It is funny, but it is extremely true also. Blogs will more often represent poorly researched minority opinions, but versus what? What big media has always told us we must believe and must be true based on the authority of those that write the history?
And based on his signature, I don't think he was joking either.
How can that not be argued about schools? Naturally smart people seek knowledge by nature. Stupid people do not. Both are forced into schools. Now the smart people have greater opportunities while the stupid people take it for granted, or simply resent their new prison.
You can make a horse drink, but you can't make 'em pay the tab.
Real research hasn't changed, and the rules apply more than ever as we trust secondary sources more and more. It has been a rule of academic writing to avoid quote / cite secondary sources. You need to draw your conclusions and make your statements based on hard, primary sources. It doesn't make a difference if it was Britannica or Wikipedia; the same rules still apply. There has always been a temptation to use secondary sources. The two things that have changed: Better secondary sources, like Wikipedia, and better educational opportunities to poor / poorly educated.
A drop in the lower bounds of your data set lowers your average; and this is exactly how the internet has grown, from academic to wealthy and progressively to the poor.
I think the number of stupid people with access to information and education is increasing at a rate greater than average intelligence. People are also learning differently because of the way we have access to information, and that is a smart thing to do. More scientists today with respect to their time read more than they spend time in lab. Were it not for so many books, let alone the internet, that would not be possible. There is also more to learn today than ever before. That doesn't mean scientists are doing less work, or any less smart; they are doing different work, and we can see the difference.
And in the same respect, I think more stupid kids are browsing 4chan, facebook, lolcats, and youtube that might otherwise be burning ants with magnifying glasses, sniffing glue, hitting their heads against walls for fun, and shooting the neighbors cat with a BB gun.
As the internet has brought a new type of democracy to information and education the world has changed. Smart people went to libraries, others went to the county fair (to quote Jeff Foxworthy). Now we all hang out together on the INTERTOOBS!!! GREAT!
It is better than it isn't.
I think the article is very short sighted, and ignorant to the way people learn and adapt with their technology. This possibly really reveals how ignorant 'smart' people are about those with lesser opportunity. I think a better perspective would be how we can see intellegence as a whole versus averages or medians. The internet has grown to include so many more people. Remember that the internet started with colleges and expanded into wealthy communities. We can now see just how poorly educated some of the country is. In the parts of the country that are cut off from technology, you will find AT LEAST as many people made up of sound bites. How many people do you know that only repeat one really bad joke, that is short, and poorly told? This was not something new that the internet created, they are just no longer naturally censored... And now they get their own website and a "Top 10" list on cracked.com
I'd argue further that such opportunities could only have existed for the poor as the poor live today, maybe, but not then. Even today, one wishing to dedicate their life to one political cause could stand on Capitol Hill voicing their opinion, taking spare change to feed themselves... meanwhile a well dressed and well to do lawyer will be arguing against you. Just because David LaMacchia was in the wrong for his actions (legally right, morally wrong) doesn't mean Jack Valenti won't burn in hell.
You're right. Hundreds throughout history. Even if you or I don't read more than the opinions of a few hundred authors on the net, does that somehow mean you and I are reading all the same stuff? Doesn't that exactly prove the point you were arguing against?
And even if by hundreds, you really meant to say millions, where were the political voices against the McCarthy era, aside from those buried in Wellwood Cemetery?
The internet is a new and powerful means of communication that IS HAVING very similar political implications as the Printing Press when it was new. The range of information available for research on the net is astronomical compared to any time in history within a few decades, even in areas where good libraries have always been available. The people speaking out can, and are, have their voices heard without any geographical or temporal limits (copying no longer requires time like it did). That has never existed before like it does today. The net is the new Library of Alexandria, and what the founders of the Library of Congress only wish it could be. And the no talent content distribution cartel will fall as it will have no place, while artists and musicians will be free.
While P2P is still legal download and watch "Steal this Film: Part II" (1) for a quick historical perspective on the history of piracy going back to the 15th century, and "2008 Teaching and Learning with Technology Symposium"(2) for a historical perspective on literacy and culture.
