If it's anything like other Apple stuff, Android fanboys will bitch and complain like it's the end of the world. Apple users will be happy with the features.
Everyone should read these 3 posts by the same AC poster. This is why NASA and every other item in the budget except handouts will eventually be cut to zero: because cutting even $1 from any non-worker's government check causes starvation and death. If you believe him, you need to resign yourself to the end of NASA and anything else you could ever ask the federal government to do (besides write you a welfare check).
Yeah, so? Get used to it. The entire budget will eventually be taken up to write checks for retirees, SNAP (a.k.a food stamp) recipients, Medicaid recipients, people on "disability", TANF (a.k.a. welfare) recipients, grant recipients, corporate subsidy recipients, and everyone else who takes out rather than paying in.
You want the government to do anything else, then figure out how to start saying "No" to people with their hands out.
Why are we putting up with a system where this is even a factor? A non-government school would simply invite her to take her business somewhere else if she doesn't like the school policy.
A 16% increase over 4 years works out to be 4% a year, which just happens to be a little lower than the average inflation rate over the last 4 years (yes, it's lower than that at the moment). Which means, in terms of spending power, its just maintaining the status quo.
As for "merit-based" performance metrics, they don't measure the teacher's performance; they measure the students.
"I'm a good teacher, but my work doesn't really do the students any good. Give me a huge raise."
So the students who get the worst teachers, will be: * Poor students, who don't have access to tutors or other extra curricular methods of learning
The students get such a great education from their government teachers, they need to hire tutors.
* Students with disinterested parents (parental involvements is one the major predictors for academic achievement) * Students in classes of disruptive people
Obviously, you acknowledge these things are a problem. But rather than solve the problem, you want to make sure it doesn't affect teacher paychecks.
Nevermind the students. The purpose of a government school is to maximize payroll.
If you already spend your own time and money educating your kids, why not take the next step and home school them? Home schooled kids learn a lot more, and everything happens on your schedule, not the school's.
I'm a taxpayer. I care about the cost. What irks me when they raise taxes is that it does not solve the problem. It's as if I gave you a million fucking dollars for groceries for the year, and you come back to me saying you need more. I don't have a problem with paying for something, as long as it is done correctly and not without parasitic levels of corruption and inefficiency.
When did a government school ever say they didn't need more money?
Some things should be paid for. Education is one of them.
OK, but it's going to cost endless zillions of dollars. And even more next year, even though the number of students is fewer.
Which would have certainly been prevented if... what? Specifically. Give us the name or job title of the person. Give us the specific crime he committed (assuming you could retroactively go back in time and make some specific action a crime). Tell us specifically how that crime would have been detected and prevented by some financial crash police. And tell us how that action led to the financial crash.
Or is this still a fantasy world, where we say "we like regulations" and that makes bad things stop happening?
Meanwhile, the real world's Jon Corzine took $1 Billion from MF Global investors' accounts, contrary to specific regulations that everyone in finance understands, and he won't be prosecuted because he's a big Obama crony and fundraiser.
Imagine any policing regime for anything that worked perfectly, solved the problem, and didn't create any new problems. Then wake up. We have a real world. Out here, when you're not lost in your imagination, the police can be as big a problem as the thing they're trying to prevent.
Are you really unable to conceive of anything besides total government control and zero government at all?
Here's an idea: What if governments did as little as they could get away with? Government could police crimes like murder and burglary, and not police "crimes" like giving store customers plastic bags to carry their groceries home. Government could police dumping sewage in the reservoir and not police filling in a mudhole in your back yard. Government could stop taking money by force from person A to buy the vote of person B.
Can you imagine such a thing at all? Or is the lack of government action in any situation the same thing as anarchy?
Nope, you're doing just fine representing your beliefs. Everyone can be fat and secure in your society as long as they never lose a single election. Every vote is a life-or-death struggle for survival against a ravenous, remorseless enemy. Choose your side carefully.
Bad scientists (and lots of other bad people) also tend to believe they know everything and should be empowered to enforce their will on others. In fact, that's the #1 characteristic I look for in a politician. Then I vote against him.
People making their own choices often make very bad choices, and the consequences of those choices affect others. Government control is a means of making those choices by (ideally) popular choice, so that if bad choices are made, it's because the majority of us wanted it that way.
Like when the two wolves and the lamb voted on what to eat for dinner. The lamb wanted to make a very bad choice. But another choice was made by the majority. They took what they wanted.
Once you defeat the idea of rational governance, you're free to exercise power in a completely arbitrary way, in response to the needs of your corporate patrons or any whim at all. Total power is not constrained by the requirement of rational justification.
