Slashdot Mirror

Adjusted for inflation, average tuition costs have gone up %230 since 1981

Sure, and that's in large part because of public subsidies and a government-maintained monopoly. If you want tuition costs to fall, you have to stop subsidizing education and start creating a competitive market. But even with the broken system we have, there still is no tuition crisis or student loan crisis.

That's what's so bad about Obama's initiative: it will cause tuition to rise further, with no actual improvement in educational outcomes.

Why not compare have debt burden of new graduates from previous dates to debt burdens on current graduates.

Why is that a relevant statistic? For example, if more people go to medical school, the debt burden after graduation will be higher, but there won't be a problem because doctors can generally pay back their debt pretty easily.

These articles use very selective statistics in order to make a point that goes along with the author's political leanings.

Well, obviously it goes with his political leanings because you can hardly expect people in bed with the educational establishment to speak up against this manufactured panic. Don't argue ad hominem, look at the facts.

And you're missing the bigger picture in the Brookings study: when you look at the statistics, there simply is no indication that there is a problem with student loan debt. The vast majority of households don't have any significant student debt, and those that do can mostly pay them back easily. Here is another article that explains it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/je...

Indeed. I think he was originally on record as wanting to find a solution that didnt involve title II -- but this is what got the FCC into trouble with the Open Internet Order.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/em...

Yet a couple of days ago he is now hinting he will use title II.

http://arstechnica.com/busines...

So I guess we will see.

The vast majority of people have no problem affording a college degree in the US.

http://www.brookings.edu/resea...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/je...

People ending up with high student loan debts and an inability to pay it back are a small number of people who made a series of bad choices, like going to Harvard or Brown, majoring in Women's Studies or Journalism, and paying for it with student loans. If you do something that stupid, you should have to suffer the financial consequences yourself.

I get the feeling you weren't alive at the time. I remember just how big a loss everyone thought the Russians took and it turns out the "Secret Parts" just make it larger and larger.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

BTW the missile gap myth wasn't promulgated to win an election but to increase defense funding all three of the services which were fighting each other for funding, against Eisenhower and a Republican congress that were looking to keep the budget surplus.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/da...

http://eisenhowersleadership.c...

And to further support this point. From a Forbes article:

However, despite the strong proliferation and installed base, the QNX business is not believed to be very meaningful to BlackBerry’s financial performance (the company does not break out QNX financials). The business generates revenues through the licensing of QNX software products and through the professional services that BlackBerry provides to customers for developing QNX powered devices. Estimates from Bloomberg peg QNX revenues at just about 2% of BlackBerry’s total sales and IHS analysts estimate software licensing fees at a relatively paltry $3 per vehicle.

So something that is estimated to account for less than even 5% of its revenue is not going to save the company from imploding.

Neil Irwin is a talking head on CNBC, MSNBC, PBS, etc...
http://neilirwin.com/about-nei...

So he's not exactly unbiased. lol

For a decent counter to his stupid argument:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

Worstall has part of an argument against the Times opinion piece, but he makes an even bigger whopper with his "proof" that no one wants taxes raised, because people aren't voluntarily gifting their wealth to the Federal Government by the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

But he's right. No one wants their taxes raised. Everyone wants everyone else's taxes raised. His point is people will say lots of things because of their ideology when being polled. But when the tax man comes around, the tax hike aint fair! And when they need to get on a plane, they're getting on bundle or not.

Will al-a-cart be more expensive? That depends entirely how you look at it. You currently pay about $100 for around 350 channels. But, you absolutely cannot be watching all of those. In fact, you likely only watch less than a dozen. But they know what those dozen are and they organize those in such a way that you have to pay for all 350 to get the 12 you want. When it's Al-a-cart you'll likely pay around $5/channel on average. So now you'll be paying $60 for 12 channels instead of $100 for 350. Is that more or less expensive? It's more "per channel" but its less "per month" and you're not losing anything you were using.

But that's if prices remain the same. Which they absolutely will not. There is virtually no competition on the content side, they set a price and demand it. A company like Comcast can't just turn off "Comedy central" so they're stuck paying it. For evidence of this just check out Viacoms profit margin: http://ycharts.com/companies/V...