Only if P2P means "distributed networking for an illegal purpose". Did you even read further than your quoted portion?
While your Mad Lib style Flamebait doesn't typically deserve a response, I am disgusted at the moderation of "Insightful", and seriously question its origin.
Cutting a person's net access is the modern equivalent of exile. Or even cultural excommunication. Something typically reserved for convicted felons that received due process... but in the way we communicated in the past, felons were still capable of rebelling against the system that was against them. In a growing way, internet ban means an inability to fight back.
I remember when I didn't understand how people equated free speech with a right to net access. I am certain this is what they feared. This broad and loose way of getting dissidents off the net opens the door for keeping "other types of criminals" off the net. That doesn't necessarily make sense to me now, but I have a feeling it will be no surprise when lobbyists start pushing and making headway with a list of "others".
agreed. There are other more important social implications of the health or death of P2P. I enjoy a lot of Creative Commons content to be my own rebel. Legally getting all the free content I want is the biggest F U to the MAFIAA, IMO. It may not be GREAT, but got to believe in a world you wish existed for it to be come true. Want the best argument I have ever heard that changed my life? follow the link in my sig.
I did not know about him, and thank you for sharing... too bad I can already see this as a strong argument for the thought police to use against us. I have worried myself (for fun) with respect to the whole "Big Media MUST change their business model" thing, what would the world be like when we have chips in our brains that allow for instantaneous communication and infinite storage capacity, but Big Media NEVER changed? Underground thugs and bands of pirates that violate law by communicating in secret through verbal communication, sharing passages of books they read and acting out scenes of movies and plays they had seen....
The only problem is that it is such the default to let the government teach us (not to mention he law). Public education has never included modern political controversy, not to mention it feels very much like "All those fights in the past were to give us the wonderful utopia we have today". And if you think anything isn't perfect about the government, check to make sure that the controversy is on a topic socially approved by Big Media and Big Brother, otherwise you are wrong (*cough* and a terrorist).
I would be a Verison customer if they serviced my area. I pay ~$72 a month for 16/2 (Comcast PowerBlast) while my neighbor not so far away pays ~$49 for 50/50 (Verison FiOS).
Most of the models I have seen work in monthly blocks. $bandwidth amount of bandwidth for the month till you hit $cap at which point you are throttled down till your next billing cycle. I don't necessarily care what it is, so long as they tell me what kind of service I am getting, and can depend on how much it will cost when the bill rolls around. Not to mention an opt out for automatic extra charges / service.
And as long as were on the topic, F*** Cingular Wireless. Not trolling, just my short version of a very long and boring story of a miserable 2 years as a customer. MetroPCS Family Plan: $100 total for 4x phones with unlimited minutes nationwide (United States, limited coverage), text, video, internet, email, all included. It still sucks in many ways performance wise (dropped calls every few minutes so it feels), but I am VERY happy to be putting up with that than counting minutes... oops, that will be $1200 for this month. Sorry.
schools provide a very important social service in terms of daycare while parents at at work. That must explain why teachers / administrators / politicians seem very "don't fix what ain't broke". Cause all this "science of education" could very well compromise their primary goal.
But was it necessary for Windows to be built for Intel-based processors only in order to secure their monopoly? Was it only Microsoft that saw an advantage in only developing for one processor type, whether or not it was the best? Not that I'm worried, just not convinced there wasn't any collusion between Microsoft and Intel that helped secure each others monopoly.
I think, or have always passively believed, that Intel is great, but that Microsoft dragged them along for a ride on the success train. I don't think 90% market share should be usable as evidence of monopolistic practices, but it is reasonable suspicion to warrant an investigation, IMHO.
Also, by comparison, Cisco was investigated for the same reason, but discovered to have simply done business better through innovation and such, not underhanded dealing. There are a lot of BAD Cisco wannabe knockoffs out there, but do you really believe Cisco v. D-link is comparable to Intel v. Sun, IBM, et al?
