This is what college is for. Before college you learn the basics to prepare you to understand specific details. The people who built the first skyscrapers did not understand contemporary architecture building techniques while still in high school.
The keyboard makes sense. Of course QWERTY is inefficient, but the use of our fingers has been around for millions of years. Will fingers become obsolete? Or are fingers only supposed to hold a phone while two thumbs do all the work to create the modern society? If one finger is useful for giving input, then two fingers are probably better, and ten fingers will be pretty efficient.
My guess is that if the keyboard goes away there will be something else replaced by it that makes use of more than two fingers. Maybe the masses won't use it, but the people who do the work will.
Also note that the hammer and knife are still modern tools despite thousands of years of use. Unlikely to see them go away soon.
Kids don't really need to know much to start with. Remember the internet was built by people who had never seen an internet, the smartphone was built by people who had never seen a smartphone, the first skyscraper was built by people who had never seen a skyscraper, and so forth. The irrational fear that parents have about their children not knowing the right technologies to survive has been around for some time. Nothing to worry about.
It's pretty misguided I think to worry about what kids will need to know 20 years from now. It can't be predicted and so it will be predicted incorrectly. Instead stick with the basics: reading, writing, mathematics, science, arts, sociology, etc. Leave the details until later when they're in college.
Democrat vs Republican in the JFK era was not liberal versus conservative really, and not family values versus hippie hedonism either. This was pre-civil rights when the South was solidly Democrat (Republicans were the evil party of Lincoln and the carpetbaggers that came after). The reason Johnson was on the ticket as VP was to help get the Southern vote. Democrats were not a pro-peace party and Republicans were not the pro-war party, though there were hawks in both camps. Democrats were more pro-union and Republicans were more pro-industry/corporation, but not necessarily strongly so. Prior to JFK as a Democrat president we had Eisenhower as a Republican president. Neither really has strong resemblance to the sorts of candidates either party is putting forward today.
With the complete flipping of politics in the south over civil rights, the Democrats lost a huge amount of rural and southern voters. So they're very strongly regional now; cities are much more likely to lean Democrat and small towns and rural areas much more likely to lean Republican. Social issues are split across party lines too, which wasn't really the case with the JFK era.
My parents did talk politics, but the majority of it was anti-communist rather than any practical party platform issues. At church, it was a mix of Republican and Democrat, without any name calling back and forth.
Cashiers are utterly unable to make change without having a machine do it for them. I was at a computer store in the late 90s when their network went out, and they were nearly unable to operate. They brought out 3 people to each cash register to do the check outs: one to process the order, one to use a calculator, and one to lookup the procedures in a thick binder. I am not making this up.
Pull away the crutches and society can no longer walk.
Because a teacher designed Airborne to cure the common cold! CNN said so, right there in their commercials. They would never include commercials for anything they had not personally investigated scientifically. And besides... a second grade teacher designed it!
The answer to the question of the last time I used chalk to express myself? In school. Duh. Even when we used chalk in school every day, it was pretty rare to use chalk outside of the classroom. Were we harmed by this, did we fail to learn our lessons? No. Children are adaptable, and being adaptable is a key skill that is needed in real life, and vital to dealing with a rapidly changing technology environment. So children who can not adapt to something trivial like using chalk are going to be utterly unable to deal with the real world as it exists after graduation.
The entire purpose of school is to learn stuff. Like how to read or use blackboard/whiteboard. So a marketing person who's afraid that children don't know how to this must think that school is for a different purpose. Or maybe marketing is where people go when they are incapable of learning?
I think they did believe this would happen. They were wrong about it, but they believed it. They let their hopes create bias which overrode the intelligence briefings and common sense.
There was a great deal of unfounded optimism all over the place at the time. People genuinely believed that things would work out great as long as Saddam was out of power and we set up our own puppet government. Not believed it as in thinking that it would be great for the US, they believe it would truly be great for the Iraqis too. People were out in full force for the re-creation of a state, like they were reliving post WWII Germany or Japan.
One of the first early laws they tried to get implemented as an overhaul of Intellectual Property laws. Yup, they had as a priority to impose the stupid US version of copyright and patent laws.
I was working on wireless mesh internet at the time, but we had just shut down that division. We got a call shortly after saying "please, send me all the units you have, I want to set up an ISP in Iraq!", but we had to explain that we were shut down and couldn't do that. It was really odd, because the country didn't even have reliable power service yet, the infrastructure was in shambles, and this guy from the states thinks he's just going to roll in and make a bunch of money with the internet? Modern day carpetbagger.
People in general don't mind being taxed for police and fire. But a lot of people dont' seem to think internet is a priority. They probably don't remember being taxed to get telephone service rolled out (or maybe they still bitch about the universal service fee). However the local government, elected by the people, are the ones who set up the local internet service board. If the people do not want to be taxed for municipal broadband then they should not vote for people who are likely to implement it. If people think it's not being run correctly then they can run for office to get on the board. They can also walk down the street and knock on the door of their city council representative and tell them what they think. It's democracy in action, if people actually remembered to leave the internet long enough to go vote.