Once you decide it's OK to exercise power over people based on some arbitrary rationale, you can shape the rationale to provide whatever powers fit your whims.
Rational justification does not constrain. Rational arguments can be made for or against any action or policy. And they're all amazingly persuasive after you've already decided what you want to do.
Lack of government power over people constrains the exercise of government power over people. When there are no enforcers, force is unavailable as an option.
And before conservatives complain about government abridging their freedoms, they should reflect on the long list of groups (women, gays, non-christians, etc. etc.) that they deem undeserving of the same consideration.
That's some interesting grievance politics you have there. Which people do you want power over? And what do you want to force them to do?
Group of people interested in [science] want a debate about extending government control over your life in the name of [science].
Replace [science] with religion, health, nutrition, education, morals, national security, the environment, commerce, or any other issue you want. It's all essentially the same. The answers should be the same too: "No, we'll make our own choices."
There's no need for any special debates for [science].
Your LCD argument is just silly. People buy LCD TVs because they are lighter, they take up less space, and can provide a large high definition picture. Safety is irrelevant because CRTs were never found to be unsafe when properly produced and shielded. LCDs are not a gift from government, nor was government a major part of the reason we all switched to LCDs.
The rest of your post may or may not be correct. We certainly need to be able to compromise between zero government and totalitarianism. It would be good if facts and legitimate cost/benefit analysis were used to find the balance rather than doomsday prophesies and anti-corporate bigotry. It would also be good if environmentalists would put humans first and animals, plants, and aesthetics a distant second. Then we could have productive conversations and make progress toward finding the best balance.
Survivor bias implies the existence of survivors. Also, the populations of survivors seem to be thriving.
Call it bias if you want, but do you really think we've all forgotten all the narrowly-averted apocalypses? Or were the predictions of doom exaggerated? Which is more likely?
Slashdot Mirror
If it's anything like other Apple stuff, Android fanboys will bitch and complain like it's the end of the world. Apple users will be happy with the features.
They're not the majority yet.
Everyone should read these 3 posts by the same AC poster. This is why NASA and every other item in the budget except handouts will eventually be cut to zero: because cutting even $1 from any non-worker's government check causes starvation and death. If you believe him, you need to resign yourself to the end of NASA and anything else you could ever ask the federal government to do (besides write you a welfare check).
Yeah, so? Get used to it. The entire budget will eventually be taken up to write checks for retirees, SNAP (a.k.a food stamp) recipients, Medicaid recipients, people on "disability", TANF (a.k.a. welfare) recipients, grant recipients, corporate subsidy recipients, and everyone else who takes out rather than paying in.
You want the government to do anything else, then figure out how to start saying "No" to people with their hands out.
It's not about salaries. That's why teachers are offering to take pay cuts, obviously.
Why are we putting up with a system where this is even a factor? A non-government school would simply invite her to take her business somewhere else if she doesn't like the school policy.
Yeah! Shut up! Everyone who hasn't read document XYZ should shut up!
teachers cannot magically affect improvement if parents and cultures are not working with them
Why bother paying anything at all when there's no chance of getting any improvement?
A 16% increase over 4 years works out to be 4% a year, which just happens to be a little lower than the average inflation rate over the last 4 years (yes, it's lower than that at the moment). Which means, in terms of spending power, its just maintaining the status quo.
Meanwhile, for the people actually paying for the teachers, median household income is down 7% in the last 10 years.
As for "merit-based" performance metrics, they don't measure the teacher's performance; they measure the students.
"I'm a good teacher, but my work doesn't really do the students any good. Give me a huge raise."
So the students who get the worst teachers, will be:
* Poor students, who don't have access to tutors or other extra curricular methods of learning
The students get such a great education from their government teachers, they need to hire tutors.
* Students with disinterested parents (parental involvements is one the major predictors for academic achievement)
* Students in classes of disruptive people
Obviously, you acknowledge these things are a problem. But rather than solve the problem, you want to make sure it doesn't affect teacher paychecks.
Nevermind the students. The purpose of a government school is to maximize payroll.
If you already spend your own time and money educating your kids, why not take the next step and home school them? Home schooled kids learn a lot more, and everything happens on your schedule, not the school's.
Be fair. They'll also be paying former government workers' bloated pensions. Which will help no one who needs any government services today.
I'm a taxpayer. I care about the cost. What irks me when they raise taxes is that it does not solve the problem. It's as if I gave you a million fucking dollars for groceries for the year, and you come back to me saying you need more. I don't have a problem with paying for something, as long as it is done correctly and not without parasitic levels of corruption and inefficiency.
