You're missing my point...It doesn't matter whether it was a "cut" or an increase. It matters where that extra money is going, or what the money was cut from. If there's more money overall, but the money is being shifted from the good aprts of the program to the bad parts of the program, then I'd oppose the budget.
It's not enough to have "more", it has to be "more in the right places".
If you know more about it, can you tell me what was raised and what was lowered in Newt's budget? What part did his opponents object?
It's easy to go on TV and say "My opponents are anti-healthcare, because they voted against a bill that would increase medicare spending by 20%". But it could be the case that all 20% and more was going to some not-so-noble part of medicare, and if the public (including myself!) knew the breakdown they wouldn't be so impressed by a 20% increase.
lol I think I'm getting a little over my head here; I'm not an NEA spokesperson nor have I heard of the NEA before you mentioned them... but I do still agree with a lot of what they say in their literature, even if I don't understand a lot of their inner workings
"I myself have a problem using as references in favor of something citations from politically-biased sites in favor of it. These people the most interest in cooking the facts. The best citations for something can be found in sites biased against it."
Me too... it's getting hard these days, unless you're a lawyer with time to analyze the budget documents yourself. Every news report, whether for or against, is so watered down and simplified that all you are left with is one tiny point they reporter wanted to make, while you lose the big picture of how that point fits in with a thousand other points.
"The fact is that most teachers must join the NEA or they get fired."
Who fires them? Do they get run out of town by happy NEA members who teach at their school? The union wouldn't exist if people didn't want to be a part of it. If all the teachers at a given public school decided together to quit the NEA, can you explain to me what you think would happen? (if it's jsut that the NEA would deduct dues from their paycheck, assume for the sake of argument that the teachers sued the school and won a judgement that forced the school to stop deducting it)
Okay, so cut is the wrong word, but 2.8% is hardly enough to cover inflation. When he imposes strict new requirements on schools but does not properly fund those requirements, he is saying "you must spread your dollars further". Essentially, forcing them to decide what to cut in order to afford the new requirements.
The paragraph you grabbed those percentages from is this:
"Bush's education funding proposal remains the lowest annual increase since 1996, asking for only a 2.8 percent increase compared to a 15.9 percent increase last year. In fact, he is calling for a total cut of $1.8 billion, cutting 57 valuable educational programs in the process."
It doesn't really provide much supporting evidence, so as much as I'd like to agree with the claim that he cut $1.8 billion overall, and dispute that he raised it by even 2.8%, I don't know how these actual numbers were calculated. These two claims seem to contradict each other...
I'm not familiar with either side the newt gingrich medicare thing, but budgets are huge, and it's likely that bott newt and his opponents were speaking the truth. Newt sounds like he wa saying "Overall, there's a 20% higher medicare budget in my plan". But often what happens is that a budget cuts some of its programs and raises others; so money is shifted around.
So (and this is entirely theoretical and kind of bleeding-heart, so forgive me) if you increased the "pharmeceutical company R&D subsidy" part of the medicare budget by 2 billion, but decreased the "free clinics for poor neighborhoods" budget by 1 billion, then yes, you've raised the medicare budget by $1 billion. But you have still taken cuts from an important piece of the program. So a positive year-to-year gross budget change is not the end-all of whether a program like Medicare has been improved or not, or whether a politician has done well for the heart of the program. It's simpler to look at it that way, and it's great to write on a resume, but it's much more complicated than sound bytes and disjoint statistics make it seem.
[btw this thread has to hold a record for "most Anonymous Coward posts worth responding to":-)]
"You can thank the voucher opponents for this, while saying that the payment is not enough they actually fight to reduce it."
By phrasing it like that, you make it sound like it's established that vouchers are a good thing and anti-voucher groups want to gut voucher amount. It is not, however, established that vouchers are a good thing. The desire is not to give vouchers worth less money; actually, anti-voucher people fight to avoid vouchers altogether and find an alternative to fixing public education.
"One infamous case is where the NEA fought against teachers in Syracuse who took the iniative themselves to tutor students on the weekends."
I couldn't find this anywhere...got a link?
"Do you happen to have something that shows...Before$ > After$"
No, I don't have an analysis to prove or disprove that, except this article is pretty good: http://misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df0 5122004.html. My point was that he campaigned on certain amounts, then across the board provided less than he promised. Then he still demanded all the changes that were originally to be funded with the original amounts, but now won't pay for them. How does he expect that to work?