This is the sort of issue that most voters don't know or care about. Even where I am in California, I know lots and lots of people who dislike Comcast yet they remain Comcast customers because they get package deals. As in "ya, my cable sucks but I get a discount if I get internet also", or "I hate my internet but I get a discount if I get cable too." There is just enough discomfort to hate the company but not enough discomfort to kick them out.
This seems somewhat bizarre. A law against it, yet you can opt out with a referendum. So why have the law in the first place? Or is there a higher bar to pass referendums as opposed to electing a city council that cares?
I may be mistaken, but I don't think municipal governments are even allowed to make political contributions... That puts a serious damper on performing a standard business transaction.
San Jose, AT&T versus Comcast only. Not counting lower speed DSL service. The AT&T is a lot slower than Comcast, but the advantage is that it is not Comcast. but it's fast enough that speed doesn't matter much. AT&T wasn't here with fast internet-only u-verse until relatively recently.
If they limit their cable and internet to only sites within the state, then the feds can't get involved. However this is an interstate commerce thing, in fact it's a global commerce thing.
Part of the big deal is the hypocrisy to me. Ie, these are states which are big on "state's right" which they claim to mean local control is better than federal control, and yet they turn around and say that that the big and remote government is preferrable to municipal governments... The other half of the hypocrisy is that these cable companies were all fine and happy with local government controls when their initial monopolies were being set, but are now crying foul when those same local governments try to stop the monopolies.
The citizens of those municipalities want decent broadband, and no commercial private entity is providing that service at a fair and reasonable price (sometimes not even at unreasonable prices). It is perfectly acceptable behavior to try and get services for your voters where none exist or where the alternatives are not palatable to voters.
This happens all the time with utilities. Lots of municipalities set up local gas, power, and water boards and save a lot of money doing so. The reasoning is that since this is a utility and every house must have such utilities that it is reasonable for the locally controlled governments to provide this. Internet service is not required for every house, but it is still rapidly becoming a basic utility service.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what college is for. Before college you learn the basics to prepare you to understand specific details. The people who built the first skyscrapers did not understand contemporary architecture building techniques while still in high school.
The keyboard makes sense. Of course QWERTY is inefficient, but the use of our fingers has been around for millions of years. Will fingers become obsolete? Or are fingers only supposed to hold a phone while two thumbs do all the work to create the modern society? If one finger is useful for giving input, then two fingers are probably better, and ten fingers will be pretty efficient.
My guess is that if the keyboard goes away there will be something else replaced by it that makes use of more than two fingers. Maybe the masses won't use it, but the people who do the work will.
Also note that the hammer and knife are still modern tools despite thousands of years of use. Unlikely to see them go away soon.
Right, and we'll be thinking thoughts at a computer from our flying cars.
Kids don't really need to know much to start with. Remember the internet was built by people who had never seen an internet, the smartphone was built by people who had never seen a smartphone, the first skyscraper was built by people who had never seen a skyscraper, and so forth. The irrational fear that parents have about their children not knowing the right technologies to survive has been around for some time. Nothing to worry about.
It's pretty misguided I think to worry about what kids will need to know 20 years from now. It can't be predicted and so it will be predicted incorrectly. Instead stick with the basics: reading, writing, mathematics, science, arts, sociology, etc. Leave the details until later when they're in college.
Capital?
Democrat vs Republican in the JFK era was not liberal versus conservative really, and not family values versus hippie hedonism either. This was pre-civil rights when the South was solidly Democrat (Republicans were the evil party of Lincoln and the carpetbaggers that came after). The reason Johnson was on the ticket as VP was to help get the Southern vote. Democrats were not a pro-peace party and Republicans were not the pro-war party, though there were hawks in both camps. Democrats were more pro-union and Republicans were more pro-industry/corporation, but not necessarily strongly so. Prior to JFK as a Democrat president we had Eisenhower as a Republican president. Neither really has strong resemblance to the sorts of candidates either party is putting forward today.
With the complete flipping of politics in the south over civil rights, the Democrats lost a huge amount of rural and southern voters. So they're very strongly regional now; cities are much more likely to lean Democrat and small towns and rural areas much more likely to lean Republican. Social issues are split across party lines too, which wasn't really the case with the JFK era.
My parents did talk politics, but the majority of it was anti-communist rather than any practical party platform issues. At church, it was a mix of Republican and Democrat, without any name calling back and forth.
Cashiers are utterly unable to make change without having a machine do it for them. I was at a computer store in the late 90s when their network went out, and they were nearly unable to operate. They brought out 3 people to each cash register to do the check outs: one to process the order, one to use a calculator, and one to lookup the procedures in a thick binder. I am not making this up.
