Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<br /> Do animals use technology? If you see the recent scuffle between Wikimedia and wildlife <keyword id="2476725" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="photographer-David-Slater">photographer David Slater</keyword>, one would see the need to find an answer to this question.<br />
<br /> When the world came to accept the word <keyword id="1725157" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="80" keywordseo="Selfie">Selfie</keyword>, it didn’t think things would get this interesting that the word will gain a whole new ground when it comes to copyright issues!<br />
<br /> This is what happened. It was in 2011 that <keyword id="1341044" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="80" keywordseo="David-Slater">David Slater</keyword> visited one of the Indonesian parks to take some interesting pictures of black macaques. Just as he was fiddling with his numerous cameras, their accessories and related stuff, a macaque clinched the opportunity and caught hold of one of his high-end camera. Just as mischievous as the monkeys would be, the macaque took a perfect selfie with Slater’s camera before the man got it back.<br />
<br />
It was a fantabulous shot. There wasn’t just one selfie; there were hundreds of them! David Slater had stepped on a gold mine since this could have been any wildife photographer’s dream come true! What more do you need when you have an animal which already knows how to use the technology and can give you a perfect shot? This was a super-recipe for the image to go viral. And, as guessed, it did go viral and reached unforeseen corners of the world. This was the image of a toothless macaque grinning into the camera like human child would smile innocently at a friend.<br />
<br />
Sadly though, this image also turned out to be an inspiration for hundreds of memes and some so condescending that Slater decided to do something about this.<br />
<br /> Since the image was in public domain such as Wikimedia, a non-profit organisation behind <keyword id="71187" type="COMPANY" weightage="80" keywordseo="Wikipedia">Wikipedia</keyword>, Slater wrote to them asking for the image to be pulled down.<br />
<br />
And this is where the most important discussion on copyright started. Wikimedia refused to pull down the image. The issue turned even murkier since Slater was not even the photographer in the said case!<br />
<br />
How can someone, who isn’t the photographer or the one who pressed the button for the image to be captured, have the right over the image that he didn’t compose or plan or have any role in it being captured?<br />
<br />
Wikimedia had its argument sound and valid. This image is in the public domain owing to the fact that a non-human animal had taken the image. When this is the case, how can a human hold permission for it owing to the mere fact that the equipment was his?<br />
<br /> The most outdated US copyright law which had served the purpose for long, mentions whoever pushes the button holds the sole proprietorship over the image. So, in case you ask a relative to take a pic and a celebrity photobombs it, your relative has all the rights to sell the image to which ever agency he/she would prefer. In that sense, the <keyword id="57812" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Monkey">monkey</keyword> selfie has brought two arguments into light here.<br />
<br />
One is whether Slater would hold 'any' right over the image. Second, are selfies so much in vogue that animals know it too? Either way, it would be a sorted discussion when the answers arrive.<br />
(Image: Caters News Agency)<br />
 <br />

When A Primate Taught Lessons In Copyright!

