And the only way to control costs is central planning, which is.... socialistic.
I thought the only way to control costs was to ensure healthy competition, freedom of choice and fight inefficiencies. How is central planning efficient?
On one hand you have the ideal of an omniscient and beneficent central planner who acts in the best interests of all involved.
On the other hand, you have the ideal of totally fair and free choice and competition.
If you live in a universe where either of those things actually exists, please raise your hand... I'm waiting... nobody? Thought so.
Somewhere in the middle lies the optimal realistic solution. In other words, the best we can do with what we have.
If we're smart, we (via elected representatives) look at what other people have tried, and compare their results with our own. Then we make adjustments for differences in context. Then we see if there are improvements we can make in what we are doing. Try them, measure the results, and keep adjusting. We'll get asymptotically closer to optimal.
However, at least in the USA, we instead tend to pick a group of loudmouths who tell us what we want to hear, and elect them. Then they do whatever makes the most money for whomever financed their lies. Then they tell more lies to try to stay in power. If they fall out of power (usually because things beyond their actual control made them look bad) they engage in warfare against the enemy (whoever is currently in power) by any means fair or foul. Note that nowhere in there did they do any of the things that might have improved the lot of the people they were elected to represent.
So, health care in the USA will get better (overall) when the current form of government disintegrates and something else replaces it. Maybe. In the meantime, we still have the best care available on Earth, for the rich.
#2 Your assertions *appear* silly to me. There are a great many people who have gone to school to become lawyers, and subsequently passed bar exams, who then get a job using that status and proceed to just do their job, which typically involves filling out the right paperwork and filing it. They may work for a law firm or in a business's legal department or for a government agency. In the US, a great many become FBI agents, public defenders, personal bankruptcy attorneys, or any number of other jobs intended to serve or protect regular folks. Furthermore, a great many make average salaries for someone with that level of education, or less. The "hateful bloodsuckers" of myth are a tiny, tiny minority of the lawyers in the world. They just get all the press. This is similar to other fields of human endeavor, in that only the wackos and oddballs get noticed (or rich).
Technological advances made it possible to record, and later to creatively mix sounds and still or moving images and store the results in a re-playable medium. The scarcity of the medium and the expense of the recording and processing technology, coupled with demand for the product, made for a profitable business model. Over the years the business model changed and adapted as technology and demand changed. Now further technology advances have reduced the scarcity and expense of manufacturing to virtually nil, and demand patterns have changed as well. The business model must change, and is doing so, but those who have entrenched financial interest in maintaining the status quo will quite naturally resist change. So it goes, throughout history.
At the moment, we are in the midst of a tumultuous turning point in the business of recorded entertainment. Morality disagreements aside, it will be interesting to see where it goes in the next decades.
Yup, precisely. The 32 bit plugin. Which has been no more buggy and crash prone than the windows version, from what I can tell. Then again, I don't use windows as often.
Point being, it works, and is running on 64 bit Linux. A native 64 bit version would be interesting, but as I don't lose much sleep over Flash performance, meh.
A JVM implementation... again... interesting, but not exciting.
They are significantly (!) more comfortable, and protect against damaging skin abrasion that is common when loose fabric gets bunched between thighs and the saddle where it rubs thousands of times in a day's ride. Think of bleeding blisters on your inner thighs, with sweat dripping on them.
As for revealing crotch parts, actual cycling shorts have a thick pad through the crotch area which makes it highly unlikely that any anatomical bits are actually emphasized other than in the mind of the viewer. (With male riders the padded package may be farther away than it appears, though...) Spandex workout shorts without the pad are not the same thing at all, and can be quite... um... form-fitting.
With that said, I am not now in the svelte form I once was, and in the interest of preserving the sanity and eyesight of my neighbors, I have desisted the wearing of such in favor of baggy cycling shorts. Of course, I've also switched to a mountain bike, and ride primarily off the roads.
Given the population of slashdot these days, it was bound to happen to someone. I wish I'd used up this bit of fate on a more fortunate coincidence.
A member of my extended family passed away earlier this week. It was not expected nor anticipated.
Yesterday I was asked for advice on removing this person's Facebook account. Given circumstances I won't divulge, the deceased's parents want to take it down. It is a source of grief and pain.
