That quote from Banks (damn I actually miss him) illustrates that as much as academe might sneer at 'space opera' as not "real literature", this man demonstrated in one observation a better, more fundamental understanding of the development of civilizations than several shiploads of professors and a whole ark of anthropology grad students.
...that he will be strongly in favor of whatever the audience is in favor of in whatever venue he's speaking (because he won't really talk to Republicans anyway, so in that sense self-selecting).
Honestly, where do you live that consumers would tolerate having to ask the clerk to hand them stuff?
Here in the midwest US, sure, that's true for small high value electronics, jewelry, and cosmetics - none of which is commonly packaged like this, as you observed. Then again, they are what, 1% of purchase transactions?
Not to mention that the game is very sensitive to (perceived) reward levels. Tweak some values up or down (or you don't even have to tweak the actual rewards, simply the perception of reward values) and the outcomes can vary radically.
Moreover, I think we can all agree that when it comes to mating strategies - which are really the only one that matters, evolutionarily - choices are not always based on cerebral, cogent weighting of costs, benefits, risks, and rewards...more often "opportunity", "desire", and frankly, "alcohol".
"Privacy" as formulated in 2015 is frankly a fairly modern concept. As much as people seem to assert "we used to have privacy" I suspect it was about as real as the 'Father Knows Best' prototypical TV family - ie not really.
For the bulk of human existence, we have lived in small family or clan groups. This meant that everyone not only knew everything about you, but (usually) everything about everyone you were related to, and your ancestors. Had a crazy g'great grandfather that got caught cheating on his wife? Everyone knows, and likely expects that you're not terribly faithful either. Mother was a drunk? Everyone knows, and expects you're probably a drunk too. You said bad things about the clan chief, odds are eventually he knew. You were not only responsible for what you said or believed, you were frequently called to account for it (fairly or not).
Privacy - the very concept of anonymity - was extraordinarily limited until literacy was widespread, and even then the idea that you'd write something and nobody knew who wrote it was ridiculous really until the printing press, and even then the number of people involved meant your risk of discovery probably was a steeper curve than your audience breadth until the modern era, and small-shop copy machines/mimeographs.
Yet if you gave readers the opportunity to turn on/off visible comments, I wonder which would win?
I'm almost certain most people would leave the comments, after all, you don't have to read them. Which then suggests that no, it really IS more about protecting themselves as the sole authority, because monologue is so much easier than dialogue.
Blame your fellow humans. Believe me, companies would rather NOT have to spend more $ for expensive shell packaging, but its very challenging nature of opening significantly reduces pilferage and shoplifting.
"When you have a family, you'll understand the need for a simple NAS loaded with your media and simple to use screens for your family accessing it." You mean, aside from my four kids in their late teens and twenties?:)
The funny thing is, with my 'early adopter' media server setup, yes, it's a little kludgy sometimes, but - at the risk of inflaming/.'s "how dare you suggest girls are less techy than boys" crew - even my girls (who couldn't give a crap about computers) know somewhat how/why this stuff works, such that they help fix their friends' systems when they're at their homes.
Then again, I'm the guy who bought them the components for a sweet desktop gaming rig specifically so we could build it together and they'd learn something about the process.
OK, while I'm certainly down with a "because we can" sort of answer, I'm trying to understand how/why this would be better than wifi?
Right now, my office is served by a wifi AP that covers essentially my whole home - multiple rooms, levels, etc. While I guess I can see limited security benefits to having something carried on visible light (ie able to be limited to a single room easily) it doesn't seem like for the bulk of wire-free communication circumstances that this would really be useful?
Personally, I just want my TV to be a monitor: display a video signal as clearly and cleanly as possible.(optimally: with the lowest possible power use too). Is that too much to ask?
I don't need voice commands, hyperlinking to IMDB, or social media letting my friends know WTF kind of pr0n I watch.
Just like their warning about "well the TV is listening for your commands, so private info you say may also be inadvertently recorded and passed to third parties" - the former is sort of logically true, with any speech-recognition thing, of course. It's the LATTER that's evil: you as a company wringing every fucking *penny* out of my user data ("Oh, I see styopa switched aware from channel 4 when this Pepsi commercial came on? Let's let Ch4 and Pepsi both know!") without a) letting me know, and b) sharing it with me, if I opt to let you do it.