When did a government school ever say they didn't need more money?
Some things should be paid for. Education is one of them.
OK, but it's going to cost endless zillions of dollars. And even more next year, even though the number of students is fewer.
Teachers like summers off. Teachers' unions control schools. Forget about making any significant changes until the unions are gone.
On the other hand, the recent financial crash...
Which would have certainly been prevented if... what? Specifically. Give us the name or job title of the person. Give us the specific crime he committed (assuming you could retroactively go back in time and make some specific action a crime). Tell us specifically how that crime would have been detected and prevented by some financial crash police. And tell us how that action led to the financial crash.
Or is this still a fantasy world, where we say "we like regulations" and that makes bad things stop happening?
Meanwhile, the real world's Jon Corzine took $1 Billion from MF Global investors' accounts, contrary to specific regulations that everyone in finance understands, and he won't be prosecuted because he's a big Obama crony and fundraiser.
Imagine any policing regime for anything that worked perfectly, solved the problem, and didn't create any new problems. Then wake up. We have a real world. Out here, when you're not lost in your imagination, the police can be as big a problem as the thing they're trying to prevent.
AKA: Online review police. Because all of life's problems can be solved with more police.
Mine was damaged in shipping. One star.
Are you really unable to conceive of anything besides total government control and zero government at all?
Here's an idea: What if governments did as little as they could get away with? Government could police crimes like murder and burglary, and not police "crimes" like giving store customers plastic bags to carry their groceries home. Government could police dumping sewage in the reservoir and not police filling in a mudhole in your back yard. Government could stop taking money by force from person A to buy the vote of person B.
Can you imagine such a thing at all? Or is the lack of government action in any situation the same thing as anarchy?
Nope, you're doing just fine representing your beliefs. Everyone can be fat and secure in your society as long as they never lose a single election. Every vote is a life-or-death struggle for survival against a ravenous, remorseless enemy. Choose your side carefully.
Bad scientists (and lots of other bad people) also tend to believe they know everything and should be empowered to enforce their will on others. In fact, that's the #1 characteristic I look for in a politician. Then I vote against him.
People making their own choices often make very bad choices, and the consequences of those choices affect others. Government control is a means of making those choices by (ideally) popular choice, so that if bad choices are made, it's because the majority of us wanted it that way.
Like when the two wolves and the lamb voted on what to eat for dinner. The lamb wanted to make a very bad choice. But another choice was made by the majority. They took what they wanted.
Once you defeat the idea of rational governance, you're free to exercise power in a completely arbitrary way, in response to the needs of your corporate patrons or any whim at all. Total power is not constrained by the requirement of rational justification.
Once you decide it's OK to exercise power over people based on some arbitrary rationale, you can shape the rationale to provide whatever powers fit your whims.
Rational justification does not constrain. Rational arguments can be made for or against any action or policy. And they're all amazingly persuasive after you've already decided what you want to do.
Lack of government power over people constrains the exercise of government power over people. When there are no enforcers, force is unavailable as an option.
And before conservatives complain about government abridging their freedoms, they should reflect on the long list of groups (women, gays, non-christians, etc. etc.) that they deem undeserving of the same consideration.
That's some interesting grievance politics you have there. Which people do you want power over? And what do you want to force them to do?
Group of people interested in [science] want a debate about extending government control over your life in the name of [science].
Replace [science] with religion, health, nutrition, education, morals, national security, the environment, commerce, or any other issue you want. It's all essentially the same. The answers should be the same too: "No, we'll make our own choices."
There's no need for any special debates for [science].
Your LCD argument is just silly. People buy LCD TVs because they are lighter, they take up less space, and can provide a large high definition picture. Safety is irrelevant because CRTs were never found to be unsafe when properly produced and shielded. LCDs are not a gift from government, nor was government a major part of the reason we all switched to LCDs.
The rest of your post may or may not be correct. We certainly need to be able to compromise between zero government and totalitarianism. It would be good if facts and legitimate cost/benefit analysis were used to find the balance rather than doomsday prophesies and anti-corporate bigotry. It would also be good if environmentalists would put humans first and animals, plants, and aesthetics a distant second. Then we could have productive conversations and make progress toward finding the best balance.
Survivor bias implies the existence of survivors. Also, the populations of survivors seem to be thriving.
Call it bias if you want, but do you really think we've all forgotten all the narrowly-averted apocalypses? Or were the predictions of doom exaggerated? Which is more likely?