Issue 382 Ride Sharing (escaping the taxi) July 18, 2014

Did you know there is a way to escape the business regulations that govern taxi cab drivers and similar highly regulated industries?  Well there is a way and it is modeled a little on carpooling.  Here is how it works.

How it works:  The concept is simple, you set up your clients with you as their driver and you drive them to their destination.  However, you take a suggested donation.  How these drivers vet their clients varies (some use Facebook or other social networking sites) but the ultimate method of this underground industry is to set up a system that allows their clients to write reviews on them and them on their clients.  The drivers of course can write reviews on their clients so as to warn other drivers of bad tippers, bad attitudes or even black listing them. 

The suggested donation part makes it actually legal to do however.  While by law, it is a donation (terminology is subject to change based on changes in what is taxable by law) it is actually income, with the terminology being the fine line.  However, we do not care about that as if these drivers go through traditional methods including becoming a taxi cab driver, they would be forced to pay thousands of dollars to be licensed to a company and would not be able to keep most of their earnings.  If fact to become an independent operator, a taxi cab driver would have to pay almost one million dollars just to get that "privilege".  But this ride sharing scheme ensures you keep your earnings as a private driver who can pick and choose their clients (untaxed).

Conclusion:  No I am not saying break the law, but this business is a reaction to the over-regulation that squeezes out the little guy.  Those independent drivers now have a place to practice their preferred trade without the extra burden. So pardon me, but I am rooting for this underdog and the success of these men and women who wish to bypass the illogical regulations and embrace the true spirit of capitalism and freedom.

Issue 381 College should be a job finding company July 17, 2014

We know that certain industries need colleges to train their employees.  However, the number of industries that actually need some level of college of education is limited to around 20% of the job market (and that number is being generous). Colleges are losing out to online courses including in areas that requires traditional training that is usually required for one of those jobs that require a college degree.  As such, they are inevitably going to lose money and may even go bankrupt in the long run.  However, colleges need to adapt.  Some and soon all will offer online courses, but even that is not enough.  Hence why they need to become brokers for businesses with respect to finding new hires.

What needs to happen:  Colleges are losing the battle for cheap education.  So they need to offer a service that is not offered by the online institutions.  That is being a job hunting agency.  So the college will market you, groom you and then help place you in a business or corporation.  Some do this to a certain extent based on connections with former Alumni, or small scale partnerships.  But, they need to scale that up and then offer courses that are flexible for the needs of both the students and their business clientele.  

It works as follows.  Essentially, a business would contract with a college and give the college a set of specifications for training they want from a new hire.  The college would then develop the course on demand with the students wanting to work in the particular business or even just that field of study attending.  The business would then have its pick of perspective new hires, and the students have a chance at a good job.  These courses would be more adaptable than the current ones as they would be able to be modified on demand due to the changing nature of the business market.  The results are obvious, businesses, colleges and former college students especially benefit.

Conclusion:  Yes, this is a dream scenario.  However, it is feasible with the right tools and technology.  Of course this would take vast sums of money to even develop such a system in the first place, but it may spell the survival of brick and mortar colleges. So, the question is, is this worth the cost, or will the advancement of technology render colleges completely obsolete.   

Issue 380 School to work program. July 16, 2014

How about a way to get children into the working world as soon as possible so as to give them a head start.  Would that be beneficial for the country, not to mention the children themselves who will come out of high school with hands on working experience?   Here is my idea.

The idea:  The premise is simple.  At the age of 13, the student with the parents’ permission would get their working papers.  Hence they would be allowed to work at a place of employment.  From here the program takes over where the student either works for four to five hours each day (excluding weekends, unless the parent gives permission or circumstances dictate) to gain work experience.  But some of you are saying now that this will interfere with their schooling.  Well, I can alleviate your fears, you just have to read the next section.

  How it works: It is fairly simple.  Yes the student will be working four to five hours each day, but this is set up in a way that does not interfere with time in school or with private time at home.  To accomplish this, the core subjects of reading, writing, math along with elements of history and science will take up the first few hours of the day (or the remainder of the afternoon).  The students will have a lunch period and a study hall time so as to do their homework and other assignments prior to going to work or starting their school day.  So as an example, a student will be dropped off by their parent at the place of employment (or by bus) to work.  Then, a bus will pick them up and drive them back to school where they will eat lunch and have a study hall.  For those who work in the afternoon, the children are dropped at school first and then are dropped off at their place of employment.  Thus, all the core subjects are accounted for and the student will most likely leave school (or work) approximately around three, four or five in the evening depending on the situation and the nature of the job.

To ensure a diverse range of experiences, a student will work at a particular job for at least two months (longer if parents give approval due to the student wishing they can stay at their place of employment and the business owner accepting).  By giving a two month window, the student can get a sense of what the job is like.  Essentially it is trying to get as many job experiences under the belt of the student as possible.  This accumulated experience will give the students the knowledge and skills necessary to hold a job after they get out of school.

