> Einstein wrote:

> As for the big Zarf post...

Wrong

How many students in the 1800's understood Geometry and Calculus?

How many students in 1950 knew about computers and software languages?<

Probably not much.  However, how much did you need to know at the time?  During the 50's, computers were still in their infancy.  It's insane to think I'm trying to train people in emerging market areas... the very definition of an emerging market means that's impossible.  The same goes for geometry and calculus in the 1800's as well (the vast majority of the population was still an agricultural society, and those who were in urban regions were generally in fields that didn't need to know geometry and calculus as much, such as factory workers). 

The basic knowledge required to even get your foot in the door in the world was limited.  If you're a kid whose family owns a small farm, you could, and would, learn all you need to know about your farming operation by your teenage years.  Hell, although this is going to sound harsh, underaged labor during the Industrial Age proves that many of the manufacturing jobs in the time can be done in childhood years.  So yes, at those times, education wasn't needed as much.

We're a new type of economy now.  Knowledge is the key to our society.  In addition to being needed in order to conduct specific occupations, a broad knowledge is needed in order to know and understand the future advances to come (remember, technology advances exponentially... the further we've advanced in knowledge, the faster we will move forward, requiring even more knowledge of what we already know in order to understand what will be introduced to us).

> My argument is we learn from multiple sources, and this learning is only limited by what we can see and envision. Take a child from a 3rd world hell hole, bring him to a house with a computer and internet connection, and that child is able to use the computer (not immediately, but over time).

The same is for all the desired 'advanced learning' your up wanting. We can learn it easily by the time we are 18, in Europe they push this all the time for it is the only way to make their college degrees worthwhile (since handed out like candy)

We can instead focus on leaving degrees as a way to set someone apart from others... <

1: Education is uniquely valuable due to verifiability.  Alternative methods don't have any way to ensure you actually know what's going on.  I can go on my own and read a bunch of randoms stuff about nanotechnology.  Does reading "Engines of Creation" and hearing a BBC news article mention something called "gray goo" mean I know everything there is to know?  How about getting different perspectives regarding an issue?  A person certainly couldn't be considered a good student of economics if they only read classical liberal authors.

This verification isn't really established in independent study, so businesses can't verify it.  While a person may be able to prove themselves through work (there's a couple cases of this), it's extremely difficult to get that first job in a field where employers have no verification of the process.

2: Some fields are just too serious to let independent study fly.  I wouldn't want an independent study doctor.  There's a reason why people are highly discouraged from representing themselves in court.  Hell, most fields would be too serious in their own way, whether it be safety concerns or simply abiding by laws about the field...

3: Education is key to guiding people to areas they may not even begin to read.

No!  Imprison them for a period equal to the life of the author +70 years. 

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> So you don't agree that slaughtering 300 children is wrong?

Define "slaughter," and explain the application of the answer to this question in relation to... well... whatever this question is supposed to serve within this debate.

Since the energy from star-based fusion emits in all directions, we would need to surround the planet with solar energy collectors first...

That would be awesome!  A mini-Dyson Sphere! 

Actually... I'm going to flip sides on this debate.

> Einstein wrote:

> If everyone gets a 2 year degree, then a 4 year degree, a 6 year degree, and a Doctorate are all reduced in value...

The same argument could have been said about people being literate in the 18th century... you don't need to read in order to pick cotton, right?

As technology and specialization increase globally, the need for less-educated individuals decreases.  People hoping to be factory workers in the US are finding their jobs moved to other countries, and I suspect in coming decades, some of those people in other countries will find themselves replaced with more automated systems.  In addition, basic services such as some tax and accounting services are being completely automated.

Yes, Flint, the degrees will all decline in value... at least in terms of the return on investment the individual will gain.  However:
1: Globalization and the advance of technology both guarantee that 80% of people without high school degrees will have a huge problem getting work outside only a handful of relatively small industries.
2: As technology takes over these smaller positions, the demand for higher education positions will expand.  Some examples:
A: An automated McDonald's would require someone to know the machinery to repair the technology.
B: Because technology is the defining field now and in the coming eras, businesses will increasingly rise and fall based on how they create and adapt to the pace of technological advances.  This would require a great number of people in research fields.

Humanity is not a physical being.  We are an intellectual being.  Modern times are indicating this more than ever before, but you can see that technology has been the definition of power in the world going back as far as the Enlightenment, and probably much further in the past.  That being said, our strength as individuals, as a nation, and as a species all rely on our ability to find ways for our technology to take on the roles of menial tasks which humans have previously been relegated to doing, freeing up minds to contribute to intellectual capabilities.  The more we can educate people, the more we can add to the pace of technological advance.  The more we add to technological advance, the quicker we can solve problems plaguing the world, while discovering and preparing for dangers we may not even recognize today...

Remember, the purpose of mandatory education is to ensure that everyone has the basic opportunity to survive in the world.  As a result, you have to ask this question when considering whether to extend the mandatory length of school:
By the time a student leaves the public education system, will society advance far enough to where that person will be unable to find work, given the education given to him, immediately following departure from the education system.

If the answer to this question is yes, then you're fine.  A student who doesn't want nor need a college degree, yet is forced to go to college will only drain the system and fuel resentment.  However, in just the same way, a system who tells students they're prepared for the world when they have an inadequate education is simply wasting the resources already used.  Plus it dooms that person... kind of the equivalent of telling a person who just got out of 8th grade to quit school and find work today... not too easy.

What would be trolling, then?

> Lizon wrote:

> According to the constitution any persons born into this country are counted as citizens and thus have rights protecting them In terms of an unborn child this is easy, if the fetus can live outside the womb then they have rights and thus are protected under the law. Thus late second term and all 3rd term abortions are illegal. Before that they have no rights and thus is up to the decisions of the mother.

Simple.

Just want to point this out...

> Lizon wrote:

> According to the constitution any persons BORN into this country are counted as citizens

That may be a bit problematic if you're going to bank the house on this...

I dunno... not as much a laughing matter as you would think.  It honestly depends on the laws that would otherwise exist in regard to legal standing.  For example, if an animal rights organization in the US thinks an animal is being wrongly hunted, there is some standing for them to defend the animal (endangered species, local hunting laws, etc).

I would like to know more about the specific legal situation that brought this to being...

I've got nothing to add... yet... 

Case in point: England thought the US cheated at the American Revolution.  How dare we order troops to hide behind trees instead of lining up 5,000 troops against 15,000 British troops...

Perhaps the question of military ethics is only something respected by the otherwise more powerful side.  Perhaps nations use the concept of military ethics as a tool to gain tactical advantages in the battlefield, and we simply accept the idea later due to its convenience applicability...

Just thinking out loud...

> Key wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > Key wrote:

> Hacking isn't a skill, it's a crime.  Using your COMPUTER learned skills to comit acts of sabatoge or theft online?  Well yah, hacking is a crime.

The act is a crime.  But the knowledge itself isn't criminal.  The same knowledge to initiate hacks is also needed to prevent such occurrences.

And yes, Key, it does require skill.  Just because it's criminal, it doesn't mean any idiot can pick up a computer and steal nuclear launch codes. 

....Launch codes?  You don't need launch codes.  The old silo fortresses still have the key and push button.  Those launch codes are for Hollywood.

1: Nice job attacking a figure of speech while ignoring the substance of the argument.
2: Um... duh?  Yes, there's launch codes.  Those are given by the executive branch to instruct the people with the keys to launch a nuclear weapon.  What, you think they just call on the phone and say "could you launch a couple?"