We have friends who home schooled their kids. They completed (and exceeded) minimum curriculum in our state in four hours a day. And she educated two very smart and confident kids.
The version of a "guaranteed minimum income" that we have in the UK leaves you with practically nothing to live on. It is not a nice, easy option if you just don't feel like working unless you want no money for phone, broadband, TV, a vehicle, new clothes, bus fares, drinking, or whatever. Yes, you will have a roof over your head and enough for food, but that's it
The idea that there is a comfortably off, lazy "underclass" is almost entirely a Daily Fail myth, on a par with the "asylum seeker tramps earn over two hundred pounds a day by begging" sort of stories.
Most of them will be lucky to take two full, consecutive weeks off in a row each decade for the remainder of their lives once they graduate
Only in places like the US or China. In most of the world people expect a two week summer holiday as a minimum, in addition to other time off during the year.
Its a truism to say that learning is entirely, in the end, up to the student
Only if by "truism" you somehow mean "a load of old bollocks"
Your ideas are fine for adults who have already been college educated, but utterly impractical for all but a few genius children. There is almost nothing that isn't better and quicker learned at the early stages with a live teacher and fellow pupils around.
Farms are fun to play on when you're a kid, but working is something that most civilised places reserve for adults. But of course no farmer will turn down free family labour.
And yes, I was brought up around farms and farmers, and I find it's mostly "big city" types who go all misty eyed about how fucking wonderful they are. They're not.
If you've been working at the same job in the same building for 4 years or more, can you honestly say you remember what year you learned a certain skill? Was it two years ago... Maybe three? If you can't remember, how well have you really learned. But ask a kid what grade they learned cursive or their multiplication tables. They'll have little trouble telling you what grade because those periods of their life are separated and well-defined.
I don't see why it matters either when you're an adult or a child. And anyway, if I ask my kids "when did you learn to read/write/do your 8 times table" or whatever they wouldn't have a clue. They can barely remember the names of their teachers through school.
so that means the kids who have a shot at maximizing their potential because their parents did well in life shouldn't have such an advantage?
protip: life isn't fair.. it's anything but equal. A society that embraces this childish single dimensional definition of the term is doomed to failure.
Whether you call it socialism or utilitarianism I don't really care, but the point is that we should be maximising the potential of the maximum number of people, as this will result in the maximisation of overall happiness, productivity or whatever other measure you care to choose.
Guaranteeing that those born with a silver spoon in their mouth get all the sugar is only of benefit to those born that way.
Oh, and it's precisely because life isn't fair that we need to even things up a bit, or you just get the libertarian/fascist dream scenario of a few people controlling all the money. power, resources and happiness.
My kids seemed to have a pretty good time during the summer, maybe I'm just not worried enough about alll the paedophiles, kidnappers, serial killers and priests out there.
Yet in other countries (UK for instance) the better off folk send their kids to private schools that have longer holidays, and still achieve brilliant results.
You're right (IMHO) that the kids and parents caring is a big factor. I'm not convinced taking away the summers of youth is a good idea though.
Decent public (i.e. fee-paying/private, I know...) schools in the UK pretty much guarantee to (a) get you started on real social networking at an early age and (b) get you into a good university by cramming you through your exams, or if you're really thick leaving before university with a good job as head gardener of a friend of your daddy's few thousand acres or something.
In the UK the expensive schools do not select for intelligence (other than by providing a few scholarships to the plebs to enable them to keep up their charitable status).
If you're the son of Lord Posh of Posh Towers, Poshshire you'll go to the same school as daddy unless you're actually in a coma. In which case they'll still just stick you in the sick room for a few years and give you the same exam results at the end anyway.
The music on an iPod isn't encrypted at all, you just use iTunes to manage the files.
If something requires the use of iTunes, it is far more secure than if it had military strength security, because at least from my point of view I'm never going near it.
>>>Is it fair for them to get this free thing, even thought they're doing nothing for it?
For items that are ethereal ideas/concepts? No. Let the lazyass kids WORK instead of relying on their dead dad to support them. I certainly wouldn't want my kids to be fat&lazy for the next 100 years living off proceeds from the schematics I create. That just generates sloth and parasitism.
What's the difference between them earning royalties off your schematics and earning interest off the money you leave in the bank?
In either case, if the income is sufficient that they can live off it you may get the problems you mention.
All those things you mention are physical things.
As such, they suffer from physical decay, they become obsolete and they lose in value. Plus they need maintenance and there are various other costs associated with their use.
