Third headline: Skype's claims of end-to-end encryption are effectively false and your communications are actually only as private as Microsoft wants them to be.
So if youre a dissident in Russia, probably you want another communication channel.
Out-of-state tuiton for most VA schools is ~20k. This really sounds like a "your state needs to fix its crap" situation, if their in-state tuition is barely competitive with our out-of-state tuition.
Housing, at least in VA, I have seen advertised for ~$200/mo. I myself lived in an apartment at $350/mo for a few years; thats ~$4000 / year. Transportation can be done with bike (which is really not unusual) or public transit. Alternatively, you could get a car, in which case your ongoing costs would most certainly be under $100 / month.
If you're asking for on-campus costs, I dont know the answer to that.
I may have been a bit harsh by implying that you should be able to pay the full of the loan off by working part time, but you should DEFINATELY not be ending with a massive loan if you cant pay it off. One poster mentioned paying $20k / year in-state in New York, which really sounds like a state issue-- thats roughly what you would pay for out-of-state for UVA, JMU, W&M, etc in virginia. Perhaps the real issue is that some states need to fix their schools, rather than this being treated like a national problem.
When you're covering it all yourself and you're working shitty part time jobs
Well, life IS about working to earn your keep. I imagine that the attitude of "its a shitty job" is common, and part of the problem. I wonder what your immigrant ancestors might say to that attitude? Or your ancestors during the great depression? If you need money, you work a job. If you dont, you can certainly take on overwhelming debt, but then dont complain to anyone about how the system is broken.
Going back to the original point of the article - merit based scholarships should be based on grades and not based on the family's ability to pay. If they were - if school were free for the students who work hard enough to deserve it - then you have a system that wins for the society in the long term.
Well, I dont disagree, except that the school is really the one to decide "if it should be free". I think for public schools that would probably be a good policy for some percentage, sure. What I disagree with is the narrative that the system is deeply broken because some vocal minority racked up roughly the cost of a house in debt because they couldnt contemplate going to an in-state school on a reasonable budget.
Who decides what speech is acceptable, and what speech is unacceptable? Are you really ready to cede those rights for the peace of fewer advertisements?
I come from a country that doesn't have political advertising, so I know all these things you imagine are nothing more than red herrings.
And Ive been to Shanghai, and seen cops chasing a man trying to essentially do political advertising (distributing political pamphlets). Thats not the kind of government I want to be under.
Ive also read enough about Russia to know that, again, free speech is incredibly important, and not something we want to give up.
To be clear Im not a libertarian; I am definately conservative, but I understand regulation is necessary at times.
I cant deny that being an american means I think differently than someone else about the Bill of Rights-- it is held in very high esteem during schooling. But nothing in my experience has led me to believe that any good can come of abridging the ideas in the first amendment... just a casual survey of american history will show that the trend is to erode the constitution-- with good intentions-- until it means something different than it did. But I believe that there are VERY good reasons that the constitution was as strict as it was, and so I tend to take a "fundamentalist" approach to the constitution.
Banning political advertising isn't giving anyone anyone a filter.
Well, youve gone from "congress shall make no law..." to "except when its speech by classes we dont like on topics that we think are harmful".
Again--AFAIK-- the first amendment isnt about "what a citizen can do", but "what the government cannot".
Im not clear why the first amendment "wouldnt apply" to corporations; it "applies" to congress. It does not leave exceptions such as "...except when such infringement shall be for limiting the speech of corporations."
Sure, there are downsides to unlimited campaign advertising funds, but Im less worried about THAT (which can be mitigated by citizens simply turning their brains on and filtering out the garbage) than I am about repression of political speech in any arena.
Because the old numbering system of incrementing by 1 was far too complicated. The new system is much easier to understand:
* Limited Update releases will be numbered in multiples of 20.
* We intend for Critical Patch Updates to continue to use odd numbers. The numbers will be calculated by adding multiples of five to the prior Limited Update and when needed adding one to keep the resulting number odd.
* Updates containing Norton instead of McAfee will be prime numbers
* If an update actually contains intentional regressions, it will end in a 9. We recommend you do not install these updates.
* If the update number is a prime but also a member of the fibonacci sequence, it is considered a "surprise" update: It will be automatically installed, and will contain 1 or more undesirable features. It may also install the ask toolbar.
I have a feeling hes sincere, and really doesnt get that it is almost always better when money for that sort of stuff is spent directly by community members rather than indirectly through a middleman. What if someone buying a car doesnt want to support the YMCA?
Dunno, but I-- and apparently the founders-- am of the opinion that it is better for ME to decide what sort of speech sways me, rather than someone in "the government".
