Unfortunately, no. I before this incident had looked for an alternative - I already had some issues with Skype. I found nothing - no other company seems to offer PC to landline calls, with the exception of Google Talk, which is mainland USA only. If they come to Europe, I'll try them instantly.
My Skype account was recently emptied. Only five euros, thankfully.
I emailed Skype and said there had been fraudulent calls and if they'd refund me.
Skype replied, to the effect that they do not refund losses and fraud is due to customer error (I kid you not).
I pointed out *I* had told *them* it was fraud. You don't, especially when customers money has gone missing, assume what the customer has told you is exactly and completely the problem, and inform him you don't do refunds!
The calls made were kinda strange, there were many calls, a lot of which were zero length in duration. That didn't quite look like plain fraud. Maybe there's a bug in their billing system, or even their calling system.
Basically Skype said it was fraud, because I told them it was, and they told me it was my fault, because they said it was.
I looked on the web, found similar stories - including ones where people had auto-recharge on, and their bank accounts had taken losses too - it wasn't just their Skype account was emptied.
The problem is that Skype is pre-paid. They benefit financially from fraud.
So here we see Skype jumping through hoops to close a customer data loss bug - but steadfastly refusing to refund customer losses from mysterious calls, without a care about the cause, and so without a care about the responsibility.
This may be true, because children may not be competent to make choices.
But then you must ask - who is making those choices for the children?
If it's their parents, you have a couple who know the child intimately, to whom that child is literally flresh and blood, and who want the very best for their child.
If it's a State run education board, you have a tiny group who know none of the children and who are subject to enourmous pressures and constraints in what they do and who's position depends on what they do; nothing ever changes. I'll point to a lot of appalling schools in the US and UK - which, you'd think after how many hundred years of State run education would *if it were possible* by now be good - and observe that everyone who can get their kid into private education does.
It's the poor who suffer, because the schools available to them are bad and they have no other choice. They can't afford private schools or to move where the schools are better. Ironically, they're the group supposed to benefit from all this.
I'd also say there is NO way a single choice made for all children can be the right choice for all children. But that's all that it can be, when there is a single controlling entity which decides for everyone.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me you're talking about teaching *critical thinking*, where history is a means to that end.
I think critical thinking - the ability not to be fooled - is the most important thing of all.
But that still can't justify violating an individuals freedom. It would still come down to "*I* think this is *so* important, *you* ARE going to do it."
I think the individual freedom argument applies fully to schooling. Why -are- we teaching every single 13 year old the history of Henry VII?
1) Countries with public, secular and compulsory schooling (that's actually enforced) have considerably higher standards of living than those that do not.
What does that really mean, though?
Perhaps it just means all rich countries to date have ended up with centralized State-run education, and as you'd expect, rich countries with (relatively rich) education systems perform better than places like Ethiopia.
I don' t know of any rich, first world country *without* a centralized State-run system, so the type of system I would like to compare what we have now with doesn't exist.
The need for a compulsory schooling system is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you oppose this, you're opposing the Western values that keep our society out of of the Dark Ages.
How can you make such an assertation with a straight face!
What I would say is that any system or mechanism which *forces* decisions on people is wrong. It is wrong to force people to do something; it is wrong to decieve them into doing something. Do you disagree with this?
For one, it's essentially going to be their version of Gym or other required class (I also had to take home ec and woodshop) that people aren't necessarily that interested in but will deal with. Some will love it, some won't like it, and the majority will just float through it. I don't recall a choice in whether or not I wanted to do any of those. It was either do it or you don't graduate (and I didn't care for Gym at all). That is the nature of schooling where they will set certain criteria in education. You can't call that a lack of freedom.
Why not?
Consider. As a kid, your parents pay tax - they have no choice in this. That tax funds schools. You as a child must go to school. You are then told what courses you will take (partially, anyway). What's *not* forced about that?
On top of that, part of teaching chess isn't about the game at all (you can't say there is any alterior motive for home ec/woodshop) it's about mental skills they're trying to boost. It's a bit like algebra (or at least what algebra is supposed to be), and if they are smart they won't fail a kid because he loses the games, but check whether his pattern recognition and strategic skills have developed. I'm also not the best player, but by losing to really good players I got way better than I used to be.
No - this comes under the argument "it's good for you, so it's okay". If you're being forced to do something, it's irrelevant whether or not it's good for you.
I think the individual freedom argument applies fully to schooling. Why -are- we teaching every single 13 year old the history of Henry VII? why -do- they have no choice? it's no different to forcing chess on people.
You can say every subject under the sun has value - it's true - needlework, say, has value - it's a truism; if someone is learning something, it's always a net gain. There IS no argument against teaching - not in terms of 'did you benefit'. But in terms of 'did you benefit as well, or nearly as well, as you could, given the cost and the other things you could have learned instead' - then needlework suddenly seems like a poor choice.
So does teaching every child in the country the same set of courses in the same way. Kids differ, in tastes, intellegence, maturity, you name it.
Regarding the restriction of individual freedom for children, I would say in general their parents are best placed - certainly far better placed than an education board - to decide what their child should be learning. Parents in general love their kids and want the best for them and listen to what their kid says, watch what their kid does.
I would indeed agree primary school is a case of forcing. It's a truism. Anything you -have- against your will is forcing. I also don't think school per se is necessarily a good idea. Indeed, I look at schools as institutions for the destruction of creative thought and intellectual curiosity. There is no more sure-fire way of alienating kids from education than forcing them to learn. Think of how kids in general view school - "oh God, do I have to do?" "thank God, it's the weekend!" "I'm ill, yay! no school!"
And maybe parents know school sucks. But since it's forced, people don't have much choice in how to express the fact that it's not a good idea - their kids -have- to go. In Germany there was a case recently where police raided the house of a couple who wanted to home-teach their kid and forced that kid to go to school.
When you don't have freedom, how can you find out if what you're doing isn't effective? you've blocked change.
Two reasons;
1. cost / benefit tradeoff
2. restriction of individal freedom
You spend a certain amount of money and a certain amount of time, teaching everyone chess. Would they have done better, say, learning straightforward maths? Armenia is a desperately poor country. There are higher priorities than chess. I'd also say Armenia is desperately poor for a *reason*, and that reason is having a corrupt, non-elected ruling party who go around making arbitrary decisions and enforcing them on everyone else, which makes things like investment and ownership risky propositions.
Secondly, what if I don't WANT to learn chess? what business has anyone else FORCING me to do so? so what if it's 'for my own good'. I can think of a zillion reasons for forcing other people to do things - it's good for your mind, your body, your future, you name it. But what it comes down to is *me* forcing *you* to do what *I* say you should do. What difference does the reason make? if I agree with the reason, maybe I'd do it for myself anyway. Or maybe I'd spend that time and money on other things, because in my individual case, those other choices make more sense. And if I disagree with the reason, then you, matey, are sticking your bloody oar in where it's not wanted.
You know in China, it used to be (don't know if it still is) compulsory to learn Communism, to get your Uni degree?
In Armenia, it's compulsory to learn chess. Ah, but that's okay, right, *because we approve of chess*.
Freedom means no one else forces you to do things. If anyone else can force you for any reason, you're not free. You are their subject. Chess isn't worth that - nothing is.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