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Soraya Chemaly is an award-winning writer and activist.</li><li>She is also the author of <em>The Resilience Myth: New Thinking on Grit, Strength, and Growth After Trauma.</em></li></ul><p>In addition to academics, athletics are a major nexus for teaching resilience, in schools and out. In the United States, 60 million children and teenagers participate in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/daughter-high-school-sports-spent-countless-hours-money-2024-4">organized sports</a> every year, and when they do, they are immersed in cultures of resilience as mental toughness, grit, personal growth, high performance, and winning.</p><p>Athletics undoubtedly offers many benefits. Leadership, social competence, health, and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/loneliness-decline-in-kids-sports-new-model-cheaper-easier-2023-8">feelings of purpose and belonging</a> are all enhanced. Sports help children mentally and physically, reducing stress and mental distress. But these benefits exist alongside serious costs: pervasive physical overwork, psychological burnout, feelings of failure and shame, and an inability to know when and when to not apply resilience lessons.</p><h2 id="263b08a9-a825-4316-a6d2-d53f546c7ecd">The pressure to be 'resilient' can have consequences</h2><p>For many athletes, leaving lessons about strength, grit, challenge, dominance, and perseverance on the field can be difficult, especially when resilience is taught as a skill to carry into all aspects of life. Sometimes, knowing when to abandon a goal is the resilience skill worth cultivating.</p><p>On October 29, 2022, the Michigan State Spartans, a college football team, played a game against the University of Michigan. Only two weeks before the game, media applauded the Spartans for "finally showing resilience" and breaking a four-game losing streak. But on the 30th, they lost again.</p><p>As the teams withdrew from the field and entered a stadium tunnel, up to 10 Spartan team members attacked a Michigan player. Some hit him repeatedly in the head with their helmets. After the incident, which was caught on video, Michigan State was fined $100,000, six players were suspended, and five were subsequently charged with aggravated assault.</p><p>Like grit, having a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/college-athletes-share-how-they-use-linkedin-nil-opportunities-2024-5">growth mindset also applies to athletics</a>. But what happens when children — even strapping adolescents — want to stop, rest, or opt out because they are tired or no longer find pleasure in sports? Parents and coaches often encourage students to "stick with it," teaching, in effect, that they should overlook their feelings, desires, or discomforts, prioritize specialization and performance, and sacrifice for the win.</p><div type="image" title="Soraya Chemaly standing against a blue background holding a copy of her book &quot;The Resilience Myth: New Thinking on Grit, Strength, and Growth After Trauma.&quot;" height="448" width="597" msid="111731740" hostid="261" sizebytes="22506"></div><h2 id="939c0b8a-8374-43d6-9205-5a0ea2b3cbb8">Knowing when to stop is a good thing</h2><p>Children who want to stop a sport or "give up" a pursuit often feel like failures. Every year, for almost 15 years straight, a period that coincides with the rise of resilience and performance programming in schools and sports, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/regret-being-college-athlete-ruined-body-injury-2024-4">sports-related injuries</a> among children have increased. Specialization, overtraining, and overuse all contribute to injuries and to burnout.</p><p>What do we even call the virtue of knowing when to stop? Curious, I searched TED Talks, one of the most viewed of which, featuring Professor Angela Duckworth, is titled "Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance." Duckworth's viral Talk has garnered more than 25 million views. The only one I could find that seemed related was made in 2012 and titled "Forbearance." In it, 85-year-old Thelma Gibson, who, fate would have it, is also a Bahamian American, uses forbearance to affably describe how she resisted decades of systemic and interpersonal racism.</p><p>It has 1,247 views.</p><p>If every obstacle, problem, or hardship can be turned into an opportunity to learn and do better next time, when does your improving end? Are you ever enough as you are? One of the reasons that 70% of kids drop out of sports by the age of 13 is that both school and extracurricular sports are designed to filter them out in order to cultivate high-performing athletes.</p><p>The older children get, the more <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/field-day-should-be-cancelled-causes-embarrassment-2023-9">pressure they feel to succeed</a>, which means not just doing your best, but being the best. In recent years, perfectionism among adolescents has been on the rise, a problem, researchers believe, tied to growing parental pressure in an increasingly individualistic and competitive society.</p><p>Children who swim against the tide and change course often think deeply about their decisions, coming to know themselves better. They gain agency and self-confidence, learn to be satisfied by their choices, and frequently achieve happiness. It takes bravery and confidence to make these decisions.</p><p>Change also teaches children the valuable lesson that resilience is variable over time. As with adults, children can be resilient in one part of life — academics, for example — but not in another — <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/conflict-resolution-skills-kids-2024-1">forming strong friendships</a>. They are capable of coping at certain times, but not at others. When they take risks, they gain the insight that relying on others for support when they need it isn't only acceptable but necessary.</p><p>Changing paths is a risk, and when supported, they learn that people around them value them regardless of how they perform.</p><p><em>Excerpted from </em><a target="_blank" href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Resilience-Myth/Soraya-Chemaly/9781982170769"><em>The Resilience Myth: New Thinking on Grit, Strength, and Growth After Trauma</em></a><em> by Soraya Chemaly. Copyright 2024, Soraya Chemaly Published by One Signal Publishers/Atria Books.</em></p>

There are plenty of benefits to having kids participate in sports, but we should also teach them that it's OK to stop

One woman saw the Great Recession coming. Wall Street's boys club ignored her.

