It's because of the isolation effect of introducing cell phones and computers to children.

So wait, you fucked up, and now you want us to pay for it?

No, see, here's what happened: School decides they want product X which works with product Y. Product X sucks; product Y is not defective. School has legitimate claim about product X not delivering; product Y is your fault, and you don't go back to the supplier and make them eat the cost.

The school may have a claim against Pearson, since they delivered shoddy, half-ass work. The school has no claims against Apple, since Apple supplied a device not designed to do what the school wanted, and the school intended to extend it with Pearson's product.

There's a real lesson about bad project management and buyer's remorse here; and, looking back, they're ignoring old and proven lessons about not trying to fix education with unrelated technology. The only technology that belongs in education is education: education methods are a technology, and they are the technology for education.

Until you have an education methodology that shows good, scientific basis and utilizes your fancy toys, you're just throwing toys into education. For example: Japan uses a mathematics curriculum teaching students to use complementary number computation techniques, driven by the exemplary platform of a machine called a Soroban; a Soroban would be a ridiculous toy to bring into the classroom if you were not teaching using these computation techniques and trying to leverage the visual and mechanical aspect of learning by soroban (I've done some self-teaching without the soroban, and learned the same techniques; there are, however, scientific reasons to bring a soroban to the table). If they're just doing workbook activities BUT ON AN IPADZ!!!! and not doing anything known to improve education when an iPad is involved, the iPad is a fucking toy not appropriate in education.

It's worth noting there's a school of educational research suggesting that introducing young children to high technology is actively bad, and that high technology should be taught outright after age 10-12 rather than used as a platform to deliver old teaching methods. Small children need most to learn socialization; they need to interact with other children, and not isolate themselves to curriculum. I have my own educational theory which extends this: small children need most to learn techniques of utilizing the brain effectively, set in an environment of free socialization, so as to develop their social behaviors while also giving them tools to rapidly and effectively learn curriculum. In all of these advanced schools of thought, and in mine, you see that pattern: humans need to learn human behavior first, then learn high technology as a tool; wrapping books in fancy electronics won't suddenly make education better.

This is like the 90s when everyone's answer to everything related to computer security was "ENCRYPTION!" Now everyone's answer to every education problem is "COMPUTERS!"

Well then play Shovel Knight, Stick It To The Man, and Elliot Quest. (Elliot Quest is a pile of good ideas meshed in bad polish: the game is poorly designed, leaving the player lost and confused, giving inconsistent visual cues, and requiring the use of non-movement-altering to affect movement. For example: the wind ability doesn't affect your movement in horizontal wind; an hour after you get it and an unrelated set of WINGS, you're expected to intuit that the wind ability makes you fly in vertical wind.)

US tax rate is 34% or 35%. It's a complex behemoth where the tax brackets are used to guarantee that businesses above $348,000 pay a flat 34% tax (i.e. they pay 34% of their total income, not X% of 1-348k and 34% of 348k+), and businesses above some short millions pay a flat 35% tax. It's ridiculous.

AU corporate tax rate is 30%.

You can imagine the rage when these companies use Ireland-based subsidiaries to collect the profits they make selling to EU states, instead of paying taxes on EU income to AU or US.

There are a lot of sticking points here. They say it's reasonable to assume he did it, that it's reasonable to assume he planted a trojan to generate a winning number, and that it's reasonable to assume he messed with the camera when nobody else did. That's an awful lot of narrative, and needs some evidence backing it up; not a lot, but enough to show the trails leading in and out.

I'm most interested in how he knew the numbers on the ticket. Did he specify what lotto numbers he wanted, or did he ask for a random ticket? If he asked for just a ticket, he'd need to hack the lotto computer after getting the ticket; the case rests on him hacking the machine at a specified time, before he bought a ticket, so they have to prove he self-selected the numbers at retail.

Well good. Net Neutrality needs to be overturned. What idiot thought it was a good idea to ban ISPs from selectively throttling traffic? They should be REQUIRED to throttle traffic; if they allow any child pornography to pass through their tubes, their senior executive staff should be arrested on distribution charges, filed on the sex offender registry, and imprisoned for 40 years. They can't do that if we don't let them throttle traffic!

That misuse of "it's" is disturbing.

I would bet money she expressed curiosity and interest in his job.

I don't see why he's still doing the automaton thing going to college, though, when he now has a career offer. I dropped out of college because having a career was better, and I had a career; it wasn't worth dropping out of my career for college.

Even if the claims are perfectly valid and correct, this writing will just entrench people harder, not switch their point of view.

You'd be surprised how well the ability to negotiate helps me as a sysadmin. Management wants to block all the not-stupid stuff and do all the stupid stuff; I am the puppetmaster pulling their strings, so they concede to my requests.

Dammit, Jim! I'm a risk management professional, not a climate scientist!

The assertion is that is has and is. It hasn't and isn't.

Your mom could buttfuck you with a dildo she used on a hooker and give you HIV.

Empirically, we have fewer wildfires than historically; those we do have are less severe than historical wildfires. The worst wildfires come after a wet season, as there's more vegetative growth to dry out and catch fire. These are known.

Your argument is that some theoretical connection between dryness and fire exists, and so there must be more fires now because there's a drought. You're ignoring the real facts, including counts of wildfires and the severity of those wildfires, as well as wildfire behavior.

Someone also mentioned tree ring cores indicate a major drought every 500-ish years, so the current drought is probably the worst in about 500 years, but not necessarily the worst drought ever. 500 years is a long time, though.

It could give them the gift of a comma after the last item and before the conjunction in a list of three or more items.