prev <-> next
[2002-06-28 22:07:06] - "well if it isn't Mozilla and isn't IE" who said it wasn't mozilla? ~a
[2002-06-28 21:34:23] - *support them completely. or closest to completely. - dewey
[2002-06-28 21:33:51] - well if it isn't Mozilla and isn't IE, who does support the latest standards? As I understand it, IE is the best at it. I've been using styles a lot, and IE seems to be the only browser to support them. - dewey
[2002-06-28 20:54:07] - That's why I don't use IE. Crashes all the time, only runs on two OSes, slow as fuck, and doesn't support the latest standards. -logan
[2002-06-28 19:02:48] - which is why i don't use mozilla. - wolf
[2002-06-28 19:02:26] - i like browsers that are stable and can correctly interpret the most common and recent web markup languages and related things. - wolf
[2002-06-28 18:05:43] - and for those of you that care, yes, favicon must be in .ico format. ~a
[2002-06-28 17:53:05] - but we were talking about the favicon thing that only has to do with browsing html pages. ~a
[2002-06-28 17:34:46] - http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/WORLD/meast/06/28/baby.photo/story.baby.bomb.jpg - wolf
[2002-06-28 17:33:01] - but "explorer", which is the "operating system" you're referring to, shares both code and usability guidelines with "internet explorer". IE can be used to browse directories, so that code is most likely used in both cases - boing
[2002-06-28 16:58:57] - i'm installing mozilla now and I like the dragon guy - vinnie
[2002-06-28 16:18:37] - oh. that's windows. and probably only a certain flavor of windows. i wasn't talking about windows, i was talking about ie. one is an operating system and one is a web browser and in this case more specifically an html browser. ~a
[2002-06-28 16:09:19] - like on the desktop. - mig
[2002-06-28 16:09:09] - you can have an icon in windows that is not in .ico format. - mig
[2002-06-28 16:01:40] - "it lets you use non-ico files as regualr icons" what do you mean? ~a
[2002-06-28 16:00:55] - it lets you use non-ico files as regualr icons, so i suspect it will. - mig
[2002-06-28 15:47:32] - does ie let you have non ico files as your favicon? ~a
[2002-06-28 15:32:22] - http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst061702.htm
[2002-06-28 15:15:01] - if you use IE, you will also notice that the favicon is displayed to the left of the URL in the location bar. - dewey
[2002-06-28 15:14:46] - i've yet to try mozilla 1.0 on linux yet. grrr... a dependant package in gentoo keeps giving me compile errors. - mig
[2002-06-28 14:10:46] - - boing
[2002-06-28 14:10:37] - you can, at least in moz1.0win32
[2002-06-28 14:00:16] - i wonder if you can have animated icons
~a[2002-06-28 13:59:44] - mozilla/galeon/ns6 icons are specified just like a stylesheet and loaded just like any other image on your page. ~a
[2002-06-28 13:58:41] - no. favicon is dumb. favicon is loaded without anyones request. it's loaded when you make a webpage one of your "microsoft favorites" plus i assume favicon doesn't support pngs and gifs etc etc (what? no compression?) ~a
[2002-06-28 13:43:59] - are you talking about the favicon.ico, adrian? I actually think that's a microsoft invention. - boing
[2002-06-28 13:42:31] - no, opera uses its own engine (mozilla/galeon/ns6+'s engine is called "Gecko", btw) - boing
[2002-06-28 13:40:14] - mozilla is soooo slow. galeon is more about fast loading time and toned down interface. i like that. (i haven't tried opera . . . does opera use the mozilla engine?) ~a
[2002-06-28 13:33:59] - i didn't like galeon that much. mozilla was better. - mig
[2002-06-28 13:33:14] - i like opera's interface the bestest. - mig
[2002-06-28 11:22:11] - the tabs are so usefull and it supports the mozilla (i don't know who came up with this standard) web page icons. they're so cute. ~a
