On a serious note, the article seems to be pretty clear on the cause of it's failure - it's a small company caught in the economic downturn, and they're getting out while they still have some assets to sell. Normal business.
And someone needs to remind the politicians that all those banks and car manufacturers that you paid money to is no different. You just kept giving them more money until they dug themselves out.
but not sure it is applicable as I think there actually may be risks to using birth control pills that a lot of young women have been takng very seriously for the last decade or so, with good reason. When you say "They put out a story..." you make it sound like you're now aware that it was media scaremongering and junk science. I am not aware of this... and would love a citation.
Well, let's put this into perspective. There are known issues with birth control pills (as I understand it, generally involving taking them for many years continuously).
But for a woman just starting the pills, what's a bigger health and wellness issue - getting pregnant or the possibility that there may be risks?
No matter how you slice it, the pills are still the smarter bet.
Chiropractic can save lives, just like homeopathy, acupuncture and faith-healing.
OK, at the risk of threading the needle *and* getting flamed into oblivion, I'm going to say that chiro (and aromatherapy, and a few other "alternatives") can be useful in the right applications. (Full disclosure: I've never done any of them myself, but various family members have, with various results).
If you drop all the mysticism, aromatherapy is just chemistry. Giving someone smelling salts to "bring them around"? Aromatherapy. Lavender helps you relax. Nothing spooky, just science wrapped in some spookiness).
Chiropractic and physiotherapy aren't as far apart as you think. You're just moving bones around. Popping in a dislocated joint? Chiro.
The problem is that we want to say "one good, one bad". Chiro or aromatherapy do work, for some things. They don't work for others. They don't work for all people, but then neither do conventional medical therapies. (Ask anyone who's had to try multiple birth control pills or pain medications about side effects).
Problem is that their risk assessment is highly flawed.
And it's intentionally skewed to be flawed. Every time I hear the autism scare tale, it's that "the vaccine causes autism". Not "increases your risk of", not "might have a connection to". It's phrased to imply that if you get the vaccine and *don't* get autism, you have somehow beaten the odds.
When you stack that on today's environment of "OMG YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM EVERYTHING" that is inflicted on parents (disclaimer: I have a four-year-old, and people freak out about *everything* these days), it's not surprising that the issue continues to get traction.
The question is, can that really be considered a corporation, and not an extension of the state itself? My studies did not include economic and corporate law, so I'm only going by common sense here, but I'd say the ICJ would throw that claim out.
For the sake of argument, even if they did, ChinaCorp would simply appeal. And all the while, they're up there mining away, because no-one else has the tech to stop them. Possession is 9/10s and all that.;)
If anything, I'd be *more* concerned about corps claiming asteroids - they'll put three guys in a bubble up there and declare it to be the new corporate HQ. No taxes (because no country is allowed to claim it!)
Well, assuming a perfect sphere (for estimating), a 2km diameter rock is about 4 cubic kilometers of material. (If you smush it into a cube, about a mile each direction). If they're figuring the entire rock is useful, that's a helluva lot of material.
As for prices, I would presume that either China will keep it off the global markets entirely (reserving it for national use), or simply ration it OPEC-style to keep prices at a desirable level.
There's a few extra benefits that I think aren't being considered:
1. Being up there owning a giant rock is massive prestige, and that's something China will happily take. In particular, it's something flashy to lord over the US.
2. Assuming the materials are right, I would guess the plan is to use the materials right there in orbit. (Possibly a longer-range plan: I ain't no rocket scientist - I just know it's better not to come down if you can avoid it).
3. Never underestimate the value of having giant rocks that can "accidentally" fall out of orbit at convenient times.
There exists a loophole, as the Outer Space Agreement only forbids territorial claims by sovereign nations, but not corporations or private persons, meaning that a company could legally take ownership of the asteroid for mining, but this is (still) incompatible with the Chinese economic mentality.
I actually dealt with this topic in my thesis, and I can say that the area is woefully under-researched.
I would presume that China (and any other country, for that matter), will arrange to create a wholly-owned corporation if it means being able to make claims.