They're running at 22% profit... that's insane Most of the people out there paying for Viacom aren't even watching it! It's just part of a package they had to get to get some other channel. With a 22% profit margin and viewers that actually have a choice in the channels they pay for suddenly Viacom might decide the $7 they're charging might be a tad high.

Neil Irwin is a talking head on CNBC, MSNBC, PBS, etc... http://neilirwin.com/about-nei...

So he's not exactly unbiased. lol

For a decent counter to his stupid argument: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

Worstall has part of an argument against the Times opinion piece, but he makes an even bigger whopper with his "proof" that no one wants taxes raised, because people aren't voluntarily gifting their wealth to the Federal Government by the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Neil Irwin is a talking head on CNBC, MSNBC, PBS, etc...
http://neilirwin.com/about-nei...

So he's not exactly unbiased. lol

For a decent counter to his stupid argument:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

First, you're the one who chose the paper, not me. And the paper did not say that it wasn't happening - even after every excuse, the gap was still 7%. Are you willing to forgo 7% of your income - for life?

There are multiple sources that show women are paid less overall, as well a paid less for the same work.

While more education is an effective tool for increasing earnings, it is not an effective tool against the gender pay gap. At every level of academic achievement, women’s median earnings are less than men’s earnings, and in some cases, the gender pay gap is larger at higher levels of education. While education helps everyone, black and Hispanic women earn less than their white and Asian peers do, even when they have the same educational credentials.

The pay gap also exists among women without children. AAUW’s Graduating to a Pay Gap found that among full-time workers one year after college graduation — nearly all of whom were childless - women were paid just 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid.

It starts right out of school.

Do you know what America did to reduce crime and the homicide rate? We banned lead in paint and gasoline. Yes, seriously!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/al...

So, why doesn't Australia do this?

If the homicide rate dropped by 30%, and 30% of that is the result of banning guns, then that means that 0% is attributable to dropping lead levels. This leads to four possibilities:

1) Australia never actually had any lead. Even back in the 1960's, Australia did not use lead paint or leaded gasoline. Possible, I suppose. Maybe gasoline was not used, as adults rode kangaroos to work, and the kids rode wallabies to school? Maybe nobody painted their houses with lead paint, as there is no need to paint corrugated tin?

2) Australia still has not banned lead. If so, they need to do so immediately!

3) They DID ban lead just like the US, but decreasing lead levels did not impact Australian physiology the same way it does in the US. Maybe the mass quantities of alcohol consumed over there somehow rids the body of lead. Maybe being upside-down all the time, and the fact that lead is heavy, meant that all the lead leaked out of the tops of your heads.

4) They DID ban lead just like the US, and most/all of the drop in homicide is due to declining lead levels, and the gun ban has actually had little to no impact on the homicide rate. Coincidentally, this would ALSO neatly explain why the knife and club murder rates also dropped.

So, which theory do you support?

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/10/cio-amd-fabs-tech-cio-cx_es_1013amd.html

Doesn't your computer have Google®?

The largest owner of U.S. debt is Social Security.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro...

When a Pages document in iCloud storage is open across multiple iOS/OSX devices, Pages routinely declares it can see multiple versions and can't decide which one it should keep. One of the options it offers you is to keep both of them, leaving you to manually look at both and figure out which one is the best. This happens even without simultaneous access, and edits often get distributed randomly between versions, requiring manual cut-and-paste merging.

Apple should go to the Dropbox people, hat in hand, and say:

Yes, Steve was a dick when he talked with you years ago. We don't want to acquire you - we want to hire you to host iCloud file storage. We want a cloud back end that Just Works, and cross-platform sharing will be a plus.

I would pay for that service, in a heartbeat.

Frankly it's more surprising that a respectable publication, even a right-leaning one like the Wall Street Journal would think it's a good idea to wade into the religion/science "debate" even in its opinion section. Of course it is irresponsible for a newspaper to not publish articulate expert-authored responses to an opinion piece, newspapers have a responsibility to publish responses written by more-famous and more-qualified persons when the response meets the paper's basic standards. But the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch so I can't say this is a particularly surprising lapse of journalism. (This is hardly first time their editorials have been accused of deliberate bias imposed by the paper, over and above the author's opinion)

In defense of the WSJ, they do seem to keep their bias to the opinions section, which is the appropriate place for it after all.

