The first reason we home schooled is to avoid dealing with the liberal bias in education and so we had control over what our kids where being taught. Secondary was that our kids both had learning disabilities that would have made classroom learning difficult for them and being in a school with 2 students and 1 teacher was a clear advantage for them.
So the primary reason was we thought it would produce the best educational outcome for both of them to learn at home. It's hard to know what "could have" been, but I know that it worked out very well for them.
I home schooled my kids... Their school records are not at risk from some underpaid government employee's mistakes.
Not to mention that they got a pretty good classical education and are both excelling in college...
Congratulations. You should get some stickers for the back window of your Prius.
If I ever get one, I guess I will. But my pickup truck is going to have to bite the big one and a Prius is going to have to change to look more like a truck first.
These are probably up/down escalator sets both going the same direction. One side is just standing and the other is used by walkers. I think they could just make it so that walking is only permitted when there's no congestion and everyone is happy.
And that would be a "social contract" kind of thing, where society's social norms would need to be adjusted. That's hard to do.
Seriously, who would find what I say at home interesting?
You might prove that I really am crazy, that I really do talk to myself when no one is around to hear and that my shower concerts are cringe worthy affairs. But all that really means is you are more likely to knock before you enter my home...
Look, I'm not here to defend the F35 program, but the promise of the program was (and still is) a common platform that will be the mass produced airborne weapons delivery truck for decades. They will be stamping out thousands of these for decades. The promise here is that instead of having a hundred platforms to support with parts, tooling, software, logistics, training, maintenance and R&D, there will be really only one.
I expect the Army could do much the same by standardising on precisely one actual truck. The reason they don't is you want different ground vehicles for different situations.
Think of it this way. If the army had a series of trucks that used the same drive train components, engine, transmission, suspension and the like they could reconfigure the things they bolted on in many ways. Flatbeds, troop carriers, buses, tankers, some with armor, some with weapons... You get the idea. Then, the army depot would only have to stock one series of parts for the drive trains, would only need to train their mechanics how to fix one kind of engine, transmission and such and only need to provide them one set of specialized tools and equipment.
You'd save money only having to stock one set of parts and only having to train your people in one kind of vehicle. You'd also save money on the purchase price for new vehicles because many of the parts would be made in move volume AND you'd have the ability to share parts from one vehicle to another so you could more likely take two broken ones and make one running one. Training drivers is also easier, if you can drive one mission, it's easy to train you for another.
That's how the F35 program is supposed to save money and up availability.
Now would you have the best flatbed ever? How about the best tanker? Not likely, but it would do the job well enough to get by. Again, that's the F35's design idea. It was supposed to be the jack of all trades, and in many ways it is. It has acceptable performance across a wide range of missions and can do the jobs of multiple specialized aircraft. It's not the best at any of the jobs, but it's flexible and can d be called on to do a long list of chores without having to maintain multiple types of aircraft, aircrews and maintenance logistics.
So complaining that the F35 is a lack luster performer for some specific task is to miss the point. The A10 might have been a great tank killer, but it was a horrible dog fighter and couldn't protect itself at all. It had the radar cross section of a semi truck and had it's own set of parts, maintenance equipment and specialized aircrew training. You couldn't ask the A10 to fly a combat air patrol mission so if you needed that done you had to pick another kind of aircraft. The F35 can kill tanks AND fly the CAP mission, just land and rearm to switch roles. THAT's what the F35 can do that no other aircraft before it can.
How is this news worthy? How did this make it to slashdot? How does someone have such a terrible idea that becomes news on the internet and then posted to slashdot which then passes the mods?
You must be new here. This is Slashdot... We fight over ALL the best bad ideas on the internet for fun here.
Not really. Your point is stupid because you're asking the wrong question. You're somehow fine with people being dirt poor with zero money to contribute to the economy as long as they have a fridge. When fewer and fewer people have funny-money for toys the economy grinds to a halt. It doesn't matter that you have some filthy rich people, they didn't get wealthy by spending, and there aren't enough of them to prop up the rest of the country. Money needs to circulate. This is really basic stuff, man.
