I've never heard of the state paying off college loans. Please direct me ot this free state paid college system so I can get a free degree!
If the state pays, the state benefits, the state would not pay for college unless the state needs to hire a new set of lawyers, doctors, technicians, and scientists. If anyone should pay for education it should be the state, education is a matter of national security, and if we can pay for police to protect us physically, and pay for a big military to protect us physically, shouldnt we protect our jobs and our economy?
Even if we decide that economic security is a bad idea, its not like we have universal college education right now, and even if we did, you'd have more talented individuals if you let them figure out how to use the technology to be productive than to limit technology while the rest of the world uses it.
It's not the teachers job to force students to learn, or limit the ability of students who use the technology to learn faster. When you get rid of the internet, students who use the internet to actually research what you are talking about suffer, you end up hurting the students who are bright enough to use the technology properly. You also hurt the technology industry, as sales of laptops and wifi equipment will go down if you attack the main users and buyers of it. It is always wrong to punish the minority due to the stupidity of the majority. This means if the majority is ruining your class by not studying, give them F's, but don't hold others back with your solutions.
I think access to information and communications should be increased on campus as much as possible so students who actually know how to use the technology can use it. If a student wants to play games and goof off in class, theres a grading system to handle those students.
Just because some people use the internet to look at stupid stuff, shouldnt mean you should eliminate the nternet for people who actually use it to research stuff for the class or for other classes.
I think removing wifi is as stupid as removing the library to prevent people from stealing books. If a student is too stupid to use their tools to succeed then they shouldnt be in college to anyway. Wifi is just a tool, just like a notebook, a library, or a teacher giving a lecture, all tools to help you get a degree.
(I know teachers are persons but their role is to help you get your degree)
Removing a tool makes it harder to get a degree. Just like removing the internet makes us dumber, removing books makes is less educated, removing wifi also is stupid. If people surf less they'll just find something else to do other than study.
I think we need to also focus on helping those who are weaker or poorer among us. I support any idea which through the private sector can help the third world. I support microfinance, microcredit, and economic development for the third world. I'm for fair trade, but once again, even if I'm for all helping build up third world economies, the reason I'm for it is because it makes the world better, and because it helps the economy. It's all about how we go about doing it, you sure as hell wont get anywhere with charity, unions, or old communist/socialist ideas. The socialist era is dead for good, if you want to help the world then support global fair trade, buy your tea from the third world, go petition and demand that starbucks sell fair trade tea, and form a lobbying commitee to convince congress to support fair trade. How do you think China has so much power? they lobby politicians so that politicians support China's development, and if you want to solve the problem of AIDs in Africa, you have to solve the problem of poverty by actually removing sanctions, debt, and barriers which prevent Africa from joining the WTO. There is really no excuse why Africa cannot joint he WTO if China can join it.
Finally, if you believe in all the stuff you are saying, theres the koyoto protocol, theres carbon credits, there are many ways to make it profitable to protect and improve life instead of destroy and reduce quality of life. If you want to play economist, focus on improving quality of life. If you want to have an economy which works at its best, the way to have the best working economy is to have the economy which produces the highest quality of life. If by going to work my life got better and better, and I could buy better and better things, or if computers made it so my work became easier and easier to the point where I could put on some sunglasses with a computer inside and do my work while I shop and eat dinner at a resturant, then we are getting somewhere. Africa can support a lot of industries, the clothing industries, the music industry, the arts, and a lot of other stuff which would improve quality of life. Some of our toys could come from African companies, and if we could get a good movie industry or film industry from Africa, and a strong music and other cultural industries, it would be great for the global economy.
We see how China allows us to have all this cheap stuff from Walmart, African goods would be even cheaper, and we'd all win. So yes I think we should give every living person a job if they want one, and I see no reason for people to be starving and dying of preventable diseases when they can be hired or start businesses of their own from which we can own stock in and get rich off of.
It's just a matter of getting from point A to point B. Right now the focus is on China, but eventually China will become a superpower which threatens the US and Europe, and when China becomes too strong this only leaves India and Africa, perhaps and perhaps South America. Ideally we'd want to get South America but politically its impossible. So yes, I do think we need to focus the economy on sustainable growth.
