Slashdot Mirror

I know this will engender rage from these forums, but something is generally overlooked when talking about the unusual success of leftist European countries compared to what is generally observed. The socialist countries work where the others in say, South America, fail because they are able to piggy back off of the United States.

These countries have to pay abnormally low amounts of the GDP for defense, despite having large and potentially hostile neighbors. It is easy to be a Swedish pacisifist when someone else's blood and treasure is ensuring that you do not speak Russian.

The technology that gives these countries a better standard of living is usually paid and developed by other nations. For example, by shifting the cost of developing new medicines and procedures elsewhere, more money is available to raise the internal standards. The United States alone pays for about 44% of the world's medical research cost.

https://www.usnews.com/news/ar...

If you read the article, there is a subtle warning not made by the authors. Before the disastrous affordable care act, the U.S. proportion of medical research was 57% in 2007. As more socialist policies were adopted, an incredible decline in activity soon followed. It should be noted this was not accidental, as can be clearly understood by anyone who actually read the law. There are several policies inherent in the bill that create this as an expected outcome.

This is important to note because this is not only true in medicine but many other areas of science. For all its failings, the capitalist model in the U.S. has been the engine that has been driving the success of Western Civilization for the last 70 years. As this engine slows down, the benefits it provided will decrease too.

Another interesting allegory can be found in the article. As China becomes more capitalistic, it's proportion of R.D spending has increased dramatically. While China likes to style itself as socialist country, this is mostly lip-service used to keep continuity in governance. Any casual visit to the country or even cursory reading shows abundant signs that China is quickly becoming the center of capitalism in the world. They have learned the lessons that we have lost and are benefiting immensely from it.

In any case, this also does not bode well for the European socialist countries. The United States due to tradition, heritage, and world view has generally lead to favorably treaties when dealing with trade, defense, and the sharing of technology. However, China is not burdened with any such preconceptions. China is very willing to keep core technology to itself for the benefits of its citizens. It is very willing to make sure that dealings with outside nations lead to its direct benefit. Or, to put it in a way more in tune with the slashdot mind, a country that bans youtube and limits the number of foreign movies that are released in a year to bolster its own film industry is not going to share its biotech.

I guess I am trying to say is be careful of what you wish for. Enlightened socialism is by far the best way to live. We all know this because we have ALL lived under such a system. It's called childhood. The parents provide for all our needs. Sure, we do some chores to give back, but overall someone else is paying the bills. The problem with socialism is that, so far, no one has figured out a way to make it truly pay for itself.

I'm coming to the realization that the Democrats are actually corrupt(*).

I was reading about the DOJ slush fund [breitbart.com](**) and it struck me just how deep and insidious the corruption has been in this country.

Why not Teapot Dome, Credit Mobiler, Iran-Contra, Enron, and Bernie Madoff?

This is paired with the IRS selecting conservative charities for intense scrutiny

And liberal ones. Who both needed to file proper reports to meet their non-profit status.

Even Congress had to admit it was all proper in the end.

11 California counties have more registered voters than adults

You can't blame California for Steve Mnuchin, Tiffany Trump, Jared Kushner, and Steven Bannon, who nonetheless, remind us, it's not a crime. Despite false claims otherwise.

And let us not forget after the election, leftists pleaded with the EC delegates to be faithless,

I pleased with the EC delegates to quit myself, it might be the only thing that gets us past that broken system.

then pleaded with the supreme court to invalidate the results,

No, the Supreme Court acted in 2000, unlawfully overriding state courts for their own partisan gain.

then pleaded with the U.S. military to step in and prevent the inauguration (wtf?),

Like those massive crowds of people that Trump (falsely) claimed were there, huh?

leaked secret and sensitive information - not to expose crimes, but for political slander,

Oh wait, you mean when they leaked Trump's fake pictures of Time Magazine covers, right?

and rioted for weeks

No, that was Chicago celebrating winning the World Series.

For example, Hillary made no statements condemning the riots,

Also she didn't condemn the sugar plum fairy.

and most of the left blamed the rioting on Trump.

Trump called for it himself.

blocking reasonable voter registration,

No, that was the GOP.

and suppressing the military vote.

sure man

There's a sub-conversation on the net that holds that the Democratic party *won't survive* once all the corruption has been rooted out.

Sure man, and what else are they discussing? Why they can't find the dead bodies in the Pizza Parlor?

The Democratic ideals are so far from what people want that they require all the extra boost they get from a tilted playing field.

Is that why they keep getting more voters?

