Depends on the possible side effects and depends on the most likely outcome using conventional medicine.
Well since we already have an educational model that works (or at least used to) to some degree and we are looking at ways to improve it the medical equivalent would be having a condition which medical science can already manage to a varying degree of success and then replacing that with a new treatment which has never been tried on anyone before (so nobody knows the side effects) but which the doctors think will work better than the old treatment and they can give you a glitzy presentation from the company pushing the new treatment which contains lots of hyperbole about how wonderful it might be but no actual data which would stand up to scientific review to support that.
That pretty much sums up what happens when a publisher rep comes into my office with a $200+ text book to push on the students which comes with a quiz system, ebook version etc. etc. and lots of buzz words. The very distinct impression is that they have lots of evidence that this technology will improve their bottom line and a lot less reliable data about whether it improves education.
The education industry could learn a lot from the angel / VC funding industry. You only need 1-10% successes to make the 90-99% failures worth it as long as the success are sufficiently scale-able.
Try telling that to the students who have had an appalling low standard of education because of the 90-99% failure rate of all the new things they had tried on them. Education involves humans and so experimenting with it is somewhere in between the venture capital model you mention and medical science. Nobody would accept a 90-99% failure rate for medical innovations which get as far as being tried on patients!
Clearly education is not life-critical as medicine can be but, unlike medicine, there is really no way to determine whether a new technique is effective other than to try it on students. So while education is more risk tolerant than medicine it is nowhere near as risk tolerant as VC industry funding.
The data should always be king--not the math--inconsistencies should point the finger at the math and theories, not the other way around.
Except when the data are "bad". The most recent example of this was the Opera experiment's claim to have observed faster that light neutrinos. That's what their data said...at least until someone found that their GPS cable was loose.
Experimental science is never that cut and dried. The data may always be right given the experiment performed but, as the Opera case shows, that may not be the experiment which you think you had performed. The result is that there is always a tension when theory and data contradict: is it because the theory is wrong or is it because of an invalid assumption when interpreting the data?
No, new theories do not have to look mathematically connected to the math of old theories--this is the root problem--assuming that the old theories are *proven* and *correct*.
Here you have taken a position which contradicts your earlier one. We believe old theories *because* they are consistent with the data we have so far. Hence, by logical extension, any new theory must also be consistent with that same data otherwise we would point to that data and say "see it disagrees with data and so it must be wrong!". Within the precision of existing data any new theory *must* have identical predictions, i.e. an identical mathematical form, to the previous theory under the conditions where the old theory has already been tested and confirmed. It can only vary under situations where the old theory has not yet been tested.
Do you really think they are going to share your network retard? Clearly any user on the WiFi network will have their own IP address.
Even if they have a separate IP address the question is will the ISP records indicate that it was assigned to your router? If they do how confident are you that the police will be aware of the distinction between the public and private IP addresses and understand that the activity had nothing to do with you? In fact, even if they are aware of the difference, they may still want to investigate you in case it was you connecting to the public side of your WiFi so the activity was not directly linked back to you.
I would offer specific billing credit for bandwidth lent out for public access; that way, subscribers would be incentivized to actually improve public access to their routers.
All that will do is incentivize users to connect to the free public wifi instead of their own network when they do not need the bandwidth or even run simple scripts to generate public traffic while they use their own network for everything else.
How about we invest in getting off this planet and learning to live/survive in space? Bet it is cheaper, easier to accomplish, and better for everyone.
Think of this as primitive terraforming: adjusting our own climate should be a far easier thing to do than creating such a climate from scratch on a barren rock. If we are going to survive off-Earth then we will need to be able to do this since living in underground tin cans is not really going to attract many colonists and is extremely expensive and very hard to achieve with current technology.
two countries couldn't have closer economic, social and military ties than the US and Canada.
There are plenty of examples of countries with far closer ties: members of the EU; England, Scotland and Wales; the counties in the former Soviet Union etc. Indeed I would argue that Canada has closer ties with the UK than the US: we share a monarch, style of government and social morals the later of which is very different from the US in that we have national healthcare, functioning social welfare etc. Of those you list I'd say that only our economic ties are closer to the US than the UK.
As of right now, the only confirmed neutrino sources we have that aren't artificial are the sun and SN 1987A
Don't forget atmospheric neutrinos. These are created in the showers produced when cosmic rays strike the upper atmosphere. Since they pass through the planet you detect them from all over the globe. The Earth itself is also a natural source of neutrinos from radioactive decay and there are some experiments, such as SNO+, that are looking for these 'geo-neutrinos'.
But which ETF do you choose? It's easy for you in hindsight...
The whole point of index investing is that it does not matter: you are aiming for the average market return and, to within a small margin or error, that's what any decent index based ETF will deliver whether it be from iShares, Vanguard or someone else. What differentiates these funds is just their management fee.
What you aim for is a diversified portfolio so the only real decision you need to make is what percentage goes on bonds, your local stock market and then foreign stock markets (often divided into developed and emerging markets). The choice made depends on the volatility which you can handle: generally the larger the fraction in stocks the more volatile but larger on average the returns will be.
There are plenty of sites which include model portfolios (if you are in Canada here is a good one) which give you the long term, average gains and volatility of different fund distributions. All you have to do it pick one and stick with it for a decade or two. It's boring but it works.
The best things in life go on sale sooner or later.