True. Schools may fight to keep kids in their on campus special ed programs, but hire lawyers (forcing parents to hire their own lawyers) to fight autism classifications that would force them to send kids to off site programs that can cost $30-100k per year.
Why would the rich want to educate their children at a place that attracts the poor and toughest to educate? Out of altruism or something?
Magnet schools, though that only covers poverty. But why would the poor want to educate their children at a place that attracts the poor and toughest to educate? The rich already have an option: pay for private school. No one is taking that away from them. The real question is: why should the public have to subsidize the private school option for the rich?
Depends. Will it be cheaper, including any fines and penalties, than doing it right?
Really nothing to do with that. It's whether the term "gene edited" will be as aesthetically displeasing as "GMO" has become to consumers. I don't see consumers making a distinction between the two. For one, the antipathy to GMO products was never based on science in the first place. Tests to prove safety or increased benefits really won't change consumers' minds. Neither will "outreach". Not when there is an industry based on fear of GMOs that can and will respond to protect its market share.
For another, sophistry and branding aside, the terms "gene edited" and "genetically modified" are identical. Shotgun insertion of a new gene is an edit. Removing a gene via a CRISPR technique is a modification. Yes, the techniques are vastly different, but the terms are not. If they can't come up with a term that clearly differentiates the techniques for consumers, why expect the consumers will do the heavy lifting of figuring out the difference?
Meanwhile, Europe has already decided that "gene edited" is a subset of GMO, thus effectively banning those foods from the European market.
Eliminate them entirely for a voucher system that covers everyone.
Covers everyone fully? Including autistic and other special needs students? I.e., one voucher pays for one kid, if a school accepts vouchers it can't demand additional funds or selectively decline kids? Because otherwise all a voucher system does is provide a private school discount for the wealthy and the easiest to educate. The poor and the toughest to educate get concentrated in the remaining public schools.
So then the violent crime rate must be incredibly low compared to historical levels if it is down overall despite being overinflated by "annoyances" that are now reported as violent crimes. Especially if you consider how many types of violent crime (child abuse, spousal abuse, rape, abuse by the police) were very likely to go unreported in the past but are now much more likely to be reported.
With the exception of Yelp, there are no major startups in the U.S. that have turned to regulators to take on today's biggest companies, like Facebook,
It was founded just a couple of months after Facebook.
How about this: companies that can't count their birthdays on one hand have to take off the Startup hat?
Yes, you can still string your employees along into thinking they are about to become millionaires, you just can't say Startup!!! while you do it.
Explain what exactly? The increase in earnings for milllennials in Norway is greater than the increases (or decreases) in those other countries. Iceland isn't addressed in the study.
https://www.resolutionfoundati...
Could you make a Firefox plugin that replaces stock images on websites with the top result of a google image search for "stick figure" plus the title of the stock image?
If Duke decides to shutter a power plant, including its wind farms, the company is committed to restoring the site to its previous state, she said.
So at least some of the companies are promising to remove foundations. But as the article points out, Texas did not regulate this industry very tightly, so those promises may just be promises, not contractual obligations. And the land is almost all leased. So it the companies disappear, it's the property owner who will have to deal with a 500 foot tall structure.
An escrow account for decommissioning might be a bit much, but a prepaid insurance policy that would cover the decommissioning in case of abandonment would be an appropriate requirement.
Reuse turbine blades - maybe. Recyclable? sure, you're right it's possible - with a big enough subsidy. Otherwise it's really expensive to recycle epoxy fiberglass.
Said entity is providing the content and is already paying the costs necessary to get it to the ISP's.network.The ISP's customers are the ones consuming the ISP's bandwidth by requesting that said content be delivered to them. If the ISP doesn't want their bandwidth consumed, they should get different customers who don't consume so much of it.
They pay handsomely for their interconnects, infrastructure, caching edger servers + what not.
Consumer ISPs do not get to charge them twice for connections + data customers are requesting.
I think consumer ISPs get to try to do that. What I am really hoping for is the day Comcast or one of the others tries to charge their own customers more for access to Youtube and then Alphabet announces "In the future, we will only work with neutral platforms. Google's products and services -all of them, from Android to Youtube-, will no longer be available via Comcast."
