A netbook, on the other hand, is a complete small computer that can be used for anything that a computer is good for. You can type, you can browse, you can open PDFs (a big deal, actually!) and you can use Web sites that require Flash (there aren't many of those, but they do exist; some use Flash for perfectly good reasons;)
Very many popular Facebook games, for instance, use Flash. Whether or not this is a good reason or not, it something that means lots of people are going to disappointed if they spend twice the cost of a netbook for a mobile device whose big selling point is convenience for browsing the web and they find they can't do one of their main uses of the web on it.
I'm not seeing the iPad displacing the netbook even with.net. The problem isn't that developers can't develop well, the problem is that Apple doesn't let developers do much with iPhone OS.
The real problem, as I see it, has nothing to do with developers. A netbook can be the one and only computer for a user that doesn't need a lot of horsepower, but needs mobility, and a model with 3G support costs less than half as much as an iPad with 3G support (and, if you need 3G support, your going to get a data plan anyway, and a netbook is even cheaper up-front when carrier subsidized with a contract for a data plan.) An iPad, on the other hand, is substantially more expensive and requires the user to have and keep another computer just to run iTunes.
The iPad might succeed, but until it can be a first computer and becomes more price competitive, its not going to displace netbooks. Plus, the lack of an integral keyboard makes it not particularly useful for certain roles for which netbooks are ideal.
Not substantially. Sure, its about 60% of the weight of most 8.9"-11.6" netbooks I've seen -- all of which are around 2.5-2.75 lbs -- but that doesn't make much practical difference. Its esaier to use standing up, but no more so than tablet convertibles (most of which are now also styled as "netbooks") that are available at similar prices to the iPad.
- It lasts longer on a charge.
Apple claims "up to 10 hours" active use, which is about the same as, or a little less than, I've seen claimed by most manufacturers of Atom N450 or N280 netbooks with 6-cell batteries; also, the same that is claimed by the manufacturer for the Atom Z520 powered netbook I'm using right now.
- It gets you to the point (i.e. web browsing) faster than a netbook does.
From standby, my netbook gets to web browsing pretty much instantly. If the iPad behaves like its cousins (e.g., iPhone), its quick to get to an app -- if you haven't actually turned it off. Which is analogous to standby on a netbook. Don't see a big advantage there.
Plus, netbooks -- in addition to being available much cheaper -- don't depend on the user having another computer available. A netbook can be the users only computer, an iPad can't.
How does being able use C# or run windows sessions on the iPad enable it to displace a netbook? About the only place they overlap in functionality that they are both really good for is that they are both good for browsing the web and interacting with web apps that don't require lots of text input.
Beyond that their functionality diverges. The iPad is a slightly better ebook reader, is better for certain types of applications (particularly, though not exclusively, those involving fairly passive media consumption.) A netbook is better for anything that requires lots of text input -- I wouldn't want to take notes in a meeting or class on an iPad, or write a substantial document on one, both things that netbooks are good for. Netboooks are also substantially cheaper -- the least expensive iPad model is at the high end of netbook prices, the 11.6" Atom Z520 powered netbook I got a couple days ago that I'm typing this on was half the price of an iPad. (And it has a SIM card slot and 3G capablity, which I'd have to pay another half the price of the netbook on top of the minimum price of an iPad to get on iPad.) Its also got much more storage than the high-end iPad. And you don't need another whole computer with iTunes just to be able to use it. Its perfectly possible for someone who doesn't have heavy computing needs to have a netbook as their only computer -- an iPad can't fill that role as long as it is dependent on a "real" computer with iTunes.
So what do you do with your cardboard monopoly or chess board when you are half way through a game and the captain says to return to your seats, place the tray tables in the upright locked position and prepare for landing? I guess it's game over.
With an iPad, you could save the game, put it back in your hand luggage, then get it out and resume the game in the taxi to the hotel.
For playing on an airplane, each player having their own netbook connected by cables is more practical for two player games, and price competitive, if you are into pressing expensive hardware into a gaming niche that's already well served by dirt cheap hardware. Plus, dirt cheap electronic travel games are readily available. An iPad doesn't add much new for portable electronic gaming except an awkward size -- inconveniently big for a travel game, small for a non-travel board.
If an iPad falls into your hands, and you are using it anyway, you might as well get some use out of it for gaming, too, but it certainly doesn't seem to me -- as both an avid technophile and an avid player of everything from simple mass-market board games to fairly complex hobbyist board games -- that it offers anything particularly exciting for board gaming.
