I agree, but my point was that, of these three: a password, a keycard, and my fingerprint-- the password is the only one that can't be stolen. It has to be actively given.
...You could argue that passwords can be stolen through keyloggers and such, but really that's an issue of intercepting the passwords after they've already been given, and I believe that to be a meaningful difference.
The problem with writing down passwords really is not really a problem inherent to passwords. Essentially, the problem is that user has tried to convert a security measure of measuring what the user knows (the password) into measuring what he has (the paper his password is written on). The problem here is, this security measure doesn't really convert in that "the thing the user has" isn't really needed, because a quick glance converts it back into a "thing the user knows".
A security system is stronger if it uses 2 or all 3 of these sorts of measures. Requiring users to have something, be something, and know something really does add the strengths of all methods and diminishes each method's weakness.
In other words, people get locked out by stupidity. Something that looks for abnormal behavior would be great, esp when people have idiotic passwords, and suddenly a methodical password attempt to login occurs.
Yeah, only now all your users will be locked out every time they do something "abnormal". Which I only think raises the question, is stupidity abnormal?
Passwords are good security because, if chosen well, they're fairly hard to crack, and fairly simple for legitimate users to use. Other forms of security tend to either be too easy to crack, or so cumbersome that legitimate users find ways around them rather than deal with the hassle.
Seems to me that there's a different difference that makes passwords worthwhile. See, there are three sorts of security measures (everything I can think of fits into one of these): Measure something the user has (like a keycard), measure something the user is (biometrics), or measure something the user knows (like passwords).
Something the user has can be stolen. With measuring something the user is, there's something like the risk of "being stolen". If it's a fingerprint scanner, someone could take your fingerprint from an object you've touched without your knowledge. If you use facial recognition, well, you're face is out in the open for everyone to see all day long-- couldn't someone somehow capture that image and re-display it? I know, they are improving the detail and complexities of the scanners all the time, but for however much they improve the resolution of the scanners, they just need to have a "camera" with enough detail to fool it. More complex scanning methods only mean you need more complex display/replay methods to fool them.
However, when it comes to measuring something the user knows, with current technology, there isn't a good way to "capture" that without my knowledge. At least not as long as I'm wearing my tinfoil hat.
Funny, yes, but isn't it also insightful? It seems to me that it's only common sense, if you're looking for the best search engine optimization company, you do a search for "search engine optimization", and pick the #1 listing... Or perhaps you through in some variations and look for someone consistently on the first page, but still...
When you search for "search engine optimization", you get about 7,950,000 results. Who'd pay money for SEO from a company that can't place over the 6 million mark when you search for SEO on Google?
Actually, I figured out it my load-balancing/firewall combo was somehow blocking the import of the style-sheet. Well, that's as far as I got, because I don't really care enough about using MSN search looking pretty to screw around with it.
Well, in this case, we care about the UI, not so much in whether it's "pretty", but whether the design is standards compliant. This goes to the core of a lot of complaints about Microsoft, since they seem to purposefully avoid using standards for the sake of hurting their competitors.
If it's all standards compliant, why do I keep having problems with the style sheets? (In both Firefox and Safari, the page displays completely without styles.)
I agree that I don't see the purpose of restricting users ability to listen to music CDs, except for two things. First, in the abstract, it's their property and they have the right to do it. That doesn't mean it makes sense, but you have the right to do nonsensical things with your own property. Second, it's possible that there is a good reason for this restriction you and I aren't thinking of.
I've disabled and even removed CD drives from machines. Usually, it's because I was making a kiosk that would sit in a public place. However, I can remember one instance where the employee kept loading games onto his machine (ones that could be run after copying, without an install, so locking down permissions didn't help).
The guy complained his computer was slow and getting errors, and it turned out to be a bunch of games running in the background. When we told him to close his games, he complained to his supervisor that we wouldn't "fix" his computer, and we explained to the supervisor that he was playing games. Rather than fire the guy outright, the supervisor asked us if we could keep him from playing games. I disabled his CD drive.
So all I'm saying is, having worked in IT but not knowing the specifics of this situation, I can't completely rule out the possibility that there's a reasonable (non-draconian) explanation as to why they wouldn't allow employees to use their computers for playing music.
