Check out starting salaries http://www.nea.org/home/2011-2012-average-starting-teacher-salary.html
Or worldwide (and keep in mind cost of living for each of those figures) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/teachers-salaries_teachsal-table-en
I'm of the opinion that it has very little to do with the money given to schools, and a lot more about the overall structure and equality. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
"The amount of money given to people in poor environments is staggering"
Define staggering?
The last time I looked, the US social safety net spending was way behind other first world nations, and that total safety net spending (food stamps, after school programs, school lunches, education support, etc..) is dwarfed by the defense budget and medicare/medicaid.
You are making an assumption that scenes of horrific violence will cause governments, pressured by their people, to engage in less acts of war over time.
That is a pretty big assumption.
The minds behind banning certain weapons assumed that we would always have a certain amount of war. That is another assumption. However it is an assumption with thousands of years of evidence to support it.
"Your own federal government is just one of a hundred potential adversaries"
Yeah, but they are the one who most likely can change my life for the worse. I really don't care if North Korea knows my browsing habits. But I do care if the NSA has some keyword search running on all internet traffic, detects that I searched for "some bad thing", and informs my local police department.
I agree that our government looks grim now, but it will swing back to common sense eventually.
The rate at which demographics are changing in the USA pretty much guarantees that the new influx of 'tea party' / 'evangelical' / 'neocon' type conservatives controlling the house won't last forever.
That is a dangerous stereotype to perpetuate. You'd be unfortunately correct if you said "lots of people have a vice they use to cope....". However, lots of people have healthy coping mechanisms that don't overrun their lives. Exercise for example. Or some sort of sport or pastime. Some hobby.
That seems to be an exaggeration of the statements in the link you provided.
Here's some snippets from your link:
"Currently, it's difficult to confirm a certain causal link between drug consumption at the resulting behavior"
"it's possible that the consumption of cannabis during this time could influence the way in which these sections develop"
"So what else did the researchers find? Only a minority (about one in four) of teenage users will develop an abusive or dependent relationship with the drug. This points to the fact that specific genetic or behavioral factors influence the likelihood that drug use will continue."
So while they conclude this:
""It is now clear from the scientific data that cannabis is not harmless to the adolescent brain, specifically those who are most vulnerable from a genetic or psychological standpoint,""
It is not quantified. It is likely far more governed by genetics and other factors. And like most studies where it is difficult if not impossible to have 'control' subjects, they can't rule out the possibility that these youths would have had some behavioral or addiction problems with or without the use of cannabis.
Except that the Daily Show performs very little investigative journalism. The show is based on commentary. Commentary that happens to be free to use actual common sense since it is disguised as humor and not beholden to corporate advertising.
We have no lack of commentary in the US. What we lack are journalists researching complicated issues, for years at a time sometimes, and summarizing their findings into information that the public needs to know in order to more effectively participate in a democracy.
We actually know points in time when things began to go downhill. One of those points is when 60 minutes started making money. A bunch of TV channel executives sat up and said "Oh wow... I didn't think that news could make money", and it basically went down hill from there.
Combine that with the systematic concentration of media owners and the invention of the internet and the decline of print news... and yeah, today's quality of news really is way worse than it was in the days of Mr. Walter C.
Don't underestimate how long our politicians will do nothing to stop climate change.
And keep in the back of your mind some of the predicted long term consequences: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_60AR.html http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html
I'm sure your local area might benefit from some warming, but I doubt the next generation, or maybe the next generation after that is going to enjoy their venus-like atmosphere.
I do agree with you that this might be the only way we actually start exploring space... although I hope it isn't just the rich moving up into space stations:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_%28film%29
Let the government subsidize the 50mpg car or electric car so it is cheaper than the 30.
The US has the money to do many things like that, and if our politics were a bit different, a transition to a totally green economy wouldn't be painful at all.
Any change in how energy is produced has been consistently met with the message "It will hurt the economy" from conservative media for so long, that even most moderates and some liberals believe that changing our energy production will cost us money. No proof whatsoever, just an assumption.
This despite many ideas that promote fairly painless transitions in the 25-50 year range. See http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html for one of many general plans.
Heck, the US government could cut our military spending in half, still be many times more powerful than the next most powerful countries combined, and pump hundreds of billions of dollars into a new energy grid, subsidizes for green tech and energy storage, etc.. and probably have our country close to 100% green energy in 20-30 years if it wanted to.
But with mammoth business like Exxon Mobil influencing politics (like they've done since the beginning of time) I'm fairly sure that nothing will happen until people start dying in the 10's of thousands. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954
And you make the assumption that any change to make things more 'green' is going to cost the consumer more. That isn't necessarily so.
While I do not consider it likely in this political climate, there are dozens of ways to transition to a greener energy structure without costing the tax payers one extra dime.
