I never mentioned ANY socialist society. I mentioned an ABUNDANCE society,
Thats socialism, I mean theres a whole PLAN/Theory about what to do in the situation of an Abundance society, this is called socialism.
The thing about the emergence of an Abundance Society, is that it will be gradual. The suicides you claim will occur are based on sudden, shock-like events. You claim that "a lot of people commit suicide when fired". Mayhaps.
Did you say Mayhaps? Anyway, yeah you are right if its not sudden it wont be a problem, and slowly it seems we are moving in this direction, our technology is at least but we still have people trying to prevent it, the RIAA is trying to prevent the net from moving into this direction, and I expect companies and certain people to try to prevent the society you dream of offline for the same reasons.
Now me, I'm a small-l libertarian. If you and other like-minded individuals choose to band together and provide goods and services to your members in a socialistic fashion, knock yourself out and have a great time doing so. Just recall that others may not share your views and outlook. ..and forcing your views on others, by compulsion or by force, is the ultimate in political violation of our rights and freedoms.
Hey i dont force my views on others, but you should be pissed off at George Bush if you are a libertarian, I mean this guy is forcing his views on both of us, I mean I'm a socialist and I dont like him taking away services from the USA, and you are a conservative and I'm sure all his spending and giving to third world countries is pissing you off. WE both should vote for Dean because you must agree that even DEAN is more conservative than Bush.
Bush has put us in a deficit hes spent so much, and most of the stuff hes spent it on we arent even allowed to know exists because its classified, or its bailouts to industries, subsidies and other corperate welfare ideas which piss everyone off.
Incidentally, Howard Dean, from what I've seen, is not for an Abundance Society, which promotes individual initiative and action, not the failed group-think of the Left, nor the rigid moralistic strictures of the Right. He reminds me more of Eugene McCarthy in 1972: politically correct and fashionable, but utterly unelectable to the general populace.
Why is Dean un-electable? I think you've been reading too many anti Dean articles, if you didnt know the Democratic party and the Republican party are joining forces to smear Dean because Dean is a populist, while the Democracts work for special interest groups, and the republicans work for special interest groups, Dean is the first president in a LONG time to work for the people, he gets most of his funding from people on the internet, unlike corperate Bush, or the trial lawyer John Edwards.
Dean is a better choice for President than George Bush, and you may be right Dean would not win if in the situation we had a President that didnt piss off both the right and the left, but in this situation I think anyone can beat Bush. Dean reminds me of Clinton, Clinton was an unknown moderate who appeared out of no where and won the election, around that time Clinton had no support from his own party and republicans thought Bush was unbeatable.
This is the same situation and I think Dean can win because hes exactly what we need at the moment, a President who works for the people and not lobby groups, special interests and big corperations, and a President who is going to balance the budget and not spend alot.
Out of all the Democrats, Dean is the one who would spend the least, would you prefer Lieberman(The Censorship Guy), or how about Kerry (The overly liberal spending big gov guy?) How about Gephardt (The Socialist who wants to spend about a trillion dollars and end fair trade)
What about John Edwards (The trial lawyer who has tons of money collected from special interest groups)
There's no problem with basic textbooks. Math doesnt change, nor does English (much). Foregin languages change some, but not enough to warrant books every year.
I'm assuming you had too much to drink when you posted this. Math is always changing, 10 years is a HUGE HUGE gap. This is why people in China and Japan are so much better at math, they have NEW techniques for teaching it, while our kids waste their time learning their multiplication tables their kids are learning linear algebra, all because we focus on calculation speed and memorizing the solutions instead of focusing on improving logic and problem solving skills. I dont remember a damn thing I learned in math class, thats why I cant do calculus now, perhaps if I were taught the theories instead of being forced to memorize stuff for no reason, I'd be better at math.
English doesnt change much but English should never be taught by textbook, that idea makes no sense, English can only be taught by making kids write and most teachers do not have the tools to do this. Theres not enough computers, not enough copies of Microsoft Word or Open Office, not enough tools to allow a teacher to quickly review via spell check a students paper. This is why computers must be used to teach English, it would take me a good 20-30 minutes to read a paper and look through a dictionary trying to spell check everything and find grammar errors when a computer could do this in SECONDS. You have to admit its easier to teach English using the new technology, especially when it comes time to grade the papers and find grammar errors.
From grade 1-12, those years are SUPPOSED to teach kids HOW TO LEARN. College is for those to already know, but wish to master something.
Thats what they are supposed to do but what they end up doing is teaching discipline and obdedience. Things which may have mattered during the era of factory workers, but now what matters is creativity and flexibility, something kids (including myself) were punished for. I was punished because I was late and didnt do my homework even if I asked the most questions and produced the best work.
Education needs no intervention from large amounts of technology. It wont solve much, and will cause more problems. What matters is the teachers and rules imposed on the teachers. That's what matters about education.
More rules does not help education just like more rules does not help you at work. Thats what I hate most about work and school, RULES. Thats exactly what we dont want because more rules kills creativity. We dont need more rules or harsher rules, we need better tools. What good is higher standards without providing the tools or money to meet these new standards?
You can thank the bureaucracy for that.
Look I'm not saying we should pour money into the bureaucracy, what I'm saying is we should build new tools, use the power of the internet, and technology to allow teachers on the highschool level to do their jobs better. Just like we did in every other industry, I dont see you using a type writer anymore, so why should a teacher grade a paper using these old fashioned tools? Why should students be using these 1900s tools while kids in other countries are using smartboards and laptops and then you wonder why we cant keep up?
Wrong. We're losing jobs because they are not "intelligent" jobs. We're loosing all the jobs that manufacture. It's just cheaper in China.
Yeah thats why the AMD and Intel Engineer, the Microsoft Windows programmer, the video game industry, and all of our other intelligent industries are being moved overseas. A Bachlors degree is not good enough anymore when the rest of the world has one too, I know people who are graduating from MIT and even they cant find a job, these people know AI and other highly specialized fields, guess what, japanese, indian and chinese workers are getting degrees in the AI field too, the whole economy is changing.