It's not that unusual, really. Many companies have a policy on the books, at least, that says something along the lines of "employees have no right to use company assets for personal use". This means that you have no right to use your computer to play music, and no right to use the internet connection or e-mail service for anything not-work-related.
There are some good reasons for this. First of all, it's the rationale that justifies things like web and e-mail filtering, restricting employees from installing spyware, etc. Basically, it's not your computer. It's the business's computer, and they can do with it as they please.
Now, how severely enforced this policy is is a different matter. I've uninstalled spyware and deleted pirated software/music from computers. I've even deleted large portions of legal mp3 collections when a user complained that their computer was "broken", and it turned out their 40 GB hard drive was filled with 35 GB of music. I've filtered out inappropriate web sites and viewed user e-mail without explicit permission from that user. I would usually warn the user, but if it's not feasible, I don't feel that I've wronged them by doing these things.
Why? Bottom line: it's not your computer. If you don't want your mp3 collection deleted, don't put it on the company's computer. If you don't want me to be able to read your e-mail, don't use the company's e-mail. If you don't want me to know what you look at online, don't use the company's internet connection. I tell everyone this upfront, too.
I think it's supposed to be interesting because Microsoft, as a company, is trying to badmouth iPods. They've tried to characterize iPods and the iTMS as an evil monopoly that hurts consumers by using file-formats to enforce vendor lock-in.
People immediately noticed the irony of Microsoft badmouthing another Apple by claiming Apple practices business methods which are standard-operating-procedure at MS. Now we have an additional source of amusement, in that, while the company spews FUD about the inferiority of the iPod, the company's employees are using that same product in large numbers, thereby demonstrating that the complaints are, indeed, FUD.
"How do we make an iPod killer?" he asks rhetorically. "First we must harness the blogosphere!" he answers.
Yeah, I followed the link hoping for some interesting comments on design and features, but his answers to "how to make an iPod killer" are all about marketing and advertising and celebrity endorsements. Not that those hurt, but how about making a good device?
Your suggestion "let's teach the basic skills first" ignores the fact that basic skills ARE taught first and that the schools are failing at that. Think for a second - how would we proceed with your suggestion of ensuring that kids are functional. We probably need to fix whatever it is that prevents those basic math lessons from working.
It seems you haven't found the "fault in my strategy", but have found the exact point I was trying to make in the first place. Passing kids along and trying to teach them calculus when you've failed to teach them addition isn't going to work.
Now it would be all fine and dandy if our goal is to "fix the system", because once we fix it, it works. But if our first goal is to make sure only that functional skills are taught well, then we risk rebuilding a 100-year old education system that could teach everyone basic skills instead of fixing the relatively modern one that can teach everyone everything.
And what of the idea of fixing the current modern system so that "functional skills are taught well" BEFORE going on to "teach everyone everything"? In US public schools, basic/functional skills are taught... sort of. They aren't taught well, and sometimes they're outright *skipped*, and this is based on the idea that the basic ideas aren't as powerful as complex ideas, and so kids don't really need to learn basic ideas so long as they know the complex ideas. The problem is, you can't understand complex ideas BEFORE you understand the basic ideas they're built from.
...meaning that we can have our enlightened kids again.
When, exactly, did we have "enlightened kids" the first time?
Well, they deserve some credit for trying.
...and perhaps some condemnation for failing? I mean, if they failed, then surely there must have been something sub-par about their methods, no? If their education system was so terrific, and you suggest a good education system will yield good, enlightened citizens, then why wasn't *everything* hunky-dory?
But I am very familiar with the problems of the US public school system, because most of them are not specific to the US.
Are you sure about that? I mean, I agree that there are some universal elements to the challenge of creating a "good education system", but how do you know what "most" of the problems are the same as those you're familiar with, without being familiar with the US public education system?
I disagree with the premise that some kids may need 10 years to learn 2+2.
I said 'if'. IF, by some disaster, they need 10 years to learn 2+2, they should be sure to learn 2+2 before you try to teach them calculus. I agree that they shouldn't need so long.
So if we decide to make sure that the kids "at least know functional skills", we are missing the point. Yes, we can fix the education system to make sure they learn at least that, but it won't place us closer to the goal - having schools produce "good" citizens.
