You're assuming that the 4th dimension is time. Nobody has ever said that was the case, although many people have ASSUMED it to be true. The 4th dimension is a direction, much like up, down, or sideways, but is orthogonal to all three. See here for a description.
It has nothing to do with what the fourth dimension IS. The problem is the use of the word "expanding." For something to expand, it must change size between two points in TIME. So the entire concept of expansion is ROOTED in time and cannot be used to EXPLAIN time.
If the expansion is not across time (in other words, we are talking about dx/dw where w is not in temporal units) then what exactly IS it across? We have to continue to postulate dimensions in order to define the term "expansion."
It's interesting, though, to see such careless disregard for other people's feelings.
I called him stupid for spamming Slashdot when he could have just posted a link, not because of his theoretical aspirations.
Nice way of taking the argument to a ridiculous extreme. How hard is it really to simply not run configure as root? Why do anything as root that doesn't HAVE to be done as root? That's really the only point here.
Why even do that? If the pedestrian has the right of way, he has the right to wear headphones. If he doesn't, than the accident is his fault, headphones or no.
Right of way is a concept invented to make stop signs easier to understand. It says nothing about who is RESPONSIBLE when two objects crash into each other. If both of the involved parties should have been able to prevent it, they are both at fault. I'm speaking IN REALITY, not legally.
If there were a series of actions that the driver OR the pedestrian COULD HAVE TAKEN which would have prevented the accident, but they DID NOT TAKE those actions, then both are at fault. Just because another person is SUPPOSED to stop for you doesn't mean they will, and you're not very smart (and not long for this world) if you operate under the assumption that everybody is going to do what they are supposed to.
Imagine explaining to your 2 year old why daddy got run over and killed... "Well, the bus was SUPPOSED to stop for daddy, so he didn't bother to be careful." 2 year old: "Well that makes everything ALL BETTER!"
If someone wants to take themselves out by whatever means, it is our body and our right...
It's your "right" to step in front of MY vehicle and splatter yourself all over MY windshield, traumatizing ME for the rest of my life? Whether that is your "right" or not, it certainly makes you the most inconsiderate person on the planet.
I'm a Mac user and I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows. I don't want a separate PC machine just for testing code.
There are so many things wrong with this statement... First of all, your employer won't buy you a real test platform? Cheap bastard. Second, who cares if it runs on Windows? If Windows is important, why aren't you developing on a Windows box? Third, it's silly to test your code in an environment which is substantially different from what your customers have. Unless your customers are all running Java on Vista on Mac, your test platform is not appropriate.
Is this supposed to make me feel good? What kind of fucked up country do we live in where we have to "win the right" to criticize somebody? Also, tomorrow I'm going to court to "win the right" to continue breathing.
This is about the dumbest "theory" I've ever heard. The fourth dimension is "expanding?" As in, from one moment in time to another, it's getting bigger? Wait a second, did I just say "moment in TIME?" So you're defining time in terms of an expansion over TIME? You are stupid.
Where as biodiesel, even regular vegetable oil, can go straight into the tank of an unmodified vehicle. Especially a modern one which comes complete with a computerised engine managment system.
Actually, the modern ones tend to have more issues with straight vegetable oil, because the fuel injector pump can't always handle the higher viscosity of the oil. I know this from sad experience, pouring a half-gallon of corn oil into a nearly empty Golf TDI.
Now, if you warm up that corn oil so that it's less viscous, it will work fine, but let's not go around telling people that they can pour SVO into *any* diesel vehicle and have it "just work". You CAN damage your vehicle.
You do realize that it's a bit more complicated than that. Depending on where the speakers were from the microphone, any reflective surfaces that might bounce the sound back, etc... it can all fuck up a noise cancelation circuit, which is what we're basically talking about.
It's all doable in principle. If the complete system is LTI (linear and time-invariant) then performance can be perfect. The problem is in the TI part of LTI. Most real acoustical system are not time-invariant.
Ever played with microphone feedback? Set up a sound recorder program to record and play the sound back through the speakers. Set the mic close to the speaker and fiddle with the volume until it JUST BARELY starts to feed back on itself. Now, wave your hand around in the vicinity of the microphone. Notice that even the SMALL effect of your hand moving influences the feedback characteristic.
Now imagine a very sensitive echo cancellation system trying to operate in a room where the acoustic properties are changing with time. Good luck making that work.
