Given the choice between the two, I'd rather live in a world where there a good chance of getting robbed than a good chance of getting shot.
I live in a fairly affluent suburban neighborhood in the US. I'd say my chances of either are a lot less than that of a person in an equivalent type neighborhood in say Britain.
Yeah, there are definitely cultural influences as well, hence my writing "it's not just as simple as 'nobody can get a gun.'" At the same time there are many societies around the world where assault weapons are not available, and -- surprise! -- massacres perpetrated using assault weapons don't occur.
Switzerland and Finland have a private gun ownership rate of more than half that of the US. Shouldn't the massacre rate in those countries be about half that of the US?
hard data. Strange that the violent crime rate in the US is lower than Sweden's or Canada's. It'd be interesting to see differences in reporting statics.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So you could have a device based upon the Android source, but doesn't meet the CDD, so it can't call itself Android.
Hmmm...my thinking on that is it's more to protect the Android trademark from crap implementations that would tarnish it's image. I' haven't read the CDD but from the summary it's focus is making sure applications will run correctly on a particular implementation.
I admit that doesn't say that the "license" actually requires a fee, but I think it does.
The Android compatibility page (where the CDD is hosted) states "Android compatibility is free, and it's easy." Although it does also have the below so there are some other factors that may involve some fee.
Once you've built a compatible device, you may wish to include Google Play to provide your users access to the third-party app ecosystem. Unfortunately, for a variety of legal and business reasons, we aren't able to automatically license Google Play to all compatible devices. To inquire about access about Google Play, you can contact us.
Although requiring a small fee for such certification may technically make it not virtually free, if the fee is relatively moderate I would still consider it essential free.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
you (phone/tablet makers) have to pay for some of the parts actual real world people want.
You have a link to more info? Not just calling "cite". I'm interested.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 2
Gee, except for, ACCORDING TO THE RUMORS, not allowing turn by turn directions on iOS.
Navigate your world with Google Maps, now available for iPhone. Get comprehensive, accurate and easy-to-use maps with built-in Google local search, voice guided turn-by-turn navigation, public transit directions, Street View and more.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Folks who got on the Internet/WWW after about 2001 don't realize that it wasn't always just another medium for slapping ads in front of people.
This isn't a bad thing. It's Google's prime business model. Google is arguable the greatest player pushing against the trend discussed in the article. They don't want people locked into walled gardens or restricted in what they can do with their systems or on the internet. They just want more people to spend more time on the internet. The more people on the internet the more money they make. iOS vs. Android is the perfect example of this. iOS is one of the most restrictive computing platforms ever created (Hmmm...aside from game consoles which I wouldn't consider general purpose computing platforms). Google financed/bought/developed Android to give people an option that didn't require them to live with Apple's restrictions. They gave it away for free because they knew it would ultimately increase their advertising revenue by getting more people to spend more time on the internet. With Apple's system only Apple and the people Apple chooses make money. Consumers suffer by being restricted in their choices to what Apple wants them to have. With Google's everybody wins. Anyone can use Android to make money. But in doing so they increase the revenue of Google's core business while also bringing about a revolution of innovation in the mobile space.
This is pretty much true of nearly every product Google creates. Another example is Google maps. It was a a huge innovative step in online mapping software. They made it wide open for anyone to use for free creating their own useful innovative applications. They make money off it by once again increasing the number of people and the amount of time they're on the internet.
Don't get me wrong. Google isn't the do all be all of the internet. Google has plenty of faults. But they've probable contributed more to a free and open internet than anyone since Mozilla thrashed IE.
Except that major distros will have their bootchain signed by Microsoft directly, and small distros can use this version of shim, which is precisely designed - with the co-operation of Microsoft, it is *signed by Microsoft*
You say this like it's a good thing. That terrifies me even more. That's basically giving Microsoft control of the Linux distros.
Second of all, it isn't that bad, There are GUI screens navigatable with a mouse(unlike BIOS) where you can input/remove keys. Perhaps you have ideas to make it easier while still maintaining security, instead of just kneejerk bashing and conspiracy theories of "OH THEY'RE GONNA GET US OMG".
It's a much bigger deal than apologists are making it out to be. It's a big step in making the switch to Linux MUCH more difficult.
