Why is this relevant? If you want your daughter to go to school in the district, then obviously you don't plan to sell the house. Lower value would actually be beneficial to you, as it would mean lower property taxes. Or do you plan to sell the house once your daughter finishes school?
and lower the quality of my daughter's education.
So you believe the quality of education is based on the other students in the school? Or would quality teachers begin to leave if lower-income students started attending?
The fact that we have so many students per teacher that the teacher NEEDS a test to assess that is a problem in my book.
If you have a small student to teacher ratio. and the teacher is actually having conversations with the students (rather than just lecturing), and talking to the teacher and to other students is encouraged, and all this is happening daily/weekly... it would be pretty difficult for a half-decent teacher to NOT know whether each student understands or not. Tests should be necessary only when a student changes teachers in a subject, if then. Cheating should be pointless, because tests should be used only to access what more the student needs to learn, NOT if the student is ready to leave the class, get a diploma or a certificate, etc.
Though they died, their family went on. If you didn't own slaves in that time, how do you expect you'd make enough to survive? Their family still needs food, water, clothing, medicine etc.etc. so under normal circumstances the family would need to continue having slaves work the farm/plantation.
Today, if the breadwinner of a family dies, another family member has to earn the money a family needs to survive. However if the breadwinner "earns enough", this may not be the case; the family can just live off of what he earned.
Back then, a woman couldn't just go get a job at Walmart once her husband died. So yes, it was possible to NOT be able to afford something in the will, as wills were more of a means for a family to survive after the death of the head, vs a distribution of unneeded material items as it is today. Someone who still needed the slaves to work the farm so their family survived could not afford to free those slaves.
Why would a business change to more flexible hours when they could just hire someone that doesn't have kids or who has a spouse/nanny/etc. to watch their kids?
Most likely what would happen is that more people would hire nannies to take care of their children during the morning hours (resulting in MORE environmental damage because not only are the parents going to work, now more nannies are too), and families that could not afford a nanny would either have one parent quit their job or have "latchkey" kids. More laws would then be made against these latchkey kids, resulting in - more families getting "assistance" (because one parent is then FORCED to quit their job) - kids that are afraid to ask for help in emergencies (because asking for help makes it known that their parents aren't there).
And anyway, do you really want to arrive at a business and be told "sorry, we aren't open yet - Mrs. Employee's kids had different hours today"? I sure don't.
I have no complaint about it. Personally, I homeschool. School starts whenever I decide to get out of bed that day. I was simply pointing out that if times are different throughout the year for schools, it's going to make things difficult or impossible for parents with jobs. It's not about "liking" it, it's about parents' inability to be in two places at once.
School shootings are not new; nationwide sensationalizing of school shootings is new. But school shootings are, and always have been, rare; which is why, despite having constant access to all worldwide news, you are aware of every school shooting that has happened in the past 20 years or so. In the past, they would have been a local tragedy; now they are nationwide marketing for "shooter detection systems".
is that if you are so concerned that a school shooting is imminent, that you are fine with $20,000 - $100,000 of your tax dollars going toward something like this... why the HELL are you sending your kid to this school every day?!
Nevermind the ridiculousness of "Without that shot detection system, we wouldn't know what was going on in the school". I'd bet you anything, that even in schools that forbid cellphones, enough students have cellphones that multiple are going to avoid getting shot, call the cops and tell them where the shooter is. Stop the forbidding of cellphones, and there you have a schoolwide "shot detection system" at no additional cost.
I don't want to be still handing out candy at 9pm, personally. And the 5 - 7 thing makes it easy to figure out how much candy-per-person to give; start out slow at 5, but if you still have a buttload by 6:45, you'd better start giving a lot per person. So I do like having a 2 hour scheduled time. But - even though I have two kids and a teen that go without adults, and one small kid that I go with briefly (he quickly gets cold or tired of walking or etc.) - I wouldn't mind if the whole thing was after dark. I remember waiting until it got dark to start when I was a kid, and don't get me started on how people have gotten ridiculous with "child safety" bs nowadays. And heck n my town, people have gotten so crazy with "halloween lights" (like Christmas lights, but orange or purple or pumpkin shaped @@) that it's not really dark after dark anyway.
This year it was snowing (first snow of the season) and hailing here on Halloween. So barely anyone trick-or-treated. (And yeah, people were bitching on the town facebook that it should be rescheduled. Ridiculous.) So my kids (who went out anyway, because I make them costumes that are actually appropriate for the weather) got a buttload of candy AND we had a buttload left over since no one came to take ours away.
