So which of the major spending by the government are you ready to do away with? Defense spending, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid? Because, quite frankly, any cuts to any other program isn't monetarily worth the time or devastation the cut would bring.
So whose life are you willing to put into jeopardy for the rather foolish notion we don't have a revenue problem?
So the FBI silently investigated people who reasonably could have resorted to lawlessness, and that's now stifling dissent? As someone who supported the idea of OWS, even that doesn't make any sense to me. As the saying goes, civil disobedience is still disobedience. When you walk the thin line of breaking the law, you should expect the organizations which investigate crimes to be interested.
The summary, and the article attached to it, seem nothing more than sensationalist in order to drive web traffic. More than sensationalist, outright biased. Just reading a few paragraphs of the summary pretty well shows this article was not at all interested in truth, but rather just spreading biases against the many agents and officers who were simply doing their job.
This article and summary make very little sense. Or, would that be "since", in order to keep in step with stifling descent?
Just from the broad strokes painted in the summary, this seems like a good idea and a good piece of legislation for Americans. Seems to even include the sorely lacking bit of common sense, which is so often absent in legislation these days.
Given the amount of common sense and overall good it would do, my guess is this bill will never pass.
I understand the thinking on the difference of $4.95 and $5, or even the difference in gas being $3.0999 instead of $3.10.
But we're talking about $25,000 dollars. Those who have the money to spend that much probably aren't all that concerned about $1. I just found it funny.
I think it's funny how this is listed at $24,999, as if someone is going to say "Well, $25,000 is simply too much, take a dollar off and I'll consider it".:-)
Otherwise, this is pretty cool stuff. If I had the money, I'd be on this immediately, even though I never played SNES. And yes, I'm aware that most people here are probably saying the same thing. I just wanted to be clear I wasn't being an ass about the price tag.
According to the article attached to the summary, the way Weev accessed this information was typing in publicly accessible URLs. If that's the case, how in the world can he possibly be prosecuted for accessing a public website?
Something seems to be missing here. I'm guessing there's more to this story than what is written in the article.
So the project aims to create a tablet that will let you run Linux...or another, and more polished, version of Linux?
If it's just about having a more free platform than Android, why bother taking up storage space by putting Android on there? Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a waste of time and money.
If that's the case, then clearly Romney's position is that Genachowski is a socialist, and Romney believes in closed standards and closed access. Romney also feels very strongly on FOSS vs. commercial.
(My comment was more mocking the tone of elections, where the challenger seems to stand for everything the opposite of his opponent.)
I think it's funny how so many columnists and "experts" have basically said this Congress won't do anything until after the election, and yet one of the few things they DID decide to do (the House at least) was extend the ability of the government to spy on American citizens.
Sometimes I just don't know what's worse, when Republicans and Democrats disagree leading to gridlock, or...when they agree. Hard to say really.
Also, it should hook me up with hot single babes who will do anything I want whenever I want sexually and otherwise, but will only be interested in pleasing me. She shouldn't have the need to sleep. but must be willing and able to do so on command with zero latency.
As a teacher for several years, I have to disagree and say student learning will not improve if you keep them at school longer. While your idea of giving time for homework sounds good, kids do not possess the capability for sitting in their assigned seats for that long. By the last hour or two of the day, their minds are tired, they are restless, and they are ready to blow off some steam and enjoy being a kid.
Furthermore, longer school day also means later nights for those who participate in extra curricular activities, such as band, choir, drama, speech, athletics, various clubs, etc. This means more time at school sponsored activities, less free time, less sleep, and lower development.
Have we not realized there is not one magic pill to boost student achievement? Is a longer school year a possibility? Maybe. Is a shorter day a possibility? Maybe. Will changing society's values on education make a difference? Probably. Will more money in the education system make a difference? Maybe. Will better salaries attract better teachers? Maybe. Will differentiated instruction make a difference? Maybe.
There is no magic cure all, but what people seem to be forgetting is that children aren't nearly as dumb/uniformed as today's adults want to believe they are. Furthermore, their knowledge is spread out amongst a large variety of topics that were not available 50 years ago or whatever golden age of education we want to believe existed (but, in reality, really didn't). I teach a basic computer class for 4th graders (on Linux, for those of you who wish to pat me on the back) and it's always funny to see just how much better on a computer than their teachers are. That's just an example.
