The problem as I see it is that you and I will not live long enough to examine ALL of the evidence. Maybe all the evidence will NEVER come to light.
Scientists are doing the best they can with the evidence they have.
Sorry, MOST scientists are doing the best they can with what they have. Some seem to be saying that they have Arrived at some point where they Really Understand the Truth, when what they have done is understand the evidence they have, pending new discoveries. I suppose you might be able to say that a scientist who makes unwarranted claims is not much of a scientist.
Likewise, the IDers are often presenting as Truth what their pastor has told them the Bible means. Now if their pastor is an actual prophet, that would be one thing. Very few people really believe their pastor is a prophet. Slightly more believe in the existence of modern prophets at all. Of those who claim to be prophets, they don't seem to come out and tell the whole world about evolution or How God Did It.
To summarize: there is very little reason to argue about this.
One important point I liked about your post: the model assumes total information, while reality doesn't supply total information. In other words, we don't always have all the facts.
I think there's a problem here though, that runs deeper than just economics: when governments impose controls on us, they also suffer from the same lack of information that we do. So if they foist their controls on us, and the controls are based (as they often are) on faulty information or irrational goals, the citizens bear the brunt. It's like the citizens no longer get the responsibility of making the decisions, but they still reap the consequences of bad ones.
That's why I guess I would prefer to live without controls: let me bear the responsibility.
Disclaimer: I don't support the abolition of government. I just want it to start backing off. Way off. I believe that a balance can be struck somewhere.
The difference here is that Johnny Tremain was used to illustrate historical facts, not establish them.
I don't know if The Jungle is total fiction or not, but it sounds like the burden of proof is on those who support it as fact. I, personally, would like to hear real evidence from either side on this one.
I really like your post, but I disagree with it, and I'm going to try to explain why.
I think that the consumer holds all the power. I think that if we arrive at a situation in which it appears that the producer or seller (ITMS in this case) holds all the cards, it's really an illusion. WE, the CONSUMERS are holding all the cards. If Apple holds all the cards it's because we have allowed them to convince us that we NEED this product. We don't. We walk away with money in our pocket and Apple loses a sale. A long-term sale, because I don't know anyone who only buys one song from ITMS. If no one offers a contract that suits me, then no one gets my business, and I save money. I can always buy the dadgum CD and rip it to my old Clie.
One of the examples of this that shows up regularly on slashdot is the example of leaving Windows. Windows is famous for having the most draconian EULA and being generally devious jerks, but they have us, because it's HARD to switch from Windows. I just tried to install Ubuntu and SuSE on my lappy, and I thought I knew a lot about computers. I have installed Linux like a finity times, and tried about a finity different distros. It was still hard for me. Sound didn't work, then wifi didn't work, then I had to flash the BIOS, and it was a pain. Then Gaim didn't work, then I had to disable IPv6. It was hard. So that's how Windows gets us: we're wusses. That's not Windows' fault, it's our fault. You see it's the illusion that we're trapped in Windows, but it isn't Windows that traps us, it's us that traps ourselves.
The fact that Windows has to resort to such devious methods to keep us trapped is evidence that it's us who holds the power to leave them and never come back.
Now my arguments sound good to me, but I feel I have missed something. If you know what it is I've missed, let me know.
I think there can be a balance struck here, to "take care of our own."
The thing is, though, that people who oppose free trade to "take care of the disadvantaged" are full of it, because the jobs are usually going to help someone who doesn't even have an extra pair of shoes.
I used to hate Macs. Then I saw OSX. I tried and tried to hate it but couldn't. I thought it was the best OS I had ever seen, if a little slow. Then I suddenly got the chance to try it on a modern computer, and I thought, WOW! If I could get all my productivity software on this, I would never go back to Windows. (I run OSX on my ASUS laptop and can't get 3D to work on the NVidia card. Wireless also doesn't work).
Now, the rest of the story: My company (a school district) is making the switch from Apples to Dells. We talked to them about it (we have been an Apple school since the building was constructed) and they talked to us about service. Apparently, when you have to repair an Apple it is like dealing with a Vogon. They say you usually have to repair less often, but when you do it is a major headache. The certification is more expensive, the warranty is garbage, the job is more difficult. Plus, we got a couple of bad batches of Macs in, and Apple was convinced that it was some kind of user error that happened to 50 or more Macs all in the same way at roughly the same time (this has happened at my school, but in a way less annoying way). So we are switching to Dells.