Pull away the crutches and society can no longer walk.
Because a teacher designed Airborne to cure the common cold! CNN said so, right there in their commercials. They would never include commercials for anything they had not personally investigated scientifically. And besides... a second grade teacher designed it!
Boards of color.
The answer to the question of the last time I used chalk to express myself? In school. Duh. Even when we used chalk in school every day, it was pretty rare to use chalk outside of the classroom. Were we harmed by this, did we fail to learn our lessons? No. Children are adaptable, and being adaptable is a key skill that is needed in real life, and vital to dealing with a rapidly changing technology environment. So children who can not adapt to something trivial like using chalk are going to be utterly unable to deal with the real world as it exists after graduation.
The entire purpose of school is to learn stuff. Like how to read or use blackboard/whiteboard. So a marketing person who's afraid that children don't know how to this must think that school is for a different purpose. Or maybe marketing is where people go when they are incapable of learning?
True, but the odds of life imprisonment are negligable. Probably they get a month or two at worst, which then gets appealed.
I think they did believe this would happen. They were wrong about it, but they believed it. They let their hopes create bias which overrode the intelligence briefings and common sense.
There was a great deal of unfounded optimism all over the place at the time. People genuinely believed that things would work out great as long as Saddam was out of power and we set up our own puppet government. Not believed it as in thinking that it would be great for the US, they believe it would truly be great for the Iraqis too. People were out in full force for the re-creation of a state, like they were reliving post WWII Germany or Japan.
One of the first early laws they tried to get implemented as an overhaul of Intellectual Property laws. Yup, they had as a priority to impose the stupid US version of copyright and patent laws.
I was working on wireless mesh internet at the time, but we had just shut down that division. We got a call shortly after saying "please, send me all the units you have, I want to set up an ISP in Iraq!", but we had to explain that we were shut down and couldn't do that. It was really odd, because the country didn't even have reliable power service yet, the infrastructure was in shambles, and this guy from the states thinks he's just going to roll in and make a bunch of money with the internet? Modern day carpetbagger.
He's like Gordon Freeman, but without the crowbar.
Wow, it must get real dense over there.
People in general don't mind being taxed for police and fire. But a lot of people dont' seem to think internet is a priority. They probably don't remember being taxed to get telephone service rolled out (or maybe they still bitch about the universal service fee). However the local government, elected by the people, are the ones who set up the local internet service board. If the people do not want to be taxed for municipal broadband then they should not vote for people who are likely to implement it. If people think it's not being run correctly then they can run for office to get on the board. They can also walk down the street and knock on the door of their city council representative and tell them what they think. It's democracy in action, if people actually remembered to leave the internet long enough to go vote.
There are cities who have installed fiber then waited for ISPs to come in and use them. Many are still waiting.
This is the sort of issue that most voters don't know or care about. Even where I am in California, I know lots and lots of people who dislike Comcast yet they remain Comcast customers because they get package deals. As in "ya, my cable sucks but I get a discount if I get internet also", or "I hate my internet but I get a discount if I get cable too." There is just enough discomfort to hate the company but not enough discomfort to kick them out.
This seems somewhat bizarre. A law against it, yet you can opt out with a referendum. So why have the law in the first place? Or is there a higher bar to pass referendums as opposed to electing a city council that cares?
I may be mistaken, but I don't think municipal governments are even allowed to make political contributions... That puts a serious damper on performing a standard business transaction.
San Jose, AT&T versus Comcast only. Not counting lower speed DSL service. The AT&T is a lot slower than Comcast, but the advantage is that it is not Comcast. but it's fast enough that speed doesn't matter much. AT&T wasn't here with fast internet-only u-verse until relatively recently.
It is a very nice area of Tennessee too, not just for broadband.
If they limit their cable and internet to only sites within the state, then the feds can't get involved. However this is an interstate commerce thing, in fact it's a global commerce thing.
Part of the big deal is the hypocrisy to me. Ie, these are states which are big on "state's right" which they claim to mean local control is better than federal control, and yet they turn around and say that that the big and remote government is preferrable to municipal governments... The other half of the hypocrisy is that these cable companies were all fine and happy with local government controls when their initial monopolies were being set, but are now crying foul when those same local governments try to stop the monopolies.
The citizens of those municipalities want decent broadband, and no commercial private entity is providing that service at a fair and reasonable price (sometimes not even at unreasonable prices). It is perfectly acceptable behavior to try and get services for your voters where none exist or where the alternatives are not palatable to voters.
This happens all the time with utilities. Lots of municipalities set up local gas, power, and water boards and save a lot of money doing so. The reasoning is that since this is a utility and every house must have such utilities that it is reasonable for the locally controlled governments to provide this. Internet service is not required for every house, but it is still rapidly becoming a basic utility service.