Like you said yourself one optimization does not exclude the other. If makes very little difference for the education of a large group of people or for the allocation of resources which small fraction of them have access to the best education, and it is a very bad idea to a country to deny the best education available to those that have the highest potential.
Apparently schools aren't teaching read and comprehension well either. I didn't intend to give you any prove with my statement. If you are skeptic about the statement don't be lazy and make your own research. Google is your friend.
So what? They don't need to "make it look" they are better. They are better.
And regarding your problems with selective acceptance, in the absence of resources to attend everybody better schools the best resources should be used to teach those that have the greatest potential.
You are right about that, and, adding to your point, do you know what makes swings bigger? Lack of speculation. What bitcoin market needs to soft these swings is more people speculating, contrary to popular belief.
Bullshit. The vast majority of illegal guns does not come from legal stores or from people who buy in legal stores, and there is absolutely no relation between the number of legal and illegal guns. If what you say made any sense the majority of weapons used in crimes would have been registered at some point, which simply isn't the truth.
The number of illegal guns and gun crimes in Canada for example is smaller than in UK, even though Canada has a much higher number of legal guns per capital
Having a highly-effective method of killing oneself means people attempting suicide are far more likely to succeed.
There is absolutely no data backing up this claim. Mainly because it is false.
There is no problem with my logic, my friend. You are unable to give any real motive to prohibit guns. Legal guns are not responsible for more accidental injuries and deaths than car accidents, poisoning by substances easily available at home, falls, and, in case of children, suffocation and even electric outlets. Still you feel it is within your right to take other people`s freedom to own them (and probably to own or do anything else you don`t want them to do without any good motive either).
Suicides by guns would become suicides by other means in the absence of guns. There is no evidence that guns increase the amount of suicides at all.
20000 accidental shootings in a 300 million people country with 600 deaths is a very low number, much much lower than the number of car accidents, for example. It is by no means a justification to prohibit guns and any way to any sane person.
67K reported defensive actions on the other hand are 67K people that weren't hurt, or raped or killed because they had a gun. Either way you can't use these numbers to justify gun prohibition. First because these numbers are a very favorable argument for allowing guns. And Second because people do not need motives to own or do things in a non authoritarian country. To prohibit people to do or have things in a democracy ideally you should need to have a very compelling reason and your reason is very weak at best.
You make a very good point. The constitution was clearly made to limit the power of the government over its citizens, but this idea has been increasingly ignored by judges and politicians.
Indeed. There is no evidence that shows any relation between the number of legal guns and violence, mostly because legal guns are used only very rarely for illegal purposes.
Crime has a socioeconomic component but it is not solely a socioeconomic factor. Guns help people to exert the right to defend themselves from crime.
The government cannot, even if it was an efficient machine protect you with any reliability, it is immoral to take from you the right to try and do it yourself.
The need for "justification" is a illusion and utterly irrelevant in this world. Anything can be "justified" if you are really wanting to rationalize. In the end there is power, will to use it and that is it.
There is a huge difference between consequences and censorship. Maybe publishing some stuff in the Internet should be enough to put people in jail or make them pay damages, but nothing should ever be censored.
Re:People in powerful places
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 1
Yes, those that are paid and empowered by society to enforce the law to the benefit of society, which was not benefited in any way by this truculent behavior. No one affected wanted him in jail, but those who should represent them decided to do it anyway.
Re:People in powerful places
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 2
Only the DOJ cared about what he did. Neither the MIT nor the JSTOR pressed charges. The DOJ decided to prosecute him despite that, and it proceeded to charge him with anything they could, charges whose penalties added to the incredible amount of possible 35 years in prison.
Re:People in powerful places
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 2
Sure he commited a crime nobody contends that, but the crime "victims" did not press charges and the punishment with which the prosecutors were threatening him was ridiculously disproportional to the crime commited. It is because of immoral prosecutors like these that do anything to bully into settlements normal people who can't afford to put millions of dollars into lawyers that US justice system is screwed.
In the US, all special needs students are herded into public schools.
The special needs students are a minority. They alone do not justify the huge difference in costs. And as I said private schools can only manage to survive casting potential payers aside because they are still a minority.
I'd believe Wikipedia over some random guy on the Internet.
Believing in Wikipedia is believing in a random guy in the internet, my friend:
"Private schools cost more than public schools, and private schools get rid of disruptive students"
Absolutely false. Private schools cost less than public schools and when a reasonable percentage of the schools are private only the very best of them can afford to get rid of disruptive students. The average private school is much better and less costly than the average public school and does not send away potential payers.
That has been proved time and again throughout the world in all countries that manage to do the transition from public to private schools, which includes Sweden, where all schools are private and the government issues vouchers to parents and they choose which private school they want their children to attend to and Hong Kong for example, where the few public schools are for the highest achievers only.
I would argue that it is the expectation of society as whole, but the SCOTUS does not care because its members are completely immune to any dissatisfaction their rulings may generate.
Although their monopolist position is far from being the ideal position utilities suffer competition from alternative energy sources, like the very solar panels we are talking about and private generators. This at least limits their ability to exploit their position to the fullest.
If the government did not strictly regulated energy distribution we could have local small scale energy production competing with large scale corporations to further increase market competition.
As usual the conditions that make a private company the bad guy comes from government intervention and regulation. And this situation is used as excuse for more government intervention and regulation which makes mater worse and worse.
Regarding schools you are horribly mistaken. Public schools are what keep poor people poor and uneducated. Sweden for example has no public schools and practically universal education of high quality. The government pays for everybody's education through vouchers, but schools are private.
Slashdot Mirror
Like you said yourself one optimization does not exclude the other. If makes very little difference for the education of a large group of people or for the allocation of resources which small fraction of them have access to the best education, and it is a very bad idea to a country to deny the best education available to those that have the highest potential.
