And worse yet, the ads say 'Own X Movie'. They don't say 'Own a license to watch X movie from a disk'. They advertise the PURCHASE of the movie. The store has a big sign that says SALE. If the movie studios are only licensing you to watch that movie using the disk, they are committing massive fraud, and should have to pay the price for that.
Did you even read your own post? If a teen has a passenger, he is 50% more likely to get in an accident? So, lets say that 1000 teenagers are going to a party, and they are each driving alone, and 10 are going to get in an accident. That is 1 in a hundred, and means that there are 10 car crashes in town that night. Now, lets double them up to 2 per car. That means out of the now 500 cars on the road, 1.5 (50% more) out of a hundred are going to get in an accident. That would be 7.5 out of the 500 cars on the road get in car wrecks. Now, you could say. See! that is 15 kids in a car crash instead of 10! But what about the other cars that get crashed into. Since the number of car crashes involving teen drivers went from 7.5 crashes with 2 in a car up to 10 with only one, everyone else has their chances of being run down by a teen driver increased by 30%.
Now, lets look at your 50% number in a little less of a 'think of the children' sort of way. If we take the 15 kids that would be involved in an accident and see how much of a DROP we would get with not allowing them to pair up. So, a drop of 15 down to 10 is... Wait for it... 30%.
It may look like the man is persecuting teens, AND the statistics back it up. You clearly are NOT concerned about them taking other people with them, because even in the best of cases, you are INCREASING me and MY child's chances of your kid and their friends killing us. At best, you are no better than the ass who puts their brand new driver in a Hummer so that when your kid makes a mistake and runs into another car, it is the other driver that gets killed. At worst you are persecuting teens, and your willing to kill to do it.
My wife was rear ended while stopped at a red light by a semi, and the truck driver never even bothered to put down his cell phone. (The fact that he wasn't on one to begin with shouldn't be used against my irrational complaining about technology)
When my father owned a computer shop, he would regularly get people trying to sell him software that would let him do "data recovery". There was no way my father was qualified to do data recovery. He eventually focused only on printer repair because he found he wasn't really qualified to even do most PC work. That didn't stop the sales guys from trying to convince him that if he bought their software, he would do fine in the "data recovery" field.
So, it doesn't surprise me that two local data recovery firms got stumped. They probably ran the software they bought against the DVD and when nothing came up, they said it was unrecoverable.
No, women have the right to offer the privilege to men. Seriously, the term "Deadbeat Dad" didn't spring from nowhere. It is the term used for men who want to abdicate all rights and responsibilities for their biological offspring.
Lots of people do. A small percentage sure, but I have met dozens of people that "officeschool". It is not uncommon among the homeschool set to specifically start their own business for the express purpose of being able to "officeschool". It is also very common that people CAN afford to homeschool, but convince themselves that they cannot afford to. I don't know about YOUR situation, but many two income families could easily afford to live off of one income if they didn't buy a new car or two every three years; If they downsized their home; If they didn't go on as many vacations; If they cooked at home instead of eating out all of the time; and or if they did a bunch of cost cutting budget changes. Certainly not everyone can afford this, but a lot more could than would every want to admit it.
Of course, unfortunately, whether we can afford to homeschool or even if we don't think that homeschooling is good thing, does not change the fact that the vast majority kids are being raised in a state institution.
What a sad article. It basically says that our education system is totally screwed up, and the best and brightest will have their talent washed away through poor education, but hey, you can at least keep them at average if you do these few makeshift educational patches.
And that is why I call public schools orphanages. Given the number of hours that a kid spends in the orphanage compared to the number of hours spent with the people we call their
parents. Given how many of these kids eat 2 of the three meals they eat a day at the orphanage, it is clear who is raising our children. Whether having a state institution raising our nations children is a good thing or bad is left up to the reader to decide.
For my child, I decided it was not, although I have met many parents who's kids are likely much better off spending their time under the states care.
I say that is a commonly believed myth. First, spending 2 billion on a bridge is not uncommon. This isn't for a super fancy never before seen design, but for a basic, cross a bay bridge. If you spend that much money on a piece of software that is only doing a few functions, you certainly can get a very stable piece of software. Even the best funded software is massively underfunded compared to to bridge building budgets. Most current software is the equivalent of a 4x4 dropped across a creek. You can bet that those fail just as often as software does.
