sync, drop and forget syncing (I think iCloud has that too though I don't think google has (skyDrive?)).
Future: media sharing perhaps? I seem to recall a article somewhere talking about how their software is very efficient in the backend, built their own storage jbods, lots of deduplication etc. Say they can get an agreement to become a digital library for ebooks and music. Might be tough with Apple and Amazon in the mix but if they could get something together with the right holders they could offer a DRM layer on top of their existing sharing system. A platform agnostic iCloud that obeys media rights (both a good and a bad thing, but good business I think).
On Apple: wrong. It was a huge effort for them. For example Adobe didn't support Intel Macs natively until a year after they came out. Adobe has always been huge on Mac. They avoided the pain by emulation with "universal" binaries. Otherwise you are right 300k+ programs will not be recompiled unless it makes economic sense to the developers. For a starters older apps might not make enough revenue to justify buying a new version of Visual Studio and the effort to migrate to the new OS. Sure a "just compile again" solution might work but I anticipate a lot of pain for anything not trivial.
Windows sales on ARM: not so sure about that. Probably not enough to knock iPad and Android off their respective thrones but they might do reasonably well. Having a plan to support apps across form factors is going to help them. Think phone devs apps also running in metro on other platforms with little to no differences (other than having to be intelligent about sizing things appropriately and adapting the UI interaction model for what each device is capable of).
I realize it isn't the same thing but I've written several xbap apps for windows at work. I ported one of them that was reasonably large for a single developer (~10k lines of code touching 5 databases, several charting functions, about a dozen "tabs" of windows) to standalone app. Took all of half an hour to figure out how to do it and about 10 lines of code. If they can bring that to PC/tablet/phone they might get HUGE developer interest and provide another platform for their existing PC centric customers to sell their apps to.
I don't get the problem. The article says it is for devices that shipped with WIn 8. iPhone iPad doesn't support installing Linux either. In general people don't change OSs (other than newer versions of the shipped with OS) on phones. Tablets it might be more of a problem but I think the iPad success has steared the idea of a tablet from "little computer" to "device" which isn't tampered with. Don't like it buy a device with linux on it first and than maybe you can install Win 8 on it (they didn't say in the article but I suspect this is a "OEM" rule not going to be prevented by the OS itself).
I think last gen iPhone being nearly the same as the top of the line has more to do with single manufacture/single model than anything else. If you buy an iPhone you are buying a high end phone. if you continue to buy a high end Android phone you probably will get a similar experience.
But... there is the love/hate with the fragmentation: you might get enough of what you want from a smart phone from a cheap Android. You aren't going to get the full experience but it might be close enough for what you want. Similar to people buying low end additions of Windows. Doesn't have everything but if it has everything you want who cares? It leads to a lot of confusion though because people say just do X, oh wait no your device doesn't support that because it is the cheap version. Sorry.
http://www.stim.com/Stim-x/0996September/Sparky/tricorder.html I think that was the one we had. Really dorky one of a kind science class where we measured emf, geopositioned things (before public access to GPS), etc. Thing did temperature, emf, voltmeter stuff if you had the attachments I think, had a colour spectrum analyzer (so you could hold it up to something and it would tell you the rgb values).
Governments are elected to govern. If the majority of the electorate has voted them in on the platform that they were going to do X than it isn't governing by fiat.
That's the way it's supposed to work, but it's not the way it's currently working at the federal level, and it doesn't sound like what you were advocating at all.
Agreed on the not how it is working part. Not sure what you mean by that isn't what I'm advocating.
I'm opposed to restricting personal freedoms at any level, I'm not opposed to government enforcing/managing access to those freedoms in the most uniform way as possible.
What does that even mean? If I have to beg some bureaucrat for "access" to my freedom - that's not freedom at all.
Some rights require resources. Ex. education, health care, military defense, fair courts etc. Those people/programs need to be funded and managed, my argument is that as far as the need is uniform than the program should be funded/managed in the most consistent manner. Separating funding from legislation goes horribly wrong. You end up with a party voting for a law to look like they are doing something good to help people and than not funding it (but not voting to repeal the law either because that would make them look mean), or a lower government not funding something that a higher government says they must do as away to usurp power down to the smaller government that they don't have (but want).
