"Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote."
You're going to be ripped all to hell for saying that, but you're not the only one thinking it. I've seen that topic come up from both the left and right. Heinlein had his ideas that citizenship was something that should be earned, and I can see some merit to that. I certainly don't think most Americans appreciate their citizenship or take it seriously. And it's not like America, the world's oldest continuous democratic republic, hasn't had ideas on the limits of suffrage either. The Founders basically thought those who owned the country should run it... property owners... because they'd care more about it than someone who owned nothing and had nothing to lose. At the very least I'm open to reversing the 17th Amendment, as the direct election of Senators only resulted in them becoming Congressmen with longer terms. After the health care debate in the Senate, where votes were literally bought with hundreds of millions of tax dollars, it's pretty apparent that they're just as prone to sell themselves as any member of the House.
I'm not going to support pulling suffrage for anyone, but I've gotten to the point to where I no longer pester people about "doing their patriotic duty" and voting. If they don't give a damn about the elections, I leave well enough alone now. I've come to the conclusion that if you don't care enough to find out about candidates and investigate their positions on the issues, then it's probably best that you don't vote anyway. If you really don't care, do your country a favor and stay home on election day, and leave it to those that give a damn.
Uniforms are a clear marker of a corporate culture going down the tubes.
Yeah, UPS and FedEx have realy hit the skids since they adopted uniforms. They'll be going under any day now.
Lets be honest. What bugs people about this isn't individuality, but professional pride. A uniforms says you're a blue collar worker. Skilled, necessary, but not on the same level as the accountant. Well, that's IT now. It's a utility service, unless you're a programmer or project manager. The help desk guys are the equivalent of phone company types that come to troubleshoot why you don't have a dial tone. The days where "working in computers" guaranteed you a prominent place in the company are long gone. IT truly is a commodity now, in terms of services.
Boring and Predictable is what IT is now. We're in a mature period, where very little is actually revolutionary. "Game Changer" depends on public viewpoint and impact, and in that regard, I'd say the last real game changer was the iPhone, and that was years ago.
"(1) the aircraft had not landed so this was not an attack "on American soil;""
Under US law, it was similar, though. Much like attacking a US flagged ship at sea.
"(2) the nutjob at Ft. Hood had been open and clear that he did not want to be deployed - to the extent of trying to buy his way out of the service. This is not terrorism - it is a mass murder by a man who should have been identified and stopped well before the Ft.Hood shooting."
The nutjob at Ft. Hood didn't want to be deployed because he became sympathetic to the enemies US troops are fighting. He was in regular contact with jihadist groups in the months leading up to the attack, and even wanted to have some of his own patients tried for war crimes. The man cried out "Allahu Akbhar" before he mowed down his fellow soldiers. Admit it or not, this was terrorism. He certainly thought it was.
(3) Your thinly veiled indictment of the changed political culture of the USA now requires that you be outed as the Glen Beck puppet that you are."
And does your silly screed make you a puppet of Micheal Moore and the like?
Wich there was none of before they were "discovered"
If you honestly think Africa was a land of "noble savages", where peace and cooperation was the norm before the white man arrived, then I'm not sure anything will sway you otherwise, but historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists would disagree. Africans are human, and like all humans, they have their history of inhumanity to each other. Cannibalism is overblown... its actually very rare... but it does exist, and has been practiced in Africa as long as people have been in Africa. Meeting white men did indeed open up new cans of worms, but don't pretend that the place was Eden before whitey got there.
What exactly are your prerequisites for a manned mission then?
My concerns here about manned exploration are twofold:
One, unless we're going to build a real, permanent base on the moon, and actually keep men there for extended periods of time, then we shouldn't be going back to the moon right now. It'd be a waste, and nothing more than reliving old glories without breaching new frontiers. And with declining budgets, if we actually did go back to the moon, we wouldn't stay. Again, it would essentialy be doing it just to say that we still could. A waste. So the first argument is about needless waste of funds.
Two, as far as the other oft-proposed trip... to Mars... we shouldn't do it because of cost, but mostly, because the technology just isn't there. Specifically, we're lacking a way to keep astronauts fed and healthy for the very long trip. Suspended animation is still science fiction at this point, so unless a true breakthrough in space travel speed is found, we currently have no way to send a bunch of men on a months-long journey to another planet and back, at least not in a manner that we can afford.