Most of the money is funded into companies which lose money, or into wars, or taxes, or just other bankers, stock brokers and rich people. So yes the money does constantly change hands among the rich.
We need an open source software stock market. If you have software like mozilla or open office, which is either profitable or valueable, we should be able to buy stock, bonds or shares, and gain votes as a result. Transgaming had a good model, but we need to create a market and make it profitable to own shares.
I think we should be hiring economists to figure out how to make open source profitable, but using the private sector is just politically impossible. It's difficult enough to get people to accept open source as a model, the last thing you need to do is link it directly to communism or socialism.
Instead we should make open source as profitable as possible for the private sector, forget the public sector. Also how the hell is it good for an economy to save 200 billion in consumer spending? what the hell is this economist on crack? I completely understand what hes saying from a socialist perspective, but America is as far to the right as the scale can handle, to think we can even entertain these ideas in the current environment is futile and stupid.
Honestly, a better idea would be for private companies to pool their resources and fund R&D collectively, by forming an OPEC like group to take on Microsoft, an Open Source Commission of some sort which would be IBM, Novell, Sun, Redhat, Google, and any other company that wants to fund open source, and collectively they can throw 2 billion a year of their own money into the pot to fund it.
On the state level we can also implement the socialist ideas if the individual states would like to pay for it. You could try it in california and massachusettes, start with the most liberal progressive socialist states and don't think about it in texas. Google and other companies can also fund college scholarships and do the summer of code things in a more collective international fashion. Governments could give tax deductions for companies which use and support open source software also.
99% of people who graduate from the university of utah do not start fortune 500 companies. In fact most businesses fail. You won the business lottery, and thats about it. If you went to an ivy league school you'd have a better chance at winning because the lottery would be rigged in your favor.
It's not difficult to figure out why its a good idea to go to ivy league schools.
You have almost 0% chance of a fair competition with a better educated cheaper Indian or Chinese worker. Look if I were your employer, and I could hire 5 better workers for the price of one of you, and these workers would be more loyal than you and work harder, why the hell would I ever hire you?
I'm not trying to insult you, you could be a great worker, but no matter how hard you work, all that matters is where your degree comes from. Just because you are friends with the boss right now does not mean your boss will always be this friendly, and trust me not all of us can work for Google. The majority of us work for small businesses with tight budgets.
Basically you won't meet the kinds of people who start million dollar corporations and who can give you a job paying $100,000 a year at a community college. You certainly cannot work your way up to $100,000 a year because people who join the right fraturnities get first pick of all the jobs. If you want to have a good job, meaning a job which pays at least $100,000 a year, then you have to go to an ivy league school or at least a very elite good school and know the right people.
It is impossible to get a job which pays $100,000 a year if you arent ivy league or born into it. Perhaps with a Phd you can, but you'll have a shit job at Walmart with your bachelors degree.
But if you don't interact with professors not only will you not have to worry about grad school, how are you going to network for a job once you go to business school or law school?
Imagine getting a business or law degree online and trying to become a judge or work for a fortune 500 company.
thats when online courses will matter. Unless you have a degree from an elite ivy league school, you arent going to have a good job in technology unless you have a masters degree or Phd, and your online degree will be garbage when compared to a Phd from India or China.
Get your ass in school and get your Phd or be jobless.
Let's have a plan. What is the plan? Give all our money to China? Why? Oh I know! The national debt!
Look, if we have to pay China back this way to make up for our debts to China, then fine, we should at least admit that we are paying what we owe. Otherwise we make our workers into suckers and our investors get to lose their money.
Shouldnt we be microfinancing in Africa about now?
As much as I support investment, why should we put all our eggs into the Chinese basket? Yes Linux should be spread to the third world, and yes there will be new markets in the third world 40-50 years from now, but why is China the central focus?
We should be spreading linux everywhere and investing everywhere we can, basically if a country is not at war and has a growing economy we should invest. Microfinancing would allow average citizens to invest in the third world and profit in the same way that billionaires are investing in China.