I'm not sure I believe that bit about the Democratic party not surviving, but after reading about the DOJ thing, and knowing the level of effort we're putting into the Russia probe while ignoring some seemingly obvious evidence [dailysignal.com] on the Democratic side, it makes me wonder...

Actually, the Republicans in Congress are still busy chasing their tails over Hillary.

I gues

I think he have a daughter but I highly doubt she would like to follow him so probably his next best hunchback will be the anointed.

I don't see his daughter as being in the game either.
He just answered that question in a Q&A session. He answered that people want leaders to choose a successor, but in the end, it's up to the people.
https://www.usnews.com/news/wo...
“the successor to the president is determined only by the Russian people in the course of democratic elections, and no one else.”
https://www.rt.com/politics/39...
It's revealing to compare the two reports of the same event.

It wasn't the FBI is was the city police. I'm not sure what you class as a reputable source but here's a spectrum of biased ones:

https://www.usnews.com/news/na...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoeti...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
https://www.acludc.org/sites/d...

The anarchists rioted at trumps inaguratio just as they rioted at obama's inaguration. The local police finally had enough, and most likely went too far (as police tend to do).

https://www.usnews.com/news/be...
http://www.kitsapsun.com/story...
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

You can also see it in the cost of a 26' UHaul between Texas and California/NY
Los Angeles, CA to Dallas, TX: $2,558
Dallas TX to Los Angeles: $1,232

NY, NY to Dallas, TX: $2,772
Dallas TX to NY, NY: $653

Then you'll be calling for the prosecution of this woman?

She committed the crime, shouldn't she be punished?

You make some reasonable points, but forget one of the big tenets of Capitalism. It's the quest for the allmighty dollar, and due to individual (or corporate) greed, it quickly becomes a "Screw you, I got mine and need more" mentality. Just look at the news regarding off-shoring corporate taxes. The Apples and Googles of the world make billions a year, yet pay minimal taxes and in some cases get paid instead. How exactly is that looking after your fellow man? How is that fair and even taxation?
 
  If you want another counter-example of just how great the U.S. is, take a look at our debts and where we borrow from. We owe billions, if not trillions, to China yet we send billions in foreign aide to places like Israel. That's right, we cut funding for our own education, increased spending on standardized testing (now ~10% of the school year), cut after-school programs, and still give borrowed money to other nations. Capitalism is a great way to make money, but it's not a great way to boost a nation. The middle class has been slowly disappearing, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The government doesn't step in to level the playing field because they are bought and paid for by the rich.

However the State has tried many times to stop or limit how much they pay the citizens. The current Governor did cap the amount that they paid for last years dividend and the State is currently trying to impose an income tax.

http://www.newsminer.com/news/...

https://www.usnews.com/news/bu...

The people love the PFD but the State would love nothing more than to spend every damn penny of it.

Hint -- watch Hawaii. Economically developed. Reasonable amounts of sunshine. Moderate climate, so minimal heating and cooling needs. High electricity cost because hydrocarbon fuels for electrical generation need to be lugged 5000km.from North America. It'll probably be one of the first "countries" to go renewable.

They have been working on getting to 100%, their goal for 2045. I think that it will happen before that. Last year it was 26%. See this article. In agreement with much of the sentiment here, the incentives / disincentives of the utility commission have significant effect on the adoption rate of renewables. Things like, can you sell the power that you generate back to the grid and at what cost relative to getting centrally generated power, and when you can do that, and how costs are divided up between infrastructure and operating.

The European work week is all over the map. The US, on the other hand, is simply about OECD average, similar to Japan, Ireland, and Italy.

https://www.usnews.com/news/be...

And despite average working hours, US wages are among the top in the world.

But, hey, don't let facts rain on your anti American parade.

Well let's see. I guess you never got the memo that they found WMDs in Iraq. https://www.usnews.com/opinion... . Not surprising, the US put them there. So to deny they were there is just pure ignorance, set out by the dishonest press. Even after it was pointed out to them many times that the US put them there, so they're there. Hard to fix stupid.

AGW - Things are warming, not due to man. They used to walk an elephant onto the Thames - http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi... up to 200 years ago. It was already warming by then, which is pre-industrial revolution, meaning it's not CO2, meaning it's not man. CO2 is a symptom, not the cause. BTW, they used to grow grapes in the UK about 2000 years ago during the Roman times - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci... . So we're really returning to where it was. No need to pay a bunch of money to a few leftists that won't do anything with the money other than take it. That's what the Paris accord was about by the way. It didn't do anything by design.

Voodoo economics, that was a campaign comment. Not true. The US saw the largest expansion of economic wealth the world had ever seen during Reagan's term. It wasn't "trickle down", it was trickle everywhere economics. Everyone benefited from those policies.

