Yes. Very much yes. Crashes are bad, and chaos is bad, but careful and slow planned transitions of each of these sounds appealing to me.
Defense: Yes. Obviously not instantly and not without a good bit of state cooperation, but yeah, in my utopia the US military would be comprised of 51 cooperating militias. I can see the point of a single federal military, but the UN and Europe have examples of how cooperating militarys can be both effective and have a limiting factor on overreaching military engagements. Given the US problems of the past decade with military engagements, a limiting factor sounds like a good thing. (I will admit that having paychecks and funding just suddenly stop would be a bad thing, and that a dramatic weakening of capabilities would be bad, but there is a potential path to non-catastrophic state managed military. This is the single issue that causes me the most hesitation and deserves pages and pages of TLDR type discussion, skipped here for brevity.)
FDA, FCC, NIH, OSHA and FAA suffer from a lack of responsiveness and funding issues. The idea of replacing them with 50 different organizations or a dozen cooperative ones sounds like an improvement on both fronts. They'd also benefit from the expermential process where different approaches could be tried and by having successes and failures to compare, you'd get a better overall system than you get from the single entities you see now. The National Institutes of Health might be an exception but as a cooperative state funded entity, you might have an opportunity to see things funded in a more democratic manner.
The National Science Teachers Association? I'm not sure that should be funded out of national taxes anyway, or is it even funded that way? I'm a little thrown by that one actually since I didn't recognize the acronym and that's just the first couple google hits.
The FBI and CIA are good candidates for federal agencies rather than state ones, I'd agree. Moving funding and oversight to the states wouldn't actually represent much of a change from Congressional funding and oversight though, so I'm not sure they are a guaranteed exception. In fact, where you have states with different laws than the federal laws making cooperation necessary would provide more freedom for the states, which I think is a reasonable goal.
Social Security is the gorilla in the list. People should have the ability to move between states without loosing their savings, but given how poorly the fund has been preserved, I'd much rather see it transitioned to a system that is harder for re-election hungry congress critters to drain. I'm tremendously more confident my (meager) 401k will be there for me than I am that SS will.
Totally in agreement with your premise... until "the govt would seize to a halt"... at which point I realized *that's* what I really want.
Now, before you go and start talking about all the things that I need government for, lets narrow it down to the United States federal government. Please list for me anything that I need the federal government for that the state governments could not provide in its absence.
Fair enough. I should have started out with "Just the Anti-Spam feature really solves the problem, but there are lots of other optional things that I've learned to appreciate."
Everybody gets my google voice number. I set family and friends to connect directly, but everybody else has to be announced. Don't want to tell me who you are? Straight to voicemail for you. Marketing voicemails? I'll never need to know you called again.
Saving puppies or trying to get elected? Please feel free to leave a voicemail like every body else I don't have any desire to talk to.
I find it interesting that there have been so many replies to this suggestion and all of them are ignoring it. Google Voice does indeed rock. I have an interface where I can schedule how I'm going to respond or which phones I'll take calls on. There is an anti-spam caller option which is very effective. I can set my default to have callers announce who they are before I take the call. I can block callers I don't want to talk to, or send calls to voicemail and listen in and pick up if they turn out to be offering something I legitimately want to talk with them about. I can record calls immediately and it stores voicemails and texts virtually forever.
Google voice pretty much does EXACTLY what needs to be done to completely eliminate unwanted callers. The only way I can think of to make it better is for every phone company to adopt a similar system. Ideally, I'd like to see the personal phone number become one that can ONLY be called by government agencies or your phone service provider and all other calls be required to go through a person's public phone number that works like Google Voice.
If all robocalling were made illegal and phone companies were compelled to provide a reporting option that was useable to law enforcement, then you might have a point.
However, there are a couple robocall uses that are legal that I appreciate. A local school uses it to notify parents of unusual situations, like going on lock down or closing for inclement weather. I believe some cities use robocalling to warn residents of tornado dangers.
Are you trolling? You're trolling right? Because, pretty much everything you say is the exact opposite of what this article is about. The previous system was the costly one, this is about reducing cost. The companies are hardly random (read the list!) The requirements and processes seem to be well thought out, at least from what I've gathered from the RSDOPS
. (Really about 35 pages worth of pretty clear explanation and 10 you can skip.)