Well, we'll be closer to the goal of having *functional* citizens. If by "good", you mean well-behaved, the key to that is good conditioning. No matter what you do, school is providing kids with "conditioning". The question is, conditioning towards what? If we want "well-behaved" citizens, then we'd need conditioning towards being well-behaved, which we DO NOT have now.
If, on the other hand, by "good" you mean enlightened, it is impossible to control. What history/experience teaches us is, you can give people all the freedom and resources possible, and they may not become enlightened. Likewise, you can keep people in the most slavish conditions, and you will not be able to keep them from becoming enlightened.
... and it works with all, but the most complicated kids (i.e. mentally unstable, cretins, drug addicts, horribly abused kids, etc.).
Who's the elitist now? Don't you want to help these people too?
...it's also about elitism (i.e. "don't think that some people are 'inferiour' in that they don't need advanced education"). My point was that even the poster kids for your position (i.e. totally uneducated minorities who do not appear to be in need of some Plato or Didrot, but 2+2=? and "do not eat this" skills) would in reality benefit immensely from "enlightment".
It's ridiculous that you get that from any of my posts. I'm not claiming that any social/political group should be segregated and given a lesser education. I am saying that all groups should work FIRST towards functional skills, and once the kids are functional, THEN you move on. One would hope that ALL kids move beyond being merely functional.
However, ultimately, how far "beyond" each child goes does have something to do with the potential and desire of each child. This is not an issue race or political or economic grouping, nor is this an issue of the way things "should" be. No matter what you do, some people will excel where others flounder. However much we want to equalize opportunity, we shouldn't try to equalize achievement.
So what I'm suggesting isn't that we teach "poor people" only basic functional skills. I'm suggesting we try to make sure your "mentally unstable, cretins, drug addicts, horribly abused kids, etc." are helped to be AT LEAST functional.
The 1977 Soviet Constitution said it best - "The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all".
Ah, yes, the Soviets. The models of efficient society and humanitarianism.
How familiar are you with the public school systems in the US anyhow? I mean, you're not exactly from the US, are you?
No, you can't stream different songs to different Airport Express units at the same time from the same computer. In fact, you can't stream the same song to different units from the same computer. IN FACT, you cannot stream a song to your airport express unit and play the song through your computer speakers at the same time. If you're playing a song, and you tell it to play on an airport express unit, the audio coming out of your speakers will cease.
So, in order to use iTunes and Airport Express for this purpose, you'd need to use multiple computers running iTunes. (unless Apple changes this)
I'm not sure why, exactly. Maybe it has to do with some difficulty keeping everything in sync?
I think that if we released OS X on a intel/intel clone platform that our operating system being a user friendly unix, that is spyware free, adware free, virtually bug free, and virtually virus free would knock Microsoft's market share out of the water.
I don't really think the issue is whether OSX would find users on the x86 platform-- it would. The question is, is that really a good move for Apple. Suddenly, they have to support a much greater variety of hardware, which means some of their "just working" will probably go away. At least *some* portion of the instability present on the x86 platform comes from cheap hardware and poorly-written drivers. Part of the reason things perform so smoothly for Apple is that they have some control over so much of the hardware that connects to their machines.
Second, though Apple's hardware is pretty slick, that's only half the appeal. OSX sells a lot of Apple hardware, and if OSX worked on Dell machines, Apple would probably sell *less* hardware. Would the increase in sales of OSX make up for the lost revenue from lacking sales in hardware? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know, but it's risky.
But why even take that risk? If they released OSX for x86, then the people who really wanted OSX could buy just OSX from Apple and computers from Dell. However, if they don't put in the extra work (spending extra money on development and QA) of porting OSX to x86, then the people who really want OSX will buy, not just OSX, but a shiny new Mac, too. That way, they win twice, and with the low price of the Mac mini, many people are starting to bite.
If you are saying "at 18 years old kids should know basic math and be able to read the labels in the supermarket" (exaggerating), we have already lost.
The fact that it needs to be said, I agree, is depressing. However, kids *do* graduate from high school every year who don't understand how to do basic arithmetic, can barely read street signs, can't balance a check-book, don't know how to write a resume, can't speak proper English, don't know how to fill out a basic application, don't really have any understanding of the laws they are expected to follow, can't find the US on a map, and generally don't know what society expects of them. And it's not just occasional. It's a systemic problem that continues to fail an unacceptable portion of kids graduating from public schools.
