In my own experience, I have found that 70% or so of all of my teachers fell into the 'Those who can't, teach.' I won't make any assertions on the validity of that statement, because I believe a lot of that perception is based on the political fear that teachers often feel about doing the wrong thing and losing their jobs.
On the other hand, I was molded into someone who hated math and loved reading and writing, because thats how all of my teachers were in elementary school(don't bother with any commentary on my own propensity, I am an engineer by choice and by degree). The teachers I had who really had an impact on my life were those who didn't need the job - the wealthy or already retired, teaching because they wanted to.
Educators of high quality are of course invaluable -- which is why I am all in favor of raising teachers salaries to the point where it becomes a competitive market for 'the best and brightest.' Going by the quality of many prospective teachers I met in college, we will have some excellent K-6 day care from people who can't even begin to handle solving 2x + 3 = 6. Back when you became a teacher, this may not have been the case.
Feign your wounded pride all you want, but you know that sub-par candidates become teachers more often than not. If you are an exception to the rule, good for you, keep it up.
A scientist who is wrong, but thinks he/she is right might adamantly argue for a poor policy and still be considered a "good" scientist under your criteria. Just because someone doesn't seek notoriety doesn't mean they won't strenuously argue for a flawed outcome.
My god, you're right! Sometimes, someone might believe something that is incorrect, *even based on evidence,* and scientists aren't magically exempt from this! I've been so blind. We can never, ever, in good faith argue strenuously for something not so self-evident that its factual status is not in question... ever again!
*Reaches over and throws on the brakes to all innovation and discussion.*
The original statement was that more of a scientific presence in policymaking (and other fields) would be a very positive thing. The response, on the other hand, was that since some scientists have poor motives, science will become the next religion and begin issuing commandments such as 'Thou Shalt Not Do Anything Without A Scientist's Approval.' Your response, in turn, moves further down this path, and even strays into the idea that if you *might* be wrong about a belief, you shouldn't argue for it. Brilliant.
I don't know, maybe not if people who are informed continue to be "pragmatic."
People who dislike Sony for their business practices are not limited solely to slashdot. For a fact, I know that I have personally not given sony $1500 of my money (rather to Kodak and MS), and I have roughly 20 friends and colleagues who know about the whole rootkit mess who didn't before. I didn't ask them to boycott sony, but (especially) the ones who had bought from the label were peeved to say the least.
I didn't say slashdot is comprised of the majority of geeks, I said it represented them. I didn't even READ slashdot when I found out about this mess. The majority of technical minded people I know don't read slashdot either. But they still aren't thrilled to find out about clandestine viruses on their computer which will destroy the OS install before being removed.
"So I should know all about every company I buy from, so that I can boycot those involved in criminal acts. Impossible. I expect the courts to deal with crime and punishment."
No, but if you happen to know the company is comprised of scum, maybe you should go ahead and choose to buy from someone else. No need to research every company you buy from, just boycott the ones you come to understand do evil things.
"1) Does it really Boycot Sony?
At some point in time, for instance, a fair amount of all the CRT tubes used in TV's of various brands were Panasonic (Philips in the background). Boycotting Panasonic, and getting a Grundig instead didn't amount to one heap of beans: The tube was Panasonic anyhow."
Possibly true, but taking the brand name $$ boost from one company and giving it to another is not insignificant. It certainly amounts to a heap of beans, maybe even a few hundred dollars per purchase. And if they don't receive a patent kickback, it results in a loss of the price of the unit AND the influx of the same amount of cash to their competitor.
"2) Critical Mass.
Let it be known that/. is not representative for the world population. 'Nuffsaid."
No, but I strongly believe/. represents the IT or just plain geek community strongly. And I DO think that, over time, opinions of this community influence society as a whole. If nothing else, maybe IT directors at this firm or that will buy a panasonic projector rather than a sony one. A boycott doesn't have to be instantaneous to be effective.
"3) Someone Else will Step In and Screw You.
Congratulations, in spite of the hurdles overcome in 1) and 2), you manage to drive the EvilDoers out of business. Does this mean that the next GreedyCorp Inc. will respect you? Of course it doesn't. My mother would say that she doesn't care if she got bitten by the dog or the wolf, if bitten she'll be anyhow."