Let me flip the question on you: Who would you rather have filtering out "trickery" and subversive ideas, your brain or someone in the government?
Allow them to support a side of an issue, but not a specific candidate.
Except that the first amendment isnt about "allowing" citizens certain types of speech. Its a prohibition against restriction of their speech (except in the exceptions the SCOTUS has ruled on).
So saying "you cannot publicly endorse this person" seems like it would be a major problem from that standpoint.
Right, and Chipotle increased its burrito prices from $5.50 to $6.25, overnight. 6 years ago. You have to look at that increase a year, 2 years, 3 years from now. If it doesnt change over the next 2 years, that would be a ~5% increase. 3 years? ~3%.
Double digit inflation can be measured by the cost of goods. Virginia state college tuition has gone up a few percent in the last 6 years. Chipotle burritos have gone up perhaps 20% over 10 years (~3% / year-- burritos used to be $5.50, now theyre $6.50). Milk has gone from ~ $3/gal to $4/gal-- $33% in about 10 years, 3.3% / year.
Can you find me anything that has increased in price at more than a few percent a year over the last decade?
If no, pipe down about "the fed downplaying it" as if we're all idiots who dont spend money in the real world.
That is not accurate to the best of my knowledge. If you bring a 1945 bill in, im pretty sure it would be accepted, and decirculated. They stop issuing the money, and it gets pulled from circulation, but your buffalo nickle is still valid currency.
Anyways, even if I am wrong on this, it happens on the scale of decades. Bitcoin is undergoing every single problem a currency can have, in the span of 5 years. Bubbles? Check. Bursts? Check. Splits, devaluation, runs, and old currency rendered invalid? Check.
Im sure its a wonderful investment tool, I cant imagine a world commerce based on it. Would rather keep my money in a sock under my bed.
Slashdot Mirror
That has always been true, but the claim by MS / Skype was that the encryption WAS end-to end.
Third headline: Skype's claims of end-to-end encryption are effectively false and your communications are actually only as private as Microsoft wants them to be.
So if youre a dissident in Russia, probably you want another communication channel.
Google has always been pretty open about what they do and dont have access to.
And for the record, they have NEVER cooperated with a foreign government to disclose private info, unlike Microsoft. So maybe lay off of them here.
Thats not a legal argument, its you conceding that their service is worth their price (access to your communications).
There is no legal requirement that you have access to an alternate VoIP service.
Thats not the issue. The issue is, Skype was supposed to have end-to-end encryption.
If they can read the links-- for whatever purpose-- that is effectively false.
Out-of-state tuiton for most VA schools is ~20k. This really sounds like a "your state needs to fix its crap" situation, if their in-state tuition is barely competitive with our out-of-state tuition.
Housing, at least in VA, I have seen advertised for ~$200/mo. I myself lived in an apartment at $350/mo for a few years; thats ~$4000 / year.
Transportation can be done with bike (which is really not unusual) or public transit. Alternatively, you could get a car, in which case your ongoing costs would most certainly be under $100 / month.
If you're asking for on-campus costs, I dont know the answer to that.
I may have been a bit harsh by implying that you should be able to pay the full of the loan off by working part time, but you should DEFINATELY not be ending with a massive loan if you cant pay it off. One poster mentioned paying $20k / year in-state in New York, which really sounds like a state issue-- thats roughly what you would pay for out-of-state for UVA, JMU, W&M, etc in virginia. Perhaps the real issue is that some states need to fix their schools, rather than this being treated like a national problem.
When you're covering it all yourself and you're working shitty part time jobs
Well, life IS about working to earn your keep. I imagine that the attitude of "its a shitty job" is common, and part of the problem. I wonder what your immigrant ancestors might say to that attitude? Or your ancestors during the great depression? If you need money, you work a job. If you dont, you can certainly take on overwhelming debt, but then dont complain to anyone about how the system is broken.
Going back to the original point of the article - merit based scholarships should be based on grades and not based on the family's ability to pay. If they were - if school were free for the students who work hard enough to deserve it - then you have a system that wins for the society in the long term.
Well, I dont disagree, except that the school is really the one to decide "if it should be free". I think for public schools that would probably be a good policy for some percentage, sure. What I disagree with is the narrative that the system is deeply broken because some vocal minority racked up roughly the cost of a house in debt because they couldnt contemplate going to an in-state school on a reasonable budget.
Who decides what speech is acceptable, and what speech is unacceptable? Are you really ready to cede those rights for the peace of fewer advertisements?
You are responding to someone who is not me.
I come from a country that doesn't have political advertising, so I know all these things you imagine are nothing more than red herrings.
And Ive been to Shanghai, and seen cops chasing a man trying to essentially do political advertising (distributing political pamphlets). Thats not the kind of government I want to be under.