Companies deduce from this that future value [of a product] is worth nothing.
So why do they keep pushing for ever-longer terms for the copyright in a product if the value of that copyright is nothing?
Because the copyright is more valuable than the product itself. No-one will buy the product, but the copyright prevents anyone else from doing it either.
You miss the twin problems of "the kid doesn't want to be there, so threatening to kick him out is a reward, not a punishment"
The punishment is the fee for the parents.
Yes, because kids who are skipping or otherwise don't care about school tend to listen to their parents. Yeah...
and "until a certain age, I am legally required to send my kid to school and you are legally required to teach them, so I'll pay that bill Half Past Never."
It's not just a bill that you can ignore, it's like if you don't pay your taxes. You end up with a lien on your house, your wages are garnished, or maybe you go to jail.
I see two practical results: one, kids will simply *not* retake the class (which will lead to kids who are required to be at school, but not permitted to be in any classes), which leads to result two: teachers will be told to ensure kids pass by simply writing "50%" on the final paperwork.
I'd suggest you might get better results by using that business model everyone keeps saying the public sector needs - if your customers (children) are not enjoying your product, what's wrong with the product?
I went through the public school system, my brother and sister were homeschooled from the age of 8 or so on.
They're easily more socially adjusted than I am (I'm the nerd and wallflower of the family), and I can't really point at any area where their school was "deficient" (there's some differences in what they took, but nothing you wouldn't see between any two school systems).
If I had to find a reason, it would be (1) a parent who was *very* insistent that the kids would learn properly, and (2) the parent's willingness to find experts in areas they didn't know. I got hauled in to teach maths, a neighbor (who's a vet) helped out with biology, they were enrolled in a band program (run by a former teacher who now specializes in home-schoolers). Sports was easy - they just signed up for soccer and baseball and what-not.
You miss the twin problems of "the kid doesn't want to be there, so threatening to kick him out is a reward, not a punishment" and "until a certain age, I am legally required to send my kid to school and you are legally required to teach them, so I'll pay that bill Half Past Never."
Oh, also the problem of assuming that the 12-year-old has a parent available to watch them all day.
- leave the kids home alone (sounds like the cheapest option, until they start causing trouble)
Step 2 - wait for child services to show up and take the kids away (because you're "neglecting" them). Locally it was pointed out that there is actually no hard-fixed age where it's legal to leave a "child unattended".
We're so addicted to evaluations that we forget to teach the actual material being evaluated.
Not to mention that if the kid doesn't learn it, we blame the teacher for his low marks, rather than the kid.
(pause to let everyone put their "some teachers are idiots and useless" stories here - I've got a few as well)
But talk to a teacher today, and they can't do anything *but* make sure their kids know what's on the test (leaving no time to do anything actually freakin' interesting), because it's either do that or find another job.
I go for Matt Damon's take on teachers - you go into teaching because you want to do it. If you don't like teaching kids, there are easier ways to make a living. That's why you see so many education majors in human resources.
If you didn't pay for that ipad with money you earned by being a soda jerk at the local druggist, maybe. 'course kids don't work for money until college these days, often after college.
I have no idea what my kid will do for a job, considering that the local papers won't even hire kids for routes anymore. They've consolidated the routes into massive 250+ house runs and expect you to have the use of a car.
Also important to note that it's been many many years since "working my way through college" was a legitimate possibility. The only person I know who did it had his tuition paid by the company he worked for.
Out of a 8 hour day you are only educating my kids for four hours?
Couple reasons I can think of:
1. The obvious - there is a limit to how many hours you can realistically expect a kid to pay attention. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that hour 9 is more-or-less a writeoff as is. Not to mention that parents probably would like their kids home before 6pm.
2. The four hours they're cutting is probably review and extra help for kids who need it. At a guess I'd say that's been offloaded to "homework" on Fridays.