[2002-06-28 11:21:03] - galeon is so cool. i think everyone who's running linux should at least try it. it comes installed (optionally) with debian, redhat, and mandrake (etc etc) ~a
[2002-06-28 10:46:32] - assuming they exist at all, I would agree that it would be bad for their careers to make unsubstantiated claims about illegal behavior of private citizens, regardless of their relation to public figures - boing
[2002-06-28 10:45:09] - so basically, some drunk people think they saw the Bush twins at a bar, though none of the bartenders remember it, and they have no proof. the sources won't give their names, with the argument that it would be bad for their careers - boing
[2002-06-28 10:43:38] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57775-2002Jun27.html - boing
[2002-06-28 10:23:53] - http://www.losthorizons.com/gqr&b.htm some other good mottos
[2002-06-28 09:49:22] - "Never do tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow" if only this wasn't my motto. /me hates school. ~a-
[2002-06-28 07:31:03] - http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0628/p02s02-ussc.html
- boing[2002-06-27 22:30:24] - and I'm observant.... not necessarily smart ("SMRT?" =Þ) -cryptic
[2002-06-27 22:29:54] - I just figured you wouldn't want it like that on that page -cryptic
[2002-06-27 20:53:58] - you're so smart! ~a
[2002-06-27 20:17:39] - http://aporter.wox.org:81/?a=7 .... it's vertical there as well -cryptic
[2002-06-27 19:34:36] - http://www.gwbush.com/images/ahelicopterscoming.jpg
[2002-06-27 19:34:16] - http://www.gwbush.com/applynow.shtml
[2002-06-27 19:30:43] - Bush said the ruling "points up the fact that we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.
[2002-06-27 17:49:36] - http://www.comicbookresources.com/cgi-bin/getimage.cgi/b4a46572?REGION=front_468&CAMPAIGN=wcs_banner_0501&ACCOUNT=wcs&BANNER=wcs_banner_0610
[2002-06-27 17:48:14] - "Government neutrality towards religion is the best guarantee of everyone's freedom of religion and belief. "
[2002-06-27 17:03:28] - i'll take it! ~a
[2002-06-27 16:54:38] - *** cryptic makes a new drug, called "super wow feel better" only $5
[2002-06-27 16:53:50] - http://aporter.wox.org:81/me/ ~a
[2002-06-27 16:38:53] - on that note, i guess i'll go home. - mig
[2002-06-27 16:31:18] - there was obviously a demand for better education than public schools, thus private schools emerged to meet that demand. - mig
[2002-06-27 16:29:38] - wolf: precisely, that's why people willing dish out the money for ivy-league colleges. - mig
[2002-06-27 16:28:37] - to even further the blow, the fda has made getting new drugs on the market obscenely expensive and long, and imposes insane regulations on them. - mig
[2002-06-27 16:26:55] - according to libertarian reasoning, those people should be paying extra if they want a "better" education. - wolf
[2002-06-27 16:26:26] - the big loser was the patient, who could no longer have a health care plan that was tailored to his/her specific needs. - mig
[2002-06-27 16:25:55] - prices rose again. - mig
[2002-06-27 16:25:31] - because some politicans had the briliant idea that we had to have mandatory coverage for all these crazy types of treatments and forced health insurance companies to provide them, regardless of whether the patient desired the coverage or not. natrually, health care costs rose, and politicians continued to add things to mandatory coverage, and
[2002-06-27 16:25:20] - i blame the problem on cox. it isn't my fault and there is nothing i can do about it. i know that sounds like a pretty dumb thing to say but it's the truth. sorry. ~a
[2002-06-27 16:23:45] - I'm having trouble loading the mboard consistently, and I should really work. Good debate all, thanks.
