The difference between your examples and this: today so many people are on board for censoring the internet that it would be hard for this NOT to work!
Tell me this - when myspace was at its height - at its absolute highest point, you would have predicted its downfall? I'm not saying that today, right now, there is someone or something waiting to kill facebook. I'm just saying that, based on past observations and experience, it is inevitable. The internet really is a changing thing, and anyone that banks on one website to rule them all (outside of google apparently), is foolish.
Facebook is the identity of the internet going forward.
MySpace is the identity of the internet going forward.
Geocities is the identity of the internet going forward.
AIM is the identity of the internet going forward.
YAHOO Chat is the identity of the internet going forward.
Opendiary is the identity of the internet going forward.
Fucking 4chan is the identity of the internet going forward.
I think it might be a bit bold to say that this one site will be the face of the internet from now on. . . The internet is a fickle mistress, and small changes today can equal large changes in the future. The only difference between those other companies and facebook? Time. (yes, I know that some of them are still successful, I was making a point, just go with it)
announced this IPO, I was skeptical. Then they amended it, eight times (I think). Now, it seems to me that we've blown a rather large bubble - as the article says, this 104 billion is 100X their earnings last year. I wonder which set of retirees or naive persons will lose their asses on this one when it pops.
I remember when, recently, myspace was quite large. Does anyone else have a myspace page still? Now imagine if you owned 100 shares of that company. . . . . Now imagine your investment person has most of your retirement tied up in that company. . ..
This is what happens when the focus is no longer fiscal responsibility but on profit in the short-term for shareholders -- err -- share-sellers.
People don't want to play the long game, and businesses can no longer play that game if they want to stay above water. SO, we have repeat of repeat of boom and bust, bubble and recession. In my (short) lifetime, I've seen: Something in Asia that was weird, South America, South Africa, Technology (hardware/software - 1st go-round), mortgages/lending, and now, folks, we've got the newest immediate cash-cow - Technology (Internet stuff and INFORMATION).
It will be interesting to see who gets it in the ass when this one pops, and how many people lose their jobs this time. I don't know about you folks, but my area is still reeling pretty hard from the mortgage crap that went down a while ago. I don't particularly care to see very few people make billions while the welders, cooks, teachers and janitors in my section of the US are off-work due to cuts.
hard to see the blatant step-forward for marketing here? Whereas Google does directed marketing quite well, facebook allows for 21st century billboards.
Sure, I can pay to have my super cute doggy picture noticed by everyone, and the more vapid consumers certainly will, but where is the real money in this scheme? Hey, remember all of those corporations' pages that you i-dots have friended or liked or whatever the F*ing term is? That crap can now get noticed by YOU AND EVERYONE YOU KNOW, MORE OFTEN!!! Hooray!!
Please show me funding increases. I've not yet seen a public school that is basking in money, and complaining about the state paying out too much, or the feds requiring too little oversight for the (already paltry and increasingly limited) funds they hand out.
Maybe years ago they were throwing money at the problem, but today decreased funding, cutting programs and reduced wages are the norm. Thanks, though.
See, now that's the kind of thinking we need more of. What's that zoo? The government is cutting your budget? Let me whip some bottles at the manatees. Maybe let me try to lasso a giraffe.
I'm catching a freaking lemur. I bet they taste delicious.
No, I don't think I missed the point. I used my third grade math to state that:
You do realize that most of the school's money is not spent on administration, right? You do realize that, and this changes from state to state, schools spend so much more money on teachers and their various benefits than they do on administrator salaries, right?
is a very, very, very obvious statement. OBVIOUSLY teacher salaries are a larger percentage of the overall budget. There's a metric shit-load more of them in simple numbers.
No one argues that administrators make up most of the budget; it would be stupid to believe so. What people are arguing, and the post that you replied to originally argued, is that administrators are paid too much, and therefore make up a disproportionately large amount of the budget, regardless of overall impact. 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. There is simply not that much stress in a school system of ---I'm going to guess based on my area--- around 1,300 - 1,500 students. What's the average teacher salary there?
I'm not arguing that administration isn't important, or that they don't work - they do, a lot. My question is how much more work do they do than the teachers? Is it enough to justify a 3x pay increase in small districts like yours, and smaller districts like mine? I don't believe so (and I also believe the same argument can be made for CEO's and the like in the private sector, where the increase is in the hundreds of percent, but that's a bit too off topic for this discussion), but for this argument, like yours, I only have anecdotal evidence to support my argument.
My experience comes from my teaching experience, my wife's teaching experience, and my time spent working in the educational leadership department of our area university (which left me quite bitter against school administration). It's all anecdotal.
My third grade math was supposed to highlight the disparity between pay of the ground troops and the generals.
