I may just be a sad, old hippie, but I think relying on heavily computerized equipment, where you can download a blueprint, push a button and out comes a finished product, that doesn't mean you're a 'maker' in my book. Yes, I know I exaggerate, but still. Or is 'maker' what you call yourself when you don't want to learn how to actually do things, you just want the finished result?
I think most "makers" that I've met are interested in how things work. That involves disassembling existing products and also creating something new that doesn't exist and you can't buy. In many cases, yes, all they want is the finished result with that finished result being a robot or other item that doesn't exist. The more tools that make it easier the better. If you can download a blueprint and push a button for certain portions of the project, then that is great. It give you more time to work on the other pieces of the project that aren't pushbutton.
I am considering trying to design a place with areas for this, as well as areas to cook, and areas to sew, maybe an area for chemistry.
The point of a makerspace or workshop is to give access to expensive tools that would be cost prohibitive for someone to own themself. Things like 3d printers, lathes, etc... and it's general non-consumables. Most people have access to the stuff needed to cook, sew and perform chemistry experiments. Also most of that stuff is consumables which you would need to provide yourself anyways. An expensive sewing machine might be something for a sewing space but if I had to guess those probably already exist. As far as chemistry and cooking, I don't see a market for it.
Actually, buses are terrible. They only run fully occupied during peak times, and transit companies don't pull the big buses and replace them with minivans during off-peak hours. So most bus miles are run with very light loads. On average, buses are far worse than cars for energy efficiency because of the low average load factor.
You're talking about city buses. You can't compare city buses with city to city buses. Chartered city to city buses run at or near 100% at all times just like alot of airlines. Chartered airlines are the same way. That's the reason certain getaway packages are so cheap. They sell every seat and know that every seat is sold and only leave when it's full unlike city buses and some airlines where they are running 12 rounds a day whether someone is riding or not.
Uber and Lyft operate on the principle that the person requesting the ride will pay enough to cover the matching fee, the full expenses of the person driving, and profit. That's not ridesharing in any sense, it's a car for hire.
Maybe a solution to the "ride share" vs "commercial service" would be to pass a law for what the maximum price you can charge for a ride share. The IRS per mile number (57.5 cents per mile) might be a good number to use or maybe even something less like 75% of that but it should definitely be easy to argue that if you're charging more than the 57.5 cents per mile then you are no longer in the ride share business but are operating for a profit because "shared expenses" should in theory only be 50% of that number (28.75 cents per mile). Lyft is at $1.90 and Uber varies but is also well above the full 57.5 cents.
So legally, they should both have "the man's rights", which is none at all. They contributed to a sperm-bank, effectively. Anything beyond here is akin to adoption.
Proof: Biologically, another woman could implant.
I would agree to this. Just like presumably you could withdraw consent for your sperm in a sperm bank* to be used before it is actually used, either party should be able to withdraw their consent until it is actually placed into service. In the sperm bank case, you might have signed a waiver giving up your right to retract or it could be assumed like when you donate blood but in this case they maintained ownership but as soon as either party revokes consent then the embryos should be flushed.
Perhaps that's no loss. There's no rule that every business model under the sun -has- to exist. None of the requirements described in the summary seem out of line to me.
I see no problem with uber having a little star next to the people that have a million dollar liability coverage but also I don't see why a person can't opt to go with someone cheaper that only has 10k liability coverage.
If people actually wanted 1M liability coverage then uber could flag those accounts and push them to the top but most people don't care and would rather have cheaper fare.
Uber and Lyft have completely perverted the phrase, using it to refer to taxi rides arranged over the internet, at random prices, while ignoring any taxi regulations.
I'm not so sure it was Uber and Lyft. I think originally Uber and Lyft probably intended for it to be ride-share where people commuting to the same location shared a car but the prices were high enough that people realized that they could make a living at it. If Uber and Lyft cut the fares charged/paid by 75% then it would probably go back to that as then the only time it would be profitable to take on a passenger would be if you were already going that direction.
This is easy. Based on current legal standards, to force the woman to become a mother against her will is rape. To force the man to become a father is merely a call for more stringent child support enforcement.
Not to mention the woman has the absolute right to destroy the embryos if she so chooses.
Summary judgement for the woman unless you want to upend hundreds of years of law.
