I did read. The basis for that argument is ridiculous. It suggests that the PARENTS in those HOUSEHOLDS of the MISCREANTS downloading pirated software are going to be pissed at Sarkosy for a law punishing juvenile delinquints. You may as well suggest that parents in France would rebel against government if their children were jailed for grand theft auto.
(See how I used words in all caps, and now sarcasm to make my argument so much more compelling? You've taught me much.)
So let me get this straight... because you dont want to have to leave your apartment, and because its a massive hardship to have a dvd binder on a shelf, you should be allowed to steal.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827998006
If you bought one of these you could have 400 movies/albums in a smaller space than you would consume with one law book. If the amount of space it would take to have one shelf in one bookcase filled with those binders is such a massive financial burden, then there's no way you could afford the 1000's of disks it would contain, which brings us a hell of a lot closer to your real problem with this law....
600,000 is ~1% of the population. If the election is going to hinge on whether or not 1% of the population got their hands slapped for theft, then the whiney little entitlement Eurobrats are far more out of control that I'd thought. Only.1% are actually in danger of being punished.
The upside is that its perfectly acceptable to play rap music talking about ho's and bitches, and poppin caps into cops loud enough for any casual passerby to hear. And he can do it wherever he likes.
This clause is unenforcable. You cannot enter into any agreement in which you give up your constitutional rights. If Sony harms you, you have a constitutional right to bring it before a court for judgement.
I'm not attacking any public employees. I do have issue with the way public pensions often work though. I dont fault any person for earning a good living with great retirement benefits.
I do however fail to see the logic in extending those great retirement programs when there's no money to pay for it.
I'd also like to point out your tacit admission of hypocrisy:
No, that degree is meant to educate that person so that they can gain the requisite knowledge to become a doctor, engineer, or scientist. That we pay these people more than a typical highschool graduate is reflective of their value to society.
People who pay taxes that fund colleges but do not actually attend are less useful to society than those who earn degrees. This is based on the false premise that a college degree ensures a higher level of skill and benefit to society. They may make a higher pay on average, but it doesn't mean they are actually worth it. But for our immediate purposes I just wanted to point out your opinion that people who pay the taxes that keep the colleges open are useful idiots to be bled for the benefit of only those who actually attend.....
Your vision of society then is that the elite will take from the less capable in order to rise further and mandate to the lowly what is best for all.
No, it is not up to "you". It's up to "us". And "we" havent voted on it to decide with the majority of "us" actually think.
"You" are naive about what I contribute to society. "You" find it far more simple to demonize something you have no practicle experience with, and it's far more convenient for "you" to take the word of career politicians who are practicing gamesmanship.
It's not really a great situation in any respect (for students or the university) to have to reach out to recruit students that can pay more, because even if taxpayers are funding the school, they are funding it less and less.
This is the biased story.
They arent being funded "less and less". The University is just less and less capable of operating on only gradually increased funding. The governing bodies, senior faculty, and research programs of these Universities are inflating at a more rapid pace than the student body or taxes for funding.
You do not exit college with 4 year degree as a doctor. You don't do it and become an engineer or scientist in any advanced level either. And the vast majority of degrees are 2 and 4 year degrees that grant little skill beyond basic writing or math that 20 years ago would have been (and was) expected of an average high school graduate.
You're under the mistaken impression that a person who has proven the ability to regurgitate meaningless crap in the right format for 2-4 years is actually a greater benefit to society, when in fact 2-4 years of real world work experience would probably put them on a quicker path to helping society. And they'd be free the debt they probably wracked up, allowing for those repayments to their loans to filter back into society rather than some government subsidized loan program.
I beg to differ. Those athletes in the programs that make the big money are almost all given scholorships for a full ride. They come out of college with both recognition for their participation in advanced sports and the dedication and commitment that requires, and a degree that will help them start a career. And they do it without the 10's of 1000's of dollars of debt that the vast majority of the other students exit college with.
You're right. There isnt a loss of common sense by going to college. There seems only to be a loss of common sense when one imbeds themself into the higher education system for decades, encapsulated in a bubble of theory almost entirely devoid of real-world application.
Where do you think the state funds come from, regardless of how small it is?
State tax payers.
You're then effectively saying, "I know we took funding in the form of your state taxes in order to assist the university. But you didn't give us enough, so now we're going deny you entrance into the schools you helped to fund so that we can get more money from people who didnt."
