I know my (previous) boss resented having to pay for his employees to stay up-to-date on new tech...
Shouldn't he? I understand for things that are proprietary to the company that your working for, but staying current in your field is your own professional responsibility. If you're not doing something that interests you enough to keep doing it once you're out of the office, you're in the wrong line of work. People have become too focused on the material and money things to realize the point of life is doing something you enjoy all the time, not keep working in something you hate to maintain all the material junk that has absolutely nothing to do with happiness.
On the one hand, unions keep management from forcing unhealthy and unsafe working conditions on their labor pool to save money. (Chained to sewing machines, latex gloves instead of neoprine while using mek, etc.)
On the other, unions are a potentially unchecked power that can quickly overwhelm an employer. (Demands for 6 figure incomes for installing rivets, pension plans to rival those of politicians, increased difficulties in termination of unproductive or poor quality workers, etc.)
Unions are a necessary evil, barring very strict government involvement in private enterprise. (Arguably, having the government mandate work conditions is the single scariest thing a worker can hear...) however, when unions themselves become too large and too powerful, they can have a seriously negative effect on not only the industries they work in, but also for everyone else.
For instance, the intractible 26 page proceedure to fire a union teacher in a public school enables a shocking amount of unsavory and unacceptable behavior to go on in those institutions. A policy enacted to help protect teachers from vindictive parents ends up being a mighty shield behind which people with no businss being educators hide to do deplorable things.
(An example would be the events that transpired a few years ago in a nearby public school, concerning a computer science teacher touching female students inappropriately. Since physical evidence could be collected to prove the allegations, his teaching career didn't even miss a beat... until a few years later when he stopped just touching, and got a student pregnant. Even then, I understand it was still difficult to fire him.)
Unions are a good thing when they are kept on the smaller side. When they grow up, they become dangerous, self-serving monstrocities in their own right.
The GP appears to be referring to this latter stage of development in the maturation of unions, not the younger, where they serve an important and essential function.
Much like medication, a little is good for the patient, but more isn't always better, and at a certain threshold more becomes downright deadly. The same is true of unions.
But, this is a public employee union... They're not fighting against and evil corporation bent on exploiting them...
It's no different than Haliburton getting large, very sweet, no bid contracts from those that they bought with campaign bribes. Public unions are trying to get large, very sweet contracts... and they're negotiating with the same people that they've already paid off...
corporations have outlived their usefulness. they are now slave drivers like they were nearly 100 years ago.
we DESPARATELY need unions back again. how wrong you are young one (and I know you're young; only a kid would say this. a kid who does not know his history.)
Why don't we just abolish corporations and actually hold people accountable for their actions? Unions are the answer to an old problem that would solve itself without the existence of corporations.
And, as best as I can tell, these are not corporations they are fighting against... They're fighting against a government institution that is ran, at least indirectly, by the same people that are getting the campaign bribes. It's not right when corporations use money to buy advantageous government contracts, and it's no different when a public workers union does it. When you're paying the guy that you're negotiating "against", whose best interests are being served? The students? The taxpayers? Or people that want a cushy paycheck for the least results?
My entire life (born 1981) has been a history of market deregulation, so don't come at me with all that 'government gets in the way' horseshit. Deregulation has not protected pre-appointed 'winners', otherwise the dot com bubble would never have happened. Government has been rapidly getting out of the way for 3 decades plus, and the result has been a market running out of control with greed and bad information (which, according to the prophets of neoliberalism, shouldn't happen)
Libertarians have their ideal, utopian state - its called Somalia. Kindly go live there.
As long as corporations exist, we have too much regulation. The pro-regulation people seem to ignore that corporations are the frankenstein child of government regulation. Then, like a protection racket, we are told we need more regulations to keep the government created monsters from eating us.
Adam Smith was against corporations and anyone that supports them doesn't believe in a truly free market. Corporations do not exist in a free market. They only exist in a government regulated market where the government wants to create a more risky system by allowing those with the resources to avoid any true liability.
We'll just have to wait for Cameron to deploy the army and then go on air to rant for 4 hours straight vowing to "cleanse Tottenham house by house"
It may well be insightful... I've heard Cameron isn't really Hotspur's supporter... I don't know what his club is, but that at least could drop Tottenham into relegation, reducing the chances his team drops out of the Premiership...