More interesting will be seeing what the long term effects of Murdoch's influence does to the paper's reputation; in the extreme case it may turn out like Fox News (also owned by Murdoch) and become a punch line to anyone who isn't among their readership. Though I think it's more likely they will successfully navigate the slippery slope, and maintain their position despite having these minor scandals every year or so.

It's a bit depressing, since the editorial in TFA and all their climate nonsense are counterfactual in the fairly literal sense of ignoring and misapplying science and logic in a way that could nominally support any conclusion whatsoever. A newspaper of the WSJ's former caliber should and surely does know better, but such is the state of the american press in 2015.

The USA if full of talent that can't get employed because the cost of credentials in terms of time and money is much too high. Kids that excel in programming while in public school are told that after 12 years of a public education, they now need to slog through years of college and build a mountain of debt before they can apply their talent.

But without credentials, SV won't even look at you -- and they are mostly legally prevented from doing so .

Lots of foreign labor have the credentials, though, in part because their educational system is cheaper, less time consuming, and frankly less demanding of their students.

If SV will take a little time and reach out to high schools, they'll find tons of talent.

Of better, if they can create a credentialing body, they can more easily avoid legal pitfalls.

You are correct. ""the company continues to make the same mistake over and over. Google's mistake" is not a mistake.

Look:

"IBM Just Bet $3 Billion Of Its Research Budget On The Death Of Moore's Law" http://www.forbes.com/sites/al...

From "Microsoft, the world's best kept R&D secret" http://www.techhive.com/articl... :

"In 2011 alone, Microsoft's R&D budget reached a record high of $9.6 billion (yes, with a "B").", "Blending touch and touchscreens" "Windows 8 will be a success"

Ok, I made up the last one.

Still, of course Google sees this as a long-term potential, perhaps decades away, or less. Volvo has the same thing, on the road:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/mot...


There's a scene in the cult 1990 Arnold Schwarzenegger film Total Recall in which our hero jumps in a driverless taxi, part of a fleet that ferries passengers around a nameless city, using unspecified technology to safely navigate traffic and pedestrians.

The sci-fi film is set in 2084. But the world's first fleet of self-driving city vehicles is almost here, 70 years ahead of schedule and courtesy of Volvo. The Swedish car maker is to unleash 100 of them on the public roads of Gothenburg in a two-year project.

It's called Drive Me, a joint initiative between the manufacturer and various local agencies. It's backed by the national government and designed to discover the benefits to society of autonomous driving. Positioning country and company as pioneers in the subject won't hurt either.

For now, five prototype Volvos have been let loose as the technology is perfected ahead of the January 2017 launch.


So, Google is perfectly in tune with the zeitgeist.

Kindle ebooks account for 19.5% of all ebook sales, ebooks make up 30% of book sales. I'm not sure about the paper book stats, but that's not really what we're talking about here anyway.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/je...

Twenty percent is no monopoly. Not even close. As of a year ago, iTunes accounted for 63% of digital music sales. Are they also a monopoly that must be regulated? They're more than three times the offender that Amazon is with ebooks.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4...

Amazon wasn't even the first on scene. Sony had e-ink readers and an online store for quite some time. There's also nothing stopping vendors from selling to Kindle users. They wouldn't be able to use DRM, but we're all against DRM here anyway, right? Supply your special Amazon email address that links to your reader, and off you go. Easy cheesy. There are a number of publishers already selling DRM free content, even on Amazon itself. This is what Amazon tried with Apple. They had all DRM free digital music and made it simple to drop their tracks into your iTunes catalog. The door is open for others to do that to Amazon with ebooks.

I don't see your distortion in unrelated fields. All I see is some claims that can't be substantiated from the evidence. You're arguing pre-crime. You want to harm a company for a position they might be in in the future. That's awful. That's not the type of country we live in.

IBM will stay around for a long, long time because they spend a ridiculous amount on research and development. I know this is an imperfect metric, but IBM has has been granted the most US patents for twenty straight years. These patents are good for over a billion dollars in licensing rights each year, and give IBM blanket immunity from patent infringement lawsuits from any practicing entity. IBM created technology as varied as excimer lasers used for LASIK surgeries, microprocessors used in the Playstation 3, XBox 360, and the Wii, bar codes, and Watson.

