Venus is pretty easily habitable. It has earth-like gravity, earth-like temperatures, and earth-like pressures. You don't even need a protective suit, just a gas mask.
The catch is that to live like this on Venus, you have to live in a giant dirigible or "floating city". The conditions on the surface are hellish, but several kilometers high in the atmosphere, it's actually quite nice. (I'm not sure what the situation is with radiation.)
Of course, this does make me wonder what you'd do there if you can't visit the surface, and the conditions on the surface are so bad you can't even land R/C equipment there for any substantial length of time without it failing.
At least on Mars you don't have to worry about hellish conditions on the surface, and can walk around all you want. But the gravity is too low (1/3 g), the air pressure almost negligible (about 1/200 atm), and radiation is a health problem long-term (no magnetosphere), so you definitely would need a protective suit at least for the pressure. But you could probably establish mining colonies there and live underground, though that obviously wouldn't be easy. If we want to do mining, it'd be a lot easier to just capture asteroids with (semi-)automated spacecraft and bring them near Earth.
Personally, I think there's a great economic case for asteroid mining, which would make it feasible and worthwhile to have either large facilities in space (for ore processing) or on the Moon. For other planets or moons in the solar system, I just don't see any good reason for humans to go there except for scientific curiosity (which is great, but hardly a reason to establish any kind of human presence larger than what we have at the scientific bases in Antarctica).
I totally agree, but these things aren't marketed towards thriftier people like you and me, and people like you and me certainly wouldn't spend that much money on a tablet/phablet and give it to some kid who's just going to beat it up. I have a friend who's a single mom with a 7-year-old boy, and holy crap does that kid beat stuff up; I wouldn't put anything delicate or expensive anywhere near him. But I have an inkling that these Brooklynites aren't like me, and have money to burn.
Huh? Apple doesn't give two shits about compatibility; they constantly do their own proprietary thing, like the Lightning connector. They seem to do just fine by mistreating their cult members, because those people are happy for it and rationalize it to themselves somehow. Maybe it'll eventually become a problem and their market will stop growing, but their profitability seems to be great so far.
Well the Win7 thing makes sense: MS has been doing everything it can to force Win7 users to "upgrade" to Win10, so abandoning non-Win10 Skype versions is consistent with their prior behavior there.
Linux is different; it doesn't matter how many users each platform has, MS doesn't have any kind of control over Linux the way it does with Win7 and its update mechanism, and Linux users aren't invested in the MS ecosystem the way Win7 users are, so the same tactics wouldn't work.
I'm just questioning why they're bothering because it's extremely unlikely they're going to convince any Linux users to convert to Windows with this move. It's more likely that Hillary Clinton will get hit get swallowed up by a random wormhole on inauguration day frankly. And having a working Skype version for Linux actually just makes it easier for Linux users to keep using Linux, without having to switch over to Windows for Skype-ing or putting up with an older buggy version. Most likely, it's like one of the other posters here said about some corporate users demanding it, who already have Windows for most stuff but do Linux development and spend money on Skype minutes for their employees.
Well, with this discussion, I'm now hoping that it'll come out that Samsung *did* try to notify customers over-the-air like this, but that the carriers blocked it for stupid legal reasons. Then I want to see some customers who actually had them catch on fire sue the carriers for millions, and then the federal government arrest the execs and lock them up for criminal negligence.
We could really use a big shake-up in the wireless telecom industry in this country. Hopefully Verizon will be the hardest-hit.
They deliberately located Saturn away from other divisions of GM because they wanted the company to be able to develop its own corporate culture. As a startup experiment that was probably worthwhile; as a long term business model it was problematic.
I'm sorry, that still doesn't make any sense. The US is a big, big place. They could have located it in many, many other places that weren't too near other GM divisions, but were near existing ports or rail terminals. There's plenty of places in California that would have met this requirement, but also many other places too, such as places in the Midwest where there's rail nearby for shipping grain and other agricultural products, or perhaps West Virginia where there's rail for shipping coal, or just about any place in the northeast where there's lots of rail and the ports of Boston and New York are nearby, or somewhere along the Gulf Coast such as Gulfport MS or Tallahassee FL. You don't have to locate a company in some puny little town in rural Tennessee to have independence from the auto industry; it's a big employer in this country, but not *that* big. There's a huge number of places in this country which don't have any auto industry presence yet are near ports or rail.