<p></p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>A slew of YouTubers have been mistakenly demonetized in the past year, with the platform stripping their videos of the opportunity to make money, while still keeping them up on the site.</li><li>YouTubers with sizeable followings who rely on making money from the platform have vocally protested the phenomenon in order to regain monetization.</li><li>Three YouTubers who were mistakenly demonetized told Insider that when they were demonetized, they were given no options for immediate appeal and no options to recover lost profits - which can sometimes amount to thousands of dollars.&#xa0;</li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/?hprecirc-bullet">Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.&#xa0;</a></li></ul><p>Jake Sandt is like any normal college kid in Ohio - going to class, eating at Panera, and maintaining an active presence on social media. But the 18-year-old stands apart from his peers with his successful YouTube channel JakeyonceTV, where he primarily makes videos recapping and "spilling tea" about the hit drag queen reality TV show "RuPaul's Drag Race."</p><p>Sandt's channel, which now has over 63,000 subscribers and more than 19,200,000 views, brought in enough money to support his pursuit of a college degree in journalism and buy occasional gifts for his family, he told Insider. But then the rare college financial security Sandt had created for himself through YouTube came crashing down in an instant.</p><p>Sandt, like many creators in recent months, found himself demonetized without warning, unable to continue to bring in the income he relied on from the content machine he had built. But Sandt wasn't dodging YouTube's rules or terms of service - he, along with others, was mistakenly demonetized for weeks with no option to recover lost profits.</p><h2>YouTubers' lives are being disrupted without warning, and there's little they can do to reach the company</h2><p></p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div><p>Sandt first learned that his channel was demonetized through an email.&#xa0;</p><p>"My heart dropped," he said.</p><p>According to Sandt, YouTube claimed that he was in violation of their policy that forbade re-using content already on their platform. The platform still kept his videos publicly listed on the site, despite the content regulations it claimed Sandt had violated. YouTube just took away his ability to make money off of them.</p><p><strong><em>Read more:&#xa0;</em></strong><em><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/t-series-interview-how-beat-pewdiepie-youtube-2019-8">Assassination, lawsuits, and devotional ringtones: How T-Series became the world's biggest YouTube channel and exploded PewDiePie's lead</a></em></p><p>Sandt, who often includes modified clips of "Drag Race" and other online shows in his commentary videos, says that all of his content is transformative and falls under Fair Use allowances under US law, but Sandt was given no option to appeal the decision issued by YouTube.</p><p>Unlike the three-strikes copyright system used to patrol copyright violations on the platform, YouTube's monetization system issued no warnings before suspending creators for 30 days before they could re-apply, stripping them of their ability to make money on the platform for a substantial period of time.&#xa0;</p><p>For Jake, the decision was near-catastrophic for his finances. "It changed everything," he said. "I felt like I had to hang onto everything - I wasn't going places, I wasn't really buying, my parents were helping me out a lot."&#xa0;</p><p>Other creators had similar experiences.</p><p>Alex Beckham, the creator behind "Man on the Internet," <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkWuZ0UvpVzJ2d9n11bQpmA">a channel</a> that puts lyrics to video game music, said he similarly was demonetized without warning. "It just kind of happened," he said. "I got emailed saying, 'Hey, you can't live stream anymore,' And 20 minutes later another email came to explain that 'Oh yeah, we took away monetization because of reused content.'"</p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">"That was a very stressful day where I didn't get very good sleep," Beckham recalled. "I was thinking 'Oh God, oh God, how am I going to pay the people who work with me on all these videos.' I'm not really a lone wolf, I've got a big cast and crew."</span></p><h2>Creators were left screaming into YouTube's void</h2><p></p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">David Hoffman, a 78-year-old YouTuber, repurposes content from his decades-long film career into <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/allinaday">YouTube videos</a> that make up a third of his income. Like Sandt and Beckham, Hoffman was demonetized for what one email from YouTube Support called "duplication." He wrote physical letters, made calls, and emailed the company's support team repeatedly.&#xa0;</span></p><p><span>"I understand that you wanted to know more why your monetization on your channel has been disabled," a member of YouTube's Support Team wrote to Hoffman in an email. "Unfortunately, we cannot provide you specific details on what guideline your content has violated and also, we're not able to provide you where your channel does not comply with&#xa0;</span>YouTube's YouTube Partner Program term<span>s."</span></p><p><em><strong>Read more:</strong>&#xa0;</em><em><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/youtuber-finds-gun-changes-gaming-channel-videos-2019-8">When a gaming YouTuber found a gun while scuba diving, he decided to completely change his type of videos. Now he has 8.7 million subscribers.</a></em></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><span>Despite the live person on the other end of the support team telling Hoffman he wasn't eligible for YouTube's Partner Program anymore, the entire decision was deemed to be a mistake over two months later, and Hoffman was finally monetized again without ever receiving any explanation.&#xa0;</span></span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><span>"I was depressed," Hoffman told Insider. "I didn't feel like doing it anymore. I felt that the enormous power of the network just came down on my head without any warning and with no recourse. Almost like you've been fired from your job and you've been removed from your office and you have no idea why and you can never talk to anybody."</span></span></p><h2><strong>Many YouTubers have felt that their only option to challenge demonetization is to go public with the problem</strong></h2><p><strong><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div></strong></p><p>Sandt and Beckham also found communications with YouTube around their demonetization to be confusing and opaque - leading both to turn to public cries for help.&#xa0;&#xa0;</p><p>"The only way to get any answer out of them is to go public about it, otherwise they don't respond," said Sandt, who spoke publicly about the incident on Instagram Live, YouTube, and Twitter, where he tagged @TeamYouTube - YouTube's paradoxical primary method of communication with aggrieved creators.&#xa0;&#xa0;</p><p>YouTube's only response was to point Sandt in the direction of the page that explained the decision.</p><p>Nearly three weeks later, YouTube tweeted at Sandt that the demonetization was a mistake.&#xa0;</p><p>Beckham similarly made a video explaining his situation and posted it on Twitter, also mentioning @TeamYouTube and emailing them. He was remonetized within 24 hours.</p><p>His high-profile tactics worked. "I don't recall any other time that monetization has gotten back that fast for a channel," Beckham said.</p><p>"I was expecting to batten down the hatches for a war of attrition with YouTube," Beckham, who has almost 280,000 subscribers, told Insider. He estimates he lost between $150 and $200 during his short suspension.</p><p>&#xa0;</p><h2>YouTubers haven't been given an option to recover money lost by mistaken demonetization</h2><p>Despite the slew of mishaps caused by Google and YouTube, creators haven't been given an option to recover lost funds.&#xa0;<span style="background-color: #ffff00;"><br /></span></p><p>A YouTube representative told Insider the company won't reimburse creators for the money they lost during a mistaken period of demonetization because it can't calculate the amount of revenue the channels would have made.</p><p>In a step made to attempt to address its admitted mistakes, YouTube has launched a new <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/13/20803418/youtube-demonetization-appeals-pilot-program-creators">pilot program</a> that will allow creators to submit an appeal video internally, in response to demonetization decisions, explaining their "creative process" and what their channel entails. The platform says it will get back to them within seven days.</p><p>Before the pilot, there was no specific means of appealing the demonetization decision outside of re-applying in 30 days, making a fuss and tagging @TeamYouTube, or contacting YouTube's general support email. YouTube's new program seemingly attempts to move the appeals that were already happening on the platform publicly, to an internal process.</p><p><strong><em>Read more: </em></strong><em><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ninja-tyler-blevins-twitch-subscribers-fortnite-drake-youtube-2018-3">This 28-year-old makes $500,000 every month playing 'Fortnite' - here's how he does it</a></em></p><p>YouTube wouldn't specify whether it uses an algorithm at any point in the demonetization process, but emphasized that at some point in the cycle, humans review the flagged accounts. For Sandt, Beckham, and Hoffman, a live person reviewed each account and mistakenly determined that they had reused content without putting an original spin on it, a YouTube representative told Insider.</p><p>Whether the mistake was algorithmic or not, Sandt, who says he lost at least over $1,000 during his demonitized period, says that the experience taught him a valuable lesson - "do not rely on of AdSense. Do not." In the wake of demonetization, Sandt has made an effort to diversify his revenue streams, creating a Patreon where users can pay to access his videos early.</p><p>"It doesn't matter how big that check is, 'cause they can just take it away," Sandt said. "No matter how hard you've worked and no matter how great their system gets, you need to have backup plans, you need to have multiple platforms."</p><div></div><div></div>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/wireless-headphones-house-marley-sound-better-than-airpods-2019-8">These $150 headphones made from trash sound better than AirPods</a></h3>        <div>                    </div>    </div>

