...Because those are governments and not terrorist organizations? No matter how much they fail at fairly governing their people, they are still governments. They may use terrorism (like all governments) but in and of themselves are not terrorist organizations. If the people of a state recognize them as their government, how can they be a terrorist organization? And if we say because they use terrorism then we have to put most of the governments of the west as terrorist groups too, or did you forget about how France sunk an unarmed ship because it opposed it testing nuclear weapons and killed one person onboard (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior), how the US dropped not one but two nuclear bombs on Japan when they were about to surrender anyways (not to mention tried to get a costly unconditional surrender which was idiotic) and the by definition terrorism (causing a country to live in fear) of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis
We can have a lot of "what if" situations. What if terrorists have a space laser that will vaporize half the earth if we don't bow down to Allah? What if terrorists are in the administration of every school district and are indoctrinating our children? What if terrorists have some stock in Apple and every time you buy an iPhone you are supporting terrorism? What if terrorists use Linux, doesn't that make you a terrorist if you are using it?
Yeah, everyone is scared a terrorist group may have a nuke. And no, there is very little reliable data to show it has a nuke. It is a lot more reasonable to say that Iraq, with a simi-legitimate government, large area, and somewhat rich would have WMDs. Oh wait... when we invaded Iraq... they had no WMDs. If Iraq, a nation with many people couldn't get a WMD (or managed to turn these WMDs into ninjas so the US/UN/etc couldn't find them...) how much more unlikely is it that a terrorist group would both A) have a nuke B) have the ability to safely store the nuke in working condition C) have no leaks regarding the nuke D) take the nuke onto US soil E) detonate the nuke F) have the nuke go off G) have an acceptable kill-rate.
Look, we are a lot more likely to be nuked by our own nuclear weapons than for a terrorist group to nuke us (excluding the governments of Iran, North Korea, etc) on our own soil.
Paranoia only gets us so far, we can say "what if" to a number of things, but in the end, can we -really- back those things up to justify loss of human life, loss of an economy, loss of human rights, etc? I think not. There was a lot more hard evidence for Iraq to have WMDs than for a terrorist group to have nukes.
That is the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard.
For one, this would make security theater even more pronounced, at least with the way it is now there is a chain of blame meaning that no one person is usually blamed for a certain incident. For another it would make policy even stupider than it already is, its bad enough when you can't take liquids on the plane, whats next? Them searching through your laptop, prying off every key to try to find explosive residue underneath it? Already, human and civil rights are raped when you travel by air, adding more stupid policies aren't going to make us any safer. If someone really wants to blow up a plane they will find some way to if they are reasonably intelligent, unafraid of death, and we aren't velcroed naked to the plane during takeoff.
Plus, in some countries airport security is bad, they don't have as much security theater as the US but somehow they manage to have avoid hijacking and terrorism. The US is about the only country that requires passengers to take off their shoes, has that made us any safer? Have you seen shoe bombings all across Europe, Asia and Australia because of this? No. It is security theater. The US tries to be high and mighty in security theater yet other countries have a lower rate of air incidents and have a "poorer screening record" than the US.
Your policy would effectively deny entry to the US from many, many, many different countries. Effectively a travel ban. This is a bad thing to both the security, foreign policy and economic rights of the US.
There comes a time when you have to look at the US travel screening system and realize it takes away a bunch of human rights, puts us an a 1984-style dystopia where people are afraid to look, talk, act or even think "suspiciously" thinking it will cause alarm and destroys the US economy. No one wants to fly on planes when the TSA wants to treat us all like criminals. No matter how well the airline treats you, your basic rights to not be treated like a criminal are violated by the TSA. Then because no one wants to fly, the airlines lose money, when they lose money they try to squeeze every single penny out of you, when you do that you don't want to fly even more then, and it repeats.