People keep saying this, but it ain't illegal at all. Show me the law.
Most browser exploits that actually result in the exploiter profiting would fall afoul of various laws regarding fraud in general, many (whether or not they involve money) might also fall under a variety of laws involving unauthorized use or access to computers or information systems. There's no one law that prohibits "exploiting security vulnerabilities in web browsers", per se, but there are lots of laws that can be broken by specific instances of doing that.
Again, you seem to think that the only thing that can be done to address social problems is wait for fixes.
No, actually it was you that suggested social problems should not be fixed with technical means.
Leaving aside any question of the accuracy of your statement, you might note it doesn't contradict the sentence that you place it as a rebuttal to.
active social fixes have occurred many times in human history.
Really? In how many lifetimes?
Many times in every lifetime.
Name one.
Rather than one single one, I'll give you a whole broad class of social solutions to a wide variety of problems: the invention, promotion, and adoption of various social organizations throughout human history, including, but not limited to, every type of family, governmental, and business organization that has ever existed.
Thus, the rugged and long lasting space ships of the 1960s such as the Pioneer which survived decades beyond anyone's expectations gave way to buggy, incomplete efforts such as the Shuttle and some of the planetary probes.
The comparison you make is like comparing the unexpected long-term utility of the Mars rover with the worst elements of the early space program.
When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives, if they had even the slightest affinity for science.
If the governments have the preceding ~3 decades hadn't crushed the dreams and hopes of the next couple generations after yours by knocking the wheels off the expansion of the middle class at the center of the broad post-War prosperity in the US, maybe he wouldn't have needed to.
Bulldozers destroy, temporarily leaving you with nothing.
Irrelevant to the analogy, particularly as bulldozers can be used as transportation without being destructive (otherwise, it would be rather hard to get them in place to destroy things), though they are (and this, again, is pretty central to the analogy) not particularly efficient as transportation if that's all you're using them for.
The point is this: saying something is not good for a specific purpose is different than saying that thing has no utility whatsoever.
Waiting for a social fix is a fool's errand.
Waiting for any kind of fix is generally a fool's errand. Social problems can be actively fixed just as technical problems can, but putting money into technical research doesn't help solve the social problems.
Don't you think, that when waiting for social fixes has failed since the dawn of human civilization
Again, you seem to think that the only thing that can be done to address social problems is wait for fixes. While, sure, waiting for fixes -- social or technical or otherwise -- will always fail (if that's the only thing that's being done; of course, if someone else has more at stake, its sometimes worthwhile to wait on them to provide a fix), active social fixes have occurred many times in human history.
Seriously though, any idea why Chrome is faster on Vista
Because Chrome was first released for Windows and the Windows version is the most mature version?
It wasn't until quite a while after Chrome was released that there was any official Chrome for Linux, and it was fairly recently that that was on anything but the dev channel.
Touch interfaces are nice. And multi touch is nicer.
Touch interfaces are nice for brief and/or simple interactions, sure; for long term use, typing, and lots of other things they are (IME and IMO, of course) much worse than keyboard and mouse, even with an undersized netbook keyboard and trackpad or really-small mouse.
I'd much rather take notes, for instance, on a netbook than a scaled-up iPhone.
It's not about "do more things," it's about "do very few things better."
That's why Apple wins.
eInk-based dedicated ebook readers of similar size do fewer things (a subset of what iPad does)than the iPad, and do them better, at about the same price, so if it was about "doing very few things, better", they would win.
Netbooks both do more things than the iPad, and do most of them better, at a lower price.
Still, would an Android-powered iPad-alike tempt you?
Not really -- at least until someone comes up with a compelling use for that style tablet. An iPad-like tablet (as opposed to the "tablet convertible" models) is a combination of an a computer with a clumsy interface for most computer tasks (e.g., if you actually need to do text entry, the "keyboard" takes up display real estate) with an ebook reader that adds color and support for more interactivity but sacrifices readability compared to dedicated, e-ink based designs.
Tablet convertibles -- running general-purpose environments like Ubuntu or even Windows -- are pretty much superior in every way, and a netbook plus a dedicated ereader isn't much more expensive, and is more useful in many ways.