'Like you've been fired from your job': YouTubers have lost thousands of dollars after their channels were mistakenly demonetized for months

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Shutterstock</span></p></div><p></p></div></div></p><ul class="summary-list"><li>Leah A. Plunkett is an associate dean and professor at the University of New Hampshire School of Law and faculty associate at the Berman Klein Center for Internet &amp; Society at Harvard.</li><li><strong>The following is an excerpt from her book, "Sharenthood: Why We Should Think Before We Talk About Our Kids Online."</strong></li><li><strong>The book highlights how parents - often before children are even born - create "digital dossiers" that children are not consulted on, but can still have a major impact on their lives. </strong></li><li><strong>Plunkett says that adults trying to connect with one another digitally is not a bad thing, but that adults often aren't reflecting on the impact that their posts can have.</strong></li><li><strong>In this excerpt, Plunkett proposes that parents work with their children to create family data privacy plans. She also points out that many children know how to navigate the tech marketplace, and that parents can take notes from them on when and how to spend th currency of data.</strong></li><li><strong><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/?hprecirc-bullet" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories</a>.</strong></li></ul><p>The drive for human contact - to see and be seen, to hear and be heard, to understand and be understood - is strong and positive. That more of these social connections are now digital - in "networked space," as leading privacy theorist Julie E. Cohen calls it - does not alter this drive.  We aim to nurture our children with sustained, genuine connections, both with us and with others.</p><p>The adult urge to connect with one another - especially to seek advice, reassurance, and commiseration around the inevitable hassles of raising children - is positive. It shows maturity. It shows emotional and psychological resilience. It shows willingness to learn from new ideas. It is positive in and of itself. It's the how, why, when, and with whom we connect that is often problematic for our children. We are connecting, but we are not reflecting. We are connecting but not necessarily sustaining ourselves or addressing those needs that are driving us to describe our most intimate challenges with our children as "status updates" or in 140 characters or to record them in the format of Nest Cam footage.</p><p>What can we do to "only connect" more mindfully? We can think before we click.  We can reflect more on what we are hoping to accomplish when we share our children's digital data. When we share, are we really looking for something more complex and elusive than a certain number of likes? By identifying and querying our reasons for sharing certain information in a certain context, we may make more mindful choices. By being in better touch with our own needs, desires, and fears, we may direct our energies in an ever more constructive and productive fashion.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Courtesy of Leah Plunkett</span></p><p class="caption">Leah Plunkett.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>We can also think about our kids before we click. You'd tell your teenager not to post a selfie from the bathtub. You should think about telling yourself not to post a shot of your toddler in the tub. You'd tell your teenager to use social media to create a positive portrayal of herself so future employers will be impressed by her savvy dissection of current events rather than how many tequila shots she had at Tommy's #houseparty last weekend, so you should think about telling yourself to post only a tasteful update about your ten-year-old's success at baseball rather than the fight he got into with his younger sister after the game ended. You can think of this "digital dossier" creation strategy as the "holiday card" rule of thumb: if you wouldn't put it in hard copy and mail it to a few hundred people in your life for display on their refrigerators, don't put it on the internet for thousands of people in, near, or outside of your life to repurpose and display indiscriminately.</p><p>We can think about kids, but actual youth input in and control of data-sharing decisions is largely a matter of personal and institutional connections. The law provides a limited to nonexistent framework for youth agency around whether, when, and why adults share their data. Even when kids under age thirteen go online and share their data in a commercial context, federal law doesn't require the digital service provider to get the kids' consent. Under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the provider must get consent from a parent.  Our legal system is deeply committed to parents as gatekeepers for their children's privacy and activities, so the primacy of parental consent isn't going to change.</p><p><em><strong>Read more</strong>: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/husband-paid-me-stay-home-mom-heres-what-i-learned-2019-9">My husband paid me $15 an hour to be a stay-at-home mom. Here's what I learned.</a></em></p><p>The individual choices of parents, teachers, and other adults are another story. All of us can look for more and better ways to connect with the kids in our care to learn from and with them. For instance, parents can actively involve children in creating not just family media plans, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, but also a family data privacy plan. That plan can be a quick three parts: (1) familial concerns about and commitments to privacy, (2) research into the terms of use and other policies about existing or potential digital services that best align with the set of expressed preferences, and (3) some family habits that promote regular and responsible use of these or similar services. Some stock habits that might work well include the "holiday card" rule of thumb and "what would a thirteen-year-old say?" "What would smart Elmo say?" is also a possibility, but it's unclear whether Muppet artificial intelligence is more or less intelligent than an average adolescent.</p><p>Teens and kids are increasingly learning about how to use their real intelligence to make decisions about their digital privacy and other parts of their digital lives. Sometimes, those decisions include blocking parents from seeing certain social media content. Schools, other learning spaces, tech companies, and other institutions are offering more lessons about data privacy or "digital citizenship" more broadly.