The unfortunate answer is that it will be a hassle, and one more unpleasant chore among many piled onto people who are already suffering.
With that said, I don't have a good answer for how Facebook or other such sites should handle this sort of thing. Making it too easy risks abuse.
I know I'm much too late in this response, but I can't resist the urge to turn a "favorite" right-wing trope back on itself:
If you don't love your country enough to pay your fair share, feel free to leave. Nobody will stop you.
In other words, by being a citizen of [your country] you implicitly agree to abide by the laws and regulations thereof. In a "free, democratic" country, that means you can work within the system to change it, or go somewhere else if you can't abide it. Residents of totalitarian states are another matter.
That doesn't mean I'm in favor of heavy taxes, or wasteful government. It means that I accept my responsibility to participate in the voting and in the taxation. The "armed thugs" collecting the taxes are my employees, doing the task that I, through my duly elected representatives, have assigned them. The money collected will be used as I, through my representatives, have agreed.
I think it is a dangerous trend to think of "government" as some evil outside force. In a democracy, the government is what we, the voters, have allowed it to be. The rules are made by people we elect, and carried out or enforced by employees just doing what they are told, again, by the people we elect. We get exactly what we deserve. (As a group - YMMV)
On the other hand, if an American soldier dies because of our actual freedoms, such as freedom of speech, well, thats a clear and present danger, etc, etc, bs bs bs.
Do you really believe this without qualification? That under no circumstances should the free flow of information be inhibited by the government, even if it means people will die?
I wanted to say something clever but I am a failure in that practice and the Great Big Question hit me so hard I won't see straight for hours.
That really is a massive question of ethics. Is it okay for a government of the people, et cetera, which takes responsibility for its populace while at the same time demanding oversight from the populace, to ever withhold information?
As usual, when the Big Question gets asked, I end up thinking... well... it depends.
It's pretty clear to me that revealing certain information about the activities of certain people could lead to other people harming them.
On the other hand, it's not clear to me that people should be doing things that would lead to other people harming them if their activities were revealed.
I understand that in war, deception and secrecy are valuable tactics.
I do not understand that war is a valuable strategy in most cases.
I understand that when Al Qaeda people flew airplanes into buildings and bombed public places and did other nasty things, innocent people got hurt and killed.
I understand that when "we" responded by going to war, far more innocent people got, and continue to get, hurt and killed.
I can see that the purpose of Al Qaeda's attacks are to get publicity and to cause "us" to act in ways that are self-destructive.
I can see that they are immensely successful on both counts.
I am certain that the war in Afghanistan was inevitable because people demanded that politicians "do something", preferably violently.
I think that Al Qaeda was counting on that.
I think that Al Qaeda and their Taliban and other allies are fervently devoted to a set of ideas, and no amount of violence is going to do anything other than prove some of their their ideas right.
I think that the only way to defeat an idea is to prove it wrong. Over and over and over.
However, back in the real world, it's years too late for that. Which circles us back around to where we began.
While I agree with many of the things you say, I have to vehemently disagree with the sentiment that higher education should be about job training.
We would all benefit greatly if a larger percentage of people, college educated or not, could THINK. Could put experience in context, could spot propaganda and flat out lies as what they are, rather than believing them because they sound good. Get an education, and *then* get job training.
Even ditch diggers, welders, electricians, and computer engineers deserve to appreciate art, music, literature, history and many of the other things which set us apart from ants. Everyone needs training for whatever profession they desire to pursue, but our world is far too full of highly trained ignoramuses.
A University should be a place where you can learn whatever you want. Including welding. (Many art programs will teach you that skill, by the way.)
That's a great example of loaded words. They carry with them a whole generalized worldview, often, although not always, with an unfortunate tinge of fear.
One person sees this: As a group, we decide that there are some actions which need to happen, which will cost money, and so we agree to all pitch in. There are different ways of calculating who will pitch in how much, but generally the idea is that all share in the burden of paying for something beneficial to the group.
Another person, seeing the same thing: I deserve to keep all that I have, and these lazy thieves are trying to take it away from me.
Obviously, I'm generalizing. I'd never apply this simplistically to a real world scenario. That's for politicians and pundits to do.