You hit the nail right on the head. The policial bloc of "Communism" is guilty of rampant totolitarianism--which is what our Cold War PR should have said, as opposed to Communism. (The USSR certainy didn't say "Those democractic bastards" in their PR.)
Yeah but how is Capitalism any better? How many politicians did you put in office with YOUR money? You dont control this country, your CEO/Boss controls this country.
Yep. They're adjusting their system to allow for personal best-interest to aling with state best-interst. Only way to make ANY economic system work.
China is doing well because like the USA and all the other successful countries, they have enough Capitalism to make the greedy people happy, with enough Socialism to make the lazy people happy.
I think socialism is a great thing, economically speaking. Unfortunatly, it's a PITA to get it (or communism) working through established democratic channels.
Well its never been tried, I mean name one Democracy on the planet. The USA isnt a Democracy either, we are controlled by Capitalist elites just like the USSR was controlled by political elites.
So the question is who do you want to control the world, your CEO or your Dictator?
Why? Because without Democracy, neither system works.
The previous Communist system did NOT have Democracy, and guess what people, we dont have Democracy under capitalism UNLESS and this is a BIG unless, we have enough CAPITAL to bribe politicians and hire lobbyists.
Guess what though, our Boss wont allow our salary to get to the level required to do that, the rulers(corperations) will hike the prices if we do make more money to limit the amount of free money we have to spend on things such as this.
Its a no win situation unless the popular vote and democracy rules.
Why do people want tax cuts instead of going for this socialist society you mention? I mean we can have universal healthcare right now, Howard Dean is pushing for a society just like you mention, with universal healthcare and providing the basic commodities. Whats stopping him? Well about half the country believes that NOTHING free is good, they believe that they should EARN everything in life, that there should be NO safetynet, no free entitlements, nothing.
I'm a socialist, I think we should go for providing all the basics, I think we now finally have the money and technology to start doing this, but we cant do this because half the country would rather have tax cuts than spend their money on doing this, they would rather be greedy and have more money in this world, than to spend money and provide the world you mention.
Alot of these people are just too greedy to live in any other world but this one. Bill Gates would most likely commit suicide, he lives to make money, he does nothing else with his life, imagine someone like him being told his money is useless and pointless.
Imagine all the rich greedy people who suddenly cant make any more money, you dont understand that some people LIVE to make money, they dont have hobbies, they live the business, when Capitalism is gone alot of people will commit suicide.
Why? well alot of people commit suicide when fired, some people bring a gun and shoot up their job, and others just go crazy.
These things happened during the great depression, do some research on history.
I't'd free up people to do stuff they truly enjoy, instead of only looking at money.
Thats a pipedream, the Capitalists will never allow this to happen. I mean its a nice dream but come on, do you think George Bush would allow this to happen?
If anything, I doubt that kind of future. In the future, common software will be given freely. The content AND contract jobs will be the money makers. And they still wont be able to control content then either.
Thats a very optimistic future but its going to take a war with the information and patent owners before we will have this world. Alot of Capitalists would rather work the people like dogs and make us compete for scraps than just give us the information.
Same problem: Capitalism does NOT extent to nformation sciences the way it goes to physical objects. The only exemption is tailoring drugs specific to an individual person. Surgery will be also needed.
Ok I agree with that statement.
That's why I said socialism. There's really no word for a economy(?) like that. Socialism, giving the extra for the benefit of that society, is probably the best guidelines to start by.
Just because we may be ready for socialism doesnt mean rich people want us to ever have it. it would destroy the class system and power system, government doesnt want this, rich people dont want this, a whole class of people cannot stand the idea of us all being equal.
There's something everybody can do. If his BASIC needs are provided (under the nearly-unlimited system), he can do what he enjoys. If he wants more, he can contribute.
What stops the USA from providing the basic needs to everyone right now? Countries in Europe already do this, why cant we provide universal healthcare? and dont say its too expensive, we spend more on nuclear bombs which will never be used than we spend on stuff like this, how many hundreds of billions were spent on the utterly useless starwars missle defense program? It was a waste because 911 still happened.
HealthCare should be universal and Education should be universal, we shouldnt give people a check but we should provide the basic services a person needs to survive in this world, just survive. This means they need the ability to seek help from a doctor if sick, they need the ability to educate themselves so they can compete in the global economy, and they need the ability to eat and drink water.
For people who canont pay for these things, our government should provide the basics to these people. Yes we can afford it, Reagan spent more than enough on the cold war to prove we have the money to afford this, we are the military leader of the world and I see no point in wasting 400 billion dollars a year on the military budget, if we cut this in half we'd have enough money to fund schools and provide universal healthcare, hell if we just reversed the most recent taxcut we'd have the money. IF Bush can spend why cant Democrats spend?
The concept that the ability to duplicate infinitely physical objects would result in "no jobs and no work" is a fallacy at best. The ability do duplicate these physical objects would result in a massive loss of jobs for those in the manufacturing industry, no doubt. However, there would be a nearly equal if not greater than equal increase (eventually) in the need for knowledge and service workers.
Yeah from India where knowledge and service workers are cheaper than US workers at about the same quality due to our lack of focus on providing a better education and more knowledge to our people
. Even if you could create a new computer every time a new technology comes out, you'd still need software developers to write the software, and someone to troubleshoot it when you get the latest outlook virus. In the same sense, we could shift a lot of jobs to industries such as the pharmaceutical industry and try and extend life or at least quality of life for humans.
Exactly, in India where software designers are cheap and about as good as ours. Or maybe China? Africa?
