My argument isn't that teaching them to cheat is acceptable.
I only quoted two statements.
1) Cheating isn't related to race and a couple other factors. 2) A lot of cheaters at one university are international students.
There are a lot of assumptions in your quote. The cheating I saw was not plagiarism but on math and other tests. Copying other people's answers. I had to judge one young girl who was a fellow student. And I saw people caught and busted.
OTH, I never had the teacher bust anyone in an english, polysci, or government class for bad essays. Just my experience. I'm sure it happens too.
Wasn't relavent to my point and I felt it added noise. There were elipsis... and reference numbers [41] [43] to show it was a partial quote. Plus a link for anyone who wanted to read the chapter and verse.
Plus your conclusion is incomplete.
For those who cheat on essay type material, one factor is lack of english skills and a fear when they paraphrase that the meaning will be lost.
This is not a factor for those who cheat in calculus, physics, mathematics, or other non essay material, or any form of multiple choice test.
This one time we took 27 hours studying every problem in the book- including making a test of all the example problems and doing them until we could see the answer and write the problem.
For 2 of of us- it turned out the professor had gotten cute and made a test entirely out of example problems. They finished in 15 minutes and aced it. I finished mine in about 40 minutes and aced it.
Oh wait.. I guess that wasn't cheating. And I was working a full time job taking 13 hours at the time. So anyone who isn't working full time just doesn't have an excuse.
The closest I came to cheating ever was buying solution books with every category of problem with solutions and working them until I understood them and buying an extremely powerful calculator which was allowed.
Cheating doesn't pay. You don't know the material - it makes the next class even harder. The only class you'd be justified to cheat in would be one that didn't matter at all to your degree. In which case- why are you taking it?
The more you know- the less afraid you are and the easier later classes will be.
--- Also was a student judge for one cheating case. Was a girl- she even copied the exact errors from the other student. She got an F for the class and that was it. I think that's fair-- the penalty should not be completely draconian. Kids make mistakes.
Generally though, race, nationality, and class all show little correlation with academic misconduct.... [41]
However... In the University of California system, international students make up 10% of the student body but comprise 47% of academic dishonesty cases.[43]
Exactly.... Violence does NOT always (or even often) result in a maladjusted adult.
On the other hand, a complete lack of discipline and parental involvement has a much higher rate of failure than a few spankings a year over the child's formative period. I got about 6 to 8 by the time I was 14- a few from school- less than a half dozen from my parents.
Anecdotally- many parents fail badly at attempts to use non violent approaches to their children. They just lack the skills to pull it off. The result of the non violent approach is also often maladjusted adults. They are whiny, unrealistic, and self centered. Their expectations do not meet reality.
The failure rate of the non violent approach is unpopular to research because of the anti violence propaganda right now.
Listen- I used "logical consequences" with my daughter successfully. But I and my partner were both college educated and read extensively on how to do it correctly. I'm not for violence. Many parents who try logical consequences suck at it however. It's more like "illogical consequences" or they lack the will to let the kid go to bed hungry one night after tossing a fit in the grocery store or go without toys left out for one month.
So for most parents- a couple quick pops or switching combined with a "no do not do that" well connected to the child's bad behavior fixes the problem quickly and permenently; usually results in a well adjusted adult, and doesn't require nearly as much thought,training and effort.
âoe[They] frequently know the difference between right andwrong and are competent to stand trial. Because of their impair-ments, however, by definition they have diminished capacities to understand and process mistakes and learn from experience, toengage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understandthe reactions of othersâ¦. Their deficiencies do not warrant anexemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their per-sonal culpability.âAtkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 318,122 S.Ct. 2242, 2250 (2002)
âoeThe evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of con-sequences, and other characteristics that make people morallyculpableâ¦. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the âbiolog-icalâ(TM) age of maturity.â10
--- The brain continues to develop. Major parts of the brain which manage impulse control and logical thinking do not fully develop until later.
In the real world- getting dumped into the full hell of real life at 18 happens a lot. It's not that bad. You get a job- you find roommates. You ride the bus (or a bike). You eat ramen noodles. Occasionally you visit your parents.
