There are several cheap android tablets that support 3G ((4G, LTE, you get the point), so, what would be the excuse for not supporting 3g without the need of awful USB dongles?
I mean, real mobility should mean the ability to stay connected even in rural areas where no wifi is near, isn't it?
for such expensive tablets, isn't it absurd not to have 3G ?
Avoiding foreign investment and involvement makes sense (in some situations, likely including this one). Ignoring a potential short-term revenue stream does not.
The country has the funding for the project, the 'short-term revenue' is not free of hassle and/or potential problems for the long term vision they have.
For bolivians, it's by far the lesser of 2 evils, to wait until they have everything in place. even if it means sacrificing short-term urges, than to rush in selling raw materials, without added value, repeating some (if not all) the mistakes of the past. The long-term vision is winning, and it's a bad thing for corporations, a double good is achieved.
I don't see how selling lithium to foreign corporations gives them "control".
Selling raw lithium would also be repeating former mistakes (not only letting them take control of the business).
That's why they are trying really hard to have the whole business in Bolivia, with the least foreing involvement as possible.
And if there's foreign involvement, it will be under strict conditions, getting sure that the bolivians won't be screwed again, as happened in the past.
I really don't see what's wrong with such approach.
But why not take the money you can get now, while tooling up? In fact, use the cash you get from selling lithium to fund construction of battery manufacturing industry. There's no good reason to accept the risk of C, unless your lithium resources are so slight that you'll deplete them before you can start making batteries, but that's not the case.
No, Bolivia's just squandering its opportunities to no benefit.
Because the money is already being invested, but using bolivian's money (even money from country's international reserve) and bolivian workers (scientists and support staff), without the need to give corporations the lionshare and/or the control.
I repeat, the 'money' to get, would not change the bolivian situation (as happened before, where even the oil & gas money were pennies, compared to the country needs, while corporations got the lionshare).
So, it was better to take the change of the C scenario (very slim chance, imo), than to keep repeating the mistakes of the past, regarding dealing with greedy transnational corporations.
I think most of it comes from Bolivia. Will that become our next target for some "international policing action" that will require a massive payoff in some local resource?
A) Zero pennies now, for getting big profits in the future by controlling its own Lithium production.
B) Small profits now, letting the corporations get the lionshare forever.
Or maybe C) Zero pennies ever, if some other battery tech replaces Li-ion before they get spun up.
The smart move would be to sell lithium now for its raw material value while setting up battery production for the future. Don't leave money on the table now while preparing to step up the food chain.
For poor countries with a lot of precedents of transnational greedy corporations getting the lionshare of their resources for pennies, wouldn't that C option (zero pennies) be an affordable risk to take, if there is a chance to break the vicius circle most poor countries are trapped in?
At least for oil, there has been a lot of talk about supposed technologies that would replace the oil need, nothing more than hot air.
And even if the remote C possibility arrives (I'd say it is more likely that they would find new technological uses for Lithium, than to lithium become useless), just not allowing the greedy corrupt corporations get away this time, would be worth the move, isn't it?
Lithium doesn't come from rare earth ores. It's in fact almost on the opposite end of the periodic table, being the first metal (after hydrogen and helium).
It's mainly found in Bolivia, which is a bit of a problem: Bolivia would like to have a domestic battery industry (higher revenue), instead of exporting raw lithium. The problem? A 20th century socialist for president, who is quite successfully scaring away international investment. As a result, the main exporter is Chile, which has smaller deposits.
In reality, bolivian government is not allowing transnational companies get the lithium for pennies, as they do in other countries who were servile to transnational power, or as happened in Bolivia before.
They are investing heavily (Bolivia is still poor, but its economy is growing steadily, while other countries were affected by the world crisis) in their own R&D, and they consider that no matter how long it takes for them to get everything going on, it's better than the alternative that letting trasnational companies get the lionshare of the profits.
Think about it, 2 alternatives for Bolivia.
A) Zero pennies now, for getting big profits in the future by controlling its own Lithium production.
B) Small profits now, letting the corporations get the lionshare forever.
