Sorry for some of the random stats...it was a cut and paste.

The primary point is that government spending on education has outpaced inflationary costs, and provided no measurable improvement (that I'm aware of). Throwing money at something isn't always the best way to improve things...witness our healthcare. Why should there be any increase after inflation if it's not providing benefit? Is your comment about real wages not also non sequitur, or is there some link to educational expenses and value?

Again, I'm fine with increased expenses if they're used toward areas that have a demonstrable return in educational value.

Sorry for replying twice, but they should just change the signs to read "Welcome to the Hotel California".

Actually, LAX doesn't do this at all checkpoints. I just walked through one with a security drone watching to make sure people didn't go the wrong way.

While I don't disagree in this situation, isn't this the mentality that's caused us to require fifteen safety stickers on a simple ladder? There certainly is such a thing as a user error that is not a faulty design.

I'm not sure about where you live, but it's not the case in Michigan. Just google "detroit edison rate increase denied", and see how often they get their way.

I'm all for paying for good education. But, I'm also against government waste. If you can show areas where the monies spent would provide an educational ROI, I'd jump on that bandwagon.

Data published by the U.S. Department of Education in its annual Digest of Education Statistics shows that per student expenditures are high across the country and they have continued to rise.

        $553 billion was spent on public education in 2006-2007. This figure represents 4.2 percent of GDP.
        An average of $9,266/pupil is spent in American public schools.
        Of the $71.7 billion spent by the Federal government on elementary and secondary education programs in 2007, $39.2 billion was spent on K-12 education. Of this amount 67% was spent on Special Education and Education for the Disadvantaged programs.
        Between 1994 and 2004, average per-pupil expenditures have increased by 23.5% when adjusted for inflation.
        Between 1984 and 2004, real expenditures per pupil increased by 49%.
        Between 1970 and 2005 per pupil expenditures increased three times from $311/pupil to $971/pupil.

I saw the name Fyfe, and couldn't help but correlate it to Barney Fife. Two of a kind.

I've worked around govt. employees for 38 years. It's not a unique situation, it's commonplace.

Sorry, but simply by adding "By entering this vehicle you are agreeing to be monitored" is all that is needed.

Today I Learned: writing a stated opinion or prediction causes it to become true! I think I'll put a sticker in my garden, "By entering this garden, it has rained today."

How does this prevent the non-driver from crashing it into a tree?

Take the recording out of the crashed car, to your desktop. Play back the recording up until a point where the car is near the tree. Then quickly hit a seek button that goes to another part of the video where the car is travelling down a safe unobstructed road. Click Save, eject, and then sneakernet the recording back to the car. Insert it and click load.

HTH.

Um, no. Even the Forest Service says so on their permits page.

The Forest Service offers many activities such as hiking, biking, skiing, camping, birding, using cabins, driving for pleasure, harvesting mushrooms, and gathering firewood. Many of the facilities and services associated with these opportunities are free. Some do require fees or permits to help maintain, manage and improve the amenities that you enjoy.

This is the typical kind of crap that people wanting more government completely miss. These kind of jackasses are often finding phony problems in order to justify their positions.

Okay, so if you look at it in the opposite direction, is it still to the right? Is there a standard starting point, like when we say the right side of a car, we're assuming the orientation is from the driver's point of view. Facing the vehicle from the front would reverse that.

Why would the video portion be any different than someone snapping a photo through the window? I believe that part is completely legal. The audio, on the other hand...

Not that it would be a good thing, but wouldn't the warming of areas that are currently less habitable due to cold offset some of that? Maybe portions of Canada, Greenland, Siberia?