The thing about network issues is, they are an easy fix. Get a faster internet connection and buy more servers. Yeah, you can optimize your code and get similar results, but its usually one of the few problems in technology you can throw money at and get good results.
and there's no official 64 bit version. I've read that the developers opinion is that why have a 64 bit version if the most necessary plugin, flash is not available in a 64 bit version so why bother. But Sun does make a 64 bit JRE and that's half the battle
Flash is used on just about every site out there. Java isn't. About the -only- issue I've had with Java not being installed was that I had to use the simple uploader to upload pictures on Facebook. I haven't had a Java plugin installed in 2-3 years and haven't experienced any loss due to it. However, the lack of Flash would make most sites unusable that the average person goes to A) YouTube B) Flash game sites C) Flash cartoon sites like Homestar Runner D) A -lot- of sites have Flash for navigation.
I honestly believe that if a 64 bit official version of FireFox were released that would spur Adobe to jump on the band wagon and produce a 64 bit Flash plugin.
Who would use it? I still use a 32 bit OS because I see no need in switching to a 64 bit OS. I'm currently running Ubuntu 32 bit on a 64 bit CPU, I really don't see the need in changing. Really, I don't expect to upgrade my RAM past 2 GB anytime soon and there isn't any software that is 64 bit only, but a lot of software is 32 bit only.
For Windows its even worse, why would someone pay extra for an OS? If its pre-installed people may use it, but most of the time even Windows 7 is shipping in 32 bit versions. Unless you want a huge amount of RAM, theres little need to get a 64 bit OS.
And really, Chrome is -the- browser to beat right now. If it had a more stable Linux version and had all the addons/themes along with the ability to customize absolutely everything, chances are most Linux distros would ship with it over Firefox.
Yeah, Firefox and Chrome may be the only two competitors with some features, but compared to others, Firefox just can't compete. Things like supporting multi-threading, tab isolation, plugin isolation, JavaScript execution speed, and general UI responsiveness are all things that Firefox really lacks. Right now, the ability to customize and the fact that its available in Ubuntu without needing extra repos, are about the only things that are keeping me from using Chrome full time.
You mean the fact that people who have been using Linux have been using package managers with GUIs (basically an app store) for the good part of at least a half a decade if not more? And the fact that many people wanted an SDK on launch with the iPhone? And the fact that people managed to figure out how to run their own programs on the iPhone many months before the iPhone 2.0 update was launched? It was only a small time before they managed to port Apt over to the iPhone. Yeah, by the time they finally released it, it was about at the same time as the app store, but the ideas had been there way before Apple's app store and would have probably beat it to market had Apple not been screwing with jailbroken iPhones like crazy.
Yes, I've tried and there are two things that I don't like about it
A) Eyestrain. I've tried reading a lot of books and after an hour of sustained reading, I've developed a headache. This doesn't happen with physical books, nor when I'm using my computer for tasks that I don't focus on one thing for too long.
B) The ability to do something other than read. Even if I might have in mind to read 100 pages, in about 15 pages, I will want to check my Facebook, or perhaps catch up on a news site, then read Slashdot, then hop on IM and see if there is anyone interesting on.... etc.
This is a good thing. Firefox desperately needs to modernize. About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization. Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.
Unless its E-ink its going to be a pain on the eyes for reading. Ever tried reading a book on an LCD? The contrast just isn't there to not give you eyestrain.
It took a while for people to realize the potential of the app store, and what the iPhone could do for them
I actually think it was more of "What are you talking about? Web apps are fine! We aren't making an SDK for the iPhone" moment from Steve Jobs and then he eventually realized the need for an app store. People knew it needed an app store from the start, but it wasn't until the 2.x firmware that they actually got it added.
Sure, but combine AI, the ability for robots to consume food (plants or us) to continue to operate and the military and you basically have all the ingredients for a robot apocalypse. Robot is programmed to do its mission at all costs, robot needs fuel, robot eats human and continues on its task.
This really ignores a lot of panics that are more relevant in both mass-media and tech circles alike. The main one is the LHC. Even non-geeks were talking about it and the end of the world. Another one is Conficker, you know the virus/botnet that was supposed to destroy the world in April 2009 when it.... did nothing. Then everyone got worried that it would strike the next month... and nothing.
