Of course! Why didn't anyone in the world think of that? I must be a complete fool... look at the battery icon. Jeez.
Or I could just use my separate MP3 player and not have any problem to begin with! Well, wait. Then that's more pocket clutter. So I'll get a phone with an MP3 player!
But what if I'm caught up in music walking down the road and kill my phone because I've listened to too much music (the device being kept in my pocket and not in front of my face). Oh, carry a spare battery? Good idea! Wait... pocket clutter...
You see what I'm getting at?
Imagine a phone/camera/mp3 device that just does what you want, doesn't have power-sucking graphics that you don't want, and doesn't try to up-sell you to a dozen different net-based costs! Imagine if all the engineering effort was just focused on providing great reception, great audio quality, great photo capabilities, and great battery life while preserving the most important function!
And I don't want a smartphone. I want a combination of devices (Camera, Phone, MP3 player, Text Messager) that would use the same processor with a double power system to protect the most important function-- communication. That doesn't make a smartphone.
In fact, those things are standard on all "feature phones" except feature phones also come with game (demos) and are constantly trying to convince you to go their crippled versions of "the internet" to complete unnecessary tasks.
I build the desktops I want. I found the tablet I've always wanted. I'm yet to find the phone of my dreams.
Do Note Want: *** Smartphone *** Internet Connectivity - Not even the option for it. It's a (fee) trap! *** Touchscreen - Buttons just work.
Want: 1) Phone 2) Address book and speed dial 3) Text-messaging 4) QWERTY Keyboard 5) Simple MP3 player (along the capabilities of bare-bones WinAmp) 6) Video and Still Camera with flash 7) MicroSD card slot 8) 3.5mm headphone jack 9) Micro-USB jack (for charging and data transfer) 10) Bluetooth 11) Two separate batteries in the phone (both charged at the same time). One feeds the phone and texting, the other feeds the camera and MP3 player. Because I want to have my phone in an emergency regardless of my listening to music.
Bonus points: Full user control of text font, color, background, and ring tones both in-phone and through a simple desktop application.
I'll pay $150 for this phone before 2-year contract discounts.
Desktop Replacement Laptop = 17"+ screen, 500+GB hdd, DVD drive (likely blu-ray), processor does not belong to manufacturer's "portable" lines, often has high-power graphics option. Price varies with components.
Notebook/Laptop: 15"+ screen, 200+GB hdd, processor is likely one of the mfg's "portable" processors, some sort of optical drive (likely DVD-RW). Price varies with components.
Ultra-portable Laptop: up to 15" screen, SSD of some amount of GB or up to 320GB HDD, mfg's "portable" processor, maybe an optical drive, under 3 lbs. High price paid for large SSDs and standard processors in a very small form-factor.
Netbook: 8-12" screen, SSD or HDD of a relatively small amount of storage, a netbook processor (Atom, Tegra, Fusion, etc). Under $350.
Economist Mark Jacobson has estimated that for every mile-per-gallon we raise the standards, 149 traffic fatalities occur per year.
OR
Everyone with a brain has estimated that massive, unnecessarily heavy and powerful gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs driven by distracted buffoons kill people on the road.
Also, the report and the curiously straight-line graph comes from:
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.
"Saudi Arabia Begins Construction of [what will be the] Worldâ(TM)s Tallest Building
"The total cost for the tower is [estimated to be] $1.2 billion. It [will] feature a Four Seasons hotel, Four Seasons serviced apartments, luxury condominiums, top class office space and [what will be] the world's highest observatory."
That said, I predict financial failure IF it ever gets built because (news flash) almost no one wants to visit Saudi Arabia and those who want to won't be able to afford staying in that building.
The "rush" isn't in the resources itself, but the stocks of the company. If you do a GoogleNews search for "rare earth" and "nebraska", you'll find that them majority of the reports are through "market" sources. It's hype so that day traders will invest thus allowing original investors to sell at higher prices, get out, and watch it deflate because they all know that rare-earth mining and smelting is such a dirty business that the EPA won't allow it.