I'm not sure why you'd think video gamers are necessarily teetotal. Many are college student. Sure, they don't generally go to frat parties and drink Bud Light, but plenty of gamers I know drink readily. And the teetotalers aren't likely to show up at a bar, in any case, so I think it could be very profitable. Your mindset is likely why events like this haven't happened in the past.
And even the teetotallers will buy a few non-alc drinks and a plate of nachos or something.
Back when those little trivia boxes were all the rage, a half-dozen of us were regulars at the local bar, and while most of us didn't "drink", the bar made enough money from us that our table was always waiting when we got there.
Dangerous low-life criminals who are just as likely, if not more likely, to put one of their bullets in an innocent bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a gang feud turns sour.
As opposed to the police, who managed to shoot one of their own?
Cops are supposed to be the good guys, and they're supposed to be better trained than this.
In this specific case of Mark Duggan, although on the occasion he was shot and killed he may not have been the one to fire first
According to the new version of events, he hadn't drawn a weapon (it was tucked in his sock). So, while we can debate whether being a "scumbag" is a capital offense, we can't ignore some basic facts - the police shot and killed an unarmed man, and managed to shoot one of their own in the process.
Don't get me wrong - police good, crooks bad. But if our police force is reduced to Arnold-level "I only kill the bad guys" competency, we haven't done much more than hire one group of thugs over another.
One person protesting there was interviewed and stated that news media would not care unless fuss would be created.
Right, because they tried peacefully protesting first, and that didn't work.</sarcasm>
Actually, they did - the full interview had the youth pointing out that 20,000 people protested peacefully outside Scotland Yard a few months ago. Media and government completely ignored them. The youth said words to the effect of "you're paying attention to us now, aren't you?".
Slashdot Mirror
Bob is a troll.
Really? I never would have guessed...
On a serious note, the article seems to be pretty clear on the cause of it's failure - it's a small company caught in the economic downturn, and they're getting out while they still have some assets to sell. Normal business.
And someone needs to remind the politicians that all those banks and car manufacturers that you paid money to is no different. You just kept giving them more money until they dug themselves out.
but not sure it is applicable as I think there actually may be risks to using birth control pills that a lot of young women have been takng very seriously for the last decade or so, with good reason. When you say "They put out a story..." you make it sound like you're now aware that it was media scaremongering and junk science. I am not aware of this... and would love a citation.
Well, let's put this into perspective. There are known issues with birth control pills (as I understand it, generally involving taking them for many years continuously).
But for a woman just starting the pills, what's a bigger health and wellness issue - getting pregnant or the possibility that there may be risks?
No matter how you slice it, the pills are still the smarter bet.
Chiropractic can save lives, just like homeopathy, acupuncture and faith-healing.
OK, at the risk of threading the needle *and* getting flamed into oblivion, I'm going to say that chiro (and aromatherapy, and a few other "alternatives") can be useful in the right applications. (Full disclosure: I've never done any of them myself, but various family members have, with various results).
If you drop all the mysticism, aromatherapy is just chemistry. Giving someone smelling salts to "bring them around"? Aromatherapy. Lavender helps you relax. Nothing spooky, just science wrapped in some spookiness).
Chiropractic and physiotherapy aren't as far apart as you think. You're just moving bones around. Popping in a dislocated joint? Chiro.
The problem is that we want to say "one good, one bad". Chiro or aromatherapy do work, for some things. They don't work for others. They don't work for all people, but then neither do conventional medical therapies. (Ask anyone who's had to try multiple birth control pills or pain medications about side effects).
Problem is that their risk assessment is highly flawed.
And it's intentionally skewed to be flawed. Every time I hear the autism scare tale, it's that "the vaccine causes autism". Not "increases your risk of", not "might have a connection to". It's phrased to imply that if you get the vaccine and *don't* get autism, you have somehow beaten the odds.
When you stack that on today's environment of "OMG YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM EVERYTHING" that is inflicted on parents (disclaimer: I have a four-year-old, and people freak out about *everything* these days), it's not surprising that the issue continues to get traction.
Doubt it'll even be tried, though.
Well, last I checked China didn't have the tech to pull this off just yet. But I'll bet they're looking into it.