Advantages to all:  The first advantage is to the students as they will gain work experience and be trained to do multiple jobs depending on how well the program is run.  As such they get a head start in life with respect to knowing and retaining job related skills (and cash too).   The second advantage is to the businesses. They get a work force of students being paid minimum wage (or more depending on the circumstances), which means cheap labor for them.  Finally, the schools can rotate their students which allows for smaller class sizes and thus cost savings with respect to certain elective classes or man power.

Conclusion: Is this a good idea? I only think it is because I thought of it, but what about you?  Do you think that this is an option that can be used to give students a head start in life with respect to the job market?  I hope this idea will at least spring forth a better one as at this point in time, the next generation will have to work very hard to adapt to this ever faster changing society. 

Issue 379 Can you pray for your enemy? July 15, 2014

Jesus told us to both love and even pray for our enemy.  But why is that?  What was the purpose of Jesus telling us Christians to do that?

What I think:  I think Jesus wanted us to pity them.  An enemy who only knows hatred is someone to be pitied.  Thus you pray for them to find peace that does not use violence and bloodshed which inherently begets more.  There is also the notion that by praying for your enemy, you can pray that they are enlightened to stop whatever foolish notions or fighting they are committing.  Thus, they are better able to negotiate with and a possible future trust out of the ashes of conflict can come about.  

The naive answers:  Jesus never wanted us to look down upon others, hence his quote "may the first without sin cast the first stone".  So we do not look down upon the enemy, but respect them for their prowess.  We do not wish them dead for then would they not wish us dead?  Wishing ill harm to others can and possibly will bring ill harm unto yourself.  So any of the negatives where you wish harm or ill fortune and looking down upon the "enemy" as pathetic rather than basic pity is from my perspective a non-starter.  

Conclusion:  Praying that once a conflict is over, that you can get alone with your former adversaries is good.  Asking God to enlighten them to halt their path of destruction is also good.  In short, the purpose of praying and even loving your enemy is to understand that you will not always be enemies.  Are we not supposed to be above the foolish notions of hatred and twisted revenge?  Yes you are allowed to defend yourself from harm, but not if you become as violent and horrid as those who had attacked you wrongfully in the first place.  And thus why we pray for the conflict to end in a way that lets us acquire the peace we seek, not the peace forced upon us by desperation of war and hatred.

Issue 378 Anti-homeless studs!!! July 14, 2014

Yes that is right "anti-homeless studs".  I first learned of this on the Blaze Network and it had me wondering why anyone would do such a thing.  Well, let me tell you the back story.

Back story: In England, high priced hotels do not want homeless people begging for money or sleeping by the entrances by their hotels.  They feel it drives away business (which they are correct about).  So they had studs placed into the ground (the equivalent to those spikes that keep birds from landing or nesting in certain spots).  And thus, the story on the Blaze asking if this is moral or not.

I don't find this moral:  There are better and much nicer ways of keeping the poor from sleeping or begging near your business.  What could possess you to place spikes on the ground so as to drive the homeless away like they are some animal.  We have police who can drive these people to shelters for a reason, or at the very least a facility that can help them get out of poverty by finding them a job.  The spikes are what people do to animals, they should not be used against other people ever.

Conclusion:  People are treating other people like animals because we, not just as a nation, but humanity as a whole lost its values of life and liberty.  We need to reconnect to what is most important or else worse things than these anti-homeless studs will begin to happen.  And when that does I'll be there to say I told you so.  So reconnect with what is important, God, humanity, humility and the like.  Before we can correct others, we must correct ourselves.

Issue 377 Child learning: at own pace July 11, 2014

A child is a knowledge sponge.  They take in the world around them and then process it, which then constitutes their abilities and also determines their future.  The issue today is that schools (usually government run ones) cannot allow the child to move through their education at their own pace.  As such, they are held back by their peers who may need extra time.  So what can we do about this so that children can push themselves to learning excellence without being held back?

Material based, not grade levels:  One method is that children are not advanced using a grade level based system.  Instead they advance as they acquire knowledge and the proficiency in that knowledge.  So you go from basic addition and subtraction to algebra, to geometry and finally to calculus, but this is not learned as you move up each grade level.  You simply just move onto the next level of math and its complexity instead. As such, grade levels are irrelevant as the child will move from subject to subject based on their own personal performance.  So they can go from studying the American Revolution to world history in as short as a year if the child is capable of doing so, even if they are still struggling to understand algebra in their math class.  You could say this idea works on a system similar to the United States high school curriculum with each subject taught by a different teacher, but in this case geared toward fostering the child's ability to advance based on their own innate capabilities.

