This might be a strained analogy but here goes. Instead of charging $50,000 and giving a $50,000 waiver for which they will be taxed, why not charge a tuition of $1 and give a $1 waiver. They can pay the extra 25 cent tax on the dollar and call it a day. What is the benefit to the school of charging $50K if they are going to waive it?
I suppose the problem is one of public relations. Imagine you're the chancellor of a US university. How do you explain that one year of education at your institution is worth $1?
Not sure I catch the Spinal Tap reference. Please share.
Why should students go to an expensive, reputable college only to be taught by other students? That's cheap, ineffective and retarded. Teachers should teach, students should learn.
Teachers (aka tenured faculty members) do teach. They just don't do all of the teaching. Nor could they. There's just too much to do.
Part of the job of a graduate student is to assist with teaching, because that's part of the academic training they're getting. They're learning to be practitioners in their field, and that includes teaching it.
It's unusual for a graduate student to be a course instructor. Usually they lead tutorials, grade papers, assist in laboratory classes or seminars, and so on.
Why is removing a tax deduction classified as LEVYING a tax when it is on something leftists want, but cutting taxes on corporations is classified as taking money from the poor?
Yet another unbalanced anti-left strawman argument from an AC. Normally I'd ignore it, but somebody modded it up.
Under current US tax law, the tuition waiver is not considered income. Now the Rs in the house want to consider it as such. The end result is that graduate students would have an enormous increase in their tax burden, so much so that many may need to abandon their studies. That sure sounds like "levying a tax" to me.
Normally I'd think that neither leftists nor rightists want to discourage people from pursuing graduate degrees. Now I'm not so sure. If only the rich can afford to go to school, then only the rich will profit from the rewards of education. Is this what Rs want?
As for taxes on corporations, let's just deal with a few points here. First of all, an oft-repeated mantra is that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. But that ignores the numerous deductions and exemptions that businesses use to reduce their effective tax rate to something that is about average when compared with the rest of the world. Nevertheless, companies find and use tax havens (like in Ireland) where they can stash their cash and avoid paying US taxes. With a reduction in corporate tax rates, I would not be surprised if these foreign tax havens further reduce their tax rates to keep US companies from repatriating their money. That won't be good for either them or the US. And even if that money is repatriated, what guarantee do we have that it will result in more jobs? Companies will still keep their manufacturing outside the US if it's profitable to do so.
All taxation is theft. It is the violent, forceful confiscation of the property of another. The only ethical tax rate is 0.
Good luck with that. Sovereign nations have been taxing their citizens for pretty much all of recorded history.
It's worth exercising a bit of reflection before deregulating. You're taking the bumpers off the bumper-cars. Somebody could get hurt. Remember the mortgage crisis?
Low earth-orbit velocity is about 17,500 mi/hr. Escape velocity is about 25,000 mi/hr. They're testing at speeds above the earth's escape velocity.
Yes, anywhere in the world in under 30 min, but you'd need to burn lots of fuel not just to fly that fast, but also to keep yourself following the curvature of the earth, so you don't fly out into space and never come back..
Came here to post this solution. You beat me to it. I grew up in a house that had a milk box. It was actually used for milk
But what we need is something larger than a milk box. Maybe an outdoor shed that does double-duty as garden storage. Or maybe just use a garage if you have one?
While there is surely a better approach than the scientific method, as it seems to converge on a better answer only by luck, I'm not holding my breath either.
Only by luck? I think that dismisses the training, creativity, and perseverance of scientists. Luck is helpful, but science would not progress unless a prepared mind can spot when it occurs. I think patience is more important.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -- Isaac Asimov
There is a more practical problem that needs to be fixed, though: since no one is focused on trying to replicate or disprove ordinary results form other teams, there are fields where more than half of published results are wrong (sometimes just falsified to keep up a quota, as in biochem). That's not a problem with the scientific method, but it's a real problem in modern science.
I don't think it's fair to say that "no one is focused on trying to replicate or disprove ordinary results". First of all, many studies overlap with others, so some repetition of investigations does occur, and rightly. Second, it would not be wise for a scientist to submit a proposal to a granting agency that calls for an exact repetition of someone else's study. Rather, it would be better to spend money and effort trying to find whether the same conclusions hold if a different approach is taken, or better experimental techniques or instruments are developed and employed. And finally, publication of bogus results can be a problem (more in some fields than others) but the self-correcting nature of the scientific method exposes and corrects the mistakes eventually.
This seems to be running fast and loose with the requirements of experimentation. One really needs to prove a hypothesis otherwise the effort is somewhat incomplete.
"Attempt to disprove the conclusion" is most definitely part of the scientific method. It is the discipline of intellectual honesty that makes you ask yourself the question "Can I be wrong?"
Also, note that there is a well-established method of scientific inquiry known as "disproving the null hypothesis" that embraces this principle elegantly.
