Completely irrelevant, since Schiller's claim is not that Apple was first (they weren't) but they are the only survivors from the Macintosh Era, which began in 1984.

This is not surprising. There is very little evidence that "smaller class size" improves student performance. Small class size mostly helps poor students in low grades, and even then, much of the benefit is because of a reduction in distracting noise. Noise absorbing insulation is far cheaper than hiring more teachers, and may do almost as much good.

SAT scores are a terrible metric to compare schools. SATs are specifically designed to measure raw ability, and to exclude, as much as reasonably possible, the benefits of education. According to this chart the average American SAT score in 2013 was 1498, while California's was 1505 and Utah's was 1694. BUT WAIT: in California, 57% of high school students took the SAT, while in Utah just 6% took it. So the top 6% of Utah are better than the top 57% of California students on a test that is specifically designed to NOT measure the quality of their education. I am not sure what to conclude from that.

Michael Dell started assembling and selling PCs from his dorm room in 1984, the same year the first Macintosh was made.

The best way is to let your kid choose. Kids tend to be interested in things that are relevant to their own lives. I doubt if more than 1% would be interested in "the technology of horse drawn carriages". If you try to push that kind of crap on them, you are just going to sour your relationship. You can try to nudge them in a certain direction, but mostly you should let them find their own path. Anyway, I gotta go, my 10 year old daughter is teaching herself OpenGL, and she wants to ask me some questions about matrices ...

Foreigners are already strongly represented in senior management. In Silicon Valley, more than half of CEOs were foreign born. It is likely that educated immigrants create more tech jobs than they take. The economy is not zero sum.

It is easy to ridicule this as a benefit to the privileged, but our current funding of education, primarily with property taxes, is the root of much of the inequality in America. Property taxes are high in areas with high incomes, and low in areas of low incomes. Low income people also tend to have more school age kids. So the result is that rich kids attend schools with good teachers, libraries, computer labs, music programs, etc., where they only associate with other rich kids. Moving to a system of funding based on a broader tax base would do a lot to create more equality of opportunity.

The difference is that an adoption contract doesn't have two parties, it has three: The birth parents, the adopting parents, and the state. The state is involved in the process, and will only allow adoption if the adopters can demonstrate financial security. In the sperm donor case, there were only two private parties, and their private agreement should not be able to force an expense onto the taxpayers.

This is so that the contract can be low-balled (wink, wink) and pushed through congress (more wink, wink) and then the "real" requirements can be tacked on later and the price jacked up, which is exactly what everyone (especially the winkers) expected.

There is a solution to this phony system: prediction markets. Big government contracts should not be able to be funded unless informed investors, wagering their own money, believe that there is at least a 50% probability of it being finished on time and under budget.

They are the SAME PEOPLE. They just rotate jobs periodically. Government employees and politicians responsible for managing the procurement process routinely work for a while to build their connections and then leave and go work for the contractors. So when working on the government side of the MIC, they have no incentive to go against the interests of their future employers on the industry side.

Baloney. If the state refuses to take your money (unlikely), you can donate it directly to the dad.

Why should two private individuals be able to agree to dump expenses in the lap of the taxpayer?

Should I be able to sign a contract with my wife, absolving both of us of the responsibility of paying income tax?

The nearby airfield is faster. Definitely. But what is your point? If you have a local airfield or carrier, you can use it to launch either drones or piloted aircraft. If you don't, then either drones or manned aircraft can use remote airfields and refuel en-route.

They are all part of the same organization.

If you really think it is so sad, why don't you call up the Kansas DCF, and volunteer to support the kid yourself? It may be sad that the responsibility is being forced on an unwilling dad, but it would be sadder if it was forced on unwilling taxpayers.

If the drone has been assigned a target, then when jammed it will continue its mission.
If the drone hasn't been assigned a target, then the jammer's radiation source becomes the target.

There is a solution to this: Public prediction markets. No large public spending project should go forward unless informed investors, wagering their own money, believe it has at least a 50% chance of meeting the budget/schedule.