Many free things have no value. Give a child a toy and see how long it takes before it's broken. It won't last as long as it will if the child has to pay for it. Now, instead of making poor students pay for it what they could do is require students who can't afford one to volunteer, work, on a project that helps the community.
You may be the first homeschooler I've encountered that has openly admitted the difference in motive (academic vs. religious, I mean) which I suspect is because the ones I grew up around were interested in it for the latter reason.
This isn't the first who supports homeschooling for academic reasons. I've said for years that if I ever have children I want to homeschool them myself. For academic reasons, not religious. Actually I don't like religion. In school though I loved learning I didn't like most of the education I got in school. There were some sunny parts I liked but for the most part I was too bored and thought parts were stupid.
People will crawl out of the woodwork in most cases to attack comments like mine about how I'm unfairly judging the public schools or am a closet racist for saying such harsh things about that black bitch who tore her poor son down everytime he succeeded.
No, I won't do that. However I will ask how many parents are like this one? I don't know, maybe I was lucky in who my parents were. Both of mine taught my two sisters and I to be curious. And our mom, who raised us while she worked full time, taught us we could be anything we wanted as long as we set our minds and worked for it. My parents were low income, but now my older sister's a nurse and my younger one got her Masters and runs her own accounting business, with friends.
The problem is going to be Windows. Unless they lock down the OS like a BOFH to where the kids run as a restricted user with EVERYTHING locked down it WILL get pwned. And since we are talking about ultra cheap "Netbook" style laptops they simply don't got the horse to run an on access Antivirus and Antispyware.
If the PCs run Windows and not Linux. TFA does not say what they will run. However if you're going for an "ultra cheap netbook" then Linux is the cheaper alternative.
So the problem IMHO isn't fixing any hardware failures
Did you train your kids to build their PCs? How many teenagers know how to build their own. I bet not many. So unless you don't have to send a broken laptop into a service center, which may be across the country or in another one, hardware failure is a big deal. Having a group of kids at the school who can repair them could provide tremendous benefits.
There are so many things that are better for young kids than sitting in front of a computer screen. I actually spent a lot of money sending my kids to a private school in their early years that explicitly kept computers out of the school -- they actually did art, played outside, and took long walks in the woods...
You can do more than just one thing. In school, I took art classes as well as science and technology classes. I hunted and fished and spent hours in the woods. During my senior year I was torn between majoring in a Marine Science/Oceanography field or Computer Engineering. To save money, my family was poor, I went into the Army before going to college. My specialty had nothing to do with either field though, I was trained for and in the Infantry. And while in I was my army unit's photographer, having taken photography in high school I knew how to use the 35mm camera I owned. My CO, Commanding Officer, would get some film for me to shoot and after I shot it I'd go do to that arts and crafts center to make prints which I then shared with the unit.
People are often willing to do volunteer work for a wage of zero dollars; but would refuse to do the same work for an insultingly low wage, even though, theoretically, if you are willing to do something for $0/hour, you should be more willing to do it for $1/hour.
There's probably more reasons this happens but one I can think of is that when you volunteer you usually do so for a nonprofit, or someone you know. A profit oriented business though should pay it's workers. Related, I recall years ago when I was a full tyme student I volunteered a lot on campus. Then one year one of the people I helped arranged work/study financial aid for me to be her assistant. Before the end of the year she told me I did less while being paid than I did as a volunteer.
"A dollar or two" per-machine is ridiculous. It's going to cost more than that to do the paperwork to keep track of who donated and who didn't yet. They should either charge a reasonable amount (at least $20, I'd say $50), or just give them away.
"Why not give them away?" People, even children, do not place a high value on things they are given. "Why not charge $20 or $50 for one?" Because the poor could not afford them.
Placing a dollar price gives them some value as well as makes it easier for the poor to afford them.
Now as for whether they can be effectively used to teach elementary school students is another matter.
More likely these machines will experience the same flaw as when my school "gave" a bunch of Mac IIs to my teacher.
Nothing. They sat there and collected dust, except for two weeks (out of thirty) when we did some stupid reading-practice program.
The first school I went to that had computers students signed up to use them, in the library. In the first class I took that used them, BASIC programming, students complained there wasn't enough computers. Three or more students had to share the same ones. In the data processing class I took we never had access to a computer.
that child needs to be given the opportunity and proper instruction to succeed, but if the child doesn't do their homework and the parent spend no effort they need to see that they can fail.