The economy would need to be restructured, capitalism will probably not be the driving force any more, but I doubt the suicide rate will surge, for most people with deserving jobs already, there would be no need for drastic changes. The guy who dropped out of high school and now solders connections in the blender plant might be SOL, but that's the price paid for progress. Eventually the guy will find another job, even if its sweeping the floors, flipping burgers, or rotating tires.
It would in the USA. Remember the great depression? People commited suicide over losing their life savings, the stock market, losing their job etc.
You dont seem to understand that a Bachlors degree is not enough to get you a job in the CURRENT world, imagine if we slashed the jobs even further! Right now people in India, China, Africa they all have Bachlors degrees just like us, they all have as much knowledge as us, and something is wrong here, we have all the money, yet we dont spend it on our education, we spend more money on weapons to protect our national security than we spend on education to protect out economic security.
Its not that I resist progress, I just know alot of people in this country dont want progress, including our current Admin.
But look why they are bad. There's funding to these schools, but funding isnt the issue. You dont need fancy-schmancy school building to teach better. The problem is 2 fold in education.
The main problem we have with highschool and below, teachers are forced to teach 30-50 kids a class, even a teacher who cares cannot teach 30-50 people with just chalkboard and 10 year old textbooks. You need to use the technology to help teachers do their job, you need to give teachers the tools they demand to teach 30-50 kids instead of trying for the impossible goal of making classes smaller.
1: MANY teachers dont care/teach 2: The bureaucracy prevents effective teaching through inane policies
The difference between college and highschool, in college it doesnt matter if a teacher cares, in college it doesnt matter if a teacher is good at teaching, the students are given the tools they need to educate themselves, and the teachers are given the tools to give lectures and answer questions from big classes with 50-100 kids. Our colleges are doing a good job, why not apply it to our highschool? Its proven to work at Harvard, MIT, Yale and these other schools.
Getting rid of teachers and giving jobs to those who love to teach (similar to computer geeks to enjoy to do computer stuff, for free...). That'd cut down on bad teachers. I even had a teacher who told my mom (I was in kindergarten), after she asked the cirrculum, "Like it matters, it's not your ability to change it".
Lets be realistic, people arent going to teach for free. Sure I'd teach but I wont do it for free. Also I need the TOOLS to teach 100 kids, this would require we update the technology, perhaps using smart boards like you see here http://www.smarttech.com/
Japan is doing this, Europe is doing this, our schools however are wasting their time arguing about how to do things instead of actually just spending money and funding the schools like everyone else.
Also, the bureaucracy prevents students from doing their own things they like. I went to public school and I wanted decent programming classes along with network classes (big network in class to use). But NOO! School policy that students cant have any power, even on a closed network. I wanted experience on computers that would be hard to me achieve otherwise. Instead, I was held back by the standard REQ'd classes along with inane teachers who didnt want to be there in the first place.
I went to crappy highschools and good highschools, the job of a teacher is to teach kids to educate themselves, to act more as a guide, or a coach, but without the proper tools a kid cannot even teach themselves. When I went to the terrible school the books were almost 20 years old, we werent allowed to take the books home because the teacher was concerned about us stealing them, the teacher would do nothing but sit and eat donuts and drink coffee, perhaps give the daily homework assignment, and tell us to read chapters in the book and punish the kids who decide not to read it right then in the class.
In the good school everything was different, teachers gave students REAL assignments which required teamwork, I actually had to think, do research, write papers, and the teachers would review my work, comment on it and send it back to me giving me time to revise it and improve it before submitting the final product. This work would go into a portfolio which would be reviewed to see if I'd graduate or not.
You see, the current school system is so focused on tests, passing tests, or getting good scores on the SATs that kids arent taught skills which help them learn, they are taught to pass a certain test, trained to get a high score on the SAT, and kids get judged more on their attendence and homework assignments than they do on their actual classwork. The structure of the bad schools just sucks, the tools suck, in the good school there were 2 sometimes 3 computers in eve
But look why they are bad. There's funding to these schools, but funding isnt the issue. You dont need fancy-schmancy school building to teach better. The problem is 2 fold in education.
The main problem we have with highschool and below, teachers are forced to teach 30-50 kids a class, even a teacher who cares cannot teach 30-50 people with just chalkboard and 10 year old textbooks.
You need to use the technology to help teachers do their job, you need to give teachers the tools they demand to teach 30-50 kids instead of trying for the impossible goal of making classes smaller.
1: MANY teachers dont care/teach 2: The bureaucracy prevents effective teaching through inane policies
The difference between college and highschool, in college it doesnt matter if a teacher cares, in college it doesnt matter if a teacher is good at teaching, the students are given the tools they need to educate themselves, and the teachers are given the tools to give lectures and answer questions from big classes with 50-100 kids. Our colleges are doing a good job, why not apply it to our highschool? Its proven to work at Harvard, MIT, Yale and these other schools.
etting rid of teachers and giving jobs to those who love to teach (similar to computer geeks to enjoy to do computer stuff, for free...). That'd cut down on bad teachers. I even had a teacher who told my mom (I was in kindergarten), after she asked the cirrculum, "Like it matters, it's not your ability to change it".
Lets be realistic, people arent going to teach for free. Sure I'd teach but I wont do it for free. Also I need the TOOLS to teach 100 kids, this would require we update the technology, perhaps using smart boards like you see here http://www.smarttech.com/
Japan is doing this, Europe is doing this, our schools however are wasting their time arguing about how to do things instead of actually just spending money and funding the schools like everyone else.
Also, the bureaucracy prevents students from doing their own things they like. I went to public school and I wanted decent programming classes along with network classes (big network in class to use). But NOO! School policy that students cant have any power, even on a closed network. I wanted experience on computers that would be hard to me achieve otherwise. Instead, I was held back by the standard REQ'd classes along with inane teachers who didnt want to be there in the first place.