The scope is computer microprocessors, by which I think they mean home PC. Also, AMD is much more x86/x86_64 than anything else. I am just curious, while they operate in very different markets, how does ARM compare to Intel for embedded devices? I can't seem to find much information on the issue.
I knew about AMD's problems when I first started buying AMD processors. I see it as what are you willing to put up with? I narrowed the argument down to this: 1/10 AMD processors are DOA (based on hearsay), BUT are only perfect or DOA, never shoddy with intermittent problems. AMD has a GREAT return policy for their retailers (never dealt with them directly). Intel can be counted on to be perfect every time out of the box, but you pay, IMHO, up to double for comparable performance. I am not going to pay a few hundred extra dollars to avoid a trip back to the store (and mind you one I love having an excuse to go back to).
But just to be fair, this was a conclusion I came to 15 years ago and haven't thought too much about since. I am satisfied with the range of problems with AMD, and still laugh (light heartedly) at Intel's little "can't divide" fiasco.
Not that I have ever had a problem with Intel (though I have always bought AMD), but I never understood how why Microsoft gets ALL the blunt of the anti-trust stuff. Intel made a killing with their "Intel inside" campaign, but was it THAT great? I think more architectures for home PCs would be a major benefit to open source software, and a big hit to the stranglehold M$ has had over the sheeple for a long time. I have wanted to get a sparq for a long time, but it has felt a bit to risky to just make a statement. I really hope something comes of this investigation, if Intel was really playing unfair.
The ones I remember in secondary education that didn't want to be there usually spent their time being disruptive of the ones that did want to be there. Something that I have seen more of a controversy with recently is the idea of how much slower or easily distracted students do when in classes with students that are good role models. There has been push to separate distractive students from highly motivated students to gear each class for its audience. On the other hand, slower students do much better when they have positive role models. So is there a choice between whose best interests we are looking out for?
I would like to think and hope that highly motivated students have good role models themselves and can find their own strength to work through the distractions. Also, they might as well learn now that they will likely have to work with idiots when they are older, so this is good practice. So what makes a good balance when trying to give everybody the best possible learning environment. Personally, and just a suggestion / observation: Larger classrooms with more / 2+ teachers per class is a better learning environment and more closely resembles the kind of authoritative situation people will encounter in the workforce.
And way beyond this issue, I reason criminals and scammers have much greater motivation to do their homework on issues. I the great wisdom of Homer Simpson:
"Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything."
"Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen."
-- Homer Simpson SOMETIMES, and just enough to get upset, evidence is just a game because there are too many people with enough investment (financial or otherwise) to support the lie than the truth. I am not talking government conspiracy, just convenient ignorance.
I don't necessarily get the compulsory education to 18 thing. Get everyone through 8th grade, and if they don't cut it let them go. Work with the kids that want to be there: Want to be there, not necessarily those that get the highest grades. However, off set this with these same kids getting a future opportunity to go back t school when they are older, you know, like after they have learned their lesson that maybe they should have paid better attention in school. Give these misfits an opportunity to do things their way and possibly fall on their ass and learn their lessons. When they want to get their act together, have good opportunities in doing so. The system isn't designed for everybody. Alternatively, kids that aren't so hot in academic courses, let them go to a trade school. Sanitation is a whole lot more recession proof than IT, not to mention there are really great opportunities in those industries for the extremely bright. Construction, demolitions, customer service, automotive repair, and many other fields don't require quite so much general education. IMHO, I think a forcing every student to learn things that are not going to directly influence their economic value in the work force is a major contribution to political and academic apathy. Enough students do not see the value in what they are learning. That doesn't mean the information would be any less valuable IF they learned it, but what is the risk in letting people learn what they want. For those that don't want to learn, save the money to give those same people an opportunity to use it when they get things straight in their head, versus spending it all now when they don't want it. I think all people would benefit, would take greater pride in their education, as well as their chosen career.