The fact is children today aren't nearly as dumb as adults want to pretend they are. And there's no magical answer for improving standardized test scores (which apparently is the only way we can ever evaluate learning). In my opinion, the most important thing we can do for education is quit playing politics with it, quit pointing fingers and blaming everyone else, and have everyone pitch in to be responsible for every child's learning.
But I don't think operating system change is the first place to start. I think you first have to start by getting them accustomed to, if not expect, software applications which exist on Windows but also on Linux. Get them off Internet Explorer and onto Firefox. Gradually move them away from MS Office and onto LibreOffice. VLC instead of Windows Media Player. And so on down the line, to where when you do have them switch to a different OS, everything else is basically the same.
Of course there will be some differences as you move from Windows to Linux, but if you can make everything else seem comfortable and common, they will be much less likely to resist the change, and be more likely to say, "Well, this has everything I ever use, and I don't have to pay for it". I think the rest would work out quite nicely.
It's basketball. Really, does anybody with a working brain really give a screw about this game? .
Yes, we don't all fit the stereotype of nerds living in our parent's basement. Some of us actually loved sports in school, and have gone on to use that in carving a career out for ourselves.
I work in technology, and serve as a webmaster. I'm not even going to pretend like I have the tech knowledge many of the people who post on Slashdot do, but at the same time, I have more than enough to do my job. I would also like to point out, it's a job I love very much. All of which is to say I definitely have a working brain, and anyone who has spent any time with basketball knows it very much is a sport which requires the ability to think and analyze at a very rapid pace. Playing, coaching, broadcasting, even watching can be mentally taxing if you wish.
So I'd ask for you to leave your ignorance at the door and appreciate the fact that just because other people have interests you do not share, it doesn't reflect poorly on their intelligence.
I'm sure you mom is a lovely person, but exactly how hard is it to ride herd on 20 or 30 staff of adults?
For some odd reason I don't see working 5 days a week in an air conditioned office for 9-10 months out of the year somehow warrents a salary of over $100K. I don't want to hear how they have to work in the summer too, doing what exactly? Paperwork? Hire someone in China to do it for $10 a day or better yet hire some of the unemployed students to do it, because frankly if you can read you are qualified to fill out paperwork. Oh wait that seems to be one of the problems they are having with their students.
See, this is the nonsense I was initially responding to. Too many people are completely ignorant of what educators do, and yet seem to have no problem telling the world how easy their job is and assessing the difficulty level of the job. Just reading over your job description and I could easily say, "Your job is so easy. You just babysit a bunch of teenagers all day, and spend your time doing paperwork which could be outsourced to someone in China for $10 a day. And you don't even have to put up with the parents of the teenagers nor deal with troublemakers. Your job must be so easy." Would you tell me your job is unimportant? Would you tell me your job is easy? Do you think I have any idea exactly what your day is like? I would hope not. So why do you assume the same of others?
I get real tired of hearing how much teachers and admins sacrifice for their kids and especially how HARD their job is. A BS in education is pretty much a joke degree and a Masters in child developement is not much better. These people are paid way too much for piss poor results. It is time for a change. The first being that they need to shoot the sacred "education" cow.
Yes, because watching other people work on an aircraft must be so difficult and important, right?
We can play that game all day long. Being a teacher is not easy. If it was easy, then more people would want to do it. I think if society has proven anything over the years, it's that people want to make the most money possible, doing the least amount of work possible. I'm not going to sit here and tell you being a teacher is more difficult or more important than any other job, because every profession has it's perks and hardships. Perhaps that's some advice you might consider. Speak less ignorantly, and you might find people will have more respect for your opinion.
And as far as your "piss poor results" comment...well, nevermind. I'll just reiterate what I said about you working on your ability to speak with less ignorance.
Neither do teachers.
Per capita? I doubt it. I'm not saying that principals and superintendents are overpaid necessarily, though I'm sure some are. People in charge or running large organizations have a lot of responsibility, so it is natural that they should garner commensurate salaries. However, the tone of your post suggests that you believe that the teachers are overpaid (though perhaps I'm reading too much into it), and I have a hard time believing that is the case.
As a teacher myself, I can assure you I most certainly do not feel overpaid! I think educators in general, at all levels (all levels meaning teachers and administrators, not referring to colleges as I simply do not know what salaries are like for colleges), are grossly underpaid in America. I love sports, used to coach basketball, but when Alex Rodriguez can moonwalk to the batter's box, not take his bat off his shoulder, watch three pitches crawl past him before sitting down...and still make twice the amount of money in that one plate appearance as I do in a year's time...then it shows our society has seriously messed up values.
