If you're going to lump all the non-religious movements together, then you should do the same with the groups acting in support of some religious cause. Looking at it from that perspective, atheism per se has led to far less violence than religion.
Otherwise, if you want to classify the groups based on their actual motivation, then you should only count those who were killed in the name of atheism, or because of their non-atheistic beliefs. Political and social movements that just happen to have atheistic leaders should be grouped separately based on their goals. Again, the movements supporting specific religious beliefs and personality cults tend to dominate when it comes to violence, compared those populated by freethinkers.
Be happy. If pure market forces decided you'd have likely had to replace your TV's 4x as often.
And this assertion is based on what, exactly? Most video devices are still compatible with the earliest non-broadcast video standards (e.g. composite video) -- and will likely remain so long after analogue broadcast video dies out. Market standards tend to remain useful for a very long time once adopted. On the other hand, we have here an example of an adequate and widespread communication standard forcibly discarded as a result of a central organization unilaterally reassigning the required frequencies.
The government is banning nothing here.
Strictly speaking, the government is banning the broadcast of analogue video channels, with the result of making significant quantities of consumer electronics useless for their primary purpose without relatively expensive adaptation. (The converter box itself isn't the only cost to consider; there's also installation, increased complexity, retraining, loss of marginal signals, etc.)
Thing become obsolete over time. It's the nature of a device.
Sure, but analogue TV wasn't abandoned by broadcasters or viewers as obsolete; the frequencies reassigned through a change in regulations. The existing user of a resource was evicted, and new users put in place, by an organization that isn't the proper owner of the resource by homesteading or by contract. This is nothing like the case of a manufacturer simply discontinuing a product.
And the price is virtually non-existent. I can still buy a 50-pack of blank CD's for $20 at the local Staples, less if I go to somebody who actually specializes in computer gear.
In the US, without the levy, one can find 50-packs of decent (Memorex) CD-Rs for under $10. As I understand it, the levy itself is around $0.25 per disc, whereas without the levy CD-Rs often sell for about $0.20 per disc. Do you really consider a 100% markup "virtually non-existent"?
Fine; substitute "closest to optimal," or whatever phrase of equivalent meaning makes you happy. Don't pretend you didn't understand my intent.
I am fully aware that a rational choice -- sans qualifiers -- is the optimal one. My point is simply that while truly rational choices are rare, one can rate "irrational" choices by degree, rather than simply treating them as fully rational or fully irrational. In other words, while both overpaying for a good and jumping off a cliff (expecting to live) may be considered irrational acts, the former wouldn't typically cause as large a deviation from the model's predictions as the latter. This is important because people often act irrationally to some extent; if the model required perfectly rational decisions it would rarely apply to real life. In practice, however, most decisions come close to being rational, so the model remains a reasonable approximation of reality. (The same applies to the requirement for perfect information.)
As for the points about freedom and information, "Monnet" claimed not to understand what "homer_s" meant by saying that individuals have better information to base their own decisions on than others would have making those decisions for them. I clarified the point with specific examples. What's so hard to understand about that?
When people are rational most of the time, are reasonably informed, and have some freedom to buy/sell, market will work for the greater good. That's the theory.
I agree with you completely. However, your restatement of the assumptions here is closer to the definitions given by homer_s than to the binary conditions you originally stated. In the original form the conclusions wouldn't be very useful, since it is exceedingly rare for any group of individuals to simultaneously be perfectly rational, have perfect information, and be perfectly free to act.
Access to information is never perfect -- being subject to scarcity like all other goods
Really? That's a very peculiar statement to make in this day and age, and on this particular site.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that information is property, or should be treated as such. On the contrary, I am very much against copyright and related acts of legalized aggression. However, the acquisition and utilization of information requires effort -- labor -- and that labor is subject to the constraints of scarcity. It can even have a material cost (beyond that required to enable labor) in the form of testing apparatus, prototypes, etc. The cost of making decisions based on imperfect information must be weighed against the cost of acquiring better information.
I get it, you're a libertarian.