Then go out and look at bridges. If you think that they are bug free, you are very much mistaken. There are flaws in virtually all physical construction that would never be tolerated in software design. The difference is that construction has found ways to hide many of their gross flaws, and the population has just gotten used to seeing them. Basically bugs in bridges don't get called out unless someone gets killed. If we used the same criteria for software, then most software is bug free.
Well, since there are millions of things that different men seem to be confused about, so I do not have the time or space to detail every permutation. What do you find complicated about women?
The real issue is that nurses are not nurses anymore. They are doctors. Doctors are less doctors and are more specialists. When a person thinks "nurse", they think of a doctors assistant. Not someone that is directly responsible for giving medical care to a patient. So, in a bizarre kind of way, we may be seeing a 1984ish situation where language is actually having a heavy influence on behavior.
It is almost as if we either need a new name for doctors, so we can start calling what are now called nurses, doctor, or we need a new name for nurse. I know that for the rare occasion that I go to a 'doctor', I generally have no problem seeing a 'nurse practitioner' instead.
We're still teaching kids with the same books as those engineers and scientists who took us to the moon.
I don't know about your community, but in mine, the majority of people felt it was more important to install stadium lighting and artificial turf than to get new text books, so I can't take complaints about old books too seriously.
No, they really are not. They become pretty simple once you name their socially unacceptable behaviors for what they are, instead of trying to jump through mental hoops to try to rationalize them as something acceptable.
I still think you overstate the rational (a little), but you are at least attacking the group you really want to now. I happen to agree that girls should get the HPV immunization, they should also be getting it BEFORE they are sexually active. I know a lot of people who are not religious that think that they should wait until their daughter is sexually active before getting vaccinated.
You are showing no more understanding of the issue than those you mock. The group of people that are against vaccinations are a separate and only slightly overlapping group to the 'fundies' that you are talking about. Most of the people that refuse immunization do so based on what they believe is the correct MEDICAL choice. Most fundamentalists get their children immunized. Most of the fundamentalists that think HPV vaccination will lead to promiscuous premarital sex by girls, also think that premarital sex by boys is wrong. They are not against immunization, they just want premarital sex to have a heavy toll to try to stop it.
Calling people morons when you clearly do not understand the issue is kind of ironic.
Seriously, have you read the numbers on Chicken Pox? The chicken pox vaccine is one of those "everyone has to get it" vaccines. Schools will try to illegally bar children from entering if they don't get it. It would certainly be on the list of law enforcement vaccines if the law was going to get involved.
The problem is that if you look at the data supplied by the CDC, getting the chicken pox vaccine is likely to INCREASE the chances of your kid dying or being seriously injured by the disease. It will make it less likely for your kid to get chicken pox WHILE THEY ARE A CHILD. Which works great for the 'think of the children' crowd. The problem is that the vaccine is not permanent. That means that instead of a person getting the disease as a child when it is a major inconvenience and being permently immune from that point forward, they get it as an adult when it is a serious life threatening disease.
Now, I'm all for the polio vaccine, as we saw what was happening prior to the vaccine, so the risks were clearly less with the vaccine than without, but data from the CDC seems to point to exactly the opposite with chicken pox.
It would be far more likely that the "Pharmaceutical Lobby" was paying off "Researchers" to come up with the results they want so that the "Research Papers" that the AMA uses to make recommendations, which doctors follow when they make the decision to recommend immunization to their patients.
Your comment is at best a troll. Making up the term "vaccine lobby" is clearly an attempt at a straw man argument by making up a "lobby" that no one believes exists. In fact though, it is well and openly known that there certainly is a "Pharmaceutical Lobby". So, your attempt to imply that there is no lobby who would have a vested interest in pushing vaccines would at best feed those that distrust the pharma industry. You in fact are making a public claim that an industry that has had many a black eye from selling unnecessary or even dangerous drugs does not exist. I have no doubt that you are fully aware that lobby groups also do not necessarily go directly to the 'retail outlet' when they want a product sold. They will generally go to legislative bodies, trade groups or distributors.