I guess I didn't make myself clear enough, because several people seemed to think I was putting down teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, I was trying to respond to the view so many people not associated with education have of administrators, and how that view could not be further from the truth. Although, many teachers DO show up at 7:30 and leave at 3:30 (or whatever time their school is), but, of course, that does not mean their workday ends at 3:30.
No one argues that administrators make up most of the budget; it would be stupid to believe so.
Well, if it's stupid to argue that, then it would only make sense to say it would be equally stupid to say cutting administrator salaries are going to make a dent in the overall budgets of schools, correct?
You cannot convince me that a superintendent of a school set in a town of less than 5000 people needs to make $100,000. You cannot.
I don't have to convince you. You cannot convince me they don't deserve to make that much. The only difference is I'm telling you why they DO make that much, and why changing their salaries will not make anything but the slightest of differences in budgets, while at the same time, driving out even more educators who would consider administration. What benefit is there to this?
Saying "cut administration's salary in half" is simply a knee jerk response that solves nothing. All it would do is keep even more of the good educators out of administration, where quality individuals are desperately needed.
As someone who has done this, with 20-30 superintendents, several of which are consistently highly effective school leaders, I disagree. The more you get to know about what they do, who they are, and why they do their jobs, the less you'll like them, and the less you'll support their unnecessarily high pay.
Then I would suggest that is more dependent upon the people you followed, not the position itself. I've known several (two in my family, for example) who earn every single cent they get in salary, and then some. I know what they do, who they are and why they do their job. And not only do I support their high salary, I support it to the fact they should be paid more. Of course, teachers should be paid more as well, and I would assume that's one area we will both agree.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I'd start with Defense spending, which could easily be cut in half, and we'd still have by far the largest military on the planet.
I'd be completely okay with this. But my guess would be the person I replied to would not.
So which of the major spending by the government are you ready to do away with? Defense spending, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid? Because, quite frankly, any cuts to any other program isn't monetarily worth the time or devastation the cut would bring.
So whose life are you willing to put into jeopardy for the rather foolish notion we don't have a revenue problem?
So the FBI silently investigated people who reasonably could have resorted to lawlessness, and that's now stifling dissent? As someone who supported the idea of OWS, even that doesn't make any sense to me. As the saying goes, civil disobedience is still disobedience. When you walk the thin line of breaking the law, you should expect the organizations which investigate crimes to be interested.
The summary, and the article attached to it, seem nothing more than sensationalist in order to drive web traffic. More than sensationalist, outright biased. Just reading a few paragraphs of the summary pretty well shows this article was not at all interested in truth, but rather just spreading biases against the many agents and officers who were simply doing their job.
This article and summary make very little sense. Or, would that be "since", in order to keep in step with stifling descent?
I'm not sure if I fully understand the ramifications here...what exactly will this mean for my Firefox?
Just from the broad strokes painted in the summary, this seems like a good idea and a good piece of legislation for Americans. Seems to even include the sorely lacking bit of common sense, which is so often absent in legislation these days.
Given the amount of common sense and overall good it would do, my guess is this bill will never pass.
Give me a second and I'll Google the answer for you.
I understand the thinking on the difference of $4.95 and $5, or even the difference in gas being $3.0999 instead of $3.10.
But we're talking about $25,000 dollars. Those who have the money to spend that much probably aren't all that concerned about $1. I just found it funny.
I think it's funny how this is listed at $24,999, as if someone is going to say "Well, $25,000 is simply too much, take a dollar off and I'll consider it". :-)
Otherwise, this is pretty cool stuff. If I had the money, I'd be on this immediately, even though I never played SNES. And yes, I'm aware that most people here are probably saying the same thing. I just wanted to be clear I wasn't being an ass about the price tag.
According to the article attached to the summary, the way Weev accessed this information was typing in publicly accessible URLs. If that's the case, how in the world can he possibly be prosecuted for accessing a public website?
Something seems to be missing here. I'm guessing there's more to this story than what is written in the article.
So the project aims to create a tablet that will let you run Linux...or another, and more polished, version of Linux?
If it's just about having a more free platform than Android, why bother taking up storage space by putting Android on there? Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a waste of time and money.
If you can see it, it should be legal to photography it.
