Where do you get the notion that federal money is used to subsidize teachers?
Uh, not really sure. A quick Google shows reports for "Federal Primary Education Funds". I don't expect that a teacher gets a check from the federal government, but funds are used. Around here, most funding for schools come from property taxes, a subject I've recently become quite concerned with. That's probably why I jumped into this thread to begin with.
Go figure. I always thought that a locality was responsible for paying for their own educational expenses (through property taxes and the odd lottery). *shrug*
There are classes of three or four kids at a school (sometimes less) who can get together with other kids from their district and a teacher from out of state on a weekly (or daily) basis, and learn topics that would be completely out of reach for them otherwise.
That happened back in the BBS days at 300bps. Does it need a T1 today? Not that it would be bad, but it's not a requirement. We're talking solid copper versus fiber.
It's much easier to convey mathematical formulas on a blackboard (or a white board) and relay that via a VTC vs. typing such notations using a keyboard. NASA also has a (canned, sadly) presentation that involves a fair amount of video. OTOH, less than two months ago one of the schools that I deal with had a live conference with the ISS. That was pretty wild. The kids have talked with zookeepers in San Diego, and forest service personnel in Montana. Face to face (sort of). Some very neat opportunities.
The Federal Subscriber Line Charge is for maintenance of the local copper.
Oops. Just one of many line items on my phone bill...
Amen to that. I'd hate for it to be lumped under "miscellaneous fees" though...
Sorry to come across so heavy handed. I am (at least partly) a product of my environment. If my parents had not been as loving as they were, I would not be the person I am today. I am affected by my parents choices (though I can hardly be said to suffer).
I was just trying to state that in this instance there is a way to make the playing field a litte more equal between those who live in urban environments and those that don't. I work for a company that takes advantage of the USF and I see benefits to the communities we serve on a daily basis.
Obviously my perspective is massivly skewed to the "pro" side. It helps pay my salary and I see direct positive results.
Federal money subsidizes all teachers. Perhaps I'm missing something. What's the difference between an AP and a non-AP teacher? In my days (not all that long ago) an AP course just meant there was a test at the end that could result in some college credit. The coursework was more difficult, but we're talking 100 level college material. It's not rocket science.
Where do you get the notion that federal money is used to subsidize teachers? That's news to me. The teacher that taught my AP course did nothing but. In addition, I am under the impression that teaching in college has higher requirements. If my understanding is skewed (AP teachers are more "learned" than elementary through high school teachers) then my argument is flawed.
No, I don't see a benefit to it. I've always seen the push for technology in schools as a crutch for unmotivated students with behavioral problems, absentee parents, and "teachers who are little more than glorified baby-sitters".
I do. There are classes of three or four kids at a school (sometimes less) who can get together with other kids from their district and a teacher from out of state on a weekly (or daily) basis, and learn topics that would be completly out of reach for them otherwise. I see the benefit every week.
I can't imagine why some people think every 1st grader should carry a laptop computer (I realize that's a whole different level than this discussion).
I don't see it as a replacement (not that you are saying that I do) but as a teaching aid. Personally I think that the current schooling system is a farce, and promotes a dislike of learning, but that is neither here nor there.
We've seen the last generation of people who can work a math problem by hand and write without a spell checker.
We've also seen the last generation of people who can use a slide rule. The world hasn't ended...
That's why we pay the Federal Subscriber Line Tax on telephone service.
Nope. The Federal Subsciber Line Charge is for maintenence of the local copper. The Federal Government doesn't see a dime of this. The Universal Service Fee (what this article was about) is described in more detail here.
Are there really still rural communities without any phone service?
I doubt it. There are fewer and fewer without the ability to contract affordable internet accesss. That's what the USF is (in the most altruistic, Robin Hood sense) supposed to do.
660 square mile county with 1500 students in the single high school. Mainly farming and local employment. Some long distance commuters to city employment.
My highschool (not classified as rural) also had 1500 students. Most of the schools that I work with don't have 500 students. Total. Across all the grades. Rural, but not rural enough.