Yes, I am. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, whatever your opinion of libertarians may be. We're a fairly diverse bunch; you can't simply dismiss us all with such a trivial label. Anyway, whether or not I'm a libertarian is very much off-topic; the only new concept I introduced was the subjective theory of value, and I doubt you're going to argue against that.
The libertarian side of the argument would be this: if the Non-Aggression Principle is followed, such that that individuals have the maximum possible freedom to act short of infringing on the same rights of others, then individuals will act rationally most of the time, and will be reasonably informed, and consequently the market will work for the greater good. Within a libertarian framework your three principles reduce to just one: freedom.
Actually, quite a few libertarians recognize that government has no legitimate purpose -- not even defense. At the very least, any government which claimed an exclusive privilege to provide defense services would be in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, the most fundamental libertarian code; in order to enforce such exclusivity they would be required to use force non-defensively against anyone offering private defense services. If a "government" chose not to violate the NAP, to fund itself by donation or voluntary contract and to coexist peaceably with other defense services, then it would merely be one private defense provider among many and not a true government at all.
Naturally, this is hardly the disaster the GP makes it out to be.
What does "more rational" mean?... How can you be less rational?
That's certainly one way to look at it. However, it is often more useful to consider decisions in terms of degrees of rationality instead of a binary rational/irrational classification. From this viewpoint, the most rational decision would be the one that makes the most optimal trade, i.e. the one that minimizes present discomfort regarding one's situation. Other choices can then be sorted, subjectively, according to how far they deviate from this optimal result.
- that they have access to better information
Again, what does that mean?
Given that value is subjective, the only person capable of deliberately making rational choices with regard to one's own well-being is oneself. No one else has the necessary information to make rational choices for another.
Also, as a general rule, each individual tends to collect that information which is most relevant with regard to the decisions he or she must make. Access to information is never perfect -- being subject to scarcity like all other goods -- but a decentralized system where individuals make their own decisions optimizes the distribution of information just as private ownership of property optimizes the distribution of other scarce resources.
In essence, you seem to be treating freedom as an independent (even insignificant) aspect of economics, when in practice you cannot assume either rationality or optimal access to information without it.
All tax collection in general, actually -- not just "targeted" collection. If there wasn't wealth transfer involved there would be no need to force anyone to pay; ergo, it wouldn't be a tax.
They do pay property taxes -- or rather, their landlord does. It's part of the cost of rent. They also pay sales taxes. I would assume that they can't claim Social Security or Medicare benefits without documentation, so there's no reason for them to pay those. The largest item on your list, "Health Insurance", isn't a tax; that leaves just the two income taxes, or a bit less than half your original total.
Anyway, if you, like myself, think it's not right that you are forced to pay for someone else's benefit, then you should be arguing against all taxes; that's the sole reason they exist. Any given person is either a net-tax-payer or a net-tax-receiver, and the only reason to have taxes is to move wealth from the former group to the latter.
Are you trying to say that they don't pay property taxes (or rent, as the case may be)? That's where the funding for all these "necessary" local public services comes from. If they live in a house or an apartment they're already paying for these things.
That's only part of the story. The rest is that the increased tax drives the marginal suppliers out of the market, decreasing both supply and competition. Demand remains the same, so the lower supply forces an increase in the revenue-maximizing price for those that remain.
You are indeed required to pay, in the sense that refusal will be met with force. That doesn't make refusal immoral, however, which was the point under discussion.
It's not just simplistic, it's insulting. How can it be immoral to attempt to nullify or counter someone else's immoral actions (in this case, theft)? If the GP has a problem with "freeloading" then I would advise doing what his/her best to minimize reliance on such programs. Keep in mind, however, that we aren't responsible for their existence or the manner in which they inhibit the private supply of similar goods and services.
When the other side stops forcing people to accept their services, and employing force to grant themselves a greater or lesser advantage over potential competitors, then we can talk about the immorality of avoiding agreed-to payment. Until then the GP is just advocating further punishment of the victims of these crimes.