Child pornographers across the globe agree with you.
...wait, was that too extreme of an example?
If that's the case, then clearly Romney's position is that Genachowski is a socialist, and Romney believes in closed standards and closed access. Romney also feels very strongly on FOSS vs. commercial.
(My comment was more mocking the tone of elections, where the challenger seems to stand for everything the opposite of his opponent.)
As soon as I know Obama's position, I'll get back to you on this.
I think it's funny how so many columnists and "experts" have basically said this Congress won't do anything until after the election, and yet one of the few things they DID decide to do (the House at least) was extend the ability of the government to spy on American citizens.
Sometimes I just don't know what's worse, when Republicans and Democrats disagree leading to gridlock, or...when they agree. Hard to say really.
Also, it should hook me up with hot single babes who will do anything I want whenever I want sexually and otherwise, but will only be interested in pleasing me. She shouldn't have the need to sleep. but must be willing and able to do so on command with zero latency.
Do we really need another web browser for porn?
As a teacher for several years, I have to disagree and say student learning will not improve if you keep them at school longer. While your idea of giving time for homework sounds good, kids do not possess the capability for sitting in their assigned seats for that long. By the last hour or two of the day, their minds are tired, they are restless, and they are ready to blow off some steam and enjoy being a kid.
Furthermore, longer school day also means later nights for those who participate in extra curricular activities, such as band, choir, drama, speech, athletics, various clubs, etc. This means more time at school sponsored activities, less free time, less sleep, and lower development.
More time in a day is not the answer.
Have we not realized there is not one magic pill to boost student achievement? Is a longer school year a possibility? Maybe. Is a shorter day a possibility? Maybe. Will changing society's values on education make a difference? Probably. Will more money in the education system make a difference? Maybe. Will better salaries attract better teachers? Maybe. Will differentiated instruction make a difference? Maybe.
There is no magic cure all, but what people seem to be forgetting is that children aren't nearly as dumb/uniformed as today's adults want to believe they are. Furthermore, their knowledge is spread out amongst a large variety of topics that were not available 50 years ago or whatever golden age of education we want to believe existed (but, in reality, really didn't). I teach a basic computer class for 4th graders (on Linux, for those of you who wish to pat me on the back) and it's always funny to see just how much better on a computer than their teachers are. That's just an example.
The fact is children today aren't nearly as dumb as adults want to pretend they are. And there's no magical answer for improving standardized test scores (which apparently is the only way we can ever evaluate learning). In my opinion, the most important thing we can do for education is quit playing politics with it, quit pointing fingers and blaming everyone else, and have everyone pitch in to be responsible for every child's learning.
But I don't think operating system change is the first place to start. I think you first have to start by getting them accustomed to, if not expect, software applications which exist on Windows but also on Linux. Get them off Internet Explorer and onto Firefox. Gradually move them away from MS Office and onto LibreOffice. VLC instead of Windows Media Player. And so on down the line, to where when you do have them switch to a different OS, everything else is basically the same.
Of course there will be some differences as you move from Windows to Linux, but if you can make everything else seem comfortable and common, they will be much less likely to resist the change, and be more likely to say, "Well, this has everything I ever use, and I don't have to pay for it". I think the rest would work out quite nicely.
They could give it away and no one would notice. RIM is dead, they just don't know it yet.
I have to disagree with you. I imagine they're well aware of it.
It's basketball. Really, does anybody with a working brain really give a screw about this game? .
Yes, we don't all fit the stereotype of nerds living in our parent's basement. Some of us actually loved sports in school, and have gone on to use that in carving a career out for ourselves.
I work in technology, and serve as a webmaster. I'm not even going to pretend like I have the tech knowledge many of the people who post on Slashdot do, but at the same time, I have more than enough to do my job. I would also like to point out, it's a job I love very much. All of which is to say I definitely have a working brain, and anyone who has spent any time with basketball knows it very much is a sport which requires the ability to think and analyze at a very rapid pace. Playing, coaching, broadcasting, even watching can be mentally taxing if you wish.
So I'd ask for you to leave your ignorance at the door and appreciate the fact that just because other people have interests you do not share, it doesn't reflect poorly on their intelligence.
Then what is your alternative?
The return of Sneakernet.