In that case, rinse and repeat. Lets let all the criminals in prison go free, because if they're locked up, other criminals will take their place. It's not like we can get all the rapists off the street, so why bother?
I'd like to say your apathy is astounding, but... rather, it is typical.
I think your subject line is appropriate for my response.
"To extend my "railing" example further, you could design a decorative railing held on with Scotch tape if it was designed for only a light wind load, but you'd still be liable if you decided to install that decorative railing on a staircase where people would expect a real railing."
Your theoretical railing is on the edge of one of those fake balconies not designed for bearing a load, that people would have to climb out of a window to stand on. Just because the railing is there (the strap), doesn't mean you should stand on the balcony (throwing the remote).
To bring out even more analogies: You have already agreed with me that if the strap was not there, that people would not be claiming that Nintendo is liable for anything that happens if the remote was thrown, because this constitutes misuse. Digital cameras often come with a wrist strap. This strap is designed to prevent you from accidentally dropping the camera. If you misused the camera by throwing it at someone like a rock, because you thought the strap would prevent it from hitting them, and the strap broke because it was not designed to prevent the camera from being chucked like a baseball, the manufacturer would not be held liable for the damage caused to the camera, strap, or object it collided with.
The important thing is that no one has said that the strap is designed to act as a retainer for a thrown controller. An even more apt analogy, in my opinion, is an everyday belt. It is designed to keep pants on, by supporting their weight and the weight of whatever is in the pockets. Nowhere does it say that it cannot be used as a climbing harness, though some belts might appear to be sturdy enough to use as such. However, misusing it in such a way might result in a fall, but the belt manufacturer would not be held liable though the belt gave a false sense of security.
If there wasn't a strap, no one would be expecting it to prevent the controller from colliding with breakable things! People would have to rely on their own SELF RESTRAINT to do it. However, since the strap is there and it has broken on a few dozen occasions, people blame a faulty product. Who will blame Louisville Slugger if one of their bats gets thrown, and maims an onlooker?
Only misuse could result in that scenario. Guess what, the same misuse is occuring here.
I'm not defending nintendo for any reason beyond the FACT that a double standard is being applied here. No other product needs to be safeguarded against idiotic usage. The strap is in the same vein as a dead-man switch on a chainsaw or lawnmower (aside from the obvious difference in scale), but abuse of the strap is the same as abuse of that dead man switch. If you duct tape the dead man switch on your riding mower in the active position, and then you get mauled by the while working on it, (like an idiot), the manufacturer is not liable.
If you lose your grip on the wiimote, the strap will prevent your from dropping it and potentially breaking it. If you throw the wiimote, (improper usage), the strap will also stop it. If you throw it really, really hard, (really, really improper usage) the strap may break, and whatever you threw it at may also become broken.
People, this is like putting "Warning, may contain nuts." on a jar of nuts. AND THEN getting sued because someone ate them anyway, and had a mild allergic reaction.
A good comparison was brought up in an earlier newspost.
Do manufacturers of footballs or baseballs hold the liability when their product goes through a window or tossed into someone's face?
The wiimote is not designed to be thrown. When the wiimote is thrown, the strap can break, resulting in harm or damage.
Kitchens knives are not designed to be thrown, cause much more hard they are thrown, and don't even come with a wrist strap!
" Smart companies spend time testing their products in "dummy" sitations precisely for this reason: to figure out what bad things can happen when consumers use their products in a way other than was originally intended around a theoretical white board."
Only a dummy would throw knives around the house, but the product is not safeguarded against this. Are knife manufacturers now responsible for all harm caused by throwing steak knives within the home?
It was nice of them to include a wrist strap, but if they hadn't included one no one would blame the lack of one on losing their grip on the remote.
I should note that I don't own any nintendo products past the N64.
"7. Nintendo Says 'when hand gets sweaty, simply wipe 'em'
The Nintendo Wii, current darling of the videogame press, has a dark side...
It's really inexcusable. If your commercials show beautiful people thrashing about in the throes of videogame ecstasy, you have to expect that consumers are going to want to do the same. But those models in your commercials are trained professionals working in a controlled environment. As soon as you take that lethal Wii remote out into the Real World, accidents are possible, even likely. "
Yes, Nintendo made a huge blunder by showing professionals using their console. We all made the same mistake: we assumed these were professional models and/or actors. In reality, they were professional "hold'er-on'er"s, who had abundant professional experience which allowed them to maintain a grasp, however tenuous, on the wiimote, instead of letting go like blithering retar... I mean, your average user.