Latino is *supposed* to be a general summary statement of ethnicity describing those from Latin-America (from Mexico down to Panama).
Hispanic is *supposed* to be a general summary statement of ethnicity describing those from Spanish-conquered Caribbean islands.
"Race" is *supposed* to be summary statements of biological origins from around the world- the modern terms being "White", "Asian/Oriental", "Black". In the early-to-mid 1900s, those of "Hispanic/Latino" backgrounds were categorized by the American government as "White" but various non-united cultural movements established "more correct" means of identification. Enter: Hispanic, Latino/a, Chicano/a (a politically-charged label). Which term is "most-appropriate" for your region depends on traditions that stem from the mid-1900s.
I'm of Mexican origin. On bubble-in forms, I identify as "Latino" because I am in California and do not identify as "someone from Mexico". If I were in certain parts of New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas, it would be most-appropriate for me to identify as "Hispanic".
But you can forget all that because the truth is that all of us non-White people get together online, via mail, by smoke signal, and even in person to decide what we want White people to call us in the coming fiscal year. That's why no one's ever sure what to call "us"... we keep moving the goal posts. It's cheap and often cruel, but boy is it a laugh riot!
The thing about "American" culture is that it's a blend of many. Some people hold on to their lineage's native culture more steadfast while others are quick to adopt anew. Some would argue that American culture is the politically charged "traditional values" of Christian morality, heterosexuality, self-reliance/boot-strap outlook, and fear of those who look/speak/act differently. And surely, that's part of it.
But there's also a plethora of other religious and philosophical understanding of our world, lesbian/bisexual/gay/transgender/transsexual/questioning sexualities, the desire to help another before (or along with) one's self, and the complete addiction to other cultures.
That's all American. In fact, it's the lack of homogeneity that is so distinctly American (melting pot, etc.).
"Diversity" a buzzword used by exploiters of buzzwords (marketers, advertisers), but to the rest of the world, it's just another way of saying "Demographic Statistics".
What is "our culture"? (actual question). I'm ethically Latino (Mexican origin), non-religious, and American. I grew up with, went to school with, and work with people of all national and ethnic origins. It's genuinely diverse here and thus I find it quite acceptable that there might be a black-tino boy questioning his sexuality.
But I do agree that it's obvious pandering. Comic books pander.
I don't agree that he'd be a vengeful sharia Muslim, though. That wouldn't sell comic books.
Political correctness is daintily tip-toeing around words and phrases because those words or phrases may or may not be taboo relative to modern cultural, racial, religious, sexual, etc. constructs.
A Spiderman with non-white ethnic background is just diverse. Anyone can get bitten by a radioactive spider.
Indeed! It's hard enough being tall, brown, male, and charismatic in education, but add in the potential for private messages and the photos kids put on their sites... wow.
I avoided all social media until recently and my page is fully locked down. The only way to communicate with me is if I friend you first... and no other information is volunteered. And STILL the page is only for people of a certain hobby group. No exceptions.
In fact, most educated educators view social media as a massive lawsuit trap. If they have Facebook accounts, they're locked down.
I only *just* started a Facebook account so that I could communicate with an help organize a hobby group. None of my current or former students know about it. And it will stay that way.
"Creating an interface that is unique to Firefox"
on
The Next Firefox UI
·
· Score: 1
"... a few different reasons why we are exploring the concept of a Home Tab, including: Creating an interface that is unique to Firefox"
But why? If I were a group of program developers that is still trying to steal users away from another program, I would make switching as easy as possible. Learning curves brought on by unique interfaces work against that.
Oh well... just make sure there's the option for a more traditional UI and I'll just switch to that when I upgrade- Why yes, my Windows 7 installation looks just like Windows 2000.
Just a quick note: Those sub-$400 computers frequently come with at least two of the following variables:
(1) No monitor (2) Onboard Video (3) 3GB or less RAM with Windows 7 booting up to 1.8GB RAM used. (4) Sub-300w power supply (OK for greener computer, Bad for video cards) (5) Bad computer case (either flashy buttons stacked on actual buttons, severe space limitations, etc.)