But as far as government doing what they said they would (at least as much as they can after the compromises to the other party) isn't dictatorship it is the will of the people.
That's a pretty specious claim. The bank bailout was opposed by an overwhelming majority of the people, but it passed anyway. Ethanol mandates and subsidies are now completely without support but still happening. SOPA is opposed by 96% to 4%, but getting pushed through. I could go on and on with these things. Practically nobody outside DC wants indefinite detention of US citizens by the military, but there it is.
Agreed. Perhaps you missed my part about platform they got elected on/referendums etc. Radical changes in legislation should be voted on, either directly by referendum or indirectly by waiting till another election and being part of the platform. Not sure about ethanol, but SOPA, Gitmo, bailout etc were all intraterm huge policy choices that were unpopular. SOPA could have waited till an election, gitmo probably had to happen quickly since the people the US wanted to hang on to were getting captured and would have had to at least be held until a decision was made (say 6 months). Bailout: another thing that was urgent not sure if a small amount of aid to allow for time for a vote would have been sufficient. Markets might not have responded and the money might just have been thrown away. But than again maybe not. That is a really tough one I think in that once it is done its done and there really wasn't much time to decide.
I just don't see how it is fair that one kid learns about evolution and God, another learns about evolution, another just God etc based on where they live.
That's the parent's decision, not yours, not the government's. The issue here is that education has become mostly a monopoly protected by government and paid for by forceable confiscation of private money.
Why is ignorance a parents decision? Doesn't the kid have a right to learn and choice for themselves when the time comes? Regardless nothing is stopping parents from teaching their kids what they want at home. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.". Parents shouldn't be able to dictate what their kids learn in science/history class etc because there are pretty clear things that science has shown over the last hundred years. You can disagree with them, you can teach your kid
Governments are elected to govern. If the majority of the electorate has voted them in on the platform that they were going to do X than it isn't governing by fiat. I'm opposed to restricting personal freedoms at any level, I'm not opposed to government enforcing/managing access to those freedoms in the most uniform way as possible. Does government screw up. Sure. For example I don't think radical legislation should happen in the years between elections. If that means things take too long than have more elections or have referendums. But as far as government doing what they said they would (at least as much as they can after the compromises to the other party) isn't dictatorship it is the will of the people.
I just don't see how it is fair that one kid learns about evolution and God, another learns about evolution, another just God etc based on where they live. One employee gets health care affordably and another doesn't based on what their state decided was the right thing to do. These to me are fundamental rights to a) remove ignorance and b) have fair access to public programs (doesn't matter which side of the public private healthcare spectrum you fall just having different rights based on your state doesn't make sense to me).
I don't feel threatened by differing ideas and I see it as my duty as a parent to teach my kids alternative ideas help make them good people sure, but let them make informed decisions about their beliefs when they are able to. Restricting access to information to make informed decisions either via an outright ban, or buy failing to fund it (a la "no government money can be used for X" even though X is a valid medical alternative or a program voted into legislation already) is to me one of the greatest evils since it promotes specific beliefs in others not by argument of reason but by lack of reasoning or removes governments power to do what the elected government deemed the will of the people.
We the People, you know people from Ohio that have these rules, and people from NY with these rules, and people from BF Idaho that believe everything from Idaho except... Once you accept something as the rights of all individuals managing them like there different state to state, or county to county only protects the right of small groups of nut jobs to run their area like it is part of a different country. It isn't a power grab, it is a collective right being outlined and protected at the largest level where it is still the shared belief of the majority.
Oh and by the way I've never had power and I've never wore a clown suit but thanks for the vote and the fashion advice.