I'm sensing that there HAS to be a market out there for 'clean' tech products, no?
"You guys, I have to sit in a roomful of hippies (and ex-hippies now in $1000 suits) to produce these Climate Change reports. Seriously, if you are going to tell me I have to advocate Nuclear Power in that setting, I'm going to start expensing the rental of a goddamn shark cage.
As long as we also discuss (and repair) the gender diversity "problem" in - executions - felony convictions and imprisonment - punishment for all crimes from misdemeanors to felonies - deaths in the workplace - low wage menial physical labor jobs......then I'm perfectly willing to discuss how we can get more women into cushy, well-paid tech occupations at the same time (as long as we spend equal efforts at both).
We're trying to fight sexism generally, aren't we?
Being free citizens isn't supposed to be comfortable. It involves hard choices about serious issues. To pre-filter the information provided to citizens based on what *you* think they can handle is as patronizing as it is misguided.
As Twain once said something like, "censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."
Is it unpleasant? Yes. If you can't bear to watch it, don't watch it. But understand that it will take people who are willing to see it for what it is to really understand how hard we need to fight this.
I'd be willing to bet lots of money that farmers still have the option of buying older models with simpler, less fuel-efficient engines, less capabilities, etc.
You can have: a) super high tech, comfortable, efficient, efficacious equipment, at the price of being a hostage to your vendor b) old tech, uncomfortable, noisy, manually-controlled equipment that you can mess with all day long.
"I'm not worried about Fox doing ISIS's work for them. I'm worried about them influencing the militant "let's glass the whole middle east" segment of America."
Then if I lived in the middle east, I'd be working my ass off to stop the psycho radicals from reaching a level where they annoyed the superpower, no?
Animals need to be treated like animals. No, that's a disservice to animals. Even the most savage wild animal never set its prey on FIRE just to show other animals how tough it was.
I would only amend your point to say that for me anyway, trolling is all about the anticipated response, not the belief of the poster. Fwiw I *do* believe much of global warming is bullshit, but I'm cognizant that dropping it into conversation is guaranteed to generate a piranha-like churn that will solve nothing, resolve nothing, and change nobody's mind. Thus, mentioning it (regardless of what I believe) would be trolling.
I am in absolute admiration of your ability to perfectly, ridiculously satirize today's culture, while leaving me just the teensiest bit terrified that you're entirely serious.
Dear Twitter CEO: If you don't understand the difference between trolling and cyberbullying, you already fail.
Trolling: "Global warming is bullshit" Cyberbullying: "I'm going to chain you to the radiator and grape you in the mouth for decades and decades.*
*I recognize that I'm out of the norm by having a pretty high standard here limited to libel or actual threats, which ARE illegal already; I have very mixed feelings about the whole American societal thing about bullying in general today (of which "cyber" bullying is just an element). But that's tangential to my point here.
Some might call it 'millenial cognitive dissonance' because they don't seem to understand that you own your public identity, for better or worse.
Every time you put your opinions out into the world, some people are going to disagree with you. Like me posting this.
Some people are going to strongly disagree with you. The bigger or more controversial your opinion, the bigger the reaction. Hell, I get hatemail because I dare to dispute all sorts of conventional wisdoms.
And a certain percentage of the populace are crazy assholes.
Now, if you're a narcissist, and YOU complete the circle by putting your real identity out there, don't you bear some of the blame if a shitstorm falls on you? It's the old public-figure libel issue: if you are a public figure, the CONSEQUENCE of that is that you are voluntarily giving up some protections to which private citizens are otherwise entitled.
That used to be why we used avatars. But I truly believe for the current generation, that doesn't provide the attention and adulation that putting their real selves out there does.
I'm not exonerating her harassers, btw. Being a public-figure doesn't give people a blank check to threaten you. But at a certain point, we have to live in the world as it IS, not as we wish it was.
I'm not sure how the issue got the very Daily Mail headline of "3 person babies". By that same logic anyone with a donor organ is a "monster franken-hybrid of two people!". Essentially it's a transplant (astonishingly) early in that baby's life. Kind of impressive that we could pull it off, actually. Far better that we do something medically that will terminate that line of mitochondria from being passed on to make more people miserable.