Today's kids are way to coddled. I'll admit life is harder now than it was in the 60's and 70's-- but it's about the same as it was in the 50's and 80's.
Actually, she was a very good kid until about 15. Then she fell in with a bad crowd of drug using, partying dropouts. Nothing they could do. It was getting bad really fast.
There is an entire industry devoted to brainwashing the kids. Kinda creepy, no?
So you are saying there is NEVER a child or situation where the child just does what they want and ignores any rational approaches.
That statement does not match the real world.
Most people who were children 40 years ago were subject to spankings and grew up with loving relationships with their parents.
It's not about the violence- it's about the context. If the violence is "fair" and moderate then it does no damage and can be a lot faster than talking it out. It's when the violence is irrational and excessive that it becomes abusive.
Consider when a child falls down- they can either throw a hissy fit or get up and keep going- BASED on clues from the parents. It can turn into a traumatic life event or be something that isn't remembered the next day.
It's the same thing for corporal punishment. If it is reserved for excessive situations, isn't used constantly and the social framework provided by the parents and other indicates that it is normal and okay, then no damage results from it.
I've taken much harder hits in sports than I ever took from my mom or the school principal.
With my daughter I reserved corporal punishment for if she took a habit of doing life threatening actions- and it never cameup. We used logical consequences which some parents ALSO consider abusive. "You didn't pick up your toys and I had to pick them up- so I put them away for a few weeks." And (didn't happen with her but it could have) "you threw a fit while I was trying to buy food for us so we have no food for you for dinner tonight." Logical consequences works really well. It typically only takes one iteration. And the child usually sees that it is "fair" so there is no outrage.
Most of history has shown you can have a loving relationship with people who use physical discipline. There is even some data that shows some people don't feel right without strong boundaries drawn by people they respect and fear.
I've seen so many helpless parents who were being driven over by their children who have no respect for them.
However, taking one part of the comment out of context isn't really fair. I also said that for many children, a rational approach works. We used logical consequences on my daughter and it was effective until just before she was 18. Then she went psycho for about 5 months.
Well, I reserved corporal punishment as an option if my child were putting her self in danger such as crossing the street or playing with matches. In my case, my child was rational and not a hellion so it worked.
So I guess a discussion could start with: As I had reserved corporal punishment for some cases, are there any circumstances where any kind of corporal punishment you would use corporal punishment?
If every rational method failed because they were just to full of hormones would you just deal with a misbehaving child who kept endangering themselves?
What would you do if your 16 year old was putting you at a high financial risk and there was no way you could break your legal responsibility for their actions until they were 18?
My fairly nice child completely lost it at 17 and 7 months. Stayed out without calling and various other problems. Couldn't be solved by talking. She basically just did what she wanted and at 18 got the "obey the house rules or move out" speech. Things got very surly for a while but then she went off to college after the summer and things improved (partially because she fell for someone in college who was not a complete loser like she had been previously seeing).
But there was basically no action I could take for about 5 months. So I sympathise with the judge for losing it. You are responsible, you can lose a lot of money, and you can't get free of the responsibility. It's a bad situation.
If you can control others parental rights to raise their children, then be ready to grant them to control how you raise your children.
Perhaps as a majority (in your region), they'll decide the child should go to the dominant religion's churches every holy day.
Perhaps as a majority, they'll decide that sex with a child old enough to bear the weight of a man is legal.
You have an opinion- as does everyone. I'm not disputing that. But your opinions are not inherently more just, moral, right, or wrong than anyone elses.
It's just the way you feel.
And for the record, while I never had to use corporal punishment on my child, it's my opinion that some circumstances merit it. And some children require it - they are just wired to be nasty unless they get a firm hand. "Talking" to them is just a joke to them.
As a parent you are responsible for the actions of your children until they are 18 unless they are legally emancipated.
For example: According to Pennsylvania truancy law, "Every parent, guardian, or person in parental relation, having control or charge of any child . . . of compulsory school age . . . " may be fined or put in jail if the child in their care does not go to school. Therefore, unless a minor's parents, guardians or other adult who has previously assumed responsibility for the minor, can prove they no longer have actual "control or charge" over the minor, they may be subject to a penalty if the minor in their care does not go to school.
