I've been homeless, and I've lived in shelters*, and yes, most homeless people in the US WOULD rather be homeless - either because being homeless opens up other assistance programs to them, or because in order to stop being homeless and take advantage of the many free resources offered, they would have to follow a bunch of rules. Most homeless people either don't want to stop doing drugs, or - like me - don't want to follow the many rules that actually hinder getting a job, leading to a person being on some form of assistance for life, and/or don't want to take advantage of the resources taxpayers don't have a choice but to contribute to.
*I chose to be homeless and refuse the assistance programs because I found that was the only way I could actually get a job and WORK my way out of homelessness.
The only places half the parents would be private schools. While at public schools a few will refuse to sign, it won't be half (because a lot of public school parents won't care, some will just think "I'll sign anything if it means I keep getting free babysitting," and a lot will not even realize that refusing is a choice because they have been taught that you must just do whatever the school says) and the number of parents in all schools willing to sign will greatly outnumber the number of parents refusing.
You think the media is going to speak out AGAINST something schools want to do? It will be spun as something that is done to "protect the children" - just like refusing to allow parents access to their children, arresting parents for bringing their kids to school late, and the number of other ways schools have overstepped their bounds. The media will make the people that refuse to sign will out to be crazies and/or degenerates, just as they do with the people that refuse ti vaccinate, the people that don't support armed guards in schools, the people that speak out against recess being done away with, etc. etc. etc.
You would be able to live with an income of $3,608 a year in the USA; because in the USA when people don't have enough income to buy the things they need to live, we give it to them (through food stamps, section 8, etc. etc.). Therefore no one in the USA is truly poor, because while they may call themselves poor because they don't have a lot of money in their hand/bank account, they will always have an abundance of stuff that would normally cost money. In non-first-world countries, if you don't have money to buy things, you don't have anything (and therefore are actually poor) and just die.
This isn't about libraries lending out devices with digital items on them. What's being talked about is the system where a patron goes to the library web site, logs in using their library card number, and downloads the digital files they "check out". It is then marked as checked out in the system - despite the fact that if it weren't, other patrons could download the same file just the same. The downloaded file has DRM that causes it to stop opening after the check out period (there are several ways around this, even without stripping the DRM, but I digress). At the same time (the end of the check out period) the digital item is marked as available in the library's system, and another patron is allowed to download it. Publishers are enforcing not only this limited number of people that can "check out" the digital copies at once, but the number of people that can check it out before the library must purchase a new licence. It's completely artificial scarcity.
For libraries that do lend out devices, the digital files are still separate from the devices (so you'd be checking out the same way as above, just putting it on the library's device instead of your own), so even if the device is lost, the library still has rights to the files and can lend them out again once the loser's checkout period ends. The devices do have scarcity; they get worn out, as do any physical object, and then the library must replace them - but the digital files can (physically) be copied an infinite amount of times without deteriorating.
But if the big companies were also not able to patent it, there would still be a niche market for independent and/or handmade versions of the product or things based on the idea.
For example, I sell handmade crafts; knitted, crocheted, and sewn stuff, and things made from polymer clay. Despite the fact that those can be (and are) mass produced by the big guys, there is still a niche market for handmade stuff. I don't make as much money as the big guys - because I can't make as much product as them - but the big guys are supporting thousands of employees; I'm only supporting 6 people, so I don't NEED to make as much. I can charge more for each individual product because the niche market understands that handmade takes more time, effort and skill, and leads to a higher quality product. And I do it not out of hunger for money but out of the love of crafting (i.e. I'd be crafting even if I weren't getting paid); I know many people that invent, study medicine, etc. out of love of doing it rather than out of hunger for money. In fact. rarely are the people inventing, researching etc. for big companies making a lot of money - it's the higher ups in the company that don't really do shit that are making money off them.
A world without patents could lead to people doing jobs they love to do, for a fair pay, and higher ups actually having to work for their money like everyone else. It could lead to better invention of new drugs and medical equipment, because the people inventing them would be doing it out of the love of inventing and researching and/or the desire to help others rather than just for the money.
It isn't as if they'd just suddenly start claiming copyright. They'd tell all students to have their parents sign something giving them copyright, or leave the school.
Personally my main issues with standardized tests are: Standardized tests only measure how well the student has memorized the answers to the standardized test. It isn't necessary to compare students to other students when you are highly involved, with lots of one-on-one time, because you can tell the student is learning (or not learning) rather than just if they are memorizing as much as other students.
But many people are already holding both a cup and an iphone. A holder would just make it easier. The same way many people are already putting their cups in shopping carts, but the cup holder makes it easier.