They chose A, wisely IMO. In fact, that example should be followed by more poor countries, isn't this a good way to stop corporations greed to keep them in poverty while they earn huge profits on the resources of the country?
FWIW, the bolivian presidential airplane is capable of transoceanic flight, it was a french deluxe plane built for Manchester United team, but they cancelled the purchase, so the bolivian government got it.
Could this add to the on-purpose misinformation theory (as they had a fully capable presidential plane, without the need to refuel, and this have not been commented)?
Dvorak is designed in an ergonomical way, so, trained or untrained, you'd gain comfort, not only typing speed.
Sure, when I'm at *my* computer. I'd be fucked trying to use any other.
So I'll change when everyone else does, as will everyone else.
P.S. You don't have, to put, a comma, every third, word.
That's exaxtly my point was about promoting the dvorak keyboard. If you tread the OP, the whole thread is about to change a STANDARD, if you are promoting to change a standard , keeping the ugly qwerty layout, why not promoting the change, to switch the standar to Dvorak?
That was my original point, so when the new standard is set, you wouldn't be bothered by changing your laptop or tablet.
In the first phase of the experiment, 10 government typists were retrained on the Dvorak keyboard. It took well over 25 days of four-hour-a-day training for these typists to catch up to their old QWERTY speeds. (Compare this to the Navy study's results.) When the typists had finally caught up to their old speeds, the second phase of the experiment began. The newly trained Dvorak typists continued training and a group of 10 QWERTY typists (matched in skill to the Dvorak typists) began a parallel program to improve their skills. In this second phase the Dvorak typists progressed less quickly with further Dvorak training than did QWERTY typists training on QWERTY keyboards. Thus Strong concluded that Dvorak training would never be able to amortize its costs. He recommended instead that the government provide further training in the QWERTY keyboard for QWERTY typists.
The GSA study attempted to control carefully for the abilities and treatments of the two groups. The study design directly paralleled the decision that a real firm or a real government agency might face: Is it worthwhile to retrain its present typists? If Strong's study is correct, it is not efficient for current typists to switch to Dvorak. The study also implied that the eventual typing speed would be greater with QWERTY than with Dvorak, although this conclusion was not emphasized.
Much of the other evidence that has been used to support Dvorak's superiority actually can be used to make a case against Dvorak. We have the 1953 Australian Post Office study already mentioned, which needed to remove psychological impediments to superior performance. A 1973 study based on six typists at Western Electric found that after 104 hours of training on Dvorak, typists were 2.6 percent faster than they had been on QWERTY. Similarly, a 1978 study at Oregon State University indicated that after 100 hours of training, typists were up to 97.6 percent of their old QWERTY speed. Both of these retraining times are similar to those reported by Strong but not to those in the Navy study. But unlike Strong's study neither of these studies included parallel retraining on QWERTY keyboards. As Strong points out, even experienced QWERTY typists increase their speed on QWERTY if they are given additional training.
Ergonomic studies also confirm that the advantages of Dvorak are either small or nonexistent. For example, A. Miller and J Thomas, two researchers at the IBM Research Laboratory, writing in the International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, conclude that "no alternative has shown a realistically significant advantage over the QWERTY for general purpose typing." Other studies based on analysis of hand-and-finger motions find differences of only a few percentage points between Dvorak and QWERTY. The consistent finding in ergonomic studies is that the results imply no clear advantage for Dvorak, and certainly no advantage of the magnitude that is so often claimed.
Tell this speech about speed to Barbara Blackburn, the fastest typist of the world, who entered the Guiness records in 2005, using a Dvorak keyboard.
For most people, it's not the layout of the keyboard that's slowing them down, but rather the lack of effort in trying to learn proper typing techniques. You could probably put the keyboard in the worst possible configuration ever, with all Q,Z, V, and X all in the home row, and people could still learn to type sufficiently fast on it.
Dvorak is designed in an ergonomical way, so, trained or untrained, you'd gain comfort, not only typing speed.
Seriously, I still fail to understand why the Qwerty keyboard still is the norm, even in virtual keyboard in mobile devices.
What's the problem with pushing a better keyboard like Dvorak? wouldn't that be a better improvement over just adding 'th' or other minor fixes?