So if you say, we've already lost, then we've already lost. Now, how do we get back in the game? I say, get back to focussing on those sorts of *functional* skills and understandings first. If it takes 10+ years for a given kid to learn that much, then that's what the kid should learn during those 10+ years. However, I think we'll find that focussing on those functional skills will create more functional students earlier, thereby letting us spend a greater portion of the 10+ years on "high" ideas.
So just because the immediate focus is on functional skills does not mean that the eventual aim of "enlightenment" won't be reached.
Besides, contrary to popular belief, you cannot *force* enlightenment on people. You can expose them to ideas, talk to them, and try to show them other ways, but curiosity and willingness to learn are not teachable. That moment where the words you're saying become an internal idea that your students understand is *beyond your control*.
P.S. It was intentionally phrased that way.
I know that, but your post seemed to assume that I was being elitist and racist, and simultaneously condescend to poor people and black people. I understand the condescension was meant to be sarcastic, but none the less, it was *you* who was bringing condescension into this, and not me.
You can't teach students to be good citizens. You can't make a "functional citizen" by giving a few classes on civics and basic math.
Well, you certainly can't make a "functional citizen" by *failing* to teach them civics and basic math. And here is the problem-- everyone wants to jump ahead and teach their kids the "high" ideas of Kant, Plato, and Marx without first teaching them civics and basic math. You get a bunch of illiterate kids hearing lectures on "the forms" and "spacial intuition" and "capitalist pigs", and guess what, they don't understand it.
If you read my post, I am *not* saying anything like, "Great works of literature should be restricted, for only the elite should read them." I'm saying, get your priorities straight and understand that education is a process, and you need to walk before you can run. Teach kids to read (yes, all kids) *before* you wax poetic about "the joys of reading" and "the enlightening nature of great literature".
If you teach kids about "the joy of reading" and they can't read, they'll never understand it. However, if you teach kids how to read and don't quite get around to hearing the "joy of reading" lecture, well, they might discover the joy of reading for themselves anyway. Hey, you know what, they might even *read* about it on their own.
P.S.- You might want to tone down on the racism in your post script. Not all black people are poor, and not all poor black people are drug-pushers. The statement "This applies to all kids, even young black..."-- well it seems to imply it's somehow profound that black people can benefit from education. As though that's surprising. As though you assume they shouldn't. It's a terrible thing to say.
really, what I'm getting at is that all schools will have an outlook or a point of view. They all inundate their students with information in-line with that point of view. This is not bad. This is just how people operate.
The questions are, how worthwhile is the point of view, and how good are they at their inundation?
They don't need the media for their propaganda, they have the schools.
That it's propaganda doesn't bother me so much. The fact is, 90% of the people are going to buy-in and live their lives according to propaganda, it's just a question of *whose* propaganda. As you said, raise them in a Catholic school, and they'll be taught that Catholicism has the answers, raise them in a government school and they learn the government's answers, raise them in a [insert-name-here] school and they'll grow up to believe whatever [insert-name-here] believes.
And those who are capable to seeing through propaganda? They'll see through it, whoever is selling it.
So, to me it's not an issue of eliminating propaganda in education, it's an issue of making sure the propaganda is productive. You want the messages that you're flooding into the schools to prepare kids for the vicious outside world. You want the propaganda to be of the kind that makes them good citizens rather than bad. You want the education to lead them to better lives rather than worse.
They are trying to ban even the constitution and delceration of independance in some school systems because it might "offend" some one.
And here you're hitting on what's closer to being the "real problem". The propaganda being pushed in schools is that kids don't need to be good citizens. They're being taught that the values that have made this country strong are a load of BS. They're preaching a sense of entitlement, that working for a living is base, and that nothing means anything. Even though they're all taught that they're "great kids", they're also taught that they're useless. It's chaos.
Slashdot Mirror
...and how long did it take you to come to that decision?
er... yeah, because Plato's Republic has never confused or frustrated anyone...
...You could argue that passwords can be stolen through keyloggers and such, but really that's an issue of intercepting the passwords after they've already been given, and I believe that to be a meaningful difference.
Yeah, only now all your users will be locked out every time they do something "abnormal". Which I only think raises the question, is stupidity abnormal?