My problem in school was I didn't do much homework myself.
I'd really like to see classes broken out by child's ability (Fast, medium, and slow learners).
And this is why, I was bored. I did homework when I was challenged but that's about it. One of my favorite teachers in high school told me I'd be a straight A student if I only did the homework. This was either an English Comp or American Lit class, now in my science and tech classes I did some homework, I wasn't bored.
I understand the meaning of default allow, and it's what I meant.
The question here falls to the exact meaning of "reserved to", then.
I guess it's just a case of semantics.
It would be semantics if it were just the meaning of words. However the US was founded on the notion of a limited government. Government that can expand whenever is not limited. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison among others sought a small limited government. If people wanted to expand government the Constitution gives them a way, by amendments.
Ya, I know this will blow your mind, but my dad grew up without computers, and managed to learn to use one. So having the technology in the school is not a prerequisite to learning about said technology.
If only practical application worked the same as theory. As a kid my dad had an interest in electronics and technology, but ask him to build a radio and he couldn't. I built my first radio with copper wire wrapped around paper towel, or TP, roll. Radio Shack has made a lot of money selling educational kits. As a review, because it's been many years since I've done any of it and my memory is bad, I bought an electronics learning lab from them.
Giving the students laptops is stupid; that's what computer labs are for. Low end desktops with the software you describe will be cheaper in the long run... because the computers will stay in the school and be available to the incoming students.
Desktops can't be taken home whereas laptops can. And as others have pointed out a cheap laptop running Linux should last years, with the student using the same one. Issue one to a student that student will use throughout school from one grade to the next.
Of course breakage can, and will, happen. They can also be stolen or lost. Some tyme back there was an article about how a class of students were trained to repair them. This combines two good things, schools can have laptops repaired cheaply. And the students gain a valuable skill. Of course this isn't relevant for primary school students, but it can help jr high and high school students. I first got into electronics when I took an electronics class in 7th grade. In 9th grade I took a class on small engine repair. My high school had an auto repair workshop.
As long as they have in the contract a steady supply of spare parts for things such as failed screens and batteries there really isn't any reason why they can't be using these in 2018 EXCEPT...
I don't recall when, maybe a few months ago, slashdot had an article saying school kids were being taught to repair XOs, Asus's, or another cheap laptop.
Punctuation rules and the laws of motion don't change that much.
While I agree the "tragedy" of having old textbooks is not really that
severe, punctuation rules and laws of motion don't make up all of education either.
Libertarianism leaves a power vacuum that gets filled by the first viable entity to grab it: that's typically a corporation. The Gilded Age is a grand example.
And government had nothing to do with it? If not for the government's power of eminent domain to seize and take land from owners then give it to railroads and others, the Gilded Age would not have happened like it did. If you look at the list of Robber Barons many of them had something to do with railroads. Of 19 the wiki article lists more than half were in railroads.
The US did not have libertarian/laissez-faire policies fr decades before the Great Depression. In 1890 Teddy Roosevelt, the Trust Buster, signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. With the ratification of Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights, ratified in 1868, corporations started their push for corporate personhood. After the Civil War there was no libertarian or laissez-faire policies. And government got bigger and bigger.
Oh, the third reply is the same as your second. I had the same thing happen to me yesterday. I tried to submit a reply but got a 503 error. I then tried two more tymes. When I went online today I saw my post was posted 3 tymes.
Overall the US has not had libertarian or laissez-faire policies since before the Civil War, but I think I just repeated that.
Now I do believe government can have a place in business and economics but not what and how it's doing it now. Government's place would be to make sure there's a level playing field. Otherwise it should stay out.
i have a feeling you brought a lot of that up because of banks, you do realize you cannot treat banks like any other corporation right?
No, I hadn't about banks when writing my post until I got to where I bring up Thomas Jefferson. And they all should be treated the same, if they do not serve the common good they should have their charter revoked.
because wen a bank goes belly up a lot of individual citizens who had deposited money loose a LOT of money. FDIC helps some, but it still evaporates a lot of wealth.
Anybody with that much money deposited in a bank is a fool! The most a person should have deposited in bank accounts is 1 year's living expenses. If your housing, food, and work related expenses are $5000 a month you should only have $60,000 deposited. $15,000 would be in a checking, savings, or money market account with the other $45,000 in two 6 month CDs. Staggered so one CD matures every 3 months. When a CD matures simply roll it over into another one. This is called Laddering CDs.