Now you are missing my point. A wise man once said "The poor you will always have" (I'll leave you to figure out who that was). He was correct.
My measure of success is the poor's standard of living going up. So more poor who live in houses are better off than poor who live under bridges, poor who have food are better off than poor who are starving. I'm NOT concerned about how much money Bill Gates has and how wide the gap is between him and the poor. I'm concerned about how many poor are living outside and starving.
All this debating about how much money the rich that the poor don't is pointless bickering and amounts to class warfare designed to engender hate in one group and guilt in another. It doesn't solve the problem at all or even focus people on some true measure of what the problem is. As such, it's less than worthless, doesn't help anybody and actually harms many. So STOP with this continued measure of the disparity between the rich and poor, it's hurting people and doesn't have a chance of helping with the problem.
"Why do we even care about the disparity? Why do we measure this?"
Because access to disposable income keeps the economy moving. It doesn't matter if someone in Flynt is better off than someone living under a bridge in Jo-burg if that person still has no extra cash to contribute. That's why you should care.
You are making my point you know. I'd rather have filthy rich people about and poor people living in houses than no rich folks and poor people living under bridges. So if the poor get a better standard of living, why don't we take it as a good thing instead of complaining that the rich are getting too much?
The question is how low is the floor, not how high is the building when the floods come.
So.. To sum up your arguments, because the F35 program was sooo expensive and other options *might* have been cheaper we should just not spend anything?
Look, I'm not here to defend the F35 program, but the promise of the program was (and still is) a common platform that will be the mass produced airborne weapons delivery truck for decades. They will be stamping out thousands of these for decades. The promise here is that instead of having a hundred platforms to support with parts, tooling, software, logistics, training, maintenance and R&D, there will be really only one. It still appears that the F35 will save the DOD money over it's life time. Is it more expensive than expected? Yep. Is it less capable than the platforms it replaces? Yep in specific features it does. But it has all round operational effectiveness which is head and shoulders above all of them too, plus it is more flexible than any and all of the platforms it replaces. So one airframe will do the jobs of 3-4 airframes of the past, making it easier to support operational readiness, reducing the logistics complexity.
Also, the F-22 program is done building aircraft after 182 copies, the total program costs reflect this. The F22 cannot be exported, so the R&D costs are all on the USA. The F35 program has built ~320 copies and is tracking towards building 2,500 for the USA and anther few thousand for other countries. The F22 cost per airframe is $150 Million while the F35 will run about $80 Million a copy. The F22 is an air superiority fighter and is unmatched in this role, the F35 isn't going to replace it in that role. The F35 is a close air support, bomb delivery platform, mid-level fighter on par with the F18 that operates for the Air Force (replacing the F15, A10), Navy (replacing the F18, A6 and more), Marines (replacing the AV-8b and a number of helicopter platforms) and brings a level of stealth and weapons systems compatibilities unmatched by any aircraft.
The F35 program is going to have to really go off the rails to not realize the cost reduction goals that having one platform is supposed to give us. The DOD will save money over the past platforms, I can assure you of this...
Well, he's right... We've been complaining here about inequality and how trickle-down economics don't work, and that's exactly what he's saying. It's not news though. The billionaires took control of politics and have been accumulating both money and power, and have been lying and getting votes from the exact people that would benefit most from redistribution. But that's okay... we prefer to believe we all have a chance at the American Dream, rather than have anything that resembles socialism.
I've never see such disparity between the rich (ruling class) and the poor (working class) than observed in Socialist countries of history.
Why do we even care about the disparity? Why do we measure this? Should it not be about how well the poor live and how many poor you have? I think so.
So, the measure of success in my view should be how wealthy are the poor in your country and how few of them you have. So even if there are uber filthy rich among us and a large disparity between the lower class and them, if the poor are living well, have food, housing, clothing and are upwardly mobile because there is work and opportunity, I'll take it. If I'm better off and the poor are better off, who cares about the rich?
So I ask you, where are the poor better off? THAT'S the question, that's the measure of success, not this disparity between the rich and poor canard.
The US could cut its defense budget in half and nothing would change. The Russians would still have invaded and kept Crimea. The Chinese would still not have invaded Taiwan. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would be pretty much in the same state.