I'm saying that the constitution isn't a God-given document that everyone was designed to believe every point in it and that every point in it is inherently "right". For example the constitution says nothing about education (and hence leaves the matter to the states) but I think we'd agree that elementary education is a thing that all states should be required to provide it is IMHO a fundamental right of people to receive sufficient education to be productive and be able to (at least in theory) reason about issues which democracy requires everyone to think about. It is also a fundamental responsibility, again IMHO, for a state to provide for these things because it is hard to promote trade, defense etc with an uneducated community. So if it is a fundamental right and responsibility at the state level why shouldn't it be standardized at the next larger level of government? My argument is that things should only be passed down to a lower level of government if there isn't a fundamental individual right (or responsibility of the higher government) across all the members of the smaller governments that make up the bigger government. Reinventing the curriculum for history state by state makes no sense. You might want to leave room for state-specific history in the curriculum but chances are everyone would want their students to learn about their countries founding, government organization, major wars etc. On the flip side of rights restricted: states shouldn't be able to restrict peoples personal choice. Having one state have legalized gay marriage, another not, one you can't drink, etc leads to situations where individual rights, and hence freedoms, vary from state to state.
Sure people are free to move to somewhere else if the want to but you shouldn't have to move to enjoy personal freedom's/freedom from someone else's moral beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep I agree. It should be ram usage + low ram not just RAM usage. All I saw for settings was to completely disable that type of warning not exclude certain apps. So I'll live with it it is just a popup balloon every few days so not a big deal.
"dwarfed by its two superior competitors" Apple and Google. I'll give it to Apple because they actually build products but Google? How much does it matter how large they are they don't make the devices and it isn't either of those companies' only product so it isn't like they are dedicated to the market and that they wouldn't just pump their money elsewhere if it didn't work out.
I wasn't saying AVG was the problem. I'm aware of FF RAM usage because AVG tells me about it periodically. I'm not that much of a nerd that I check my RAM usage all the time even when my computer isn't behaving poorly. AVG IS suggesting that something might be wrong with the app because it is using so much RAM though. Not sure if it is a generic thing like anything using > X MB of RAM gets flagged, or if it is RAM usage growth over time that triggers the warning or what. Don't really care because I ignore it since I'm no where near my RAM limit.
Or is compression and quotas something that you'd want, or at least want to be able to do if you chose on a filesystem level for a server? I know when I was admin of a large SAN half of my work was figuring out who needed how much data and making sure they got it by putting a quota on the hosting array. How exactly you go about this without it at the filesystem level? Are you supposed to provision a LUN for each user that is the size you want? What exactly was the reason for depreciating this? Is there a measurable performance win?
Oh and large probably due to memory leaks this happens after using FF for two days without closing it.
I get warnings from AVG about every other day warning about FF memory usage looking suspicious. I'm pretty sure I'm not infected with anything. But having say 3-4 tabs open on Win 7 (might be the problem ;-)) uses ~560MB of RAM. Not overly complex sites either, /., coding site, youtube say (not playing a video). That said I rarely hit 80% of RAM used overall so I don't really care how FF uses my RAM other than if more RAM implies slower because more stuff has to go back and forth to the CPU. It could just mean that FF preloads a bunch of stuff so it runs faster though (don't hear a lot of people say it is faster :-)) so tricky.
I still don't see how the poster was promoting a specific company by pointing out there mistakes but okay I'll give you that new accounts going off pushing a particular idea might be astro-turfing. One could argue a lot of new accounts get away with pushing No-Company (TM) products though as in it is okay to go off on Richard Stallman like rants of craziness as long as you are pushing FOSS without being labelled an astro-turfer. Techies have their preferred tech and likely will post about what they care about. So I'd say with something this subtle give the guy/girl the benefit of the doubt.
Ah there is the /. hate I've grown to love. Thanks.
So pointing out that MS screwed up in the past and using concrete examples that another company is making the same mistake is somehow MS propaganda? MS did some crap (works, Vista, IE 7, patent crap threatening without stating exactly what is being infringed, etc), they did some good things (Win 95-8 (for it's day was really cool if not exactly that stable), Win 7, .Ne/VS I'd put in that list), but regardless saying someone other than MS is being stupid doesn't make you an MS shill.
