Ugh, unless you're running SMBv3 on Windows 2012, forget SMB/CIFS for streaming stuff across a network. Sure it can work, but it can be choppy as hell too. Maybe NFS, but uPNP/DLNA is designed for the task.
I am currently using samba/cifs for my NAS and I get 60 MB/s transfers.
I have had lots of problems in the past with NFS and transferring large files.
So if most people would encode their 1080p videos at a higher bitrate than their 720p files (debatable), then you somehow conclude that 1080p files found on the internet will always be higher bitrate than 720p files?
A higher resolution does not require a higher bitrate. You could say that a higher resolution requires a higher bitrate to maintain the same level of quality. There is, however, a wide range of qualities of video found on the internet.
Or hiring a an incredibly incompetent person to hit people in the shins that they think might have jaywalked. It is hard to say if this person would actually be accountable or even have to say sorry for mistakes.
Don't believe me? Create a local html file with 500 pictures in it, and open it. Depending on how fast your computer is (mine is a $300 Ivy Bridge whatever it was) It will take firefox like 10 seconds to open, and chrome opens instantly.
I actually still use firefox as my default browser because I am used to it, but I can see the appeal of using chrome.
because I do some web development I actually will use firefox, chrome, and IE on various pages to see if they have different behavior.
I have incandescent bulbs that have lasted twenty years without being changed. I have had CFLs that last a month, in the same socket that the previous incandescent lasted for years. YMMV.
If incandescent bulbs last so long, then there should be a huge surplus of them as people switch to LED bulbs, and you have nothing to worry about.
Also I am pretty sure I saw him say he wanted to make CD burners illegal because there was no legitimate legal use for them. I could not however find any good sources for this. It was around the same time ~ 2003
This reminds me of when Senator Orin hatch wanted to develop technology to destroy peoples computers if they were caught downloading anything that was copyrighted.
I actually witnessed this exchange live on C-SPAN.
Excerpt from an article that's no longer up:
"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy Saaf of MediaDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds technology to deliberately download pirated material very slowly so other users can't.
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
The senator, a composer who earned $18,000 last year in song-writing royalties, acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."
"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness of their actions.
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.
Thanks for the correction. I am assuming the the cost of the actual pole is not significant compared with the cost of actually buying all the easements or procuring them through eminent domain.
The idea I was trying to convey is that we don't want any random telecom to be able to put their own telephone poles wherever they want, or to use existing telephone poles without restriction, and I don't think they would be capable of setting up sensible infrastructure without eminent domain (i.e. buying easements from individual property owners).
I am sure producing the giant piece of wood and installing it do cost something, but I guess I should have been more clear that this is not the part I think we need the government to be in charge of.
Digging up roads to run cables... happen in cities. Cities should already have easy access to underground infrastructure such as cables set up, else they are doing it wrong.
Yes a lot of cities in America were not designed with the intention of easy access for installing new network infrastructure a century after being built. I used to live in L.A. and just installing coaxial cable was a huge undertaking that spanned like 6 years just for the area I lived in.
In the rest of America, cables are run on what are called telephone poles, which naturally offer easy access.
Who owns the telephone poles, and who gets to decide which companies have permission to use the telephone poles? Can anybody put their cables on the telephone poles? Obviously the telephone poles themselves are a limited public resource (along with the land below to access them), and their use needs to be managed/regulated by the government.
A libertarian model wouldnt need to "attempt to create a true free market" because the local government wouldnt have the right to restrict your choice of ISP's.
The fact that installing new cables usually requires digging up a lot of roads (i.e. public property), means that any ISP is going to need some kind of government sanction. Even wireless internet requires exclusive access to certain frequencies to function properly.
I don't think a strictly libertarian/private approach would work well for broadband internet. But I think it is important to follow the spirit of this approach (e.g. competition, customer choice, etc) where possible.
When he requested a salary of $60,000 a year or more for the employee, equivalent to what his white American counterparts received,
Or what his Indian-American counterpart would have received.
he was told instead to offer $50,000, which was 'good money for an Indian.'