"the NEA which opposes them solely because private school teachers are not forced into the NEA."
Many organizations have multiple reasons for doing things, and I'm sure the point that private school teachers aren't forced to join the NEA is one small concern. But there's an entire list of their completely valid arguments against vouchers here, so don't let a little politics void a whole bunch of good reasons. Not to mention that the NEA is not the only group with good arguments against vouchers.
"I have no respect for political organizations whose power lies in coercion and theft (forced political contributions by members"
No one's forced to contribute to the political side of NEA, the legally distinct, separately budgeted NEA PAC. So stop believing those lies about forced political contributions.
It depends on the size of the voucher in the program. Many provide enough for the poor to attend. Yet, the anti-education lobby (NEA, etc) opposes these, too, because it means the growth of schools where teachers are not forced into the NEA.
You said "many" because you can't say "most". Because "most" programs, by far, do not provide even half of private school tuition.
And don't label the National Education Association as "the anti-education lobby", without backing it up. The NEA is not anti-education, and it's ridiculous to say that. If the NEA is anti-education, who is pro-education? If anyone's anti-education, it's Bush, who promises funding and brags about how much he cares about education, and then breaks his promises and guts education budgets.
If you were really concerned about "the poorest of the poor", you would not want them to be stuck in inferior schools. You would want vouchers so they can improve their education.
What do you do, work for some politician's spin department? Because I'm against vouchers, you think I'm against education? It's not that simple, although it'd be convenient for your arguments if it were cut and dry like that. Of course I don't want kids stuck at inferior schools, but sending every kid to private school is not the answer either, because no evidence that they'd do a superior job at teaching all the kids that a public school has to teach.
They would be stuck in their poor public schools, while all the smarter or not-quite-so-poor kids leave.
And you can't prove these public schools are inferior compared to private schools, because private schools exist in a bubble of selectivity and wealth, while public schools has to teach whatever kids live in the area. I'd like to see see how good an education the teachers at an upper class private school are able to provide to 500 kids from the inner city. You cut off their selectivity, and you'll see their misleading numbers and inflated test scores drop until they're the same as the public schools.
It is much more expensive to provide schooling for a poor, not-so-intelligent kid, than a well off, smart kid. You have to have a meal plan, you have to have extra help, and you need to get through more social barriers for a kids who have a hard poor life than a kid who has a decent middle class life. The poorer students get more than average because they are needy.
So when you take money away and give it to richer smarter students, and also take away all the smarter kids themselves, you are making it much harder for the public schools to educate the ones who remain.
All vouchers do is thin out the public schools, helping kids with some money or some real brains escape, leaving others in the dust.
Also, it's not always your education that gets you a job - it's sometimes your parents' connections; so rich kids with rich parents might get cushy jobs, and teachers may seek out districts such as this.
"So you think that the equivalent of $59,000 per year amounts to being underpaid?"
First, it's not the equivalent of $59,000 per year, unless they find a job that will pay them $15,000 for three months work each summer. Most teachers tutor or work at camps over the summer, but only the most enterprising make $15,000 doing this. $10,000 would be an amazing take for a teacher during the summer, and it would take more effort than someone in another job who works all 12 months per year.
Also, the median salary is 10% lower than the mean, which means that the higher paid teachers are further above the average salary than the lower paid ones are below it. (read: many lower paid teachers, fewer higher paid teachers)
I wouldn't term it underpaid, because maybe that's the right salary for who they are and what they accomplish. But I'd say the salary is not enough to attract more qualified teachers, considering that the average mathematical worker (programmer, mathematician) makes $63,500 or so, and doesn't have to grade tests all weekend or develop lesson plans in their evenings.
Also, considering that teachers make up about 6% of the entire workforce, but are charged with educating nearly 100% of our nation's children, and ensuring our future as a successful country, I'd think their salaries should be much farther above the national average than they currently are.
Teacher salaries should be so high that, like Doctors, even our best and brightest would want to compete for teaching positions, and be revered for their dedication and ability. We'd insource great teachers from other nations, instead of outsourcing skilled jobs.
That brings another question: When you factor in cost of living differences, how well do other nations pay their teachers? Perhaps someone can answer this, I've done enough googling for tonite:-)
"No. Vouchers take students away from schools that cannot educate and give them to schools that can."
Vouchers only work for those who have nearly enough money to afford private school, so the vouchers cover the last gap.
