|
|
No. Filtering merely limits the choices of what they can do.
Yes. Which is the same goal as looking over their shoulders.
The same technology that makes everyone more powerful makes students more powerful. It's not a shock that schools should use technology to keep up. If they didn't, they'd be idiots.
I am keenly reminded that these are the same police services and directors of public prosecutions who won't investigate the banks. Not who can't; who won't
No, they really can't. If they did, they would find themselves jobless rapidly.
I put plastic bottles (some time one, some time more than one) and filled them up with liquids, and then put them into my luggage and also carry on luggage.
Did you also include the large mixing pump system necessary for binary explosives? Douche.
How about actually, you know, paying attention to what the kids in class are doing?
That's what filtering does.
If you want to pay for an internet monitor to look over children's shoulders, I'm sure schools will institute your policies.
Can you honestly say that you're satisfied with how taxes are collected and spent in this country?
Obviously not. But that doesn't invalidate the concept. You can't fix it by crying about taxation, only by actually doing something to kick against the pricks. Whining about entitlement doesn't win you any friends when the real problems are the self-entitled rich fucks who don't want to pay their share.
There is little I enjoy more than the timeless argument and ceaseless complaints about the USA being deficient compared to higher population density countries in services (such as mass transit and broadband) that are dependent on high population density.
What a coincidence! There's nothing I enjoy more about excuses about the nation which invented the internet not managing decent penetration with its massive budget.
Right, because we can only do one thing at a time! I private company *must not* spend their own money on exploring space or going to Mars until we've fixed problems A, B, and C!
Nobody said that, and broadband penetration in the USA is pathetic, and frankly we cannot claim to be a modern nation while it's so poor. At best, we can claim to have some forward thinkers.
I moved there ages ago and moved away for the reasons you describe (less fracking) and another important one: The weather sucks for all but about two to four weeks a year.
Actually, E-Series short buses with the barest accomodations (for which most school buses would qualify) can be had new for that kind of price. You can still get a 2000 E-450 airport shuttle with a 7.3 powerstroke and a nice interior, especially compared to a school bus, for anywhere from $6k on up. Oddly, though, you can buy a used long bus with a Cummins for the same kind of money, and even at about the same age.
At 10-15 MPG, it's terrible for a car, but when you're carrying 60+ people, that's fantastic.
it's not that fantastic. I knew a dude who had a tour bus converted into an RV that would get 10+ MPG pulling two cars on a big trailer. And that's a way heavier bus. The big problem with modern buses is aerodynamics, they have none. Around town it's irrelevant. On the highway it's serious.
Says the progressive handing me their invoice for no services rendered.
I pay my own way, and then some. Why don't you go cry about how you'd rather shit on everyone than help anyone to someone who is sympathetic to your crap?
It's a progressive state, so more government regulation is always better.
Well, we do not require transvaginal ultrasounds for women who want to get abortions.
The difference between a progressive state and a conservative state isn't regulation. It's *what* is regulated.
The subsidy is the "opportunity cost" of selling something at below market rates. If NASA sells a thousand gallons at $5.00 gallon when the market cost is $10.00, that's effectively a $5000 subsidy, even though the cash is flowing *into* NASA rather than out.
The situation is complicated, though, by the fact that the Google execs are allowing NASA to use their planes for research. It may well be that overall the relationship is a win-win, but this kind of complicated and cozy relationship between a government agency is probably not a good idea given that it makes telling good vendor relations from special favors impossible.
Both creative people and cranks have lots of wild ideas. The difference is that a crank reflexively defends his ideas with irrational vehemence. A creative person usually discard his ideas, because he knows there's always more where that comes from.
Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.