Tax breaks are one of the many forms that a subsidy can take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy#Tax_subsidy
Tax subsidy
Government can create the same outcome through selective tax breaks as through cash payment.[3] For example, suppose a government sends monetary assistance that reimburses 15% of all health expenditures to a group that is paying 15% income tax. Exactly the same subsidy is achieved by giving a health tax deduction. Tax subsidies are also known as tax expenditures. Tax subsidies are one of the main explanations for why the American tax code is so complicated.[8]
Tax breaks are often considered to be a subsidy. Like other subsidies, they distort the economy; but tax breaks are also less transparent, and are difficult to undo.[9]
Also a non-starter but how about requiring the incentives be strictly tied to jobs, as opposed to just the normal "lie back and think of all the jobs". The incentive should be offered in return for creating X jobs paying $Y or more for at least 15 years, with proportional clawbacks if the number of jobs paying at least that much don't stay in town for at least that long. That way everyone can decide if they think a subsidy of $1M or more per job is really the way to go.
Much simpler solution: the owner of the vehicle gets the fine. It's up to them to recover the money from the driver/rider. This works fine for rental cars, it will work fine for rental scooters too.
How about just putting all orders received in a certain amount of time (say 30 seconds) in the same bin. Orders within the bin are then matched to minimize the spread between bids and asks as much as possible. All of the orders that are successfully matched get executed simultaneously. All of the bids and asks, as well as successfully completed trades, then get revealed publicly simultaneously.
Still the rental company's problem. A guy with a dolly could push a Zipcar into the middle of a street and leave it. Assuming the rando isn't caught, it is Zipcar's responsibility to pay for the tow.
I think you've hit on the problem, but missed that the current status leaves governments unable to take action. The governments can (currently) legally target the users, since the laws were written with individual owners of individual bikes or scooters. The governments cannot target the companies, or even require that the companies provide data about their customers or pass through fines through to the customers without changes to the laws.
Except for moving violations, (when tickets are directly issued to the driver), the government should just target the registered owner of the vehicle. If I rent a car from Hertz and park it illegally, the ticket is issued to Hertz. Hertz then goes after me for the money - as they make clear they will in the rental agreement. This model is already in place and would work fine for rented scooters and bicycles. It is up to the scooter company to keep track of their property and deal with citations.
Sorry, was thinking of the budget for California's High Speed Rail plan. I'm not sure what the cost for hyperloop would actually be (though it certainly won't be as cheap as Musk claimed)
Slashdot Mirror
True. Schools may fight to keep kids in their on campus special ed programs, but hire lawyers (forcing parents to hire their own lawyers) to fight autism classifications that would force them to send kids to off site programs that can cost $30-100k per year.
Why would the rich want to educate their children at a place that attracts the poor and toughest to educate? Out of altruism or something?
Magnet schools, though that only covers poverty. But why would the poor want to educate their children at a place that attracts the poor and toughest to educate? The rich already have an option: pay for private school. No one is taking that away from them. The real question is: why should the public have to subsidize the private school option for the rich?
Depends. Will it be cheaper, including any fines and penalties, than doing it right?
Really nothing to do with that. It's whether the term "gene edited" will be as aesthetically displeasing as "GMO" has become to consumers. I don't see consumers making a distinction between the two. For one, the antipathy to GMO products was never based on science in the first place. Tests to prove safety or increased benefits really won't change consumers' minds. Neither will "outreach". Not when there is an industry based on fear of GMOs that can and will respond to protect its market share.
For another, sophistry and branding aside, the terms "gene edited" and "genetically modified" are identical. Shotgun insertion of a new gene is an edit. Removing a gene via a CRISPR technique is a modification. Yes, the techniques are vastly different, but the terms are not. If they can't come up with a term that clearly differentiates the techniques for consumers, why expect the consumers will do the heavy lifting of figuring out the difference?
Meanwhile, Europe has already decided that "gene edited" is a subset of GMO, thus effectively banning those foods from the European market.
Strike one.
Eliminate them entirely for a voucher system that covers everyone.
Covers everyone fully? Including autistic and other special needs students? I.e., one voucher pays for one kid, if a school accepts vouchers it can't demand additional funds or selectively decline kids? Because otherwise all a voucher system does is provide a private school discount for the wealthy and the easiest to educate. The poor and the toughest to educate get concentrated in the remaining public schools.
So then the violent crime rate must be incredibly low compared to historical levels if it is down overall despite being overinflated by "annoyances" that are now reported as violent crimes. Especially if you consider how many types of violent crime (child abuse, spousal abuse, rape, abuse by the police) were very likely to go unreported in the past but are now much more likely to be reported.
Yesterday?
With the exception of Yelp, there are no major startups in the U.S. that have turned to regulators to take on today's biggest companies, like Facebook,
It was founded just a couple of months after Facebook. How about this: companies that can't count their birthdays on one hand have to take off the Startup hat?