IBM has moved from mainframes to data analysis. Heck, IBM has announced deals with Apple to push into the enterprise and with Twitter to mine data. IBM will be around for a long, long time. Even if it suffers huge setbacks and missteps, its patent portfolio will keep it in the running for a long, long, time.

There's this story about IBM, the patent troll. A bunch of IBM dudes show up at Sun Microsystems claiming infringement of seven patents. After the IBM presentation, the Sun guys get up and explain in detail how these patents are all bullshit, and not infringed. The IBM dudes say, well, we have 10,000 patents. We can go back to our office and come back with seven patents that you do infringe. Sun had to write a check.

http://www.forbes.com/asap/200...

Isn't it funny that the people pushing so hard for the climate change meme stand to make a killing off of it? http://www.forbes.com/sites/la... Pay Al Gore money and the scarry carbon can't hurt you.

No need to read any further.

This is about STEM fields, not about other areas of education.

FTFY

http://www.forbes.com/sites/wo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

For your review:

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Peer Reviewed Survey http://oss.sagepub.com/content...

That's from a " fee-charging open access journal" of Sage Publishing, which was one of the publishers that "peer reviewed" and published complete bullshit papers send in as a test by a Science sting last year. So, "yeah, right".

Better to have cameras than not; maybee...... juries can be played by selective use of cams, excluding other cam footage, and plain old laying a trap for the unwary citizen.

You asked: I read the news. Google for you:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...
"But it goes both ways; video – or the lack of it – can also damn officers. Two on the Daytona Beach force lost their jobs after a video mysteriously blanked out in the middle of an encounter with a woman who allegedly hid a bag of cocaine in her mouth; she said the officers knocked her down, shoved a flashlight between her lips and kicked her in the head, but that part of the encounter wasn’t caught on film thanks to one officer failing to turn his camera on and a “malfunction” with the other officer’s camera midway through the arrest. A forensic analysis of the cam showed that the “malfunction” was caused by the officer shutting it down. Chief Chitwood has said the policy there is, “If you turn it off, you’re done.”"

That's Daytona. In Oakland. Mysteriously Shut Off Camera Syndrome doesn't hurt and officer much:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
"OAKLAND, Calif.—Over the last two years, the Oakland Police Department (OPD) has disciplined police officers on 24 occasions for disabling or failing to activate body-worn cameras, newly released public records show. The City of Oakland did not provide any records prior to 2013, and the OPD did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/...
"Hargraves was found to have violated policy by taping over his nametag, and Wong was found to have acted improperly by failing to report the incident to internal affairs and also turning off Hargraves' lapel camera"

http://crooksandliars.com/susi...
"However, the above video, which shows several officers with their body-mounted cameras turned off – a departmental violation - is just the latest example of Oakland police officers not wanting any accountability.The video is also a clear demonstration of just how high tensions are between Oakland police and citizens."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12...
"In other cases it was the absence of video that got the officer in trouble. An officer in Daytona Beach, Fla., was forced to resign after he was caught turning off his camera at critical moments. An Albuquerque officer who shot and killed a woman in April — and whose camera was off at the time — was fired on Monday after being investigated for not complying with department orders that required officers to record all interactions with civilians.

But even when video does exist, it is often not decisive. In the case of Mr. Garner, the Staten Island man who died in July after a police officer put him in a chokehold, a video of the encounter taken with a bystander’s cellphone and viewed millions of times was enough to stir visceral outrage — but not to secure an indictment."

The records show that on November 8, 2013 one officer was terminated after failing to activate his camera. Less than two weeks later, another resigned for improperly removing the camera from his or her uniform. However, most officers received minor discipline in comparison."

Antenna removal:
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
"os Angele

I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between.

What about India -- under threat of allowing foreign drugs to be replicated without paying patents -- slashing the price they'll pay for said pharmaceuticals?
Surely this is an example of the market not working? (The final price is not the result of supply intersecting demand.)

Of course, it's very important that the pharmaceutical companies remain profitable so they can continue their R&D.
Though ... I don't think there's any imminent cause for concern

> By some measures of success, sure.

Well, by the ones that count. They can't be doing that much wrong.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gr...

But this is off topic I suppose, not about .NET specifically. It's just odd seeing people say "Microsoft is done", but praise Google, even though Google also made a lot of stuff that went nowhere in the market (Glass, G+), or makes no money. These companies get so much revenue across the board, they can afford to experiment and mess up here and there.