Yes technically it was mercantilism or something similiar to that - but Libertarianism is effective the same thing as the platform of the Libertarian Party, if it were implemented, would let corporations run ramshod all over everyobdy else.
If this is what you believe you don't know what the Libertarian Party, or libertarians, stand for. For instance they are and were opposed to all the bailouts. Ask a libertarian, big "L" or small, if the banks should have been bailed out and almost all would say no. Here, I'll make is easy for you with a search of the LP website for bank bailout.
I know you have an ax to grind with nuclear power for some reason - but calling it "dirty" compared to it's alternatives is just silly and you should know better.
BS! Nuclear power is dirtier than either solar or wind. With both there is no waste to be stored. And there is no processing or reprocessing of fuel. The sun or wind is the fuel.
Does it create some potentially hazardous materials that have to be dealt with? Yes
Are they in reality THAT HARD to deal with? No
Yes it is hard to deal with. Even the French, who have gone further with reprocessing nuclear waste has problems doing it. "France is aggravating both problems: spent fuel and separated plutonium stocks." "Reprocessing [pdf] and MOX fuel use are uneconomical and will remain so for the foreseeable future;"
"Nuclear France - The Myths Uncovered"
"France gets nearly 80% of its electricity from its 58 reactors. However, such a heavy reliance on nuclear power brings with it many major, unsolved problems, most especially that of radioactive waste. Despite assertions to the contrary, the French nuclear story is far from a gleaming example of nuclear success. The example, set by the French nuclear infrastructure - and best exemplified by its giant nuclear corporation, Areva, is not to be emulated."
Are they really that bad for the environment? Not really
biggest problem with dealing with nuclear byproducts is NIMBY.
The biggest problem with wind is NIMBYism. The government's National Renewable Energy Lab has produced an atlas of wind potential through the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to power the continental US. Which I might add that Texas Oil Man T Boone Pickens is pushing with his Pickens Plan. But that's not all. The Pacific Northwest has a lot as well. If you draw a line south from there to Southern CA then turn east to Texas, you'll see more potential. Now go east, the Appalachians is a good location for wind as well. The mountains up the east coast have good locations. Offshore from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod there's another line of good cites.
Oh, I think it's rather telling that so called environmentalist activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr is one of those NIMBYs fighting wind farms in Cape Cod, from that first link on Nimbys.
That being said it is misleading to say "the government consumes" it. because it turns around and spends it
Government wastes money not spends it.
a lot of that incoming funding [but not enough IMHO] comes from people with a high marginal propensity to save [aka horde wealth] so in the end they end up increasing total GDP by spending money that would have otherwise sit idle in banks.*
If they're so wealthy how did they get that way? Certainly not by having all that money in the bank. Bank interest are low, and when inflation and taxes are factored, it can actually be a net lose. The only reason to keep much money in a bank is for emergencies, a person should have about 12 months of expenses in the bank. Usually this will be such that there is 3 months in a savings account and will the rest in staggered 3 month CDs. All the rest of the money a person saves should be invested.
And that money in the bank is not idle either. Do you think banks want to lose money? If they aren't loaning it out they must lose it because they have to pay interest on the money loaned to them. No, it is there so others can take out loans. Businesses take out loans constantly, for instance to pay employees and suppliers.
Fact: average global temperatures have fallen since 1999(98?) YET you state: an eruption in 1997/98 temporarily lowered temperatures and when it is taken out of the equation there is a warming trend. Since 1999 was warmer than 2009, how does a temporary cooling effect in 1999 explain this?
Citation needed. 1999 warmer than 2009? 2009 just started.
Carrying the rest of the country economically? bullshit
Economist Bernard "Bud" Weinstein probably would agree. He says "North Texas Best Place to Be in Recession". Now if I recall right, from threads yesterday and the day before we've conversed in, you think Obama is doing the right thing. Well so does "Bud". He "believes the steps are headed in the right direction." Further, "He believes North Texas will fare better than most of the country, as the area's economy was strong as it headed into the global recession. People already were reported to be flocking to the region from all over the United States, especially from California and Michigan, with the surge expected to increase once the economy improves later this year or in early 2010."
Now I don't agree, or disagree, but your bullshit statement caused me to look it up so I found that article.