Cycle system:  This system goes by a few other names, but here the same teacher you had in first grade would be the same teacher you had all the way to fifth grade.  In addition all your classmates would be the same too.  This allows for a relationship between teacher and student where the teacher can act as an adviser to the student as the teacher will hence know all the students weaknesses when it comes to learning.  This can allow the teacher to adapt other teaching techniques to prevent that student from ever falling behind.  Basically, why bother getting a new teacher each and every year when you can get to know one who knows you and knows what it takes for you to catch onto the material and succeed.

Self-taught:  Here the teacher hands out dittos to students who are deemed capable of teaching themselves a problem simply by following a few examples on a page.  These students once done with the ditto simply need to ask for the next ditto so that they can either reinforce what they learned or move on to more complex problems like in math or science.  This is basically how the computer based learning works, save with the advantage that lectures can be given to each student via computer at the same time, before quizzing them on their knowledge.  The only other advantage with computer based learning here is that a student may be able to skip a subject and move onto another one if they so choose due to how hard it may be for them.  Both have good advantages and teachers can then look at their work and determine areas of weakness in which dittos or computer programs can be used to help the student get a more hands on approach to learning that subject matter so that they get it.  The teacher in this scenario really focuses mainly at monitoring the progress of the students and providing extra help and advice when required.

Class A, B, C, D, and F:  This approach is very classical, but may be combined with any of the aforementioned.  Here they identify the students who have the most learning difficulty and the least difficulty.  Those with the least learning difficulty are in class A with each of the students who have progressively worse learning difficulty placed in to class B, C, D and so on with the slowest students who have the hardest time absorbing information and knowledge in class F.  The purpose here is in part to keep the fast learners from being slowed down by their counterparts and for the slower learners to get that extra time and attention they need to succeed in the first place.  Of course, students can test out of a slower class and move into a higher one based on how well they perform as well.  Similar to the Honors classes and the A.P. accredited classes (where you can get college credit) in my old high school.  And no, this is not saying any of the students are dumb by any means (or super smart for that matter).  It just means some need more time to get a better handle of the material.

Conclusion:  These are all ideas that can be applied to current school systems to help students advance at the pace they need.  We need to cultivate a student body that can learn and advance on its own because if the course moves too slow, or is uninteresting, then the students will become uninterested and thus end up failing or missing opportunities.  This is why computer based learning is so good for the students who can take advantage of it, they no longer need to wait for the teachers or their peers to catch up.  

Issue 376 What guns should be unregulated? July 10, 2014

Well, you’re probably thinking I am nuts for even posing the question.  However, if you think about it, there are numerous firearms that are completely outdated in which they do not even make ammunition or parts for anymore.  This group is called historical firearms and I am going to make my case on why they should be unregulated to you.

Long reload:  Muskets, and classic muzzle loading fire arms from the days of the American Revolution and back need not be regulated when it comes to being bought and sold.  Main reason is that they can fire off 3 rounds max in one minute (and that is if you’re really good at loading them).  There is a group of gun collectors who shoot these firearms and really only need a license to purchase the gun powder (cause it is a possible bomb making material) in order to shoot them.  You probably never heard of this, but there is a segment of the gun culture here in the United States that likes shooting historical firearms like muskets and similar weapons.  Other firearms like the wheel lock and flint lock are also in this category as they require a long and lengthy process to load and then fire.

Out of date:  Another grouping that overlaps slightly with the first is firearms that are considered outmoded and thus their parts and ammunition are no longer made.  Basically, old French 8 mm rifle rounds, and other similar guns need not be regulated as they can only be fired in controlled situations and after a pricey process of making the ammunition.  Even then, if said weapon is in disrepair it will lose value if forced to manufacture newer parts or convert it to modern standards.  Even guns that shoot up to 28 bullets in a single trigger pull (back before the Machine gun was invented they tried numerous ways to barrage the enemy including guns with literally 28 barrels to fire all at once) are in this category and are thus regulated to the historical class of firearm.  So, as long as the gun is not being updated to fire modern ammunition, or the ammunition cannot be easily made, then it makes no sense to regulate said firearms.

Less than lethal: There is one other grouping that (I'm not 100% sure on this specific one) may not need be regulated.  These firearms are guns that shoot small caliber bullets or other types of ammunition that are so small, that they cannot kill anyone save with a lucky hit.  So you may have this tiny palm gun used for a last ditch defense against an attacker, but at most all you will be able to do with it is put a small hole in him and scare them half to death.  So these guns, depending on the lethality of the ammunition need not be regulated (much).

Conclusion:  Some guns just do not need to be regulated due to their being outmoded (depending on the situation).  As such, why waste money regulating these firearms any further when the real killer is the hand gun.  The hand gun is a last ditch personal defense weapon, but also the weapon of assassination and murder.  If anything need be regulated, it is the hand gun, not the historical and now ineffective musket.