Google remains #1 in search and incredibly profitable at it. Nothing else they've tried makes much money. This worries their management, because if someone with a broader product line (like Microsoft) gets any real traction in search, Google could be toast. (Consider what Microsoft did to the video game industry.) Google has no other revenue stream.
Huh? Search is not google's product. It's a tool it offers to draw in it's product, which is people to look at ads. They sell advertising. That advertising appears all over their apps and sites, as well as many sites not even owned by google.
And, last I checked, Android wasn't doing too bad for them, either...
So the iPhone isn't better than 'individual' phones, its just the only choice you have if you want iOS
What percentage of phone buyers do you think make the distinction between the hardware and what OS it runs and what percentage look at it as just one monolithic thing?
I'd argue with bits of that rather strongly. Last year I had a class of kids that didn't know that 1 x value = value. There is some stuff that nearly everyone HAS to learn. But over the last two decades in Australia, we've had everyone saying "Let's make education fun.", "Let's make education more 'real'." and "Let's tailor the learning experience to the individual." Fine sentiments, but from what I've seen, nearly everything that's been put in place has had the opposite effect, and lots of kids are missing out on fundamental skills.
And, why should they care to learn 1 x value = value? The problem with the way we teach maths is we teach it mechanically just like that instead of in a practical context in which that knowledge is utilized. Optimal learning occurs when people are engaged in a task. Mechanical, rote learning and the division of subjects in our education are no longer acceptable or effective in a fully integrated world.
The thing is that my father's and grandfather's schooling was much more "one-size-fits-all" than modern schooling, but most kids left with those real skills you've mentioned.
And, how many operations per second were the computers in their school capable of?
Not that long ago, humanity was almost exclusively agrarian. Someone could learn everything that they needed to be successful in their world without even going to school.
The world changes. If education doesn't to keep pace with the nature of the world people live in, the direction of our results will continue downward.
Great idea! Since they didn't get it the first time they were in school, we can send them back so they can finally learn it. Then their kids will also be able to get it their second time around when they become parents.
It seems like the vast majority of people think that education and job training are the same thing or at least should be the same thing. My opinion has been that this is actually the root of the problem.
Actually, the problem is that there is no real job training in education. Believe it or not, not everyone has the desire to be that intellectual. Some would just like to have some marketable skills that they can earn a respectable living with. Unfortunately, we've created a belief that everyone should go to college and if they don't they will fail. For those that are better suited to job training, we just ignore. And, that's why you end up with a large population with no real skills in an economic environment where anyone without those skills isn't really needed.
But, if you want to get to the real root problem of education, it's the one-size-fits-all mentality. People have different interests and different capacities for learning. If it's not tailored for that, it's never going to be effective.
I know talking with those older than me that companies didn't used to expect people to know everything before they could be hired. Now companies don't want to hire except when the person is perfect. It's not only education that has changed.
Yeah, what's changed is the pace of the world. Businesses in the past could afford to wait years for someone to develop skills. Now things change so quickly, if the people don't already know it, by the time they do, it will be outdated and of little value.
Blair was about as far away you can get from a socialist without wearing a bed sheet.
WTF is that supposed to mean? The opposite of a socialist is a Klan member?
I can see why our political system is so productive at solving our problems. The "left" thinks the right are fascists. The "right" thinks the left are Stalin-esque communists. That explains why it's so easy for everyone to come together and find common ground solutions that fix things once and for all.
I'll end with this tidbit: ever wonder why ultraconservatives were pushing so hard for a school voucher system? Could it be that such a system would make it frighteningly easy for this type of behavior to flourish, by essentially subsidizing extremist institutions?
I'd rather them take their voucher and go on to the Christian school of their choice than try to bring mainstream schools down to their level.
It might make it easier for those that wish to be ignorant to remain ignorant. However, by getting them out of the mainstream, their perspective becomes more marginalized because it will be even more foreign to those educated in the secular schools.
They might be a minority, but there's still enough of them so as to pose a threat to education in the US. Or have you not noticed all the "Intelligent" Design proponents that have been having success watering down the science curriculum.
Has anyone actually adopted it in their curriculum and started teaching it?
Freedom of speech along with all the 24 hour news networks can make reality seem a little more warped from what it actually is...
Could could you remind me exactly when this country, or for that matter, any other were not xenophobic gits?
Exactly. Everyone does that. It's human nature to ascribe more weight to those that have more in common with you.