> How common do you think your situation was (what percentage of rural schools offered/offer AP courses)?
It's the norm for the state. All offered AP courses.
That's wonderful. Really it is. But, I would be willing to bet there were federal grants subsidizing the salaries of some (if not all) of the rural AP teachers.
> Do you think there are enough teachers capable of providing an AP curriculum for all of the rural communities?
Sure. Why would a teacher in the country be any less qualified than one in a city? My AP CompSci (Pascal) teacher was just as bad as one in a city.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that location had any bearing on ability. I've met some teachers in Rural Alaska that are really doing it for the love of teaching, and are VERY good at what they do. Then again there are teachers in Anchorage who are little more than glorified baby-sitters. The opposite is, of course, true.
> Can you see how it would be better for a group of AP students to be able to get together (through email, IM and even video teleconferencing) and collaborate?
It wasn't a disadvantage for me. Remember, we're not talking about email and IM. That's almost universally available. We're talking about high speed internet. Glorious full color IP teleconferencing is not an essential tool for taking an AP course. Collaberation with fellow students was enough for my course.
That's not what I asked. I asked if you could see benefit to it. Besides, email and IM require internet access. At a bare minimum that requires a phone line. If that phone line is not affordable...
You had fellow students to collaborate with. Your high school had more students than a majority of the Alaskan Villages have PEOPLE.
I choose to use Alaska as an example, because it is my home. I'm sure that these cases relate to other places around the USA.
The idea of universal service is certainly a worthy one. But when cellular phones are so popular, do we really need to spend billions of dollars a year on subsidizing rural America's landlines?
I wonder if he has tried using his cellular phone across the US. All 50 states of it. Let's see. He must be a real world traveler to be such an authority on the state of the cellular network.
Declan McCullagh is the Washington correspondent for CNET News.com, chronicling the ever-busier intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.
Or not. I wonder if he has ever even left the East Coast? Verizon's commercials are cute and all, but they don't reflect reality. And I quote:
Because an area is shaded does not necessarily mean that there is complete cellular coverage; in fact, there are "no coverage" areas (including areas too small to depict) within the shaded areas.
And not even the whole of the CONUS is shaded! Yeah. Cellular service is the perfect replacement for land lines. Idiot.
I went to highschool in a rural community and we did have AP curriculum. It had nothing to do with the internet.
How rural (i.e. how many students)? How common do you think your situation was (what percentage of rural schools offered/offer AP courses)? Do you think there are enough teachers capable of providing an AP curriculum for all of the rural communities? Can you see how it would be better for a group of AP students to be able to get together (through email, IM and even video teleconferencing) and collaborate?
We didn't have internet and there was one computer lab (15 Apple 2gs's) for the entire school.
Think of it this way. For any of those other examples, there are programs (government and otherwise) in place to help them out. There is foster care for the parent less (as crappy as that is, it's likely better than living on the street), scholarships and student loans for the non-well-off, libraries (with internet access) for everyone.
*shrug* I certainly don't have all the answers, but I think that the prisoners dilemma applies here.
No argument there. I'm not happy with either a rate increase or the possibility of having my cable modem "taxed". The process could be so much better, but that would take effort. And effort costs money.
The money doesn't go to helping a farmer who can't afford a $30/month phone bill, it's/(should be) going torwards making sure that farmer doesn't have to worry about affording a $130/month phone bill.
The current system DOES do that. Unfortunately that's not all it does...
Do you really think that your insurance payment goes to the well being of people not affiliated with your insurance company? That payment subsidizes workers comp. claims by other people covered by the same insurance provider. It has no bearing on providing health care to remote locations.
How does equivalent phone service equate to larger homes?
How about looking at how the more expensive living costs relate to the larger opportunities to make money? More expensive phone services don't correlate to high paying areas.
Fsck the third world countries. They would dig themselves out if they really wanted to. Fsck the rural communities. If they wanted modern conveniences like telephone and internet they would move to the cities like us civilized people.
BTW, you don't have to pay the "tax". It's a fee levied on the providers of lines. Tell your provider you don't want to pay it. Problem solved.