An Android-powered iPad-alike tablet would be more interesting (if the price and hardware are comparable) than a large-screen iPod Touch, but not enough to provide a compelling reason to buy into that particular form factor.
So, funding the development of the internet, while ignoring the perfectly good post, office was a total bust then???
That doesn't follow. I didn't say funding basic research on radically different technologies for (or as alternatives to) doesn't makes sense, or that it might not have some benefits. I said that it isn't a smart way to address the specific concerns raised, which are mostly solved technical problems where the remaining problems are social, rather than problems requiring radical new technical approaches to solve.
If I say a bulldozer isn't a really good choice for urban commuting, its not the same as saying that bulldozers are useless.
The flip of a coin is considered random, but if you could account for all the variables with enough precision; angle of the coin, angle of the thumb, force of the flip, distance to the floor, etc, you could likely predict each and every toss.
Possibly, but a flip of a coin is considerably above the atomic level; in many cases (the exceptions are, by definition, chaotic systems) randomness at a lower level is "smoothed out" at higher levels. This is why, e.g., its fairly easy to calculate lots of behavior of macroscopic objects under normal conditions even though the individual particles that make up those objects can do all kinds of odd things.
But I am not prepared to believe we can not improve upon what was done 40 years ago given the number of minds and the level of technology we have to apply to the problem today.
We can, quite easily (on the technical front), but it doesn't take any stunning new transformative technology, just the kind of incrementalism that the effort here disdains. Its not like the problems of SPAM and other similar problems haven't already spawned technologies designed from the ground up as complete "super-replacements" (that is, replacements with broader general applicability than the replaced system) that are also designed to avoid the problems with the replaced systems. For email and the problem of SPAM, AMQP (a generalized messaging protocol which subsumes, but goes far beyond, the function of email) is designed from the ground up to avoid the possibility of recipients being spammed.
The problems with replacing existing technologies with more secure ones is more of a social problem than a technical one. Putting money into technical research that specifically requires that it go only into things that are radically different than what exists now -- and thus a bigger social problem to get people to transition to -- don't help at all.
The OP has this backwards. The money microsoft is paying for this service doesn't come from thin air. They get paid for each and every search thanks to advertisements. What the OP really should of said is, "Ubuntu users provide revenue to Microsoft."
That's right, you're now supporting microsoft by choosing to not use windows, or internet explorer.
My most recent Ubuntu install, I used Firefox to download Chrome, and haven't used it much since, and never use the search box in Firefox (I occasionally check out how a page looks in it compared to how it looks in Chrome, so I do occasionally use it.)
So, really, I'm not providing any revenue to Microsoft by using Ubuntu.
Some Ubuntu users probably are, and good for them, and its probably a few more than the ones that would change their default search to Bing if it wasn't the default. Though I suspect not a lot; one of the consequences of Windows near-total dominance is that users of alternative operating systems tend to be more likely to be the kind of people that don't blindly accept defaults -- if they did, they'd probably be using Windows in the first place.
don't even give a shit that they are using Mozilla's work for their own gain, Mozilla is okay with it as well.
My problem is that they are taking out of Mozilla's pocket and putting it into their own.
Google pays Mozilla to have its search as default, that money funds further Mozilla development.
Canonical on the other hand is taking Mozilla's work, and not just profiting from it, but actually lowering the value of Mozilla to Google, lowering the likelyhood that Google will continue to pay for the default search.
To me, this is just flat out stealing from Mozilla.
As you note above, Mozilla is okay with it. This makes it decidedly not like stealing from Mozilla. If I tell you that you can have something of mine, and you take it, that's not stealing.
Now, it may be exploiting Mozilla's failure to consider their own long-term interests (though I'm not as convinced as you are that this is bad for Mozilla in the first place, but lets assume that it is), but it isn't anything like stealing.
In hindsight, I think you'd agree that the whole manned space thing was probably worth it...
Insofar as (along with the constant war footing and military spending of the cold war years) it was part of the successful competition for power and prestige that the USA waged against the Soviet-led Communist bloc that led ultimately to the latter going bankrupt while the former managed to survive only mostly bankrupt, sure.
Spending the same effort on domestic infrastructure and basic scientific research rather than manned space "exploration" (which didn't really involve that much exploration) probably would have provided a long more bang for the buck, in terms of public benefit, if the context wasn't part of the Cold War geopolitical conflict, though.
Since AT&T and now (apparently) Apple seem to be more flexible re: VOIP, do you think Apple will allow a GV app on the iPhone now?