Middle ranking? is 49th a middle ranking as that was the last ranking I heard for Texas [last few years]
You're still right, Texas is near the bottom in education. However New Hampshire, the state for the libertarian Free State Project, is ranked number 1 by at least one calculation. It looks like New Hampshire high school students also score higher on the SAT than average.
Libertarians and Republicans might have their differences but they tend to vote together, are cut from the same cloth
I started out as a democrat, though not registered. The first tyme I voted I voted for Jimmy Carter. I don't recall who I voted for in '84 but then in '88 I voted for Ron Paul on the Libertarian ticket. During the 2004 campaign there were some Libertarians for Howard Dean. And in 2008 there was a debate on who would be better, or less bad, McCain or Obama. I think I told you before, but I may be wrong, I voted for Obama myself. So while the Libertarian Party was started by people who left the Republican Party not all are or vote for Republicans.
My problem with Texas is that a whole bunch of stupid radiates from that state every year and is mucking up the country I live in and Love.
I sometimes feel the same about both Democrats and Republicans.
However you want to try to cut it we've TRIED libertarianism before. It doesn't work. It cannot work in a modern society.
And when was this? The latest the US has come close to libertarianism was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1831. It has gone downhill since, with corporations gaining more and more power among other things.
However you want to try to cut it we've TRIED libertarianism before. It doesn't work. It cannot work in a modern society.
And when was this? The latest the US has come close to libertarianism was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1831. It has gone downhill since, with corporations gaining more and more power among other things.
However you want to try to cut it we've TRIED libertarianism before. It doesn't work. It cannot work in a modern society.
And when was this? The latest the US has come close to libertarianism was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1831. It has gone downhill since, with corporations gaining more and more power among other things.
Slashdot Mirror
Many free things have no value. Give a child a toy and see how long it takes before it's broken. It won't last as long as it will if the child has to pay for it. Now, instead of making poor students pay for it what they could do is require students who can't afford one to volunteer, work, on a project that helps the community.
Falcon
You may be the first homeschooler I've encountered that has openly admitted the difference in motive (academic vs. religious, I mean) which I suspect is because the ones I grew up around were interested in it for the latter reason.
This isn't the first who supports homeschooling for academic reasons. I've said for years that if I ever have children I want to homeschool them myself. For academic reasons, not religious. Actually I don't like religion. In school though I loved learning I didn't like most of the education I got in school. There were some sunny parts I liked but for the most part I was too bored and thought parts were stupid.
Falcon
If the parents don't value education, the kids probably won't, and all the laptops and talented teachers in the world won't make much of difference.
Though it may be rare teachers can make a positive effect on students. Jaime Escalante was one such teacher.
Falcon
People will crawl out of the woodwork in most cases to attack comments like mine about how I'm unfairly judging the public schools or am a closet racist for saying such harsh things about that black bitch who tore her poor son down everytime he succeeded.
No, I won't do that. However I will ask how many parents are like this one? I don't know, maybe I was lucky in who my parents were. Both of mine taught my two sisters and I to be curious. And our mom, who raised us while she worked full time, taught us we could be anything we wanted as long as we set our minds and worked for it. My parents were low income, but now my older sister's a nurse and my younger one got her Masters and runs her own accounting business, with friends.
Falcon
The problem is going to be Windows. Unless they lock down the OS like a BOFH to where the kids run as a restricted user with EVERYTHING locked down it WILL get pwned. And since we are talking about ultra cheap "Netbook" style laptops they simply don't got the horse to run an on access Antivirus and Antispyware.
If the PCs run Windows and not Linux. TFA does not say what they will run. However if you're going for an "ultra cheap netbook" then Linux is the cheaper alternative.
So the problem IMHO isn't fixing any hardware failures
Did you train your kids to build their PCs? How many teenagers know how to build their own. I bet not many. So unless you don't have to send a broken laptop into a service center, which may be across the country or in another one, hardware failure is a big deal. Having a group of kids at the school who can repair them could provide tremendous benefits.
Falcon
There are so many things that are better for young kids than sitting in front of a computer screen. I actually spent a lot of money sending my kids to a private school in their early years that explicitly kept computers out of the school -- they actually did art, played outside, and took long walks in the woods...