And: V. PARENTAL LIABILITY
Under the law, parents are liable for property damage and personal injury caused by their child. However, they can only be required to pay a maximum of $300 of any damage claim where one person is injured, and $1,000 where two or more persons are injured.
A parent does not have to pay damages for injury caused by their child if:
1. the parent does not have custody of the child and is not entitled to custody of the child or
2. the child is institutionalized or
3. the child is emancipated.
Again, emancipation is not defined under this statute. In this situation, a parent who is being sued for property damage and personal injury caused by their child should raise emancipation as a defense. A court would then determine the parent's liability, using the emancipation factors discussed in the section of this pamphlet on Judicial Determination of Emancipation.
And: As stated earlier, a minor may ask a court to declare him or her emancipated but, as shown above, court action is often unnecessary for the minor to get what he or she wants.... In effect, the minor child must already be living independently for a court to determine that the child is emancipated.
Parents or guardians of a minor emancipated by court order, are no longer required to give the minor any financial support. This means they do not have to provide food, housing, clothing or any other assistance to the minor.
I.e. MINORS can ask to be emancipated but parents cannot voluntarily emancipate their children.
And: Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > Law & Legal Issues > Children and the Law > Emancipation and Ages for Moving Out Can a child's parents emancipate them without the child's permission? Answer: No, but when the person reaches the age of majority, the parents can legally request they move out of the family home and take responsibility for their own financial support
-- Soooo.. --- I.e. if you have an irresponsible child who is 16, you are screwed. They can leave you- but you can't leave them until they are 18. They can cause you endless trouble with the law and with CPS.
----
I never laid a lick on my daughter but spanking children-- with a belt-- is not illegal unless there is injury. I can't fault the judge for engaging in the behavior and I can even understand it. Partially it's his fault for raising her to be such a spoiled, blackmailing brat.
It's unfortunate but lots of children do not respond to reason and it boils down to fear. With a foundation of fear, you can build up respect, trust and love. Sure, it's nicer if you can avoid it but many children are unbearably disrespectful and unruly starting sometime after age 13 until they can be tossed out at 18.
I had some friends who went so far as to kidnap their daughter and send her to a stepford child religious school. Too far? Perhaps- but if they hadn't, the girl would probably be dead or a drug using low class hooker now instead of attending college and working a day job. She cut off all contact with her old friends when she got back. Brainwashed? I sort of think so. Difficult decision for the parents to have to make.
What you are leaving out is that with inflation, the middle AND the bottom lost purchasing power... for three decades... and were using credit to make up the difference.
The wealthy can't make money if the middle income and lower income stop using credit.
Mr Joyce has increased his annual take home pay to $5 million, with other key executives have increased their multimillion dollar packages by similar ratios.
âoeThe 71 per cent increase comes despite the Qantas share price dipping 16 per cent in the last financial year,â AIPA said.
It also comes at a time when Qantas has announced it will be sacking 1000 Australian workers and shifting local operations to Asia to avoid employing Australians.
--- Take a huge raise, Lay off 1000 employees. Then shut the airline down when they protest.
Mr. Joyce must be learning how to run a company from Reed Hastings (Netflix).
Actually, the most effective way is modular design.
Google programmed robotic truck shows up to pick up the broken robot and drops off a replacement. Diagnostic plugins analyze the problem as one of the 99 known or as an exception.
Takes it to the repair center-- automated systems replace the effected module.
Some humans actually look at the exceptions for a while - until it's cheaper to just eat them.
Easy divisions are computer, "arms", movement system (most likely to break down), batteries...
Some could be done "on the truck" at the site.
Might have to have a human riding around in the truck for a while until folks get comfortable with automated drivers. But in the end, they'll be safer than human drivers.
just like pharmacist robots have 1/5th the error rate of human pharmacists while working 7 times as fast.
Going to have to call long distance to get to your world.
Receptionists... many major companies no longer have a human answer the phone. You call- you get a machine that guides you to a series of scripted response and hopefully to a human. Calling an employee at the company? The machine prompts you for the employee name or extension. No human receptionist. Not for a decade.
Typing... they *used* to have these things called secretaries or typing pools. Now- that job is on our desk.
Which brings us to taco bell.