Houses and land do NOT become obsolete and lose value through decay. Yes, you have to pay some maintenance and upkeep on the buildings, but in general this is outweighed by the increase in value, or else you are living in a really, really shitty area.
Plus their kids, grandkids, great-grandkids can also get paid, even though they never did an ounce of work in their life.
Which of course is why all governments impose 100% death duties on everyone and the idea of rich kids living off trust funds went out with the Victorians. Oh, wait...
You can't blame authors or musicians wanting to pass on something of value to their children when everyone else is allowed to pass on physical property/cash.
Clearly the solution is to have 100% communal ownership of all assets and distribute them according to need.
-- the same one everyone has to "sign" every time the iTunes software is even updated.
Is this the same one where they give you a 57 page EULA and let you skip the last 56 pages before "signing" that you've read the whole thing and agree to it, when obviously you haven't?
Nothing will happen, but I will have made an effort:)
Maybe you could personally sue Apple in the Norwegian courts for fraudulently selling you an iTunes download or something? If everyone in Norway did that you could be talking about literally thousands of dollars worth of damages being awarded.
I don't see an answer to the problem other than DRM. But how do you maintain DRM without punishing the legal users? Computers were designed for the ultimate in information freedom, and while they excel at playing, editing, and transferring musics and other media there is a domain mismatch when it comes to maintaining rights. No one has a right to music unless they pay for it.
Human history disagrees with you.
For a more humorous counterpoint I refer you to an artist who also disagrees with you. Dan Bull
Paying for music is precisely the same as paying for land or any other form of property. While you have a system that relies on money and property being held by individuals as exchange for work or whatever, it is simply unreasonable to expect musicians or others whose work can be copied easily to give their work away for free and have to find another way of earning a living.
We don't expect accountants, doctors or engineers to work for nothing because they are good at what they do, why should musicians or other artists?
Slashdot Mirror
We have friends who home schooled their kids. They completed (and exceeded) minimum curriculum in our state in four hours a day. And she educated two very smart and confident kids.
Aren't they all?
The version of a "guaranteed minimum income" that we have in the UK leaves you with practically nothing to live on. It is not a nice, easy option if you just don't feel like working unless you want no money for phone, broadband, TV, a vehicle, new clothes, bus fares, drinking, or whatever. Yes, you will have a roof over your head and enough for food, but that's it
The idea that there is a comfortably off, lazy "underclass" is almost entirely a Daily Fail myth, on a par with the "asylum seeker tramps earn over two hundred pounds a day by begging" sort of stories.
Most of them will be lucky to take two full, consecutive weeks off in a row each decade for the remainder of their lives once they graduate
Only in places like the US or China. In most of the world people expect a two week summer holiday as a minimum, in addition to other time off during the year.
Its a truism to say that learning is entirely, in the end, up to the student
Only if by "truism" you somehow mean "a load of old bollocks"
Your ideas are fine for adults who have already been college educated, but utterly impractical for all but a few genius children. There is almost nothing that isn't better and quicker learned at the early stages with a live teacher and fellow pupils around.
The school year should be 23 months with a month off to scrape all the gum off the underside of the desks.
Um, our Earth years have 12 months. I think you've given your alien origins away a bit there, the MIB will be round soon.
You lost me at "we home school our son".
Farms are fun to play on when you're a kid, but working is something that most civilised places reserve for adults. But of course no farmer will turn down free family labour.
And yes, I was brought up around farms and farmers, and I find it's mostly "big city" types who go all misty eyed about how fucking wonderful they are. They're not.
Where I come from (UK) 3.5 acres is a fucking smallholding, not a lawn.
If you've been working at the same job in the same building for 4 years or more, can you honestly say you remember what year you learned a certain skill? Was it two years ago... Maybe three? If you can't remember, how well have you really learned. But ask a kid what grade they learned cursive or their multiplication tables. They'll have little trouble telling you what grade because those periods of their life are separated and well-defined.
I don't see why it matters either when you're an adult or a child. And anyway, if I ask my kids "when did you learn to read/write/do your 8 times table" or whatever they wouldn't have a clue. They can barely remember the names of their teachers through school.
so that means the kids who have a shot at maximizing their potential because their parents did well in life shouldn't have such an advantage?
protip: life isn't fair.. it's anything but equal. A society that embraces this childish single dimensional definition of the term is doomed to failure.
Whether you call it socialism or utilitarianism I don't really care, but the point is that we should be maximising the potential of the maximum number of people, as this will result in the maximisation of overall happiness, productivity or whatever other measure you care to choose.
