My qualifications: 5 years at a public university, 100% on a combination of student aid, graduated 2005, worked in higher education outreach for quite a while, still working at a public university.
There are a few different kinds of Student Financial Aid: (1) Scholarships -- a competitive grant awarded to a student for comparatively high score in testing, GPA, essay entry, speech, or a combination thereof.
(2) Grants -- a need-based or participation-based award given without competition. Need-based grants typically have minimum high school performance standards and maximum income per-person household limits. A participation-based grant (like the GI Bill) is based on a fulfilled commitment of service.
(3) Loans -- an amount of money that needs to be paid back. The best are the Federal loans that do not accrue interest while the student is still in school and repayment can be deferred reduced when income is short. Avoid private education loans like the plague if at all possible. Loans, unlike scholarships and grants are pretty easy to get an are considered unlimited.
Knowing the above, it's not general "Student Aid" that contributes to bloat on the university level, it's unlimited access to Federal Student Loans.
I went into my college career in 2000, expecting to pay a total of $14,700 for the whole year. The cost included tuition/fees, transportation expenses, room and board, books, and other expenses. It was fully paid for my scholarships and grants (I was poor and good in school... a jackpot). Tuition and Fees were deducted from the account and I was given a third of my award quarterly. It was my responsibility to use my money wisely.
Between 2000 and 2005, the cost of the very same education ballooned from $14.7k to $25k per year. I paid for my 5th and half of my 4th year entirely with federal loans. Undergrads on the same campus should expect to pay around $35k for this year.
How did prices go so high? Well, there are new buildings on campus, a new Student Union to pay for, dormitory expansions, new faculty and existing faculty getting regular raises, and administration employees making hundreds of thousands of dollars each to manage what is, effectively, a city of 40,000 people 5 days a week. I don't think a mayor of a 40,000 should make so much, but our chancellor makes over $300k/year easily.
In that time, also, there have been major cuts to state higher education funding and other shortfalls in income. There have been bad investments, I'm sure.
So how is it paid for? Well, students and parents alike have been convinced that all kids need a research university education if they are going to make more than $35k per year in an air-conditioned office, so most think they have no choice.
The demand is there. The unlimited access to credit is there. But there is no incentive to keep costs low.
I think that it should be federal law that no one working at a university making more than $75k per year should be allowed to get a raise for 3 years after the last student tuition/fee increase.
Young listeners also lso have access to silly amounts of bandwidth almost without regard to their location. If there's not a WiFi hotspot, then the kid (or Mom/Dad) are paying for a large bandwidth cap on the smartphone.
They don't bother to learn directions anymore or explore because Google Maps or Yelp tell them exactly where to go. They don't wander what their friends are doing, their friends are desperately advertising their locations and activities on Facebook and "young listeners" hear it.
It's not surprise that Gen Y or Millennials are less likely to have their own copies of music. They understand bandwidth and internet access as ubiquitous. Most of us don't. We grew up with low-speed hardline modems, not always on broadband connections. We see wireless internet access as a luxury. They see it as a given.
I'm with you on this. Transparency and shininess were tacky two weeks after "yuppie" became a general accepted term. I've been running Windows Classic UI since Win2k... but I may actually use the Win8 default if it continues to be so demure and functional.
The newer generation didn't grow up with the opportunities the understand what simple coding could do. In the 4th grade (1991), I had "computer class" once a week where we were taught BASIC and the concept of step-by-step logic coding via turtle (Logo). I was able to grow up tinkering with throw-away 286s and 386s, screwing them up and then reinstalling DOS.
Today, kids have beautiful UIs and systems that want to minimize their interactions. They don't have computers... they have "apps", "the internet", and all these other environments, but are rarely presented with the opportunity to understand how Action A leads to Result B.
They love what technology can do, but they have no clue how it works. They're not tech-savvy. They're tech-dependent.
Only in Britain, with their extreme libel, defamation, and slander laws, can a random and potentially anonymous "taunt" be considered vicious and/or depraved.