But, that doesn't stop those that like to bash Americans for it. I'm not saying that's not an issue. I just think it's funny that FIFA has to run commercials during soccer matches to remind people to not be racists while euros continue to talk shit about the US. I'm pretty sure FIFA's primary audience there isn't Americans.
Even a real conservative like James Madison, a Founder, wanted a national, government-run university. In 1815 he called for such a university before Congress, saying that it would be "a nursery of enlightened preceptors."
Everyone that learns what the "system" teaches them would be considered enlightened by those in the system.
Sure, we want people to be educated. And, it would be nice to be able to trust a government to do that. But, we know that government education in North Korea isn't exactly the best in the world. The question is, in a system where all are educated by the system, how can you tell when you should trust what you're being told? How do you know when you've moved from Madison's dream to Kim Jong Il's?
Sure, you can tell a difference now. But, you didn't come up in that system (I'm assuming). You were lucky enough to have leaders that argue. But, since the leaders are arguing, the system is always a compromise. That's fine if it's a discussion about algebra or geometry being taught first. When it's evolution vs "intelligent design" it gets to being a bit sub-optimal with respect to outcomes. Of course, that's the standard problem with political solutions. Anything created is a compromise... all too often with small-minded people.
Just in the past two weeks I've heard "conservative" voices in the media talking about how "college isn't for everyone"...
If you don't believe that college isn't for everyone, you don't understand the problem with our educational system. It's the one-size-fits-all system that is the problem. We tell kids that they have to go to college to be successful, and what happens when I kid realizes he doesn't have what it takes to make it through college? Since they can't make it the only way they've been told that works, they just give up on learning anything.
Equality is an illusion. It only exists in mathematics. People have different aptitudes and interests. If we only give them one option, many will be left out.
Yes it's a complex system, but that doesn't mean we have to understand every last detail before we take action. We've known for over a hundred years that CO2 is transparent to visible light and absorbs infrared. Therefore, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming (allowing sunlight in, but reducing the amount of heat radiated back to space). The only scientific question left is how much warming, where and when. The most natural (and safest) assumption is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will change climate. "We should wait until we perfectly understand this insanely complex system" is not a rational response.
People can differ over whether they think climate change will be a bad thing, or whether they should have to pay to prevent bad things from happening to other people or the natural environment, but there is no question we are causing climate change. People who argue otherwise are blinding themselves for their own convenience.
And, in the end, it doesn't even matter.
It will take so much coordinated individual and political activity to actually do anything purported to be a "solution" to the "problem" that we're virtually certain to find out what is actually going to happen when we don't act to change things. Scream all you like. Kyoto is dead, as is any other similar type of agreement.
Until people actually see Manhattan underwater, apathy is going to be the answer to climate change. And, I'm not sure that it'll be much different then, either.
I'm afraid it's not the regulation. After all, how would environmental regulations actually contribute to rising CEO salaries? No, it was the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 that started the CEO wage spiral. You see back when a CEO paid 70% of his wages in taxes there was little reason to pay him more than the minimum to get the CEO up to that tax bracket. Paying the CEO $1 million dollars isn't much better than paying him $500,000, if he's only going to get to keep $150,000 of that extra $500,000. The lower the top income tax rate gets the more incentive there is for CEOs to demand higher salaries because they get to keep more of it. Because most boards and investors believe in the magic bullet, the CEOs tend to get huge wage increases at the expense of the rank and file employees because the CEO is perceived to have more impact on the company's bottom line. Most boards believe if they pay more for a CEO, they get a better quality CEO despite the evidence that the relationship between pay and quality rarely holds true.
So, it's the regulation?
You can call it what you like, but government rules that affect the market (which is what you are saying happened) are effectively the same thing. Whatever the rules happen to be, you can guarantee the guys at the top will milk it for what it's worth. And, you can guarantee that the more involved the government is, the more it's going to be worth.
But oooh, that free market fueled cheap shit at Wal-Mart is just so tantalizing! How can you not buy it?
Exactly. Many people aren't in IT or other similarly well-paid job. Every cent makes a difference in their lives.
Of course, it's always easy for those of us living comfortably to argue for changes that would drive the prices up because we can afford to make more "responsible" choices for our environment. The extra few bucks here and there won't really affect our lives in a significant way. Screw the little guys.