Couldn't the system simply have a filter that removes the wave signature of what it is outputting before processing input as a command? This is relatively simple technology, as compared to voice recognition itself. You might have to re-calibrate if you move your speakers but I would think that is a small price to pay to not leave open the ability for a web site to control your system through an auto-playing wave file.
The quick answer is "no." Even though the computer knows what waveform it is playing, it has no idea what waveform will actually emerge from the speakers, or arrive at the microphone.
The problem is that the audio system taken as a whole (Sound card DAC -> speaker wire -> speaker driver -> air in the room -> microphone pickup -> microphone wire -> sound card ADC) introduces small but significant spectral distortion into the sound by the time it runs through the entire system. Even if we ignore the nonlinearities of the amplifiers, the finite resolution of the digital-to-analog converters, and everything else, we still run into the problem of objects MOVING in the room (like you, leaning 2 inches forward in your chair), which changes the impulse response of the system and therefore changes the spectrum of the received signal.
Even if we consider only two elements, the speaker cone and the air in the room, it is fairly easy to see that the sound wave generated is NOT equivalent to the wave being sent to the speaker cone. Imagine a step signal (e.g. a Heaviside function) where the speaker deflection instantaneously goes from 0 to 1, then stays there. What does the AIR PRESSURE right next to the speaker cone do? Does it instantaneously jump from 0 to x and then stay there? No, of course not -- a WAVE propagates from the speaker into the air of the room. So the signal applied to the speaker and the signal in the room are not the same signal.
Now in theory, if all of these effects are linear, then the total impulse response can be computed. This is the "calibration" you mention. The problem, though, is that the system is not TIME INVARIANT, meaning its impulse response changes with time simply because of all the variables which affect the system.
So it's not only a matter of "recalibrating when you move your speakers." You have to recalibrate when the speakers move, when the temperature changes, when the air pressure changes, when the microphone moves, when the microphone has dust on it interfering with pickup, when anything at all in the room moves, when there is a draft in the room, etc etc.
This would not be simple technology at all. Not impossible, but probably extremely expensive and unreliable.
Re:Something doesn't add up...
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 1
It's called "fog drip" and I'm not making it up. Use Google.
Re:Something doesn't add up...
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 1
Trees improve local rainfall, because they affect weather (slow it down, for one thing.)
Not only that, but humidity condenses from the air onto the leaves of trees and then drips onto the forest floor. The amount of water contributed to a watershed from this is substantial, even compared to actual rainfall. Even if deforestation didn't alter weather patterns, the water produced from a given area of land would be much less.
Have you actually looked at a PDF file in a text editor? It's a meaningless pile of spaghetti.
Most of that is due to the compression of stream data in PDF documents. If you run the document through a PDF stream decompressor, of which there are several good options, the result is much easier to comprehend, if not totally transparent. Unfortunately, just being able to see the data in a PDF doesn't mean you can edit it, say, with a text editor. PDF files implement random access with a table of contents pointing to the objects inside the file. Changing the contents of the objects breaks the index.
Microsoft's XML Paper Specification (XPS) is already available for anyone to implement. And it's plain, readable XML instead of a 25-year-old printer description language. Your applicaiton can build files using any XML parsing engine, instead of having to license a PDF library.
XPS is an interesting new option, definitely. But I think you are exaggerating the complexity of PDF. Both formats are a "final rendering" format, not really geared toward hand-editing. Don't let the XML nature of XPS fool you -- it is intended as a solution for device-independent printing, not a document format.
The product I work on performs its own PDF rendering and output. We chose to write our own PDF layer instead of licensing a third party product. It really isn't that difficult.
I am constantly amazed at how much game programmers know about the mathematics and algorithms for computer graphics, and how little they know of everything else.
As a graphics programmer myself (though not for games), I can say that it's really mostly geometry. In order to get speed, the geometry is tortured into a form that can be difficult to understand, but ultimately it's just geometry.
Even relatively simple mathematical concepts like sampling theory are above the heads of most day-to-day graphics developers. They have the algorithms in hand and know how to apply them but have little understanding of why they actually work.