And those private schools only have good numbers and appear to be more effective because they are selective in their students. Plainly said: They only let the good ones in. To hell with the other students who actually need the help.
Imagine there were two baseball teams in a small town. One baseball team could choose whether to accept or reject any player who tried out, but the other baseball team had to accept every player who wanted to join and give them all time on the field. The selective team could also kick out any low performers during the season.
Who would win in a game between the two? Obviously, the selective all-star team would win; it'd also have better stats and look like a better team than the non-selective teams.
So while you may think you're being fair when comparing private schools to public schools, you have to realize that it's not a level playing field, and they don't play by the same rules.
From this site "Private schools are allowed to discriminate on a variety of grounds. These institutions regularly reject applicants because of low achievement, discipline problems, and sometimes for no reason at all." and "...public schools would be left with fewer dollars to teach the poorest of the poor and other students who, for one reason or another, were not private school material."
your kids are lucky to their parent so positively involved in their education. But you must agree that the school itself has something to do with it, or you wouldn't send your kids to private school.
Aside from your good home environment, what is it about the private school that you think makes it more effective than the public school?
Also remember that a small private school in a nice town doesn't need to spend as much on security per student than large public schools in urban centers.
California: tops in teacher salaries but almost last in pupil-teacher ratio: In 2001-02 California schools had more students per teacher than all other states except two and almost five students more than the U.S. average. The pupil-teacher ratio, which is the number of students enrolled per full-time equivalent teacher, gives an indication of class size. The ratio in California was 20.8 students per teacher in contrast to the U.S. average of 15.9. Only Utah at 21.1 students per teacher and Arizona at 21.0 exceeded California, while Vermont had the smallest ratio at 11.5.
So I guess teacher pay isn't the only factor. You could pay one teacher 9.3 million dollars, but he still couldn't educate 1,000 students by himself. Also, "California's strong growth in [teacher] salaries was offset to some extent because the cost of living here is above the national average."
Spoken like a true public-school graduate! -russ p.s. it's not too late to learn. Never has been.
lol you got it right.
But actually I was privileged to go to a great public school, one of those that is just as good as most private schools, in a barely affordable neighborhood. My family lived in a slightly more affordable section, and had 4 kids so it was worth the money:-) I surely didn't look a gift horse in the mouth, and I enjoyed my good education, but I noticed years later how much of a difference it can make long term.
Distance learning, offshore development, outsourcing, everything; can all be traced to a neglected education system in the U.S.
We don't pay our teachers much, so most of our intelligent people are going on to other jobs where their brains get them more money. Teaching could became a coveted profession like being a Doctor or a Lawyer.
But instead, we're paying our teachers low wages, and chipping away at our long standing scientific advantage over the rest of the world.
Who needs to pay for this? Every citizen, but those with more must contribute more. The problem is that well-off citizens can just send their own kids to private school -- screw the rest of the kids -- and then vote at the school district meetings for minimal budgets, so their school taxes go down. In some districts, housing and school taxes are so expensive that by buying a house there you are essentially paying for private school for yuor kids, and poor people cannot afford to get into that community.
Vouchers are not the answer, as all they do is take money away from the school that need it the most, and give it to schools that are already rich enough to provide a good education. It just serves to further separate the rich from the poor.
What we need is for washington to put its foot down and say "Enough!"
Listen, those of you who've made it big in America: It's not just your own hard work that got you where you are in life, it's your education, your community, your country, and your fellow citizens that made this environment that allowed you to have a chance at all. So stop whining and help out your fellow man; pay 1% more in taxes, so that poor kids can go to better schools, and lead better lives. Heck, you'll probably make up the lost taxes in the money you save by not being robbed or carjacked by some kid who dropped out of his drug-laden junior high school to become a thief.
>>>A lobbying group whose members include manufacturers of the controversial electronic voting machines, released a survey that found 77 percent of registered voters were either "not very concerned" or "not concerned at all" about the security of election systems.
Oh yeah? Well I'm willing to bet that 100% of those surveyed were not qualified to make decisions on complicated technical issues, such as e-voting.
So that survey is MEANINGLESS.
All it proves is that the public does not understand the issues, not that the issues do not exist or that e-voting has no issues.
>>>Computer scientists say the electronic systems are so vulnerable to software bugs, hackers and equipment malfunctions that they should be scrapped and replaced with machines that provide paper records of every ballot cast. Despite reassurances from equipment makers, at least 20 states are considering legislation to require a paper trail.