I would really like to know what others think. Btw, I am in the US (as one poster asked people to add)
I know my fellow coworkers would crucify me for this, but I think the biggest problem with teachers getting a fair wage is the Unions. Are teachers at private schools getting screwed over so bad? I have been working in public education for 7+ years, and the unions have fought hard to ensure that kindergarten and high school teachers of any subject all get the same pay. And what has happened as a result of that? In the democratic process of wage negotiation, few grammar school teachers really care a lot more about teaching than getting paid. With the smaller class sizes necessary for grammar school, there is disproportionately heavy representation for these teachers that "aren't in it for the pay". They have spouses that make all the money they need. These are also the same teachers that have the time to go to all the union meetings while the 20's something, single high school teacher is home grading papers and working on the next weeks lesson plan. I am all for "Same work, same pay", but you just can't say that a high school advanced math teacher does the same work as a grammar school English teacher. I am not going to say one is harder, cause that isn't the point; just let them negotiate for their fair wage separately by supply and demand.
Hope this isn't too far off topic, but what I really think needs to happen is that there should be incentives for people to become math and science teachers. Specifically, let prospective math and science students pay off government loans with years of teaching in public school. This brings more opportunities to poorer students by reducing the up front cost of getting such degrees. While likely many may leave, the public school system would benefit greatly. There must be some figure of tuition costs v. years of teaching in public school that would be mutually beneficial and bring more geeks into the classroom.
I'd just like to add to that the thing I hate the most about democrats, or democratic party politics is this idea that people, companies, and investors are really persuaded by the idea of giving certain people the party likes more of their own money back. Democratic politicians are always trying to get people out to vote, but the idea of transparent government is the LAST priority of their policies, if not their greatest fear.
Any law that requires a team of lawyers to understand, let alone comply with is CRAP! Compliance with copyright or Tax Code is whatever you can afford based on who you can buy without pissing anyone off. There is nothing consistent or lawful about either system. Ron Paul is a true patriot for acknowledging what should be scary F***ing obvious to ANYBODY that has every tried to make a dollar from hard work.
I care little about the issues Obama is criticized for, and I fairly strongly support him and will defend most of his positions, but his opposition to FairTax is the biggest hypocrisy to everything I THOUGHT he believed in. It makes it difficult to believe anything he says he is going to do, but still impressed / persuaded by the accomplishments and work he has already done, so that just about breaks even. Don't need anyone to agree with me, just my (crazy) opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
It is funny, but it is extremely true also. Blogs will more often represent poorly researched minority opinions, but versus what? What big media has always told us we must believe and must be true based on the authority of those that write the history?
And based on his signature, I don't think he was joking either.
+1 insightful to parent
How can that not be argued about schools? Naturally smart people seek knowledge by nature. Stupid people do not. Both are forced into schools. Now the smart people have greater opportunities while the stupid people take it for granted, or simply resent their new prison.
You can make a horse drink, but you can't make 'em pay the tab.
Real research hasn't changed, and the rules apply more than ever as we trust secondary sources more and more. It has been a rule of academic writing to avoid quote / cite secondary sources. You need to draw your conclusions and make your statements based on hard, primary sources. It doesn't make a difference if it was Britannica or Wikipedia; the same rules still apply. There has always been a temptation to use secondary sources. The two things that have changed: Better secondary sources, like Wikipedia, and better educational opportunities to poor / poorly educated.
A drop in the lower bounds of your data set lowers your average; and this is exactly how the internet has grown, from academic to wealthy and progressively to the poor.
I think the number of stupid people with access to information and education is increasing at a rate greater than average intelligence. People are also learning differently because of the way we have access to information, and that is a smart thing to do. More scientists today with respect to their time read more than they spend time in lab. Were it not for so many books, let alone the internet, that would not be possible. There is also more to learn today than ever before. That doesn't mean scientists are doing less work, or any less smart; they are doing different work, and we can see the difference.
And in the same respect, I think more stupid kids are browsing 4chan, facebook, lolcats, and youtube that might otherwise be burning ants with magnifying glasses, sniffing glue, hitting their heads against walls for fun, and shooting the neighbors cat with a BB gun.