I realize this sounds racist, and maybe the person who said it is racist, but people living in the nation of India (i.e. Indians), do traditionally have lower incomes and might be more likely to accept a lower offer.
Companies do this sort of thing all the time for all sorts of things. A company I worked for offered software developers that were not from the Bay Area, less money (because they thought engineers not from silicon valley would be willing to accept lower offers).
Companies care about money more than treating people fairly. They engage in deception to maximize profits. I am pretty sure that if there was a way to offer American employees less money and get away with it, they would do that too.
I think certainly this is a case of discrimination based on nationality. However I think it is a mischaracterization to say that this is racial discrimination with the information in the article.
I think the dichotomy of "Indian vs. White" is a false one. It should be "Indian vs. American" and "Indian/South Asian descent vs. Europe descent". One can be of European descent with Indian nationality, south asian descent living in Europe or America. I think it is important not to conflate these to distinctions.
It seems that the source of the problem is lack of choices. Trying to pass regulations to force the companies with existing monopolies to behave a certain way is one option, but probably not a good one.
I think the goal of net neutrality was good. I just think it was not well thought out. Several technologists including people who actually invented the protocols that form the basis of the internet have said that net neutrality would prevent further evolution of technology by forcing companies to comply with laws that refer to existing technology. Congress nor the FCC can predict what new protocols might be invented and how net neutrality would adversely affect them.
For example it might be a violation of net neutrality to implement "fair queuing" because this discriminates against large packets. Did the FCC think of that? Do they care? No they don't, but as a supporter of improvements to network technology I care.
Nobody wants the ISPs to get away with charging netflix for bandwidth, but surely there is a better way to do it than allowing the FCC to decide how packets get routed.
I'm not going to claim to speak for conservatives, but I would expect a *real* conservative model to also attempt to create a true free market where ISPs are not guaranteed a monopoly by the government. It is this exploitation of monopoly powers that is the source of the problem. Net neutrality only fixes the symptoms.
I would rather see municipalities owning the communications lines in their cities rather than telecom companies. These could either be purchased, seized using eminent domain, or the local governments could build their own. Once the local government (i.e. the people) own their own lines, they can contract whatever telecom companies they want to actually administer the operation of their network. This includes imposing whatever restrictions (like net neutrality) through contract law rather than the FCC. Also if the telecom falls short of it's obligations, it would be much easier to fire them and hire a new telecom company to replace them.
I am not confident in voters enthusiasm to vote for boring things like redistricting or zoning laws. I do think they will come out to vote en masse if it means they will have faster internet.
A traditional conservative might not support socializing the network infrastructure of a city, but they should provide some way to break the monopoly that existing telecoms have if they truly believe in a free market.
I don;t see this as a failure of conservatism (read free market proponents) in general, but a failure of our current crop of conservatives. And I think that's because conservatives today don't actually believe in the free market. They believe in not paying taxes.
I'm guessing you also did your own wiring rather than hiring someone to do it. That would probably be the biggest expense for me. I have a 4 bedroom 2 story house with vaulted ceilings in 2 of the bedrooms and attic access to only 1 room.
What would EA have to do to get me to ever buy another EA game again?
1. Atonement: They could become a nonprofit organization and only come out with open source games that ran on linux with all profits going to charities to help children in 3rd world countries learn to program.
2. Deception: Change their name, and payoff every website that I visit and everyone I know not to tell me that they changed their name.
3. Coercion: Kidnap someone I care about and threaten to kill them if I don;t buy one of their games.
4. Temptation: Start some crazy PR stunt where if EA sells X copies of a game, the CEO will literally eat the collectors edition of the game (the disc, the box, the manuals, the collectible miniatures, and any cancer causing chemicals, etc), and by some arcane loophole in the law this turns out to be enforceable by by the courts.
This all sounds very expensive. While I agree it is better to be safe than sorry in some abstract sense, I don't think it makes sense to spend any dollar amount to be any amount safer. I can't help but think there are probably better ways of spending that money, even if safety was my #1 goal (e.g. buying a safer car, buying better health insurance, etc).
I live in California, and I will do whatever I want. I just bought a nest protect because it looks cool, and want to try it out. It will be an improvement over my last smoke detector system (i.e. a baseplate with nothing in it). Even if the previous owner left the smoke detector, there would only be one of them.