Who should we trust? Reassurances from voting machine sellers, who stand to lose millions if their machines are banned? Or computer scientists, whose strive for unbiased analysis, and have nothing to gain?
And it pisses me off whenever any argument is made like "well, we've already spent a lot on these machines..." or "we don't have enough time before the election...". Bullshit. Just cause we've started off inthe wrong direction, does NOT mean we should continue down that same path once we've identified our mistakes. No matter what the cost, we must not allow our election process to be compromised. (at the very least, not let it be even more compromised than it already is)
It seems the industry has its doubts that they could win in court; they've been quick to settle, and haven't actually prosecuted anyone for mere downloading. Like in the SCO case, we need a lawsuit to go its course before we can know what is legal and what isn't.
I agree with you, and realize I'm arguing a technicality as if I were defending my own actions, and if there were no consequences I'd say yeah I knew it was that recent movie I was downloading, and I figured it was being offerred illegally but I didn't care.
However, if I were arguing in a courtroom, I'd still hold that the receiver is not required to know that the file is being distributed legally or illegally. It is the responsibility of the distributor to not distribute unauthorized goods.
If the copyright owner does not seek damages from the distributor, and instead only sues the receiver, then he/she is not adequately protecting the copyright and the whole copyright may be in question; to the point where it almost becomes entrapment, since they're knowingly letting the distribution take place, then suing teh receivers.
Historically, "Your honor, he showed me the contract that stated he owned the Brooklyn Bridge" hasn't worked either.
"The Brooklyn Bridge" is a clearly defined structure, and is clearly marked in city records that the city/population owns the structure. The only thing I know about a file, before downloading and analyzing it, is the filename, which (and you can ask any regular p2p user) is notoriously unreliable for identifying the actual contents of the file.
And one would have a very difficult time convincing a judge that they assumed a person had a valid contract to distribute freely a movie that is currently in theaters.
You don't know how much I love to argue:-) (well maybe after reading this thread you do)
I can't be expected to research the copyright history of a file every time I download something from the web. Do you know how many files you access, directly or indirectly, every time you surf the web? What if MSN psted an unauthorized image on their website, would every person whose browser downloaded it when they visited MSN be charged by the image owner for thousands of dollars in digital copyright violations? Hell, no. You can't even know the contents of the file until after you've downloaded it. Only the file provider can know the contents, so only the file provider can be charged with any copyright violation. Once that person is charged and convicted of a crime, it's my moral obligation to realize I have an unauthorized file, and remove it from my system; but other than that, I'm not liable for anything.
When I heard that Madonna released a sabotaged version of a song onto kazaa where she said "what the f*ck do you think you're doing?" over and over after the first few seconds, I wanted to get a copy as a collectible. I knew she authorized its release, so I went to try to download it. If I grabbed a few copies of the actual song in the process, especially if she named the sabotaged file as one would the actual song.
Considering this happened for for a film that is still in the theaters its impossible for a person to be downloading for legal reasons.
Untrue. As far as I know, the file provider (from whom I'm downloading), has obtained the right to distribute the file. I'm not an entertainment lawyer, I don't understand what distribution contracts there are for every movie ever made, nor am I required to by law.
73 units (low-noise case fans, 40 pounds) 5.5 units (low-noise power supply, 90 pounds) 9.6 units (CPU/GPU cooling, 75 pounds) 5.2 units (acoustic materials and HD enclosure, 128 pounds)
Were any other Americans, like myself, sitting there thinking "damn, that's one heavy computer!"
A method and system are provided for extending the functionality of application buttons on a limited resource computing device. Alternative application functions are launched based on the length of time an application button is pressed. A default function for an application is launched if the button is pressed for a short, i.e., normal, period of time. An alternative function of the application is launched if the button is pressed for a long, (e.g., at least one second), period of time.
Car radio: Default action, tune to preset for button pressed. Alternative action: Set current station as preset for button being held.
This would be a great first case for that EFF initiative.
As for "Limited resource computing device": Well every computing device is resource-limited, unless it's some sort of quantum recursive parallel universe device, and then it would probably be too hot to touch anyway. I think it's funny that MS can conceive of their products not having problems with reaching the device's resource limitations.
It seemed to me that they were probably both thinking "Man, I bet I look really dumb wearing this."