The asteroid mission right now is the only place we can actually land a man involving fairly short distances, and with the virtue of it being real exploration, literally where no man has gone before.
This idea is beyond awesome. Sending a "ship" to sail the seas of another world. And the price... $400 million... is uber-cheap in the world of space exploration.
Unless we can send a man to a near-Earth asteroid, this is the kind of exploration NASA should be doing... not manned attempts at Mars. Not yet.
Aluminum is also pretty scary stuff. There are major issues with corrosion. Aluminum has some very funky physical properties compared to other metals. It has zero stress endurance which means that parts WILL crack eventually if they are not replaced regularly.
The difference in the public mind is that aluminum in large scale aircraft construction is a known quantity. We've been doing it for decades, and the risks are considered acceptable. Composites have never been used on this scale with a civilian airliner this size. Burt Rutan making some experimental aircraft is one thing; making an airliner out of the stuff is pioneering territory. The Dreamliner is the first of its kind, after all. In practical terms, many people will be wary of the 787 until they've seen it carry other people several times. That's the way the human mind works.
Why? Be specific, list computer modeling you have done, as well as any weakness in the chemical compounds. Please link to appropriate chemical analysis
What's that? you can't do that? STFU.
He doesn't have to. Boeing themselves had admitted to some fairly serious issues with cracking in the airframe and wings, cracking that their computer models didn't predict. We're talking about an airplane in which major sections are literally baked together in a kind of giant oven. People have every right to be concerned about this aircraft until Boeing has proved that it's safe. From finance, to climate, to aircraft design, we seem to be relying too much on computer models, and in every case, it's bitten us in the ass. Computer models are a necessary tool, but aren't the panacea you seem to think they are.
I'm pretty skeptical about many of the miraculous so-called "green energy" projects that abound. But if you don't even try them, then how will you know whether or not they'll work? This seems like a message to innovators and inventors; yeah, we want your new technologies, but if you screw up, you go to jail.
That is so weird. You don't associate walking with an octopus, but that's exactly what it did... tuck the shell under it's body, and then scamper across the seabed using its tentacles like legs.
But the ultimate goal is to send humans into space not robots.
Sending humans into space isn't the problem. We've been doing that for years. The problem is in sending humans on long distance trips into space. And no rocket program is going to solve the problems inherent in that enterprise: the sheer length of time it takes to travel. No matter what rocket we come up with, until we learn to travel a lot faster, we've got the seemingly intractable problems of keeping astronauts healthy, fed, and supplied in long distance trips. If you're really that concerned about long range manned travel, then I'd suggest concentrating on human suspended animation technologies, not rockets. The rockets we have could get them to Mars just fine. Getting them there and back without starving or physically wasting away is the problem, not the rockets.
Sun doesn't give a damn about MySQL. They can't make any real money off of it. They're buying Sun for a song, so the $1 Billion price tag for MySQL is meaningless; that's essentially sunk costs that Sun had to eat prior to Oracle coming onboard. Larry Ellison wants Sun's SPARC and Solaris technologies, as well as the input on Java development. And I'm actually excited about that, because I got tired of Sun pissing away their greatest assets. I think Ellison might revitalize the Sun enterprise the way Steve Jobs revitalized Apple. Vertical integration seems to be making a comeback (for a variety of good reasons) after years of outsourcing. So I don't see Oracle jeopardizing this deal over MySQL. Ellison would probably just as happily give the damn thing away to a foundation. Spin it off and be done with it, and get to work improving SPARC and Oracle's DB business packages.
Open Source has nothing to do with who is behind it. Open Source is a binary thing; either the source code is open or it isn't. MySQL is GPL'd, and so it meets the definition.
From the crappy pic at AviationLeak, it looks like it may be an outgrowth of the X-45 development bird.
It looks more like the Navy's X-47B, which is also a tailless flying wing. The Navy and NG have been very open about the program, so perhaps that's another reason why USAF felt they didn't have to hide the Sentinel anymore.
Any ideas on why they need such a secret and stealthy UAV in Afghanistan for? Obviously they weren't too worried about it if this Bill Sweetman guy was able to see it at the Kandahar International Airport.
One, Sweetman didn't discover it in the field. He was likely first alerted to it when someone sent him the grainy photos of the bird in flight. He's probably the most prominent miltary aviation journalist in the world, so people come to him when they think they've found something secret.