I get to keep my 5-year-old iMac, but I am retiring it to a life as a student typing station. I'm gonna miss working on good ole OSX. Especially now that I had finally gotten a copy of Tiger.
*sigh*
P.S.: Their commercials always make me want to barf. Especially this last crop of ads. Holy Monkey, what garbage!
As far as I can tell, I'm the first to do the car metaphor on this one!
So I drive an old 1990 Buick LeSabre. I'll never get rid of it, EVER (until it dies), because I like the way it drives! It has power, and still manages to get 29 on the freeway (I have to drive a little under the limit to achieve this). I like the comfy, plush seating, the dashboard layout, the legroom, the elbowroom, the headroom. The only car I've ever driven that was more comfy was my 85 Buick Electra. I even like the body style. And there's something special about being the one with the highest mileage in the parking lot at work.
The paint is totally coming off on the leading edge of the hood, and right above the windshield. I love the car still. If I had 2 million dollars, I'd still drive that Buick.
Let me also be the first to rip on the bad car analogy!
If my laptop casing was in as bad of shape as my car's paint job, I would be ticked. I would be doing what I could to fix it. Especially if it were made by some company known for having classy-looking products.
On a more serious note, I'll be VERY surprised if Apple doesn't fix this. I still think the classy look is their #1 signature symbol.
Sorry if I insinuated that you were lying. I wasn't really interested if you were lying or not, just trying to cover all my bases and not start an argument with either side. I wasn't trying to evaluate your posts for truth or facts, just how much you were bashing America. Some of what you posted was legitimate criticism, but I felt that by far the majority of your 'critical' posts were severly tainted by a lot of language that was, well, non-objective to say the least. Again, sorry if that sounded like I was accusing you of lying. I really wasn't trying to do that.
As for critical thought, I was actually attempting a critical thinking exercise. I read your posts (I noticed there were several of them in the same thread) and this was the only one that really jumped out at me. So I read your little blurb that made it sound like you were an equal-opportunity-basher. I thought to myself, "I'll bet this guy has no posts bashing any country but the USA." I figured if you commented on a nation's (or a leader's) faults based only on the existence of those faults, then there would be mention of at least one of the many out there that are worse than the USA or President Bush. As far as I could tell, you were America-bashing.
As for the rest, I hardly know what to say. I was not trying to defend Bush, or the war in Iraq, or Afganistan, or anything of the kind. I was trying to point out what I thought was intellectual dishonesty. Your claims that each post was on-topic or a joke doesn't help, because it would not be difficult to find statements to make in any of those threads that bashed the injustices brought about by the corrupt governments of North Korea, China, or even Mexico (corrupt, yes; evil, I don't know). If you were not, as you say, seeking out America, I would have expected at least one post to mention the evils of another country. Any other country. There was no such post. The joke may have been excusable, of course, but it did serve as a further example so I counted it, though Castro, might have fit nicely in there.
So I stand by it: you're picking on the USA and President Bush. Please don't pretend you aren't. I think you would be better off to explain why you are picking on them, or why they might be deserving of it.
For The Record:
Though I truly love the USA, I am not completely blind to its faults.
The disapproval for some of the actions of the US government has nothing to do with the fact that they're American, but everything with the nature of the actions themselves.
I don't care who is imprisoning people indefinitely without a trial, it's the act itself which is horrible. If members of my family were involved in committing such acts, I would be just as appalled.
But I don't think you mean it. I hear (and read) people say things like this, but then I listen to conversations over time and it doesn't seem to hold true.
I read the last 24 posts you made on slashdot (from the time I hit the link to your name, of course; you may have made more since then), and of them, 14 were openly America-bashing. 1 more was critical (I didn't count it, because it was done in neutral, objective language). Interestingly, in this comment, you await evidence of the French troops firing into a crowd. From the tone of your other posts, I doubt if you would grant US soldiers the same grace.
The world is a nasty place. There are many countries with leaders so mindbogglingly nasty and unbelievable corrupt that thousands risk their lives to leave on a regular basis. So why, despite your claim that your disgust has nothing to do with America, but with the crimes she perpetrates, do you comment exclusively on the crimes perpetrated by America, when you comment on crimes at all?
Don't say it's because it's only when it's on-topic, either. Your history suggests that you will seek out opportunities to sneak in comments about Bush or US foreign policy whenever a remote chance presents itself.
So let's hear a little about how bad Castro is, or what's going on in Tibet, or whoever the smegger is who's running that pit of despair in Africa (there are so many), or whatever there is bad that is going on in your country, or the systematic dismantlement of personal human responsibility in the European Union, or the....