Then you just get silly. Including your comment on guns. We all know that more guns leads to less crime. More gun control the more crime. It's very definitive.

There's your lesson for the day.

No, the comment was modded down because it's flamebait. It was modded down correctly. When you make sweeping generalizations about all people within a country, especially when you're insulting them, you're not being constructive at all. You just want people to respond angrily.

Back in November, 71% of Americans supported the Paris Climate Accords. A majority in every US state supported the Paris Climate Accords. Here are some sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/21/trump-wants-to-dump-the-paris-climate-deal-but-71-percent-of-americans-support-it-survey-finds/
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-06-01/a-bipartisan-majority-thinks-the-us-should-stay-in-the-paris-agreement
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/trump-leaves-paris-climate-agreement-though-americans-supported-it.html

Most Americans do support the Paris Climate Accords. Trump did not win the popular vote and won the electoral vote by a narrow majority. Russia attempted to influence the US election in Trump's favor, something that is generally accepted regardless of whether Trump's campaign was complicit in that meddling. Trump's approval rating is estimated at 39.1% while 54.8% of Americans disapprove of him. Here's a source for that, too:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

It is completely ignorant and unhelpful to blame and insult all Americans when a majority of Americans do not support Trump and a substantial majority of Americans disagree with Trump on withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords. Your post and the grandparent post are not factually correct, nor do they contribute any substance to the discussion. They're just attempts to insult Americans and evoke angry responses. That is why your post and its parent deserve to be modded down.

Furthermore, many cities and states are still making strong efforts to address climate change. California, by itself, is the world's sixth largest economy. Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement will not impede California from continuing to impose measures that go beyond what the US committed to do.

Incendiary remarks deserve to be modded down as flamebait, especially when those remarks aren't rooted at all in fact.

and surrender to the US. https://www.usnews.com/news/na...
Manning is free. That was the condition. Please Mr Assange, honor your own words.

A quick Google search turned up this article from 2015 stating that the internet at the time was 6 percent of the us economy. I don't know if that number's right, and even if so, the percentage is probably higher now. But my point is that, without Net Neutrality, it would be nowhere near as big. In fact, it might not have beaten out the likes of Compuserve and MSN, which had pretty much zero effect on the overall economy.

So to the extent that the Internet is a major engine of the growth Republicans always seem to point to as their magic bullet to justify any and all of their policies - they have just blindly asserted that "we've had all the innovation we need, thank you - it's time for the toll collectors to cash in".

https://www.usnews.com/news/bl...

As I see it, Walmart is going to pay to have it's internet website given preference over Amazon's or over Alibaba. That is what net neutrality is going to mean. It means that ISPs can refuse to carry some traffic that is not paid for by the sender.

A quick Google search turned up this article from 2015 stating that the internet at the time was 6 percent of the us economy. I don't know if that number's right, and even if so, the percentage is probably higher now. But my point is that, without Net Neutrality, it would be nowhere near as big. In fact, it might not have beaten out the likes of Compuserve and MSN, which had pretty much zero effect on the overall economy.

So to the extent that the Internet is a major engine of the growth Republicans always seem to point to as their magic bullet to justify any and all of their policies - they have just blindly asserted that "we've had all the innovation we need, thank you - it's time for the toll collectors to cash in".

https://www.usnews.com/news/bl...

1994 is really too recent to be doing revisionist history like that. It was because of the economy and NAFTA.

Give me a different reason other than race why people are so infuriated that health care insurance companies need to cover sick people with pre-existing conditions then. Bonus points if you can explain why it's totally unrelated that the GOP continues to have so many racist gaffes, or why the openly racist southern strategy isn't still in effect, or why Jeff Sessions is trying to get back to the racist war on drugs.

You, and others like you, suffer from the dunning kruger effect when it comes to race.

Also, "Health care automation isn't happening fast enough" is a fair point, except that he seems to think it's because the health care industry is holding it back just because they don't want to change. Medical records are not being held back by a simple lack of will.. Surgical robots often cost enough money to make the military blush, and hospitals don't have infinite money, so we still have human surgeons. Replacing doctors with AI right now would kill a lot of people in addition to the money issue.

Alternative Facts maybe? http://www.foxnews.com/politic... http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/... https://www.usnews.com/news/ar... https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Not really, Fatwallet's methodology is suspect.

They aren'tâ even looking at school quality.

"What's more important?" Linn asks. "To tell the truth to parents about where their kids are really performing? Or to continue to make them believe they're doing really well, only until they get into the workforce or they go to college and they're finding out they need to be put in a remedial English class?"

