It's about time. I had this same idea back in 2000 (minus the e-ink) of making a keyboard that was essentially a gigantic touchscreen and could be completely configured by defining areas as certain keys. It would allow for non-traditional keyboard use (gaming, foreign keyboards, etc), plus you could make the keyboard have backgrounds, high contrast, etc.

My additional idea was to make low-cost capacitive screen covers that would sit on top, essentially replicating more of the feel of a keyboard (soft keys, granted, but better than typing on a flat surface.) This would allow more of a keyboard feel, and also allow for customized key placement (imagine being able to put any key where ever you wanted!)

Alas, now it's finally coming around (though it seems like it's still just a novelty function at the moment). Too bad I didn't have the money to patent that idea back when I had it.

I think a year could work as long as the content is geared towards a year of learning, Though I do like more of a semester approach. That way if you can't demonstrate proficiency in a subject after a single semester, essentially repeating a semester isn't nearly such a big deal. This would definitely require restructuring how classes are taught, but overall I think it would be highly beneficial to both students and teachers.

As a student, you are placed in classes with people of like ability and like-mindedness for learning of varying age groups. It wouldn't be unrealistic to have a two or three year spread in age groups for a particular class as some children display higher aptitude or desire for some subject than others. This would give them extended social interactions with kids not of their age groups, which would be beneficial. By keeping the classes according to a particular subject vice age, you also are likely to have classes filled with students at about the same ability.

From a teacher's perspective, your class would be filled with kids of close abilities, so you're less likely to end up with children who are bored in class because they already get the material (troublemakers or non-involved students), so you're not teaching a room full of kids with varying proficiency in a particular subject. It would end up with the teacher being more accurately able to gage the progress of the class and gear the lectures for that class.

Absolutely agree. If we stopped teaching to the lowest denominator, our high schools would be worth something in the workplace. Then we wouldn't have such a push to go to college, where so many students end up racking up huge amounts of debt in order to get a degree that will never pay itself back.

In my own experience, I benefited from moving beyond my peers in mathematics and in language. I could definitely see a tiered learning, where the tiers were broken down by ability and/or subject and not arbitrary age. We constantly test our students, so why not make those tests actually mean something? Then, you get your high school diploma when you actually are able to demonstrate proficiency with the subjects and you're not held back going over subjects that you've already "mastered" just because of your age.

And quite honestly, if the US federal government stopped placing such a high priority on enabling (read: funding) every person to go to college and instead sunk that money into the K-12 public education system, maybe we would have much better results with kids coming out of high schools and able to enter the work force at better than minimum wage jobs, and college could once again go back to being for more specialized education.

This is where forward-thinking entities (Businesses, governments, regulatory bodies) should be getting together to come up with "future-proof" requirements in order to operate on roadways. Businesses should be working to set the standards of operation and how, if any, inter-car communication should occur. Governments and regulatory bodies should be setting down the standards for safe operation, and what requirements must be met by all automated cars in order to be sold.

Instead, it seems like we've got a bunch of car makers trying to push their own agenda and ways to control an automated car. There doesn't seem to be any spirit of cooperation or desire to set standards. Governments seem to be lagging, still trying to decide if they should allow automated cars instead of trying to push forward and realize that in some form it is going to happen. So instead we're going to have cars that can't communicate between each other, have no standardization, and no set requirements. And the governments are going to let it happen, because they can't move fast enough to react to anything newer than a few years in the past.

As a submariner, one of the most important thing you can do is get ranges to other vessels. You do this by using their visible height and your height of eye, allowing you to calculate how much is hidden by the horizon. As the range decreases, you can watch the visible height increase, something you wouldn't see with a flat earth. This happens until the vessel is at the horizon, and you can see the entire thing (which happens at roughly 5100m for a 2 meter tall person, or 5600yd/3.16 miles for a 6 foot tall person). Perhaps flat-earthers just need to spend some time on a boat to get the real picture.