However, it does seem that there is an axis of attitude measured between the extremes of selflessness and selfishness. Almost everyone falls somewhere in between, but with a wide range of variance.
So, with that said, let me actually respond to Wonko:
I pay my taxes gladly, as the price of civilization and community. I consider it money well spent, so long as those entrusted with it use it wisely. When they fail in that charge, I hold them accountable. Over and above that, I donate a hefty percentage of the remainder of my income to non-government charity groups who use it in ways I support.
So, consider my wealth redistributed.
Now are you ready to consider my opinion that we are better off acting cooperatively some of the time rather than as a world filled with selfish, greedy individuals all of the time? Not asking for agreement, just consideration.
Or perhaps was the bold type more appropriately applied to the word "me" rather than the word "your"?
The problem of being that 'negative externalities' is a buzzword that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean and dragging in whatever costs at whatever rate they want to in order to 'prove' their point.
I agree that people should define what they mean by 'negative externalities', and back up claims with legitimate sources. Nonetheless, I think it's fairly widely held that burning fossil fuels produces some things which can be harmful to humans and other living things if allowed to escape into the general environment, as well as possibly contributing to the rate of climate change in some measurable amount. Considering those factors is not unreasonable.
The problem being that you, and many others, seem to have missed the whole environmental thing - where companies are being forced to pay for their wastes. (In the form of scrubbers that remove the toxic substances from the exhaust and the subsequent disposal thereof.)
Although I'm no authority on the matter, it seems to me that companies frequently do the absolute minimum scrubbing and cleaning that they can get away with (legally or by subterfuge) and even that they fight tooth and nail, including huge amounts of money (costs passed on to customers) spent on undermining the political process. While I'm certainly glad for any scrubbing that is done, I have grave doubts it would meet my personal standards for being able to say "we clean up our mess".
I do understand that things usually don't change overnight, but I also understand that there will always be people who would gladly let all life in the universe die out in a few hundred years for a few more digits in the bank account today. What we have to arrive at is a point somewhere in the middle that we can agree on (more or less) as being the best way forward. And most of all, we have to be willing to try things, and learn, and change.
As for solar vs. fission vs. whatever... use the tool that makes the most sense for a given task. If someone invents a better tool later, use that when it becomes available. Just don't keep using a tool when something better is available simply because somebody else is getting rich off of it.
I went to college. More than one, actually. Four of them, in fact. Over the course of six years, with one semester off. In the end, the last one gave me a piece of paper and said I had to leave. It's a nice piece of paper, has some fancy little Latin words next to the "B.A.", and looks mighty fine in a frame on the wall... in my spare bedroom.
Over the course of that experience I learned a great deal, about a great many things. Some things I learned in classrooms, some in the library stacks, some in student organizations, some in non-student organizations, some in bars, some while studying at home, some while traveling on weekends or during breaks, some while on dates or almost-but-not-really-a-date-things, some while.... being alive and paying attention. Overall, I'd say I learned more outside the courses of study than in them.
However, the experience was invaluable, and I highly recommend it. You may not learn the totality of specific career knowledge that you will need for the rest of your life in the classroom while earning a degree. In fact, most people don't. In the classroom and its adjuncts, you will learn a baseline of background information, and a wide range of learning skills. You will be able to use those skills to acquire whatever knowledge you may need at any time during the remainder of your life.
There may be people who have acquired all of those learning skills without exposure to University life - but I've not yet met one. I've known very bright people who have worked very hard to overcome the lack of a college level education, and have learned all that they needed to know to do the task set before them. But always, in my opinion, they would have had an easier time of it, or managed more with the same effort, had they been blessed with the opportunity to attend college. Furthermore, they either lack or have had to obtain at greater cost of effort the life lessons and broader knowledge background readily available to the University student. In every case in my experience, and of course in my opinion, these talented and hard working people would have had an easier or a richer life with the benefit of a University education.
As for me, I work in a field that didn't exist when I attended college, and so it's no surprise that I learned it on my own, more or less, and outside of the University setting. Nonetheless, I am extraordinarily grateful for the years I spent focused on learning other things, and my life is enriched every day by the experiences I had and the directions I discovered during that time, not to mention the mistakes I made and overcame.