Seems to me that there's a different difference that makes passwords worthwhile. See, there are three sorts of security measures (everything I can think of fits into one of these): Measure something the user has (like a keycard), measure something the user is (biometrics), or measure something the user knows (like passwords).
Something the user has can be stolen. With measuring something the user is, there's something like the risk of "being stolen". If it's a fingerprint scanner, someone could take your fingerprint from an object you've touched without your knowledge. If you use facial recognition, well, you're face is out in the open for everyone to see all day long-- couldn't someone somehow capture that image and re-display it? I know, they are improving the detail and complexities of the scanners all the time, but for however much they improve the resolution of the scanners, they just need to have a "camera" with enough detail to fool it. More complex scanning methods only mean you need more complex display/replay methods to fool them.
However, when it comes to measuring something the user knows, with current technology, there isn't a good way to "capture" that without my knowledge. At least not as long as I'm wearing my tinfoil hat.
When you search for "search engine optimization", you get about 7,950,000 results. Who'd pay money for SEO from a company that can't place over the 6 million mark when you search for SEO on Google?
Actually, I figured out it my load-balancing/firewall combo was somehow blocking the import of the style-sheet. Well, that's as far as I got, because I don't really care enough about using MSN search looking pretty to screw around with it.
I assume everyone remembers the MSN/Opera fiasco?
If it's all standards compliant, why do I keep having problems with the style sheets? (In both Firefox and Safari, the page displays completely without styles.)
Do you know that because you actually RTFA, or did you just look at the banner ads that have been running on /. since before the story was posted?
(Anyone else find it funny that the news posting on /. announcing this seemed to come after it was already being advertised on /.?)
I've disabled and even removed CD drives from machines. Usually, it's because I was making a kiosk that would sit in a public place. However, I can remember one instance where the employee kept loading games onto his machine (ones that could be run after copying, without an install, so locking down permissions didn't help).
The guy complained his computer was slow and getting errors, and it turned out to be a bunch of games running in the background. When we told him to close his games, he complained to his supervisor that we wouldn't "fix" his computer, and we explained to the supervisor that he was playing games. Rather than fire the guy outright, the supervisor asked us if we could keep him from playing games. I disabled his CD drive.
So all I'm saying is, having worked in IT but not knowing the specifics of this situation, I can't completely rule out the possibility that there's a reasonable (non-draconian) explanation as to why they wouldn't allow employees to use their computers for playing music.
There are some good reasons for this. First of all, it's the rationale that justifies things like web and e-mail filtering, restricting employees from installing spyware, etc. Basically, it's not your computer. It's the business's computer, and they can do with it as they please.
Now, how severely enforced this policy is is a different matter. I've uninstalled spyware and deleted pirated software/music from computers. I've even deleted large portions of legal mp3 collections when a user complained that their computer was "broken", and it turned out their 40 GB hard drive was filled with 35 GB of music. I've filtered out inappropriate web sites and viewed user e-mail without explicit permission from that user. I would usually warn the user, but if it's not feasible, I don't feel that I've wronged them by doing these things.
Why? Bottom line: it's not your computer. If you don't want your mp3 collection deleted, don't put it on the company's computer. If you don't want me to be able to read your e-mail, don't use the company's e-mail. If you don't want me to know what you look at online, don't use the company's internet connection. I tell everyone this upfront, too.
People immediately noticed the irony of Microsoft badmouthing another Apple by claiming Apple practices business methods which are standard-operating-procedure at MS. Now we have an additional source of amusement, in that, while the company spews FUD about the inferiority of the iPod, the company's employees are using that same product in large numbers, thereby demonstrating that the complaints are, indeed, FUD.
Yeah, I followed the link hoping for some interesting comments on design and features, but his answers to "how to make an iPod killer" are all about marketing and advertising and celebrity endorsements. Not that those hurt, but how about making a good device?
It seems you haven't found the "fault in my strategy", but have found the exact point I was trying to make in the first place. Passing kids along and trying to teach them calculus when you've failed to teach them addition isn't going to work.
Now it would be all fine and dandy if our goal is to "fix the system", because once we fix it, it works. But if our first goal is to make sure only that functional skills are taught well, then we risk rebuilding a 100-year old education system that could teach everyone basic skills instead of fixing the relatively modern one that can teach everyone everything.