They're not actually wearing those spacesuits, they've just got their heads through holes in a wall that's painted to look like two guys in spacesuits.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing my point...It doesn't matter whether it was a "cut" or an increase. It matters where that extra money is going, or what the money was cut from. If there's more money overall, but the money is being shifted from the good aprts of the program to the bad parts of the program, then I'd oppose the budget.
It's not enough to have "more", it has to be "more in the right places".
If you know more about it, can you tell me what was raised and what was lowered in Newt's budget? What part did his opponents object?
It's easy to go on TV and say "My opponents are anti-healthcare, because they voted against a bill that would increase medicare spending by 20%". But it could be the case that all 20% and more was going to some not-so-noble part of medicare, and if the public (including myself!) knew the breakdown they wouldn't be so impressed by a 20% increase.
lol I think I'm getting a little over my head here; I'm not an NEA spokesperson nor have I heard of the NEA before you mentioned them... but I do still agree with a lot of what they say in their literature, even if I don't understand a lot of their inner workings
"I myself have a problem using as references in favor of something citations from politically-biased sites in favor of it. These people the most interest in cooking the facts. The best citations for something can be found in sites biased against it."
Me too... it's getting hard these days, unless you're a lawyer with time to analyze the budget documents yourself. Every news report, whether for or against, is so watered down and simplified that all you are left with is one tiny point they reporter wanted to make, while you lose the big picture of how that point fits in with a thousand other points.
"The fact is that most teachers must join the NEA or they get fired."
Who fires them? Do they get run out of town by happy NEA members who teach at their school? The union wouldn't exist if people didn't want to be a part of it. If all the teachers at a given public school decided together to quit the NEA, can you explain to me what you think would happen? (if it's jsut that the NEA would deduct dues from their paycheck, assume for the sake of argument that the teachers sued the school and won a judgement that forced the school to stop deducting it)
Okay, so cut is the wrong word, but 2.8% is hardly enough to cover inflation. When he imposes strict new requirements on schools but does not properly fund those requirements, he is saying "you must spread your dollars further". Essentially, forcing them to decide what to cut in order to afford the new requirements.
:-)]
The paragraph you grabbed those percentages from is this:
"Bush's education funding proposal remains the lowest annual increase since 1996, asking for only a 2.8 percent increase compared to a 15.9 percent increase last year. In fact, he is calling for a total cut of $1.8 billion, cutting 57 valuable educational programs in the process."
It doesn't really provide much supporting evidence, so as much as I'd like to agree with the claim that he cut $1.8 billion overall, and dispute that he raised it by even 2.8%, I don't know how these actual numbers were calculated. These two claims seem to contradict each other...
I'm not familiar with either side the newt gingrich medicare thing, but budgets are huge, and it's likely that bott newt and his opponents were speaking the truth. Newt sounds like he wa saying "Overall, there's a 20% higher medicare budget in my plan". But often what happens is that a budget cuts some of its programs and raises others; so money is shifted around.
So (and this is entirely theoretical and kind of bleeding-heart, so forgive me) if you increased the "pharmeceutical company R&D subsidy" part of the medicare budget by 2 billion, but decreased the "free clinics for poor neighborhoods" budget by 1 billion, then yes, you've raised the medicare budget by $1 billion. But you have still taken cuts from an important piece of the program. So a positive year-to-year gross budget change is not the end-all of whether a program like Medicare has been improved or not, or whether a politician has done well for the heart of the program. It's simpler to look at it that way, and it's great to write on a resume, but it's much more complicated than sound bytes and disjoint statistics make it seem.
[btw this thread has to hold a record for "most Anonymous Coward posts worth responding to"
"You can thank the voucher opponents for this, while saying that the payment is not enough they actually fight to reduce it."
0 5122004.html. My point was that he campaigned on certain amounts, then across the board provided less than he promised. Then he still demanded all the changes that were originally to be funded with the original amounts, but now won't pay for them. How does he expect that to work?
By phrasing it like that, you make it sound like it's established that vouchers are a good thing and anti-voucher groups want to gut voucher amount. It is not, however, established that vouchers are a good thing. The desire is not to give vouchers worth less money; actually, anti-voucher people fight to avoid vouchers altogether and find an alternative to fixing public education.
"One infamous case is where the NEA fought against teachers in Syracuse who took the iniative themselves to tutor students on the weekends."
I couldn't find this anywhere...got a link?