Most towns/cities have a set time for trick-or-treating nowadays. So kids go within the scheduled time. Here it's 5 - 7, with the sun going down at about 6.
try to find a non-HD file that would take multiple hours to download,
download the file, wait for at least 30 to 60 minutes for the download
What? You've got an internet connection fast enough to even watch Netflix and this is the case? Are you sure you haven't got your limits set crazy low in your torrent program?
hopefully people who are "proud" of their orientation (or gender or race or anyone else) don't mean it in that same sense
Why? More people sharing your (their) orientation = more options. If you are attracted to someone of the same sex, that person being gay would be a good thing, and them not being gay would be a bad thing. Being a bisexual female geek, I certainly wish that more (hot) women were gay or bi geeks.
a gym. If you're unhappy with your shape at a supermarket, you'll probably buy less, but at a gym they can be all "we'll get you into the shape you WANT to be!"
This only works if your average customer is buying enough to make giving them deals worth it. Most small businesses probably don't need enough banners to make it worth it.
There are actually many people who feel superior by not using coupons. They believe coupons are for poor people, or as said above, people with too much free time. Why would the store not take an extra.50 profit from those people, and the people who just don't feel like cutting out the coupon?
Plus, a Walmart streaming service where all of your favorite shows/movies could be viewed for half the monthly price of Netflix. Of course, none of the money would go to the people who actually made the shows. Just to Walmart. And it would be priced intentionally low so that it would make financial sense for people to buy them from Walmart and not from anyone else. (Just like how Walmart does to other stores when they open up.)
Unless Walmart has some magical way to get all new movies before they are released, people will get them from the creators first; and if there's no DRM on there, they'd have no reason to re-buy them from Walmart. What would happen is that some popular creators would sign deals with Walmart, saying that they give all new content to Walmart. But then once Walmart releases them, they'd be put up on torrent sites and such.
And even if it did turn out the way you say, why would that be bad? That would encourage competition. If anyone can stream all the same shows, they have to lure customers in with other things - interface, speed, video/audio quality, etc. Netflix pretty much has a monopoly on streaming American shows right now, Crunchyroll on Japanese shows. And that's not good because there is little reason for them to innovate. Amazon streaming video has Nickelodeon shows, but I only watch stuff that is free with Prime - if not for the other features of Amazon Prime, I'd do without. Two shows I watch stream on their own websites the day of airing, and I watch them on there rather than Netflix to see them faster.
If anything, the reasons for copyright are more alive than ever. It's the copyright term length that's messed up - not the existence of copyright itself. 14 years + a one-time 14 year renewal would be more than enough for anyone to make whatever profit there is to be made off of a work.
Then we'd just live in a world where everything is revamped every 14 years, so that companies can keep their copyright. All those horrible movies based on 70s & 80s cartoons that have been released in recent years? Imagine nothing but that, forever.
Because it's much cheaper to give the game to some voluntary beta testers (or nowadays... early buyers) to do some normal use testing than to pay a programmer to force a sequence of pieces or premake a board?
Why would customers buy the "re-release" rather than buying from the creator - unless the creator is stupid and releasing it in a way that is less accessible than the big companies? Copyright was a necessity in a world where only the big companies could get things out to the public, and where they could do it much easier; where you had to press a fuckton of DVDs to sell your film, where you had to get a major publisher to release your film in theaters and get it on cable tv. But now, when every Tom, Dick and Harry can distribute his film via the internet, and customers prefer it that way vs DVDs, theaters and cable, and all the "big companies" are doing is fighting a battle long ago lost to keep DVD, theaters and tv alive; copyright is silly.
I'm not saying there should be NO laws. Maybe just a major revamp of copyright would work. But copyright as it stands, in today's world, is both silly and non-functional. I say change things before the last people get over the idea that "violating copyright is wrong because it's illegal" and "Since it's illegal, I could be punished for violating copyright." Because THOSE are the reasons that the majority of people who don't violate copyright don't do it. And even a lot of those people have violated it one time or another without even realizing it, because it's so archaic.
Slashdot Mirror
it could lower my home's value
Why is this relevant? If you want your daughter to go to school in the district, then obviously you don't plan to sell the house. Lower value would actually be beneficial to you, as it would mean lower property taxes. Or do you plan to sell the house once your daughter finishes school?
and lower the quality of my daughter's education.