The list goes on. Worldwide. I don't care much if you speak truth about America. Even if you lie, sometimes that can be enlightening. But don't insult us by pretending not to be caught up in anti-American sentiment, especially when the evidence so handy.
That assumes that the only requirements for graduation are core requirements. Might there not be others? How many of us actually sat down and looked at exactly what it is we need to graduate? Perhaps my school counselor only talked to us about the core requirements because most people have no problem with the non-core requirements.
Prospective employers don't have the right (as far as I know) to...
What do you mean "do not have the right?" It is you who doesn't have the right to hide what's in plain sight. If you have posted information for the whole world to see, how can you reasonably expect the whole world to look at it? And why is it that the prospective employee should be able to completely control where the prospective employer gets his information?
There are some concerns about whether or not the future boss is looking at your info or someone else's, but I am trying to figure out how valid they are. Is the danger of having some other guy's face drinking vodka with a minor mistaken for your face that dangerous?
I suppose that if you are trying to be hired by Apple and your name happens to be the same as someone who runs a pro-MS blog or something like that, this could be a problem, or maybe if you share a name with the founder of NAMBLA. But the clever job hunter will forsee such problems and provide his prospective employer with a link to his real webpage.
There are real problems here, I know, but we live in this high-tech world and there's no use pretending we don't.
Those are a couple of solid points, but I think the example of Sherman burning Atlanta still holds. You wage a cruel war to end it as rapidly as possible.
I'll have to think about the unrestrained force in Iraq part.
WW2 had some pretty lopsided casualties. Japan, for example, lost more civilians in one night of fire-bombing than the US lost combatants during the entire war. Yet there was no Japanese retaliation. They surrendered, were invaded and occupied, and are now a bastion of civilization and democracy. I've never heard of any Japanese terrorists, though I'm sure there were acts of violence against American occupation troops.
Time was when the USA didn't mess around. Is this why we're still in Iraq? Is it because we didn't send in enough soldiers? Is it because we pussyfoot around mosques? "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it." Gen. Sherman acted on that, and he got a surrender out of it. Truman acted on it and got a surrender. Truman failed to act on it in Korea, and now we have North Korea. Is Bush failing to act on it now?
*I am not trying to debate the justice of a war in Iraq.
First of all, the term 'Bad Guys' has been around for a long time, hasn't it?
"Hey, you're a bad person. So we're going to give you all these labels. And lock you away; you don't deserve to be free. And take away many of your rights; you don't deserve to have them.
Do you believe that we should always give all of the same rights to everyone? If a man has molested children, should he have the right to be employed as a schoolteacher? If a man has a history of drunk driving should he have the right to drive a car?
Don't you think that there are people in the world who don't deserve freedom? Those who have not earned it?
That said, I like your thoughts on how our words can convey our hidden thoughts or desires.
And is war really the worst thing out there? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Do we still believe this or not? The sad, tragic truth is that there will always be people who are willing to throw others' lives away, and sometimes the only way to stop such people is to wage war.
Now that I think about it, perhaps there is a way to make a disincentive to war. Perhaps the only way to end a war without annihilating the enemy is to make it so hard on them that they clearly see that they face annihilation (see bombing raids over Japan (especially atomic), General Sherman's march across Georgia, etc.).
Is it possible that the only reason we are still fighting in Iraq is because we are unwilling to take the steps necessary to truly end it? That's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know what people think, because I don't know.
When I first read the original post, I thought the same thing: families trying to save a buck by the overseas brother calling his grandma, or a businessman calling the office and the secretary spreading the word. However, this is only an argument about the way the data is interpreted, not about the way the data is collected. If this data mining is a good or bad thing is dependent on other stuff.
"If you have any interest in improving education in America, the first thing to do is to get your kid(s) out of the clutches of the "public" schools. Then get a book that will teach them to read easily at an "accelerated" rate: http://www.righttrackreading.com/"
I have to respectfully disagree, at least in part. If you have any interest in improving education in America, the first thing to do is to take an active interest in your child's education. This means it starts at home, as soon as possible. This means reading every day (every single day, no matter what) with your child as soon as possible. This means helping them solve their own number problems. Taking them out of public schools may be a step, but not the first step.
My opinions on public schools: they are there, use them, but don't rely on them. It has been my experience that the children who excel in the public schools are the students whose parents teach them at home (the public schools are like a supplement for these kids). I am all for backing off public education (getting away from federal control, toward district control, and so forth), but I am not ready to say it's time to get rid of it altogether.
