Private school systems actually have to live up to certain standards set forth for accredidation. That is why they still teach science as science, many certainly do inject creationism as well.
The reason people think religious nuts would take over is stemmed from history when religious nuts took over. Take a look at the history of the education system and you will surely understand why people feel this way. It happened before, remove government and there is nothing stopping it from happening again.
Are you purposely being obtuse on this? Do you have any concept of how education worked before the school "system" was established? This is complete non-sense of the worst kind as it would doom us to repeat the past where the vast majority of the country went uneducated and then comes all the sweeping problems associated with the uneducated masses such as massively increased crime rates across the board and vastly increased numbers of people in poverty.
A school is a lot more than just a teacher and students. This myopic attitude needs to go away as it is detrimental to the well being of a lot of children out there who's parents are either too busy or too stupid to teach their kids themselves.
Standards are well accepted on the Internet, I wonder why there is such resistance to the same things in the real world...
Given that the government produced Reefer Madness which had hysterical views on marijuana use you can't blame people for being skeptical when they usually have their own personal experience to draw upon which counters the research which almost universally stacks the deck in their favor.
I'm not sure how many teenagers smoke weed for times a week, that would be a pretty expensive hobby to keep up.
You might also note that there are many articles about professional, highly educated women in the work place who smoke regularly. This real world evidence would run counter to this study.
As for Wikileaks tangent, most people believe that people are innocent until proven guilty so yes, until there is evidence presented people will think that way about Assange.
There has even been articles here on Slashdot about the percentage of IT workers that smoke, if all of these highly intellectual trades contains smokers then it appears the onus is on the study to counter those real life claims before trying to correlate IQ with smoking.
I don't think it's a conspiracy that the DEA for instance would be an advocate for their work. At that point it's them doing their jobs as the executive branch has directed them to do. Until the presidency wants to change the policy you will continue to see justifications no matter how bogus they are. Countering decades of bad science backed early by a political agenda will take a long time. The initial evidence used to make marijuana illegal is pretty incredible if you ever care to investigate yourself. Once you do you'll start to understand why peope feel the way they do whether they are right or wrong.
It is exceedingly difficult to manufacture a vaccine without some sort of preservative. Usually the preservative is what provokes allergic reactions. There are also other compounds which can cause it necessary to stabilize the vaccine. Most vaccines are not just dead viruses. There are valid reasons for a very small portion of the population to not get immunized. That is why it's so important for the rest of us to get vaccinated.
So nerds don't care about biology or statistics? This type of discussion hasn't always been common on Slashdot, notsure what you're trying to argue here.
Isn't that why we are having a discussion in the first place? The language raises real concerns that need to be addressed. Things are usually less nefarious than they look so you are probably right in that he maybe compromised on language to get a cosponsor but that action would still call into question his integrity.
Your citation does not match your assertion. 24% of women and 20% of men believe abortion should be banned. That's a pretty small percentage of the population and that's of course from 2003 which is almost a decade ago. If you look at more recent numbers you see the same percentage of the population thinks that abortion should be banned. Pro-life vs Pro-Choice is a very different argument as it is a personal question which follows your assertion in that more Americans are pro-life now than pro-choice.
It would seem that while more people think that abortion is not the choice for them, they still think it should be available to those that think differently. It's about forcing your beliefs on others in terms of banning abortion.
The problem isn't that he voted for it, it's that he cosponsored it. That means he wrote it so his point of view very much matters. He purposely provided for no exceptions in his bill which is what caused the whole controversy to begin with.
Given a lot of literature out there exposing the hardship of women throughout history I have to wonder what makes you think things were so rosy in marriages in those days? The use it and throw it away culture has nothing to do with how you treat people, horrible violence was common place. Medieval torture is well documented and far worse than the water boarding of today. I keep seeing this issue crop up, people aspousing about the golden years past forgetting about all the bad that permiated every facet of society.
Keep in mind, people today are far more educated than people in years past. 1000 years ago the percentage of the population that could read was indeed quite small and the ignorant out there were not afraid of any level violence, indeed it was commonplace in their lives. Read about the atrocities on both sides of the crusades.