I'm sure you mom is a lovely person, but exactly how hard is it to ride herd on 20 or 30 staff of adults? For some odd reason I don't see working 5 days a week in an air conditioned office for 9-10 months out of the year somehow warrents a salary of over $100K. I don't want to hear how they have to work in the summer too, doing what exactly? Paperwork? Hire someone in China to do it for $10 a day or better yet hire some of the unemployed students to do it, because frankly if you can read you are qualified to fill out paperwork. Oh wait that seems to be one of the problems they are having with their students.
See, this is the nonsense I was initially responding to. Too many people are completely ignorant of what educators do, and yet seem to have no problem telling the world how easy their job is and assessing the difficulty level of the job. Just reading over your job description and I could easily say, "Your job is so easy. You just babysit a bunch of teenagers all day, and spend your time doing paperwork which could be outsourced to someone in China for $10 a day. And you don't even have to put up with the parents of the teenagers nor deal with troublemakers. Your job must be so easy." Would you tell me your job is unimportant? Would you tell me your job is easy? Do you think I have any idea exactly what your day is like? I would hope not. So why do you assume the same of others?
I get real tired of hearing how much teachers and admins sacrifice for their kids and especially how HARD their job is. A BS in education is pretty much a joke degree and a Masters in child developement is not much better. These people are paid way too much for piss poor results. It is time for a change. The first being that they need to shoot the sacred "education" cow.
Yes, because watching other people work on an aircraft must be so difficult and important, right?
We can play that game all day long. Being a teacher is not easy. If it was easy, then more people would want to do it. I think if society has proven anything over the years, it's that people want to make the most money possible, doing the least amount of work possible. I'm not going to sit here and tell you being a teacher is more difficult or more important than any other job, because every profession has it's perks and hardships. Perhaps that's some advice you might consider. Speak less ignorantly, and you might find people will have more respect for your opinion.
And as far as your "piss poor results" comment...well, nevermind. I'll just reiterate what I said about you working on your ability to speak with less ignorance.
Neither do teachers. Per capita? I doubt it. I'm not saying that principals and superintendents are overpaid necessarily, though I'm sure some are. People in charge or running large organizations have a lot of responsibility, so it is natural that they should garner commensurate salaries. However, the tone of your post suggests that you believe that the teachers are overpaid (though perhaps I'm reading too much into it), and I have a hard time believing that is the case.
As a teacher myself, I can assure you I most certainly do not feel overpaid! I think educators in general, at all levels (all levels meaning teachers and administrators, not referring to colleges as I simply do not know what salaries are like for colleges), are grossly underpaid in America. I love sports, used to coach basketball, but when Alex Rodriguez can moonwalk to the batter's box, not take his bat off his shoulder, watch three pitches crawl past him before sitting down...and still make twice the amount of money in that one plate appearance as I do in a year's time...then it shows our society has seriously messed up values.
I guess I didn't make myself clear enough, because several people seemed to think I was putting down teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, I was trying to respond to the view so many people not associated with education have of administrators, and how that view could not be further from the truth. Although, many teachers DO show up at 7:30 and leave at 3:30 (or whatever time their school is), but, of course, that does not mean their workday ends at 3:30.
No one argues that administrators make up most of the budget; it would be stupid to believe so.
Well, if it's stupid to argue that, then it would only make sense to say it would be equally stupid to say cutting administrator salaries are going to make a dent in the overall budgets of schools, correct?
You cannot convince me that a superintendent of a school set in a town of less than 5000 people needs to make $100,000. You cannot.
I don't have to convince you. You cannot convince me they don't deserve to make that much. The only difference is I'm telling you why they DO make that much, and why changing their salaries will not make anything but the slightest of differences in budgets, while at the same time, driving out even more educators who would consider administration. What benefit is there to this?
Saying "cut administration's salary in half" is simply a knee jerk response that solves nothing. All it would do is keep even more of the good educators out of administration, where quality individuals are desperately needed.
As someone who has done this, with 20-30 superintendents, several of which are consistently highly effective school leaders, I disagree. The more you get to know about what they do, who they are, and why they do their jobs, the less you'll like them, and the less you'll support their unnecessarily high pay.
Then I would suggest that is more dependent upon the people you followed, not the position itself. I've known several (two in my family, for example) who earn every single cent they get in salary, and then some. I know what they do, who they are and why they do their job. And not only do I support their high salary, I support it to the fact they should be paid more. Of course, teachers should be paid more as well, and I would assume that's one area we will both agree.
I don't think you understood the point. Please review my other post regarding salary of administrators.