Unless you are smarter than average or take up a trade like electrician- this is your likely job future today. A minimum wage job pushing buttons and filling food orders.
As for your last paragraph,..
a) not terrified- just see it coming. it's obvious. b) not a low level grunt. think higher with direct reports.
c) This time is different. There will not be replacement jobs. We've made machines that replace jobs faster than new ones can be created. Which given people like you who lack any kind of empathy for other people- will inevitably lead to civil unrest, violence, and possible revolution. If we had wise, empathetic people- it could be a paradise. But it's clear it won't be. It's going to be ugly and end in a lot of deaths.
Because combines are specialized machines that can only replace one category of work and at a fairly high cost.
Robots are generalized machines which are cheap ($15k per year to lease and can "work" 2.5 shifts per day with 99% uptime- no benefits, no sick time- no vacation time- no lawsuits).
Any expensive thinking job can be offshored now. Any "no brainer" work can be done by a machine. A large number of medium skill jobs have been turned into applicaitons like Microsoft Office. Recepitionists have been replaced by machines.
Any time a new job is created- the first thing which happens is finding out how to automate it. The automation has to be done one time by a small number of people.
I have the same worry- only it's much uglier than that. In about 50 years max. Hope 50 years and not 30 years.
Slashdot Mirror
My argument isn't that teaching them to cheat is acceptable.
I only quoted two statements.
1) Cheating isn't related to race and a couple other factors.
2) A lot of cheaters at one university are international students.
There are a lot of assumptions in your quote. The cheating I saw was not plagiarism but on math and other tests. Copying other people's answers. I had to judge one young girl who was a fellow student. And I saw people caught and busted.
OTH, I never had the teacher bust anyone in an english, polysci, or government class for bad essays. Just my experience. I'm sure it happens too.
Wasn't relavent to my point and I felt it added noise. ... and reference numbers [41] [43] to show it was a partial quote. Plus a link for anyone who wanted to read the chapter and verse.
There were elipsis
Plus your conclusion is incomplete.
For those who cheat on essay type material, one factor is lack of english skills and a fear when they paraphrase that the meaning will be lost.
This is not a factor for those who cheat in calculus, physics, mathematics, or other non essay material, or any form of multiple choice test.
This is why they need trade schools.
Sounds like you missed a lot of what the university had to offer and your point is valid- you shouldn't have gone to university.
I was profoundly transformed as a human being by university but it's not for everyone.
This one time we took 27 hours studying every problem in the book- including making a test of all the example problems and doing them until we could see the answer and write the problem.
For 2 of of us- it turned out the professor had gotten cute and made a test entirely out of example problems. They finished in 15 minutes and aced it. I finished mine in about 40 minutes and aced it.
Oh wait.. I guess that wasn't cheating. And I was working a full time job taking 13 hours at the time. So anyone who isn't working full time just doesn't have an excuse.
The closest I came to cheating ever was buying solution books with every category of problem with solutions and working them until I understood them and buying an extremely powerful calculator which was allowed.
Cheating doesn't pay. You don't know the material - it makes the next class even harder. The only class you'd be justified to cheat in would be one that didn't matter at all to your degree. In which case- why are you taking it?
The more you know- the less afraid you are and the easier later classes will be.
---
Also was a student judge for one cheating case. Was a girl- she even copied the exact errors from the other student. She got an F for the class and that was it. I think that's fair-- the penalty should not be completely draconian. Kids make mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty
Generally though, race, nationality, and class all show little correlation with academic misconduct. ... [41]
However...
In the University of California system, international students make up 10% of the student body but comprise 47% of academic dishonesty cases.[43]
Exactly....
Violence does NOT always (or even often) result in a maladjusted adult.
On the other hand, a complete lack of discipline and parental involvement has a much higher rate of failure than a few spankings a year over the child's formative period. I got about 6 to 8 by the time I was 14- a few from school- less than a half dozen from my parents.
Anecdotally- many parents fail badly at attempts to use non violent approaches to their children. They just lack the skills to pull it off. The result of the non violent approach is also often maladjusted adults. They are whiny, unrealistic, and self centered. Their expectations do not meet reality.