For the last ten years or so Linux has been easier to install on a raw machine then Windows. Microsoft finally came up with a way to reverse that. And of course it has nothing to do with making their OS easier to install.
Also no more booting a live CD/DVD so you can try things out or show them to someone. No more Knoppix STD when you're trying to figure out what crap your mom got on her computer this time or recover data from a flaked hard drive. Etc, etc...
Shouldn't the shop that supposedly "re-imaged" it busted for fraud?
Who knows what they actually told the computer shop. Obviously they weren't very computer literate. It's likely they just told the computer shop to clean some spyware off rather than "re-image" it.
Extrapolate that to volume of potential of "3 second failures" in driverless autos and that's a huge liability.
I wasn't in any way denying there would be liability issues. There's massive liability issues now that cost hundreds of millions in the form of idiot drivers and idiotic law suits. What I was trying to point out was that individuals wouldn't need insurance anymore. That insurance burden would be carried by manufacturers and would be rolled into the cost of the car. Those cost should be significantly less than they are right now due to the better safety of the cars, economy of scale and what should be much more cut and dry determinations of cause (fewer expensive law suits). A driverless car would have a detailed log of what occurred causing an accident just like aircraft. Add to that the indirect cost savings in increased fuel efficiency of an auto driven car and much reduced traffic problems that are massively increased by idiot drivers and collisions and I believe you'd find a massive economic savings in driverless cars.
I was actually more referring to cat III autoland rather than straight an level autopilots. Autoland is used when conditions are less than optimal and typically do better than the pilots can do under optimal conditions.
and even then, that's by massive cheating using lidars and GPS
That's not cheating. Those are the very technologies that are going make it practical. Or rather improved and cheaper computing making those technologies affordable is what is making it practical.
There is the very real potential for thousands, or even millions of cars to all crash _simultaneously_. Imagine everyone on the freeway simply veering left all the sudden. That should be the manufacturers largest fear. Crashes one at a time can be litigated and explained away, the business can go on. The first car company that crashes a few thousands cars all at the same time in response to some input will be out of business in a New York minute.
One word. Aircraft.
They've been pretty much flying themselves for around a decade. You know what's happened to air safety over that period? Do you know how much more difficult it is to fly than it is to drive? Yeah, yeah. You're gonna say not much traffic in the sky. I say BS to that. More traffic or less traffic flying is a LOT more difficult that driving.
Driverless cars are merely a matter of time. All that money that goes to the car insurance industry can be used to support liability issues just like it is now. It's merely a matter of the liability being shifted somewhere it would be much more efficiently handled. Cost is the driving factor. I'd see a car manufacturer having a single driving system with the same set of sensors in all there cars. Set a few parameters (center of gravity, weight, type of tire...) and the software is all set for a new car model.
HTC aren't nowhere near as big as Apple, but with a revenue around 9 Billion USD, I doubt a few millions for lawyers is a game changer.
Your base are assumptions are way, way off. From SFGate:
Compare those accomplishments with recent investments by Apple and Google, and you'll be disappointed. Collectively, the two have spent an estimated $400 million on litigation expenses fighting the so-called "smartphone wars," a worldwide spate of patent suits that so far has done little more than enrich lawyers and reduce consumer choice in the mobile device market.
Shockingly, both companies spent far more in the last two years simply purchasing patents - new ammunition for the patent war effort - than they invested in research and design.
They spend more on patent wars then they do on research.
Say what you will about Apple, but without them we'd still be the slaves of the cell carriers
You must live in an alternate universe or something. You can get Apple phones from where? Huh, only place I can find is from the same carriers you seem to be claiming Apple freed someone from. They had the Apple fans enslaved exclusively to AT&T for quite a while. The only thing Apple is doing is adding another layer of enslavement to Apple.
Lets see. I can get unlocked Google, Samsung and Motorola phones from all over. I can get phone service for many of their phones from Ting where they even have a forum devoted to helping people root their phones.
We also had a problem where the clock would get out of sync and then deny access.
Surely you realized that without credible details, you would likely be regarded as a troll?
The above pretty much proves him as a troll (or else a completely incompetent admin).. Linux doesn't have the clock "get out of sync" unless you have no idea what you are doing. Now on Windows...