Why in the world does it matter if one console is selling better than another? Does owning the more-sold console contribute the value and effect of the console on gaming? Does it inherently attract more developers?
Or is it one of those pseudo-team-contests where those who own Playstations feel superior to those who own Xboxes simply because Playstation is "winning" an unofficial competition in sales?
"I like oranges. You like bananas. More oranges were sold last year than bananas... so ya. That means my fruit preferences beats your fruit preference. Take that."
*Smart phones* are still not the norm. Most cell phone owners have dumb phones/feature phones. The only reason they seem like the norm is because of their massive profit margins and thus massive marketing to make it SEEM like everyone has a smart phone and thus you need one to be as good as everyone else. (OH NO! Social symbol!)
"" 83% of American adults have a cell phone and one third of them. 43% of American adult cellphone owners have a smart phone. 65% of American adults do NOT own a smart phone. Several groups have higher than average levels of smartphone adoption, including:
The financially well-off and well-educated â" 59% of adults living in a household earning income of $75,000 or more are smartphone owners; 48% of those with a college degree own smartphones.
Even among those with a household income of $30,000 or less, smartphone ownership rates for those ages 18-29 are equal to the national average. ""
Take that last part to heart becase when the luxury purchases of the low-income mirror those of the upper-income, the items purchased are most likely status/social symbols.
"Getting a teaching job" is in no way similar to "becoming a good and prepared teacher".
During the major teacher shortages of the 1990s, LA Unified School District popularized the "emergency credential" wherein anyone with experience in education could babysit a class room as a substitute teacher for enough time and become certified. Most of those "teachers" ended up being crap.
A recent study by the US Dept. of Education showed little if any correlation between the effectiveness of teachers and their having master's degrees. But when they separated those who had master's *before* going into teaching, they found the master's valuable. It's even more valuable if that master's was focused in education.
Believe me, I'm not trying to be contrarian... It's just that all those little bones that have been thrown to teachers to incentivize teaching in low-performing schools (or just to teach at all) haven't added up to much for the students. The focus needs to be on improving education for those in low-income areas and in robust teacher preparation with streamlined access so that the dedicated don't fall through the cracks.
Community colleges offer, at best, general education class equivalents for the extremely driven student. Even then, the transferable classes are frequently packed and difficult to get into. Couple that with the new fee increases, the classes you need are easily $100+ per class. If you take a full schedule so you can be out in 2 years, you're looking at $1,200/yr in fees alone. Add in books and cost of living (because you'll be a full-time student) to whatever level you wish.
Of course, there's a good chance you'll need to retake those equivalent courses (if math, science, etc.) in the 4-year environment because they don't always match the necessary rigor. And this still adds yet another level of complexity to path to becoming a teacher.
Tuition is not the only cost of a 4-year education. Rent, bills, food, and transportation are all expenses that one would have regardless of being students, but as students, they don't have the time/access to earn the money to pay for the expenses. Mom and Dad or Financial Aid have to step in to support the students who have additional costs of tuition, books, and supplies. Student jobs most frequently off-set transportation costs and not much else. (On-campus jobs where I am limit the student to 19 hours per week.)
Fees alone at my *public* university are at $13,970 per year and can go up even more this year if sufficient revenue at the state level is not realized by mid-year. One academic year's costs are estimated at $27,000-$28,000. Toss in the cost of summers or a 5th year and ya, you can do $125,000 for your degree. It can be covered by scholarships, grants, loans, or cash, but the cost is still there. For comparison, prior to the housing boom and dot-com bust, my own total cost for one year at the same university was $15,000 in 2000. Since then, state funding has dropped consistently and housing (apartment) pricing has gone up (NEVER going down).
You say the cost means it's being done wrong, but I say the cost represents the actual cost of being a student.