Since Google Voice is not, and never has been, a VoIP service, I can't imagine this would have any effect.
Further, since they now have an HTML5 web-based app that does pretty much everything you'd want out of a Google Voice app, I'm not sure there is much need for such an app.
So you're willing to stipulate to the criticism existing. Your issues are with the positions that it is increasing and that the criticism has any substance?
Because you're not really adding much in the way of rebuttal.
IF I was planning on rebutting the claim rather than requesting substantiation of it, I would have posted a rebuttal in my first response to it rather than posting "[citation needed]".
I think that you misread "[citation needed]" as shorthand for "You are wrong and, on top of that, stupid to make this claim!" rather than something more like "This is an interesting fact claim that is, however, as far as I can tell, unsupported by evidence. If you have some evidence for it, would you kindly provide it?"
If I think you're wrong, I really have no problem saying that.
You're going to take issue with 'an increasing number of nerds'? Really? Why? Do you have anecdotal evidence to the contrary?
If I had evidence to the contrary, I would say the claim was wrong rather than merely unsubstantiated. Evidence of increasing objections (most of the objections to NCLB I've seen have been the same objections, from the same basic groups, since the bill was singed, and largely the same since it was proposed), much less increasing objections from the particular subset of the population suggested, seems to be missing.
Whether nerds or not you do not have to search very hard to find people who do not approve of 'dull slow lowest-common-denominator pop-psychology politically-correct schlock ladled out at public schools'.
Yes, lots of people string together long series of meaningless buzzwords in complaining about things. Lots of people used that particular complaint about public education long before NCLB. The people using it about NCLB seem to me largely to be the largely the same people that were using it about public education before NCLB (other complaints exist of the various public education systems in the US in general and NCLB in particular, some of them that actually include actual meaningful criticism [some of which I agree with, some of which I don't.])
Slashdot Mirror
My iPhone certainly isn't 1.5 times the width of my fingers. Newsflash: humans come in a fairly wide variety of sizes.
Very many popular Facebook games, for instance, use Flash. Whether or not this is a good reason or not, it something that means lots of people are going to disappointed if they spend twice the cost of a netbook for a mobile device whose big selling point is convenience for browsing the web and they find they can't do one of their main uses of the web on it.
The real problem, as I see it, has nothing to do with developers. A netbook can be the one and only computer for a user that doesn't need a lot of horsepower, but needs mobility, and a model with 3G support costs less than half as much as an iPad with 3G support (and, if you need 3G support, your going to get a data plan anyway, and a netbook is even cheaper up-front when carrier subsidized with a contract for a data plan.) An iPad, on the other hand, is substantially more expensive and requires the user to have and keep another computer just to run iTunes.
The iPad might succeed, but until it can be a first computer and becomes more price competitive, its not going to displace netbooks. Plus, the lack of an integral keyboard makes it not particularly useful for certain roles for which netbooks are ideal.
Not substantially. Sure, its about 60% of the weight of most 8.9"-11.6" netbooks I've seen -- all of which are around 2.5-2.75 lbs -- but that doesn't make much practical difference. Its esaier to use standing up, but no more so than tablet convertibles (most of which are now also styled as "netbooks") that are available at similar prices to the iPad.
Apple claims "up to 10 hours" active use, which is about the same as, or a little less than, I've seen claimed by most manufacturers of Atom N450 or N280 netbooks with 6-cell batteries; also, the same that is claimed by the manufacturer for the Atom Z520 powered netbook I'm using right now.
From standby, my netbook gets to web browsing pretty much instantly. If the iPad behaves like its cousins (e.g., iPhone), its quick to get to an app -- if you haven't actually turned it off. Which is analogous to standby on a netbook. Don't see a big advantage there.
Plus, netbooks -- in addition to being available much cheaper -- don't depend on the user having another computer available. A netbook can be the users only computer, an iPad can't.
How does being able use C# or run windows sessions on the iPad enable it to displace a netbook? About the only place they overlap in functionality that they are both really good for is that they are both good for browsing the web and interacting with web apps that don't require lots of text input.
