Well in this case it's a 70min bus ride each direction to a digital school. This school issues every student a laptop instead of the old standard heavy text books. No problem with some students not having laptops. These high school students spend more then 2 hours each day on the bus. Some live on ranches and most likely have a long list of chores to do at home as well, I know I did when I lived on a ranch.
I agree that not all the kids are going to be doing something productive with the internet, the artical even talks about that, but the ones not being productive are not bothering the ones that are. Think of it as a library setting where the kids are waiting to be picked up, this one just happens to be rolling.
For those that think the cost is too much. Consider this is only being used on an extremely long route, one bus and that I highly doubt they are paying for the service over the summer. And for those that say being rowdy on the bus is part of growing up. It was just that rowdiness that caused an accident when I was on a bus ages ago. The driver looked up into the mirror to see a fight breaking out and hit a parked car. The bus is not the place to be rowdy.
I'm not flying anymore and it's not because I'm scared. It's because I'm tired of the hassle.
For the record I love to fly, I've flown since I was a small child. I used to fly with a pocket knife then. Later I added a multitool to my person and flew with that. Back before 9/11 those were allowed. Notice that not one of the hijackers used a pocket knife or a multitool, yet they are banned. I'm waiting for the day that I'm not allowed to take my cane. I think on that day I'll use it to whack the screeners upside their heads.
The whole reason I'm not going to fly is I feel it's the only way for us to regain control of the situation. Once people stop flying because of the hassle and restrictions then the airlines will start screaming for the reduction in the screening.
I say let's go back to pre 9/11 requirements with the exception of secured cockpits. Then and only then will I start flying again. Until that time, I'll drive, take the train or even the bus. Yeah I might end up sitting next to someone that hasn't showered in days but at least that will be more pleasant then dealing with asinine security restrictions designed to do nothing but appease the paranoid masses.
The thing is, the companies that provide that insurance want to make a profit. That means that they charge less to those companies that takes steps to minimize their risk. That means that it costs the company to be vulnerable, even if nobody hacks their system. SO, if a company does not mitigate its risk of a data breach and its competitor does, it is at a competitive disadvantage.
That's an oversimplification. Most insurance companies release guidelines that you have to comply with to get certain rates. For example, your auto insurance may be lower because you have a car alarm on it. That doesn't mean the car alarm works, or was from a reputable vendor, just that something on that car now meets the definition of "car alarm". Lots of checklists like this exist in the business world -- they add the appearance of security, but do nothing to actually create security. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act contains lots of rules. One company I worked for decided to encrypt every desktop harddrive to meet one of the requirements of preventing data theft. Of course, that didn't prevent the nightly dumps of the pharmacy's customer records from being put in a world-readable/writable, anonymously, and remotely accessible share for a few hours at a go -- because that's how the backup program worked. You just had to know when and where to connect on the network. Did I mention this company's entire corporate intranet was accessible from kiosks and each store has wifi?
Checklists don't improve security, they just give legal a way to say "we made a good faith effort." I stand by my original assertion -- Insurance is just a cost-shifting tactic that allows bad business practices to manifest because there's no real pressure to use good business practices.
nothing makes my blood boil more than these condescending western attitudes that nonwestern places have a "special" culture that means they can't appreciate or don't deserve basic things like participatory democracy
as if you cross the ural mountains or the mediterranean or the rio grande and *poof*, magic!: those people over there have a "special" thousands of years of history and a deep intricate culture that apparently teaches us... somehow... drum roll please... that its ok for autocracies to commit horrible violations of basic human rights
wtf?!
human rights triumph culture. culture does not triumph human rights. nevermind the fucking braindead obvious observation that government != culture. is german culture the third reich? is russian culture the soviet union?
furthermore, its called HUMAN rights, not WESTERN rights. please, some of you morons out there: this attitude about "special" cultures needing our respect... translating in your ignorant mind as asshole governments needing to be excused of outrageous crimes... this attitude is really nothing more than soft racism
I don't think Norton or Kaspersky would be too chuffed either.