Here's a guy who is smart. He has a LOT of money because he knew how to use his brain at the right time and right place in history. Now, being older, he wants to do good with his money. Great. Or not so much... because given the cultural assumption that multi-billionaires understand something about the world that the rest of us don't, his quests are followed and worshiped as good steps. But lets look back at his severe missteps in his attempts to reform education:
1) Scholarships: The whole effort start with giving away hundreds of millions of dollars in competitive scholarships. That's really nice, but here's the thing about competitive scholarships-- they almost always go to the kids that are already destined for higher education funding. He was helping the easily helped. Of COURSE this wasn't going to change the state of education in the USA. He was/is just holding the status quo.
2) Building Super Schools: Bill funded/helped to fund tech super schools. As Bill knows from the planned obsolescence model, those schools aren't fiscally sustainable because all the high tech hardware needs upkeep, security, and replacement regularly. That means more cost for the schools. Bad move, Bill.
3) Charter Schools: Bill, despite his great intentions, has fallen into the latest fallacy trap: "Private business survives on lean budgets and thus public service has something to learn." But there's a problem... private/corporate businesses are "lean" in their budgets because their shareholders demand evermore short-term profits at the cost of service and employees. Turning public schools (where the shareholders are effectively the students) into genuine private businesses opens up schools to the profit motive and thus low-investment teachers and cherry-picked students. So what's the plan when stocks take a dive...?
Bill, here's a tip: Go through an MA in education program and get your California Teachers' Credentials. Experience the massive bureaucracy and cost associated with becoming a teacher and ask yourself, "Who in the world is willing to do this to themselves... and how do we make sure more are able to do it?" What do I mean? Well, here's a quick walkthrough of the path to becoming a well-prepared teacher:
***Take your SATs during high school = ~$75 ***Apply to undergraduate programs at 4-year universities = ~$60 each ***Get accepted, go through college, graduate with B or better average = $125,000 (UC education) ***Prepare for and take the GRE, CBEST, and CSET (in your planned area of teaching) = $250 ***Explore the completely non-standardized MA/PhD world, tons of websites, more phone calls and emails, and find the right MA Education program for you. Apply to many and prepare to move house. ~$80 each. Don't forget to save money for all that travel for interviews you'll have to do! ***Complete your MA and get your credentials over 2-3 years while also teaching for free = ~$50,000 ***Congratulations, you're a mostly-prepared teacher with temporary credentials and have only spent $200,000. ***Additional fees: $55 per copy of your credential (you'll need multiple), the cost of fingerprinting in each county you apply as a teacher (non-transferable). ***Start your job search in a state that recently had MAJOR teacher downsizing. Hope for a 75+% appointment but take whatever you can. Prepare to move house. ***Start work making $30,000-$40,000. Don't settle in to your new apartment. There are still more cuts and teacher tenure is under attack. Oh, expect to pay $1,500 out-of-pocket for your class supplies because neither your students nor your school can afford to buy them. ***3 years pass, and you have to complete your credentialing. You take more classes, more tests, get evaluated. You've spent $4,500 on school supplies since starting.
And it goes on.
Bill, if you REALLY want to change education for the better, here are two ways to do so:
1) Affect the poorest and lowest performing children. Fund the fixing of thei
I didn't have an internet connection or a computer. I barely had a home. My parents were drug addicts. I'm glad my teachers didn't leave my education up to my parents. I would have turned out just like my parents, otherwise.
I would have loved to live in a free dormitory.
Instead, I was one of the few kids to make it out of my area (likely the only one genuine below the poverty level) and in to college. There, I got involved with other peoples educations and made a career of higher education outreach into low-income middle schools, high schools, and community colleges.
No, we can't leave any part of a child's success to his/her parents. We can do our best to involve them, but if the parents fail, then the child fails, and we in education fail. We're not allowed to fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course! Why didn't anyone in the world think of that? I must be a complete fool... look at the battery icon. Jeez.
Or I could just use my separate MP3 player and not have any problem to begin with! Well, wait. Then that's more pocket clutter. So I'll get a phone with an MP3 player!
But what if I'm caught up in music walking down the road and kill my phone because I've listened to too much music (the device being kept in my pocket and not in front of my face). Oh, carry a spare battery? Good idea! Wait... pocket clutter...