As the internet has brought a new type of democracy to information and education the world has changed. Smart people went to libraries, others went to the county fair (to quote Jeff Foxworthy). Now we all hang out together on the INTERTOOBS!!! GREAT!
It is better than it isn't.
I think the article is very short sighted, and ignorant to the way people learn and adapt with their technology. This possibly really reveals how ignorant 'smart' people are about those with lesser opportunity. I think a better perspective would be how we can see intellegence as a whole versus averages or medians. The internet has grown to include so many more people. Remember that the internet started with colleges and expanded into wealthy communities. We can now see just how poorly educated some of the country is. In the parts of the country that are cut off from technology, you will find AT LEAST as many people made up of sound bites. How many people do you know that only repeat one really bad joke, that is short, and poorly told? This was not something new that the internet created, they are just no longer naturally censored... And now they get their own website and a "Top 10" list on cracked.com
I'd argue further that such opportunities could only have existed for the poor as the poor live today, maybe, but not then. Even today, one wishing to dedicate their life to one political cause could stand on Capitol Hill voicing their opinion, taking spare change to feed themselves... meanwhile a well dressed and well to do lawyer will be arguing against you. Just because David LaMacchia was in the wrong for his actions (legally right, morally wrong) doesn't mean Jack Valenti won't burn in hell.
You're right. Hundreds throughout history. Even if you or I don't read more than the opinions of a few hundred authors on the net, does that somehow mean you and I are reading all the same stuff? Doesn't that exactly prove the point you were arguing against?
And even if by hundreds, you really meant to say millions, where were the political voices against the McCarthy era, aside from those buried in Wellwood Cemetery?
The internet is a new and powerful means of communication that IS HAVING very similar political implications as the Printing Press when it was new. The range of information available for research on the net is astronomical compared to any time in history within a few decades, even in areas where good libraries have always been available. The people speaking out can, and are, have their voices heard without any geographical or temporal limits (copying no longer requires time like it did). That has never existed before like it does today. The net is the new Library of Alexandria, and what the founders of the Library of Congress only wish it could be. And the no talent content distribution cartel will fall as it will have no place, while artists and musicians will be free.
While P2P is still legal download and watch "Steal this Film: Part II" (1) for a quick historical perspective on the history of piracy going back to the 15th century, and "2008 Teaching and Learning with Technology Symposium"(2) for a historical perspective on literacy and culture.
(1)http://stealthisfilm.com/
(2)http://youtube.com/watch?v=bHBSNNYbyvg
Only if P2P means "distributed networking for an illegal purpose". Did you even read further than your quoted portion?
While your Mad Lib style Flamebait doesn't typically deserve a response, I am disgusted at the moderation of "Insightful", and seriously question its origin.
I remember when I didn't understand how people equated free speech with a right to net access. I am certain this is what they feared. This broad and loose way of getting dissidents off the net opens the door for keeping "other types of criminals" off the net. That doesn't necessarily make sense to me now, but I have a feeling it will be no surprise when lobbyists start pushing and making headway with a list of "others".
agreed. There are other more important social implications of the health or death of P2P. I enjoy a lot of Creative Commons content to be my own rebel. Legally getting all the free content I want is the biggest F U to the MAFIAA, IMO. It may not be GREAT, but got to believe in a world you wish existed for it to be come true. Want the best argument I have ever heard that changed my life? follow the link in my sig.
I did not know about him, and thank you for sharing... too bad I can already see this as a strong argument for the thought police to use against us. I have worried myself (for fun) with respect to the whole "Big Media MUST change their business model" thing, what would the world be like when we have chips in our brains that allow for instantaneous communication and infinite storage capacity, but Big Media NEVER changed? Underground thugs and bands of pirates that violate law by communicating in secret through verbal communication, sharing passages of books they read and acting out scenes of movies and plays they had seen....
Wait a minute, that doesn't require any brain technology at all, we are already there! http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1351233&from=rss
Damn, for a moment I thought I was being sarcastic.