The way I see it, my new smoke detector will be hard wired to all the other smoke detectors in the house (i.e. all zero of them), just like how the previous owners had it.
I'm really not sure if having a wire is all that much more fault tolerant than having wireless communications anyway. Can't wires be damaged in a fire? I would imagine having a bunch of nests all wirelessly communicating would have some advantages, in addition to being way the fuck cheaper than rewiring my whole house to have a bunch of new wires running through the walls.
Exactly how do you convince people to be better parents?
Even if we can magically succeed in convincing people to be better parents, our school system still sucks, and we need to improve it. Ignoring all the other problems with drugs and gangs, etc, our schools still suck. We have bad teachers, because people who would be good teachers don't want to work in a place where they are unable to effect real change and make almost no money.
As hard as I think it is to fix the school system, I think it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to make people into good parents. Are we going to send police officers to people's houses to make them read with their kids?
Fixing the schools is a matter of getting the right laws passed, and getting the right spokespeople to convince people to vote for these laws. Not easy, but not impossible.
A Public School takes public money, is governed by people who are locally elected. They spend public money to provide the best education possible for children in the best environment they can, (in theory and often in practice.)
Here you are implying that public schools are accountable to voters and that's what makes them work well. I would agree that this system would probably work if the citizens were well informed and engaged in the election process. I think the terrible state of our public schools is a testament to just how uninformed and apathetic the electorate is.
Do you think that a well informed electorate would decide to spend more money per student than any other nation in the world, but still pay teachers almost nothing? Would a well informed electorate tolerate this level of mismanagement of their tax money? Whether you are a democrat or a republican I would expect you to be pretty horrified at the performance of our education system
A Charter School in some places takes public money in others does not. They are not always governed by locally elected people. Their job is to educate children and turn a profit, they are not a non-profit organization, like a Public School.
The appeal of a charter school is that you have a choice. You can choose to send your kid to a charter school if you think it is good, or not send them to a charter school if you think it is bad. And you are free to research whether any charter school is good or bad before sending your kids there.
Profit being a part of the equation is actually fairly obvious from an economic standpoint. If a charter school is poorly run, then well informed parents will not want to send their kids there, and they will fail. If a charter school is good then well informed parents will want to send their kids there and the school will be profitable and this profit is the incentive for the school to keep doing a good job.
Once again, success depends on people being well informed. But this is the difference. With charter schools, I don't depend on other people being well informed. With public schools I do.
So, when it comes to a choice between being profitable or going down the road to being non-profitable, and what level of education they will provide their children...which will win out?
I have a hypothetical proposition. I would like to close all the private restaurants in America, and instead have all the restaurants managed by the USDA. This sounds scary but think of all the benefits. All restaurants will be free. We will pay for the restaurants with tax money, but this will be paid for by people who can better afford it. The restaurants will be run by people trying to give you the best food possible rather than trying to make a profit. Now everyone will have access to good quality restaurants regardless of their economic standing.
OK, so maybe it's not fair to close all the private restaurants, so we will allow private restaurants, but the people that eat at them will still pay taxes to support the USDA run restaurants. This sounds pretty terrible for rich people, but don't worry rich people! We will make it so you can only eat at your local restaurant, and each restaurant will be paid for by the people that live in that neighborhood, so that restaurants in rich neighborhoods get more money.
You'd probably end up with a macdonalds quality meal for like $50 per person per meal in taxes. This would probably actually be a prison level meal for poor people and an applebees level meal for rich people. This should be truly frightening to conservatives and liberals, rich and poor, even if for different reasons.
I am not saying that privatizing schools is the magic bullet. But if you think that non-profit organizations always lead to the best results, that is completely mistaken. Profit is a powerful motivator for people to do a good job if it is applied properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh, unless you're running SMBv3 on Windows 2012, forget SMB/CIFS for streaming stuff across a network. Sure it can work, but it can be choppy as hell too. Maybe NFS, but uPNP/DLNA is designed for the task.
I am currently using samba/cifs for my NAS and I get 60 MB/s transfers.