For these reasons, among others, I recommend that anyone who is able attend and participate fully in a University, live and in person. Distance learning has come a long way, and in many cases will suffice to learn facts and skills, although not in all cases. Self teaching is an invaluable tool, and you will use it throughout your life. But there really is no substitute that I've found for the community and culture of a University. With that said, not every person at every time has the opportunity, for any number of reasons. For those I would say that any education is better than none, but seek chances to take part in organizations, events, groups, or relationships that will provide for you a similar broadness of experience and knowledge. You will not regret it.
In answer to the question of the OP - if a course or school is not providing what you need, don't waste your time and money. You have other options.
Preamble: This is mostly from a USA perspective. Your country may vary. Also, this is almost entirely off-topic.
People like to blame the parents.
People always want someone to blame, yep.
When I was a kid, I remember learning in school.
When I was a kid, I learned everywhere. Still do, actually. So do my kids. Point of reference: It's summer break at the moment, but when school resumes in a few weeks, I'll have one in elementary school and two in college.
I do not get the impression from my child that the schools focus on anything that is not a social science. (The teacher flat out told us that no one teaches the multiplication table anymore nor phonetics.)
Foniks? Seereuslee? Also, sounds like either a broken teacher, or a parent hearing something they were predisposed to hear. I won't presume to judge which, without better evidence. (My kids have all learned phonetic methods to assist the learning of reading, and also multiplication tables, by the way -- and in school, at that.)
Kids can't read or do math, but they all know about global warning, the rape of the planet, BP and other evil corps, how this land was stolen from the natives, how we ALL used to have slaves... It is a disgrace. Then people wonder why people have no civic pride.
I could read and do some math before I ever entered a school. Likewise my kids - except one who struggled with reading until he was in the first grade, at which point something clicked and he began devouring novels. This stuff should be part of their lives from the beginning, not something to be force fed in an institution.
As for the social sciences, those are valuable parts of the body of human knowledge, and school is one place to learn about them. Understanding current theories of climatology (not a social science), ecology (multi-disciplinary), corporate governance and political theory (ok, pretty much social science), history... and a great number of other things... is important to function responsibly in society. Even more important is understanding that almost every person is speaking from a particular perspective, and understanding what that person's perspective might be, and how it influences both the content and the "spin" of their speech can help tremendously in judging how to incorporate what you learn from them into your own perspective. Also, learning to separate useful information from emotional salesmanship (for instance, phrases like "it's a disgrace") is a key skill. Every child should learn how to spot empty rhetoric.
As for civic pride... my children know that pride is a trap which leads you into foolishness. (They learned that from me, not in school.) I teach them to examine facts from reliable sources, to understand that in reality you have to make and act on theories based on incomplete evidence, but be ready to change course if and when new evidence arises, and that people who are angry or overly enthusiastic are usually either acting irrationally out of fear or trying to sell you something you don't need.
The guilt laid on our youth by our schools by focusing on only the bad in our history and current events is worse than any guilt I was taught by religion.
I've had a peep at my kids' textbooks. They are by and large still the same information I learned, plus some additional perspectives that were not taught when I was young. From what I can tell (and I *am* paying attention) the teachers are mostly balanced in their presentation of perspectives. There are still a few who approach reality from a tilted perspective, but those seem to come in all varieties, which tends to level the playing field. All of this in spite of the best efforts of those who wish to turn textbooks into instruments of propaganda.
When I was young, we were taught facts and analysis that were deemed important by the ruling folk who came almost
Slashdot Mirror
And the only way to control costs is central planning, which is .... socialistic.
I thought the only way to control costs was to ensure healthy competition, freedom of choice and fight inefficiencies. How is central planning efficient?
On one hand you have the ideal of an omniscient and beneficent central planner who acts in the best interests of all involved.
On the other hand, you have the ideal of totally fair and free choice and competition.
If you live in a universe where either of those things actually exists, please raise your hand... I'm waiting... nobody? Thought so.
Somewhere in the middle lies the optimal realistic solution. In other words, the best we can do with what we have.
If we're smart, we (via elected representatives) look at what other people have tried, and compare their results with our own. Then we make adjustments for differences in context. Then we see if there are improvements we can make in what we are doing. Try them, measure the results, and keep adjusting. We'll get asymptotically closer to optimal.