It's not as if these people that can't stop drinking soda long enough to use the phone or shop are going to care about the achey wrists they get from it. They'll take some vicodin or something and keep going.
Huh? Old people don't generally sleep more. They generally go to bed earlier - but they also generally wake up earlier, so end up sleeping the same amount of time or less - sleep apnea, insomnia, and other reasons for having trouble going into deep sleep are more common for the elderly.
Perhaps when the brain is flawed, then it stores the memories in the unflawed areas? Kind of like how you can block the use of bad sectors on a harddrive; they would be used if they worked correctly, but since they don't, they can be prevented from use and the unflawed sectors will be used instead.
Yes, actually, it happens quite often that someone steals or finds a phone and then does not turn it off. Why bother to take it if all you're going to use it for is a paperweight?
A tech program is fine for those people who aren't cut out for furthering their education.
Wait a minute; are you saying that getting a degree is the only way to further your education? Many people just don't do well with certain TYPES of education - such as those provided in a college/university - but it is completely possible for them to go into a tech program while furthering their education on their own.
Ironically, your post is filled with a number of spelling and grammatical errors that telegraph your lack of language skills. If I were hiring, and I read a cover letter from you that had that many mistakes, it'd be in the bin before I got to your signature. I need people who can communicate clearly, regardless of the job I'm hiring them for.
You're assuming that cover letter would be in English...
He may be unable to land a job at an American sports network, but the sports networks pretty much the only networks making a profit nowadays. Everything else is bleeding customers, and those customers are turning to internet entertainment. Few of the biggest money makers in internet entertainment have a 4 year degree. Many of them aren't even out of high school.
Part of the reason people in the US are against vaccines is because other countries with lower infant and children mortality rates use less vaccines, stop using potentially dangerous vaccines faster (after just a few infants or children are thought to have had a reaction to it, they stop using the vaccine and investigate, vs in the US where they pay off the families of children who may have had a reaction, but figure since the majority of children are fine it must be okay), and start using safer vaccines sooner.
Also in the US vaccinations are required for many things, rather than optional as they are in many other countries - so in other countries if you don't want the vaccine for whatever reason you just decline it, in the US if you don't want the vaccine you have to speak up against it.
How the heck is the rabies vaccine a paragon of long-term vaccines? True it is very effective, but there are many highly effective vaccines that last much longer. (Unless they have made one that last longer? Last I knew it lasts 2 years, but it has been a few years since I had need for it.)
I'm guessing the reason the rabies vaccine is not mentioned in anti-vaccine literature is because generally it is only given when there is a good reason to do so - when the person is likely to be exposed to rabies (veterinary workers, animal control, etc.). The anti-vaccine folk are generally not anti-vaccine when there is a good reason, just anti-blanket-vaccine giving to babies/children who are either unlikely to be exposed to the illness or where the illness is not so bad that it is not worth the risk of the vaccine in their eyes.
Example: I don't get my children the rabies vaccine every 2 years, because the chance that they will be exposed to rabies is so low that it isn't worth it imo. But when I worked at an animal shelter I got the rabies vaccine.
And despite the fact that the influenza vaccine doesn't work the same as the smallpox, polio, and diptheria vaccines, and people are still getting influenza, MUCH less people getting influenza are dying from it. Hmmmm.
Actually, smoking can be contagious in the sense that lingering smoke on a smoker's clothes can affect others. I.e. nurse goes out for a smoke on her lunch break, then comes in to take care of a patient with asthma; the patient can have reaction to the smoke on the nurse's clothes.
As for your last paragraph, I feel Schaffner is being misleading. There are various types of flu vaccines. One type gives you a weakened form of the virus rather than a dead one, and actually DOES give you the flu - it's just suppose to be too weak to cause you to have symptoms. I've gotten that before and guess what - I felt like I had the flu. So that year I was GUARANTEED to get the flu, as I had chose to have it put inside me, rather than just having a CHANCE of getting the flu.
Also, nurses getting the vaccine does not prevent spread to patients, but there are other comments explaining that so I won't bother.
But that's not NATURAL selection - that is selection based on an UNNATURAL occurrence (humans starting to keep cows and taking the milk from them). Just like it's not natural selection when a person survives because they can shoot other animals with a gun. Humans removed the natural element of natural selection and are now breeding in UNDESIRABLE traits that are (or will) hindering survival rather than helping.
And even people of European decent will stop producing lactase if they stop consuming lactose for long enough - it's just that lactose is in so many of their products nowadays that they never stop.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been homeless, and I've lived in shelters*, and yes, most homeless people in the US WOULD rather be homeless - either because being homeless opens up other assistance programs to them, or because in order to stop being homeless and take advantage of the many free resources offered, they would have to follow a bunch of rules. Most homeless people either don't want to stop doing drugs, or - like me - don't want to follow the many rules that actually hinder getting a job, leading to a person being on some form of assistance for life, and/or don't want to take advantage of the resources taxpayers don't have a choice but to contribute to.