Several years ago I was writing a function which generated conic curves. My favorite graphics book wasn't handy, so I had to derive the standard finite-difference method from scratch (refers to a technique to generate the curves which has NO multiplications in the inner loop, very very efficient). Doing this requires knowledge of calculus, but only on a basic level. Sad to say, I don't think many graphics coders could do that because they just don't "get" the math. They rely on the fact that it's written in a book somewhere.
The problem is that this is yet another technical solution for what is a social problem. As has been shown many times before: technical solutions to social problems simply don't work.
The whole point is that it cannot be viewed as a solution. To build a house, a nail gun would be useful. It's a tool. Not the solution to the problem of "house-building" in general. You could also use a hammer, or pound nails with your forehead if you really wanted to.
Maybe the marketing of the product makes it sound like it's a general solution. If that's the case, the marketing is a lie. But that would be nothing new. It doesn't change what the thing IS.
Funny how quickly you moved from simply debating on a topic (a topic which won't be relevant to my own children for another decade at least) to asserting that my genetic line should be terminated. Ever considered working for Al Qaeda? You've got just the personality for it.
Because it divorces the need for the parent to be involved. It makes parents lazy, and lazy parents are the worst kind of parents. However noble the intention, it can't compete with attention.
So you're saying that if the tool did not exist, lazy parents would magically become un-lazy? I think they'd probably just find different ways to ignore their children.
the stuff is expensive, but the cheapest way is the grid-tied no storage setup like this, It's very common and has been done for decades, only recently have laws been passed to allow it in most places. Many have done it anyways and simply stopped the meter from spinning.
I have a kilowatt system on my roof. Total cost to me? Zero. It won't be true indefinitely, but in many states you can apply for tax credits which pay for the entire system (100% subsidy). Then I had to buy a $1600 grid-tie inverter, total cost to me? Zero again, thanks to GWB. The only thing I've paid is about $250 in hardware to install it on my roof.
It requires a lifestyle change. You cant be the typical American power pig.
Untrue. That's the whole POINT of grid-tie. I can use just as much power as before -- if the solar panels can't produce the needed power alone, the extra is taken from the grid. You don't even notice it. Of course, if you're the sort of person who installs solar panels, you're probably also interested in conservation, but you don't HAVE to do it.
Ironic that those that don't car about dumping $100.00 for lunch care a lot to save $70.00 a month on electricity...
It's really not ironic at all, because for the super-rich, the cost savings isn't even the point. Being "green" and being able to boast to your rich buddies about your 5 kilowatt grid-tie system is the point.
Let's go back to the morality-book example. I suppose a parent could simply give the book to their kid and do NOTHING FURTHER to teach the child moral concepts. So clearly this is a dangerous book which encourages bad parenting? Your argument is ridiculous.
No, the message was communicated just fine. Contrary to what you might believe, children have something called FREE WILL which allows them to ignore advice and make mistakes. If you think there is some magic parenting technique which guarantees that children will always obey and make the right choices, you are going to be disappointed. If you were 10 in 1996, I think it's safe to say you probably don't have kids yet (although it's possible). When you figure out the magic bullet of parenting, please publish it in a book so I can learn from your wisdom.
Teach your kid to not be an idiot and you don't need software like this.
Hah! My mother also taught me to not be an idiot. Guess what? I lied, kept secrets, and did shit I wasn't supposed to. I did things I had specifically been TOLD not to do, and had promised I wouldn't do. As far as mom was concerned, the message had been communicated loud and clear (in fact, it HAD been communicated, I just chose to ignore it). If you think I was unique among children, you're insane.
What I can't quite understand is why no one has thought of parenting as being the best way to protect your children online. I realize it's revolutionary and scary, but hey, we could give it a try, couldn't we?
Why is the informed and appropriate use of a tool not considered "parenting?" The AI is not a surrogate parent, it is a tool which HELPS in the task of parenting. Like any tool, it can be used properly or improperly.
The real problem is parents abdicating their responsibility. This is essentially the same complaint that has been said of TV and radio and video games now the web. It appears that many irresponsible parents have enough time to complain to legislators, but not enough time to parent. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix it.
Yeah, and don't even get me started on education. Talk about abdicating your responsibility! You truck your kid off for 6 hours a day and some STRANGER fills their head with shit! This crap has got to stop.
Slashdot Mirror
There, fixed it for ya. You were too smug to notice that you put your words into his mouth, and then accused him of making a flawed definition.
If you can define the term "expansion" without referring to temporality, I'll concede.