Rape inside of marriage was probably a lot more common in history than today since today domestic violence has a whole support network designed to help women in that situation. Of course one can't really be certain on the rates in the past since it wasn't something a lot of people talked about so you're left with a few stories that were written down and survived the test of time.
So you're making an assumption there was someone to hear the screams. That seems to be the crux of the issue for most people and why it gets interpreted in a way you disagree with.
How do you prove that it was consenual or not? If there are bruises and cuts and obvious signs of struggle then it becomes simple, but that's not always the case.
It's a tough issue to handle, I'm not sure we should be worrying about bible stories when dealing with the ignorance of the statements for Todd Akin who clearly was talking out of his ass. A law should not be created if there are obvious examples of people that the law would hurt as collatoral damage, you would choose to make exceptions for those people, the fact the these exceptions are not made just shows how bad the law is. It would be another question entirely if the consequences weren't known ahead of time, like the problems with the DMCA, its another entirely when consequences are obvious with statistics to back it up going back 20 years.Why ignore the numbers and not make exceptions for those extreme circumstances? If they had then they might have made headway towards their anti-abortion agenda, the fact that they didn't suggests to me they don't actually believe it's the right thing to do but they need to show that they are doing something to their base.
Most military components are indeed manufactured domestically. That's why it was a big deal when some designs were stolen and shipped to China. It then becomes a question of securing information domestically which is far easier than when it is manufactured over-seas.
This is all mostly a moot point though, any country with the resources to manufacture an F35 from blueprints has a vested interest in maintaining peace. China for instance has been gaining technology fast but they wouldn't attack any countries with significant military resources because it would harm them greatly as well. Mutually assured destruction does a lot to keep people from firing unless it's actually necessary.
There is an old argument that war is great for economies, in those days economic conditions were much more volitile though and today, the corporations which control the worlds resources would rather maintain the status quo rather than risk losing large amounts of assets.
I see the same stuff in business though. Anytime consultants are brought in I see it again and again. I saw it big time when dealing with IBM and even bigger when dealing with Oracle. This problem is not unique to government but it definitely happens a lot more and to large excess which is unfortunate, tragic, and completely unnecessary.
Of course parent I was replying to was trying to say this problem was unique to government implying that government only wastes money and that's simply untrue. I look at hundreds of low-income housing projects just in Arizona and even though the projects come in over budget they do a great deal in helping people get back on their feet after prolonged periods of unemployment. I look at the alternatives and feel like I have to conclude that it was worth it. Hordes of homeless have a tendency to cause a whole host of other problems and I suspect when you add up all the other costs that you at least break even.
There definitely needs to be more accountability in regards to government contracts. My impression is that there simply isn't enough personell available to oversee all the projects that are in motion. Of course this is just because I have friends that work in government so it's mostly hearsey as to the true causes of the bloated spending.
I would love to see a GA database that includes a company's history. If they are always over budget then that should definitely be considered when accepting a low bid from them.
So what you're saying is that the tax rates in the 90's, one of the more prosperous times in this country's history was what? Last I checked our economy has grown since then. During that time not only could we afford most of these programs but we had projected surpluses had we stayed on target. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when times are really tough and you're too far in the whole simply cutting back isn't enough, you'll need a second job until you recover.
Let's also probably not mention that companies can write off expansion expenses negating the tax burden. At 39.2% according to your own link, that would be pretty high, care to see how much taxes corporations actually pay? Tax rates are manipulated so much in the political landscape that its no wonder it makes most people's heads spin.
Consider Japan, they lowered their corporate tax rate but use value added taxes to make up the difference. There are incredibly few businesses that actually pay 39.2% in taxes.
Cuts are indeed necessary, but they need not be nearly as severe as the Republican party would have you believe. When asking for sacrifice you should probably make sure that everybody is sacrificing instead of young women who no longer have access to planned parenthood to get birth control pills because they have had so much of their funding taken away that they are only open a few hours a week if at all in certain states. These types of cuts only cause additional problems and more importantly expenses as you then have more women getting pregnant and needing assistance in other ways since they don't have health insurance that covers birth control.