- boing[2002-06-27 16:13:30] - wolf: how much would you say it factors in that people have to pay for public education, and so they want to take advantage of its presence rather than also pay for private school? - boing
[2002-06-27 16:12:48] - right. and it's weeded out the private schools - wolf
[2002-06-27 16:12:26] - mig: why were those programs implimented? -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:11:48] - we originally had four catholic schools in my county when i was a freshman. by the time i was a senior, they were down to one. - wolf
[2002-06-27 16:11:23] - make that >= not >> -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:11:22] - wolf: and the ones that survive are the best. the competition weeds out inefficient performers - boing
[2002-06-27 16:10:50] - boing: absolutely. - wolf
[2002-06-27 16:10:47] - "at your school"... tj? - boing
[2002-06-27 16:10:26] - cryptic: i just gave you an example of the free market working. - mig
[2002-06-27 16:10:22] - new jersey private schools continue to shut down because they don't perform as well as their public counterparts. nobody wants to send their kids there. they go out of business and shut down. - wolf
[2002-06-27 16:10:20] - wolf, would you say that the average classmate of yours there would say the same thing - boing
[2002-06-27 16:10:16] - I would says the "average person at your school" >> "average private school student" -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:09:22] - I never said I supported medicare or medicaid , I never said they were good systems either -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:09:19] - i went to a poor, quasi-urban high school and i learned more there than i probably ever will here at tech. - wolf
[2002-06-27 16:08:48] - mig: don't care -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:08:25] - as for you, cryptic, fairfax county is an exception to the rule too... and you are probably an exception as well. would you say that the average person at your school got as good an education as the average private school student? - boing
[2002-06-27 16:08:22] - cryptic: health care was affordable, efficient, and accessable to almost everyone before medicare and medicaid came along. - mig
[2002-06-27 16:07:42] - boing: i went to annandale for a year, i know what it's like. i understand that annandale is still in fairfax county and i understand that fairfax county is in virginia. but annandale was a lot closer to the national average than most people will admit. ~a
[2002-06-27 16:07:27] - it's working in that the private charity industry, including nondiscriminatory charities, are successful even in a system where people could argue that they have "already paid their charity" in welfare - boing
[2002-06-27 16:07:14] - herndon high school taught me well... I performed much better than many people even at TJ -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:06:59] - many christian charity groups give the best food, clothes, etc to the people who will convert to xtianity on the spot. - wolf
[2002-06-27 16:06:44] - but charities that discriminate become less popular, because it's bad PR to be racist/sexist etc - boing
[2002-06-27 16:06:41] - give me an example where your system is working? -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:06:05] - if you're using tj as an example, adrian, keep in mind that it is by FAR FAR FAR the exception to the rule - boing
[2002-06-27 16:05:44] - the government is required to be non-discrimintory though, while charities can fuck over who they want... -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:05:09] - right. one example of a failure doesn't mean the whole system is a failure - boing
[2002-06-27 16:05:08] - mig: yes!!! ~a
[2002-06-27 16:04:50] - a: and aren't public schools doing just a wonderful job!!! - mig
[2002-06-27 16:04:49] - people on this board have already made it pretty clear that they don't want to pay for other people's education. i guess you assume that someone else will pay for it? i'm sure that's what pretty much everyone else will say. - wolf
[2002-06-27 16:04:33] - even if you don't believe in a soul, you have to admit that other people do, and they are willing to do things inconvenient for them and good for others as a result of that belief - boing
[2002-06-27 16:04:02] - I was giving one example.... not an all applicable case.... -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:04:00] - I disagree. People would give money to charity even if it was not financially valuable, because people feel good (even if it's just egotistical moral superiority) when they help others - boing
[2002-06-27 16:03:04] - boing: the only motivation is the tax write off... nothing more.... they don't care how it's spent after that -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:02:43] - you can't use pat robertson as evidence of the whole country. many non-discriminatory charities do just fine despite them - boing
[2002-06-27 16:02:41] - that was re "let me ask an honest quesiton:" btw ~a
[2002-06-27 16:02:14] - mig: public schools educating the nation's youth. ~a
[2002-06-27 16:02:10] - mig: government pays for much more than just "charity"... see also: defense -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:02:01] - once again, it's a system that only benefits the rich. - wolf