Short answer is "as long as you meet restrictions on delivery, you can qualify". The pie is getting larger, but the number of "diners" is increasing even faster. As scoove said, there are lots of people interested in chasing the "easy money".
Your choice to live in a area with high cost housing also brings the choice of working someplace that will allow you to make enough to cover your expenses. Let's look at the census data for Alaska for 2000. Wow, it sure paints a rosy picture:
Less than 9 percent unemployment, only 60,000 people living below the poverty level (only 32 thousand if you only count 18 and older), out of an over 16 population of around 460,000. That's pretty good odds. Whoops. Those percentages are of people in the labor force. Nearly 29% of the Alaskan population OVER 16 is excluded from the labor force. Care to guess why? There are NO JOBS IN THE BUSH. Certainly none that would pay enough to afford your living quarters. At least not until internet in the sticks is reliable and pervasive enough to allow telecommuting...
I don't wish to come off as an ass, and I sincerely hope that I didn't offend you.
Did you have AP courses where you grew up? They only way that could happen is economies of scale. You can bet your bottom dollar that in a village of 200 (or 500 or 1000) there aren't going to be enough students to justify an AP corriculum. Now give them internet access, and they can take distance learning courses. High school students can get a jump on college.
It's not guaranteed to happen, but what investment gives guaranteed results?
How about the offspring of those people? Yeah, I hate to say "think of the children", but really. Why should they be limited by the choices their parents make? Shouldn't they have access to the courses available across the internet? Shouldn't the rural clinics have the ability to tele-conference (or at least trace hi-res pictures) with specializing hospitals?
I certainly see your point (and agree with it for the most part). I just think that there might be less choice than you may realize.
Have you tried getting a job lately? How many jobs can you get without SOME knowledgo of computers? How are you going to get that computer knowledge in a rural village of 200 people? Books?
Wouldn't it be nice if you had an internet connection, and could attend some distance learning courses?
Say you do have that leg caught in a thresher. Wouldn't it be nice if your local clinic could comunicate (via video phone, or at least sending some hi-res pictures) with a hospital that specialized in tramatic limb injury?
And how are the rural dwellers going to make money to pay this fee? There's no Corporations to employ them. No Walmart for them to get jobs as greeters. Look up "subsistence lifestyle". Most of your food comes from hunting and gathering.
Just because your parents choose to live like this, should you be penalized? How is a rural kid going to get a job in the "civilized" world without some experience with computers and the internet? How would they apply for scholorships and college?
You aren't thinking rural enough. Try rural New Mexico, or Montana, or (best example) Alaska.
It's called tele-health. Video teleconferencing so you can have one doctor covering a few hundred (or thousand) square miles. Internect connections fast enough to send X-Ray scans and digital pictures. Telephones so you can confer with specialists.
It's not about paying for the medical workers or supplies. Hope this doesn't come across too short and/or abrasive. There's a lot of misinformation, and I'm spreading myself thin...
Think about shopping at Costco in a big city. You get low prices because you buy in bulk. Now think about shopping at a small general store out in the sticks. Their costs are more (both for buying smaller quantities, and for the extra transport costs), so the charge more.
Telephone (and internet) service are very similar. In a large city you can "buy" access in bulk, and pass the savings on to your customers. The infrastructure (fiber optics, copper pair) is also already laid out.
In rural communities, you still need a pedistle, but it might only serve one or two houses instead of twenty or a hundred. The really rural communities (look at a map of Alaska some time) have to be served by sattelite. That's even more expensive.
Thank you. I noticed that myself on my second viewing. To me it looked like the computer was already logged in, and all that Trinity did was type in the shutdown command. Then again, I haven't "obtained" Reloaded, and have only my memory to go on.:o)
Do the owners of the music lose it after you steal it? if not, it's not stealing.
Maybe not -- but if you deprive them of the income they might otherwise have earned by way of sales -- there's a case to argue that piracy is a theft of money even if it's not the theft of music itself.
Then be honest and call it "Theft of potential revenue".