You can do more than just one thing. In school, I took art classes as well as science and technology classes. I hunted and fished and spent hours in the woods. During my senior year I was torn between majoring in a Marine Science/Oceanography field or Computer Engineering. To save money, my family was poor, I went into the Army before going to college. My specialty had nothing to do with either field though, I was trained for and in the Infantry. And while in I was my army unit's photographer, having taken photography in high school I knew how to use the 35mm camera I owned. My CO, Commanding Officer, would get some film for me to shoot and after I shot it I'd go do to that arts and crafts center to make prints which I then shared with the unit.
Falcon
People are often willing to do volunteer work for a wage of zero dollars; but would refuse to do the same work for an insultingly low wage, even though, theoretically, if you are willing to do something for $0/hour, you should be more willing to do it for $1/hour.
There's probably more reasons this happens but one I can think of is that when you volunteer you usually do so for a nonprofit, or someone you know. A profit oriented business though should pay it's workers. Related, I recall years ago when I was a full tyme student I volunteered a lot on campus. Then one year one of the people I helped arranged work/study financial aid for me to be her assistant. Before the end of the year she told me I did less while being paid than I did as a volunteer.
Falcon
"A dollar or two" per-machine is ridiculous. It's going to cost more than that to do the paperwork to keep track of who donated and who didn't yet. They should either charge a reasonable amount (at least $20, I'd say $50), or just give them away.
"Why not give them away?" People, even children, do not place a high value on things they are given. "Why not charge $20 or $50 for one?" Because the poor could not afford them.
Placing a dollar price gives them some value as well as makes it easier for the poor to afford them.
Now as for whether they can be effectively used to teach elementary school students is another matter.
Falcon
More likely these machines will experience the same flaw as when my school "gave" a bunch of Mac IIs to my teacher.
Nothing. They sat there and collected dust, except for two weeks (out of thirty) when we did some stupid reading-practice program.
The first school I went to that had computers students signed up to use them, in the library. In the first class I took that used them, BASIC programming, students complained there wasn't enough computers. Three or more students had to share the same ones. In the data processing class I took we never had access to a computer.
Falcon
that child needs to be given the opportunity and proper instruction to succeed, but if the child doesn't do their homework and the parent spend no effort they need to see that they can fail.
My problem in school was I didn't do much homework myself.
I'd really like to see classes broken out by child's ability (Fast, medium, and slow learners).
And this is why, I was bored. I did homework when I was challenged but that's about it. One of my favorite teachers in high school told me I'd be a straight A student if I only did the homework. This was either an English Comp or American Lit class, now in my science and tech classes I did some homework, I wasn't bored.
Falcon
I understand the meaning of default allow, and it's what I meant.
The question here falls to the exact meaning of "reserved to", then.
I guess it's just a case of semantics.
It would be semantics if it were just the meaning of words. However the US was founded on the notion of a limited government. Government that can expand whenever is not limited. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison among others sought a small limited government. If people wanted to expand government the Constitution gives them a way, by amendments.
Falcon
Ya, I know this will blow your mind, but my dad grew up without computers, and managed to learn to use one. So having the technology in the school is not a prerequisite to learning about said technology.
If only practical application worked the same as theory. As a kid my dad had an interest in electronics and technology, but ask him to build a radio and he couldn't. I built my first radio with copper wire wrapped around paper towel, or TP, roll. Radio Shack has made a lot of money selling educational kits. As a review, because it's been many years since I've done any of it and my memory is bad, I bought an electronics learning lab from them.
Giving the students laptops is stupid; that's what computer labs are for. Low end desktops with the software you describe will be cheaper in the long run... because the computers will stay in the school and be available to the incoming students.
Desktops can't be taken home whereas laptops can. And as others have pointed out a cheap laptop running Linux should last years, with the student using the same one. Issue one to a student that student will use throughout school from one grade to the next.
Of course breakage can, and will, happen. They can also be stolen or lost. Some tyme back there was an article about how a class of students were trained to repair them. This combines two good things, schools can have laptops repaired cheaply. And the students gain a valuable skill. Of course this isn't relevant for primary school students, but it can help jr high and high school students. I first got into electronics when I took an electronics class in 7th grade. In 9th grade I took a class on small engine repair. My high school had an auto repair workshop.
Falcon
As long as they have in the contract a steady supply of spare parts for things such as failed screens and batteries there really isn't any reason why they can't be using these in 2018 EXCEPT...