That was exactly what I expected when I saw the title. It was quite funny to watch Twitter/Facebook on people who "got" the virus and were scared to death. Because, we all know a botnet is going to have little "YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED" messages and pop ups...
Most drugs are really just basic elements and minerals. They are really easy to make, cheaply. That is why generics are so cheap. Once all the initial testing is done its really, really easy for even an underdeveloped country to make their own medicine. Patents though make things expensive, in order to get aid for its people, countries sign agreements basically saying they will adopt a US-style copyright/patent agreement, this makes it hard for them or other developed countries to make patent-free medicine cheaply and then import them to the underdeveloped country. While we, in developed nations can easily afford $100 for medicine that would save our lives, the same would be equivalent to a $20,000 treatment in underdeveloped countries.
lack of education
Ever look at the price of textbooks? Its simply an annoyance that we have to spend $100 for a single textbook, in an underdeveloped country that cost alone may prevent people from getting a decent education.
over-reliance on subsistence farming
True, but that will only change with A) Education B) Technology and C) Aid to help them transition. A is hindered because of the high cost, B is hindered because of high cost and the fact that it can be abused to create more harm than good in the long term (look at DDT), and we are trying to do C, but its pretty hard to convince people we need to send money to Africa with many of our own unemployed.
lack of infrastructure
Infrastructure will happen once people stop dying, that is until the expected lifespan goes beyond 50, most people will spend their entire lives working to help sustain themselves and their families without care of the quality of life compared to if people live beyond a working age.
Not being able to get pirated songs isn't what's holding underdeveloped nations back.
How do you think the US started getting industry? They basically stole all of Europe's developed technology (akin to violating patents today) by hiring people who moved from Europe and who had worked in the factories and had knowledge to make their own factories.
In fact, the US didn't recognize copyright held by foreign authors until sometime in the 19th century! Let alone patents.
Bono is an idiot to put it quite plainly. Does he not see that these treaties signed with underdeveloped nations to help them "defend" American businesses against "piracy" and patent infringement is exactly what is keeping them behind? If Bono would stop being such an egotistical asshole and actually look at the facts, he would see that eternal copyright and copyright treaties keep valuable medical information locked up from developing nations, valuable educational supplies from developing nations. Yeah, he seems willing enough to donate a few millions to "fight" AIDS but can't give up a bit of copyright in order to help the world as a whole? That isn't selfless, that is as selfish as you can get.
The problem with society today is there are easily two groups of people that can easily be recognized: those that can manipulate abstract symbols and those that cannot. This is purely a mental capability - education has no role in it. If a person doesn't have the ability, you might be able to train them sufficiently to put on a pretty good show and fake it but they aren't going to be successful or happy about it.
While it is a mental ability, education can help bring it to the attention of the masses. Look at the abundance of writers now compared to writers in the 16th century. While there always have been writers ever since the invention of writing, in the last 200 years writing has exploded in growth, partially due to the increase of education allowing more people to read and write.
Think about it this way, if you lived on a farm in the 1600s and were very good at abstract thinking, where did that get you? Nowhere because no one appreciates your talent. Today, even if you live on a farm you still get education, if you show that you are good at abstract thinking and show excellence in a particular field, its quite easy to get scholarships then go off to university and later get a job doing something you love. In the 16th century... you were stuck as a farmer.
There are few jobs remaining for these people.
There are lots of jobs... they just don't pay much more than minimum wage because there are a lot of workers (read, Mexicans) who are willing to do the same job for less pay. There are lots of jobs out there, they just don't pay much.
We need to recognize this and deal with it on a societal level, and pretty soon. Building the world so that only people that can do higher math, program computers and other things that involve abstract symbols will fit in is a disaster in the works.
In a way we usually do, those who are struggling in school usually drop out, perhaps get a GED at a later date, and do manual labor jobs at low pay. The thing is, generally humans are worse at doing repetitive jobs than machines so their pay gets lowered because they have nothing special.
E-mail is -very- useful, so is PowerPoint. While perhaps not so much of a big deal for elementary education, at the university level the ability to simply attach a document to an e-mail and not have to worry about the printers who manage to run out of ink/paper, jam, or simply won't print the night before you have to turn in a paper.