[2002-06-27 16:01:41] - I agree with miguel again. a private organization doesn't want to see its money squandered. the gov't doesn't care because it was never its money in the first place - boing
[2002-06-27 16:01:13] - abuse would be lowering you wages because you know that poor people will work for you no matter what, since they won't have any aid to fall back onto. - wolf
[2002-06-27 16:00:55] - look at many faith based organizations... look at pat robertson... he had 62mill+ in donations... and $34mill+ in the bank (he wasn't putting to use the money he got)... also see: descrimination -cryptic
[2002-06-27 16:00:53] - I don't think the presence of the welfare system is what causes that, so obviously people have reasons to give to charity even if it doesn't exist - boing
[2002-06-27 16:00:24] - even in a system where we have to give money to welfare involuntarily, people give money to independant charities - boing
[2002-06-27 16:00:20] - cryptic: and yet more of each dollar you give makes it to those in need through private charity than it does through welfare. - mig
[2002-06-27 16:00:04] - you really want to rest the entire economy on the hope that some rich people might "feel good" by giving away their money freely? - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:59:50] - "abuse" is a strong word. would you go up to a person, who you knew wasn't giving money to charity, and say they were "abusing" the poor just because they weren't helping? - boing
[2002-06-27 15:59:21] - the u.s. would become one giant sweatshop. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:59:14] - private organizations are just as likely to be wasteful with free money (charity) as government is with it's "free" money -cryptic
[2002-06-27 15:58:55] - but I'm not implying that it's only valid if there is a soul - boing
[2002-06-27 15:58:43] - ugh, I don't mean to get into that, but you admit that people "feel good" when they do good things... I was just using the word soul, and the word spiritual, to describe that - boing
[2002-06-27 15:58:41] - in a charity-based system, it won't be legal or illegal to abuse the poor. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:58:36] - let me ask an honest quesiton: name me one, just one federal gov. program that has succeeded in sovling the problem that it was created for? - mig
[2002-06-27 15:58:01] - prove I (or you) have a "soul" =Þ -cryptic
[2002-06-27 15:57:40] - "soul"? what does that have to do with anything? -cryptic
[2002-06-27 15:57:32] - an individual person has a spiritual (emotional, what have you) incentive to donate to charity. even if that's not enough, tax writeoffs can give a financial incentive as well - boing
[2002-06-27 15:56:52] - not the law, wolf... the system. the law is fine, but it's not legal or illegal to be poor - boing
[2002-06-27 15:56:27] - okay, but it's not like we were designing it from the beginning to be wasteful... it's a flaw with the business model of government providing public aid. the government doesn't have a soul, doesn't benefit spiritually, or even really financially, from providing charity - boing
[2002-06-27 15:56:05] - i trust the rich less than i trust the law. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:55:16] - get rid of that shit, and then you can focus on fixing the welfare system -cryptic
[2002-06-27 15:54:56] - there's a lot of bureaucratic bullshit, a lot of waste... that's what needs to be gotten rid of before we get rid of programs designed to help people -cryptic
[2002-06-27 15:54:45] - I think the rich are a lesser risk, especially with tax writeoffs - boing
[2002-06-27 15:54:43] - while i distrust private organizations, i trust the government even less. - mig
[2002-06-27 15:54:30] - I don't think the hope that beurocrats will take care of them is worth taking either - boing
[2002-06-27 15:53:51] - I'm not saying all welfare workers are lazy, I'm sure a lot of them are very well meaning and/or effective. But I think we can all agree that welfare is an incredibly wasteful system - boing
[2002-06-27 15:53:26] - "let's get rid of social services and hope the rich will take care of those who needed it." i don't think that's a risk worth taking. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:53:15] - that way, we don't have lazy welfare workers collecting a paycheck while giving other people paychecks for doing nothing - boing
[2002-06-27 15:52:20] - encourage tax writeoffs... that works to get more money from the rich to charities, but people can decide for themselves which ones to help - boing
[2002-06-27 15:51:59] - small communities might benefit from a socialistic system, whereas it probably won't work for the nation as a whole. etc etc etc. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:51:35] - the problem is that people won't necessarily (or likely) give that money to charity, but I think even if they gave half of it, it would be better than welfare - boing
[2002-06-27 15:51:00] - I'm with mig here... think of all the money we could save by getting rid of the beurocratic waste of public welfare, which could be given to charities that actually work. - boing
[2002-06-27 15:50:44] - i think it is perfectly reasonable to pick and choose various methods even if it does upset the -ism purists. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:48:27] - and i am no fan of capitalism, mind you. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:47:53] - no system is perfect. but a capitalistic system is more suited for real people than a libertarian one. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:46:40] - look at canada's health care system. it's "free" for everyone. that's great, but no hospital wait lines are obscenely long, and some people have to wait many weeks just to get treatment. - mig