There's this thing called focus. Helpful beast, it is.
Alas, just because you try, doesn't mean it's worthwhile. There's people trying to pull off the free energy scams all the time. You think that if they try harder, they'll eventually succeed? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Trying hard is worthwhile in some cases, in others it just amounts to trying hard at being stupid.
Why are you comparing this initiative with a scam? what's your basis?
Do you thing multi-billionaires are so dumb to put their money into a cheap scam?
Do you think a mogul would sell his reputation trying to con the top billionaires of the world, knowing the quantity and quality of scientific advisors they will likely have available, to check the proposals they get (including the resumé of the proposed leaders of the research teams, among tons of other factors analysed), before any kind of funding?
BTW, are you aware all this is about multi-disciplinary scientific research? are you aware that this kind of research, even if not achieving immortality, can bring good 'collateral' results?
Would you be happy if more sports and dumb entertainment is funded, instead of these initiatives?
FWIW, I pay private education for my kid, both school and extra-curriculars. I'm talking about the concept, not looking for benefits.
>So, yes, I still say that the childless, in our system are subsidizing to some extent those with kids, and there is no good >reason for this.
WRONG. The people raising well-educated kids are the ones subsidizing the future to the rest, both the irresponsible and/or incompetent parents, and the childless people.
Incompetent parents raise future parasites who suck up resources from the society. Childless people is not contributing to the society by leaving a productive individual as a replacement.
Egoist individuals would be the parents who you describe as not finding the merit of child bearing/raising itself satisfying enough, that they need to force the rest of society to reward them.
If what you (parents) do is so valuable, people would volunteer to compensate you, which is what happens between private individuals before taxes and tax breaks were involved (i.e friends hold baby showers, family offering to help look after the kids when parents are busy, churches and private charities do their thing)
Where do you see parents asking for rewards?
In my case I was answering to a childless person, who thinks he is subsidizing parents. I showed him otherwise. The small tax break doesn't make up the huge effort that imply raising (biological or adopted son, the effort is huge anyway) a child in a responsible way, and such kind of citizens are needed.
I'm not asking for reward (in fact, the education for my kid is private), I'm asking to stop writing dumb statements about parents.
Too long to answer everything, I refuse to waste more time to answer an AC, so at least take your time to log-in next time, please.
Because the ones who have kids, are the ones LETTING THE CURRENT SYSTEM SURVIVE. If no kids are born, who do you think will pay your pension when you are old? Advanced society (not 3rd world societies) needs renewal, and the ones sacrifizing their life for it (parents) should be rewarded, isntead of penalized. Egoist individuals who think only on themselves should have more tax penalty.
The thing is..if you took away the tax credits and deductions...people would STILL have the same number of kids just as often.
People like to fuck, which results in kids. And, some people want to have kids, and tax or no tax, they will have them.
If this is the case, why should the childless subsidize them by paying more taxes?
Did you understand what you read?
Its not the childless people who subsidize, it's the parents who subsidize.
Parents spend a lot of time, energy and money, RAISING THE KIDS THE SOCIETY NEED for the system to go on.
Lame tax deduction don't make up the time, energy and money they contribute to the society, resources that childless people DONT CONTRIBUTE, and you still dare to say that the childless are the ones who subsidize?
but complaining about a relatively small tax break they get strikes me as a little bit ignorant of the cost of actually HAVING the kid
But again...why should the childless be subsidizing that cost of having a kid for those that choose to do so by us paying higher taxes for their priv to do this?
If it is too $$ to have children, they don't fscking have them, you know?
Sure it is expensive and requires a lot of self sacrifice for most people, but still, that's no reason to get a tax break for it...it is just the cost of that activity.
Because the ones who have kids, are the ones LETTING THE CURRENT SYSTEM SURVIVE.
If no kids are born, who do you think will pay your pension when you are old?
Advanced society (not 3rd world societies) needs renewal, and the ones sacrifizing their life for it (parents) should be rewarded, isntead of penalized. Egoist individuals who think only on themselves should have more tax penalty.