Oh dear, the baseless condescension is stifling.

If this were the case, then the myriad studies where gendered names ("steve", "lisa", "mary", "ron", etc.) were used versus anonymous commits would be baseless.

Here, for your reading pleasure: https://www.usnews.com/news/bl...

I know enough people with student loans in those fields to call this out as bullshit.

I know enough people with PhD/MDs who got scholarships, tuition waivers, or loan repayments to know that it can be done. So maybe the people you know just aren't very smart after all?

they would have no loans if the option was readily available"

Well, did they try a quick google search? https://www.usnews.com/educati...

It's been studied, several times over. Here's one you can use for reference. The summary is that in offices where employees have privacy and personal space, productivity is much higher. https://www.usnews.com/opinion... https://www.fastcompany.com/30... https://www.tradegecko.com/blo...

Never said Medicare and Medicade were free - just that some people would not see a doctor if it weren't for them.

Now as to your personal attacks on me - I'm retired, bozo. Here people have the right to retire at 60, and given the state of my health, it was inevitable. Or are you going to characterize everyone who's retired as "out-of-work"? Same as you tried to characterize us as "practically wards of the state"?

I'll "chime in on US politics" as much as I damn well please. You see, freedom of speech isn't an American invention - and isn't being upheld too well in the US, what with FISA warrants, 100-mile border search zones where probable cause isn't needed for a search, etc. That "zone" covers 2/3 of the population. You need other countries that rank higher on freedom to remind you of what you've lost. In that respect, Canada has a freedom score of 99, and the US 89. That means 43 countries are more free than the US. No doubt it will get worse when next year's ratings come out. Or if you want something that makes the US look better, there's the 2016 rankings by the Cato Institute, where you're "only" 23rd.

Now as to my being a transsexual, that should be irrelevant, but it obviously is to you or you wouldn't have mentioned it. But why would you bother when my .sig makes it obvious and I haven't hidden it since I was outed here in 2006? Obviously, from the work you put into googling me and reviewing my posting history, I've struck multiple nerves. :-) Cry-baby.

It's so easy to troll libertarian-leaning retards - feels almost like te turn of the century again.

Ah, and how lucrative is it to misrepresent [politifact.com] information?

Yes, sure. According to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture is incredibly efficient... Verified by that most objective of sources known as "Politifact".

or do you realize now, that you've been informed of the misapprehensions of your own source

Bullshit.

Just crunched the numbers for my hometown (Tulsa, OK). Both the average rents ($175/month) and the average commute (21.3 minutes) would be in their top 5.

Yeah, we're not exactly a famous tech hub. But we do have a pretty decent concentration of telecommunications and flight simulation work here. Enough to keep me employed and happy with my 15-30 minute commute and my house that would cost $3.5 Million in San Fran.

Where is the right trying to "deplatform" left-wing speakers?

On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places?

Just look for all the hand-wringing over "BLM" and "Anti-Trump" riots, against "Planned Parenthood", all the "Birther" claims, and you''ll find it.

Let's see, who is committing the violence [rollingstone.com] and trying to prevent the speech of others? That would be the left.

Also, case in point, here, by a user named Raenex. Who will never look at the right's actions.

But you, you want us to be upset over Milo's hiring a bunch of guys in masks to disrupt his own rallies and get attention. But Milo is out so you didn't even get your memo about that.

Which political party responds to critiques of Islam with cries of "Islamophobia" and "racist"? Which political party is against restrictions on Muslim immigration? Which political party has apologists for Sharia law leading [breitbart.com] women marches?

The left went from fighting political Christians to embracing Islam.

Which political party denounces Islam and creates lies about Sharia law? Which political party tries to convince us that Islam is a material threat? Which political party wants to ignore the terrorists among us?

Which political party lies about Planned Parenthood? Which political party has been found in court to engage in unlawful gerrymandering? Which political party is threatening judges who dared to reject Trump's unlawful ban? Which political party attacks how women dressed? Which political party claims to be pro-life, but resents paying for maternity care?

The right is the party that loves everything about radical Islamists, except the name they operate under.

Based on this experience, I would say not taking criminal action against Hillary Clinton was in line with many other cases.

Kristian Saucier got 1 year in prison for taking 6 photos of the engine room on the sub he was assigned.

Sailor Denied 'Clinton Deal', Gets 1 Year in Prison for 6 Photos of Sub.

It's obvious that Hillary was protected because she's part of the ruling class.