This rant is not aimed at you. It's aimed at those who continue to defend the practice of calling it stealing music. It's not STEALING MUSIC. The music is still there. It's copyright infringement. *sigh*
Here's a better (though fictional) analogy. I'm a machinist. I make gears. I don't get paid for the time that it takes me to make a gear, I get paid for the final result. Let's also state there exists a replicator that can take a physical object and duplicate it effortlessly and at negligible cost. I'm going to get paid for the first gear of any ssize/style (and some percentage of the following gears that I duplicate from those people who are honest enough to buy from me). I would love it if I could make one gear and retire on the royalties, but I can't. I have to continue to make new gears to get paid. Boo-hoo.
If you designed the gear you should get royalities for your research and development. If not, then I suggest you have a talk with your employer.
Although it may seem like it with todays music scene, music is not a manufactured product that joe-six-pack can produce at will for $8 an hour. It takes a little more effort to make music then to pull a lever on some gear machine. What makes an artist different is that they have skills above that of you, me and the rest of average society.
Being a neurosurgeon is not something that any joe-six-pack can do either. They don't make royalties. How about writing software? Do you think that Microsoft employees make royalties on their work? Now it would be easy to make jokes and say that joe-six-pack could write better code, but that would just be avoiding the argument.
Yeah pulling a lever on a machine that makes gears is simple. Designing and implementing said machine is where the real skill takes place. But the engineer/mechanic who designed the machine certainly doesn't get royalties on every one sold.
What makes artist different is not that they have "better" skills. They just have a different compensation model.
Slashdot Mirror
Go figure. I always thought that a locality was responsible for paying for their own educational expenses (through property taxes and the odd lottery). *shrug*
It's much easier to convey mathematical formulas on a blackboard (or a white board) and relay that via a VTC vs. typing such notations using a keyboard. NASA also has a (canned, sadly) presentation that involves a fair amount of video. OTOH, less than two months ago one of the schools that I deal with had a live conference with the ISS. That was pretty wild. The kids have talked with zookeepers in San Diego, and forest service personnel in Montana. Face to face (sort of). Some very neat opportunities.
Amen to that. I'd hate for it to be lumped under "miscellaneous fees" though...
I certainly concur. Thanks.
Sorry to come across so heavy handed. I am (at least partly) a product of my environment. If my parents had not been as loving as they were, I would not be the person I am today. I am affected by my parents choices (though I can hardly be said to suffer).
I was just trying to state that in this instance there is a way to make the playing field a litte more equal between those who live in urban environments and those that don't. I work for a company that takes advantage of the USF and I see benefits to the communities we serve on a daily basis.
Obviously my perspective is massivly skewed to the "pro" side. It helps pay my salary and I see direct positive results.
Where do you get the notion that federal money is used to subsidize teachers? That's news to me. The teacher that taught my AP course did nothing but. In addition, I am under the impression that teaching in college has higher requirements. If my understanding is skewed (AP teachers are more "learned" than elementary through high school teachers) then my argument is flawed.
I do. There are classes of three or four kids at a school (sometimes less) who can get together with other kids from their district and a teacher from out of state on a weekly (or daily) basis, and learn topics that would be completly out of reach for them otherwise. I see the benefit every week.
I don't see it as a replacement (not that you are saying that I do) but as a teaching aid. Personally I think that the current schooling system is a farce, and promotes a dislike of learning, but that is neither here nor there.
We've also seen the last generation of people who can use a slide rule. The world hasn't ended...
Nope. The Federal Subsciber Line Charge is for maintenence of the local copper. The Federal Government doesn't see a dime of this. The Universal Service Fee (what this article was about) is described in more detail here.
I doubt it. There are fewer and fewer without the ability to contract affordable internet accesss. That's what the USF is (in the most altruistic, Robin Hood sense) supposed to do.
My highschool (not classified as rural) also had 1500 students. Most of the schools that I work with don't have 500 students. Total. Across all the grades. Rural, but not rural enough.