That said, the 'poster mom' for this condition Sharon Bernardi has lost SEVEN children to this condition. (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19648992) "...Each of her first three children died within hours of birth and no-one knew why....At the same time, her mother revealed that she'd had three stillbirths before Sharon had been born. Further investigations by doctors revealed that members of Sharon's extended family had lost another eight children between them." Her 4th child survived until he was 21, living a life of dysfunction and pain; "..."In the last year of his life Edward was in chronic pain. He had dystonic spasms caused by things going wrong in his brain. His muscles would go into spasm for up to six hours at a time. Drugs could not help him." "...Sharon and Neil kept on trying for a healthy baby but without luck. Although three more children were born, none lived beyond the age of two. Each time one of their children died, they told themselves that "the death was a one-off". After their last child had a heart attack and died in 2000 they stopped trying...."
I'm sorry, but what the hell? How colossally selfish does someone have to be to just keep pumping out babies that die? There are at least hundreds of thousands of adoptable children *desperate* for parents to love them, your womb is so fucking sacred that you're willing to (essentially) just keep killing babies until you get one that's "of you"?
That's not the most sympathetic figure they could have picked to represent why this was needed.
First, some background. We have 4 kids, in their late teens and early 20s. A full gamut of personalities - from the artsy kid, to the social diva, to the mathy/introvert, to the football stud. Gross oversimplifications, to be sure, but they hit the archetypes.
Our decision was ultimately *against* homeschooling. Does that mean we were universally happy with our choice to public school our kids? Not entirely. If we knew then what we know now, we'd have looked harder for some sort of private school or charter school that we could have afforded. Our local public schools were terrific in elementary years, mediocre as junior high schools, and pretty nearly horrible as high schools. The high school experience was nearly wasted, with bored unengaged teachers, listless classes, challenges that petered out by 11th grade, and an administration that seemed capable of only making the worst possible choices whenever presented. We should have pulled our kids in junior high and sent them *anywhere* else. Oh, they still did/are doing fine academically - ACTs all 30+ - but this was despite the horrible high school system, not because of it.
The reasons we chose against homeschooling, in no particular order: - simple expertise: while a reasonably educated parent (we both have Bachelors' degrees) can certainly teach pretty much every elementary and general junior-high subject simply by 'staying ahead of the kid' in the materials, but by high school and certainly in terms of anything advanced placement, nobody's well-rounded enough to be a teacher of everything. - don't just like what I do: the fact is that if our children developed special interests or things that they loved that we didn't anticipate, there's little we could offer them. We in no way wanted to constrain their interests to our own, which would be natural given our own enthusiasms. - the "social" thing: humans are social animals. We all exist in a hodgepodge of organizations (formal and informal), status structures, power relationships (formal and informal), with countless others ranging from direct family, relatives, friends, acquaintances, and strangers. *Fundamental* to the emotional and social development of a child is being involved in those evolving relationships *particularly* at certain stages of maturity with others going through the same learning curve. Generally, this is going to continue through our whole lives - at school, at work, in relationships, clubs, volunteer organizations, churches, etc. Simply put, we felt this was very much a 'time served' sort of thing; an hour playdate once weekly (or whatever) wasn't going to give our kids the sort if intrinsic, long-term give and take that primate children and adolescents need to learn those structures and how to navigate them. To best learn the gamut of situations that they would have to deal with would involve not just social experience, but social immersion. And let's be absolutely candid: the teen years for both boys and girls are awash with hormones and their follow-on effects. Learning to come to terms with this (& themselves) in-context is not something you as a parent can deliver by lecture. - 'bye mom & dad! - following-on to the reason above, the primary thing a kid needs to learn as they mature? Doing without you. Really, how can you teach that? - sports: if you're in the US, youth sports at a certain level are pretty much only through schools. I think sports are important to the development of a child, learning about competition, to win, lose, deal with others, trust others, as well as important values about diet, physical fitness, and the pure joy of physical activity when you are at the most perfect physical condition you'll ever be in your life. That choice isn't much available to homeschool kids, or if it is it's in a sort of stilted "we'll let them be on the team" sort of way. - want to give your kid more intensive, in-depth learning better than what schools offer? Nothing's stopping you. School is really only a teeny
Slashdot Mirror
That quote from Banks (damn I actually miss him) illustrates that as much as academe might sneer at 'space opera' as not "real literature", this man demonstrated in one observation a better, more fundamental understanding of the development of civilizations than several shiploads of professors and a whole ark of anthropology grad students.