That guy has no background to pull it off. You'd need another Elon Musk who at least digs the technology.
At least he is trying and Elon Musk not, isn't it?
So, why are you so harsh with him? shouldn't you be harsher with the ones with 'background' that don't even try?
Perhaps there could be constraints in making it public. But in case of needs, a warrant should allow to analyze the data.
It's absurd not to gather data when it can be done. A lot of problems can be prevented using the data in a wise way.
People can fantasize all they want. Just because you have a flashy website doesn't mean there's anything of substance behind it. Just look at their timeline. It's a load of crap.
I think truly great teachers should be included. Now to be fair out of the last 20 years of school I think I could nominate two profs. Good teachers are almost impossible to find. Just like great science leaders or engineers, a great teacher can inspire, the problem is 99.9999% of teachers inspire kids to give up rather then strive ( like my entire experience in elementary and secondary ).
Please MOD PARENT UP.
Jaime Escalante's innovative style of teaching science should be rewarded, instead of letting people like him die in poverty, and his work destroyed (he wasn't allowed to leave a legacy).
Any fee that could deter a patent troll would also make it impossible for small inventors to ever file a patent.
Any person, not being a troll, and knowing himself/herself as a truly innovative person, could get a loan to pay the fee, knowing that such fee would be reimbursed, with extra money as a prize (to pay for the interest and the hassle suffered), if the patent is approved.
That would just result in corporations being founded just to register trivial patents. If the patent is then rejected the corporation goes bankrupt and no fees are paid.
Then the fee should be paid in advance, in a bank account, only granted patents would get the reimbursement, and a plus for the interest paid by the innovator, and all the hassle he had to suffer to issue the patent, all funded with the money of the rejected trivial attempts.
Slashdot Mirror
There are several cheap android tablets that support 3G ((4G, LTE, you get the point), so, what would be the excuse for not supporting 3g without the need of awful USB dongles?
I mean, real mobility should mean the ability to stay connected even in rural areas where no wifi is near, isn't it? for such expensive tablets, isn't it absurd not to have 3G ?
Thanks in advance for any explanation.
Avoiding foreign investment and involvement makes sense (in some situations, likely including this one). Ignoring a potential short-term revenue stream does not.
The country has the funding for the project, the 'short-term revenue' is not free of hassle and/or potential problems for the long term vision they have.
For bolivians, it's by far the lesser of 2 evils, to wait until they have everything in place. even if it means sacrificing short-term urges, than to rush in selling raw materials, without added value, repeating some (if not all) the mistakes of the past. The long-term vision is winning, and it's a bad thing for corporations, a double good is achieved.
I don't see how selling lithium to foreign corporations gives them "control".
Selling raw lithium would also be repeating former mistakes (not only letting them take control of the business).
That's why they are trying really hard to have the whole business in Bolivia, with the least foreing involvement as possible.
And if there's foreign involvement, it will be under strict conditions, getting sure that the bolivians won't be screwed again, as happened in the past.
I really don't see what's wrong with such approach.
But why not take the money you can get now, while tooling up? In fact, use the cash you get from selling lithium to fund construction of battery manufacturing industry. There's no good reason to accept the risk of C, unless your lithium resources are so slight that you'll deplete them before you can start making batteries, but that's not the case.
No, Bolivia's just squandering its opportunities to no benefit.
Because the money is already being invested, but using bolivian's money (even money from country's international reserve) and bolivian workers (scientists and support staff), without the need to give corporations the lionshare and/or the control.
I repeat, the 'money' to get, would not change the bolivian situation (as happened before, where even the oil & gas money were pennies, compared to the country needs, while corporations got the lionshare).
So, it was better to take the change of the C scenario (very slim chance, imo), than to keep repeating the mistakes of the past, regarding dealing with greedy transnational corporations.
I think most of it comes from Bolivia. Will that become our next target for some "international policing action" that will require a massive payoff in some local resource?
Nope.
http://www.mining.com/web/america-finds-massive-source-of-lithium-in-wyoming/
Sorry about ruining your stupid conspiracy theory.
FYI, this 'massive' source of Lithium of Wyoming, is tiny compared to the lithium existent at the Uyuni salt flats.