I went to crappy highschools and good highschools, the job of a teacher is to teach kids to educate themselves, to act more as a guide, or a coach, but without the proper tools a kid cannot even teach themselves. When I went to the terrible school the books were almost 20 years old, we werent allowed to take the books home because the teacher was concerned about us stealing them, the teacher would do nothing but sit and eat donuts and drink coffee, perhaps give the daily homework assignment, and tell us to read chapters in the book and punish the kids who decide not to read it right then in the class.
In the good school everything was different, teachers gave students REAL assignments which required teamwork, I actually had to think, do research, write papers, and the teachers would review my work, comment on it and send it back to me giving me time to revise it and improve it before submitting the final product. This work would go into a portfolio which would be reviewed to see if I'd graduate or not.
You see, the current school system is so focused on tests, passing tests, or getting good scores on the SATs that kids arent taught skills which help them learn, they are taught to pass a certain test, trained to get a high score on the SAT, and kids get judged more on their attendence and homework assignments than they do on their actual classwork. The structure of the bad schools just sucks, the tools suck, in the good school there were 2 sometimes 3
It is a bad thing however for a Capitalist. We'd end up having a civil war over this.
There are ALOT of people who would rather die than live in a Socialist world. Why do you think there was such witch-hunts to catch communists? Why do you think there was so much propaganda being spewed about how Communists are evil? We still have idiots today who post on slashdot saying Communism is evil and wrong.
When did I ever claim I myself was a capitalist? Why don't you actually read my post.
The fast that so many Americans think universal healthcare and public schools are bad should be all the proof you need that alot of people in society would sooner commit suicide than live in a world without jobs.
I've spoken to alot of people including some on Slashdot who would prefer to commit suicide than live in a socialist society.
Intellectual Property will die out just the same, as once people learn that sharing is the better of the 2. Each item mapped gives inventors more power and leverage to work with, hence more goods. It'll turn this capitalistic country into a pure form of socialism, one where all needs are provided. Or at least, could be capitalistic with a socialism base floor.
This will never be allowed to happen, people would riot at the thought of such an idiotic and foolish idea.
Still, fabs would have to be made and sold, and only a large fab could make smaller fabs. You also have the problem with Energy consumption. Fusors may be the only realistic way of capturing large amounts of energy.
Yeah but what would our jobs be? Like I said alot of people would commit suicide in a world with no jobs and no work.
There will STILL be an economy, just the balance of power will be radically shifted.
With less jobs, even if theres an economy, you wont have a job.
We have no economy, because we'd have almost no labor jobs left, all the services jobs will be in the middle east somewhere for pennies, and we will do what exactly?
Infinite free energy, along with infinite free labor, = socialism/communism, just like the P2P networks.
Yes and not everyone has inner greed, just like not everyone has inner lazy.
The question is how can you be productive regardless of whats inside. Simple, you put yourself in a position where you do automatic like a machine, and you isolate yourself.
If you dont like to focus on one task for too long, dont, focus on that task for alittle while, move from task to task, etc.
I dont think its about time management, its about how you spend your time. You dont have to be organized, when I solve a problem I solve the complicated part first and then work on the easy part.
In school I read chapter after chapter just going right through the books staying a couple chapters ahead of the class, I then re-read or scan the chapter the test is based on and I pass the test.
Repeat that again, going chapter by chapter and then go backwards and rescan chapters when its test time but just read as much as you can at a time. Dont be precise, dont be like (I'm going to read exactly 2 chapters), instead be like (I'm going to read at LEAST 2 chapters)
Then just read until your eyes get tired, if you read 4 chapters, good, take a break; make a few posts on slashdot, play quake or some game, then open up the book again. Repeat this process for the entire day just switching from task to task, going back and forth when a task becomes so boring you cannot stand to do it anymore.
I can read for a good couple hours, maybe 3 tops, then I cant stand to turn another page and I come online. Sometimes talking to friends helps to get your mind off of it, so call a friend.
Other than that, just try to always be doing some kinda work, even when I post on slashdot I have about 5-6 webpages open where I'm doing research, I never just do a single task, when slashdot gets boring I go back to the research picking up exactly where I left off.
I dont have a problem sitting down and studying for hours. Its people who prevent me from being able to do this.
How can you study when people constantly distract you, ask you questions, or force you to focus on them? The best thing you can do is avoid people and thats exactly what I do. I avoid people so that I may avoid being distracted. Avoid your friends, Avoid your family, Avoid girls, just lock yourself in a room or go outside somewhere where no one is, and do your work.
I cant wait till I have a car so I can drive somewhere quiet at night and study all night in complete silence, I dont know how people study efficiently in the day with cars making noise, birds making noise, and people all over the place. I also dont know how people study in the day in a house with other people living in it, people asking you questions all day, bugging you, asking you for favors, asking you for help, giving you chores or some distracting task to do.
You see? Its all about environment, thats what its about. The best environment to study is a cave or dark room with a lamp and a bunch of books. Just like from the dark ages. Sounds primitive but this is the best way to study, complete isolation. This is why monks do it, why jesus, muhammed, buddha and other holymen did it, etc, you need to completely isolate yourself from the world and all of its assosiated problems, the better you get at doing this the better you'll focus.
Work from midnight till dawn. The problem with working during the day is theres too many disractions, family, friends, and other distractions prevent you from getting work done in an effient manner.
I myself wait for everyone to go to sleep, the only time its quiet in the city is during the middle of the night so I'm assuming this guy lives in the city.
When theres no one to distract you, you'll be able to spend all night working.
Its very good, I'm very happy to see kids are using the net. This is like hearing kids spend more time in the library than they do playing video games, very good news.
Hopefully they arent all clusted around the yahoo/aol chatrooms and actually use the web properly.
Slashdot Mirror
I never mentioned ANY socialist society. I mentioned an ABUNDANCE society,
.and forcing your views on others, by compulsion or by force, is the ultimate in political violation of our rights and freedoms.
Thats socialism, I mean theres a whole PLAN/Theory about what to do in the situation of an Abundance society, this is called socialism.