"Fiat currency creates inflation, which is used to transfer wealth from the lower class and middle class to the elite in control of the money market."
I read somewhere that the purpose of inflation is to slowly-but-surely move us all in to higher tax brackets, thus taking a higher percentage of our income without tax increases (or rather on top of tax increases).
I used to watch Fox news, and I still check out O'Reilly's columns every once in a while. I think the idea that these guys are easy on Bush is unfounded. For example, O'Reilly is always hard on Bush's immigration policies (I don't know what they think about this latest thing).
Anyway, I find that Fox is no worse than the other main media outlets, but I haven't watched them in like about a year.
Here's an interesting anecdote about Fox News. I was watching Free Speech TV about a month ago, and they were interviewing the guy who made Loose Change. They asked him about his experiences getting the word out about his project, and he mentioned how he had been interviewed on Fox. The interviewer sniggered and asked how that went. The man said, "Actually, they were fair and balanced. They heard what I had to say, they put up my website, and told everyone to check it out."
I thought that was interesting because I constantly hear how Fox is so full of knotheads, and how they *claim* to be fair and balanced, but the one dude who should be laughed off the stage at Fox comes out saying it's fair and balanced.
Makes it sound like this 'Fox is bad' garbage is Truth By Repeated Assertion.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists are doing the best they can with the evidence they have.
Sorry, MOST scientists are doing the best they can with what they have. Some seem to be saying that they have Arrived at some point where they Really Understand the Truth, when what they have done is understand the evidence they have, pending new discoveries. I suppose you might be able to say that a scientist who makes unwarranted claims is not much of a scientist.
Likewise, the IDers are often presenting as Truth what their pastor has told them the Bible means. Now if their pastor is an actual prophet, that would be one thing. Very few people really believe their pastor is a prophet. Slightly more believe in the existence of modern prophets at all. Of those who claim to be prophets, they don't seem to come out and tell the whole world about evolution or How God Did It.
To summarize: there is very little reason to argue about this.
The problem here is that they had to pay the guy 65 million quetzales, which comes to like 2 bucks American.
That's creepy. How'd you get my photo?
I think there's a problem here though, that runs deeper than just economics: when governments impose controls on us, they also suffer from the same lack of information that we do. So if they foist their controls on us, and the controls are based (as they often are) on faulty information or irrational goals, the citizens bear the brunt. It's like the citizens no longer get the responsibility of making the decisions, but they still reap the consequences of bad ones.
That's why I guess I would prefer to live without controls: let me bear the responsibility.
Disclaimer: I don't support the abolition of government. I just want it to start backing off. Way off. I believe that a balance can be struck somewhere.
I don't know if The Jungle is total fiction or not, but it sounds like the burden of proof is on those who support it as fact. I, personally, would like to hear real evidence from either side on this one.
I think that the consumer holds all the power. I think that if we arrive at a situation in which it appears that the producer or seller (ITMS in this case) holds all the cards, it's really an illusion. WE, the CONSUMERS are holding all the cards. If Apple holds all the cards it's because we have allowed them to convince us that we NEED this product. We don't. We walk away with money in our pocket and Apple loses a sale. A long-term sale, because I don't know anyone who only buys one song from ITMS. If no one offers a contract that suits me, then no one gets my business, and I save money. I can always buy the dadgum CD and rip it to my old Clie.
One of the examples of this that shows up regularly on slashdot is the example of leaving Windows. Windows is famous for having the most draconian EULA and being generally devious jerks, but they have us, because it's HARD to switch from Windows. I just tried to install Ubuntu and SuSE on my lappy, and I thought I knew a lot about computers. I have installed Linux like a finity times, and tried about a finity different distros. It was still hard for me. Sound didn't work, then wifi didn't work, then I had to flash the BIOS, and it was a pain. Then Gaim didn't work, then I had to disable IPv6. It was hard. So that's how Windows gets us: we're wusses. That's not Windows' fault, it's our fault. You see it's the illusion that we're trapped in Windows, but it isn't Windows that traps us, it's us that traps ourselves.
The fact that Windows has to resort to such devious methods to keep us trapped is evidence that it's us who holds the power to leave them and never come back.
Now my arguments sound good to me, but I feel I have missed something. If you know what it is I've missed, let me know.
The thing is, though, that people who oppose free trade to "take care of the disadvantaged" are full of it, because the jobs are usually going to help someone who doesn't even have an extra pair of shoes.
