Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
lol... I asked a friend of my who retired a couple years from a local newspaper if he thought the internet would replace hardcopy newspapers... he didn't think so.... but I do :)
...the Administration is not really all that keen on the idea that you are earning a Professors salary and are not in a classroom
it's the same argument you run into when employees want to work from home... management doesn't trust them and probably feel threatened by that option since that's their job... managing people.
And sure, online classes don't work for everyone, for every class... and yes, I'm not the norm. I was aware of that since first grade and had the teacher in tears. In high school, I was bored senseless. But I can imagine how much more challenging and interesting high school could have been for me if there had been computer labs set up for students who learned quickly and were very independent and just needed a dab of guidance now and then. These students could work at their own pace. Mainstream school is set up to meet the needs of the "norm"... exceptionally bright kids and kids who need extra help are often neglected because there aren't enough resources to have specialized classes that better suit their needs. In the local school district, when a high schooler isn't on track to graduate they are put in a programs where they do the work at their own pace and I think that works better for a lot of them.
When my kids were teens and got to that point, I gave them a budget and let them spend however they wanted. Each had their own priorities, but they also learned to live within a budget (well... almost lol)
sure he got it... LOL
I made the mistake of hanging onto some old computers and waited so long I couldn't even give them away... had to pay to have them taken by the hazardous waste site. I couldn't do half the things I do on a computer that old.
exactly. Computers are much more than toys... of course many don't even come close to utilizing their full potential. Two of my nephews were very into computers at a young age. One is now a graphics artist and the other a programmer... both make an excellent living and have a bright future ahead of them. Like any tool, it's all in how a person uses it.
I've taken several online classes from various teachers. The quality of the class still depends largely on the effort put in by the teacher of the quality of that effort. Having it online also didn't eliminate the need for contact with the teacher. The two out of three teachers I've taken classes with were very responsive to both emails and phone calls. The third teacher was a little slow, but ok.
My point is that it isn't the medium that is necessarily flaw, it's how it gets utilitized. Also, it doesn't replace the need for a good instructor.
yeap!
I'm not sure what the trend is here. For me they work great because I can move along faster. Sitting through a two hour lecture seems tedious to me.
maybe it's not for everyone. It certainly shouldn't replace grade school instruction, but I can see it being a great tool for teachers if used properly.
As for college level, I think it's a growing trend (at least around here).
that sounds like an administrative problem. but the technology itself should save money. If a class can be taught over the internet, then the cost of facilities is dramatically decreased... particularly the cost of computer labs. The whole point of computers is to use their power to save time and money. If that's not happening, they are not being utilized well.
I had several teachers refuse to give me weekly reports.
Bush Says Don't Expect Oil Price Breaks
<< what a load of crap >>
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
Wed Feb 1, 8:20 PM ET
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - President Bush defended the huge profits of Exxon Mobil Corp. Wednesday, saying they are simply the result of the marketplace and that consumers socked with soaring energy costs should not expect price breaks.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Bush also addressed oil's future, offering a more ambitious hope than in his State of the Union speech for cutting imports from the volatile Mideast.
However, he said his oft-stated goal of a Palestinian state in the region cannot be realized if a Hamas-led government refuses to renounce its desire to destroy Israel.
Bush, a former Texas oilman, said of oil costs, "I think that basically the price is determined by the marketplace and that's the way it should be."
"I believe in a relatively quick period of time, within my lifetime, we'll be able to reduce if not end dependence on Middle Eastern oil by this new technology" of converting corn, wood, grasses and other products into ethanol, he said.
In his address Tuesday night, Bush had set a goal of reducing the nation's Mideast oil imports by 75 percent by 2025.
With three years left in his second term, Bush declined to say what — if any — role he would take in the selection of a Republican candidate to succeed him in the 2008 presidential race. But he accepted the proposition that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would not be a contender.
"I think you need to take her at her word that she's not running," Bush said in a conversation on Air Force One as he flew to Tennessee for a speech.
"My political focus is on 2006," said Bush, who plans a major campaign role this year in the midterm congressional elections. "To the extent that I am thinking politics, it is to retain the (Republican) leadership of the House and the Senate."
Early this week, Exxon reported record profits of $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year — the largest of any U.S. company. While some politicians raised furious objections, Bush had a different reaction.
"There is a marketplace in American society," he said.
more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_interview_12;_ylt=AgR._DzuPyZSjFwJ8jDfdnFqP0...
how often do you get progress reports?
how does a laptop help them learn?
like any other "tool", it depends on how it is used. I've taken classes that were completely online and it worked well for me. You can have interactive instructional video so that each student can work at his or her own pace... they can pause it, rewind it... have it repeat sections... and if you get into trouble and don't understand, then you ask for assistance from the teacher. Set up correctly, it can be a fabulous learning tool.
LOL! yeah, cause they can't skate by for a whole quarter anymore.
The local college here has that kind of system set up (doesn't need to be apple software).
[edit] I think it's a great idea, btw! For years I tried to get teachers to give me more regular feedback on my kids work/progress... so if they'd do that via that kind of system, I'd fully support it.
