I see. You're saying it's okay to do it because it has been our goal all along. That logic is circular.
Are you saying that because the problem already exists, it's okay to make it worse? Or are you saying that making crops resistant to pests won't make them more invasive?
It sounds like you want to give crop plants some of the attributes of invasive species. At what point would doing so start to become a bad thing?
Because of the uncertainty of how much power your solar panels will have available, the provider must maintain sufficient margin available to handle the instantaneous load of the entire system.
It was always true that the provider had to maintain sufficient margin between electrical supply and demand in order to prevent blackouts. And yes, now they have to look at weather reports to determine not just demand but also supply--although the two cancel each other out to a degree because people use less A/C on cloudy days.
But providers now have one additional tool to manage demand: smart meters. Conceptually, you can program your smart meter to raise your thermostat temperature in the summer during periods of high electrical demand, or lower your hot water temperature, or turn off lights, or tell your washer to refuse to start a load of laundry until the demand event has passed. As a result, providers can now reduce demand within seconds where it otherwise takes 10 minutes to bring a peaker plant online, and this reduces the margin providers need to maintain.
The U.S.A. is as capitalist as ever...
Except for our non-railroad roads, those represent socialism (government ownership of the means of production).
And parking lots that cities force developers to overbuild. That's private ownership but strong government control over the means of production which is dirigism which is closely associated with fascism.
The USA may have been a capitalist country in its early history, but it hasn't been that way for many decades.
But when the kids come out of the test and report that 1/2 the questions were on Greek and Roman history...would you think that the "American History" class the next year would follow the previous year's curriculum?
You have a good point. They would combine American and British history into one class in order to cover more questions on the test. If this is undesirable, then the test is faulty.
If it were a test on world history and had the same number of American questions as British, would it matter whether the student took American History or British History?
how to draw
When I was taught to draw, I was told to put the eyes in the middle of the face. Do you think it would be difficult to test this knowledge in an objective way?
Because knowledge of rhetoical games is not a good measure of thinking.
Can't critical thinking be demonstrated by identifying logical fallacies committed by a passage?
when you test specific things and tie an infividual's renumeration to trst results teachers will focus on what is on the trst to the detriment of other things that would be useful to know.
Shouldn't those things also be on the test?
a kid who has a broad understanding of world history and why things happened, but who doesn't have dates memorized, could get high grades in essay assignments but tank on standardized tests.
Why can't the whys be tested?
Why can't the student's knowledge of logical fallacies be tested?
or learning skills.
Learning skills such as critical thinking and creativity? (See above.)
Could you provide an example of something that teachers should teach but that cannot be tested?
Should we also bill the person who started the fire?
If so, wouldn't it be double billing to bill that person and also the drone operators?