I can't disprove God exists, but to make the assumption that the entity does exist for this reason is lazy and dishonest.
Nobody is saying that an inability to disprove is an argument for proof. Except you.
1. Ask a question. 2. Find a group of people who give the answer you want. 3. Misconstrue their statements to remove nuance and ambiguity 4. Package them all together into a "meta study" 5. Tell everyone "the science is settled".
More like:
1. Decide the answer you want. 2. Ask a leading question. 3. Find a comfortable echo chamber that gives you the answer you want. 4. Don't look at sources. If you do by accident, ignore their validity and nuance. 5. Shout "fake news" if you accidentally see facts that challenge your pre-decided views, especially when unedited and with all relevant context included.
Wrong on both. Scientific consensus is not science. Any scientist will tell you that.
Science proposes hypotheses and then proceeds to test them with experiments, observations, and analyses. A consensus, if any, occurs after such studies produce consistent conclusions. But the consensus is not the science. It is the collective opinion on the current state of knowledge.
The scientific method will become outdated only when another method is discovered that does a better job of capturing our knowledge of the natural world in a useful way. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
Bold, noble words, and I agree with them.
Nevertheless, the shield of anonymity can and should be penetrable under some situations. Just sayin'
Slashdot Mirror
To get the complete picture on gun deaths, you need to compare the USA to other countries.
If it were true that "more guns make us safer", then the USA should be the safest country in the world when it comes to gun deaths. Sadly, no.
PIN: 0000 ... Nope. ... Nope. ... Nope. ... Nope. ... Nope. ... Nope. Now phone is hopelessly locked. Well, we tried.
PIN: 0001
PIN: 0002
PIN: 0003
PIN: 0004
PIN: 0005
[... restore memory contents from backup made before brute-force attempts began....] ... Nope. ... Nope. ... Nope. ...] ... Success!
PIN 0006
PIN 0007
PIN 0008
[... restore from backups as needed
PIN 1234
Fungible does not mean what you think it does
You're right. Thanks for pointing that out.
Taxing people who don't have money isn't the same as taxing those who have loads of it and don't benefit society to the same extent.
ZOMG. Plus infinity Insightful.
This might be a strained analogy but here goes. Instead of charging $50,000 and giving a $50,000 waiver for which they will be taxed, why not charge a tuition of $1 and give a $1 waiver. They can pay the extra 25 cent tax on the dollar and call it a day. What is the benefit to the school of charging $50K if they are going to waive it?
I suppose the problem is one of public relations. Imagine you're the chancellor of a US university. How do you explain that one year of education at your institution is worth $1?
Not sure I catch the Spinal Tap reference. Please share.
Then let's do what many civilized countries do, and allow tuition to be deductible. Then it's a wash.
It is income.
Perhaps, but irrelevant because...
It is taxable.
...that depends on tax laws, which God knows are highly fungible.
Why should students go to an expensive, reputable college only to be taught by other students? That's cheap, ineffective and retarded. Teachers should teach, students should learn.
Teachers (aka tenured faculty members) do teach. They just don't do all of the teaching. Nor could they. There's just too much to do.
Part of the job of a graduate student is to assist with teaching, because that's part of the academic training they're getting. They're learning to be practitioners in their field, and that includes teaching it.
It's unusual for a graduate student to be a course instructor. Usually they lead tutorials, grade papers, assist in laboratory classes or seminars, and so on.
Why is removing a tax deduction classified as LEVYING a tax when it is on something leftists want, but cutting taxes on corporations is classified as taking money from the poor?
Yet another unbalanced anti-left strawman argument from an AC. Normally I'd ignore it, but somebody modded it up.
Under current US tax law, the tuition waiver is not considered income. Now the Rs in the house want to consider it as such. The end result is that graduate students would have an enormous increase in their tax burden, so much so that many may need to abandon their studies. That sure sounds like "levying a tax" to me.
Normally I'd think that neither leftists nor rightists want to discourage people from pursuing graduate degrees. Now I'm not so sure. If only the rich can afford to go to school, then only the rich will profit from the rewards of education. Is this what Rs want?
As for taxes on corporations, let's just deal with a few points here. First of all, an oft-repeated mantra is that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. But that ignores the numerous deductions and exemptions that businesses use to reduce their effective tax rate to something that is about average when compared with the rest of the world. Nevertheless, companies find and use tax havens (like in Ireland) where they can stash their cash and avoid paying US taxes. With a reduction in corporate tax rates, I would not be surprised if these foreign tax havens further reduce their tax rates to keep US companies from repatriating their money. That won't be good for either them or the US. And even if that money is repatriated, what guarantee do we have that it will result in more jobs? Companies will still keep their manufacturing outside the US if it's profitable to do so.