Computers in the class room have been around at least 25 years. There was an Apple ][ in every classroom when I was a kid. We used it to die of dysentery on the Oregon Trail. Did we learn anything about history? No. We learned to that all that settlers needed was a 99 rounds of ammunition.
But did you learn something about computers? Chances you did learn something if you are now on Slashdot. The role of computers should be to provide a shiny toy for students to want to figure out how it works. To learn reading to play an RPG, to learn history to learn the backstory behind war games, etc.
Computers in the classroom are just the latest incarnation of the whiz-bang technology that would magically make improve education and test scores, without requiring any more work on the child's, parent's, or teacher's part. Just like television, movies, and filmstrips were hailed as an educator's silver bullet generations before. (Stoll wrote about this 14 years ago, and it stills holds true.)
...And how many kids who are have graduated still remember watching The Magic School Bus and Bill Nye the Science Guy? My guess is a lot of them.
Anyone that has attended class in any "e-learning" classroom, can attest that of the regular occurrences of projectors that don't work. Video and audio links that fail. Overly sensitive microphones and the like. The amount of time wasted trying to just set things up before instruction can begin is non-trivial, and easily can accumulate to entire missed days of instruction. No thank you.
...Mostly because teachers and professors are absolutely clueless on technology having long lost the ability to learn after their last degree
If you really want to improve education, how about removing the distractions, and actually teaching out of the book?
...Because that would be removing over half the class and relying on a book that is usually severely out of date?
No, but an antibiotic would make the masses feel like they've actually done something (and could be useful to prevent a secondary infection). If we don't give out any antibiotics (or placebo bills) the masses will stop going to the doctors which is a bad thing because that pushes more care to emergency support (like all the idiots who treat the emergency room as if it were an urgent care office with things like colds or minor infections...)
as the OLPC project showed, creating a child-oriented, large screen portable computer for $100 is still out of reach.
Actually, CherryPal has managed to do that (not exactly child-oriented but so long as they aren't careless with it, it should last for a bit), but it would be a nightmare for support (http://www.cherrypal.com/openstore/product_info.php?products_id=5) because basically its duct-taped together with spare parts and could be ARM/x86
Slashdot Mirror
...Because those are governments and not terrorist organizations? No matter how much they fail at fairly governing their people, they are still governments. They may use terrorism (like all governments) but in and of themselves are not terrorist organizations. If the people of a state recognize them as their government, how can they be a terrorist organization? And if we say because they use terrorism then we have to put most of the governments of the west as terrorist groups too, or did you forget about how France sunk an unarmed ship because it opposed it testing nuclear weapons and killed one person onboard (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior), how the US dropped not one but two nuclear bombs on Japan when they were about to surrender anyways (not to mention tried to get a costly unconditional surrender which was idiotic) and the by definition terrorism (causing a country to live in fear) of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis
If programmers in China pirate, does that make you a Chinese programmer if you pirate? The US is filled with Chinese programmers!
We can have a lot of "what if" situations. What if terrorists have a space laser that will vaporize half the earth if we don't bow down to Allah? What if terrorists are in the administration of every school district and are indoctrinating our children? What if terrorists have some stock in Apple and every time you buy an iPhone you are supporting terrorism? What if terrorists use Linux, doesn't that make you a terrorist if you are using it?
Yeah, everyone is scared a terrorist group may have a nuke. And no, there is very little reliable data to show it has a nuke. It is a lot more reasonable to say that Iraq, with a simi-legitimate government, large area, and somewhat rich would have WMDs. Oh wait... when we invaded Iraq... they had no WMDs. If Iraq, a nation with many people couldn't get a WMD (or managed to turn these WMDs into ninjas so the US/UN/etc couldn't find them...) how much more unlikely is it that a terrorist group would both A) have a nuke B) have the ability to safely store the nuke in working condition C) have no leaks regarding the nuke D) take the nuke onto US soil E) detonate the nuke F) have the nuke go off G) have an acceptable kill-rate.