I mean, if you want to criticize Paypal, there are plenty of good reasons to do it. If you want to criticize the UK government, there are lots of valid reasons for that too. Just pick one of the dozens of good choices instead of ignoring TFA completely.
I hope that it becomes reasonably simple to add a signed GPL system to computers using the Secure Boot system. For now I haven't seen much to give me confidence, so I'm looking for workarounds. What puzzles me is that I haven't seen anybody discussing booting Grub using the Windows boot configuration data store (BCDEdit.) That's what I do now. My computer boots to the Windows boot loader which I modified from Windows to load the IPL for Grub. Grub then takes over and boots Linux. It isn't even hard to set up, though you do have to be able to get an installation of Linux onto the machine. My notes aren't great but are enough to get the technique if you are interested.
Won't that still work? I see notes that BCD is still in use with Win8, but haven't tested it. Anybody know for sure?
The other workaround that occurs to me is to use MS Hyper-V 2012. I think that it should be a supported bootable system, but once booted, you could run Linux as the only VM and it should be really, really close to a native install. I haven't tried this (yet) but would be interested to hear if anybody is doing this already.
I haven't looked at the design yet, but you may be right on the money on how to do it, albeit a more drawn out whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmm might better describe the process.
Basically you set up a series of strong electromagnets, probably in rings 'cause rings are cool. As an interplanetary ship comes zipping in, you capture the momentum in small bites with the magnets, transferring most of the momentum to the much bigger asteroid. (The asteroid is large enough that it is probably not enough to significantly affect its orbit.) You return that momentum to the ship in much the same way as you send it back on it's way.
Basically think of catching something with a very big spring, and throwing it with the spring starting in the compressed phase.
No kidding. People shouldn't have to worry about getting hassled for carrying N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine. It occurs naturally, though of course most of it these days is carefully cultivated and processed. (Natural formation isn't common, but you can find it on west Texas trees.) It and a whole list of other things cops get uptight about are more or less natural. As you say,
No city, no county, no state, and not even the feds, should have the authority to more or less stop people randomly, then arrest them for possession of a more or less natural substance.
and just because the crass refer to them as meth or heroin or ketamine or scopolamine, they get a bad name! In fact, almost any any criminal prosecution has always been a war on American citizens since crimes tend to be committed by them! Stop the insanity! All crime prosecution is against nature.
Sarcasm aside, I tend toward a Libertarian point of view. I believe that the allocation of resources given to supressing marijuana use is unreasonable, but I don't pretend that it isn't a significant drug or that being "natural" somehow makes it more acceptable. Generally speaking, I want freedom for everyone as much as possible so long as they aren't harming others. The gray area is whether drug use hurts society and other people even if it isn't direct. I'm willing to support the legalization of marijuana because I think the harm to society of fighting the illegal trade is significantly worse than the harm of legalization. I don't believe the same would hold true for the other drugs I've mentioned.
I thought I was the only one who tied those arguments together. For me the tie-in was the preference for a simple explanation over a vague one, and when I learned of more compelling evidence, I changed my beliefs regardless of my preference.
I still like the Quantum Gravity theory better, but I'm no longer convinced it is the truth. I'm feel exactly the same way about AGW. Whenever I try to grasp the size of the world we live in, let alone the magnitude of something like the sun, I feel how small and insignificant humanity is by comparison. When considering the impact of humanity on the climate compared to the other factors, I would like to believe our contribution exists, but is likewise insignificant. With growing credible information supporting AGW, I'm more convinced that the theory is accurate.
Interestingly, "Rejection of creationism" is a phrase I'm surprised by. I think many rational minds are willing to accept a belief that they can understand the origins of the universe we find ourselves in without requiring the intervention of an outside agency. I am absolutely convinced that I don't know enough about God or science to really reason out the truth. Failing that ability to rely on my own reasoning, I fall back on trusting those I find trustworthy in other matters. When people I find wise disagree, on dark matter, on the origins of the universe or even on how it works, I typically wait for additional information.
even here on slashdot where you might expect some degree of scientific literacy.
The most interesting thing I've noticed about both sides is how quick each is to dismiss the other's opinions. I've spent quite a bit of time reading well written opinions on both side and I can conclusively say that there is solid reasoning on both sides. There is also a lot of poorly written and even more poorly reasoned stuff out there.