If the minivan going 50mph 5 ft. in front of you rear ends a stationary tractor trailer, you can use zero as a decent approximation of the deceleration time. Thats part of what you need to consider for stopping time separation distance. Of course, no one in the world follows proper separation.
This is delayed, I'm sorry about that. But if you had actually been to Maine and Hawaii, you would know that the languages are as similar as mexican spanish and european spanish, at best. At worst, you have canadian french spoken in northern Maine, and the hawaiian dialect (not english) spoken in Hawaii.
Perhaps people shop at the same chains and watch the same films as well, but the reactions to those films differ hugely. If you think Mainers learn the same things in school as people in Hawaii or Washington, D.C., you show exactly how little you know about the subject you are talking about.
Now let me move on to incompetent teachers. Any teacher who needs to rely on a book as a primary source of teaching, need not be teaching. If you can't teach the concept yourself, with minimal help from a book, then you need to go back and learn it some more yourself.
You are right, of course, that it is a folly to allow the, on average, the worst of the college graduates (those who couldn't cut it or chose to drink and party their time in college away) to teach. On the other hand, who is going to pay for better quality teachers? I would teach, if I could earn as much teaching as I do being an engineer. I put in a ton of hard work at college, and I am getting an appropriate return. Maybe someday I will go back, get a Ph.D. and profess, but teaching public school would be a poor decision for me - I don't have that much altruism.
The total combined salary caps of the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA comes to 10 billion dollars (my own calculation based on the '06 salary caps, per team: 102M, 44M, 128M, and 53M respectively).
Even if we liquidated the ENTIRE salary caps of all the teams, we would produce only a ~$3300 / year increase in teacher salaries.
Athletes are overpaid. They are not the reason teachers are underpaid. Even if all the money that people *choose* to spend on sports was instead spent on being teacher fanatics, it wouldn't make a difference to the majority of teachers.
I dislike overpaid athletes as much as most, but its just a convenient 'America is so hedonistic' scapegoat to roll out.
Should we be in Iraq? I don't think so, but others do. I know we have to stay the course now, until we can get out of there without collapsing what little government we've managed to prop up. It is our responsibility as a nation, now, along with the UK.
Whether or not we should be there is immaterial. If we can afford to spend $6.4 Billion/month in Iraq (not including afghanistan) http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler04272006.html, we can afford to spend $6.4 Billion/month extra on improving education. That could simply translate into a ~$2000/month increase in teacher salaries, or whatever else.
The average starting teacher salary is $31000 in the UShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher, and this is for the people who are entrusted with the safety and education of those we don't trust to do it themselves. Spending what we do on Iraq on education, the average starting teacher salary could be greater than $50,000.
If teaching were lucrative, maybe some of our brighter members of society would choose to do it.
Some even think that internal variation in USA is comparable to say variation between countries in Europe (which it isn't, which one would know if one had visited say Sweden and Italy)
Though the system of government is the same, as are many of the laws, the "internal variation" of the States (at least in terms of scenery/terrain) is definitely as varied as Europe. Visit Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and Maine, and tell me I'm wrong. (Admittedly, I haven't been to Alaska yet).
I'm not saying there aren't reasons to visit outside the US (personally, the castles in Europe as well as the area around mediterranean are huge draws), but saying that Sweden and Italy are more different than Hawaii and Maine is insane. Or, Maine or Colorado vs New Mexico or Florida, to keep it in the contiguous 48.
If you meant that the variation had to do with local laws, then, you got me. Customs checks ARE so exciting.
You really don't see the problem, here, in this circumstance? Honestly? Let's examine the rest of what you said.
What you don't do is scream at the top of your lungs, "I WILL NOT LEAVE". And while this guy did change his tune after he was tazed and said he was leaving, he said it as he was lying on the ground, refusing to leave. Seeing that this guy was tazed and beaten within an inch of his life by large metal, rubber coated sticks is a testament to the patience the police officers maintained.
