I disagree. Computers are a form of technology that is becoming prevalent in the world we live in. Computer skills are relevant skills to be learned, just the same as reading, writing, or mathematics.
Mathematics, for example, wasn't always around either. The subject was developed, and even today there is new research happening in math.
If teachers from historical times found it unnecessary to teach the "newfangled" principles of mathematics, many of the current developments that we have today would have likely been delayed.
The same probably goes for reading and writing.
Computer skills are relevant to be learned, just as other subjects. It is how the teaching is done that is important.
But moving along with technology is a good thing.
I'm just waiting for the day that we can use Travelocity to compare prices on flights to Mars... I guess going to Jupiter would be okay, too, if I were able to rack up a lot of frequent flier miles.
Forget electronic voting, let's abandon democracy altogether, and start up "Internetocracy", where all major political decisions are voted on by slashdotters and Internet trolls!
Want to bomb Iraq? Let's make a slashdot poll, and see if we should do it!
I nominate Cowboy Neil as a viable solution to improving our economy.
I'm not convinced. Considering they release the popular vote, I think that it should be used.
Maybe the leaders from early America were afraid of a direct vote for presidency, but in my opinion, the common man may be more likely to have the interests of the people in mind than the politicians that are elected.
The way it is now, I feel like the rural states are given more than their share of power, and politicians are given more power than anyone.
I do not feel that this is good, which is why I don't agree with the electoral college.
One may argue that politicians "know more about the issues" than the common public, but I feel that we are simply giving more power to a smaller group of people that can abuse it.
I do agree that it's impossible to get a consensus among all of America on day-to-day issues, but for choosing a president, I still think that the electoral college is a silly system.
Perhaps others have more confidence in their representatives than I do.
But why isn't it that simple in the case of electing a president? I understand that to make day-to-day decisions, it is not possible to get the opinions of every person in the country, but what I'm talking about is the process for electing president.
I'm sure everyone's aware of the results from the election back in 2000, where Gore had more votes than Bush, but because of the electoral system he wasn't chosen as president.
In the case of the presidential election, I think it is more simple than going through the electoral college process.
I think that the other argument (which I happen to agree with) is that the system itself has turned bad, and that is the reason for not voting.
Sure, this means not participating in the electoral process, but why should you participate in something you believe is wrong? Does this mean that you don't have the right to complain about it? I don't think so.
Say we were still in the times of slavery, and we were supposed to choose whether to have slaves from Nigeria or Angola (using the names of the countries as they are now). Sure, they can have a system for you to vote on what's "best". We can choose to have our slaves from Nigeria. We can choose to have them from Angola. But what if you think slavery in general is wrong? We are only given two choices here, and we are supposed to choose the "best of two evils" (as I always here voters say about the election these days)?
I don't want to vote for either evil. I think the system itself is stupid. And I have the right to talk about it as much as you do.
You say I have "no recourse to complain about the results of that process"? If I think the whole process is stupid, I think I can talk about it. Participating in a system that I think has turned sour won't help anything but to strengthen the system itself. And why would I want that?
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Computers are a form of technology that is becoming prevalent in the world we live in. Computer skills are relevant skills to be learned, just the same as reading, writing, or mathematics. Mathematics, for example, wasn't always around either. The subject was developed, and even today there is new research happening in math. If teachers from historical times found it unnecessary to teach the "newfangled" principles of mathematics, many of the current developments that we have today would have likely been delayed. The same probably goes for reading and writing. Computer skills are relevant to be learned, just as other subjects. It is how the teaching is done that is important. But moving along with technology is a good thing.
I'm just waiting for the day that we can use Travelocity to compare prices on flights to Mars... I guess going to Jupiter would be okay, too, if I were able to rack up a lot of frequent flier miles.
Nobody said anything about hating anyone. I also think the post was funny.
Damnit! I get a C in biology, and now they go and change the curriculum. I knew I was right when I decided to focus on physics and math.
Forget electronic voting, let's abandon democracy altogether, and start up "Internetocracy", where all major political decisions are voted on by slashdotters and Internet trolls! Want to bomb Iraq? Let's make a slashdot poll, and see if we should do it! I nominate Cowboy Neil as a viable solution to improving our economy.
Just because someone didn't win an election doesn't mean that they should not have.
All news networks are biased in somebody's view. It is up to the individual to decide what is "true".
The problem with analyzing this with game theory is that game theory often assumes that the players are rational agents ;)
Yeah, and added to that, she'll probably lose the hotness factor before 2016.
Now the next thing they need to research is child-proof frustration-free packaging...
I'm not convinced. Considering they release the popular vote, I think that it should be used.
Maybe the leaders from early America were afraid of a direct vote for presidency, but in my opinion, the common man may be more likely to have the interests of the people in mind than the politicians that are elected.
The way it is now, I feel like the rural states are given more than their share of power, and politicians are given more power than anyone.
I do not feel that this is good, which is why I don't agree with the electoral college.
One may argue that politicians "know more about the issues" than the common public, but I feel that we are simply giving more power to a smaller group of people that can abuse it.
I do agree that it's impossible to get a consensus among all of America on day-to-day issues, but for choosing a president, I still think that the electoral college is a silly system.
Perhaps others have more confidence in their representatives than I do.
But why isn't it that simple in the case of electing a president? I understand that to make day-to-day decisions, it is not possible to get the opinions of every person in the country, but what I'm talking about is the process for electing president.
I'm sure everyone's aware of the results from the election back in 2000, where Gore had more votes than Bush, but because of the electoral system he wasn't chosen as president.
In the case of the presidential election, I think it is more simple than going through the electoral college process.
Why should we be trying to protect states with low population?
In doing this we are only making the votes of people that live in populated cities more irrelevant.
I never understood why we decided that all people should not be treated equally here...
I think that the other argument (which I happen to agree with) is that the system itself has turned bad, and that is the reason for not voting.
Sure, this means not participating in the electoral process, but why should you participate in something you believe is wrong? Does this mean that you don't have the right to complain about it? I don't think so.
Say we were still in the times of slavery, and we were supposed to choose whether to have slaves from Nigeria or Angola (using the names of the countries as they are now). Sure, they can have a system for you to vote on what's "best". We can choose to have our slaves from Nigeria. We can choose to have them from Angola. But what if you think slavery in general is wrong? We are only given two choices here, and we are supposed to choose the "best of two evils" (as I always here voters say about the election these days)?
I don't want to vote for either evil. I think the system itself is stupid. And I have the right to talk about it as much as you do.
You say I have "no recourse to complain about the results of that process"? If I think the whole process is stupid, I think I can talk about it. Participating in a system that I think has turned sour won't help anything but to strengthen the system itself. And why would I want that?