You see what I'm getting at?
Imagine a phone/camera/mp3 device that just does what you want, doesn't have power-sucking graphics that you don't want, and doesn't try to up-sell you to a dozen different net-based costs! Imagine if all the engineering effort was just focused on providing great reception, great audio quality, great photo capabilities, and great battery life while preserving the most important function!
Nice of you to respond to that in a completely different thread. You said it was an "u820". So I looked up u820 and found: http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/samsung-reality-sch-u820/4505-6454_7-34078840.html which is a smartphone.
And I don't want a smartphone. I want a combination of devices (Camera, Phone, MP3 player, Text Messager) that would use the same processor with a double power system to protect the most important function-- communication. That doesn't make a smartphone.
In fact, those things are standard on all "feature phones" except feature phones also come with game (demos) and are constantly trying to convince you to go their crippled versions of "the internet" to complete unnecessary tasks.
I build the desktops I want. I found the tablet I've always wanted. I'm yet to find the phone of my dreams.
Do Note Want:
*** Smartphone
*** Internet Connectivity - Not even the option for it. It's a (fee) trap!
*** Touchscreen - Buttons just work.
Want:
1) Phone
2) Address book and speed dial
3) Text-messaging
4) QWERTY Keyboard
5) Simple MP3 player (along the capabilities of bare-bones WinAmp)
6) Video and Still Camera with flash
7) MicroSD card slot
8) 3.5mm headphone jack
9) Micro-USB jack (for charging and data transfer)
10) Bluetooth
11) Two separate batteries in the phone (both charged at the same time). One feeds the phone and texting, the other feeds the camera and MP3 player. Because I want to have my phone in an emergency regardless of my listening to music.
Bonus points: Full user control of text font, color, background, and ring tones both in-phone and through a simple desktop application.
I'll pay $150 for this phone before 2-year contract discounts.
That's an smartphone.
The way I understand it:
Desktop Replacement Laptop = 17"+ screen, 500+GB hdd, DVD drive (likely blu-ray), processor does not belong to manufacturer's "portable" lines, often has high-power graphics option. Price varies with components.
Notebook/Laptop: 15"+ screen, 200+GB hdd, processor is likely one of the mfg's "portable" processors, some sort of optical drive (likely DVD-RW). Price varies with components.
Ultra-portable Laptop: up to 15" screen, SSD of some amount of GB or up to 320GB HDD, mfg's "portable" processor, maybe an optical drive, under 3 lbs. High price paid for large SSDs and standard processors in a very small form-factor.
Netbook: 8-12" screen, SSD or HDD of a relatively small amount of storage, a netbook processor (Atom, Tegra, Fusion, etc). Under $350.
Economist Mark Jacobson has estimated that for every mile-per-gallon we raise the standards, 149 traffic fatalities occur per year.
OR
Everyone with a brain has estimated that massive, unnecessarily heavy and powerful gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs driven by distracted buffoons kill people on the road.
Also, the report and the curiously straight-line graph comes from:
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial
private sector.
"Saudi Arabia Begins Construction of [what will be the] Worldâ(TM)s Tallest Building
"The total cost for the tower is [estimated to be] $1.2 billion. It [will] feature a Four Seasons hotel, Four Seasons serviced apartments, luxury condominiums, top class office space and [what will be] the world's highest observatory."
That said, I predict financial failure IF it ever gets built because (news flash) almost no one wants to visit Saudi Arabia and those who want to won't be able to afford staying in that building.
The "rush" isn't in the resources itself, but the stocks of the company. If you do a GoogleNews search for "rare earth" and "nebraska", you'll find that them majority of the reports are through "market" sources. It's hype so that day traders will invest thus allowing original investors to sell at higher prices, get out, and watch it deflate because they all know that rare-earth mining and smelting is such a dirty business that the EPA won't allow it.
Latino is *supposed* to be a general summary statement of ethnicity describing those from Latin-America (from Mexico down to Panama).
Hispanic is *supposed* to be a general summary statement of ethnicity describing those from Spanish-conquered Caribbean islands.