The question is, can that really be considered a corporation, and not an extension of the state itself? My studies did not include economic and corporate law, so I'm only going by common sense here, but I'd say the ICJ would throw that claim out.
For the sake of argument, even if they did, ChinaCorp would simply appeal. And all the while, they're up there mining away, because no-one else has the tech to stop them. Possession is 9/10s and all that. ;)
If anything, I'd be *more* concerned about corps claiming asteroids - they'll put three guys in a bubble up there and declare it to be the new corporate HQ. No taxes (because no country is allowed to claim it!)
Well, assuming a perfect sphere (for estimating), a 2km diameter rock is about 4 cubic kilometers of material. (If you smush it into a cube, about a mile each direction). If they're figuring the entire rock is useful, that's a helluva lot of material.
As for prices, I would presume that either China will keep it off the global markets entirely (reserving it for national use), or simply ration it OPEC-style to keep prices at a desirable level.
There's a few extra benefits that I think aren't being considered:
1. Being up there owning a giant rock is massive prestige, and that's something China will happily take. In particular, it's something flashy to lord over the US.
2. Assuming the materials are right, I would guess the plan is to use the materials right there in orbit. (Possibly a longer-range plan: I ain't no rocket scientist - I just know it's better not to come down if you can avoid it).
3. Never underestimate the value of having giant rocks that can "accidentally" fall out of orbit at convenient times.
There exists a loophole, as the Outer Space Agreement only forbids territorial claims by sovereign nations, but not corporations or private persons, meaning that a company could legally take ownership of the asteroid for mining, but this is (still) incompatible with the Chinese economic mentality. I actually dealt with this topic in my thesis, and I can say that the area is woefully under-researched.
I would presume that China (and any other country, for that matter), will arrange to create a wholly-owned corporation if it means being able to make claims.
I don't mind them getting all the payout (as you say, they did all the work). My concern is if they screw up and drop the damn thing on my house.
Companies deduce from this that future value [of a product] is worth nothing.
So why do they keep pushing for ever-longer terms for the copyright in a product if the value of that copyright is nothing?
Because the copyright is more valuable than the product itself. No-one will buy the product, but the copyright prevents anyone else from doing it either.
You miss the twin problems of "the kid doesn't want to be there, so threatening to kick him out is a reward, not a punishment"
The punishment is the fee for the parents.
Yes, because kids who are skipping or otherwise don't care about school tend to listen to their parents. Yeah...
and "until a certain age, I am legally required to send my kid to school and you are legally required to teach them, so I'll pay that bill Half Past Never."
It's not just a bill that you can ignore, it's like if you don't pay your taxes. You end up with a lien on your house, your wages are garnished, or maybe you go to jail.
I see two practical results: one, kids will simply *not* retake the class (which will lead to kids who are required to be at school, but not permitted to be in any classes), which leads to result two: teachers will be told to ensure kids pass by simply writing "50%" on the final paperwork.
I'd suggest you might get better results by using that business model everyone keeps saying the public sector needs - if your customers (children) are not enjoying your product, what's wrong with the product?
Or Castaway, for that matter.
To use the Standard Movie Logic, I'd say that Portal = Castaway + Matrix.
You've probably got a bad batch, then.
I went through the public school system, my brother and sister were homeschooled from the age of 8 or so on.
They're easily more socially adjusted than I am (I'm the nerd and wallflower of the family), and I can't really point at any area where their school was "deficient" (there's some differences in what they took, but nothing you wouldn't see between any two school systems).
If I had to find a reason, it would be (1) a parent who was *very* insistent that the kids would learn properly, and (2) the parent's willingness to find experts in areas they didn't know. I got hauled in to teach maths, a neighbor (who's a vet) helped out with biology, they were enrolled in a band program (run by a former teacher who now specializes in home-schoolers). Sports was easy - they just signed up for soccer and baseball and what-not.
You miss the twin problems of "the kid doesn't want to be there, so threatening to kick him out is a reward, not a punishment" and "until a certain age, I am legally required to send my kid to school and you are legally required to teach them, so I'll pay that bill Half Past Never."