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Courtesy of MIT Press</span></p><p class="caption">Sharenthood: Why We Should Think Before We Talk About Our Kids Online.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>These learning experiences are likely to become more common. Notably, in 2016, Washington state passed a law that appears to be the first of its type in the country that requires digital citizenship instruction in schools. There is a movement underway to persuade other states to follow suit. How "digital citizenship" will be defined and taught is still evolving, but under any conceivable definition, it should be a level of instruction that was not available to today's parents when they were kids back in Tom Sawyer's time.</p><p>Youth today are likely to possess a level of sophistication with their digital self-creation skills that transcends their parents'. Parents presumably will continue to possess superior skills in navigating the brick-and-mortar world and its institutions and in engaging in the type of risk-assessment "executive-functioning" skills that neuroscience tells us are more the province of the "olds" than of the youngins.</p><p>The likelihood that Tommy or any other of today's Tom Sawyers will want to sit down for a family summit and action planning is slim. They're too busy white-washing the fence all by themselves, without even being asked. But even in the absence of some sort of defined plan, a parental habit of checking in with children and teens as digital data decisions are made has the potential for significant positive impact on parental practices.</p><p>Teachers, educational administrators, school boards, legislative committees, vendors, and other decision makers outside the home also would do well do solicit youth input into data-handling decisions and options. Twenty-first- century Toms are lighting up digital territories. We can glean some insights from the paths they blaze.</p><p><em><strong>Read more</strong>: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/im-morehouse-college-grad-my-student-loans-all-paid-off-2019-9">A billionaire agreed to pay off my student loans in full. Here's what it was like - and how I plan to pay it forward.</a></em></p><h2><strong>Respect: Valuing children's digital capital </strong></h2><p>You're online, flipping between your work email, your former girlfriend's Instagram pics, and your local news channel. You get a pop-up ad: "Tom &amp; Huck Bro Co.: we give the olds a raft to ride through digital waters." Sick of meeting requests, #blessed photos, and parking structure drama, you click. You laugh. Tom &amp; Huck is a company of teenagers offering to serve as "personal guides to help adults have fun and be cool online." They charge $50 for each consulting session and less if you do a package. You laugh some more. Then you click on their YouTube channel. You're stunned into silence. Their last "how to" video had 2 million views. Since when did kids stop painting fences and start running the internet? </p><p>Most kids aren't tiny tech tycoons.  Most kids are players in the tech marketplace, though, through their own interactions with digital services and those of the adults in their lives. As we make decisions about whether and when to exchange our children's private data for free or low-cost digital services, we need to "follow the money." We don't need to go full Moneyball and come up with a dollar figure. We don't even need to think that we're engaging our kids in digital day labor by our handling of their data.</p><p>But we do need to recognize our kids' data as a form of currency in the twenty-first-century economy. It's also a future-cy because the choices we make about our children's private data today will likely affect their life prospects for years to come. And depending on the type of content we're sharenting, we may also be taking creative content from our children that could have value to them as intellectual property - a scenario that the Council of Europe addresses when it advises member states who create play-based resources online using youth contributions to have "measures in place to protect the child [creator]'s intellectual property rights."</p><p><em><strong>Read more</strong>: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-mom-quit-corporate-job-and-launched-global-wellness-company-2019-9">I'm a mom who quit my job, sold my house, and invested every dollar I had into launching a company that's grown 2,000% in 5 years</a></em></p><p>The economics behind sharenting are typically opaque to users. The website for a social media platform tells you it's free. It doesn't ask for your credit card, so you don't ask what price you're paying or how you're paying it. The app for your favorite store pushes a discount code to your phone while you're shopping. You use the code to save money, and the store uses data about your purchase for its own purposes.  In these and many similar transactions, your children's data is part of the transaction. Your social media posts are about your kids, and your purchases are for them. You're paying for these digital and related services in part with your kids' capital.</p><p>Ask yourself: is the service you are getting worth parting with this information about your children?  In some cases, the answer is yes. Let's say that you need to buy diapers and you don't have a lot of money. Diapers cost a lot of money. It's worth letting your preferred retailer figure out that your four-year-old isn't toilet-trained yet to save money on those diapers. In many other instances, though, the price seems too high. You post a YouTube video of your child's remarkable invention at summer robot camp. It gets a lot of likes, but it also spawns a lot of copycat creators who crowd the field and undermine any potential for your child to be the leading developer of her tech vision. You contact Tom &amp; Huck for advice. Their diagnosis: epic parent fail, yo.</p><p><em>Leah A. Plunkett is an associate dean and professor at the University of New Hampshire School of Law and faculty associate at the Berman Klein Center for Internet &amp; Society at Harvard. Excerpted from  <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/sharenthood">"Sharenthood: Why We Should Think Before We Talk About Our Kids Online"</a> by Leah A. Plunkett. Copyright 2019, The MIT Press. Reprinted by permission of the MIT Press. </em></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/sneaky-ways-credit-card-companies-make-you-spend-more-money-2019-9">Sneaky ways credit card companies get you to spend more money</a></h3>        <div>                    </div>    </div>