You're assuming that the 4th dimension is time. Nobody has ever said that was the case, although many people have ASSUMED it to be true. The 4th dimension is a direction, much like up, down, or sideways, but is orthogonal to all three. See here for a description.
It has nothing to do with what the fourth dimension IS. The problem is the use of the word "expanding." For something to expand, it must change size between two points in TIME. So the entire concept of expansion is ROOTED in time and cannot be used to EXPLAIN time.
If the expansion is not across time (in other words, we are talking about dx/dw where w is not in temporal units) then what exactly IS it across? We have to continue to postulate dimensions in order to define the term "expansion."
It's interesting, though, to see such careless disregard for other people's feelings.
I called him stupid for spamming Slashdot when he could have just posted a link, not because of his theoretical aspirations.
Nice way of taking the argument to a ridiculous extreme. How hard is it really to simply not run configure as root? Why do anything as root that doesn't HAVE to be done as root? That's really the only point here.
Why even do that? If the pedestrian has the right of way, he has the right to wear headphones. If he doesn't, than the accident is his fault, headphones or no.
Right of way is a concept invented to make stop signs easier to understand. It says nothing about who is RESPONSIBLE when two objects crash into each other. If both of the involved parties should have been able to prevent it, they are both at fault. I'm speaking IN REALITY, not legally.
If there were a series of actions that the driver OR the pedestrian COULD HAVE TAKEN which would have prevented the accident, but they DID NOT TAKE those actions, then both are at fault. Just because another person is SUPPOSED to stop for you doesn't mean they will, and you're not very smart (and not long for this world) if you operate under the assumption that everybody is going to do what they are supposed to.
Imagine explaining to your 2 year old why daddy got run over and killed... "Well, the bus was SUPPOSED to stop for daddy, so he didn't bother to be careful." 2 year old: "Well that makes everything ALL BETTER!"
If someone wants to take themselves out by whatever means, it is our body and our right...
It's your "right" to step in front of MY vehicle and splatter yourself all over MY windshield, traumatizing ME for the rest of my life? Whether that is your "right" or not, it certainly makes you the most inconsiderate person on the planet.
I'm a Mac user and I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows. I don't want a separate PC machine just for testing code.
There are so many things wrong with this statement... First of all, your employer won't buy you a real test platform? Cheap bastard. Second, who cares if it runs on Windows? If Windows is important, why aren't you developing on a Windows box? Third, it's silly to test your code in an environment which is substantially different from what your customers have. Unless your customers are all running Java on Vista on Mac, your test platform is not appropriate.
Is this supposed to make me feel good? What kind of fucked up country do we live in where we have to "win the right" to criticize somebody? Also, tomorrow I'm going to court to "win the right" to continue breathing.
This is about the dumbest "theory" I've ever heard. The fourth dimension is "expanding?" As in, from one moment in time to another, it's getting bigger? Wait a second, did I just say "moment in TIME?" So you're defining time in terms of an expansion over TIME? You are stupid.
Where as biodiesel, even regular vegetable oil, can go straight into the tank of an unmodified vehicle. Especially a modern one which comes complete with a computerised engine managment system.
Actually, the modern ones tend to have more issues with straight vegetable oil, because the fuel injector pump can't always handle the higher viscosity of the oil. I know this from sad experience, pouring a half-gallon of corn oil into a nearly empty Golf TDI.
Now, if you warm up that corn oil so that it's less viscous, it will work fine, but let's not go around telling people that they can pour SVO into *any* diesel vehicle and have it "just work". You CAN damage your vehicle.
You do realize that it's a bit more complicated than that. Depending on where the speakers were from the microphone, any reflective surfaces that might bounce the sound back, etc... it can all fuck up a noise cancelation circuit, which is what we're basically talking about.
It's all doable in principle. If the complete system is LTI (linear and time-invariant) then performance can be perfect. The problem is in the TI part of LTI. Most real acoustical system are not time-invariant.
Ever played with microphone feedback? Set up a sound recorder program to record and play the sound back through the speakers. Set the mic close to the speaker and fiddle with the volume until it JUST BARELY starts to feed back on itself. Now, wave your hand around in the vicinity of the microphone. Notice that even the SMALL effect of your hand moving influences the feedback characteristic.
