A Quote by David Eagleman

My dream is to reform the legal system over the next 20 years. — © David Eagleman
My dream is to reform the legal system over the next 20 years.
Historically, we have always seen reversion to the mean. After stocks have had an unusually great 10 or 20 years, they typically turn in subpar results over the next 10 or 20, and after bad 10- to 20-year stretches, the next 10 to 20 tend to be above average.
I may sound naive, since everyone's decided the next two years are going to be all about 2016, but I look at what's happened over the years when there's been divided government. That's when we've done tax reform, that's when we've done entitlement reform - to move this economy forward on these big issues.
If the states and territories do not sign up to fundamental reform, then my message is equally simple: we will take this reform plan to the people at the next election - along with a referendum by or at that same election to give the Australian Government all the power it needs to reform the health system.
I would like to live to 120, because conceptually, people can survive to 120. Every 20 years, it changes. So maybe, in the next 20 years people can go to space. I don’t know what the next revolution will be. I want to watch.
The legal system doesn't work. Or more accurately, it doesn't work for anyone except those with the most resources. Not because the system is corrupt. I don't think our legal system (at the federal level, at least) is at all corrupt. I mean simply because the costs of our legal system are so astonishingly high that justice can practically never be done.
In the 1990s, there was a lot of reform, and there was a lot of forward movement on a lot of fronts in Russia. There was fundamental economic reform. There was a new constitution and an electoral system built from scratch. But the judicial system was probably the most difficult to reform.
When I say "an energy miracle," I mean that there will be some form of energy whose 24 hour cost really is competitive with hydrocarbons given, say, 20 years of learning curve. You invent it, then you look at how much its costs go down over the next 20 years, that it really beats hydrocarbons.
You can put a person in jail for 5 years, for 10 years, or 20 years, for the same crime. We're deciding on 10 years to 20 years, when 5 years would be enough. Okay. The deterrent value, the additional amount of leverage that you get over a criminal to keep them from breaking the law in the first place, associated with making the sentences longer, is de minimous; it's essentially nothing.
Weather patterns over the next 20 or 30 years are going to be determined by the amount of CO2 that is up there now
We have made a commitment to feed 20-million people over the next two years. We are somewhere around 10 million. But I can promise you that we are not going to stop at 20 million. Because hunger, there is almost no cure for it. You can take care of the problem today, but it is a recurring problem.
In a world where wealth is growing, you can get away with printing money. Doubling the debt over the next 20 years is not a problem.
What's got me excited about the education space is the growth of the Internet over the next 10, 20, 30 years.
We have a legal immigration system that's outdated, it's primarily based on whether you have family members living here. In the 21st century, it has to be more of a merit-based system, and that is why our legal immigration system is in need of modernization.
The first 20 years had such a profound effect on me, I spent the next 20 dealing with them.
I think our legal system needs to be developed. Cases of citizens who are detained and then have to wait much too long for a trial - that is scary, for everyone. When someone commits a crime he needs to be charged quickly. Why does this take so long in many cases? I don't know. Is it because our legal system is still rudimentary? China has promised to modernize its legal system. This has high priority.
As a practicing physician for over 30 years, I can assure the president that the majority of physicians in this country are for health-care reform - just not the government-run reform he prefers.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!