However, at least in the USA, we instead tend to pick a group of loudmouths who tell us what we want to hear, and elect them. Then they do whatever makes the most money for whomever financed their lies. Then they tell more lies to try to stay in power. If they fall out of power (usually because things beyond their actual control made them look bad) they engage in warfare against the enemy (whoever is currently in power) by any means fair or foul. Note that nowhere in there did they do any of the things that might have improved the lot of the people they were elected to represent.
So, health care in the USA will get better (overall) when the current form of government disintegrates and something else replaces it. Maybe. In the meantime, we still have the best care available on Earth, for the rich.
#1 IANAL
#2 Your assertions *appear* silly to me. There are a great many people who have gone to school to become lawyers, and subsequently passed bar exams, who then get a job using that status and proceed to just do their job, which typically involves filling out the right paperwork and filing it. They may work for a law firm or in a business's legal department or for a government agency. In the US, a great many become FBI agents, public defenders, personal bankruptcy attorneys, or any number of other jobs intended to serve or protect regular folks. Furthermore, a great many make average salaries for someone with that level of education, or less. The "hateful bloodsuckers" of myth are a tiny, tiny minority of the lawyers in the world. They just get all the press. This is similar to other fields of human endeavor, in that only the wackos and oddballs get noticed (or rich).
Technological advances made it possible to record, and later to creatively mix sounds and still or moving images and store the results in a re-playable medium. The scarcity of the medium and the expense of the recording and processing technology, coupled with demand for the product, made for a profitable business model. Over the years the business model changed and adapted as technology and demand changed. Now further technology advances have reduced the scarcity and expense of manufacturing to virtually nil, and demand patterns have changed as well. The business model must change, and is doing so, but those who have entrenched financial interest in maintaining the status quo will quite naturally resist change. So it goes, throughout history.
At the moment, we are in the midst of a tumultuous turning point in the business of recorded entertainment. Morality disagreements aside, it will be interesting to see where it goes in the next decades.
Are you asking how taking the bus in the nude is different from walking to work from a distant parking lot? ...
I'll give that some thought while I add more tinfoil to the lining of my hat.
All very true, but they won't know where I went after I left the mass transit. Unless they put GPS in my clothes.
So I have a reason to ride the bus in my birthday suit. But really, officer, it's not my fault, Big Brother is hiding in my underpants!
Yet another reason to take the bus or train.
Yup, precisely. The 32 bit plugin. Which has been no more buggy and crash prone than the windows version, from what I can tell. Then again, I don't use windows as often.
Point being, it works, and is running on 64 bit Linux. A native 64 bit version would be interesting, but as I don't lose much sleep over Flash performance, meh.
A JVM implementation... again... interesting, but not exciting.
Dadgum! What the heck have I been watching on my 64 bit Linux box all these months? Is somebody tricking me with smoke and mirrors again?
If you are successful, I will then sue you because of the time I have spent replying to your comments. *shakes fist*
They are significantly (!) more comfortable, and protect against damaging skin abrasion that is common when loose fabric gets bunched between thighs and the saddle where it rubs thousands of times in a day's ride. Think of bleeding blisters on your inner thighs, with sweat dripping on them.
As for revealing crotch parts, actual cycling shorts have a thick pad through the crotch area which makes it highly unlikely that any anatomical bits are actually emphasized other than in the mind of the viewer. (With male riders the padded package may be farther away than it appears, though...) Spandex workout shorts without the pad are not the same thing at all, and can be quite... um... form-fitting.
With that said, I am not now in the svelte form I once was, and in the interest of preserving the sanity and eyesight of my neighbors, I have desisted the wearing of such in favor of baggy cycling shorts. Of course, I've also switched to a mountain bike, and ride primarily off the roads.
Given the population of slashdot these days, it was bound to happen to someone. I wish I'd used up this bit of fate on a more fortunate coincidence.
A member of my extended family passed away earlier this week. It was not expected nor anticipated.
Yesterday I was asked for advice on removing this person's Facebook account. Given circumstances I won't divulge, the deceased's parents want to take it down. It is a source of grief and pain.