A) Zero pennies now, for getting big profits in the future by controlling its own Lithium production.
B) Small profits now, letting the corporations get the lionshare forever.
Or maybe C) Zero pennies ever, if some other battery tech replaces Li-ion before they get spun up.
The smart move would be to sell lithium now for its raw material value while setting up battery production for the future. Don't leave money on the table now while preparing to step up the food chain.
For poor countries with a lot of precedents of transnational greedy corporations getting the lionshare of their resources for pennies, wouldn't that C option (zero pennies) be an affordable risk to take, if there is a chance to break the vicius circle most poor countries are trapped in?
At least for oil, there has been a lot of talk about supposed technologies that would replace the oil need, nothing more than hot air.
And even if the remote C possibility arrives (I'd say it is more likely that they would find new technological uses for Lithium, than to lithium become useless), just not allowing the greedy corrupt corporations get away this time, would be worth the move, isn't it?
Lithium doesn't come from rare earth ores. It's in fact almost on the opposite end of the periodic table, being the first metal (after hydrogen and helium).
It's mainly found in Bolivia, which is a bit of a problem: Bolivia would like to have a domestic battery industry (higher revenue), instead of exporting raw lithium. The problem? A 20th century socialist for president, who is quite successfully scaring away international investment. As a result, the main exporter is Chile, which has smaller deposits.
In reality, bolivian government is not allowing transnational companies get the lithium for pennies, as they do in other countries who were servile to transnational power, or as happened in Bolivia before.
They are investing heavily (Bolivia is still poor, but its economy is growing steadily, while other countries were affected by the world crisis) in their own R&D, and they consider that no matter how long it takes for them to get everything going on, it's better than the alternative that letting trasnational companies get the lionshare of the profits.
Think about it, 2 alternatives for Bolivia.
A) Zero pennies now, for getting big profits in the future by controlling its own Lithium production.
B) Small profits now, letting the corporations get the lionshare forever.
They chose A, wisely IMO. In fact, that example should be followed by more poor countries, isn't this a good way to stop corporations greed to keep them in poverty while they earn huge profits on the resources of the country?
Check the video of the plane, it's interesting.
Could this add to the on-purpose misinformation theory (as they had a fully capable presidential plane, without the need to refuel, and this have not been commented)?
Sure, when I'm at *my* computer. I'd be fucked trying to use any other.
So I'll change when everyone else does, as will everyone else.
P.S. You don't have, to put, a comma, every third, word.
That's exaxtly my point was about promoting the dvorak keyboard. If you tread the OP, the whole thread is about to change a STANDARD, if you are promoting to change a standard , keeping the ugly qwerty layout, why not promoting the change, to switch the standar to Dvorak? That was my original point, so when the new standard is set, you wouldn't be bothered by changing your laptop or tablet.
Seriously, I still fail to understand why the Qwerty keyboard still is the norm, even in virtual keyboard in mobile devices.
What's the problem with pushing a better keyboard like Dvorak? wouldn't that be a better improvement over just adding 'th' or other minor fixes?
Because the original studies were biased at best, and follow up studies found there are no cost benefits to retraining with Dvorak:
In the first phase of the experiment, 10 government typists were retrained on the Dvorak keyboard. It took well over 25 days of four-hour-a-day training for these typists to catch up to their old QWERTY speeds. (Compare this to the Navy study's results.) When the typists had finally caught up to their old speeds, the second phase of the experiment began. The newly trained Dvorak typists continued training and a group of 10 QWERTY typists (matched in skill to the Dvorak typists) began a parallel program to improve their skills. In this second phase the Dvorak typists progressed less quickly with further Dvorak training than did QWERTY typists training on QWERTY keyboards. Thus Strong concluded that Dvorak training would never be able to amortize its costs. He recommended instead that the government provide further training in the QWERTY keyboard for QWERTY typists.
The GSA study attempted to control carefully for the abilities and treatments of the two groups. The study design directly paralleled the decision that a real firm or a real government agency might face: Is it worthwhile to retrain its present typists? If Strong's study is correct, it is not efficient for current typists to switch to Dvorak. The study also implied that the eventual typing speed would be greater with QWERTY than with Dvorak, although this conclusion was not emphasized.