Oh, he is an "artist". You just need to put "scam" in front to truly appreciate the art....
Out of curiosity, is that US total debt figure including or not including the portion owed to Social Security?
That figure is the external debt. Which does not include the "debt" to the Social Security Administration. I have read that the unfunded liability of the SSA (you know, the sort of thing that corporations get slammed for in court regularly) is on the order of $100 trillion.
See, there was a wonderful bait-and-switch pulled on the middle and working classes over the last 25 years or so that went like this:
1. Notice that Social Security will eventually be broke unless we do something about it. A commission led by Alan Greenspan is formed to figure out what to do about it.
2. The commission recommends raising FICA taxes to build up a surplus in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, to reduce the risk of having to cut SS benefits. Congress follows the recommendations of the commission.
Which had already happened before that, and will happen again.
>3. Fast forward about a decade, and lo and behold government is running a surplus if you include the extra SS revenue (but a deficit if you don't). So when George W Bush gets into office, he says "We'll send everyone a $300 check as their portion of the surplus, and also use the surplus to justify a nice hefty tax cut for the top tax brackets."
But, but...it was the Clinton Administration that claimed that we had a surplus. Bush taking them at their word was disingenuous at best, but otherwise he'd have had to call them liars (and the lads on the left would have crucified him). Plus, of course, opposing his proposed income tax cut on the grounds that the "surplus" that Clinton had achieved wasn't REALLY a surplus would have made the Democrats and the Media look bad....
4. And lastly, since the SS Trust Fund "doesn't exist", the same people then argued that either benefits had to be cut, or the SS system privatized, because government couldn't afford it anymore.
Actually, they suggested privatizing it since the stock market was appreciating in value far faster than your "investment" in Social Security. They fell for the "but prices will NEVER go down" fallacy that infected so many people during that period.
Note: about five years ago, in discussing housing in Florida, I heard three well-educated, technically literate people assert that "housing prices could never go down". When I realized I was the only dissenter from that PoV, I went home, wrote my mortgage company a really big check, and have been the sole owner of my home since.
The effect of this is that over the last 20 years overall tax burden is shifted from the progressive income taxes to the regressive FICA taxes.
Yep, pretty much. And that process will continue. It can't help it, really. SSA is structured such that it MUST be paid from SS taxes. As the fraction of our population of SS age increases (as it has pretty much every year since it was instituted), the amount of SS taxes must increase.
And as the amount of SS taxes increase, the fraction of our budget that is the SSA will increase. Note that the SSA is the largest single budget item today. And while you can cut the Defense Department, you can't cut SSA (paid for by SS taxes) and Medicare (paid for by Medicare taxes) (first and third largest items in the budget right now).
In order to actually balance the current budget, we'd have to eliminate the Defense Department, and reduce all other discretionary spending by ~70%.
Or, alternately, double income taxes across the board.
Frequently, the same folks who argue that the SS Trust Fund doesn't exist and therefor SS shouldn't exist also include the T-Bills owned by Social Security in the "Total US debt" figure as a way to argue for cuts to other programs.
It doesn't exist. Simple thought experiment to demonstrate its existence or non-existence:
Assume it exists. When the SSA finally reaches the point that it must start redeeming those T-Bills, figure out what will happen (hint: the government will raise SS taxes and/or increase the external debt to match the decrease in the "debt" to the SSA.
Assume it doesn't exist. When the SSA finally reaches the point where it must start redeeming those T-Bills, figure out what will happen (hint: see above hint).
If the result is the same assuming the SS Trust Fund exists as if it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist.
Or it illustrates the fact that people who gravitate to the Mac are interested in a tool they can use and, say, Linux users are interested in a toy (and I mean that in a good way- I love me my toys) they can fiddle with.
These "toys" run quite a lot of enterprises, maybe you should state in what context we are talking. Workstations? Laptops? Servers? etc.
Harrison's Postulate: For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.