'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.'"

--yeah! That's what Slashdot is for! :)

Can't wait to see the new "Marvel Babies" series. Baby Spiderman and Baby Wolverine in wacky preschool misadventures.

Could be worse, though. George Lucas could have bought 'em.

This is the perfect design to get you an instant cavity search.

Mmmm...forbidden donut...

Maybe I watch way too much of Futurama/Simpsons/Family Guy/Sci-Fi channel...

I agree that the students should be well-versed in the sciences but the curriculum should include a diverse range of disciplines. Kids should be doing well in all courses for that matter. However, I don't agree that the problem is with limited time or with not enough academic focus in the classroom. I suggest that the problem is more systemic to our current culture of instant gratification and instant information and too many distractions and pressures outside of the classroom.

With the advent of "no child left behind," the peer groups of school-aged kids become watered down to the lowest common denominator. Kids who are not getting reinforcement at home from parents do not do their homework or value education. As a consequence, the classroom becomes unruly, distracted, and overrun with apathetic students--both bright students who are bored while the undisciplined ones play catch-up. Increasing the workload or paring down the curriculum does not solve that problem. Of course, increasing the breadth and depth with more stuff to learn doesn't either, but I digress.

Developmentally, middle-school (formerly junior high) and high school are times when forming peer groups, friends, and social networks are very important to kids as they learn to navigate those social structures. With cell phones, Twitter, e-mail, texting, and whatever the communication du jour may be, come distractions. Television, video games, and the internet also provide lots and lots of stimuli that is counter-intuitive to the needs of our school curriculums: they require focused studying and our kids are adapting to a rapid-fire short-attention method of dealing with stimulation and information.

My point is this: I think there are more layers to the education problem than just what's on the curriculum. Kids are not learning because, in my opinion, they are not equipped to learn or study nor do they have an atmosphere in the classroom or at home that is conducive to learning.

Perhaps I might be contradicting my earlier comments but I think the kids that are doing well will continue to do well and can handle a well-balanced academic plan that includes arts, sciences, and letters. We shouldn't remove material for the sake of those who can't keep up.

Look--this isn't about teaching kids to be religious but rather putting things in a less subjective perspective. Teaching a course in the "Theory of Evolution" as a science course is 100% appropriate. Teaching creationism as a science course is 100% wrong--religion and creationism belong to the realm of social sciences and humanities because of the political, historical, and philosophical contexts. Ignoring the world's largest religions and their impact on humanity because one doesn't "believe" in them is ignorant and small-minded. A "World Religions" course is 100% appropriate in public schools. Teaching a child which one to follow is not.

I'm not suggesting that science courses be taught differently but rather changing the method by which we expose school children to the world around them. Moving Creationism away from the "hard" sciences seems to be the logical compromise for dealing with the faith versus science argument.

Wouldn't you prefer a well-rounded education that includes an objective perspective of religion, science, and the socio-political world? I would.

If included in the arts, sciences, letters, kids also learned that Islamists have been fighting wars amongst themselves since the death of Muhammed, that the creation from the Bible is kind of a hodge-podge of religious ideas that trace back to Zoroastrianism, and the Darwin actually believed in God, I think kids would have a better understanding of other cultures and each other.

In the end, that's what education is all about.

In the end, it's all about education not being right or wrong.

I wish both sides could understand that being educated and informed doesn't necessarily equate belief, endorsement, or apostasy. You can study Christianity (or any religion) without believing in it and you can study evolutionary science (or any other scientific theory) without believing in it. Ignoring the other view is just, well...ignorant.

I think it's best to approach education from a perspective of learning and understanding rather than discriminating against information in which you do not believe while promoting one's own agenda or belief system. That's not education--that's brainwashing.

That kind of thinking led to the dark ages.

Ignorance reigns amongst the absolutists.

It's not about science or common sense--it's all about billing the insurance companies. That's how hospitals and clinic "businesses" make money. Doctors order tests because they are told to do so as often as they write prescriptions because they get "incentives" to do so from pharmaceutical companies.

It's all about money.

Sometimes, when I'm a little groggy, my mind plays tricks on me when I'm reading. The results are sometimes humorous mash-ups. (well, funny to me)

This one became:
"London Police Seek To Install CCTV In Pubes"

A very interesting picture came to my mind. I had to share.

I wonder if it will involve the Segway... ...we know it won't involve Kathy Griffin...

So, if you're committing a crime, be sure to smile and make silly faces.

Here's the rub: pay for the proprietary software and get service, deployment, and customization with varying degrees of quality. Or get open source projects that require customization and put the burden on your IT staff to make it happen. Some of those are no-brainers but some of the more specialized enterprise stuff gets REALLY hairy. With deadlines, migrations, and trouble-shooting, the company might spend just as much money on over-time and lost productivity or, worse, the salaried IT staffers will suffer under the extra work-load. Hiring contractors, training, and all of those other things add up, too. These details make the business decisions more complicated when you're trying to justify the pain of migration with lowered costs.

I know this will be a very unpopular comment here, but I think open source and GNU software are awesome but they're not always the right solution to every problem.

I think Linux took a big step forward with Ubuntu. The reason why personal computers are as ubiquitous as they are is because of Windows and MacOS and their GUI. Anyone who doesn't mind getting into the CLI and learning strings of commands loves Linux but the average person does not have the time, patience, or inclination to learn how to install, configure, and maintain linux.

Drivers and jargon are huge hurdles to anyone other than a geek. Ubuntu (and a few other distros) are now making that part easier.

I've been running linux as a server for 12 years--I like it. But I wouldn't run it as my primary OS for several reasons:

1) I'm just not ready to abandon my years of comfort using my primary OS (and all the software I use)
2) I'm not convinced linux would be as trouble-free compatibility wise

FWIW.