Ive also read enough about Russia to know that, again, free speech is incredibly important, and not something we want to give up.
To be clear Im not a libertarian; I am definately conservative, but I understand regulation is necessary at times.
I cant deny that being an american means I think differently than someone else about the Bill of Rights-- it is held in very high esteem during schooling. But nothing in my experience has led me to believe that any good can come of abridging the ideas in the first amendment... just a casual survey of american history will show that the trend is to erode the constitution-- with good intentions-- until it means something different than it did. But I believe that there are VERY good reasons that the constitution was as strict as it was, and so I tend to take a "fundamentalist" approach to the constitution.
Banning political advertising isn't giving anyone anyone a filter.
Well, youve gone from "congress shall make no law..." to "except when its speech by classes we dont like on topics that we think are harmful".
Again--AFAIK-- the first amendment isnt about "what a citizen can do", but "what the government cannot".
Im not clear why the first amendment "wouldnt apply" to corporations; it "applies" to congress. It does not leave exceptions such as "...except when such infringement shall be for limiting the speech of corporations."
Sure, there are downsides to unlimited campaign advertising funds, but Im less worried about THAT (which can be mitigated by citizens simply turning their brains on and filtering out the garbage) than I am about repression of political speech in any arena.
Because the old numbering system of incrementing by 1 was far too complicated. The new system is much easier to understand:
* Limited Update releases will be numbered in multiples of 20.
* We intend for Critical Patch Updates to continue to use odd numbers. The numbers will be calculated by adding multiples of five to the prior Limited Update and when needed adding one to keep the resulting number odd.
* Updates containing Norton instead of McAfee will be prime numbers
* If an update actually contains intentional regressions, it will end in a 9. We recommend you do not install these updates.
* If the update number is a prime but also a member of the fibonacci sequence, it is considered a "surprise" update: It will be automatically installed, and will contain 1 or more undesirable features. It may also install the ask toolbar.
Obviously this system is far superior.
I have a feeling hes sincere, and really doesnt get that it is almost always better when money for that sort of stuff is spent directly by community members rather than indirectly through a middleman. What if someone buying a car doesnt want to support the YMCA?
Dunno, but I-- and apparently the founders-- am of the opinion that it is better for ME to decide what sort of speech sways me, rather than someone in "the government".
Let me flip the question on you: Who would you rather have filtering out "trickery" and subversive ideas, your brain or someone in the government?
Thats my point, and why Hatta needs to rethink his well-intentioned but ill-advised attack on the first amendment.
Allow them to support a side of an issue, but not a specific candidate.
Except that the first amendment isnt about "allowing" citizens certain types of speech. Its a prohibition against restriction of their speech (except in the exceptions the SCOTUS has ruled on).
So saying "you cannot publicly endorse this person" seems like it would be a major problem from that standpoint.
Pretty sure we already have that, and that it forms a large portion of the lobbying that is being labeled "bribery" here.
How do you stop someone from running their own commercials in support of a candidate without running smack dab into the first amendment?
Right, and Chipotle increased its burrito prices from $5.50 to $6.25, overnight. 6 years ago. You have to look at that increase a year, 2 years, 3 years from now. If it doesnt change over the next 2 years, that would be a ~5% increase. 3 years? ~3%.
Double digit inflation can be measured by the cost of goods. Virginia state college tuition has gone up a few percent in the last 6 years. Chipotle burritos have gone up perhaps 20% over 10 years (~3% / year-- burritos used to be $5.50, now theyre $6.50). Milk has gone from ~ $3/gal to $4/gal-- $33% in about 10 years, 3.3% / year.
Can you find me anything that has increased in price at more than a few percent a year over the last decade?
If no, pipe down about "the fed downplaying it" as if we're all idiots who dont spend money in the real world.
the old bills will not be accepted after that
That is not accurate to the best of my knowledge. If you bring a 1945 bill in, im pretty sure it would be accepted, and decirculated. They stop issuing the money, and it gets pulled from circulation, but your buffalo nickle is still valid currency.
Anyways, even if I am wrong on this, it happens on the scale of decades. Bitcoin is undergoing every single problem a currency can have, in the span of 5 years. Bubbles? Check. Bursts? Check. Splits, devaluation, runs, and old currency rendered invalid? Check.
Im sure its a wonderful investment tool, I cant imagine a world commerce based on it. Would rather keep my money in a sock under my bed.
Bitcoin just brings a taste of that experience to the first world!
Most in-state tuitions for community colleges are at this level. Have you actually looked?
Worst case, move to Va. This is how state competition works. If your state sucks, leave it.
"Blame" is the new "do".
Have you put out the fires in Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece yet?