The (regular) Macbooks seem reasonably priced, but what makes the Pros worth the $1800 starting price (with an educational discount, even!)? I mean, let's take the midrange Macbook and bump it up to 2GB of RAM and you end up with something comparable to the lowest-end Pro with the exceptions of a slightly slower processor, GMA950 graphics (which is probably fine for what I'd use a laptop for) and a smaller screen and it winds up being over $400 cheaper (again, education prices). Somehow those changes don't seem worth the extra money and comparing prices with competitors such as Dell and HP seem to back me up on that.
The higher price is worth it for those who need better graphics such as graphics artists and photographers. The only reason I can think of why a pro wouldn't want to pay extra is because they use another monitor, but then if so why get a laptop?
So, given that people continue to buy Macbook Pros, there simply must be something I'm missing.
Yes, there is. I am switching from Windows simply because I don't like MS's policy of treating customers like criminals. When I buy an OS I don't like it when I have to Activate it with the company. Nor do I like it when I have to reactivate it when I've made some hardware changes. Though there might not be many others I bet there are some who feel the same as I do. Also I want an OS that is stable and does not crash. And yes, the first tyme I used XP it crashed on me.
If this is yet-another 6-bit display, this situation will be even worse
I'm definitely the target buyer for this machine, but am cautiously sitting on my hands, awaiting word from the color-management community on how it fares, and to see if Apple has finally fixed the battery and other problems that have dogged the MacBook Pro line.
Because I want to break into pro photography the color quality of the Macbook Pro's screen is of some concern for me too. However for any final editing a second monitor should be sufficient. I'm hoping to get the Macbook Pro in two or three weeks, now I want to find a good monitor as well. I've been looking at Apple's 24" but it's more than I'd like to pay now and I've heard it has some colour rendition problems. I'll also look at Viewsonic and others. Maybe I'll find one at Photo.net.
My Dell Precision under XP has been rock solid (as in never crashed) for 2 years. I put this down to it being a work machine and not full of downloaded crap, spyware, buttonbars, though I do run VMWare, Citrix, SQL Navigator, MSVC and Google Desktop.
My first new PC I got from Gateway, a big mistake. In the first year the hdd and the motherboard died and had to be replaced. I had other problems with it as well and because they were supposed to be Linux friendly I got an HP to replace it, another mistake. When I got it I also got a second hdd because I planned on setting up the PC as a dualboot machine. Over the next few days I found out it would not run Linux. Maybe I should of checked to make sure it would run Linux before I got it but because HP was "Linux friendly" I didn't. Then in the first year I had the same thing happened as with the Gateway, both the hdd and motherboard had to be replaced.
And now with MS treating it's customers like criminals I'm switching.
run Windows natively or seamlessly alongside Mac OS X with packages like Parallels Desktop at least bears repeating.
Even better, I'd like to see the ability to run Windows apps in Leopard without running Windows. I am a Windows user but because MS is treating it's customers like criminals I am switching. For a desktop, tower really, I got a PC with Linuz preinstalled. And for a laptop I plan on getting a Macbook Pro.
OEM windows from some of the big brands doesn't come with any CDs anyway just a recovery partition.
This is BS. At least for indivivdual PCs. What if the partition gets hosed or the hdd crashes? I've had two hdds that had to be replaced within the first year. I suppose it doesn't matter much though if you have a volumn license.
Does windows run on the santarosa chipset? The chipset on the older Macbook Pros is supported on windows, but I am not sure about this new Santarosa chipset.
If Windows doesn't run on Santa Rosa cpus then why has PC OEMs like HP released computers using them? Apple is just the lastest to use them in laptops.
17-inch (diagonal) TFT display with support for millions of colors;
I wonder if the Macbook Pro actually displays "millions of colours" at once.
Also, while Apple folks and other tech-savvy folks may know the Intel-based Macs run Windows, why does the news article not even mention that? For many people even considering buying a Mac, the fact that a laptop like this can easily run Windows natively
I hope to get a 17" Macbook Pro in two or three weeks and it will never see Windows installed on it. I may install Ubuntu on it though.
40 years? For this? Good lord. Aren't there any real criminals we could lock up instead? It's insane.
Don't you know politicans want to look like thier tough on crime? The easiest way to do this is to go after people for non violent "crimes". Send someone who uses marijuana recreationally in their home to gaol for 25 years or another person accused of showing children porn for 40. Of cource they'd then have to release murderers and rapists after just 5 years.
I mean, there's definatly evidence of shady behavior, viewing pron at work, but I do believe that it wasn't intentional to show the students. Trouble is though, do you really want some pron-at-work type person teaching your child? After all, they're supposed to be a trusted role model and good influence for our youth.