The failure rate of the non violent approach is unpopular to research because of the anti violence propaganda right now.
Listen- I used "logical consequences" with my daughter successfully. But I and my partner were both college educated and read extensively on how to do it correctly. I'm not for violence. Many parents who try logical consequences suck at it however. It's more like "illogical consequences" or they lack the will to let the kid go to bed hungry one night after tossing a fit in the grocery store or go without toys left out for one month.
So for most parents- a couple quick pops or switching combined with a "no do not do that" well connected to the child's bad behavior fixes the problem quickly and permenently; usually results in a well adjusted adult, and doesn't require nearly as much thought,training and effort.
Seems neutral to me. Some folks can't argue and be pleasant- they interpret it as condescension.
My Lawn. ... you
.
,
.
,
Actually, you are still ignorant, and perhaps not yet mature.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110510101621.htm
Also... (google and choose the cache if the pdf doesn't come up)
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.pdf
âoe[They] frequently know the difference between right andwrong and are competent to stand trial. Because of their impair-ments, however, by definition they have diminished capacities to understand and process mistakes and learn from experience, toengage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understandthe reactions of othersâ¦. Their deficiencies do not warrant anexemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their per-sonal culpability.âAtkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 318,122 S.Ct. 2242, 2250 (2002)
âoeThe evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of con-sequences, and other characteristics that make people morallyculpableâ¦. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the âbiolog-icalâ(TM) age of maturity.â10
---
The brain continues to develop. Major parts of the brain which manage impulse control and logical thinking do not fully develop until later.
You must be from a very well off family.
In the real world- getting dumped into the full hell of real life at 18 happens a lot.
It's not that bad. You get a job- you find roommates. You ride the bus (or a bike). You eat ramen noodles. Occasionally you visit your parents.
Today's kids are way to coddled. I'll admit life is harder now than it was in the 60's and 70's-- but it's about the same as it was in the 50's and 80's.
Man- it's amazing how many wise and free people were regularly given corporal punishment throughout history until .. well.. basically today still.
Actually, she was a very good kid until about 15. Then she fell in with a bad crowd of drug using, partying dropouts. Nothing they could do. It was getting bad really fast.
There is an entire industry devoted to brainwashing the kids. Kinda creepy, no?
So you are saying there is NEVER a child or situation where the child just does what they want and ignores any rational approaches.
That statement does not match the real world.
Most people who were children 40 years ago were subject to spankings and grew up with loving relationships with their parents.
It's not about the violence- it's about the context. If the violence is "fair" and moderate then it does no damage and can be a lot faster than talking it out.
It's when the violence is irrational and excessive that it becomes abusive.
Consider when a child falls down- they can either throw a hissy fit or get up and keep going- BASED on clues from the parents. It can turn into a traumatic life event or be something that isn't remembered the next day.
It's the same thing for corporal punishment. If it is reserved for excessive situations, isn't used constantly and the social framework provided by the parents and other indicates that it is normal and okay, then no damage results from it.
I've taken much harder hits in sports than I ever took from my mom or the school principal.
With my daughter I reserved corporal punishment for if she took a habit of doing life threatening actions- and it never cameup. We used logical consequences which some parents ALSO consider abusive. "You didn't pick up your toys and I had to pick them up- so I put them away for a few weeks." And (didn't happen with her but it could have) "you threw a fit while I was trying to buy food for us so we have no food for you for dinner tonight." Logical consequences works really well. It typically only takes one iteration. And the child usually sees that it is "fair" so there is no outrage.
You are very naive and ignoring 99% of history.
Most of history has shown you can have a loving relationship with people who use physical discipline. There is even some data that shows some people don't feel right without strong boundaries drawn by people they respect and fear.
I've seen so many helpless parents who were being driven over by their children who have no respect for them.
However, taking one part of the comment out of context isn't really fair. I also said that for many children, a rational approach works. We used logical consequences on my daughter and it was effective until just before she was 18. Then she went psycho for about 5 months.
Well, I reserved corporal punishment as an option if my child were putting her self in danger such as crossing the street or playing with matches. In my case, my child was rational and not a hellion so it worked.
So I guess a discussion could start with: As I had reserved corporal punishment for some cases, are there any circumstances where any kind of corporal punishment you would use corporal punishment?
