These extra's aren't really required, but things like the cost of private tutors, of having a computer at home, of doing after-school sports, of school supplies...certainly if you didn't pay a dime you could still fully attend school. But these outside expenditures do help students.
Oh come on, there were about 500 scapegoats for Columbine, and a "pro-jock, anti-nerd bias" was definitely one of them. Simplifying it to that is just more of the same old shit.
Well to be fair, the local school actually kind of sucks already. I wouldn't let my kid go to a 6/10 school, anyway, and I'm no richie-rich.
In California, schools get equal public funding, it's not derived from local property taxes. On the other hand, rich school districts can expect to earn more in private fundraising, and can more realistically require students to pay for "outside resources" like money for field trips, a computer, etc...
97% of the difference between good schools and bad schools is family background (education, income levels, parent availability). If the student bodies of a poor school and a rich school exchanged campuses/teachers, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the educational results of the students would remain basically unchanged.
I basically agree, but I'm not sure I understand the relevance.
I am a ham radio operator, I have a significantly higher chance of survival than the rest.
Yeah, keep rationalizing your weird 1970s hobby, nerd.
There is about a one in a billion chance that it will save your life (I really think this is a realistic figure), and you put a large amount of time/expense into it. Imagine if you put that amount of time/money into, say, a health club membership. Or extra doctor visits. Or healthier food. A safer car. This would have a much larger chance of actually having anything to do with how long you live.
> No content from Eps 1-3.
This is a complaint?
The market has already decided, and that's why the FM band is being closed.
Of course there will always be s few stragglers, the way some people (myself included) still shoot pictures with film. In this case, the public has an interest in the underutilized radio frequency, so instead of entertaining the stragglers, they open up the frequencies to people who will use them.
WTF? How much does it really matter for a somewhat independent game studio to be on the same time zone? This isn't finance or news. And the significantly higher cost of transportation? Really? That hasn't held back China from shipping to the US (shipping prices are miniscule), and anyway of course this is all being sent over the internet.
Australia has a small population (23 million, less than metropolitan Shanghai) and higher education is lacking, of course it would be more difficult to have a competitive software company there.
So, from looking at the first few pages of google results, the only example is Resident Evil: Afterlife? That suggests it's a very uncommon practice...
Examples? The only movies anybody cares about are Hollywood movies, Hollywood TV shows, and Youtube commentators. And I can't imagine any of them using a Segway.
It seems to me the difficulty in precise camera control would make the Segway a poor choice for the purpose.
And you keep it from raining, ever. Even if it's possible on nice days, it has to work on every day of the year to be a real alternative for daily commutes.
Corporations do business and exist to make profits?
Non-profits don't, and similarly don't get taxed.
And because this is Slashdot: who said corporations pay taxes? (+5, Insightful)
Except, churches aren't busy doing business and earning profits. They survive off the voluntary contributions of members, who have already had this salary taxed. Why should the government tax it twice? Clearly (from an accounting perspective) it wouldn't be double-taxed if church members just individually bought things for the church they attend.
Money contributed to the church is money pooled in aggregate for the benefit of the contributors, and really no different. Churches do pay tax on income from rental properties and the like.
Right, and that's exactly the point. White people are more likely to hire other white people, it's an inherent bias. Even if they are not the most qualified for the job, even when studies show that a minority candidate would be a better choice (as with this study). A certain amount of programs encouraging the hiring of minorities is a necessary step towards counter-acting this bias.