Current legal standards are based on the embryo being attached to the woman's body and you have to violate her person to remove it so the scale is tilted to her favor.
In this case the embryo is not part of the woman's body or the man's body so they have equal right to it.
because he has no use for it without her and she has use for it without him.
But all in all, because women own their bodies exclusively.
Yes, women own their bodies and men own their bodies. But this embryo is not part of the woman's body so that argument doesn't hold. This embryo is one egg from the woman and one sperm from the man. It is not any more a part of the woman's body than it is part of the man's body.
Basically, the fertilised egg ought to be seen as being part of the woman's body if it's inside the womb or outside. So it's her choice to do whatever she wants with it. The woman owns it.
Why exactly? Why does the woman have more right to it than the man? Why couldn't the man opt to raise it with a surrogate? It's exactly 50/50 in my book. I would prefer a technical solution like refertilizing with a different sperm donor but I don't see how it's any more the woman's than the man's.
Before we ask for this for windshields, we need to see how well it handles regular abrasive friction and small particulates. If it scratches easily then it may require a coating of glass on either side for its hardness I doubt that this will be, by itself, a windshield, and if a windshield made out of this stuff still needs a glass layer, then you're right back to where you were before as far as chipping with debris over a certain size is concerned.
The article says it is harder than glass but even if it was unsuitable for the outside layer, there is no reason it would need an inside layer of glass. The outside of a car window needs to withstand the elements but the inside layer doesn't need to be near as weather or abrasion resistance. The inside layer of a car could be fairly fragile and it could still do the job quite well assuming it had other desirable properties as the inside of the front windshield rarely even gets touched.
So you bought stock in the company, then went to the shareholder meeting? Not buying isn't "voting". At best it's abstaining. And when 90% of the country abstains, the winner only needs 5% of the vote, so abstaining makes the problem worse, not better.
That might be how voting works but that's not how economics works. How economics work is when people stop buying your product you get less money. If they can only get 5% of the population then they will likely go out of business and even if they don't, they are going to do customer surveys to try to figure out how to get more people to subscribe and start to realize that their business model is driving away 90% of their customers. If they don't realize this then there is a good chance that some other company will and will steal their market share. Yes, you definitely can vote with your money by abstaining.
They should find out how they are increasing the number of male teachers and do the opposite.
That's easy. Pay a decent wage. Probably close to 90% of GOOD teachers are only able to teach because their husband is earning a real wage elsewhere. Arkansas recently complained that they didn't have any computer science teachers. Well, what do you expect? Why would someone teach computer science in a school when they can easily make 3 times that in industry? Yes, like this article mentions, women are drawn toward feel good jobs that pay crap but most men would rather actually make a decent living than work for peanuts which is why the pay gap will continue to exist. I know alot of women with degrees that do social work for next to nothing because it makes them feel good. I personally don't know any men that do. I know they probably exist but they are far fewer.
I don't get this whole voucher thing, because currently, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING preventing you from putting your child in whatever school you damn well please. Schools can and do compete and try to get more students, because more students = more funding. Vouchers are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
You apparently don't understand how education works in the USA. In the USA schools are funded by taxpayers. Mostly by property tax. Yes, if you can afford it you can pay to go to a private school or even sometimes pay to go to a public school outside your district but most people can't afford that. Let me mention again that it's paid by property tax so the rich neighborhoods get more money and have much nicer schools. People have been thrown in jail for falsely enrolling their kids in a different district even if it's just enrolling them under their grandparent's address. This is a separate but equal crap that needs to end. School vouchers would help stop this segregation between the rich and the poor. Yes, the rich can send their kids to any school they want, that's not what the vouchers are for. The vouchers are for the lower middle class families that can't afford to pay for private schools but would be willing to drive across town to get their kids to a better school. 20 years in prison for using a friend's address: http://www.alternet.org/story/... another one where it was the grandparent's address instead of the parent's: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011... Let's lock those parents and grandparents up so they don't hurt society!!!
So, no, unless you can afford to move and/or afford to pay for private, you can't put "your child in whatever school you damn well please"
At the cost of community. Everyone is shuttling their kids to their chosen school and the neighborhood kids don't ever meet. A better solution is to actually participate in your school boards and be part of the community.
