"U.S. technology product imports exceeded exports for the first time in 2002 starting a trend that left a $38.3 billion trade deficit in 2006 after reaching a high of $44.4 billion in 2005."
So it actually went down.
Also
"in 2006, the United States continued to export considerably more than it imported in two technology areas: aerospace and electronics."
"However, it creates huge risk of having that carpet yanked out from under us when either they want to yank us around, or some other world crisis causes them to suddenly stop the investing."
And ruin their own economy, and their own, in the process.
You people always leave this part out of your fear mongering.
"Sure in a perfect world."
No NOT in a perfect world. In THIS world RIGHT NOW there are classes with two teachers, implementing exactly the system I described. The difference is, the people who advocate for special ed students don't say things like "in a perfect world" they show up to meetings and make huge nuisances of themselves, until they get the resources they need.
And people who prioritize science don't. That's the difference.
"A friend of mine is somewhere around $120,000 in debt from his student loans for an undergraduate degree. He was able to acquire that much debt easily over the 5 years it took him to graduate."
You didn't read the part about "Stafford" loans did you? Did you see that? Did you see how I qualified it? Did you see that I explained that Stafford loans are the very easily acquired loans, and the other loans are a different matter?
"Don't think that because you briefly looked into student loans that you know what you're talking about."
I have them. I paid for college with them. I did enough research that I could tell you the ins and outs of every type before you could do a Google search for them.
Now on to the last part, in order to get as much money as your "friend" did, he'd have to venture outside the type of loans that are usually vilified into normal, collateral based loans.
So your "friend" chose to exceed the limits imposed by the government to prevent him from over burdening himslef without sufficient possibility of return.
If your friend has 120,000 in debt, it didn't all come from student loans, OR it wasn't just for an undergrad degree, OR you're a liar.
Generally, lack of sleep may result in[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]:
* aching muscles;
* blurred vision;
* Cardiovascular disease;
* clinical depression;
* colorblindness;
* daytime drowsiness and naps;
* decreased mental activity and concentration;
* weakened immune system;
* dizziness;
* dark circles under the eyes;
* fainting;
* general confusion;
* hallucinations;
* hand tremors;
* headache;
* hernia;
* hyperactivity;
* hypertension;
* impatience;
* irritability;
* Lucid dreaming (once sleep resumes);
* memory lapses or loss;
* nausea;
* nystagmus (rapid involuntary rhythmic eye movement);
* psychosis;
* pallor;
* slowed reaction time;
* slurred and/or nonsensical speech;
* weight loss or gain;
* yawning;
* symptoms similar to:
o Attention deficit Hyperactivity Disorder;
o Alcoholic Intoxication.
[edit] Diabetes
A 1999 study by the University of Chicago Medical Center showed that sleep deprivation severely affects the human body's ability to metabolize glucose, which can lead to early-stage Diabetes Type 2.[10]
[edit] Effects on the brain
Sleep deprivation can adversely affect brain function.[9] A 2000 study, by the UCSD School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in San Diego, used functional magnetic resonance imaging technology to monitor activity in the brains of sleep-deprived subjects performing simple verbal learning tasks.[11] The study showed that regions of the brain's prefrontal cortex displayed more activity in sleepier subjects. Depending on the task at hand, the brain would sometimes attempt to compensate for the adverse effects caused by lack of sleep. The temporal lobe, which is a brain region involved in language processing, was activated during verbal learning in rested subjects but not in sleep deprived subjects. The parietal lobe, not activated in rested subjects during the verbal exercise, was more active when the subjects were deprived of sleep. Although memory performance was less efficient with sleep deprivation, greater activity in the parietal region was associated with better memory.
A 2001 Study at Harvard's Medical Institute suggested that sleep deprivation may be linked to more serious diseases, such as heart disease.
Animal studies suggest that sleep deprivation increases stress hormones, which may reduce new cell production in adult brains.[12]
[edit] Effects on growth
This short section requires expansion.
A 1999 study[13] found that sleep deprivation resulted in reduced cortisol secretion the next day, driven by increased subsequent slow-wave sleep. Sleep deprivation was found to enh
"However, It is currently very difficult to keep the teacher with science credentials in teaching, due to poor salary and working conditions"
I taught science previously, and I disagree with this. The salary is fine (especially for young teachers, it's as you get older that it fails to keep up with COL) and the working conditions are what you make of them. It's wasn't as bad as many jobs I've had, none of which have people complaining about the conditions. This part of your post is simply not accurate.