Giving all the teachers a laptop sounds good to me. As for the students, sure there has to be some supervison, but they laptops are a fabulous learning tool. I'm taking 4 classes at the local college and I can't imagine being without one.
gave each one a laptop? (I'm sorry I missed that). That is very extravagant. My kids haven't been in grade school for quite a while, but they were lucky to have one or two PC's for each classroom and they were old klunkers.
But I would have to disagree with the term "toy". I've made my living on computers for 25 years and besides that I manage my finances, do research, take classes, shop, take care of correspondence and stay in touch with family and friends! It's an invaluable tool. Of course, I have been known to play a few games on it too :)
If the children don't complete the first 4 then they don't get any computer time.
the way it should be! One of my sons had a teacher who rewarded his kids by holding an after school computer lab where he had some of the kids favorite games available. It was a giant incentive.
...this regime are on a "scorched earth" political track
exactly. It always galls me when people try to compare Bush with Teddy Roosevelt... there are so many ways they are so opposite, but the most glaring is their stances on the environment. TR was a fierce defender of our environment and natural resources. Bush hands the keys to the kingdom over to greedy corporate interests.
I don't argue that Apples have their place. They are very high quality, no doubt about it. However, the business world uses PCs. So for the purpose of preparing kids for the working world, it makes sense to have them familiar with PCs and Microsoft products. In my 25 years as a programmer, I've only seen one MAC at any of the companies I've worked or who were clients and that was in the 80s (a Lisa).
Politically I think Microsoft is a monopoly and should have paid dearly for some of it's business practices that squashed much of it's competition.
[edit]plus PCs are much cheaper
We're on the same page as far as that goes.
IMO schools should have some Apples because they are used in some fields (i.e. graphic artists)... but the majority should be PCs. But really, the bigger problem is that public schools have become large, wasteful bureaucracies that stiffle both teacher and student.
Bush's Goals on Energy Quickly Find Obstacles
<< another example of Bush's actions not matching his rhetoric ... and if you ask me, the real agenda is to open up artic oil drilling and Iran. Here's one specific... more in complete article >>
The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: February 2, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — The energy proposals set out on Tuesday by President Bush quickly ran into obstacles on Wednesday, showing how difficult it will be to take even the limited steps he supports to reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil.
On the day after he declared in his State of the Union address that the United States was "addicted to oil" and had to wean itself from a century-old habit, Mr. Bush drew some support for putting the issue more prominently on the agenda but also skepticism about how achievable his goals really were.
"Every administration since the early 1970's has struggled with the issue of rising oil imports and the right mix of policies to deal with them," said Daniel Yergin, the author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power" and the founder of a consulting firm, Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "Some people would just say, 'It's world trade, we sell Boeings and we buy oil.' But since oil is intertwined with geopolitics, people worry about vulnerability and whether oil is a drag on our foreign policy."
Diplomatically, Mr. Bush's ambitious call for the replacement of 75 percent of the United States' Mideast oil imports with ethanol and other energy sources by 2025 upset Saudi Arabia, the main American oil supplier in the Persian Gulf. In an interview on Wednesday, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said he would have to ask Mr. Bush's office "what he exactly meant by that."
Politically, both parties on Capitol Hill displayed a lack of enthusiasm. Democrats said Mr. Bush had opposed foreign oil reduction targets in last year's energy bill, and Republicans questioned the practicality of relying on ethanol and other alternatives.
Scientifically, researchers said ethanol and other alternative fuels were still years away from widespread commercial use.
Economically, energy analysts said Mr. Bush's goal of reducing Mideast oil imports would have little practical benefit because oil was traded in world markets and its price was determined by global supply and demand, rather than bought from one country by another.
"If the United States was zero-dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but the rest of our allies among consuming nations were just as dependent, then a disruption anywhere is a price increase everywhere," said Lawrence Goldstein, the president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, a policy analysis group in New York.
Mr. Bush, like other modern presidents, has talked since the earliest days of his administration about weaning the United States off oil, but mostly by supporting an increase in domestic production. On Wednesday afternoon, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Rush Limbaugh's radio program that the administration would continue to push to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
The difference on Tuesday was Mr. Bush's emphasis on alternative energy sources that he had not made a top focus in the past: better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen cars, ethanol from wood and agricultural waste, solar and wind technologies and what he called "clean, safe nuclear energy."
The president's tone was so changed, in fact, that some analysts said he sounded like a Democrat. Dan W. Reicher, who served in the Energy Department during the Clinton administration, said Mr. Bush's ideas showed "an uncanny resemblance" to some Clinton efforts.
Mr. Bush's main departure from many Democrats and another source of resistance to his energy plan is his opposition to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars. Mr. Bush has also opposed any effort to impose a higher gasoline tax.
Many economists contend that a significant increase in the gasoline tax could lead to sharp changes in American behavior, because it would give consumers strong reasons to drive more efficient vehicles and give manufacturers incentives for innovative cars, including hybrids that run on gasoline and electricity.
In 2004, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that a gasoline tax of 46 cents a gallon, up from today's federal tax of 18 cents, would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 percent over the next 14 years.