Not all economists believe in perpetual growth... just the ones that refuse to acknowledge that most fundamental of economic principles, the scarcity of material goods. In other words, the ones governments like to hire, because they'll happily tell their employers that it's somehow possible -- given just a bit more intervention -- to do away with scarcity entirely, and create wealth out of thin air.
The real economists know better, but why would any government hire someone that's just going to tell them not to get involved? The inevitable selection bias ensures that competent economists have no political influence.
If you have one mega-bakery and that is badly run, you cannot let it go bust because there will be no bread and people will starve.
When a company (of any size) goes bankrupt, its employees and assets don't simply disappear. The demand for its products likewise remains. If your hypothetical mega-bakery goes under due to mismanagement others will buy up the capital equipment, hire the displaced employees, and go into business for themselves to fulfill that unmet demand. No one will starve for lack of supply.
There's no such thing as "too big to fail". What is really meant by that phrase is "too well-connected to fail"; these bailouts are a political necessity, not an economic or social one. The individuals affected (both employees and customers) would recover from the loss far more readily than any politician who make the right choice and let the company fail.
I think the "government-haters" know better than most that government can be efficient -- just look at any totalitarian regime! There is a trade-off, however, between the efficiency of government and the freedom of its citizens. The more freedom reserved to the citizens, the harder it becomes for government to simply take the most direct route to its goal.
Rather than simply applying force at will, ruling by fiat, the politicians and bureaucrats have to employ diplomacy instead. That means rarely getting exactly what they wanted, paying more in compensation to those affected, and spending more time to reach a consensus, all of which make the government appear less efficient.
Such is the necessary cost of having a free society.
A total lack of government is much like a vacuum on a planet with an atmosphere. It's not going to exist permanently or naturally.
That may well be true, but it's no argument against attempting to obtain such a state and sustain it as long as possible. Based on your own words:
Given enough time, most "good and just" governments wind up only paying lip-service to their Constitutions, and violate much of it in practice.
these "good and just" governments* are also ephemeral, but for some reason you aren't drawing the parallel conclusion that we should just let them degrade into outright tyranny in accordance with their natural tendencies.
Anything worth having is worth fighting for, and most things worth having don't exist naturally, or permanently -- at least not without a great deal of effort.
(*) Not that any government is ever "good" or "just", even in theory. Government is the organization empowered to commit all the crimes certain individuals have not yet learned to live without. Neither goodness nor justice can ever result from legitimizing such unjust and morally-dubious acts.
And the "catch" at least with GPL, is that you can't sell a community raised "barn" to other people, you have to give it away.
That's completely wrong. The GPL explicitly allows you to sell copies, provided the buyer gets the source code as well. You don't have to give it away.
There were a couple tests that were much slower in JRuby, but this is countered by the test that failed on Ruby 1.9.1; fast means nothing when you don't finish.
Ruby 1.9.1 failed two tests; JRuby failed three.
None of the VMs managed to complete all the tests. Other than Rubinius, which timed out frequently, Ruby 1.9.1 had the fewest errors.
Also, the input sizes for many of the tests numbered in the millions. If that's not enough repetition to take advantage of hotspot optimization, then I'd say they were right to exclude it.
Well, like numerous similar (non-integrated) devices already on the market, it would probably be used most often to link the host device's portable media player function to a car stereo system. These are low-power transmitters, with a range of no more than a few feet, designed for use on otherwise unoccupied channels. There are no significant interference issues to worry about.
Any "concrete metric" can be gamed. If you want your awards to be meaningful, they need to be distributed subjectively.
It's easy to raise graduation rates -- just lower the standards. It's easy to raise superficial literacy rates -- teach to the tests. Ensuring real improvement requires that one pay attention to a multitude of factors which cannot be determined in advance, nor without paying careful attention to the specifics of each situation.
I'm not opposed to filtering school computers, provided no children are forced to attend, and no adults are forced to pay. So long as either of those attributes remains in place, it doesn't really matter what else they do.
The first lesson taught by any tax-funded, mandatory-attendance school is that coercion is a legitimate way to achieve one's goals. Beside that, all else is insignificant.
Teaching them to hit buttons on a calculator isn't math. Giving them a computer isn't learning.
