Except it isn't deregulating. Nothing stops you today from paying for your education with a credit card or a personal loan or by mortgaging your house.
This would just remove a subsidy.
Or can you really not see the difference between regulating a bank, say by requiring them to maintain some specified level of reserves; and subsidizing a bank, by say giving them $10 billion?
So why not use something similar to what all those other civilized countries do? Rather than setting things up so that in order to get an education students have to end up in debt to wall street bankers?
The entirety of the post was: "Few people have personal experience with "a large percentage of cases around the country", and those who do should generally have something they can cite to back up their claims." (ignoring contextual quotations from what it was replying to).
That says nothing about whether computer-aided education is good or bad, or whether teachers are good or bad.
It simply says that personal experience does not cover determining something regarding "a large percentage of cases around the country", unless that personal experience is way out of the ordinary in which case there should be something to cite anyway (the person making the statement just finished a national of that thing, for example).
Of course but you would never let that happen since you likely don't have a place to put thousands of tons of copper. And the contract has a fixed date so it's not like it can catch you by surprise.
Aren't skills in eve just on timers? So the "grind" is just wait however long it will take - either doing other things or just logged out not actually playing at all.
or did that change (I played Eve long ago and not for very long then)?
Because in a paper you want to head of criticisms. In a perfect world by stating how you controlled for whatever the criticism is, in the real word often enough by sticking it in the "future work" bucket.
And journalists don't grasp that and hence when they read "further studies with large study populations, where the potential for misclassification of exposure and selection bias is minimised, are warranted" they read it as the scientists saying "more research is needed". When really they are saying "yes we didn't do that, but we know that and we didn't just not notice the obvious so please accept the paper anyway".
Of course no researched is going to turn down a grant:)
If you buy it then yes you are free to redistribute both the source and binaries.
If you find it on a torrent site then yes you are allowed to redistribute both the source and binaries. However, if you torrented just the binaries the person who initially seeded (and I guess everyone including you) would be violating the GPL if it didn't include source or a written offer to provide the source.
You only have to provide source to people you provide binaries to. You are under no obligation to provide future updates of said source (other than to those to whom you distribute binaries build from the updated source).
Of course you can't prevent those you do provide the source to from distributing it to others.
Clearly the military is a domain of the Federal Government so you can't expect him to say to junk the Department of Defense - he's reasonably consistant in having the Federal Government do the things the consitution says are its roles and nothing else. But he's always said the military budget needs to be cut dramatically because it is bankrupting the country.
Which is fine. There's 50 states, those who don't want education can live in one which doesn't bother with an education system. Those that do want their children to have one can pick a state that does bother (or go private).
of course schools are already run by the states (by smaller localities usually).
But that's not what baseline happy is. It's how happy you are by default - so when not studying too. Whether you enjoy the process of studying is independant of how high your starting happiness is.
It doesn't need to be a free market. The colleges are in the game to make money*. If they price too high they'll make less money because student numbers will drop. Since they'd rather have more money they'll lower prices in order to attract more students. That's why it doesn't cost $23 million per year to attend college - the reduction in student numbers would cause them to make less money. The existance of easy to get student loans means students can pay more and hence the colleges will happily charge more.
* There are other reasons, but I'll just ignore them for the purposes of a discussion about pricing.
When large segments give up on college the prices will go down. They can only be as high as they are because people are willing to borrow (and others to lend) large amounts of money to pay for them.
And while these loans defaulting would be painful, it's not a big deal to the economy - the government just prints some money and bails out the banks. That there is no collateral stops the knock effects. There's no "college degrees go down in value and so more people are underwater on their student loans", since everyone is underwater in the first place (there's no collareral as you mentioned). And you don't have huge amounts of people who took out student loans at teaser rates with the plan to refinance before the rate hike because the degree had gone up in value.
Though congrats to America for coming up with just about the worst possible way to finance an education system.
Slashdot Mirror
MBA and MS in Computing, not worthless shit like History or English.
I mean seriously what has grammar ever done for you?
Except it isn't deregulating. Nothing stops you today from paying for your education with a credit card or a personal loan or by mortgaging your house.
This would just remove a subsidy.
Or can you really not see the difference between regulating a bank, say by requiring them to maintain some specified level of reserves; and subsidizing a bank, by say giving them $10 billion?
So why not use something similar to what all those other civilized countries do? Rather than setting things up so that in order to get an education students have to end up in debt to wall street bankers?
The entirety of the post was: "Few people have personal experience with "a large percentage of cases around the country", and those who do should generally have something they can cite to back up their claims." (ignoring contextual quotations from what it was replying to).