Never heard of her until she died. Sad. Perhaps her case will help promote health care generally in India. Would be nice if losing a clearly large potential helps put the focus on curing disease (especially the more exotic ones that the west doesn't focus much on).
That said though I've heard that prodigies often fail to reach their potential. Ie do amazingly well and get into Harvard Law at 15 and than ... nothing. Their career is just like the rest of the Joe Smoes that got their degree when they were 25. I guess as two examples of ones that succeeded: Beethoven and Bobby Fischer. Any others? I guess what I'm saying is they have the intelligence of an adult extremely early but often they don't continue to develop. That is the nature of human development in general from what I understand. 0-4 or so really rapid development. Than more from 14-30 or so. In between and afterwards nothing that special. You learn but your reasoning doesn't improve at a great rate (might even decrease later on even not counting senility. So sad, but one good thing is she'll be remembered for what she was excellent at not as a 70 year old that had a hoo hum career and "oh yeah was the first MS MCP, you know that company from back in the 2010's?".
Apple has learnt is lesson and I'm pretty sure this time Steve Jobs won't throw his hands up.
I think (stats?) that there is a heck of a lot more piracy now because it is so convenient. Before you had to buy your buddy a VHS tape or whatever and have him make a copy for you. That required both a willingness to spend some money and knowing someone with what you want. Now I download a few GBs of stuff a day that I might want but if I don't I delete it. It costs me next to nothing and I don't have to know anyone personally that likes the same things I do. So going back to pre-internet days at least for me would mean near 0 piracy versus several rips a day with the internet.
Mah just move to a country that doesn't enforce copyrights from downloaded stuff, problem solved :-) Kind of weird I can't get sued for copyright infringment but the government still allows ISPs to throttle connections based on protocol so: free but slow. Still 3Mbps with no worries of cops knocking on the door is nice. 3Mbps is fast enough to get new content faster than I can watch it anyways.
It's the same thing with drug dealers but that doesn't stop the police from trying. There are a lot of novice users out there. I have friends that stopped downloading things once Kazaa stopped having a lot of stuff. Sure a search and an hour learning about torrents could have made it possible for them to start downloading again but once it wasn't dirt simple, or even just "use the thing I always use" they just gave up and started hoping things would show up on You Tube and the like (not in the US so no hulu and netflix sucks here).
A more scary thing would be if they start making search engines filter out sites that are and sites that link to p2p networks. I guess kind of the same battle as taking the sites down but a simple check when crawling the site if it has links to magnet or .torrent files would do a huge amount of the work. Sure it would kill some legitimate uses but when has that stopped Big Brother?
They see me trollin
They hatin
Patrollin admins they try to catch me writin dirty
Trying to catch me writin dirty.
Yep and they have nice things like the ability to set limits on the sync, drop and forget syncing (I think iCloud has that too though I don't think google has (skyDrive?)).
Future: media sharing perhaps? I seem to recall a article somewhere talking about how their software is very efficient in the backend, built their own storage jbods, lots of deduplication etc. Say they can get an agreement to become a digital library for ebooks and music. Might be tough with Apple and Amazon in the mix but if they could get something together with the right holders they could offer a DRM layer on top of their existing sharing system. A platform agnostic iCloud that obeys media rights (both a good and a bad thing, but good business I think).
Ah interesting. I thought "universal binary" was just powerPC that was always emulated on intel, versus intel only not both native versions in one.
On Apple: wrong. It was a huge effort for them. For example Adobe didn't support Intel Macs natively until a year after they came out. Adobe has always been huge on Mac. They avoided the pain by emulation with "universal" binaries. Otherwise you are right 300k+ programs will not be recompiled unless it makes economic sense to the developers. For a starters older apps might not make enough revenue to justify buying a new version of Visual Studio and the effort to migrate to the new OS. Sure a "just compile again" solution might work but I anticipate a lot of pain for anything not trivial.