There is 250 million years of evolution on the mammalian sex drive, there is maybe 100,000 years of culture, and 14,000 of settled community living.
250 million years of evolution also says you should be out there slaughtering your next meal. I'm betting you don't spend a significant amount of time hunting your next meal.
Sex drive has nothing to do with having kids. I can have all the sex I want including the kind that would normally produce kids with very close to a zero probably of any of it resulting in a kid. Make people responsible for there actions and they'll quickly learn to make more responsible decisions.
I am going with experience over youth in the conflict between law and evolution, as is most of the smart money.
Well there goes any kind of organized society. Pretty much everything we do in the modern world goes against 250 million years of mammalian evolution.
No you don't, you just externalize the cost on people who can't do anything about it.
That makes no sense at all. Are you saying people who have kids "can't do anything about it"? They can not have kids. It's pretty easy to do in this modern world. And don't try to pull out the religion card. If your religion requires you to have kids your religion can pay for them. Please explain how expecting people to actually pay at least some of the cost their having kids burdens society with is my externalizing.
You are also confusing fixed and variable costs, so you don't even know econ.
Ok. Now you're reaching. Where exactly did I indicate anything was a fixed or variable cost?
There is no way you can actually consider education anything but a "common good".
I don't consider kids as a "common good". You want to have kids you take responsibility for educating them. You pay the taxes to educate them. Too many people is one of the biggest problems in the world today. If you made the people who want to have kids actually take at least some responsibility for them no where near as many people would have them. Stop burdening the rest of society with them.
Incorrect; think about this from a base, supply vs demand standpoint: Regardless of draconian copyright laws, If Amazon knows Joe the Consumer will pay $12.99 for an ebook, they'll charge $12.99 for it; if no one buys ebooks from Amazon for $12.99, and OtherRetailer.com starts selling their ebooks for $9.99, Amazon will either drop their prices or lose out completely.
You're missing the key point here. Market forces only work where there is a market. Where there is a monopoly source they charge monopoly prices which is whatever they want to. There is no other retailer that can sell the book for $9.99 because the monopoly holding publisher won't let them. I was recently looking for a book. I could get new paper copies for from $9.99 to $12.99 (it's a weird coincidence but the prices exactly corresponded to what you stated) and used copies (another part of market competition that doesn't exist with DRMed digital goods) for around $5.00. The ebook was $12.99 everywhere. Given the marginal cost do you really think every ebook retailer was keeping that price because they wanted to?
Similarly, if Joe the Consumer realized he can have a tangible, irrevocable version of the ebook (we just call them "books" around these parts) for even less than what the online retailers are charging, he'd be a complete moron (IMO) to waste money renting* ebooks from online retailers.
This is largely true with one big exception. People will pay for convenience. This is how you defeat "piracy". Provide value in the form of convenience. It's a pain in the ass and there is a certain amount of risk with using "pirated" goods. Charge a reasonable price and provide added value in the form of convenience and people will be more than willing to pay for it.
Who uses the services of the EPA? Or the military? Or the FCC? Who wants to pay for it?
Strange. I don't see anywhere that I stated I wouldn't pay for a military or any other "common good" services. My only condition there was openness and accountability for how those funds were spent. Neither of those exist and our government is rapidly heading in the direction of keeping more and more secret.
I don't see supporting other peoples kids as a "common good". You want to have kids, you take responsibility for them. Make parents responsible for their crotch fruit rather than society.
Grow up.
I AM grown up. I take responsibility for what I do. I don't have a slew of crotch fruit and then expect everyone else to except responsibility for raising and educating them.
You benefit by living in a society where everyone has a reasonable degree of education...and as fellow voters are better able to understand the issues
Have you seen what they teach in public school? A good percentage is more about brain washing then teaching people to think.
but imagine how much worse it could be if a huge percentage of the population literally were ignoramuses
To a certain extent I can see this argument. My counter argument is that the parents should be held responsible for making their crotch fruit fit for society. Your kid doesn't get a job before he's 30, you pay to feed him not society. You as the parent are responsible for making sure that kid can get a job. Today's society has absolved parents of almost any responsibility for their children. I see that as a huge problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, are even Daily Mail readers stupid enough to fall for such a ridiculous oversimplification?
The Telegraph too. Unless you have access to the details of how the reporting is done that's you can't state that with any credence.