AnonCoward045: You're an idiot and lick goats daily! Lawyer: This vicious and depraved comment has ruined the reputation of "Dougaliscious81" amongst his 16 followers. Expect to be sued for eleventy billion pounds!
I agree with you to a certain extent... and that limit is the disregard for addiction and life-long conditioning.
Thanks to the glorious television, child are directly targeted by a constant stream of advertising and marketing. They're told what they should like, why they should like it, and what happens if they don't get what they like. Add on top of that, the social pressures that amplify the indirect pressures and you have the culture of conformity and stratified castes that program children to desire and seek visible actions that would, in their views, make them seem more normal or higher in the caste system. That may be buying soda and pizza at school (showing childhood opulence) instead of receiving a standard school lunch with water or milk, or begging mom and dad to get the largest soda possible if/when they go out to get some fast food.
Additionally, children are already innately programed to seek out and consume all sugary things. With sweets not being too common in nature, but sugars being particularly good sources of calories, it benefited per-civilization children to consume as much of these as possible. Of course, with the hyper-sweetness of high-fructose corn syrup meets this desire quickly and its abundance and ubiquity in the form of carbonated beverages allows these instincts to be so consistently satisfied that instead of the sugar consumption being an opportunity, it becomes a psychological norm. A norm that leads to habitual overdosing and then diabetes.
So ya... they choose to be fat in the very same way you choose to drive a car and seek out a big fat steak. You've been conditioned by for-profit organizations and marketers with a healthy dose of anthropological history.
It must be GREAT to be able to write people off like that and thus remove any kind of expectation for action on your side.
- The government doesn't pay for abortions. It helps to pay for other family-planning services provided by a company that also facilitates abortions. - The government doesn't help people support their kids, it helps kids stay clothed, sheltered, and fed. This helps to reduce suffering thus crime. - The government pays for addiction treatment to provide for a better and healthier environment for everyone. Addicts facilitate the drug trade and treating them is the most humane way of reducing that aspect of the supply and demand cycle. - Bankruptcy is for people that made shitty life decisions. General social welfare funding is for people who haven't had the appropriate opportunity to make their own lives shitty. Unemployment insurance is for people who have had shit thrust upon them. - The government doesn't pay for random peoples' mortgages, but the sub-prime lending fiasco was due in no small part to predatory, commission-based mortgage lending. The lenders went out of business or continue to get away with it. - I support your bank-oriented line of sarcasm.
I say these things as someone who is a graduate of Food Stamps, Welfare, MediCal, WIC, HUD, low-income summer job-finding programs, public schools, public university, CalGrants, and the Federal Loan program. My parents were druggies and I lived below the poverty line for the entirety of my childhood. They definitely misused a good portion of those funds, but if it weren't for all those programs, I (and others like me) would not have gotten to college and continued my passion to help others and make better communities.
Having personal experience with said programs, I have no qualms paying off my Federal student loans or paying my effective tax rate of 31%. I know the value of the programs without question.
I'll do it for $15 million AND have actual conversations on the General Motors Facebook account, thus building actual relationships and re-creating a grass roots personality for the corporation.
While I can't speak for mortgages, I can speak for the cost of college education. Specifically that the blank check from the federal government for student loans is what enables colleges and universities to increase spending while expecting financial aid (in the form of student loans) to cover the change. Additionally, if a college/university is in a particularly enterprising area (like, say, Irvine, CA) a corporate monopoly on housing can also affect how much students are allotted and due to extremely high housing costs.
Same here. I prefer GIMP. I know where the tools are, what they do, and can use it quite proficiently.
However, my university won't install nor let me install nor let me run GIMP from a non-installed executable on my workstation because they "don't want to support it" and think I have no need for it because the department pays for CS4.
"Organic" farming is not good in and of itself. It's better at preventing the consumption of toxic chemicals, it's more environmentally sound, and it's also more economically just (because "organic" foods are not copyrighted).