No, but they need to be able to perform arithmetic before you can teach them calculus. If you don't teach them "to hit buttons on a calculator" then you have to teach them to perform the arithmetic manually instead, which takes longer and eats into the time and resources which could otherwise be spent on higher-level concepts.
Computers are the same thing, but on a larger scale. You use them, and related resources like the Internet, to replace rote memorization and other tedious, repetitive processes. That way you can focus on training students in the sort of creative critical thinking which humans are uniquely skilled at.
The problem with IPv4 isn't really that we're running out of addresses, although that could become an issue in the near future. No, the problem is routing. Reallocating the remaining IPv4 addresses would mean abandoning any presence toward maintaining hierarchical subnets. High-level routers would need to know where to send packets based on not just the/8 or/16 prefix, but perhaps/24 -- or worse. That's potentially millions of additional records in every router, when we're already having trouble with an explosion of routing-table entries. IPv6, on the other hand, has enough bits in just the upper (network) portion of the address (/64) to permit purely hierarchical routing to the ISP level, which means that the routing tables become far simpler. There's no need for each router to know about dozens -- perhaps hundreds, or thousands -- of minuscule disjoint subnets serviced by each ISP.
The other advantages of IPv6, such as improved security and access to a routable/48 subnet for each local network, are merely bonuses. The routing issues alone are sufficient justification to migrate.
I recall seeing an economic game (as in game theory) regarding the construction of and packet-routing on interconnected networks. If you let players behave individually rationally, the public gets less benefit than if the regulatory iron fist of government steps in.
I've seen the same analysis, but I wouldn't take it too seriously. In all such cases the "players" are not representative of how humans actually make decisions; the decision-making isn't recursive enough. Humans would take the results of this study into account and self-optimize their decisions accordingly, rather than automatically going for the so-called "rational" route (which is only "rational" when one ignores the known consequences).
Game theory is useful in its proper context, but when the "players" are human beings, the game itself is not a fixed element, so the predictions don't necessarily hold.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to lump all the non-religious movements together, then you should do the same with the groups acting in support of some religious cause. Looking at it from that perspective, atheism per se has led to far less violence than religion.
Otherwise, if you want to classify the groups based on their actual motivation, then you should only count those who were killed in the name of atheism, or because of their non-atheistic beliefs. Political and social movements that just happen to have atheistic leaders should be grouped separately based on their goals. Again, the movements supporting specific religious beliefs and personality cults tend to dominate when it comes to violence, compared those populated by freethinkers.
Be happy. If pure market forces decided you'd have likely had to replace your TV's 4x as often.
And this assertion is based on what, exactly? Most video devices are still compatible with the earliest non-broadcast video standards (e.g. composite video) -- and will likely remain so long after analogue broadcast video dies out. Market standards tend to remain useful for a very long time once adopted. On the other hand, we have here an example of an adequate and widespread communication standard forcibly discarded as a result of a central organization unilaterally reassigning the required frequencies.
The government is banning nothing here.
Strictly speaking, the government is banning the broadcast of analogue video channels, with the result of making significant quantities of consumer electronics useless for their primary purpose without relatively expensive adaptation. (The converter box itself isn't the only cost to consider; there's also installation, increased complexity, retraining, loss of marginal signals, etc.)
Thing become obsolete over time. It's the nature of a device.
Sure, but analogue TV wasn't abandoned by broadcasters or viewers as obsolete; the frequencies reassigned through a change in regulations. The existing user of a resource was evicted, and new users put in place, by an organization that isn't the proper owner of the resource by homesteading or by contract. This is nothing like the case of a manufacturer simply discontinuing a product.
And the price is virtually non-existent. I can still buy a 50-pack of blank CD's for $20 at the local Staples, less if I go to somebody who actually specializes in computer gear.
In the US, without the levy, one can find 50-packs of decent (Memorex) CD-Rs for under $10. As I understand it, the levy itself is around $0.25 per disc, whereas without the levy CD-Rs often sell for about $0.20 per disc. Do you really consider a 100% markup "virtually non-existent"?