Personally, I would draw the line between buyer and seller. I don't see why a buyer should be held accountable for the actions of a seller, and you can hardly blame corporations for being "merciless heartless beasts that only care about profit" when the same societies casting those stones are also the ones constantly pushing companies to keep reducing costs to the consumer. Also, how can a company remain competitive when another company without scruples can just buy the cheap components and undercut you.

Also, let's not get into the conditions of the nation sourcing sweat-shops and child labor. Most of them are so poor that families have no choice but to have children work in order to support themselves. Cracking down on child labor in the DRC will probably result in many families starving because those few pennies that those children were earning were probably keeping the family fed.

I know it sounds like I'm a heartless person, but too frequently I feel some high-horse crusader will come in and shut down vital economies without ever having a plan to supplement those economies they shut down.

I've always been of the mind that a lot of roadway politeness is more because people don't know what to do, so they just let someone else make the decision.

I find the key factors to dissatisfaction of cable companies are (in no particular order):

- Lack of competition - Without an option for dissatisfied customers to change to without at least a severe reduction in services (or at all), there is no push to make customers happy. Add in the fact that many smaller companies aren't recognized as service providers, so many web services that allow you to watch shows aren't available ( USA, Disney Junior, etc.) since you don't have a cable company they recognize.

-High prices - As a consumer, you end up paying a lot, and most of the content that is delivered isn't really wanted. Most of the time I find myself wanting about 5 channels from basic cable, maybe 5 from extended cable of various bundles offered, and one or two premium channels, but to get that, I end up having to get hundreds of channels at extreme prices considering what I'm already paying.

-Bundles - I don't like paying for services I'm not going to use. I don't like paying for channels I'm never going to watch (and I don't like supporting channels that I don't care about). I don't like my prices going up after my special introductory offer is over (or yearly).

-Outsourcing support - Like most companies, when you call for support you mostly end up going to a call center and speaking to someone that is following a script and actually has little to no technical knowledge on what you're actually trying to ask about. The script normally starts off like you're an idiot (Yes, my TV is plugged in, and it is on the correct input), and ends up with them putting in a call to have a technician come out after you've wasted 30 minutes of your life. Then you get a 4 hours window where the technician may show up if they aren't late, while you get to wait and do nothing productive during that time.

It's no wonder people are dissatisfied with cable companies. But it's not like you've got a choice, since at least you'll end up paying them for internet most of the time so you can stream your shows.

How true. The scope that it covers with worded ambiguity is ridiculous, especially when dealing with companies that refuse to give consumers power to enjoy what they have spent money on, even when faced with companies abandoning some products entirely (except as a way to create lawsuits).

Or perhaps that percentage of the population that spends much of their time on a submarine. While not just talking about time underway (far below sea level), just a daily workday while onboard the sub will typically have you ~10-20 feet below sea level for most of the time you're there.

For every hero that captures something like this, how many people turn into gawking bystanders with cameras instead of helping during a tragedy? In this case, the bystander may not have been able to help prevent the crime by inserting themselves into the situation and announcing their presence, but it's possible that if the cop had known that there was someone watching then the victim wouldn't have been shot 8 times (but then it's possible two murders would have been committed).

It seems that a lot of shock reactions have turned from helping to pressing record on your camera. During the Boston Marathon bombing, how many people just started recording instead of trying to help people that were injured (a lot, as a matter of fact)? I'm sure if smart phones had been around and as prevalent during 9-11, how many people would have hung around to record it? In many of these instances, hanging around to record a scene can be dangerous, yet it has become a natural reaction for some people to just hit record. While there always needs to be checks and balances on those that enforce the law, as they are in the end only human and subject to the same feelings and actions as anyone else, but is the general populace placing themselves in harms way the answer, especially when most people don't have any training to help themselves survive bad situations?

It's minor when you factor in the point that a good portion of that military spending goes towards those working for a living by being in the military, those that have already served and retired, or those disabled veterans, vice a number of welfare cases that just decide to live off welfare.