I have had lots of problems in the past with NFS and transferring large files.
So if most people would encode their 1080p videos at a higher bitrate than their 720p files (debatable), then you somehow conclude that 1080p files found on the internet will always be higher bitrate than 720p files?
A higher resolution does not require a higher bitrate. You could say that a higher resolution requires a higher bitrate to maintain the same level of quality. There is, however, a wide range of qualities of video found on the internet.
Stop calling other people obtuse
Or hiring a an incredibly incompetent person to hit people in the shins that they think might have jaywalked. It is hard to say if this person would actually be accountable or even have to say sorry for mistakes.
Firefox loads images really slowly.
Don't believe me? Create a local html file with 500 pictures in it, and open it. Depending on how fast your computer is (mine is a $300 Ivy Bridge whatever it was) It will take firefox like 10 seconds to open, and chrome opens instantly.
I actually still use firefox as my default browser because I am used to it, but I can see the appeal of using chrome.
because I do some web development I actually will use firefox, chrome, and IE on various pages to see if they have different behavior.
I have incandescent bulbs that have lasted twenty years without being changed. I have had CFLs that last a month, in the same socket that the previous incandescent lasted for years. YMMV.
If incandescent bulbs last so long, then there should be a huge surplus of them as people switch to LED bulbs, and you have nothing to worry about.
Also I am pretty sure I saw him say he wanted to make CD burners illegal because there was no legitimate legal use for them. I could not however find any good sources for this. It was around the same time ~ 2003
This reminds me of when Senator Orin hatch wanted to develop technology to destroy peoples computers if they were caught downloading anything that was copyrighted.
I actually witnessed this exchange live on C-SPAN.
Excerpt from an article that's no longer up:
"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy Saaf of MediaDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds technology to deliberately download pirated material very slowly so other users can't.
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
The senator, a composer who earned $18,000 last year in song-writing royalties, acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."
"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness of their actions.
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," Hatch said.
Thanks for the correction. I am assuming the the cost of the actual pole is not significant compared with the cost of actually buying all the easements or procuring them through eminent domain.
The idea I was trying to convey is that we don't want any random telecom to be able to put their own telephone poles wherever they want, or to use existing telephone poles without restriction, and I don't think they would be capable of setting up sensible infrastructure without eminent domain (i.e. buying easements from individual property owners).
I am sure producing the giant piece of wood and installing it do cost something, but I guess I should have been more clear that this is not the part I think we need the government to be in charge of.
Digging up roads to run cables... happen in cities. Cities should already have easy access to underground infrastructure such as cables set up, else they are doing it wrong.
Yes a lot of cities in America were not designed with the intention of easy access for installing new network infrastructure a century after being built. I used to live in L.A. and just installing coaxial cable was a huge undertaking that spanned like 6 years just for the area I lived in.
In the rest of America, cables are run on what are called telephone poles, which naturally offer easy access.
Who owns the telephone poles, and who gets to decide which companies have permission to use the telephone poles? Can anybody put their cables on the telephone poles? Obviously the telephone poles themselves are a limited public resource (along with the land below to access them), and their use needs to be managed/regulated by the government.
A libertarian model wouldnt need to "attempt to create a true free market" because the local government wouldnt have the right to restrict your choice of ISP's.
The fact that installing new cables usually requires digging up a lot of roads (i.e. public property), means that any ISP is going to need some kind of government sanction. Even wireless internet requires exclusive access to certain frequencies to function properly.
I don't think a strictly libertarian/private approach would work well for broadband internet. But I think it is important to follow the spirit of this approach (e.g. competition, customer choice, etc) where possible.
When he requested a salary of $60,000 a year or more for the employee, equivalent to what his white American counterparts received,
Or what his Indian-American counterpart would have received.
he was told instead to offer $50,000, which was 'good money for an Indian.'
I realize this sounds racist, and maybe the person who said it is racist, but people living in the nation of India (i.e. Indians), do traditionally have lower incomes and might be more likely to accept a lower offer.
Companies do this sort of thing all the time for all sorts of things. A company I worked for offered software developers that were not from the Bay Area, less money (because they thought engineers not from silicon valley would be willing to accept lower offers).