"It would strain the budgets of most schools well beyond the breaking point to have classes with 2 teachers, not to mention the problem with trying to retain them both."
The schools don't make the budgets, we do. Would this strain them if we started diverting money from this ridiculous proposed free college plan into hiring at public schools? It strikes me as tremendously short sighted to skimp on the foundation of the building while diverting the surplus to paint and drapes. Sending unprepared kids to school for free seems like we're putting the focus in the wrong place.
People don't want to spend more money on schools because they see the schools as failing to produce. A bad investment if you will. This is largely because wehave pumped money into schools furiously, while getting very little in return. One way to overcome this prejudice is to pitch a new method, one that differs substantially from the current method. This may allow people to feel more confident about spending instead of dumping money into the same old same old.
When I was in school, the maximum amount available from Stafford loans was around 40k for an undergraduate degree. Other, less common loans increased that number, but they were genuine loans and not the low-barrier-to-entry, available to virtually anyone Stafford loans that most people choose.
Pretending that 40k, payable over 30 years, is "insane" is disingenuous at best, and an outright distortion at worst.
It's pretty clear you've swallowed someone's line without researching it for yourself.
"Too bad it doesn't work like that for me in the real world where I'm paying several times that a month for training and access to fitness."
I'm sorry, but unless you're new to how gyms work, that's exactly what happens. A dozen people sign contracts, 11 of them stop going but keep paying, and you as a regular member reap the benefits.
You bring up an interesting point, which I've never seen appropriately discussed.
In some of our special ed classes, there were what were called "co-teachers". In our specific implementation, there was essentially one teacher and one behavior specialist, who were also both trained in the other's discipline.
I've never seen this approach used in classes like biology, chemistry, or physics, classes that are hands on, lab oriented, and require special attention from the teacher.
Why not use two "teachers", one specialist in the subject, who also has teaching credentials, and one teacher who also has science credentials.
"It allows poor people to get a university degree, which is really expensive in America, and so build a better future for themselves and their children."
Student loans are available to virtually anyone, as long as they meet very simple requirements. After graduation, you have as long as 30 years to pay them back, with extremely low interest rates and very favorable terms.
The idea that the poor can't afford college is a nice stumping point to the ignorant, but the reality is something else entirely.
"Well then, the whole idea of subverting (covertly, overtly, or even militarily) a nasty government (even when its nastyness is not in doubt) is wrong -- because there are always people, who agree with and support it and who will be annoyed, inconvenienced, or even killed in the process."
No, it just means that certain levels of risk are acceptable for us to impose on others.
Convincing people to take up arms and revolt is a far cry from placing a spam email in their inbox without them knowing, and then having them get killed for it.
What is with the propensity of people to attempt and split everything into all or nothing scenarios? You can subvert the government without putting people's lives in danger without their consent.
Slashdot Mirror
"TFA is saying that in the electronics sector, we are buying more than we are selling."
That's wrong. From TFA
"in 2006, the United States continued to export considerably more than it imported in two technology areas: aerospace and electronics."
The article uses the term "technology" without defining it, but it also clearly states that we are running a trade surplus in electronics.
"It's like a financial nuclear bomb, only the Chinese have the only trigger."
No, actually, that's wrong.
We could voluntarily default on the debt.
"coughcoughLenovocough"
Yeah that worked out great, buy a brand with great reliability, then rebrand it, losing the mindshare the previous brand had.
I don't see why you think this is a good example.
From TFA
"U.S. technology product imports exceeded exports for the first time in 2002 starting a trend that left a $38.3 billion trade deficit in 2006 after reaching a high of $44.4 billion in 2005."
So it actually went down.
Also
"in 2006, the United States continued to export considerably more than it imported in two technology areas: aerospace and electronics."
Oh, the horror.
"However, it creates huge risk of having that carpet yanked out from under us when either they want to yank us around, or some other world crisis causes them to suddenly stop the investing."
And ruin their own economy, and their own, in the process.
You people always leave this part out of your fear mongering.
"Regarding the meaning of average, your "crazy liberal lesbian instructor" was right and you are wrong."