Police officers are trained to deal with individuals who are loud and noisy -- one could argue, especially college cops. If every student on campus who yelled at/in the presence of the cops was tased, you'd have riots. Also, if the cops HAD beaten the man half to death with their clubs for lying on the ground and/or yelling, they'd deserve to lose their jobs and go to prison.
Don't get me wrong, my uncle is a cop, and I have great respect for what he does, and for the necessity of the job, but if he tasered someone who was lying on the ground (and doing nothing else!) while two of his buddies watched, he'd deserve to go to jail too.
While I've heard people say that he could not move because he was tazed, I call bullshit. He was sure screaming loud enough. And I've seen people tazed. They get back up a second or two later. Not five minutes as some have claimed. Here is a video [lookatentertainment.com] proving as much. You'll notice the guy keep trying to get back up as the cop zaps him again... and again... and again. The suspect continues to get back up.
Emphasis mine. Prove is a strong word. I'd say you have an anecdote showing that one guy got back up. Was he on drugs? Drunk? Did he have a higher pain threshold? Any other variables different? The video proves nothing. Next, screaming. Yes, because all people who can scream can walk, and vice versa. Again, screaming is a natural response to pain and fear, and unless he passed out or lost consciousness, he was gonna scream in response to being tasered.
I'm really growing weary of seeing good cops lose their jobs when they defend themselves. Recently in Austin, while trying to serve a warrant, a 250 lb man attacked the police officer (175 lb), had him on the ground and was on top of him. His partner, 120 lb female, shot and killed the attacker. She lost her job.
Either details are left out, or she was the victim of some very poor decisions. Way to bring up something totally irrelevant, though.
The cops at UCLA, show me how they were defending themselves? Maybe they felt that they were defending themselves proactively, but in other words then, they attacked him.
And the truth of the matter is that I don't mind Sony and other record companies putting rootkits, and all kinds of restrictions on their music.
Emphasis mine. That's like saying that you don't mind people downloading malware (viruses or just spyware) to your computer if you visit a site or open a link in your e-mail. The big deal was that Sony never told you it was installing a rootkit, didn't give you the option to uninstall it later, and if you found it (done by a Ph.D. in CS), you would wreck your OS by removing it (unless it was done by someone with a Ph.D. in CS).
Do you really think that's ok?
As far as other DRM, fine, its their product, but any song or CD you buy should be obligated to come with a full disclosure of exactly how you can use the music, and what it will do to your computer if you play it. If you buy a song, you should know whether it will only play on v1.08a7 of GreedyJukebox.
Slashdot Mirror
In my own experience, I have found that 70% or so of all of my teachers fell into the 'Those who can't, teach.' I won't make any assertions on the validity of that statement, because I believe a lot of that perception is based on the political fear that teachers often feel about doing the wrong thing and losing their jobs.
On the other hand, I was molded into someone who hated math and loved reading and writing, because thats how all of my teachers were in elementary school(don't bother with any commentary on my own propensity, I am an engineer by choice and by degree). The teachers I had who really had an impact on my life were those who didn't need the job - the wealthy or already retired, teaching because they wanted to.
Educators of high quality are of course invaluable -- which is why I am all in favor of raising teachers salaries to the point where it becomes a competitive market for 'the best and brightest.' Going by the quality of many prospective teachers I met in college, we will have some excellent K-6 day care from people who can't even begin to handle solving 2x + 3 = 6. Back when you became a teacher, this may not have been the case.
Feign your wounded pride all you want, but you know that sub-par candidates become teachers more often than not. If you are an exception to the rule, good for you, keep it up.
Apparently, "Your idea is crap," doesn't translate well into French.
My god, you're right! Sometimes, someone might believe something that is incorrect, *even based on evidence,* and scientists aren't magically exempt from this! I've been so blind. We can never, ever, in good faith argue strenuously for something not so self-evident that its factual status is not in question... ever again!
*Reaches over and throws on the brakes to all innovation and discussion.*
The original statement was that more of a scientific presence in policymaking (and other fields) would be a very positive thing. The response, on the other hand, was that since some scientists have poor motives, science will become the next religion and begin issuing commandments such as 'Thou Shalt Not Do Anything Without A Scientist's Approval.' Your response, in turn, moves further down this path, and even strays into the idea that if you *might* be wrong about a belief, you shouldn't argue for it. Brilliant.