"Do you happen to have something that shows...Before$ > After$"
No, I don't have an analysis to prove or disprove that, except this article is pretty good: http://misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df
"the NEA which opposes them solely because private school teachers are not forced into the NEA."
Many organizations have multiple reasons for doing things, and I'm sure the point that private school teachers aren't forced to join the NEA is one small concern. But there's an entire list of their completely valid arguments against vouchers here, so don't let a little politics void a whole bunch of good reasons. Not to mention that the NEA is not the only group with good arguments against vouchers.
"I have no respect for political organizations whose power lies in coercion and theft (forced political contributions by members"
No one's forced to contribute to the political side of NEA, the legally distinct, separately budgeted NEA PAC. So stop believing those lies about forced political contributions.
It depends on the size of the voucher in the program. Many provide enough for the poor to attend. Yet, the anti-education lobby (NEA, etc) opposes these, too, because it means the growth of schools where teachers are not forced into the NEA.
You said "many" because you can't say "most". Because "most" programs, by far, do not provide even half of private school tuition.
And don't label the National Education Association as "the anti-education lobby", without backing it up. The NEA is not anti-education, and it's ridiculous to say that. If the NEA is anti-education, who is pro-education? If anyone's anti-education, it's Bush, who promises funding and brags about how much he cares about education, and then breaks his promises and guts education budgets.
If you were really concerned about "the poorest of the poor", you would not want them to be stuck in inferior schools. You would want vouchers so they can improve their education.
What do you do, work for some politician's spin department? Because I'm against vouchers, you think I'm against education? It's not that simple, although it'd be convenient for your arguments if it were cut and dry like that. Of course I don't want kids stuck at inferior schools, but sending every kid to private school is not the answer either, because no evidence that they'd do a superior job at teaching all the kids that a public school has to teach.
They would be stuck in their poor public schools, while all the smarter or not-quite-so-poor kids leave.
And you can't prove these public schools are inferior compared to private schools, because private schools exist in a bubble of selectivity and wealth, while public schools has to teach whatever kids live in the area. I'd like to see see how good an education the teachers at an upper class private school are able to provide to 500 kids from the inner city. You cut off their selectivity, and you'll see their misleading numbers and inflated test scores drop until they're the same as the public schools.
It is much more expensive to provide schooling for a poor, not-so-intelligent kid, than a well off, smart kid. You have to have a meal plan, you have to have extra help, and you need to get through more social barriers for a kids who have a hard poor life than a kid who has a decent middle class life. The poorer students get more than average because they are needy.
So when you take money away and give it to richer smarter students, and also take away all the smarter kids themselves, you are making it much harder for the public schools to educate the ones who remain.
All vouchers do is thin out the public schools, helping kids with some money or some real brains escape, leaving others in the dust.
Also, it's not always your education that gets you a job - it's sometimes your parents' connections; so rich kids with rich parents might get cushy jobs, and teachers may seek out districts such as this.
"So you think that the equivalent of $59,000 per year amounts to being underpaid?"
:-)
First, it's not the equivalent of $59,000 per year, unless they find a job that will pay them $15,000 for three months work each summer. Most teachers tutor or work at camps over the summer, but only the most enterprising make $15,000 doing this. $10,000 would be an amazing take for a teacher during the summer, and it would take more effort than someone in another job who works all 12 months per year.
Also, the median salary is 10% lower than the mean, which means that the higher paid teachers are further above the average salary than the lower paid ones are below it. (read: many lower paid teachers, fewer higher paid teachers)
I wouldn't term it underpaid, because maybe that's the right salary for who they are and what they accomplish. But I'd say the salary is not enough to attract more qualified teachers, considering that the average mathematical worker (programmer, mathematician) makes $63,500 or so, and doesn't have to grade tests all weekend or develop lesson plans in their evenings.
Also, considering that teachers make up about 6% of the entire workforce, but are charged with educating nearly 100% of our nation's children, and ensuring our future as a successful country, I'd think their salaries should be much farther above the national average than they currently are.
Teacher salaries should be so high that, like Doctors, even our best and brightest would want to compete for teaching positions, and be revered for their dedication and ability. We'd insource great teachers from other nations, instead of outsourcing skilled jobs.
That brings another question: When you factor in cost of living differences, how well do other nations pay their teachers? Perhaps someone can answer this, I've done enough googling for tonite
"No. Vouchers take students away from schools that cannot educate and give them to schools that can."
Vouchers only work for those who have nearly enough money to afford private school, so the vouchers cover the last gap.
