Sure. And lots of people think that C) is a perfectly reasonably option. You don't have to agree of course with any of their ideas of course, but they tend to think things like:
* A better educated population benefits society as a whole. So those who don't attend university benefit when other do - they get better doctors, better engineers designing and building their infrastructure and so on. * The part of the role of government is the pooling and allocation of resources. Pooling some of everyone's money so that the best suited (indicated by better grades, etc) can be educated.* Part of that philosophy is more extensive welfare systems which serve to prevent the situation you describe from occurring in the first place. That single dad can finish his degree on welfare. Or since university is usually a straight out of high school thing and he chose to be a dad instead he can simply do his degree a little later when the kids are in school
- there's plenty of life after 30...
There are numerous other things of course.
The US applies this view to primary and secondary education. Some other countries include tertiary education.
It is a collective rather than individualistic view of the world. You likely don't share that and that is fine.Others do and don't usually prevent people from bailing out if they really don't like the deal - see the large number of "tax exiles" from places like the UK. Since unlike the US the rest of the world (I'm sure there's an exception or two) doesn't charge taxes to their citizens who have left the country thus allowing them to choose not to participate without burning down that bridge entirely.
Then the costs of providing tuition will impact the cost to students, though it won't be the only factor and is unlikely to be one of the major factors aside from providing a floor to the price in most cases.
If it is not a for profit college then the relative prices of courses should just be reflecting whatever the goal of that non-profit is.
Using "you" like that is rather deceptive, when the two statements are from two different posters.
Declaring that someone is just making up shit on the spot because someone else said something doesn't make any sense. Well other than showing that you are unobservant or intentionally misleading.
Because the FSF decides what is and isn't a "GNU package". It has to be "free software" but that's a restriction they've imposed upon themselves (for obvious reasons, it'd be stupid not to).
It is a bit weird, given non-literal phrases are common in modern American lexicon (and this is slashdot with it's US centric nature). That phrase is common enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In a related expression "social justice warriors" are not actually specialized in combat or warfare.
When someone says their car "is on its last legs" they don't actually mean their car doesn't use wheels and is more of an AT-AT type vehicle
You are free to pretend that wealth preservation isn't a valid form of investment.
Yes gold is not going to generate income, in fact it is going to have holding costs. It is a terrible thing to put large amounts (in relative terms) of money in, it is not however betting on disaster when it isn't large amounts. It is hedging against downturns in the asset classes that historically have had a negative correlation with gold. No every part of an investment has to be income generating.
And no you can't always collect rent. It's within the realm of possibility for the value of real estate to go to 0. Locations can become uninhabitable for various reasons. Having 100% of your money invested in apartments in Chernobyl in 1986 probably wouldn't have worked out well, for example. Not a lot of renters...
Because capital preservation can be a component of investing. And historically gold has done that in the fact of economic and government failures. Of course "past performance is not an indicator of future results"...
The US seems to have selected police based upon just how psychotic they are. That Australian cop would fit right in, what would happen in the US to him is there would be some media attention and he would be stood down (or he'd resign). Then he would either get a new job as a cop in the next town down the highway (since the police are far more local in the US than in Australia) or the union would challenge it and he would be reinstated with full back pay 6 months later after the media attention had gone away.
They're untouchable because they get to use the great "we have investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong". Prosecutors work with the police as an essential part of their job, so something has to be seriously terrible for them to try and prosecute anything. For reasons that remain a mystery to me most people seem to take the word of a police officer over a random person as well, so they win the he said/she said cases from either side. Law enforcement has also done a great job of marketing probably the safest time to be a cop in US history as a "war on police" environment in which they are terrified for their safety at all times and thus it's ok that they shoot first.
At least in the US they are supposed to have probable cause before harassing you. Of course that doesn't stop them since there is never any punishment when they violate those rules - at worse the person sues and gets a payout from the city but that doesn't affect the cop in any way. But at least something like MDT isn't a thing...I shudder to think how bad things would be without at least that fast eroding protection.