I don't know, maybe not if people who are informed continue to be "pragmatic."
People who dislike Sony for their business practices are not limited solely to slashdot. For a fact, I know that I have personally not given sony $1500 of my money (rather to Kodak and MS), and I have roughly 20 friends and colleagues who know about the whole rootkit mess who didn't before. I didn't ask them to boycott sony, but (especially) the ones who had bought from the label were peeved to say the least.
I didn't say slashdot is comprised of the majority of geeks, I said it represented them. I didn't even READ slashdot when I found out about this mess. The majority of technical minded people I know don't read slashdot either. But they still aren't thrilled to find out about clandestine viruses on their computer which will destroy the OS install before being removed.
Ha! Imagine that. Well, let me rephrase: not all belts, or pants with beltloops, or whatever, have such a disclaimer.
"So I should know all about every company I buy from, so that I can boycot those involved in criminal acts. Impossible. I expect the courts to deal with crime and punishment."
No, but if you happen to know the company is comprised of scum, maybe you should go ahead and choose to buy from someone else. No need to research every company you buy from, just boycott the ones you come to understand do evil things.
"1) Does it really Boycot Sony? At some point in time, for instance, a fair amount of all the CRT tubes used in TV's of various brands were Panasonic (Philips in the background). Boycotting Panasonic, and getting a Grundig instead didn't amount to one heap of beans: The tube was Panasonic anyhow."
Possibly true, but taking the brand name $$ boost from one company and giving it to another is not insignificant. It certainly amounts to a heap of beans, maybe even a few hundred dollars per purchase. And if they don't receive a patent kickback, it results in a loss of the price of the unit AND the influx of the same amount of cash to their competitor.
"2) Critical Mass. Let it be known that /. is not representative for the world population. 'Nuffsaid."
No, but I strongly believe /. represents the IT or just plain geek community strongly. And I DO think that, over time, opinions of this community influence society as a whole. If nothing else, maybe IT directors at this firm or that will buy a panasonic projector rather than a sony one. A boycott doesn't have to be instantaneous to be effective.
"3) Someone Else will Step In and Screw You. Congratulations, in spite of the hurdles overcome in 1) and 2), you manage to drive the EvilDoers out of business. Does this mean that the next GreedyCorp Inc. will respect you? Of course it doesn't. My mother would say that she doesn't care if she got bitten by the dog or the wolf, if bitten she'll be anyhow."
In that case, rinse and repeat. Lets let all the criminals in prison go free, because if they're locked up, other criminals will take their place. It's not like we can get all the rapists off the street, so why bother?
I'd like to say your apathy is astounding, but... rather, it is typical.
For installing a virus on millions of PCs, they receive a fine which amounts to roughly $1 per offense or less?
Incredible.
Enact your own vengeance by enforcing a personal boycott of Sony. Nothing they make is unique, so buy from elsewhere.
I think your subject line is appropriate for my response.
"To extend my "railing" example further, you could design a decorative railing held on with Scotch tape if it was designed for only a light wind load, but you'd still be liable if you decided to install that decorative railing on a staircase where people would expect a real railing."
Your theoretical railing is on the edge of one of those fake balconies not designed for bearing a load, that people would have to climb out of a window to stand on. Just because the railing is there (the strap), doesn't mean you should stand on the balcony (throwing the remote).
To bring out even more analogies: You have already agreed with me that if the strap was not there, that people would not be claiming that Nintendo is liable for anything that happens if the remote was thrown, because this constitutes misuse. Digital cameras often come with a wrist strap. This strap is designed to prevent you from accidentally dropping the camera. If you misused the camera by throwing it at someone like a rock, because you thought the strap would prevent it from hitting them, and the strap broke because it was not designed to prevent the camera from being chucked like a baseball, the manufacturer would not be held liable for the damage caused to the camera, strap, or object it collided with.
It depends on what the strap was designed to do.
The important thing is that no one has said that the strap is designed to act as a retainer for a thrown controller. An even more apt analogy, in my opinion, is an everyday belt. It is designed to keep pants on, by supporting their weight and the weight of whatever is in the pockets. Nowhere does it say that it cannot be used as a climbing harness, though some belts might appear to be sturdy enough to use as such. However, misusing it in such a way might result in a fall, but the belt manufacturer would not be held liable though the belt gave a false sense of security.