Look, we are a lot more likely to be nuked by our own nuclear weapons than for a terrorist group to nuke us (excluding the governments of Iran, North Korea, etc) on our own soil.
Paranoia only gets us so far, we can say "what if" to a number of things, but in the end, can we -really- back those things up to justify loss of human life, loss of an economy, loss of human rights, etc? I think not. There was a lot more hard evidence for Iraq to have WMDs than for a terrorist group to have nukes.
That is the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard.
For one, this would make security theater even more pronounced, at least with the way it is now there is a chain of blame meaning that no one person is usually blamed for a certain incident. For another it would make policy even stupider than it already is, its bad enough when you can't take liquids on the plane, whats next? Them searching through your laptop, prying off every key to try to find explosive residue underneath it? Already, human and civil rights are raped when you travel by air, adding more stupid policies aren't going to make us any safer. If someone really wants to blow up a plane they will find some way to if they are reasonably intelligent, unafraid of death, and we aren't velcroed naked to the plane during takeoff.
Plus, in some countries airport security is bad, they don't have as much security theater as the US but somehow they manage to have avoid hijacking and terrorism. The US is about the only country that requires passengers to take off their shoes, has that made us any safer? Have you seen shoe bombings all across Europe, Asia and Australia because of this? No. It is security theater. The US tries to be high and mighty in security theater yet other countries have a lower rate of air incidents and have a "poorer screening record" than the US.
Your policy would effectively deny entry to the US from many, many, many different countries. Effectively a travel ban. This is a bad thing to both the security, foreign policy and economic rights of the US.
There comes a time when you have to look at the US travel screening system and realize it takes away a bunch of human rights, puts us an a 1984-style dystopia where people are afraid to look, talk, act or even think "suspiciously" thinking it will cause alarm and destroys the US economy. No one wants to fly on planes when the TSA wants to treat us all like criminals. No matter how well the airline treats you, your basic rights to not be treated like a criminal are violated by the TSA. Then because no one wants to fly, the airlines lose money, when they lose money they try to squeeze every single penny out of you, when you do that you don't want to fly even more then, and it repeats.
The thing about network issues is, they are an easy fix. Get a faster internet connection and buy more servers. Yeah, you can optimize your code and get similar results, but its usually one of the few problems in technology you can throw money at and get good results.
and there's no official 64 bit version. I've read that the developers opinion is that why have a 64 bit version if the most necessary plugin, flash is not available in a 64 bit version so why bother. But Sun does make a 64 bit JRE and that's half the battle
Flash is used on just about every site out there. Java isn't. About the -only- issue I've had with Java not being installed was that I had to use the simple uploader to upload pictures on Facebook. I haven't had a Java plugin installed in 2-3 years and haven't experienced any loss due to it. However, the lack of Flash would make most sites unusable that the average person goes to A) YouTube B) Flash game sites C) Flash cartoon sites like Homestar Runner D) A -lot- of sites have Flash for navigation.
I honestly believe that if a 64 bit official version of FireFox were released that would spur Adobe to jump on the band wagon and produce a 64 bit Flash plugin.
Who would use it? I still use a 32 bit OS because I see no need in switching to a 64 bit OS. I'm currently running Ubuntu 32 bit on a 64 bit CPU, I really don't see the need in changing. Really, I don't expect to upgrade my RAM past 2 GB anytime soon and there isn't any software that is 64 bit only, but a lot of software is 32 bit only.
For Windows its even worse, why would someone pay extra for an OS? If its pre-installed people may use it, but most of the time even Windows 7 is shipping in 32 bit versions. Unless you want a huge amount of RAM, theres little need to get a 64 bit OS.
And really, Chrome is -the- browser to beat right now. If it had a more stable Linux version and had all the addons/themes along with the ability to customize absolutely everything, chances are most Linux distros would ship with it over Firefox.