The thing about the emergence of an Abundance Society, is that it will be gradual. The suicides you claim will occur are based on sudden, shock-like events. You claim that "a lot of people commit suicide when fired". Mayhaps.
Did you say Mayhaps? Anyway, yeah you are right if its not sudden it wont be a problem, and slowly it seems we are moving in this direction, our technology is at least but we still have people trying to prevent it, the RIAA is trying to prevent the net from moving into this direction, and I expect companies and certain people to try to prevent the society you dream of offline for the same reasons.
Now me, I'm a small-l libertarian. If you and other like-minded individuals choose to band together and provide goods and services to your members in a socialistic fashion, knock yourself out and have a great time doing so. Just recall that others may not share your views and outlook. .
Hey i dont force my views on others, but you should be pissed off at George Bush if you are a libertarian, I mean this guy is forcing his views on both of us, I mean I'm a socialist and I dont like him taking away services from the USA, and you are a conservative and I'm sure all his spending and giving to third world countries is pissing you off. WE both should vote for Dean because you must agree that even DEAN is more conservative than Bush.
Bush has put us in a deficit hes spent so much, and most of the stuff hes spent it on we arent even allowed to know exists because its classified, or its bailouts to industries, subsidies and other corperate welfare ideas which piss everyone off.
Incidentally, Howard Dean, from what I've seen, is not for an Abundance Society, which promotes individual initiative and action, not the failed group-think of the Left, nor the rigid moralistic strictures of the Right. He reminds me more of Eugene McCarthy in 1972: politically correct and fashionable, but utterly unelectable to the general populace.
Why is Dean un-electable? I think you've been reading too many anti Dean articles, if you didnt know the Democratic party and the Republican party are joining forces to smear Dean because Dean is a populist, while the Democracts work for special interest groups, and the republicans work for special interest groups, Dean is the first president in a LONG time to work for the people, he gets most of his funding from people on the internet, unlike corperate Bush, or the trial lawyer John Edwards.
Dean is a better choice for President than George Bush, and you may be right Dean would not win if in the situation we had a President that didnt piss off both the right and the left, but in this situation I think anyone can beat Bush. Dean reminds me of Clinton, Clinton was an unknown moderate who appeared out of no where and won the election, around that time Clinton had no support from his own party and republicans thought Bush was unbeatable.
This is the same situation and I think Dean can win because hes exactly what we need at the moment, a President who works for the people and not lobby groups, special interests and big corperations, and a President who is going to balance the budget and not spend alot.
Out of all the Democrats, Dean is the one who would spend the least, would you prefer Lieberman(The Censorship Guy), or how about Kerry (The overly liberal spending big gov guy?) How about Gephardt (The Socialist who wants to spend about a trillion dollars and end fair trade)
What about John Edwards (The trial lawyer who has tons of money collected from special interest groups)
There is no better choice for Pre
There's no problem with basic textbooks. Math doesnt change, nor does English (much). Foregin languages change some, but not enough to warrant books every year.
I'm assuming you had too much to drink when you posted this. Math is always changing, 10 years is a HUGE HUGE gap. This is why people in China and Japan are so much better at math, they have NEW techniques for teaching it, while our kids waste their time learning their multiplication tables their kids are learning linear algebra, all because we focus on calculation speed and memorizing the solutions instead of focusing on improving logic and problem solving skills. I dont remember a damn thing I learned in math class, thats why I cant do calculus now, perhaps if I were taught the theories instead of being forced to memorize stuff for no reason, I'd be better at math.
English doesnt change much but English should never be taught by textbook, that idea makes no sense, English can only be taught by making kids write and most teachers do not have the tools to do this. Theres not enough computers, not enough copies of Microsoft Word or Open Office, not enough tools to allow a teacher to quickly review via spell check a students paper. This is why computers must be used to teach English, it would take me a good 20-30 minutes to read a paper and look through a dictionary trying to spell check everything and find grammar errors when a computer could do this in SECONDS. You have to admit its easier to teach English using the new technology, especially when it comes time to grade the papers and find grammar errors.
From grade 1-12, those years are SUPPOSED to teach kids HOW TO LEARN. College is for those to already know, but wish to master something.
Thats what they are supposed to do but what they end up doing is teaching discipline and obdedience. Things which may have mattered during the era of factory workers, but now what matters is creativity and flexibility, something kids (including myself) were punished for. I was punished because I was late and didnt do my homework even if I asked the most questions and produced the best work.
Education needs no intervention from large amounts of technology. It wont solve much, and will cause more problems. What matters is the teachers and rules imposed on the teachers. That's what matters about education.
More rules does not help education just like more rules does not help you at work. Thats what I hate most about work and school, RULES. Thats exactly what we dont want because more rules kills creativity. We dont need more rules or harsher rules, we need better tools. What good is higher standards without providing the tools or money to meet these new standards?
You can thank the bureaucracy for that.
Look I'm not saying we should pour money into the bureaucracy, what I'm saying is we should build new tools, use the power of the internet, and technology to allow teachers on the highschool level to do their jobs better. Just like we did in every other industry, I dont see you using a type writer anymore, so why should a teacher grade a paper using these old fashioned tools? Why should students be using these 1900s tools while kids in other countries are using smartboards and laptops and then you wonder why we cant keep up?
Wrong. We're losing jobs because they are not "intelligent" jobs. We're loosing all the jobs that manufacture. It's just cheaper in China.
Yeah thats why the AMD and Intel Engineer, the Microsoft Windows programmer, the video game industry, and all of our other intelligent industries are being moved overseas. A Bachlors degree is not good enough anymore when the rest of the world has one too, I know people who are graduating from MIT and even they cant find a job, these people know AI and other highly specialized fields, guess what, japanese, indian and chinese workers are getting degrees in the AI field too, the whole economy is changing.
No, our wage is
Just let the people vote on everything then you dont need a dictator.