"Race" is *supposed* to be summary statements of biological origins from around the world- the modern terms being "White", "Asian/Oriental", "Black". In the early-to-mid 1900s, those of "Hispanic/Latino" backgrounds were categorized by the American government as "White" but various non-united cultural movements established "more correct" means of identification. Enter: Hispanic, Latino/a, Chicano/a (a politically-charged label). Which term is "most-appropriate" for your region depends on traditions that stem from the mid-1900s.
I'm of Mexican origin. On bubble-in forms, I identify as "Latino" because I am in California and do not identify as "someone from Mexico". If I were in certain parts of New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas, it would be most-appropriate for me to identify as "Hispanic".
But you can forget all that because the truth is that all of us non-White people get together online, via mail, by smoke signal, and even in person to decide what we want White people to call us in the coming fiscal year. That's why no one's ever sure what to call "us"... we keep moving the goal posts. It's cheap and often cruel, but boy is it a laugh riot!
It's not. However, not everyone memorizes time zone differences.
The thing about "American" culture is that it's a blend of many. Some people hold on to their lineage's native culture more steadfast while others are quick to adopt anew. Some would argue that American culture is the politically charged "traditional values" of Christian morality, heterosexuality, self-reliance/boot-strap outlook, and fear of those who look/speak/act differently. And surely, that's part of it.
But there's also a plethora of other religious and philosophical understanding of our world, lesbian/bisexual/gay/transgender/transsexual/questioning sexualities, the desire to help another before (or along with) one's self, and the complete addiction to other cultures.
That's all American. In fact, it's the lack of homogeneity that is so distinctly American (melting pot, etc.).
"Diversity" a buzzword used by exploiters of buzzwords (marketers, advertisers), but to the rest of the world, it's just another way of saying "Demographic Statistics".
What is "our culture"? (actual question). I'm ethically Latino (Mexican origin), non-religious, and American. I grew up with, went to school with, and work with people of all national and ethnic origins. It's genuinely diverse here and thus I find it quite acceptable that there might be a black-tino boy questioning his sexuality.
But I do agree that it's obvious pandering. Comic books pander.
I don't agree that he'd be a vengeful sharia Muslim, though. That wouldn't sell comic books.
Political correctness is daintily tip-toeing around words and phrases because those words or phrases may or may not be taboo relative to modern cultural, racial, religious, sexual, etc. constructs.
A Spiderman with non-white ethnic background is just diverse. Anyone can get bitten by a radioactive spider.
Indeed! It's hard enough being tall, brown, male, and charismatic in education, but add in the potential for private messages and the photos kids put on their sites... wow.
I avoided all social media until recently and my page is fully locked down. The only way to communicate with me is if I friend you first... and no other information is volunteered. And STILL the page is only for people of a certain hobby group. No exceptions.
In fact, most educated educators view social media as a massive lawsuit trap. If they have Facebook accounts, they're locked down.
I only *just* started a Facebook account so that I could communicate with an help organize a hobby group. None of my current or former students know about it. And it will stay that way.
"... a few different reasons why we are exploring the concept of a Home Tab, including: Creating an interface that is unique to Firefox"
But why? If I were a group of program developers that is still trying to steal users away from another program, I would make switching as easy as possible. Learning curves brought on by unique interfaces work against that.
Oh well... just make sure there's the option for a more traditional UI and I'll just switch to that when I upgrade- Why yes, my Windows 7 installation looks just like Windows 2000.
Just a quick note: Those sub-$400 computers frequently come with at least two of the following variables:
(1) No monitor
(2) Onboard Video
(3) 3GB or less RAM with Windows 7 booting up to 1.8GB RAM used.
(4) Sub-300w power supply (OK for greener computer, Bad for video cards)
(5) Bad computer case (either flashy buttons stacked on actual buttons, severe space limitations, etc.)
But console game development is not an "either/or" decision, it's a minimum returns decision.
Is PS moving at least X consoles per month? Yes? Ok, we'll develop a game for that console.
