Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Reading Rainbow Kickstarter Heads Into Home Stretch

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the almost-there dept.

The Almighty Buck 68

An anonymous reader writes "A month ago, LeVar Burton and his friends at Reading Rainbow created a Kickstarter campaign designed to bring their app for the iPad and Kindle Fire to the Web at large. They asked for a million dollars, and quickly blew the doors off their goal, receiving over three million dollars in three days. There are 48 hours remaining in the fundraiser, which has garnered over 4.5 million dollars, and with over 92,000 contributors, is the most heavily backed Kickstarter campaign of all time. To sweeten the pot, Family Guy's Seth MacFarlane has offered to match any pledges over the $4 million mark, up to an additional million dollars."

cancel ×

68 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Seth MacFarlane (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47354615)

I don't necessarily like everything he has done in his career, but he has certainly been putting a lot of money into solid causes lately. The Cosmos series was pretty good and now this. Respect.

Re:Seth MacFarlane (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47354631)

He makes his money telling dick jokes (n.b. I enjoy dick jokes), but he does seem to be doing the right things with said dick joke money.

...unless of course you're a Republican. Then he's a jerk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Seth MacFarlane (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47354761)

"I enjoy dick" - mythosaz, 2014.06.30

Re:Seth MacFarlane (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47354931)

True.

This isn't going to do much (5, Insightful)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 2 months ago | (#47354709)

The problem with (new) Reading Rainbow is that it will end up targeting and catering to kids that are already interested and proficient in reading, due to those kids being in families able to buy into the subscription. Twenty years ago, it worked because even poor families generally had at least a single crappy TV with rabbit ears, which was enough to get PBS. That 4 or 5 million that ends up getting raised would go a lot further by addressing actual core issues with poverty, rather than giving kids who already know and like to read even more reason to do so.

Re:This isn't going to do much (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47354729)

There is no shortage of upper and middle class kids that while technically able to read rarely chose to do so. I agree the PBS approach made more sense, and I would really prefer if there was a no/low cost option available. But we shouldn't damn an idea that can still do good, just because their may be other better ways to do good.

Re:This isn't going to do much (3, Informative)

raydobbs (99133) | about 2 months ago | (#47354753)

I thought one of the things they were hoping to do with the extended stretch goals is give subscriptions to poorer communities (libraries in rural or inner-city settings, etc) so that it could be utilized by the people who couldn't normally afford it.

Re:This isn't going to do much (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 months ago | (#47354817)

If they figure they can finance this with $1mil, and it looks like they'll probably get around $6mil funding in total, that's $5mil they can put into "free" subscriptions. Not bad. If they set up a donation channel as well, and make the "non-free" subscriptions some sort of matching deal (for each paid subscriber, another free subscription is made available), this could actually work reasonably well.

Plus, if they can make this a web app that'll run on a phone screen, they'll reach a LARGE number of poor people -- poverty often has to do with bad choices as much as lack of access to resources, and in many places now, people below the poverty line have Android phones capable of running this sort of thing.

Re:This isn't going to do much (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 months ago | (#47354869)

That was part of the stretch goals. [kickstarter.com] The initial 1 million was to bring an updated version of the show to the web. At 5 million, they wanted to bring it to all platforms, including mobile devices, video game consoles and set top boxes too.

Re:This isn't going to do much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47358313)

A few weeks ago I met an asylum seeker in a country where he didn't know the language, with no income, living in a room with 5 other guys. He had an Android he was using constantly. It can translate, it can teach, it can keep you connected (jobs, social contact), it can keep you informed (news, maps, etc). Within five minutes of meeting me he was asking to Facebook me, since it was rare to meet someone he could communicate with locally and he didn't want to lose me.

I have absolutely no problem at all with poor people having smartphones, although I do cringe a bit when they have something like a new iPhone or other flagship phone, but that can be easily attributed to lack of access to knowledge rather than just wanting an expensive fashion accessory. Most non-nerds have no idea what to buy and limited capacity to understand the differences anyway and just buy what the salesperson recommends.