These were my thoughts, I see there's been news coverage and "public statements" but if the parents don't regularly watch the news how far has Samsung gone to ensure people get the message?
Yeah, good point. WhoTF still watches "the news" these days anyway? Not people buying the latest $900 smartphone. The people who still watch the evening news are pretty advanced if they have a cellphone at all; most are still using landlines and many are probably on oxygen.
These are phones, couldn't the carriers call or send a text?
You really have to wonder. Maybe the carriers refuse to cooperate because they don't want people thinking their service is bad and they're somehow to blame for the exploding batteries.
This is one of the big problems with these smartphones after all: in the Android ecosystem, there's no less than 3 different parties involved with supplying your phone to you, along with necessary software updates: the OS maker (who also provides a lot of the cloud services the phone makes use of--email, search, maps, etc.), the handset manufacturer (who loads up a whole bunch of bloatware and crapware that can't be removed without rooting the phone), and the carrier (who also loads up a bunch of bloatware and crapware of their own).
It's too bad that lousy software and bloatware/crapware don't cause companies' stock prices to plunge. Then maybe they'd do something about those things.
Have you never lived outside of Connecticut? Almost every state is exactly like that. The only exceptions are the states that just don't have sales tax (Oregon and New Hampshire I think). You're supposed to either pay sales tax to the vendor, or you're supposed to voluntarily submit use tax if the vendor didn't collect any. And due to federal law, states are not able to force out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax for out-of-state purchases.
This move won't affect taxes much: Amazon already charges sales tax for most people, because it has warehouses or some kind of physical presence in so many states. There might be a few people negatively affected, as I'm sure there's still a few states that don't have an Amazon physical presence (Wyoming maybe? Alaska? Maine? Just guessing.) If you don't currently pay sales tax on Amazon, but they're opening one of these new B&M stores in your state, then you can expect to pay tax when that happens.
No, that was their secret sauce for building themselves up into a juggernaut, along with logistics and economies of scale.
Now that they're so big, and so many other companies sell through them too, they can afford to jack up their prices because so many people just buy from them by default. It's just like Walmart: lots of people buy from them by default, even though they're not always the best deal.
Maybe, but most of it seems to be marketing and branding, plus riding on past successes. Make your product look fancy, price it high, and people perceive it to have high value. Add in some successful history (when the iPhone came out in 2006, it really was a huge improvement over the competition, but Android phones quickly became serious competitors), and don't screw up too bad and people will keep buying your crap like lemmings.
Apple isn't the only one. BMW is pretty similar, with overpriced cars with outrageous repair costs. There's a bunch of high-end brands for women's fashion stuff, such as Coach handbags, Gucci, etc. And of course there's Microsoft, that can't seem to do anything to get their enterprise customers to leave them.
It is vastly simpler, yes. But it's still a "transmission", so you were technically incorrect. Additionally, just like any gearbox, it has oil which needs to be changed periodically.
The whole failure thing is really pretty silly: it's pretty uncommon these days for modern, complicated automatic transmissions to fail before the car's useful life is over. Cars just don't have the mechanical problems they used to, unless they're horribly undermaintained, or wrecked.
No ICE, no oil, no maintenance. No transmission, just a straight connection from motor to wheel (linkages as necessary but no gears, etc).
Wrong.
Teslas have a single-speed gearbox. Electric motors generally run at speeds too high to directly drive road wheels. A gearbox is necessarily going to have oil.
And Teslas, while they don't have "motor oil", do use coolant to control the motor and battery temperature.
I don't know what maintenance is required for either of these items, but most likely the gearbox oil does need to be changed at 100k if not sooner, and probably the motor coolant too at some point.
The main things you save with an EV like the Tesla is not having to do 5k-10k oil changes, as well as air and fuel filter changes (usually 50k/100k), and spark plug changes (100k). If you do those things yourself, they're dirt cheap. The biggest real-life savings you'll likely see with an EV are 1) if you have a garage, you can recharge it every night and not have to spend time at a gas station, and 2) your likelihood of mechanical failure is somewhat lower because of the reduced complexity of the drivetrain (but remember, there's a lot more to a car than just the engine and transmission: the suspension, steering, brakes, and various electronic modules are mostly common to both types of cars).