Look at California for trying this method. They have vote mandated spending and their constitution requires that taxes can only be increased through a voter iniative. So people vote for a program and then when it comes time to pay for it they opt out and then you run out of money. The programs would not have been proposed to begin with if there wasn't some problem that needed to be solved. So the answer is to raise taxes and pay for the programs that fix the problems that ravaged this country at the start of the 20th century. All the assistance programs out there were created for reasons, all the regulatory bodies were created for certain reasons. If they aren't working then the answer most often isn't to throw them out entirely, it's to fix the process so that it actually accomplishes the stated goals. Cutting food assistance programs isn't going save the country any money, people need to eat, what is someone that is starving going to do when they can't afford any food? We are seeing already with crime increasing in almost every part of the country.
There is a difference between being a bleeding heart liberal that wants rainbows to shoot out of everyone's butts and a compassionate person that understands that we are all part of a community and that you can help the people in your community and all prosper or leave people to their own devices and end up needing a police state to keep those like myself with means safe.
Name one government or corporate program that doesn't waste any money. There is a big difference between mismanagement and wasting small amounts of resources. You're right in that projects like the bridge to nowhere should be stopped. The problem from people I know involved in government projects is that companies will bid low to get a contract and then make up their money in change orders. This is the same whether it is an IT project, a construction job, or a defense contract.
Defense contractors are so good at it that they build factories everywhere imposing enormous inefficiency transporting goods needlessly. If the government tries to reign in this project then thousands of jobs are lost across many districts impacting a large number of representatives. So there is no incentive to fix the inefficiency to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars but we can instead tackle waste in small places to the tune of tens of millions. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?
Ugh... I hate seeing this definition of evolution. It does not even attempt to explain our origins. It only describes the mechanism by which we change and adapt to our environment. No one knows if a single cell kicked off life on this earth or if an asteroid impact gave the planets it's first cellular organisms or even if it started with much more complex forms of life. We only know that humans were not the first organisms on this planet. We have direct evidence for all sortsof organisms that have lived in the past prior to human development. Also, given how much DNA is shared by human and an ape I'm surprised this is still really where the discussion is in this day and age.
Voluntary and segregation are mutually exclusive in the long term. A child cannot choose which school they go to so they are forced to go where their parents tell them. This is why we have federal level standards, so that even parents that choose to home school have to meet certain minimum requirements so we don't end up with hordes of uneducated causing all sorts of problems that were seen at the start of the 20th century.
Education is more than a tool, it ensures mutual prosperity by making sure everyone has the necessary tools to work together. If only 1% of the population is educated then that 1% has to prop up the other 99% or you end up with rioting and rampant crime. This is why we see crime on the rise right now...
Federal standards work great, local schools are free to teach more than the minimum but removing that minimum isn't really going to help anyone, not even the elite class that thinks they are better than people that make less than them. I deal with people like that everyday and it saddens me how little they understand about the world around them. They drive million dollar cars on roads created by people with much more meager means. They dine at restaurants prepared and served by people with far lower means. If you have everything and you rely on these people for everything then what do you really have?
I agree with this philosophy, there is some science behind eating slower with chopsticks versus shoveling food in with a fork. My own problem is that slicing steak feels wrong unless you're eating it,that becomes part of the experience and you don't usually eat it fast so it still fits.
So we should go back to literacy rates in the single digits? That's the reason the federal government is involved to begin with. Of course there is also the matter of the fact that federal funds help fill the voids in a lot of public schools. Having an uneducated populous is not a good option. You ever notice how college graduates don't usually join gangs?
Federal standards are needed to prevent local municalities from hurting the children in their district through education that is well, less than universal. Probably worth noting that federal standards are only a minimum and that individual states are free to decide to teach more if they wish. I'm not sure how removing the minimum would help kids.
Uhh... look at Arizona too, so broke they sold their capital building and they are about as conservative as you get. The whole argument is just stupid, the most prosperous states in the union were always left leaning. Oil put Texas and Alaska in a status of their own. Of course that's still no reason to base a decision. Instead you have to look at the retarded methods used to deal with a budget issue. Until the Bush tax cuts, revenue was looking pretty good, we were on track to be debt free. Now you see people arguing to continue tax cuts and cut spending which millions are relying on during an economic down turn.