Re:This isn't going to do much (1)

KozmoStevnNaut (630146) | about 2 months ago | (#47358379)

>

I have absolutely no problem at all with poor people having smartphones, although I do cringe a bit when they have something like a new iPhone or other flagship phone

Why? Is it because you don't think they've "earned" the right to own a fancy phone, because they're poor?

Perhaps they saved for it for a long time. Perhaps it's their only link to the online world and their only source of entertainment (Youtube etc.). Perhaps it makes more sense to buy an expensive phone and keep it for years and years, than it is to buy a new low-end phone ever 6-12 months.

Please don't judge people for their actions, when you have no idea what led to them.

Re:This isn't going to do much (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 months ago | (#47361959)

Don't be too hard on him -- he was responding to my point: "poverty often has to do with bad choices as much as lack of access to resources, and in many places now, people below the poverty line have Android phones capable of running this sort of thing."

iPhones really are a poor choice for people with limited income, as they tend to be associated with the more expensive contracts. However, there are lots of exceptions.

In this case, it would have been useful to judge the parent poster taking into consideration what led to his response....

Re:This isn't going to do much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47363685)

Were they poor when they got the phone? Was it included in a contract that they could afford before they were poor?

Not to be to aggressive with you but I've heard "poor people with iphones, poor people with flat screen TV's" crap for a while now and it really seems to be like a total lack of understanding.
For one, a 'smart phone' is already cheap. It is an entire computer for ~$300 to $400.. With inflation, That $300 phone would cost $197 in 1996 dollars. Except in 1996 a computer that even came CLOSE to that phone for features and speed would cost $2,000+ in 1996 dollars, or $3,000+ in today's dollars.. And it would still be slower, not have wireless, etc.

If someone in 1996 managed to save up $200 and then could buy a fully functioning computer and then used it to try to get a job, learn a new language, stay connected to people you would say they were a 'go-getter'. It's just strange.
It's even stranger when I hear talking heads with SHOES that cost more than a smart phone, with haircuts that cost more than the monthly plan, bitch and moan about how the poor spend their little $300 worth of money on something that they get a year or 3 of practical use out of, and then go spend even more than that on one bottle of wine. It's nuts.

That one-time spend of say $300... What else could they do with it? Do you think they can live off of $300 for years? Is this princely sum so vast that the only reason they are poor is because of a one time purchase of a device that helps them get a job. It's just nutty.

Library hours (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47354909)

give subscriptions to poorer communities (libraries in rural or inner-city settings, etc)

Getting children to commute to these libraries might be a challenge. A lot of public libraries close for the night around the time the parents get home from work, and then they close for the weekend.

Re:Library hours (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47358327)

I've never really understood the idea of places intended for use by consumers that are only open during "business hours". The vast majority of people are working while they're open, and they close as soon as people get off work.

Re:Library hours (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47359275)

I think either they're designed for people receiving welfare checks or they think they're important enough for people to take a day of unpaid leave.

Re:Library hours (1)

Triklyn (2455072) | about 2 months ago | (#47363817)

in my community, my local public library was situated a quarter of a mile from my middle school. Served as day-care, spent so many hours there, playing reading and generally being underfoot for the poor librarians. I think i also learned to love reading there too. since there was not much else to do. :)

thank you public libraries and tolerant librarians.

Re:This isn't going to do much (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 2 months ago | (#47355169)

Correct, but that doesn't solve the problem of people in those communities having the means of using the free subscription, not to mention jump through whatever hoops are required to be granted access. Most families in that situation don't have great access to a home computer, and trying to get them to make regular trips to whatever library still exists in the area to use those computers isn't much more likely. The subscription -- although definitely a hurdle -- isn't really the major issue. It's how the money is being targeted.

Re:This isn't going to do much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47354799)

They re also going to be providing free libraries/subscriptions directly to classrooms.