So you're saying the average really doesn't take into account that some women are stronger than some men?
Because that was the claim, and it's wrong.
"Sure in a perfect world." No NOT in a perfect world. In THIS world RIGHT NOW there are classes with two teachers, implementing exactly the system I described. The difference is, the people who advocate for special ed students don't say things like "in a perfect world" they show up to meetings and make huge nuisances of themselves, until they get the resources they need. And people who prioritize science don't. That's the difference.
"A friend of mine is somewhere around $120,000 in debt from his student loans for an undergraduate degree. He was able to acquire that much debt easily over the 5 years it took him to graduate."
You didn't read the part about "Stafford" loans did you? Did you see that? Did you see how I qualified it? Did you see that I explained that Stafford loans are the very easily acquired loans, and the other loans are a different matter?
"Don't think that because you briefly looked into student loans that you know what you're talking about."
I have them. I paid for college with them. I did enough research that I could tell you the ins and outs of every type before you could do a Google search for them.
Now on to the last part, in order to get as much money as your "friend" did, he'd have to venture outside the type of loans that are usually vilified into normal, collateral based loans.
So your "friend" chose to exceed the limits imposed by the government to prevent him from over burdening himslef without sufficient possibility of return.
If your friend has 120,000 in debt, it didn't all come from student loans, OR it wasn't just for an undergrad degree, OR you're a liar.
I know which one my money is on.
You mean "those who wish to stay healthy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Eff ects_of_sleep_deprivation
"Effects of sleep deprivation
Generally, lack of sleep may result in[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]:
* aching muscles;
* blurred vision;
* Cardiovascular disease;
* clinical depression;
* colorblindness;
* daytime drowsiness and naps;
* decreased mental activity and concentration;
* weakened immune system;
* dizziness;
* dark circles under the eyes;
* fainting;
* general confusion;
* hallucinations;
* hand tremors;
* headache;
* hernia;
* hyperactivity;
* hypertension;
* impatience;
* irritability;
* Lucid dreaming (once sleep resumes);
* memory lapses or loss;
* nausea;
* nystagmus (rapid involuntary rhythmic eye movement);
* psychosis;
* pallor;
* slowed reaction time;
* slurred and/or nonsensical speech;
* weight loss or gain;
* yawning;
* symptoms similar to:
o Attention deficit Hyperactivity Disorder;
o Alcoholic Intoxication.
[edit] Diabetes
A 1999 study by the University of Chicago Medical Center showed that sleep deprivation severely affects the human body's ability to metabolize glucose, which can lead to early-stage Diabetes Type 2.[10]
[edit] Effects on the brain
Sleep deprivation can adversely affect brain function.[9] A 2000 study, by the UCSD School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in San Diego, used functional magnetic resonance imaging technology to monitor activity in the brains of sleep-deprived subjects performing simple verbal learning tasks.[11] The study showed that regions of the brain's prefrontal cortex displayed more activity in sleepier subjects. Depending on the task at hand, the brain would sometimes attempt to compensate for the adverse effects caused by lack of sleep. The temporal lobe, which is a brain region involved in language processing, was activated during verbal learning in rested subjects but not in sleep deprived subjects. The parietal lobe, not activated in rested subjects during the verbal exercise, was more active when the subjects were deprived of sleep. Although memory performance was less efficient with sleep deprivation, greater activity in the parietal region was associated with better memory.
A 2001 Study at Harvard's Medical Institute suggested that sleep deprivation may be linked to more serious diseases, such as heart disease.
Animal studies suggest that sleep deprivation increases stress hormones, which may reduce new cell production in adult brains.[12]
[edit] Effects on growth
This short section requires expansion.
A 1999 study[13] found that sleep deprivation resulted in reduced cortisol secretion the next day, driven by increased subsequent slow-wave sleep. Sleep deprivation was found to enh
"However, It is currently very difficult to keep the teacher with science credentials in teaching, due to poor salary and working conditions"
I taught science previously, and I disagree with this. The salary is fine (especially for young teachers, it's as you get older that it fails to keep up with COL) and the working conditions are what you make of them. It's wasn't as bad as many jobs I've had, none of which have people complaining about the conditions. This part of your post is simply not accurate.
"It would strain the budgets of most schools well beyond the breaking point to have classes with 2 teachers, not to mention the problem with trying to retain them both."