Yeah, Firefox and Chrome may be the only two competitors with some features, but compared to others, Firefox just can't compete. Things like supporting multi-threading, tab isolation, plugin isolation, JavaScript execution speed, and general UI responsiveness are all things that Firefox really lacks. Right now, the ability to customize and the fact that its available in Ubuntu without needing extra repos, are about the only things that are keeping me from using Chrome full time.
You mean the fact that people who have been using Linux have been using package managers with GUIs (basically an app store) for the good part of at least a half a decade if not more? And the fact that many people wanted an SDK on launch with the iPhone? And the fact that people managed to figure out how to run their own programs on the iPhone many months before the iPhone 2.0 update was launched? It was only a small time before they managed to port Apt over to the iPhone. Yeah, by the time they finally released it, it was about at the same time as the app store, but the ideas had been there way before Apple's app store and would have probably beat it to market had Apple not been screwing with jailbroken iPhones like crazy.
Yes, I've tried and there are two things that I don't like about it
A) Eyestrain. I've tried reading a lot of books and after an hour of sustained reading, I've developed a headache. This doesn't happen with physical books, nor when I'm using my computer for tasks that I don't focus on one thing for too long.
B) The ability to do something other than read. Even if I might have in mind to read 100 pages, in about 15 pages, I will want to check my Facebook, or perhaps catch up on a news site, then read Slashdot, then hop on IM and see if there is anyone interesting on.... etc.
This is a good thing. Firefox desperately needs to modernize. About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization. Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.
Unless its E-ink its going to be a pain on the eyes for reading. Ever tried reading a book on an LCD? The contrast just isn't there to not give you eyestrain.
It took a while for people to realize the potential of the app store, and what the iPhone could do for them
I actually think it was more of "What are you talking about? Web apps are fine! We aren't making an SDK for the iPhone" moment from Steve Jobs and then he eventually realized the need for an app store. People knew it needed an app store from the start, but it wasn't until the 2.x firmware that they actually got it added.
Sure, but combine AI, the ability for robots to consume food (plants or us) to continue to operate and the military and you basically have all the ingredients for a robot apocalypse. Robot is programmed to do its mission at all costs, robot needs fuel, robot eats human and continues on its task.
This really ignores a lot of panics that are more relevant in both mass-media and tech circles alike. The main one is the LHC. Even non-geeks were talking about it and the end of the world. Another one is Conficker, you know the virus/botnet that was supposed to destroy the world in April 2009 when it.... did nothing. Then everyone got worried that it would strike the next month... and nothing.
That was exactly what I expected when I saw the title. It was quite funny to watch Twitter/Facebook on people who "got" the virus and were scared to death. Because, we all know a botnet is going to have little "YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED" messages and pop ups...
Laws were meant to keep people from harming one another. "sexting" harms no one.
lack of education
Ever look at the price of textbooks? Its simply an annoyance that we have to spend $100 for a single textbook, in an underdeveloped country that cost alone may prevent people from getting a decent education.
over-reliance on subsistence farming
True, but that will only change with A) Education B) Technology and C) Aid to help them transition. A is hindered because of the high cost, B is hindered because of high cost and the fact that it can be abused to create more harm than good in the long term (look at DDT), and we are trying to do C, but its pretty hard to convince people we need to send money to Africa with many of our own unemployed.
lack of infrastructure
Infrastructure will happen once people stop dying, that is until the expected lifespan goes beyond 50, most people will spend their entire lives working to help sustain themselves and their families without care of the quality of life compared to if people live beyond a working age.
Not being able to get pirated songs isn't what's holding underdeveloped nations back.
How do you think the US started getting industry? They basically stole all of Europe's developed technology (akin to violating patents today) by hiring people who moved from Europe and who had worked in the factories and had knowledge to make their own factories.
In fact, the US didn't recognize copyright held by foreign authors until sometime in the 19th century! Let alone patents.
Sure, but basic computer skills will still get you a job paying $30K per year even with very little thinking skills.
And whoever modded this flamebait is an idiot too.