So you believe the quality of education is based on the other students in the school? Or would quality teachers begin to leave if lower-income students started attending?
The fact that we have so many students per teacher that the teacher NEEDS a test to assess that is a problem in my book.
If you have a small student to teacher ratio. and the teacher is actually having conversations with the students (rather than just lecturing), and talking to the teacher and to other students is encouraged, and all this is happening daily/weekly... it would be pretty difficult for a half-decent teacher to NOT know whether each student understands or not. Tests should be necessary only when a student changes teachers in a subject, if then. Cheating should be pointless, because tests should be used only to access what more the student needs to learn, NOT if the student is ready to leave the class, get a diploma or a certificate, etc.
Though they died, their family went on. If you didn't own slaves in that time, how do you expect you'd make enough to survive? Their family still needs food, water, clothing, medicine etc.etc. so under normal circumstances the family would need to continue having slaves work the farm/plantation.
Today, if the breadwinner of a family dies, another family member has to earn the money a family needs to survive. However if the breadwinner "earns enough", this may not be the case; the family can just live off of what he earned.
Back then, a woman couldn't just go get a job at Walmart once her husband died. So yes, it was possible to NOT be able to afford something in the will, as wills were more of a means for a family to survive after the death of the head, vs a distribution of unneeded material items as it is today. Someone who still needed the slaves to work the farm so their family survived could not afford to free those slaves.
Why would a business change to more flexible hours when they could just hire someone that doesn't have kids or who has a spouse/nanny/etc. to watch their kids?
Most likely what would happen is that more people would hire nannies to take care of their children during the morning hours (resulting in MORE environmental damage because not only are the parents going to work, now more nannies are too), and families that could not afford a nanny would either have one parent quit their job or have "latchkey" kids. More laws would then be made against these latchkey kids, resulting in
- more families getting "assistance" (because one parent is then FORCED to quit their job)
- kids that are afraid to ask for help in emergencies (because asking for help makes it known that their parents aren't there).
And anyway, do you really want to arrive at a business and be told "sorry, we aren't open yet - Mrs. Employee's kids had different hours today"? I sure don't.
Don't be silly, blowjobs haven't been sex since 1998.
I have no complaint about it. Personally, I homeschool. School starts whenever I decide to get out of bed that day.
I was simply pointing out that if times are different throughout the year for schools, it's going to make things difficult or impossible for parents with jobs. It's not about "liking" it, it's about parents' inability to be in two places at once.
School shootings are not new; nationwide sensationalizing of school shootings is new. But school shootings are, and always have been, rare; which is why, despite having constant access to all worldwide news, you are aware of every school shooting that has happened in the past 20 years or so. In the past, they would have been a local tragedy; now they are nationwide marketing for "shooter detection systems".
is that if you are so concerned that a school shooting is imminent, that you are fine with $20,000 - $100,000 of your tax dollars going toward something like this... why the HELL are you sending your kid to this school every day?!
Nevermind the ridiculousness of "Without that shot detection system, we wouldn't know what was going on in the school". I'd bet you anything, that even in schools that forbid cellphones, enough students have cellphones that multiple are going to avoid getting shot, call the cops and tell them where the shooter is. Stop the forbidding of cellphones, and there you have a schoolwide "shot detection system" at no additional cost.
I don't want to be still handing out candy at 9pm, personally. And the 5 - 7 thing makes it easy to figure out how much candy-per-person to give; start out slow at 5, but if you still have a buttload by 6:45, you'd better start giving a lot per person. So I do like having a 2 hour scheduled time. But - even though I have two kids and a teen that go without adults, and one small kid that I go with briefly (he quickly gets cold or tired of walking or etc.) - I wouldn't mind if the whole thing was after dark. I remember waiting until it got dark to start when I was a kid, and don't get me started on how people have gotten ridiculous with "child safety" bs nowadays. And heck n my town, people have gotten so crazy with "halloween lights" (like Christmas lights, but orange or purple or pumpkin shaped @@) that it's not really dark after dark anyway.
This year it was snowing (first snow of the season) and hailing here on Halloween. So barely anyone trick-or-treated. (And yeah, people were bitching on the town facebook that it should be rescheduled. Ridiculous.) So my kids (who went out anyway, because I make them costumes that are actually appropriate for the weather) got a buttload of candy AND we had a buttload left over since no one came to take ours away.
Changing the school time year-round would be quite different than just changing it on the dark days.