Is Xbox moving at least X consoles per month? Yes? Ok, we'll develop a game for that console.
Their relative market share doesn't matter... especially when they're so close as to warrant a "race".
Well, honestly speaking, how much do you think it would cost to send it out into open space? If it's $1.50, ya, I'll drop that in the bucket.
Of course, I'd suggest selling the ISS (in whole or pieces) before junking it either to space, ocean, land, or burn up.
Why in the world does it matter if one console is selling better than another? Does owning the more-sold console contribute the value and effect of the console on gaming? Does it inherently attract more developers?
Or is it one of those pseudo-team-contests where those who own Playstations feel superior to those who own Xboxes simply because Playstation is "winning" an unofficial competition in sales?
"I like oranges. You like bananas. More oranges were sold last year than bananas... so ya. That means my fruit preferences beats your fruit preference. Take that."
*Smart phones* are still not the norm. Most cell phone owners have dumb phones/feature phones. The only reason they seem like the norm is because of their massive profit margins and thus massive marketing to make it SEEM like everyone has a smart phone and thus you need one to be as good as everyone else. (OH NO! Social symbol!)
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Smartphones/Summary.aspx
""
83% of American adults have a cell phone and one third of them.
43% of American adult cellphone owners have a smart phone.
65% of American adults do NOT own a smart phone.
Several groups have higher than average levels of smartphone adoption, including:
The financially well-off and well-educated â"
59% of adults living in a household earning income of $75,000 or more are smartphone owners;
48% of those with a college degree own smartphones.
Even among those with a household income of $30,000 or less, smartphone ownership rates for those ages 18-29 are equal to the national average.
""
Take that last part to heart becase when the luxury purchases of the low-income mirror those of the upper-income, the items purchased are most likely status/social symbols.
"Getting a teaching job" is in no way similar to "becoming a good and prepared teacher".
During the major teacher shortages of the 1990s, LA Unified School District popularized the "emergency credential" wherein anyone with experience in education could babysit a class room as a substitute teacher for enough time and become certified. Most of those "teachers" ended up being crap.
A recent study by the US Dept. of Education showed little if any correlation between the effectiveness of teachers and their having master's degrees. But when they separated those who had master's *before* going into teaching, they found the master's valuable. It's even more valuable if that master's was focused in education.
Believe me, I'm not trying to be contrarian... It's just that all those little bones that have been thrown to teachers to incentivize teaching in low-performing schools (or just to teach at all) haven't added up to much for the students. The focus needs to be on improving education for those in low-income areas and in robust teacher preparation with streamlined access so that the dedicated don't fall through the cracks.
Community colleges offer, at best, general education class equivalents for the extremely driven student. Even then, the transferable classes are frequently packed and difficult to get into. Couple that with the new fee increases, the classes you need are easily $100+ per class. If you take a full schedule so you can be out in 2 years, you're looking at $1,200/yr in fees alone. Add in books and cost of living (because you'll be a full-time student) to whatever level you wish.
Of course, there's a good chance you'll need to retake those equivalent courses (if math, science, etc.) in the 4-year environment because they don't always match the necessary rigor. And this still adds yet another level of complexity to path to becoming a teacher.
Tuition is not the only cost of a 4-year education. Rent, bills, food, and transportation are all expenses that one would have regardless of being students, but as students, they don't have the time/access to earn the money to pay for the expenses. Mom and Dad or Financial Aid have to step in to support the students who have additional costs of tuition, books, and supplies. Student jobs most frequently off-set transportation costs and not much else. (On-campus jobs where I am limit the student to 19 hours per week.)
Fees alone at my *public* university are at $13,970 per year and can go up even more this year if sufficient revenue at the state level is not realized by mid-year. One academic year's costs are estimated at $27,000-$28,000. Toss in the cost of summers or a 5th year and ya, you can do $125,000 for your degree. It can be covered by scholarships, grants, loans, or cash, but the cost is still there. For comparison, prior to the housing boom and dot-com bust, my own total cost for one year at the same university was $15,000 in 2000. Since then, state funding has dropped consistently and housing (apartment) pricing has gone up (NEVER going down).