And I did read your post, just had to say that. I chose to focus on the thesis statement, and the one point that made absolutely no sense to me. So, to continue the argument:
Most schools are accountable for their spending. Most schools have to work very hard to make sure their spending is responsible, and meets the numerous guidelines which are tied to nearly every cent that comes into the school.
This is a very true statement. Most people don't know what goes on with school funding, so they assume that there is no oversight. They don't care to do the research - which would show how every single cent is spent - so they assume that we're just pissing away their money.
I would suggest you spend some more time with a responsible and hard working superintendent, and see just how much they really do. Then tell me they don't deserve what they make, and that they are not accountable for what they do.
Sorry for the anecdotal evidence - 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.
You do realize that, and this changes from state to state, schools spend so much more money on teachers and their various benefits than they do on administrator salaries, right?
Let's say the ratio is more 1:1 - increasing the number of superintendents. So, if there are 140 teachers in my area, they average a combined salary of $4,900,000 (the average teacher salary for my area is 35,000 - yes, the average salary is that low), compare that to 140 superintendents, with a combined average salary of $13,650,000 (the average superintendent salary is 97,500 for my area).
13,650,000 > 4,900,000?
The point that I'm trying to make is that you can't say that they deserve to make more money because they're on call all the time. So am I - it's called being an educator. You can't say that they're the only people that work more than 5 days a week, more than 7-3:30. If you show me a teacher that only works those hours, I'll show you a terrible teacher. I'm also trying to drive the point home that your first paragraph doesn't make a damned bit of sense - of fucking course districts spend more on teachers and their "various benefits" (I like to call it health insurance) because THERE ARE SO MANY MORE TEACHERS THAN ADMINISTRATORS.
That's what I've never understood. For it to be happening right now, to me, it stands to reason that if we look far enough away we could see the light from the big bang. Which means that everything that has ever happened is always happening everywhere. Which means that we always have existed in the state that we exist in today and will always exist in the state that we existed in billions of years ago.
It seems to me that this is an attempt by two world powers to go back to a time when the climate of mutually assured destruction helped fuel innovations in science and technology. I know that the US could use a little innovation, I assume the same about Russia (but I'm not sure that fear and the threat of war are the best way to go about it).
I'm with you - I wonder what the ulterior motives are. . ..
God Yes. LAN would kick this games complete and total ass. It's not the multiplayer aspect that appeals to me, it's the multiplayer option of playing with a few of my friends, all sitting in the same room drinking and smoking and talking and cursing and having an actual, honest to goodness LAN party with an elder scroll game. Good God, I would sell my first-born child for that.
MY STUPID SATELLITE INTERNET. Lag time>500ms = I don't get to play these games. God Damned Stupid Laws of Physics. When I grow up, I'm changing those things.
FUN FACT!!! There are high speed, fiber-optic (or something like that) lines running through my front yard. We can't tie into it, because there is no hub in our area.
When we were building the house, I (jokingly) asked the contractor if I could just stick an extension cord into the side of it. He said that there isn't enough insurance in the world to cover the loss that comes if you accidentally cut one, as a contractor. He didn't even think that me joking about digging one up was funny.
SO, if the world ever pisses me off real good (Chicago, I'm looking at you), I'll be using a backhoe to really fuck up someone's day.
You have three choices. Move to the city where the number of people makes the build out of infrastructure cost effective.
Nope. It's quiet, and I don't play well with others.
You could pay to have fiber ran to you.
I can't even begin to imagine the cost on that.
Or you could support government subsidies and work programs to build out infrastructure.
This same issue occurred with running telephone service to every rural location. I do see the spending of tax dollars to upgrade our countries information networks past mid last century technology as a plus, but good luck convincing others of that.
My sentiments exactly. While investing in infrastructure improvement through subsidies would be better than, say, investing in a war machine through subsidies, for some reason the general public seems to really like tanks and guns more. I don’t get it. I’d rather spend money on improving the water works for a city that I’m no-where close to being than paying for a new type of jet or helicopter. But that’s just me.
Why is that always the thing that people say. I'm not complaining that I have crappy internet (okay, maybe I am), but I really am just trying to say that in perspective 250gb per month isn't that bad.
I would rather eat a bag of hair than move to a city center. I understand that this was my choice, but it still sucks that for technology, we're essentially fifteen years behind everyone else. My argument for why I live out here - I can walk around my backyard naked without being arrested, can you?
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between your examples and this: today so many people are on board for censoring the internet that it would be hard for this NOT to work!
I hope that sounded sarcastic, it's supposed to.