Yes, you can still string your employees along into thinking they are about to become millionaires, you just can't say Startup!!! while you do it.
What are you supposed to learn?
Invest fossil fuel revenue in free education, generous unumployment insurance, generous parental leave, domestic companies outside of the fossil fuel sector? Also: high minimum wages.
Explain what exactly? The increase in earnings for milllennials in Norway is greater than the increases (or decreases) in those other countries. Iceland isn't addressed in the study. https://www.resolutionfoundati...
"stick figure" Trump. "stick figure" Kanye.
The web would be so much better.
If Duke decides to shutter a power plant, including its wind farms, the company is committed to restoring the site to its previous state, she said.
So at least some of the companies are promising to remove foundations. But as the article points out, Texas did not regulate this industry very tightly, so those promises may just be promises, not contractual obligations. And the land is almost all leased. So it the companies disappear, it's the property owner who will have to deal with a 500 foot tall structure. An escrow account for decommissioning might be a bit much, but a prepaid insurance policy that would cover the decommissioning in case of abandonment would be an appropriate requirement.
Reuse turbine blades - maybe. Recyclable? sure, you're right it's possible - with a big enough subsidy. Otherwise it's really expensive to recycle epoxy fiberglass.
Said entity is providing the content and is already paying the costs necessary to get it to the ISP's.network.The ISP's customers are the ones consuming the ISP's bandwidth by requesting that said content be delivered to them. If the ISP doesn't want their bandwidth consumed, they should get different customers who don't consume so much of it.
Google + Netflix do not get "free" internet.
They pay handsomely for their interconnects, infrastructure, caching edger servers + what not.
Consumer ISPs do not get to charge them twice for connections + data customers are requesting.
I think consumer ISPs get to try to do that. What I am really hoping for is the day Comcast or one of the others tries to charge their own customers more for access to Youtube and then Alphabet announces "In the future, we will only work with neutral platforms. Google's products and services -all of them, from Android to Youtube-, will no longer be available via Comcast."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy#Tax_subsidy
Tax subsidy
Government can create the same outcome through selective tax breaks as through cash payment.[3] For example, suppose a government sends monetary assistance that reimburses 15% of all health expenditures to a group that is paying 15% income tax. Exactly the same subsidy is achieved by giving a health tax deduction. Tax subsidies are also known as tax expenditures. Tax subsidies are one of the main explanations for why the American tax code is so complicated.[8]
Tax breaks are often considered to be a subsidy. Like other subsidies, they distort the economy; but tax breaks are also less transparent, and are difficult to undo.[9]
Also a non-starter but how about requiring the incentives be strictly tied to jobs, as opposed to just the normal "lie back and think of all the jobs". The incentive should be offered in return for creating X jobs paying $Y or more for at least 15 years, with proportional clawbacks if the number of jobs paying at least that much don't stay in town for at least that long. That way everyone can decide if they think a subsidy of $1M or more per job is really the way to go.
Much simpler solution: the owner of the vehicle gets the fine. It's up to them to recover the money from the driver/rider. This works fine for rental cars, it will work fine for rental scooters too.
Interesting.
How about just putting all orders received in a certain amount of time (say 30 seconds) in the same bin. Orders within the bin are then matched to minimize the spread between bids and asks as much as possible. All of the orders that are successfully matched get executed simultaneously. All of the bids and asks, as well as successfully completed trades, then get revealed publicly simultaneously.
Still the rental company's problem. A guy with a dolly could push a Zipcar into the middle of a street and leave it. Assuming the rando isn't caught, it is Zipcar's responsibility to pay for the tow.
I think you've hit on the problem, but missed that the current status leaves governments unable to take action. The governments can (currently) legally target the users, since the laws were written with individual owners of individual bikes or scooters. The governments cannot target the companies, or even require that the companies provide data about their customers or pass through fines through to the customers without changes to the laws.
Except for moving violations, (when tickets are directly issued to the driver), the government should just target the registered owner of the vehicle. If I rent a car from Hertz and park it illegally, the ticket is issued to Hertz. Hertz then goes after me for the money - as they make clear they will in the rental agreement. This model is already in place and would work fine for rented scooters and bicycles. It is up to the scooter company to keep track of their property and deal with citations.
The tests were done ... just not with the equipment she said she developed.
With a landline it's easy to set up an answering machine to do a "please dial 2 if you are a human being" screen.
Are you invested?
Sorry, was thinking of the budget for California's High Speed Rail plan. I'm not sure what the cost for hyperloop would actually be (though it certainly won't be as cheap as Musk claimed)