Now, the rest of the story: My company (a school district) is making the switch from Apples to Dells. We talked to them about it (we have been an Apple school since the building was constructed) and they talked to us about service. Apparently, when you have to repair an Apple it is like dealing with a Vogon. They say you usually have to repair less often, but when you do it is a major headache. The certification is more expensive, the warranty is garbage, the job is more difficult. Plus, we got a couple of bad batches of Macs in, and Apple was convinced that it was some kind of user error that happened to 50 or more Macs all in the same way at roughly the same time (this has happened at my school, but in a way less annoying way). So we are switching to Dells.
I get to keep my 5-year-old iMac, but I am retiring it to a life as a student typing station. I'm gonna miss working on good ole OSX. Especially now that I had finally gotten a copy of Tiger.
*sigh*
P.S.: Their commercials always make me want to barf. Especially this last crop of ads. Holy Monkey, what garbage!
So I drive an old 1990 Buick LeSabre. I'll never get rid of it, EVER (until it dies), because I like the way it drives! It has power, and still manages to get 29 on the freeway (I have to drive a little under the limit to achieve this). I like the comfy, plush seating, the dashboard layout, the legroom, the elbowroom, the headroom. The only car I've ever driven that was more comfy was my 85 Buick Electra. I even like the body style. And there's something special about being the one with the highest mileage in the parking lot at work.
The paint is totally coming off on the leading edge of the hood, and right above the windshield. I love the car still. If I had 2 million dollars, I'd still drive that Buick.
Let me also be the first to rip on the bad car analogy!
If my laptop casing was in as bad of shape as my car's paint job, I would be ticked. I would be doing what I could to fix it. Especially if it were made by some company known for having classy-looking products.
On a more serious note, I'll be VERY surprised if Apple doesn't fix this. I still think the classy look is their #1 signature symbol.
As for critical thought, I was actually attempting a critical thinking exercise. I read your posts (I noticed there were several of them in the same thread) and this was the only one that really jumped out at me. So I read your little blurb that made it sound like you were an equal-opportunity-basher. I thought to myself, "I'll bet this guy has no posts bashing any country but the USA." I figured if you commented on a nation's (or a leader's) faults based only on the existence of those faults, then there would be mention of at least one of the many out there that are worse than the USA or President Bush. As far as I could tell, you were America-bashing.
As for the rest, I hardly know what to say. I was not trying to defend Bush, or the war in Iraq, or Afganistan, or anything of the kind. I was trying to point out what I thought was intellectual dishonesty. Your claims that each post was on-topic or a joke doesn't help, because it would not be difficult to find statements to make in any of those threads that bashed the injustices brought about by the corrupt governments of North Korea, China, or even Mexico (corrupt, yes; evil, I don't know). If you were not, as you say, seeking out America, I would have expected at least one post to mention the evils of another country. Any other country. There was no such post. The joke may have been excusable, of course, but it did serve as a further example so I counted it, though Castro, might have fit nicely in there.
So I stand by it: you're picking on the USA and President Bush. Please don't pretend you aren't. I think you would be better off to explain why you are picking on them, or why they might be deserving of it.
For The Record:
Though I truly love the USA, I am not completely blind to its faults.
But I don't think you mean it. I hear (and read) people say things like this, but then I listen to conversations over time and it doesn't seem to hold true.
I read the last 24 posts you made on slashdot (from the time I hit the link to your name, of course; you may have made more since then), and of them, 14 were openly America-bashing. 1 more was critical (I didn't count it, because it was done in neutral, objective language). Interestingly, in this comment, you await evidence of the French troops firing into a crowd. From the tone of your other posts, I doubt if you would grant US soldiers the same grace.
The world is a nasty place. There are many countries with leaders so mindbogglingly nasty and unbelievable corrupt that thousands risk their lives to leave on a regular basis. So why, despite your claim that your disgust has nothing to do with America, but with the crimes she perpetrates, do you comment exclusively on the crimes perpetrated by America, when you comment on crimes at all?
Don't say it's because it's only when it's on-topic, either. Your history suggests that you will seek out opportunities to sneak in comments about Bush or US foreign policy whenever a remote chance presents itself.
So let's hear a little about how bad Castro is, or what's going on in Tibet, or whoever the smegger is who's running that pit of despair in Africa (there are so many), or whatever there is bad that is going on in your country, or the systematic dismantlement of personal human responsibility in the European Union, or the....