Whooooooosh
Tell me this - when myspace was at its height - at its absolute highest point, you would have predicted its downfall? I'm not saying that today, right now, there is someone or something waiting to kill facebook. I'm just saying that, based on past observations and experience, it is inevitable. The internet really is a changing thing, and anyone that banks on one website to rule them all (outside of google apparently), is foolish.
foreseeable future
Define foreseeable future. Please.
And yes, yes I did.
Facebook is the identity of the internet going forward.
MySpace is the identity of the internet going forward.
Geocities is the identity of the internet going forward.
AIM is the identity of the internet going forward.
YAHOO Chat is the identity of the internet going forward.
Opendiary is the identity of the internet going forward.
Fucking 4chan is the identity of the internet going forward.
I think it might be a bit bold to say that this one site will be the face of the internet from now on. . . The internet is a fickle mistress, and small changes today can equal large changes in the future. The only difference between those other companies and facebook? Time. (yes, I know that some of them are still successful, I was making a point, just go with it)
announced this IPO, I was skeptical. Then they amended it, eight times (I think). Now, it seems to me that we've blown a rather large bubble - as the article says, this 104 billion is 100X their earnings last year. I wonder which set of retirees or naive persons will lose their asses on this one when it pops.
I remember when, recently, myspace was quite large. Does anyone else have a myspace page still? Now imagine if you owned 100 shares of that company. . . . . Now imagine your investment person has most of your retirement tied up in that company. . . .
Thoughts?
This is what happens when the focus is no longer fiscal responsibility but on profit in the short-term for shareholders -- err -- share-sellers.
People don't want to play the long game, and businesses can no longer play that game if they want to stay above water. SO, we have repeat of repeat of boom and bust, bubble and recession. In my (short) lifetime, I've seen: Something in Asia that was weird, South America, South Africa, Technology (hardware/software - 1st go-round), mortgages/lending, and now, folks, we've got the newest immediate cash-cow - Technology (Internet stuff and INFORMATION).
It will be interesting to see who gets it in the ass when this one pops, and how many people lose their jobs this time. I don't know about you folks, but my area is still reeling pretty hard from the mortgage crap that went down a while ago. I don't particularly care to see very few people make billions while the welders, cooks, teachers and janitors in my section of the US are off-work due to cuts.
hard to see the blatant step-forward for marketing here? Whereas Google does directed marketing quite well, facebook allows for 21st century billboards.
Sure, I can pay to have my super cute doggy picture noticed by everyone, and the more vapid consumers certainly will, but where is the real money in this scheme? Hey, remember all of those corporations' pages that you i-dots have friended or liked or whatever the F*ing term is? That crap can now get noticed by YOU AND EVERYONE YOU KNOW, MORE OFTEN!!! Hooray!!
But what are the first two?
Please show me funding increases. I've not yet seen a public school that is basking in money, and complaining about the state paying out too much, or the feds requiring too little oversight for the (already paltry and increasingly limited) funds they hand out.
Maybe years ago they were throwing money at the problem, but today decreased funding, cutting programs and reduced wages are the norm. Thanks, though.
See, now that's the kind of thinking we need more of. What's that zoo? The government is cutting your budget? Let me whip some bottles at the manatees. Maybe let me try to lasso a giraffe.
I'm catching a freaking lemur. I bet they taste delicious.
No, I don't think I missed the point. I used my third grade math to state that:
You do realize that most of the school's money is not spent on administration, right? You do realize that, and this changes from state to state, schools spend so much more money on teachers and their various benefits than they do on administrator salaries, right?
is a very, very, very obvious statement. OBVIOUSLY teacher salaries are a larger percentage of the overall budget. There's a metric shit-load more of them in simple numbers.
No one argues that administrators make up most of the budget; it would be stupid to believe so. What people are arguing, and the post that you replied to originally argued, is that administrators are paid too much, and therefore make up a disproportionately large amount of the budget, regardless of overall impact. 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. There is simply not that much stress in a school system of ---I'm going to guess based on my area--- around 1,300 - 1,500 students. What's the average teacher salary there?
I'm not arguing that administration isn't important, or that they don't work - they do, a lot. My question is how much more work do they do than the teachers? Is it enough to justify a 3x pay increase in small districts like yours, and smaller districts like mine? I don't believe so (and I also believe the same argument can be made for CEO's and the like in the private sector, where the increase is in the hundreds of percent, but that's a bit too off topic for this discussion), but for this argument, like yours, I only have anecdotal evidence to support my argument.
My experience comes from my teaching experience, my wife's teaching experience, and my time spent working in the educational leadership department of our area university (which left me quite bitter against school administration). It's all anecdotal.
My third grade math was supposed to highlight the disparity between pay of the ground troops and the generals.
And I did read your post, just had to say that. I chose to focus on the thesis statement, and the one point that made absolutely no sense to me. So, to continue the argument:
Most schools are accountable for their spending. Most schools have to work very hard to make sure their spending is responsible, and meets the numerous guidelines which are tied to nearly every cent that comes into the school.