That's wonderful. Really it is. But, I would be willing to bet there were federal grants subsidizing the salaries of some (if not all) of the rural AP teachers.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that location had any bearing on ability. I've met some teachers in Rural Alaska that are really doing it for the love of teaching, and are VERY good at what they do. Then again there are teachers in Anchorage who are little more than glorified baby-sitters. The opposite is, of course, true.
That's not what I asked. I asked if you could see benefit to it. Besides, email and IM require internet access. At a bare minimum that requires a phone line. If that phone line is not affordable...
You had fellow students to collaborate with. Your high school had more students than a majority of the Alaskan Villages have PEOPLE.
I choose to use Alaska as an example, because it is my home. I'm sure that these cases relate to other places around the USA.
I wonder if he has tried using his cellular phone across the US. All 50 states of it. Let's see. He must be a real world traveler to be such an authority on the state of the cellular network.
Or not. I wonder if he has ever even left the East Coast? Verizon's commercials are cute and all, but they don't reflect reality. And I quote:
And not even the whole of the CONUS is shaded! Yeah. Cellular service is the perfect replacement for land lines. Idiot.
See here and here.
Short answer is it's not about paying for the medical workers or supplies, but paying for infrastructure to allow remote diagnosis and collaboration.
How rural (i.e. how many students)? How common do you think your situation was (what percentage of rural schools offered/offer AP courses)? Do you think there are enough teachers capable of providing an AP curriculum for all of the rural communities? Can you see how it would be better for a group of AP students to be able to get together (through email, IM and even video teleconferencing) and collaborate?
Let me guess... You liked it that way.
Point taken.
Think of it this way. For any of those other examples, there are programs (government and otherwise) in place to help them out. There is foster care for the parent less (as crappy as that is, it's likely better than living on the street), scholarships and student loans for the non-well-off, libraries (with internet access) for everyone.
*shrug* I certainly don't have all the answers, but I think that the prisoners dilemma applies here.
No argument there. I'm not happy with either a rate increase or the possibility of having my cable modem "taxed". The process could be so much better, but that would take effort. And effort costs money.
The money doesn't go to helping a farmer who can't afford a $30/month phone bill, it's/(should be) going torwards making sure that farmer doesn't have to worry about affording a $130/month phone bill.
The current system DOES do that. Unfortunately that's not all it does...
Do you really think that your insurance payment goes to the well being of people not affiliated with your insurance company? That payment subsidizes workers comp. claims by other people covered by the same insurance provider. It has no bearing on providing health care to remote locations.
How does equivalent phone service equate to larger homes?
How about looking at how the more expensive living costs relate to the larger opportunities to make money? More expensive phone services don't correlate to high paying areas.
Fsck the third world countries. They would dig themselves out if they really wanted to. Fsck the rural communities. If they wanted modern conveniences like telephone and internet they would move to the cities like us civilized people.
BTW, you don't have to pay the "tax". It's a fee levied on the providers of lines. Tell your provider you don't want to pay it. Problem solved.
More information on the Universal Service Fund can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/welcome.h tml.
Short answer is "as long as you meet restrictions on delivery, you can qualify". The pie is getting larger, but the number of "diners" is increasing even faster. As scoove said, there are lots of people interested in chasing the "easy money".
Your choice to live in a area with high cost housing also brings the choice of working someplace that will allow you to make enough to cover your expenses. Let's look at the census data for Alaska for 2000. Wow, it sure paints a rosy picture:
Less than 9 percent unemployment, only 60,000 people living below the poverty level (only 32 thousand if you only count 18 and older), out of an over 16 population of around 460,000. That's pretty good odds. Whoops. Those percentages are of people in the labor force. Nearly 29% of the Alaskan population OVER 16 is excluded from the labor force. Care to guess why? There are NO JOBS IN THE BUSH. Certainly none that would pay enough to afford your living quarters. At least not until internet in the sticks is reliable and pervasive enough to allow telecommuting...
I don't wish to come off as an ass, and I sincerely hope that I didn't offend you.
They don't.
What does a third grader need with school?
They don't.
What does a sixth grader need with internet?