The unfortunate answer is that it will be a hassle, and one more unpleasant chore among many piled onto people who are already suffering.
With that said, I don't have a good answer for how Facebook or other such sites should handle this sort of thing. Making it too easy risks abuse.
Actually, I was just sharing a thought that briefly amused me.
You're right about the costs of being free, of course.
I'm very much in favor of sharing knowledge with as few barriers as possible. In the end, it makes the world better for everyone.
$8-15 billion wants to be free?
I know I'm much too late in this response, but I can't resist the urge to turn a "favorite" right-wing trope back on itself:
If you don't love your country enough to pay your fair share, feel free to leave. Nobody will stop you.
In other words, by being a citizen of [your country] you implicitly agree to abide by the laws and regulations thereof. In a "free, democratic" country, that means you can work within the system to change it, or go somewhere else if you can't abide it. Residents of totalitarian states are another matter.
That doesn't mean I'm in favor of heavy taxes, or wasteful government. It means that I accept my responsibility to participate in the voting and in the taxation. The "armed thugs" collecting the taxes are my employees, doing the task that I, through my duly elected representatives, have assigned them. The money collected will be used as I, through my representatives, have agreed.
I think it is a dangerous trend to think of "government" as some evil outside force. In a democracy, the government is what we, the voters, have allowed it to be. The rules are made by people we elect, and carried out or enforced by employees just doing what they are told, again, by the people we elect. We get exactly what we deserve. (As a group - YMMV)
On the other hand, if an American soldier dies because of our actual freedoms, such as freedom of speech, well, thats a clear and present danger, etc, etc, bs bs bs.
Do you really believe this without qualification? That under no circumstances should the free flow of information be inhibited by the government, even if it means people will die?
I wanted to say something clever but I am a failure in that practice and the Great Big Question hit me so hard I won't see straight for hours.
That really is a massive question of ethics. Is it okay for a government of the people, et cetera, which takes responsibility for its populace while at the same time demanding oversight from the populace, to ever withhold information?
As usual, when the Big Question gets asked, I end up thinking... well... it depends.
It's pretty clear to me that revealing certain information about the activities of certain people could lead to other people harming them.
On the other hand, it's not clear to me that people should be doing things that would lead to other people harming them if their activities were revealed.
I understand that in war, deception and secrecy are valuable tactics.
I do not understand that war is a valuable strategy in most cases.
I understand that when Al Qaeda people flew airplanes into buildings and bombed public places and did other nasty things, innocent people got hurt and killed.
I understand that when "we" responded by going to war, far more innocent people got, and continue to get, hurt and killed.
I can see that the purpose of Al Qaeda's attacks are to get publicity and to cause "us" to act in ways that are self-destructive.
I can see that they are immensely successful on both counts.
I am certain that the war in Afghanistan was inevitable because people demanded that politicians "do something", preferably violently.
I think that Al Qaeda was counting on that.
I think that Al Qaeda and their Taliban and other allies are fervently devoted to a set of ideas, and no amount of violence is going to do anything other than prove some of their their ideas right.
I think that the only way to defeat an idea is to prove it wrong. Over and over and over.
However, back in the real world, it's years too late for that. Which circles us back around to where we began.
While I agree with many of the things you say, I have to vehemently disagree with the sentiment that higher education should be about job training.
We would all benefit greatly if a larger percentage of people, college educated or not, could THINK. Could put experience in context, could spot propaganda and flat out lies as what they are, rather than believing them because they sound good. Get an education, and *then* get job training.
Even ditch diggers, welders, electricians, and computer engineers deserve to appreciate art, music, literature, history and many of the other things which set us apart from ants. Everyone needs training for whatever profession they desire to pursue, but our world is far too full of highly trained ignoramuses.
A University should be a place where you can learn whatever you want. Including welding. (Many art programs will teach you that skill, by the way.)
"Redistribution of Wealth"
That's a great example of loaded words. They carry with them a whole generalized worldview, often, although not always, with an unfortunate tinge of fear.
One person sees this: As a group, we decide that there are some actions which need to happen, which will cost money, and so we agree to all pitch in. There are different ways of calculating who will pitch in how much, but generally the idea is that all share in the burden of paying for something beneficial to the group.