Since we can't feed the planet on organics, but we want all the benefits of organics, we need to change the way do make, use, and "protect" conventional crops. That means federal funding to develop non-copyrighted crops and promote biodiversity regardless of within organic and modified foods.
The lesson: instead of replacing modern modified foods with organics, bring modified foods up to the ethical and environmental standards of organic foods.
I'm not super-trekkie, but I know from personal experience that the Hilton in Vegas through away massive amounts of convention/conference business when it closed down Quark's. =\
I miss my Moogie's Choice Pasta and Warp Core Breach
The maximum of 10 seconds that would be required of me to use a service owned by Google without their massive merge is well worth not having an accurate super-identity of me created somewhere over which I have no control.
You are correct. I *don't* want a smartphone, but that's the only kind of cell phone receiving genuine development. No one's trying to perfect the simple functions of the feature phone (sound quality, mic quality, media player, camera, keyboard, battery life).
Instead, the smartphone is receiving 99% of development focus because it can be used to bring in additional revenue beyond normal subscription.
It's too much of a focus on "more" and not enough on "better".
I'm still a cell phone Luddite. I don't like most "smart" functions because of the drain battery power while giving me a ton of stuff I don't want.
Things I don't want: "Seamless integration of phone and social networking contacts" -- I have different spheres of life for a reason. I don't want any corporation being able to draw a perfect picture of my habits, hobbies, peers, or family.
"Blazing fast web access" -- I don't want to shell out more than I'm paying right now ($50/month) for a cell phone. That means I don't want a "data plan". The lack of web access decreases time/money/effort spent on phone development and prevents unexpected accidental charges.
"Touch screen keyboard" -- Buttons work better. They just do.
----
Don't get me wrong, I'm as super nerd as anyone else, but I also have a very real preference to not be "leashed" by technology. I refuse to become "tech dependent" which most people admit to becoming after getting a smart phone. ("I never thought I would need it, but now I can't live without it.")
I just want the following functions to work *flawlessly* on a feature phone: *Great speakerphone, sound, and mic *Hardware QWERTY for text messaging *Customizable UI color schemes *MicroSD card Slot *Good quality snapshot camera (no flash necessary) *Great MP3/OGG/etc. player and interface *3.5mm headphone jack *All other weight saved should go to increased battery size/life and reduced weight
Liability. It always comes down to liability. Lojack stands behind their product and their training. That's why police departments trust it. It's the same with OnStar calling an ambulance on your behalf or your ability to prove that a car belongs to your by showing matching photo ID and vehicle registration. These are well funded systems with throngs of support people, very high risk, and thus very high insurance for their products and actions.
When liability is externalized and the PD can point to another entity to say, "Hey, it's their system. If they're wrong and we do wrong by trusting them, they will hold the liability." When they can't, they don't trust the external identification system.
If you want the PD to trust Apple's Find My Phone or similar programs, they have to start a relationship with various PDs, give them training, and have massive insurance themselves. Then the cost of such programs will go up and actually start to match the value of the service (just like Lojack).
Google Transit is not news to those of us who work in transportation. I work in Sustainable Transportation/Transportation Demand Management and my job is to get people to do (practically) anything but drive a car alone. Since I also work at a University, it's also my job to convince students not to bring cars to school (at least for the first few years) and it would be SO MUCH EASIER if I could convince Google to jump into multi-modal trip planning. Why?
Well, let's assume you're at my University and want to get somewhere 85 miles south without a car. You might be able to bus to the local train station, catch a southbound train, and then catch another bus to your final destination. However, the bus service here is contracting (sharply) due to budget constraints so a bus connection to a train will not always be an option.
I often suggest biking to the train, riding the train, and then biking to the final destination, but since Google Maps treats transit (bus/train) and biking separately, my suggestion can only go so far. It requires some rather involved planning for a novice to get from our campus to the train station by bike.
There are other options like OpenTripPlanner which, when coupled with a well-mapped OpenStreetMaps, can be an incredible way to plan multi-modal trips in addition to mapping out literally everything in an area from streets to bike lanes to sidewalks, stairs, and handicap accessible ramps... but it takes A LOT of work to perfect a local map and then to host an OpenTripPlanner server. It's relatively easy, but it's man-hour intense.