If the local police knew a person had epilepsy and turned on their lights for no other reason than to try and induce a seizure in said person and stated that that was the reason and that they hoped it would cause a seizure, then yes I would expect that person to be filing a lawsuit of some sort.
Doesn't mean they would win such a lawsuit of course...
I take it you would also get rid of all the reasons they can refuse to grant a passport? Given those reasons aren't sufficient to prevent you from voting or prevent you from getting a job.
And while Trump's election was a big deal, he hasn't actually done anything (except win an election), and won't until late January 2017. This isn't the Nobel Peace Prize which you can win just because they think you're going to do big things.
For the last 20 years just winning the US Presidential election was enough to get it. There have only been 4 occassions since 1964 that the newly elected President wasn't given it, and on all of those occasions that person got it the year before or during that term... It is an American publication after all.
"At least Fox puts out something truthful once in a while" is clearly a statement contrasting Fox with RT and thus is claiming that RT never puts out something truthful and thus the claim must be false.
You claimed the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.
A greenhouse is warmer because it is a glass box. How does that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as used when referencing global warming unless you are claiming global warming is caused by a glass box?
Because good old fashioned voter fraud that would be made more difficult by requiring ID is harder to do, more likely to be discovered, and requires people actually within the jurisdiction of US law enforcement to perform, and is very inefficient in terms of risk and effort required per vote.
So are you claiming that human CO2 emissions somehow formed a glass sphere around the earth? If not then how does stepping into a greenhouse demonstrate anything?
Slashdot Mirror
How can you miss the opportunity to use the the "chips" instead of "fries" and be english for a minute there?
Sure. And lots of people think that C) is a perfectly reasonably option. You don't have to agree of course with any of their ideas of course, but they tend to think things like:
* A better educated population benefits society as a whole. So those who don't attend university benefit when other do - they get better doctors, better engineers designing and building their infrastructure and so on.
* The part of the role of government is the pooling and allocation of resources. Pooling some of everyone's money so that the best suited (indicated by better grades, etc) can be educated.* Part of that philosophy is more extensive welfare systems which serve to prevent the situation you describe from occurring in the first place. That single dad can finish his degree on welfare. Or since university is usually a straight out of high school thing and he chose to be a dad instead he can simply do his degree a little later when the kids are in school
- there's plenty of life after 30...
There are numerous other things of course.
The US applies this view to primary and secondary education. Some other countries include tertiary education.
It is a collective rather than individualistic view of the world. You likely don't share that and that is fine.Others do and don't usually prevent people from bailing out if they really don't like the deal - see the large number of "tax exiles" from places like the UK. Since unlike the US the rest of the world (I'm sure there's an exception or two) doesn't charge taxes to their citizens who have left the country thus allowing them to choose not to participate without burning down that bridge entirely.
Then the costs of providing tuition will impact the cost to students, though it won't be the only factor and is unlikely to be one of the major factors aside from providing a floor to the price in most cases.
If it is not a for profit college then the relative prices of courses should just be reflecting whatever the goal of that non-profit is.
Using "you" like that is rather deceptive, when the two statements are from two different posters.
Declaring that someone is just making up shit on the spot because someone else said something doesn't make any sense. Well other than showing that you are unobservant or intentionally misleading.
So you agree they weren't "mysteriously silent" and won't "suddenly freak out" then? They after all aren't CNN or MSNBC.
What makes you think that a Nevada law means anything in a casino in New Jersey?
As a wild guess this one: http://www.eastbrooklynlabs.co...
And thus the poster wasn't referring to those muslims. But rather a different smaller group of muslims.
Because the FSF decides what is and isn't a "GNU package". It has to be "free software" but that's a restriction they've imposed upon themselves (for obvious reasons, it'd be stupid not to).
Do you really not know what the word "fringe" means? Dictionaries are very accessible these days.
It is a bit weird, given non-literal phrases are common in modern American lexicon (and this is slashdot with it's US centric nature). That phrase is common enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In a related expression "social justice warriors" are not actually specialized in combat or warfare.
When someone says their car "is on its last legs" they don't actually mean their car doesn't use wheels and is more of an AT-AT type vehicle
You are free to pretend that wealth preservation isn't a valid form of investment.