Beyond that their functionality diverges. The iPad is a slightly better ebook reader, is better for certain types of applications (particularly, though not exclusively, those involving fairly passive media consumption.) A netbook is better for anything that requires lots of text input -- I wouldn't want to take notes in a meeting or class on an iPad, or write a substantial document on one, both things that netbooks are good for. Netboooks are also substantially cheaper -- the least expensive iPad model is at the high end of netbook prices, the 11.6" Atom Z520 powered netbook I got a couple days ago that I'm typing this on was half the price of an iPad. (And it has a SIM card slot and 3G capablity, which I'd have to pay another half the price of the netbook on top of the minimum price of an iPad to get on iPad.) Its also got much more storage than the high-end iPad. And you don't need another whole computer with iTunes just to be able to use it. Its perfectly possible for someone who doesn't have heavy computing needs to have a netbook as their only computer -- an iPad can't fill that role as long as it is dependent on a "real" computer with iTunes.
For playing on an airplane, each player having their own netbook connected by cables is more practical for two player games, and price competitive, if you are into pressing expensive hardware into a gaming niche that's already well served by dirt cheap hardware. Plus, dirt cheap electronic travel games are readily available. An iPad doesn't add much new for portable electronic gaming except an awkward size -- inconveniently big for a travel game, small for a non-travel board.
If an iPad falls into your hands, and you are using it anyway, you might as well get some use out of it for gaming, too, but it certainly doesn't seem to me -- as both an avid technophile and an avid player of everything from simple mass-market board games to fairly complex hobbyist board games -- that it offers anything particularly exciting for board gaming.
Most browser exploits that actually result in the exploiter profiting would fall afoul of various laws regarding fraud in general, many (whether or not they involve money) might also fall under a variety of laws involving unauthorized use or access to computers or information systems. There's no one law that prohibits "exploiting security vulnerabilities in web browsers", per se, but there are lots of laws that can be broken by specific instances of doing that.
Incorrect.
Leaving aside any question of the accuracy of your statement, you might note it doesn't contradict the sentence that you place it as a rebuttal to.
Many times in every lifetime.
Rather than one single one, I'll give you a whole broad class of social solutions to a wide variety of problems: the invention, promotion, and adoption of various social organizations throughout human history, including, but not limited to, every type of family, governmental, and business organization that has ever existed.
The comparison you make is like comparing the unexpected long-term utility of the Mars rover with the worst elements of the early space program.
If the governments have the preceding ~3 decades hadn't crushed the dreams and hopes of the next couple generations after yours by knocking the wheels off the expansion of the middle class at the center of the broad post-War prosperity in the US, maybe he wouldn't have needed to.
Irrelevant to the analogy, particularly as bulldozers can be used as transportation without being destructive (otherwise, it would be rather hard to get them in place to destroy things), though they are (and this, again, is pretty central to the analogy) not particularly efficient as transportation if that's all you're using them for.
The point is this: saying something is not good for a specific purpose is different than saying that thing has no utility whatsoever.
Waiting for any kind of fix is generally a fool's errand. Social problems can be actively fixed just as technical problems can, but putting money into technical research doesn't help solve the social problems.
Again, you seem to think that the only thing that can be done to address social problems is wait for fixes. While, sure, waiting for fixes -- social or technical or otherwise -- will always fail (if that's the only thing that's being done; of course, if someone else has more at stake, its sometimes worthwhile to wait on them to provide a fix), active social fixes have occurred many times in human history.
Because Chrome was first released for Windows and the Windows version is the most mature version?
It wasn't until quite a while after Chrome was released that there was any official Chrome for Linux, and it was fairly recently that that was on anything but the dev channel.
Touch interfaces are nice for brief and/or simple interactions, sure; for long term use, typing, and lots of other things they are (IME and IMO, of course) much worse than keyboard and mouse, even with an undersized netbook keyboard and trackpad or really-small mouse.
I'd much rather take notes, for instance, on a netbook than a scaled-up iPhone.
eInk-based dedicated ebook readers of similar size do fewer things (a subset of what iPad does)than the iPad, and do them better, at about the same price, so if it was about "doing very few things, better", they would win.
Netbooks both do more things than the iPad, and do most of them better, at a lower price.
Not really -- at least until someone comes up with a compelling use for that style tablet. An iPad-like tablet (as opposed to the "tablet convertible" models) is a combination of an a computer with a clumsy interface for most computer tasks (e.g., if you actually need to do text entry, the "keyboard" takes up display real estate) with an ebook reader that adds color and support for more interactivity but sacrifices readability compared to dedicated, e-ink based designs.
