Yeah, the next Asus I think is going to run Windows 8... TF801 or something like that. I own the TF301 with keyboard, and it's pretty nice. Being able to use the keyboard is pretty handy. It also replaces any desire for a small netbook for travel or something like that. Plus, since it has a second sdcard slot (yes, iPad, I'm looking at you!), it's easily upgradeable to ... well, I think the internal one is 32gb on mine, so 96gb if I wanted. I have a 32gb card in it now, though, which is more than enough so far.

So, of course, the USPTO is going to pay for Samsung's lawyer fees, right? ....

Attendance *used* to be way more important. Back when, you know, almost nobody had any books, there was no internet, there weren't any libraries, etc. Saying it was required X years ago, so it should be required now, without evaluating whether or not things have changed is a bit short-sighted, IMO :) That said, I know it ... well, seems loosely correlated, perhaps? People who want to learn will tend to go to where they can learn. People who don't want to learn ... er ... don't.

But there's a lot of people who attend and don't learn. My point was that it is possible to be enrolled in public school, *not* attend class very much, and still learn these "skills." Whatever they are. If I can learn from a book at home (this was my point), then I can learn that same bit at home using the public school's book, right? So, maybe requiring 100% (or whatever) attendance isn't really that necessary.

I also am thinking about the "they have been taking attendance forever" bit... it's interesting that, at least in accounts of school, you got in major trouble with your parents if you weren't doing well in school. You didn't have parents getting the school in major trouble because their brilliant genius isn't learning.

In other words, parental encouragement seems to be far more important than attendance. I would have been bored and wasting a ton of time in public school, I think - with the exception of some organized things like sports or band. But even there, I just did community organized things (I didn't want to do sports professionally).

I'm getting off on tangents. :-o

"I can't keep my kids from dressing in gang-clothing. I'm glad the school forces them to."

They could have done it regardless of what the school required. Just because a given school doesn't require a uniform doesn't mean you can't wear a "uniform."

No... at best, the government is the majority of parents. Assuming that's how it works, anyways? If it's not a majority, then it's not the parents; if it is the majority, then it's only the majority of parents. Which is better, at any rate.

However, what I'm more concerned about is that the government run school kinda of abdicates parental responsibility. If the government feeds your children, tells them how to dress, requires them to be there (regardless of how well they learn without being there) and gets money from the federal government based on them being there!... and other things ... what exactly DO parents do? And, furthermore, when the actual standards of literacy and education aren't even held up (i.e., you need to re-do this grade because you didn't learn the information taught/required) and somehow this is seen, by the parents, as the school's fault (because, afterall, they're doing everything now) ... that's a problem.

I don't know how this could be fixed. But it's a problem. And the problem isn't - as, incidentally, you do mention :) - necessarily the government, it's the parents. However, I think having the public school do *so much* more or less encourages the "hands-off, let the public school do it" parenting ... um ... ideology.

Which skills are those? Do home-schooled kids not learn these same skills? They don't go to "class."

And I've known lots of people, at junior college, who went to class and didn't learn. Going to class may be helpful for those who are already inclined to learn, but you have to be inclined to learn in the first place. Attendance doesn't incline you, and thus it's not really that good of an indicator, IMO.

Why is attendance even required? If I can learn the material without attending, isn't that better all around? Better for class sizes, don't have to feed me lunch, etc.

I guess some requirements are good. Maybe ... have to be there on test days, and like, 30% of the time or something for lectures.

But seriously. The problem with education is not attendance. I was homeschooled. I didn't even attend class. I learned my material from school books. I actually never graduated from High School, officially (took an equivalency test to start college). In college, I attended classes because I was supposed to, but some of them (economics, literature) weren't exactly that profitable uses of my time.

I know, it's cliche to say "I didn't go and I turned out fine" but I did. I'm employed, I double majored in computer science and music theory/composition, graduated summa cum laude, was active in various groups and activities (too many, according to some :) ), etc.

Attendance is not really a measure of educational success. Especially if you can attend perfectly, fail classes, and get moved on to the next grade anyway.

Seriously? That is way messed up. I pay for that patent office with taxes, I assume. I don't like it that a company can spam them, essentially, with patent applications until they get one through (presumably had an inexperienced reviewer or something). Blech. And this isn't anti-Apple, this is anti-anyone-that-does-this :P

It sounds like he predicted Obama, too, who ran on a sort of ambiguous "Don't like the way things are going? Vote for me. Vote for hope. Vote for change. I'll change things and give you hope for our country."

Turns out not much really did change from the previous administration, but he ran on essentially the same platform that you're describing.

I guess he did get the healthcare thing passed. Which it seems like is still a bit iffy; various taxes that, even though he said they wouldn't affect me, will affect me, etc. No, my premiums have not gone up, but my taxes will. Oh, and Obama said that we would have better coverage and it would cost not just "nothing more" but LESS. That sounds an awful lot like the snippet you just pasted.

Apple doesn't use filesystems. ;)

Only the rounded corner versions.

Don't push that button. :)

So, what traits did you correlate with that trait? ;)

Everyone I meet seems to think that they are the only competent ones in the world. But none of them are.

Ok, then. What IS the problem? Racism, or wage discrimination based on gender?

Choosing which one you want to address is going to change how you concretely solve it. Wage discrimination can be solved with legislation, somewhat, I suppose. Racism? Not quite so easily.

Capitalist idea? The capitalist idea would be that they should *freely* compete with each other. You don't have to lobby to compete. You have to lobby when you need some sort of permission or you are seeking some sort of protection from the government; i.e., constraining the market in some way. I don't advocate a totally unregulated market. However, to say that lobbying is a capitalist idea is rather odd. Well, maybe not - I guess in the event of total state control, you don't have lobbying because you don't have the company in the first place, just the state.