Oddly enough, the 'human factor' is responsible for most deaths everywhere. Maybe if our machine overlords helped to remove the human factor we could greatly cut down on death and damages to the human race...

The bar has always been set higher than individual responsibility because of liability lawsuits. Traditionally, if someone besides the 'victim' can be even remotely blamed, they will be held jointly responsible. This means that a vehicle that is faulty less often than a human driver will still be subject to numerous lawsuits unless they can prove the catastrophic failure was due completely to the abuse of the system by the driver. The system must either be near-perfect, or have enough failsafes built in that the car cannot be blamed for failures.

What is a starting salary of $30,000? Is that fantastic?

The biggest opposition is that it was completely legislated without teacher input, and without a clear plan of how any of it would work and whether it would be funded 3 years from now. I'm a teacher who is opposed to it on those grounds, but not entirely opposed to all of the ideas. It just reeked of dirty business (like the way the online classes have to be done). On a side note: student motivation has always been one of the biggest hurdles for any educational system. If students can be motivated to take online classes, they very well may work, but that's been one of the biggest advantages of in-class lessons, is that the learning time is set aside, and there is someone there to help clarify concepts.

While you are correct, you need to remember that these people truly believe that their skills and abilities make a difference in the lives of the kids they work with. And they find it hard to see that life-changing influence in a computer.

I'm a teacher in Idaho, I'm only making $31,000, and have only had 1 raise in my 3 years of teaching.

My argument was intentionally excessive. In general, the people who will read the article and understand it in the first place are those that have some experience in the field already, though probably a few who don't. The point is that if it can be weaponized, we at least have to think twice about it before throwing the information out there.

This is different. You're talking about not just harming one or two people, you're talking about working with a virus that could possibly kill 1/10th of the world's population. From an excessive point of view: If someone developed a way to make a nuclear bomb out of superglue and rubber bands, you think they should publish that, too? The results: -No more superglue and rubber bands. and/or -A whole lot of nuclear weapons. Those are the two options.

Is it the low wages? Or is it the fact that people want to spend $600 on a new toy, and have all the great $10+ a month services like Netflix and Hulu, and all the 'necessary' apps, and they feel it is necessary to take vacations that invariably cost $4000+ .

I think we expect too much from our meager wage. You want to abandon children to daycare so you can have these things. Fine. Just don't blame it on the 'lousy no-good wages'.

I earn $30,000 a year and support my wife and daughter just fine. We have to cut back and set a budget, but we still save, we still give to charity, and we still go on vacation. But I have accepted that I can't afford the new toys regularly, that I have to be careful about what I buy, how often we eat out. It's a self-inflicted reduction of freedom, but I choose that so my daughter can have a parent at home with her to teach her. Instead of plugging her in to a babysitter.

No, but there was Leonardo DaVinci, and other great innovators.

Where do you get a 14 student to teacher ratio? Or 18,000 per pupil. Could you cite your sources. Also, where is the avg.55,000 salary? Does that include private school salaries which are usually higher? Where I teach in Idaho, I am getting 30,000 for an average of 24 students for each class period. I don't know how much the school gets paid per student, but that's a significantly different ratio.

Poverty is a cultural issue, not just a monetary issue. If millionaires gave away money, those in poverty may improve, or they might just wind up with more stuff, and the same low-opinion or behavior toward education. Not that I'm saying all people are in poverty because they choose to, but the attitude against education or motivation is not directly tied to the amount of money a person has. It's a causality issue (not to be read as casualty). Are they struggling with attitudes toward education and performance because they have no money, or is some of their poverty the result of a lack of caring about education being passed on. Or is it neither.