Re:This isn't going to do much (1, Informative)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 2 months ago | (#47354827)

From the kickstarter page: "And with your help, we'll provide it to thousands of disadvantaged classrooms for FREE."

I could be naive but I'd imagine the more successful the RR app gets, the more they will do to distribute it to people who can't afford it.

Re:This isn't going to do much (0)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 2 months ago | (#47355217)

It's definitely possible. My observation is simply that the money would be more effective addressing some of the underlying reasons these kids can't or don't want to read, rather than on a for-profit service designed to encourage already proficient readers to read more and hoping for some excess funds to trickle down to the kids who really need it. The thing is -- and this is something that most teachers really can't talk about professionally for PC reasons -- a child's success in school is influenced primarily by their home environment, and is often set in motion years before they start kindergarten. Simply offering a new reading program in the school will do very little if there isn't some heavy reinforcement at home.

Re:This isn't going to do much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47359647)

The problem lies in that this is still a for profit company.

Re:This isn't going to do much (1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47355121)

Stop complaining. You, and the idiots that modded up need to go read what they are doing, what the goal is and come back an apologize for being knee jerk stupid.

Re:This isn't going to do much (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 months ago | (#47359265)

Stop complaining. You, and the idiots that modded up need to go read what they are doing, what the goal is and come back an apologize for being knee jerk stupid.

From the kickstarter page it looks like they're going to put it on the web, and put it in classrooms. Unless I misread that, or the kickstarter page fails to adequately explain the goals, they're explicitly not going to be reaching the kids who need them the most with this plan.

Re:This isn't going to do much (2)

dnavid (2842431) | about 2 months ago | (#47355227)

The problem with (new) Reading Rainbow is that it will end up targeting and catering to kids that are already interested and proficient in reading, due to those kids being in families able to buy into the subscription. Twenty years ago, it worked because even poor families generally had at least a single crappy TV with rabbit ears, which was enough to get PBS. That 4 or 5 million that ends up getting raised would go a lot further by addressing actual core issues with poverty, rather than giving kids who already know and like to read even more reason to do so.

That makes an enormous leap of logic, that children who have any sort of basic literacy no longer need any help or encouragement. A four year old that can read isn't automatically going to become a twelve year old that can read better and is still interested in reading anything other than text messages. I would argue that in today's world its even more important to encourage reading because unlike the days when television was the great distraction today there are far more sources of distraction competing for children's attention spans. Promoting the notion that reading is not a necessary evil but rather the gateway skill of learning, intellectual inquiry, and exposure to ideas is I believe incredibly valuable.

When I was very young, my father taught me to read, for which I will always be grateful. But he also taught me to *want* to read, and that's been the singular reason for my success in life over the years. He couldn't have done more to set me up for success if he handed me a million dollars when I was three (which he did not have nor ever would have).

Sure, you can always argue with priorities; pick any priority you want to spend money on and I can explain why that's the wrong place to spend money compared to some other place. But if LeVar Burton and his Kickstarter supporters (full disclosure: I am a supporter of the KS project) want to spend resources improving the lives and futures of children who deserve it just as much as any other children, I don't consider that a "problem" just because it doesn't mesh with someone else's priorities. Those people should invest their time, energy, and money on their own priorities instead of criticizing those that are willing to do so. I would respect that far more than armchair critics nit-picking other people's constructive efforts from the sidelines.

Re: This isn't going to do much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47355373)

You mean like all those kids streaming across the border?
I wouldn't worry too much, we'll all probably chip in and get them iPads.
Whether we want to or not.

Re:This isn't going to do much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47355931)

"That 4 or 5 million that ends up getting raised would go a lot further by addressing actual core issues with poverty, rather than giving kids who already know and like to read even more reason to do so."

No it wouldn't. They'd spend it on cigarettes, 40's and NASCAR hats. But hey, maybe if someone had been around to frivolously pump some money into the dinosaur's society, they'd have survived...

Re:This isn't going to do much (1)

Jahoda (2715225) | about 2 months ago | (#47356349)

That's cool, dude. Your cynicism makes you appear so sagely and world-wise.

