Comment Re:And meanwhile... (Score 1) 86
If I was a Hollywood actor I'd be in line to take a pay cut for the betterment of the industry right after the last studio executive, board member, and producer.
If I was a Hollywood actor I'd be in line to take a pay cut for the betterment of the industry right after the last studio executive, board member, and producer.
I work to make money and you probably do too. I don't fault actors for wanting big paychecks one little bit, especially because Hollywood executives are fickle and one or two disappointments can tank an actor's career. They often don't want to take the risk on what they see as a falling star. Make hay while the sun shines.
I'm probably not going to pay to see a cheap but decent movie in a theater just for something to do and it seems like more and more people are with me. Most such movies are frankly better at home. I can put it on, pause, rewind, pee, look up the actors on my phone, eat, and drink all whenever and however I want. With the rise of streaming the only movies I really want to see in the theater are those that are better or move fun there: those that are big, loud, pretty, impressive. The recent Dune movies were a fine example of this type. The kind of cheap-but-decent filler movies that filled the calendar between Oscar season and the summer blockbusters either don't get made now or are direct-to-streaming, and there is so much direct-to-streaming stuff that it can be difficult for a regular schlub like me to pick one over another. Meanwhile those properties are all competing YouTube, TikTok, and doom scrolling along with the best era of TV shows ever and thousands of older titles already available with just as many clicks as it takes to see the new things.
The movie business is changing as it has been since its inception. The greedy producers and executives currently think they have to have big-budget spectaculars and famous names to get butts in seats. Beginning with a well known property and doing a remake, prequel, or sequel is a big step-up in marketing.
The DVR service is rental of their DVR equipment, not access to a service. They are renting you hardware that is a DVR. The DVR is also your cable tuner so you are only renting one device instead of 2. Digital cable boxes via comcast are $10/month, so in reality you are paying an additional $10/month for the more advanced box. Box breaks Comcast replaces it. You buy a DVR or build one something breaks and you may have to pay out more to replace/fix it than the $120/yr for the rental. When storage in Comcasts new boxes increases, you call Comcast and can get a newer box without doling out a couple hundred more dollars for a new box or upgraded computer system..
Look around the thread for a more articulate explanation.. I'm not the only one who sees the power grab of meddlesome authority. If you actually believe this is to fight crime, or that it will have any effect other than increasing petty crime, or maybe not so petty, then an explanation is not possible, or worth the effort. I do however, have a couple of bridges up on the block, in case you're interested..
My point is that there is nothing morally justifiable about this, or any other war.
A war to stop the Rwanda genocide would not have been justifiable?
Falcon
Of course the other problem with what he said is that the money spent on the military (including the wars it has fought) doesn't come from a level of government that has any business being involved in education.
That is not compleatly true. If federal taxes weren't as high then states could raise their taxes, they'd thus have more money for education. Oh, and the federal government is in education. While I agree it shouldn't be the feds have entered into education, just look at the United States Department of Education to start with. The U.S. Department of Education 2010 Budget is $46.7 billion. Now that's only a fraction of the cost of the war in Iraq but it's still pretty big.
Falcon
Endless wars that divert hundreds of billions a year from schools and job training are also undermining America's competitiveness, Daley added, wondering where the public outrage is.
The public outrage was systematically misled and dismantled by the Democratic Party machine, which deliberately encouraged anti-war activists to believe that Democratic political candidates intended to end wars and withdraw troops, even as those candidates actually favored escalation. The Democratic Party machine spared no expense of time and energy on denouncing candidates who actually opposed the war, particularly Nader and Green Party candidates, for having the temerity to run against "anti-war" Democrats who were actually pro-war.
In short, Daley is not just part of the problem, he is at the core of the problem, and he's a damned hypocrite for blaming voters for doing exactly what he manipulated them into doing.
Yes, because kids are supposed to really understand that sitting in class for 12 years and learning will be really useful when they finish school and go to university or search for work. Yes, a 7 year old is supposed to understand that doing this boring stuff for an eternity (12 years by 7year olds standards) will be somehow useful.
Or maybe he just needs to do well enough so that the teachers don't yell at him and/or parents don't beat him up when he gets a bad mark. That could also make kids get good marks.
you have to prioritize the schools that cater to the very worst students;
To solve America's education problems it will take more than just spending money. One thing that needs to end is to stop allowing poor students to graduate when they don't know the material. Get rid of all this flunking students damage their ego nonsense. Then give the students who want to learn the resources to do so. Allow charter, public, and private schools to compeat for students. Allow magnate schools.
it makes no sense to spend more money on students who are already succeeding.
It makes no sense to hold students back because of lack of money. Money needs to be spent to improve education for everyone. Now what can help teachers with slow students is having those faster and brighter students help those who are slower. It also makes no sense to spend money on people who don't want to learn. I tutored one such student in college in algebra, almost every tyme we met she was drunk. I eventually had to tell the tutoring office I couldn't tutor her because of her drinking, after I asked her not to drink before meeting me. Of course she wasn't paying tuition herself, her parents paid. Along with taxpayers.
Falcon
You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. -- Ernest Rutherford