The only problem is that it is such the default to let the government teach us (not to mention he law). Public education has never included modern political controversy, not to mention it feels very much like "All those fights in the past were to give us the wonderful utopia we have today". And if you think anything isn't perfect about the government, check to make sure that the controversy is on a topic socially approved by Big Media and Big Brother, otherwise you are wrong (*cough* and a terrorist).
I would be a Verison customer if they serviced my area. I pay ~$72 a month for 16/2 (Comcast PowerBlast) while my neighbor not so far away pays ~$49 for 50/50 (Verison FiOS).
Most of the models I have seen work in monthly blocks. $bandwidth amount of bandwidth for the month till you hit $cap at which point you are throttled down till your next billing cycle. I don't necessarily care what it is, so long as they tell me what kind of service I am getting, and can depend on how much it will cost when the bill rolls around. Not to mention an opt out for automatic extra charges / service.
And as long as were on the topic, F*** Cingular Wireless. Not trolling, just my short version of a very long and boring story of a miserable 2 years as a customer. MetroPCS Family Plan: $100 total for 4x phones with unlimited minutes nationwide (United States, limited coverage), text, video, internet, email, all included. It still sucks in many ways performance wise (dropped calls every few minutes so it feels), but I am VERY happy to be putting up with that than counting minutes... oops, that will be $1200 for this month. Sorry.
Ok, I'm done.
But was it necessary for Windows to be built for Intel-based processors only in order to secure their monopoly? Was it only Microsoft that saw an advantage in only developing for one processor type, whether or not it was the best? Not that I'm worried, just not convinced there wasn't any collusion between Microsoft and Intel that helped secure each others monopoly.
Windows on a SPARC? That just makes me cringe.
I think, or have always passively believed, that Intel is great, but that Microsoft dragged them along for a ride on the success train. I don't think 90% market share should be usable as evidence of monopolistic practices, but it is reasonable suspicion to warrant an investigation, IMHO.
Also, by comparison, Cisco was investigated for the same reason, but discovered to have simply done business better through innovation and such, not underhanded dealing. There are a lot of BAD Cisco wannabe knockoffs out there, but do you really believe Cisco v. D-link is comparable to Intel v. Sun, IBM, et al?
I really am curious.
Is Godwin having a slow news day?
The scope is computer microprocessors, by which I think they mean home PC. Also, AMD is much more x86/x86_64 than anything else. I am just curious, while they operate in very different markets, how does ARM compare to Intel for embedded devices? I can't seem to find much information on the issue.
I knew about AMD's problems when I first started buying AMD processors. I see it as what are you willing to put up with? I narrowed the argument down to this: 1/10 AMD processors are DOA (based on hearsay), BUT are only perfect or DOA, never shoddy with intermittent problems. AMD has a GREAT return policy for their retailers (never dealt with them directly). Intel can be counted on to be perfect every time out of the box, but you pay, IMHO, up to double for comparable performance. I am not going to pay a few hundred extra dollars to avoid a trip back to the store (and mind you one I love having an excuse to go back to).
But just to be fair, this was a conclusion I came to 15 years ago and haven't thought too much about since. I am satisfied with the range of problems with AMD, and still laugh (light heartedly) at Intel's little "can't divide" fiasco.
Not that I have ever had a problem with Intel (though I have always bought AMD), but I never understood how why Microsoft gets ALL the blunt of the anti-trust stuff. Intel made a killing with their "Intel inside" campaign, but was it THAT great? I think more architectures for home PCs would be a major benefit to open source software, and a big hit to the stranglehold M$ has had over the sheeple for a long time. I have wanted to get a sparq for a long time, but it has felt a bit to risky to just make a statement. I really hope something comes of this investigation, if Intel was really playing unfair.
I would like to think and hope that highly motivated students have good role models themselves and can find their own strength to work through the distractions. Also, they might as well learn now that they will likely have to work with idiots when they are older, so this is good practice. So what makes a good balance when trying to give everybody the best possible learning environment. Personally, and just a suggestion / observation: Larger classrooms with more / 2+ teachers per class is a better learning environment and more closely resembles the kind of authoritative situation people will encounter in the workforce.
"Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen."
-- Homer Simpson SOMETIMES, and just enough to get upset, evidence is just a game because there are too many people with enough investment (financial or otherwise) to support the lie than the truth. I am not talking government conspiracy, just convenient ignorance.
I don't necessarily get the compulsory education to 18 thing. Get everyone through 8th grade, and if they don't cut it let them go. Work with the kids that want to be there: Want to be there, not necessarily those that get the highest grades. However, off set this with these same kids getting a future opportunity to go back t school when they are older, you know, like after they have learned their lesson that maybe they should have paid better attention in school. Give these misfits an opportunity to do things their way and possibly fall on their ass and learn their lessons. When they want to get their act together, have good opportunities in doing so. The system isn't designed for everybody. Alternatively, kids that aren't so hot in academic courses, let them go to a trade school. Sanitation is a whole lot more recession proof than IT, not to mention there are really great opportunities in those industries for the extremely bright. Construction, demolitions, customer service, automotive repair, and many other fields don't require quite so much general education. IMHO, I think a forcing every student to learn things that are not going to directly influence their economic value in the work force is a major contribution to political and academic apathy. Enough students do not see the value in what they are learning. That doesn't mean the information would be any less valuable IF they learned it, but what is the risk in letting people learn what they want. For those that don't want to learn, save the money to give those same people an opportunity to use it when they get things straight in their head, versus spending it all now when they don't want it. I think all people would benefit, would take greater pride in their education, as well as their chosen career.
I would really like to know what others think. Btw, I am in the US (as one poster asked people to add)
I know my fellow coworkers would crucify me for this, but I think the biggest problem with teachers getting a fair wage is the Unions. Are teachers at private schools getting screwed over so bad? I have been working in public education for 7+ years, and the unions have fought hard to ensure that kindergarten and high school teachers of any subject all get the same pay. And what has happened as a result of that? In the democratic process of wage negotiation, few grammar school teachers really care a lot more about teaching than getting paid. With the smaller class sizes necessary for grammar school, there is disproportionately heavy representation for these teachers that "aren't in it for the pay". They have spouses that make all the money they need. These are also the same teachers that have the time to go to all the union meetings while the 20's something, single high school teacher is home grading papers and working on the next weeks lesson plan. I am all for "Same work, same pay", but you just can't say that a high school advanced math teacher does the same work as a grammar school English teacher. I am not going to say one is harder, cause that isn't the point; just let them negotiate for their fair wage separately by supply and demand.
Hope this isn't too far off topic, but what I really think needs to happen is that there should be incentives for people to become math and science teachers. Specifically, let prospective math and science students pay off government loans with years of teaching in public school. This brings more opportunities to poorer students by reducing the up front cost of getting such degrees. While likely many may leave, the public school system would benefit greatly. There must be some figure of tuition costs v. years of teaching in public school that would be mutually beneficial and bring more geeks into the classroom.
I'd just like to add to that the thing I hate the most about democrats, or democratic party politics is this idea that people, companies, and investors are really persuaded by the idea of giving certain people the party likes more of their own money back. Democratic politicians are always trying to get people out to vote, but the idea of transparent government is the LAST priority of their policies, if not their greatest fear.
Any law that requires a team of lawyers to understand, let alone comply with is CRAP! Compliance with copyright or Tax Code is whatever you can afford based on who you can buy without pissing anyone off. There is nothing consistent or lawful about either system. Ron Paul is a true patriot for acknowledging what should be scary F***ing obvious to ANYBODY that has every tried to make a dollar from hard work.
I care little about the issues Obama is criticized for, and I fairly strongly support him and will defend most of his positions, but his opposition to FairTax is the biggest hypocrisy to everything I THOUGHT he believed in. It makes it difficult to believe anything he says he is going to do, but still impressed / persuaded by the accomplishments and work he has already done, so that just about breaks even. Don't need anyone to agree with me, just my (crazy) opinion.