"It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness."

Just a thought for you.

Re:This isn't going to do much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47357445)

Once the episodes are in the can, there's nothing stopping a network from picking them up, be it now or at a later date. It's all about how the rights will be setup.

Re:This isn't going to do much (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47357683)

Twenty years ago, it worked because even poor families generally had at least a single crappy TV with rabbit ears, which was enough to get PBS.

Did it actually work? Genuinely curious because I can't find any studies on the topic

Re:This isn't going to do much (1)

stoborrobots (577882) | about 2 months ago | (#47358205)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41... [jstor.org]

http://jlr.sagepub.com/content... [sagepub.com]

http://works.bepress.com/leah_... [bepress.com]

http://www.npr.org/2009/08/28/... [npr.org]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03... [nytimes.com]

http://www.literacytrust.org.u... [literacytrust.org.uk] :

Educational programming has also aimed to elevate knowledge of texts and literacy as in the programmes Barney and Friends (Guofang, 1999) and Reading Rainbow (Wood and Duke, 1997), which offer content on reading books and raising childrenâ(TM)s knowledge of books. This is important since researchers at the University of Sheffield have also suggested that pre-schoolers who develop an ability to talk about texts become familiar with literacy and have greater success with learning to read once they enter school (Hannon, 2000; Hannon, Weinberger and Nutbrown, 1991). "

Re:This isn't going to do much (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47360565)

Wow, thanks for the effort

What LeVar Burton really thinks of reading rainbow (1)

Cito (1725214) | about 2 months ago | (#47354777)

Reading Rainbow's New Theme Song with LeVar Burton: http://youtu.be/VQ34s3kKFDY [youtu.be]

The details for nerds part is missing (1)

biochozo (2700157) | about 2 months ago | (#47354787)

I'm a backer. I'm a backer because LeVar made my childhood awesome and I'd like to pay it forward. I also trust LeVar more than I trust where my current tax dollars are going. However, I'd like to see more details concerning the grit of how he's going to do what he's trying do to. Where is all of this money going? Is the majority paying for licensing of books? Is a third going to software development? Is $750,000 going to researching best methods of teaching kids?

Re:The details for nerds part is missing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47356637)

Why are you asking here, dumbass? Do you think LeVar is checking Slashdot to answer your questions? Good grief.

Re:The details for nerds part is missing (1)

Salgat (1098063) | about 2 months ago | (#47358733)

It's just a discussion, he is not literally asking slashdot.

Re:The details for nerds part is missing (1)

biochozo (2700157) | about 2 months ago | (#47365963)

I was looking for a more intellectual discussion on the topic I presented from fellow slashdotters. It seems I lose this round...

Growing Potential (1)

deathcloset (626704) | about 2 months ago | (#47354801)

I feel like we've barely grazed the surface of the potential of crowd funding. I mean, in a real sense here we, as society, are funding self-education - we are funding the education of our own society. That's cool.

Re:Growing Potential (1)

praxis (19962) | about 2 months ago | (#47354881)

I feel like we've barely grazed the surface of the potential of crowd funding. I mean, in a real sense here we, as society, are funding self-education - we are funding the education of our own society. That's cool.

Government and taxes have been a way of society crowd funding its own education for far longer than kickstarter has been around. It says something about how youngsters perceive our extant system if kickstarter campaigns funding education seem like a new thing.

Re:Growing Potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47355081)

Campaigns like this only work when they do something new or interesting. Great if you have a cool new idea. Not so great for funding ongoing education for the 50 million or so K-12 students in the US. Likewise, for charitable efforts, people only bother to donate when they're feeling charitable; taxes, on the other hand, deduct straight from your paycheck.

I do think that a small, focused effort funded by crowdsourcing could have a big impact on education. Producing high-quality education materials (like the Khan Academy videos) and distributing it at minimal cost to schools across the nation could improve education standards significantly. And we wouldn't be sending hundreds of millions of dollars to crappy textbook publishers.