Of course the conservative agenda says personal responsibility and blah blah, really not a bad ideal for an individual to live by but insane to expect everybody to follow. So casting all those people with medical bills to the wolves and depressing already low-income people is supposed to lead to what? More jobs? Why would a corporation hire more people if their wasn't demand for more product? That's why I can't stand hearing about tax rates and jobs in the same sentence. There is a level of taxation that is burdensome but we're no where even close to it.
Last I checked too, California was still the best place to get venture capital, I wonder why?
How is out of date knowledge showing ignorance? Furthermore, many many people don't use the encryption available on their phones whether they be iPhones or Android devices. You're right a simple Google search would have gone a long way but then multiple people wouldn't have had a discussion and thus been educated by it. I know I've been able to plug in several iPhones and get data off of them. That includes current 4S iPhones. Now I know it's because most of these security features aren't enabled by default. It's good the option is there for those that want additional security though. I don't often associate Apple with secure practices. OS X was quite famous for submitting credentials in plaintext instead of using ipsec like Linux and Windows. Then there was all the Wifi bullshit I had to deal with as the iOS devices matured. They still need some work but they are at least improving. Unless it's your business to stay in the loop on this stuff I can't really blame people for being behind.
Like what? The only argument I ever hear is about the individual mandate which is a necessity to insure that that the bills get paid. Of course the mandate is pretty weak to the point of barely being considered a mandate.
That would never happen, think of all of the lost profit. Multi-national corporations would have so much more logistical work to do.
The walled-garden approach only works for so long, the best scientific feats ever created were the result of multiple countries working together. I give you, the Internet!
Of course your statement about hacking Internet connected assets is kind of moot since all intelligence work leads to strengthening of security system whether they in the cyber-world or the real world. This is nothing new, will not end anytime soon, nor will it ever really change. Building your country-wide Intranet? Now we just gotta send in covert forces to login and plant microwave proxies, good luck detecting that reliably. There is always a way in, nothing is ever 100% secure.
Slashdot Mirror
That would also restrict worthy people from making a difference thus defeating the whole purpose in the first place.
Private school systems actually have to live up to certain standards set forth for accredidation. That is why they still teach science as science, many certainly do inject creationism as well.
The reason people think religious nuts would take over is stemmed from history when religious nuts took over. Take a look at the history of the education system and you will surely understand why people feel this way. It happened before, remove government and there is nothing stopping it from happening again.
Are you purposely being obtuse on this? Do you have any concept of how education worked before the school "system" was established? This is complete non-sense of the worst kind as it would doom us to repeat the past where the vast majority of the country went uneducated and then comes all the sweeping problems associated with the uneducated masses such as massively increased crime rates across the board and vastly increased numbers of people in poverty.
A school is a lot more than just a teacher and students. This myopic attitude needs to go away as it is detrimental to the well being of a lot of children out there who's parents are either too busy or too stupid to teach their kids themselves.
Standards are well accepted on the Internet, I wonder why there is such resistance to the same things in the real world...
That's cool, what about the billions in tax payer subsidies to pay for it as well?
Given that the government produced Reefer Madness which had hysterical views on marijuana use you can't blame people for being skeptical when they usually have their own personal experience to draw upon which counters the research which almost universally stacks the deck in their favor.
I'm not sure how many teenagers smoke weed for times a week, that would be a pretty expensive hobby to keep up.
You might also note that there are many articles about professional, highly educated women in the work place who smoke regularly. This real world evidence would run counter to this study.
As for Wikileaks tangent, most people believe that people are innocent until proven guilty so yes, until there is evidence presented people will think that way about Assange.
There has even been articles here on Slashdot about the percentage of IT workers that smoke, if all of these highly intellectual trades contains smokers then it appears the onus is on the study to counter those real life claims before trying to correlate IQ with smoking.
I don't think it's a conspiracy that the DEA for instance would be an advocate for their work. At that point it's them doing their jobs as the executive branch has directed them to do. Until the presidency wants to change the policy you will continue to see justifications no matter how bogus they are. Countering decades of bad science backed early by a political agenda will take a long time. The initial evidence used to make marijuana illegal is pretty incredible if you ever care to investigate yourself. Once you do you'll start to understand why peope feel the way they do whether they are right or wrong.