How absolutely wrong can you be?
Is there no understanding of the deterrent effect of having a strong and world wide capable military presence? Isolationist policy doesn't work and hasn't worked for generations. "Speak Softly and carry a big stick" actually works, assuming the stick is big enough. So where you claim nothing would be different, you are obviously not considering what *could* have happened in a different environment with less deterrent from our military because it was weaker.
It seems to be that we are largely ignoring the lessons of history. Why did Japan attack us? Because they believed they had a chance to win the conflict because of our weakened military was incapable of fighting in Europe AND the Pacific at the same time. The USA was trying to navigate a isolationist policy, not get into the war, yet our weakened stance is what tempted Japan into risking a war. Had we already built up, they very likely would have not considered the risk of going head to head with the US and contented themselves with what they had.
Further, "provide for the common defense" is one of the primary purposes of the Federal Government established by the US Constitution. We need to take this purpose seriously for the benefit of our country in the future.
I'm putting money on "under 24 hours" before the first proof-of-concept malware is written that can escape the sandbox, followed by years of bug-fixing whack-a-mole before this is anywhere close to secure.
But... Edge is faster! Just ask us, or read all the popup ads we send you with every OS update..
Seriously, ANY operating system software plays whack-a-mole with security holes. MS isn't any exception.
There has never been a flying car, and there probably never will be. There are only roadable airplanes. A flying car wouldn't require a preflight check, and it would be able to take off from your driveway, or the interstate. Nobody has ever built such a vehicle, and limitations of physics suggest that they never will — not because we'll never get enough energy into the vehicle, but because getting it out would crack pavement, flip over neighboring vehicles, roast pedestrians, etc.
Oh, right... Um, If you let me define a "flying car" anyway I choose, I could prove my point too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar
It flew as well as drove on roads. No airworthy and road legal examples are for sale, but they do exist, or, if you wanted to license the plans you could build your own and fly it as an experimental aircraft and drive it as a home built car in some states.
Your "I don't want to have to do the conversion or tow the wings in a trailer" and the "Operate off a road" are but regulatory restrictions. The laws governing cars and the laws governing aircraft operations are incompatible with your definition of a "flying car" which is why you make the argument as you do. But the fact remains, there are vehicles that can fly in the air on their own or drive on roads on their own, and they've been around since the 40's.
Then go buy one, they DO exist, although I seriously doubt you can afford to purchase it and keep it airworthy. There have been a number of designs, some actually built and flown. Come to think of it, you might have better luck building your own experimental aircraft/car and it might be something you could actually afford to kill yourself in.
Flying isn't hard under ideal conditions, if I can do it, almost anybody can. However, knowing how to stay out of trouble when conditions are not so nice or when something goes wrong with the aircraft isn't quite so simple. Why do I mention this? Because, as a pilot, I really don't want a bunch of idiots out flying, especially the level of idiot I see on the roads around here. No flying cars for you guys. You people scare me...
LOL.. I get what I expect... But I use Facebook sparingly and don't freely share many accurate details of my personal life, mainly because I understand the risks of doing this. But then again, I'm not some naive youngster who was raised with a need for a social network online as I know how to talk to people face to face.
Read the EULIA and Terms of Service people... Think seriously about what they are saying they CAN do with any information they scrape up from you. Then remember that once they have the data, you cannot get it back or guarantee it's erased, regardless of what they promise.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool dude!
Thank you! I'm here all week, come back and bring a friend!
The first reason we home schooled is to avoid dealing with the liberal bias in education and so we had control over what our kids where being taught. Secondary was that our kids both had learning disabilities that would have made classroom learning difficult for them and being in a school with 2 students and 1 teacher was a clear advantage for them.
So the primary reason was we thought it would produce the best educational outcome for both of them to learn at home. It's hard to know what "could have" been, but I know that it worked out very well for them.
Nope, but it's another reason I'm happy I made that choice. (Thus the title of this thread. )
I home schooled my kids... Their school records are not at risk from some underpaid government employee's mistakes.
Not to mention that they got a pretty good classical education and are both excelling in college...