However, like the Bible, the Constitution is open to interpretation over time. Sometimes very large differences in the conclusions reached generation to generation.
On number 2., I disagree with the idea that individuals can donate whatever they want. Because of the vast income and wealth inequality in this country, a single individual can (and has) swung elections.
We need a cap on individual donations that reflects the average individual's wealth in this country. The rest can be made up with public funding of campaigns. Just who receive free air time, free ad time, and public funds could be determined by something simple like, "get X citizen signatures, congrats, you are officially a candidate".
There is a significant difference on a number of social and economic issues. But not much difference on any issues that involve the true power structures of this country (e.g., military industrial complex)
By 1987, in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica, diplomats in Montreal forged a treaty, the Montreal Protocol, which called for drastic reductions in the production of CFCs. On March 2, 1989, 12 European Community nations agreed to ban the production of all CFCs by the end of the century. In 1990, diplomats met in London and voted to significantly strengthen the Montreal Protocol by calling for a complete elimination of CFCs by the year 2000. By the year 2010 CFCs should have been completely eliminated from developing countries as well.
We've banned a pollutant world wide before. All of Europe is pretty much on board drastic reductions already. If the USA joined them and used its economic power to both help with the transitions and to force countries to comply we'd have a completely different world in 10-20 years in terms of CO2.
In my mind, it isn't the world-wide cooperation that is the problem. The much greater problem is the politics internal to the US.
It depends on what particular organic label your food has on it. A Tilth certification for example, means a hell of a lot more than "some stupid assumption that a naturally derived chemical is different than a synthetically derived one".
Probably not on your scale. I work with a few services that are a couple million hits a month each. Max concurrent sessions around ~5,000 for most of them.
But that is basically what I was saying. Unless your application demands it, moving away from Sun/Oracle/HPUX makes sense now. In terms of pricing and stability.
I think gas engines can get almost submerged, but they have to have air to run right? So if there is water over the top of the engine, it is going to stop eventually right?
I used to drive my Jeep in water that was high enough to get my feet wet, but I don't know any Jeep drivers that would try that if the water was over the steering wheel...
Slashdot Mirror
54k...
Check out starting salaries http://www.nea.org/home/2011-2012-average-starting-teacher-salary.html
Or worldwide (and keep in mind cost of living for each of those figures) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/teachers-salaries_teachsal-table-en
I'm of the opinion that it has very little to do with the money given to schools, and a lot more about the overall structure and equality.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
"Social welfare and activism should come after family"
And that is why certain things need to be forced. It would be irrational for you to not place family first.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if teacher unions were abolished, you still wouldn't send your kid to a poor inner city school.
There is a lot more wrong with public education than bad teachers.
"The amount of money given to people in poor environments is staggering"
Define staggering?
The last time I looked, the US social safety net spending was way behind other first world nations, and that total safety net spending (food stamps, after school programs, school lunches, education support, etc..) is dwarfed by the defense budget and medicare/medicaid.
Or... Assad isn't in complete control over every military unit and some rogue general did it.
Everyone can speculate all they want. The bottom line is there isn't any proof about who gave the orders.
You are making an assumption that scenes of horrific violence will cause governments, pressured by their people, to engage in less acts of war over time.
That is a pretty big assumption.
The minds behind banning certain weapons assumed that we would always have a certain amount of war. That is another assumption. However it is an assumption with thousands of years of evidence to support it.
"Your own federal government is just one of a hundred potential adversaries"
Yeah, but they are the one who most likely can change my life for the worse. I really don't care if North Korea knows my browsing habits. But I do care if the NSA has some keyword search running on all internet traffic, detects that I searched for "some bad thing", and informs my local police department.
I agree that our government looks grim now, but it will swing back to common sense eventually.
The rate at which demographics are changing in the USA pretty much guarantees that the new influx of 'tea party' / 'evangelical' / 'neocon' type conservatives controlling the house won't last forever.
"Everyone has a vice for coping"
That is a dangerous stereotype to perpetuate. You'd be unfortunately correct if you said "lots of people have a vice they use to cope....". However, lots of people have healthy coping mechanisms that don't overrun their lives. Exercise for example. Or some sort of sport or pastime. Some hobby.
has a devastating effect on their brains
That seems to be an exaggeration of the statements in the link you provided.
Here's some snippets from your link:
"Currently, it's difficult to confirm a certain causal link between drug consumption at the resulting behavior"
"it's possible that the consumption of cannabis during this time could influence the way in which these sections develop"
"So what else did the researchers find? Only a minority (about one in four) of teenage users will develop an abusive or dependent relationship with the drug. This points to the fact that specific genetic or behavioral factors influence the likelihood that drug use will continue."