How can you not have the cash for a second car? Just about every lower-middle-class and up family in America has two cars, out of necessity: two wage-earners can't easily get to work in a single car.
Now if you're a single person with 4 kids, I can understand why you wouldn't want or be able to afford a second car.
But I do agree with you about the Chevy brand: if it weren't for that, I would have given the Volt a much more serious examination before I bought my Mazda.
For some of us, it's worse. I have a Walmart about 5 minutes away, but for anything else it's more like a 40-minute drive.
It's a HUGE time savings for me to just order on Amazon or another online seller (these days, Amazon's prices aren't always the best so I make sure to look around), and then wait for it to arrive by USPS/FedEx.
It wouldn't be much better if I moved closer to town either; the traffic in the city is so bad that you're still looking at at least an hour just to go buy something even if you live nearby. I can spend that hour reading reviews and making sure I'm getting something that isn't crap, and comparing prices with other vendors. With some things, it's really worth it to check it out in person (such as shoes), but for many other things it just isn't worth the time, even if you can get the same price. Amazon charges sales tax these days so there's no savings there any more unfortunately.
In case you haven't noticed, Apple is the most profitable company on the planet, so their user-hostile policies must be working. It helps to have a large cult of users happy to buy your crap no matter how badly you treat them (like with expensive proprietary connectors making it impossible for them to borrow their friends' cables to recharge their phones).
Ok, what's the catch? Why would MS spend even one man-hour working on this thing? MS working on software for Android makes sense because it has a huge marketshare, and same with stuff like MS Office for Mac (not huge marketshare, but enough to make it worth the investment for them). But Linux has a minuscule market share, which I admit as a Linux proponent, so what's MS's real plan here? They never do anything on non-MS platforms without a really good (and likely nefarious) reason.
People don't *need* to go to college. There is a such thing as self-education, and the state already provides for education up to grade 12 for free. After that, local community colleges are very cheap. Too much money for college has led to too-expensive tuition, as well as the mentality that everyone needs a degree to be employable. We probably should be going the other way, reducing or eliminating government money from education and eliminating federally-guaranteed loans, plus very importantly making it so that loans can be discharged in a bankruptcy, making it so lenders are much more reluctant to lend to students (to avoid them going bankrupt right after graduation, you'd put a time limit on it: no discharge within 5 or 10 years, for instance).
Cars are cheap. You can get a used car for $3-5k now, and a decent Japanese car can easily go 20+ years and 200k+ miles with regular maintenance. I'd worry more about gas prices going back up. Public transit is impractical for much of the population; the schedules are too erratic and the routes inconvenient.
If your car breaks down in 4 years, you must have picked a really crappy car, or you drove it into the ground by not maintaining it. Maintenance on a modern car is minimal; mainly just change the oil every 5-10k, and then change the air filter every 25-50k and then change the plugs and coolant and probably belts at 100k. If you can't handle that, you should move someplace where there's bus service; ghettos aren't that expensive and do have bus service.
It does seem to me that a lot of Americans really need to learn to downsize, and accept a life with less formal education, an older and cheaper car, and a place to live that's in a low cost-of-living area where there's probably a lot of Trump voters. Everyone moving into downtown city centers, piling up huge student loan debts, buying ultra-expensive iPhones on credit, and chasing after a lot of mediocre-pay office jobs so they don't have to get their hands dirty is not sustainable.
You can still get your own kid, as well as sexual benefits, if you marry into a kid.
Not necessarily. By that age, many such women either don't want any more kids, or are unable to have any more kids. It doesn't stop 40+ people from marrying each other.
Look, if you like to watch your wife fuck other men, that's your business, but don't try and justify it as rational behavior.
Actually, if you look at the bonobo chimps, it's pretty normal. Research has shown we only adopted monogamous behavior after inventing agriculture and the concept of land ownership. The pre-contact Hawaiians were known to be promiscuous and not have any marriage; kids were simply raised by the village. But personally, I'm single and my genetics are excellent so I think I'd be a great donor.
Slashdot Mirror
Venus is pretty easily habitable. It has earth-like gravity, earth-like temperatures, and earth-like pressures. You don't even need a protective suit, just a gas mask.
The catch is that to live like this on Venus, you have to live in a giant dirigible or "floating city". The conditions on the surface are hellish, but several kilometers high in the atmosphere, it's actually quite nice. (I'm not sure what the situation is with radiation.)