Congratulations. You should get some stickers for the back window of your Prius.
If I ever get one, I guess I will. But my pickup truck is going to have to bite the big one and a Prius is going to have to change to look more like a truck first.
I home schooled my kids... Their school records are not at risk from some underpaid government employee's mistakes.
Not to mention that they got a pretty good classical education and are both excelling in college...
"When one side isn't reserved for walkers, it saves time for everyone."
This is an absurd claim that doesn't pass the most basic smell test.
If everyone is a stander, then the latency for everyone is fixed once they are on the device.
Think of it as Net Neutrality for escalators.. ;) No preferential treatment for the walking packets over the riding ones.
These are probably up/down escalator sets both going the same direction. One side is just standing and the other is used by walkers. I think they could just make it so that walking is only permitted when there's no congestion and everyone is happy.
And that would be a "social contract" kind of thing, where society's social norms would need to be adjusted. That's hard to do.
Got to read that every few years, trust me, it's worth it.
Seriously, who would find what I say at home interesting?
You might prove that I really am crazy, that I really do talk to myself when no one is around to hear and that my shower concerts are cringe worthy affairs. But all that really means is you are more likely to knock before you enter my home...
I have multiple of these devices. Great for looking up recipes.
Right, when you are "cooking" meth eh? Good luck, they know who you are now. (sarc off)
Look, I'm not here to defend the F35 program, but the promise of the program was (and still is) a common platform that will be the mass produced airborne weapons delivery truck for decades. They will be stamping out thousands of these for decades. The promise here is that instead of having a hundred platforms to support with parts, tooling, software, logistics, training, maintenance and R&D, there will be really only one.
I expect the Army could do much the same by standardising on precisely one actual truck. The reason they don't is you want different ground vehicles for different situations.
Think of it this way. If the army had a series of trucks that used the same drive train components, engine, transmission, suspension and the like they could reconfigure the things they bolted on in many ways. Flatbeds, troop carriers, buses, tankers, some with armor, some with weapons... You get the idea. Then, the army depot would only have to stock one series of parts for the drive trains, would only need to train their mechanics how to fix one kind of engine, transmission and such and only need to provide them one set of specialized tools and equipment.
You'd save money only having to stock one set of parts and only having to train your people in one kind of vehicle. You'd also save money on the purchase price for new vehicles because many of the parts would be made in move volume AND you'd have the ability to share parts from one vehicle to another so you could more likely take two broken ones and make one running one. Training drivers is also easier, if you can drive one mission, it's easy to train you for another.
That's how the F35 program is supposed to save money and up availability.
Now would you have the best flatbed ever? How about the best tanker? Not likely, but it would do the job well enough to get by. Again, that's the F35's design idea. It was supposed to be the jack of all trades, and in many ways it is. It has acceptable performance across a wide range of missions and can do the jobs of multiple specialized aircraft. It's not the best at any of the jobs, but it's flexible and can d be called on to do a long list of chores without having to maintain multiple types of aircraft, aircrews and maintenance logistics.
So complaining that the F35 is a lack luster performer for some specific task is to miss the point. The A10 might have been a great tank killer, but it was a horrible dog fighter and couldn't protect itself at all. It had the radar cross section of a semi truck and had it's own set of parts, maintenance equipment and specialized aircrew training. You couldn't ask the A10 to fly a combat air patrol mission so if you needed that done you had to pick another kind of aircraft. The F35 can kill tanks AND fly the CAP mission, just land and rearm to switch roles. THAT's what the F35 can do that no other aircraft before it can.
How is this news worthy? How did this make it to slashdot? How does someone have such a terrible idea that becomes news on the internet and then posted to slashdot which then passes the mods?
You must be new here. This is Slashdot... We fight over ALL the best bad ideas on the internet for fun here.
Who's "we", and why do feel "we" can do this?
Hey, if the "Zuck" can create Facebook, surely WE can replace it.... Right? Right?
Take Slashdot for instance......
(sarc: off)
"You are making my point you know."