Windows sales on ARM: not so sure about that. Probably not enough to knock iPad and Android off their respective thrones but they might do reasonably well. Having a plan to support apps across form factors is going to help them. Think phone devs apps also running in metro on other platforms with little to no differences (other than having to be intelligent about sizing things appropriately and adapting the UI interaction model for what each device is capable of).
I realize it isn't the same thing but I've written several xbap apps for windows at work. I ported one of them that was reasonably large for a single developer (~10k lines of code touching 5 databases, several charting functions, about a dozen "tabs" of windows) to standalone app. Took all of half an hour to figure out how to do it and about 10 lines of code. If they can bring that to PC/tablet/phone they might get HUGE developer interest and provide another platform for their existing PC centric customers to sell their apps to.
I don't get the problem. The article says it is for devices that shipped with WIn 8. iPhone iPad doesn't support installing Linux either. In general people don't change OSs (other than newer versions of the shipped with OS) on phones. Tablets it might be more of a problem but I think the iPad success has steared the idea of a tablet from "little computer" to "device" which isn't tampered with. Don't like it buy a device with linux on it first and than maybe you can install Win 8 on it (they didn't say in the article but I suspect this is a "OEM" rule not going to be prevented by the OS itself).
I think last gen iPhone being nearly the same as the top of the line has more to do with single manufacture/single model than anything else. If you buy an iPhone you are buying a high end phone. if you continue to buy a high end Android phone you probably will get a similar experience.
But ... there is the love/hate with the fragmentation: you might get enough of what you want from a smart phone from a cheap Android. You aren't going to get the full experience but it might be close enough for what you want. Similar to people buying low end additions of Windows. Doesn't have everything but if it has everything you want who cares? It leads to a lot of confusion though because people say just do X, oh wait no your device doesn't support that because it is the cheap version. Sorry.
http://www.stim.com/Stim-x/0996September/Sparky/tricorder.html I think that was the one we had. Really dorky one of a kind science class where we measured emf, geopositioned things (before public access to GPS), etc. Thing did temperature, emf, voltmeter stuff if you had the attachments I think, had a colour spectrum analyzer (so you could hold it up to something and it would tell you the rgb values).
Governments are elected to govern. If the majority of the electorate has voted them in on the platform that they were going to do X than it isn't governing by fiat.
That's the way it's supposed to work, but it's not the way it's currently working at the federal level, and it doesn't sound like what you were advocating at all.
Agreed on the not how it is working part. Not sure what you mean by that isn't what I'm advocating.
I'm opposed to restricting personal freedoms at any level, I'm not opposed to government enforcing/managing access to those freedoms in the most uniform way as possible.
What does that even mean? If I have to beg some bureaucrat for "access" to my freedom - that's not freedom at all.
Some rights require resources. Ex. education, health care, military defense, fair courts etc. Those people/programs need to be funded and managed, my argument is that as far as the need is uniform than the program should be funded/managed in the most consistent manner. Separating funding from legislation goes horribly wrong. You end up with a party voting for a law to look like they are doing something good to help people and than not funding it (but not voting to repeal the law either because that would make them look mean), or a lower government not funding something that a higher government says they must do as away to usurp power down to the smaller government that they don't have (but want).
But as far as government doing what they said they would (at least as much as they can after the compromises to the other party) isn't dictatorship it is the will of the people.
That's a pretty specious claim. The bank bailout was opposed by an overwhelming majority of the people, but it passed anyway. Ethanol mandates and subsidies are now completely without support but still happening. SOPA is opposed by 96% to 4%, but getting pushed through. I could go on and on with these things. Practically nobody outside DC wants indefinite detention of US citizens by the military, but there it is.
Agreed. Perhaps you missed my part about platform they got elected on/referendums etc. Radical changes in legislation should be voted on, either directly by referendum or indirectly by waiting till another election and being part of the platform. Not sure about ethanol, but SOPA, Gitmo, bailout etc were all intraterm huge policy choices that were unpopular. SOPA could have waited till an election, gitmo probably had to happen quickly since the people the US wanted to hang on to were getting captured and would have had to at least be held until a decision was made (say 6 months). Bailout: another thing that was urgent not sure if a small amount of aid to allow for time for a vote would have been sufficient. Markets might not have responded and the money might just have been thrown away. But than again maybe not. That is a really tough one I think in that once it is done its done and there really wasn't much time to decide.