Bono is an idiot to put it quite plainly. Does he not see that these treaties signed with underdeveloped nations to help them "defend" American businesses against "piracy" and patent infringement is exactly what is keeping them behind? If Bono would stop being such an egotistical asshole and actually look at the facts, he would see that eternal copyright and copyright treaties keep valuable medical information locked up from developing nations, valuable educational supplies from developing nations. Yeah, he seems willing enough to donate a few millions to "fight" AIDS but can't give up a bit of copyright in order to help the world as a whole? That isn't selfless, that is as selfish as you can get.
The problem with society today is there are easily two groups of people that can easily be recognized: those that can manipulate abstract symbols and those that cannot. This is purely a mental capability - education has no role in it. If a person doesn't have the ability, you might be able to train them sufficiently to put on a pretty good show and fake it but they aren't going to be successful or happy about it.
While it is a mental ability, education can help bring it to the attention of the masses. Look at the abundance of writers now compared to writers in the 16th century. While there always have been writers ever since the invention of writing, in the last 200 years writing has exploded in growth, partially due to the increase of education allowing more people to read and write.
Think about it this way, if you lived on a farm in the 1600s and were very good at abstract thinking, where did that get you? Nowhere because no one appreciates your talent. Today, even if you live on a farm you still get education, if you show that you are good at abstract thinking and show excellence in a particular field, its quite easy to get scholarships then go off to university and later get a job doing something you love. In the 16th century... you were stuck as a farmer.
There are few jobs remaining for these people.
There are lots of jobs... they just don't pay much more than minimum wage because there are a lot of workers (read, Mexicans) who are willing to do the same job for less pay. There are lots of jobs out there, they just don't pay much.
We need to recognize this and deal with it on a societal level, and pretty soon. Building the world so that only people that can do higher math, program computers and other things that involve abstract symbols will fit in is a disaster in the works.
In a way we usually do, those who are struggling in school usually drop out, perhaps get a GED at a later date, and do manual labor jobs at low pay. The thing is, generally humans are worse at doing repetitive jobs than machines so their pay gets lowered because they have nothing special.
E-mail is -very- useful, so is PowerPoint. While perhaps not so much of a big deal for elementary education, at the university level the ability to simply attach a document to an e-mail and not have to worry about the printers who manage to run out of ink/paper, jam, or simply won't print the night before you have to turn in a paper.
Computers in the class room have been around at least 25 years. There was an Apple ][ in every classroom when I was a kid. We used it to die of dysentery on the Oregon Trail. Did we learn anything about history? No. We learned to that all that settlers needed was a 99 rounds of ammunition.
But did you learn something about computers? Chances you did learn something if you are now on Slashdot. The role of computers should be to provide a shiny toy for students to want to figure out how it works. To learn reading to play an RPG, to learn history to learn the backstory behind war games, etc.
Computers in the classroom are just the latest incarnation of the whiz-bang technology that would magically make improve education and test scores, without requiring any more work on the child's, parent's, or teacher's part. Just like television, movies, and filmstrips were hailed as an educator's silver bullet generations before. (Stoll wrote about this 14 years ago, and it stills holds true.)
Anyone that has attended class in any "e-learning" classroom, can attest that of the regular occurrences of projectors that don't work. Video and audio links that fail. Overly sensitive microphones and the like. The amount of time wasted trying to just set things up before instruction can begin is non-trivial, and easily can accumulate to entire missed days of instruction. No thank you.
If you really want to improve education, how about removing the distractions, and actually teaching out of the book?
No, but an antibiotic would make the masses feel like they've actually done something (and could be useful to prevent a secondary infection). If we don't give out any antibiotics (or placebo bills) the masses will stop going to the doctors which is a bad thing because that pushes more care to emergency support (like all the idiots who treat the emergency room as if it were an urgent care office with things like colds or minor infections...)
as the OLPC project showed, creating a child-oriented, large screen portable computer for $100 is still out of reach.
Actually, CherryPal has managed to do that (not exactly child-oriented but so long as they aren't careless with it, it should last for a bit), but it would be a nightmare for support (http://www.cherrypal.com/openstore/product_info.php?products_id=5) because basically its duct-taped together with spare parts and could be ARM/x86