Public k-12 schools do not equal businesses. They need not have spiked costs just for greed purposes.
I highly disagree. If there are too many students applying to a given public school, you could use a lottery to determine which ones goes.
Concerning public transportion, that can be financed through taxes. Make it cheap. I'd much rather pay 50 cents to ride the bus at any time while paying more in property taxes (provided there are homestead exemptions) if it meant not paying $2 to ride it otherwise. A student, I would imagine, could afford 50 cents for a bus ride.
There are three levels of funding for PUBLIC schools, more or less. This concerns PUBLIC schools only.
Local property taxes, which incidently can be controlled by the local voters. They can also change who is on the school board as some people have mentioned.
State funding, allow it to be in a voucher format. This way the state is giving each school a direct amount of money based on the number of students with no other factors being considered. The less students a school has obviously means less state funding they receive.
Federal funding, see the state funding idea. Replace the word state with federal.
In my idea, each student in a district would have a fundamental right to go to a school within that district, but may choose a school of their choice. Students wishing to go to a school in another district would have low prioritization compared to in-district residents, and would have to wait their turn to be accepted, and overcrowding would not be permitted. Additionally, going to a school out-of-district means vouchers alone may not cover "tuition" as when compared to the per capita in-district students are putting forth. That is, if local taxes are giving the district $2/student/year, then the student coming from out-of-district will have to pay that amount, or an adjusted fair amount, to attend.
If a school is filled to capacity, a lottery needs to be undertaken.
If transportation is an issue, perhaps having public transportation permit school aged children to ride the bus for free upon showing their school ID.
With a private school, he or she must first be accepted. With luck, the school will provide a scholarship to fill the gap.
With a public school, the student may choose any public school of his or her choosing, provided it's within the district. Why within the district? Local taxes go by school district usually, meaning the place of residence of the student will still be supporting the district he or she is going too, thus justified. However, a student shouldn't be locked into a given school in a given district. He or she should be freely allowed to choose amongst the possible dozens of choices.
This is exactly why I would rather have a voucher system in place. Voucher money wouldn't take away money from local school districts funding themselves through local taxes, but it would be a way to give students more of a choice. Federal money and state money would be the source of the vouchers.
I think schools can only restrict free speech if it disrupts the learning process. It would be like a restaurant kicking someone out for not wearing the proper attire because it can disrupt the others who are being paid to be served.
However, all this has to do with is the actual property itself. If the student wasn't actually on the school's property, I don't believe the school has one bit of authority to suspend him.
A restaurant can deny you service if you are a famous person they don't like because of your actions, correct? If so, consider this. The famous person, as in this example, hasn't paid for the service, nor is guaranteed a right to the service in the first place. (Supermarkets are a different matter entirely, but please don't get me started on this.) Education is a different matter, which is more guaranteed for someone to have, let alone the fact the payment of the service has been completed. We taxpayers are simply paying it for the student so the student doesn't have to pay for it himself.
I don't wish to focus on the issue of the lawfulness of warrartless wiretapping since it seems to be a direct violation of the 4th Amendment regardless of any federal legal statutes passed.
Assuming cell phones can be listened on in the way described, I have this to say. The issue is whether the government is forcing cell phone manufacturers to include backdoors.
I wish people get paid for recycling aluminum cans here. Maybe people would actually bother separating them from the trash. Here, it tends to cost money I believe if a residential person wishes to recycle pop cans. It's cheaper to just toss them I think.
I am speaking of a device that is capable of time travel. To allow information to be sent back in time (although maybe not on our worldline, but a similar one) where we can surf the web back then.
This isn't funny. I am sick and tired of satire sites being posted on news sites. There is a place for satire, and it is called on the satire site itself.
Any slashdot admins reading this, whenever satire is submitted, please make the tag so huge no one can mistake it for actual news.
This is absolutely stupid. If you are not making any money off the movie, it isn't commercial, and thus private use. Since you already paid for it for private use, then that is just.
Furthermore, so what if you invite friends over to view it? Are you making a profit off of them? Does that really prevent them from simply going out and buying a personal copy for themselves? How many people here saw a movie in a theatre, at a friends house, or on a charter bus, and went out and bought it later on?