Companies care about money more than treating people fairly. They engage in deception to maximize profits. I am pretty sure that if there was a way to offer American employees less money and get away with it, they would do that too.
I think certainly this is a case of discrimination based on nationality. However I think it is a mischaracterization to say that this is racial discrimination with the information in the article.
I think the dichotomy of "Indian vs. White" is a false one. It should be "Indian vs. American" and "Indian/South Asian descent vs. Europe descent". One can be of European descent with Indian nationality, south asian descent living in Europe or America. I think it is important not to conflate these to distinctions.
Didn't make the news at all. And now he's a U.S. Senator.
I'll bet Fox News didn't even cover it because of their fairness and balance.
It was a "traffic study".
It seems that the source of the problem is lack of choices. Trying to pass regulations to force the companies with existing monopolies to behave a certain way is one option, but probably not a good one.
I think the goal of net neutrality was good. I just think it was not well thought out. Several technologists including people who actually invented the protocols that form the basis of the internet have said that net neutrality would prevent further evolution of technology by forcing companies to comply with laws that refer to existing technology. Congress nor the FCC can predict what new protocols might be invented and how net neutrality would adversely affect them.
For example it might be a violation of net neutrality to implement "fair queuing" because this discriminates against large packets. Did the FCC think of that? Do they care? No they don't, but as a supporter of improvements to network technology I care.
Nobody wants the ISPs to get away with charging netflix for bandwidth, but surely there is a better way to do it than allowing the FCC to decide how packets get routed.
I'm not going to claim to speak for conservatives, but I would expect a *real* conservative model to also attempt to create a true free market where ISPs are not guaranteed a monopoly by the government. It is this exploitation of monopoly powers that is the source of the problem. Net neutrality only fixes the symptoms.
I would rather see municipalities owning the communications lines in their cities rather than telecom companies. These could either be purchased, seized using eminent domain, or the local governments could build their own. Once the local government (i.e. the people) own their own lines, they can contract whatever telecom companies they want to actually administer the operation of their network. This includes imposing whatever restrictions (like net neutrality) through contract law rather than the FCC. Also if the telecom falls short of it's obligations, it would be much easier to fire them and hire a new telecom company to replace them.
I am not confident in voters enthusiasm to vote for boring things like redistricting or zoning laws. I do think they will come out to vote en masse if it means they will have faster internet.
A traditional conservative might not support socializing the network infrastructure of a city, but they should provide some way to break the monopoly that existing telecoms have if they truly believe in a free market.
I don;t see this as a failure of conservatism (read free market proponents) in general, but a failure of our current crop of conservatives. And I think that's because conservatives today don't actually believe in the free market. They believe in not paying taxes.
I'm guessing you also did your own wiring rather than hiring someone to do it. That would probably be the biggest expense for me. I have a 4 bedroom 2 story house with vaulted ceilings in 2 of the bedrooms and attic access to only 1 room.
What would EA have to do to get me to ever buy another EA game again?
1. Atonement: They could become a nonprofit organization and only come out with open source games that ran on linux with all profits going to charities to help children in 3rd world countries learn to program.
2. Deception: Change their name, and payoff every website that I visit and everyone I know not to tell me that they changed their name.
3. Coercion: Kidnap someone I care about and threaten to kill them if I don;t buy one of their games.
4. Temptation: Start some crazy PR stunt where if EA sells X copies of a game, the CEO will literally eat the collectors edition of the game (the disc, the box, the manuals, the collectible miniatures, and any cancer causing chemicals, etc), and by some arcane loophole in the law this turns out to be enforceable by by the courts.
How much money did google make from youtube and how much did they spend on it in total?
This all sounds very expensive. While I agree it is better to be safe than sorry in some abstract sense, I don't think it makes sense to spend any dollar amount to be any amount safer. I can't help but think there are probably better ways of spending that money, even if safety was my #1 goal (e.g. buying a safer car, buying better health insurance, etc).
I'm sure piles of shit have kids to feed and bills to pay, but they make it so hard to feel empathy for them.