I think MS is just a popular punching bag out of habit, as this whole post demonstrates. I hardly ever comment, but still had to offer my 2c to this one. :)

But consider cameras used not to give tickets but to adjust light timings in real time.

It's already being done. Los Angeles started in 1984 in anticipation of the Olympics, with system called ATSAC. There are several different types in use today.

No, that's what happens when you raise the minimum wage while keeping interest rates so low that the cost of capital makes automation much cheaper than humans.

No, that's what happens when you pay your employees so little they require public assistance to survive.

Rather than pay people to do stuff, you just borrow money to install machines that do it, instead.

Those people will require food stamps either way, which I'll end up paying for. The only difference is whether you get free labour or have to shell out for machines. So tell me: why should I subsidize your business?

You and your comrades in government are effectively paying corporations to get rid of human employees, just so you can whine about it afterwards.

And the alternative you're proposing is me effectively paying the payroll of those corporations. Even if I'd be willing to do so, which I'm not, it'll become impossible when my job is replaced by automation in turn.

Comrade me all you want, it won't change the fact that the system is breaking down. All defending status quo does is make the crisis deeper and the resulting changes more drastic.

For your review:

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Peer Reviewed Survey http://oss.sagepub.com/content...

The problem is GamerGate started with ....

Gamergate started when Eron Gjoni posted a long, rambling post about how his ex-girlfriend was abusive. And it would have ended there too if not for one tiny detail in the huge post which only gamers could spot and see the significance of:

Friggen Nathan Stupid-Red-Pants-Wearing Kotaku-Writing Grayson.

Gjoni's post revealed the truth. One of the foremost proponents of "Gamers == Sexists", writing for one of the largest proponents of "Gamers ==Misogynerds" had -- all the while he was denouncing the gaming community -- felt free to have affairs with indie developers even as he promoted their games. The Game Journalist Emperors had no clothes. Grayson was the journalist who intimidated Blizzard dev Dustin Browder into an apology last year over trumped up charges of sexism, yet this same journalist felt all too at ease having affairs and friendships with young women working in the industry. Hell, his editor at Kotaku, Stephen Totilo, outright stated that there was "no reason to believe any further action need be taken.".

Jesus. There might be mixed opinions on Zoe Quinn, but I pity the actual hard working women trying to make video games in the indie scene. If the FBI aren't investigating the press and indie outlets for gross sexual misconduct now, I guarantee they will be in 20 years time if this is the editorial attitude of the people in charge of these places.

But let's not talk about that. Look, these poor women are being harassed! Bad gamers, bad! Quick, tell them they're "Dead"! Give more terrible games 9/10! Rile 'em up. Call in the mainstream media. Keep souring the bad blood behind all of this to drive up clicks. After 3 months of this, video game retail sales were down 11% in Novemeber, and I know where the blame lies -- sensationalist journalists more willing to attack consumers for profit that care about the industry and community they're supposed to be covering.

If you want to understand why gamers are pissed off, just take a look at the Gamergate Timeline. The journalists who have spent the last two years hazing gamers for being sexists were finally caught with their pants down, and their reaction was to silence, haze, censor, and smear. That the internet was so vulnerable to this is another matter, but the root of the issue is that game journalists have become antagonistic towards gamers and hold all the cards.

Only industry intervention can break this deadlock. Publishers need to step in.

The excuse that Government "is not a corporation and cannot be run like one" is nonsense. It's a great ivory tower view....

Perhaps you'd care to back up that opinion with a fact or two explaining why two radically different types of organizations should be run in exactly the same manner? Note that I did not state that government cannot be efficient, but that efficiency is not the top mission of a government agency.

I'll look up the Medicare claim for you when I have a chance, the fraud level in Medicare is enormous - as it is with most programs run the the Feds.

I hear that bank robbers go after banks because that's where all the money is...

The ACA was a giant payoff to the insurance companies

Yes it was. It was also all that was politically achievable in one piece of legislation. Don't believe me? Ask Hillary Clinton what happened to her husband's attempt to take on both the insurance industry AND the healthcare industry all at the same time. Realpolitik is a bitch. I would much prefer we went with some form of single-payer as every other first-world nation on the planet has done (incidentally, at nearly 18% of GDP, the US spends twice as much on healthcare as other nations and gets half the results).

with quid pro quo to the DNC that has blown up in their faces.