[2002-06-27 15:22:37] - while i'm not as staunch a supporter of capitalism as paul, i contend that most of the problems that you are complaing about are caused mostly in part by the government itself. - mig
[2002-06-27 15:18:25] - mig: we are not saying the current system is perfect. there need to be changes made. we are just saying that what we have now is a hell of a lot better than any libertarian system would be. - aba
[2002-06-27 15:17:42] - mig: if charities were enough then why are there still so many poor people in the world? sure people willingly give to charity, but its totally not enough. also a lot of people give to charity because you get a tax write off for a lot of charitable donations. people really arent that perfect. - aba
[2002-06-27 15:17:02] - s/should/would/
[2002-06-27 15:16:49] - why should a poor person get a job when he has a gov. check to live off of. - mig
[2002-06-27 15:16:13] - the government keeps poor people down by creating a dependant class. - mig
[2002-06-27 15:15:18] - many people willingly give money to charities, depsite the fact that welfare exists to do (supposadly) the same job. - mig
[2002-06-27 15:13:25] - a very good example of class/economic disparity and capitalism is india. the divide in the population is staggering. - aba
[2002-06-27 15:11:23] - with an economic system that guarantees that there are always going to be poor people, it is reasonable to expect the gov't to provide aid to the poor. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:09:48] - very rarely, you'll see a poor person beat the system. capitalism relies on the existence of disparity between rich and poor. it's not laziness. it's how america works. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:08:56] - wolf: i dunno. ~a
[2002-06-27 15:08:51] - Damn, I gotta go. Sorry I can continue debating with you guys. -Paul
[2002-06-27 15:08:45] - paul is right that most rich people are rich because they worked hard. however, it's also true that it doesn't happen often that people go from really really poor to millionare in one generation. ~a
[2002-06-27 15:08:35] - how many billionaires are first-gens? - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:08:25] - paul: its very easy to say that when youve never had to work as a janitor to support your family. just because its easy for you to work in a libertarian system does not make it the best system for the whole country. - aba
[2002-06-27 15:08:03] - being a millionaire in 2002 is a lot more common than being a millionaire in 1892 - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:07:19] - aba: I know, but if they work hard and make decent decisions, they can and will improve their lot in life. -Paul
[2002-06-27 15:07:03] - most (i forget the exact figure but it's like 80%) of all millionairesare first generation millionaires ~a
[2002-06-27 15:06:44] - aba: Well, it depends on what you mean by "equality". You mean people have equal standing in society or equal opportunity? -Paul
[2002-06-27 15:06:24] - democracyismosisticalitisous
[2002-06-27 15:06:09] - paul: so many immigrants in america are poor. most of them work very hard but they dont get anywhere because they dont have education or financial stability to better their positions. you are speaking from a very middle class point of view. - aba
[2002-06-27 15:06:01] - see also: pretty much every politician. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:05:32] - democracy doesn't end in -ism ~a
[2002-06-27 15:05:27] - the rich are often rich because their daddies and their daddies' daddies were rich. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:04:49] - Something that is often ignored is that the rich are usually rich for a reason. They worked hard and made the best of their opportunities. The poor are often poor for much the same reason. Slacking off and making poor decisions -Paul
[2002-06-27 15:04:25] - why does it all have to come down to one -ism? you don't have to pick one. you're allowed to have your own ideas. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:04:04] - paul: you dont think you can have both? - aba
[2002-06-27 15:03:24] - i value my liberty, but sometimes people have to be told what to do. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:03:15] - our health care system was actually great until the feds decided to fuck with it. - mig
[2002-06-27 15:03:12] - aba: communism is godless though! ~a
[2002-06-27 15:02:44] - It all depends on what you want out of life and society. If you want equality, go for socialism. If you want freedom, go for libertarianism. -Paul
[2002-06-27 15:01:51] - exactly what aba said. - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:00:56] - the rich already have that money. fine. but where are the poor supposed to get it from? - wolf
[2002-06-27 15:00:05] - it seems like freedom for the rich because it appears as though libertarians want to privatize everything. thus, in order to go to school, receive health care, etc., you must have money. - wolf
