bluGill

Wire and rust embedded in your skin is not good. In the eye is worse - I know of people who were wearing both a face shield and full safety glasses who got grinding dust in their eyes.

I don't have a good answer to the problem, nobody else likes any of their answers either from what I can tell.

i assume you mean as in your increased earnings will no longer pay the expense. The never too late crowd is thinking of school as a pure 'fun' activity which is a valid way to look at things but if you don't like school isn't for you and that is how I'm choosing to interprut your question.

the question is never answerable unil after the fact: I can calculate after you are dead. However I went to school with someone who went right to college, a mistake because he died in an accident at 21. Other people get mental decline in older years and so it is too late when they are no longer able to learn.

you can retire at any age when you have enough savings, but some people find it boring and will continue to work anyway - if this is you it can be worth it even if ecconomics don't work out if you get a job you like (or perhaps one that by not wearing on the body you can do longer)

many jobs pay for your schooling. if this applies the only quesntion is will you have to remain at the job longer than you want to afterwards.

if paying for your own schooling you can calculate the expected earnings after and compare to the cost to make a decision.

Service matters. people yell free fares, but once again service proves the real key to rieership

There are a lot of bad bus systems in the world. However that isn't the fault of the but. There some great bus systems proving it can be done.

Trains are nice, but the common bus is the workhorse of all transit systems in the world (or almost all - I know of no exception but I don't know everything). For most people a simple frequent bus and useful bus routes/transfers would solve most of their transportation needs. Trains are useful for the core trunks that have a lot of people on them (which also need to be the places roads get too congested for a bus anyway)

Will they allow building good alternatives or find reasons to also oppose building them? HSR would compete well in many more markets, but it needs a lot of political support to get it built.

3 homemade tractors that my mom's uncle made before he died (IIRC in 1984). 1.5, 3, and 12 horsepower, so not really useful machines for any work, but they have meaning. If anyone comes across a "Pearl" tractor let me know, there are about a dozen out there (if not scrapped) that he made and I want the rest.

He also set precedence. A few more cases like this can the cost of going to court becomes cheaper for everyone.

That is part of what a phd can argue about....

I would argue that the registration cost is just a tax and you own it. But remember I'm arguing as a philosopher and not someone who can't see both sides or even thinks there needs to be one correct side.

You can/should write your congressman (or equivalent in your country). Just the threat that if OSS can't use HDMI congress will open up the laws will get action. In a democracy voters have more power than big money when they care and vote like it.

The city of LA should not get a .com name. They might have a case that la.com should not have a .com either (they look like a tourist .org though if they are not acting like a .org they are scammers) - but this would be a very hard sell in court. The city of LA should have a .gov (which won't allow them) or .us (which is not organized well - something they should be mad about and pressure to get fixed) name.

Why not? You can't hold it, but why should that be a limit?

Note, phd's can easially be written on this subject defending either side. Some of those will say things like domains are not generally property, but for some situations we should treat them like property and in other situations not. I'm not expecting a response. I'm expecting everyone to think about the question.