Much of the other evidence that has been used to support Dvorak's superiority actually can be used to make a case against Dvorak. We have the 1953 Australian Post Office study already mentioned, which needed to remove psychological impediments to superior performance. A 1973 study based on six typists at Western Electric found that after 104 hours of training on Dvorak, typists were 2.6 percent faster than they had been on QWERTY. Similarly, a 1978 study at Oregon State University indicated that after 100 hours of training, typists were up to 97.6 percent of their old QWERTY speed. Both of these retraining times are similar to those reported by Strong but not to those in the Navy study. But unlike Strong's study neither of these studies included parallel retraining on QWERTY keyboards. As Strong points out, even experienced QWERTY typists increase their speed on QWERTY if they are given additional training.
Ergonomic studies also confirm that the advantages of Dvorak are either small or nonexistent. For example, A. Miller and J Thomas, two researchers at the IBM Research Laboratory, writing in the International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, conclude that "no alternative has shown a realistically significant advantage over the QWERTY for general purpose typing." Other studies based on analysis of hand-and-finger motions find differences of only a few percentage points between Dvorak and QWERTY. The consistent finding in ergonomic studies is that the results imply no clear advantage for Dvorak, and certainly no advantage of the magnitude that is so often claimed.
Tell this speech about speed to Barbara Blackburn, the fastest typist of the world, who entered the Guiness records in 2005, using a Dvorak keyboard.
Please take a time to READ THIS http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/09/1102182415761.html http://www.productivity501.com/michael-sampson-on-the-dvorak-keyboard/526/
For most people, it's not the layout of the keyboard that's slowing them down, but rather the lack of effort in trying to learn proper typing techniques. You could probably put the keyboard in the worst possible configuration ever, with all Q,Z, V, and X all in the home row, and people could still learn to type sufficiently fast on it.
Dvorak is designed in an ergonomical way, so, trained or untrained, you'd gain comfort, not only typing speed.
Please READ http://www.bobpusateri.com/archive/2010/08/four-reasons-to-learn-the-dvorak-keyboard/ Or learn about Barbara Blackburn, the Guinness World record holder, who uses a Dvorak.
Without taking this info into account, any of the moderators could explain, what the 'insightful' part is in the former comment?
Seriously, I still fail to understand why the Qwerty keyboard still is the norm, even in virtual keyboard in mobile devices. What's the problem with pushing a better keyboard like Dvorak? wouldn't that be a better improvement over just adding 'th' or other minor fixes?
http://www.sonymobile.com/gb/products/accessories/smartwatch/
There's this thing called focus. Helpful beast, it is.
Alas, just because you try, doesn't mean it's worthwhile. There's people trying to pull off the free energy scams all the time. You think that if they try harder, they'll eventually succeed? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Trying hard is worthwhile in some cases, in others it just amounts to trying hard at being stupid.
Why are you comparing this initiative with a scam? what's your basis?
Do you thing multi-billionaires are so dumb to put their money into a cheap scam?
Do you think a mogul would sell his reputation trying to con the top billionaires of the world, knowing the quantity and quality of scientific advisors they will likely have available, to check the proposals they get (including the resumé of the proposed leaders of the research teams, among tons of other factors analysed), before any kind of funding?
BTW, are you aware all this is about multi-disciplinary scientific research? are you aware that this kind of research, even if not achieving immortality, can bring good 'collateral' results?
Would you be happy if more sports and dumb entertainment is funded, instead of these initiatives?
FWIW, I pay private education for my kid, both school and extra-curriculars. I'm talking about the concept, not looking for benefits.
>So, yes, I still say that the childless, in our system are subsidizing to some extent those with kids, and there is no good >reason for this.
WRONG. The people raising well-educated kids are the ones subsidizing the future to the rest, both the irresponsible and/or incompetent parents, and the childless people.
Incompetent parents raise future parasites who suck up resources from the society. Childless people is not contributing to the society by leaving a productive individual as a replacement.