Full disclosure, I am a critical care physician (4 yrs college, 4yrs med school, 3 yrs IM residency, 3 years critical care)

How much do you think the average doctor gets for prescribing an opioid? Doctors aren't pharmacies. Doctors aren't pharmaceutical companies. Doctors aren't insurance companies.

This is a really rough estimate......

Look long and hard look at this reimbursement schedule (also look at how poorly Medicaid pays). Pay attention to these 2:

Office Visit, Initial, New Patient Level 2 - $75 for ~20 minutes

Offiice Visit, Established Patient Level 2 - $45 or ~20 minutes

So 3 patients/hour x 8 hours//day

Lets say half the patients you see are these types of visits, and of those, half are a mix of new and establishes (never is, most are established) 1.5 patients/hour x 8 hours = 12 patients daily

6 will be established 6*75= $450

6 will be new. 6*45= $270

The other 12 patients? Maybe you can see 12 really sick (6 established, 6 new)

6 * 200 = $1200

6 * 150 = $900

Hopefully your day would be filled with more complex patients, but it doesn't really matter. A new "complex" patient that you spend 60 minutes with will get you $200 reimbursement. So this person, for internal medicine, who went to college for 4 years, medical school for 4 years, then 3 years for residency is getting patient by Medicare (and likely your insurance company) $200 to spend an hour with you. Unless you like in rural America, you probably wont get a lawyer to sit with you for that price (I put that link in there because I did all my training at the #1 hospital in the US, but docs aren't reimbursed like that) for an hour.

So a really good day you can make $2820. Or about $700,000 revenue /yr. Now start to subtract your staff, and the time writing notes and billing queries (insurance companies are always trying to undersell how sick someone is, docs are trying to make their patients look sicker etc..), rent, EMR costs, malpractice (about 15000/yr), blah blah.....

For me, I do critical care. I bill a "99291" code for spending up to 74 minutes bringing your nearly dead loved one pack to life. The reimbursement is $239. Really? It is pretty much the same amount as sitting and talking to your elderly loved on who has 4 or 5 outpatient medical problems.

The dirty secret in medicine is right now if you want to make money as a doctor you need to specialize and do procedures. Even with volume, the numbers still add up 1 60 minute visit gets you the same reimbursement as 3 20 minute visits. That is the only way to "make money" in the ways that are often thought about in the sense of doctors make money.

If anything I hope this shows you that after 11+ (minimum) years of training, doctors are definitely not overcompensated and if anything you can make the argument that compared to other, essentially lesser trainer specialities (lawyer, engineers etc...) their "hourly" rate is undervalued. That is not even taking into account that most doctors are graduating with $200,000 or $300,000 of student loan debt.

Thanks for that link. I wasn't not too concerned about the wording on degree because when I talk to people I can choose how to phrase it, mentioning "Harvard" and "Information Security" before stating the exact title of the degree, but automated filters are something to be aware of.

  The comments in that link mentioned Johns Hopkins has a similar program, without the unclear wording of the degree itself.

Investigating Johns Hopkins led me to this article:
https://www.usnews.com/educati...

I see that Sam Houston State University offers *exactly* the degree I want, at a cost of $10K (about $3,300/year). The Sam Houston brand isn't nearly as strong as Harvard or Johns Hopkins, but it's something to consider.

And we can totally trust James Clapper

So, Twitter can do "anything they please", huh? Let's examine your premise a bit.

First, censorship can happen on a lot of levels and in a lot of places. Just because the Constitution forbids only the Federal government (and, by extension in later amendments as well as by state government Constitutions, state governments) from creating laws to censor speech, doesn't mean that what Twitter is doing here (and Facebook, Google, et.al.) isn't censorship. It is. Let's be clear about that. These companies are engaging in censorship, and they can do a great deal of it. If you're unclear just how pervasive it can be, here is a primer for you on how Google censors voices.

Next question, can they really do anything they want? Twitter and Google and other ISPs have certain protections from torts (lawsuits) through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, a federal law. It basically says that sites like Twitter cannot be held responsible for user-generated content hosted or available from their site or services. That's a HUGE benefit provided to these companies, that individuals do not get. But, the more an operator edits or manages the user content on their site, the more they expose themselves to being liable for that content.

It leads one to wonder: If government has provided this awesome protection from liability to Twitter, wouldn't it be the responsibility of government to ensure they are providing an open platform (that is, NOT engaging in damaging censorship). The censorship Twitter and especially Google engages in is certainly damaging. There are many cases, and many lawsuits about Google silencing people. In Europe and other places with less protections for free speech, Twitter must comply with guidelines that require them to censor content, and they do just that. Governments have recognized that Google is so large and so pervasive that it is one of the few companies they can go to that can effectively censor content in their country. So clearly Twitter is much more than just some private entity among a large set of competitors. And for Google, using their "malicious website" lists, they can basically censor content at user's client computers.