"The best teachers will become highly qualified early, and will gravitate toward the best paying jobs."
No kidding? The best education will come from teachers who have a passion to dedicate the cost of a modern 4-year education, master's degree, credentialing, and entry-level experience while they're still young? Wow, that's great to know! Now here's the problem: How do teachers pay for all of that while still safely assuming that there will be a sufficient paycheck on the other side of all the hurdles.
This author of this article may not have noticed, but the economic crash for education has not yet ended. Faculty numbers are still being cut, early retirement is still being suggested, and schools (real schools, not those in Palo Alto and La Jolla) are still looking for the cheapest possible teacher. That teacher likely has very high qualifications because s/he got hired amongst a bunch of under-employed educators, so after 2 or 3 years, that highly qualified teacher will be leaving the scum-hole school that him him/her a job and move on to the higher paying jobs teaching students who aren't in as severe need of dedicated teachers.
Schools refer to this as Overqualified Turnover, Brain Drain, and Talent Sapping... and, believe it or not, it's a disincentive for regular schools to actually put the time and effort into hiring a very good teacher. Many would prefer to have an "OK" teacher that would stick around and have personal investment in their school over a great teacher that is just stopping by for a resume filler.
Your child and everyone's child is better off not flooding to one or a few "best schools" but taking the stand to require adequate public school funding for all schools.
I disagree. I think Slashdot is BELIEVABLY biased-- as well it should be. This isn't a media organization. It's a news-reposting blog with a comments section.
Slashdot Mirror
My qualifications: 5 years at a public university, 100% on a combination of student aid, graduated 2005, worked in higher education outreach for quite a while, still working at a public university.
There are a few different kinds of Student Financial Aid:
(1) Scholarships -- a competitive grant awarded to a student for comparatively high score in testing, GPA, essay entry, speech, or a combination thereof.
(2) Grants -- a need-based or participation-based award given without competition. Need-based grants typically have minimum high school performance standards and maximum income per-person household limits. A participation-based grant (like the GI Bill) is based on a fulfilled commitment of service.
(3) Loans -- an amount of money that needs to be paid back. The best are the Federal loans that do not accrue interest while the student is still in school and repayment can be deferred reduced when income is short. Avoid private education loans like the plague if at all possible. Loans, unlike scholarships and grants are pretty easy to get an are considered unlimited.
Knowing the above, it's not general "Student Aid" that contributes to bloat on the university level, it's unlimited access to Federal Student Loans.
I went into my college career in 2000, expecting to pay a total of $14,700 for the whole year. The cost included tuition/fees, transportation expenses, room and board, books, and other expenses. It was fully paid for my scholarships and grants (I was poor and good in school... a jackpot). Tuition and Fees were deducted from the account and I was given a third of my award quarterly. It was my responsibility to use my money wisely.
Between 2000 and 2005, the cost of the very same education ballooned from $14.7k to $25k per year. I paid for my 5th and half of my 4th year entirely with federal loans. Undergrads on the same campus should expect to pay around $35k for this year.
How did prices go so high? Well, there are new buildings on campus, a new Student Union to pay for, dormitory expansions, new faculty and existing faculty getting regular raises, and administration employees making hundreds of thousands of dollars each to manage what is, effectively, a city of 40,000 people 5 days a week. I don't think a mayor of a 40,000 should make so much, but our chancellor makes over $300k/year easily.
In that time, also, there have been major cuts to state higher education funding and other shortfalls in income. There have been bad investments, I'm sure.
So how is it paid for? Well, students and parents alike have been convinced that all kids need a research university education if they are going to make more than $35k per year in an air-conditioned office, so most think they have no choice.
The demand is there. The unlimited access to credit is there. But there is no incentive to keep costs low.
I think that it should be federal law that no one working at a university making more than $75k per year should be allowed to get a raise for 3 years after the last student tuition/fee increase.