And by your logic it's perfectly reasonable to ask everyone to pay into a system for their entire working life, so that other people can go to school to get a degree meant to increase that other person's personal wealth.
How is it that there are so many that can reconcile within themselves an argument both that the workers of the nation are exploited by the evil capitalistic baby-eating CEO's, and that those same workers should pay into a system to enrich people that can afford to pay tuition, helping to ensure that those students will be more likely to become a more wealthy citizen than the oppressed worker that cant afford college....
If the topics were taught objectively you might have a point. But they arent. America, capitalism and democracy are often painted as the roots of all evil, while praise is sung of socialism, communism, and violent revolutionaries like Mao, or Che, or Stalin.
An interesting side-bar is that the enrollment in colleges is on the rise... because it's easier to get a student loan and go into massive debt than it is to get a job....
Actually, most of them DONT get what they pay for, and that's the point. Everyone across the country pays taxes on the universities while few actually get to attend. And if they do attend they have to spend so much to do so that they or their families are hit with 10's of 1000's of dollars of debt they will likely be repaying for the next 30 years.
Those football programs almost universally bring in more than they consume. They generally help to fund the rest of the athletic department programs of the school, like soccer, baseball, hockey, lacrosse, swimming, track and field, etc. So if you mean to suggest that there is no room for any sport at any college, then you most certainly do not want the demise of the football programs.
The closest to capatilism that these universities actually exhibit is their sports programs; The same programs that bring in millions of dollars to the institution but are derided by the uber liberal as hedonisitic neanderthals that should be studied as genetic throwbacks rather than the enlightened of true academia. The rest of the institutition is so heavily subsidised that it could be best described as a failed experiment in cross-breeding of political ideas, taxing the populace to keep it afloat while charging them again to allow them access to its original purpose.
Capitalism sure as hell isnt taught in the classrooms anymore. Not in any objective light anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, next time, go buy a brain to the nearest store before posting. :-D
Pure ironic gold. Thank you.
I did read. The basis for that argument is ridiculous. It suggests that the PARENTS in those HOUSEHOLDS of the MISCREANTS downloading pirated software are going to be pissed at Sarkosy for a law punishing juvenile delinquints. You may as well suggest that parents in France would rebel against government if their children were jailed for grand theft auto.
(See how I used words in all caps, and now sarcasm to make my argument so much more compelling? You've taught me much.)
So let me get this straight... because you dont want to have to leave your apartment, and because its a massive hardship to have a dvd binder on a shelf, you should be allowed to steal.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827998006 If you bought one of these you could have 400 movies/albums in a smaller space than you would consume with one law book. If the amount of space it would take to have one shelf in one bookcase filled with those binders is such a massive financial burden, then there's no way you could afford the 1000's of disks it would contain, which brings us a hell of a lot closer to your real problem with this law....
600,000 is ~1% of the population. If the election is going to hinge on whether or not 1% of the population got their hands slapped for theft, then the whiney little entitlement Eurobrats are far more out of control that I'd thought. Only .1% are actually in danger of being punished.
The upside is that its perfectly acceptable to play rap music talking about ho's and bitches, and poppin caps into cops loud enough for any casual passerby to hear. And he can do it wherever he likes.
Who says racism isnt alive and well...
It's come full circle.
This clause is unenforcable. You cannot enter into any agreement in which you give up your constitutional rights. If Sony harms you, you have a constitutional right to bring it before a court for judgement.
I'm not attacking any public employees. I do have issue with the way public pensions often work though. I dont fault any person for earning a good living with great retirement benefits.
I do however fail to see the logic in extending those great retirement programs when there's no money to pay for it.
No, that degree is meant to educate that person so that they can gain the requisite knowledge to become a doctor, engineer, or scientist. That we pay these people more than a typical highschool graduate is reflective of their value to society.
People who pay taxes that fund colleges but do not actually attend are less useful to society than those who earn degrees. This is based on the false premise that a college degree ensures a higher level of skill and benefit to society. They may make a higher pay on average, but it doesn't mean they are actually worth it. But for our immediate purposes I just wanted to point out your opinion that people who pay the taxes that keep the colleges open are useful idiots to be bled for the benefit of only those who actually attend.....
Your vision of society then is that the elite will take from the less capable in order to rise further and mandate to the lowly what is best for all.