Short but related story: I got sick of political attack advertisments a couple election cycles back. I started keeping track of every negative ad I saw and voted for the candidates who ran the least.
If I were doing the same thing to determine whether I'd support or oppose climate change, I'd certainly have long since decided to oppose AGW. I don't think that's the right way to decide, but language like the parent poster's doesn't help the cause.
When someone points out that I'm seriously wrong about something I believe and has research to educate me, I both hate it and appreciate it at the same time. I hate finding out when I'm ignorant of something but not as much as I hate remaining that way.
So when someone is ignorant, like say believing pesticides in organic production aren't chemicals spayed over the food, then I try to help them correct that ignorance with a bit of information they must not be aware of.
Many large organic farms use pesticides liberally. They're organic by certification, but you'd never know it if you saw their farming practices.
Your organically labeled food may not be more nutrient rich and safer, or... maybe your sources are. It depends on your sources, not the label.
In the end, it really depends on exactly what methods are used by crop producers. Both organic and conventional farms vary widely in this respect. Some conventional farms use no pesticides. Some organic farms spray their crops twice a month. Of course, some conventional farms spray just as frequently, if not more so, and some organic farms use no pesticides whatsoever.
I think ripe fruit tends to taste better. Many small producers and farm-to-market niches are better at providing ripe produce than larger suppliers. Since the niche markets tend to also cater to people who like the word "organic" the consumers make the link between ripe tasting fruit and the process of production even when the two are not necessarily linked.
I think there was a rigorous study documented by those bastions of science, Penn & Teller. Search for "Penn & Teller: Bullshit - Organic Taste Test" and if this one is still up, you can see a clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs . Jump to 3:40 to see my favorite part: they cut a banana in half and pretend half is organic farmed and half non-organic farmed.
[Humor disclaimer: Yes, I am speaking with tongue-in-cheek about the rigorous study and yes I do know that the referenced performers are primarily entertainers. I think they make a valid point and do so in an entertaining way but wouldn't use this bit as the foundation for your doctoral thesis.]
Nothing else matters as much to me as making myself more capable. I was bored with my job a while back. I prayed hard that whatever needed to change would change. It did. A lot. Whether as a result or not, the change made me really work to become a more capable and valuable employee. I got to take on huge new areas of responsibility and still keep responsibility for the things that I really enjoy learning to do better. I've had more than a handful of jobs and I've been on this one longer than any other with minor changes in title and major changes in work. I'm happy and not really looking for change because the change I needed came to me. If it hadn't, I'd probably be somewhere else by now. I've learned through my experience that what matters to me is what kind of person the job helps me become.
So after all the pros and cons, the final question you need to ask is: What choice that is best at making me be who I want to be?
When I saw you had replied I took a deep breath and prepared to accept defeat gracefully if you pointed out significant flaws in my ideas or let internet flames be unmet. I was happily surprised to see you take a thoughtful approach in replying. Even now of course, I don't agree with everything you had to say, but you did say it well and tactfully.
You do make a good argument that I might feel more compassion or have a different perspective if I understood the thief better. Indeed I might feel differently. On the other hand, as I have disgust at my own past choices from time to time, I might be less inclined toward forgiving in others what I wouldn't forgive in myself. To quote a great writer, "Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."
I do not always act in my own best interest, nor in the manner best to suit those ideals I prize, but perhaps with better understanding of each other and knowledge that we were potentially under omnicient scrutiny, we would behave better. Perhaps.
Some people learn to make good decisions by being given a solid grounding in cause, effect, choice, responsibility, consequences and information. Guardianship can give these things, it isn't necessarily just telling someone what to do. Some people need more time and effort invested in providing the necessary learning processes than others. People who don't receive what they need may be termed "sociopathic" when their needs for development aren't met, but that doesn't mean that all people need lifetime guardianship and it doesn't mean that everyone should be without it at a standard age. People are varied and need varied responses. A very few people may always need guardianship and a very few may be most benefited by independance at a very early age, but most people develop best with some early guardianship that tapers off as they become more and more capable of being productive members of society along with gaining independance.
Slashdot Mirror
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Yes. Very much yes. Crashes are bad, and chaos is bad, but careful and slow planned transitions of each of these sounds appealing to me.