Most towns/cities have a set time for trick-or-treating nowadays. So kids go within the scheduled time. Here it's 5 - 7, with the sun going down at about 6.
Then start school later on the dark days.
That'll go over well with working parents...
Why are movies called movies when 99.999% of the time nowadays, they are actually talkies?
try to find a non-HD file that would take multiple hours to download,
download the file, wait for at least 30 to 60 minutes for the download
What? You've got an internet connection fast enough to even watch Netflix and this is the case? Are you sure you haven't got your limits set crazy low in your torrent program?
and please show me where there is a 12k deductible...
Right over here, for my 6 person family where the deductible went up to 2k per person.
The straight guy isn't "proud".
I'd say that's a problem with HIS self esteem, not the gay person's.
hopefully people who are "proud" of their orientation (or gender or race or anyone else) don't mean it in that same sense
Why? More people sharing your (their) orientation = more options. If you are attracted to someone of the same sex, that person being gay would be a good thing, and them not being gay would be a bad thing. Being a bisexual female geek, I certainly wish that more (hot) women were gay or bi geeks.
She can use Google Voice to call and text.
a gym. If you're unhappy with your shape at a supermarket, you'll probably buy less, but at a gym they can be all "we'll get you into the shape you WANT to be!"
This only works if your average customer is buying enough to make giving them deals worth it. Most small businesses probably don't need enough banners to make it worth it.
There are actually many people who feel superior by not using coupons. They believe coupons are for poor people, or as said above, people with too much free time. Why would the store not take an extra .50 profit from those people, and the people who just don't feel like cutting out the coupon?
Plus, a Walmart streaming service where all of your favorite shows/movies could be viewed for half the monthly price of Netflix. Of course, none of the money would go to the people who actually made the shows. Just to Walmart. And it would be priced intentionally low so that it would make financial sense for people to buy them from Walmart and not from anyone else. (Just like how Walmart does to other stores when they open up.)
Unless Walmart has some magical way to get all new movies before they are released, people will get them from the creators first; and if there's no DRM on there, they'd have no reason to re-buy them from Walmart. What would happen is that some popular creators would sign deals with Walmart, saying that they give all new content to Walmart. But then once Walmart releases them, they'd be put up on torrent sites and such.
And even if it did turn out the way you say, why would that be bad? That would encourage competition. If anyone can stream all the same shows, they have to lure customers in with other things - interface, speed, video/audio quality, etc. Netflix pretty much has a monopoly on streaming American shows right now, Crunchyroll on Japanese shows. And that's not good because there is little reason for them to innovate. Amazon streaming video has Nickelodeon shows, but I only watch stuff that is free with Prime - if not for the other features of Amazon Prime, I'd do without. Two shows I watch stream on their own websites the day of airing, and I watch them on there rather than Netflix to see them faster.
If anything, the reasons for copyright are more alive than ever. It's the copyright term length that's messed up - not the existence of copyright itself. 14 years + a one-time 14 year renewal would be more than enough for anyone to make whatever profit there is to be made off of a work.
Then we'd just live in a world where everything is revamped every 14 years, so that companies can keep their copyright. All those horrible movies based on 70s & 80s cartoons that have been released in recent years? Imagine nothing but that, forever.
Because it's much cheaper to give the game to some voluntary beta testers (or nowadays... early buyers) to do some normal use testing than to pay a programmer to force a sequence of pieces or premake a board?
Why would customers buy the "re-release" rather than buying from the creator - unless the creator is stupid and releasing it in a way that is less accessible than the big companies? Copyright was a necessity in a world where only the big companies could get things out to the public, and where they could do it much easier; where you had to press a fuckton of DVDs to sell your film, where you had to get a major publisher to release your film in theaters and get it on cable tv. But now, when every Tom, Dick and Harry can distribute his film via the internet, and customers prefer it that way vs DVDs, theaters and cable, and all the "big companies" are doing is fighting a battle long ago lost to keep DVD, theaters and tv alive; copyright is silly.
I'm not saying there should be NO laws. Maybe just a major revamp of copyright would work. But copyright as it stands, in today's world, is both silly and non-functional. I say change things before the last people get over the idea that "violating copyright is wrong because it's illegal" and "Since it's illegal, I could be punished for violating copyright." Because THOSE are the reasons that the majority of people who don't violate copyright don't do it. And even a lot of those people have violated it one time or another without even realizing it, because it's so archaic.
Come on now, who among us does not regularly drive down the highway for 15 hours straight while pissing in a bottle?