As to why it's in Afghanistan, that was a puzzle to me to at first, but some very good (and intriguing) theories have come up about it. For one, some note that not everyone in the Pakistani military is reliable in the Afghan war; there's a good chance some members are feeding intel to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's been suggested that since we've become very dependent on sending Predators and Reapers to hunt the Taliban in the desert, perhaps we don't completely trust Pakistani radar operators anymore. Perhaps we think they're sending what they know to the very people we're hunting.
Another, even more intriguing possibility, is that China is right next door. And considering the luck we've had with conventional intel aircraft monitoring China, perhaps this is our way of keeping an eye on the growing Dragon. However, if we're actually penetrating Chinese airspace, then we're playing a very dangerous, Gary Powers-like game.
I believe the point is that our military is overkill compared with just about any military force on the planet.
And while there are valid questions about the cost of our forces... an issue I raise a lot... that's just the way we like it.
"Our joint forces don't want a fair fight," he said. "We want every fight we enter to be patently unfair - to the other guy." - Major Jack Miller, USAF, during Red Flag exercises
I follow defense technology closely, and while I'm a critic of many new defense programs... I think the F-35 is becoming an overpriced boondoggle, for instance... I'm a firm believer that the US has to maintain a level of technology superior to its adversaries. You never want to go into an even fight. You want to be better in every way to the guy opposing you on the battlefield. That requires constant research. If you sit still, others pass you up.
Yes, but it seems to be a one way street? Remember the US air force pilot that killed 20 people when cutting the cables of a cable car in Italy, some years ago?
Iirc they wanted him extradited to Italy, but that was a no go. He was tried in the US and the jury found him "not guilty".
Because the pilot's accident occurred during military exercises, and he was in Italy as a member of a NATO force at an Italian base, all arranged by treaty between the nations involved. Italy couldn't try them because of NATO treaties. It's the responsibility of their own military branch (in this case, the USMC) to do so. They were court martialed on charges of negligence and dereliction of duty and were found innocent. However, the pilot had to do six months and was kicked out of the Marines, not because of the accident itself... it was just that, an accident during military exercises. He was found guilty in a court martial because he destroyed evidence in the case.
Regardless, that's why he wasn't extradited. This young man did the things he's charged with completely of his own volition, and he's a civilian. And so he falls under his country's extradition treaties with the US. This isn't unusual. Most first world countries have extradition treaties with each other for criminal activities. This guy is no exception, and his lawyer will quickly discover that there's no exception for Aspergers.
I think one problem with modern society, not just modern education, is that we've stopped teaching a basic truth to our kids: life is hard. That's why I put it in my sig. We too often forget that no matter how much technology increases or how good the economy is, life is essentially hard. That doesn't meant that life can't be good... it is what you make it... but life means work if you want to get anywhere, and work is usually boring, even if you're in a field that you enjoy. You're never going to completely eliminate drudgery and unpleasant work. That's just life. And too often our kids, and even our adults, don't know this, or choose to pretend it isn't true.
If you really want to improve education, include this lesson for kids: Life is hard, and it isn't fair. But it's better if you work hard.
I'll readily agree with you that we have some lousy teachers, but the problems go far beyond them. Unions sink any disruptive reform that threatens their status or wealth, for instance. But there are deep structural problems with our very method of education, starting with the education major itself in colleges. We should frankly chuck education degrees for junior high and high school teaching. And there's no getting around the fact that education majors in most colleges are almost always from the lowest tier of ACT/SAT scores. We could debate all day about the virtues and vices of government involvement in education.
But equally as big is the problem of students and their parents. Frankly, lots of people simply don't care about schooling. Many parents see school mainly as a place to get rid of their kids for 7 hours a day. Most kids see school as a chore to be endured, from one degree to another.
Look at countries like Finland, where they spend less per pupil and less on facilities than we do. Their kids spend fewer days in school per year and fewer hours in class per day, and fewer years in what we would call the K-12 system. And yet they outgain US kids in all phases of standardized testing. Why? Simply put, there's a culture of responsibility.
Until we find a way to change attitudes among parents and kids, all of the money and legislation in the world won't make a difference.
Way to troll, I had several PHDs teaching me through my education. Three in High School and one in middle school.
I'd bet your experience is the exception to the rule. I had football coaches teaching classes in "health" and geography. I knew more about geography and foreign cultures than my teacher did. I worked with a retired teacher whose background was in music, and was assigned to teach computing classes. He admitted to me that he knew nothing about computers, and basically just took roll and let the kids do whatever they wanted with the PC's. Most schools are not filled with overqualified teachers bursting with knowledge and experience. Most schools are filled with education majors that were among the lowest achievers in college, protected by a teacher's union that views public education as one massive full employment program for their members.