Which rock have you been hiding under for the past 20 years? Neighborhood kids already don't meet. I live in a town who still has community schools but you NEVER see kids playing outside. We live in a quiet neighborhood and that's exactly what it is. Quiet. My kids don't even know their next door neighbors. I wish that I could find a place where my kids could play with the kids down the street but that era has pretty much left.
No, what you'll get is the rich going to good schools and the poors to bad ones. Hey! isn't this already hapening? No: the poors' ones will be even worse than today since more money will be syphoned out to the riches'.
That's the reason that one stipulation of receiving voucher money should be no other outside money. Of course, in order for that to work you would probably have to greatly increase the current amount that schools get.
In my experience though, the improvement is marginal at best. Yes, you can fire people faster, but at the same time, how many for profit companies do you see trying to spend what it takes to get the best workers, even at the cost of cutting their profits, and how many want the cheapest minimum standard they can find?
With sufficient competition (and sufficient money in the vouchers), you should eventually see the schools that cut corners get run out of business by the schools that hire quality teachers. I would like to see a point where private schools are competing for the vouchers to the point where they are bragging about the quality of the teachers, the quality of their programs, etc... My town of 80,000 is small enough that you can drive from one end to the other in about 20 minutes but is big enough that it has about a dozen grade schools. If these dozen grade schools were completely released from regulation and were allowed to compete for students, they would all eventually take different approaches. Some of the crappy ones would go under and a few new ones would probably start up but I would like to see what would happen if 12 schools all had to put their best foot forward to attract students.
and the quality of the teacher has no impact on the compensation that the teacher receives.
I think this is the real problem and unfortunately it doesn't get much better in college. In college you could have a professor that was terrible and EVERYONE told the dean he was terrible but even then they didn't do anything about it. And it wasn't just tenured professors. Even TAs got this insane treatment. After complaining about a TA that couldn't teach and could barely even speak english, the dean actually told me that many foreign TAs were hired before they ever set foot on campus and that once they got hear it was too late to do anything about it. What??? You can't fire someone that can't do their job? Name one other non-government, non-union job where someone can't be fired for sucking at their job.
I think probably the only way out of this mess in elementary school is with school vouchers and private schools. At least then the schools would have to compete and hopefully the bad schools that let bad teachers stay would run out of business when they ran out of students. That being said, you have a choice in college and there still tended to be some politics that let some bad teachers keep their jobs.
Perhaps, then, it is also reasonable to pay for n items out of x? (Not necessarily in the case of the shows you prefer to have commercials, but movies, for example.) That is to say, if you feel Hollywood movies are worth $2 rather than $10, buy one $10 movie for every 5 you watch?
I dunno, just a thought.
That's terrible reasoning. That's like saying if oranges are too expensive it's ok to buy one and shoplift the other two. In an ideal world you could negotiate with the seller and you can a little bit with redbox, libraries, etc.. but if you can't then you will need to do without. Like buying bananas when oranges are too expensive.
But I ask you, astute reader, if you feel that something is not worth paying for.... then why do you feel it is worth consuming?
Worth paying for is not the same as worth paying the asking price. I don't pirate films but I wish more content was available for a reasonable price. It's annoying that many shows that could be watched for free with commercials when aired now the streaming services are charging $2 per episode or more. I would rather have a version with commercials. Luckily though my local library has most tv series available for checkout. I just wish my local library would start stocking movies too.
If people would stop stealing from artists (disclaimer: like myself) than we wouldn't need counter-piracy measures and the internet would be fun for everybody again. But as long as people do not respect artists' intellectual property right (nah, I'm not stealing, I' just making a copy) these measures are necessary. Stop stealing and if you don't want to pay then make your own stuff. But don't steal mine!
I'm fine with paying for content. But the current prices are stupid and all over the place especially with older movies. For example I can buy all 4 original ninja turtle movies as a set for $9.43. What if I want to stream it? Well, amazon doesn't offer the first one all all. The third one costs $9.99 for SD which is more than all 4 of the other ones combined and renting costs 2.99 for SD. Assuming I could actually rent all 4, it would be cost $11.96 which is more for renting the movies than it costs to purchase the boxed set. But there are a ton of movies that aren't available as streaming or worse randomly come and go. One of the main reasons that itunes beat out napster was not because of policing but because itunes offers almost everything available for a reasonable price. The movie industry needs to learn from the music industry. In some ways netflix and amazon prime are a detrement to this where people are expecting a bunch of B grade movies for a fixed price. I would much rather see a service that offers EVERYTHING but charges something reasonable like $1 per hour to stream new releases and 0.50 per hour to stream old releases.