That says nothing about whether computer-aided education is good or bad, or whether teachers are good or bad.
It simply says that personal experience does not cover determining something regarding "a large percentage of cases around the country", unless that personal experience is way out of the ordinary in which case there should be something to cite anyway (the person making the statement just finished a national of that thing, for example).
Maybe if you took 10 seconds to check what you were talking about things would make more sense?
Not confirmist brainwashed drones?
The claim wasn't that some teachers are competent and some icompetent it was:
"but in a large percentage of cases around the country, where the teachers are in fact poor"
Which is a direct claim that a large percentage of teachers are poor. Not just that poor teachers exist.
Why would they need to be to make that statement?
I've never been to Tokyo, yet I have been on a busy sidewalk, so clearly they aren't unique to Tokyo.
Of course but you would never let that happen since you likely don't have a place to put thousands of tons of copper. And the contract has a fixed date so it's not like it can catch you by surprise.
Aren't skills in eve just on timers? So the "grind" is just wait however long it will take - either doing other things or just logged out not actually playing at all.
or did that change (I played Eve long ago and not for very long then)?
Because in a paper you want to head of criticisms. In a perfect world by stating how you controlled for whatever the criticism is, in the real word often enough by sticking it in the "future work" bucket.
And journalists don't grasp that and hence when they read "further studies with large study populations, where the potential for misclassification of exposure and selection bias is minimised, are warranted" they read it as the scientists saying "more research is needed". When really they are saying "yes we didn't do that, but we know that and we didn't just not notice the obvious so please accept the paper anyway".
Of course no researched is going to turn down a grant :)
There was no attribution of fault for throwing money given to the GOP or the democrats.
If you buy it then yes you are free to redistribute both the source and binaries.
If you find it on a torrent site then yes you are allowed to redistribute both the source and binaries. However, if you torrented just the binaries the person who initially seeded (and I guess everyone including you) would be violating the GPL if it didn't include source or a written offer to provide the source.
That would be what the GPL says.
You only have to provide source to people you provide binaries to. You are under no obligation to provide future updates of said source (other than to those to whom you distribute binaries build from the updated source).
Of course you can't prevent those you do provide the source to from distributing it to others.
Yes, but the loans are private. The private lenders keep the profits the government eats the losses.
But combine budget cuts with pullling out of Iraq and Afghanistan overnight, and your actual spending of "defense" drops considerably.
Because he wouldn't be assuming the States would handle things themselves.
What makes you say he doesn't? You're only allowed to do one thing in your world?
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/ - "Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpedybOR2oY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RXWcKOYeeg
Clearly the military is a domain of the Federal Government so you can't expect him to say to junk the Department of Defense - he's reasonably consistant in having the Federal Government do the things the consitution says are its roles and nothing else. But he's always said the military budget needs to be cut dramatically because it is bankrupting the country.
The ability to see 50 differnt ideas put into place and hence which of them actually works? Yeah that'd suck!
Which is fine. There's 50 states, those who don't want education can live in one which doesn't bother with an education system. Those that do want their children to have one can pick a state that does bother (or go private).
of course schools are already run by the states (by smaller localities usually).
But that's not what baseline happy is. It's how happy you are by default - so when not studying too. Whether you enjoy the process of studying is independant of how high your starting happiness is.
A government loan isn't the American system. It's main difference to most other schemes is that the loans are private.
And millions of people have degrees which cost them US$0.00.
It doesn't need to be a free market. The colleges are in the game to make money*. If they price too high they'll make less money because student numbers will drop. Since they'd rather have more money they'll lower prices in order to attract more students. That's why it doesn't cost $23 million per year to attend college - the reduction in student numbers would cause them to make less money. The existance of easy to get student loans means students can pay more and hence the colleges will happily charge more.
* There are other reasons, but I'll just ignore them for the purposes of a discussion about pricing.
When large segments give up on college the prices will go down. They can only be as high as they are because people are willing to borrow (and others to lend) large amounts of money to pay for them.
And while these loans defaulting would be painful, it's not a big deal to the economy - the government just prints some money and bails out the banks. That there is no collateral stops the knock effects. There's no "college degrees go down in value and so more people are underwater on their student loans", since everyone is underwater in the first place (there's no collareral as you mentioned). And you don't have huge amounts of people who took out student loans at teaser rates with the plan to refinance before the rate hike because the degree had gone up in value.
Though congrats to America for coming up with just about the worst possible way to finance an education system.
They still have the legal right to exclusive distribution.
They still don't have a law physics that makes it impossible for others to distribute their stuff anyway.
So nothing has changed in terms of what they have/don't have.