Another person, seeing the same thing: I deserve to keep all that I have, and these lazy thieves are trying to take it away from me.
Obviously, I'm generalizing. I'd never apply this simplistically to a real world scenario. That's for politicians and pundits to do.
However, it does seem that there is an axis of attitude measured between the extremes of selflessness and selfishness. Almost everyone falls somewhere in between, but with a wide range of variance.
So, with that said, let me actually respond to Wonko:
I pay my taxes gladly, as the price of civilization and community. I consider it money well spent, so long as those entrusted with it use it wisely. When they fail in that charge, I hold them accountable. Over and above that, I donate a hefty percentage of the remainder of my income to non-government charity groups who use it in ways I support.
So, consider my wealth redistributed.
Now are you ready to consider my opinion that we are better off acting cooperatively some of the time rather than as a world filled with selfish, greedy individuals all of the time? Not asking for agreement, just consideration.
Or perhaps was the bold type more appropriately applied to the word "me" rather than the word "your"?
The problem of being that 'negative externalities' is a buzzword that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean and dragging in whatever costs at whatever rate they want to in order to 'prove' their point.
I agree that people should define what they mean by 'negative externalities', and back up claims with legitimate sources. Nonetheless, I think it's fairly widely held that burning fossil fuels produces some things which can be harmful to humans and other living things if allowed to escape into the general environment, as well as possibly contributing to the rate of climate change in some measurable amount. Considering those factors is not unreasonable.
The problem being that you, and many others, seem to have missed the whole environmental thing - where companies are being forced to pay for their wastes. (In the form of scrubbers that remove the toxic substances from the exhaust and the subsequent disposal thereof.)
Although I'm no authority on the matter, it seems to me that companies frequently do the absolute minimum scrubbing and cleaning that they can get away with (legally or by subterfuge) and even that they fight tooth and nail, including huge amounts of money (costs passed on to customers) spent on undermining the political process. While I'm certainly glad for any scrubbing that is done, I have grave doubts it would meet my personal standards for being able to say "we clean up our mess".
I do understand that things usually don't change overnight, but I also understand that there will always be people who would gladly let all life in the universe die out in a few hundred years for a few more digits in the bank account today. What we have to arrive at is a point somewhere in the middle that we can agree on (more or less) as being the best way forward. And most of all, we have to be willing to try things, and learn, and change.
As for solar vs. fission vs. whatever... use the tool that makes the most sense for a given task. If someone invents a better tool later, use that when it becomes available. Just don't keep using a tool when something better is available simply because somebody else is getting rich off of it.
All a low ID means is that you had too much time on your hands because got fired when the previous tech crash happened.
Or maybe the one before that,
I got one at a yard sale, dirt cheap. I had no idea what fortune and fame it would bring! :p
OK, I'll bite.
I went to college. More than one, actually. Four of them, in fact. Over the course of six years, with one semester off. In the end, the last one gave me a piece of paper and said I had to leave. It's a nice piece of paper, has some fancy little Latin words next to the "B.A.", and looks mighty fine in a frame on the wall... in my spare bedroom.
Over the course of that experience I learned a great deal, about a great many things. Some things I learned in classrooms, some in the library stacks, some in student organizations, some in non-student organizations, some in bars, some while studying at home, some while traveling on weekends or during breaks, some while on dates or almost-but-not-really-a-date-things, some while.... being alive and paying attention. Overall, I'd say I learned more outside the courses of study than in them.
However, the experience was invaluable, and I highly recommend it. You may not learn the totality of specific career knowledge that you will need for the rest of your life in the classroom while earning a degree. In fact, most people don't. In the classroom and its adjuncts, you will learn a baseline of background information, and a wide range of learning skills. You will be able to use those skills to acquire whatever knowledge you may need at any time during the remainder of your life.
There may be people who have acquired all of those learning skills without exposure to University life - but I've not yet met one. I've known very bright people who have worked very hard to overcome the lack of a college level education, and have learned all that they needed to know to do the task set before them. But always, in my opinion, they would have had an easier time of it, or managed more with the same effort, had they been blessed with the opportunity to attend college. Furthermore, they either lack or have had to obtain at greater cost of effort the life lessons and broader knowledge background readily available to the University student. In every case in my experience, and of course in my opinion, these talented and hard working people would have had an easier or a richer life with the benefit of a University education.