Guaranteeing that those born with a silver spoon in their mouth get all the sugar is only of benefit to those born that way.
Oh, and it's precisely because life isn't fair that we need to even things up a bit, or you just get the libertarian/fascist dream scenario of a few people controlling all the money. power, resources and happiness.
My kids seemed to have a pretty good time during the summer, maybe I'm just not worried enough about alll the paedophiles, kidnappers, serial killers and priests out there.
Yet in other countries (UK for instance) the better off folk send their kids to private schools that have longer holidays, and still achieve brilliant results.
You're right (IMHO) that the kids and parents caring is a big factor. I'm not convinced taking away the summers of youth is a good idea though.
Decent public (i.e. fee-paying/private, I know...) schools in the UK pretty much guarantee to (a) get you started on real social networking at an early age and (b) get you into a good university by cramming you through your exams, or if you're really thick leaving before university with a good job as head gardener of a friend of your daddy's few thousand acres or something.
In the UK the expensive schools do not select for intelligence (other than by providing a few scholarships to the plebs to enable them to keep up their charitable status).
If you're the son of Lord Posh of Posh Towers, Poshshire you'll go to the same school as daddy unless you're actually in a coma. In which case they'll still just stick you in the sick room for a few years and give you the same exam results at the end anyway.
... we have finally found a socially beneficial use for a cheesy action movie star. Now let's find one for bankers ...
How about being thrown off the top of Nakatomi Tower by said cheesy action movie star?
The music on an iPod isn't encrypted at all, you just use iTunes to manage the files.
If something requires the use of iTunes, it is far more secure than if it had military strength security, because at least from my point of view I'm never going near it.
>>>Is it fair for them to get this free thing, even thought they're doing nothing for it?
For items that are ethereal ideas/concepts? No. Let the lazyass kids WORK instead of relying on their dead dad to support them. I certainly wouldn't want my kids to be fat&lazy for the next 100 years living off proceeds from the schematics I create. That just generates sloth and parasitism.
What's the difference between them earning royalties off your schematics and earning interest off the money you leave in the bank?
In either case, if the income is sufficient that they can live off it you may get the problems you mention.
All those things you mention are physical things. As such, they suffer from physical decay, they become obsolete and they lose in value. Plus they need maintenance and there are various other costs associated with their use.
Houses and land do NOT become obsolete and lose value through decay. Yes, you have to pay some maintenance and upkeep on the buildings, but in general this is outweighed by the increase in value, or else you are living in a really, really shitty area.
Plus their kids, grandkids, great-grandkids can also get paid, even though they never did an ounce of work in their life.
Which of course is why all governments impose 100% death duties on everyone and the idea of rich kids living off trust funds went out with the Victorians. Oh, wait...
You're getting your kneejerk slashdot "there is no such thing as intellectual property" soundbite in too early. GP never talked about property rights.
You can't blame authors or musicians wanting to pass on something of value to their children when everyone else is allowed to pass on physical property/cash.
Clearly the solution is to have 100% communal ownership of all assets and distribute them according to need.
Is this the same one where they give you a 57 page EULA and let you skip the last 56 pages before "signing" that you've read the whole thing and agree to it, when obviously you haven't?
You can skip the first 56 pages? Who knew?
Nothing will happen, but I will have made an effort :)
Maybe you could personally sue Apple in the Norwegian courts for fraudulently selling you an iTunes download or something? If everyone in Norway did that you could be talking about literally thousands of dollars worth of damages being awarded.
Not all of us think that "being an astute businessman who recognized a market he could sell to/exploit" is an inherently good thing.
I don't see how taking advantage of other people's stupidity doesn't still make you an asshole.
Then the entire globe is one giant collective group of assholes.
No, all you have proved is that you are an asshole too.
I don't see an answer to the problem other than DRM. But how do you maintain DRM without punishing the legal users? Computers were designed for the ultimate in information freedom, and while they excel at playing, editing, and transferring musics and other media there is a domain mismatch when it comes to maintaining rights. No one has a right to music unless they pay for it.
Human history disagrees with you.
For a more humorous counterpoint I refer you to an artist who also disagrees with you. Dan Bull
Paying for music is precisely the same as paying for land or any other form of property. While you have a system that relies on money and property being held by individuals as exchange for work or whatever, it is simply unreasonable to expect musicians or others whose work can be copied easily to give their work away for free and have to find another way of earning a living.
We don't expect accountants, doctors or engineers to work for nothing because they are good at what they do, why should musicians or other artists?