Of course, we can always force the big companies to pay their workers more. They'd never be able to avoid that by going somewhere else without wage rules.
I don't have time to market my book: I am involved in other things that are more important.
I understand the common understanding of what the term "marketing" means is promotion. However, marketing is more than just promotion. Product development, from determining the features of the product (including it's name) to what products is competes against and how to price the product, is also part of marketing. Logistics of product delivery is a marketing function in the technical sense.
So, you may not be promoting your book. But, if you've developed it and have it available for sale, you are marketing it.
I think if Nasa was only allowed to carry projects from start to finish... and not successive radical change in direction mid projects... lots more cool stuff could come out. The problem, every time a new administration comes out big buzz words are introduced to completely change the direction, forcing many times redevelopment of the wheel.
You can say that about anything the government does. It's the consequence of choosing a political entity to do things. Every time the power shifts, a new set of cronies have to be rewarded and the original purpose for getting involved is lost as "we the people" get tired of keeping an eye on what they're actually up to.
I'm not saying large, private organizations are much better. But, you do tend to see less directional churn than in politics. That tends to happen when everyone doesn't get an equal say. Democracy is nice, but it's terribly inefficient. Thus, NASA will never produce what an organization with those sort of resources could without the political influence.
The simple solution is to repeal NAFTA and restore our tariffs. "Protectionism" is only an ugly word until you realize that protectionism was actually one of the two pillars of the US economy in the 19th century (the gold standard being the other) and the growth we saw in the 19th century was substantially higher than what we saw in the 20th century. Even the value of the dollar itself went up 50% between 1800 and 1900.
What exactly were we protecting ourselves from in the 19th century?
You're comparing the rapid economic growth of the industrial revolution to the growth of the established economy we have today. All emerging economies grow at a rapid pace that declines as the economy matures. Of course, you're going to grow at insane rates when you shift from an agrarian to an industrial economy.
So, no real world competition (how long did it take UPS to ship from China in the 19th century?) plus a rapid shift from farming to industrial production is what caused the growth. Protectionism didn't even come into play, because whether it was practiced or not would have given virtually the same result.
And, I'm not sure how it really matters to not allow companies to produce overseas. American manufacturing produces more today than ever. It's still the US's largest industry. The jobs aren't there because of technological and productivity improvements, not overseas production.
The Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 is the big one, but it requires a Justice Department willing to use it.
The FED also had the power to back the Bank of the United States to keep it from failing, but it didn't. And, then we ended up with runs on banks at the Great Depression. So, what good is giving government power when it never uses it when or in the way that it should?
We can have the best laws there could be, but government also has to execute. The record seems to indicate that's a big part of the problem. So, it doesn't matter if we've got the law right. That's just the beginning. And, the end seems to always be big companies with more power and politicians getting their share of the pie.
The main thing is to not just throw up our hands and say, "Oh well, big business is just going to continue to do what they're doing so we might as well just go along with it." Instead, we need to be aware of which candidates, which bills in congress, are going to make it worse and which will make it better. Then, we do what people have been doing for centuries: get up in the politicians' faces and let them know we support them if they do right or will work to defeat them if they do wrong. If a bunch of half-bright crackers with teabags stapled to their meshback caps can scare the shit out of the Republican Party, my guess is that the rest of us can also bring a little pressure to bear.
I'm not throwing up my hands and giving up. I'm just taking an honest look at the history of government regulation. The record is full of examples of government gaining more regulatory power and big business benefiting disproportionately. I honestly am not aware of any situation where that hasn't been the case.
But, we still have a quasi-religious fervor when it comes to praying for the government to protect us. Never mind that corporations are a creation of government. Never mind that the industries we complain about and have the most problems with are the most regulated. Never mind that government involvement always ends up being the tool of the corporations instead of the little guys.
And, I'd love to think that politicians could be kept in check, but the facts don't seem to bear that out. Over 90% of incumbents are reelected to congress. And, people for the most part are too apathetic to pay attention enough to make good choices. Other than the occasional temper tantrum, voters only care about the appearance of something happening.
Slashdot Mirror
My advice to the young men of /. is all chicks look hot when they're 19, so don't pay attention to that when wife shopping;
How about just don't wife shop and date only 19 year olds? :)
I know my (previous) boss resented having to pay for his employees to stay up-to-date on new tech...