Compare the UK to the US.
Ok. The violent crime rate in England is higher than it is in South Africa. Switzerland has a private gun ownership rate over half that of the US (note not counting the government issue rifles) and yet "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept."
So yeah, it's all about gun control laws.
What is different is USA has easily accessible guns, causing deaths.
Switzerland and Finland have a private gun ownership rate of over half that of the US. Should the "caused deaths" there be around half that of the US?
Given the choice between the two, I'd rather live in a world where there a good chance of getting robbed than a good chance of getting shot.
I live in a fairly affluent suburban neighborhood in the US. I'd say my chances of either are a lot less than that of a person in an equivalent type neighborhood in say Britain.
Yeah, there are definitely cultural influences as well, hence my writing "it's not just as simple as 'nobody can get a gun.'" At the same time there are many societies around the world where assault weapons are not available, and -- surprise! -- massacres perpetrated using assault weapons don't occur.
Switzerland and Finland have a private gun ownership rate of more than half that of the US. Shouldn't the massacre rate in those countries be about half that of the US?
If you want "hard data"
hard data. Strange that the violent crime rate in the US is lower than Sweden's or Canada's. It'd be interesting to see differences in reporting statics.
So you could have a device based upon the Android source, but doesn't meet the CDD, so it can't call itself Android.
Hmmm...my thinking on that is it's more to protect the Android trademark from crap implementations that would tarnish it's image. I' haven't read the CDD but from the summary it's focus is making sure applications will run correctly on a particular implementation.
I admit that doesn't say that the "license" actually requires a fee, but I think it does.
The Android compatibility page (where the CDD is hosted) states "Android compatibility is free, and it's easy." Although it does also have the below so there are some other factors that may involve some fee.
Although requiring a small fee for such certification may technically make it not virtually free, if the fee is relatively moderate I would still consider it essential free.
you (phone/tablet makers) have to pay for some of the parts actual real world people want.
You have a link to more info? Not just calling "cite". I'm interested.
Gee, except for, ACCORDING TO THE RUMORS, not allowing turn by turn directions on iOS.
From itunes:
Folks who got on the Internet/WWW after about 2001 don't realize that it wasn't always just another medium for slapping ads in front of people.
This isn't a bad thing. It's Google's prime business model. Google is arguable the greatest player pushing against the trend discussed in the article. They don't want people locked into walled gardens or restricted in what they can do with their systems or on the internet. They just want more people to spend more time on the internet. The more people on the internet the more money they make. iOS vs. Android is the perfect example of this. iOS is one of the most restrictive computing platforms ever created (Hmmm...aside from game consoles which I wouldn't consider general purpose computing platforms). Google financed/bought/developed Android to give people an option that didn't require them to live with Apple's restrictions. They gave it away for free because they knew it would ultimately increase their advertising revenue by getting more people to spend more time on the internet. With Apple's system only Apple and the people Apple chooses make money. Consumers suffer by being restricted in their choices to what Apple wants them to have. With Google's everybody wins. Anyone can use Android to make money. But in doing so they increase the revenue of Google's core business while also bringing about a revolution of innovation in the mobile space.
This is pretty much true of nearly every product Google creates. Another example is Google maps. It was a a huge innovative step in online mapping software. They made it wide open for anyone to use for free creating their own useful innovative applications. They make money off it by once again increasing the number of people and the amount of time they're on the internet.
Don't get me wrong. Google isn't the do all be all of the internet. Google has plenty of faults. But they've probable contributed more to a free and open internet than anyone since Mozilla thrashed IE.
Except that major distros will have their bootchain signed by Microsoft directly, and small distros can use this version of shim, which is precisely designed - with the co-operation of Microsoft, it is *signed by Microsoft*
You say this like it's a good thing. That terrifies me even more. That's basically giving Microsoft control of the Linux distros.
Second of all, it isn't that bad, There are GUI screens navigatable with a mouse(unlike BIOS) where you can input/remove keys. Perhaps you have ideas to make it easier while still maintaining security, instead of just kneejerk bashing and conspiracy theories of "OH THEY'RE GONNA GET US OMG".
It's a much bigger deal than apologists are making it out to be. It's a big step in making the switch to Linux MUCH more difficult.