Roosevelt's failure was that he actually thought utopia was possible. Only four years after WWII, the Soviet Union... one of the Security Council members... was bankrolling and assisting a campaign of conquest in Asia, starting with Korea.
The reason why utopias do not work, and can never work, is their ignorance of human nature. You can't change it, and you can't get rid of it, and in governments, national policies are the instruments of human nature. You can no more "eliminate" war than you can eliminate any other force of nature. You can only do your best to be prepared for it.
they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing
What? The nerve! Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.
You can still help with the child rearing without being a total wuss puss. I change diapers if my wife is busy, and help with laundry, and have taken to fixing dinner sometimes (which my wife really appreciates). But families still need fathers to be men, not androgynous daddy mommies. The need for males isn't just a cultural construction, it's also a biological need... see This is your brain without Dad. There are benefits to having masculine fathers at home far beyond simple cultural norms.
"Instead, it's our neglect of education. Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals."
We certainly have some problems with education in the USA. Funding and salaries are not among them, however. Indeed, in the most of the richest states in the US, there seems to be almost an inverse relationship between per-pupil funding, and SAT scores. When you compare the states on this price/performance scale, all of the top ten states are in the deep south, or the mountain west states. And while no one is getting rich teaching public schools, the meme of the starving teacher is largely a myth, at least in most states. The American Federation of Teachers' own stats show that the average K-12 salary in the US is $47,602.
Now, I have no idea what's involved with teacher training and education in Europe. But I do know that most American teachers have degrees in education, a field that attracts the very bottom of the barrel in each college class. I'm firmly onboard the movement to eliminate the education major for junior high and high school teaching, and to require that teachers have a degree in their field. Football coaches shouldn't be teaching geography or math unless they have a degree in it. The current system produces cogs in a machine that aren't very well educated themselves, let alone well equipped to educate anyone else. There are driven, outstanding teachers, but there are more cogs just going through the system for thirty years until they draw retirement. I don't know how easy it is to fire a bad teacher in Europe, but in the US it's damn near impossible if misconduct isn't involved.
Slashdot Mirror
"Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote."
You're going to be ripped all to hell for saying that, but you're not the only one thinking it. I've seen that topic come up from both the left and right. Heinlein had his ideas that citizenship was something that should be earned, and I can see some merit to that. I certainly don't think most Americans appreciate their citizenship or take it seriously. And it's not like America, the world's oldest continuous democratic republic, hasn't had ideas on the limits of suffrage either. The Founders basically thought those who owned the country should run it... property owners... because they'd care more about it than someone who owned nothing and had nothing to lose. At the very least I'm open to reversing the 17th Amendment, as the direct election of Senators only resulted in them becoming Congressmen with longer terms. After the health care debate in the Senate, where votes were literally bought with hundreds of millions of tax dollars, it's pretty apparent that they're just as prone to sell themselves as any member of the House.
I'm not going to support pulling suffrage for anyone, but I've gotten to the point to where I no longer pester people about "doing their patriotic duty" and voting. If they don't give a damn about the elections, I leave well enough alone now. I've come to the conclusion that if you don't care enough to find out about candidates and investigate their positions on the issues, then it's probably best that you don't vote anyway. If you really don't care, do your country a favor and stay home on election day, and leave it to those that give a damn.
Uniforms are a clear marker of a corporate culture going down the tubes.
Yeah, UPS and FedEx have realy hit the skids since they adopted uniforms. They'll be going under any day now.
Lets be honest. What bugs people about this isn't individuality, but professional pride. A uniforms says you're a blue collar worker. Skilled, necessary, but not on the same level as the accountant. Well, that's IT now. It's a utility service, unless you're a programmer or project manager. The help desk guys are the equivalent of phone company types that come to troubleshoot why you don't have a dial tone. The days where "working in computers" guaranteed you a prominent place in the company are long gone. IT truly is a commodity now, in terms of services.
Boring and Predictable is what IT is now. We're in a mature period, where very little is actually revolutionary. "Game Changer" depends on public viewpoint and impact, and in that regard, I'd say the last real game changer was the iPhone, and that was years ago.
"(1) the aircraft had not landed so this was not an attack "on American soil;""
Under US law, it was similar, though. Much like attacking a US flagged ship at sea.