Re: Growing Potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47355451)

Inane.
Kick starter lets you and I chose what we think is a good idea.
The government format is we vote for someone who says he has good ideas and then just takes our money and says they need more.

Re:Growing Potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47356777)

LaVar Burton doesn't go around kicking people off of their property. So yeah, it is a new thing.

Re:Growing Potential (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 2 months ago | (#47354911)

I feel like we've barely grazed the surface of the potential of crowd funding. I mean, in a real sense here we, as society, are funding self-education - we are funding the education of our own society. That's cool.

If only there were a central organization that could collect all this money, with those who could afford it paying more, and then re-distribute it ....... oh wait!!!!

Re:Growing Potential (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47355005)

That is the opposite of crowd funding. People want to have a say in where their money is spent.

Re:Growing Potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47358025)

That is the opposite of crowd funding. People want to have a say in where their money is spent.

If only there were a method to have a say on how the money I donate to this 'collective' is spent, and that those of us with like-minds could all come together and vote on it ....... oh wait!!!!

Re:Growing Potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47355011)

If only there were a central organization that could collect all this money, with those who could afford it paying more, and then re-distribute it ....... oh wait!!!!

If only there were a central organization that could collect all this money, with those who could afford it paying more, and then re-distribute it ....... oh wait!!!!

Your right, bad idea. If there were a central organization that collected that money then re-distributed it they would probably end up as corrupt as our government.... oh wait!!!!!!

I think your missing the point that this Kickstarter allows people to choose how much money they would like to spend on this particular initiative. I have very little control of where my tax dollars are spent. I sure wouldn't be joining any crowd funding for defense spending.

Re:Growing Potential (1)

Loki_1929 (550940) | about 2 months ago | (#47357725)

The Reading Rainbow Kickstarter campaign isn't going to send men with automatic weapons to break down my door and haul me to prison if I decline to provide it funding. The entity you describe will.

Re:Growing Potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47357969)

Well put sir!

Re:Growing Potential (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47354983)

Non Government Organizations have been around for decades. I suppose crowd funding makes it a little easier though.

Re:Growing Potential (1)

Loki_1929 (550940) | about 2 months ago | (#47357751)

What it can do is provide an interface between NGOs and common people. NGOs typically receive much of their funding from governments and rich or wealthy benefactors. Fundraising means getting those folks into a room and convincing them to cough up some cash. Crowdfunding allows a wider audience (literally everyone on the Internet) to see the intended actions of the NGO and then choose to contribute. Rather than getting $45,000 from 100 rich people, they can get $45 from 100,000 without the immense overhead of doing so without using the Internet. That's the real difference. It isn't easier so much as it's a different way of fundraising from a different audience.

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/06/04/344472 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47354919)

He's been pretty downright honest about everything. I have no qualms.

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/06/04/344472 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47354951)

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/06/04/3444724/would-levar-burton-like-to-respond-to-reading-rainbow-kickstarter-criticism-i-would-love-to/

And i don't post often, sorry link was title :)
Repost.

Creative Commons Children's Books? (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about 2 months ago | (#47355009)

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to pay authors to write English-language childrens' books as a "work for hire" then release them under a Creative Commons license? That way you can serve up these books globally instead of just in the USA.

Turn off the TV (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47355031)

Reading teaches reading. Watching TV teaches TV watching.

That is what my wife and I believe. So we did not dump our son in front of the television to learn to read. Instead we read to him, then we taught him to read, then we signed out books for him from the library and ordered books online.

At the beginning of the second grade he tested at between a 9th and 10th grade reading level. He read about 1000 pages a week all school year, Harry Potter-level stuff (including Harry Potter). No idea where he will test at the beginning of 3rd grade but I expect he has improved with more experience.

My daughter just finished kindergarten and she is ahead of him at the same age.