The schools don't make the budgets, we do. Would this strain them if we started diverting money from this ridiculous proposed free college plan into hiring at public schools? It strikes me as tremendously short sighted to skimp on the foundation of the building while diverting the surplus to paint and drapes. Sending unprepared kids to school for free seems like we're putting the focus in the wrong place.
People don't want to spend more money on schools because they see the schools as failing to produce. A bad investment if you will. This is largely because wehave pumped money into schools furiously, while getting very little in return. One way to overcome this prejudice is to pitch a new method, one that differs substantially from the current method. This may allow people to feel more confident about spending instead of dumping money into the same old same old.
"Students saddled with debt"
When I was in school, the maximum amount available from Stafford loans was around 40k for an undergraduate degree. Other, less common loans increased that number, but they were genuine loans and not the low-barrier-to-entry, available to virtually anyone Stafford loans that most people choose.
Pretending that 40k, payable over 30 years, is "insane" is disingenuous at best, and an outright distortion at worst.
It's pretty clear you've swallowed someone's line without researching it for yourself.
"Too bad it doesn't work like that for me in the real world where I'm paying several times that a month for training and access to fitness."
I'm sorry, but unless you're new to how gyms work, that's exactly what happens. A dozen people sign contracts, 11 of them stop going but keep paying, and you as a regular member reap the benefits.
You bring up an interesting point, which I've never seen appropriately discussed.
In some of our special ed classes, there were what were called "co-teachers". In our specific implementation, there was essentially one teacher and one behavior specialist, who were also both trained in the other's discipline.
I've never seen this approach used in classes like biology, chemistry, or physics, classes that are hands on, lab oriented, and require special attention from the teacher.
Why not use two "teachers", one specialist in the subject, who also has teaching credentials, and one teacher who also has science credentials.
"It allows poor people to get a university degree, which is really expensive in America, and so build a better future for themselves and their children."
Student loans are available to virtually anyone, as long as they meet very simple requirements. After graduation, you have as long as 30 years to pay them back, with extremely low interest rates and very favorable terms.
The idea that the poor can't afford college is a nice stumping point to the ignorant, but the reality is something else entirely.
"It's like watching a train wreck."
So get out from in front of the mirror.
I win.
Again.
You fucking loser.
I win again.
"Well then, the whole idea of subverting (covertly, overtly, or even militarily) a nasty government (even when its nastyness is not in doubt) is wrong -- because there are always people, who agree with and support it and who will be annoyed, inconvenienced, or even killed in the process."
No, it just means that certain levels of risk are acceptable for us to impose on others.
Convincing people to take up arms and revolt is a far cry from placing a spam email in their inbox without them knowing, and then having them get killed for it.
What is with the propensity of people to attempt and split everything into all or nothing scenarios? You can subvert the government without putting people's lives in danger without their consent.
"Admit it by replying."
Thanks, I'm glad we agree we both know I won.
Very manly of you.
"Keep in mind, YOU replied to ME originally. Owned"
I did stop. YOU replied.
OOPS! I win again.
Now go ahead and reply again, because you know I won.
Admit it by replying.
"Keep in mind, YOU replied to ME originally. Owned.
DANCE FOR ME BITCH!!"
Get someone smarter than you to read that for you so you 'll know why I win.
Go ahead and reply, I know you can't help it.
"Sorry, the opposite has already been established."
Except you're a proven liar, so that means what?
Oh that I'm right.
Again.
Keep in mind, YOU replied to ME originally. Owned.
DANCE FOR ME BITCH!!
"You mean, exactly what I wanted, and stated I was going to do."
No, actually I mean you're dancing for me because you can't help yourself.
Now reply again, because you know I caught you lying and have to try and drown the conversation so you're not outed.
DANCE PUPPET!
"Ten."
No actually, there was nothing in there that met your stated qualifications.
OOPS!
"Nine."
Thanks, I'm glad you know it, and I'm glad we agreed on a way for you to admit it without looking even more stupid.
Nice of you to do exactly what I wanted.
Now go ahead and reply with "Nine" because you know I caught you lying.
Can we agree that you replying by saying "Nine" is you admission that you're a lair?
Signal this by replying with "Nine" because I've owned you and you want to admit it.