So, irrelevant to whether there really is a 'conspiracy' or not, your comment is at best wrong.
I respect copyright and patent and trademark law. what's your problem? nice attempt at a pathetic straw man there,
That statement is self proving that you either are ignorant of what a stawman argument is, or you are totally dishonest.
I notice you didn't even pretend to defend your silly argument that your infants scrawl is as worthy in cultural terms as the stuff people pay for.
That's because you didn't say "The quality of content would go down." You said that content would not be made. You made a stupid untrue statement, and I called you on it. Changing the subject does not make you right.
good points, I know that I look at the vaccines individually. The MMR, I concluded would at least be a wash, and and more likely was beneficial. The polio vaccine I concluded was ABSOLUTELY a must have, but the chicken pox vaccine seems to be a total scam. Looking at the data published by the CDC, it looks like the chances of dying or being severely injured by taking the vaccine is actually greater than if you don't. It doesn't seem to be the vaccine itself that is dangerous, but instead it is that the vaccine pushes may off infection of the disease to an older age where the disease is literally 10X more likely to kill or maim you.
Well, I was going to say PacMan, but I figured that that would create a stream of "You just want something for free", and there are less people that are as emotionally attached.
What I do NOT understand is why those peole cannot see that if everyone does what they do, no new content will be produced.
You made a stupid untrue statement. Clearly what you meant was "I prefer the content that gets made for money." Unfortunately, that statement doesn't make you feel as self righteous. The fact is that content WOULD be created even if there was no copyright. To say otherwise is either stupid or lying.
But hey, people will trot out all kinds of crap it it makes them feel good about taking stuff for free, as slashdot comments prove time and time again...
Of course, you use other peoples ideas every day without compensating them. No doubt you rationalize that YOUR use of other peoples ideas are OK.
Slashdot Mirror
And worse yet, the ads say 'Own X Movie'. They don't say 'Own a license to watch X movie from a disk'. They advertise the PURCHASE of the movie. The store has a big sign that says SALE. If the movie studios are only licensing you to watch that movie using the disk, they are committing massive fraud, and should have to pay the price for that.
Did you even read your own post? If a teen has a passenger, he is 50% more likely to get in an accident? So, lets say that 1000 teenagers are going to a party, and they are each driving alone, and 10 are going to get in an accident. That is 1 in a hundred, and means that there are 10 car crashes in town that night. Now, lets double them up to 2 per car. That means out of the now 500 cars on the road, 1.5 (50% more) out of a hundred are going to get in an accident. That would be 7.5 out of the 500 cars on the road get in car wrecks. Now, you could say. See! that is 15 kids in a car crash instead of 10! But what about the other cars that get crashed into. Since the number of car crashes involving teen drivers went from 7.5 crashes with 2 in a car up to 10 with only one, everyone else has their chances of being run down by a teen driver increased by 30%.
Now, lets look at your 50% number in a little less of a 'think of the children' sort of way. If we take the 15 kids that would be involved in an accident and see how much of a DROP we would get with not allowing them to pair up. So, a drop of 15 down to 10 is... Wait for it... 30%.
It may look like the man is persecuting teens, AND the statistics back it up. You clearly are NOT concerned about them taking other people with them, because even in the best of cases, you are INCREASING me and MY child's chances of your kid and their friends killing us. At best, you are no better than the ass who puts their brand new driver in a Hummer so that when your kid makes a mistake and runs into another car, it is the other driver that gets killed. At worst you are persecuting teens, and your willing to kill to do it.
My wife was rear ended while stopped at a red light by a semi, and the truck driver never even bothered to put down his cell phone. (The fact that he wasn't on one to begin with shouldn't be used against my irrational complaining about technology)
When my father owned a computer shop, he would regularly get people trying to sell him software that would let him do "data recovery". There was no way my father was qualified to do data recovery. He eventually focused only on printer repair because he found he wasn't really qualified to even do most PC work. That didn't stop the sales guys from trying to convince him that if he bought their software, he would do fine in the "data recovery" field.