"(2) the nutjob at Ft. Hood had been open and clear that he did not want to be deployed - to the extent of trying to buy his way out of the service. This is not terrorism - it is a mass murder by a man who should have been identified and stopped well before the Ft.Hood shooting."
The nutjob at Ft. Hood didn't want to be deployed because he became sympathetic to the enemies US troops are fighting. He was in regular contact with jihadist groups in the months leading up to the attack, and even wanted to have some of his own patients tried for war crimes. The man cried out "Allahu Akbhar" before he mowed down his fellow soldiers. Admit it or not, this was terrorism. He certainly thought it was.
(3) Your thinly veiled indictment of the changed political culture of the USA now requires that you be outed as the Glen Beck puppet that you are."
And does your silly screed make you a puppet of Micheal Moore and the like?
Wich there was none of before they were "discovered"
If you honestly think Africa was a land of "noble savages", where peace and cooperation was the norm before the white man arrived, then I'm not sure anything will sway you otherwise, but historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists would disagree. Africans are human, and like all humans, they have their history of inhumanity to each other. Cannibalism is overblown... its actually very rare... but it does exist, and has been practiced in Africa as long as people have been in Africa. Meeting white men did indeed open up new cans of worms, but don't pretend that the place was Eden before whitey got there.
What exactly are your prerequisites for a manned mission then?
My concerns here about manned exploration are twofold:
One, unless we're going to build a real, permanent base on the moon, and actually keep men there for extended periods of time, then we shouldn't be going back to the moon right now. It'd be a waste, and nothing more than reliving old glories without breaching new frontiers. And with declining budgets, if we actually did go back to the moon, we wouldn't stay. Again, it would essentialy be doing it just to say that we still could. A waste. So the first argument is about needless waste of funds.
Two, as far as the other oft-proposed trip... to Mars... we shouldn't do it because of cost, but mostly, because the technology just isn't there. Specifically, we're lacking a way to keep astronauts fed and healthy for the very long trip. Suspended animation is still science fiction at this point, so unless a true breakthrough in space travel speed is found, we currently have no way to send a bunch of men on a months-long journey to another planet and back, at least not in a manner that we can afford.
The asteroid mission right now is the only place we can actually land a man involving fairly short distances, and with the virtue of it being real exploration, literally where no man has gone before.
This idea is beyond awesome. Sending a "ship" to sail the seas of another world. And the price... $400 million... is uber-cheap in the world of space exploration.
Unless we can send a man to a near-Earth asteroid, this is the kind of exploration NASA should be doing... not manned attempts at Mars. Not yet.
Aluminum is also pretty scary stuff. There are major issues with corrosion. Aluminum has some very funky physical properties compared to other metals. It has zero stress endurance which means that parts WILL crack eventually if they are not replaced regularly.
The difference in the public mind is that aluminum in large scale aircraft construction is a known quantity. We've been doing it for decades, and the risks are considered acceptable. Composites have never been used on this scale with a civilian airliner this size. Burt Rutan making some experimental aircraft is one thing; making an airliner out of the stuff is pioneering territory. The Dreamliner is the first of its kind, after all. In practical terms, many people will be wary of the 787 until they've seen it carry other people several times. That's the way the human mind works.
Why?
Be specific, list computer modeling you have done, as well as any weakness in the chemical compounds. Please link to appropriate chemical analysis
What's that? you can't do that? STFU.
He doesn't have to. Boeing themselves had admitted to some fairly serious issues with cracking in the airframe and wings, cracking that their computer models didn't predict. We're talking about an airplane in which major sections are literally baked together in a kind of giant oven. People have every right to be concerned about this aircraft until Boeing has proved that it's safe. From finance, to climate, to aircraft design, we seem to be relying too much on computer models, and in every case, it's bitten us in the ass. Computer models are a necessary tool, but aren't the panacea you seem to think they are.
I'm pretty skeptical about many of the miraculous so-called "green energy" projects that abound. But if you don't even try them, then how will you know whether or not they'll work? This seems like a message to innovators and inventors; yeah, we want your new technologies, but if you screw up, you go to jail.
That is so weird. You don't associate walking with an octopus, but that's exactly what it did... tuck the shell under it's body, and then scamper across the seabed using its tentacles like legs.
But the ultimate goal is to send humans into space not robots.