There are plenty of animals that don't suffer the same was a chimps to, such as mice, that can be used for a lot of the tests.
The argument is that while chimps are convenient test subjects, there are alternatives. More expensive alternatives, but we should at least think about what price we are willing to put on the suffering of highly developed animals.
My guess is that there are very few drugs tested on chimps that aren't first tested on mice. They aren't using chimps because it is cheaper. Chimps are A LOT more expensive to do testing on than mice. Not to mention if there is a adverse reaction and the chimp dies then you have the significant cost of both time and money getting a new chimp where mice cost next to nothing and are easy to obtain. I doubt you can find me a single drug that was tested on chimps before it was tested on mice. Chimps are generally the last leg before it goes to human trial. Yes, we might be able to skip that last leg but if the chimp is treated well, I think it's better to test on a chimp than on someone's 6 year old kid. The other option of course is the prey on the poor and offer money for people to volunteer as test dummies. I think doing final testing on chimps who are well cared for is the best option we have.
There's more than enough amazing stuff in the first two categories to retain wonder for the future. We don't need to pretend that one day frozen corpses will be brought back and able to walk on top of that.
It's not even the whole corpse. Just a head with half a brain. Even IF the freezing was done correctly, there is not techology anywhere on the horizon that can either create a new body for her or clone her into a biological or electromechanical body. No where close. Curing cancer is the least of their worries, they need several major advances in several industries to restore a healthy human if they ever can. And assuming they can in 50 years and her parents are still alive, they are now close to 80, would they really want to raise a two year old at that point? But it's not going to be 50, probablty not 100, so they will be long dead.
Slashdot Mirror
I may just be a sad, old hippie, but I think relying on heavily computerized equipment, where you can download a blueprint, push a button and out comes a finished product, that doesn't mean you're a 'maker' in my book. Yes, I know I exaggerate, but still. Or is 'maker' what you call yourself when you don't want to learn how to actually do things, you just want the finished result?
I think most "makers" that I've met are interested in how things work. That involves disassembling existing products and also
creating something new that doesn't exist and you can't buy. In many cases, yes, all they want is the finished result with that
finished result being a robot or other item that doesn't exist. The more tools that make it easier the better. If you can download
a blueprint and push a button for certain portions of the project, then that is great. It give you more time to work on the other
pieces of the project that aren't pushbutton.
I am considering trying to design a place with areas for this, as well as areas to cook, and areas to sew, maybe an area for chemistry.
The point of a makerspace or workshop is to give access to expensive tools that would be cost prohibitive for someone to own themself.
Things like 3d printers, lathes, etc... and it's general non-consumables. Most people have access to the stuff needed to cook, sew and
perform chemistry experiments. Also most of that stuff is consumables which you would need to provide yourself anyways. An expensive
sewing machine might be something for a sewing space but if I had to guess those probably already exist. As far as chemistry and cooking,
I don't see a market for it.
Actually, buses are terrible. They only run fully occupied during peak times, and transit companies don't pull the big buses and replace them with minivans during off-peak hours. So most bus miles are run with very light loads. On average, buses are far worse than cars for energy efficiency because of the low average load factor.
You're talking about city buses. You can't compare city buses with city to city buses. Chartered city to city buses run at or near 100% at
all times just like alot of airlines. Chartered airlines are the same way. That's the reason certain getaway packages are so cheap. They sell
every seat and know that every seat is sold and only leave when it's full unlike city buses and some airlines where they are running 12
rounds a day whether someone is riding or not.
Uber and Lyft operate on the principle that the person requesting the ride will pay enough to cover the matching fee, the full expenses of the person driving, and profit. That's not ridesharing in any sense, it's a car for hire.
Maybe a solution to the "ride share" vs "commercial service" would be to pass
a law for what the maximum price you can charge for a ride share. The IRS
per mile number (57.5 cents per mile) might be a good number to use or maybe
even something less like 75% of that but it should definitely be easy to argue
that if you're charging more than the 57.5 cents per mile then you are no longer
in the ride share business but are operating for a profit because "shared expenses"
should in theory only be 50% of that number (28.75 cents per mile).