If there wasn't a strap, no one would be expecting it to prevent the controller from colliding with breakable things! People would have to rely on their own SELF RESTRAINT to do it. However, since the strap is there and it has broken on a few dozen occasions, people blame a faulty product. Who will blame Louisville Slugger if one of their bats gets thrown, and maims an onlooker?
Only misuse could result in that scenario. Guess what, the same misuse is occuring here.
I'm not defending nintendo for any reason beyond the FACT that a double standard is being applied here. No other product needs to be safeguarded against idiotic usage. The strap is in the same vein as a dead-man switch on a chainsaw or lawnmower (aside from the obvious difference in scale), but abuse of the strap is the same as abuse of that dead man switch. If you duct tape the dead man switch on your riding mower in the active position, and then you get mauled by the while working on it, (like an idiot), the manufacturer is not liable.
If you lose your grip on the wiimote, the strap will prevent your from dropping it and potentially breaking it. If you throw the wiimote, (improper usage), the strap will also stop it. If you throw it really, really hard, (really, really improper usage) the strap may break, and whatever you threw it at may also become broken.
People, this is like putting "Warning, may contain nuts." on a jar of nuts. AND THEN getting sued because someone ate them anyway, and had a mild allergic reaction.
A good comparison was brought up in an earlier newspost.
Do manufacturers of footballs or baseballs hold the liability when their product goes through a window or tossed into someone's face?
The wiimote is not designed to be thrown. When the wiimote is thrown, the strap can break, resulting in harm or damage.
Kitchens knives are not designed to be thrown, cause much more hard they are thrown, and don't even come with a wrist strap!
" Smart companies spend time testing their products in "dummy" sitations precisely for this reason: to figure out what bad things can happen when consumers use their products in a way other than was originally intended around a theoretical white board."
Only a dummy would throw knives around the house, but the product is not safeguarded against this. Are knife manufacturers now responsible for all harm caused by throwing steak knives within the home?
It was nice of them to include a wrist strap, but if they hadn't included one no one would blame the lack of one on losing their grip on the remote.
I should note that I don't own any nintendo products past the N64.
Yes, as I was about to say :
From TFA:
"7. Nintendo Says 'when hand gets sweaty, simply wipe 'em'
The Nintendo Wii, current darling of the videogame press, has a dark side...
It's really inexcusable. If your commercials show beautiful people thrashing about in the throes of videogame ecstasy, you have to expect that consumers are going to want to do the same. But those models in your commercials are trained professionals working in a controlled environment. As soon as you take that lethal Wii remote out into the Real World, accidents are possible, even likely. "
Yes, Nintendo made a huge blunder by showing professionals using their console. We all made the same mistake: we assumed these were professional models and/or actors. In reality, they were professional "hold'er-on'er"s, who had abundant professional experience which allowed them to maintain a grasp, however tenuous, on the wiimote, instead of letting go like blithering retar... I mean, your average user.
No disclaimer Nintendo? For shame.
Also, I firmly believe that man will never attain flight, and there really isn't a market for these 'compywhatsit' things.
That unpossible!
Sony CEO throws temper tantrum, claiming their proprietary interfaces and formats actually benefit consumers...
If the minivan going 50mph 5 ft. in front of you rear ends a stationary tractor trailer, you can use zero as a decent approximation of the deceleration time. Thats part of what you need to consider for stopping time separation distance. Of course, no one in the world follows proper separation.
This is delayed, I'm sorry about that. But if you had actually been to Maine and Hawaii, you would know that the languages are as similar as mexican spanish and european spanish, at best. At worst, you have canadian french spoken in northern Maine, and the hawaiian dialect (not english) spoken in Hawaii.
Perhaps people shop at the same chains and watch the same films as well, but the reactions to those films differ hugely. If you think Mainers learn the same things in school as people in Hawaii or Washington, D.C., you show exactly how little you know about the subject you are talking about.
You are right, of course, that it is a folly to allow the, on average, the worst of the college graduates (those who couldn't cut it or chose to drink and party their time in college away) to teach. On the other hand, who is going to pay for better quality teachers? I would teach, if I could earn as much teaching as I do being an engineer. I put in a ton of hard work at college, and I am getting an appropriate return. Maybe someday I will go back, get a Ph.D. and profess, but teaching public school would be a poor decision for me - I don't have that much altruism.