Sending humans into space isn't the problem. We've been doing that for years. The problem is in sending humans on long distance trips into space. And no rocket program is going to solve the problems inherent in that enterprise: the sheer length of time it takes to travel. No matter what rocket we come up with, until we learn to travel a lot faster, we've got the seemingly intractable problems of keeping astronauts healthy, fed, and supplied in long distance trips. If you're really that concerned about long range manned travel, then I'd suggest concentrating on human suspended animation technologies, not rockets. The rockets we have could get them to Mars just fine. Getting them there and back without starving or physically wasting away is the problem, not the rockets.
Sun doesn't give a damn about MySQL. They can't make any real money off of it. They're buying Sun for a song, so the $1 Billion price tag for MySQL is meaningless; that's essentially sunk costs that Sun had to eat prior to Oracle coming onboard. Larry Ellison wants Sun's SPARC and Solaris technologies, as well as the input on Java development. And I'm actually excited about that, because I got tired of Sun pissing away their greatest assets. I think Ellison might revitalize the Sun enterprise the way Steve Jobs revitalized Apple. Vertical integration seems to be making a comeback (for a variety of good reasons) after years of outsourcing. So I don't see Oracle jeopardizing this deal over MySQL. Ellison would probably just as happily give the damn thing away to a foundation. Spin it off and be done with it, and get to work improving SPARC and Oracle's DB business packages.
Open Source has nothing to do with who is behind it. Open Source is a binary thing; either the source code is open or it isn't. MySQL is GPL'd, and so it meets the definition.
From the crappy pic at AviationLeak, it looks like it may be an outgrowth of the X-45 development bird.
It looks more like the Navy's X-47B, which is also a tailless flying wing. The Navy and NG have been very open about the program, so perhaps that's another reason why USAF felt they didn't have to hide the Sentinel anymore.
Any ideas on why they need such a secret and stealthy UAV in Afghanistan for? Obviously they weren't too worried about it if this Bill Sweetman guy was able to see it at the Kandahar International Airport.
One, Sweetman didn't discover it in the field. He was likely first alerted to it when someone sent him the grainy photos of the bird in flight. He's probably the most prominent miltary aviation journalist in the world, so people come to him when they think they've found something secret.
As to why it's in Afghanistan, that was a puzzle to me to at first, but some very good (and intriguing) theories have come up about it. For one, some note that not everyone in the Pakistani military is reliable in the Afghan war; there's a good chance some members are feeding intel to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's been suggested that since we've become very dependent on sending Predators and Reapers to hunt the Taliban in the desert, perhaps we don't completely trust Pakistani radar operators anymore. Perhaps we think they're sending what they know to the very people we're hunting.
Another, even more intriguing possibility, is that China is right next door. And considering the luck we've had with conventional intel aircraft monitoring China, perhaps this is our way of keeping an eye on the growing Dragon. However, if we're actually penetrating Chinese airspace, then we're playing a very dangerous, Gary Powers-like game.
I believe the point is that our military is overkill compared with just about any military force on the planet.
And while there are valid questions about the cost of our forces... an issue I raise a lot... that's just the way we like it.
I follow defense technology closely, and while I'm a critic of many new defense programs... I think the F-35 is becoming an overpriced boondoggle, for instance... I'm a firm believer that the US has to maintain a level of technology superior to its adversaries. You never want to go into an even fight. You want to be better in every way to the guy opposing you on the battlefield. That requires constant research. If you sit still, others pass you up.
Yes, but it seems to be a one way street? Remember the US air force pilot that killed 20 people when cutting the cables of a cable car in Italy, some years ago?
Iirc they wanted him extradited to Italy, but that was a no go. He was tried in the US and the jury found him "not guilty".
Because the pilot's accident occurred during military exercises, and he was in Italy as a member of a NATO force at an Italian base, all arranged by treaty between the nations involved. Italy couldn't try them because of NATO treaties. It's the responsibility of their own military branch (in this case, the USMC) to do so. They were court martialed on charges of negligence and dereliction of duty and were found innocent. However, the pilot had to do six months and was kicked out of the Marines, not because of the accident itself... it was just that, an accident during military exercises. He was found guilty in a court martial because he destroyed evidence in the case.
Regardless, that's why he wasn't extradited. This young man did the things he's charged with completely of his own volition, and he's a civilian. And so he falls under his country's extradition treaties with the US. This isn't unusual. Most first world countries have extradition treaties with each other for criminal activities. This guy is no exception, and his lawyer will quickly discover that there's no exception for Aspergers.