The list goes on. Worldwide. I don't care much if you speak truth about America. Even if you lie, sometimes that can be enlightening. But don't insult us by pretending not to be caught up in anti-American sentiment, especially when the evidence so handy.
I saw protections of race, gender, color, etc., and also pregnancy. Could you point me in the right direction?
That assumes that the only requirements for graduation are core requirements. Might there not be others? How many of us actually sat down and looked at exactly what it is we need to graduate? Perhaps my school counselor only talked to us about the core requirements because most people have no problem with the non-core requirements.
What do you mean "do not have the right?" It is you who doesn't have the right to hide what's in plain sight. If you have posted information for the whole world to see, how can you reasonably expect the whole world to look at it? And why is it that the prospective employee should be able to completely control where the prospective employer gets his information?
There are some concerns about whether or not the future boss is looking at your info or someone else's, but I am trying to figure out how valid they are. Is the danger of having some other guy's face drinking vodka with a minor mistaken for your face that dangerous?
I suppose that if you are trying to be hired by Apple and your name happens to be the same as someone who runs a pro-MS blog or something like that, this could be a problem, or maybe if you share a name with the founder of NAMBLA. But the clever job hunter will forsee such problems and provide his prospective employer with a link to his real webpage.
There are real problems here, I know, but we live in this high-tech world and there's no use pretending we don't.
Seriously, though, to read the article, I had to "Copy Link Location" and paste it into the address bar, and it worked.
Great article, too. I love hearing stuff like this.
I'll have to think about the unrestrained force in Iraq part.
Time was when the USA didn't mess around. Is this why we're still in Iraq? Is it because we didn't send in enough soldiers? Is it because we pussyfoot around mosques? "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it." Gen. Sherman acted on that, and he got a surrender out of it. Truman acted on it and got a surrender. Truman failed to act on it in Korea, and now we have North Korea. Is Bush failing to act on it now?
*I am not trying to debate the justice of a war in Iraq.
"Hey, you're a bad person. So we're going to give you all these labels. And lock you away; you don't deserve to be free. And take away many of your rights; you don't deserve to have them.
Do you believe that we should always give all of the same rights to everyone? If a man has molested children, should he have the right to be employed as a schoolteacher? If a man has a history of drunk driving should he have the right to drive a car?
Don't you think that there are people in the world who don't deserve freedom? Those who have not earned it?
That said, I like your thoughts on how our words can convey our hidden thoughts or desires.
And is war really the worst thing out there? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Do we still believe this or not? The sad, tragic truth is that there will always be people who are willing to throw others' lives away, and sometimes the only way to stop such people is to wage war.
Now that I think about it, perhaps there is a way to make a disincentive to war. Perhaps the only way to end a war without annihilating the enemy is to make it so hard on them that they clearly see that they face annihilation (see bombing raids over Japan (especially atomic), General Sherman's march across Georgia, etc.).
Is it possible that the only reason we are still fighting in Iraq is because we are unwilling to take the steps necessary to truly end it? That's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know what people think, because I don't know.
When I first read the original post, I thought the same thing: families trying to save a buck by the overseas brother calling his grandma, or a businessman calling the office and the secretary spreading the word. However, this is only an argument about the way the data is interpreted, not about the way the data is collected. If this data mining is a good or bad thing is dependent on other stuff.
I have to respectfully disagree, at least in part. If you have any interest in improving education in America, the first thing to do is to take an active interest in your child's education. This means it starts at home, as soon as possible. This means reading every day (every single day, no matter what) with your child as soon as possible. This means helping them solve their own number problems. Taking them out of public schools may be a step, but not the first step.
My opinions on public schools: they are there, use them, but don't rely on them. It has been my experience that the children who excel in the public schools are the students whose parents teach them at home (the public schools are like a supplement for these kids). I am all for backing off public education (getting away from federal control, toward district control, and so forth), but I am not ready to say it's time to get rid of it altogether.
I read somewhere that the purpose of inflation is to slowly-but-surely move us all in to higher tax brackets, thus taking a higher percentage of our income without tax increases (or rather on top of tax increases).
My wife has absolutely no appreciation at all for that movie.
Anyway, I find that Fox is no worse than the other main media outlets, but I haven't watched them in like about a year.
I thought that was interesting because I constantly hear how Fox is so full of knotheads, and how they *claim* to be fair and balanced, but the one dude who should be laughed off the stage at Fox comes out saying it's fair and balanced.
Makes it sound like this 'Fox is bad' garbage is Truth By Repeated Assertion.