Fine; substitute "closest to optimal," or whatever phrase of equivalent meaning makes you happy. Don't pretend you didn't understand my intent.
I am fully aware that a rational choice -- sans qualifiers -- is the optimal one. My point is simply that while truly rational choices are rare, one can rate "irrational" choices by degree, rather than simply treating them as fully rational or fully irrational. In other words, while both overpaying for a good and jumping off a cliff (expecting to live) may be considered irrational acts, the former wouldn't typically cause as large a deviation from the model's predictions as the latter. This is important because people often act irrationally to some extent; if the model required perfectly rational decisions it would rarely apply to real life. In practice, however, most decisions come close to being rational, so the model remains a reasonable approximation of reality. (The same applies to the requirement for perfect information.)
As for the points about freedom and information, "Monnet" claimed not to understand what "homer_s" meant by saying that individuals have better information to base their own decisions on than others would have making those decisions for them. I clarified the point with specific examples. What's so hard to understand about that?
When people are rational most of the time, are reasonably informed, and have some freedom to buy/sell, market will work for the greater good. That's the theory.
I agree with you completely. However, your restatement of the assumptions here is closer to the definitions given by homer_s than to the binary conditions you originally stated. In the original form the conclusions wouldn't be very useful, since it is exceedingly rare for any group of individuals to simultaneously be perfectly rational, have perfect information, and be perfectly free to act.
Access to information is never perfect -- being subject to scarcity like all other goods
Really? That's a very peculiar statement to make in this day and age, and on this particular site.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that information is property, or should be treated as such. On the contrary, I am very much against copyright and related acts of legalized aggression. However, the acquisition and utilization of information requires effort -- labor -- and that labor is subject to the constraints of scarcity. It can even have a material cost (beyond that required to enable labor) in the form of testing apparatus, prototypes, etc. The cost of making decisions based on imperfect information must be weighed against the cost of acquiring better information.
I get it, you're a libertarian.
Yes, I am. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, whatever your opinion of libertarians may be. We're a fairly diverse bunch; you can't simply dismiss us all with such a trivial label. Anyway, whether or not I'm a libertarian is very much off-topic; the only new concept I introduced was the subjective theory of value, and I doubt you're going to argue against that.
The libertarian side of the argument would be this: if the Non-Aggression Principle is followed, such that that individuals have the maximum possible freedom to act short of infringing on the same rights of others, then individuals will act rationally most of the time, and will be reasonably informed, and consequently the market will work for the greater good. Within a libertarian framework your three principles reduce to just one: freedom.
Actually, quite a few libertarians recognize that government has no legitimate purpose -- not even defense. At the very least, any government which claimed an exclusive privilege to provide defense services would be in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, the most fundamental libertarian code; in order to enforce such exclusivity they would be required to use force non-defensively against anyone offering private defense services. If a "government" chose not to violate the NAP, to fund itself by donation or voluntary contract and to coexist peaceably with other defense services, then it would merely be one private defense provider among many and not a true government at all.
Naturally, this is hardly the disaster the GP makes it out to be.
What does "more rational" mean? ... How can you be less rational?
That's certainly one way to look at it. However, it is often more useful to consider decisions in terms of degrees of rationality instead of a binary rational/irrational classification. From this viewpoint, the most rational decision would be the one that makes the most optimal trade, i.e. the one that minimizes present discomfort regarding one's situation. Other choices can then be sorted, subjectively, according to how far they deviate from this optimal result.
- that they have access to better information
Again, what does that mean?
Given that value is subjective, the only person capable of deliberately making rational choices with regard to one's own well-being is oneself. No one else has the necessary information to make rational choices for another.
Also, as a general rule, each individual tends to collect that information which is most relevant with regard to the decisions he or she must make. Access to information is never perfect -- being subject to scarcity like all other goods -- but a decentralized system where individuals make their own decisions optimizes the distribution of information just as private ownership of property optimizes the distribution of other scarce resources.
In essence, you seem to be treating freedom as an independent (even insignificant) aspect of economics, when in practice you cannot assume either rationality or optimal access to information without it.