"That's when it stopped being fun."
I think one problem with modern society, not just modern education, is that we've stopped teaching a basic truth to our kids: life is hard. That's why I put it in my sig. We too often forget that no matter how much technology increases or how good the economy is, life is essentially hard. That doesn't meant that life can't be good... it is what you make it... but life means work if you want to get anywhere, and work is usually boring, even if you're in a field that you enjoy. You're never going to completely eliminate drudgery and unpleasant work. That's just life. And too often our kids, and even our adults, don't know this, or choose to pretend it isn't true.
If you really want to improve education, include this lesson for kids: Life is hard, and it isn't fair. But it's better if you work hard.
I'll readily agree with you that we have some lousy teachers, but the problems go far beyond them. Unions sink any disruptive reform that threatens their status or wealth, for instance. But there are deep structural problems with our very method of education, starting with the education major itself in colleges. We should frankly chuck education degrees for junior high and high school teaching. And there's no getting around the fact that education majors in most colleges are almost always from the lowest tier of ACT/SAT scores. We could debate all day about the virtues and vices of government involvement in education.
But equally as big is the problem of students and their parents. Frankly, lots of people simply don't care about schooling. Many parents see school mainly as a place to get rid of their kids for 7 hours a day. Most kids see school as a chore to be endured, from one degree to another.
Look at countries like Finland, where they spend less per pupil and less on facilities than we do. Their kids spend fewer days in school per year and fewer hours in class per day, and fewer years in what we would call the K-12 system. And yet they outgain US kids in all phases of standardized testing. Why? Simply put, there's a culture of responsibility.
Until we find a way to change attitudes among parents and kids, all of the money and legislation in the world won't make a difference.
Way to troll, I had several PHDs teaching me through my education. Three in High School and one in middle school.
I'd bet your experience is the exception to the rule. I had football coaches teaching classes in "health" and geography. I knew more about geography and foreign cultures than my teacher did. I worked with a retired teacher whose background was in music, and was assigned to teach computing classes. He admitted to me that he knew nothing about computers, and basically just took roll and let the kids do whatever they wanted with the PC's. Most schools are not filled with overqualified teachers bursting with knowledge and experience. Most schools are filled with education majors that were among the lowest achievers in college, protected by a teacher's union that views public education as one massive full employment program for their members.
Roosevelt's failure was that he actually thought utopia was possible. Only four years after WWII, the Soviet Union... one of the Security Council members... was bankrolling and assisting a campaign of conquest in Asia, starting with Korea.
The reason why utopias do not work, and can never work, is their ignorance of human nature. You can't change it, and you can't get rid of it, and in governments, national policies are the instruments of human nature. You can no more "eliminate" war than you can eliminate any other force of nature. You can only do your best to be prepared for it.
they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing
What? The nerve! Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.
You can still help with the child rearing without being a total wuss puss. I change diapers if my wife is busy, and help with laundry, and have taken to fixing dinner sometimes (which my wife really appreciates). But families still need fathers to be men, not androgynous daddy mommies. The need for males isn't just a cultural construction, it's also a biological need... see This is your brain without Dad. There are benefits to having masculine fathers at home far beyond simple cultural norms.
"Instead, it's our neglect of education. Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals."
We certainly have some problems with education in the USA. Funding and salaries are not among them, however. Indeed, in the most of the richest states in the US, there seems to be almost an inverse relationship between per-pupil funding, and SAT scores. When you compare the states on this price/performance scale, all of the top ten states are in the deep south, or the mountain west states. And while no one is getting rich teaching public schools, the meme of the starving teacher is largely a myth, at least in most states. The American Federation of Teachers' own stats show that the average K-12 salary in the US is $47,602.
Now, I have no idea what's involved with teacher training and education in Europe. But I do know that most American teachers have degrees in education, a field that attracts the very bottom of the barrel in each college class. I'm firmly onboard the movement to eliminate the education major for junior high and high school teaching, and to require that teachers have a degree in their field. Football coaches shouldn't be teaching geography or math unless they have a degree in it. The current system produces cogs in a machine that aren't very well educated themselves, let alone well equipped to educate anyone else. There are driven, outstanding teachers, but there are more cogs just going through the system for thirty years until they draw retirement. I don't know how easy it is to fire a bad teacher in Europe, but in the US it's damn near impossible if misconduct isn't involved.