Lyft is at $1.90 and Uber varies but is also well above the full 57.5 cents.
So legally, they should both have "the man's rights", which is none at all.
They contributed to a sperm-bank, effectively.
Anything beyond here is akin to adoption.
Proof: Biologically, another woman could implant.
I would agree to this. Just like presumably you could withdraw consent for your sperm in
a sperm bank* to be used before it is actually used, either party should be able to withdraw
their consent until it is actually placed into service. In the sperm bank case, you might have
signed a waiver giving up your right to retract or it could be assumed like when you donate blood
but in this case they maintained ownership but as soon as either party revokes consent then
the embryos should be flushed.
Perhaps that's no loss. There's no rule that every business model under the sun -has- to exist. None of the requirements described in the summary seem out of line to me.
I see no problem with uber having a little star next to the people that have a million dollar liability coverage but
also I don't see why a person can't opt to go with someone cheaper that only has 10k liability coverage.
If people actually wanted 1M liability coverage then uber could flag those accounts and push them to the top
but most people don't care and would rather have cheaper fare.
Uber and Lyft have completely perverted the phrase, using it to refer to taxi rides arranged over the internet, at random prices, while ignoring any taxi regulations.
I'm not so sure it was Uber and Lyft. I think originally Uber and Lyft probably intended for it to be ride-share where people commuting to the
same location shared a car but the prices were high enough that people realized that they could make a living at it.
If Uber and Lyft cut the fares charged/paid by 75% then it would probably go back to that as then the only time it would be profitable to
take on a passenger would be if you were already going that direction.
This is easy. Based on current legal standards, to force the woman to become a mother against her will is rape. To force the man to become a father is merely a call for more stringent child support enforcement.
Not to mention the woman has the absolute right to destroy the embryos if she so chooses.
Summary judgement for the woman unless you want to upend hundreds of years of law.
Current legal standards are based on the embryo being attached to the woman's body and you have to
violate her person to remove it so the scale is tilted to her favor.
In this case the embryo is not part of the woman's body or the man's body so they have equal right to it.
because he has no use for it without her and she has use for it without him.
But all in all, because women own their bodies exclusively.
Yes, women own their bodies and men own their bodies.
But this embryo is not part of the woman's body so that argument doesn't hold.
This embryo is one egg from the woman and one sperm from the man.
It is not any more a part of the woman's body than it is part of the man's body.
You're right, on second thought.
Basically, the fertilised egg ought to be seen as being part of the woman's body if it's inside the womb or outside. So it's her choice to do whatever she wants with it. The woman owns it.
Why exactly? Why does the woman have more right to it than the man? Why couldn't the man opt to raise it with a surrogate?
It's exactly 50/50 in my book. I would prefer a technical solution like refertilizing with a different sperm donor but I don't see how
it's any more the woman's than the man's.
Hmm.. the original article only seems to claim that the underground water is suitable for life, not that it was found.
Here is another source that does actually mention the type of life found: http://www.livescience.com/506...
Here is another article that actually mentions the life found: http://www.livescience.com/506...
Before we ask for this for windshields, we need to see how well it handles regular abrasive friction and small particulates. If it scratches easily then it may require a coating of glass on either side for its hardness
I doubt that this will be, by itself, a windshield, and if a windshield made out of this stuff still needs a glass layer, then you're right back to where you were before as far as chipping with debris over a certain size is concerned.
The article says it is harder than glass but even if it was unsuitable for the outside layer, there is no reason it would need an inside layer of glass.
The outside of a car window needs to withstand the elements but the inside layer doesn't need to be near as weather or abrasion resistance.
The inside layer of a car could be fairly fragile and it could still do the job quite well assuming it had other desirable properties as the inside
of the front windshield rarely even gets touched.
So you bought stock in the company, then went to the shareholder meeting? Not buying isn't "voting". At best it's abstaining. And when 90% of the country abstains, the winner only needs 5% of the vote, so abstaining makes the problem worse, not better.
That might be how voting works but that's not how economics works. How economics work is when people stop buying your product you get less money.