Young listeners also lso have access to silly amounts of bandwidth almost without regard to their location. If there's not a WiFi hotspot, then the kid (or Mom/Dad) are paying for a large bandwidth cap on the smartphone.
They don't bother to learn directions anymore or explore because Google Maps or Yelp tell them exactly where to go. They don't wander what their friends are doing, their friends are desperately advertising their locations and activities on Facebook and "young listeners" hear it.
It's not surprise that Gen Y or Millennials are less likely to have their own copies of music. They understand bandwidth and internet access as ubiquitous. Most of us don't. We grew up with low-speed hardline modems, not always on broadband connections. We see wireless internet access as a luxury. They see it as a given.
I'm with you on this. Transparency and shininess were tacky two weeks after "yuppie" became a general accepted term. I've been running Windows Classic UI since Win2k... but I may actually use the Win8 default if it continues to be so demure and functional.
The newer generation didn't grow up with the opportunities the understand what simple coding could do. In the 4th grade (1991), I had "computer class" once a week where we were taught BASIC and the concept of step-by-step logic coding via turtle (Logo). I was able to grow up tinkering with throw-away 286s and 386s, screwing them up and then reinstalling DOS.
Today, kids have beautiful UIs and systems that want to minimize their interactions. They don't have computers... they have "apps", "the internet", and all these other environments, but are rarely presented with the opportunity to understand how Action A leads to Result B.
They love what technology can do, but they have no clue how it works. They're not tech-savvy. They're tech-dependent.
Only in Britain, with their extreme libel, defamation, and slander laws, can a random and potentially anonymous "taunt" be considered vicious and/or depraved.
AnonCoward045: You're an idiot and lick goats daily!
Lawyer: This vicious and depraved comment has ruined the reputation of "Dougaliscious81" amongst his 16 followers. Expect to be sued for eleventy billion pounds!
I agree with you to a certain extent... and that limit is the disregard for addiction and life-long conditioning.
Thanks to the glorious television, child are directly targeted by a constant stream of advertising and marketing. They're told what they should like, why they should like it, and what happens if they don't get what they like. Add on top of that, the social pressures that amplify the indirect pressures and you have the culture of conformity and stratified castes that program children to desire and seek visible actions that would, in their views, make them seem more normal or higher in the caste system. That may be buying soda and pizza at school (showing childhood opulence) instead of receiving a standard school lunch with water or milk, or begging mom and dad to get the largest soda possible if/when they go out to get some fast food.
Additionally, children are already innately programed to seek out and consume all sugary things. With sweets not being too common in nature, but sugars being particularly good sources of calories, it benefited per-civilization children to consume as much of these as possible. Of course, with the hyper-sweetness of high-fructose corn syrup meets this desire quickly and its abundance and ubiquity in the form of carbonated beverages allows these instincts to be so consistently satisfied that instead of the sugar consumption being an opportunity, it becomes a psychological norm. A norm that leads to habitual overdosing and then diabetes.
So ya... they choose to be fat in the very same way you choose to drive a car and seek out a big fat steak. You've been conditioned by for-profit organizations and marketers with a healthy dose of anthropological history.
It must be GREAT to be able to write people off like that and thus remove any kind of expectation for action on your side.
Ok, I'll bite. In order of appearance...
- The government doesn't pay for abortions. It helps to pay for other family-planning services provided by a company that also facilitates abortions.
- The government doesn't help people support their kids, it helps kids stay clothed, sheltered, and fed. This helps to reduce suffering thus crime.
- The government pays for addiction treatment to provide for a better and healthier environment for everyone. Addicts facilitate the drug trade and treating them is the most humane way of reducing that aspect of the supply and demand cycle.
- Bankruptcy is for people that made shitty life decisions. General social welfare funding is for people who haven't had the appropriate opportunity to make their own lives shitty. Unemployment insurance is for people who have had shit thrust upon them.