Not really. Your point is stupid because you're asking the wrong question. You're somehow fine with people being dirt poor with zero money to contribute to the economy as long as they have a fridge. When fewer and fewer people have funny-money for toys the economy grinds to a halt. It doesn't matter that you have some filthy rich people, they didn't get wealthy by spending, and there aren't enough of them to prop up the rest of the country. Money needs to circulate. This is really basic stuff, man.
Now you are missing my point. A wise man once said "The poor you will always have" (I'll leave you to figure out who that was). He was correct.
My measure of success is the poor's standard of living going up. So more poor who live in houses are better off than poor who live under bridges, poor who have food are better off than poor who are starving. I'm NOT concerned about how much money Bill Gates has and how wide the gap is between him and the poor. I'm concerned about how many poor are living outside and starving.
All this debating about how much money the rich that the poor don't is pointless bickering and amounts to class warfare designed to engender hate in one group and guilt in another. It doesn't solve the problem at all or even focus people on some true measure of what the problem is. As such, it's less than worthless, doesn't help anybody and actually harms many. So STOP with this continued measure of the disparity between the rich and poor, it's hurting people and doesn't have a chance of helping with the problem.
LOL.. Replace Facebook with personal websites eh? Isn't that how this whole internet thing got started back when I was in college?
"Why do we even care about the disparity? Why do we measure this?"
Because access to disposable income keeps the economy moving. It doesn't matter if someone in Flynt is better off than someone living under a bridge in Jo-burg if that person still has no extra cash to contribute. That's why you should care.
You are making my point you know. I'd rather have filthy rich people about and poor people living in houses than no rich folks and poor people living under bridges. So if the poor get a better standard of living, why don't we take it as a good thing instead of complaining that the rich are getting too much?
The question is how low is the floor, not how high is the building when the floods come.
So.. To sum up your arguments, because the F35 program was sooo expensive and other options *might* have been cheaper we should just not spend anything?
Look, I'm not here to defend the F35 program, but the promise of the program was (and still is) a common platform that will be the mass produced airborne weapons delivery truck for decades. They will be stamping out thousands of these for decades. The promise here is that instead of having a hundred platforms to support with parts, tooling, software, logistics, training, maintenance and R&D, there will be really only one. It still appears that the F35 will save the DOD money over it's life time. Is it more expensive than expected? Yep. Is it less capable than the platforms it replaces? Yep in specific features it does. But it has all round operational effectiveness which is head and shoulders above all of them too, plus it is more flexible than any and all of the platforms it replaces. So one airframe will do the jobs of 3-4 airframes of the past, making it easier to support operational readiness, reducing the logistics complexity.
Also, the F-22 program is done building aircraft after 182 copies, the total program costs reflect this. The F22 cannot be exported, so the R&D costs are all on the USA. The F35 program has built ~320 copies and is tracking towards building 2,500 for the USA and anther few thousand for other countries. The F22 cost per airframe is $150 Million while the F35 will run about $80 Million a copy. The F22 is an air superiority fighter and is unmatched in this role, the F35 isn't going to replace it in that role. The F35 is a close air support, bomb delivery platform, mid-level fighter on par with the F18 that operates for the Air Force (replacing the F15, A10), Navy (replacing the F18, A6 and more), Marines (replacing the AV-8b and a number of helicopter platforms) and brings a level of stealth and weapons systems compatibilities unmatched by any aircraft.
The F35 program is going to have to really go off the rails to not realize the cost reduction goals that having one platform is supposed to give us. The DOD will save money over the past platforms, I can assure you of this...
But Google said they would "Do no evil"! How dare you claim they are no different from any other money-grubbing corporation!
The official statement was "Don't be evil" which generally allows money grabbing, assuming you are grabbing it fairly with good motives.
Well, he's right... We've been complaining here about inequality and how trickle-down economics don't work, and that's exactly what he's saying. It's not news though. The billionaires took control of politics and have been accumulating both money and power, and have been lying and getting votes from the exact people that would benefit most from redistribution. But that's okay... we prefer to believe we all have a chance at the American Dream, rather than have anything that resembles socialism.
I've never see such disparity between the rich (ruling class) and the poor (working class) than observed in Socialist countries of history.
Why do we even care about the disparity? Why do we measure this? Should it not be about how well the poor live and how many poor you have? I think so.