Some are, and even those that are not are improving, unlike public schools:
http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-school/3706-charter-schools-better-than-traditional.gs
Apparently schools aren't teaching read and comprehension well either. I didn't intend to give you any prove with my statement. If you are skeptic about the statement don't be lazy and make your own research. Google is your friend.
It is hard to believe, and like you, I think the idea totally absurd, but some people actually preach that. There is no limit for human stupidity...
So what? They don't need to "make it look" they are better. They are better.
And regarding your problems with selective acceptance, in the absence of resources to attend everybody better schools the best resources should be used to teach those that have the greatest potential.
You are right, but it got considerably worse since then...
Apparently you don`t understand the role speculation plays in any healthy economy, my friend...
You are right about that, and, adding to your point, do you know what makes swings bigger? Lack of speculation. What bitcoin market needs to soft these swings is more people speculating, contrary to popular belief.
Bullshit. The vast majority of illegal guns does not come from legal stores or from people who buy in legal stores, and there is absolutely no relation between the number of legal and illegal guns. If what you say made any sense the majority of weapons used in crimes would have been registered at some point, which simply isn't the truth.
The number of illegal guns and gun crimes in Canada for example is smaller than in UK, even though Canada has a much higher number of legal guns per capital
Having a highly-effective method of killing oneself means people attempting suicide are far more likely to succeed.
There is absolutely no data backing up this claim. Mainly because it is false.
There is no problem with my logic, my friend. You are unable to give any real motive to prohibit guns. Legal guns are not responsible for more accidental injuries and deaths than car accidents, poisoning by substances easily available at home, falls, and, in case of children, suffocation and even electric outlets. Still you feel it is within your right to take other people`s freedom to own them (and probably to own or do anything else you don`t want them to do without any good motive either).
Suicides by guns would become suicides by other means in the absence of guns. There is no evidence that guns increase the amount of suicides at all.
20000 accidental shootings in a 300 million people country with 600 deaths is a very low number, much much lower than the number of car accidents, for example. It is by no means a justification to prohibit guns and any way to any sane person.
67K reported defensive actions on the other hand are 67K people that weren't hurt, or raped or killed because they had a gun. Either way you can't use these numbers to justify gun prohibition. First because these numbers are a very favorable argument for allowing guns. And Second because people do not need motives to own or do things in a non authoritarian country. To prohibit people to do or have things in a democracy ideally you should need to have a very compelling reason and your reason is very weak at best.
You make a very good point. The constitution was clearly made to limit the power of the government over its citizens, but this idea has been increasingly ignored by judges and politicians.
Indeed. There is no evidence that shows any relation between the number of legal guns and violence, mostly because legal guns are used only very rarely for illegal purposes.
Crime has a socioeconomic component but it is not solely a socioeconomic factor. Guns help people to exert the right to defend themselves from crime.
The government cannot, even if it was an efficient machine protect you with any reliability, it is immoral to take from you the right to try and do it yourself.
The need for "justification" is a illusion and utterly irrelevant in this world. Anything can be "justified" if you are really wanting to rationalize. In the end there is power, will to use it and that is it.
There is a huge difference between consequences and censorship. Maybe publishing some stuff in the Internet should be enough to put people in jail or make them pay damages, but nothing should ever be censored.
Yes, those that are paid and empowered by society to enforce the law to the benefit of society, which was not benefited in any way by this truculent behavior. No one affected wanted him in jail, but those who should represent them decided to do it anyway.
Only the DOJ cared about what he did. Neither the MIT nor the JSTOR pressed charges. The DOJ decided to prosecute him despite that, and it proceeded to charge him with anything they could, charges whose penalties added to the incredible amount of possible 35 years in prison.
Sure he commited a crime nobody contends that, but the crime "victims" did not press charges and the punishment with which the prosecutors were threatening him was ridiculously disproportional to the crime commited. It is because of immoral prosecutors like these that do anything to bully into settlements normal people who can't afford to put millions of dollars into lawyers that US justice system is screwed.
You on the other hand seems fond of the idea of making people listen by force your "free speech" they do not want to listen, right?
In the US, all special needs students are herded into public schools.
The special needs students are a minority. They alone do not justify the huge difference in costs. And as I said private schools can only manage to survive casting potential payers aside because they are still a minority.
I'd believe Wikipedia over some random guy on the Internet.
Believing in Wikipedia is believing in a random guy in the internet, my friend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG51uCrYxVM
"Private schools cost more than public schools, and private schools get rid of disruptive students"
Absolutely false. Private schools cost less than public schools and when a reasonable percentage of the schools are private only the very best of them can afford to get rid of disruptive students. The average private school is much better and less costly than the average public school and does not send away potential payers.
That has been proved time and again throughout the world in all countries that manage to do the transition from public to private schools, which includes Sweden, where all schools are private and the government issues vouchers to parents and they choose which private school they want their children to attend to and Hong Kong for example, where the few public schools are for the highest achievers only.
I would argue that it is the expectation of society as whole, but the SCOTUS does not care because its members are completely immune to any dissatisfaction their rulings may generate.
Although their monopolist position is far from being the ideal position utilities suffer competition from alternative energy sources, like the very solar panels we are talking about and private generators. This at least limits their ability to exploit their position to the fullest.
If the government did not strictly regulated energy distribution we could have local small scale energy production competing with large scale corporations to further increase market competition.
As usual the conditions that make a private company the bad guy comes from government intervention and regulation. And this situation is used as excuse for more government intervention and regulation which makes mater worse and worse.
Regarding schools you are horribly mistaken. Public schools are what keep poor people poor and uneducated. Sweden for example has no public schools and practically universal education of high quality. The government pays for everybody's education through vouchers, but schools are private.
So would I.