Shouldn't he? I understand for things that are proprietary to the company that your working for, but staying current in your field is your own professional responsibility. If you're not doing something that interests you enough to keep doing it once you're out of the office, you're in the wrong line of work. People have become too focused on the material and money things to realize the point of life is doing something you enjoy all the time, not keep working in something you hate to maintain all the material junk that has absolutely nothing to do with happiness.
Unions are a mixed bag.
On the one hand, unions keep management from forcing unhealthy and unsafe working conditions on their labor pool to save money. (Chained to sewing machines, latex gloves instead of neoprine while using mek, etc.)
On the other, unions are a potentially unchecked power that can quickly overwhelm an employer. (Demands for 6 figure incomes for installing rivets, pension plans to rival those of politicians, increased difficulties in termination of unproductive or poor quality workers, etc.)
Unions are a necessary evil, barring very strict government involvement in private enterprise. (Arguably, having the government mandate work conditions is the single scariest thing a worker can hear...) however, when unions themselves become too large and too powerful, they can have a seriously negative effect on not only the industries they work in, but also for everyone else.
For instance, the intractible 26 page proceedure to fire a union teacher in a public school enables a shocking amount of unsavory and unacceptable behavior to go on in those institutions. A policy enacted to help protect teachers from vindictive parents ends up being a mighty shield behind which people with no businss being educators hide to do deplorable things.
(An example would be the events that transpired a few years ago in a nearby public school, concerning a computer science teacher touching female students inappropriately. Since physical evidence could be collected to prove the allegations, his teaching career didn't even miss a beat... until a few years later when he stopped just touching, and got a student pregnant. Even then, I understand it was still difficult to fire him.)
Unions are a good thing when they are kept on the smaller side. When they grow up, they become dangerous, self-serving monstrocities in their own right.
The GP appears to be referring to this latter stage of development in the maturation of unions, not the younger, where they serve an important and essential function.
Much like medication, a little is good for the patient, but more isn't always better, and at a certain threshold more becomes downright deadly. The same is true of unions.
But, this is a public employee union... They're not fighting against and evil corporation bent on exploiting them...
It's no different than Haliburton getting large, very sweet, no bid contracts from those that they bought with campaign bribes. Public unions are trying to get large, very sweet contracts... and they're negotiating with the same people that they've already paid off...
corporations have outlived their usefulness. they are now slave drivers like they were nearly 100 years ago.
we DESPARATELY need unions back again. how wrong you are young one (and I know you're young; only a kid would say this. a kid who does not know his history.)
Why don't we just abolish corporations and actually hold people accountable for their actions? Unions are the answer to an old problem that would solve itself without the existence of corporations.
And, as best as I can tell, these are not corporations they are fighting against... They're fighting against a government institution that is ran, at least indirectly, by the same people that are getting the campaign bribes. It's not right when corporations use money to buy advantageous government contracts, and it's no different when a public workers union does it. When you're paying the guy that you're negotiating "against", whose best interests are being served? The students? The taxpayers? Or people that want a cushy paycheck for the least results?
My entire life (born 1981) has been a history of market deregulation, so don't come at me with all that 'government gets in the way' horseshit. Deregulation has not protected pre-appointed 'winners', otherwise the dot com bubble would never have happened. Government has been rapidly getting out of the way for 3 decades plus, and the result has been a market running out of control with greed and bad information (which, according to the prophets of neoliberalism, shouldn't happen)
Libertarians have their ideal, utopian state - its called Somalia. Kindly go live there.
As long as corporations exist, we have too much regulation. The pro-regulation people seem to ignore that corporations are the frankenstein child of government regulation. Then, like a protection racket, we are told we need more regulations to keep the government created monsters from eating us.
Adam Smith was against corporations and anyone that supports them doesn't believe in a truly free market. Corporations do not exist in a free market. They only exist in a government regulated market where the government wants to create a more risky system by allowing those with the resources to avoid any true liability.
We'll just have to wait for Cameron to deploy the army and then go on air to rant for 4 hours straight vowing to "cleanse Tottenham house by house"
It may well be insightful... I've heard Cameron isn't really Hotspur's supporter... I don't know what his club is, but that at least could drop Tottenham into relegation, reducing the chances his team drops out of the Premiership...