...that he will be strongly in favor of whatever the audience is in favor of in whatever venue he's speaking (because he won't really talk to Republicans anyway, so in that sense self-selecting).
Honestly, where do you live that consumers would tolerate having to ask the clerk to hand them stuff?
Here in the midwest US, sure, that's true for small high value electronics, jewelry, and cosmetics - none of which is commonly packaged like this, as you observed. Then again, they are what, 1% of purchase transactions?
Not to mention that the game is very sensitive to (perceived) reward levels.
Tweak some values up or down (or you don't even have to tweak the actual rewards, simply the perception of reward values) and the outcomes can vary radically.
Moreover, I think we can all agree that when it comes to mating strategies - which are really the only one that matters, evolutionarily - choices are not always based on cerebral, cogent weighting of costs, benefits, risks, and rewards...more often "opportunity", "desire", and frankly, "alcohol".
"Privacy" as formulated in 2015 is frankly a fairly modern concept. As much as people seem to assert "we used to have privacy" I suspect it was about as real as the 'Father Knows Best' prototypical TV family - ie not really.
For the bulk of human existence, we have lived in small family or clan groups. This meant that everyone not only knew everything about you, but (usually) everything about everyone you were related to, and your ancestors. Had a crazy g'great grandfather that got caught cheating on his wife? Everyone knows, and likely expects that you're not terribly faithful either. Mother was a drunk? Everyone knows, and expects you're probably a drunk too. You said bad things about the clan chief, odds are eventually he knew. You were not only responsible for what you said or believed, you were frequently called to account for it (fairly or not).
Privacy - the very concept of anonymity - was extraordinarily limited until literacy was widespread, and even then the idea that you'd write something and nobody knew who wrote it was ridiculous really until the printing press, and even then the number of people involved meant your risk of discovery probably was a steeper curve than your audience breadth until the modern era, and small-shop copy machines/mimeographs.
I don't see Gamma Ray Bursters, ergo, list is poppycock.
Yet if you gave readers the opportunity to turn on/off visible comments, I wonder which would win?
I'm almost certain most people would leave the comments, after all, you don't have to read them. Which then suggests that no, it really IS more about protecting themselves as the sole authority, because monologue is so much easier than dialogue.
Blame your fellow humans.
Believe me, companies would rather NOT have to spend more $ for expensive shell packaging, but its very challenging nature of opening significantly reduces pilferage and shoplifting.
"When you have a family, you'll understand the need for a simple NAS loaded with your media and simple to use screens for your family accessing it." :)
You mean, aside from my four kids in their late teens and twenties?
The funny thing is, with my 'early adopter' media server setup, yes, it's a little kludgy sometimes, but - at the risk of inflaming /.'s "how dare you suggest girls are less techy than boys" crew - even my girls (who couldn't give a crap about computers) know somewhat how/why this stuff works, such that they help fix their friends' systems when they're at their homes.
Then again, I'm the guy who bought them the components for a sweet desktop gaming rig specifically so we could build it together and they'd learn something about the process.
OK, while I'm certainly down with a "because we can" sort of answer, I'm trying to understand how/why this would be better than wifi?
Right now, my office is served by a wifi AP that covers essentially my whole home - multiple rooms, levels, etc. While I guess I can see limited security benefits to having something carried on visible light (ie able to be limited to a single room easily) it doesn't seem like for the bulk of wire-free communication circumstances that this would really be useful?
Personally, I just want my TV to be a monitor: display a video signal as clearly and cleanly as possible.(optimally: with the lowest possible power use too). Is that too much to ask?
I don't need voice commands, hyperlinking to IMDB, or social media letting my friends know WTF kind of pr0n I watch.
Just like their warning about "well the TV is listening for your commands, so private info you say may also be inadvertently recorded and passed to third parties" - the former is sort of logically true, with any speech-recognition thing, of course. It's the LATTER that's evil: you as a company wringing every fucking *penny* out of my user data ("Oh, I see styopa switched aware from channel 4 when this Pepsi commercial came on? Let's let Ch4 and Pepsi both know!") without a) letting me know, and b) sharing it with me, if I opt to let you do it.
I'm sensing that there HAS to be a market out there for 'clean' tech products, no?