And those private schools only have good numbers and appear to be more effective because they are selective in their students. Plainly said: They only let the good ones in. To hell with the other students who actually need the help.
Imagine there were two baseball teams in a small town. One baseball team could choose whether to accept or reject any player who tried out, but the other baseball team had to accept every player who wanted to join and give them all time on the field. The selective team could also kick out any low performers during the season.
Who would win in a game between the two? Obviously, the selective all-star team would win; it'd also have better stats and look like a better team than the non-selective teams.
So while you may think you're being fair when comparing private schools to public schools, you have to realize that it's not a level playing field, and they don't play by the same rules.
From this site
"Private schools are allowed to discriminate on a variety of grounds. These institutions regularly reject applicants because of low achievement, discipline problems, and sometimes for no reason at all."
and
"...public schools would be left with fewer dollars to teach the poorest of the poor and other students who, for one reason or another, were not private school material."
Er, that first line should have read:
Your kids are lucky to have a parent who is so positively involved in their education.
Aside from your good home environment, what is it about the private school that you think makes it more effective than the public school?
Also remember that a small private school in a nice town doesn't need to spend as much on security per student than large public schools in urban centers.
Check out this stat from this study:So I guess teacher pay isn't the only factor. You could pay one teacher 9.3 million dollars, but he still couldn't educate 1,000 students by himself. Also, "California's strong growth in [teacher] salaries was offset to some extent because the cost of living here is above the national average."
Spoken like a true public-school graduate!
:-) I surely didn't look a gift horse in the mouth, and I enjoyed my good education, but I noticed years later how much of a difference it can make long term.
-russ
p.s. it's not too late to learn. Never has been.
lol you got it right.
But actually I was privileged to go to a great public school, one of those that is just as good as most private schools, in a barely affordable neighborhood. My family lived in a slightly more affordable section, and had 4 kids so it was worth the money
Distance learning, offshore development, outsourcing, everything; can all be traced to a neglected education system in the U.S.
We don't pay our teachers much, so most of our intelligent people are going on to other jobs where their brains get them more money. Teaching could became a coveted profession like being a Doctor or a Lawyer.
But instead, we're paying our teachers low wages, and chipping away at our long standing scientific advantage over the rest of the world.
Who needs to pay for this? Every citizen, but those with more must contribute more. The problem is that well-off citizens can just send their own kids to private school -- screw the rest of the kids -- and then vote at the school district meetings for minimal budgets, so their school taxes go down. In some districts, housing and school taxes are so expensive that by buying a house there you are essentially paying for private school for yuor kids, and poor people cannot afford to get into that community.
Vouchers are not the answer, as all they do is take money away from the school that need it the most, and give it to schools that are already rich enough to provide a good education. It just serves to further separate the rich from the poor.
What we need is for washington to put its foot down and say "Enough!"
Listen, those of you who've made it big in America: It's not just your own hard work that got you where you are in life, it's your education, your community, your country, and your fellow citizens that made this environment that allowed you to have a chance at all. So stop whining and help out your fellow man; pay 1% more in taxes, so that poor kids can go to better schools, and lead better lives. Heck, you'll probably make up the lost taxes in the money you save by not being robbed or carjacked by some kid who dropped out of his drug-laden junior high school to become a thief.
I'm spent.
>>>A lobbying group whose members include manufacturers of the controversial electronic voting machines, released a survey that found 77 percent of registered voters were either "not very concerned" or "not concerned at all" about the security of election systems.
Oh yeah? Well I'm willing to bet that 100% of those surveyed were not qualified to make decisions on complicated technical issues, such as e-voting.
So that survey is MEANINGLESS.
All it proves is that the public does not understand the issues, not that the issues do not exist or that e-voting has no issues.
>>>Computer scientists say the electronic systems are so vulnerable to software bugs, hackers and equipment malfunctions that they should be scrapped and replaced with machines that provide paper records of every ballot cast. Despite reassurances from equipment makers, at least 20 states are considering legislation to require a paper trail.
Who should we trust? Reassurances from voting machine sellers, who stand to lose millions if their machines are banned? Or computer scientists, whose strive for unbiased analysis, and have nothing to gain?