And what of the idea of fixing the current modern system so that "functional skills are taught well" BEFORE going on to "teach everyone everything"? In US public schools, basic/functional skills are taught... sort of. They aren't taught well, and sometimes they're outright *skipped*, and this is based on the idea that the basic ideas aren't as powerful as complex ideas, and so kids don't really need to learn basic ideas so long as they know the complex ideas. The problem is, you can't understand complex ideas BEFORE you understand the basic ideas they're built from.
When, exactly, did we have "enlightened kids" the first time?
Well, they deserve some credit for trying.
...and perhaps some condemnation for failing? I mean, if they failed, then surely there must have been something sub-par about their methods, no? If their education system was so terrific, and you suggest a good education system will yield good, enlightened citizens, then why wasn't *everything* hunky-dory?
But I am very familiar with the problems of the US public school system, because most of them are not specific to the US.
Are you sure about that? I mean, I agree that there are some universal elements to the challenge of creating a "good education system", but how do you know what "most" of the problems are the same as those you're familiar with, without being familiar with the US public education system?
I said 'if'. IF, by some disaster, they need 10 years to learn 2+2, they should be sure to learn 2+2 before you try to teach them calculus. I agree that they shouldn't need so long.
So if we decide to make sure that the kids "at least know functional skills", we are missing the point. Yes, we can fix the education system to make sure they learn at least that, but it won't place us closer to the goal - having schools produce "good" citizens.
Well, we'll be closer to the goal of having *functional* citizens. If by "good", you mean well-behaved, the key to that is good conditioning. No matter what you do, school is providing kids with "conditioning". The question is, conditioning towards what? If we want "well-behaved" citizens, then we'd need conditioning towards being well-behaved, which we DO NOT have now.
If, on the other hand, by "good" you mean enlightened, it is impossible to control. What history/experience teaches us is, you can give people all the freedom and resources possible, and they may not become enlightened. Likewise, you can keep people in the most slavish conditions, and you will not be able to keep them from becoming enlightened.
Who's the elitist now? Don't you want to help these people too?
It's ridiculous that you get that from any of my posts. I'm not claiming that any social/political group should be segregated and given a lesser education. I am saying that all groups should work FIRST towards functional skills, and once the kids are functional, THEN you move on. One would hope that ALL kids move beyond being merely functional.
However, ultimately, how far "beyond" each child goes does have something to do with the potential and desire of each child. This is not an issue race or political or economic grouping, nor is this an issue of the way things "should" be. No matter what you do, some people will excel where others flounder. However much we want to equalize opportunity, we shouldn't try to equalize achievement.
So what I'm suggesting isn't that we teach "poor people" only basic functional skills. I'm suggesting we try to make sure your "mentally unstable, cretins, drug addicts, horribly abused kids, etc." are helped to be AT LEAST functional.
The 1977 Soviet Constitution said it best - "The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all".
Ah, yes, the Soviets. The models of efficient society and humanitarianism.
How familiar are you with the public school systems in the US anyhow? I mean, you're not exactly from the US, are you?
So, in order to use iTunes and Airport Express for this purpose, you'd need to use multiple computers running iTunes. (unless Apple changes this)
I'm not sure why, exactly. Maybe it has to do with some difficulty keeping everything in sync?
I don't really think the issue is whether OSX would find users on the x86 platform-- it would. The question is, is that really a good move for Apple. Suddenly, they have to support a much greater variety of hardware, which means some of their "just working" will probably go away. At least *some* portion of the instability present on the x86 platform comes from cheap hardware and poorly-written drivers. Part of the reason things perform so smoothly for Apple is that they have some control over so much of the hardware that connects to their machines.
Second, though Apple's hardware is pretty slick, that's only half the appeal. OSX sells a lot of Apple hardware, and if OSX worked on Dell machines, Apple would probably sell *less* hardware. Would the increase in sales of OSX make up for the lost revenue from lacking sales in hardware? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know, but it's risky.
But why even take that risk? If they released OSX for x86, then the people who really wanted OSX could buy just OSX from Apple and computers from Dell. However, if they don't put in the extra work (spending extra money on development and QA) of porting OSX to x86, then the people who really want OSX will buy, not just OSX, but a shiny new Mac, too. That way, they win twice, and with the low price of the Mac mini, many people are starting to bite.