All tax collection in general, actually -- not just "targeted" collection. If there wasn't wealth transfer involved there would be no need to force anyone to pay; ergo, it wouldn't be a tax.
They do pay property taxes -- or rather, their landlord does. It's part of the cost of rent. They also pay sales taxes. I would assume that they can't claim Social Security or Medicare benefits without documentation, so there's no reason for them to pay those. The largest item on your list, "Health Insurance", isn't a tax; that leaves just the two income taxes, or a bit less than half your original total.
Anyway, if you, like myself, think it's not right that you are forced to pay for someone else's benefit, then you should be arguing against all taxes; that's the sole reason they exist. Any given person is either a net-tax-payer or a net-tax-receiver, and the only reason to have taxes is to move wealth from the former group to the latter.
Are you trying to say that they don't pay property taxes (or rent, as the case may be)? That's where the funding for all these "necessary" local public services comes from. If they live in a house or an apartment they're already paying for these things.
That's only part of the story. The rest is that the increased tax drives the marginal suppliers out of the market, decreasing both supply and competition. Demand remains the same, so the lower supply forces an increase in the revenue-maximizing price for those that remain.
You are indeed required to pay, in the sense that refusal will be met with force. That doesn't make refusal immoral, however, which was the point under discussion.
I think it's immoral to evade taxes
That's a bit simplistic, isn't it?
It's not just simplistic, it's insulting. How can it be immoral to attempt to nullify or counter someone else's immoral actions (in this case, theft)? If the GP has a problem with "freeloading" then I would advise doing what his/her best to minimize reliance on such programs. Keep in mind, however, that we aren't responsible for their existence or the manner in which they inhibit the private supply of similar goods and services.
When the other side stops forcing people to accept their services, and employing force to grant themselves a greater or lesser advantage over potential competitors, then we can talk about the immorality of avoiding agreed-to payment. Until then the GP is just advocating further punishment of the victims of these crimes.
Not all economists believe in perpetual growth... just the ones that refuse to acknowledge that most fundamental of economic principles, the scarcity of material goods. In other words, the ones governments like to hire, because they'll happily tell their employers that it's somehow possible -- given just a bit more intervention -- to do away with scarcity entirely, and create wealth out of thin air.
The real economists know better, but why would any government hire someone that's just going to tell them not to get involved? The inevitable selection bias ensures that competent economists have no political influence.
If you have one mega-bakery and that is badly run, you cannot let it go bust because there will be no bread and people will starve.
When a company (of any size) goes bankrupt, its employees and assets don't simply disappear. The demand for its products likewise remains. If your hypothetical mega-bakery goes under due to mismanagement others will buy up the capital equipment, hire the displaced employees, and go into business for themselves to fulfill that unmet demand. No one will starve for lack of supply.
There's no such thing as "too big to fail". What is really meant by that phrase is "too well-connected to fail"; these bailouts are a political necessity, not an economic or social one. The individuals affected (both employees and customers) would recover from the loss far more readily than any politician who make the right choice and let the company fail.
I think the "government-haters" know better than most that government can be efficient -- just look at any totalitarian regime! There is a trade-off, however, between the efficiency of government and the freedom of its citizens. The more freedom reserved to the citizens, the harder it becomes for government to simply take the most direct route to its goal.
Rather than simply applying force at will, ruling by fiat, the politicians and bureaucrats have to employ diplomacy instead. That means rarely getting exactly what they wanted, paying more in compensation to those affected, and spending more time to reach a consensus, all of which make the government appear less efficient.
Such is the necessary cost of having a free society.
A total lack of government is much like a vacuum on a planet with an atmosphere. It's not going to exist permanently or naturally.
That may well be true, but it's no argument against attempting to obtain such a state and sustain it as long as possible. Based on your own words:
Given enough time, most "good and just" governments wind up only paying lip-service to their Constitutions, and violate much of it in practice.
these "good and just" governments* are also ephemeral, but for some reason you aren't drawing the parallel conclusion that we should just let them degrade into outright tyranny in accordance with their natural tendencies.