Now imagine a very sensitive echo cancellation system trying to operate in a room where the acoustic properties are changing with time. Good luck making that work.
Couldn't the system simply have a filter that removes the wave signature of what it is outputting before processing input as a command? This is relatively simple technology, as compared to voice recognition itself. You might have to re-calibrate if you move your speakers but I would think that is a small price to pay to not leave open the ability for a web site to control your system through an auto-playing wave file.
The quick answer is "no." Even though the computer knows what waveform it is playing, it has no idea what waveform will actually emerge from the speakers, or arrive at the microphone.
The problem is that the audio system taken as a whole (Sound card DAC -> speaker wire -> speaker driver -> air in the room -> microphone pickup -> microphone wire -> sound card ADC) introduces small but significant spectral distortion into the sound by the time it runs through the entire system. Even if we ignore the nonlinearities of the amplifiers, the finite resolution of the digital-to-analog converters, and everything else, we still run into the problem of objects MOVING in the room (like you, leaning 2 inches forward in your chair), which changes the impulse response of the system and therefore changes the spectrum of the received signal.
Even if we consider only two elements, the speaker cone and the air in the room, it is fairly easy to see that the sound wave generated is NOT equivalent to the wave being sent to the speaker cone. Imagine a step signal (e.g. a Heaviside function) where the speaker deflection instantaneously goes from 0 to 1, then stays there. What does the AIR PRESSURE right next to the speaker cone do? Does it instantaneously jump from 0 to x and then stay there? No, of course not -- a WAVE propagates from the speaker into the air of the room. So the signal applied to the speaker and the signal in the room are not the same signal.
Now in theory, if all of these effects are linear, then the total impulse response can be computed. This is the "calibration" you mention. The problem, though, is that the system is not TIME INVARIANT, meaning its impulse response changes with time simply because of all the variables which affect the system.
So it's not only a matter of "recalibrating when you move your speakers." You have to recalibrate when the speakers move, when the temperature changes, when the air pressure changes, when the microphone moves, when the microphone has dust on it interfering with pickup, when anything at all in the room moves, when there is a draft in the room, etc etc.
This would not be simple technology at all. Not impossible, but probably extremely expensive and unreliable.
It's called "fog drip" and I'm not making it up. Use Google.
Trees improve local rainfall, because they affect weather (slow it down, for one thing.)
Not only that, but humidity condenses from the air onto the leaves of trees and then drips onto the forest floor. The amount of water contributed to a watershed from this is substantial, even compared to actual rainfall. Even if deforestation didn't alter weather patterns, the water produced from a given area of land would be much less.
Have you actually looked at a PDF file in a text editor? It's a meaningless pile of spaghetti.
Most of that is due to the compression of stream data in PDF documents. If you run the document through a PDF stream decompressor, of which there are several good options, the result is much easier to comprehend, if not totally transparent. Unfortunately, just being able to see the data in a PDF doesn't mean you can edit it, say, with a text editor. PDF files implement random access with a table of contents pointing to the objects inside the file. Changing the contents of the objects breaks the index.
Microsoft's XML Paper Specification (XPS) is already available for anyone to implement. And it's plain, readable XML instead of a 25-year-old printer description language. Your applicaiton can build files using any XML parsing engine, instead of having to license a PDF library.
XPS is an interesting new option, definitely. But I think you are exaggerating the complexity of PDF. Both formats are a "final rendering" format, not really geared toward hand-editing. Don't let the XML nature of XPS fool you -- it is intended as a solution for device-independent printing, not a document format.
The product I work on performs its own PDF rendering and output. We chose to write our own PDF layer instead of licensing a third party product. It really isn't that difficult.
I am constantly amazed at how much game programmers know about the mathematics and algorithms for computer graphics, and how little they know of everything else.
As a graphics programmer myself (though not for games), I can say that it's really mostly geometry. In order to get speed, the geometry is tortured into a form that can be difficult to understand, but ultimately it's just geometry.
Even relatively simple mathematical concepts like sampling theory are above the heads of most day-to-day graphics developers. They have the algorithms in hand and know how to apply them but have little understanding of why they actually work.
Several years ago I was writing a function which generated conic curves. My favorite graphics book wasn't handy, so I had to derive the standard finite-difference method from scratch (refers to a technique to generate the curves which has NO multiplications in the inner loop, very very efficient). Doing this requires knowledge of calculus, but only on a basic level. Sad to say, I don't think many graphics coders could do that because they just don't "get" the math. They rely on the fact that it's written in a book somewhere.