Egoist individuals would be the parents who you describe as not finding the merit of child bearing/raising itself satisfying enough, that they need to force the rest of society to reward them.
If what you (parents) do is so valuable, people would volunteer to compensate you, which is what happens between private individuals before taxes and tax breaks were involved (i.e friends hold baby showers, family offering to help look after the kids when parents are busy, churches and private charities do their thing)
Where do you see parents asking for rewards?
In my case I was answering to a childless person, who thinks he is subsidizing parents. I showed him otherwise. The small tax break doesn't make up the huge effort that imply raising (biological or adopted son, the effort is huge anyway) a child in a responsible way, and such kind of citizens are needed.
I'm not asking for reward (in fact, the education for my kid is private), I'm asking to stop writing dumb statements about parents.
Too long to answer everything, I refuse to waste more time to answer an AC, so at least take your time to log-in next time, please.
The thing is..if you took away the tax credits and deductions...people would STILL have the same number of kids just as often.
People like to fuck, which results in kids. And, some people want to have kids, and tax or no tax, they will have them.
If this is the case, why should the childless subsidize them by paying more taxes?
Did you understand what you read?
Its not the childless people who subsidize, it's the parents who subsidize.
Parents spend a lot of time, energy and money, RAISING THE KIDS THE SOCIETY NEED for the system to go on. Lame tax deduction don't make up the time, energy and money they contribute to the society, resources that childless people DONT CONTRIBUTE, and you still dare to say that the childless are the ones who subsidize?
But again...why should the childless be subsidizing that cost of having a kid for those that choose to do so by us paying higher taxes for their priv to do this?
If it is too $$ to have children, they don't fscking have them, you know?
Sure it is expensive and requires a lot of self sacrifice for most people, but still, that's no reason to get a tax break for it...it is just the cost of that activity.
Because the ones who have kids, are the ones LETTING THE CURRENT SYSTEM SURVIVE. If no kids are born, who do you think will pay your pension when you are old? Advanced society (not 3rd world societies) needs renewal, and the ones sacrifizing their life for it (parents) should be rewarded, isntead of penalized. Egoist individuals who think only on themselves should have more tax penalty.
That guy has no background to pull it off. You'd need another Elon Musk who at least digs the technology.
At least he is trying and Elon Musk not, isn't it? So, why are you so harsh with him? shouldn't you be harsher with the ones with 'background' that don't even try?
Perhaps there could be constraints in making it public. But in case of needs, a warrant should allow to analyze the data. It's absurd not to gather data when it can be done. A lot of problems can be prevented using the data in a wise way.
People can fantasize all they want. Just because you have a flashy website doesn't mean there's anything of substance behind it. Just look at their timeline. It's a load of crap.
At least Forbes dedicated an article to the guy leading the project. Check http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiedrummond/2012/07/19/dmitry-itskov-avatar/
I think truly great teachers should be included. Now to be fair out of the last 20 years of school I think I could nominate two profs. Good teachers are almost impossible to find. Just like great science leaders or engineers, a great teacher can inspire, the problem is 99.9999% of teachers inspire kids to give up rather then strive ( like my entire experience in elementary and secondary ).
Please MOD PARENT UP. Jaime Escalante's innovative style of teaching science should be rewarded, instead of letting people like him die in poverty, and his work destroyed (he wasn't allowed to leave a legacy).
It's a bid for immortality. Young rich guys sponsoring biotech research? They want to live forever.
You need to check this http://www.2045.com/
Any fee that could deter a patent troll would also make it impossible for small inventors to ever file a patent.
Any person, not being a troll, and knowing himself/herself as a truly innovative person, could get a loan to pay the fee, knowing that such fee would be reimbursed, with extra money as a prize (to pay for the interest and the hassle suffered), if the patent is approved.
That would just result in corporations being founded just to register trivial patents. If the patent is then rejected the corporation goes bankrupt and no fees are paid.
Then the fee should be paid in advance, in a bank account, only granted patents would get the reimbursement, and a plus for the interest paid by the innovator, and all the hassle he had to suffer to issue the patent, all funded with the money of the rejected trivial attempts.