For the last ten years or so Linux has been easier to install on a raw machine then Windows. Microsoft finally came up with a way to reverse that. And of course it has nothing to do with making their OS easier to install.
Also no more booting a live CD/DVD so you can try things out or show them to someone. No more Knoppix STD when you're trying to figure out what crap your mom got on her computer this time or recover data from a flaked hard drive. Etc, etc...
Shouldn't the shop that supposedly "re-imaged" it busted for fraud?
Who knows what they actually told the computer shop. Obviously they weren't very computer literate. It's likely they just told the computer shop to clean some spyware off rather than "re-image" it.
Extrapolate that to volume of potential of "3 second failures" in driverless autos and that's a huge liability.
I wasn't in any way denying there would be liability issues. There's massive liability issues now that cost hundreds of millions in the form of idiot drivers and idiotic law suits. What I was trying to point out was that individuals wouldn't need insurance anymore. That insurance burden would be carried by manufacturers and would be rolled into the cost of the car. Those cost should be significantly less than they are right now due to the better safety of the cars, economy of scale and what should be much more cut and dry determinations of cause (fewer expensive law suits). A driverless car would have a detailed log of what occurred causing an accident just like aircraft. Add to that the indirect cost savings in increased fuel efficiency of an auto driven car and much reduced traffic problems that are massively increased by idiot drivers and collisions and I believe you'd find a massive economic savings in driverless cars.
Good grief, you're serious, aren't you? Answer: About negative a million times.
Ummm...pot meet kettle.
I was actually more referring to cat III autoland rather than straight an level autopilots. Autoland is used when conditions are less than optimal and typically do better than the pilots can do under optimal conditions.
and even then, that's by massive cheating using lidars and GPS
That's not cheating. Those are the very technologies that are going make it practical. Or rather improved and cheaper computing making those technologies affordable is what is making it practical.
There is the very real potential for thousands, or even millions of cars to all crash _simultaneously_. Imagine everyone on the freeway simply veering left all the sudden. That should be the manufacturers largest fear. Crashes one at a time can be litigated and explained away, the business can go on. The first car company that crashes a few thousands cars all at the same time in response to some input will be out of business in a New York minute.
One word. Aircraft.
They've been pretty much flying themselves for around a decade. You know what's happened to air safety over that period? Do you know how much more difficult it is to fly than it is to drive? Yeah, yeah. You're gonna say not much traffic in the sky. I say BS to that. More traffic or less traffic flying is a LOT more difficult that driving.
Driverless cars are merely a matter of time. All that money that goes to the car insurance industry can be used to support liability issues just like it is now. It's merely a matter of the liability being shifted somewhere it would be much more efficiently handled. Cost is the driving factor. I'd see a car manufacturer having a single driving system with the same set of sensors in all there cars. Set a few parameters (center of gravity, weight, type of tire...) and the software is all set for a new car model.
HTC aren't nowhere near as big as Apple, but with a revenue around 9 Billion USD, I doubt a few millions for lawyers is a game changer.
Your base are assumptions are way, way off. From SFGate:
Compare those accomplishments with recent investments by Apple and Google, and you'll be disappointed. Collectively, the two have spent an estimated $400 million on litigation expenses fighting the so-called "smartphone wars," a worldwide spate of patent suits that so far has done little more than enrich lawyers and reduce consumer choice in the mobile device market.
Shockingly, both companies spent far more in the last two years simply purchasing patents - new ammunition for the patent war effort - than they invested in research and design.
They spend more on patent wars then they do on research.
Say what you will about Apple, but without them we'd still be the slaves of the cell carriers
You must live in an alternate universe or something. You can get Apple phones from where? Huh, only place I can find is from the same carriers you seem to be claiming Apple freed someone from. They had the Apple fans enslaved exclusively to AT&T for quite a while. The only thing Apple is doing is adding another layer of enslavement to Apple.
Lets see. I can get unlocked Google, Samsung and Motorola phones from all over. I can get phone service for many of their phones from Ting where they even have a forum devoted to helping people root their phones.
We also had a problem where the clock would get out of sync and then deny access.
Surely you realized that without credible details, you would likely be regarded as a troll?