Think about something else. The US government imposes a large number of regulations on businesses. Using the "public accommodation" definition, business are banned from discrimination, are required to accommodate the needs of the disabled, provide specific services for patrons on an equal basis, and much more. The FCC requires broadcasters to submit ways that they are of benefit to the community. We have common carrier rules that prohibit censorship over some communication channels. In many ways, Twitter is identical to a common carrier, but with even greater influence over communications.

With only 6 corporations controlling most of the media, and only 3 companies controlling most of the Internet, I think it's time we were a little more realistic about what is happening and what can be done about it. These companies can control the narrative and basically mind-control vast portions of the public.

Do we really want to just throw up our hands and declare "Well they're private companies they can do anything they want?" Even when the result could be controlling the opinions and minds of most of the country?

Why do you focus so much attention on young people?

I focus on situations similar to those to which I am exposed, and there are young people in my family.

Most high school students DON'T have comp sci 101 homework

Don't, but will. (Source: "Making it Count: Computer Science Spreads as Graduation Requirement" by Allie Bidwell)

What paywall? I read the whole thing without a subscription to anything.

I notice that you aren't even posting any links. Nice to have blind faith but I prefer facts.

And on top of that, you sound like an angry American who took the astroturf hook, line and sinker.

Not angry, just sad for the rest of the world, especially Canadians whom I am very fond of.

Signed, a Canadian who is quite happy with his single payer healthcare.

Signed, an American who is even happier with the U.S. system, especially once we bring back real insurance policies. There's a reason why Canadians cross the border for health care. Your system "works" because the unreasonably long delays your system offers for treatments can be worked around. If you didn't have the U.S. to receive pressure your system would die even sooner.

Kindly read the stuff you quote first

That's just your problem - I did.

Good good good. I see you're ready for the next course then: reading comprehension. Comes after reading. You're making progress here !

If you'd just read my post, you might notice that I don't claim you'll jump into the top 1% as a result of a university education.

See above. Bootstrap bullshit is still bullshit.

Sorry, but I think that bootstrap statistics is a bit too advanced at this point. Let's focus on percentiles for now. I think that subject still needs some work.

American kids have all the opportunities they need to go to university

Not without people like you sneering at them a second time for taking out student loans they couldn't afford, if their degree/career choice doesn't pay out.

I would never do that. Fortunately all Ivy Leage universities offer grants. See e.g. http://www.thebestschools.org/... Means tuition plus living costs are paid for you, without the need to take out a loan. Of course you need to be exceptional to very very good (I personally don't think I would have qualified). So let's skip the subject of scholarships ... I can see why that might not be applicable in your case ... and discuss tuition fees.

For the top schools they're horrendous, meaning you fall into a great big black hole if you don't finish the course. I'd be plenty scared of that myself. So yes, you have a point there.

There are some universities that charge relatively low fees though: see here. http://www.usnews.com/educatio...

If you're hard up for cash there are universities for "ordinary" folk that also provide full tuition, sometimes supplemented by 15 hr a week plus 40 hr workweeks during breaks. See here: http://affordableschools.net/2... Not the easiest route, and you need to show financial need, but doable.

If that's not to your liking, then lets discuss alternatives. For example: getting an education through the military. See here: https://www.topuniversities.co...

That's decidedly not for everyone. You'll need to enlist, you need prove yourself to the military (not the easiest proposition) and you bind yourself to complete your term of service, regardless of whether you pass the course. See here: https://www.topuniversities.co... If you don't mind serving in the military (risk of being send abroad and shot at, must adapt to life in the military) in return for a scholarship (and are confident that you can actually do it), it's a really nice deal.

So, in summary, there are four ways to go to university if you're hard up for cash and don't want to risk a huge loan: (1) through a scholarship or grant (requires high to exceptional talent) (2) by choosing a less well-known university added to (slightly) above average talent and hard work (3) the military, (requires special aptitude). (4) Choosing an inexpensive university and working on-and-off (quite hard, but not impossible).

You're an alcoholic, cocaine abusing draft dodger with a 2.0 gpa? To the White House with you - after being handed a few multimillion dollar businesses to run into the ground, because of your last name.

Yes, that's right. I applied to the White House with evidence of

Then you either need to kick your energy supplier in the balls, or find some rooftop solar companies that aren't gouging the fuck out of you.