[2002-06-27 14:59:15] - libertarianism assumes that those who have (whether they be individuals or companies) will willingly give to those who dont have. we saw with communism that those who had witheld from the people. *shrug* libertarianism is just as fundamentally flawed as communism is. - aba
[2002-06-27 14:54:46] - the poor can't give to society if they don't receive from the government. ~a
[2002-06-27 14:54:24] - because the poor receive from the current government and the rich give to the current government. what they both do well is give to society. ~a
[2002-06-27 14:48:15] - wolf why do you think it seems like it is for only freedom for the rich? - mig
[2002-06-27 14:47:01] - wolf: libertarianism is not pro-rich or pro-money, it is purely pro-liberty. - mig
[2002-06-27 14:46:29] - but it ultimately only seems like it's freedom for the rich. i guess that's why republicans like libertarians. - wolf
[2002-06-27 14:44:51] - superficially, they seem like they are interested in personal freedom. - wolf
[2002-06-27 14:43:59] - libertarianism seems like it encourages class disparity, keeping the poor poor, etc. i'd like to see the system benefit everyone, not just the rich. - wolf
[2002-06-27 14:41:41] - eugene v. debs 4eva!!! - aba
[2002-06-27 14:39:54] - i wish i was a socialist. - aba
[2002-06-27 14:35:32] - i want to only think inside the box. - aba
[2002-06-27 14:35:20] - I think you mistake libertarianism with socialism -Paul
[2002-06-27 14:28:43] - wolf: you lie... everyone is the same!!!! -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:27:32] - here in the real world, we have all different kids of people. - wolf
[2002-06-27 14:26:55] - the problem with libertarianism is that it would only work if everyone had the exact same amount of money and thought and lived exactly alike. - wolf
[2002-06-27 14:26:08] - anarchy rulez!!111111 l33t!!11111 - wolf
[2002-06-27 14:25:50] - wolf: Good plan
-Paul[2002-06-27 14:25:37] - wolf: Only if we can get rid of everything I don't want my tax money to pay for also -Paul
[2002-06-27 14:24:55] - we should also get rid of streets, research, justice, and currency because my tax money pays for that, and i don't want it to. - wolf
[2002-06-27 14:23:29] - "Students must pass tests in order to enter high school or college, and they study very diligently for these exams. It is not unusual for high school graduates who fail on their first sitting to attend a special school for a year or two to prepare for a second or third try at the college entrance exams." -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:22:56] - we should do away with the military because i don't want my tax money paying for it. - wolf
[2002-06-27 14:22:53] - All Japanese children are required to attend school through the ninth grade. Although schooling is not compulsory after middle school, nearly 97% of Japanese students go on to high school, -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:22:40] - public schools are free in the sense that living in america is free. everyone pays taxes toward things they may not support. - wolf
[2002-06-27 14:21:50] - aaron: You might want to look into Japan, although I could be horribly wrong. I don't think many countries have more private schools then the US -Paul
[2002-06-27 14:19:20] - that's what they want in 2003 -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:18:37] - that's where i got my figure. - img
[2002-06-27 14:18:31] - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/budget.html
[2002-06-27 14:18:26] - those silly bugs work their way into the weirdes't places. ~a
[2002-06-27 14:18:20] - Are there any well-educated countries without public schools that I can look to for example? Personally I don't understand how public schools could be hurting our economy, but I'd like to find out - aaron
[2002-06-27 14:18:10] - http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/fedrole.html
[2002-06-27 14:18:04] - oops. my fault
~a[2002-06-27 14:17:55] - that's ~2%... maybe a little less -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:17:03] - Department of Education 2002 Spending : $47.6 billion -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:16:59] - mig, no -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:16:41] - did they attend public schools? one could argue you're paying for your going to school -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:16:25] - feds spend about 55.8 billion on education each year. - mig
[2002-06-27 14:16:08] - college would cost your parent's a lot more than it does -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:15:32] - mig: yes they dooo. haven't you ever heard of instate tuition? haven't you ever heard of public vs private universities? ~a
[2002-06-27 14:14:58] - -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:14:53] - it's <~2% for the federal government
[2002-06-27 14:14:28] - how much of the budget is education in local/state government? -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:14:26] - not anymore. - mig
[2002-06-27 14:13:08] - mig: your parents have two children in the public school system, silly. ~a
[2002-06-27 14:09:58] - wolf said they were free -Paul
[2002-06-27 14:09:11] - who said public schools are free? that's a stupid statement.... you obviously misunderstood someone -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:07:44] - a sweatshop is where people work long hours, for low wages, in poor conditions... this is obviously a subjective description... and it varies, but it is exploiting people even if they "voluntarily" agree to it (subversively though... since there are rarely any other options) -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:07:14] - even those who do not have children in public school (like my parents). - mig