Show me a mutual fund which we workers can use to microfinance the third world. Use this chance to give us an education on microfinancing, because China for most of us is just too risky of an environment to invest, and too competitive. Linux is one thing because its easy to spread linux, but to invest and get your money back in a market like China's, you are going to have some problems.
We need a plan. First, we need a free workforce. Our workers need to be free to work anywhere in the world, whereever there are job, and this means China needs to open its borders and we need to open up the immigration process.
The problem with things as they are now, China is going to kick all ass and look, if you hate America just come out and admit it, because China kicking ass is BAD for America and American workers UNLESS we allow our workers to globalize along with the economy.
Finally we need a goal, if we are going to boost up China's economy so we can profit, fine, lets do it but lets also profit from it because right now China is keeping all the profits in China and making us buy stuff from them. It looks like we are being suckered into just giving them all our wealth.
Finally, if we are going to build up China, what about the rest of the third world? Shouldnt we learn from our mistakes with China? What is the plan to globalize the world and what are the goals? This has to be more than just about profit.
America is successful because it accepted all of the best people in the world. China is not welcoming immigration, in fact China is xenophobic about foreigners at this time. China may accept you in, but doing business in China is like going to war on their turf.
So when the Chinese economy is built, will China accept American workers in the same way America accepted Chinese workers? If China is about to become the new America isnt it time that we think about moving there?
What about workers? Will workers have the ability to move back and forth? Will telecommuting make it so that workers all over the world can keep or find a job?
The idea of having an expanded workforce is good, but we need to find ways to efficiently put these workers and markets to use. We need to be profiting for a reason other than for profits sake, what are our goals?
Slashdot Mirror
This isnt China. We shouldnt filter the internet.
I've never heard of the state paying off college loans. Please direct me ot this free state paid college system so I can get a free degree!
If the state pays, the state benefits, the state would not pay for college unless the state needs to hire a new set of lawyers, doctors, technicians, and scientists. If anyone should pay for education it should be the state, education is a matter of national security, and if we can pay for police to protect us physically, and pay for a big military to protect us physically, shouldnt we protect our jobs and our economy?
Even if we decide that economic security is a bad idea, its not like we have universal college education right now, and even if we did, you'd have more talented individuals if you let them figure out how to use the technology to be productive than to limit technology while the rest of the world uses it.
It's not the teachers job to force students to learn, or limit the ability of students who use the technology to learn faster. When you get rid of the internet, students who use the internet to actually research what you are talking about suffer, you end up hurting the students who are bright enough to use the technology properly. You also hurt the technology industry, as sales of laptops and wifi equipment will go down if you attack the main users and buyers of it. It is always wrong to punish the minority due to the stupidity of the majority. This means if the majority is ruining your class by not studying, give them F's, but don't hold others back with your solutions.
I think access to information and communications should be increased on campus as much as possible so students who actually know how to use the technology can use it. If a student wants to play games and goof off in class, theres a grading system to handle those students.
Just because some people use the internet to look at stupid stuff, shouldnt mean you should eliminate the nternet for people who actually use it to research stuff for the class or for other classes.
I think removing wifi is as stupid as removing the library to prevent people from stealing books. If a student is too stupid to use their tools to succeed then they shouldnt be in college to anyway. Wifi is just a tool, just like a notebook, a library, or a teacher giving a lecture, all tools to help you get a degree.
(I know teachers are persons but their role is to help you get your degree)
Removing a tool makes it harder to get a degree. Just like removing the internet makes us dumber, removing books makes is less educated, removing wifi also is stupid. If people surf less they'll just find something else to do other than study.
Where do you think they get the money to fund the military in the first place?
This looks like private corporations claiming the moon, but thats not abnormal, I just hope this moon stuff doesnt start some kinda cold war.