Of course, this does make me wonder what you'd do there if you can't visit the surface, and the conditions on the surface are so bad you can't even land R/C equipment there for any substantial length of time without it failing.
At least on Mars you don't have to worry about hellish conditions on the surface, and can walk around all you want. But the gravity is too low (1/3 g), the air pressure almost negligible (about 1/200 atm), and radiation is a health problem long-term (no magnetosphere), so you definitely would need a protective suit at least for the pressure. But you could probably establish mining colonies there and live underground, though that obviously wouldn't be easy. If we want to do mining, it'd be a lot easier to just capture asteroids with (semi-)automated spacecraft and bring them near Earth.
Personally, I think there's a great economic case for asteroid mining, which would make it feasible and worthwhile to have either large facilities in space (for ore processing) or on the Moon. For other planets or moons in the solar system, I just don't see any good reason for humans to go there except for scientific curiosity (which is great, but hardly a reason to establish any kind of human presence larger than what we have at the scientific bases in Antarctica).
I totally agree, but these things aren't marketed towards thriftier people like you and me, and people like you and me certainly wouldn't spend that much money on a tablet/phablet and give it to some kid who's just going to beat it up. I have a friend who's a single mom with a 7-year-old boy, and holy crap does that kid beat stuff up; I wouldn't put anything delicate or expensive anywhere near him. But I have an inkling that these Brooklynites aren't like me, and have money to burn.
Huh? Apple doesn't give two shits about compatibility; they constantly do their own proprietary thing, like the Lightning connector. They seem to do just fine by mistreating their cult members, because those people are happy for it and rationalize it to themselves somehow. Maybe it'll eventually become a problem and their market will stop growing, but their profitability seems to be great so far.
Compared to Chrome, Firefox isn't bloated.
Well the Win7 thing makes sense: MS has been doing everything it can to force Win7 users to "upgrade" to Win10, so abandoning non-Win10 Skype versions is consistent with their prior behavior there.
Linux is different; it doesn't matter how many users each platform has, MS doesn't have any kind of control over Linux the way it does with Win7 and its update mechanism, and Linux users aren't invested in the MS ecosystem the way Win7 users are, so the same tactics wouldn't work.
I'm just questioning why they're bothering because it's extremely unlikely they're going to convince any Linux users to convert to Windows with this move. It's more likely that Hillary Clinton will get hit get swallowed up by a random wormhole on inauguration day frankly. And having a working Skype version for Linux actually just makes it easier for Linux users to keep using Linux, without having to switch over to Windows for Skype-ing or putting up with an older buggy version. Most likely, it's like one of the other posters here said about some corporate users demanding it, who already have Windows for most stuff but do Linux development and spend money on Skype minutes for their employees.
Well, with this discussion, I'm now hoping that it'll come out that Samsung *did* try to notify customers over-the-air like this, but that the carriers blocked it for stupid legal reasons. Then I want to see some customers who actually had them catch on fire sue the carriers for millions, and then the federal government arrest the execs and lock them up for criminal negligence.
We could really use a big shake-up in the wireless telecom industry in this country. Hopefully Verizon will be the hardest-hit.
They deliberately located Saturn away from other divisions of GM because they wanted the company to be able to develop its own corporate culture. As a startup experiment that was probably worthwhile; as a long term business model it was problematic.
I'm sorry, that still doesn't make any sense. The US is a big, big place. They could have located it in many, many other places that weren't too near other GM divisions, but were near existing ports or rail terminals. There's plenty of places in California that would have met this requirement, but also many other places too, such as places in the Midwest where there's rail nearby for shipping grain and other agricultural products, or perhaps West Virginia where there's rail for shipping coal, or just about any place in the northeast where there's lots of rail and the ports of Boston and New York are nearby, or somewhere along the Gulf Coast such as Gulfport MS or Tallahassee FL. You don't have to locate a company in some puny little town in rural Tennessee to have independence from the auto industry; it's a big employer in this country, but not *that* big. There's a huge number of places in this country which don't have any auto industry presence yet are near ports or rail.
These were my thoughts, I see there's been news coverage and "public statements" but if the parents don't regularly watch the news how far has Samsung gone to ensure people get the message?
Yeah, good point. WhoTF still watches "the news" these days anyway? Not people buying the latest $900 smartphone. The people who still watch the evening news are pretty advanced if they have a cellphone at all; most are still using landlines and many are probably on oxygen.