[2002-06-27 14:06:26] - why do you get the notion that public schools are free? they are not. everyone pays for them. - mig
[2002-06-27 14:05:57] - I did read the previous statement, but I don't see how your wage dictates whether you are being exploited or not -Paul
[2002-06-27 14:05:51] - it's clearly a case by case decision, but if you read my previous description, you would understand -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:04:51] - cryptic: Again, what is the definition of a sweatshop? What is the magical dividing line that makes it go from a voluntary contract to exploitation? -Paul
[2002-06-27 14:04:32] - -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:04:27] - if you had read the previous statement, you would realize that it applies to low paying jobs, that blah blah blah... read what I wrote -crypt
[2002-06-27 14:03:39] - no, that does not make "any job is exploiting people" -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:03:02] - not to mention other opportunity your family's wealth has afforded you (same applies to me) -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:02:22] - chances are, since you've gotten an education, you won't be working in a sweatshop -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:02:13] - cryptic: The same place as the right not to be exploited. -Paul
[2002-06-27 14:01:09] - cryptic: I don't want to work, but I don't have a choice in the matter. Am I being exploitated? -Paul
[2002-06-27 14:00:27] - where does the right to exploit people come from? -cryptic
[2002-06-27 14:00:09] - cryptic: By that rationale, it seems like any job is exploiting people -Paul
[2002-06-27 13:59:32] - cryptic: Where does this right to an education come from? -Paul
[2002-06-27 13:59:12] - no, that would be described as vouchers -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:58:49] - while it is "voluntary" in many cases, people choose it because there are no other options.... and that doesn't make them right... the general idea is they are exploiting people -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:58:07] - cryptic: What do you mean by a right to education? You mean people have the right to steal other people's money to go to a school of their choice? -Paul
[2002-06-27 13:56:58] - cryptic: I do know what a sweatshop is, but a lot of people seem to have the wrong idea about them. Working in a "sweatshop" is completely voluntary and if you don't like the wages and hours, then don't take the job. -Paul
[2002-06-27 13:56:15] - I agree with wolf.... people should have the right to education -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:55:41] - your point? you think we should make the general public dumber than it currently is? -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:54:35] - cryptic: There's a lot of things that don't benefit society in general. -Paul
[2002-06-27 13:54:06] - you know what a sweatshop is... but thinking about it, I may extend it to jobs that don't pay a living wage (read: pay minimum wage) too... but generally a sweatshop means many hours of work for very little wage -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:51:27] - cryptic: Except the times have changed a great deal sinc the 1900s. And define sweatshop. -Paul
[2002-06-27 13:51:07] - I am not defending the current system (as it needs work.... not vouchers... but it does need work)... but your system does not seem to benefit society in general -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:49:28] - the problem is: people will not pay for schooling for the poor, the rich will operate just as they did during the early 1900's.... you don't really need an educated work force... why else do we still have sweat shops? -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:47:57] - It doesn't even have to be rich people. I was actually thinking more along the lines of companies doing the scholarships and stuff. -Paul
[2002-06-27 13:47:26] - I'm not nearly as needy as other people.... but I could go for free schooling -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:47:17] - cryptic: I doubt it. Why would he? My Dad is far from rich. -Paul
[2002-06-27 13:46:33] - will your dad pay for my school then? -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:45:55] - cryptic: Because they realize they need these people to work and buy stuff -Paul
[2002-06-27 13:44:58] - I will agree that our current implimentation of public schools is pretty poor.... but disolving them will not solve the problem -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:39:17] - and even if they didn't want to, it's not their obligation to do so. - mig
[2002-06-27 13:39:01] - you get what you pay for.... poor people can't afford expensive schools with good teacher/student ratios, they couldn't afford schools with modern computers, they couldn't afford schools with adequate facilities -cryptic
[2002-06-27 13:38:51] - cryptic: because some of them are good-natured, becuase maybe some of them want the publicity, tax-deductable donations. there are many motivations. - mig
[2002-06-27 13:37:51] - somehow I highly doubt they would -cryptic
prev <-> next