Kids' data is a form of currency - and parents often decide how to spend it

<p><em><div class="image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image"><p class="source">AP</p></div></div></div>Texas board delays OK'ing new biology book, seeks expert review of alleged errors on <keyword id="54958" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="evolution">evolution</keyword></em></p>
<p>AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - The long-simmering battle over teaching evolution in Texas boiled over at a late-night meeting, as the Board of Education extended preliminary approval of new science books for use in classrooms across the state but held up one biology text because of alleged factual errors.</p>
<p>With midnight looming, some of the state education board members singled out a textbook by Pearson Education, one of America's largest publishers, on Thursday. Many of the 20 concerns pertained to the theory of evolution. After a lengthy debate that got testy at times, the board voted to have three of its members pick a trio of outside experts to further scrutinize the book.</p>
<p>If the issues can be resolved, it will win approval. But if not, it will be returned to the board for consideration at its January meeting.</p>
<p>Textbook and classroom curriculum battles have long raged in Texas pitting creationists - those who see God's hand in the creation of the universe - against academics who worry about religious and political ideology trumping scientific fact. At issue this time are proposed high school textbooks that could be used statewide starting next school year and through 2022 at least.</p>
<p>The board is scheduled to vote again on all the proposed books at a meeting later Friday, then take final votes in January.</p>
<p>State law approved two years ago means school districts can now choose their own books and don't have to adhere to a list recommended by the Board of Education - but most have continued to use approved books.</p>
<p>What Texas decides is important nationally since it is so large that many books prepared for publication in the state also are marketed elsewhere around the country.</p>
<p>Publishers submitted proposed textbooks this summer, but committees of Texas volunteer reviewers - some nominated by creationists who are current and former Board of Education members - raised objections. One argued that creationism based on biblical texts should be taught in science classes, while others objected that climate change wasn't as settled a scientific matter as some of the proposed books said.</p>
<p>Pearson and many other major publishers weren't willing to make suggested major edits and changes, however. Indeed, Pearson has challenged the 20 alleged errors that the citizen review panel claims are in the biology book.</p>
<p>The concerns raised included how long it took Earth to cool and objection to lessons about natural selection because "selection operates as a selective but not a creative force," according to reviewers.</p>
<p>Delaying the book's approval pending outside review was a proposal championed by some of the most conservative members among the board's 10 Republicans. But its five Democrats joined with more-moderate Republicans in questioning whether reviewers' objections were factually correct.</p>
<p>"I believe this process is being hijacked, this book is being held hostage to make political changes," said Thomas Ratliff, a Republican from Mount Pleasant who is vice chairman of the Board of Education.</p>
<p>He said he believed the same biology book was already being used in "over half of the classrooms in the United States."</p>
<p>"To ask me - a business degree major from Texas Tech University - to distinguish whether the Earth cooled 4 billion years ago or 4.2 billion years ago for purposes of approving a textbook at 10:15 on a Thursday night is laughable," Ratliff said.</p>
<p>Colleagues on the other side of the debate shot back that they "weren't laughing."</p>
<div class="nc_footer">
<p>Copyright (2013) Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.</p>
</div>
<p></p>