Anything worth having is worth fighting for, and most things worth having don't exist naturally, or permanently -- at least not without a great deal of effort.
(*) Not that any government is ever "good" or "just", even in theory. Government is the organization empowered to commit all the crimes certain individuals have not yet learned to live without. Neither goodness nor justice can ever result from legitimizing such unjust and morally-dubious acts.
And the "catch" at least with GPL, is that you can't sell a community raised "barn" to other people, you have to give it away.
That's completely wrong. The GPL explicitly allows you to sell copies, provided the buyer gets the source code as well. You don't have to give it away.
There were a couple tests that were much slower in JRuby, but this is countered by the test that failed on Ruby 1.9.1; fast means nothing when you don't finish.
Ruby 1.9.1 failed two tests; JRuby failed three.
None of the VMs managed to complete all the tests. Other than Rubinius, which timed out frequently, Ruby 1.9.1 had the fewest errors.
Also, the input sizes for many of the tests numbered in the millions. If that's not enough repetition to take advantage of hotspot optimization, then I'd say they were right to exclude it.
Well, like numerous similar (non-integrated) devices already on the market, it would probably be used most often to link the host device's portable media player function to a car stereo system. These are low-power transmitters, with a range of no more than a few feet, designed for use on otherwise unoccupied channels. There are no significant interference issues to worry about.
Any "concrete metric" can be gamed. If you want your awards to be meaningful, they need to be distributed subjectively.
It's easy to raise graduation rates -- just lower the standards. It's easy to raise superficial literacy rates -- teach to the tests. Ensuring real improvement requires that one pay attention to a multitude of factors which cannot be determined in advance, nor without paying careful attention to the specifics of each situation.
I'm not opposed to filtering school computers, provided no children are forced to attend, and no adults are forced to pay. So long as either of those attributes remains in place, it doesn't really matter what else they do.
The first lesson taught by any tax-funded, mandatory-attendance school is that coercion is a legitimate way to achieve one's goals. Beside that, all else is insignificant.
Teaching them to hit buttons on a calculator isn't math. Giving them a computer isn't learning.
No, but they need to be able to perform arithmetic before you can teach them calculus. If you don't teach them "to hit buttons on a calculator" then you have to teach them to perform the arithmetic manually instead, which takes longer and eats into the time and resources which could otherwise be spent on higher-level concepts.
Computers are the same thing, but on a larger scale. You use them, and related resources like the Internet, to replace rote memorization and other tedious, repetitive processes. That way you can focus on training students in the sort of creative critical thinking which humans are uniquely skilled at.
The problem with IPv4 isn't really that we're running out of addresses, although that could become an issue in the near future. No, the problem is routing. Reallocating the remaining IPv4 addresses would mean abandoning any presence toward maintaining hierarchical subnets. High-level routers would need to know where to send packets based on not just the /8 or /16 prefix, but perhaps /24 -- or worse. That's potentially millions of additional records in every router, when we're already having trouble with an explosion of routing-table entries. IPv6, on the other hand, has enough bits in just the upper (network) portion of the address (/64) to permit purely hierarchical routing to the ISP level, which means that the routing tables become far simpler. There's no need for each router to know about dozens -- perhaps hundreds, or thousands -- of minuscule disjoint subnets serviced by each ISP.
The other advantages of IPv6, such as improved security and access to a routable /48 subnet for each local network, are merely bonuses. The routing issues alone are sufficient justification to migrate.
I recall seeing an economic game (as in game theory) regarding the construction of and packet-routing on interconnected networks. If you let players behave individually rationally, the public gets less benefit than if the regulatory iron fist of government steps in.
I've seen the same analysis, but I wouldn't take it too seriously. In all such cases the "players" are not representative of how humans actually make decisions; the decision-making isn't recursive enough. Humans would take the results of this study into account and self-optimize their decisions accordingly, rather than automatically going for the so-called "rational" route (which is only "rational" when one ignores the known consequences).
Game theory is useful in its proper context, but when the "players" are human beings, the game itself is not a fixed element, so the predictions don't necessarily hold.