By the way, I don't believe the MPAA is any sort of government agency, and thus they have no authority. God forbid if any judge is stupid enough to give them any more credence than the average Joe out there. Whatever happened to common sense?!?!
When you say reuse plastic bottles, you mean the same plastic bottles we drink out of and then toss in recycling? If so, I can tell you the reasons why it's a horrible idea to simply reuse those.
A hidden tax on the electronic items that need to be recycled. Not to be visable at the time of purchase.
Basically, the tax, perhaps a flat amount per type of item regardless of price, would be placed on the item at the first instance of sale. So if a monitor is manufactured and is sold to a Best Buy, then the fee would then have to be paid at that moment. If it is being sold wholesale to someone, then that fee would be collected then.
The fee wouldn't be based on the value of the item, but the type of item itself. There'd be fees for monitors, motherboards, etc. The fee would be universal, meaning every monitor would have the same fee amount.
Another idea would be, in a place that doesn't allow gambling to a certain extent, is to permit it within reason, and have gambling taxes pay for it in whole.
Anyone have an opinion on mandatory recycling? I think it would be a good idea, with fines and fees imposed for throwing recyclable things into the trash, namely electronic items. However, to offset any harshness of the law, recycling must be made free, and by free, I mean paid for by taxes (as long as it's not a property tax, sales tax increase, or income tax increase).
In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid. -- PBS interview with David Frost, November 1995 -- Bill Gates
I know gravity is a theory. That could very well change. I don't prescribe to the theory that two objects necessarily attract themselves based on mass.
Slashdot Mirror
Private schools are outside the system. Private schools can do as they please in how they choose enrollment, provided it's not illegal.
People who are on foodstamps best travel to wherever is necessary to purchase food if it is on sale. It saves.
Public k-12 schools do not equal businesses. They need not have spiked costs just for greed purposes.
I highly disagree. If there are too many students applying to a given public school, you could use a lottery to determine which ones goes.
Concerning public transportion, that can be financed through taxes. Make it cheap. I'd much rather pay 50 cents to ride the bus at any time while paying more in property taxes (provided there are homestead exemptions) if it meant not paying $2 to ride it otherwise. A student, I would imagine, could afford 50 cents for a bus ride.
There are three levels of funding for PUBLIC schools, more or less. This concerns PUBLIC schools only.
Local property taxes, which incidently can be controlled by the local voters. They can also change who is on the school board as some people have mentioned.
State funding, allow it to be in a voucher format. This way the state is giving each school a direct amount of money based on the number of students with no other factors being considered. The less students a school has obviously means less state funding they receive.
Federal funding, see the state funding idea. Replace the word state with federal.
In my idea, each student in a district would have a fundamental right to go to a school within that district, but may choose a school of their choice.
Students wishing to go to a school in another district would have low prioritization compared to in-district residents, and would have to wait their turn to be accepted, and overcrowding would not be permitted.
Additionally, going to a school out-of-district means vouchers alone may not cover "tuition" as when compared to the per capita in-district students are putting forth. That is, if local taxes are giving the district $2/student/year, then the student coming from out-of-district will have to pay that amount, or an adjusted fair amount, to attend.
If a school is filled to capacity, a lottery needs to be undertaken.
If transportation is an issue, perhaps having public transportation permit school aged children to ride the bus for free upon showing their school ID.
With a private school, he or she must first be accepted. With luck, the school will provide a scholarship to fill the gap.
With a public school, the student may choose any public school of his or her choosing, provided it's within the district. Why within the district? Local taxes go by school district usually, meaning the place of residence of the student will still be supporting the district he or she is going too, thus justified. However, a student shouldn't be locked into a given school in a given district. He or she should be freely allowed to choose amongst the possible dozens of choices.
This is exactly why I would rather have a voucher system in place. Voucher money wouldn't take away money from local school districts funding themselves through local taxes, but it would be a way to give students more of a choice. Federal money and state money would be the source of the vouchers.