 

Re:Turn on the tablet (1)

urbanriot (924981) | about 2 months ago | (#47355611)

I learned more about bees in an episode of Reading Rainbow than I've read about in the papers, even after all the attention bees have been getting. Reading Rainbow was more than just a show that reviewed books or relayed stories, Levar Burton and others also interacted with all manner of people on all manner of topics. Regardless of the source of education, kids learn from wherever can retain their interest. You may need to partition sources of data, like TV from reading, but plenty of kids parse all the information that's provided to them and one experience does not corrupt the other.

Re:Turn on the tablet (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 months ago | (#47359291)

kids parse all the information that's provided to them and one experience does not corrupt the other.

Up to a certain age, children are incapable of discriminating between commercials and programming. One experience does corrupt the other.

Of course, that was what was so great about PBS. You saw a lot of begging, but no commercials.

I speak of it in the past tense only because it's television, which in its current form is losing influence.

Re:Turn on the tablet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47361033)

Also past tense because PBS is rife with commercials these days.

Re:Turn off the TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47355665)

Cool story bro.

Re:Turn off the TV (1)

_merlin (160982) | about 2 months ago | (#47356907)

We don't have a TV, but we got a Wii U (it's driving a 4K monitor, there's a complicated story behind it). Legend of Zelda is the biggest incentive our six-year-old has had to improve his reading.

It was simple. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47355087)

all he did was reroute Reading Rainbow funding source through the Kickstarter phase array.

Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47355233)

Looks all fucked up without his visor.

Never worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47355771)

They will all post on Facebook by 6th grade, no?

CLARIFICATION TO THE SUMMARY (0)

nimbius (983462) | about 2 months ago | (#47355819)

seth mcfarlane has only pledged an additional 1 million dollars, and that million is contingent upon reaching four million more. anything less will be at his discretion.

Re:CLARIFICATION TO THE SUMMARY (2)

turp182 (1020263) | about 2 months ago | (#47356197)

The summary mentions that funding is at $4.5 million and Seth will match $1 million above $4 million.

The project is at $4.66 million now with 41 hours left. Seth is going to be in for $1 million.

I like his shows, but he is showing some true character lately. Good guy all around.

Public Failure (1)

DiniZuli (621956) | about 2 months ago | (#47358599)

Cool and good that this is being done, but! I'm really surprised that no one in here appears to be outraged about the fact that a kickstarter campaign like this one is needed at all.
25% of 4th graders can't read an comprehend a simple English sentence like the one presented in the kickstarter video.
It's a massive failure of the (public) school system, and the public school system can probably thank the politicians for this failure.
To get such grand scale illiteracy in a country takes something else than just bad teachers and school leaders - it takes amazingly bad policy decisions at state/country level.

Re:Public Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47358869)

The education system is broken for a reason. Can't make too many entitled people, can we?
If we make everyone smart, who does the cheap manual labor jobs? "oh manual labor is for morons" and all that crap.

Of course, they seem to think that if everyone is smart, that nobody will do these jobs, which is complete nonsense since most people that typically come out of education usually end up doing manual labor for a couple years before even finding a job in the first place, unless they are exceptionally good (and lucky).
And some people even do multiple jobs if their main job allows them the time to do so easily. (a low-hour job that pays decently, such as low-maintenance farming methods like aero- / aqua- / hydroponics systems to name a currently growing secondary income, which is a great thing)

There is this issue of thinking education is too strict on children and they want to be all nice. No fierce competition any more. No punishment. Just nice. Fuck. that. These past couple generations have been atrocious in regards to attitude, general knowledge and intelligence for many decades. They deserve a good slap on the wrist. A good few in fact. I fear for the future of society when they grow up. Things are seriously going to crash hard soon.
Already there are adults with the mentality of semi-retarded children now getting in to jobs. The horrors that await us.

Re:Public Failure (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about 2 months ago | (#47361119)

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

- Socrates, 469-399 B.C.

Don't worry too much. The children will grow up, and invent some shit that we haven't even thought of yet. Sure they may seem dumb to us now, but a few will learn and lead the rest.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>