Google remains #1 in search and incredibly profitable at it. Nothing else they've tried makes much money. This worries their management, because if someone with a broader product line (like Microsoft) gets any real traction in search, Google could be toast. (Consider what Microsoft did to the video game industry.) Google has no other revenue stream.
Huh? Search is not google's product. It's a tool it offers to draw in it's product, which is people to look at ads. They sell advertising. That advertising appears all over their apps and sites, as well as many sites not even owned by google.
And, last I checked, Android wasn't doing too bad for them, either...
The common mistake with the "debt to gdp ratio" is that the federal government doesnt have a valid claim on every dollar in the GDP.
Do you think that if it comes down to it that they actually believe that?
So the iPhone isn't better than 'individual' phones, its just the only choice you have if you want iOS
What percentage of phone buyers do you think make the distinction between the hardware and what OS it runs and what percentage look at it as just one monolithic thing?
I'd argue with bits of that rather strongly. Last year I had a class of kids that didn't know that 1 x value = value. There is some stuff that nearly everyone HAS to learn. But over the last two decades in Australia, we've had everyone saying "Let's make education fun.", "Let's make education more 'real'." and "Let's tailor the learning experience to the individual." Fine sentiments, but from what I've seen, nearly everything that's been put in place has had the opposite effect, and lots of kids are missing out on fundamental skills.
And, why should they care to learn 1 x value = value? The problem with the way we teach maths is we teach it mechanically just like that instead of in a practical context in which that knowledge is utilized. Optimal learning occurs when people are engaged in a task. Mechanical, rote learning and the division of subjects in our education are no longer acceptable or effective in a fully integrated world.
The thing is that my father's and grandfather's schooling was much more "one-size-fits-all" than modern schooling, but most kids left with those real skills you've mentioned.
And, how many operations per second were the computers in their school capable of?
Not that long ago, humanity was almost exclusively agrarian. Someone could learn everything that they needed to be successful in their world without even going to school.
The world changes. If education doesn't to keep pace with the nature of the world people live in, the direction of our results will continue downward.
If they can't keep a civil tongue in their head while they express it, I don't give a rat's ass about what they actually think.
So, what are you doing on slashdot?
Parental education is a better place to start...
Great idea! Since they didn't get it the first time they were in school, we can send them back so they can finally learn it. Then their kids will also be able to get it their second time around when they become parents.
It seems like the vast majority of people think that education and job training are the same thing or at least should be the same thing. My opinion has been that this is actually the root of the problem.
Actually, the problem is that there is no real job training in education. Believe it or not, not everyone has the desire to be that intellectual. Some would just like to have some marketable skills that they can earn a respectable living with. Unfortunately, we've created a belief that everyone should go to college and if they don't they will fail. For those that are better suited to job training, we just ignore. And, that's why you end up with a large population with no real skills in an economic environment where anyone without those skills isn't really needed.
But, if you want to get to the real root problem of education, it's the one-size-fits-all mentality. People have different interests and different capacities for learning. If it's not tailored for that, it's never going to be effective.
I know talking with those older than me that companies didn't used to expect people to know everything before they could be hired. Now companies don't want to hire except when the person is perfect. It's not only education that has changed.
Yeah, what's changed is the pace of the world. Businesses in the past could afford to wait years for someone to develop skills. Now things change so quickly, if the people don't already know it, by the time they do, it will be outdated and of little value.
Blair was about as far away you can get from a socialist without wearing a bed sheet.
WTF is that supposed to mean? The opposite of a socialist is a Klan member?
I can see why our political system is so productive at solving our problems. The "left" thinks the right are fascists. The "right" thinks the left are Stalin-esque communists. That explains why it's so easy for everyone to come together and find common ground solutions that fix things once and for all.
I'll end with this tidbit: ever wonder why ultraconservatives were pushing so hard for a school voucher system? Could it be that such a system would make it frighteningly easy for this type of behavior to flourish, by essentially subsidizing extremist institutions?
I'd rather them take their voucher and go on to the Christian school of their choice than try to bring mainstream schools down to their level.
It might make it easier for those that wish to be ignorant to remain ignorant. However, by getting them out of the mainstream, their perspective becomes more marginalized because it will be even more foreign to those educated in the secular schools.
They might be a minority, but there's still enough of them so as to pose a threat to education in the US. Or have you not noticed all the "Intelligent" Design proponents that have been having success watering down the science curriculum.
Has anyone actually adopted it in their curriculum and started teaching it?