So what's Apple's incentive to port over to x86?
The fact that it needs to be said, I agree, is depressing. However, kids *do* graduate from high school every year who don't understand how to do basic arithmetic, can barely read street signs, can't balance a check-book, don't know how to write a resume, can't speak proper English, don't know how to fill out a basic application, don't really have any understanding of the laws they are expected to follow, can't find the US on a map, and generally don't know what society expects of them. And it's not just occasional. It's a systemic problem that continues to fail an unacceptable portion of kids graduating from public schools.
So if you say, we've already lost, then we've already lost. Now, how do we get back in the game? I say, get back to focussing on those sorts of *functional* skills and understandings first. If it takes 10+ years for a given kid to learn that much, then that's what the kid should learn during those 10+ years. However, I think we'll find that focussing on those functional skills will create more functional students earlier, thereby letting us spend a greater portion of the 10+ years on "high" ideas.
So just because the immediate focus is on functional skills does not mean that the eventual aim of "enlightenment" won't be reached.
Besides, contrary to popular belief, you cannot *force* enlightenment on people. You can expose them to ideas, talk to them, and try to show them other ways, but curiosity and willingness to learn are not teachable. That moment where the words you're saying become an internal idea that your students understand is *beyond your control*.
P.S. It was intentionally phrased that way.
I know that, but your post seemed to assume that I was being elitist and racist, and simultaneously condescend to poor people and black people. I understand the condescension was meant to be sarcastic, but none the less, it was *you* who was bringing condescension into this, and not me.
Yeah, numbers would be nice to know, for example, how big the sail would need to be. I sure hope this picture isn't supposed to be to scale.
Well, you certainly can't make a "functional citizen" by *failing* to teach them civics and basic math. And here is the problem-- everyone wants to jump ahead and teach their kids the "high" ideas of Kant, Plato, and Marx without first teaching them civics and basic math. You get a bunch of illiterate kids hearing lectures on "the forms" and "spacial intuition" and "capitalist pigs", and guess what, they don't understand it.
If you read my post, I am *not* saying anything like, "Great works of literature should be restricted, for only the elite should read them." I'm saying, get your priorities straight and understand that education is a process, and you need to walk before you can run. Teach kids to read (yes, all kids) *before* you wax poetic about "the joys of reading" and "the enlightening nature of great literature".
If you teach kids about "the joy of reading" and they can't read, they'll never understand it. However, if you teach kids how to read and don't quite get around to hearing the "joy of reading" lecture, well, they might discover the joy of reading for themselves anyway. Hey, you know what, they might even *read* about it on their own.
P.S.- You might want to tone down on the racism in your post script. Not all black people are poor, and not all poor black people are drug-pushers. The statement "This applies to all kids, even young black..."-- well it seems to imply it's somehow profound that black people can benefit from education. As though that's surprising. As though you assume they shouldn't. It's a terrible thing to say.
The questions are, how worthwhile is the point of view, and how good are they at their inundation?
That it's propaganda doesn't bother me so much. The fact is, 90% of the people are going to buy-in and live their lives according to propaganda, it's just a question of *whose* propaganda. As you said, raise them in a Catholic school, and they'll be taught that Catholicism has the answers, raise them in a government school and they learn the government's answers, raise them in a [insert-name-here] school and they'll grow up to believe whatever [insert-name-here] believes.
And those who are capable to seeing through propaganda? They'll see through it, whoever is selling it.
So, to me it's not an issue of eliminating propaganda in education, it's an issue of making sure the propaganda is productive. You want the messages that you're flooding into the schools to prepare kids for the vicious outside world. You want the propaganda to be of the kind that makes them good citizens rather than bad. You want the education to lead them to better lives rather than worse.
They are trying to ban even the constitution and delceration of independance in some school systems because it might "offend" some one.
And here you're hitting on what's closer to being the "real problem". The propaganda being pushed in schools is that kids don't need to be good citizens. They're being taught that the values that have made this country strong are a load of BS. They're preaching a sense of entitlement, that working for a living is base, and that nothing means anything. Even though they're all taught that they're "great kids", they're also taught that they're useless. It's chaos.