The problem is that this is yet another technical solution for what is a social problem. As has been shown many times before: technical solutions to social problems simply don't work.
The whole point is that it cannot be viewed as a solution. To build a house, a nail gun would be useful. It's a tool. Not the solution to the problem of "house-building" in general. You could also use a hammer, or pound nails with your forehead if you really wanted to.
Maybe the marketing of the product makes it sound like it's a general solution. If that's the case, the marketing is a lie. But that would be nothing new. It doesn't change what the thing IS.
Funny how quickly you moved from simply debating on a topic (a topic which won't be relevant to my own children for another decade at least) to asserting that my genetic line should be terminated. Ever considered working for Al Qaeda? You've got just the personality for it.
Because it divorces the need for the parent to be involved. It makes parents lazy, and lazy parents are the worst kind of parents. However noble the intention, it can't compete with attention.
So you're saying that if the tool did not exist, lazy parents would magically become un-lazy? I think they'd probably just find different ways to ignore their children.
If everyone did this, it was just make taxes jump significantly, meaning EVERYONE would pay more for power.
No it wouldn't. What would happen is the subsidy would be rescinded.
the stuff is expensive, but the cheapest way is the grid-tied no storage setup like this, It's very common and has been done for decades, only recently have laws been passed to allow it in most places. Many have done it anyways and simply stopped the meter from spinning.
I have a kilowatt system on my roof. Total cost to me? Zero. It won't be true indefinitely, but in many states you can apply for tax credits which pay for the entire system (100% subsidy). Then I had to buy a $1600 grid-tie inverter, total cost to me? Zero again, thanks to GWB. The only thing I've paid is about $250 in hardware to install it on my roof.
It requires a lifestyle change. You cant be the typical American power pig.
Untrue. That's the whole POINT of grid-tie. I can use just as much power as before -- if the solar panels can't produce the needed power alone, the extra is taken from the grid. You don't even notice it. Of course, if you're the sort of person who installs solar panels, you're probably also interested in conservation, but you don't HAVE to do it.
Ironic that those that don't car about dumping $100.00 for lunch care a lot to save $70.00 a month on electricity...
It's really not ironic at all, because for the super-rich, the cost savings isn't even the point. Being "green" and being able to boast to your rich buddies about your 5 kilowatt grid-tie system is the point.
it will be, it won't be, and i do see how it is.
Let's go back to the morality-book example. I suppose a parent could simply give the book to their kid and do NOTHING FURTHER to teach the child moral concepts. So clearly this is a dangerous book which encourages bad parenting? Your argument is ridiculous.
It was communicated incorrectly.
No, the message was communicated just fine. Contrary to what you might believe, children have something called FREE WILL which allows them to ignore advice and make mistakes. If you think there is some magic parenting technique which guarantees that children will always obey and make the right choices, you are going to be disappointed. If you were 10 in 1996, I think it's safe to say you probably don't have kids yet (although it's possible). When you figure out the magic bullet of parenting, please publish it in a book so I can learn from your wisdom.
Teach your kid to not be an idiot and you don't need software like this.
Hah! My mother also taught me to not be an idiot. Guess what? I lied, kept secrets, and did shit I wasn't supposed to. I did things I had specifically been TOLD not to do, and had promised I wouldn't do. As far as mom was concerned, the message had been communicated loud and clear (in fact, it HAD been communicated, I just chose to ignore it). If you think I was unique among children, you're insane.
What I can't quite understand is why no one has thought of parenting as being the best way to protect your children online. I realize it's revolutionary and scary, but hey, we could give it a try, couldn't we?
Why is the informed and appropriate use of a tool not considered "parenting?" The AI is not a surrogate parent, it is a tool which HELPS in the task of parenting. Like any tool, it can be used properly or improperly.
The real problem is parents abdicating their responsibility. This is essentially the same complaint that has been said of TV and radio and video games now the web. It appears that many irresponsible parents have enough time to complain to legislators, but not enough time to parent. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix it.
Yeah, and don't even get me started on education. Talk about abdicating your responsibility! You truck your kid off for 6 hours a day and some STRANGER fills their head with shit! This crap has got to stop.