So, it doesn't surprise me that two local data recovery firms got stumped. They probably ran the software they bought against the DVD and when nothing came up, they said it was unrecoverable.
No, women have the right to offer the privilege to men. Seriously, the term "Deadbeat Dad" didn't spring from nowhere. It is the term used for men who want to abdicate all rights and responsibilities for their biological offspring.
Lots of people do. A small percentage sure, but I have met dozens of people that "officeschool". It is not uncommon among the homeschool set to specifically start their own business for the express purpose of being able to "officeschool". It is also very common that people CAN afford to homeschool, but convince themselves that they cannot afford to. I don't know about YOUR situation, but many two income families could easily afford to live off of one income if they didn't buy a new car or two every three years; If they downsized their home; If they didn't go on as many vacations; If they cooked at home instead of eating out all of the time; and or if they did a bunch of cost cutting budget changes. Certainly not everyone can afford this, but a lot more could than would every want to admit it.
Of course, unfortunately, whether we can afford to homeschool or even if we don't think that homeschooling is good thing, does not change the fact that the vast majority kids are being raised in a state institution.
Yes. The television for kids today is vastly superior to what we had.
What a sad article. It basically says that our education system is totally screwed up, and the best and brightest will have their talent washed away through poor education, but hey, you can at least keep them at average if you do these few makeshift educational patches.
And that is why I call public schools orphanages. Given the number of hours that a kid spends in the orphanage compared to the number of hours spent with the people we call their parents. Given how many of these kids eat 2 of the three meals they eat a day at the orphanage, it is clear who is raising our children. Whether having a state institution raising our nations children is a good thing or bad is left up to the reader to decide.
For my child, I decided it was not, although I have met many parents who's kids are likely much better off spending their time under the states care.
And you certainly don't want to bring up the word beer when talking about something that a minor is distributing.
Until access to real broadband is guaranteed to everyone, they don't get to classify it as vital infrastructure.
I say that is a commonly believed myth. First, spending 2 billion on a bridge is not uncommon. This isn't for a super fancy never before seen design, but for a basic, cross a bay bridge. If you spend that much money on a piece of software that is only doing a few functions, you certainly can get a very stable piece of software. Even the best funded software is massively underfunded compared to to bridge building budgets. Most current software is the equivalent of a 4x4 dropped across a creek. You can bet that those fail just as often as software does.
Then go out and look at bridges. If you think that they are bug free, you are very much mistaken. There are flaws in virtually all physical construction that would never be tolerated in software design. The difference is that construction has found ways to hide many of their gross flaws, and the population has just gotten used to seeing them. Basically bugs in bridges don't get called out unless someone gets killed. If we used the same criteria for software, then most software is bug free.
Well, since there are millions of things that different men seem to be confused about, so I do not have the time or space to detail every permutation. What do you find complicated about women?
The real issue is that nurses are not nurses anymore. They are doctors. Doctors are less doctors and are more specialists. When a person thinks "nurse", they think of a doctors assistant. Not someone that is directly responsible for giving medical care to a patient. So, in a bizarre kind of way, we may be seeing a 1984ish situation where language is actually having a heavy influence on behavior.
It is almost as if we either need a new name for doctors, so we can start calling what are now called nurses, doctor, or we need a new name for nurse. I know that for the rare occasion that I go to a 'doctor', I generally have no problem seeing a 'nurse practitioner' instead.
We're still teaching kids with the same books as those engineers and scientists who took us to the moon.
I don't know about your community, but in mine, the majority of people felt it was more important to install stadium lighting and artificial turf than to get new text books, so I can't take complaints about old books too seriously.
women are complex, emotional creatures
No, they really are not. They become pretty simple once you name their socially unacceptable behaviors for what they are, instead of trying to jump through mental hoops to try to rationalize them as something acceptable.
I still think you overstate the rational (a little), but you are at least attacking the group you really want to now. I happen to agree that girls should get the HPV immunization, they should also be getting it BEFORE they are sexually active. I know a lot of people who are not religious that think that they should wait until their daughter is sexually active before getting vaccinated.