And it pisses me off whenever any argument is made like "well, we've already spent a lot on these machines..." or "we don't have enough time before the election...". Bullshit. Just cause we've started off inthe wrong direction, does NOT mean we should continue down that same path once we've identified our mistakes. No matter what the cost, we must not allow our election process to be compromised. (at the very least, not let it be even more compromised than it already is)
My favorite so far:
Is that at a keg in your pants, 'cause I wanna tap that ass. No really, I do. Must be fully functional as both pants and as a keg holder. [54 points]
It seems the industry has its doubts that they could win in court; they've been quick to settle, and haven't actually prosecuted anyone for mere downloading. Like in the SCO case, we need a lawsuit to go its course before we can know what is legal and what isn't.
But yeah, that sounds about right to me.
I agree with you, and realize I'm arguing a technicality as if I were defending my own actions, and if there were no consequences I'd say yeah I knew it was that recent movie I was downloading, and I figured it was being offerred illegally but I didn't care.
However, if I were arguing in a courtroom, I'd still hold that the receiver is not required to know that the file is being distributed legally or illegally. It is the responsibility of the distributor to not distribute unauthorized goods.
If the copyright owner does not seek damages from the distributor, and instead only sues the receiver, then he/she is not adequately protecting the copyright and the whole copyright may be in question; to the point where it almost becomes entrapment, since they're knowingly letting the distribution take place, then suing teh receivers.
Historically, "Your honor, he showed me the contract that stated he owned the Brooklyn Bridge" hasn't worked either.
:-) (well maybe after reading this thread you do)
"The Brooklyn Bridge" is a clearly defined structure, and is clearly marked in city records that the city/population owns the structure. The only thing I know about a file, before downloading and analyzing it, is the filename, which (and you can ask any regular p2p user) is notoriously unreliable for identifying the actual contents of the file.
And one would have a very difficult time convincing a judge that they assumed a person had a valid contract to distribute freely a movie that is currently in theaters.
You don't know how much I love to argue
I can't be expected to research the copyright history of a file every time I download something from the web. Do you know how many files you access, directly or indirectly, every time you surf the web? What if MSN psted an unauthorized image on their website, would every person whose browser downloaded it when they visited MSN be charged by the image owner for thousands of dollars in digital copyright violations? Hell, no. You can't even know the contents of the file until after you've downloaded it. Only the file provider can know the contents, so only the file provider can be charged with any copyright violation. Once that person is charged and convicted of a crime, it's my moral obligation to realize I have an unauthorized file, and remove it from my system; but other than that, I'm not liable for anything.
When I heard that Madonna released a sabotaged version of a song onto kazaa where she said "what the f*ck do you think you're doing?" over and over after the first few seconds, I wanted to get a copy as a collectible. I knew she authorized its release, so I went to try to download it. If I grabbed a few copies of the actual song in the process, especially if she named the sabotaged file as one would the actual song.
>I don't understand what distribution contracts there are for every movie ever made, nor am I required to by law.
So ignorance of the law really is a good excuse? Dang those 50's cop movies!!!
Someone else's private contracts are not "the law."
Considering this happened for for a film that is still in the theaters its impossible for a person to be downloading for legal reasons.
Untrue. As far as I know, the file provider (from whom I'm downloading), has obtained the right to distribute the file. I'm not an entertainment lawyer, I don't understand what distribution contracts there are for every movie ever made, nor am I required to by law.
73 units (low-noise case fans, 40 pounds)
5.5 units (low-noise power supply, 90 pounds)
9.6 units (CPU/GPU cooling, 75 pounds)
5.2 units (acoustic materials and HD enclosure, 128 pounds)
Were any other Americans, like myself, sitting there thinking "damn, that's one heavy computer!"
His philosophy was that once they played the concert, it wasn't theirs anymore - they had given it to the audience.
That's awesome, I've never heard it put that way.
and most folks would hook a DAT right in and go home and mix it before distributing the show.
Alternative action: Set current station as preset for button being held.
This would be a great first case for that EFF initiative.
As for "Limited resource computing device": Well every computing device is resource-limited, unless it's some sort of quantum recursive parallel universe device, and then it would probably be too hot to touch anyway. I think it's funny that MS can conceive of their products not having problems with reaching the device's resource limitations.
looks like there are just a lot of hard returns missing where, in any other context, any sane programmer would put them in.
No one claimed that Perl is sane.
It seemed to me that they were probably both thinking "Man, I bet I look really dumb wearing this."
They're not actually wearing those spacesuits, they've just got their heads through holes in a wall that's painted to look like two guys in spacesuits.