The Texas School Board Is Having Another Crisis Over Evolution In Textbooks

<div class="WordSection1">
<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div>Sara Blakely felt like a failure. She tried to become a stand-up comedian but fell short. She planned to go to law school but bombed <span style="line-height: 1.5em;">the LSAT. She became a cast member at Disney World but quit after three months. Finally she found work selling fax machines.</span></p>
<p>One day, suffering in the heat and humidity of Florida, Blakely needed pantyhose to wear with white pants and sandals, so she cut the feet off a regular pair. They rode up her leg, annoyingly. "I needed an undergarment that didn't exist," she said.</p>
<p>She started researching fabrics at night and eventually designed a product she liked. She even taught herself patent law to save money. Her total investment: $5,000. She called her product Spanks.</p>
<p>"I knew that Kodak and Coca-Cola were the two most recognized names," <span>Blakely</span> said, "and they both have 'K' sounds in them." As a comedian she also knew that <em>K </em>sounds make people laugh. At the last minute she changed the <em>KS </em>to an <em>X </em>after learning that made-up words make better brands and are easier to trademark.</p>
<p>"Spanx is edgy, fun, extremely catchy, and for a moment it makes your mind wander (admit it)," she said. Her slogan: "Don't worry, we've got your butt cov<span style="line-height: 1.5em;">ered."</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div class="WordSection2">
<p>I love this story for a lot reasons: It's fun, impressive, inspiring. In <span style="line-height: 1.5em;">2012, at age 41, Blakely became the youngest self-made woman to make the </span>Forbes <span style="line-height: 1.5em;">billionaire list. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">But I especially like that it encompasses a number of key lessons I've learned about becoming an entrepreneur - namely, how to take big, unmanageable dreams and slice them into small, manageable tasks.</span></p>
<p>It's what <span>Blakely</span> did after committing to her dream that's so illustrative. Although she knew nothing about the hosiery business, <span>Blakely</span> didn't bog down in some meta-analysis. Instead, she hopped into her car and drove door to door in North Carolina, trying to talk mill owners into manufacturing her product. They always asked the same three questions: "And you are?" "And you are representing?" "And you are backed by?"</p>
<p>"When I answered 'Sara Blakely' to all three," she said, "most of them sent me away."</p>
<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div>But faced with multiple rejections, she didn't cave. She pushed on. Finally one mill owner who had sent her away called back. "I've decided to help make your crazy idea," he said. Why? she asked. "I have two daughters," he replied.</p>
<p><span>Blakely</span>'s experience embodies the second key step of becoming an entrepreneur: deciding how much to put on the line, developing a prototype, finding users, and (my favorite) stalking supporters. If the first step to becoming an entrepreneur is about managing mindset, this one's about managing risk. Specifically, it's about derisking risk.</p>
<p>When <span>Blakely</span> first had the idea for butt-flattering pantyhose, for example, she didn't quit her day job selling fax machines. For <em>two years</em>, <span>Blakely</span> hawked office products nine to five on weekdays and sold pantyhose on nights and weekends. She didn't resign until she was fairly confident her entrepreneurial venture would take off. What gave her that confidence? Oprah Winfrey had picked Spanx as one of her "favorite things."</p>
<p>While the popular impression of entrepreneurs is that they're <span style="line-height: 1.5em;">reckless cowboys, the reality is quite different. Dig below the surface and what smart entrepreneurs actually know is how to get an idea going with minimal expense, nominal exposure, and limited liability.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><em>Linda Rottenberg is the cofounder &amp; CEO of Endeavor. This article is adapted from her new book, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Compliment-Power-Zigging-Everyone/dp/1591846641/">CRAZY IS A COMPLIMENT: The Power of Zigging When Everyone Else Zags</a>," which was just published by Portfolio. Copyright © Linda Rottenberg, 2014.</em></span></p>
</div>