I think we need to also focus on helping those who are weaker or poorer among us. I support any idea which through the private sector can help the third world. I support microfinance, microcredit, and economic development for the third world. I'm for fair trade, but once again, even if I'm for all helping build up third world economies, the reason I'm for it is because it makes the world better, and because it helps the economy. It's all about how we go about doing it, you sure as hell wont get anywhere with charity, unions, or old communist/socialist ideas. The socialist era is dead for good, if you want to help the world then support global fair trade, buy your tea from the third world, go petition and demand that starbucks sell fair trade tea, and form a lobbying commitee to convince congress to support fair trade. How do you think China has so much power? they lobby politicians so that politicians support China's development, and if you want to solve the problem of AIDs in Africa, you have to solve the problem of poverty by actually removing sanctions, debt, and barriers which prevent Africa from joining the WTO. There is really no excuse why Africa cannot joint he WTO if China can join it.
Finally, if you believe in all the stuff you are saying, theres the koyoto protocol, theres carbon credits, there are many ways to make it profitable to protect and improve life instead of destroy and reduce quality of life. If you want to play economist, focus on improving quality of life. If you want to have an economy which works at its best, the way to have the best working economy is to have the economy which produces the highest quality of life. If by going to work my life got better and better, and I could buy better and better things, or if computers made it so my work became easier and easier to the point where I could put on some sunglasses with a computer inside and do my work while I shop and eat dinner at a resturant, then we are getting somewhere. Africa can support a lot of industries, the clothing industries, the music industry, the arts, and a lot of other stuff which would improve quality of life. Some of our toys could come from African companies, and if we could get a good movie industry or film industry from Africa, and a strong music and other cultural industries, it would be great for the global economy.
We see how China allows us to have all this cheap stuff from Walmart, African goods would be even cheaper, and we'd all win. So yes I think we should give every living person a job if they want one, and I see no reason for people to be starving and dying of preventable diseases when they can be hired or start businesses of their own from which we can own stock in and get rich off of.
It's just a matter of getting from point A to point B. Right now the focus is on China, but eventually China will become a superpower which threatens the US and Europe, and when China becomes too strong this only leaves India and Africa, perhaps and perhaps South America. Ideally we'd want to get South America but politically its impossible. So yes, I do think we need to focus the economy on sustainable growth.
Most of the money is funded into companies which lose money, or into wars, or taxes, or just other bankers, stock brokers and rich people. So yes the money does constantly change hands among the rich.
We need an open source software stock market. If you have software like mozilla or open office, which is either profitable or valueable, we should be able to buy stock, bonds or shares, and gain votes as a result. Transgaming had a good model, but we need to create a market and make it profitable to own shares.
If I could buy stock in open office I would.
I think we should be hiring economists to figure out how to make open source profitable, but using the private sector is just politically impossible. It's difficult enough to get people to accept open source as a model, the last thing you need to do is link it directly to communism or socialism.
Instead we should make open source as profitable as possible for the private sector, forget the public sector. Also how the hell is it good for an economy to save 200 billion in consumer spending? what the hell is this economist on crack? I completely understand what hes saying from a socialist perspective, but America is as far to the right as the scale can handle, to think we can even entertain these ideas in the current environment is futile and stupid.
Honestly, a better idea would be for private companies to pool their resources and fund R&D collectively, by forming an OPEC like group to take on Microsoft, an Open Source Commission of some sort which would be IBM, Novell, Sun, Redhat, Google, and any other company that wants to fund open source, and collectively they can throw 2 billion a year of their own money into the pot to fund it.
On the state level we can also implement the socialist ideas if the individual states would like to pay for it. You could try it in california and massachusettes, start with the most liberal progressive socialist states and don't think about it in texas. Google and other companies can also fund college scholarships and do the summer of code things in a more collective international fashion. Governments could give tax deductions for companies which use and support open source software also.
How do you compete with a more qualified cheaper worker?
99% of people who graduate from the university of utah do not start fortune 500 companies. In fact most businesses fail. You won the business lottery, and thats about it. If you went to an ivy league school you'd have a better chance at winning because the lottery would be rigged in your favor.
It's not difficult to figure out why its a good idea to go to ivy league schools.
You have almost 0% chance of a fair competition with a better educated cheaper Indian or Chinese worker. Look if I were your employer, and I could hire 5 better workers for the price of one of you, and these workers would be more loyal than you and work harder, why the hell would I ever hire you?
I'm not trying to insult you, you could be a great worker, but no matter how hard you work, all that matters is where your degree comes from. Just because you are friends with the boss right now does not mean your boss will always be this friendly, and trust me not all of us can work for Google. The majority of us work for small businesses with tight budgets.
Basically you won't meet the kinds of people who start million dollar corporations and who can give you a job paying $100,000 a year at a community college. You certainly cannot work your way up to $100,000 a year because people who join the right fraturnities get first pick of all the jobs. If you want to have a good job, meaning a job which pays at least $100,000 a year, then you have to go to an ivy league school or at least a very elite good school and know the right people.
It is impossible to get a job which pays $100,000 a year if you arent ivy league or born into it. Perhaps with a Phd you can, but you'll have a shit job at Walmart with your bachelors degree.
But if you don't interact with professors not only will you not have to worry about grad school, how are you going to network for a job once you go to business school or law school?
Imagine getting a business or law degree online and trying to become a judge or work for a fortune 500 company.
A completely online degree will not work for physics. However for computer science you don't need to go to class.
I think it depends on the degree, but in general, when you want to get your REAL degree from graduate school you definately wont want to do it online.
thats when online courses will matter. Unless you have a degree from an elite ivy league school, you arent going to have a good job in technology unless you have a masters degree or Phd, and your online degree will be garbage when compared to a Phd from India or China.
Get your ass in school and get your Phd or be jobless.
Which company? are they on nasdeq?
Remote control allows for more efficiently slavery.
Yeah and what about our people?
Let's have a plan. What is the plan? Give all our money to China? Why? Oh I know!
The national debt!
Look, if we have to pay China back this way to make up for our debts to China, then fine, we should at least admit that we are paying what we owe. Otherwise we make our workers into suckers and our investors get to lose their money.
Shouldnt we be microfinancing in Africa about now?
As much as I support investment, why should we put all our eggs into the Chinese basket? Yes Linux should be spread to the third world, and yes there will be new markets in the third world 40-50 years from now, but why is China the central focus?
We should be spreading linux everywhere and investing everywhere we can, basically if a country is not at war and has a growing economy we should invest. Microfinancing would allow average citizens to invest in the third world and profit in the same way that billionaires are investing in China.
Show me a mutual fund which we workers can use to microfinance the third world. Use this chance to give us an education on microfinancing, because China for most of us is just too risky of an environment to invest, and too competitive.
Linux is one thing because its easy to spread linux, but to invest and get your money back in a market like China's, you are going to have some problems.
We need a plan. First, we need a free workforce. Our workers need to be free to work anywhere in the world, whereever there are job, and this means China needs to open its borders and we need to open up the immigration process.
The problem with things as they are now, China is going to kick all ass and look, if you hate America just come out and admit it, because China kicking ass is BAD for America and American workers UNLESS we allow our workers to globalize along with the economy.
Finally we need a goal, if we are going to boost up China's economy so we can profit, fine, lets do it but lets also profit from it because right now China is keeping all the profits in China and making us buy stuff from them. It looks like we are being suckered into just giving them all our wealth.
Finally, if we are going to build up China, what about the rest of the third world? Shouldnt we learn from our mistakes with China? What is the plan to globalize the world and what are the goals? This has to be more than just about profit.
America is successful because it accepted all of the best people in the world. China is not welcoming immigration, in fact China is xenophobic about foreigners at this time. China may accept you in, but doing business in China is like going to war on their turf.
So when the Chinese economy is built, will China accept American workers in the same way America accepted Chinese workers? If China is about to become the new America isnt it time that we think about moving there?
What about workers? Will workers have the ability to move back and forth? Will telecommuting make it so that workers all over the world can keep or find a job?
The idea of having an expanded workforce is good, but we need to find ways to efficiently put these workers and markets to use. We need to be profiting for a reason other than for profits sake, what are our goals?