If every rational method failed because they were just to full of hormones would you just deal with a misbehaving child who kept endangering themselves?
What would you do if your 16 year old was putting you at a high financial risk and there was no way you could break your legal responsibility for their actions until they were 18?
My fairly nice child completely lost it at 17 and 7 months. Stayed out without calling and various other problems. Couldn't be solved by talking. She basically just did what she wanted and at 18 got the "obey the house rules or move out" speech. Things got very surly for a while but then she went off to college after the summer and things improved (partially because she fell for someone in college who was not a complete loser like she had been previously seeing).
But there was basically no action I could take for about 5 months. So I sympathise with the judge for losing it. You are responsible, you can lose a lot of money, and you can't get free of the responsibility. It's a bad situation.
If you can control others parental rights to raise their children, then be ready to grant them to control how you raise your children.
Perhaps as a majority (in your region), they'll decide the child should go to the dominant religion's churches every holy day.
Perhaps as a majority, they'll decide that sex with a child old enough to bear the weight of a man is legal.
You have an opinion- as does everyone. I'm not disputing that. But your opinions are not inherently more just, moral, right, or wrong than anyone elses.
It's just the way you feel.
And for the record, while I never had to use corporal punishment on my child, it's my opinion that some circumstances merit it. And some children require it - they are just wired to be nasty unless they get a firm hand. "Talking" to them is just a joke to them.
As a parent you are responsible for the actions of your children until they are 18 unless they are legally emancipated.
For example:
According to Pennsylvania truancy law, "Every parent, guardian, or person in parental relation, having control or charge of any child . . . of compulsory school age . . . " may be fined or put in jail if the child in their care does not go to school. Therefore, unless a minor's parents, guardians or other adult who has previously assumed responsibility for the minor, can prove they no longer have actual "control or charge" over the minor, they may be subject to a penalty if the minor in their care does not go to school.
And:
V. PARENTAL LIABILITY
Under the law, parents are liable for property damage and personal injury caused by their child. However, they can only be required to pay a maximum of $300 of any damage claim where one person is injured, and $1,000 where two or more persons are injured.
A parent does not have to pay damages for injury caused by their child if:
1. the parent does not have custody of the child and is not entitled to custody of the child or
2. the child is institutionalized or
3. the child is emancipated.
Again, emancipation is not defined under this statute. In this situation, a parent who is being sued for property damage and personal injury caused by their child should raise emancipation as a defense. A court would then determine the parent's liability, using the emancipation factors discussed in the section of this pamphlet on Judicial Determination of Emancipation.
And: ... In effect, the minor child must already be living independently for a court to determine that the child is emancipated.
As stated earlier, a minor may ask a court to declare him or her emancipated but, as shown above, court action is often unnecessary for the minor to get what he or she wants.
Parents or guardians of a minor emancipated by court order, are no longer required to give the minor any financial support. This means they do not have to provide food, housing, clothing or any other assistance to the minor.
I.e. MINORS can ask to be emancipated but parents cannot voluntarily emancipate their children.
And:
Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > Law & Legal Issues > Children and the Law > Emancipation and Ages for Moving Out Can a child's parents emancipate them without the child's permission?
Answer: No, but when the person reaches the age of majority, the parents can legally request they move out of the family home and take responsibility for their own financial support
--
Soooo..
---
I.e. if you have an irresponsible child who is 16, you are screwed. They can leave you- but you can't leave them until they are 18. They can cause you endless trouble with the law and with CPS.
----
I never laid a lick on my daughter but spanking children-- with a belt-- is not illegal unless there is injury. I can't fault the judge for engaging in the behavior and I can even understand it. Partially it's his fault for raising her to be such a spoiled, blackmailing brat.
It's unfortunate but lots of children do not respond to reason and it boils down to fear. With a foundation of fear, you can build up respect, trust and love. Sure, it's nicer if you can avoid it but many children are unbearably disrespectful and unruly starting sometime after age 13 until they can be tossed out at 18.