You hit the nail right on the head. The policial bloc of "Communism" is guilty of rampant totolitarianism--which is what our Cold War PR should have said, as opposed to Communism. (The USSR certainy didn't say "Those democractic bastards" in their PR.)
Yeah but how is Capitalism any better? How many politicians did you put in office with YOUR money? You dont control this country, your CEO/Boss controls this country.
Yep. They're adjusting their system to allow for personal best-interest to aling with state best-interst. Only way to make ANY economic system work.
China is doing well because like the USA and all the other successful countries, they have enough Capitalism to make the greedy people happy, with enough Socialism to make the lazy people happy.
I think socialism is a great thing, economically speaking. Unfortunatly, it's a PITA to get it (or communism) working through established democratic channels.
Well its never been tried, I mean name one Democracy on the planet. The USA isnt a Democracy either, we are controlled by Capitalist elites just like the USSR was controlled by political elites.
So the question is who do you want to control the world, your CEO or your Dictator?
Why? Because without Democracy, neither system works.
The previous Communist system did NOT have Democracy, and guess what people, we dont have Democracy under capitalism UNLESS and this is a BIG unless, we have enough CAPITAL to bribe politicians and hire lobbyists.
Guess what though, our Boss wont allow our salary to get to the level required to do that, the rulers(corperations) will hike the prices if we do make more money to limit the amount of free money we have to spend on things such as this.
Its a no win situation unless the popular vote and democracy rules.
Why do people want tax cuts instead of going for this socialist society you mention? I mean we can have universal healthcare right now, Howard Dean is pushing for a society just like you mention, with universal healthcare and providing the basic commodities. Whats stopping him? Well about half the country believes that NOTHING free is good, they believe that they should EARN everything in life, that there should be NO safetynet, no free entitlements, nothing.
I'm a socialist, I think we should go for providing all the basics, I think we now finally have the money and technology to start doing this, but we cant do this because half the country would rather have tax cuts than spend their money on doing this, they would rather be greedy and have more money in this world, than to spend money and provide the world you mention.
Alot of these people are just too greedy to live in any other world but this one. Bill Gates would most likely commit suicide, he lives to make money, he does nothing else with his life, imagine someone like him being told his money is useless and pointless.
Imagine all the rich greedy people who suddenly cant make any more money, you dont understand that some people LIVE to make money, they dont have hobbies, they live the business, when Capitalism is gone alot of people will commit suicide.
Why? well alot of people commit suicide when fired, some people bring a gun and shoot up their job, and others just go crazy.
These things happened during the great depression, do some research on history.
I't'd free up people to do stuff they truly enjoy, instead of only looking at money.
Thats a pipedream, the Capitalists will never allow this to happen. I mean its a nice dream but come on, do you think George Bush would allow this to happen?
If anything, I doubt that kind of future. In the future, common software will be given freely. The content AND contract jobs will be the money makers. And they still wont be able to control content then either.
Thats a very optimistic future but its going to take a war with the information and patent owners before we will have this world. Alot of Capitalists would rather work the people like dogs and make us compete for scraps than just give us the information.
Same problem: Capitalism does NOT extent to nformation sciences the way it goes to physical objects. The only exemption is tailoring drugs specific to an individual person. Surgery will be also needed.
Ok I agree with that statement.
That's why I said socialism. There's really no word for a economy(?) like that. Socialism, giving the extra for the benefit of that society, is probably the best guidelines to start by.
Just because we may be ready for socialism doesnt mean rich people want us to ever have it. it would destroy the class system and power system, government doesnt want this, rich people dont want this, a whole class of people cannot stand the idea of us all being equal.
There's something everybody can do. If his BASIC needs are provided (under the nearly-unlimited system), he can do what he enjoys. If he wants more, he can contribute.
What stops the USA from providing the basic needs to everyone right now? Countries in Europe already do this, why cant we provide universal healthcare? and dont say its too expensive, we spend more on nuclear bombs which will never be used than we spend on stuff like this, how many hundreds of billions were spent on the utterly useless starwars missle defense program? It was a waste because 911 still happened.
HealthCare should be universal and Education should be universal, we shouldnt give people a check but we should provide the basic services a person needs to survive in this world, just survive. This means they need the ability to seek help from a doctor if sick, they need the ability to educate themselves so they can compete in the global economy, and they need the ability to eat and drink water.
For people who canont pay for these things, our government should provide the basics to these people. Yes we can afford it, Reagan spent more than enough on the cold war to prove we have the money to afford this, we are the military leader of the world and I see no point in wasting 400 billion dollars a year on the military budget, if we cut this in half we'd have enough money to fund schools and provide universal healthcare, hell if we just reversed the most recent taxcut we'd have the money. IF Bush can spend why cant Democrats spend?
The concept that the ability to duplicate infinitely physical objects would result in "no jobs and no work" is a fallacy at best. The ability do duplicate these physical objects would result in a massive loss of jobs for those in the manufacturing industry, no doubt. However, there would be a nearly equal if not greater than equal increase (eventually) in the need for knowledge and service workers.
Yeah from India where knowledge and service workers are cheaper than US workers at about the same quality due to our lack of focus on providing a better education and more knowledge to our people
. Even if you could create a new computer every time a new technology comes out, you'd still need software developers to write the software, and someone to troubleshoot it when you get the latest outlook virus. In the same sense, we could shift a lot of jobs to industries such as the pharmaceutical industry and try and extend life or at least quality of life for humans.
Exactly, in India where software designers are cheap and about as good as ours. Or maybe China? Africa?
The economy would need to be restructured, capitalism will probably not be the driving force any more, but I doubt the suicide rate will surge, for most people with deserving jobs already, there would be no need for drastic changes. The guy who dropped out of high school and now solders connections in the blender plant might be SOL, but that's the price paid for progress. Eventually the guy will find another job, even if its sweeping the floors, flipping burgers, or rotating tires.