So this "pro quo" you speak of is going to be delivered exactly when? I didn't notice Aetna or Cigna littering the DNC with contributions this last election cycle...

Any other view is naive my friend...

How about the view that the ACA saved my best friend's life? That it made it possible for her to purchase insurance which detected her cancer and is providing for treatment she never would've gotten otherwise?

How about the view that the number of uninsured Americans has dropped significantly for the first time since Nixon was President?

How about the view that insurance premium increases have been checked for the first time in my adult life, where they previously had been growing annually at more than double -- sometimes triple -- inflation? You might recall the litany of stories in 2013 of how we would see crazy increases in premium costs? None of those crazy increases actually happened.

How about the view that budget impact was better than the CBO forecast?

Which of these views is "naïve"? All in all, that's not too shabby for what was admittedly a giant insurance company blowjob. I can't wait to see how much better it gets when we get around to reforming the other half. Maybe we'll exorcise the Profit Demon from our healthcare system once and for all and remove the perverse incentives it creates that keep people sick rather than cure them.

I feel the sarcasm, but just in case:

Best Countries for Business list

Tell that to the Azure clients who suffered a 3 day loss of access to their data because some "dolt" forgot to account for leap-year in their programming. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ci...

Indeed, only the biggest companies have that integration. These are the "sprawling multinational oil corporations" GP was talking about. By the way, even the majors increasingly farm out work and expertise to service companies, and we're now close to the point where the small national oil companies can now hire that same expertise to handle more complex exploration and production projects, without needing to bring in the majors.

And here's your citation: Oil Company Earnings: Reality Over Rhetoric for the US. For the Netherlands: Winst op benzine rekbaar begrip. Long story in Dutch, but the most optimistic view (that of the ministry of economics) still puts the ratio of tax vs profits at 4.6:1

Eh, you're not on the hook for paying taxes with a babysitter if it's under $1900/yr. or $1000 per quarter
http://www.forbes.com/sites/an...
So I guess if you have a pool of different babysitters, you're all set.

Though more likely what will happen is that we'll go back to the dark ages and live with family members who can take care of our kids for us instead of entrusting them to near-total strangers, and, like, maybe learn how to get along while living in close proximity of our in-laws and stuff. You know, like the way things work in the third world.

Nah, I'm probably expecting too much from US society.

Gee, lets do the same with everything. No government regulation for anything. After all, you can choose what is an acceptable risk. So what if you didn't know that Uber drivers aren't properly insured? Why not unregulated food manufacturers who can sell you bacteria-laced meat? Why not unregulated cars that are unsafe at any speed?

Yes, food & automobile manufacturers have a strong incentive to kill their customers. It's good for long-term profits.

Why not unregulated medicines that are as likely to kill as to cure?

Vioxx was FDA approved, and killed 60,000 people. Meanwhile, effective drugs are unnecessarily kept off of the market by the FDA, like Provenge. And those are only 2 examples.

And unregulated banks that can take your money and run?

Or the regulated banks that can do that legally.

Hey, go all the way - allow the issuing of unregulated currencies

Why not? The Fed has done such a bang-up job.

the use of non-credentialed teachers from the local state pen, and everything else?

Yes, credentialed pedophiles that the teachers' union support are much better.

The fact is that regulations are supposed to ensure that the consumer doesn't have to spend hours investigation who is and who isn't competent themselves, as well as provide a feedback mechanism when the regulations are broken.

There are a boatload of ways to find out about what products are good and which businesses provide competent employees, such as the Better Business Bureau, Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratory, as well as review web sites, etc. I'm not saying unregulated markets would be perfect, but I believe that they would by and large be a better solution than the current regulatory morass we have in this country.

Citations for the AC:

http://www.forbes.com/pictures...

No cops listed in that one.

http://rt.com/usa/us-germany-8...

85 bullets fired by police in all of Germany in 2012.

Citation enough for ya?

We love to rag on cops, but they do a dangerous job...

I keep hearing this over and over, but you know what jobs are more dangerous?

1. 1. Logging workers
2. 2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. 3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. 4. Roofers
5. 5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. 6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. 7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. 8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. 9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. 10. Construction laborers

There may be more, that's just the top 10 in the US.