So while they conclude this:
""It is now clear from the scientific data that cannabis is not harmless to the adolescent brain, specifically those who are most vulnerable from a genetic or psychological standpoint,""
It is not quantified. It is likely far more governed by genetics and other factors. And like most studies where it is difficult if not impossible to have 'control' subjects, they can't rule out the possibility that these youths would have had some behavioral or addiction problems with or without the use of cannabis.
Except that the Daily Show performs very little investigative journalism. The show is based on commentary. Commentary that happens to be free to use actual common sense since it is disguised as humor and not beholden to corporate advertising.
We have no lack of commentary in the US. What we lack are journalists researching complicated issues, for years at a time sometimes, and summarizing their findings into information that the public needs to know in order to more effectively participate in a democracy.
Thanks for pointing that out.
We actually know points in time when things began to go downhill. One of those points is when 60 minutes started making money. A bunch of TV channel executives sat up and said "Oh wow... I didn't think that news could make money", and it basically went down hill from there.
Combine that with the systematic concentration of media owners and the invention of the internet and the decline of print news... and yeah, today's quality of news really is way worse than it was in the days of Mr. Walter C.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954
Don't underestimate how long our politicians will do nothing to stop climate change.
And keep in the back of your mind some of the predicted long term consequences:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_60AR.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html
I'm sure your local area might benefit from some warming, but I doubt the next generation, or maybe the next generation after that is going to enjoy their venus-like atmosphere.
I do agree with you that this might be the only way we actually start exploring space... although I hope it isn't just the rich moving up into space stations:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_%28film%29
It would make sense to do the opposite.
Let the government subsidize the 50mpg car or electric car so it is cheaper than the 30.
The US has the money to do many things like that, and if our politics were a bit different, a transition to a totally green economy wouldn't be painful at all.
Any change in how energy is produced has been consistently met with the message "It will hurt the economy" from conservative media for so long, that even most moderates and some liberals believe that changing our energy production will cost us money. No proof whatsoever, just an assumption.
This despite many ideas that promote fairly painless transitions in the 25-50 year range. See http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html for one of many general plans.
Heck, the US government could cut our military spending in half, still be many times more powerful than the next most powerful countries combined, and pump hundreds of billions of dollars into a new energy grid, subsidizes for green tech and energy storage, etc.. and probably have our country close to 100% green energy in 20-30 years if it wanted to.
But with mammoth business like Exxon Mobil influencing politics (like they've done since the beginning of time) I'm fairly sure that nothing will happen until people start dying in the 10's of thousands. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954
And you make the assumption that any change to make things more 'green' is going to cost the consumer more. That isn't necessarily so.
While I do not consider it likely in this political climate, there are dozens of ways to transition to a greener energy structure without costing the tax payers one extra dime.
However, like the Bible, the Constitution is open to interpretation over time. Sometimes very large differences in the conclusions reached generation to generation.
On number 2., I disagree with the idea that individuals can donate whatever they want. Because of the vast income and wealth inequality in this country, a single individual can (and has) swung elections.
We need a cap on individual donations that reflects the average individual's wealth in this country. The rest can be made up with public funding of campaigns. Just who receive free air time, free ad time, and public funds could be determined by something simple like, "get X citizen signatures, congrats, you are officially a candidate".
There is a significant difference on a number of social and economic issues. But not much difference on any issues that involve the true power structures of this country (e.g., military industrial complex)
By 1987, in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica, diplomats in Montreal forged a treaty, the Montreal Protocol, which called for drastic reductions in the production of CFCs. On March 2, 1989, 12 European Community nations agreed to ban the production of all CFCs by the end of the century. In 1990, diplomats met in London and voted to significantly strengthen the Montreal Protocol by calling for a complete elimination of CFCs by the year 2000. By the year 2010 CFCs should have been completely eliminated from developing countries as well.
We've banned a pollutant world wide before. All of Europe is pretty much on board drastic reductions already. If the USA joined them and used its economic power to both help with the transitions and to force countries to comply we'd have a completely different world in 10-20 years in terms of CO2.
In my mind, it isn't the world-wide cooperation that is the problem. The much greater problem is the politics internal to the US.
It depends on what particular organic label your food has on it. A Tilth certification for example, means a hell of a lot more than "some stupid assumption that a naturally derived chemical is different than a synthetically derived one".
Curious, does the government own the power grid / power lines in Germany?
Probably not on your scale. I work with a few services that are a couple million hits a month each. Max concurrent sessions around ~5,000 for most of them.
But that is basically what I was saying. Unless your application demands it, moving away from Sun/Oracle/HPUX makes sense now. In terms of pricing and stability.
In general, I am. But there are already exceptions to it. And I'm suggesting we need a few more.
I think gas engines can get almost submerged, but they have to have air to run right? So if there is water over the top of the engine, it is going to stop eventually right?
I used to drive my Jeep in water that was high enough to get my feet wet, but I don't know any Jeep drivers that would try that if the water was over the steering wheel...