It would in the USA. Remember the great depression? People commited suicide over losing their life savings, the stock market, losing their job etc.
You dont seem to understand that a Bachlors degree is not enough to get you a job in the CURRENT world, imagine if we slashed the jobs even further! Right now people in India, China, Africa they all have Bachlors degrees just like us, they all have as much knowledge as us, and something is wrong here, we have all the money, yet we dont spend it on our education, we spend more money on weapons to protect our national security than we spend on education to protect out economic security.
Its not that I resist progress, I just know alot of people in this country dont want progress, including our current Admin.
But look why they are bad. There's funding to these schools, but funding isnt the issue. You dont need fancy-schmancy school building to teach better. The problem is 2 fold in education.
The main problem we have with highschool and below, teachers are forced to teach 30-50 kids a class, even a teacher who cares cannot teach 30-50 people with just chalkboard and 10 year old textbooks. You need to use the technology to help teachers do their job, you need to give teachers the tools they demand to teach 30-50 kids instead of trying for the impossible goal of making classes smaller.
1: MANY teachers dont care/teach
2: The bureaucracy prevents effective teaching through inane policies
The difference between college and highschool, in college it doesnt matter if a teacher cares, in college it doesnt matter if a teacher is good at teaching, the students are given the tools they need to educate themselves, and the teachers are given the tools to give lectures and answer questions from big classes with 50-100 kids. Our colleges are doing a good job, why not apply it to our highschool? Its proven to work at Harvard, MIT, Yale and these other schools.
Getting rid of teachers and giving jobs to those who love to teach (similar to computer geeks to enjoy to do computer stuff, for free...). That'd cut down on bad teachers. I even had a teacher who told my mom (I was in kindergarten), after she asked the cirrculum, "Like it matters, it's not your ability to change it".
Lets be realistic, people arent going to teach for free. Sure I'd teach but I wont do it for free. Also I need the TOOLS to teach 100 kids, this would require we update the technology, perhaps using smart boards like you see here http://www.smarttech.com/
Japan is doing this, Europe is doing this, our schools however are wasting their time arguing about how to do things instead of actually just spending money and funding the schools like everyone else.
Also, the bureaucracy prevents students from doing their own things they like. I went to public school and I wanted decent programming classes along with network classes (big network in class to use). But NOO! School policy that students cant have any power, even on a closed network. I wanted experience on computers that would be hard to me achieve otherwise. Instead, I was held back by the standard REQ'd classes along with inane teachers who didnt want to be there in the first place.
I went to crappy highschools and good highschools, the job of a teacher is to teach kids to educate themselves, to act more as a guide, or a coach, but without the proper tools a kid cannot even teach themselves. When I went to the terrible school the books were almost 20 years old, we werent allowed to take the books home because the teacher was concerned about us stealing them, the teacher would do nothing but sit and eat donuts and drink coffee, perhaps give the daily homework assignment, and tell us to read chapters in the book and punish the kids who decide not to read it right then in the class.
In the good school everything was different, teachers gave students REAL assignments which required teamwork, I actually had to think, do research, write papers, and the teachers would review my work, comment on it and send it back to me giving me time to revise it and improve it before submitting the final product. This work would go into a portfolio which would be reviewed to see if I'd graduate or not.
You see, the current school system is so focused on tests, passing tests, or getting good scores on the SATs that kids arent taught skills which help them learn, they are taught to pass a certain test, trained to get a high score on the SAT, and kids get judged more on their attendence and homework assignments than they do on their actual classwork. The structure of the bad schools just sucks, the tools suck, in the good school there were 2 sometimes 3 computers in eve
But look why they are bad. There's funding to these schools, but funding isnt the issue. You dont need fancy-schmancy school building to teach better. The problem is 2 fold in education.
The main problem we have with highschool and below, teachers are forced to teach 30-50 kids a class, even a teacher who cares cannot teach 30-50 people with just chalkboard and 10 year old textbooks.
You need to use the technology to help teachers do their job, you need to give teachers the tools they demand to teach 30-50 kids instead of trying for the impossible goal of making classes smaller.
1: MANY teachers dont care/teach
2: The bureaucracy prevents effective teaching through inane policies
The difference between college and highschool, in college it doesnt matter if a teacher cares, in college it doesnt matter if a teacher is good at teaching, the students are given the tools they need to educate themselves, and the teachers are given the tools to give lectures and answer questions from big classes with 50-100 kids. Our colleges are doing a good job, why not apply it to our highschool? Its proven to work at Harvard, MIT, Yale and these other schools.
etting rid of teachers and giving jobs to those who love to teach (similar to computer geeks to enjoy to do computer stuff, for free...). That'd cut down on bad teachers. I even had a teacher who told my mom (I was in kindergarten), after she asked the cirrculum, "Like it matters, it's not your ability to change it".
Lets be realistic, people arent going to teach for free. Sure I'd teach but I wont do it for free. Also I need the TOOLS to teach 100 kids, this would require we update the technology, perhaps using smart boards like you see here http://www.smarttech.com/
Japan is doing this, Europe is doing this, our schools however are wasting their time arguing about how to do things instead of actually just spending money and funding the schools like everyone else.
Also, the bureaucracy prevents students from doing their own things they like. I went to public school and I wanted decent programming classes along with network classes (big network in class to use). But NOO! School policy that students cant have any power, even on a closed network. I wanted experience on computers that would be hard to me achieve otherwise. Instead, I was held back by the standard REQ'd classes along with inane teachers who didnt want to be there in the first place.
I went to crappy highschools and good highschools, the job of a teacher is to teach kids to educate themselves, to act more as a guide, or a coach, but without the proper tools a kid cannot even teach themselves. When I went to the terrible school the books were almost 20 years old, we werent allowed to take the books home because the teacher was concerned about us stealing them, the teacher would do nothing but sit and eat donuts and drink coffee, perhaps give the daily homework assignment, and tell us to read chapters in the book and punish the kids who decide not to read it right then in the class.