If they can only get 5% of the population then they will likely go out of business and even if they don't, they are going to do customer surveys to try to
figure out how to get more people to subscribe and start to realize that their business model is driving away 90% of their customers. If they don't realize
this then there is a good chance that some other company will and will steal their market share. Yes, you definitely can vote with your money by abstaining.
They should find out how they are increasing the number of male teachers and do the opposite.
That's easy. Pay a decent wage. Probably close to 90% of GOOD teachers are only able to teach because their
husband is earning a real wage elsewhere. Arkansas recently complained that they didn't have any computer
science teachers. Well, what do you expect? Why would someone teach computer science in a school when they
can easily make 3 times that in industry? Yes, like this article mentions, women are drawn toward feel good jobs
that pay crap but most men would rather actually make a decent living than work for peanuts which is why the pay
gap will continue to exist. I know alot of women with degrees that do social work for next to nothing because it
makes them feel good. I personally don't know any men that do. I know they probably exist but they are far fewer.
I don't get this whole voucher thing, because currently, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING preventing you from putting your child in whatever school you damn well please. Schools can and do compete and try to get more students, because more students = more funding. Vouchers are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
You apparently don't understand how education works in the USA. In the USA schools
are funded by taxpayers. Mostly by property tax. Yes, if you can afford it you can
pay to go to a private school or even sometimes pay to go to a public school outside
your district but most people can't afford that. Let me mention again that it's paid by
property tax so the rich neighborhoods get more money and have much nicer schools.
People have been thrown in jail for falsely enrolling their kids in a different district even
if it's just enrolling them under their grandparent's address. This is a separate but equal
crap that needs to end. School vouchers would help stop this segregation between the
rich and the poor. Yes, the rich can send their kids to any school they want, that's not
what the vouchers are for. The vouchers are for the lower middle class families that
can't afford to pay for private schools but would be willing to drive across town to get
their kids to a better school.
20 years in prison for using a friend's address: http://www.alternet.org/story/...
another one where it was the grandparent's address instead of the parent's: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011... Let's lock those parents and grandparents up so they don't hurt society!!!
So, no, unless you can afford to move and/or afford to pay for private, you can't put "your child in whatever school you damn well please"
At the cost of community. Everyone is shuttling their kids to their chosen school and the neighborhood kids don't ever meet.
A better solution is to actually participate in your school boards and be part of the community.
Which rock have you been hiding under for the past 20 years? Neighborhood kids already
don't meet. I live in a town who still has community schools but you NEVER see kids playing
outside. We live in a quiet neighborhood and that's exactly what it is. Quiet. My kids don't
even know their next door neighbors. I wish that I could find a place where my kids could
play with the kids down the street but that era has pretty much left.
No, what you'll get is the rich going to good schools and the poors to bad ones. Hey! isn't this already hapening? No: the poors' ones will be even worse than today since more money will be syphoned out to the riches'.
That's the reason that one stipulation of receiving voucher money should be no other outside money.
Of course, in order for that to work you would probably have to greatly increase the current amount
that schools get.
In my experience though, the improvement is marginal at best. Yes, you can fire people faster, but at the same time, how many for profit companies do you see trying to spend what it takes to get the best workers, even at the cost of cutting their profits, and how many want the cheapest minimum standard they can find?
With sufficient competition (and sufficient money in the vouchers), you should eventually see the schools that cut corners get run out of
business by the schools that hire quality teachers. I would like to see a point where private schools are competing for the vouchers to the
point where they are bragging about the quality of the teachers, the quality of their programs, etc... My town of 80,000 is small enough
that you can drive from one end to the other in about 20 minutes but is big enough that it has about a dozen grade schools. If these dozen
grade schools were completely released from regulation and were allowed to compete for students, they would all eventually take different
approaches. Some of the crappy ones would go under and a few new ones would probably start up but I would like to see what would happen
if 12 schools all had to put their best foot forward to attract students.
and the quality of the teacher has no impact on the compensation that the teacher receives.
I think this is the real problem and unfortunately it doesn't get much better in college. In college you could have a professor
that was terrible and EVERYONE told the dean he was terrible but even then they didn't do anything about it. And it
wasn't just tenured professors. Even TAs got this insane treatment. After complaining about a TA that couldn't
teach and could barely even speak english, the dean actually told me that many foreign TAs were hired before they
ever set foot on campus and that once they got hear it was too late to do anything about it. What??? You can't fire
someone that can't do their job? Name one other non-government, non-union job where someone can't be fired for
sucking at their job.