Freedom of speech along with all the 24 hour news networks can make reality seem a little more warped from what it actually is...
Could could you remind me exactly when this country, or for that matter, any other were not xenophobic gits?
Exactly. Everyone does that. It's human nature to ascribe more weight to those that have more in common with you.
But, that doesn't stop those that like to bash Americans for it. I'm not saying that's not an issue. I just think it's funny that FIFA has to run commercials during soccer matches to remind people to not be racists while euros continue to talk shit about the US. I'm pretty sure FIFA's primary audience there isn't Americans.
Even a real conservative like James Madison, a Founder, wanted a national, government-run university. In 1815 he called for such a university before Congress, saying that it would be "a nursery of enlightened preceptors."
Everyone that learns what the "system" teaches them would be considered enlightened by those in the system.
Sure, we want people to be educated. And, it would be nice to be able to trust a government to do that. But, we know that government education in North Korea isn't exactly the best in the world. The question is, in a system where all are educated by the system, how can you tell when you should trust what you're being told? How do you know when you've moved from Madison's dream to Kim Jong Il's?
Sure, you can tell a difference now. But, you didn't come up in that system (I'm assuming). You were lucky enough to have leaders that argue. But, since the leaders are arguing, the system is always a compromise. That's fine if it's a discussion about algebra or geometry being taught first. When it's evolution vs "intelligent design" it gets to being a bit sub-optimal with respect to outcomes. Of course, that's the standard problem with political solutions. Anything created is a compromise... all too often with small-minded people.
Just in the past two weeks I've heard "conservative" voices in the media talking about how "college isn't for everyone"...
If you don't believe that college isn't for everyone, you don't understand the problem with our educational system. It's the one-size-fits-all system that is the problem. We tell kids that they have to go to college to be successful, and what happens when I kid realizes he doesn't have what it takes to make it through college? Since they can't make it the only way they've been told that works, they just give up on learning anything.
Equality is an illusion. It only exists in mathematics. People have different aptitudes and interests. If we only give them one option, many will be left out.
Yes it's a complex system, but that doesn't mean we have to understand every last detail before we take action. We've known for over a hundred years that CO2 is transparent to visible light and absorbs infrared. Therefore, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming (allowing sunlight in, but reducing the amount of heat radiated back to space). The only scientific question left is how much warming, where and when. The most natural (and safest) assumption is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will change climate. "We should wait until we perfectly understand this insanely complex system" is not a rational response.
People can differ over whether they think climate change will be a bad thing, or whether they should have to pay to prevent bad things from happening to other people or the natural environment, but there is no question we are causing climate change. People who argue otherwise are blinding themselves for their own convenience.
And, in the end, it doesn't even matter.
It will take so much coordinated individual and political activity to actually do anything purported to be a "solution" to the "problem" that we're virtually certain to find out what is actually going to happen when we don't act to change things. Scream all you like. Kyoto is dead, as is any other similar type of agreement.
Until people actually see Manhattan underwater, apathy is going to be the answer to climate change. And, I'm not sure that it'll be much different then, either.
Have a nice day!
I'm afraid it's not the regulation. After all, how would environmental regulations actually contribute to rising CEO salaries? No, it was the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 that started the CEO wage spiral. You see back when a CEO paid 70% of his wages in taxes there was little reason to pay him more than the minimum to get the CEO up to that tax bracket. Paying the CEO $1 million dollars isn't much better than paying him $500,000, if he's only going to get to keep $150,000 of that extra $500,000. The lower the top income tax rate gets the more incentive there is for CEOs to demand higher salaries because they get to keep more of it. Because most boards and investors believe in the magic bullet, the CEOs tend to get huge wage increases at the expense of the rank and file employees because the CEO is perceived to have more impact on the company's bottom line. Most boards believe if they pay more for a CEO, they get a better quality CEO despite the evidence that the relationship between pay and quality rarely holds true.
So, it's the regulation?
You can call it what you like, but government rules that affect the market (which is what you are saying happened) are effectively the same thing. Whatever the rules happen to be, you can guarantee the guys at the top will milk it for what it's worth. And, you can guarantee that the more involved the government is, the more it's going to be worth.
But oooh, that free market fueled cheap shit at Wal-Mart is just so tantalizing! How can you not buy it?
Exactly. Many people aren't in IT or other similarly well-paid job. Every cent makes a difference in their lives.