You say the cost means it's being done wrong, but I say the cost represents the actual cost of being a student.
... is nearly limitless. Honestly.
Here's a guy who is smart. He has a LOT of money because he knew how to use his brain at the right time and right place in history. Now, being older, he wants to do good with his money. Great. Or not so much... because given the cultural assumption that multi-billionaires understand something about the world that the rest of us don't, his quests are followed and worshiped as good steps. But lets look back at his severe missteps in his attempts to reform education:
1) Scholarships: The whole effort start with giving away hundreds of millions of dollars in competitive scholarships. That's really nice, but here's the thing about competitive scholarships-- they almost always go to the kids that are already destined for higher education funding. He was helping the easily helped. Of COURSE this wasn't going to change the state of education in the USA. He was/is just holding the status quo.
2) Building Super Schools: Bill funded/helped to fund tech super schools. As Bill knows from the planned obsolescence model, those schools aren't fiscally sustainable because all the high tech hardware needs upkeep, security, and replacement regularly. That means more cost for the schools. Bad move, Bill.
3) Charter Schools: Bill, despite his great intentions, has fallen into the latest fallacy trap: "Private business survives on lean budgets and thus public service has something to learn." But there's a problem... private/corporate businesses are "lean" in their budgets because their shareholders demand evermore short-term profits at the cost of service and employees. Turning public schools (where the shareholders are effectively the students) into genuine private businesses opens up schools to the profit motive and thus low-investment teachers and cherry-picked students. So what's the plan when stocks take a dive...?
Bill, here's a tip: Go through an MA in education program and get your California Teachers' Credentials. Experience the massive bureaucracy and cost associated with becoming a teacher and ask yourself, "Who in the world is willing to do this to themselves... and how do we make sure more are able to do it?" What do I mean? Well, here's a quick walkthrough of the path to becoming a well-prepared teacher:
***Take your SATs during high school = ~$75
***Apply to undergraduate programs at 4-year universities = ~$60 each
***Get accepted, go through college, graduate with B or better average = $125,000 (UC education)
***Prepare for and take the GRE, CBEST, and CSET (in your planned area of teaching) = $250
***Explore the completely non-standardized MA/PhD world, tons of websites, more phone calls and emails, and find the right MA Education program for you. Apply to many and prepare to move house. ~$80 each. Don't forget to save money for all that travel for interviews you'll have to do!
***Complete your MA and get your credentials over 2-3 years while also teaching for free = ~$50,000
***Congratulations, you're a mostly-prepared teacher with temporary credentials and have only spent $200,000.
***Additional fees: $55 per copy of your credential (you'll need multiple), the cost of fingerprinting in each county you apply as a teacher (non-transferable).
***Start your job search in a state that recently had MAJOR teacher downsizing. Hope for a 75+% appointment but take whatever you can. Prepare to move house.
***Start work making $30,000-$40,000. Don't settle in to your new apartment. There are still more cuts and teacher tenure is under attack. Oh, expect to pay $1,500 out-of-pocket for your class supplies because neither your students nor your school can afford to buy them.
***3 years pass, and you have to complete your credentialing. You take more classes, more tests, get evaluated. You've spent $4,500 on school supplies since starting.
And it goes on.
Bill, if you REALLY want to change education for the better, here are two ways to do so:
1) Affect the poorest and lowest performing children. Fund the fixing of thei
I didn't have an internet connection or a computer. I barely had a home. My parents were drug addicts. I'm glad my teachers didn't leave my education up to my parents. I would have turned out just like my parents, otherwise.
I would have loved to live in a free dormitory.
Instead, I was one of the few kids to make it out of my area (likely the only one genuine below the poverty level) and in to college. There, I got involved with other peoples educations and made a career of higher education outreach into low-income middle schools, high schools, and community colleges.
No, we can't leave any part of a child's success to his/her parents. We can do our best to involve them, but if the parents fail, then the child fails, and we in education fail. We're not allowed to fail.