I had some friends who went so far as to kidnap their daughter and send her to a stepford child religious school. Too far? Perhaps- but if they hadn't, the girl would probably be dead or a drug using low class hooker now instead of attending college and working a day job. She cut off all contact with her old friends when she got back. Brainwashed? I sort of think so. Difficult decision for the parents to have to make.
Grrr.
Same house is 160,000 (not 16,000)
Housing us up 100% in price in the slow areas since 2000. Up 300% in the runaway areas.
In 1978 a house costs $13000. Same house today is $16000.
In 1978 that was about a years income. Now it is about 2 years income.
And that's in a slow area.
Some of what you say is true- but overall, people have lost purchasing power.
I think what you are talking about is more true for the top 20% than for the middle.
I'm not sure. Seems like it should be tho. just me not thinking.
But desalination plants use active filtering I believe so I guess condensation wouldn't have a high enough volume.
What you are leaving out is that with inflation, the middle AND the bottom lost purchasing power... for three decades... and were using credit to make up the difference.
The wealthy can't make money if the middle income and lower income stop using credit.
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/210079/20110908/joyce-s-record-pay-rise-rubs-salt-in-qantas-pilots-wounds.htm
Mr Joyce has increased his annual take home pay to $5 million, with other key executives have increased their multimillion dollar packages by similar ratios.
âoeThe 71 per cent increase comes despite the Qantas share price dipping 16 per cent in the last financial year,â AIPA said.
It also comes at a time when Qantas has announced it will be sacking 1000 Australian workers and shifting local operations to Asia to avoid employing Australians.
---
Take a huge raise,
Lay off 1000 employees.
Then shut the airline down when they protest.
Mr. Joyce must be learning how to run a company from Reed Hastings (Netflix).
This could be a source for water purification.
I would think you would need some way to reduce the salt first tho.
Perhaps large solar based plastic evaporator collectors. The condensate would flow into cells based on these catylsts producing clean water.
The "leafs" they showed here a few weeks ago might be a better solution tho.
Actually, the most effective way is modular design.
Google programmed robotic truck shows up to pick up the broken robot and drops off a replacement. Diagnostic plugins analyze the problem as one of the 99 known or as an exception.
Takes it to the repair center-- automated systems replace the effected module.
Some humans actually look at the exceptions for a while - until it's cheaper to just eat them.
Easy divisions are computer, "arms", movement system (most likely to break down), batteries...
Some could be done "on the truck" at the site.
Might have to have a human riding around in the truck for a while until folks get comfortable with automated drivers. But in the end, they'll be safer than human drivers.
just like pharmacist robots have 1/5th the error rate of human pharmacists while working 7 times as fast.
Going to have to call long distance to get to your world.
Receptionists... many major companies no longer have a human answer the phone. You call- you get a machine that guides you to a series of scripted response and hopefully to a human. Calling an employee at the company? The machine prompts you for the employee name or extension. No human receptionist. Not for a decade.
Typing... they *used* to have these things called secretaries or typing pools. Now- that job is on our desk.
Which brings us to taco bell.
Unless you are smarter than average or take up a trade like electrician- this is your likely job future today. A minimum wage job pushing buttons and filling food orders.
As for your last paragraph, ..
a) not terrified- just see it coming. it's obvious.
b) not a low level grunt. think higher with direct reports.
c) This time is different. There will not be replacement jobs. We've made machines that replace jobs faster than new ones can be created. Which given people like you who lack any kind of empathy for other people- will inevitably lead to civil unrest, violence, and possible revolution. If we had wise, empathetic people- it could be a paradise. But it's clear it won't be. It's going to be ugly and end in a lot of deaths.
Because combines are specialized machines that can only replace one category of work and at a fairly high cost.
Robots are generalized machines which are cheap ($15k per year to lease and can "work" 2.5 shifts per day with 99% uptime- no benefits, no sick time- no vacation time- no lawsuits).
Any expensive thinking job can be offshored now.
Any "no brainer" work can be done by a machine.
A large number of medium skill jobs have been turned into applicaitons like Microsoft Office.
Recepitionists have been replaced by machines.
Any time a new job is created- the first thing which happens is finding out how to automate it. The automation has to be done one time by a small number of people.
I have the same worry- only it's much uglier than that.
In about 50 years max. Hope 50 years and not 30 years.