Of course, it's always easy for those of us living comfortably to argue for changes that would drive the prices up because we can afford to make more "responsible" choices for our environment. The extra few bucks here and there won't really affect our lives in a significant way. Screw the little guys.
Of course, we can always force the big companies to pay their workers more. They'd never be able to avoid that by going somewhere else without wage rules.
I don't have time to market my book: I am involved in other things that are more important.
I understand the common understanding of what the term "marketing" means is promotion. However, marketing is more than just promotion. Product development, from determining the features of the product (including it's name) to what products is competes against and how to price the product, is also part of marketing. Logistics of product delivery is a marketing function in the technical sense.
So, you may not be promoting your book. But, if you've developed it and have it available for sale, you are marketing it.
I think if Nasa was only allowed to carry projects from start to finish... and not successive radical change in direction mid projects... lots more cool stuff could come out. The problem, every time a new administration comes out big buzz words are introduced to completely change the direction, forcing many times redevelopment of the wheel.
You can say that about anything the government does. It's the consequence of choosing a political entity to do things. Every time the power shifts, a new set of cronies have to be rewarded and the original purpose for getting involved is lost as "we the people" get tired of keeping an eye on what they're actually up to.
I'm not saying large, private organizations are much better. But, you do tend to see less directional churn than in politics. That tends to happen when everyone doesn't get an equal say. Democracy is nice, but it's terribly inefficient. Thus, NASA will never produce what an organization with those sort of resources could without the political influence.
The simple solution is to repeal NAFTA and restore our tariffs. "Protectionism" is only an ugly word until you realize that protectionism was actually one of the two pillars of the US economy in the 19th century (the gold standard being the other) and the growth we saw in the 19th century was substantially higher than what we saw in the 20th century. Even the value of the dollar itself went up 50% between 1800 and 1900.
What exactly were we protecting ourselves from in the 19th century?
You're comparing the rapid economic growth of the industrial revolution to the growth of the established economy we have today. All emerging economies grow at a rapid pace that declines as the economy matures. Of course, you're going to grow at insane rates when you shift from an agrarian to an industrial economy.
So, no real world competition (how long did it take UPS to ship from China in the 19th century?) plus a rapid shift from farming to industrial production is what caused the growth. Protectionism didn't even come into play, because whether it was practiced or not would have given virtually the same result.
And, I'm not sure how it really matters to not allow companies to produce overseas. American manufacturing produces more today than ever. It's still the US's largest industry. The jobs aren't there because of technological and productivity improvements, not overseas production.
The Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 is the big one, but it requires a Justice Department willing to use it.
The FED also had the power to back the Bank of the United States to keep it from failing, but it didn't. And, then we ended up with runs on banks at the Great Depression. So, what good is giving government power when it never uses it when or in the way that it should?
We can have the best laws there could be, but government also has to execute. The record seems to indicate that's a big part of the problem. So, it doesn't matter if we've got the law right. That's just the beginning. And, the end seems to always be big companies with more power and politicians getting their share of the pie.
The main thing is to not just throw up our hands and say, "Oh well, big business is just going to continue to do what they're doing so we might as well just go along with it." Instead, we need to be aware of which candidates, which bills in congress, are going to make it worse and which will make it better. Then, we do what people have been doing for centuries: get up in the politicians' faces and let them know we support them if they do right or will work to defeat them if they do wrong. If a bunch of half-bright crackers with teabags stapled to their meshback caps can scare the shit out of the Republican Party, my guess is that the rest of us can also bring a little pressure to bear.
I'm not throwing up my hands and giving up. I'm just taking an honest look at the history of government regulation. The record is full of examples of government gaining more regulatory power and big business benefiting disproportionately. I honestly am not aware of any situation where that hasn't been the case.
But, we still have a quasi-religious fervor when it comes to praying for the government to protect us. Never mind that corporations are a creation of government. Never mind that the industries we complain about and have the most problems with are the most regulated. Never mind that government involvement always ends up being the tool of the corporations instead of the little guys.
And, I'd love to think that politicians could be kept in check, but the facts don't seem to bear that out. Over 90% of incumbents are reelected to congress. And, people for the most part are too apathetic to pay attention enough to make good choices. Other than the occasional temper tantrum, voters only care about the appearance of something happening.
Government doesn't get held accountable.