As for me, I work in a field that didn't exist when I attended college, and so it's no surprise that I learned it on my own, more or less, and outside of the University setting. Nonetheless, I am extraordinarily grateful for the years I spent focused on learning other things, and my life is enriched every day by the experiences I had and the directions I discovered during that time, not to mention the mistakes I made and overcame.
For these reasons, among others, I recommend that anyone who is able attend and participate fully in a University, live and in person. Distance learning has come a long way, and in many cases will suffice to learn facts and skills, although not in all cases. Self teaching is an invaluable tool, and you will use it throughout your life. But there really is no substitute that I've found for the community and culture of a University. With that said, not every person at every time has the opportunity, for any number of reasons. For those I would say that any education is better than none, but seek chances to take part in organizations, events, groups, or relationships that will provide for you a similar broadness of experience and knowledge. You will not regret it.
In answer to the question of the OP - if a course or school is not providing what you need, don't waste your time and money. You have other options.
Natalie?!?! Is that you?!?! Where's my hot grits?
arrrghhh, you beat me to it.
Big green thumbs up. :)
Preamble: This is mostly from a USA perspective. Your country may vary. Also, this is almost entirely off-topic.
People like to blame the parents.
People always want someone to blame, yep.
When I was a kid, I remember learning in school.
When I was a kid, I learned everywhere. Still do, actually. So do my kids.
Point of reference: It's summer break at the moment, but when school resumes in a few weeks, I'll have one in elementary school and two in college.
I do not get the impression from my child that the schools focus on anything that is not a social science. (The teacher flat out told us that no one teaches the multiplication table anymore nor phonetics.)
Foniks? Seereuslee?
Also, sounds like either a broken teacher, or a parent hearing something they were predisposed to hear. I won't presume to judge which, without better evidence.
(My kids have all learned phonetic methods to assist the learning of reading, and also multiplication tables, by the way -- and in school, at that.)
Kids can't read or do math, but they all know about global warning, the rape of the planet, BP and other evil corps, how this land was stolen from the natives, how we ALL used to have slaves... It is a disgrace. Then people wonder why people have no civic pride.
I could read and do some math before I ever entered a school. Likewise my kids - except one who struggled with reading until he was in the first grade, at which point something clicked and he began devouring novels. This stuff should be part of their lives from the beginning, not something to be force fed in an institution.
As for the social sciences, those are valuable parts of the body of human knowledge, and school is one place to learn about them. Understanding current theories of climatology (not a social science), ecology (multi-disciplinary), corporate governance and political theory (ok, pretty much social science), history... and a great number of other things... is important to function responsibly in society. Even more important is understanding that almost every person is speaking from a particular perspective, and understanding what that person's perspective might be, and how it influences both the content and the "spin" of their speech can help tremendously in judging how to incorporate what you learn from them into your own perspective. Also, learning to separate useful information from emotional salesmanship (for instance, phrases like "it's a disgrace") is a key skill. Every child should learn how to spot empty rhetoric.
As for civic pride... my children know that pride is a trap which leads you into foolishness. (They learned that from me, not in school.) I teach them to examine facts from reliable sources, to understand that in reality you have to make and act on theories based on incomplete evidence, but be ready to change course if and when new evidence arises, and that people who are angry or overly enthusiastic are usually either acting irrationally out of fear or trying to sell you something you don't need.
The guilt laid on our youth by our schools by focusing on only the bad in our history and current events is worse than any guilt I was taught by religion.
I've had a peep at my kids' textbooks. They are by and large still the same information I learned, plus some additional perspectives that were not taught when I was young. From what I can tell (and I *am* paying attention) the teachers are mostly balanced in their presentation of perspectives. There are still a few who approach reality from a tilted perspective, but those seem to come in all varieties, which tends to level the playing field. All of this in spite of the best efforts of those who wish to turn textbooks into instruments of propaganda.
When I was young, we were taught facts and analysis that were deemed important by the ruling folk who came almost
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
I don't really think kids are interested in how things work at this stage.
You obviously haven't met my kids.