Defense: Yes. Obviously not instantly and not without a good bit of state cooperation, but yeah, in my utopia the US military would be comprised of 51 cooperating militias. I can see the point of a single federal military, but the UN and Europe have examples of how cooperating militarys can be both effective and have a limiting factor on overreaching military engagements. Given the US problems of the past decade with military engagements, a limiting factor sounds like a good thing. (I will admit that having paychecks and funding just suddenly stop would be a bad thing, and that a dramatic weakening of capabilities would be bad, but there is a potential path to non-catastrophic state managed military. This is the single issue that causes me the most hesitation and deserves pages and pages of TLDR type discussion, skipped here for brevity.)
FDA, FCC, NIH, OSHA and FAA suffer from a lack of responsiveness and funding issues. The idea of replacing them with 50 different organizations or a dozen cooperative ones sounds like an improvement on both fronts. They'd also benefit from the expermential process where different approaches could be tried and by having successes and failures to compare, you'd get a better overall system than you get from the single entities you see now. The National Institutes of Health might be an exception but as a cooperative state funded entity, you might have an opportunity to see things funded in a more democratic manner.
The National Science Teachers Association? I'm not sure that should be funded out of national taxes anyway, or is it even funded that way? I'm a little thrown by that one actually since I didn't recognize the acronym and that's just the first couple google hits.
The FBI and CIA are good candidates for federal agencies rather than state ones, I'd agree. Moving funding and oversight to the states wouldn't actually represent much of a change from Congressional funding and oversight though, so I'm not sure they are a guaranteed exception. In fact, where you have states with different laws than the federal laws making cooperation necessary would provide more freedom for the states, which I think is a reasonable goal.
Social Security is the gorilla in the list. People should have the ability to move between states without loosing their savings, but given how poorly the fund has been preserved, I'd much rather see it transitioned to a system that is harder for re-election hungry congress critters to drain. I'm tremendously more confident my (meager) 401k will be there for me than I am that SS will.
Totally in agreement with your premise... until "the govt would seize to a halt" ... at which point I realized *that's* what I really want.
Now, before you go and start talking about all the things that I need government for, lets narrow it down to the United States federal government. Please list for me anything that I need the federal government for that the state governments could not provide in its absence.
Where do you live? Remind me never to move there. Both the systems I mentioned are opt-in services.
Fair enough. I should have started out with "Just the Anti-Spam feature really solves the problem, but there are lots of other optional things that I've learned to appreciate."
Everybody gets my google voice number. I set family and friends to connect directly, but everybody else has to be announced. Don't want to tell me who you are? Straight to voicemail for you. Marketing voicemails? I'll never need to know you called again.
Saving puppies or trying to get elected? Please feel free to leave a voicemail like every body else I don't have any desire to talk to.
I find it interesting that there have been so many replies to this suggestion and all of them are ignoring it. Google Voice does indeed rock. I have an interface where I can schedule how I'm going to respond or which phones I'll take calls on. There is an anti-spam caller option which is very effective. I can set my default to have callers announce who they are before I take the call. I can block callers I don't want to talk to, or send calls to voicemail and listen in and pick up if they turn out to be offering something I legitimately want to talk with them about. I can record calls immediately and it stores voicemails and texts virtually forever.
Google voice pretty much does EXACTLY what needs to be done to completely eliminate unwanted callers. The only way I can think of to make it better is for every phone company to adopt a similar system. Ideally, I'd like to see the personal phone number become one that can ONLY be called by government agencies or your phone service provider and all other calls be required to go through a person's public phone number that works like Google Voice.
If all robocalling were made illegal and phone companies were compelled to provide a reporting option that was useable to law enforcement, then you might have a point.
However, there are a couple robocall uses that are legal that I appreciate. A local school uses it to notify parents of unusual situations, like going on lock down or closing for inclement weather. I believe some cities use robocalling to warn residents of tornado dangers.
Are you trolling? You're trolling right? Because, pretty much everything you say is the exact opposite of what this article is about. The previous system was the costly one, this is about reducing cost. The companies are hardly random (read the list!) The requirements and processes seem to be well thought out, at least from what I've gathered from the RSDOPS
. (Really about 35 pages worth of pretty clear explanation and 10 you can skip.)