I don't recall when, maybe a few months ago, slashdot had an article saying school kids were being taught to repair XOs, Asus's, or another cheap laptop.
Falcon
Punctuation rules and the laws of motion don't change that much.
While I agree the "tragedy" of having old textbooks is not really that severe, punctuation rules and laws of motion don't make up all of education either.
Falcon
Libertarianism leaves a power vacuum that gets filled by the first viable entity to grab it: that's typically a corporation. The Gilded Age is a grand example.
And government had nothing to do with it? If not for the government's power of eminent domain to seize and take land from owners then give it to railroads and others, the Gilded Age would not have happened like it did. If you look at the list of Robber Barons many of them had something to do with railroads. Of 19 the wiki article lists more than half were in railroads.
Falcon
i didn't say the attempts at intervention were, the decades that led to the conditions that facilitated it were.
The US did not have libertarian/laissez-faire policies fr decades before the Great Depression. In 1890 Teddy Roosevelt, the Trust Buster, signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. With the ratification of Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights, ratified in 1868, corporations started their push for corporate personhood. After the Civil War there was no libertarian or laissez-faire policies. And government got bigger and bigger.
I'd answer basically the same for this post.
Oh, the third reply is the same as your second. I had the same thing happen to me yesterday. I tried to submit a reply but got a 503 error. I then tried two more tymes. When I went online today I saw my post was posted 3 tymes.
Overall the US has not had libertarian or laissez-faire policies since before the Civil War, but I think I just repeated that.
Now I do believe government can have a place in business and economics but not what and how it's doing it now. Government's place would be to make sure there's a level playing field. Otherwise it should stay out.
Falcon
i have a feeling you brought a lot of that up because of banks, you do realize you cannot treat banks like any other corporation right?
No, I hadn't about banks when writing my post until I got to where I bring up Thomas Jefferson. And they all should be treated the same, if they do not serve the common good they should have their charter revoked.
because wen a bank goes belly up a lot of individual citizens who had deposited money loose a LOT of money. FDIC helps some, but it still evaporates a lot of wealth.
Anybody with that much money deposited in a bank is a fool! The most a person should have deposited in bank accounts is 1 year's living expenses. If your housing, food, and work related expenses are $5000 a month you should only have $60,000 deposited. $15,000 would be in a checking, savings, or money market account with the other $45,000 in two 6 month CDs. Staggered so one CD matures every 3 months. When a CD matures simply roll it over into another one. This is called Laddering CDs.
Falcon
Yes technically it was mercantilism or something similiar to that - but Libertarianism is effective the same thing as the platform of the Libertarian Party, if it were implemented, would let corporations run ramshod all over everyobdy else.
If this is what you believe you don't know what the Libertarian Party, or libertarians, stand for. For instance they are and were opposed to all the bailouts. Ask a libertarian, big "L" or small, if the banks should have been bailed out and almost all would say no. Here, I'll make is easy for you with a search of the LP website for bank bailout.
And on corporations, here's what the LP says about Corporate Welfare. One libertarian writer says this: "Corporations are pure-bred progeny of Leviathan."
Falcon
I know you have an ax to grind with nuclear power for some reason - but calling it "dirty" compared to it's alternatives is just silly and you should know better.
BS! Nuclear power is dirtier than either solar or wind. With both there is no waste to be stored. And there is no processing or reprocessing of fuel. The sun or wind is the fuel.
Does it create some potentially hazardous materials that have to be dealt with? Yes
Are they in reality THAT HARD to deal with? No
Yes it is hard to deal with. Even the French, who have gone further with reprocessing nuclear waste has problems doing it. "France is aggravating both problems: spent fuel and separated plutonium stocks." "Reprocessing [pdf] and MOX fuel use are uneconomical and will remain so for the foreseeable future;"
"Nuclear France - The Myths Uncovered"
"France gets nearly 80% of its electricity from its 58 reactors. However, such a heavy reliance on nuclear power brings with it many major, unsolved problems, most especially that of radioactive waste. Despite assertions to the contrary, the French nuclear story is far from a gleaming example of nuclear success. The example, set by the French nuclear infrastructure - and best exemplified by its giant nuclear corporation, Areva, is not to be emulated."
Are they really that bad for the environment? Not really
If you believe that you haven't seen the effects of uranium mining. "The Effects of Uranium Mining are Disastrous."
biggest problem with dealing with nuclear byproducts is NIMBY.
The biggest problem with wind is NIMBYism. The government's National Renewable Energy Lab has produced an atlas of wind potential through the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to power the continental US. Which I might add that Texas Oil Man T Boone Pickens is pushing with his Pickens Plan. But that's not all. The Pacific Northwest has a lot as well. If you draw a line south from there to Southern CA then turn east to Texas, you'll see more potential. Now go east, the Appalachians is a good location for wind as well. The mountains up the east coast have good locations. Offshore from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod there's another line of good cites.
Oh, I think it's rather telling that so called environmentalist activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr is one of those NIMBYs fighting wind farms in Cape Cod, from that first link on Nimbys.
That being said it is misleading to say "the government consumes" it. because it turns around and spends it
Government wastes money not spends it.
a lot of that incoming funding [but not enough IMHO] comes from people with a high marginal propensity to save [aka horde wealth] so in the end they end up increasing total GDP by spending money that would have otherwise sit idle in banks.*
If they're so wealthy how did they get that way? Certainly not by having all that money in the bank. Bank interest are low, and when inflation and taxes are factored, it can actually be a net lose. The only reason to keep much money in a bank is for emergencies, a person should have about 12 months of expenses in the bank. Usually this will be such that there is 3 months in a savings account and will the rest in staggered 3 month CDs. All the rest of the money a person saves should be invested.
And that money in the bank is not idle either. Do you think banks want to lose money? If they aren't loaning it out they must lose it because they have to pay interest on the money loaned to them. No, it is there so others can take out loans. Businesses take out loans constantly, for instance to pay employees and suppliers.
Falcon
Fact: average global temperatures have fallen since 1999(98?) YET you state: an eruption in 1997/98 temporarily lowered temperatures and when it is taken out of the equation there is a warming trend. Since 1999 was warmer than 2009, how does a temporary cooling effect in 1999 explain this?
Citation needed. 1999 warmer than 2009? 2009 just started.
Now here's my own citation:
Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years.
Falcon
Carrying the rest of the country economically? bullshit
Economist Bernard "Bud" Weinstein probably would agree. He says "North Texas Best Place to Be in Recession". Now if I recall right, from threads yesterday and the day before we've conversed in, you think Obama is doing the right thing. Well so does "Bud". He "believes the steps are headed in the right direction." Further, "He believes North Texas will fare better than most of the country, as the area's economy was strong as it headed into the global recession. People already were reported to be flocking to the region from all over the United States, especially from California and Michigan, with the surge expected to increase once the economy improves later this year or in early 2010."
Now I don't agree, or disagree, but your bullshit statement caused me to look it up so I found that article.
Middle ranking? is 49th a middle ranking as that was the last ranking I heard for Texas [last few years]
You're still right, Texas is near the bottom in education. However New Hampshire, the state for the libertarian Free State Project, is ranked number 1 by at least one calculation. It looks like New Hampshire high school students also score higher on the SAT than average.
Libertarians and Republicans might have their differences but they tend to vote together, are cut from the same cloth
I started out as a democrat, though not registered. The first tyme I voted I voted for Jimmy Carter. I don't recall who I voted for in '84 but then in '88 I voted for Ron Paul on the Libertarian ticket. During the 2004 campaign there were some Libertarians for Howard Dean. And in 2008 there was a debate on who would be better, or less bad, McCain or Obama. I think I told you before, but I may be wrong, I voted for Obama myself. So while the Libertarian Party was started by people who left the Republican Party not all are or vote for Republicans.
My problem with Texas is that a whole bunch of stupid radiates from that state every year and is mucking up the country I live in and Love.
I sometimes feel the same about both Democrats and Republicans.
Falcon
However you want to try to cut it we've TRIED libertarianism before. It doesn't work. It cannot work in a modern society.
And when was this? The latest the US has come close to libertarianism was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1831. It has gone downhill since, with corporations gaining more and more power among other things.
Falcon
However you want to try to cut it we've TRIED libertarianism before. It doesn't work. It cannot work in a modern society.
And when was this? The latest the US has come close to libertarianism was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1831. It has gone downhill since, with corporations gaining more and more power among other things.
Falcon
However you want to try to cut it we've TRIED libertarianism before. It doesn't work. It cannot work in a modern society.
And when was this? The latest the US has come close to libertarianism was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1831. It has gone downhill since, with corporations gaining more and more power among other things.
Falcon