"You guys, I have to sit in a roomful of hippies (and ex-hippies now in $1000 suits) to produce these Climate Change reports. Seriously, if you are going to tell me I have to advocate Nuclear Power in that setting, I'm going to start expensing the rental of a goddamn shark cage.
-Bill"
As long as we also discuss (and repair) the gender diversity "problem" in ... ...then I'm perfectly willing to discuss how we can get more women into cushy, well-paid tech occupations at the same time (as long as we spend equal efforts at both).
- executions
- felony convictions and imprisonment
- punishment for all crimes from misdemeanors to felonies
- deaths in the workplace
- low wage menial physical labor jobs
We're trying to fight sexism generally, aren't we?
If people are inspired to fear and not rage by what these people do, then they are benighted sheep that deserve to be preyed upon by wolves.
Being free citizens isn't supposed to be comfortable. It involves hard choices about serious issues. To pre-filter the information provided to citizens based on what *you* think they can handle is as patronizing as it is misguided.
As Twain once said something like, "censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."
Is it unpleasant? Yes. If you can't bear to watch it, don't watch it. But understand that it will take people who are willing to see it for what it is to really understand how hard we need to fight this.
I'd be willing to bet lots of money that farmers still have the option of buying older models with simpler, less fuel-efficient engines, less capabilities, etc.
You can have:
a) super high tech, comfortable, efficient, efficacious equipment, at the price of being a hostage to your vendor
b) old tech, uncomfortable, noisy, manually-controlled equipment that you can mess with all day long.
You get a OR b.
"I'm not worried about Fox doing ISIS's work for them. I'm worried about them influencing the militant "let's glass the whole middle east" segment of America."
Then if I lived in the middle east, I'd be working my ass off to stop the psycho radicals from reaching a level where they annoyed the superpower, no?
Animals need to be treated like animals. No, that's a disservice to animals. Even the most savage wild animal never set its prey on FIRE just to show other animals how tough it was.
I would only amend your point to say that for me anyway, trolling is all about the anticipated response, not the belief of the poster. Fwiw I *do* believe much of global warming is bullshit, but I'm cognizant that dropping it into conversation is guaranteed to generate a piranha-like churn that will solve nothing, resolve nothing, and change nobody's mind. Thus, mentioning it (regardless of what I believe) would be trolling.
I am in absolute admiration of your ability to perfectly, ridiculously satirize today's culture, while leaving me just the teensiest bit terrified that you're entirely serious.
As satire, that was nothin' but net.
Dear Twitter CEO:
If you don't understand the difference between trolling and cyberbullying, you already fail.
Trolling: "Global warming is bullshit"
Cyberbullying: "I'm going to chain you to the radiator and grape you in the mouth for decades and decades.*
*I recognize that I'm out of the norm by having a pretty high standard here limited to libel or actual threats, which ARE illegal already; I have very mixed feelings about the whole American societal thing about bullying in general today (of which "cyber" bullying is just an element). But that's tangential to my point here.
Some might call it 'millenial cognitive dissonance' because they don't seem to understand that you own your public identity, for better or worse.
Every time you put your opinions out into the world, some people are going to disagree with you. Like me posting this.
Some people are going to strongly disagree with you. The bigger or more controversial your opinion, the bigger the reaction. Hell, I get hatemail because I dare to dispute all sorts of conventional wisdoms.
And a certain percentage of the populace are crazy assholes.
Now, if you're a narcissist, and YOU complete the circle by putting your real identity out there, don't you bear some of the blame if a shitstorm falls on you? It's the old public-figure libel issue: if you are a public figure, the CONSEQUENCE of that is that you are voluntarily giving up some protections to which private citizens are otherwise entitled.
That used to be why we used avatars. But I truly believe for the current generation, that doesn't provide the attention and adulation that putting their real selves out there does.
I'm not exonerating her harassers, btw. Being a public-figure doesn't give people a blank check to threaten you. But at a certain point, we have to live in the world as it IS, not as we wish it was.
I'm not sure how the issue got the very Daily Mail headline of "3 person babies". By that same logic anyone with a donor organ is a "monster franken-hybrid of two people!".
Essentially it's a transplant (astonishingly) early in that baby's life. Kind of impressive that we could pull it off, actually. Far better that we do something medically that will terminate that line of mitochondria from being passed on to make more people miserable.