In the good school everything was different, teachers gave students REAL assignments which required teamwork, I actually had to think, do research, write papers, and the teachers would review my work, comment on it and send it back to me giving me time to revise it and improve it before submitting the final product. This work would go into a portfolio which would be reviewed to see if I'd graduate or not.
You see, the current school system is so focused on tests, passing tests, or getting good scores on the SATs that kids arent taught skills which help them learn, they are taught to pass a certain test, trained to get a high score on the SAT, and kids get judged more on their attendence and homework assignments than they do on their actual classwork. The structure of the bad schools just sucks, the tools suck, in the good school there were 2 sometimes 3
With the proper tools, we can grow crops x10 the size of current crops.
It is a bad thing however for a Capitalist. We'd end up having a civil war over this.
There are ALOT of people who would rather die than live in a Socialist world. Why do you think there was such witch-hunts to catch communists? Why do you think there was so much propaganda being spewed about how Communists are evil? We still have idiots today who post on slashdot saying Communism is evil and wrong.
When did I ever claim I myself was a capitalist? Why don't you actually read my post.
The fast that so many Americans think universal healthcare and public schools are bad should be all the proof you need that alot of people in society would sooner commit suicide than live in a world without jobs.
I've spoken to alot of people including some on Slashdot who would prefer to commit suicide than live in a socialist society.
Intellectual Property will die out just the same, as once people learn that sharing is the better of the 2. Each item mapped gives inventors more power and leverage to work with, hence more goods. It'll turn this capitalistic country into a pure form of socialism, one where all needs are provided. Or at least, could be capitalistic with a socialism base floor.
This will never be allowed to happen, people would riot at the thought of such an idiotic and foolish idea.
Still, fabs would have to be made and sold, and only a large fab could make smaller fabs. You also have the problem with Energy consumption. Fusors may be the only realistic way of capturing large amounts of energy.
Yeah but what would our jobs be? Like I said alot of people would commit suicide in a world with no jobs and no work.
There will STILL be an economy, just the balance of power will be radically shifted.
With less jobs, even if theres an economy, you wont have a job.
We have no economy, because we'd have almost no labor jobs left, all the services jobs will be in the middle east somewhere for pennies, and we will do what exactly?
Infinite free energy, along with infinite free labor, = socialism/communism, just like the P2P networks.
Now we get to lose even more jobs.
What good is Capitalism if theres not enough jobs to hire everyone?
what do you mean how am I a sociopath lol.
Come on at least know the definition of sociopath before using the word, take psychology.
I think college campuses and libraries could really use this, its a good idea it just needs some marketing.
Yes and not everyone has inner greed, just like not everyone has inner lazy.
The question is how can you be productive regardless of whats inside. Simple, you put yourself in a position where you do automatic like a machine, and you isolate yourself.
If you dont like to focus on one task for too long, dont, focus on that task for alittle while, move from task to task, etc.
I dont think its about time management, its about how you spend your time. You dont have to be organized, when I solve a problem I solve the complicated part first and then work on the easy part.
In school I read chapter after chapter just going right through the books staying a couple chapters ahead of the class, I then re-read or scan the chapter the test is based on and I pass the test.
Repeat that again, going chapter by chapter and then go backwards and rescan chapters when its test time but just read as much as you can at a time. Dont be precise, dont be like (I'm going to read exactly 2 chapters), instead be like (I'm going to read at LEAST 2 chapters)
Then just read until your eyes get tired, if you read 4 chapters, good, take a break; make a few posts on slashdot, play quake or some game, then open up the book again. Repeat this process for the entire day just switching from task to task, going back and forth when a task becomes so boring you cannot stand to do it anymore.
I can read for a good couple hours, maybe 3 tops, then I cant stand to turn another page and I come online. Sometimes talking to friends helps to get your mind off of it, so call a friend.
Other than that, just try to always be doing some kinda work, even when I post on slashdot I have about 5-6 webpages open where I'm doing research, I never just do a single task, when slashdot gets boring I go back to the research picking up exactly where I left off.
I dont have a problem sitting down and studying for hours. Its people who prevent me from being able to do this.
How can you study when people constantly distract you, ask you questions, or force you to focus on them? The best thing you can do is avoid people and thats exactly what I do. I avoid people so that I may avoid being distracted. Avoid your friends, Avoid your family, Avoid girls, just lock yourself in a room or go outside somewhere where no one is, and do your work.
I cant wait till I have a car so I can drive somewhere quiet at night and study all night in complete silence, I dont know how people study efficiently in the day with cars making noise, birds making noise, and people all over the place. I also dont know how people study in the day in a house with other people living in it, people asking you questions all day, bugging you, asking you for favors, asking you for help, giving you chores or some distracting task to do.
You see? Its all about environment, thats what its about. The best environment to study is a cave or dark room with a lamp and a bunch of books. Just like from the dark ages. Sounds primitive but this is the best way to study, complete isolation. This is why monks do it, why jesus, muhammed, buddha and other holymen did it, etc, you need to completely isolate yourself from the world and all of its assosiated problems, the better you get at doing this the better you'll focus.
Work from midnight till dawn. The problem with working during the day is theres too many disractions, family, friends, and other distractions prevent you from getting work done in an effient manner.
I myself wait for everyone to go to sleep, the only time its quiet in the city is during the middle of the night so I'm assuming this guy lives in the city.
When theres no one to distract you, you'll be able to spend all night working.
how can I install this into Redhat9?
Its very good, I'm very happy to see kids are using the net. This is like hearing kids spend more time in the library than they do playing video games, very good news.
Hopefully they arent all clusted around the yahoo/aol chatrooms and actually use the web properly.
Can I Apply for a job in China like they do to us here?
Of course not.
Just more tools to ruin our economy, I wish this stuff were regulated.