I mean, if you want to criticize Paypal, there are plenty of good reasons to do it. If you want to criticize the UK government, there are lots of valid reasons for that too. Just pick one of the dozens of good choices instead of ignoring TFA completely.
Actual LOL, thank you sir.
I hope that it becomes reasonably simple to add a signed GPL system to computers using the Secure Boot system. For now I haven't seen much to give me confidence, so I'm looking for workarounds. What puzzles me is that I haven't seen anybody discussing booting Grub using the Windows boot configuration data store (BCDEdit.) That's what I do now. My computer boots to the Windows boot loader which I modified from Windows to load the IPL for Grub. Grub then takes over and boots Linux. It isn't even hard to set up, though you do have to be able to get an installation of Linux onto the machine. My notes aren't great but are enough to get the technique if you are interested.
Won't that still work? I see notes that BCD is still in use with Win8, but haven't tested it. Anybody know for sure?
The other workaround that occurs to me is to use MS Hyper-V 2012. I think that it should be a supported bootable system, but once booted, you could run Linux as the only VM and it should be really, really close to a native install. I haven't tried this (yet) but would be interested to hear if anybody is doing this already.
I haven't looked at the design yet, but you may be right on the money on how to do it, albeit a more drawn out whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmm might better describe the process.
Basically you set up a series of strong electromagnets, probably in rings 'cause rings are cool. As an interplanetary ship comes zipping in, you capture the momentum in small bites with the magnets, transferring most of the momentum to the much bigger asteroid. (The asteroid is large enough that it is probably not enough to significantly affect its orbit.) You return that momentum to the ship in much the same way as you send it back on it's way.
Basically think of catching something with a very big spring, and throwing it with the spring starting in the compressed phase.
No kidding. People shouldn't have to worry about getting hassled for carrying N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine. It occurs naturally, though of course most of it these days is carefully cultivated and processed. (Natural formation isn't common, but you can find it on west Texas trees.) It and a whole list of other things cops get uptight about are more or less natural. As you say,
and just because the crass refer to them as meth or heroin or ketamine or scopolamine, they get a bad name! In fact, almost any any criminal prosecution has always been a war on American citizens since crimes tend to be committed by them! Stop the insanity! All crime prosecution is against nature.
Sarcasm aside, I tend toward a Libertarian point of view. I believe that the allocation of resources given to supressing marijuana use is unreasonable, but I don't pretend that it isn't a significant drug or that being "natural" somehow makes it more acceptable. Generally speaking, I want freedom for everyone as much as possible so long as they aren't harming others. The gray area is whether drug use hurts society and other people even if it isn't direct. I'm willing to support the legalization of marijuana because I think the harm to society of fighting the illegal trade is significantly worse than the harm of legalization. I don't believe the same would hold true for the other drugs I've mentioned.
I thought I was the only one who tied those arguments together. For me the tie-in was the preference for a simple explanation over a vague one, and when I learned of more compelling evidence, I changed my beliefs regardless of my preference.
I still like the Quantum Gravity theory better, but I'm no longer convinced it is the truth. I'm feel exactly the same way about AGW. Whenever I try to grasp the size of the world we live in, let alone the magnitude of something like the sun, I feel how small and insignificant humanity is by comparison. When considering the impact of humanity on the climate compared to the other factors, I would like to believe our contribution exists, but is likewise insignificant. With growing credible information supporting AGW, I'm more convinced that the theory is accurate.
Interestingly, "Rejection of creationism" is a phrase I'm surprised by. I think many rational minds are willing to accept a belief that they can understand the origins of the universe we find ourselves in without requiring the intervention of an outside agency. I am absolutely convinced that I don't know enough about God or science to really reason out the truth. Failing that ability to rely on my own reasoning, I fall back on trusting those I find trustworthy in other matters. When people I find wise disagree, on dark matter, on the origins of the universe or even on how it works, I typically wait for additional information.
The most interesting thing I've noticed about both sides is how quick each is to dismiss the other's opinions. I've spent quite a bit of time reading well written opinions on both side and I can conclusively say that there is solid reasoning on both sides. There is also a lot of poorly written and even more poorly reasoned stuff out there.
