I went to public school and had some great teachers who were worth their weight in gold. I also had other teachers who weren't worth a nickel and did a great amount of harm to their students.
If teachers' unions ever agree to let teachers be paid based on how good they are - rather than just by seniority - you might actually see more attractive salaries for good teachers.
The problem is how do you determine how "good" a teacher is? If it's based on student performance then what about the teacher that gets stuck with a class full of idiots? Maybe they're a great teacher doing the best they can but they can't get anywhere because the principal took all of the smart kids and moved them to the classroom of the teacher blowing him on the side so she gets bonuses. The only way to objectively measure a teacher's performance is by auditing their work and that's way too expensive to ever happen. So the crisis continues.
I'm only allowed to say this because no one will believe it anyway.
OSX? Touch-based desktop? Which Mac comes with a touch screen?
SP2 was the last fundamental change to XP's architecture (to the point that some programs that ran on SP1 *stopped working* with SP2). It added Data Execution Prevention and some other under the hood goodies. SP3 was basically a security update rollup with some essential hotfixes thrown in for good measure. Nothing major changed architecturally.
I just wish they would have released one final update rollup with all supported public updates to make it easier to get people up to a final patch level. Having to have 150+ post-SP3 patches makes things a bit cumbersome when fixing PC's for people that never upgraded.
When you go to hire a developer you're not just looking to hire someone who can code in the latest fad language/API/SDK. You need someone who knows software development like a captain knows his ship. I promise you that 20+ years of software development will be worth way more than the 22 year old kid who knows Ruby on Rails because he learned it while studying in college. That experienced developer can pick up whatever tool your company standardized on and yeah, it may be three months before he's all the way up to speed on it, but then the years of experience will begin to make themselves tellingly felt vs. a kid who happens to know the tool already.
Hiring for the tool is stupid. It would be like looking for a columnist who specifically has Microsoft Office 2013 experience and filtering all the applicants who only used Google Docs in their previous jobs. Either one of them can write copy.