Oh, also the problem of assuming that the 12-year-old has a parent available to watch them all day.
- leave the kids home alone (sounds like the cheapest option, until they start causing trouble)
Step 2 - wait for child services to show up and take the kids away (because you're "neglecting" them). Locally it was pointed out that there is actually no hard-fixed age where it's legal to leave a "child unattended".
Job creation program for FCCS?
We're so addicted to evaluations that we forget to teach the actual material being evaluated.
Not to mention that if the kid doesn't learn it, we blame the teacher for his low marks, rather than the kid.
(pause to let everyone put their "some teachers are idiots and useless" stories here - I've got a few as well)
But talk to a teacher today, and they can't do anything *but* make sure their kids know what's on the test (leaving no time to do anything actually freakin' interesting), because it's either do that or find another job.
I go for Matt Damon's take on teachers - you go into teaching because you want to do it. If you don't like teaching kids, there are easier ways to make a living. That's why you see so many education majors in human resources.
Happened once, a long time ago.
If you didn't pay for that ipad with money you earned by being a soda jerk at the local druggist, maybe. 'course kids don't work for money until college these days, often after college.
I have no idea what my kid will do for a job, considering that the local papers won't even hire kids for routes anymore. They've consolidated the routes into massive 250+ house runs and expect you to have the use of a car.
Also important to note that it's been many many years since "working my way through college" was a legitimate possibility. The only person I know who did it had his tuition paid by the company he worked for.
Out of a 8 hour day you are only educating my kids for four hours?
Couple reasons I can think of:
1. The obvious - there is a limit to how many hours you can realistically expect a kid to pay attention. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that hour 9 is more-or-less a writeoff as is. Not to mention that parents probably would like their kids home before 6pm.
2. The four hours they're cutting is probably review and extra help for kids who need it. At a guess I'd say that's been offloaded to "homework" on Fridays.
I'm not sure why you'd think video gamers are necessarily teetotal. Many are college student. Sure, they don't generally go to frat parties and drink Bud Light, but plenty of gamers I know drink readily. And the teetotalers aren't likely to show up at a bar, in any case, so I think it could be very profitable. Your mindset is likely why events like this haven't happened in the past.
And even the teetotallers will buy a few non-alc drinks and a plate of nachos or something.
Back when those little trivia boxes were all the rage, a half-dozen of us were regulars at the local bar, and while most of us didn't "drink", the bar made enough money from us that our table was always waiting when we got there.
Dangerous low-life criminals who are just as likely, if not more likely, to put one of their bullets in an innocent bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a gang feud turns sour.
As opposed to the police, who managed to shoot one of their own?
Cops are supposed to be the good guys, and they're supposed to be better trained than this.
In this specific case of Mark Duggan, although on the occasion he was shot and killed he may not have been the one to fire first
According to the new version of events, he hadn't drawn a weapon (it was tucked in his sock). So, while we can debate whether being a "scumbag" is a capital offense, we can't ignore some basic facts - the police shot and killed an unarmed man, and managed to shoot one of their own in the process.
Don't get me wrong - police good, crooks bad. But if our police force is reduced to Arnold-level "I only kill the bad guys" competency, we haven't done much more than hire one group of thugs over another.
Is it: Cameron later asked the question: “Are we going to give police the power to track activity on BlackBerry and Twitter?”
If your police detectives can't keep track of trending topics on Twitter, you need better detectives.
Never mind the fact that guns are basically illegal in the UK, and the only people who have/carry guns are low-life criminals anyway.
And police officers. Or were you combining the two groups?
One person protesting there was interviewed and stated that news media would not care unless fuss would be created.
Right, because they tried peacefully protesting first, and that didn't work.</sarcasm>
Actually, they did - the full interview had the youth pointing out that 20,000 people protested peacefully outside Scotland Yard a few months ago. Media and government completely ignored them. The youth said words to the effect of "you're paying attention to us now, aren't you?".