This almost year-old article quotes the price of 12.2 cents per kilowatt-hour installed for rooftop solar. Prices have only come down from there, and continue to fall. Is that parity with your incumbent coal price? No, but the delta isn't anywhere close to what you claim unless the local companies are doing a number on you.

10,000x more birds are killed by cats than by solar (?!?) and wind? Can you provide a citation for that? I'd like to use it in shutting-up idiots in the future (if true).

Oh, it's quite true. See this recent study for the numbers on wind turbines, and this one for cats*. This report ranks various energy sources; perhaps unsurprisingly coal actually kills the most birds.

It turns out cats kill a lot of animals, making them "the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals." According to that second study, though, most of the deaths are attributable to un-owned cats. The actual numbers from the studies are exactly those quoted by Anaerin above.

* Nature isn't open access but...

Harvard has a $37.6 billion endowment. Even with the abysmal 1.38% return in the S&P 500 in 2015, that would translate into $518.9 million in profit. Across 22,000 students, that's $23,585 per student.

So yeah, Harvard is in the unique position to be able to offer something like this. In a better year like 2016 (11.74% return), their endowment would've raked in over $200,000 per student.

The application alone is sometimes a barrier for kids who haven't been prepared for the demands of some top schools...

FWIW, college applications are much more straightforward.... Today, it is easier than ever to apply to as many schools as you have the time and patience to do.

Time, patience, and money. Colleges have application fees. A student with, say, a ten percent chance of acceptance into an elite school who applies to ten will have good odds to make it in. If you're from a well-to-do family, paying ten seventy-five dollar application fees are the least important part of this. If you're not so well to do, however, you might apply to one elite school, but after that, your back-up application will be to the local State school.

http://www.usnews.com/educatio...

Also, things like SAT tests cost money, too. Not to mention SAT prep classes, which the rich will buy as a matter of course and the poor have no access to.

If your family is poor, they can always apply for an NACAC application fee waiver (which most elite colleges accept). Columbia has already dropped the SAT requirement. I suspect most 'elite' schools are on the verge of dropping the SAT as requirements. Statistically, the schools have known that the SAT sucks as a predictor of anything, and the College Board has been frantically redesigning it for years in order to make it relevant again before more schools drop it and they lose their cash cow.

The myth that many parents have bought is that epsilon higher SATs correlate with delta higher chance of acceptance in some sort of fancy numerical weighting system, which couldn't be farther from the truth (at these so-called 'elite' schools). The SAT (and similar testing) is generally only used as a soft measure to pre-sort the mountain of applications a school gets. Elite schools often presort applications (because thoroughly considering 10 applications for every slot is better than slogging through 20). If you scores/grades/etc are near or above the threshold they use to pre-sort, it basically makes no difference to your acceptance (except as potentially a weird impression it might give in later evaluations it is unusually low and everything else great about an applicant).

For example, by some estimates, it is likely that Harvard will soft-cut off an SAT somewhere around 1400/1600 (which is of course pretty high, but this is Harvard and most people going into SAT-prep with designs on Harvard are already scoring that without any help). If you are scoring around 1200, it'll take quite a bit of prep to get it above this level (esp with the new rules that don't penalize guessing anymore and focus on reading comprehension). If are scoring around 1400 and the goal is to actually get into Harvard, I can guarantee you that hour-for-hour, it will be better to spend running a non-profit charity and getting a killer recommendation than toiling that hour in anonymity in an SAT prep class.

The application alone is sometimes a barrier for kids who haven't been prepared for the demands of some top schools...

FWIW, college applications are much more straightforward.... Today, it is easier than ever to apply to as many schools as you have the time and patience to do.

Time, patience, and money. Colleges have application fees. A student with, say, a ten percent chance of acceptance into an elite school who applies to ten will have good odds to make it in. If you're from a well-to-do family, paying ten seventy-five dollar application fees are the least important part of this. If you're not so well to do, however, you might apply to one elite school, but after that, your back-up application will be to the local State school. http://www.usnews.com/educatio...

Also, things like SAT tests cost money, too. Not to mention SAT prep classes, which the rich will buy as a matter of course and the poor have no access to.

Like that "renewable fuel oil" mess the Navy did a while back that was millions of dollars of waste for a very little bit of fuel

Citation Needed.

Google Needed
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...

The "Don't be a little bitch." rule. You can QQ all you want, but you should expect others to tell you to STFU when you do because everyone's sick of hearing it.

Translation: I can't stand hearing what you're saying, so I'm going to whine and pout, and cry a bunch of crocodile tears and yell at others to shut up because of my own weakness.

See how that works? You try to silence others, you just prove them right to speak out against you. But we get it, you supported a petulant child, and want to act like a toddler yourself, but that only makes other people recognize how full of bullshit you are.