It is exceedingly difficult to manufacture a vaccine without some sort of preservative. Usually the preservative is what provokes allergic reactions. There are also other compounds which can cause it necessary to stabilize the vaccine. Most vaccines are not just dead viruses. There are valid reasons for a very small portion of the population to not get immunized. That is why it's so important for the rest of us to get vaccinated.
So nerds don't care about biology or statistics? This type of discussion hasn't always been common on Slashdot, notsure what you're trying to argue here.
Isn't that why we are having a discussion in the first place? The language raises real concerns that need to be addressed. Things are usually less nefarious than they look so you are probably right in that he maybe compromised on language to get a cosponsor but that action would still call into question his integrity.
Your citation does not match your assertion. 24% of women and 20% of men believe abortion should be banned. That's a pretty small percentage of the population and that's of course from 2003 which is almost a decade ago. If you look at more recent numbers you see the same percentage of the population thinks that abortion should be banned. Pro-life vs Pro-Choice is a very different argument as it is a personal question which follows your assertion in that more Americans are pro-life now than pro-choice.
It would seem that while more people think that abortion is not the choice for them, they still think it should be available to those that think differently. It's about forcing your beliefs on others in terms of banning abortion.
The problem isn't that he voted for it, it's that he cosponsored it. That means he wrote it so his point of view very much matters. He purposely provided for no exceptions in his bill which is what caused the whole controversy to begin with.
Given a lot of literature out there exposing the hardship of women throughout history I have to wonder what makes you think things were so rosy in marriages in those days? The use it and throw it away culture has nothing to do with how you treat people, horrible violence was common place. Medieval torture is well documented and far worse than the water boarding of today. I keep seeing this issue crop up, people aspousing about the golden years past forgetting about all the bad that permiated every facet of society.
Keep in mind, people today are far more educated than people in years past. 1000 years ago the percentage of the population that could read was indeed quite small and the ignorant out there were not afraid of any level violence, indeed it was commonplace in their lives. Read about the atrocities on both sides of the crusades.
Rape inside of marriage was probably a lot more common in history than today since today domestic violence has a whole support network designed to help women in that situation. Of course one can't really be certain on the rates in the past since it wasn't something a lot of people talked about so you're left with a few stories that were written down and survived the test of time.
So you're making an assumption there was someone to hear the screams. That seems to be the crux of the issue for most people and why it gets interpreted in a way you disagree with.
How do you prove that it was consenual or not? If there are bruises and cuts and obvious signs of struggle then it becomes simple, but that's not always the case.
It's a tough issue to handle, I'm not sure we should be worrying about bible stories when dealing with the ignorance of the statements for Todd Akin who clearly was talking out of his ass. A law should not be created if there are obvious examples of people that the law would hurt as collatoral damage, you would choose to make exceptions for those people, the fact the these exceptions are not made just shows how bad the law is. It would be another question entirely if the consequences weren't known ahead of time, like the problems with the DMCA, its another entirely when consequences are obvious with statistics to back it up going back 20 years.Why ignore the numbers and not make exceptions for those extreme circumstances? If they had then they might have made headway towards their anti-abortion agenda, the fact that they didn't suggests to me they don't actually believe it's the right thing to do but they need to show that they are doing something to their base.
Most military components are indeed manufactured domestically. That's why it was a big deal when some designs were stolen and shipped to China. It then becomes a question of securing information domestically which is far easier than when it is manufactured over-seas.
This is all mostly a moot point though, any country with the resources to manufacture an F35 from blueprints has a vested interest in maintaining peace. China for instance has been gaining technology fast but they wouldn't attack any countries with significant military resources because it would harm them greatly as well. Mutually assured destruction does a lot to keep people from firing unless it's actually necessary.
There is an old argument that war is great for economies, in those days economic conditions were much more volitile though and today, the corporations which control the worlds resources would rather maintain the status quo rather than risk losing large amounts of assets.
I see the same stuff in business though. Anytime consultants are brought in I see it again and again. I saw it big time when dealing with IBM and even bigger when dealing with Oracle. This problem is not unique to government but it definitely happens a lot more and to large excess which is unfortunate, tragic, and completely unnecessary.
