The proceeds of any such insurance should be seized to pay the victims of his fraud.
Because, as should be obvious to everyone, the children of criminals are just as guilty as their fathers, and should be punished accordingly./sarcasm
Look, sometimes justice just isn't achievable, despite our best efforts. Sometimes, the serial rapist/murderer/thief blows his/her own head off before society can extract whatever vengeance passes these days as justice, and we becmoe so frustrated that we cast about to hurt someone in their place. Just becasue it is understandable does not make it a good instinct; we should not harm one person who is innocent simply to make reparations to another innocent.
Me either. Like many arguments where people feel unnaturally overinvested (abortion is my personal favorite of this class of issues), often the middle (the sane view) is excluded from the discussion. Saying all downloading is bad is approximately as stupid (IMO) as saying that no downloading is bad. It gets particularly silly in forums where one side or the other of the issue is heavily represented.
This is not to say that extremism or unyielding lack of compromise is always bad either...it's just that most issues which are still debated are those of which there is merit to both sides of the argument; those issues for which there isn't have by and large worked themselves out a long while ago.
When you watch a download that has the broadcast commercials intact (and don't skip over them), I'll be remotely interested in this argument. Look, when you watch a show on TV, it was free for you, but it wasn't FREE. Someone paid for it FOR you (advertisers) in exchange for a few moments of your time during the program. So, they (advertisers) buy your time during the viewing of a program, and in exchange, you get to watch the show for the mere cost of a TV and a few kilowatt-hours. When you view a program without its production and broadcast costs covered either by an intermediate agent, like the advertisers, or by your hard-earned money, you are, in fact, no doubt about it, stealing.
I personally think the corruption of words is the vilest of crimes against humanity. Change the meaning of a word, and you can disarm the sane for lack of mutually understandable terms with the rest of the speakers of the language.
I agree. It ranks up there almost as high as sophistry in the service of a harmful act or a guilty conscience.
How, I'm curious, does one square "I'm not a hard core fan, sorry" with "I download every episode of Futurama for free?" Something seems off kilter. And of course the incredibly obvious answer to your question is, networks decide on the life or death of programs based on estimates of viewership, which can be accurately determined in only a few ways (nielsen ratings, or for cancelled shows, DVD sales). When you go, (and your million pals who have an equivalently overdeveloped sense of entitlement and concomitant lack of conscience), and download the episodes using another method, it does not indicate the true amount of audience desire for the show. I.e. you skewed the stats.
Thus, all of you who downloaded are not included in the number of people, from the network's perspective, of people who are interested in the show. That discrepancy can surely make the difference between a show whose future is secured and one who is doomed to scheduling hell and later cancellation, especially on networks like FOX whose programming execs are in fact nothing but trained number monkeys and don't understand other factors like show quality and artistic value when making determinations about cancellation.
For a person to download an episode that is a.) not avaiable in any other way, or b.) occasionally, because it was either the 'bestest episode evar' or he/she missed the showing, is one thing. Downloading a readily available series in toto is something else again. And while the/. crowd balks at calling the second theft for technical reasons, it is ethically equivalent as far as I can tell.
Undoubtedly. Just nowhere near 90%. Like I said, more harshing on the meme than on you. I think (imho, ianad, mlans) that the 'untapped potential' of human brains lies in the the plasticisty and complexity of that 90% that deals with forming the data correlation and calculation algorithms. The existence of savants shows us the tantalizing possibilities in those areas, the periphery of what sorts of wirings are possible in the human brain.
Not to harsh on you (especially since you wrote in at 9am), but I'd love it if the 'we only use 10% of our brains' meme would die, die, die!!!! already. It's not even superficially true; what is true is that a very large part of the brain structure is used for wiring instead of for information storage, but how would one get a functional device if all it had was memory and no processing circuits? The structure itself, one might imagine, is where the the lower order (and probably some higher order) information processing algorithms are 'stored'; that these structures only take up approximately 90% of the total machine is astonishing.
And, oddly enough, it has become more true with each generation (at least in the most recent few centuries). Divorce rates, never higher. Family size, never smaller. Long distance families, never more common. So, some alarmists misjudged the failure point of the system by an order of magnitude or two; this doesn't mean they were incorrect about the general causal mechanism!
LOL, no. I was too big.;) But many geeks complain of this problem, or so I hear. In any case, I sure wasn't 'popular' until I found my people: speech and debate team, mega mecha geeks 'r us. I eventually became the team captain.
BTW, this is way, way, WAY off topic, but does anyone else think that the D&D "bag of holding' wiki article is just absolutely ridiculously inbelievably over-detailed? I mean, Wikipedia has stubs way shorter and off inferior quality for 'real-life stuff that actally matters(tm)'. Damn, and I thought the gamer geeks at the local uni were scary.
Mods: If you don't know what "magic" is, please mod some other comment. Thank you.
Normally I avoid posting on the techie parts of slashdot, as I know approximately fuckall in the power/knowledge sense when it comes to the esoteric hardware and coding problems that are usually discussed. I just read, hopefully learn something, and avoid sticking my foot in my mouth. But, there was something about this that really rubbed me sideways in an uncomfortable "AAAHHAGH, you're rubbing be with stingling nettles!!!!111!!!11!" sort of way.
I'll admit that I haven't the foggiest what 'magic' is. Problem is, after the comment, I ain't any closer to knowing 'magic'. If I was the poor guy who asked the original question, I'd still be clueless. But that's not my real problem.
My real problem is this: the poster actually anticipated that a majority of mods wouldn't know what he was talking about; in fact, said as much. Doesn't that strike one as a tad worthless on the communication side? I mean, when you are communicating, isn't important that the receiver kno what the hell you are talking about? If you assume right from go that nobody is gonna have a clue, haven't you already failed at the whole communication thing? I surely think so.
This, incidentally, is why normies hate the geek culture. It's the smug superiority of "you don't understand my ridiculously technical argot? I spit on thee, and piss on thy great-grandmother's grave! You are UNWORTHY!!!" That attitude is why so many of us got beat up in high school. But it's even more insulting, and unnecessary, if you are talking to other geeks, who, given the barest of clues or rudimentary explanation, could probably figure out just what the hell you are talking about.
Yeah, I know some folks get cranky because some mods don't understand what it is they are modding. And I sympathize...but isn't it the safer part of valor to take the extra time to make sure one is understood, rather than either be unclear and get modded down, or be a jerk and scare away anyone with whom you might try to converse with?
BTW, feel free to burninate this rant if you feel it justified to do so.;)
Cases of abuse aside (and they really do happen, perhaps not as often as is perceived, but often enough that nearly everyone has had at least one bad experience), the reason that cops get such a chilly reception is that they do "too much protecting" and "not enough serving". That is, usually people only are interacting with a cop if one, they are in trouble, or two, are recently a victim of trouble. If police departments put as much emphasis on the public service announcement schtick, people might react to them with less chill. But, as you point out, they can't perform that function well if people feel chilly towards them. Its a cycle that needs to be broken somewhere, and its easier to change department policy than to spontaneously change the public's attitudes.
Of course, it might also help if police departments changed some of the policies that feed into the disquiet that most people have with their police, such as the 'blue wall', or de facto harrassment, or discouraging legitimate complaints, or not having a system for filing said complaints anonymously. That might help too.
You make an important point, and certainly one that gets little respect in the Libertarian-heavy/. crowd. However, the real issue is that the whole issue of parenting has become political in a sense that your comment is fairly naive about. The problem in the public eye is not the sensible one that you pointed out (that parents should know, when buying a game for their children, whether there are pixellated boobies in it), it is rather that the big, bad porngraphers...ahem I mean game designers are corrupting our children!!!11!!111! I would have a greater confidence that the first and not the second is the cause and point of all the brouhaha if they weren't so damned shrill about it. But they are.
Regardless, while a parent certainly has an interest (both legal and actual) in filtering what their child is exposed to, the child certainly has an interest in being exposed to the world and learning about it, such that they may become more mature and ethically capable individuals. At what point the second overrides the first is a tough question (and certainly as you point out disclosure of content is important either way), but I think that there is a real danger that content labels are counterproductive in two ways:
1. Like in movies, the content labels themselves become a selling point, and then later the selling point of the product. (What, this game has ludicrous gibs and tits everywhere? Roxors!) Where did the gameplay, story, and emotional or environmental content go? It was gobbled by the gibs and boobies.
2. Paradoxically in opposition to the first point, a parent may look at the content label, see 'contains nudity' for example, and pass up a product that actually has significant content value, thus depriving the child of an experience that would be valuable simply to avoid the chance that that child might see some sexuality (never mind sensuality).
Party is not isomorphic with ideology is not isomorphic with philosophy. And, besides, in this particular case, Libertarians are not against the use of force, per se, but rather as you quoted, the initiation of force. Force as a response, in certain circumstances is acceptable. Also, regulation, so long as it is contractual (that is, willing) is possible and enforceable (and probably both necessary and preferable). After all, a key tenet of Libertarianism is that relations of an economic or social sort can work only if the transactions that form them are free of fraud. How exactly, without regulation or other forms of force, do you propose such an idyllic scheme of honesty would transpire? On this point, I think, even the Libertarian party is unsure.
"I am a Libertarian [...] the government should regulate the HELL out of them"
No sir, you are NOT a libertarian. A libertarian would want heroin to be available from your local Wal-mart on the same terms as table salt.
"I am a Christian [...] the filioque controversy was damned silly"
No, sir, you are NOT a Christian. A Christian knows the spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
The gap between ideology and philosophy is huge, and the gap between labeling and ideology is even bigger. Libertarianism, like Christianity, can encompass many, many diverse, sometimes contradictory ideas under one quaint label. Incidentally, regulation, or the extent that power can be used in coercion legitimately, is one of those things upon which people who are 'libertarian' can honestly disagree. Some are absolutists on the principle of coercion, others see room for compromise in certain areas when a knee-jerk ideological reaction doesn't seen to serve well the needs of people in reality.
On top of not working, it'd just spew nuclear fallout everywhere. That's silly.
I didn't think it was a good (tm) idea (LOL!); I was just curious if it was a basically feasible idea for the immediate goal of destroying the hurricane. Apparently I'm not the only one who's thought of this twisted plan, though (I though not. On second thought, It's too damn obvious.) BTW, thanks for the link.
It's funny you should say that. I would think that a sizeable nuclear detonation (at the right time and place) would cause a pressure wave powerful enough to disrupt the dynamo that is the low pressure center of a hurricane, and dissipate it. I dunno, any meteorologists in the crowd? Just how sensitive is a hurricane to disruptions of that magnitude? Do we even have a vaguest notion?
A very interesting point, and I think it has merit in several areas...though I do have, upon cursory reflection a reservation or two. I would posit (and this is by no means something that everyone believes), that there are some things, values, that are more 'valuable' than money, or the fair allocation and distribution thereof, such as, say, the preservation of human life. Another might be access to means of education (and not just to schools; libraries, internet, etc.). One could think of cases where, say after an auto accident, one person is greivously injured and requires medical attention, but does not have the financial ability to 'pay has he/she goes' for life-saving medical care; how do we balance the value of their lives against the value of systemwide monetary fairness?
You say that like it's a bad thing. All beliefs are bootstrapped through question-begging and induction. These are only cardinal sins if one is trying to write a sound deductive argument, which I wasn't (and would never, in the realms of speculation that we were coasting in) trying to do. After all, deduction can at best only lead you back to where you started.
Dude, you figure out how to put together and deliver to market ten million cars/computers/cell phones/loaves of bread/widgets without the bureaucratic support of a corporation, and I shall buy you an e-beer (tasteless, sure, but less filling!) They may seem inefficient in an absolute sense, but only because it is damn hard to conceptualize the difficulties of scaling up even the simplest production and distribution tasks.
I first heard the kernel of this idea from an interview that Bill Moyers did on his public TV show (Now, I think it was called) before he retired. It was back when cuting the Estate Tax was first seriously proposed by the Bush II Admin, and they had a few superwealthy business owners on the show who said it was a 'very bad' (tm) idea. One cited the idea thet he received more value in the form of schools from his tax dollars than any student or parent of a student in those schools, because he gained the benefit of having an entire workforce that he didn't have to train how to read, write, and count himself (unlike, say, Samuel Slater). I was just expanding on the theme, as I thought it was a very intriguing analysis and that there must be other examples, and I came up with transportation. I'm sure there are others as well, but education and transportation seemed to me the easiest to nail in one sentence apiece.
Slashdot Mirror
The proceeds of any such insurance should be seized to pay the victims of his fraud.
Because, as should be obvious to everyone, the children of criminals are just as guilty as their fathers, and should be punished accordingly. /sarcasm
Look, sometimes justice just isn't achievable, despite our best efforts. Sometimes, the serial rapist/murderer/thief blows his/her own head off before society can extract whatever vengeance passes these days as justice, and we becmoe so frustrated that we cast about to hurt someone in their place. Just becasue it is understandable does not make it a good instinct; we should not harm one person who is innocent simply to make reparations to another innocent.
I don't personally see anything wrong with this.
Me either. Like many arguments where people feel unnaturally overinvested (abortion is my personal favorite of this class of issues), often the middle (the sane view) is excluded from the discussion. Saying all downloading is bad is approximately as stupid (IMO) as saying that no downloading is bad. It gets particularly silly in forums where one side or the other of the issue is heavily represented.
This is not to say that extremism or unyielding lack of compromise is always bad either...it's just that most issues which are still debated are those of which there is merit to both sides of the argument; those issues for which there isn't have by and large worked themselves out a long while ago.
When you watch a download that has the broadcast commercials intact (and don't skip over them), I'll be remotely interested in this argument. Look, when you watch a show on TV, it was free for you, but it wasn't FREE. Someone paid for it FOR you (advertisers) in exchange for a few moments of your time during the program. So, they (advertisers) buy your time during the viewing of a program, and in exchange, you get to watch the show for the mere cost of a TV and a few kilowatt-hours. When you view a program without its production and broadcast costs covered either by an intermediate agent, like the advertisers, or by your hard-earned money, you are, in fact, no doubt about it, stealing.
I personally think the corruption of words is the vilest of crimes against humanity. Change the meaning of a word, and you can disarm the sane for lack of mutually understandable terms with the rest of the speakers of the language.
I agree. It ranks up there almost as high as sophistry in the service of a harmful act or a guilty conscience.
How, I'm curious, does one square "I'm not a hard core fan, sorry" with "I download every episode of Futurama for free?" Something seems off kilter. And of course the incredibly obvious answer to your question is, networks decide on the life or death of programs based on estimates of viewership, which can be accurately determined in only a few ways (nielsen ratings, or for cancelled shows, DVD sales). When you go, (and your million pals who have an equivalently overdeveloped sense of entitlement and concomitant lack of conscience), and download the episodes using another method, it does not indicate the true amount of audience desire for the show. I.e. you skewed the stats.
Thus, all of you who downloaded are not included in the number of people, from the network's perspective, of people who are interested in the show. That discrepancy can surely make the difference between a show whose future is secured and one who is doomed to scheduling hell and later cancellation, especially on networks like FOX whose programming execs are in fact nothing but trained number monkeys and don't understand other factors like show quality and artistic value when making determinations about cancellation.
For a person to download an episode that is a.) not avaiable in any other way, or b.) occasionally, because it was either the 'bestest episode evar' or he/she missed the showing, is one thing. Downloading a readily available series in toto is something else again. And while the /. crowd balks at calling the second theft for technical reasons, it is ethically equivalent as far as I can tell.
Undoubtedly. Just nowhere near 90%. Like I said, more harshing on the meme than on you. I think (imho, ianad, mlans) that the 'untapped potential' of human brains lies in the the plasticisty and complexity of that 90% that deals with forming the data correlation and calculation algorithms. The existence of savants shows us the tantalizing possibilities in those areas, the periphery of what sorts of wirings are possible in the human brain.
Not to harsh on you (especially since you wrote in at 9am), but I'd love it if the 'we only use 10% of our brains' meme would die, die, die!!!! already. It's not even superficially true; what is true is that a very large part of the brain structure is used for wiring instead of for information storage, but how would one get a functional device if all it had was memory and no processing circuits? The structure itself, one might imagine, is where the the lower order (and probably some higher order) information processing algorithms are 'stored'; that these structures only take up approximately 90% of the total machine is astonishing.
And, oddly enough, it has become more true with each generation (at least in the most recent few centuries). Divorce rates, never higher. Family size, never smaller. Long distance families, never more common. So, some alarmists misjudged the failure point of the system by an order of magnitude or two; this doesn't mean they were incorrect about the general causal mechanism!
n/t
LOL, no. I was too big. ;) But many geeks complain of this problem, or so I hear. In any case, I sure wasn't 'popular' until I found my people: speech and debate team, mega mecha geeks 'r us. I eventually became the team captain.
And if I could only spell 'anonymous'...
Hey, anaonymous moron, the OP linked to the article I was referring to.
BTW, this is way, way, WAY off topic, but does anyone else think that the D&D "bag of holding' wiki article is just absolutely ridiculously inbelievably over-detailed? I mean, Wikipedia has stubs way shorter and off inferior quality for 'real-life stuff that actally matters(tm)'. Damn, and I thought the gamer geeks at the local uni were scary.
Sorry I was cranky. I can understand not wanting to be burned by roving retardo-mods. Thanks for the info, it was helpful!
Mods: If you don't know what "magic" is, please mod some other comment. Thank you.
Normally I avoid posting on the techie parts of slashdot, as I know approximately fuckall in the power/knowledge sense when it comes to the esoteric hardware and coding problems that are usually discussed. I just read, hopefully learn something, and avoid sticking my foot in my mouth. But, there was something about this that really rubbed me sideways in an uncomfortable "AAAHHAGH, you're rubbing be with stingling nettles!!!!111!!!11!" sort of way.
I'll admit that I haven't the foggiest what 'magic' is. Problem is, after the comment, I ain't any closer to knowing 'magic'. If I was the poor guy who asked the original question, I'd still be clueless. But that's not my real problem.
My real problem is this: the poster actually anticipated that a majority of mods wouldn't know what he was talking about; in fact, said as much. Doesn't that strike one as a tad worthless on the communication side? I mean, when you are communicating, isn't important that the receiver kno what the hell you are talking about? If you assume right from go that nobody is gonna have a clue, haven't you already failed at the whole communication thing? I surely think so.
This, incidentally, is why normies hate the geek culture. It's the smug superiority of "you don't understand my ridiculously technical argot? I spit on thee, and piss on thy great-grandmother's grave! You are UNWORTHY!!!" That attitude is why so many of us got beat up in high school. But it's even more insulting, and unnecessary, if you are talking to other geeks, who, given the barest of clues or rudimentary explanation, could probably figure out just what the hell you are talking about.
Yeah, I know some folks get cranky because some mods don't understand what it is they are modding. And I sympathize...but isn't it the safer part of valor to take the extra time to make sure one is understood, rather than either be unclear and get modded down, or be a jerk and scare away anyone with whom you might try to converse with?
BTW, feel free to burninate this rant if you feel it justified to do so. ;)
Cases of abuse aside (and they really do happen, perhaps not as often as is perceived, but often enough that nearly everyone has had at least one bad experience), the reason that cops get such a chilly reception is that they do "too much protecting" and "not enough serving". That is, usually people only are interacting with a cop if one, they are in trouble, or two, are recently a victim of trouble. If police departments put as much emphasis on the public service announcement schtick, people might react to them with less chill. But, as you point out, they can't perform that function well if people feel chilly towards them. Its a cycle that needs to be broken somewhere, and its easier to change department policy than to spontaneously change the public's attitudes.
Of course, it might also help if police departments changed some of the policies that feed into the disquiet that most people have with their police, such as the 'blue wall', or de facto harrassment, or discouraging legitimate complaints, or not having a system for filing said complaints anonymously. That might help too.
You make an important point, and certainly one that gets little respect in the Libertarian-heavy /. crowd. However, the real issue is that the whole issue of parenting has become political in a sense that your comment is fairly naive about. The problem in the public eye is not the sensible one that you pointed out (that parents should know, when buying a game for their children, whether there are pixellated boobies in it), it is rather that the big, bad porngraphers...ahem I mean game designers are corrupting our children!!!11!!111! I would have a greater confidence that the first and not the second is the cause and point of all the brouhaha if they weren't so damned shrill about it. But they are.
Regardless, while a parent certainly has an interest (both legal and actual) in filtering what their child is exposed to, the child certainly has an interest in being exposed to the world and learning about it, such that they may become more mature and ethically capable individuals. At what point the second overrides the first is a tough question (and certainly as you point out disclosure of content is important either way), but I think that there is a real danger that content labels are counterproductive in two ways:
1. Like in movies, the content labels themselves become a selling point, and then later the selling point of the product. (What, this game has ludicrous gibs and tits everywhere? Roxors!) Where did the gameplay, story, and emotional or environmental content go? It was gobbled by the gibs and boobies.
2. Paradoxically in opposition to the first point, a parent may look at the content label, see 'contains nudity' for example, and pass up a product that actually has significant content value, thus depriving the child of an experience that would be valuable simply to avoid the chance that that child might see some sexuality (never mind sensuality).
Party is not isomorphic with ideology is not isomorphic with philosophy. And, besides, in this particular case, Libertarians are not against the use of force, per se, but rather as you quoted, the initiation of force. Force as a response, in certain circumstances is acceptable. Also, regulation, so long as it is contractual (that is, willing) is possible and enforceable (and probably both necessary and preferable). After all, a key tenet of Libertarianism is that relations of an economic or social sort can work only if the transactions that form them are free of fraud. How exactly, without regulation or other forms of force, do you propose such an idyllic scheme of honesty would transpire? On this point, I think, even the Libertarian party is unsure.
"I am a Libertarian [...] the government should regulate the HELL out of them"
No sir, you are NOT a libertarian. A libertarian would want heroin to be available from your local Wal-mart on the same terms as table salt.
"I am a Christian [...] the filioque controversy was damned silly"
No, sir, you are NOT a Christian. A Christian knows the spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
The gap between ideology and philosophy is huge, and the gap between labeling and ideology is even bigger. Libertarianism, like Christianity, can encompass many, many diverse, sometimes contradictory ideas under one quaint label. Incidentally, regulation, or the extent that power can be used in coercion legitimately, is one of those things upon which people who are 'libertarian' can honestly disagree. Some are absolutists on the principle of coercion, others see room for compromise in certain areas when a knee-jerk ideological reaction doesn't seen to serve well the needs of people in reality.
On top of not working, it'd just spew nuclear fallout everywhere. That's silly.
I didn't think it was a good (tm) idea (LOL!); I was just curious if it was a basically feasible idea for the immediate goal of destroying the hurricane. Apparently I'm not the only one who's thought of this twisted plan, though (I though not. On second thought, It's too damn obvious.) BTW, thanks for the link.
It's funny you should say that. I would think that a sizeable nuclear detonation (at the right time and place) would cause a pressure wave powerful enough to disrupt the dynamo that is the low pressure center of a hurricane, and dissipate it. I dunno, any meteorologists in the crowd? Just how sensitive is a hurricane to disruptions of that magnitude? Do we even have a vaguest notion?
A very interesting point, and I think it has merit in several areas...though I do have, upon cursory reflection a reservation or two. I would posit (and this is by no means something that everyone believes), that there are some things, values, that are more 'valuable' than money, or the fair allocation and distribution thereof, such as, say, the preservation of human life. Another might be access to means of education (and not just to schools; libraries, internet, etc.). One could think of cases where, say after an auto accident, one person is greivously injured and requires medical attention, but does not have the financial ability to 'pay has he/she goes' for life-saving medical care; how do we balance the value of their lives against the value of systemwide monetary fairness?
"Robots buildin' robots...now, that's just stupid."
And until we reach that idiotic day, of course you are right; all capital allocation is useless without some direct application of labor.
You say that like it's a bad thing. All beliefs are bootstrapped through question-begging and induction. These are only cardinal sins if one is trying to write a sound deductive argument, which I wasn't (and would never, in the realms of speculation that we were coasting in) trying to do. After all, deduction can at best only lead you back to where you started.
Dude, you figure out how to put together and deliver to market ten million cars/computers/cell phones/loaves of bread/widgets without the bureaucratic support of a corporation, and I shall buy you an e-beer (tasteless, sure, but less filling!) They may seem inefficient in an absolute sense, but only because it is damn hard to conceptualize the difficulties of scaling up even the simplest production and distribution tasks.
I first heard the kernel of this idea from an interview that Bill Moyers did on his public TV show (Now, I think it was called) before he retired. It was back when cuting the Estate Tax was first seriously proposed by the Bush II Admin, and they had a few superwealthy business owners on the show who said it was a 'very bad' (tm) idea. One cited the idea thet he received more value in the form of schools from his tax dollars than any student or parent of a student in those schools, because he gained the benefit of having an entire workforce that he didn't have to train how to read, write, and count himself (unlike, say, Samuel Slater). I was just expanding on the theme, as I thought it was a very intriguing analysis and that there must be other examples, and I came up with transportation. I'm sure there are others as well, but education and transportation seemed to me the easiest to nail in one sentence apiece.