I live in California, and I will do whatever I want. I just bought a nest protect because it looks cool, and want to try it out. It will be an improvement over my last smoke detector system (i.e. a baseplate with nothing in it). Even if the previous owner left the smoke detector, there would only be one of them.
The way I see it, my new smoke detector will be hard wired to all the other smoke detectors in the house (i.e. all zero of them), just like how the previous owners had it.
I'm really not sure if having a wire is all that much more fault tolerant than having wireless communications anyway. Can't wires be damaged in a fire? I would imagine having a bunch of nests all wirelessly communicating would have some advantages, in addition to being way the fuck cheaper than rewiring my whole house to have a bunch of new wires running through the walls.
So all we need to do is all open lemonade stands, and the national debt will be gone.
I'm not going to pretend I know how much companies are worth, but I don't believe you know either.
Exactly how do you convince people to be better parents?
Even if we can magically succeed in convincing people to be better parents, our school system still sucks, and we need to improve it. Ignoring all the other problems with drugs and gangs, etc, our schools still suck. We have bad teachers, because people who would be good teachers don't want to work in a place where they are unable to effect real change and make almost no money.
As hard as I think it is to fix the school system, I think it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to make people into good parents. Are we going to send police officers to people's houses to make them read with their kids?
Fixing the schools is a matter of getting the right laws passed, and getting the right spokespeople to convince people to vote for these laws. Not easy, but not impossible.
A Public School takes public money, is governed by people who are locally elected. They spend public money to provide the best education possible for children in the best environment they can, (in theory and often in practice.)
Here you are implying that public schools are accountable to voters and that's what makes them work well. I would agree that this system would probably work if the citizens were well informed and engaged in the election process. I think the terrible state of our public schools is a testament to just how uninformed and apathetic the electorate is.
Do you think that a well informed electorate would decide to spend more money per student than any other nation in the world, but still pay teachers almost nothing? Would a well informed electorate tolerate this level of mismanagement of their tax money? Whether you are a democrat or a republican I would expect you to be pretty horrified at the performance of our education system
A Charter School in some places takes public money in others does not. They are not always governed by locally elected people. Their job is to educate children and turn a profit, they are not a non-profit organization, like a Public School.
The appeal of a charter school is that you have a choice. You can choose to send your kid to a charter school if you think it is good, or not send them to a charter school if you think it is bad. And you are free to research whether any charter school is good or bad before sending your kids there.
Profit being a part of the equation is actually fairly obvious from an economic standpoint. If a charter school is poorly run, then well informed parents will not want to send their kids there, and they will fail. If a charter school is good then well informed parents will want to send their kids there and the school will be profitable and this profit is the incentive for the school to keep doing a good job.
Once again, success depends on people being well informed. But this is the difference. With charter schools, I don't depend on other people being well informed. With public schools I do.
So, when it comes to a choice between being profitable or going down the road to being non-profitable, and what level of education they will provide their children...which will win out?
I have a hypothetical proposition. I would like to close all the private restaurants in America, and instead have all the restaurants managed by the USDA. This sounds scary but think of all the benefits. All restaurants will be free. We will pay for the restaurants with tax money, but this will be paid for by people who can better afford it. The restaurants will be run by people trying to give you the best food possible rather than trying to make a profit. Now everyone will have access to good quality restaurants regardless of their economic standing.
OK, so maybe it's not fair to close all the private restaurants, so we will allow private restaurants, but the people that eat at them will still pay taxes to support the USDA run restaurants. This sounds pretty terrible for rich people, but don't worry rich people! We will make it so you can only eat at your local restaurant, and each restaurant will be paid for by the people that live in that neighborhood, so that restaurants in rich neighborhoods get more money.
You'd probably end up with a macdonalds quality meal for like $50 per person per meal in taxes. This would probably actually be a prison level meal for poor people and an applebees level meal for rich people. This should be truly frightening to conservatives and liberals, rich and poor, even if for different reasons.
I am not saying that privatizing schools is the magic bullet. But if you think that non-profit organizations always lead to the best results, that is completely mistaken. Profit is a powerful motivator for people to do a good job if it is applied properly.
We are getting the worst