Yes gold is not going to generate income, in fact it is going to have holding costs. It is a terrible thing to put large amounts (in relative terms) of money in, it is not however betting on disaster when it isn't large amounts. It is hedging against downturns in the asset classes that historically have had a negative correlation with gold. No every part of an investment has to be income generating.
And no you can't always collect rent. It's within the realm of possibility for the value of real estate to go to 0. Locations can become uninhabitable for various reasons. Having 100% of your money invested in apartments in Chernobyl in 1986 probably wouldn't have worked out well, for example. Not a lot of renters...
Being 100% in gold is hoarding betting on a disaster. Just like being 100% in oil futures is gambling. Or 100% in miami apartments is gambling.
Having some of you holdings in gold, however, is not.
Pick the right start and end dates and you can have any one of gold, housing, and the S&P 500 perform better than both of the other two.
Because capital preservation can be a component of investing. And historically gold has done that in the fact of economic and government failures. Of course "past performance is not an indicator of future results"...
The US seems to have selected police based upon just how psychotic they are. That Australian cop would fit right in, what would happen in the US to him is there would be some media attention and he would be stood down (or he'd resign). Then he would either get a new job as a cop in the next town down the highway (since the police are far more local in the US than in Australia) or the union would challenge it and he would be reinstated with full back pay 6 months later after the media attention had gone away.
They're untouchable because they get to use the great "we have investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong". Prosecutors work with the police as an essential part of their job, so something has to be seriously terrible for them to try and prosecute anything. For reasons that remain a mystery to me most people seem to take the word of a police officer over a random person as well, so they win the he said/she said cases from either side. Law enforcement has also done a great job of marketing probably the safest time to be a cop in US history as a "war on police" environment in which they are terrified for their safety at all times and thus it's ok that they shoot first.
At least in the US they are supposed to have probable cause before harassing you. Of course that doesn't stop them since there is never any punishment when they violate those rules - at worse the person sues and gets a payout from the city but that doesn't affect the cop in any way. But at least something like MDT isn't a thing...I shudder to think how bad things would be without at least that fast eroding protection.
If the local police knew a person had epilepsy and turned on their lights for no other reason than to try and induce a seizure in said person and stated that that was the reason and that they hoped it would cause a seizure, then yes I would expect that person to be filing a lawsuit of some sort.
Doesn't mean they would win such a lawsuit of course...
I take it you would also get rid of all the reasons they can refuse to grant a passport? Given those reasons aren't sufficient to prevent you from voting or prevent you from getting a job.
For the last 20 years just winning the US Presidential election was enough to get it. There have only been 4 occassions since 1964 that the newly elected President wasn't given it, and on all of those occasions that person got it the year before or during that term... It is an American publication after all.
Yes he did.
"At least Fox puts out something truthful once in a while" is clearly a statement contrasting Fox with RT and thus is claiming that RT never puts out something truthful and thus the claim must be false.
Just like we know McGregor must not have KOed Aldo last year since it must be not be truthful: https://www.rt.com/sport/32580...
You have strong opinions about something you apparently no next to nothing about.
Osama never got it. Bush got it twice. At least you managed to get Merkel right. 1 out of 3 ain't bad I guess...
And you really don't think Bush, Bush, Bush, Gingrich, Giuliani, Nixon, Nixon, and Reagan were Republican?
Yes there exists numerous materials with similar properties, that should be obvious.
You claimed the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.
A greenhouse is warmer because it is a glass box. How does that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as used when referencing global warming unless you are claiming global warming is caused by a glass box?
Because good old fashioned voter fraud that would be made more difficult by requiring ID is harder to do, more likely to be discovered, and requires people actually within the jurisdiction of US law enforcement to perform, and is very inefficient in terms of risk and effort required per vote.
So are you claiming that human CO2 emissions somehow formed a glass sphere around the earth? If not then how does stepping into a greenhouse demonstrate anything?
No I'm not. I didn't randomly type the word "submitted" instead of "ratified", that was in fact on purpose.