Of course, it doesn't help you that false claims like "massive landslide" and "political mandate" abound.

That's right, so obsessed with appearances, they claim, falsely, to be a dramatic winner, when the reality is starkly different.

No, I think we'll stick with the mockery. It's what you deserve. You've earned it, and will keep earning it. Not only did Trump lose the popular vote, he can't even admit it, but has to make up stories about illegal voters.

Which makes it even more relevant.

That gets under your skin, I suspect.

$100,000/year in California is diddly. Municipal bus drivers can make that much here.

Where are you getting your data? Median California household income in 2015 was $64,500. And according to this, the highest paid bus drivers in the state are in Santa Cruz, making $57,420.

..instead of having the US join hands with Russia and Turkey to crush Isis.

The Russian interest at play here is not to crush Isis, but to crush the economic sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea and trying to take over Ukraine. These sanctions are crippling the ability of the Russian Oligarchy to enjoy their wealth and amass more.

Do you think Paul Manafort was advising Trump on how Russia could join hands to help the US destroy ISIS, or do you think he was telling Trump about how all the Russian oligarchs would love him if he were to remove these annoying sanctions?

Trump has a track record of championing making money over punishing wrong-doers. Consider this episode where he wanted a convicted rapist to avoid prison time so his casino could profit off of his boxing match--

Trump and Tyson are old friends who did business together in the late 1980s, when the real estate mogul promoted and hosted several of Tyson's fights at his Atlantic City casinos and even fashioned himself for a time as the boxer's "business adviser." And in a largely forgotten episode, Trump came to the boxer's aid during one the darkest moments of Tyson's careerâ"his 1992 conviction for raping a beauty queen. To save the champ from being locked up, Trump pitched a highly controversial proposal that would have essentially allowed Tyson to buy his way out of prison.

"Mistakes were made:" Less than 24 hours after releasing report claiming I lied, HPSCI is walking back its report. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/in-declassified-edward-snowden-report-committee-walks-back-claims-about-intentional-lying

From that link:

In Declassified Edward Snowden Report, Committee Walks Back Claims About 'Intentional Lying'

The House Intelligence Committee in September issued a three-page document alerting the public that information from its two-year investigation of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden had turned up evidence that Snowden was a “serial exaggerator and fabricator” who exhibited a “pattern of intentional lying.”

It is a common myth that tuition rises because of increased student aid or loans. The real reasons have more to do with lower state subsidies and the general trend of higher prices for service which require highly educated staff like professors, doctors, and lawyers.

You are correct that low-price rentals would rise in price under an UBI system if more housing is not created, although very slight subsidies / tax breaks would solve that problem easily. And utilities may go up slightly, but only for non-renewable sources of energy. Since those are on a global market, they would be very minimally impacted.

While you have illustrate some minor negatives to providing more money to the poor, you leave out the benefits of the increased market for goods and services it creates. This boost to the economy not only helps the poor, but also those working in the service economy. It even boosts the revenue of the business owners who are ultimately paying for the UBI threw higher taxes, mitigating some of the impact of those taxes.

I know in the echo chamber of slashdot the canard about no wmd is taken as gospel, but it really is not true. We know Iraq had them, so did the rest of the world since most of the major countries sold them: US, China, Germany, France, UK, and Russia. This was known at the time and why the war was not stopped. The only real criticism was if it was SMART to go to war over it and destabilize the region, not if they had them.

Now, I know urban legends die hard, and that it is fun to Bush bash, so you may not want to believe the history. So, just in case you need more. Here is a link to an article from a major news source that describes how they found the wmd. See, its not generally known because it was released with minimal fanfare, because ..... well do the math.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...

"Ohhhhh. When you say "I've seen people...." what you really mean is that you once heard a story about "this here guy who won the lottery and spent it all". No research. No knowledge. No thought. Just repeat what you think might be true and hope we swallow the story."

You weren't too lazy to write an uninformed complaint, but were too lazy to google for yourself. Go figure. I'll start you off with this one, you can google others.
http://www.usnews.com/news/art...

The following Party-approved Fake News stories need not be flagged — indeed, tagging them as anything other than deeply concerning may cause your account to be suspended:

• Mr. Zimmerman explained Mr. Martin's being suspicious by the latter being Black.
• Hands Up Don't Shoot!
• The Campus Rape Epidemic

If you have an example of one of Jon Stewart's segments being based on a fake story, I invite you to share it with us here.

How about the — completely bogus — meta-story of the "campus rape epidemic"? Which Jon Stewart and others have covered.

You go rape yourself now...