This is a very true statement. Most people don't know what goes on with school funding, so they assume that there is no oversight. They don't care to do the research - which would show how every single cent is spent - so they assume that we're just pissing away their money.
I would suggest you spend some more time with a responsible and hard working superintendent, and see just how much they really do. Then tell me they don't deserve what they make, and that they are not accountable for what they do.
Sorry for the anecdotal evidence - 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.
You do realize that, and this changes from state to state, schools spend so much more money on teachers and their various benefits than they do on administrator salaries, right?
You do realize that, and this doesn't change from state to state, there are around 45 teachers for every administrator (principals and superintendents), and around 140 for every superintendent?(Sorry that's a couple of years old, it's the best I could find with quick and dirty research.) To me, it makes complete and total sense that 140 people's salaries would cost more than 1.
Let's say the ratio is more 1:1 - increasing the number of superintendents. So, if there are 140 teachers in my area, they average a combined salary of $4,900,000 (the average teacher salary for my area is 35,000 - yes, the average salary is that low), compare that to 140 superintendents, with a combined average salary of $13,650,000 (the average superintendent salary is 97,500 for my area).
13,650,000 > 4,900,000?
The point that I'm trying to make is that you can't say that they deserve to make more money because they're on call all the time. So am I - it's called being an educator. You can't say that they're the only people that work more than 5 days a week, more than 7-3:30. If you show me a teacher that only works those hours, I'll show you a terrible teacher. I'm also trying to drive the point home that your first paragraph doesn't make a damned bit of sense - of fucking course districts spend more on teachers and their "various benefits" (I like to call it health insurance) because THERE ARE SO MANY MORE TEACHERS THAN ADMINISTRATORS.
No, because of very subtle advertising, like many companies now employ on social sites such as this one?
This may help you understand. . . .
Where do you think that workload comes from?
That didn't help my brain.
That's what I've never understood. For it to be happening right now, to me, it stands to reason that if we look far enough away we could see the light from the big bang. Which means that everything that has ever happened is always happening everywhere. Which means that we always have existed in the state that we exist in today and will always exist in the state that we existed in billions of years ago.
Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed.
Found it, for no other reason than it was bothering me.
This is the second reference to the Secret of Nimh I've seen on /. today (damnit, I can't find the other one).
It's a bit unnerving. I feel like there will be an announcement about a remake before too long.
So help me, if there is, I'm done with this site.
I'm with you - I wonder what the ulterior motives are. . . .
God Yes. LAN would kick this games complete and total ass. It's not the multiplayer aspect that appeals to me, it's the multiplayer option of playing with a few of my friends, all sitting in the same room drinking and smoking and talking and cursing and having an actual, honest to goodness LAN party with an elder scroll game. Good God, I would sell my first-born child for that.
MY STUPID SATELLITE INTERNET. Lag time>500ms = I don't get to play these games. God Damned Stupid Laws of Physics. When I grow up, I'm changing those things.
FUN FACT!!! There are high speed, fiber-optic (or something like that) lines running through my front yard. We can't tie into it, because there is no hub in our area.
When we were building the house, I (jokingly) asked the contractor if I could just stick an extension cord into the side of it. He said that there isn't enough insurance in the world to cover the loss that comes if you accidentally cut one, as a contractor. He didn't even think that me joking about digging one up was funny.
SO, if the world ever pisses me off real good (Chicago, I'm looking at you), I'll be using a backhoe to really fuck up someone's day.
You have three choices. Move to the city where the number of people makes the build out of infrastructure cost effective.
Nope. It's quiet, and I don't play well with others.
You could pay to have fiber ran to you.
I can't even begin to imagine the cost on that.
Or you could support government subsidies and work programs to build out infrastructure.
This same issue occurred with running telephone service to every rural location. I do see the spending of tax dollars to upgrade our countries information networks past mid last century technology as a plus, but good luck convincing others of that.
My sentiments exactly. While investing in infrastructure improvement through subsidies would be better than, say, investing in a war machine through subsidies, for some reason the general public seems to really like tanks and guns more. I don’t get it. I’d rather spend money on improving the water works for a city that I’m no-where close to being than paying for a new type of jet or helicopter. But that’s just me.
Why is that always the thing that people say. I'm not complaining that I have crappy internet (okay, maybe I am), but I really am just trying to say that in perspective 250gb per month isn't that bad.
I would rather eat a bag of hair than move to a city center. I understand that this was my choice, but it still sucks that for technology, we're essentially fifteen years behind everyone else. My argument for why I live out here - I can walk around my backyard naked without being arrested, can you?