All taxation is theft. It is the violent, forceful confiscation of the property of another. The only ethical tax rate is 0.
Good luck with that. Sovereign nations have been taxing their citizens for pretty much all of recorded history.
Fox News is a cable company, not broadcast TV.
Damn straight! And that means they reach the whole country! Not just to certain local regions where consolidation is a ... problem ...
Never mind.
Maybe after all this we can eliminate the FCC since there will be nothing left for them to regulate.
Well, your post shows that we'll probably never eliminate Poe's Law.
It's worth exercising a bit of reflection before deregulating. You're taking the bumpers off the bumper-cars. Somebody could get hurt. Remember the mortgage crisis?
Low earth-orbit velocity is about 17,500 mi/hr. Escape velocity is about 25,000 mi/hr. They're testing at speeds above the earth's escape velocity.
Yes, anywhere in the world in under 30 min, but you'd need to burn lots of fuel not just to fly that fast, but also to keep yourself following the curvature of the earth, so you don't fly out into space and never come back..
...the company announced that the train engineer will commit seppuku.
[Just kidding ;-P]
Came here to post this solution. You beat me to it. I grew up in a house that had a milk box. It was actually used for milk
But what we need is something larger than a milk box. Maybe an outdoor shed that does double-duty as garden storage. Or maybe just use a garage if you have one?
People already allow housekeepers and babysitters into their homes. How is this different?
You get to interview them first?
By freak show, I think mdingler meant this.
While there is surely a better approach than the scientific method, as it seems to converge on a better answer only by luck, I'm not holding my breath either.
Only by luck? I think that dismisses the training, creativity, and perseverance of scientists. Luck is helpful, but science would not progress unless a prepared mind can spot when it occurs. I think patience is more important.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -- Isaac Asimov
There is a more practical problem that needs to be fixed, though: since no one is focused on trying to replicate or disprove ordinary results form other teams, there are fields where more than half of published results are wrong (sometimes just falsified to keep up a quota, as in biochem). That's not a problem with the scientific method, but it's a real problem in modern science.
I don't think it's fair to say that "no one is focused on trying to replicate or disprove ordinary results". First of all, many studies overlap with others, so some repetition of investigations does occur, and rightly. Second, it would not be wise for a scientist to submit a proposal to a granting agency that calls for an exact repetition of someone else's study. Rather, it would be better to spend money and effort trying to find whether the same conclusions hold if a different approach is taken, or better experimental techniques or instruments are developed and employed. And finally, publication of bogus results can be a problem (more in some fields than others) but the self-correcting nature of the scientific method exposes and corrects the mistakes eventually.
Yeah, that really isn't the scientific method.
"Attempt to disprove the conclusion."
This seems to be running fast and loose with the requirements of experimentation. One really needs to prove a hypothesis otherwise the effort is somewhat incomplete.
"Attempt to disprove the conclusion" is most definitely part of the scientific method. It is the discipline of intellectual honesty that makes you ask yourself the question "Can I be wrong?"
Also, note that there is a well-established method of scientific inquiry known as "disproving the null hypothesis" that embraces this principle elegantly.
I can't disprove God exists, but to make the assumption that the entity does exist for this reason is lazy and dishonest.
Nobody is saying that an inability to disprove is an argument for proof. Except you.
We use "scientific consensus" now.
1. Ask a question.
2. Find a group of people who give the answer you want.
3. Misconstrue their statements to remove nuance and ambiguity
4. Package them all together into a "meta study"
5. Tell everyone "the science is settled".
More like:
1. Decide the answer you want.
2. Ask a leading question.
3. Find a comfortable echo chamber that gives you the answer you want.
4. Don't look at sources. If you do by accident, ignore their validity and nuance.
5. Shout "fake news" if you accidentally see facts that challenge your pre-decided views, especially when unedited and with all relevant context included.
Wrong on both. Scientific consensus is not science. Any scientist will tell you that.
Science proposes hypotheses and then proceeds to test them with experiments, observations, and analyses. A consensus, if any, occurs after such studies produce consistent conclusions. But the consensus is not the science. It is the collective opinion on the current state of knowledge.
The scientific method will become outdated only when another method is discovered that does a better job of capturing our knowledge of the natural world in a useful way. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
You sound just like those feminists who say science is a white male conspiracy to keep oppressed people down.
Kindly cite these supposed feminists.
What is a digital tool? Are they talking about computer-controlled equipment?
Look at your hand. That's a digital tool.
that are just software; they are not alive, they are not conscious
Next you're going to tell me that an abacus doesn't have feelings!
I'm an abacus, you insensitive clod!
No No No!
Don't anthropomorphize computers...
They Hate That!
I saw what you did there. Well played.
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
Bold, noble words, and I agree with them.
Nevertheless, the shield of anonymity can and should be penetrable under some situations. Just sayin'