These are phones, couldn't the carriers call or send a text?
You really have to wonder. Maybe the carriers refuse to cooperate because they don't want people thinking their service is bad and they're somehow to blame for the exploding batteries.
This is one of the big problems with these smartphones after all: in the Android ecosystem, there's no less than 3 different parties involved with supplying your phone to you, along with necessary software updates: the OS maker (who also provides a lot of the cloud services the phone makes use of--email, search, maps, etc.), the handset manufacturer (who loads up a whole bunch of bloatware and crapware that can't be removed without rooting the phone), and the carrier (who also loads up a bunch of bloatware and crapware of their own).
This happened in New York City. $900 for a smartphone is nothing there compared to the rent.
It's too bad that lousy software and bloatware/crapware don't cause companies' stock prices to plunge. Then maybe they'd do something about those things.
Have you never lived outside of Connecticut? Almost every state is exactly like that. The only exceptions are the states that just don't have sales tax (Oregon and New Hampshire I think). You're supposed to either pay sales tax to the vendor, or you're supposed to voluntarily submit use tax if the vendor didn't collect any. And due to federal law, states are not able to force out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax for out-of-state purchases.
This move won't affect taxes much: Amazon already charges sales tax for most people, because it has warehouses or some kind of physical presence in so many states. There might be a few people negatively affected, as I'm sure there's still a few states that don't have an Amazon physical presence (Wyoming maybe? Alaska? Maine? Just guessing.) If you don't currently pay sales tax on Amazon, but they're opening one of these new B&M stores in your state, then you can expect to pay tax when that happens.
I wish them luck. I, for one, welcome our new dolphin overlords.
They can't be any worse than our current leadership.
No, that was their secret sauce for building themselves up into a juggernaut, along with logistics and economies of scale.
Now that they're so big, and so many other companies sell through them too, they can afford to jack up their prices because so many people just buy from them by default. It's just like Walmart: lots of people buy from them by default, even though they're not always the best deal.
Maybe, but most of it seems to be marketing and branding, plus riding on past successes. Make your product look fancy, price it high, and people perceive it to have high value. Add in some successful history (when the iPhone came out in 2006, it really was a huge improvement over the competition, but Android phones quickly became serious competitors), and don't screw up too bad and people will keep buying your crap like lemmings.
Apple isn't the only one. BMW is pretty similar, with overpriced cars with outrageous repair costs. There's a bunch of high-end brands for women's fashion stuff, such as Coach handbags, Gucci, etc. And of course there's Microsoft, that can't seem to do anything to get their enterprise customers to leave them.
It is vastly simpler, yes. But it's still a "transmission", so you were technically incorrect. Additionally, just like any gearbox, it has oil which needs to be changed periodically.
The whole failure thing is really pretty silly: it's pretty uncommon these days for modern, complicated automatic transmissions to fail before the car's useful life is over. Cars just don't have the mechanical problems they used to, unless they're horribly undermaintained, or wrecked.
Ok, this brings up several questions: (note, I'm not a Saturn fan at all)
1) Where did they get the bright idea of locating a car division and manufacturing plant in BFE, Tennessee, not near any train tracks or ports?
2) Why didn't they just move it, repurpose one of their other factories, etc.?
Towards the end, it seemed like Saturns were basically just re-brands of other GM cars anyway, and not something special and different.
No ICE, no oil, no maintenance. No transmission, just a straight connection from motor to wheel (linkages as necessary but no gears, etc).
Wrong.
Teslas have a single-speed gearbox. Electric motors generally run at speeds too high to directly drive road wheels. A gearbox is necessarily going to have oil.
And Teslas, while they don't have "motor oil", do use coolant to control the motor and battery temperature.
I don't know what maintenance is required for either of these items, but most likely the gearbox oil does need to be changed at 100k if not sooner, and probably the motor coolant too at some point.
The main things you save with an EV like the Tesla is not having to do 5k-10k oil changes, as well as air and fuel filter changes (usually 50k/100k), and spark plug changes (100k). If you do those things yourself, they're dirt cheap. The biggest real-life savings you'll likely see with an EV are 1) if you have a garage, you can recharge it every night and not have to spend time at a gas station, and 2) your likelihood of mechanical failure is somewhat lower because of the reduced complexity of the drivetrain (but remember, there's a lot more to a car than just the engine and transmission: the suspension, steering, brakes, and various electronic modules are mostly common to both types of cars).
The car cost me $10k after tax deductions.
How'd that work out?
How can you not have the cash for a second car? Just about every lower-middle-class and up family in America has two cars, out of necessity: two wage-earners can't easily get to work in a single car.
Now if you're a single person with 4 kids, I can understand why you wouldn't want or be able to afford a second car.
But I do agree with you about the Chevy brand: if it weren't for that, I would have given the Volt a much more serious examination before I bought my Mazda.
For some of us, it's worse. I have a Walmart about 5 minutes away, but for anything else it's more like a 40-minute drive.
It's a HUGE time savings for me to just order on Amazon or another online seller (these days, Amazon's prices aren't always the best so I make sure to look around), and then wait for it to arrive by USPS/FedEx.
It wouldn't be much better if I moved closer to town either; the traffic in the city is so bad that you're still looking at at least an hour just to go buy something even if you live nearby. I can spend that hour reading reviews and making sure I'm getting something that isn't crap, and comparing prices with other vendors. With some things, it's really worth it to check it out in person (such as shoes), but for many other things it just isn't worth the time, even if you can get the same price. Amazon charges sales tax these days so there's no savings there any more unfortunately.
In case you haven't noticed, Apple is the most profitable company on the planet, so their user-hostile policies must be working. It helps to have a large cult of users happy to buy your crap no matter how badly you treat them (like with expensive proprietary connectors making it impossible for them to borrow their friends' cables to recharge their phones).
Ok, what's the catch? Why would MS spend even one man-hour working on this thing? MS working on software for Android makes sense because it has a huge marketshare, and same with stuff like MS Office for Mac (not huge marketshare, but enough to make it worth the investment for them). But Linux has a minuscule market share, which I admit as a Linux proponent, so what's MS's real plan here? They never do anything on non-MS platforms without a really good (and likely nefarious) reason.
People don't *need* to go to college. There is a such thing as self-education, and the state already provides for education up to grade 12 for free. After that, local community colleges are very cheap. Too much money for college has led to too-expensive tuition, as well as the mentality that everyone needs a degree to be employable. We probably should be going the other way, reducing or eliminating government money from education and eliminating federally-guaranteed loans, plus very importantly making it so that loans can be discharged in a bankruptcy, making it so lenders are much more reluctant to lend to students (to avoid them going bankrupt right after graduation, you'd put a time limit on it: no discharge within 5 or 10 years, for instance).
Cars are cheap. You can get a used car for $3-5k now, and a decent Japanese car can easily go 20+ years and 200k+ miles with regular maintenance. I'd worry more about gas prices going back up. Public transit is impractical for much of the population; the schedules are too erratic and the routes inconvenient.
If your car breaks down in 4 years, you must have picked a really crappy car, or you drove it into the ground by not maintaining it. Maintenance on a modern car is minimal; mainly just change the oil every 5-10k, and then change the air filter every 25-50k and then change the plugs and coolant and probably belts at 100k. If you can't handle that, you should move someplace where there's bus service; ghettos aren't that expensive and do have bus service.
It does seem to me that a lot of Americans really need to learn to downsize, and accept a life with less formal education, an older and cheaper car, and a place to live that's in a low cost-of-living area where there's probably a lot of Trump voters. Everyone moving into downtown city centers, piling up huge student loan debts, buying ultra-expensive iPhones on credit, and chasing after a lot of mediocre-pay office jobs so they don't have to get their hands dirty is not sustainable.
You can still get your own kid, as well as sexual benefits, if you marry into a kid.
Not necessarily. By that age, many such women either don't want any more kids, or are unable to have any more kids. It doesn't stop 40+ people from marrying each other.
Look, if you like to watch your wife fuck other men, that's your business, but don't try and justify it as rational behavior.
Actually, if you look at the bonobo chimps, it's pretty normal. Research has shown we only adopted monogamous behavior after inventing agriculture and the concept of land ownership. The pre-contact Hawaiians were known to be promiscuous and not have any marriage; kids were simply raised by the village. But personally, I'm single and my genetics are excellent so I think I'd be a great donor.
Any man who marries a woman who already has a kid is basically doing the same thing, and this is common these days with the high divorce rate.