Source

A recent outbreak in Texas (last year, in fact) should have given these folks a heads up! http://www.forbes.com/sites/em...

I don't give it any specifics, that is what conspiracy theories are for. I only provide what we know is happening and has happened. You can find plenty of theories for why they are doing these things, but those are all just theories (Illuminati world control, economic collapse, and luciferian cults are probably the most common).

We don't see the plans that are resulting in things like training guides proclaiming people that believe in the US Constitution are "terrorists", but we know those training guides exist. We know that last year DHS alone purchased 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, and that none of this ammo is really "training rounds" like they claimed because it's mostly hollow point and AP rounds. You don't train with either because they are more expensive than standard FMJ and Hollow points ruin your ability to do any scoring with a target. We know that even after the Snowden leaks the Government has ramped up domestic spying, not reduced domestic spying as the populace has been demanding. We know that programs giving MRAPs and other military gear (sniper rifles, assault weapons,grenade launchers, body armor) to local police forces has been going on for at least 5 years and picking up pace. We also know that military exercises over US cities have been increasing in frequency, even though Posse Comitatus should prevent it to begin with (and during the time I served in the US Army it did prevent exercises over civilian populations). To prevent looking like a douchebag and giving you a LMGT link for you, just search for "US Military exercises over cities" and you will find plenty.

We also know that all of the spying and militarized police have been used to stifle dissent. See OWS, IRS targeting, etc.. We also know that we have seen massive increases in trying to take away the 2nd amendment rights for citizens. Fast and Furious was one example, but look at the rhetoric that follows every shooting event in the US. The whack job from California immediately comes to mind, where his dad's first statement was that he blamed politicians that support the 2nd amendment for the attack instead of his mentally ill kid for the shooting.

I will say that what we know is a cause for concern. We all need to demand transparency in Government and start putting new people on ballots instead of accepting what someone chooses for us. This is the only way to break the oligarchy currently controlling US Politics.

That's why the price of oil has tumbled. It's collusion to drive Russia further into chaos.

That's why the price of oil has tumbled. It's collusion to drive Russia further into chaos.

It's not collusion; it's strategic economic sanction using market manipulation.

Non-OPEC oil-producing nations have increased their oil production thereby glutting the market. Once the oil market tumbled, Russia's bid to annex Ukraine to secure oil supply not only became moot. It also became a liability.

Now that the fallen Russian economy is forecast to fall even further, Putin's political machine is trying to counter the historical record provided by international journalism with Russia's homegrown Internet propaganda machine, which is part of the reason Google is being forced out of Russia.

That is, at the same time Russia ramps its efforts to pollute the historical record with Internet trolls, it needs to eject the (mostly, ha!) politically neutral search results provided by Western Internet companies such as Google.

it is black and white.

And my neighborhood kids run lemonade stands in front of their homes without cowering in fear that they'll be shut down by health inspectors, fined for their failure to display a business license, audited for tax evasion, and arrested for exploiting child labor. "The law is very clear." All those rules technically apply.

Kids are too young to know what they should or should not be afraid of. But their parents ought to be afraid of the things you listed.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/portland_lemonade_stand_runs_i.html
and http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/
and http://calwatchdog.com/2014/01/30/health-dept-shuts-down-11-year-olds-cupcake-biz/
and many more.

Absolutely no "technically true" violation of a government regulation is beneath a government inspector's notice if someone with money takes a negative view of the violation or of the individual committing the violation.

Or as political wonks say: whenever someone tells you that "well, yes, the law could be used to make X illegal, but it'll never be enforced that way" ... then it was likely written with the intention to be enforced exactly against X.

I believe the Ferguson rioters were left-wing. And they were certainly trying to use violence to terrorize people for political purposes. Of course, you could always be loose as to your definition of terrorism on the right and not so loose on the left. And Moscow didn't need to fund them, but they still count as left-wing terrorists by your overly loose definition.

Furthermore, since you went back to 1995 for the Oklahoma City bombing, I can point out the rise of ecoterrorism, and the Discovery building shooter.

Except that nurses, techs, and paramedics are all paid hourly. Limiting doctors to 40 hours per week would expose a severe shortage of doctors, which would be addressed by increasing the number of doctors. The AMA has prevented this by limiting the number of admissions into medical school each year. I think it logically follows that increasing the number of doctors will eventually lower their individual pay and decrease consumers' medical expenses overall.