So, the measure of success in my view should be how wealthy are the poor in your country and how few of them you have. So even if there are uber filthy rich among us and a large disparity between the lower class and them, if the poor are living well, have food, housing, clothing and are upwardly mobile because there is work and opportunity, I'll take it. If I'm better off and the poor are better off, who cares about the rich?
So I ask you, where are the poor better off? THAT'S the question, that's the measure of success, not this disparity between the rich and poor canard.
The US could cut its defense budget in half and nothing would change. The Russians would still have invaded and kept Crimea. The Chinese would still not have invaded Taiwan. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would be pretty much in the same state.
How absolutely wrong can you be?
Is there no understanding of the deterrent effect of having a strong and world wide capable military presence? Isolationist policy doesn't work and hasn't worked for generations. "Speak Softly and carry a big stick" actually works, assuming the stick is big enough. So where you claim nothing would be different, you are obviously not considering what *could* have happened in a different environment with less deterrent from our military because it was weaker.
It seems to be that we are largely ignoring the lessons of history. Why did Japan attack us? Because they believed they had a chance to win the conflict because of our weakened military was incapable of fighting in Europe AND the Pacific at the same time. The USA was trying to navigate a isolationist policy, not get into the war, yet our weakened stance is what tempted Japan into risking a war. Had we already built up, they very likely would have not considered the risk of going head to head with the US and contented themselves with what they had.
Further, "provide for the common defense" is one of the primary purposes of the Federal Government established by the US Constitution. We need to take this purpose seriously for the benefit of our country in the future.
I'm putting money on "under 24 hours" before the first proof-of-concept malware is written that can escape the sandbox, followed by years of bug-fixing whack-a-mole before this is anywhere close to secure.
But... Edge is faster! Just ask us, or read all the popup ads we send you with every OS update..
Seriously, ANY operating system software plays whack-a-mole with security holes. MS isn't any exception.
There has never been a flying car, and there probably never will be. There are only roadable airplanes. A flying car wouldn't require a preflight check, and it would be able to take off from your driveway, or the interstate. Nobody has ever built such a vehicle, and limitations of physics suggest that they never will — not because we'll never get enough energy into the vehicle, but because getting it out would crack pavement, flip over neighboring vehicles, roast pedestrians, etc.
Oh, right... Um, If you let me define a "flying car" anyway I choose, I could prove my point too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar
It flew as well as drove on roads. No airworthy and road legal examples are for sale, but they do exist, or, if you wanted to license the plans you could build your own and fly it as an experimental aircraft and drive it as a home built car in some states.
Your "I don't want to have to do the conversion or tow the wings in a trailer" and the "Operate off a road" are but regulatory restrictions. The laws governing cars and the laws governing aircraft operations are incompatible with your definition of a "flying car" which is why you make the argument as you do. But the fact remains, there are vehicles that can fly in the air on their own or drive on roads on their own, and they've been around since the 40's.
I still want my flying car!
Then go buy one, they DO exist, although I seriously doubt you can afford to purchase it and keep it airworthy. There have been a number of designs, some actually built and flown. Come to think of it, you might have better luck building your own experimental aircraft/car and it might be something you could actually afford to kill yourself in.
Flying isn't hard under ideal conditions, if I can do it, almost anybody can. However, knowing how to stay out of trouble when conditions are not so nice or when something goes wrong with the aircraft isn't quite so simple. Why do I mention this? Because, as a pilot, I really don't want a bunch of idiots out flying, especially the level of idiot I see on the roads around here. No flying cars for you guys. You people scare me...
... that removes spam from Slashdot?
It's called "SelfControl.org".. You should visit sometime. ;)
...if you are using Facebook
LOL.. I get what I expect... But I use Facebook sparingly and don't freely share many accurate details of my personal life, mainly because I understand the risks of doing this. But then again, I'm not some naive youngster who was raised with a need for a social network online as I know how to talk to people face to face.
Read the EULIA and Terms of Service people... Think seriously about what they are saying they CAN do with any information they scrape up from you. Then remember that once they have the data, you cannot get it back or guarantee it's erased, regardless of what they promise.