*I chose to be homeless and refuse the assistance programs because I found that was the only way I could actually get a job and WORK my way out of homelessness.
The only places half the parents would be private schools. While at public schools a few will refuse to sign, it won't be half (because a lot of public school parents won't care, some will just think "I'll sign anything if it means I keep getting free babysitting," and a lot will not even realize that refusing is a choice because they have been taught that you must just do whatever the school says) and the number of parents in all schools willing to sign will greatly outnumber the number of parents refusing.
You think the media is going to speak out AGAINST something schools want to do? It will be spun as something that is done to "protect the children" - just like refusing to allow parents access to their children, arresting parents for bringing their kids to school late, and the number of other ways schools have overstepped their bounds. The media will make the people that refuse to sign will out to be crazies and/or degenerates, just as they do with the people that refuse ti vaccinate, the people that don't support armed guards in schools, the people that speak out against recess being done away with, etc. etc. etc.
You would be able to live with an income of $3,608 a year in the USA; because in the USA when people don't have enough income to buy the things they need to live, we give it to them (through food stamps, section 8, etc. etc.). Therefore no one in the USA is truly poor, because while they may call themselves poor because they don't have a lot of money in their hand/bank account, they will always have an abundance of stuff that would normally cost money. In non-first-world countries, if you don't have money to buy things, you don't have anything (and therefore are actually poor) and just die.
This isn't about libraries lending out devices with digital items on them. What's being talked about is the system where a patron goes to the library web site, logs in using their library card number, and downloads the digital files they "check out". It is then marked as checked out in the system - despite the fact that if it weren't, other patrons could download the same file just the same. The downloaded file has DRM that causes it to stop opening after the check out period (there are several ways around this, even without stripping the DRM, but I digress). At the same time (the end of the check out period) the digital item is marked as available in the library's system, and another patron is allowed to download it. Publishers are enforcing not only this limited number of people that can "check out" the digital copies at once, but the number of people that can check it out before the library must purchase a new licence. It's completely artificial scarcity.
For libraries that do lend out devices, the digital files are still separate from the devices (so you'd be checking out the same way as above, just putting it on the library's device instead of your own), so even if the device is lost, the library still has rights to the files and can lend them out again once the loser's checkout period ends. The devices do have scarcity; they get worn out, as do any physical object, and then the library must replace them - but the digital files can (physically) be copied an infinite amount of times without deteriorating.
Oh there are people that call themselves poor, but compare them to a non-first-world country and see how rich they actually are.
But if the big companies were also not able to patent it, there would still be a niche market for independent and/or handmade versions of the product or things based on the idea.
For example, I sell handmade crafts; knitted, crocheted, and sewn stuff, and things made from polymer clay. Despite the fact that those can be (and are) mass produced by the big guys, there is still a niche market for handmade stuff. I don't make as much money as the big guys - because I can't make as much product as them - but the big guys are supporting thousands of employees; I'm only supporting 6 people, so I don't NEED to make as much. I can charge more for each individual product because the niche market understands that handmade takes more time, effort and skill, and leads to a higher quality product. And I do it not out of hunger for money but out of the love of crafting (i.e. I'd be crafting even if I weren't getting paid); I know many people that invent, study medicine, etc. out of love of doing it rather than out of hunger for money. In fact. rarely are the people inventing, researching etc. for big companies making a lot of money - it's the higher ups in the company that don't really do shit that are making money off them.
A world without patents could lead to people doing jobs they love to do, for a fair pay, and higher ups actually having to work for their money like everyone else. It could lead to better invention of new drugs and medical equipment, because the people inventing them would be doing it out of the love of inventing and researching and/or the desire to help others rather than just for the money.
It isn't as if they'd just suddenly start claiming copyright. They'd tell all students to have their parents sign something giving them copyright, or leave the school.
Personally my main issues with standardized tests are: Standardized tests only measure how well the student has memorized the answers to the standardized test. It isn't necessary to compare students to other students when you are highly involved, with lots of one-on-one time, because you can tell the student is learning (or not learning) rather than just if they are memorizing as much as other students.
It's called an analogy, genius. How much of your brain did you have removed?
But many people are already holding both a cup and an iphone. A holder would just make it easier. The same way many people are already putting their cups in shopping carts, but the cup holder makes it easier.
It's not as if these people that can't stop drinking soda long enough to use the phone or shop are going to care about the achey wrists they get from it. They'll take some vicodin or something and keep going.