Of course parent I was replying to was trying to say this problem was unique to government implying that government only wastes money and that's simply untrue. I look at hundreds of low-income housing projects just in Arizona and even though the projects come in over budget they do a great deal in helping people get back on their feet after prolonged periods of unemployment. I look at the alternatives and feel like I have to conclude that it was worth it. Hordes of homeless have a tendency to cause a whole host of other problems and I suspect when you add up all the other costs that you at least break even.
There definitely needs to be more accountability in regards to government contracts. My impression is that there simply isn't enough personell available to oversee all the projects that are in motion. Of course this is just because I have friends that work in government so it's mostly hearsey as to the true causes of the bloated spending.
I would love to see a GA database that includes a company's history. If they are always over budget then that should definitely be considered when accepting a low bid from them.
So what you're saying is that the tax rates in the 90's, one of the more prosperous times in this country's history was what? Last I checked our economy has grown since then. During that time not only could we afford most of these programs but we had projected surpluses had we stayed on target. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when times are really tough and you're too far in the whole simply cutting back isn't enough, you'll need a second job until you recover.
Let's also probably not mention that companies can write off expansion expenses negating the tax burden. At 39.2% according to your own link, that would be pretty high, care to see how much taxes corporations actually pay? Tax rates are manipulated so much in the political landscape that its no wonder it makes most people's heads spin.
Consider Japan, they lowered their corporate tax rate but use value added taxes to make up the difference. There are incredibly few businesses that actually pay 39.2% in taxes.
Cuts are indeed necessary, but they need not be nearly as severe as the Republican party would have you believe. When asking for sacrifice you should probably make sure that everybody is sacrificing instead of young women who no longer have access to planned parenthood to get birth control pills because they have had so much of their funding taken away that they are only open a few hours a week if at all in certain states. These types of cuts only cause additional problems and more importantly expenses as you then have more women getting pregnant and needing assistance in other ways since they don't have health insurance that covers birth control.
Look at California for trying this method. They have vote mandated spending and their constitution requires that taxes can only be increased through a voter iniative. So people vote for a program and then when it comes time to pay for it they opt out and then you run out of money. The programs would not have been proposed to begin with if there wasn't some problem that needed to be solved. So the answer is to raise taxes and pay for the programs that fix the problems that ravaged this country at the start of the 20th century. All the assistance programs out there were created for reasons, all the regulatory bodies were created for certain reasons. If they aren't working then the answer most often isn't to throw them out entirely, it's to fix the process so that it actually accomplishes the stated goals. Cutting food assistance programs isn't going save the country any money, people need to eat, what is someone that is starving going to do when they can't afford any food? We are seeing already with crime increasing in almost every part of the country.
There is a difference between being a bleeding heart liberal that wants rainbows to shoot out of everyone's butts and a compassionate person that understands that we are all part of a community and that you can help the people in your community and all prosper or leave people to their own devices and end up needing a police state to keep those like myself with means safe.
Name one government or corporate program that doesn't waste any money. There is a big difference between mismanagement and wasting small amounts of resources. You're right in that projects like the bridge to nowhere should be stopped. The problem from people I know involved in government projects is that companies will bid low to get a contract and then make up their money in change orders. This is the same whether it is an IT project, a construction job, or a defense contract.
Defense contractors are so good at it that they build factories everywhere imposing enormous inefficiency transporting goods needlessly. If the government tries to reign in this project then thousands of jobs are lost across many districts impacting a large number of representatives. So there is no incentive to fix the inefficiency to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars but we can instead tackle waste in small places to the tune of tens of millions. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?
Ugh... I hate seeing this definition of evolution. It does not even attempt to explain our origins. It only describes the mechanism by which we change and adapt to our environment. No one knows if a single cell kicked off life on this earth or if an asteroid impact gave the planets it's first cellular organisms or even if it started with much more complex forms of life. We only know that humans were not the first organisms on this planet. We have direct evidence for all sortsof organisms that have lived in the past prior to human development. Also, given how much DNA is shared by human and an ape I'm surprised this is still really where the discussion is in this day and age.