I just don't see how it is fair that one kid learns about evolution and God, another learns about evolution, another just God etc based on where they live.
That's the parent's decision, not yours, not the government's. The issue here is that education has become mostly a monopoly protected by government and paid for by forceable confiscation of private money.
Why is ignorance a parents decision? Doesn't the kid have a right to learn and choice for themselves when the time comes? Regardless nothing is stopping parents from teaching their kids what they want at home. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.". Parents shouldn't be able to dictate what their kids learn in science/history class etc because there are pretty clear things that science has shown over the last hundred years. You can disagree with them, you can teach your kid
Governments are elected to govern. If the majority of the electorate has voted them in on the platform that they were going to do X than it isn't governing by fiat. I'm opposed to restricting personal freedoms at any level, I'm not opposed to government enforcing/managing access to those freedoms in the most uniform way as possible. Does government screw up. Sure. For example I don't think radical legislation should happen in the years between elections. If that means things take too long than have more elections or have referendums. But as far as government doing what they said they would (at least as much as they can after the compromises to the other party) isn't dictatorship it is the will of the people.
I just don't see how it is fair that one kid learns about evolution and God, another learns about evolution, another just God etc based on where they live. One employee gets health care affordably and another doesn't based on what their state decided was the right thing to do. These to me are fundamental rights to a) remove ignorance and b) have fair access to public programs (doesn't matter which side of the public private healthcare spectrum you fall just having different rights based on your state doesn't make sense to me).
I don't feel threatened by differing ideas and I see it as my duty as a parent to teach my kids alternative ideas help make them good people sure, but let them make informed decisions about their beliefs when they are able to. Restricting access to information to make informed decisions either via an outright ban, or buy failing to fund it (a la "no government money can be used for X" even though X is a valid medical alternative or a program voted into legislation already) is to me one of the greatest evils since it promotes specific beliefs in others not by argument of reason but by lack of reasoning or removes governments power to do what the elected government deemed the will of the people.
We the People, you know people from Ohio that have these rules, and people from NY with these rules, and people from BF Idaho that believe everything from Idaho except ... Once you accept something as the rights of all individuals managing them like there different state to state, or county to county only protects the right of small groups of nut jobs to run their area like it is part of a different country. It isn't a power grab, it is a collective right being outlined and protected at the largest level where it is still the shared belief of the majority.
Oh and by the way I've never had power and I've never wore a clown suit but thanks for the vote and the fashion advice.
I'm saying that the constitution isn't a God-given document that everyone was designed to believe every point in it and that every point in it is inherently "right". For example the constitution says nothing about education (and hence leaves the matter to the states) but I think we'd agree that elementary education is a thing that all states should be required to provide it is IMHO a fundamental right of people to receive sufficient education to be productive and be able to (at least in theory) reason about issues which democracy requires everyone to think about. It is also a fundamental responsibility, again IMHO, for a state to provide for these things because it is hard to promote trade, defense etc with an uneducated community. So if it is a fundamental right and responsibility at the state level why shouldn't it be standardized at the next larger level of government? My argument is that things should only be passed down to a lower level of government if there isn't a fundamental individual right (or responsibility of the higher government) across all the members of the smaller governments that make up the bigger government. Reinventing the curriculum for history state by state makes no sense. You might want to leave room for state-specific history in the curriculum but chances are everyone would want their students to learn about their countries founding, government organization, major wars etc. On the flip side of rights restricted: states shouldn't be able to restrict peoples personal choice. Having one state have legalized gay marriage, another not, one you can't drink, etc leads to situations where individual rights, and hence freedoms, vary from state to state.
Sure people are free to move to somewhere else if the want to but you shouldn't have to move to enjoy personal freedom's/freedom from someone else's moral beliefs.