- The government doesn't pay for random peoples' mortgages, but the sub-prime lending fiasco was due in no small part to predatory, commission-based mortgage lending. The lenders went out of business or continue to get away with it.
- I support your bank-oriented line of sarcasm.
I say these things as someone who is a graduate of Food Stamps, Welfare, MediCal, WIC, HUD, low-income summer job-finding programs, public schools, public university, CalGrants, and the Federal Loan program. My parents were druggies and I lived below the poverty line for the entirety of my childhood. They definitely misused a good portion of those funds, but if it weren't for all those programs, I (and others like me) would not have gotten to college and continued my passion to help others and make better communities.
Having personal experience with said programs, I have no qualms paying off my Federal student loans or paying my effective tax rate of 31%. I know the value of the programs without question.
What about you? From what
Ya, only if you know HISTORY. But this about the future, man. Progress. You have to look forward. Seize the day. BUY BUY BUY!
I'll do it for $15 million AND have actual conversations on the General Motors Facebook account, thus building actual relationships and re-creating a grass roots personality for the corporation.
While I can't speak for mortgages, I can speak for the cost of college education. Specifically that the blank check from the federal government for student loans is what enables colleges and universities to increase spending while expecting financial aid (in the form of student loans) to cover the change. Additionally, if a college/university is in a particularly enterprising area (like, say, Irvine, CA) a corporate monopoly on housing can also affect how much students are allotted and due to extremely high housing costs.
Why didn't they implement that sooner?
Same here. I prefer GIMP. I know where the tools are, what they do, and can use it quite proficiently.
However, my university won't install nor let me install nor let me run GIMP from a non-installed executable on my workstation because they "don't want to support it" and think I have no need for it because the department pays for CS4.
"Organic" farming is not good in and of itself. It's better at preventing the consumption of toxic chemicals, it's more environmentally sound, and it's also more economically just (because "organic" foods are not copyrighted).
Since we can't feed the planet on organics, but we want all the benefits of organics, we need to change the way do make, use, and "protect" conventional crops. That means federal funding to develop non-copyrighted crops and promote biodiversity regardless of within organic and modified foods.
The lesson: instead of replacing modern modified foods with organics, bring modified foods up to the ethical and environmental standards of organic foods.
It looks like my mod points expired today else I would have kicked this post up a notch.
I'm not super-trekkie, but I know from personal experience that the Hilton in Vegas through away massive amounts of convention/conference business when it closed down Quark's. =\
I miss my Moogie's Choice Pasta and Warp Core Breach
The maximum of 10 seconds that would be required of me to use a service owned by Google without their massive merge is well worth not having an accurate super-identity of me created somewhere over which I have no control.
You are correct. I *don't* want a smartphone, but that's the only kind of cell phone receiving genuine development. No one's trying to perfect the simple functions of the feature phone (sound quality, mic quality, media player, camera, keyboard, battery life).
Instead, the smartphone is receiving 99% of development focus because it can be used to bring in additional revenue beyond normal subscription.
It's too much of a focus on "more" and not enough on "better".
I'm still a cell phone Luddite. I don't like most "smart" functions because of the drain battery power while giving me a ton of stuff I don't want.
Things I don't want:
"Seamless integration of phone and social networking contacts" -- I have different spheres of life for a reason. I don't want any corporation being able to draw a perfect picture of my habits, hobbies, peers, or family.
"Blazing fast web access" -- I don't want to shell out more than I'm paying right now ($50/month) for a cell phone. That means I don't want a "data plan". The lack of web access decreases time/money/effort spent on phone development and prevents unexpected accidental charges.
"Touch screen keyboard" -- Buttons work better. They just do.
----
Don't get me wrong, I'm as super nerd as anyone else, but I also have a very real preference to not be "leashed" by technology. I refuse to become "tech dependent" which most people admit to becoming after getting a smart phone. ("I never thought I would need it, but now I can't live without it.")