I think schools can only restrict free speech if it disrupts the learning process. It would be like a restaurant kicking someone out for not wearing the proper attire because it can disrupt the others who are being paid to be served.
However, all this has to do with is the actual property itself. If the student wasn't actually on the school's property, I don't believe the school has one bit of authority to suspend him.
A restaurant can deny you service if you are a famous person they don't like because of your actions, correct? If so, consider this. The famous person, as in this example, hasn't paid for the service, nor is guaranteed a right to the service in the first place. (Supermarkets are a different matter entirely, but please don't get me started on this.) Education is a different matter, which is more guaranteed for someone to have, let alone the fact the payment of the service has been completed. We taxpayers are simply paying it for the student so the student doesn't have to pay for it himself.
I don't wish to focus on the issue of the lawfulness of warrartless wiretapping since it seems to be a direct violation of the 4th Amendment regardless of any federal legal statutes passed.
Assuming cell phones can be listened on in the way described, I have this to say. The issue is whether the government is forcing cell phone manufacturers to include backdoors.
Stores don't bother to sell defected items for wholesale instead? I'm sure some people would bother buying them.
I wish people get paid for recycling aluminum cans here. Maybe people would actually bother separating them from the trash. Here, it tends to cost money I believe if a residential person wishes to recycle pop cans. It's cheaper to just toss them I think.
That assumes people know about Monty Python and actually pay attention to graphics or even have graphics to begin with.
I am speaking of a device that is capable of time travel. To allow information to be sent back in time (although maybe not on our worldline, but a similar one) where we can surf the web back then.
This isn't funny. I am sick and tired of satire sites being posted on news sites. There is a place for satire, and it is called on the satire site itself.
Any slashdot admins reading this, whenever satire is submitted, please make the tag so huge no one can mistake it for actual news.
This is absolutely stupid. If you are not making any money off the movie, it isn't commercial, and thus private use. Since you already paid for it for private use, then that is just.
Furthermore, so what if you invite friends over to view it? Are you making a profit off of them? Does that really prevent them from simply going out and buying a personal copy for themselves? How many people here saw a movie in a theatre, at a friends house, or on a charter bus, and went out and bought it later on?
By the way, I don't believe the MPAA is any sort of government agency, and thus they have no authority. God forbid if any judge is stupid enough to give them any more credence than the average Joe out there. Whatever happened to common sense?!?!
That is a separate issue that needs dealt with.
When you say reuse plastic bottles, you mean the same plastic bottles we drink out of and then toss in recycling? If so, I can tell you the reasons why it's a horrible idea to simply reuse those.
A hidden tax on the electronic items that need to be recycled. Not to be visable at the time of purchase.
Basically, the tax, perhaps a flat amount per type of item regardless of price, would be placed on the item at the first instance of sale. So if a monitor is manufactured and is sold to a Best Buy, then the fee would then have to be paid at that moment. If it is being sold wholesale to someone, then that fee would be collected then.
The fee wouldn't be based on the value of the item, but the type of item itself. There'd be fees for monitors, motherboards, etc. The fee would be universal, meaning every monitor would have the same fee amount.
Another idea would be, in a place that doesn't allow gambling to a certain extent, is to permit it within reason, and have gambling taxes pay for it in whole.
Anyone have an opinion on mandatory recycling? I think it would be a good idea, with fines and fees imposed for throwing recyclable things into the trash, namely electronic items. However, to offset any harshness of the law, recycling must be made free, and by free, I mean paid for by taxes (as long as it's not a property tax, sales tax increase, or income tax increase).
Unfortunately, archive.org doesn't even have it due to the robots.txt exclusion.
I sure wish someone would invent a way to surf the Internet in the past.
I could have sworn I heard about this idea years ago. I think it could have been 6 years ago. I remember something about this.
In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid. -- PBS interview with David Frost, November 1995 -- Bill Gates
He was misquoted. Read what he said precisely. Bill Gates I believe is considered agnostic.
I know gravity is a theory. That could very well change. I don't prescribe to the theory that two objects necessarily attract themselves based on mass.
It's theory then.
I still disagree. I don't believe that's true.