There are roughly 3 Million public schoolteachers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher in the US.
The total combined salary caps of the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA comes to 10 billion dollars (my own calculation based on the '06 salary caps, per team: 102M, 44M, 128M, and 53M respectively).
Even if we liquidated the ENTIRE salary caps of all the teams, we would produce only a ~$3300 / year increase in teacher salaries.
Athletes are overpaid. They are not the reason teachers are underpaid. Even if all the money that people *choose* to spend on sports was instead spent on being teacher fanatics, it wouldn't make a difference to the majority of teachers.
I dislike overpaid athletes as much as most, but its just a convenient 'America is so hedonistic' scapegoat to roll out.
Should we be in Iraq? I don't think so, but others do. I know we have to stay the course now, until we can get out of there without collapsing what little government we've managed to prop up. It is our responsibility as a nation, now, along with the UK.
Whether or not we should be there is immaterial. If we can afford to spend $6.4 Billion/month in Iraq (not including afghanistan) http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler04272006.html, we can afford to spend $6.4 Billion/month extra on improving education. That could simply translate into a ~$2000/month increase in teacher salaries, or whatever else.
The average starting teacher salary is $31000 in the UShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher, and this is for the people who are entrusted with the safety and education of those we don't trust to do it themselves. Spending what we do on Iraq on education, the average starting teacher salary could be greater than $50,000.
If teaching were lucrative, maybe some of our brighter members of society would choose to do it.
Though the system of government is the same, as are many of the laws, the "internal variation" of the States (at least in terms of scenery/terrain) is definitely as varied as Europe. Visit Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and Maine, and tell me I'm wrong. (Admittedly, I haven't been to Alaska yet).
I'm not saying there aren't reasons to visit outside the US (personally, the castles in Europe as well as the area around mediterranean are huge draws), but saying that Sweden and Italy are more different than Hawaii and Maine is insane. Or, Maine or Colorado vs New Mexico or Florida, to keep it in the contiguous 48.
If you meant that the variation had to do with local laws, then, you got me. Customs checks ARE so exciting.
In any of those cases, you're missing something.
3.Profit!!
Well, maybe not for Duke.
You really don't see the problem, here, in this circumstance? Honestly? Let's examine the rest of what you said.
Police officers are trained to deal with individuals who are loud and noisy -- one could argue, especially college cops. If every student on campus who yelled at/in the presence of the cops was tased, you'd have riots. Also, if the cops HAD beaten the man half to death with their clubs for lying on the ground and/or yelling, they'd deserve to lose their jobs and go to prison.
Don't get me wrong, my uncle is a cop, and I have great respect for what he does, and for the necessity of the job, but if he tasered someone who was lying on the ground (and doing nothing else!) while two of his buddies watched, he'd deserve to go to jail too.
Emphasis mine. Prove is a strong word. I'd say you have an anecdote showing that one guy got back up. Was he on drugs? Drunk? Did he have a higher pain threshold? Any other variables different? The video proves nothing. Next, screaming. Yes, because all people who can scream can walk, and vice versa. Again, screaming is a natural response to pain and fear, and unless he passed out or lost consciousness, he was gonna scream in response to being tasered.
Either details are left out, or she was the victim of some very poor decisions. Way to bring up something totally irrelevant, though.
The cops at UCLA, show me how they were defending themselves? Maybe they felt that they were defending themselves proactively, but in other words then, they attacked him.
Emphasis mine. That's like saying that you don't mind people downloading malware (viruses or just spyware) to your computer if you visit a site or open a link in your e-mail. The big deal was that Sony never told you it was installing a rootkit, didn't give you the option to uninstall it later, and if you found it (done by a Ph.D. in CS), you would wreck your OS by removing it (unless it was done by someone with a Ph.D. in CS).
Do you really think that's ok?
As far as other DRM, fine, its their product, but any song or CD you buy should be obligated to come with a full disclosure of exactly how you can use the music, and what it will do to your computer if you play it. If you buy a song, you should know whether it will only play on v1.08a7 of GreedyJukebox.