Short but related story: I got sick of political attack advertisments a couple election cycles back. I started keeping track of every negative ad I saw and voted for the candidates who ran the least.
If I were doing the same thing to determine whether I'd support or oppose climate change, I'd certainly have long since decided to oppose AGW. I don't think that's the right way to decide, but language like the parent poster's doesn't help the cause.
Agreed and well said.
Very interesting essay and map. Thank you for sharing.
Good point, but I think that is only a minor one among several:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/smui/following_the_money_whos_profi.html
It goes on to say that 11% of the price is taxes. That's backed up here: http://www.statista.com/topics/839/gas-prices/
Also of interest for comparison:
When someone points out that I'm seriously wrong about something I believe and has research to educate me, I both hate it and appreciate it at the same time. I hate finding out when I'm ignorant of something but not as much as I hate remaining that way.
So when someone is ignorant, like say believing pesticides in organic production aren't chemicals spayed over the food, then I try to help them correct that ignorance with a bit of information they must not be aware of.
I found this interesting, perhaps you will as well: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ (she has good references on the subjects and there are even more of some potential value if you're willing to wade through miles of comments.)
Your organically labeled food may not be more nutrient rich and safer, or... maybe your sources are. It depends on your sources, not the label.
I think ripe fruit tends to taste better. Many small producers and farm-to-market niches are better at providing ripe produce than larger suppliers. Since the niche markets tend to also cater to people who like the word "organic" the consumers make the link between ripe tasting fruit and the process of production even when the two are not necessarily linked.
I think there was a rigorous study documented by those bastions of science, Penn & Teller. Search for "Penn & Teller: Bullshit - Organic Taste Test" and if this one is still up, you can see a clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs . Jump to 3:40 to see my favorite part: they cut a banana in half and pretend half is organic farmed and half non-organic farmed.
[Humor disclaimer: Yes, I am speaking with tongue-in-cheek about the rigorous study and yes I do know that the referenced performers are primarily entertainers. I think they make a valid point and do so in an entertaining way but wouldn't use this bit as the foundation for your doctoral thesis.]
Sorry, I meant to hit "Funny" and missed and hit "Overrated." You deserved a bump up, not down so I'm posting to undo moderation.
Take to heart what was said in the parent post:
Nothing else matters as much to me as making myself more capable. I was bored with my job a while back. I prayed hard that whatever needed to change would change. It did. A lot. Whether as a result or not, the change made me really work to become a more capable and valuable employee. I got to take on huge new areas of responsibility and still keep responsibility for the things that I really enjoy learning to do better. I've had more than a handful of jobs and I've been on this one longer than any other with minor changes in title and major changes in work. I'm happy and not really looking for change because the change I needed came to me. If it hadn't, I'd probably be somewhere else by now. I've learned through my experience that what matters to me is what kind of person the job helps me become.
So after all the pros and cons, the final question you need to ask is: What choice that is best at making me be who I want to be?
When I saw you had replied I took a deep breath and prepared to accept defeat gracefully if you pointed out significant flaws in my ideas or let internet flames be unmet. I was happily surprised to see you take a thoughtful approach in replying. Even now of course, I don't agree with everything you had to say, but you did say it well and tactfully.
You do make a good argument that I might feel more compassion or have a different perspective if I understood the thief better. Indeed I might feel differently. On the other hand, as I have disgust at my own past choices from time to time, I might be less inclined toward forgiving in others what I wouldn't forgive in myself. To quote a great writer, "Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."
I do not always act in my own best interest, nor in the manner best to suit those ideals I prize, but perhaps with better understanding of each other and knowledge that we were potentially under omnicient scrutiny, we would behave better. Perhaps.
Some people learn to make good decisions by being given a solid grounding in cause, effect, choice, responsibility, consequences and information. Guardianship can give these things, it isn't necessarily just telling someone what to do. Some people need more time and effort invested in providing the necessary learning processes than others. People who don't receive what they need may be termed "sociopathic" when their needs for development aren't met, but that doesn't mean that all people need lifetime guardianship and it doesn't mean that everyone should be without it at a standard age. People are varied and need varied responses. A very few people may always need guardianship and a very few may be most benefited by independance at a very early age, but most people develop best with some early guardianship that tapers off as they become more and more capable of being productive members of society along with gaining independance.