It won't. It's a feel good program to make people think it's worthy.
There are much much better ways to spend money on Education(which we already seem to spend enough)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
President Obama Mentions Apple-Backed School Broadband Initiative During State of the Union Address
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It won't. It's a feel good program to make people think it's worthy.
There are much much better ways to spend money on Education(which we already seem to spend enough)
I would imagine that future education (K-12) will be internet based from the home not the current school based system. So faster internet is needed. Rural areas still don't have real internet. In the past subsidies were used to provide internet in small out lying towns but providing no internet between those towns.
For example my phone company still only provides dial up or the option of satellite internet. Both are a joke. Needless to say dial up is too slow and satellite internet has low data caps, latency and is way to expensive.
I have to disagree. We are already feeding them and k12 education is there for every child.
The problem is with the parents. [/RANT]
Last edited:
It should have been eliminated years and years ago. All of it should be cut. The federal government should be so minimal that we don't even notice it.
On the nosey.
Agreed. Start with a flat tax and small government and then we'll take it from there.
Please READ more before you make weird comments.
I wouldn't want you to get used to the taste of your own foot in your mouth.
p.s. Actually click on the link and read.
I don't know if I have all of the use cases in my head, but generally the more bandwidth you have the more freely information can flow. This is certainly not a bad thing.
Good luck trying to get that.
We will be dead sadly before that happens, if it ever will.
People despise the Tea Party but that's exactly what the Tea Party wants, a minimal federal government.
Exactly my point.
Why even bring up that question or mention they may only do it because they want future customers?
It's all good. Somebody is doing something
If someone gets laid off and becomes unemployed or under-employed for a time, I would want them to have food stamps available to them as they try to get back into the groove. If someone is relying on food stamps for practically their entire life, which absolutely happens way too often, then that is a different question and I agree we need to cut that dependency. However, what I am unwilling to do is cut off legitimate lifelines for people who need them on a temporary basis.
Absolutely no one wants that, not even the mean old Tea Party people and the GOP, as much as the liberal media and Democrats would have you believe.
I see the concept of small government tossed around as if it's an answer in and of itself. But tell me, what does it solve? Do you expect everything that's normally covered by government to be picked up by the free market? Like social safety nets? Education initiatives? Can they nationalized on the same level by a private enterprise? Can they be trusted to always work in our best interest? What if they don't? Who's there to regulate them? Should we allow businesses to do as the will, and hope any problems that arise eventually work themselves out?
I guess if you want a return to the environment of the late 19th, early 20th century, and another eventual stock market crash like we saw in the 30's, that would be the way to go. Completely unregulated capitalism. Where you have a ton of industries who's sole purposes are to make as much money as possible for themselves, and damn the consequences. That's a system that only benefits a select few, and chances are good that most of the people preaching for such a system wouldn't be one of them.
We need a system that take everything and everyone into account. From the richest of the rich, to the poorest of the poor. A system that benefits from everyone succeeding because its in its own best interest to make sure everyone does so. Right now, there's no other large entity in place that can better do that job than a national government. It wants to make sure its poorest citizens becomes productive and educated, that it's richest corporations can continue running smoothly, but regulating them so that one particularly large corporation doesn't harm the smaller, but equally successful corporations and small businesses that work below it. A system that makes sure every single bit and piece in a much larger system turns well to its own benefit, which in turn benefits every bit and piece in the whole.
You shouldn't be asking for a smaller government. That might sound nice, but it's not really what you want. What you really want is a more transparent, efficient government. Which, right now, we don't have.
BUT Obama said he would make transparency and the rule of law the touchstone of his administration.
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4AJ843ERnU
And what do you know, Obama was just another president in a long line of presidents that ended up being a disappointment for all of us.
I'm not one of those people who thinks he's this big black Kenyan socialist boogman. He's not. What he is...is an American president. Only slightly different than the other democrat presidents who came before him.
And that's really more our fault than his. He's the end result of a process we've allowed to continue because we've all started thinking of our political allegiances as a favorite sports team that has to be backed in good times or bad, rather than one of the guys we hire to get a job done.
The biggest problem with America is you and me, because we've let rhetoric, party lines, and scapegoating take the place of critical thinking. OH, I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M FOR A PRO BUSINESS SMALL GOVERNMENT, I JUST KNOW THAT I AM.
Umm.. no. I want a government that keeps it's dirty hands out of my paycheck. If I want to donate to a charity, it is my choice. I do not want to be overtaxed to fund ridiculous stimulus projects. I do not want government to dabble in the auto industry, banks, or healthcare. I want to be left alone. I want a small government.
And this is why we're all doomed to failure, people. America has become a country of solipsists. Our neighbors have nothing to do with us, because we believe ourselves islands separated from the rest.
I'm rich solely because of my hard work. Not because I live in a system that allows me to convert my hard work to material wealth.
----------
Well...yeah. But that's because he was the lesser of two *******s.
Very poignant and accurate...on paper.
Unfortunately, it ignores the most fundamental variable in the equation:
People, aka. human free-will, and it's insatiable appetite for more.
There is no existing system that can account for, address, and mitigate this variable, shy of an indestructible totalitarian rule. And still, people will choose to do differently than what they are told.
Didn't you watch The Matrix?
What is proper funding?
The US already spends more per student than any other country. We already spend a higher percentage of GDP than any other country (and we have a ridiculously high GDP). And we already spend a higher total amount on education than any other country.
One of the advantages of charity and philanthropy is that it gives donors the ability to target money in unusual and unique ways instead of simply feeding the endlessly hungry maw. This enables us to see how different methods and ideas can work (or not work). Typically when you try to apply change within the system, the teacher's unions simply shut it down. Over and over again.
Stop taking your internet addictions and applying it to every school child out there. This country's future physicians, lawyers, educators, scientists, and entrepreneurs are not going to get a first rate education with only a pen and pencil and dated textbooks from your golden years. Your backward thinking is what is bad for our country.
I agree! But who knows?
Maybe gigabit internet across school in the US will lead do more creative/interactive ways of learning. More video tutorials, for example? If teachers are poorly educated, what's wrong with playing a video form someone who knows what they are talking about? I don't know, but I think the possibilities are endless. And it's certainly an improvement. I know more and more teachers (and university professors) are using youtube videos for educational purposes. And this trend will only continue.
DS, nice try, but I am afraid such calls for reason will fall mostly on deaf ears.
When it comes to it, most people know what they know and do not want to be told different.
Only partly true. We have roadblocks for greed at the very least. Laws against monopolies for one. Minimum wage for another.