The most fundamental difference between the data that conservatives prefer—that the 10 poorest cities are longtime Democratic strongholds—and the data that liberals will be more inclined to cite—that the 10 poorest states are predominantly Republican, is that conservatives can point to actual policies that Democrats implemented that contributed to the impoverishment of the cities, while the liberals cannot point to specific GOP policies that have caused the poorer states to lag behind.

The Democratic case is illusory and circumstantial; the Republican case is solid and substantial. However, in a country where so many people are economically and historically illiterate, combined with the human proclivity whereby “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” (Paul Simon, “The Boxer”), the Democrats may be able to score some points with a hollow argument. The Republicans, though, have the facts on their side.

Ref: Are the 10 Poorest States Really Republican

How can we argue with an author who quotes Paul Simon?

The act was introduced by a Republican, and all House Repubs except 3 voted for it. For comparison, 62 Democrats opposed it.

And how do you explain away the 98:1 votes for the law in Senate? Or the fact, that the law — originally meant to automatically expire — was just extended by everybody's favorite Democrat? He said:

"It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat"

It's interesting that you omitted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 [...]

You were referring to post-9/11 legislation (see title of this subthread). The Clinton-signed Act of 2000 was the closest to 9/11 (before or after). While it was possible, you've made a mistake of one year, I could not imagine, you'd be associating a law of 1984 with anything "post-9/11".

All the articles I've read call that act the turning point in Civil Forfeiture.

Then you've been reading crap. The civil forfeitures are just another manifestation of the major flaw of our — and British — law. While there are various commendable protections for your person (habeas corpus/presumption of innocence, right to bail, 4th and 5th Amendments, et ctera), there is nothing explicitly protecting your property. It can be — indeed, has been — seized by the Executive on a whim. And, of course, Democrats (such as the already-mentioned FDR) are guiltier of it than Republicans.

The income tax may be considered another manifestation of the same flaw...

I don't think any reasonable person would read this thread and think I implied Republicans have trampled the second amendment.

He-he... I doubt, we'll get a poll, but here is what it looks like:

• me: Second Amendment gives us the right to weapons.
• you replying to me: Republicans are assholes

Why would you bring up Republicans at all — in a follow-up to a tiny post about the Second Amendment — if not to blame them for the blatant Second Amendment violations?

Republicans have (throughout my lifetime) been the advocates of National Security at all costs, and Crime Control at all costs.

They may have been misguided at that, but they weren't evil. Whereas anybody openly advocating for Hamas or Communists are advocating for evil...

You only seem to want to argue in favor of your tribe

Republicans are not my tribe. But a Libertarian in today's USA would be crazy to align with the Democrats. Because "it is the economy, stupid". Even if some uber-Conservative manages to gain power and outlaw abortions, gasp, I'll still have enough money to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure. On contrast, if Obamas are allowed to run the country for much longer, we will all be so poor, having a 24x7 free abortion clinic next door will be of very little consolation...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/go...

speaking of screwing up...

Stupid forbes capture page.

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welc...

If a taxi company screws with me in New York I can get redress because our regulators aren't idiots.

So 56/44 isn't "roughly" 60/40? In a graph. Take that chart, reverse the colors and tell me truthfully if that wouldn't raise a hue and cry about discrimination.

Taxes make people not do the thing you are taxing. Tax income, and they have reason to make less. Why go get the new job that pays a tad more when 25% of your raise goes to the feds?

Yeah, when approaching the next tax bracket I always decline all future raises. Because (using your numbers) its totally beneficial to me to give up 75% (thats SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT) of that extra money just to spite the gov out of 25% (which I would benefit from by some non zero amount). Thus my pure capitalist heart beats stronger, making less than I deserve, cause....of spite? What the fuck is wrong with you?

The bullshit argument you're supposed to make is "ZOMG moar tax mean less invest!!1!". Ask Kansas how accurate that argument is...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/be...

AC to not blow away all those mod points...

The reason for the limited preordering days and invite system is because of the small margins on each phone sold, reportedly in the single digits. The company is so small and the margins so tight that they can't afford to be sitting on any unsold stock.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ew...