Just because porn is found on a computer does not mean anyone was viewing, looking at, porn. Several years ago it happened to me, even though I didn't download or install anything recently, I found one of those dialers installed on my computer. And now many find spyware automatically installed on their computers, some of these are for porn.
To run cable, I vacuum a wad of kleenex tied to a string through a run, then use the string to pull the cable/cat5/whatever.
That works, at least some of the tyme. However as someone else said why not just run string through the conduit while it's being installed? Then when cabling, fiber, or wiring is pulled through the conduit with the string just include another string to be left in place unril something else needs to be pulled through as well.
I am not speaking against the non-Free market aspects here, just pointing them out. Many seem to have a hard time admitting that goods protected by copyrights and patents are not traded legally in a Free Market. To me, it is a separate question as to whether we think the copyright and patent solution is better than letting the Free Market try and find a solution, but at least people might try to come to grips with it not being a Free Market in those goods.
Niether copyrights nor patents exist in freetrade capitalism. Adam Smith the father of capitalism opposed copyrights and patents. I used to support both copyrights and patents, except business methods and software patents which I oppose, myself however recently I got into a debate on them and now I'm not no sure they are needed anymore.
I have only just started to wonder about corporations and Free Markets. These are early musings on that subject for me.
I've thought about both for a long tyme, and believe in freetrade capitialism as well as holding corporations to the standard of benefitting the common good and holding them responsible. Since I was a teenager I wanted to be an investor and start my own business. Now because of a disability I probably never will have my own business but with the help of my sister I may become an investor, maybe even a trader.
"Corporations themself are neither pro nor anti free market"
If they didn't have limited liability, or if humans had limited liability, they may not be anti-Free Market. As it is, they are a government solution to a problem and not a market solution to a problem.
True but I see no market solution to protect everyone.
The important part is that everyone has the option of sending their children to those publicly funded schools.
Yea, even sending children to bad schools. And if you don't have the money and you live in a bad school's district you have no choice but to send your children there. The only choice you may have is if you can send the child to a charter or magnet school.
If someone makes the choice not to, that's wholly their decision.
As stated above some, actually most, parents have no choice as to where their children go to school.
My daughter is home schooled, and sure it'd be nice to save some money on taxes, but I do recognize the education system as the worthwhile entity it is
I agree an education system is important, however if the schools aren't good most have no choice but to send their child(ren) there. For those who can afford either homeschooling or a private school, if they use one of these then they are being double charged. They're paying property taxes for bad schools then they have to pay more out of pocket to make sure their children get a good education.
I've arrived at my conclusion of public schools from my own experiences in public schools. Second grade showed me what education could, and should, be like. When I started second grade I had a brand new teacher, MS Townsend the only teacher from elementary school I recall the name of, she had just graduated from college. In some subjects like math; reading and writing; and vocabulary, the class was structured as selfpaced. She had a lot of learning or teaching aids like flash cards and we used these to learn. When we were ready she'd quiz us or give us a test and if we passed we could go to the next lesson. The students who were ahead of the class she encouraged to help the slower students. By the end of the school year two friends of mine and I were at the sixth grade levels in the selfpaced subjects. But then in third grade we were all stuck back into "regular" classes where all the students worked at the same level.
Then at the end of my sixth grade year we met with counselors from the jr high we were going to attend. The counselor I met told me I should take algebra, however because I didn't know how to do squareroots he couldn't let me take it. So I took as advanced a math class as I could without taking algebra until 10th grade. Then about six weeks after my 10th grade year started my math teacher, who always expected us to be sitting down when the bell rang to start the class and walked along the front of the class to pick up our homework, collected the homework then leafed through the papers and took one out. It was mine and holding it in front of the class he ripped it up. I got pissed off, then after yelling at him I grabbed my stuff and made a beeline to my guidance counselor's office. I told her what happened and said I needed to get out of his class. After looking over my math scores she said I should be taking algebra. I told her what the counselor told me in 6th grade and she said you learn to do squareroots in algebra. I'm sure steam came out of my head. She then said because too much tyme had gone by for the class she didn't want to put me into algebra but said she'd put me into a "pre algebra" class. As far as I know there's no difference between it and what I was taking. I believe that if I had been allowed to take algebra in 7th grade I would of taken at least one semester of AP Calculus if not a year by the tyme I graduated from high school.
I'm not saying I didn't get anything out of hs but I could of gotten more out of it than I did,such as calculus. Actually for some graduation requirements I exceded them. For instance the science requirement, only two years of science was required, 1 year of biology and a year of any science classes. Besides bio I took 1 1/2 years of chemistry (that's all they offered otherwise I would of taken more), 1/2 year of marine bio (same here) and 1/2 year of ecology. Marine bio and eco wer
D) I seriously hope you're playing dumb in trying to claim that "censorship" and "ratings" are the same thing - all "ratings" do is tell you what the content of a program is in a quick and bottled up manner (not that they cannot be abused... but i don't see them actively being abused)
Oh really? Try to take a 10 year old to see an X rate movie. Or showing one you have at home to the 10 year old while there's a bunch of witnesses. How about having the 10 year old try to buy a ticket and watch an R rated movie on their own. While it may not be a total censorship it is still censorship, much like some have tried to get some books banned from school libraries. Such as "Catcher in the Rye".
Government MUST exist
Neither I nor any other Libertarian I've ever know or chatted with have said there must be no government. The only ones I know that say that are anarchists. No, what I and othe rlibertairans want is a small and limited government.
If these things are so hard for you to comprehend then please do us a favor and refrain from voting because you don't have the intellectual maturity to be capable of making a rational choice on the matter
You're the one saying Libertarians don't want any government, dispite being told otherwise, not me. It's your comprehension that's lacking. Failing to have the comprehension I'm also inclined to say you also lack rational thinking and therefore are dangerous to democracy and freedom, liberty. EIther that, or you're just trying to spread FUD!!!
Well, what about the 'natural monopoly' of the owners of the last mile of copper wire/fiber optic cable to the homes? Unless we want 15 different cables and wires coming into each home for 15 different competing providers, how will we provide competition in the marketplace?
A local government or non profit can own the infrastructure. They then allow whoever to lease bandwidth and offer whatever service they want whther it be cable tv, net access, or phone service. A groups of communities in northeast Utah is doing this, they have A Broadband Utopia there.
Wrong. The roads are publicly funded, and everybody has the option of using them. Schools are publicly funded, and every citizen is allowed (nay required) to attend.
While not everyone is required to go to public schools everyone is required to pay for them. If and when I ever have children I want to homeschool then as much as I can. What I can't teach I want to hire tutors to teach. That or have a private school teach. That's what my sister is doing with her daughter. Though she's 3 year old now, my sister is sending her to a school where she's learning ASL, American Sign Language, and French. I took ASL and French in college, half year of ASL and 1 1/2 years of French, and she knows both better than I did when I was taking them.
First we have copyrights - Free Market not possible, government protected monopoly play.
Second we have patents - Free Market not possible, government protected monopoly play.
Third, and this one is so far only a vague thought so far, we have corporations. Another government involvement in the market?
Corporations themself are neither pro nor anti free market. Corporations are simply a way a bunch of people can collectively pool their money to make investments. The Dutch East India Company was one of the first corporations to be chartered, in 1602, with the Honourable East India Company or British East India being chartered 2 year earlier, in 1600. The government of the Netherlands allowed the charter to encourage trade. If a ship sank or lost valuable cargo the owners of the ship were liable for all costs, whether it be the cost of the lost cargo or the lose of lives. This meant not many were willing to invest in a ship. So the government can up with chartering corporations to limit the liability of investors to just what they invest. If a ship sank they would not be liable for more than the investment so if all they invested was some money they had on hand that's all they'd loose. Without limited liability they could of been forced to compleatly liquidate all they owned, including their home.
With charters, corporations at the same tyme were also supposed to improve the common good, and if a corporation did not then the charter could be revoked. However that's pretty much has disappeared, corporations don't loose their charters now and some states, such as Delaware, don't enforce the common good aspects.
D) there is a difference between "Censorship" and "Enforcing ratings"
Yes I did, and what are the ratings if not censorship?
C) as for fact checking.. one of the LEAST inefficient parts of the government is the GAO
In other words an expanded bureaucracy.
someone files a complaint (very specifically about something) and then the agency investigates
Like some Christian group who doesn't like what they see?
A) proactive prevention is better than reactive lawsuits/arms race, etc in this case
You said reactive before but now you're saying proactive. Or don't you think having someone file a report is reactive? And who decides what's decent again?
Oh, bullshit. Look at Iraq. You can go ahead and try to set up a business in Baghdad but you won't get very far, because there's no security, so insurgents, militias, and jihadists can threaten, kidnap, and murder your staff and customers, and blow up your building.
Bullshit, it's government, the US government that created the problems in Iraq. Insurgents and al Quada wasn't in Iraq before the US invaded. Weapons of Mass Destruction? I'm still waiting to the first WMD found in Iraq after the invasion. And those were the publicly, and quite laudly, stated reasons for the invasion, Bush even mentioned "mushroom clouds" in the skies. Regime change? It was US presidents Reagan and Bush Sr how supported Saddam, even while he was using those WMDs. US support only ended once he had Kuwait, a Sheikhdom, not a democracy, invaded. And a reason for his invasion of Kuwait? He accused Kuwait, and it was later confirmed, of slant drilling into Iraq thus "stealing" Iraqi oil. Prior to the Kuwaiti invasion Saddam could use whatever WMDs against Iran, Kurds in northern Iraq, March Arabs, and Shias along with others without a peep from Reagan or Bush Sr. Actually as stated before they both supported Saddam when he was using WMDs.
Some of us want the FCC to be turned into what it SHOULD be
it SHOULD have the following functions
A) make sure no two stations are "broadcasting over" E/O (IE maintain the "licensed" area of the spectrum, this is a necessary thing to prevent anticompetetive behavior like signal jaming)
One tries to do that and another can do the same. Then it becomes an arms race and will continue until they can't afford it anymore. However that totally disregards the ability of someone who is being jammed to file a lawsuit.
C) Make sure news programs don't broadcast propaganda - an informed, of the REAL facts, electorate is a absolute necessity for a democratic state
And how would this be done? Another bloated bureaucracy checking all the facts?
D) Make sure advertised show ratings are adhered to
Yea, we need more censorship. NOT!!! And who decides whatever gets whatever rating whether it be G, PG, or R? For instance a Christian organization was able to get some broadcasters fined for broadcasting "indescent content", hello Janet Jackson wardrobe malfuction. The only people who should be controlling what children see are their parents! Some Christians what to prevent scene that may be taken as sexual, while others want to ban "violent" video games. Well the Christian Bible is filled with pornography and violence, even what we'd call genocide today. But try to suggest it be banned.
Only if the market is truly free. If it is concentrated into a few very large interests, I'm afraid you don't get an ideal marketplace.
Big monopolies are what happen in a "truly free" market. Government regulation of large companies, when needed, is what gives us the ideal marketplace, or at least that's the idea.
It's the government that creates those big companies and monopolies. Government only allow one company to use the right of way to lay or string cable, power, or phone lines. That is not a free market!!! And those regulations you want, they are created by those being regulated to keep out competition. I saw something about a landscaper, government wanted him to spend a few thousand dollars to get a license to use an herbicide any individual can walk into a garden or home improvement store and buy off the shelf. Want to start a drycleaning business? Try and check into all of the licenses needed to start one.
And cars? States and cities are lining up to give auto manufacturers tax breaks to build plants. And in almost all of these cases the pay of jobs created, and any increase in property values, are not enough to cover the tax breaks. And any rise in property values makes it harder for people to buy a home.
I'm fine with the free market, but the telcos have gobbled up way too much tax payers money and used too much legislation (aka banning competitors like municipal wifi) to get a free lunch on this free market thing.
Had they not received all that public money for development in the 90's and legislated mandate of monopolies I think it would be fine... But they have and don't have much to show for it compared to other nations services.
Same here, if the cablecos and telcos want to be able to control the pipes then they need to pay for the pipes themselves and return all the taxpayer money they were given by the government.
We might need another trust busting of the telcos and maybe cable companies because the free market doesn't work well with monopolies.
Though I'm a Libertarian, here's one area where I believe local communities should own the infrastructure. Either locally controlled nonprofits or governments should own the local cable, power, and telephone lines. Those lines would then be open allowing anyone to offer services using those lines. Cable, the locals own the cable lines then if someone wants to offer cable tv, net access, or phone service then they can pay for what they use. Power? If someone wants to offer electricity they can build their own power plant whether it be coal burning, solar, or wind then they the lease powerlines to deliver the power to consumers. Same with phone service. I think this'd create a much freer market than what we have now.
Funny, here on the west coast, where the oil companies purposely charge more because of the higher incomes on the drivers, I still wait for gasoline prices to go down to parity with the rest of the country
And yet LA has more than 1000 oil wells in the area.
Why the hell don't these free market aficionados also become interested in efficiency. Various uses of spectrum could free up lots of space for competition.
I can't talk about all of them but many people who want free markets want the radio, light, spectrum opened up. Some of us want to see the FCC eliminated.
is it competition that is the problem?
That's it precisely. Those in control now, the mass media, don't want competition. With today's technology many more radio and tv stations could broadcast without interfering with each other, but by having more of them the companies owning the stations will have to have a bunch of stations in a given market in order to have the same number of eyeballs and hears thus increasing their costs. That's why they'd fight tooth and nail against pirate radio.
Particularly, to those donating to these folks...
The people from Clear Channel Communications was some of the biggest supporters of Bush. And now Bush's FCC has increased the proportion of an audiance a company can have in a given market. This also allows them to project a bigger political market. Recall a few years ago when one of the Dixie Chicks made the comment that she was sorry Bush comes from Texas and the "media" reaction to it? Much of that reaction was orchestrated by Clear Channel.
Slashdot Mirror
The (regular) Macbooks seem reasonably priced, but what makes the Pros worth the $1800 starting price (with an educational discount, even!)? I mean, let's take the midrange Macbook and bump it up to 2GB of RAM and you end up with something comparable to the lowest-end Pro with the exceptions of a slightly slower processor, GMA950 graphics (which is probably fine for what I'd use a laptop for) and a smaller screen and it winds up being over $400 cheaper (again, education prices). Somehow those changes don't seem worth the extra money and comparing prices with competitors such as Dell and HP seem to back me up on that.
The higher price is worth it for those who need better graphics such as graphics artists and photographers. The only reason I can think of why a pro wouldn't want to pay extra is because they use another monitor, but then if so why get a laptop?
So, given that people continue to buy Macbook Pros, there simply must be something I'm missing.
Yes, there is. I am switching from Windows simply because I don't like MS's policy of treating customers like criminals. When I buy an OS I don't like it when I have to Activate it with the company. Nor do I like it when I have to reactivate it when I've made some hardware changes. Though there might not be many others I bet there are some who feel the same as I do. Also I want an OS that is stable and does not crash. And yes, the first tyme I used XP it crashed on me.
FalconIf this is yet-another 6-bit display, this situation will be even worse
I'm definitely the target buyer for this machine, but am cautiously sitting on my hands, awaiting word from the color-management community on how it fares, and to see if Apple has finally fixed the battery and other problems that have dogged the MacBook Pro line.
Because I want to break into pro photography the color quality of the Macbook Pro's screen is of some concern for me too. However for any final editing a second monitor should be sufficient. I'm hoping to get the Macbook Pro in two or three weeks, now I want to find a good monitor as well. I've been looking at Apple's 24" but it's more than I'd like to pay now and I've heard it has some colour rendition problems. I'll also look at Viewsonic and others. Maybe I'll find one at Photo.net.
FalconMy Dell Precision under XP has been rock solid (as in never crashed) for 2 years. I put this down to it being a work machine and not full of downloaded crap, spyware, buttonbars, though I do run VMWare, Citrix, SQL Navigator, MSVC and Google Desktop.
My first new PC I got from Gateway, a big mistake. In the first year the hdd and the motherboard died and had to be replaced. I had other problems with it as well and because they were supposed to be Linux friendly I got an HP to replace it, another mistake. When I got it I also got a second hdd because I planned on setting up the PC as a dualboot machine. Over the next few days I found out it would not run Linux. Maybe I should of checked to make sure it would run Linux before I got it but because HP was "Linux friendly" I didn't. Then in the first year I had the same thing happened as with the Gateway, both the hdd and motherboard had to be replaced.
And now with MS treating it's customers like criminals I'm switching.
Falconrun Windows natively or seamlessly alongside Mac OS X with packages like Parallels Desktop at least bears repeating.
Even better, I'd like to see the ability to run Windows apps in Leopard without running Windows. I am a Windows user but because MS is treating it's customers like criminals I am switching. For a desktop, tower really, I got a PC with Linuz preinstalled. And for a laptop I plan on getting a Macbook Pro.
FalconOEM windows from some of the big brands doesn't come with any CDs anyway just a recovery partition.
This is BS. At least for indivivdual PCs. What if the partition gets hosed or the hdd crashes? I've had two hdds that had to be replaced within the first year. I suppose it doesn't matter much though if you have a volumn license.
FalconDoes windows run on the santarosa chipset? The chipset on the older Macbook Pros is supported on windows, but I am not sure about this new Santarosa chipset.
If Windows doesn't run on Santa Rosa cpus then why has PC OEMs like HP released computers using them? Apple is just the lastest to use them in laptops.
Falcon17-inch (diagonal) TFT display with support for millions of colors;
I wonder if the Macbook Pro actually displays "millions of colours" at once.
Also, while Apple folks and other tech-savvy folks may know the Intel-based Macs run Windows, why does the news article not even mention that? For many people even considering buying a Mac, the fact that a laptop like this can easily run Windows natively
I hope to get a 17" Macbook Pro in two or three weeks and it will never see Windows installed on it. I may install Ubuntu on it though.
Falcon40 years? For this? Good lord. Aren't there any real criminals we could lock up instead? It's insane.
Don't you know politicans want to look like thier tough on crime? The easiest way to do this is to go after people for non violent "crimes". Send someone who uses marijuana recreationally in their home to gaol for 25 years or another person accused of showing children porn for 40. Of cource they'd then have to release murderers and rapists after just 5 years.
FalconI mean, there's definatly evidence of shady behavior, viewing pron at work, but I do believe that it wasn't intentional to show the students. Trouble is though, do you really want some pron-at-work type person teaching your child? After all, they're supposed to be a trusted role model and good influence for our youth.
Just because porn is found on a computer does not mean anyone was viewing, looking at, porn. Several years ago it happened to me, even though I didn't download or install anything recently, I found one of those dialers installed on my computer. And now many find spyware automatically installed on their computers, some of these are for porn.
FalconTo run cable, I vacuum a wad of kleenex tied to a string through a run, then use the string to pull the cable/cat5/whatever.
That works, at least some of the tyme. However as someone else said why not just run string through the conduit while it's being installed? Then when cabling, fiber, or wiring is pulled through the conduit with the string just include another string to be left in place unril something else needs to be pulled through as well.
FalconBuild flood wall/stilts for the house (or more realistically, Flood Insurance).
Actually do both. By using flood protection in the building construction the cost of flood insurance will be lower, if it is available.
FalconI am not speaking against the non-Free market aspects here, just pointing them out. Many seem to have a hard time admitting that goods protected by copyrights and patents are not traded legally in a Free Market. To me, it is a separate question as to whether we think the copyright and patent solution is better than letting the Free Market try and find a solution, but at least people might try to come to grips with it not being a Free Market in those goods.
Niether copyrights nor patents exist in freetrade capitalism. Adam Smith the father of capitalism opposed copyrights and patents. I used to support both copyrights and patents, except business methods and software patents which I oppose, myself however recently I got into a debate on them and now I'm not no sure they are needed anymore.
I have only just started to wonder about corporations and Free Markets. These are early musings on that subject for me.
I've thought about both for a long tyme, and believe in freetrade capitialism as well as holding corporations to the standard of benefitting the common good and holding them responsible. Since I was a teenager I wanted to be an investor and start my own business. Now because of a disability I probably never will have my own business but with the help of my sister I may become an investor, maybe even a trader.
Falcon"Corporations themself are neither pro nor anti free market"
If they didn't have limited liability, or if humans had limited liability, they may not be anti-Free Market. As it is, they are a government solution to a problem and not a market solution to a problem.
True but I see no market solution to protect everyone.
FalconThe important part is that everyone has the option of sending their children to those publicly funded schools.
Yea, even sending children to bad schools. And if you don't have the money and you live in a bad school's district you have no choice but to send your children there. The only choice you may have is if you can send the child to a charter or magnet school.
If someone makes the choice not to, that's wholly their decision.
As stated above some, actually most, parents have no choice as to where their children go to school.
My daughter is home schooled, and sure it'd be nice to save some money on taxes, but I do recognize the education system as the worthwhile entity it is
I agree an education system is important, however if the schools aren't good most have no choice but to send their child(ren) there. For those who can afford either homeschooling or a private school, if they use one of these then they are being double charged. They're paying property taxes for bad schools then they have to pay more out of pocket to make sure their children get a good education.
I've arrived at my conclusion of public schools from my own experiences in public schools. Second grade showed me what education could, and should, be like. When I started second grade I had a brand new teacher, MS Townsend the only teacher from elementary school I recall the name of, she had just graduated from college. In some subjects like math; reading and writing; and vocabulary, the class was structured as selfpaced. She had a lot of learning or teaching aids like flash cards and we used these to learn. When we were ready she'd quiz us or give us a test and if we passed we could go to the next lesson. The students who were ahead of the class she encouraged to help the slower students. By the end of the school year two friends of mine and I were at the sixth grade levels in the selfpaced subjects. But then in third grade we were all stuck back into "regular" classes where all the students worked at the same level.
Then at the end of my sixth grade year we met with counselors from the jr high we were going to attend. The counselor I met told me I should take algebra, however because I didn't know how to do squareroots he couldn't let me take it. So I took as advanced a math class as I could without taking algebra until 10th grade. Then about six weeks after my 10th grade year started my math teacher, who always expected us to be sitting down when the bell rang to start the class and walked along the front of the class to pick up our homework, collected the homework then leafed through the papers and took one out. It was mine and holding it in front of the class he ripped it up. I got pissed off, then after yelling at him I grabbed my stuff and made a beeline to my guidance counselor's office. I told her what happened and said I needed to get out of his class. After looking over my math scores she said I should be taking algebra. I told her what the counselor told me in 6th grade and she said you learn to do squareroots in algebra. I'm sure steam came out of my head. She then said because too much tyme had gone by for the class she didn't want to put me into algebra but said she'd put me into a "pre algebra" class. As far as I know there's no difference between it and what I was taking. I believe that if I had been allowed to take algebra in 7th grade I would of taken at least one semester of AP Calculus if not a year by the tyme I graduated from high school.
I'm not saying I didn't get anything out of hs but I could of gotten more out of it than I did,such as calculus. Actually for some graduation requirements I exceded them. For instance the science requirement, only two years of science was required, 1 year of biology and a year of any science classes. Besides bio I took 1 1/2 years of chemistry (that's all they offered otherwise I would of taken more), 1/2 year of marine bio (same here) and 1/2 year of ecology. Marine bio and eco wer
D) I seriously hope you're playing dumb in trying to claim that "censorship" and "ratings" are the same thing - all "ratings" do is tell you what the content of a program is in a quick and bottled up manner (not that they cannot be abused... but i don't see them actively being abused)
Oh really? Try to take a 10 year old to see an X rate movie. Or showing one you have at home to the 10 year old while there's a bunch of witnesses. How about having the 10 year old try to buy a ticket and watch an R rated movie on their own. While it may not be a total censorship it is still censorship, much like some have tried to get some books banned from school libraries. Such as "Catcher in the Rye".
Government MUST exist
Neither I nor any other Libertarian I've ever know or chatted with have said there must be no government. The only ones I know that say that are anarchists. No, what I and othe rlibertairans want is a small and limited government.
If these things are so hard for you to comprehend then please do us a favor and refrain from voting because you don't have the intellectual maturity to be capable of making a rational choice on the matter
You're the one saying Libertarians don't want any government, dispite being told otherwise, not me. It's your comprehension that's lacking. Failing to have the comprehension I'm also inclined to say you also lack rational thinking and therefore are dangerous to democracy and freedom, liberty. EIther that, or you're just trying to spread FUD!!!
FalconWell, what about the 'natural monopoly' of the owners of the last mile of copper wire/fiber optic cable to the homes? Unless we want 15 different cables and wires coming into each home for 15 different competing providers, how will we provide competition in the marketplace?
A local government or non profit can own the infrastructure. They then allow whoever to lease bandwidth and offer whatever service they want whther it be cable tv, net access, or phone service. A groups of communities in northeast Utah is doing this, they have A Broadband Utopia there.
FalconWrong. The roads are publicly funded, and everybody has the option of using them. Schools are publicly funded, and every citizen is allowed (nay required) to attend.
While not everyone is required to go to public schools everyone is required to pay for them. If and when I ever have children I want to homeschool then as much as I can. What I can't teach I want to hire tutors to teach. That or have a private school teach. That's what my sister is doing with her daughter. Though she's 3 year old now, my sister is sending her to a school where she's learning ASL, American Sign Language, and French. I took ASL and French in college, half year of ASL and 1 1/2 years of French, and she knows both better than I did when I was taking them.
FalconFirst we have copyrights - Free Market not possible, government protected monopoly play.
Second we have patents - Free Market not possible, government protected monopoly play.
Third, and this one is so far only a vague thought so far, we have corporations. Another government involvement in the market?
Corporations themself are neither pro nor anti free market. Corporations are simply a way a bunch of people can collectively pool their money to make investments. The Dutch East India Company was one of the first corporations to be chartered, in 1602, with the Honourable East India Company or British East India being chartered 2 year earlier, in 1600. The government of the Netherlands allowed the charter to encourage trade. If a ship sank or lost valuable cargo the owners of the ship were liable for all costs, whether it be the cost of the lost cargo or the lose of lives. This meant not many were willing to invest in a ship. So the government can up with chartering corporations to limit the liability of investors to just what they invest. If a ship sank they would not be liable for more than the investment so if all they invested was some money they had on hand that's all they'd loose. Without limited liability they could of been forced to compleatly liquidate all they owned, including their home.
With charters, corporations at the same tyme were also supposed to improve the common good, and if a corporation did not then the charter could be revoked. However that's pretty much has disappeared, corporations don't loose their charters now and some states, such as Delaware, don't enforce the common good aspects.
Falcondid you even READ my last one?
D) there is a difference between "Censorship" and "Enforcing ratings"
Yes I did, and what are the ratings if not censorship?
C) as for fact checking.. one of the LEAST inefficient parts of the government is the GAO
In other words an expanded bureaucracy.
someone files a complaint (very specifically about something) and then the agency investigates
Like some Christian group who doesn't like what they see?
A) proactive prevention is better than reactive lawsuits/arms race, etc in this case
You said reactive before but now you're saying proactive. Or don't you think having someone file a report is reactive? And who decides what's decent again?
FalconOh, bullshit. Look at Iraq. You can go ahead and try to set up a business in Baghdad but you won't get very far, because there's no security, so insurgents, militias, and jihadists can threaten, kidnap, and murder your staff and customers, and blow up your building.
Bullshit, it's government, the US government that created the problems in Iraq. Insurgents and al Quada wasn't in Iraq before the US invaded. Weapons of Mass Destruction? I'm still waiting to the first WMD found in Iraq after the invasion. And those were the publicly, and quite laudly, stated reasons for the invasion, Bush even mentioned "mushroom clouds" in the skies. Regime change? It was US presidents Reagan and Bush Sr how supported Saddam, even while he was using those WMDs. US support only ended once he had Kuwait, a Sheikhdom, not a democracy, invaded. And a reason for his invasion of Kuwait? He accused Kuwait, and it was later confirmed, of slant drilling into Iraq thus "stealing" Iraqi oil. Prior to the Kuwaiti invasion Saddam could use whatever WMDs against Iran, Kurds in northern Iraq, March Arabs, and Shias along with others without a peep from Reagan or Bush Sr. Actually as stated before they both supported Saddam when he was using WMDs.
FalconSome of us want the FCC to be turned into what it SHOULD be
it SHOULD have the following functions
A) make sure no two stations are "broadcasting over" E/O (IE maintain the "licensed" area of the spectrum, this is a necessary thing to prevent anticompetetive behavior like signal jaming)
One tries to do that and another can do the same. Then it becomes an arms race and will continue until they can't afford it anymore. However that totally disregards the ability of someone who is being jammed to file a lawsuit.
C) Make sure news programs don't broadcast propaganda - an informed, of the REAL facts, electorate is a absolute necessity for a democratic state
And how would this be done? Another bloated bureaucracy checking all the facts?
D) Make sure advertised show ratings are adhered to
Yea, we need more censorship. NOT!!! And who decides whatever gets whatever rating whether it be G, PG, or R? For instance a Christian organization was able to get some broadcasters fined for broadcasting "indescent content", hello Janet Jackson wardrobe malfuction. The only people who should be controlling what children see are their parents! Some Christians what to prevent scene that may be taken as sexual, while others want to ban "violent" video games. Well the Christian Bible is filled with pornography and violence, even what we'd call genocide today. But try to suggest it be banned.
FalconOnly if the market is truly free. If it is concentrated into a few very large interests, I'm afraid you don't get an ideal marketplace.
Big monopolies are what happen in a "truly free" market. Government regulation of large companies, when needed, is what gives us the ideal marketplace, or at least that's the idea.
It's the government that creates those big companies and monopolies. Government only allow one company to use the right of way to lay or string cable, power, or phone lines. That is not a free market!!! And those regulations you want, they are created by those being regulated to keep out competition. I saw something about a landscaper, government wanted him to spend a few thousand dollars to get a license to use an herbicide any individual can walk into a garden or home improvement store and buy off the shelf. Want to start a drycleaning business? Try and check into all of the licenses needed to start one.
And cars? States and cities are lining up to give auto manufacturers tax breaks to build plants. And in almost all of these cases the pay of jobs created, and any increase in property values, are not enough to cover the tax breaks. And any rise in property values makes it harder for people to buy a home.
FalconI'm fine with the free market, but the telcos have gobbled up way too much tax payers money and used too much legislation (aka banning competitors like municipal wifi) to get a free lunch on this free market thing.
Had they not received all that public money for development in the 90's and legislated mandate of monopolies I think it would be fine... But they have and don't have much to show for it compared to other nations services.
Same here, if the cablecos and telcos want to be able to control the pipes then they need to pay for the pipes themselves and return all the taxpayer money they were given by the government.
We might need another trust busting of the telcos and maybe cable companies because the free market doesn't work well with monopolies.
Though I'm a Libertarian, here's one area where I believe local communities should own the infrastructure. Either locally controlled nonprofits or governments should own the local cable, power, and telephone lines. Those lines would then be open allowing anyone to offer services using those lines. Cable, the locals own the cable lines then if someone wants to offer cable tv, net access, or phone service then they can pay for what they use. Power? If someone wants to offer electricity they can build their own power plant whether it be coal burning, solar, or wind then they the lease powerlines to deliver the power to consumers. Same with phone service. I think this'd create a much freer market than what we have now.
FalconFunny, here on the west coast, where the oil companies purposely charge more because of the higher incomes on the drivers, I still wait for gasoline prices to go down to parity with the rest of the country
And yet LA has more than 1000 oil wells in the area.
FalconWhy the hell don't these free market aficionados also become interested in efficiency. Various uses of spectrum could free up lots of space for competition.
I can't talk about all of them but many people who want free markets want the radio, light, spectrum opened up. Some of us want to see the FCC eliminated.
is it competition that is the problem?
That's it precisely. Those in control now, the mass media, don't want competition. With today's technology many more radio and tv stations could broadcast without interfering with each other, but by having more of them the companies owning the stations will have to have a bunch of stations in a given market in order to have the same number of eyeballs and hears thus increasing their costs. That's why they'd fight tooth and nail against pirate radio.
Particularly, to those donating to these folks...
The people from Clear Channel Communications was some of the biggest supporters of Bush. And now Bush's FCC has increased the proportion of an audiance a company can have in a given market. This also allows them to project a bigger political market. Recall a few years ago when one of the Dixie Chicks made the comment that she was sorry Bush comes from Texas and the "media" reaction to it? Much of that reaction was orchestrated by Clear Channel.
Falcon