I just want the following functions to work *flawlessly* on a feature phone:
*Great speakerphone, sound, and mic
*Hardware QWERTY for text messaging
*Customizable UI color schemes
*MicroSD card Slot
*Good quality snapshot camera (no flash necessary)
*Great MP3/OGG/etc. player and interface
*3.5mm headphone jack
*All other weight saved should go to increased battery size/life and reduced weight
Liability. It always comes down to liability. Lojack stands behind their product and their training. That's why police departments trust it. It's the same with OnStar calling an ambulance on your behalf or your ability to prove that a car belongs to your by showing matching photo ID and vehicle registration. These are well funded systems with throngs of support people, very high risk, and thus very high insurance for their products and actions.
When liability is externalized and the PD can point to another entity to say, "Hey, it's their system. If they're wrong and we do wrong by trusting them, they will hold the liability." When they can't, they don't trust the external identification system.
If you want the PD to trust Apple's Find My Phone or similar programs, they have to start a relationship with various PDs, give them training, and have massive insurance themselves. Then the cost of such programs will go up and actually start to match the value of the service (just like Lojack).
Google Transit is not news to those of us who work in transportation. I work in Sustainable Transportation/Transportation Demand Management and my job is to get people to do (practically) anything but drive a car alone. Since I also work at a University, it's also my job to convince students not to bring cars to school (at least for the first few years) and it would be SO MUCH EASIER if I could convince Google to jump into multi-modal trip planning. Why?
Well, let's assume you're at my University and want to get somewhere 85 miles south without a car. You might be able to bus to the local train station, catch a southbound train, and then catch another bus to your final destination. However, the bus service here is contracting (sharply) due to budget constraints so a bus connection to a train will not always be an option.
I often suggest biking to the train, riding the train, and then biking to the final destination, but since Google Maps treats transit (bus/train) and biking separately, my suggestion can only go so far. It requires some rather involved planning for a novice to get from our campus to the train station by bike.
There are other options like OpenTripPlanner which, when coupled with a well-mapped OpenStreetMaps, can be an incredible way to plan multi-modal trips in addition to mapping out literally everything in an area from streets to bike lanes to sidewalks, stairs, and handicap accessible ramps... but it takes A LOT of work to perfect a local map and then to host an OpenTripPlanner server. It's relatively easy, but it's man-hour intense.
So, come on Google, pretty please.
I'd pay that cost yearly for Google to guarantee to not track my registered identities (work, personal). If that's the price they put on it, sure!
"The best teachers will become highly qualified early, and will gravitate toward the best paying jobs."
No kidding? The best education will come from teachers who have a passion to dedicate the cost of a modern 4-year education, master's degree, credentialing, and entry-level experience while they're still young? Wow, that's great to know! Now here's the problem: How do teachers pay for all of that while still safely assuming that there will be a sufficient paycheck on the other side of all the hurdles.
This author of this article may not have noticed, but the economic crash for education has not yet ended. Faculty numbers are still being cut, early retirement is still being suggested, and schools (real schools, not those in Palo Alto and La Jolla) are still looking for the cheapest possible teacher. That teacher likely has very high qualifications because s/he got hired amongst a bunch of under-employed educators, so after 2 or 3 years, that highly qualified teacher will be leaving the scum-hole school that him him/her a job and move on to the higher paying jobs teaching students who aren't in as severe need of dedicated teachers.
Schools refer to this as Overqualified Turnover, Brain Drain, and Talent Sapping... and, believe it or not, it's a disincentive for regular schools to actually put the time and effort into hiring a very good teacher. Many would prefer to have an "OK" teacher that would stick around and have personal investment in their school over a great teacher that is just stopping by for a resume filler.
Your child and everyone's child is better off not flooding to one or a few "best schools" but taking the stand to require adequate public school funding for all schools.
It's OK for Slashdot to do it because Slashdot is not a news media organization. Slashdot re-post the news. It doesn't have reporters or journalists.
I disagree. I think Slashdot is BELIEVABLY biased-- as well it should be. This isn't a media organization. It's a news-reposting blog with a comments section.
I can accept that. What would be best? Creative Rights?