I think probably the only way out of this mess in elementary school is with school vouchers and private schools.
At least then the schools would have to compete and hopefully the bad schools that let bad teachers stay would
run out of business when they ran out of students. That being said, you have a choice in college and there still
tended to be some politics that let some bad teachers keep their jobs.
Perhaps, then, it is also reasonable to pay for n items out of x? (Not necessarily in the case of the shows you prefer to have commercials, but movies, for example.) That is to say, if you feel Hollywood movies are worth $2 rather than $10, buy one $10 movie for every 5 you watch?
I dunno, just a thought.
That's terrible reasoning. That's like saying if oranges are too expensive it's ok to buy one and
shoplift the other two. In an ideal world you could negotiate with the seller and you can a little bit
with redbox, libraries, etc.. but if you can't then you will need to do without. Like buying bananas
when oranges are too expensive.
But I ask you, astute reader, if you feel that something is not worth paying for.... then why do you feel it is worth consuming?
Worth paying for is not the same as worth paying the asking price. I don't pirate films but I wish more content was available for a reasonable
price. It's annoying that many shows that could be watched for free with commercials when aired now the streaming services are charging
$2 per episode or more. I would rather have a version with commercials. Luckily though my local library has most tv series available for checkout.
I just wish my local library would start stocking movies too.
If people would stop stealing from artists (disclaimer: like myself) than we wouldn't need counter-piracy measures and the internet would be fun for everybody again. But as long as people do not respect artists' intellectual property right (nah, I'm not stealing, I' just making a copy) these measures are necessary. Stop stealing and if you don't want to pay then make your own stuff. But don't steal mine!
I'm fine with paying for content. But the current prices are stupid and all over the place especially with older movies.
For example I can buy all 4 original ninja turtle movies as a set for $9.43. What if I want to stream it? Well, amazon
doesn't offer the first one all all. The third one costs $9.99 for SD which is more than all 4 of the other
ones combined and renting costs 2.99 for SD. Assuming I could actually rent all 4, it would be cost $11.96 which is
more for renting the movies than it costs to purchase the boxed set. But there are a ton of movies that aren't
available as streaming or worse randomly come and go. One of the main reasons that itunes beat out napster was
not because of policing but because itunes offers almost everything available for a reasonable price.
The movie industry needs to learn from the music industry. In some ways netflix and amazon prime are a detrement
to this where people are expecting a bunch of B grade movies for a fixed price. I would much rather see a service
that offers EVERYTHING but charges something reasonable like $1 per hour to stream new releases and 0.50 per
hour to stream old releases.
There are plenty of animals that don't suffer the same was a chimps to, such as mice, that can be used for a lot of the tests.
The argument is that while chimps are convenient test subjects, there are alternatives. More expensive alternatives, but we should at least think about what price we are willing to put on the suffering of highly developed animals.
My guess is that there are very few drugs tested on chimps that aren't first tested on mice. They aren't using chimps because it is cheaper.
Chimps are A LOT more expensive to do testing on than mice. Not to mention if there is a adverse reaction and the chimp dies then you have
the significant cost of both time and money getting a new chimp where mice cost next to nothing and are easy to obtain. I doubt you can
find me a single drug that was tested on chimps before it was tested on mice. Chimps are generally the last leg before it goes to human trial.
Yes, we might be able to skip that last leg but if the chimp is treated well, I think it's better to test on a chimp than on someone's 6 year old kid.
The other option of course is the prey on the poor and offer money for people to volunteer as test dummies. I think doing final testing on chimps
who are well cared for is the best option we have.
There's more than enough amazing stuff in the first two categories to retain wonder for the future. We don't need to pretend that one day frozen corpses will be brought back and able to walk on top of that.
It's not even the whole corpse. Just a head with half a brain. Even IF the freezing was done correctly, there is not techology anywhere on
the horizon that can either create a new body for her or clone her into a biological or electromechanical body. No where close. Curing
cancer is the least of their worries, they need several major advances in several industries to restore a healthy human if they ever can.
And assuming they can in 50 years and her parents are still alive, they are now close to 80, would they really want to raise a two year
old at that point? But it's not going to be 50, probablty not 100, so they will be long dead.