Voluntary and segregation are mutually exclusive in the long term. A child cannot choose which school they go to so they are forced to go where their parents tell them. This is why we have federal level standards, so that even parents that choose to home school have to meet certain minimum requirements so we don't end up with hordes of uneducated causing all sorts of problems that were seen at the start of the 20th century.
Education is more than a tool, it ensures mutual prosperity by making sure everyone has the necessary tools to work together. If only 1% of the population is educated then that 1% has to prop up the other 99% or you end up with rioting and rampant crime. This is why we see crime on the rise right now...
Federal standards work great, local schools are free to teach more than the minimum but removing that minimum isn't really going to help anyone, not even the elite class that thinks they are better than people that make less than them. I deal with people like that everyday and it saddens me how little they understand about the world around them. They drive million dollar cars on roads created by people with much more meager means. They dine at restaurants prepared and served by people with far lower means. If you have everything and you rely on these people for everything then what do you really have?
I agree with this philosophy, there is some science behind eating slower with chopsticks versus shoveling food in with a fork. My own problem is that slicing steak feels wrong unless you're eating it,that becomes part of the experience and you don't usually eat it fast so it still fits.
Mmmmm.... steak!
So we should go back to literacy rates in the single digits? That's the reason the federal government is involved to begin with. Of course there is also the matter of the fact that federal funds help fill the voids in a lot of public schools. Having an uneducated populous is not a good option. You ever notice how college graduates don't usually join gangs?
Federal standards are needed to prevent local municalities from hurting the children in their district through education that is well, less than universal. Probably worth noting that federal standards are only a minimum and that individual states are free to decide to teach more if they wish. I'm not sure how removing the minimum would help kids.
Uhh... look at Arizona too, so broke they sold their capital building and they are about as conservative as you get. The whole argument is just stupid, the most prosperous states in the union were always left leaning. Oil put Texas and Alaska in a status of their own. Of course that's still no reason to base a decision. Instead you have to look at the retarded methods used to deal with a budget issue. Until the Bush tax cuts, revenue was looking pretty good, we were on track to be debt free. Now you see people arguing to continue tax cuts and cut spending which millions are relying on during an economic down turn.
Of course the conservative agenda says personal responsibility and blah blah, really not a bad ideal for an individual to live by but insane to expect everybody to follow. So casting all those people with medical bills to the wolves and depressing already low-income people is supposed to lead to what? More jobs? Why would a corporation hire more people if their wasn't demand for more product? That's why I can't stand hearing about tax rates and jobs in the same sentence. There is a level of taxation that is burdensome but we're no where even close to it.
Last I checked too, California was still the best place to get venture capital, I wonder why?
How is out of date knowledge showing ignorance? Furthermore, many many people don't use the encryption available on their phones whether they be iPhones or Android devices. You're right a simple Google search would have gone a long way but then multiple people wouldn't have had a discussion and thus been educated by it. I know I've been able to plug in several iPhones and get data off of them. That includes current 4S iPhones. Now I know it's because most of these security features aren't enabled by default. It's good the option is there for those that want additional security though. I don't often associate Apple with secure practices. OS X was quite famous for submitting credentials in plaintext instead of using ipsec like Linux and Windows. Then there was all the Wifi bullshit I had to deal with as the iOS devices matured. They still need some work but they are at least improving. Unless it's your business to stay in the loop on this stuff I can't really blame people for being behind.
Like what? The only argument I ever hear is about the individual mandate which is a necessity to insure that that the bills get paid. Of course the mandate is pretty weak to the point of barely being considered a mandate.
That would never happen, think of all of the lost profit. Multi-national corporations would have so much more logistical work to do.
The walled-garden approach only works for so long, the best scientific feats ever created were the result of multiple countries working together. I give you, the Internet!
Of course your statement about hacking Internet connected assets is kind of moot since all intelligence work leads to strengthening of security system whether they in the cyber-world or the real world. This is nothing new, will not end anytime soon, nor will it ever really change. Building your country-wide Intranet? Now we just gotta send in covert forces to login and plant microwave proxies, good luck detecting that reliably. There is always a way in, nothing is ever 100% secure.
I definitely know people that were fired for buying Apple XServe. The company is unapologetic in their apathy towards supporting enterprise demands.