Tablet convertibles -- running general-purpose environments like Ubuntu or even Windows -- are pretty much superior in every way, and a netbook plus a dedicated ereader isn't much more expensive, and is more useful in many ways.
An Android-powered iPad-alike tablet would be more interesting (if the price and hardware are comparable) than a large-screen iPod Touch, but not enough to provide a compelling reason to buy into that particular form factor.
That doesn't follow. I didn't say funding basic research on radically different technologies for (or as alternatives to) doesn't makes sense, or that it might not have some benefits. I said that it isn't a smart way to address the specific concerns raised, which are mostly solved technical problems where the remaining problems are social, rather than problems requiring radical new technical approaches to solve.
If I say a bulldozer isn't a really good choice for urban commuting, its not the same as saying that bulldozers are useless.
We can, quite easily (on the technical front), but it doesn't take any stunning new transformative technology, just the kind of incrementalism that the effort here disdains. Its not like the problems of SPAM and other similar problems haven't already spawned technologies designed from the ground up as complete "super-replacements" (that is, replacements with broader general applicability than the replaced system) that are also designed to avoid the problems with the replaced systems. For email and the problem of SPAM, AMQP (a generalized messaging protocol which subsumes, but goes far beyond, the function of email) is designed from the ground up to avoid the possibility of recipients being spammed.
The problems with replacing existing technologies with more secure ones is more of a social problem than a technical one. Putting money into technical research that specifically requires that it go only into things that are radically different than what exists now -- and thus a bigger social problem to get people to transition to -- don't help at all.
My most recent Ubuntu install, I used Firefox to download Chrome, and haven't used it much since, and never use the search box in Firefox (I occasionally check out how a page looks in it compared to how it looks in Chrome, so I do occasionally use it.)
So, really, I'm not providing any revenue to Microsoft by using Ubuntu.
Some Ubuntu users probably are, and good for them, and its probably a few more than the ones that would change their default search to Bing if it wasn't the default. Though I suspect not a lot; one of the consequences of Windows near-total dominance is that users of alternative operating systems tend to be more likely to be the kind of people that don't blindly accept defaults -- if they did, they'd probably be using Windows in the first place.
As you note above, Mozilla is okay with it. This makes it decidedly not like stealing from Mozilla. If I tell you that you can have something of mine, and you take it, that's not stealing.
Now, it may be exploiting Mozilla's failure to consider their own long-term interests (though I'm not as convinced as you are that this is bad for Mozilla in the first place, but lets assume that it is), but it isn't anything like stealing.
Insofar as (along with the constant war footing and military spending of the cold war years) it was part of the successful competition for power and prestige that the USA waged against the Soviet-led Communist bloc that led ultimately to the latter going bankrupt while the former managed to survive only mostly bankrupt, sure.
Spending the same effort on domestic infrastructure and basic scientific research rather than manned space "exploration" (which didn't really involve that much exploration) probably would have provided a long more bang for the buck, in terms of public benefit, if the context wasn't part of the Cold War geopolitical conflict, though.
Since Google Voice is not, and never has been, a VoIP service, I can't imagine this would have any effect.
Further, since they now have an HTML5 web-based app that does pretty much everything you'd want out of a Google Voice app, I'm not sure there is much need for such an app.
IF I was planning on rebutting the claim rather than requesting substantiation of it, I would have posted a rebuttal in my first response to it rather than posting "[citation needed]".
I think that you misread "[citation needed]" as shorthand for "You are wrong and, on top of that, stupid to make this claim!" rather than something more like "This is an interesting fact claim that is, however, as far as I can tell, unsupported by evidence. If you have some evidence for it, would you kindly provide it?"
If I think you're wrong, I really have no problem saying that.
If I had evidence to the contrary, I would say the claim was wrong rather than merely unsubstantiated. Evidence of increasing objections (most of the objections to NCLB I've seen have been the same objections, from the same basic groups, since the bill was singed, and largely the same since it was proposed), much less increasing objections from the particular subset of the population suggested, seems to be missing.
Yes, lots of people string together long series of meaningless buzzwords in complaining about things. Lots of people used that particular complaint about public education long before NCLB. The people using it about NCLB seem to me largely to be the largely the same people that were using it about public education before NCLB (other complaints exist of the various public education systems in the US in general and NCLB in particular, some of them that actually include actual meaningful criticism [some of which I agree with, some of which I don't.])