But when asked why Mr. Bush had not called on the public to sacrifice to reduce oil consumption, Samuel W. Bodman, the energy secretary, said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday that "many Americans believe they're already sacrificing by paying the prices they're paying for gasoline and heating oil and natural gas."
Other analysts praised Mr. Bush's support for ethanol, but said that alternative fuels would not answer the administration's biggest fear about oil at the moment, the prospect that a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program could disrupt the flow of oil from the Middle East.
"The State of the Union address was good politics and good policy, but it doesn't address the most pressing problem," said J. Robinson West, an official in the Reagan administration and the chairman of PFC Energy, a consulting firm in Washington. "The thing that they're really losing sleep about at the White House is the crude supply from Iran."
Specifically, the White House is worried that pressing Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions could cause the Iranian government to retaliate by cutting off its oil supply to the world, as one economics minister in Iran threatened last week.
The administration's more immediate international brushfire after the president's address was Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil supplie. Analysts said they were startled that Mr. Bush had singled out the Middle East with implicit criticism, and on the very day that the Saudis provided important support for American interests at a meeting in Vienna of ministers from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
At the meeting, Saudi Arabia blocked an effort by Venezuela and Iran to reduce the group's oil production.
In Washington, Prince Turki, the Saudi ambassador, said he was puzzled by Mr. Bush's words in the speech. He said he wanted to know if reducing American dependence on foreign oil also applied to other suppliers to the United States. "Is that a declaration that the U.S. is going to work to be independent of Canadian oil, Mexican oil and Venezuelan oil?" he asked, adding, "I see no threat from America from receiving its oil from the Middle East."
On Capitol Hill, Republicans praised the president's overall goals, but sounded notes of caution, with representatives of oil-producing states leading the way. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said he was enthusiastic about nuclear power but questioned whether the government should be subsidizing alternative fuels like ethanol.
"It loses some of its shine when it becomes another government support program for an alternative fuel, which seems to be the pattern here in Washington," Mr. Cornyn said.
Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, even seemed to contradict the president's alarms about high energy prices. "America runs on energy that is both abundant and available at prices we can afford to pay," Mr. Barton said in a statement.
Energy analysts said the push on energy policy at the White House came in large part from Mr. Bodman, a former professor of chemical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as the former president of Fidelity Investments. Republicans said Mr. Bodman's push dovetailed with the view of Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, that high gas and home heating prices would be a potent political issue. Congress and the administration have at times sent conflicting signals about their priorities, further complicating Mr. Bush's prospects of pushing through his proposals.
The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
The budget for the laboratory, which is just west of Denver, was cut by nearly 15 percent, to $174 million from $202 million, requiring the layoff of about 40 staff members out of a total of 930, said a spokesman, George Douglas. The cut is for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02energy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
figures... Apples are great computers, but more expensive and not what is used in most businesses (edit: read that as jobs).
how old are they? every few years they become obsolete. and how many jobs these days require some sort of computer skill? I would think a majority of them.
<<I work in accounting and my numbers have to be accurate or I am crazed.>>
when I worked at GTE many many years ago, I was dismayed when I found out that when they did their annual warehouse inventory, if it was off a million (give or take), that was acceptable to them. Of course, it wasn't a giant surprise when one year they found some of the employees taking advantage of that fact.
<<Yes, I will spend hours looking for a penny when my personal checkbook doesn't reconcile.>>
I reconcile to the penny also. I also do that on my investment accounts and what's interesting about those is how often they don't add up properly.... pennies here and pennies there.
I have a friend who grew up in Brooklyn/Queens as being saved by going to college in upstate NY. I then took a job out here in CA and has been here ever since. He doesn't even like to go back to visit.
that article isn't very clear if the "rage" they feel is directed at the company or just in general because of the disaster. On the surface, it seems like the company is doing a good thing as long as it's intended to be temporary help. What happened to these people's homes? Is their insurance going to replace them? Is FEMA doing anything to help them? Would have been nice to have more details.
if stupidity was his only crime, I wouldn't suggest he be tried as a war criminal... in all seriousness, he is a key player in the illegal attack on Iraq and even worse one of those who condoned torture as a means to an end. He is destroying the honor and integrity of our armed forces.
all wars are horrifying...
have you seen Lord Of Wars? The 5 biggest arms suppliers in the world are the 5 permanent members of the UN security council... yeap, that includes us.
I'm more convinced than ever that most wars are just the results of a few powerful and greedy men who sell it as either a religious war, justifiable self defense or some humanitarian bs. the war in Iraq is just obviously based on complete bs.
if there is one area I have confidence in Bush...
it's to find was to mess things up worse than they already are!
and I thought health care already was screwed up enough... I'm sure he'll find new ways to make it worse though.
you think he could do that well? LOL
or is prepared for a lawsuit that could go on for years.
personally, I think doing the right thing is more important that any job. Are you going to lay on your death bed lamenting a job you lost or that you didn't do what you knew was the right thing to do?
thanks!
rummy should be indicted for war crimes
but getting rid of rummy doesn't solve the real problems... bush and cheney need to go as well.
heard on the radio
(let me know if anyone has a link to online info on the subject)
10 out of the 12 Iraq veterans who are running for congress are against the war