How Sara Blakely Went From Failed Stand-Up Comedian To Self-Made Billionaire

You Have To Teach People How To Treat You

<p><div class="image-container float_right" style="width:400px"><div class="image"></div><p class="source"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4Q3Y4PRwqQ">Bloomberg Law/YouTube</a></p><p class="caption">Steven Harper sat down with Bloomberg Law to talk about student debt.</p></div>When I applied to law school in 1975, the nation was recovering from a severe and prolonged recession. Even so, I always assumed that I’d be able to make a comfortable living with a legal degree, although I didn’t think that practicing law would make me rich.</p>
<p>Three and a half years later, I became a new associate at one of the nation’s largest law firms, Kirkland &amp; Ellis. It had about 150 attorneys in two offices, Chicago and Washington, D.C. My annual salary was $25,000, which is $80,000 in 2012 dollars. There were rumors that some partners in large firms earned as much as ten or fifteen times that amount; by any measure, that was and is a lot of money.</p>
<p>The unlikely prospect of amassing great wealth wasn’t what attracted me to the law. Rather, I saw it as a prestigious profession whose practitioners enjoyed personally satisfying careers in which they provided others with counsel, advice, judgment, and a unique set of skills. Mentors at my first and only law firm taught me to focus on a single result: high-quality work for clients. If I accomplished that goal, everything else would take care of itself.</p>
<p>Today, the business of law focuses law school deans and practitioners in big law firms on something else: maximizing immediate profits for their institutions. That has muddied the profession’s mission and, even worse, set it on a course to become yet another object lesson in the perils of short-term thinking. Like the dot-com, real estate, and financial bubbles that preceded it, the lawyer bubble won’t end well, either. But now is the time to consider its causes, stop its growth, and take steps that might soften the impact when it bursts.</p>
<p>The Lawyer Bubble is about much more than <keyword id="41930" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Lawyers">lawyers</keyword>. It’s about a mentality that has accompanied the corporatization of America’s most important institutions, including the legal profession — a dramatic transformation that is still unfolding. Behind the change is a drive to boost current-year performance and profits at the expense of more enduring values for which there are no quantifiable measures. But omitting critical costs from the decision-making calculus doesn’t make them any less important or their damaging consequences any less profound.<br /> <br />The Lawyer Bubble began to form when vital institutions — law schools and the American Bar Association (ABA) — abdicated their responsibilities in favor of misguided metrics and insularity. Law school deans are supposed to be the profession’s gatekeepers, but far too many have ceded independent judgment in an effort to satisfy the mindless criteria underlying law school rankings, especially U.S. News &amp; World Report’s annual list.</p>
<p>Those rankings didn’t exist until 1987; now they rule the law school world for both students and administrators. Flawed methodology infects each category — quality assessment, selectivity, placement, and resources. But with the acquiescence of the ABA, deans inflate their schools’ rankings with incomplete and misleading information and encourage prospective students to pursue dreams that, for most of them, are impossible, all in the name of increasing applications, enrollments, and tuition revenues.</p>
<p>Vulnerable young people become convinced that anyone can succeed as a lawyer. Because much of their undergraduate audience consists of liberal arts majors who can’t decide what to do next, law schools appear to be an attractive default option. Add a universal human affliction — confirmation bias — and the fit becomes too perfect: law schools tell prospective students what they want to hear, and sure enough, they hear it. The U.S. News rankings then tell them which schools to attend. Easy money for student loans fuels the entire system.</p>
<p>Excerpt adapted with permission from The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in Crisis by Steven J. Harper. Available from Basic Books, a member of The Perseus Books Group. Copyright <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">© 2013.</span></p>

The Entire Legal Profession Is On The Verge Of Imploding

Jeff Bezos talked to us about leaving a steady Wall Street job to start Amazon, why his rocket company Blue Origin is his most important project, and what it's like to have Trump as your biggest critic

You Searched For "Primate Taught Lessons In Copyright" and got 11 results

When A Primate Taught Lessons In Copyright!

Preetam Kaushik

There are plenty of benefits to having kids participate in sports, but we should also teach them that it's OK to stop

Soraya Chemaly

One woman saw the Great Recession coming. Wall Street's boys club ignored her.

Josie Cox

'Like you've been fired from your job': YouTubers have lost thousands of dollars after their channels were mistakenly demonetized for months

Benjamin Goggin,Benjamin Gogg…

Kids' data is a form of currency - and parents often decide how to spend it

Leah Plunkett

The Texas School Board Is Having Another Crisis Over Evolution In Textbooks

Will Weissert, Associated Pre…

How Sara Blakely Went From Failed Stand-Up Comedian To Self-Made Billionaire

Linda Rottenberg

You Have To Teach People How To Treat You

Sophia Nelson, The Woman Code

The Entire Legal Profession Is On The Verge Of Imploding

Steven Harper, The Belly of t…

Jeff Bezos talked to us about leaving a steady Wall Street job to start Amazon, why his rocket company Blue Origin is his most important project, and what it's like to have Trump as your biggest critic

Mathias Döpfner

How A 'Bunch Of Commies' Are Forcing the Fortune 500 To Stop Destroying Rainforests, Overfishing, And Burning Fossil Fuels

Aaron Gell

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides