How do you plan to measure this, exactly? I get your point that the end goal is competent adults, not test performance per se, but I've firsthand seen how my own kids can fail to get a concept well enough, and that leads to not getting the next concept, and so on. If you're not good at addition, you won't be good at multiplication, and so on through high school and you're just HOSED when you need to be good at trigonometry.

Come on, people. Science works. Things that work are...testable. If you're advocating some educational strategy, but reject the notion that it's testable, you're rejecting basic science. If that describes you, kindly keep your hands off education policy.

I don't think it's corruption, necessarily. Some people are just rabidly pro-Apple. Some people don't (yet) get that technology isn't an education silver bullet. When you get people who think technology is a silver bullet AND love Apple products, you get things like this.

It's not the human *touch* that people crave in a complicated interaction with a system. It's human *versatility*.

Thus more personnel does no good, if those personnel are rigidly controlled, lack information to advise or authority to act. The fact that they're also expected to be jolly and upbeat as they follow their rigid and unyielding rules only turns the interaction with them into a travesty of a social interaction.

What would work better is a well-designed check-in system that handles routine situations nearly all the time, along with a few personnel who have the training and authority to solve any passenger problems that come up.

I'm pretty sure birth control exists.

I don't mind dealing with computers. I don't mind dealing with people. I hate dealing with computers that pretend to be people. "Wait a minute while I look that up for you." (pretend typing noise) NOOOOOO thanks. If people want a more human experience, they're saying they want actual humans, not computers that pretend to be humans.

I can only go with the experience of my friends, who've gone both routes successfully.

It's true that traditional publishers expect mid-list authors to shoulder most of the promotion efforts these days. I never said they didn't. Fiction authors are now expected to maintain a platform, which used to be a non-fiction thing. Certainly traditional publishers have become more predatory and less supportive than they were twenty years ago. I don't have an inside track on why that is, but I suspect there are several causes. One is that POD allows publishers to make an reliable though modest profit from their mid-list authors, which ironically makes them more risk averse. But publishers still provide production and editing services on a MS that'd cost you maybe ten thousand dollars if you were contracting those services out. They also get your book in bricks-and-mortar bookstores, which is a bridge too far for most indy authors, even the successful ones.

A lot of the bad feeling that publishers get from indy authors comes from two sources. First, a long history with rejection. Second the lack of respect indy authors get relative to traditionally published authors. We can see it in this discussion elsewhere, where one poster puts "authors" in quotes when referring to indy authors. And it's easy to see why because most indy authors just aren't good enough to get traditionally published. *Some* indy authors put out a product that's every bit as good as the mid-list authors from the big publishing houses, but most just dump their terrible manuscripts on Amazon with a clip-art cover and no copy editing, much less developmental editing.

The statistic that most indy authors make their investment back plus 40% didn't impress me, because (a) that counts the author's labor as free and (b) most indy authors don't invest much cash in their projects. The percentage of indy authors that clear, say, five thousand dollars in profit are very small.

It's not that indy publishing doesn't have its points, and my traditionally published friends are certainly thinking about dipping their toe in the water. But it's not as cheap as it looks if you want a comparable product, and you give up certain things. I was in Manhattan recently and went to the 5th Avenue branch of the NYPL. My traditionally published friends' books were either on the shelves our out circulating. The NYPL had *none* of my indy author friends' books, even though at least one of them has made the New York Times best seller list.

I don't think it's as simple as Amazon is good or Amazon is evil. Amazon is powerful, and that needs watching.

Now I have a number writer friends, one of whom is published both with traditional imprints like TOR and with Amazon's new in-house publishing imprints. She has good things to say about Amazon's imprints, but one thing you have to take into account is that nobody will stock your book *but* Amazon if you publish with them. That's giving up a lot, so they treat authors reasonably well. But that doesn't mean the corporation actually cares about authors. Amazon needs reliable mid-list authors to make their publishing ventures a success, and by cutting out the middleman can afford generous royalties. But if Amazon succeeds in putting a stake in the heart of traditional publishing, I wouldn't care to speculate on what will happen to authors.

Nor should what traditional publishers do for authors be underestimated. I have friends who are successful indy writers, but it's not like being a writer, it's more like running a small publishing house yourself. They hire story editors, copy editors and artists, and manage promotion and publicity. It's a lot of work; that plus actually writing pretty much precludes a day job. It's not for everyone.

It's a lot like being an engineer. Engineers are smart people who usually have a lot of insight into the companies they work for, but that doesn't mean that most engineers want to run businesses. Some do, but most would rather have other people take care of that stuff so they can concentrate on what they feel they're best at.

Many writers choose the indy market because it's the only way they'll ever get published. They just dump their manuscript on the market without editing, design or promotion and hope for the best. They rarely succeed. Others choose the indy route because they thrive on running and controlling their own small business, the way some engineers step naturally into the role of entrepreneur. They're well positioned for the future. But most writers need support to reach their full potential.

The point of having it is very simply that people screw up eventually. Drive long enough, and you'll make a serious mistake. Most of the time, you'll come through it with no harm. Occasionally, you'll wreck your car. Occasionally, you'll kill someone. The point is also saving time. I don't have enough of it. If I could claim back the hour of my day I spend driving, that'd be great. The point is removing an unpleasant task. I have family 6 hours away I'd like to see more, but 6 hours in a car is unpleasant. If I could get in the car about midnight and wake up in their driveway at 6am, that'd be fantastic. Don't tell me to take the bus/plane/train, either. That's either more unpleasant or lots more expensive.

Keep in mind, this whole idea is predicated on developing cars that drive better than you do. If that doesn't happen, none of the rest does. It seems like the people who get all bent out of shape over the idea think we're going to put automated cars on the road that are WORSE at driving than people are. Why would we ever do that?

Years ago, when static electricity was bad news for computers, I had the idea for a "data processing shoe" that would have a little conductive ribbon that would drag along the floor and ground out static electricity. Such a thing is of course no longer needed, but given the apparent popularity of data breeches these days maybe the concept could be resurrected as a fashion statement.

I dunno. Has Obama come out in favor of it yet?

I have family in Canada who aren't happy with the system there and had to come here (US) for treatment due to stupid long waits. I suspect health care is one of those things that works "fine" for the majority of people because the majority of people are "fine" and don't need it. A good friend of mine is permanently disabled and on Medicare, which works "fine" for her, too, aside from a month or so wait to get on it. After that, it appears that when she needs to go to a doctor, she does. When she needs meds, she gets them. When she needs to see specialists, she sees them.

If the US can't come up with an efficient-enough bureaucracy to make it work there, then it's really time to change how you guys do things.

Well, yeah, that's probably true, but even if we do, single payer still means no options. You're happy with your system now, but when it gets changed down the road and you're no longer happy with it, what are you going to do? I can switch plans at work once a year. If I want private insurance, I can pick up the phone and buy it. If I want to see any doctor, I can walk in and pay them. With single payer, what are you going to do? Change countries?

True, it doesn't, but it does delete the key which is used to encrypt everything. With no key, it's gibberish, indistinguishable from random data. Or so claims Apple, anyway. If you have better data, I'd be most interested to see it (and freely admit it's possible ANY vendor is lying about their security precautions).

Personally, I find it quite possible that Joe RandomUser would "delete" pictures, etc, and not know how to do a proper wipe. Heck, I had to look it up, but it took knowing that in general "delete" means "remove the pointer to". Casual users mostly don't know that.

Encryption that works now can be broken a year from now

Not remotely. If you find 256 bit AES broken in a year, let us know.

Exactly. There's one example where you say it works fine, and one where it's apparently pretty bad. Do you see why I don't want to take the crapshoot? It's hard to unwind. If people want to opt in, I don't have a problem with that, but don't compel everyone into the same boat and hope it actually floats. The VA is a concrete example that it might actually be worse.

Ice cream doesn't cause health issues. I eat ice cream. I also exercise 3-6 times a week. That won't stop politicians and their "sin taxes". Maybe your government is wonderful and all that tax money would go to make sick people well, but we mostly turn taxes into bureaucracy. I don't want more.

How's that working out at the VA these days?

That perfectly highlights the problem with having only one option. When that option is bad, you can't go somewhere else.

There's also absolutely nothing anywhere that keeps lawmakers from deciding that people who eat too much ice cream should be taxed on it, you know, to offset the increased healthcare costs they impose on "the system".