Far better to focus our ire at the private sector who dont pay their fair share?
I dont think it's a conspiracy to oppress anyone. I think it's elitists choosing what's best for those too stupid to know any better.
Crap, I guess you were right afterall....
No, it is not up to "you". It's up to "us". And "we" havent voted on it to decide with the majority of "us" actually think.
"You" are naive about what I contribute to society. "You" find it far more simple to demonize something you have no practicle experience with, and it's far more convenient for "you" to take the word of career politicians who are practicing gamesmanship.
It's not really a great situation in any respect (for students or the university) to have to reach out to recruit students that can pay more, because even if taxpayers are funding the school, they are funding it less and less.
This is the biased story.
They arent being funded "less and less". The University is just less and less capable of operating on only gradually increased funding. The governing bodies, senior faculty, and research programs of these Universities are inflating at a more rapid pace than the student body or taxes for funding.
You do not exit college with 4 year degree as a doctor. You don't do it and become an engineer or scientist in any advanced level either. And the vast majority of degrees are 2 and 4 year degrees that grant little skill beyond basic writing or math that 20 years ago would have been (and was) expected of an average high school graduate.
You're under the mistaken impression that a person who has proven the ability to regurgitate meaningless crap in the right format for 2-4 years is actually a greater benefit to society, when in fact 2-4 years of real world work experience would probably put them on a quicker path to helping society. And they'd be free the debt they probably wracked up, allowing for those repayments to their loans to filter back into society rather than some government subsidized loan program.
...don't get paid
I beg to differ. Those athletes in the programs that make the big money are almost all given scholorships for a full ride. They come out of college with both recognition for their participation in advanced sports and the dedication and commitment that requires, and a degree that will help them start a career. And they do it without the 10's of 1000's of dollars of debt that the vast majority of the other students exit college with.
Knowing how much people in my family owe in tuition debts, I'd say people that are granted scholorships in sports are most certainly "paid".
You're right. There isnt a loss of common sense by going to college. There seems only to be a loss of common sense when one imbeds themself into the higher education system for decades, encapsulated in a bubble of theory almost entirely devoid of real-world application.
Where do you think the state funds come from, regardless of how small it is?
State tax payers.
You're then effectively saying, "I know we took funding in the form of your state taxes in order to assist the university. But you didn't give us enough, so now we're going deny you entrance into the schools you helped to fund so that we can get more money from people who didnt."
And by your logic it's perfectly reasonable to ask everyone to pay into a system for their entire working life, so that other people can go to school to get a degree meant to increase that other person's personal wealth.
How is it that there are so many that can reconcile within themselves an argument both that the workers of the nation are exploited by the evil capitalistic baby-eating CEO's, and that those same workers should pay into a system to enrich people that can afford to pay tuition, helping to ensure that those students will be more likely to become a more wealthy citizen than the oppressed worker that cant afford college....
If the topics were taught objectively you might have a point. But they arent. America, capitalism and democracy are often painted as the roots of all evil, while praise is sung of socialism, communism, and violent revolutionaries like Mao, or Che, or Stalin.
An interesting side-bar is that the enrollment in colleges is on the rise... because it's easier to get a student loan and go into massive debt than it is to get a job....
Stictly speaking your right, but only because if you cant pay for food, you arent paying the sales taxes on it....
Actually, most of them DONT get what they pay for, and that's the point. Everyone across the country pays taxes on the universities while few actually get to attend. And if they do attend they have to spend so much to do so that they or their families are hit with 10's of 1000's of dollars of debt they will likely be repaying for the next 30 years.
Those football programs almost universally bring in more than they consume. They generally help to fund the rest of the athletic department programs of the school, like soccer, baseball, hockey, lacrosse, swimming, track and field, etc. So if you mean to suggest that there is no room for any sport at any college, then you most certainly do not want the demise of the football programs.
The closest to capatilism that these universities actually exhibit is their sports programs; The same programs that bring in millions of dollars to the institution but are derided by the uber liberal as hedonisitic neanderthals that should be studied as genetic throwbacks rather than the enlightened of true academia. The rest of the institutition is so heavily subsidised that it could be best described as a failed experiment in cross-breeding of political ideas, taxing the populace to keep it afloat while charging them again to allow them access to its original purpose.
Capitalism sure as hell isnt taught in the classrooms anymore. Not in any objective light anyway.