The above pretty much proves him as a troll (or else a completely incompetent admin).. Linux doesn't have the clock "get out of sync" unless you have no idea what you are doing. Now on Windows...
There is 250 million years of evolution on the mammalian sex drive, there is maybe 100,000 years of culture, and 14,000 of settled community living.
250 million years of evolution also says you should be out there slaughtering your next meal. I'm betting you don't spend a significant amount of time hunting your next meal.
Sex drive has nothing to do with having kids. I can have all the sex I want including the kind that would normally produce kids with very close to a zero probably of any of it resulting in a kid. Make people responsible for there actions and they'll quickly learn to make more responsible decisions.
I am going with experience over youth in the conflict between law and evolution, as is most of the smart money.
Well there goes any kind of organized society. Pretty much everything we do in the modern world goes against 250 million years of mammalian evolution.
No you don't, you just externalize the cost on people who can't do anything about it.
That makes no sense at all. Are you saying people who have kids "can't do anything about it"? They can not have kids. It's pretty easy to do in this modern world. And don't try to pull out the religion card. If your religion requires you to have kids your religion can pay for them. Please explain how expecting people to actually pay at least some of the cost their having kids burdens society with is my externalizing.
You are also confusing fixed and variable costs, so you don't even know econ.
Ok. Now you're reaching. Where exactly did I indicate anything was a fixed or variable cost?
There is no way you can actually consider education anything but a "common good".
I don't consider kids as a "common good". You want to have kids you take responsibility for educating them. You pay the taxes to educate them. Too many people is one of the biggest problems in the world today. If you made the people who want to have kids actually take at least some responsibility for them no where near as many people would have them. Stop burdening the rest of society with them.
Incorrect; think about this from a base, supply vs demand standpoint: Regardless of draconian copyright laws, If Amazon knows Joe the Consumer will pay $12.99 for an ebook, they'll charge $12.99 for it; if no one buys ebooks from Amazon for $12.99, and OtherRetailer.com starts selling their ebooks for $9.99, Amazon will either drop their prices or lose out completely.
You're missing the key point here. Market forces only work where there is a market. Where there is a monopoly source they charge monopoly prices which is whatever they want to. There is no other retailer that can sell the book for $9.99 because the monopoly holding publisher won't let them. I was recently looking for a book. I could get new paper copies for from $9.99 to $12.99 (it's a weird coincidence but the prices exactly corresponded to what you stated) and used copies (another part of market competition that doesn't exist with DRMed digital goods) for around $5.00. The ebook was $12.99 everywhere. Given the marginal cost do you really think every ebook retailer was keeping that price because they wanted to?
Similarly, if Joe the Consumer realized he can have a tangible, irrevocable version of the ebook (we just call them "books" around these parts) for even less than what the online retailers are charging, he'd be a complete moron (IMO) to waste money renting* ebooks from online retailers.
This is largely true with one big exception. People will pay for convenience. This is how you defeat "piracy". Provide value in the form of convenience. It's a pain in the ass and there is a certain amount of risk with using "pirated" goods. Charge a reasonable price and provide added value in the form of convenience and people will be more than willing to pay for it.
Who uses the services of the EPA? Or the military? Or the FCC? Who wants to pay for it?
Strange. I don't see anywhere that I stated I wouldn't pay for a military or any other "common good" services. My only condition there was openness and accountability for how those funds were spent. Neither of those exist and our government is rapidly heading in the direction of keeping more and more secret.
I don't see supporting other peoples kids as a "common good". You want to have kids, you take responsibility for them. Make parents responsible for their crotch fruit rather than society.
Grow up.
I AM grown up. I take responsibility for what I do. I don't have a slew of crotch fruit and then expect everyone else to except responsibility for raising and educating them.
You benefit by living in a society where everyone has a reasonable degree of education...and as fellow voters are better able to understand the issues
Have you seen what they teach in public school? A good percentage is more about brain washing then teaching people to think.
but imagine how much worse it could be if a huge percentage of the population literally were ignoramuses
To a certain extent I can see this argument. My counter argument is that the parents should be held responsible for making their crotch fruit fit for society. Your kid doesn't get a job before he's 30, you pay to feed him not society. You as the parent are responsible for making sure that kid can get a job. Today's society has absolved parents of almost any responsibility for their children. I see that as a huge problem.