They don't.
Did you have AP courses where you grew up? They only way that could happen is economies of scale. You can bet your bottom dollar that in a village of 200 (or 500 or 1000) there aren't going to be enough students to justify an AP corriculum. Now give them internet access, and they can take distance learning courses. High school students can get a jump on college.
It's not guaranteed to happen, but what investment gives guaranteed results?
How about the offspring of those people? Yeah, I hate to say "think of the children", but really. Why should they be limited by the choices their parents make? Shouldn't they have access to the courses available across the internet? Shouldn't the rural clinics have the ability to tele-conference (or at least trace hi-res pictures) with specializing hospitals?
I certainly see your point (and agree with it for the most part). I just think that there might be less choice than you may realize.
Have you tried getting a job lately? How many jobs can you get without SOME knowledgo of computers? How are you going to get that computer knowledge in a rural village of 200 people? Books?
Wouldn't it be nice if you had an internet connection, and could attend some distance learning courses?
Say you do have that leg caught in a thresher. Wouldn't it be nice if your local clinic could comunicate (via video phone, or at least sending some hi-res pictures) with a hospital that specialized in tramatic limb injury?
Perhaps not.
And how are the rural dwellers going to make money to pay this fee? There's no Corporations to employ them. No Walmart for them to get jobs as greeters. Look up "subsistence lifestyle". Most of your food comes from hunting and gathering.
Just because your parents choose to live like this, should you be penalized? How is a rural kid going to get a job in the "civilized" world without some experience with computers and the internet? How would they apply for scholorships and college?
You aren't thinking rural enough. Try rural New Mexico, or Montana, or (best example) Alaska.
It's called tele-health. Video teleconferencing so you can have one doctor covering a few hundred (or thousand) square miles. Internect connections fast enough to send X-Ray scans and digital pictures. Telephones so you can confer with specialists.
It's not about paying for the medical workers or supplies. Hope this doesn't come across too short and/or abrasive. There's a lot of misinformation, and I'm spreading myself thin...
Think about shopping at Costco in a big city. You get low prices because you buy in bulk. Now think about shopping at a small general store out in the sticks. Their costs are more (both for buying smaller quantities, and for the extra transport costs), so the charge more.
Telephone (and internet) service are very similar. In a large city you can "buy" access in bulk, and pass the savings on to your customers. The infrastructure (fiber optics, copper pair) is also already laid out.
In rural communities, you still need a pedistle, but it might only serve one or two houses instead of twenty or a hundred. The really rural communities (look at a map of Alaska some time) have to be served by sattelite. That's even more expensive.
Was?
Thank you. I noticed that myself on my second viewing. To me it looked like the computer was already logged in, and all that Trinity did was type in the shutdown command. Then again, I haven't "obtained" Reloaded, and have only my memory to go on. :o)
If the images were taken by someone watching the movie at their leisure, they would have realized that TRINITY DID NOT CRACK THE COMPUTER!
She arrived after the first crew had died (due to mitigating circumstances in the "real" world) and sat down at a computer that was already logged in.
Watch it again, and you'll see that I'm right. Give credit where it's due. The first crew cracked the box. Trinity just ran the shutdown command.
P.S. So how do you include 'fake' tags with less-then, greater-then signs in /. messages anyway?
> and <
< >
Then be honest and call it "Theft of potential revenue".
This rant is not aimed at you. It's aimed at those who continue to defend the practice of calling it stealing music. It's not STEALING MUSIC. The music is still there. It's copyright infringement. *sigh*
Being a neurosurgeon is not something that any joe-six-pack can do either. They don't make royalties. How about writing software? Do you think that Microsoft employees make royalties on their work? Now it would be easy to make jokes and say that joe-six-pack could write better code, but that would just be avoiding the argument.
Yeah pulling a lever on a machine that makes gears is simple. Designing and implementing said machine is where the real skill takes place. But the engineer/mechanic who designed the machine certainly doesn't get royalties on every one sold.
What makes artist different is not that they have "better" skills. They just have a different compensation model.