That said, the 'poster mom' for this condition Sharon Bernardi has lost SEVEN children to this condition. (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19648992) "...Each of her first three children died within hours of birth and no-one knew why....At the same time, her mother revealed that she'd had three stillbirths before Sharon had been born. Further investigations by doctors revealed that members of Sharon's extended family had lost another eight children between them."
Her 4th child survived until he was 21, living a life of dysfunction and pain;
"..."In the last year of his life Edward was in chronic pain. He had dystonic spasms caused by things going wrong in his brain. His muscles would go into spasm for up to six hours at a time. Drugs could not help him."
"...Sharon and Neil kept on trying for a healthy baby but without luck. Although three more children were born, none lived beyond the age of two. Each time one of their children died, they told themselves that "the death was a one-off". After their last child had a heart attack and died in 2000 they stopped trying...."
I'm sorry, but what the hell? How colossally selfish does someone have to be to just keep pumping out babies that die? There are at least hundreds of thousands of adoptable children *desperate* for parents to love them, your womb is so fucking sacred that you're willing to (essentially) just keep killing babies until you get one that's "of you"?
That's not the most sympathetic figure they could have picked to represent why this was needed.
First, some background. We have 4 kids, in their late teens and early 20s.
A full gamut of personalities - from the artsy kid, to the social diva, to the mathy/introvert, to the football stud. Gross oversimplifications, to be sure, but they hit the archetypes.
Our decision was ultimately *against* homeschooling. Does that mean we were universally happy with our choice to public school our kids? Not entirely. If we knew then what we know now, we'd have looked harder for some sort of private school or charter school that we could have afforded. Our local public schools were terrific in elementary years, mediocre as junior high schools, and pretty nearly horrible as high schools. The high school experience was nearly wasted, with bored unengaged teachers, listless classes, challenges that petered out by 11th grade, and an administration that seemed capable of only making the worst possible choices whenever presented. We should have pulled our kids in junior high and sent them *anywhere* else. Oh, they still did/are doing fine academically - ACTs all 30+ - but this was despite the horrible high school system, not because of it.
The reasons we chose against homeschooling, in no particular order:
- simple expertise: while a reasonably educated parent (we both have Bachelors' degrees) can certainly teach pretty much every elementary and general junior-high subject simply by 'staying ahead of the kid' in the materials, but by high school and certainly in terms of anything advanced placement, nobody's well-rounded enough to be a teacher of everything.
- don't just like what I do: the fact is that if our children developed special interests or things that they loved that we didn't anticipate, there's little we could offer them. We in no way wanted to constrain their interests to our own, which would be natural given our own enthusiasms.
- the "social" thing: humans are social animals. We all exist in a hodgepodge of organizations (formal and informal), status structures, power relationships (formal and informal), with countless others ranging from direct family, relatives, friends, acquaintances, and strangers. *Fundamental* to the emotional and social development of a child is being involved in those evolving relationships *particularly* at certain stages of maturity with others going through the same learning curve. Generally, this is going to continue through our whole lives - at school, at work, in relationships, clubs, volunteer organizations, churches, etc. Simply put, we felt this was very much a 'time served' sort of thing; an hour playdate once weekly (or whatever) wasn't going to give our kids the sort if intrinsic, long-term give and take that primate children and adolescents need to learn those structures and how to navigate them. To best learn the gamut of situations that they would have to deal with would involve not just social experience, but social immersion. And let's be absolutely candid: the teen years for both boys and girls are awash with hormones and their follow-on effects. Learning to come to terms with this (& themselves) in-context is not something you as a parent can deliver by lecture.
- 'bye mom & dad! - following-on to the reason above, the primary thing a kid needs to learn as they mature? Doing without you. Really, how can you teach that?
- sports: if you're in the US, youth sports at a certain level are pretty much only through schools. I think sports are important to the development of a child, learning about competition, to win, lose, deal with others, trust others, as well as important values about diet, physical fitness, and the pure joy of physical activity when you are at the most perfect physical condition you'll ever be in your life. That choice isn't much available to homeschool kids, or if it is it's in a sort of stilted "we'll let them be on the team" sort of way.
- want to give your kid more intensive, in-depth learning better than what schools offer? Nothing's stopping you. School is really only a teeny
Global search: "utilize"
Replace with: "use"
Global search: "baited breath"
Replace with: "bated breath"
I could do this ALL day, man.
(peers closely at bottle) ...are you saying that this isn't GENUINE snake oil?