Huh? Old people don't generally sleep more. They generally go to bed earlier - but they also generally wake up earlier, so end up sleeping the same amount of time or less - sleep apnea, insomnia, and other reasons for having trouble going into deep sleep are more common for the elderly.
Perhaps when the brain is flawed, then it stores the memories in the unflawed areas? Kind of like how you can block the use of bad sectors on a harddrive; they would be used if they worked correctly, but since they don't, they can be prevented from use and the unflawed sectors will be used instead.
Divorce her and marry a gamer.
Yes, actually, it happens quite often that someone steals or finds a phone and then does not turn it off. Why bother to take it if all you're going to use it for is a paperweight?
So if people can manage to not starve to death for 6 years or so, they're set?
Those people are also usually poor, and could not afford a $1,400 class...
A tech program is fine for those people who aren't cut out for furthering their education.
Wait a minute; are you saying that getting a degree is the only way to further your education? Many people just don't do well with certain TYPES of education - such as those provided in a college/university - but it is completely possible for them to go into a tech program while furthering their education on their own.
Ironically, your post is filled with a number of spelling and grammatical errors that telegraph your lack of language skills. If I were hiring, and I read a cover letter from you that had that many mistakes, it'd be in the bin before I got to your signature. I need people who can communicate clearly, regardless of the job I'm hiring them for.
You're assuming that cover letter would be in English...
He may be unable to land a job at an American sports network, but the sports networks pretty much the only networks making a profit nowadays. Everything else is bleeding customers, and those customers are turning to internet entertainment. Few of the biggest money makers in internet entertainment have a 4 year degree. Many of them aren't even out of high school.
Anonymous wanted for possession of child porn
Part of the reason people in the US are against vaccines is because other countries with lower infant and children mortality rates use less vaccines, stop using potentially dangerous vaccines faster (after just a few infants or children are thought to have had a reaction to it, they stop using the vaccine and investigate, vs in the US where they pay off the families of children who may have had a reaction, but figure since the majority of children are fine it must be okay), and start using safer vaccines sooner.
Also in the US vaccinations are required for many things, rather than optional as they are in many other countries - so in other countries if you don't want the vaccine for whatever reason you just decline it, in the US if you don't want the vaccine you have to speak up against it.
How the heck is the rabies vaccine a paragon of long-term vaccines? True it is very effective, but there are many highly effective vaccines that last much longer. (Unless they have made one that last longer? Last I knew it lasts 2 years, but it has been a few years since I had need for it.)
I'm guessing the reason the rabies vaccine is not mentioned in anti-vaccine literature is because generally it is only given when there is a good reason to do so - when the person is likely to be exposed to rabies (veterinary workers, animal control, etc.). The anti-vaccine folk are generally not anti-vaccine when there is a good reason, just anti-blanket-vaccine giving to babies/children who are either unlikely to be exposed to the illness or where the illness is not so bad that it is not worth the risk of the vaccine in their eyes.
Example: I don't get my children the rabies vaccine every 2 years, because the chance that they will be exposed to rabies is so low that it isn't worth it imo. But when I worked at an animal shelter I got the rabies vaccine.
And despite the fact that the influenza vaccine doesn't work the same as the smallpox, polio, and diptheria vaccines, and people are still getting influenza, MUCH less people getting influenza are dying from it. Hmmmm.
Actually, smoking can be contagious in the sense that lingering smoke on a smoker's clothes can affect others. I.e. nurse goes out for a smoke on her lunch break, then comes in to take care of a patient with asthma; the patient can have reaction to the smoke on the nurse's clothes.
As for your last paragraph, I feel Schaffner is being misleading. There are various types of flu vaccines. One type gives you a weakened form of the virus rather than a dead one, and actually DOES give you the flu - it's just suppose to be too weak to cause you to have symptoms. I've gotten that before and guess what - I felt like I had the flu. So that year I was GUARANTEED to get the flu, as I had chose to have it put inside me, rather than just having a CHANCE of getting the flu.
Also, nurses getting the vaccine does not prevent spread to patients, but there are other comments explaining that so I won't bother.
But that's not NATURAL selection - that is selection based on an UNNATURAL occurrence (humans starting to keep cows and taking the milk from them). Just like it's not natural selection when a person survives because they can shoot other animals with a gun. Humans removed the natural element of natural selection and are now breeding in UNDESIRABLE traits that are (or will) hindering survival rather than helping.
And even people of European decent will stop producing lactase if they stop consuming lactose for long enough - it's just that lactose is in so many of their products nowadays that they never stop.
That's because other species are covered with feathers or fur, and keep their genitals safely tucked inside somewhere until needed...
You're projecting.