You are showing no more understanding of the issue than those you mock. The group of people that are against vaccinations are a separate and only slightly overlapping group to the 'fundies' that you are talking about. Most of the people that refuse immunization do so based on what they believe is the correct MEDICAL choice. Most fundamentalists get their children immunized. Most of the fundamentalists that think HPV vaccination will lead to promiscuous premarital sex by girls, also think that premarital sex by boys is wrong. They are not against immunization, they just want premarital sex to have a heavy toll to try to stop it.
Calling people morons when you clearly do not understand the issue is kind of ironic.
Seriously, have you read the numbers on Chicken Pox? The chicken pox vaccine is one of those "everyone has to get it" vaccines. Schools will try to illegally bar children from entering if they don't get it. It would certainly be on the list of law enforcement vaccines if the law was going to get involved.
The problem is that if you look at the data supplied by the CDC, getting the chicken pox vaccine is likely to INCREASE the chances of your kid dying or being seriously injured by the disease. It will make it less likely for your kid to get chicken pox WHILE THEY ARE A CHILD. Which works great for the 'think of the children' crowd. The problem is that the vaccine is not permanent. That means that instead of a person getting the disease as a child when it is a major inconvenience and being permently immune from that point forward, they get it as an adult when it is a serious life threatening disease.
Now, I'm all for the polio vaccine, as we saw what was happening prior to the vaccine, so the risks were clearly less with the vaccine than without, but data from the CDC seems to point to exactly the opposite with chicken pox.
It would be far more likely that the "Pharmaceutical Lobby" was paying off "Researchers" to come up with the results they want so that the "Research Papers" that the AMA uses to make recommendations, which doctors follow when they make the decision to recommend immunization to their patients.
Your comment is at best a troll. Making up the term "vaccine lobby" is clearly an attempt at a straw man argument by making up a "lobby" that no one believes exists. In fact though, it is well and openly known that there certainly is a "Pharmaceutical Lobby". So, your attempt to imply that there is no lobby who would have a vested interest in pushing vaccines would at best feed those that distrust the pharma industry. You in fact are making a public claim that an industry that has had many a black eye from selling unnecessary or even dangerous drugs does not exist. I have no doubt that you are fully aware that lobby groups also do not necessarily go directly to the 'retail outlet' when they want a product sold. They will generally go to legislative bodies, trade groups or distributors.
So, irrelevant to whether there really is a 'conspiracy' or not, your comment is at best wrong.
I respect copyright and patent and trademark law. what's your problem? nice attempt at a pathetic straw man there,
That statement is self proving that you either are ignorant of what a stawman argument is, or you are totally dishonest.
I notice you didn't even pretend to defend your silly argument that your infants scrawl is as worthy in cultural terms as the stuff people pay for.
That's because you didn't say "The quality of content would go down." You said that content would not be made. You made a stupid untrue statement, and I called you on it. Changing the subject does not make you right.
good points, I know that I look at the vaccines individually. The MMR, I concluded would at least be a wash, and and more likely was beneficial. The polio vaccine I concluded was ABSOLUTELY a must have, but the chicken pox vaccine seems to be a total scam. Looking at the data published by the CDC, it looks like the chances of dying or being severely injured by taking the vaccine is actually greater than if you don't. It doesn't seem to be the vaccine itself that is dangerous, but instead it is that the vaccine pushes may off infection of the disease to an older age where the disease is literally 10X more likely to kill or maim you.
Well, I was going to say PacMan, but I figured that that would create a stream of "You just want something for free", and there are less people that are as emotionally attached.
What I do NOT understand is why those peole cannot see that if everyone does what they do, no new content will be produced.
You made a stupid untrue statement. Clearly what you meant was "I prefer the content that gets made for money." Unfortunately, that statement doesn't make you feel as self righteous. The fact is that content WOULD be created even if there was no copyright. To say otherwise is either stupid or lying.
But hey, people will trot out all kinds of crap it it makes them feel good about taking stuff for free, as slashdot comments prove time and time again...
Of course, you use other peoples ideas every day without compensating them. No doubt you rationalize that YOUR use of other peoples ideas are OK.
Where can I invest!?!?!