Even more amazing is their constant desire to call something a blatant conspiracy. "I don't know what risk of hunger means in the context of this article, so it can't be a problem".
No, it is MUCH simple to just forbid the students from taking a phone out of their locker during the school day.
The problem is, that would be hell to enforce. You would literally need teachers walking up and down the halls monitoring this. Teachers shouldn't be doing that.
The problem with putting phones in lockers is that the teachers will end up having to deal with disrupted classes because of the kids who just need to check instagram in the break and then end up being late for class. This is a problem that was solved already, mobile phones haven't been around for that long, surely the school has a way to contact students and vice-versa.
But you do. There will be so many kids testing the boundaries of this law and the teachers shouldn't have to be the judges of that. You really just need one sweeping law. Only way to do it.
The problem is that there are many of the worst parts of our culture that should not get a global platform. It also amazes me what a lack of respect people have for journalistic integrity, something that seems to have died but was there for this exact reason. These allow the extremist groups from everywhere to manipulate people like never before.
Let's circle back around to the original conversation. We were talking about making things right for society. People are touting how automated driving will save 20,000 a year, well how many people would it save (and how much easier on health care) if McDonalds had the right motivation to make healthier food. I can stop going (not that I go much anyawy), I can tell everyone I know, it won't change anything. The company is too big and has too far of a reach to respond to individual customers.
I'm not sure if that would ever be possible. Greedy people will always be a part of politics and therefore have their hands in the money. Even if it is possible, how would that prevent companies like Facebook from becoming immensely powerful for doing things that are bad for people.
As an individual, how will my deciding to go to a better restaurant instead of McDonald's in any way limit McDonald's ability to do business or motivate them to have better food? Companies have long outgrown the ill effects of consumer choice unless many millions decide to do it, and that isn't going to happen. It has been long proven that many individuals cannot collectively make a decision that is the right one for the whole society.
There are countless things that can be done. It wouldn't be unheard of to break the company into smaller parts or limit consumption by minors. The important thing is that someone ensures the effect is positive on society.
Social media does nothing but accentuate the worst of humanity. Like restaurants can make more money if they make crappy food that's bad for us and we eat it up, so does social media sensationalize *everything* to get more clicks.
Hard not to blame capitalism. Until their are checks in balances in place to move in a way that is actually good for us, it's all a race into the toilet.
One can refute your claims in a couple ways. A) Maybe with fully automated restaurants, it makes no sense to have dishes to wash, prepared food may become cheap enough that no one can be bothered, and B) everyone can't be a plumber, everyone can't clean rooms; you have a lot of work to do to demonstrate there will be enough positions and earning potential there to keep the whole economy going once all other jobs are gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Adapters are extremely inconvenient and they don't work well for me because I end up losing them.
I had a projection TV with DVI and did just (and still using it today) that but never ended up with a monitor.
I have had computer monitors I would still be using today if almost every vendor hadn't removed the VGA port in the name of being thinner and smaller.
Even more amazing is their constant desire to call something a blatant conspiracy. "I don't know what risk of hunger means in the context of this article, so it can't be a problem".
Phones sure as hell help with that. Have you ever tried to communicate with a teenager who is engaged in a smartphone?
We don't need to add more reasons.
Well the phone is still a disruption no matter what, since the kid it using the phone when they should have their mind on school.
No, it is MUCH simple to just forbid the students from taking a phone out of their locker during the school day.
The problem is, that would be hell to enforce. You would literally need teachers walking up and down the halls monitoring this. Teachers shouldn't be doing that.
The problem with putting phones in lockers is that the teachers will end up having to deal with disrupted classes because of the kids who just need to check instagram in the break and then end up being late for class. This is a problem that was solved already, mobile phones haven't been around for that long, surely the school has a way to contact students and vice-versa.
But you do. There will be so many kids testing the boundaries of this law and the teachers shouldn't have to be the judges of that. You really just need one sweeping law. Only way to do it.
Oh my god! How did they ever teach without phones? Seriously though, not all the kids have them either. So those kids should get left out?
Does Google+ have the same problems with "short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops"?
No, and that's why no one uses it.
I totally respect journalistic integrity. CNN can be sensationalist, sure, but they also give a lot of good news.
The problem is that there are many of the worst parts of our culture that should not get a global platform. It also amazes me what a lack of respect people have for journalistic integrity, something that seems to have died but was there for this exact reason. These allow the extremist groups from everywhere to manipulate people like never before.
Let's circle back around to the original conversation. We were talking about making things right for society. People are touting how automated driving will save 20,000 a year, well how many people would it save (and how much easier on health care) if McDonalds had the right motivation to make healthier food. I can stop going (not that I go much anyawy), I can tell everyone I know, it won't change anything. The company is too big and has too far of a reach to respond to individual customers.
I'm not sure if that would ever be possible. Greedy people will always be a part of politics and therefore have their hands in the money. Even if it is possible, how would that prevent companies like Facebook from becoming immensely powerful for doing things that are bad for people.
Well, my country has a lot of social programs and I totally think the extra taxes are worth it. Maybe you have to live in one to understand it.
As an individual, how will my deciding to go to a better restaurant instead of McDonald's in any way limit McDonald's ability to do business or motivate them to have better food? Companies have long outgrown the ill effects of consumer choice unless many millions decide to do it, and that isn't going to happen. It has been long proven that many individuals cannot collectively make a decision that is the right one for the whole society.
There are countless things that can be done. It wouldn't be unheard of to break the company into smaller parts or limit consumption by minors. The important thing is that someone ensures the effect is positive on society.
That's a completely different problem. That needs to be fixed too but not really on topic in this thread.
Absolutely that's a problem, until you start creating regulations that prevent or reduce one's ability to take advantage of another.
Only if you cherry pick the countries you look at.
That's why there is democracy.
Social media does nothing but accentuate the worst of humanity. Like restaurants can make more money if they make crappy food that's bad for us and we eat it up, so does social media sensationalize *everything* to get more clicks.
Hard not to blame capitalism. Until their are checks in balances in place to move in a way that is actually good for us, it's all a race into the toilet.
One can refute your claims in a couple ways. A) Maybe with fully automated restaurants, it makes no sense to have dishes to wash, prepared food may become cheap enough that no one can be bothered, and B) everyone can't be a plumber, everyone can't clean rooms; you have a lot of work to do to demonstrate there will be enough positions and earning potential there to keep the whole economy going once all other jobs are gone.